Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

News from South Carolina.

MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. (WPDE) — The new Open Carry law went into effect in South Carolina on Aug. 15, which means people can now legally have their handguns visible, as long as they have a concealed weapons permit.

South Carolina law enforcement officers now have to think twice before approaching someone carrying a handgun.

That’s because before the new Open Carry law, police could approach anyone who had a visible handgun in public areas because it was illegal.

Myrtle Beach Police Captain Eric DiLorenzo said there are now other factors to consider before stopping someone with a visible handgun.

For example, police would have to consider if there’s a threat to the public or probable cause.

“A visible weapon with no other factors present does not give police the right to detain someone,” said Capt. DiLorenzo.

Yes, and a thousand times yes.  This is correct.  S.C. has no stop and identify statute, and simply detaining someone for doing something legal runs afoul of the concept of a “Terry Stop.”

It sounds like someone has been reading TCJ.  And let’s hope he and all other CLEOs are training their folks just like this.

News from South Carolina.

In hotels, though, gun owners will have additional rights, and will likely be allowed to carry their weapons into the hotel and up to their rooms, regardless of what hotel owners say.

As it should be.  If I stay on a hotel, it is my home for the night.  I have as much God-given right to self defense there as anywhere else.

But there’s something more interesting in this article.  The author cites 707 Gun Shop owner Robert Battista in the caption to a video saying “Robert Battista, 707 Gun Shop owner, is opposed to a law allowing anyone to buy and openly carry a weapon in South Carolina.”

So I figured that Robert is either an idiot (it has never been the case that anyone can purchase a firearm) and allowed himself to be used by the media, or friendly to tyrants.

Listen to the video.  It’s worse than that.  First of all, he isn’t in favor of constitutional carry, but prefers what he calls “national carry” where every state is the same and it’s all controlled by the FedGov.  So he isn’t just friendly with tyrants, he is a tyrant himself.

Second, he lies about S.C.  He says it is a tourist state.  That’s not correct at all.  Myrtle Beach may be a tourist destination (a poor one at that), but the upper part of the state has the largest inland port in the Southeast, and the scale of the industrial production between Greenville, S.C., and Charlotte, N.C., would stagger anyone.

Third, he says that it’s going to be a “law enforcement nightmare” if S.C. passes constitutional carry.  This, despite the fact that in the 22 other states that passed constitutional carry haven’t experienced a nightmare, and blood isn’t running in the streets.  He’s lying.  He isn’t just fabulating or exaggerating, he’s lying.

Fourth, he lies again and says that the people who want constitutional carry are the people who can’t pass the background check.  What a liar, and what an idiot.  You can’t purchase without filling out Form 4473 (unfortunately), and the people who are pushing constitutional carry are patriots like you and me.

He wants the schema where you just have to ask the government for the permit.  “All you have to do is ask,” he says.

His accent gives him away.  He’s not a native South Carolinian.  He’s from out of state.  Go home, tyrant.  And to any readers in his area, never visit his store.

Via David Codrea, this summary at Reason.

The Government has failed to show that there is a reasonable fit between their stated objective of promoting public safety and the 10-day permit use period imposed by HRS § 134-2(e). The 10-day permit use period for handguns does not survive intermediate scrutiny….

[As to the 5-day inspection period requirement], the Government [again] wholly fails to demonstrate how the in-person inspection and registration requirement furthers these interests. It merely states that “ensuring that the registration information is accurate, ensuring that the firearm complies with Hawaii law, and confirming the identity of the firearm can be easily accomplished simply by bringing the firearm to the registration for inspection.”

This bald statement is not enough to meet the Government’s burden. “To survive intermediate scrutiny, the defendants must show ‘reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence’ that the statutes are substantially related to the governmental interest.” Here, the Government has provided no evidence whatsoever in support of its position. The Government has provided no legislative history speaking to the legislature’s reasons for amending the statute. It has not shown that inaccurate registration was a problem affecting public safety (or even a problem at all) prior to enactment of the 2020 in-person inspection and registration requirement, nor has it provided any studies, examples from other jurisdictions, or any other type of evidence suggesting that an in-person inspection and registration requirement would ameliorate such a problem.

