Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

This is an interesting exchange among two important attorneys.

Update on the pistol permit repeal in North Carolina.

A Second Amendment bill in the North Carolina State Senate has progressed through the chamber and is now headed to the State House of Representatives. The North Carolina Senate voted 29-19 across party lines on Senate Bill 41, which would repeal the state’s pistol purchase permit law on Thursday.

The bill would also allow carrying of firearms in places of worship properties that have schools as well, but it’s not going to allow guns on school property at any time.

Since 1995, anyone attending a place of worship (churches, synagogues, temples, mosques) that is legally allowed to carry a firearm could do so on that property — as long as the property owner allows it.

Things change when a place of worship also serves as a school.

Senate Bill 41 would clarify the language of state law and allow the same right to carry a firearm on a church property even if they operate a school — but there are exceptions.

“This applies only to private churches that sponsor schools and only outside the hours of the circular and extra circular activities at the school,” Paul Valone, president of Grass Roots N.C. an advocacy group that supports the bill.

Does this stand a chance of overriding a veto by goober Roy Cooper?

The bill will have to be passed through the House of Representatives and sent to Governor Roy Cooper to become law. But if he vetoes the bill, a supermajority will be required to override it. While the republicans have reached that supermajority in the Senate, they’re one seat short in the House.

What a shame it would be to lose this battle to one vote in the House.  Hopefully there’s a least one vote on the democrat side who feels the pressure from his constituency.  Then again, there are supposedly other means to override a veto.  Also hopefully, the republicans are looking for ways under the rules of order to effect this override without that vote.

Mark is certainly indignant over this trash judgment.  I always learn something when I watch his analyses.  Here is the case to which he refers.  It really is pathetic.

The Daily Caller.

An Oregon judge ruled Wednesday that local governments can not declare themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, further saying that the sheriffs that implemented a Second Amendment ordinance were embracing “racist and white nationalist ideologies.”

Chief Judge Jim Egan of the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that the sheriffs did not have the authority to create sanctuaries that “create a ‘patchwork quilt’ of firearms laws in Oregon,” further saying that the sheriffs‘ arguments go in the “dustbin,” according to the ruling. Sheriffs in Oregon began to introduce Second Amendment sanctuaries after Oregon passed Ballot Measure 114, which requires background checks, firearm training, fingerprint collection and a permit to purchase any firearm.

“The arguments propounding unfettered access to guns, ammunitions, and implements of destruction give rise to waging of war on government because the proponents believe that our government is infected by those they hate,” Egan wrote. “As a judge, sworn to uphold the Oregon Constitution and the United States Constitution, I cannot stand by without identifying the origins of that argument, and the origins of the Ordinance. The history of white supremacist ideology in this country is older than the United States Constitution.”

Egan accused the Sheriffs’ counsel of alluding to conspiracy theories about the United Nations (UN), saying that their belief that the UN will impose mandates that will require the state and local government to disarm the American public in violation of the Second Amendment is false, according to the ruling.

“In other words, Intervenors came before this court and referenced UN mandates, which, as explained below, is a well-documented trope meant to invoke white supremacist, antisemitic fear of a takeover of our country by outsiders and minorities who are manipulated by an elite class of supervillains,” Egan wrote.

Gun Owners of America (GOA), who backed the sanctuaries, “forcefully” denied the characterization of their argument, according to Fox News.

Fox News remarks that “The Court of Appeals ruling marks the first major legal defeat for the Second Amendment sanctuary movement.”

Oh goodness, I think this is being over-dramatized a wee bit, don’t you?  Nobody who advocated 2A sanctuary counties ever believed that this would all go peacefully into the night and go down without a fight.

Read the opinion of judge J. Egan, whomever that is and for what it’s worth.  It reads like a freshman paper for sociology 101 at a local yokel community college.  It really isn’t worthy of the time to fisk it.

Here is what you do with rulings like this.  You don’t respond because that gives the ruling publicity it doesn’t deserve.  You ignore it.  If pressed, you ask the judiciary where they’re going to get law enforcement to enforce their ruling?

The Sheriffs are elected.  They are elected to keep the peace, leave peaceable men alone to their pursuits, and honor the oaths they swore to obey the constitution and laws of God.  They don’t have to enforce any laws that break that covenant.

The judge can go pound sand.  He’s just a carnival barker.

Source.

The House voted 77-43 to approve the measure, which would let people with concealed weapons permits carry openly or under clothing while attending religious services at locations where private or charter schools also meet.

Six Democrats joined all Republicans in voting for it, indicating a potential override of any veto by Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, who blocked an identical bill in 2021.

Republican lawmakers and several clergy members testified this week that the houses of worship in question do not have an equal opportunity to protect congregants, compared with churches that do not house schools and are not affected by blanket prohibitions.

Supporters said gun-free religious sites could be easy targets for violent attacks, citing recent incidents of shooters targeting congregations.

