Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

Community caretaking should be left up to families and churches.  The state has no business involved in such affairs.

Stupid document it was.  Here are some updates.

Project Veritas original reporting.

Sen. Ted Cruz to FBI Director Wray: “DOJ has become thoroughly politicized. I think this is a problem that began during the Obama admin. I think it metastasized with career officials during the Trump admin. And I think it continues and is even worse today under the Biden admin.” pic.twitter.com/AzV7C0GC9r

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) August 4, 2022

Mike’s organization, American Contingency, was specifically called out in the FBI release.  Mike answers this, but the sad thing is that he was surprised by the FBI’s actions.  Mike cannot let his time with the FedGov in the SpecOps community go.  He still has too much trust in the gargoyles, pit vipers and demons inside the beltway.

Here once again the fact that John is “alarmed” is sad because we all know this about the FBI.  John is right about everything he says, but he’s behind the curve a number of years.

Maybe this will serve as a wakeup call to patriots throughout the country.  Perhaps some good will come of it.

Source.

I checked with Cloud Defensive because I didn’t have a URL for this and they responded that they had indeed issued this statement over their Instagram account (I don’t have an account at Instagram).

Good for Cloud Defensive.  Thank you for taking a stand.

Sent from reader Fred, this lawyer does a fine job of explaining some overlooked aspects of the Bruen decision.

In the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court ruled that law-abiding citizens have the right to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense. The Supreme Court explicitly affirmed that the Second Amendment protects twin rights: “to keep and bear arms,” with “keep” meaning to own or possess and “bear” meaning to carry outside the home.

But here’s the crucial part of the Bruen ruling that has escaped notice. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas emphasizes that the proper test of constitutionality—which the Supreme Court established in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)—“requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.”

Simply put, first you need to see what the text of the Second Amendment does (and does not) mention, and then you must look at what firearm regulations were in place at the time of the American Founding. Justice Thomas gives an example: “[W]hen a challenged regulation addresses a general societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century, the lack of a distinctly similar historical regulation addressing that problem is relevant evidence that the challenged regulation is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.”

The Founders knew all about mass killings which were part of the American experience dating back to the Jamestown colony. On March 22, 1622, Native tribes of the Powhatan Confederacy killed 347 English settlers—men, women, and children. Indian raids represented a serious threat for more than two centuries after the Jamestown Massacre. Two mass killings occurred in 1755 alone. In July, Shawnee Indians attacked Draper’s Meadow, a Virginia settlement. They killed at least five people, including an infant. Then, in October, the Lenape raided a settlement along Penn’s Creek in Pennsylvania, killing fourteen.

In 1774, Mingos and Shawnees launched a series of raids on Virginia settlements. Thousands of settlers were forced to flee. In a letter dated July 1, 1774, James Madison concluded that the attacking Indians were “determined in the extirpation of the inhabitants.”

Likewise, John Adams declared the need for armed self-defense. The next year, Adams described how “hardy, robust” people throughout the colonies had become “habituated” to carrying “their fuzees or rifles upon one shoulder to defend themselves against the Indians.”

Nor did Indian raids present the only danger. During the Revolutionary War, New Jersey’s Pine Barrens offered a haven for robbers, who would plunder, burn, and murder. One historical account explains, “The inhabitants, in constant terror, were obliged for safety to carry their muskets with them into the fields, and even to the house of worship.”

The Founders enshrined the right of the people to keep and bear arms in part because they knew of this history of mass killings. As the testimonies of Madison and Adams illustrate, the Founders recognized the importance of firearms to self-defense.

I’ve always claimed that if the founders wanted to word the 2A differently, they could have.  If they had wanted to repeal it, they could have.  If they had wanted to refrain from toting weapons around themselves (which they did all the time), they could have.

They didn’t, not on any account.

The second amendment is about self defense.  Some will claim that it’s about ameliorating tyranny.  Those folks are thinking small in my opinion.

Yes, it is, but the amelioration of tyranny is a subset of self defense.  Self defense is about defending the person, family, neighborhood and community against individual attackers, gangs, or the state if tyrants want to rule you.

It isn’t either-or.  It’s both-and.

David Kopel.

