Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

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.”). “

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.