Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

Here is the brief to the court. I will lift out most of “Reasons” section. I will make no attempt to either copy the footnotes or exclude references to them in the main body of the text.

Perhaps the Seventh Circuit’s most egregious error was its fundamental misunderstanding of the Second Amendment’s historical purpose. Concocting a “civilian” versus “military” distinction between those “Arms” that are constitutionally protected and those that are not, the panel concluded that hundreds of millions of common firearms and magazines may be banned simply for appearing to be more useful to a standing army than a private citizen. App.26. But if the Second Amendment is to have a “spirit and meaning,” Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 307 (1879), then this “spirit” is the elimination of firepower disparities between those who govern and those who consent to be governed. The Seventh Circuit has only exacerbated our modern imbalance (see Heller at 627-28), one that our forebears already would have found gravely concerning.

Remarkably, the panel majority asserted that, “in Heller the Supreme Court severed th[e] connection” between the Second Amendment’s prefatory and operative clauses. App.21. No doubt, this would have come as quite a shock to Heller’s author, who said literally the opposite, explaining that “[l]ogic demands that there be a link … [a] logical connection … between the [Second Amendment’s] stated purpose … its prefatory clause … and the command … its operative clause.”5 Id. at 577; see also at 598 (devoting an entire section to the “Relationship Between [the] Prefatory Clause and Operative Clause”).

But not only did Heller not “sever” the prefatory Militia Clause from the right “to keep and bear Arms,” it actually reinforced the Militia Clause’s significance. Heller pointed out that the militia was not separate from “the people” – it was drawn from the people: “[t]he traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense.” Id. at 624. This language does not indicate some dichotomy between military and civilian weapons – rather, they are now as they were at the Founding: “‘one and the same.’” Id. at 625.

The majority’s novel theory amounts to a wholesale rejection of this Court’s express language to the contrary, and was key to its Second Amendment revisionism, limiting “the right to keep and bear arms” only to what the majority decreed to be “civilian weaponry.”

In addition to flouting Heller, the panel’s proposition is as ahistorical as it is incoherent: that the Founders, who had just cast off the yoke of British oppression and were deeply skeptical of centralized military power, would undertake to deliberately handicap themselves at the starting gate by guaranteeing in writing that they could possess only inferior “arms,” including “weapons that may be reserved for military use.” App.33. Unsurprisingly, the opposite is true – the Founders set about to ensure that the ordinary citizen could access and maintain quintessentially “military” equipment as a last line of defense and failsafe against both foreign threats and domestic tyranny.

This Court repeatedly discussed that motivation in Heller. Noting that a “‘citizens’ militia’ [i]s a safeguard against tyranny” and “necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down,” this Court recognized the Founders’ central concern that “the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia.” Heller at 600, 599, 598. The district court below echoed that sentiment, noting that this “purpose of securing the ability of the citizenry to oppose an oppressive military, should the need arise, cannot be overlooked.” App.118. It defies logic that, in response to such a concern, the Founders would have endorsed the Seventh Circuit’s neutered conception of the right to keep and bear arms.7 Importantly, the Seventh Circuit’s imagined regime – wherein “the people” are relegated to firearms that are less powerful, useful, or effective8 than the “military” – would entirely undermine one of the militia’s central roles as an “oppos[ition]” force against tyranny.9 Heller at 599.

While acknowledging the importance of the ubiquitous citizen-soldier, this Court observed that “most undoubtedly thought [the Second Amendment] even more important for self-defense and hunting,” and that this effectuation of the right to self-defense constitutes the “central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself.” Heller at 599.10 But that focus on “self-defense” simply incorporates the Founders’ tyranny deterrent in different terms. Uncomfortable to modern proclivities as it may be, the inherent right to self-defense naturally encompasses defense against a rogue government. And it was this concern that predominated at the Founding.