Today U.S. District Judge Raymond P. Moore issued a temporary restraining order against the ban on so-called “assault weapons” recently enacted by the town of Superior, Colorado, in Boulder County. The case is Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Superior.

Lead attorney for the plaintiffs was Barry Arrington, one of Colorado’s top lawyers on education law, and now the victor in a major Second Amendment case. Arrington previously served in the Colorado House of Representatives, and as a trustee of the Independence Institute, where I work.

Judge Moore formerly was a corporate lawyer (Davis, Graham and Stubbs, Denver), and then head Federal Public Defender for Colo. and Wyoming. He was appointed to the bench by President Obama in 2013, and confirmed unanimously.

Like several other towns in Boulder County, Superior recently outlawed semiautomatic centerfire rifles that have at least one supposedly bad characteristic, such as an adjustable stock; various semiautomatic shotguns; various semiautomatic handguns; and magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds.

It was obvious that such arms are “commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” which is the Supreme Court’s rule from District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) for which arms are protected by the Second Amendment. First, the Colorado Attorney General and plaintiffs in an earlier case challenging the state of Colorado’s ban on magazines over 15 rounds had so stipulated. Colorado Outfitters Ass’n v. Hickenlooper, 24 F. Supp. 3d 1050, 1068 (D. Colo. 2014), vacated in part on other grounds and remanded, 823 F.3d 537 (10th Cir. 2016). (I represented 55 Colorado Sheriff plaintiffs in the case, which ended up with the 10th Circuit declaring that neither the Sheriffs nor the many other individual and organizational plaintiffs had standing.) Commonality was also found in the undisputed facts set forth in Fourth Circuit Judge Traxler’s dissenting opinion in Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114, 153-55 (4th Cir. 2017). The opinions of many other Circuit Courts provide additional, irrefutable proof of commonality; the banned firearms number in the millions, at least, and the banned magazines comprise over half of all magazines.

Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, courts are supposed to decide Second Amendment cases on text, history, and tradition. Judge may not decide based on their own opinions about good policy, nor should they defer to legislative policy judgements. The policy  balancing was already conducted by the American people when they adopted the Second Amendment.

[ … ]

The Colorado plaintiffs also challenged Superior’s ban on open carry of handguns. Judge Moore denied the TRO motion against the open carry ban. As he accurately stated, Bruen affirms the right to bear arms, but also allows governments to decide whether the mode of carry shall be open or concealed. Since 2003 in Colorado, concealed carry permits have been available to adults with safety training who pass a fingerprint-based background check. A system that bans open carry while allowing concealed carry does not violate the Second Amendment.

At least one aspect of the ruling was correct.  All the judge can do is follow Bruen, and that decision allowed for bans on mode of carry as long as some mode of carry was allowed.

Of course, I disagree with that part of it as you know.

AP.

A bystander’s decision to shoot a man who opened fire at an Indiana mall was a rare occurrence of someone stepping in to try to prevent multiple casualties before police could arrive.

Police on Monday praised the quick actions of 22-year-old Elisjsha Dicken, an armed shopper who killed 20-year-old Jonathan Sapirman after Sapirman killed three people and wounded two others at a mall in the Indianapolis suburb of Greenwood.

“Many more people would have died last night if not for a responsible armed citizen,” police Chief Jim Ison said Monday, repeatedly calling Dicken a “good Samaritan” and his response “heroic.”

It isn’t common for mass shootings to be stopped in such fashion. From 2000 to 2021, fewer than 3% of 433 active attacks in the U.S. ended with a civilian firing back, according to the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University. The researchers define the attacks as one or more people targeting multiple people.

It was far more common for police or bystanders to subdue the attacker or for police to kill the person, according to the center’s national data, which were recently cited by The New York Times.

In a quarter of the shootings, the attacker stopped by leaving the area, similar to what happened during the July 4 parade in Highland Park, Illinois, where seven people were killed.

“There’s been this statement: ‘The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.’ That’s factually inaccurate because of the word ‘only,’” said Adam Lankford, a criminal justice expert at the University of Alabama who has written books and research papers about mass shootings.

And on and on the commentary drones.

To begin with, definitions are important.  Self defense events happen every day in America, whether at home or out and about.  I write on firearms and 2A rights, so I bypass chances to pen something else on self defense events literally every day to focus more on the mechanical and materials engineering of firearms, ammunition performance, method of carry, training, and the things that interest me.  The author has subdivided his topic as best as he can in order to make his most convincing case.  He has neglected literally thousands of cases of interest.

