When President Trump tweeted “LIBERATE MINNESOTA!”, “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!” and “LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment.
from
Thursday, April 30, 2020
St. Mary's County designated second amendment sanctuary area
Derrick Evans: We must create a place for children to prosper
A Tale Of Two Protests
2nd Amendment hasn't been violated
Protest Organizer Cites 2nd Amendment in 'Free Encinitas' Facebook Post
Supreme Court avoids new Second Amendment ruling, dealing blow to gun rights advocates
BREAKING: Rhode v. Becerra Plaintiffs Ask Ninth Circuit to Lift Administrative Stay of Lower Court's ...
Supreme Court ducks a Second Amendment issue — for now
For 2020 Democrats, Veepstakes Decided by Gun Control
By Larry Keane
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Former Vice President Joe Biden has been coronated “2020 Presumptive Democratic Nominee” but it looks like gun control groups will get to decide his vice-presidential pick in a gun control beauty pageant. It’s no surprise. The only thing left to do is place a tiara and hang a sash.
Just in time for millions of new gun owners to start paying attention, two gun control groups funded by former billionaire Michael Bloomberg, Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action, announced they will host a series of “virtual town halls” with prospective Biden running mates. It’s an interesting move for Bloomberg to insert his influence in the race. After all, it’s the same Bloomberg who stumbled on the runway of his own presidential campaign after a disastrous Fox News town hall. He told Virginians he was worth protecting with guns because he’s rich and was running for office before repeating his desire to ban the sale of America’s most popular selling centerfire sporting rifle. He capped off the display with his gross misunderstanding of the Second Amendment and continued to recite firearm fairytales.
Now, both Everytown and Moms Demand, the “Karens-of-gun-control,” have endorsed Biden and pledged to support his campaign. That’s the one area Biden doesn’t need help. Biden already has a gun-control history a mile long that could prove problematic.
Veepstakes 2020
Former Vice President Joe Biden already proclaimed he would likely name a woman to join him on the 2020 ticket. If he keeps his word, the candidates to fill the role should cause millions of first-time and longtime firearm owners concern. Many who bought guns for the first time recently got a glimpse of what each candidate’s gun control platform could mean for their safety and the protection of their loved ones and property. Some were alarmed to learn they had to wait as long as 10 days to take home their handguns.
Failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams worked as a state legislator to pass policies that would turn law-abiding Georgians into felons by forcing them to either turn in modern sporting rifles or destroy them. At 17.7 million MSRs in circulation today, that’s a lot of confiscation if her gun control ideas for Georgia are tried out on the national stage.
Failed 2020 presidential candidate U.S Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) would likely impose new taxes on American sportsmen and women and supports reinstating the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which did not reduce crime. That’s not the only thing. She’s got lots of plans, including a catalog for gun control which she touted on the campaign trail.
Biden is also said to be considering his former 2020 presidential rival Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.). Uncle Dick might need to hang out in the deer stand a little longer. Her laundry list gun control platform includes repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, as well as supporting “red flag” laws that deny the accused due process under the law.
Failed 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) is the last announced participant in Everytown’s gun control virtual townhall series. The senator from the Golden State would wave the magic wand of “Executive Action” to enact sweeping gun control policies if she could, including limiting the number of firearms a licensed retailer could sell each year and removing existing legal protections for firearm manufacturers. There may be additional participants announced in the future.
#GUNVOTE
Law-abiding Americans who value the Second Amendment, including those who recently jumped off the fence to legally purchase their first firearm, understand any of these potential vice presidential nominees are problematic when paired with Biden on the 2020 ticket.
Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, NSSF worked to promote and protect responsible and safe firearm ownership. One of the most important ways for law-abiding Americans to do their part is to be educated and active. NSSF launched its #GUNVOTE voter registration and education initiative to provide voters with candidates’ own words and backgrounds surrounding firearm-related issues so they can make an informed choice on election day. This important resource will be updated frequently in the coming days as the “veep” candidates take the stage.
About The National Shooting Sports Foundation
The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 10,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen's organizations and publishers. www.nssf.org
The post For 2020 Democrats, Veepstakes Decided by Gun Control appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/3bN0UJX
via IFTTT
2A Victory in Maine: Portland Reverses Illegal Gun Shop Closings
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- In response to COVID-19, on April 14th, the Portland Mayor and City Council adopted Order No. 156-19/20, which replaced the list of essential businesses previously authorized by the city. The order stated that “Gun shops shall not be considered an essential business or service within the City of Portland.”
Last night, freedom-loving Americans scored a victory when the Mayor and City Council adopted an amendment to Order No. 167-19/20 which removed the illegal classification of gun shops as “non-essential.” Thanks to the activism of law-abiding gun owners, our constitutional rights are being protected!
Not only did the original order directly conflict with the new list of essential businesses published on April 3rd by the Mills administration, but it blatantly conflicted with Maine’s preemption law. State preemption prevents local governments from enacting gun control ordinances and creating a confusing patchwork of local laws. Law-abiding citizens should enjoy the same rights, regardless of where they reside or travel. Maine statutes have no exception for local government acting in an emergency – which means the City of Portland would violate state law by classifying gun shops as non-essential businesses and ordering them to close under their original order.
This is breaking and developing news, and as more details become available, we will update NRA members further. Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org/coronavirus.