In absence of concrete evidence, the only support that the Government offers is conjecture. Defendant asserts that in-person inspection and registration promotes public safety by requiring that the police directly inspect the serial number on the gun itself, rather than the number as reported by the buyer and (separately) by the seller on the permit. Specifically, the Government speculates that “[s]ome people might innocently make mistakes in transcribing serial numbers or other identifying information” or may be unaware that their gun’s identifying marks or other attributes have been impermissibly altered. And, the Government hypothesizes, individuals may not be aware of these errors or inconsistencies until they bring their firearm to the police station to have it physically inspected. But this hypothetical falls short under intermediate scrutiny. To meet its burden, the Government must “present some meaningful evidence, not mere assertions, to justify its predictive judgments.”

Thus, it once again appears that the Government’s only permissible argument is that common sense shows the law is reasonably related to its interest in promoting public safety. But the notion that in-person inspection and registration promotes public safety is not a matter of common sense. First, as stated above, in the absence of any evidence to that end, it is not a common-sense conclusion that mistakes in registration were a problem prior to enactment of the  in-person inspection and registration requirement. Indeed, there is redundancy built into the registration process even without the in-person requirement—both the firearm seller and buyer must provide the serial number and other identifying information about the firearm. As Plaintiffs point out, “it strains credulity that both a firearms store and a buyer would both fail to properly transcribe numbers or realize” that the gun has been impermissibly altered.

Second, as the D.C. Circuit pointed out in Heller v. District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 2015), requiring individuals to bring firearms into the police station for in-person inspection and registration may “more likely be a threat to public safety [because] there is a risk that the gun may be stolen en route or that the would-be registrant may be arrested or even shot by a police officer seeing a ‘man with a gun.'” While these possibilities—like the Government’s hypothetical about mistaken transcription—are no more than conjecture, they demonstrate that it is not a simple matter of common sense that in-person inspection and registration promotes public safety.

Finally, it is again worth noting that Hawaii is the only state in the country to require in-person inspection and registration of firearms. As in the case of the 10-day permit use period, if it were truly a matter of common sense that in-person inspection and registration promoted public safety—or that misidentification in the absence of in-person inspection and registration was a problem—one would expect additional states to maintain similar requirements. The Government has failed to show that the in-person inspection and registration requirement is reasonably tailored to a significant, substantial, or important government interest. HRS § 134-3(c)’s in-person inspection and registration requirement does not survive intermediate scrutiny.

Reason ends with this: “Congratulations to Alan Beck and Stephen D. Stamboulieh, who represented the challengers.”

Stephen Stamboulieh is a friend of TCJ and I would like to say congratulations.  I’ve held for a long time now that the fertile soil for gun rights – and recognition of all God-given rights for that matter – is local and state.  The rapid expansion of open and constitutional carry across America has demonstrated this axiom right.

News and views from South Carolina.

“For the law-abiding Concealed Weapon Permit owner, today is a very significant day because they can decide whether they want to carry open or concealed,” said Kershaw County Sheriff Lee Boan.

[ … ]

As valid CWP owners choose to open carry, Sheriff Boan is making sure his officers and dispatch personnel are trained to respond.

“When you get that call that somebody’s walking down the road or parking lot or something openly carrying a firearm, that’s not a crime. That’s not a crime,” said Boan. “We’re not going to investigate something that’s not a crime.”

What?

Has he been reading TCJ?  Because that sounds like something I’ve said many times before.  Yes, I’m sure of it.  Many times.

Good on him.  Instruct your 911 operators to ask the right questions: “Is he brandishing a weapon or is it holstered?”  “Is he threatening anyone with a weapon?”  “No, we won’t send a patrol to respond.  He isn’t breaking any laws.  Open carry is legal in South Carolina.  Good bye.”