Indeed, there is no shortage of authority on the Second Amendment’s liberty-preserving, tyranny deterrent value. For example, contemporaneous commentaries evince a preoccupation with ensuring the citizenry would be of equal match to the government’s standing army as a failsafe against despotism. American lexicographer and federalist Noah Webster wrote:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.11

Alexander Hamilton had the same view, that an “army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”12 To hold otherwise – that the citizen ought to be vulnerable to the professional soldier – would invert the power structure the Founders intended to guarantee.

Disputing this Founding-era objective that the Second Amendment would guarantee parity of armament between the free citizen and the government infantryman, the majority below rejected the notion that “the people” should be “superior to” or “little if at all inferior” to the government they elect. Instead, the majority fashioned a new constitutional regime wherein certain “weapons [] may be reserved for military use.” App.33. But as the dissent noted, “neither Heller nor Bruen draw a military/civilian line for the Second Amendment.” App.89 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Indeed, contrary to the Seventh Circuit’s thoroughly modern “civilian” distinction, the Founders never distinguished between arms “protected for private use” and those “reserved for military use.” App.26. To the Founders, these weapons “‘were one and the same.’” Heller at 625.

They go on to excoriate the seventh circuit for their stolid analysis of the issues.

Friends of The Captain’s Journal Stephen Stamboulieh and Oliver Krawczyk wrote this brief, along with Rob Olson. A better constructed and more direct and honest one you will never find.

I have pointed out many times before that this distinction between military and civilian arms is a stupid distinction. Rocks were used in antiquity. Jesus told His disciples to carry swords in disobedience of the Roman law, making them lawbreakers. They carried the common military tool of combat of the day. Patriots carried the common weapon of war when they fought for independence against Britain, the very same weapons they used for hunting and self defense. The U.S. Marine Corps carried shotguns for warfare in Now Zad, Afghanistan, using the same sort of shells men today use for hunting and self defense. Long guns with rifled barrels are in common use today, and oftentimes civilians have better designed and built weapons than do the military our tax monies support. In fact, the best stress tests are always conducted by civilians before a firearm ever reaches the military field. Civilians don’t hold back in their criticism, and owe nothing to the firearms manufacturers who much of the time have the generals on their payrolls. Civilians are also not always looking for the lowest bidder.

It’s refreshing to know that the justices themselves and their clerks will hear the real reason for the second amendment, regardless of how it makes them feel.

Finally, Dr. Joyce Malcolm gives us a very good primer on the cultural milieu, history and tradition in which the founders were raised. After hearing her words, is there any doubt why the founders wanted a bulwark against tyranny?

NYT.

It was 2:30 a.m. on Valentine’s Day last year when a detective watching a live camera feed from a major Queens thoroughfare spotted a man in a minivan who appeared to be holding a gun.

The police said they had quickly arrested the man, Robert Homer, and found a loaded Glock pistol in his pocket. When they checked his criminal record, they saw that he had a sex trafficking conviction. That made him ineligible for a gun license under federal law. He was indicted and pleaded not guilty to a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

The case is now in jeopardy after a federal judge in Brooklyn ruled on Feb. 5 that the police did not have probable cause to stop Mr. Homer. In the ruling, the judge, Nicholas G. Garaufis, cited a 2022 Supreme Court decision that found U.S. citizens have a broad right to carry concealed firearms, overturning longstanding New York regulations. The case involving Mr. Homer is the latest test of gun laws in the state, where officials continue to grapple with how to square a legacy of strong gun control with the 2022 ruling.

Just nine days after Judge Garaufis’s decision in Mr. Homer’s case, a defense lawyer in a different gun case cited the ruling in state court in Manhattan, saying he understood it to mean that having a gun did not provide probable cause for a stop. The judge in the state case, Abraham Clott, said he disagreed with the federal judge’s conclusion.

The Supreme Court decision — in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen — “has really upended America’s laws,” said Adam Winkler, a professor at U.C.L.A. Law. That it has come up in connection with Fourth Amendment questions about probable cause in the Homer case “just shows the profound impact that Bruen is having,” he added.