About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
The post 2A Victory in Maine: Portland Reverses Illegal Gun Shop Closings appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/2Wh3P7d
via IFTTT
Below The Radar: The TASERS Act
United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Second Amendment supporters have no need to fear honest research on Second Amendment issues. The facts have consistently borne out the folly of punishing law-abiding Americans for crimes and acts of madness they did not commit – especially when said punishments (usually in the form of infringements on our rights) do not deliver the results promised. The real problem, though, is making sure taxpayer funds go towards honest research.
One thing Second Amendment supporters can take to the bank is that they will not get anything close to an honest study out of HR 4740, the TASER Access, Safety, and Effectiveness Review and Study Act, or TASERS Act. For starters, the bill’s sponsor should be a huge red flag in and of itself. This bill was introduced by Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL), who also is known for the Blair Holt Firearm Owner Licensing and Record of Sale Act.
This legislation, like the Gun Suicide Prevention Act, is intended as a trojan horse – and in two aspects. The first, most obviously, is the generation of “research” in the form of phony “studies” that will be used to attack our rights.
In this case, Rush is trying to make people think he’s just interested in taser research, but a look at the text of this bill shows that the title is a lie. Because the bill is not just going after stun guns. Nope, Rush’s bill requires “a national study of firearms and tasers.”
A study to determine what, exactly? Rush has a list of four things: The number of successful self-defense attempts, as well as the number of accidental discharges, the types and severity of injuries sustained, and the long-term health implications. This is for both tasers and firearms. The real trick will be how a “successful self-defense attempt” is defined, and you can bet the description will be very restrictive and will exclude many of the ways a firearm in the hands of a good guy stops bad things from happening.
Then, of course, there is who conducts the study. Rush wants it to be led by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the Centers for Disease Control, and the National Institutes of Health to consult. Furthermore, within two years, not only does the “study” get published, but the CPSC also gets to make recommendations. As we discussed with the Gun Suicide Prevention Act, this is just rife for mischief.
In other words, this study doesn’t just have involvement from agencies that were complete hacks, it also opens the door for “recommendations” that will likely line up with the Bloomberg wish list. At the very least, it should be amended to require that any “study” be reviewed by the Crime Prevention Research Center prior to publication – and that publication should not happen if it doesn’t pass muster.
Second Amendment supporters should contact their Representative and Senators to urge that this bill be defeated. Failing that, it should be amended as described in the previous paragraph.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
The post Below The Radar: The TASERS Act appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/3d3KbT2
via IFTTT
News Leader reporters win six 1st place journalism awards, 15 total, from Virginia Press Association
Gun Control Fail: Canadian Mass Murderer Prohibited Possessor
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- The restrictions Canada has placed on obtaining, keeping, and using firearms failed entirely in the recent mass murder case in Nova Scotia. I refrain from using the murderer's name.
Canadian restrictions on gun ownership failed. The murderer had plead guilty to an assault charge in 2002. He paid a $50 fine, and served probation for nine months. He then had a lifetime ban on owning firearms. From nypost.com:
Authorities said Wortman did not have a police record, but information later emerged of at least one run-in with the law. Nova Scotia court records confirm he was ordered to receive counseling for anger management after pleading guilty to assaulting a man in the Halifax area on Oct. 29, 2001.
The guilty plea came on Oct. 7, 2002, as his trial was about to begin. He was placed on probation for nine months, fined $50 and told to stay away from the man, and also prohibited from owning or possessing a weapon, ammunition or explosive substances.
Mass shootings are relatively rare in Canada. The country overhauled its gun control laws after Marc Lepine shot 14 women and himself to death at Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique college in 1989. Before the weekend rampage, that had been Canada’s worst mass shooting.
Authorities have not released much information about what firearms the murderer used in his killings. We know he took one handgun and magazines from the RCMP officer he killed. The standard-issue handgun for the RCMP is the Smith & Wesson 5946 9mm. It is a stainless steel, double action only version of the S&W model 59 series. The magazine holds 15 rounds of ammunition. It has been reported the killer used one handgun and several long guns. From the CBC.ca:
Investigators are trying to piece together how Gabriel Wortman was able to obtain the handgun and long guns he used last weekend in a deadly rampage through rural Nova Scotia, including how some made it across the Canada-U.S. border.
Police have traced one of Wortman's weapons back to Canada, but believe the others may have been obtained in the United States, the RCMP revealed on Friday.
It is unlikely the killer used any “military style” semi-automatic rifles, because, if he had, it would have been reported. It would be in Prime Minister Trudeau's interest to have it reported.
In the former Soviet Union, people deduced what was happening by what was *not* said. I suspect, eventually, we will know precisely what firearms were used; at the moment, it may suit the PM's purpose for that information to be withheld.
PM Trudeau is pushing for a ban on “military style firearms”, although they are seldom used in crime in either the United States or Canada. Handguns have been tightly controlled in Canada since 1935. It is common for those who push for a disarmed population to use an unrelated crime to push for controls which would have had no effect on the crime being used.
Those who wish a disarmed population are never satisfied. They cannot admit their policies were wrong; a failure always results in a call for more restrictions.
The murderer was a fairly successful denturist (someone who makes dentures), and is reported as owning several properties in Nova Scotia. His business had been shut down during the Coronavirus restrictions, for the previous month before the murders.
It has been reported he and his girlfriend argued at a party, that they then returned home; the argument became violent. The denturist tied up or restrained the girlfriend in some way. She escaped and hid in the woods. Then the killer starts his killing spree. The exact timing is not yet known.
There has not been any official speculation as to whether business losses from the Covid19 shutdown or the knowledge that the girlfriend escaped, were triggers for the killing spree. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police continue to investigate.
