Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

From two reddit/Firearms threads, I thought this was worth recapitulating.

Armed civilians defending their territory from rioters in South Africa after former president Jacob Zuma was imprisoned for corruption from Firearms

Chatsworth, armed homeowners on balcony while rioters try to get in

Verulam, KZN, armed civilians driving off rioters

Residents guarding mall from looters

Residents guarding shops in Woodlands

Civilians on Simbithi road, mob approaching

Civilians on Simbithi road, turns violent

Had the disarmament folks currently ruling SA had their way, these folks would have had nothing to help them defend family, home, hearth or possessions.  The police are running scared.

Dallas Morning News.

Plano Police Chief Ed Drain told KDFW-TV (Channel 4) he does not believe Texas’ new open carry law will increase public safety.

“I don’t believe that this law makes law enforcement any safer and in fact, I don’t think it makes the public safer,” Drain said during an interview on KDFW-TV.

Fortunately, this isn’t about what’s safe for anyone, and this isn’t about what you think.  And this especially isn’t about what you think is safe for anyone.

I’ve documented the inaccuracies and outright ignorance of the writers for Politifact before over these pages, until at last the catalog had begun to bore even me.  To my surprise, I stumbled across an instance where they got one right.  In fact, it’s a well written piece on the second amendment by Jon Greenberg.

“The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own,” Biden said. “You couldn’t buy a cannon.”

We reached out to the White House and received no comment, but Biden’s statement is not accurate history.

During the campaign, Biden made a similar claim about cannons in the Revolutionary War and who could own them. We rated that False.

This time, on top of that, Biden misrepresents what the Second Amendment says.

The text of the Second Amendment is short: “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.”

University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds said the amendment’s few words speak for themselves.

“The Second Amendment places no limits on individual ownership of cannon, or any other arms,” Reynolds said.

[ … ]

Fordham University law professor Nicholas Johnson said, “The amendment limited government action, not people.”

“The first federal gun control law does not appear until the 20th century,” Johnson said.

Letters of Marque were relied upon for fighting naval vessels before the arrival of the French off the coast of Yorktown, and so the fact check on cannon is easy.

Just as easy is the notion of what the second amendment was meant to do.  Weapons were ubiquitous in Colonial times.  Rights were seen as granted by God, not the state.  Those rights were already recognized – not granted – locally and at the state level.  A war was fought with King George over the idea that he could disarm the men, among other reasons, but gun confiscations precipitated the war.

Taking a twentieth century hermeneutic to the interpretation of the bill of rights is a sure way to misunderstand the entirety of the document.  The states call militia up upon need.  The men in the militia bring their own weapons.  The states wanted to ensure that the newly formed federal government had no say-so over the militia, how it was to be used, how it was to be armed, or especially the ability to turn the militia against the very state who relied on the militia against tyranny.

The Bill of Rights doesn’t grant rights, and never did.  It limits the power of the federal government.  Thus could Tench Coxe say “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom.  Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” (William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal).

Politifact bears watching, but at least this time, they got one right.

First of all, there are good, healthy views among South Carolina LEOs concerning the recent changes to S.C. law concerning open carry.

“I think this can definitely be a very positive thing. I think as the sheriff, you know I believe that guns could certainly be a deterrent for a bad guy when considering committing a crime upon a victim,” Anderson County Sheriff Chad McBride said. “It’s going to be something new that we have to get used to and the public will have to get used to of course. Walking into a location or at a location where it is allowed to carry and seeing that and it not being a law enforcement officer.”

“I love it because it’s the second amendment. Our second amendment right guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms,” Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright said. “If you are going to be responsible enough to carry something of that magnitude it is your responsibility to train with it right.”

But then there is massive confusion and lack of mental preparation.

Greenville City Police Chief Howie Thompson has some fear about South Carolina’s open-carry law that was signed into law Monday.

Gov. Henry McMaster signed the “Open Carry with Training Act” bill, which will allow people with concealed weapons permits to openly carry firearms.

One of Thompson’s fears is for those carrying guns.

