Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

Breaking News!!! District Judge Ezra declares Cargill the winner in the Cargill v Garland bump stock case, tosses a judicial middle finger at the 5th circuit, takes his toys home and closes the case. We requested bump stocks to be legal in all 50 states. So are they @ATFHQ ? #2A pic.twitter.com/P7xvkfj6rw

— Michael Cargill (@michaeldcargill) March 8, 2023

There have been a lot of developments of late concerning the various lawsuits which have been brought against the FedGov.  This first one concerns cases in Illinois, where Mark analyzes the strength of the state’s case to ban semi-automatic firearms.  Here’s a hint.  It’s a very weak case, so weak in fact that they will not prevail on the merits.

In this case, Mark analyzes a revised decision out of the 5th circuit concerning the RKBA when a court order has been issued against you.  Listen to the whole video.  The ramifications of this case go far beyond what you think.

Finally, this case concerns so-called “Ghost Guns.”  A injunction has been issued against Garland, effective immediately

We’re winning in court everywhere.  Whether this redounds to increased recognition of liberty is anyone’s guess.

Source.

Only three states fully prohibit the open carry of firearms by citizens, and I bet you’d be surprised to hear Florida is among them. Yes, we frustratingly find ourselves in the company of New York and Illinois on this issue. And Republican leaders, including Gov. Ron DeSantis, appear poised to keep it that way under the misnamed “constitutional carry” bill that is expected to pass this session.

Gun owners saw right through the façade when House Speaker Paul Renner threw a press conference at the end of January to celebrate introduction of the “constitutional carry” bill.

On the one hand, it does go a long way in restoring the rights of our residents and visitors alike to carry arms in public for self-defense without a permit. On the other hand, the bill falls short of every constitutional carry law in the country by quietly omitting the right to carry openly.  So our leaders are trying to appease one side and fool the other.

I drove eight hours to testify at a hearing earlier this month on the current bill, and walked away ecstatic when witness after witness demanded the addition of open carry. In contrast, when pressed about open carry afterward, sponsor state Rep. Chuck Brannan (R-Macclenny) apathetically stated the bill “is what it is as filed.” Meanwhile, Brannan’s sentiments were shared by Florida Senate President Kathleen Passidomo (R-Naples).

[ … ]

The same old arguments about bad people getting guns and “Wild West shootouts” materializing in the streets will be raised, but we have a mountain of evidence from other states to refute these claims. And to clarify, this legislation has nothing to do with acquiring firearms – rather it only authorizes those who already own firearms legally to carry them in public without government permission.

Now is the chance for Gov. DeSantis to once again step in and snag victory from the clutch of defeat by the members of his own party in the Legislature. While he’s catching some flak over other Second Amendment missteps, DeSantis can prove the doubters wrong with this issue by demanding open carry before anything gets his signature.

We don’t want watered down legislation. We want the great leap that other states have taken, which will put Florida at the forefront of liberty on another critical issue and far away from New York, Illinois and Washington, D.C. I’m urging Florida’s leadership to get it done – the right way!

Luis Valdes is the Florida state director for Gun Owners of America, a nonprofit, grassroots lobbying organization. He is a former police officer and detective.

The so-called “constitutional carry” Florida is pushing is not constitutional carry.  There is nothing in the constitution about the government telling men how they must carry their weapons.  What they’re doing is a sham, a fakery, and an insult.

It’s a trick perpetrated by carnival barkers and flim-flam artists.

The Florida legislature has failed that they even have to be told to do this, and even greater that they’re refusing to do it.  This is all a gigantic failure, and while I like what I see in DeSantis, if he claims on the campaign trail that he recently passed constitutional carry, I’ll point out the lie each and every time I see it.

He should make it clear to the legislature that unless this bill includes open carry, he won’t sign it.  That the current bill doesn’t include it is totally irrelevant.  They can work through the night to pass the right language.  So in addition to being flim-flam artists, the legislators are liars for pretending in front of constituents that there is nothing they can do about it.

They can always rectify errors.

Maybe they were already a member.  I don’t often follow Minnesota politics, but this one is a doozey.  If you value your firearms and live in Minnesota, you will have to move if this bill passes.

Yes, it’s only one down, and many more to go.  But it has to throw a wet blanket on the rest of them for one of the AGs to say in writing that their own laws violate the 2A.

Here is the court filing.