Strong restrictions on the ownership of firearms have proved ineffective in preventing violence by a person who has assets and is not concerned with losing them. The murderer burned down his own home at the start of the spree. He had plenty of money to accumulate unregistered guns over his life.
Mass killers often do not expect to survive their rampage, although some do.
Reducing the number of legal firearms seems to have little effect on the acquisition of firearms for illegal purposes.
India and China have had strict firearms control in effect for many decades. The Small Arms survey shows tens of millions of illegal firearms in both countries.
Brazil has had strict firearms controls, and a relatively small number of legal guns, yet it has had a very high murder rate with firearms.
In Australia, a jeweler, with similar skills to a denturist, made over a hundred submachine guns for the black market. Similar submachine guns have been made in Canada, and all over the world.
Home and small shop manufacture place a physical limit on how effective gun control can be.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
The post Gun Control Fail: Canadian Mass Murderer Prohibited Possessor appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/3f2qInz
via IFTTT
Letters, April 30
Daniel Abbot
Hey, Reasonable American, Maybe It's Time You Save Us?
Letter: 2nd Amendment rights violated by state
Out of the Shadows: Global Elites Forced to Make Their Case for New World Order
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- The Radical Left Democrat Party Leadership and the seditious Press represent merely the outward manifestation of the dire threat posed to the sanctity of our Constitution and to the well-being of our Nation and its people. They are merely the mouthpiece for others: powerful, sinister, secretive elements, both here and abroad, intent on destroying the very social, political, economic, financial, and cultural fabric upon which Western Civilization has prevailed for hundreds of years: the independent sovereign nation-state.
These extraordinarily powerful, inordinately wealthy, abjectly ruthless, amoral sinister forces that comprise a small cadre of Neoliberal Global “Elites,” no longer attempt to hide their intentions from the mass of average, ordinary, law-abiding, morally upright people that make up the majority of the population of our Country; that make up the populations of Western Europe; and that include the populations of the major British Commonwealth Nations: New Zealand, Australia, and Canada.
These global financiers and corporatist disrupters, along with their toadies in the Press, both here and abroad, and in the governments of the EU, the U.S., and in the UK Commonwealth Countries, have come to the dawning realization—and for them a disturbing realization, that their goal for a one-world political, social, economic, financial, corporate system of governance, that had hitherto moved methodically, inexorably ahead, according to plan, gathering steam, especially, in the last decade of the Twentieth and for much of the first two decades of the Twenty-first Centuries had hit a confounding brick wall.
This brick wall they encountered included: the election of Donald Trump as U.S. President; the withdrawal of the UK from the EU (Brexit); and the growing nationalist fervor of Europe’s populations, who accurately observed, and who justifiably resented, the actions of the EU ruling “elites,” who had, since the inception of the EU, slowly eroded the culture and history of those nation-states and increasingly usurped the political, economic, financial and legal power and authority of Europe’s nation-states, concentrating that power in instrumentalities established in the Belgium Capital of Brussels.
The tacit aim of these “New World Order” (NWO) “elites” is to suffocate the life out of, and eventually to eradicate, the independence and sovereignty of the individual nations of the EU. The Neoliberal Global “elites” are accomplishing this goal through centralization of power in Brussels, and through the deliberate infestation of tens of millions of unassimilable malcontents, terrorists, diseased, uneducated, and poverty-stricken people of Africa and of the Middle East to wreak havoc on the culture and core values of Europeans, introducing systemic violence and upheaval in Europe’s nations.
The EU institutions of oppression and suppression include inter alia: the European Parliament, the European Commission, the European Central Bank (ECB), and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
The Global elites also exert control over nations of the EU, and over the British Commonwealth Nations, and over the U.S., too, through several international organizations—many tied directly to the UN.
The creation of secretive international agreements, pacts, treaties, and accords, have entwined Nations, and their unsuspecting citizenry, in intricate, elaborate economic, geopolitical, and military superstructures, difficult to disentangle and difficult for nations to extricate from; requiring the subordination of a nation’s own body of laws, constitution, and Court structure to nebulous international law and norms and to contractual arrangements established in those nefarious, abstruse and duplicitous agreements, pacts, treaties, and accords, to be enforced through supranational courts and tribunals.
The Neoliberal Global Elites wanted their plans for world domination to remain hidden, slowly tightening the noose around the U.S., the nations of the EU, and the British Commonwealth nations, entrapping Western Civilization in a mammoth web of deceit and corruption. But faced with a concerted global backlash, they have come to realize they must come out from the shadows and admit to the world what their plans entail. They realize they have to make their design explicit and make their case directly to the peoples of the U.S., and to the peoples of the EU, and to the populace of the British Commonwealth Nations.
In our own Nation, the Neoliberal Global “Elites,”—through the Democrat Party Leadership and other Radical Left Democrats in Congress, and through the mainstream seditious Press, and through Democrat State governments and legislatures across the Country, that comprise the mouthpieces of the Global “Elites”—are beginning to vocalize their case.
They are attempting to make their case for upending the U.S. Constitution; for constraining or erasing our fundamental, unalienable, and immutable rights and liberties, especially those pertaining to speech and to the right of the people to peaceably assemble; and to the right of the people to keep and bear arms; and to the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
These Neoliberal Global Elites dare openly and brazenly to thrust an entirely alien political, social, economic philosophy on Americans—one inconsistent with our core values; one that undermines our Judeo-Christian heritage; one that demeans our forefathers; and that denies and denigrates our glorious history.