“Everyone will see it, and if someone who is committing a criminal act goes in and sees someone carrying a gun, well now the person who is carrying becomes a threat,” he said.

Thank you for your concern sir, but it’s misplaced.  Open carriers can handle the pressure.  But this next part is more likely to get someone hurt.

Another concern Thompson has deals with law enforcement officers. Thompson said if someone saw another person who is carrying legally and calls law enforcement to investigate, law enforcement  will not know if  the person has a permit to carry. Thompson thinks service calls for visible guns will increase.

“They’re going to ask for the permit, and maybe the person feels harassed, but in reality the police are just following up on a service call and making sure the person has a permit,” he said.

So this is a massive problem.  Allow me a moment to explain.

That’s what LEOs in Texas thought as well – we’ll just walk up and demand to see permits when a call comes in.

That’s not the way this worked out in Texas, and it’s not the way it will work out in South Carolina.  You see, in order to conduct a stop, LEOs need to ensure that it’s a valid “Terry Stop.”  In other words, you have to suspect that a crime has been or is being committed, or else the stop isn’t legal.

It’s not good enough to say that the individual is openly carrying a weapon.  To be sure, if someone is openly carrying and commits a crime leading to detention or arrest, and you ascertain that the individual has no permit, then you can charge him with a crime under the new law.  But then, you could have charged him with a crime under the concealed handgun law as well.  Nothing has changed.

You need to pretend that you can’t see the weapon, because that’s the way the carefully worded law is written.  This is what’s going to happen the first few times such a stop is conducted by LEOs for open carriers.

LEO: “Sir, I need to see your permit.”

Person A: “Sure, but you’re being videoed and this video will end up in court, and I need to ask you two questions.  First of all, am I being detained, and if so, do you suspect me of a crime?  In other words, is this a so-called “Terry Stop?”  Second question.  Does S.C. have a “stop and identify statute?”

The LEO is in a very hard place.  If the LEO says that person A is suspected of a crime, the proper response is, “What crime?”  To which he can give no valid response.  If the LEO says that person A is not suspected of a crime, question #2 becomes salient, and I assure you, S.C. has no stop and identify statute.

In other words, it is not legal for a LEO to conduct this stop for openly carrying.  Finally, you should read the bill again.  The open carry bill approved into law by the governor does not expand S.C. to include any sort of stop and identify stipulation, either under this statute or any other.  You can read it again for yourself.

Here is a much better idea.  Train your 911 operators to respond to callers with this information: “Ma’am, open carry is now legal in S.C.  Are you calling to report any other criminal activities?  Is this person brandishing the weapon or threatening anyone?  If not, we need to hang up.”

If you don’t follow this counsel, the two questions I posed above will be heard in court very soon.

Listen to me when I say this.  Ask your prosecuting attorney about what I’ve said.  They’ll back me up because I’m right.

McMaster has already signed the bill into law, but this report prior to signing the bill is interesting.

Major Nunn said the grace period will be a time for law enforcement agencies to come up with ‘policies and procedures on how to deal with folks carrying hand guns openly.’

Here’s how you “deal” with those “folks.”  You ignore them, just as if they were concealing a handgun.  Pretend you can’t see it, because it will be legal.

I hope that helps.

News from South Carolina.

Gov. Henry McMaster said Monday he signed into law a bill allowing people with concealed weapons permits from the state to carry their guns in the open.

McMaster posted on Twitter that he was keeping his promise to sign any bill that protects or expands gun rights.

The proposal allows so-called open carry of guns for people who undergo training and background checks so they can keep guns hidden under a jacket or other clothing or in their vehicle anywhere there isn’t a sign prohibiting it.

The law takes effect in 90 days. Thus, in mid-August, South Carolina will no longer be with California, Florida, Illinois and New York to prohibit any type of open carry.

The law eliminates a $50 permit fee to get a concealed weapons permit and lowers the number of bullets that someone must fire at a target in an accuracy test to get a permit from 50 to 25 shots. Requirements remain that a permit holder be 21 or over, take eight hours of training and pass a background check that includes fingerprinting.