But even then, is he correct?  Maybe not.

UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh wrote in the Washington Post on April 20, 2015: “Have civilians with permitted concealed handguns stopped such mass shootings before?”  We provided Volokh with a list of such cases, which he used.

Below, we have collected news stories on more cases of permit holders stopping mass public shootings with their handguns (we separately collect cases where concealed handguns are used to stop other crimes).  There is no reason to believe that this list is comprehensive, given how little media coverage is devoted to these heroic acts.  In addition, we make no attempt here to list here the vast number of defensive gun uses in general that are reported daily in the US.

Permit holders stopped some mass public shootings that gained extensive news coverage, but only a few stories mentioned that it was a permit holder who stopped the attack. The stories frequently get other facts wrong.

The researchers list more than sixty times permit holders have stopped likely mass shootings in public.  I judge a few of them to be not applicable for various reasons, but that doesn’t negate the force of the copious data.

The author at AP did a lousy job of research, but then, that has become the standard for the legacy media.

To be sure, none of this has anything to do with God-given rights.  If a mass shooting can theoretically occur, and a carrier can theoretically stop it to prevent loss of life to himself or others, then it’s wise to carry and he or she certainly has the right to do so regardless of whether bogus research demonstrates that the result will be statistically insignificant.  What’s statistically insignificant to the writer is significant if you have a firearm trained on you as a potential victim.

This just all goes to show how absurd most reporting is.  Thus, unless the source is about some new firearm, some new ammunition or a ballistic test of older ammo designs for comparison, methods of maintenance, and the mechanical aspect of firearms, I’m not likely to link any legacy media source unless it’s to lampoon them or call out error.  And I won’t go behind a paywall even to do that.

That’s about all the legacy media is good for these days.  Some writer (and editor) actually thinks he’s earned his pay today for that tripe.

Dan Reedy at Ammoland.

Recently while I was at Petco, a man walked in, and he was quite a sight to see. This man was in his late 50’s to early 60’s, in decent shape. He wore green Condor BDU pants bloused on his black 511 Tactical boots, a black 2A moto tee was tucked into his BDU pants. On his hip was an openly carried Springfield XDS, with extended magazine, jammed into a Serpa holster. He was buying some dog food.

Immediately after paying, his head dives into his smartphone like his neck is a wet noodle. I watch him as he exits, and he remains like this all the way until he gets into his new Chevy Colorado. The man is almost is (sic) struck by two vehicles on his way through the parking lot, with him completely oblivious to the world around him. Bad gun, bad holster, bad outfit, bad mindset. Classic. I’ve seen guys like him dozens of times and it’s always something painfully similar to this.

… open carry is often a sign of incompetence, and I almost exclusively advise people against the practice. I’ve never seen anyone publicly open carry with good equipment, nor with any serious amount of awareness or training.

[ … ]

Open carry doesn’t deter people from attacking cops, and they actually have some level of training to defend against that on top of holsters designed to defeat a gun grab. In addition to training and quality retention holsters, police can call for backup in a jam. I doubt many of you, if any, can say the same thing.

[ … ]

Open carry also presents issues outside of the gunfight. Now you’re alerting everyone to the presence of your firearm, threat or not. This means it is automatically in play in any defensive encounter, not something you can choose to reveal or continue hiding based on the situation at hand. With the gun openly displayed, you are now someone who can be dealt with quickly, instead of you waiting for your moment to counterattack.

[ … ]

Go get good training, read quality resources, and buy good equipment. If you don’t take my word for it, trust people like Greg Ellifritz, who has an awesome piece compiling over 60 recent examples of open carriers losing their guns or being killed due to carrying openly. He then goes on to link dozens of other articles where various experts like Massad Ayoob, Jeff Gonzales, and others give their opinions on the subject.

Dan has made about every mistake you can make in this article.  It’s difficult to know where to begin.