They desire to shame Americans; to compel an absurd, obsequious, repulsive, self-loathing and contrition upon Americans. And through it all, they are becoming increasingly emboldened, and flamboyant about their plans, self-righteously shouting down all detractors, all dissenting voices.
They intend to remake the face of America, distorting it into a horrific mask of self-reproach. And, if they succeed, Americans will have no will to fight back, no ability to prevent the coming ruin.
The floodgates will spring open. The decrepit, diseased leprous, zombie hordes will descend upon us—tens and perhaps hundreds of millions to overwhelm our Nation, our people, bringing the Nation to its knees.
Naturally, these Marxist, Socialist, Communist, and Anarchist Collectivists would remonstrate against and deride Trump’s Campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again” (“MAGA”). They would do so because they have no desire to preserve a free Constitutional Republic. They have no desire to defend our Constitution, our Judeo-Christian Ethic, our culture, our morality, our core values, our fundamental rights and liberties. They have no desire to preserve our history. Why would they exalt our Nation? They have only contempt for it.
They consider Trump’s Campaign slogan an outrage against the Collectivist vision of a one-world political, social, and economic system of governance, and they will not tolerate it or tolerate those Americans who choose to embrace it. Like Obama and the Clintons and the Bushes, they are apologists for our Nation.
It was no accident that New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo remarked, on August 13, 2018:
“We’re not going to make America great again. It was never that great. We have not reached greatness. We will reach greatness when every American is fully engaged.” See AQ article, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo Says: “America Is Not Great.”
When these toadies for the Neoliberal Global “Elites” say they wish to impose an entirely new vision on our Nation, they mean that literally. Recall, as reported in the Washington Times:
“The House Majority Whip [Representative James Clyburn (D-SC)] who almost single-handedly saved Joe Biden’s bacon in the Palmetto State’s primary, advised his fellow Democrats to see this as a ‘tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.’”
And, Recall, as reported in Breitbart, that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo seeks to reimagine what we (he) wants society to be:
“In his daily press briefings, [New York Governor Andrew] Cuomo [who] said he wants to use the task force to ‘reimagine what we want society to be’ with a focus on ‘better’ public transportation, healthcare, housing, and public safety. ‘Let’s use this as a moment to really plan change that we could normally never do unless you had this situation,’ the governor told reporters about the plan.”
A “new vision” for the Nation? “Better public transportation, healthcare, housing, and public safety?” “Every American fully engaged?” How so, and for whom, exactly?
What is the nature of this vision, this plan that Clyburn and Cuomo mention, at the behest of the Global “elites,” their puppet masters? The blueprint is well-known; it is predicated on the precepts of Collectivism.
But the blueprint for our Nation is grounded not on the precepts of Collectivism but on the precepts of Individualism, set forth in the U.S. Constitution. The two social and political philosophies, Collectivism and Individualism, are wholly antithetical. The two cannot be reconciled. But then the Global elites never intended for the tenets of Collectivism to be squared with the tenets of Individualism.
The Arbalest Quarrel has laid out the basic precepts of each philosophy in a past article: The Modern American Civil War
Out of the frying pan, and into the fire. Is that where our Nation is headed?
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.
The post Out of the Shadows: Global Elites Forced to Make Their Case for New World Order appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/2YlOrZK
via IFTTT
Supreme Court avoids new Second Amendment ruling, dealing blow to gun rights advocates
Lawsuit Filed Against Jackson Mayor’s Illegal Open Carry Gun Ban
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- The Mississippi Justice Institute, a non-profit constitutional litigation center, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of pro-Second Amendment State Rep. Dana Criswell (R-Mount Olive) against Jackson Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba's executive order prohibiting the open carry of firearms in the city. This legal action, filed in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Mississippi, challenges both the constitutionality and legality of the mayor's open carry ban. Your NRA-ILA reported earlier this week that the mayor's actions violate both the Mississippi Constitution's right to keep and bear arms provision and the state firearms preemption law. As this goes to press, the judge in the case had called for an emergency hearing to take place today!
Even the Jackson City Council last night voted unanimously in favor of a resolution opposing the mayor's executive order, citing concerns that he did not seek input of the Council prior to announcing the ban, that he likely overstepped his legal authority as mayor, and that he unnecessarily and unwisely involved the city in litigation, wasting taxpayer dollars.
Mayor Lumumba's open carry ban is set to expire on April 30, but it is possible that he could attempt to continue this political charade and extend his order.
NRA-ILA will report to you on how the situation in Jackson evolves.
About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
The post Lawsuit Filed Against Jackson Mayor’s Illegal Open Carry Gun Ban appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/3aOl1WH
via IFTTT
Repeal The Second Amendment With Professor Allan Lichtman
Its 27
SCOTUS issues opinions in cases concerning ACA, copyright, and NYC's former ban on ...
Oath of allegiance to the BRCC?
Sunol: Homeowner interrupts burglary, shoots at suspects
Wednesday, April 29, 2020
Letters to the editor, April 30, 2020
Howey created a narrative that simply doesn't exist
LETTER: Trump becoming threat to democracy
LISTEN: The Kirby Wilbur Show, 5PM Hour, April 29, 2020
Elon Musk Exclaims on Twitter: 'FREE AMERICA NOW,' Praises Texas for Reopening Economy
Hope remains for a SCOTUS case on 2nd Amendment sometime
Could Kavanaugh Remark Signal Door Opening to Pending SAF Cases?
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- In the process of once again kicking the legal can down the road on a Second Amendment case, the U.S. Supreme Court may have opened the door to finally take another case dealing with the right to keep and bear arms, thanks to a remark by Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh in his short concurrence with the majority.