This is the best way to save time and avoid wasteful encounters.

News from lower state South Carolina.

BEAUFORT COUNTY, S.C. (WTOC) – On Aug. 15, a new law will go into place that will allow those with the proper permits to open carry handguns in South Carolina.

The Beaufort County sheriff was very clear that he does not believe the new open carry law will directly correlate to an increase of gun violence in the county. He did acknowledge though, that this is a change that will take time for everybody to get used to.

“There’s going to be a training curve through this and there’s going to be mistakes made. There’s going to be mistakes made by those who are carrying an open carry weapon and there’s going to be mistakes made by law enforcement officers,” Sheriff P.J. Tanner said.

The sheriff went on to explain that he doesn’t believe this will be as common in the Lowcountry as it will be elsewhere in the state.

“Currently, we’re on Hilton Head Island. I don’t know that we’ll see that big of an issue here on Hilton Head, but I think there are other areas of South Carolina that I think open carry is going to be trendy and I think people will take advantage of it,” Sheriff Tanner said.

He went on to explain that the law does have some benefits, including allowing officers to see someone’s weapon immediately on approach.

Ooo … “trendy.”  “Issue.”  “Take advantage of it.”

Here’s what needs to happen with law enforcement.  Ignore it.  It isn’t trendy.  It’s a God-given right, finally recognized by the tyrants in South Carolina.

Educate your 911 operators to tell callers that this is within the law and no LEO will be sent out to stop peaceable men.  Don’t make “mistakes.”  Just ignore it.  Cops in North Carolina do.  That’s how you keep from making mistakes.

Reason.

“[T]he search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden … if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant’ the officers in believing that the suspect is dangerous and that the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.” …

On this record, no reasonable officer could conclude that Plaintiff posed a meaningful threat of being “armed and dangerous” simply because he disclosed that he had a pistol and a license to possess it. Any contrary holding would make it practically impossible for the lawful owner of a firearm to maintain a Fourth Amendment right to privacy in his or her automobile.

Well, right.  The judge happened to get this one right – this time.

I have an idea how to help cops get it right all the time.  Do away with the stupid permitting scheme and adopt constitutional carry.  Make it clear in the law that cops have no right to infringe upon your right to be armed, anywhere, anytime, and for any reason.

News from Santa Cruz.

A gun owner himself, Benitez has made rulings that have taken aim at California’s decades-old attempts by lawmakers and voters to toughen gun laws. He deemed the state’s assault-weapon ban — signed into law in 1989 by Republican Gov. George Deukmejian — a “failed experiment.”

California’s assault-weapon ban violates the 2nd Amendment in part because militias could be forced to settle for “less than ideal” weapons rather than the “ideal” AR-15 rifle, Benitez wrote. (“That may not be a severe burden today when the need for the militia is improbable,” he wrote. “One could say the same thing about the improbable need for insurance policies.”)

“That was a new and deeply disturbing line of thinking,” said Ari Freilich, the California policy director for the Giffords Law Center. Benitez, he said, seemed to suggest that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of “average people in a civilian militia to make war against their government.”

“If we take that seriously, then there’s no limiting principle on the types of firearms that people should be allowed to possess, including tanks, anti-aircraft missiles and machine guns,” Freilich said.

New, he says.  Perhaps he could go back in time a bit and recall what the founders did to King George.  And then ponder the fact that the very second amendment he’s calling unserious was written by men who had just made war on their government.

Y’all recall the coverage of Mr. Walker who was stopped by the crude, vulgar, loud-mouthed jerk cop because he was carrying an AR-15 to Coyote hunt in the middle of nowhere in West Virginia?  I wasn’t aware of the fact that the first decision at the Fourth Circuit was a panel.  The Attorney representing him, John Bryan, has filed a petition for rehearing in the case.