Rep. Jeff McNeely, an Iredell County Republican and the bill’s primary sponsor, said the proposal would fix a loophole preventing some churchgoers from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

North Carolina state Rep. Allison Dahle, a Wake County Democrat, questions Nash County Republican Rep. Allen Chesser about a handgun access bill during a committee meeting at the Legislative Building in Raleigh, N.C., on Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2023.

How nice.  Her hair almost matches her jacket.  She looks like she’s on drugs.  What do you expect from Wake County?

So here’s the deal with that as far as I’m concerned.  I hope it passes with enough votes to override a veto by goober Roy Cooper.  However, first of all, don’t attend a church who prohibits proper self defense.

Second, although the pastor cannot tell you this because of legal liability, if your church meets in a school and carry is prohibited because of that, then this is called “non-permissive carry.”

Don’t ever be without means of defense of your family.

See the video here.

This was a meticulous and judiciously designed weapons vault.  And then the federal government had to step in and destroy all of the firearms.

An old man was minding his own business, harming no one, and simply enjoying his golden years shooting his guns in the range he designed underground, and the police captain had to bitch about stolen weapons or blather on about something or other not even noteworthy enough for me to refute.  He sounded like a little girl jealous of some other little girl’s dolls.

I said his vault was meticulous.  Indeed it was.  His choice of friends wasn’t.  It’s likely that a “friend” turned him in so that the communists could confiscate his weapons.

The second amendment is the only article in the bill of rights that includes the words “Shall not be infringed.”

Slate is mostly a worthless rag, but this one actually brings to light more than the author realizes.

The Bruen decision was a multi-faceted decision partly because of the way the votes separated.  Sure, it got the votes it needed in the court.  We know that Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch are reliable allies.

Readers know I have been closely following this issue.  Here’s an update on the Florida constitutional carry effort this session.

People who carry concealed weapons in Florida must complete a gun safety course, but that could change under a bill that has the backing of the state’s Republican leaders.

“Central to the idea of freedom is the right that we can defend ourselves against physical attack, as well as defend those that we love,” said State House Speaker Paul Renner last week after unveiling a proposed measure to allow “constitutional carry,” which would eliminate the requirement of a permit to carry a concealed firearm.

“All aspects of that permit would go away.”

The bill — HB 543 — would eliminate permitting requirements to carry a concealed weapon. Those include completion of a gun safety course and an attestation that the concealed carry permit is desired for lawful self defense.

If enacted, it would take effect on July 1.

At a press conference announcing the legislation, Renner expressed confidence that the measure wouldn’t pose a serious threat to public safety. “Anybody that’s a gun owner and uses guns knows that safety comes first.”

So this discusses the permitting scheme.  What about open carry?

The bill reads as follows.

… specifying it is not a violation for persons authorized to carry a concealed weapon or concealed firearm without a license to briefly and openly display a firearm under specified circumstances.

Oh, so they’re throwing bones to the dogs who want to openly carry to make them happy, but “the only ones” are the only ones who are permitted to openly carry their weapons.  “Briefly and openly.”  Your shirt or coat tail can accidentally go above your firearm and when the only ones come to arrest you because of that Karen-call down at the grocery store, you can plead for leniency because you really didn’t mean it, and they can take the statement of Karen versus yours and see what a prosecutor will do with it.  You can discuss it with the judge in court.

So they’ve queued up an abject failure as far as I’m concerned.  Open carry is an essential part of constitutional carry.  It isn’t constitutional carry if the state tells you how you must carry your weapons.  The job isn’t complete.  The job has been left undone.

As far as I’m concerned, they failed.  This is a cheap trick to persuade the citizens of Florida that they respect their God-given rights concerning weapons.

I’m not impressed.  I’m disgusted.  Pffft …

I don’t usually link to NRA articles anymore, mainly just their firearms news.  However, this was interesting and informative.

First, at the Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade Show, ATF confirmed that braces that are removed from firearms do not necessarily have to be destroyed or altered in a way that prevents them from being reattached to a firearm. While the rule claims that destruction or alteration is required for owners who choose the option of simply removing the brace from their firearm, that requirement would be contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co.

Under Thompson/Center, possession of a firearm and parts that can only be assembled into an NFA “firearm” constitutes possession of an NFA firearm. But, if the parts can be assembled into multiple lawful configurations, then the parts are not considered an NFA firearm (unless an unlawful configuration is actually assembled).

This should mean that a person who possesses an AR-15 pistol with a stabilizing brace and also possesses a 16-inch barreled upper receiver and/or a registered NFA lower should be able to keep the brace without destroying it or altering it. But, a person who only possesses a pistol with a stabilizing brace may have to dispose of or alter the brace to avoid creating an NFA firearm (in ATF’s view).

Other than making remarks to its own readership, I don’t know what – if anything – the NRA is doing about all of this except buying Wayne new suits.

In what may be one of the earliest in many complaints filed, Firearms Policy Coalition legal action in the pistol brace rulemaking.

It can be found here: Mock v. Garland.

The Milwaukee-based Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty also filed a federal lawsuit in Texas.

Perhaps some enterprising reader/contributor would locate this PDF for us and drop it in the comments.