“I share JUSTICE ALITO’s concern,” Kavanaugh writes, “that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.”
It's not that some courts may be applying the two rulings improperly, it sometimes seems the lower courts are deliberately ignoring the decisions, some activists have suggested.
It took one look at Kavanaugh's comment for Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, to suggest, “SCOTUS mooted the New York case as the old law is no longer valid, but invited hearing another case pending before the high court to insure that lower courts adhere to the Heller and McDonald rulings made previously by the high court. We’ve got four ready-made cases now on the table just waiting for acceptance.”
Not in recent memory, if ever, did one organization—especially a gun rights group—have four “ready-made” cases on the table just waiting for the high court to accept one, or more, for review.
In the ten years since the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in the landmark case of McDonald v. City of Chicago—a SAF case, incidentally—the court under Chief Justice John Roberts has been reluctant, if not downright unwilling, according to some critics, to take another Second Amendment case. Some in the gun rights community are convinced it is because the high court knows there is only one correct ruling that might come out of any case, and it would expand the right to keep and especially bear arms outside the home. Politically, that could be a nightmare for the states of California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York, and maybe other jurisdictions because of their restrictive gun control laws.
The now-defunct New York City ordinance forbidding travel outside the city limits with a legally-owned handgun at the heart of New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York was a glaring example. Mooted Monday and remanded, the lawsuit challenged a regulation that—as the history of this bizarre case illustrates—was so egregious it begged for nullification.
While NBC News declared the Supreme Court’s decision was a “defeat for gun rights advocates,” many of those advocates say that’s nonsense. The city’s mad scramble to change the law almost instantaneously after the high court accepted the case is tantamount to an admission the city knew all along its regulation was unconstitutional and thus had to be changed before the court declared it so. That is a victory apparently in too good a disguise for NBC because a government was so terrified of a high court ruling it changed a law to dodge a legal bullet.
But what of these four SAF cases mentioned? Gottlieb, in a prepared statement, contended that all four could serve the purpose Kavanaugh addressed.
“We hope,” Gottlieb said, “that one or all of these cases gets heard and gives notice to lower courts that they can no longer thumb their noses at the prior rulings that protect Second Amendment rights.”
Let’s take a look.
Lori Rodriguez, et al. v. City of San Jose – This one appears to have potential, because the high court recently instructed the City of San Jose to respond to a writ of certiorari from the Second Amendment Foundation “on or before May 20.” That’s a signal the court is interested in this case, which alleges unlawful confiscation of legally-owned firearms and refusal to return those guns.
Plaintiff Lori Rodriguez’ firearms were seized seven years ago after her husband was taken to a hospital on a mental health issue, according to SAF. At the time, a San Jose police officer advised Rodriguez he had authority to seize all firearms in the residence, including those belonging only to her. Those guns were all locked in a California-approved safe. The guns were taken without a warrant, and over Rodriguez’s objection.
“If the city thought they could just ignore this case and make it go away, they’re wrong,” Gottlieb said.
Remarkably, Gottlieb has noted, even though the courts recognize that Lori Rodriguez could legally purchase new firearms, San Jose authorities simply refuse to return the guns she already legally owns. Last summer, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment to the defendants, ruling the defendants were allowed to seize her guns under a concept called “community caretaking.”
“This case is a travesty,” Gottlieb declared at the time. “Lori Rodriguez is not a criminal, nor is she prohibited by law from owning firearms. Yet she’s essentially been robbed by the City of San Jose and its police department, with the cooperation of lower courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.”
“Mrs. Rodriguez has at all times complied with California’s many gun control laws, including those requiring locked storage,” said plaintiff’s attorney Don Kilmer when the case was first submitted for Supreme Court review. “But the City of San Jose outrageously continues to refuse to return the constitutionally protected property they unlawfully took from her years ago. Governments have no reason and no right to take guns from law-abiding people who are legally eligible to keep and bear arms.”
Pena v. Horan – SAF is partnered with the Calguns Foundation in a challenge of the California Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA). When the case was submitted, SAF issued a news release stating, “It could be a critical wake-up call to lower federal courts that continue to employ what they call an ‘interest-balancing approach’ to deciding gun control cases because that strategy is forbidden by the 2008 Heller decision.”
As explained by SAF, the UHA generally prohibits the manufacture, import or distribution of handguns that do not meet the state’s extremely restrictive design requirements under the state penal code. The result, as the plaintiffs contend in their petition for high court review, is that the state is gradually achieving a handgun ban because they cannot meet the impossible requirements, which include microstamping. That technology is not offered by any handgun manufacturer because it cannot be practically implemented, the petition notes.
“The landmark Heller ruling cannot become just a footnote in history,” Gottlieb said last year, “but that appears to be the ultimate goal if such laws as California’s are allowed to stand. We are hopeful that the Supreme Court, with the benefit of fresh perspectives from two new associate justices, agrees that it is time to once again visit the Second Amendment and further restore its rightful place as a cornerstone of the Bill of Rights.”
Gottlieb may have hit the bull’s eye with that observation. When both justices Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were nominated to Supreme Court vacancies, anti-gun Democrats and gun prohibition lobbying groups were furious in their opposition. They did not want two presumably pro-Second Amendment jurists added to the court.