If the Panel Opinion remains, Black is meaningless, because there will always be “more” available to any police officer. Even if an individual has violated no law, they will be subject to detainment based on any speculative crime which generally could be committed by any anonymous person. A man walking in the direction of any woman might be a rapist, given that he would appear to have the physical ability to carry out a rape. Any driver of a car heading in the direction of any other human being might be a potential murderer, because they appear to have the physical ability to run-over people, should they so choose. The analogies could go on and on because, like the Michael Walker case, these scenarios are all generalized, rather than based on individualized reasonable suspicion.

Deputy Donahoe did, and claims to have done numerous other times, exactly that which Black forbade: to assume that being a felon in possession of a firearm was the default status; that, without more, he could detain and ID anyone he saw with a firearm. He admitted that he had no information that Walker may have been a prohibited person. (J.A. 162:5-8). Donahoe admitted under oath that had no indications that Mr. Walker was a threat to anyone, nor appeared to have any ill intentions (J.A. 167:1-4). Donahoe told Mr. Walker at the beginning of the stop, “At this point, I have the absolute right to see whether you’re legal to carry that gun or not.” (See J.A. 209 – Video of Incident).

I like the cut of his jib.  Either the Fourth Circuit mans up and does the right thing, or else their decision in the Black case is meaningless (we’ve covered this case too having to do with Mr. Black and the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department).

I discussed this case with a Charlotte cop I know at length – I’ll reiterate what we discussed at some point again in the future.  Needless to say, I was disappointed at the cop’s lack of concern over what the Fourth Circuit had decided, and equally disappointed in the rights he felt he had to detain people.

There are a lot of them

GOA & GOF

Ted Cruz and 24 other republican senators.

FPC.

Dave Hardy.

In all there are 43 briefs.

… 43 amicus briefs filed supporting this case. Among these groups, NRA-ILA is heartened to see support from numerous elected officials including 176 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives led by Rep. Claudia Tenney (NY-22), 25 U.S. Senators led by Sen. Ted Cruz (TX), 26 Attorneys General led by Mark Brnovich (AZ) and Eric S. Schmitt (MO), and Governor Greg Abbott (TX).

But the Supreme Court is filled with controllers and cowards.  My prediction: they’ve heard the truth now, and they will ignore it, or find some way to whittle down the scope of the decision, or decide that the meat of the claims have no standing in their court because blah blah blah.

The case is before the Supreme Court now.  Also, the document linked below was written to the Second Circuit.  However, having stumbled upon this, it would be wise to convey what an interesting document it is.  It’s full of historical information you might not have otherwise seen.

“The Second Amendment places the right to bear arms on equal footing with the right to keep arms. As dictionaries from the founding era attest, to “bear arms” includes public carriage for lawful purposes. Americans were the first Englishmen to have a written guarantee of arms rights. From the earliest colonial days, they carried arms to church, court, public assemblies, travel, work in the field, and most everywhere else they pleased—starting in childhood. After the 1689 English Bill of Rights, peaceable carry was constitutionally protected in England and America. Still, Americans saw the English right as subject to abuse, so they deliberately constitutionalized a broader right. Nineteenth-century sources and case law, including those relied on by this Court for original understanding, support the right of ordinary citizens to carry for self-defense beyond the home.”

[ … ]