My S.C. Open Carry tag has dozens of columns, articles and commentaries, which I’ve sent around hundreds of times to fellow gun rights activists in South Carolina, S.C. members of the House and Senate, and readers.  Additionally, I’ve met people face to face to discuss this, sent other letters to politicians, both local and state, and sent letters to CLEOs to rebut their efforts to deny open carry to South Carolinians, pointing out in excruciating detail on every point how they were wrong and disloyal to the constitution.

This is a big win, a hard fought victory.  I’m celebrating tonight over this.

But the fight isn’t over.  They denied constitutional carry this time around.  We’ll go in baby steps as incrementalists.  I have no objections to incrementalism.

Open carry this year, constitutional carry next year.

News from Oregon.

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — The first court test of whether local governments can ban police from enforcing certain gun laws is playing out in a rural Oregon county, one of a wave of U.S. counties declaring itself a Second Amendment sanctuary.

The measure that voters in the logging area of Columbia County narrowly approved last year forbids local officials from enforcing most federal and state gun laws and could impose thousands of dollars in fines on those who try.

Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions have been adopted by some 1,200 local governments in states around the U.S., including Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, Illinois and Florida, according to Shawn Fields, an assistant professor of law at Campbell University who tracks them. Many are symbolic, but some, like in Columbia County, carry legal force.

[ … ]

The movement hasn’t yet faced a major legal challenge. The Oregon case was filed by Columbia County under an unusual provision in state law that allows a judge to examine a measure before it goes into effect. No timeline has been set for a court hearing.

“This will allow the court to tell us whether the county can actually decline to enforce certain state laws, and it will tell us how to abide by the will of the voters to the extent that we can,” said Sarah Hanson, who serves as counsel in the conservative-leaning county in deep-blue Oregon.

Prediction: they will lose.  Second observation: they have absolutely no concept of what it means to have been declared a second amendment sanctuary.

There will never be a single court ruling in favor of refusal to enforce federal or state gun control laws, and especially not the concept of legal penalties for those who do said enforcement.

That’s not the idea behind second amendment sanctuaries.  The idea is that the power of the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO, usually the county Sheriff along with his deputies) and if necessary, aided by the unorganized militia, to enforce by power of arms the will of the people as it pertains to gun control laws.

That is, you don’t ask permission of the courts.  Court rulings are irrelevant in this schema.  The mere asking of the court proves that the county officials aren’t taking this seriously, and the fact that the request has been made proves that there is no understanding of what has taken place.

This entire episode completely turns things on its head.

News from South Carolina.

The House approved the Open Carry bill 83-34 on Wednesday and then signed off on the changes made by the Senate.

It now heads to Gov. McMaster’s desk where he will sign it “soon,” says a spokesman.

Why not today, governor?  What are you waiting for?

News from South Carolina.

COLUMBIA, SC (WCIV) — South Carolina’s legislature has passed a bill changing state gun laws to allow open carry of guns for people who completed training and pass a background check.

The state’s House of Representatives passed the “Open Carry With Training” bill by an 83-34 vote on Wednesday, following the state Senate’s approval of the bill a week earlier.

With the General Assembly’s approval, the bill now heads to Gov. Henry McMaster’s desk for his signature. The governor has said he will sign it.

BREAKING: The SC House just passed the Open Carry Law, with Senate Amendment. Here is how the house voted. 83-34 in favor. pic.twitter.com/j7u2EsUy8E

— Eli Brand (@EliBrandTV) May 12, 2021

So remember that the S.C. Senate passed open carry with amendments to the House bill.  This was a House vote on acceptance of the Senate amendments.  It succeeded with lots of margin.

The next step is the signature of the governor, who has said he will sign it.  His political future would be in shambles if he didn’t.

News from Florida.

This is Florida’s preemption law, and this is a good thing.  I’m impressed with DeSantis, but my next question is this: where is your open carry law, Ron?

I know you’re dealing with ninnies in the House and Senate, but you could do this if you wanted to.  Simply refuse to sign all other bills that come to your desk until an open carry law comes your way, even at the threat of shutting down the government because of funding bills.