Culp v. Madigan – SAF has established a considerable amount of legal precedent at the expense of the State of Illinois, and this could be another step. Joining SAF in this case are the Illinois State Rifle Association, Illinois Carry, Inc., and ten individual plaintiffs, all residing of other states and who are licensed to carry in those states. Under Illinois statute, only residents from states with “substantially similar” requirements to obtain a carry license are allowed to apply for non-resident licenses.
“This lawsuit,” said plaintiffs’ attorney David Sigale when the case was filed, “is brought because it is unfair that otherwise qualified people from states outside Illinois, who work and travel in Illinois are barred from obtaining means to defend themselves in public solely based on their state of residence. We expect to correct that.”
According to court documents, “This is an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of civil rights under color of law, which seeks equitable, declaratory, and injunctive relief challenging the State of Illinois’s prohibition on virtually all otherwise qualified non-Illinois residents from obtaining a concealed carry license, pursuant to Illinois Compiled Statute (ILCS).”
All of the plaintiffs in this case have already gone through background checks in their home states to qualify for resident concealed carry permits/licenses.
Wilson v. Cook County – SAF and the Illinois State Rifle Association are supporting this case financially but are not named plaintiffs. Matthew D. Wilson and Troy Edhlund are suing Cook County, Illinois over “Whether the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution allows a local government to prohibit law-abiding residents from possessing and protecting themselves and their families with a class of rifles and ammunition magazines that are “in common use at [this] time” and are not “dangerous and unusual.”
Essentially, this is a challenge of Cook County’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” Sigale is again the attorney on this one.
Mance v. Barr – This case dates back to 2014 when Eric Holder was attorney general in the Obama administration, and was originally known as “Mance v. Holder.” Historically, it’s something of a first because SAF is not a plaintiff, but its sister organization, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), wears that mantle. SAF is providing financial support.
The case challenges the federal law prohibiting cross-state handgun purchases. With the advent of the National Instant Check System (NICS), there should be no reason why any qualified citizen, regardless of state of residence, should not be able to purchase a handgun legally in another state. Essentially, if a person clears a background check in his or her home state, they would clear a
NICS check in a different state because their status would not change simply by crossing a state line.
At the time this case was filed, Gottlieb observed, “It is overreaching, if not downright silly, in today’s environment with the federal instant background check system to perpetuate a prohibition on interstate handgun purchases that has outlived its usefulness.”
Fredric Russell Mance, Jr., for whom the case is named, is a Texas firearms dealer. Tracey Ambeau Hanson and Andrew Hanson, are residents of Washington, D.C., and wanted to purchase a handgun from Mance.
Rights activists contend it is high time for another Second Amendment ruling from the high court. They argue that the “right to bear arms” cannot possibly mean this right only applies to the confines of one’s home or business, else it is no right at all.
As Judge Richard Posner, writing for the majority in Moore v. Madigan, 7th District Court of Appeals, observed, “The right to ‘bear’ as distinct from the right to ‘keep’ arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of ‘bearing’ arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home. And one doesn’t have to be a historian to realize that a right to keep and bear arms for personal self-defense in the eighteenth century could not rationally have been limited to the home.”
RELATED:
‘Constitutionally Defective’—Judge’s Ruling in CA Ammo Case Eviscerates Law
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
The post Could Kavanaugh Remark Signal Door Opening to Pending SAF Cases? appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/2Wd59HY
via IFTTT
Pro-Trump group plans dozens of anti-lockdown protests, some in virus hot spots
Congressional Ally Updates Firearm Industry Association Members
By Matt Manda
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)-It’s good to have friends in the fight. The coronavirus pandemic is causing economic hardship and worry for millions of Americans. Fortunately, the firearm and ammunition industry has allies in Congress to protect Americans’ rights and support small businesses.
U.S. Rep. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) joined NSSF’s Larry Keane for a virtual town hall hosted by NSSF PAC with dozens of members of the firearm industry trade association. Congressman Budd brings a unique perspective. Along with serving as a Member of Congress, the second-term U.S. Representative from North Carolina’s 13th Congressional District is a gun store and range owner. He is in a rare position that offered participants updates on COVID-19 relief and current firearm and small business-related legislation being considered in the nation’s capital. The hour-long conversation covered several important topics impacting firearm and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and shooting range operators.
Keeping Doors Open and Lights On
Rep. Budd kicked off with a congressional update. A major concern at the top of minds of gun store owners and employees has been how to remain open for business during the pandemic. Governors have issued “stay-at-home” orders and “non-essential” business declarations. Millions are out of work. However, Rep. Budd highlighted NSSF’s efforts and success to secure an “essential” business listing on the DHS critical infrastructure guidance.
Securing the “essential” listing was vital and governors mostly followed suit, allowing firearm and ammunition retailers to stay open. This not only means Americans can continue to exercise their Second Amendment right during a critically important time, but also that nearly 330,000 Americans can still go to work. Keane highlighted the firearm industry had $60 billion in economic impact last year, an industry high-water mark.
Safer Communities and Well-Supplied Law Enforcement
Rep. Budd described his own background as a firearm business owner. He was encouraged to take the reins of an existing North Carolina gun store when the former owner called it quits. It was an opportunity to support law-abiding Americans’ ability to purchase firearms and offer customers and members of the law enforcement community a place to practice safe firearm handling. Congressman Budd recalled advice he was given upon purchasing his retail and range facility, stating “Never underestimate the desire of the public to have a safe place to shoot.”