“1. John Adams John Adams, as a 9-or-10-year-old schoolboy, carried a gun daily so that he could go hunting after class. 3 DIARY AND AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF JOHN ADAMS 257-59 (1961). 2. Patrick Henry Patrick Henry would “walk to court, his musket slung over his shoulder to pick off small game.” Harlow Giles Unger, LION OF LIBERTY: PATRICK HENRY AND THE CALL TO A NEW NATION 30 (2010). 3. Daniel Boone “When Daniel was almost thirteen he was given his first firearm, a ‘short rifle gun, with which he roamed the nearby Flying Hills, the Oley Hills, and the Neversink Mountains.’ ” Robert Morgan, BOONE 14 (2007). 4. Meriwether Lewis Meriwether Lewis’s neighbor Thomas Jefferson observed that young Lewis “when only eight years of age . . . habitually went out, in the dead of night, alone with his dogs, into the forest to hunt the raccoon & opossum.” 8 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, at 482.  5. Thomas Jefferson Thomas Jefferson himself carried as a lad. “When he was ten he was given a gun by his father and sent into the forest alone in order to develop self-reliance.” 1 Dumas Malone, JEFFERSON AND HIS TIME: JEFFERSON THE VIRGINIAN 46 (1948). As an adult, Jefferson wrote about a holster he made for one of his Turkish pistols, “having used it daily while I had a horse who would stand fire,” and he noted another holster he made “to hang them [the Turkish pistols] at the side of my carriage for road use.” 10 THE PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, RETIREMENT SERIES 320-21 (2004). Jefferson advised his fifteen-yearold nephew to “[l]et your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” 8 THE PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 407 (2004). 6. James Monroe Every day, “[w]ell before dawn, James left for school, carrying his books under one arm with his powder horn under the other and his musket slung across his back.” Tim McGrath, JAMES MONROE: A LIFE 9 (2020). 7. Ira and Ethan Allen Ira and Ethan Allen regularly carried multiple arms at once. For example, in 1772 Ira, Ethan, and a cousin went to purchase land near New York’s border “armed with holsters and pistols, a good case [pair] of pistols each in our pockets, with each a good hanger [sword].” 1 James Wilbur, IRA ALLEN: FOUNDER OF VERMONT, 1751-1814, at 39 (1928). The next year, during land disputes between the Allen trio and the Royal Governor of New York, Ira wrote that the three men “never walked out without at least a case of pistols.” Id. at 44. 8. Joseph Warren Joseph Warren was targeted by the British as tensions rose in April 1775. After spotting the British watch, one of Warren’s friends “advised Warren not to visit his patients that evening. But Warren, putting his pistols in his pocket, replied, ‘I have a visit to make to Mrs. ___, in Cornhill, this evening, and I will go at once.’ ” Richard Frothingham, LIFE AND TIMES OF JOSEPH WARREN 452 (1865). 9. William Drayton When traveling throughout South Carolina in 1775 to promote the Patriot cause, “Drayton always had about his person, a dirk and a pair of pocket pistols; for the defence of his life.” 3 AMERICAN ARCHIVES, 4th ser., at 258 (Peter Force ed., 1840). 10. General Population Recalling the Boston Massacre, British Captain Thomas Preston—commander of the Redcoats stationed in Boston—noted the admonition of a trial judge prior to the incident: “that the inhabitants carried weapons concealed under their clothes, and would destroy them [Redcoats] in a moment, if they pleased.” THE ANNUAL REGISTER, OR A VIEW OF THE HISTORY, POLITICS, AND LITERATURE, FOR THE YEAR 1766, at 215 (4th ed. 1785). On the annual commemoration of the Massacre in 1772, Bostonians attended Dr. Joseph Warren’s stirring oration. Expecting the speech to upset the Redcoats in attendance, “almost every man [in the audience] had a short stick, or bludgeon, in his hand; and . . . many of them were privately armed.” Frederick MacKenzie, A BRITISH FUSILIER IN REVOLUTIONARY BOSTON 37 (Allen French ed., 1926). Writings from early American history mention people carrying firearms as part of everyday life. See, e.g., 1 Isaac Weld, TRAVELS THROUGH THE STATES OF NORTH AMERICA 233-34 (2d ed. 1799) (1796, on the roads from Kentucky/Tennessee to and from Philadelphia/ Baltimore, “the people all travel on horseback, with pistols and swords.”); 8 THE WORKS OF WASHINGTON IRVING 83 (1866) (In 1808 St. Louis, “[n]ow and then a stark Kentucky hunter . . . with rifle on shoulder and knife in belt, strode along.”). “