First of all, he displays a very off-putting and bigoted objection to the man’s chosen weapon, a Springfield Armory pistol.  I do not have a SA pistol, but I once did.  I traded it because I wanted a non-striker fired gun.  I only shoot hammer fired pistols.  But while I had it, it was reliable, accurate, trustworthy, and virtually indestructible.  You could have beaten it with a sledgehammer and it wouldn’t have changed a thing about its performance.  It would still be accurate and reliable.  I never had a failure in thousands of rounds.  His bigotry doesn’t do his argument any favors.  I hate it when others lampoon the possessions of others, whether weapons or something else.  I hate it.  He literally lost me with that statement.

Next, “open carry is often a sign of incompetence.”  He doesn’t really know that.  He just made it up.  This isn’t analysis, journalism, or anything else of value.

Next, he makes a hero out of cops who have had all of this “training.”  My wife and I were eating a dinner recently when we saw a cop directing traffic in the adjacent road.  She had to ask me, “How did he pass the test to qualify as a cop, and how does he even move, much less run?”  Of course, he doesn’t.  He probably weighed 350 pounds.  I’ve had a police captain from a major city in the U.S. tell me that most carriers – concealed or open – can shoot better than cops.  Cops normally qualify once a year and never get range time in between.  I’ve had another police sergeant tell me that they shoot striker fired guns because he would never trust his people to de-cock a hammer.

Give me a break with all the super-cop talk.

Next, he cites “examples” of open carriers who have had their weapons taken from them.  Well, then get a retention holster and do better at situational awareness.  There are also downsides to concealed carry, from being slower to presentation, to sweating your weapon (there are many more not listed here).  It’s all just a choice.

Besides, as many instances of both open and concealed carry that happen in America every day, I doubt that this number of situations where a person has had their weapon taken from them even moves the needle in terms of a statistical analysis.  Put another way, this small number of instances would constitute a statistically insignificant metric and I’m not the least impressed by it.

Next, I object to the notion that as a Christian man, I have some sort of duty to be the last one shot at because I want to plan my attack while I see women and children gunned down.  That’s obscene.

Finally, he cites Massad Ayoob.  Yea, he also advises talking to cops without the presence of an attorney.  I do not read anything he has to say.

But I will remark that this guy gets my vote (if I was a citizen in Florida).

An Escambia County man running for a commissioner seat was arrested on July 4 after officers found him openly carrying a prohibited gun and waving at people on a street corner, according to officials with the Pensacola Police Department.

Officers said Stanley McDaniels, 39, was standing on the corner of Baylen Street and Main Street waving at people for just over five hours. When officers approached McDaniels, they saw that he had a black gun in the waistband of his pants. Officials told McDaniels open carry was not allowed in the state of Florida and asked if he had any identification. McDaniels then pulled out his Florida Conceal Carry Permit and showed officers.

Officers noticed that McDaniels was holding a pamphlet and, when asked what it was, McDaniels told officers it was the Constitution. One officer said while he was having a casual conversation with McDaniels, he talked about all the work he had done within the community. McDaniels also had a camera set up on a tripod filming and he allegedly said he was going to take it to the Supreme Court.

McDaniels is running as a Republican for the Escambia County Commissioner District 4 seat, according to the county’s website.

Officers ran McDaniels criminal history and it came up with no results. An officer then removed the gun from McDaniels waistband which turned out to be a Beretta M9 with nine rounds in the clip and one in the chamber. All of the gun-related items were turned into the property management as evidence.

I admire his courage to challenge the idiotic law against open carry in Florida.

As for whether you carry openly or conceal your firearms, I couldn’t care less.  Make your own choice.  Unlike the author at Ammoland, I wouldn’t presume to know your situation or try to tell you what to do.

The gun community has its controllers too, and I object to controllers.

Via Clayton Cramer.

Here is the letter from the Hawaii AG sent to CLEOs.

I’m not so sure.  They may be tired of fighting it.  I had inquired of friend of TCJ Dave Hardy on the status of Young v. Hawaii right after Bruen came out, and he thought it would be granted, vacated and remanded.  He was right.

Then friend of TCJ Stephen Stamboulieh told me on June 30th that he was working on a filing to the Ninth Circuit on Young.  We’ll see what happens.

Then again, the legislature may be working hard behind the scenes to figure out how to follow New York and make applicants sit through days of classes and qualify for a week at the range.

This is something most carriers should be able to do, since most handgun carriers I know are better with their weapons than cops.  But still, this should not have to be done.