Politics in D.C. and the 2020 Campaign Ahead
Rep. Budd also provided participants Congressional insights and forecasted what the political landscape may look like in the months ahead. Congress passed the “Phase 3.5” economic relief package providing $484 billion for small businesses to weather the coronavirus-induced economic storm. The bill included additional assistance provisions. Rep. Budd remains concerned about ballooning national debt, dependence on overseas supply chains, and the United States’ dependence on Chinese manufacturing of goods ranging from construction equipment to pharmaceuticals.
Rep. Budd and Keane also discussed the importance of financing for small businesses in the firearm and ammunition industries. The conversation included credit card processing, financial discrimination by corporate virtue-signaling banks, the Freedom Financing Act, as well as technology discrimination such as Google search and social media platforms. Discriminatory practices damage the ability of lawful firearm businesses to stay afloat.
Regarding the 2020 campaign in the months ahead, Rep. Budd was optimistic that pro-firearm, pro-Second Amendment champions could win back the U.S House of Representatives but cautioned it would take hard work by candidates. On the presidential campaign trail, Rep. Budd noted presumed Democratic nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden’s gun-control history and proposals. The Congressman said President Donald Trump’s accomplishments put him in a strong position to win re-election in November.
Keane wrapped up the virtual townhall by stating millions of gun rights supporters and the thousands of firearm and ammunition-related businesses across the country are fortunate to have such strong allies in the halls of Congress as Rep. Budd, and encouraged everyone to be a #GUNVOTE supporter to keep the industry strong and lasting.
About The National Shooting Sports Foundation
The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 10,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen's organizations and publishers. www.nssf.org
The post Congressional Ally Updates Firearm Industry Association Members appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/3aMbqzW
via IFTTT
Gun Manufacturers Producing Masks for First Responders During Coronavirus Crisis
Election May 2020: House District 20
2nd Amendment Violation
NJ2AS and Roubian file federal lawsuit against Gov. Murphy
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- The New Jersey Second Amendment Society (NJ2AS) and Alex “Alejandro” Roubian have formally filed a lawsuit against Governor Murphy on Tuesday, April 28th, 2020. Copies of the complaint and related documents can be found by clicking below:
In the complaint, NJ2AS and Alejandro contend Governor Murphy, unnamed staff, and the New Jersey Press Association have collectively conspired to bar a reporter from accessing press conferences and public information. The complainants further cite that the action is direct and malicious due to the fact NJ2AS filed a lawsuit against Governor Murphy in March and prevailed.
NJ2AS has complied with the New Jersey Press Association’s guidelines to attend press conferences and had attended numerous events with Governor Murphy, and even several during Governor Christie’s administration. When specific questions began to be asked of Governor Murphy during the Covid-19 press conferences, he showed frustration towards reporter Alex “Alejandro” Roubian and implied publicly that he wasn’t a real journalist and had no business attending the conferences. On the subsequent press conference, a representative of Governor Murphy’s office denied Mr. Roubian access to the event and armed State Police troopers forced him to leave the premises. Mr. Roubian was subsequently kicked out in the same fashion two other days for a total of three times.
“The Governor’s actions in barring NJ2AS and Mr. Roubian from a public forum such as a press conference is not only inappropriate; it clearly violates their First Amendment rights and the oath of office the Governor took to uphold the constitution. Our First Amendment rights must be protected and the lawsuit filed by NJ2AS and Mr. Roubian are paramount not just to them but to the public at large.” said Mr. Roubian’s legal council, Albert Rescinio.
Requests for public records by NJ2AS into the arbitrary nature of the Governor’s banning and behavior returned no existence of any formal guidelines. Having consistently followed the New Jersey Press Association’s rules and attending several press events in the past, NJ2AS and Mr. Roubian are finding their First Amendment rights under attack alongside their Second Amendment rights. This is the second formal lawsuit filed by NJ2AS against members of the government since the Covid-19 Executive Orders enacted by Governor Murphy in March.
About New Jersey Second Amendment Society:
New Jersey Second Amendment Society – The NJ2AS uses innovative and bold direct-action tactics to expose, document, and take results-oriented action to confront anti-Second Amendment policies and legislators.
By Defending, Protecting, and Preserving the Second Amendment within New Jersey, the NJ2AS works to ensure that our civil rights are restored, no longer degraded, and to prevent NJ from being used as a laboratory to destroy the Second Amendment nationwide. Visit: www.nj2as.com
The post NJ2AS and Roubian file federal lawsuit against Gov. Murphy appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/2SezOnl
via IFTTT
AG Letter and Lawsuit by State Rep. Challenge Jackson Open Carry Ban
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Jackson Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba on Friday said he signed an executive order to temporarily ban open carry of firearms in the city, so long as there's a civil emergency related to the COVID-19 crisis. And he's also seeking a permanent ban of the state law,” the Clarion Ledger reported Sunday. “The order remains in effect through Thursday. It is possible it will be extended, according to the city's existing stay-at-home orders.”
It’s a clearly illegal order that violates state law. That’s never stopped “progressive” mayors from flouting duly enacted laws that stand in the way of their agenda before. In this case, Lumumba’s “justification” ought to anger anyone who can see through the weasel-wording and grasp the significance of what he’s really saying.
“Prior to open carry, when Jackson police officers saw a gun in plain view, it gave them probable cause to seize the weapon and determine whether or not it was an illegal gun,” Lumumba asserted — like that was a good thing. In other words, the trigger for a potentially lethal police confrontation is not whether you're abusing a right, but that you're exercising it in the first place.
This is just a new twist on “stop and frisk,” which evidently is dependent on who’s doing it before it is objected to. It would be interesting to review police reports and trial transcripts to see if the stated concern has any bearing in fact and to see if even one case shows this has been a factor in enabling a later homicide.