The Supreme Court has made clear that individuals have the right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. (J.A. 36). As noted by the district court, “New York’s exclusion is valid only if the State ‘affirmatively prove[s]’ that the restriction is part of the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” (J.A. 36 citing Bruen, 142 S.Ct. at 2127). Since the Second Amendment is the very product of an interest balancing, already conducted by “the People,” which “elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms for selfdefense”, the Court constructed a rigorous test in determining whether this restriction is part of the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Id. at 1231 citing Heller, 554 U.S. at 635.

Despite this long-standing tradition, New York’s new exclusion is in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen …

So admitted and confessed by one of the defendants.

Tenth Amendment Center.

The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”

Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.

“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”

The state of Iowa can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.

Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.

Despite all of the accolades for the appropriateness of the action being taken by this subcommittee, I see efforts like this as toothless.

They are necessary first steps, but proponents should see them as such.  Until they send county Sheriffs after FedGov agents who attempt to enforce federal infringements, this just isn’t a serious effort.  FedGov agents must be imprisoned when they attempt their infringements, or else they won’t stop.

Non-cooperation isn’t nullification.

Source.

Colorado counties would be able to prohibit people from discharging firearms in specific unincorporated areas under a bill moving through the state House.

Currently, a board of county commissioners can designate unincorporated areas of a county where it’s illegal to discharge firearms. However, the commissioners can’t prohibit the discharge of firearms in shooting galleries, on private grounds or in residences in circumstances where persons and property aren’t endangered. Plus, an area must have a population density of 100 people or more per square mile for commissioners to enact a designation.

House Bill 23-1165 repeals the exemption for private property. It changes the minimum population density to require any designated area for restrictions to be 35 dwellings or more per square mile. The legislation also prohibits any county from restricting the discharge of a firearm by any peace officer, in an indoor shooting gallery located in a private residence or at a shooting range.

This is one more tactic used by the controllers.  First they go after firearms.  Then they go after ammunition.  Then they go after licensing and permitting to own and carry them.  Finally, they go after being able to practice and hunt with them.

The work around the clock to infringe upon your rights.  We must work around the clock to stop them.

Post and Courier.

The S.C. House of Representatives approved legislation that allows adults to legally tote a handgun with no training required while creating a felon-in-possession crime designed to enable officers to charge more people who shouldn’t own a gun.

The bill approved 90-30 on Feb. 22 mostly along party lines would allow anyone 18 and older who can legally buy a gun to carry it around, whether openly or concealed, without needing a permit.

It does not change where guns are banned. Places where they remain illegal for almost everyone include schools, day cares, courtrooms, jails, hospitals, businesses that post “no weapons” signs, and city and county offices.

The bill adds clerks of court and public defenders to the list of exempted people — primarily, judges and prosecutors currently — who can carry where others can’t, but with one caveat. Public defenders still couldn’t take their handgun into a jail or prison.

Amendments approved during the debate encourage gun owners to get training without mandating it, and require them to report a stolen gun to local law enforcement within 30 days without setting a punishment.

Republicans argued the effort is about restoring a “constitutional right” in the Second Amendment that shouldn’t need government permission, while Democrats countered it’s a dangerous bill that will lead to more murders and accidental deaths.

[ … ]

Republican Rep. Alan Morgan of Greer, a co-sponsor, responded by citing statistics from the 25 states that have already passed so-called “constitutional carry” laws, arguing they haven’t led to a rise in gun-related killings there.

It’s the lack of predicted “Wild, Wild West” scenarios here over the last two years that changed some minds, said Rep. Bobby Cox, R-Greer, the main sponsor.

In 2021, Republicans pushed through a law allowing South Carolinians to openly carry their handguns, as long as they have a concealed weapon permit.

As I told you before, I listened to the entirety of the debate (a full day of it) when the S.C. senate passed open carry (the largest pill for the fearful and timid to swallow, mainly because of law enforcement).

“The majority of the state probably doesn’t even know we’re an open-carry state yet,” said Cox, an Army Ranger currently in the Reserve. “That goes against the Wild, Wild West argument we hear.

“People were very worried about guns being seen everywhere, especially in the tourist areas,” said the executive for Sig Sauer gun manufacturer. “I work in the area, and I’ve only seen one person carry.”

[ … ]

Charleston Police Chief Luther Reynolds said he can picture King Street, which attracts throngs of people to its shops, restaurants and bars, awash with guns.

“We are prevented and precluded — because they’re entitled to carry a gun — from even asking them if they’re illegally carrying it,” he said.

And you should be prevented from asking them.  It’s none of your business.