Mr. Homer’s lawyer cited the Bruen decision in July when she moved to suppress evidence in the case. The lawyer, Marissa Sherman of the Federal Defenders of New York, argued that the police had not had probable cause to believe a crime was being committed when they searched Mr. Homer and found the gun.

If carrying a gun is not presumed to be illegal — as it might have been in New York before the Bruen decision, given the state’s tight regulations — then the simple sight of a gun would not be reasonable cause to stop someone, she argued.

Judge Garaufis agreed. The question after Bruen, he wrote, was whether a police officer who sees an unidentified person with a gun “has an objectively reasonable ground to believe that person is guilty of a crime.”

In Mr. Homer’s case, the judge concluded, the answer was no.

You see what the author of the article has done right out of the gate, yes? She has appealed to emotion and connected so-called “stop and identify” statutes with the only tangentially related Bruen decision. Let’s explore a bit more what I’m saying.

As I have said, I have about as much use for the Fourth Circuit as I do the toe-jam on my feet, but occasionally even they get things right. One of the few times in recent memory has to do with U.S. versus Nathanial Black. Very briefly, Black was observed carrying a firearm, and for that, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police stopped him, found out he was a convicted felon, and charged him for that (the story is actually a bit more complicated, in that Black was part of a group who had been stopped for open carry). Here is the problem: open carry is entirely legal in North Carolina. As stated in the ruling, “Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status. More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention.”

Black’s case was thrown out. For the case in New York, the individual would never have been suspected of a crime had the state not fought Heller and Bruen so viciously. Another way of saying it is that this case seems to me similar to Black, in that the real issue in the New York case isn’t that he allegedly shouldn’t have been in possession of a firearm, but that there was no right to an investigatory detention (New York laws should long ago have been amended to reflect Bruen).

So this is a case about the (il)legality of stop and identify laws and their violation of the fourth amendment, not firearms. The writer has made this case about firearms. If that awful Bruen decision hadn’t been made, she’s implying, this would never have occurred. It’s hamstringing the police.

Let’s continue.

On the night of Mr. Homer’s arrest, Detective Nicholas Conte of the 113th Precinct was watching a video feed from the Argus surveillance system, which the police use in high-crime areas. Detective Conte testified last year at a hearing before Judge Garaufis that after a homicide, he had been assigned to a long-term investigation into a criminal gang whose members hung out on the stretch of Guy R. Brewer Boulevard where he saw Mr. Homer.

Raffaela S. Belizaire, a prosecutor, wrote in a court filing that Detective Conte saw Mr. Homer shoving a firearm into his pants pocket as Mr. Homer sat in the driver’s seat of a parked van with two passengers inside. The detective testified that he had recognized the van as one used by the gang’s members but that he could not see the license plate number.

Ms. Belizaire wrote in the filing that officers had gotten to the van within minutes of Detective Conte’s spotting the gun and had pulled Mr. Homer out, and that the episode had been captured on the officers’ body-worn cameras.

Judge Garaufis, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton, said in his ruling that although the detective had determined Mr. Homer had no “firearm discipline” given the way he put the gun in his pocket, he had not observed other suspicious behavior. Mr. Homer “could have plausibly been licensed to carry the firearm,” the judge wrote.

New York City’s history of strong gun control includes the issuing of few so-called concealed-carry licenses: just 7,384, a number equal to only 0.1 percent of the city’s adult residents, were active the day the Bruen case was decided, according to an affidavit filed by Sgt. David Blaize of the Police Department’s License Division along with a recent prosecutors’ motion. Applicants used to have to show that they faced “extraordinary personal danger” to obtain such a license, Judge Garaufis noted in his ruling.

After the Bruen decision, New York lawmakers passed new laws that directed officials to issue licenses to applicants who completed safety training, passed a firearms test and provided references to attest to their “good moral character.” Even so, the judge wrote, the state’s revised post-Bruen law was “broad enough that even alleged gang membership would not necessarily preclude the licensing officer from granting a firearm license.”