There’s a history of gun-grabbing politicians imposing “emergency”-based infringements. Hurricane Katrina confiscations come immediately to mind. And perhaps surprisingly to some, that’s also been backed by some who built a public reputation on being “conservatives,” like former Fox News frontman Bill O’Reilly.
There’s also a history of gun-grabbing politicians imposing disarmament in spite of “preemption” laws. The curious thing about the “home rule” argument is those demanding it never seem to raise it when a national or state law imposes infringements — cases in point, they’re all fine with national diktats to ban semi-autos or to impose due-process-denying “red flag” edicts.
Still, it’s hardly surprising that Mayor Lumumba would prioritize going after guns. Endorsed by the Bernie Sanders-inspired Our Revolution and promising to make Jackson the “most radical city on the planet,” as well as by the “quasi-Marxist” Working Families Party, he was a beneficiary of the Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative, where he received training from the “finest” apparatchiks rope-selling “capitalist” money can buy. And while the sins of the fathers can’t be attributed to their progeny, noting that his was prominent in the racist New Afrika separatist movement “that aimed to turn the Deep South into an independent black nation,” shows the fruit hasn’t fallen far from the tree.
It is instructive to see not just what the gun-grabbers would do if they had the power, but also to grok the company they keep. That said, Lumumba’s order is legally DOA.
“Mississippians enjoy the right to lawfully open carry in all of Mississippi’s 82 counties and in every municipality within the State. The City of Jackson is no exception,” State Attorney General Lynn Fitch cautioned the mayor. “The City lacks statutory authority to suspend a state statute or constitutional provision. Accordingly, I ask that you rescind the Order immediately. I take seriously my obligation to protect Mississippians’ constitutional rights, and I will take every action available to my office to ensure these rights are not infringed upon.”
It’s past time we saw some rights enforcement added to the law enforcement mix, especially when it comes to guns.
Additionally, Mississippi State Representative Dana Criswell filed a “Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief” Monday with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. He’s calling Lumumba’s bluff.
“Rep. Criswell intends to continue openly carrying a firearm in a holster while in public in Jackson, Mississippi, for self-defense,” the complaint notes. “Rep. Criswell intends to be in Jackson, Mississippi, on or before April 30, 2020, and wishes to exercise his constitutional right to openly carry a firearm in public in Jackson, Mississippi, for self-defense.”
Let's hope Mayor Chockwe has fun looking like an impotent fool. That’s some Bloomberg training he's managed to misapply through arrogance and overreach. I’m just surprised organized armed civil disobedience hasn’t been reported yet.
Can you imagine the lawsuit if the “leader” of the “most radical city on the planet” had his enforcers arrest anyone for defying a clearly illegal order? Or the fallout should illegal arrests be resisted by those who can?
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
The post AG Letter and Lawsuit by State Rep. Challenge Jackson Open Carry Ban appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/3f0o1Tf
via IFTTT
Below The Radar: Gun Suicide Prevention Act
United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Some attacks on our rights can be so subtle, they can be missed at first glance, even in a relatively short piece of legislation. In fact, these are the ones worth studying, if only to be more aware of them.
One such attack is contained in HR 4271, the Gun Suicide Prevention Act, introduced by Representative Julia Brownley (D-CA). At first glance, this very short piece of legislation – all of three pages long in the PDF provided at Congress.gov – seems very innocuous. All it requires is that the phone number for the National Suicide Prevention Hotline be provided on a warning label that is included with every firearm sold.
Much of the discussion when it comes to attacks on our Second Amendment rights concern the misuse of firearms – often for homicides. But suicides involving firearms kill about twice as many people as homicides involving the misuse of firearms. Either way, the deaths involved target our rights, and reducing them is in the interest of Second Amendment supporters.
But looking closely at the bill reveals a serious land mine. The requirement to include the warning label amends the Consumer Product Safety Act. Now, we see the trap that has been laid by Representative Brownley.
This is because some anti-Second Amendment extremists, like the Violence Policy Center, have long sought to give unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats the power to order gun bans and recalls. Even with the Congressional Review Act, such bans could be very difficult to defeat. For starters, there would be a limited amount of time to pass the resolution, and if the President is anti-Second Amendment, then you’d need the two-thirds vote to override a veto.
Any law that allowed the Consumer Product Safety Commission to regulate firearms would represent a major shift in power from elected officials that are relatively easy to hold accountable (they have to face elections) to those same unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. What we have with HR 4271 is just the first small step.
On the PR front, it is a brilliant move. Everyone wants to see suicides reduced. Having the number more available could save lives (and certainly would have more efficacy than many of the usual anti-Second Amendment schemes). Furthermore, a warning label is far less intrusive than waiting periods, licensing schemes, or even outright bans. The releases upon the defeat (or veto) of this bill from the likes of Charles Schumer and Jerrold Nadler seem to write themselves in your mind, don’t they?
While preventing suicides is a laudable goal, even the slightest opening to give the CPSC any power over our Second Amendment rights needs to be shut down. Second Amendment supporters need to contact their Representative and Senators and politely urge them to defeat this legislation, and to instead fund suicide prevention via other means. Failing that, this is a bill that should be loaded up with pro-Second Amendment legislation as amendments, like the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act, the FOPA improvements sought by Senator Daines, HR 5301, and the Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act, and your Senators and Representatives should be politely, but firmly, encouraged to do just that.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
The post Below The Radar: Gun Suicide Prevention Act appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/2xiIGRu
via IFTTT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)