Law enforcement screamed long and loud about the wild, wild west when open carry passed two years ago.  Hopefully they’re adequately shamed now and they’re staying silent this time around, so that they don’t look even more ridiculous than they already do.

Baby steps.  I was delighted to see open carry pass two years ago.  I’ll be delighted to see permitless carry pass as well, but I predicted exactly this sequence of events if you will recall.  I told you that permitless carry was next in line and will pass at some point in S.C. (I gave it a year, it has taken two), but they had to see for themselves what every other state has seen.

The state doesn’t become a war zone and burn to ashes.  The manner of carry doesn’t change a man’s character.  I dream of a day when a man is seen for the nature of his character rather than the method of his carry.

Cowboy State Daily.

Jones was referencing Senate File 148, which would preempt any local firearms regulations that contradict Wyoming statute.

It’s done well so far. The Wyoming Senate passed it by a vote of 30-1 on Feb. 8. It passed its second of three readings before the Wyoming House on Wednesday.

“I think it will pass,” Jones said. “If it doesn’t pass, a municipality could feasibly implement their own gun control, as long as they exempt firearms manufactured in Wyoming.”

SF 148 clears up an oversight that’s created some confusion over gun policy in Wyoming, Jones said, adding that Wyoming has long had a “preemption statute.”

That means gun rights policy set by the state preempts those proposed by a municipality or other localized but essentially entity, such as the University of Wyoming campus, he said. Private property owners and privately owned businesses still retain the right to restrict guns as they see fit on their premises.

The Wyoming Freedom of Firearms Act was passed in 2010. That protects Wyoming gun or gun accessory manufactures from undue federal regulations, Jones said.

However, for undetermined reasons, the preemption statue wasn’t properly referenced in the Freedom of Firearms Act, Jones said. So technically, a municipality or other entity can pass its own additional gun restrictions – they just wouldn’t apply to guns made in Wyoming.

And since outside of a few custom firearm makers, firearms manufacturers are based outside of Wyoming, those local gun restrictions would apply nearly all commonly owned firearms.

SF 148 fixes that, making it clear that the preemption statue applies to all firearms, not just those made in Wyoming, Jones said.

SF 148 was prompted in part by a challenge to UW’s prohibition against carrying firearms on campus, Jones said.

In 2018, Lyle Williams of Unita County was ticketed for open-carrying a firearm in the university’s convention center during the state Republican party’s annual conference.

That citation was challenged on the grounds that both open and concealed carry are allowed by state statute in Wyoming. But in 2020, Albany County District Court Judge Tori Kricken ruled in the university’s favor.

In her decision, Kricken cited the fact that the preemption statute as cited in the Freedom of Firearms Act applies only to guns made in Wyoming, Jones said.

That’s a stupid reason for a judge to reach a decision like that.  There is no excuse for a lame judiciary who looks to the jot and tittle of the law but ignores the sweep and intent.

Anyway, this needs to pass so that residents of Wyoming can once again not have to worry with progressive do-gooders.  For example, Jackson, Wyoming is likely to try something similar in nature within city limits.  Have you looked recently at the makeup of the city council in Jackson?

Source:

As a progressive democrat, I generally try to avoid any set of ideas that smacks of conspiracy theory. That caveat being stated, I have followed gun control legislation and its failures, as have many ofus, for some time. Most of us are familiar with the words of the Second Amendment to the Constitution:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The author may be “familiar with the words of the Second Amendment” but not the punctuation; there is but one comma, the second one in the above misquote. Nor can “krypton981” read English well.

It appears to me that the concept of a well regulated Militia would involve not only the government, for the purposes of regulation, but also entities such as the National Guard, rendering those entities entirely sufficient. The Republicans, however, appear to conveniently ignore the first phrase, and devolve interpretation merely to the right of anyone in this country to “bear arms”, (including underage children who may be “given”a gun). The right to bear arms is not, of course, mentioned in the amendment, although that phrase is vociferously used as an argument against gun control or even gun safety.

This should be a fun reminder to gun lovers everywhere. Let’s see:

“A healthy breakfast being necessary to the start of a great day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.”

Who or what has the right to keep and eat food? The breakfast, the day? Who has the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment language? The Militia, the State? No, it’s the people. Breakfasts and days don’t eat food, nor do Militias and States have rights.

And it’s no theory; it was a conspiracy to overthrow the crown of England that gave us the Second Amendment codifying God’s immutable right for the people to keep and bear arms.