Felons still cannot possess guns in New York, and state law prohibits guns in sensitive areas, including on the subway, in Times Square and around schools. On the day Mr. Homer was arrested, eight months after the Bruen decision, the number of concealed-carry licenses had increased by just 237, according to the affidavit.

Judge Garaufis said in his ruling that the police could have stopped Mr. Homer, frisked him and run a license check to see whether there was probable cause to arrest him, but they arrested him immediately instead.

No, they could not have taken that approach. The judge is wrong. That relies on stop and identify statutes which are unconstitutional, and had I been his defense attorney that’s the defense I would have built.

Further, the judge wrote, a “reasonably cautious police officer” would not assume that an “unidentified alleged gang member was a felon.” He also found that the link between the van and the gang was “tenuous at best.”

Michael Alcazar, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York and retired New York City police detective, said the decision was at odds with the real-time assessments officers must make.

If an officer “believes this person is gang-affiliated and he has a gun, most police officers, most detectives, are not going to stop — their main goal is to protect the public and to protect themselves from a potentially deadly situation,” Professor Alcazar said.

No, the professor is wrong, and supremely so. Police are concerned about their own health and safety, even to the exclusion of those around them. He [should] know better than to think that it’s the role or duty of the police to protect the public. Courts have said not.

Castle Rock v. Gonzalez

Warren v. District of Columbia

DeShaney v. Winnebago County

A law or criminal justice professor should know these things. Let’s finish with this silly article.

In a March 1 motion asking Judge Garaufis to reconsider, prosecutors argued that his decision was “unworkable,” would create practical difficulties for the police and would put them and the public in danger.

The judge, they argued, had created “a new legal standard for probable cause” for New York gun arrests that would require officers to release people if they could not determine immediately whether they had a gun license. That would be particularly problematic in crowded places or with people who do not identify themselves, the prosecutors wrote.

[ … ]

Eric Ruben, a professor at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law in Dallas and a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U. Law, cautioned that it would take a long time to resolve the swirl of legal questions related to gun possession in light of the Bruen decision.

No, the professor is wrong. This isn’t a gun case. This is a stop and identify case. And Bruen was as clear as Heller was, as McDonald was, as Caetano was, and Staples was. There is nothing unclear about it – they just don’t like it, any more than Judge Frank Easterbrook on the seventh circuit will ever abide by those supreme court precedents.

So to sum up, the author has written an article based on appeal to emotion, the professors have turned this from a stop and identify case to a gun case, they’ve asserted that Bruen in unclear, All of that is wrong.

In order to provide at least a little bit of clarity, Heller was about a gun ban case (the seventh circuit seems to be relying on Bruen, when Heller is the relevant decision). If a law touches fingers with the second amendment, the burden shifts to the government to (a) come forward with historical analogue laws that show a history of bans, and (b) shows that the arms in question are NOT in common use (since an arm in common use cannot be both dangerous and unusual). Since there are no historical analogues, and since the arms in use today, including AR-15s, are commonly owned for lawful purposes, the government loses. The end.

Bruen was about the bearing and carry of those arms. Bruen didn’t revisit Heller. It relied on Heller (and Staples, and Caetano, and McDonald). Here is a great submittal to the SCOTUS by friend of The Captain’s Journal Stephen Stamboulieh. A better brief to the court you will never read. I will write more on this tomorrow.

Here is a good video by Mark Smith explaining all of this.

Here’s a note to the NYT. This is why people hate you. This is why the legacy media is going bankrupt.

Here’s a note to the attorneys to whom the author reached out. This is why you need to do more reading and study. You don’t get out enough. You are cloistered in your own little circles and refuse to hear opinions with which you disagree.

This is why America hates you.

Epoch Times.

“Luckily, we at Brady know how to fight the NSSF because we’ve been fighting the NRA for years, and we’re seeing the disgraceful end of their organization play out because of our dedicated work,“ the email, written under the name Kris Brown, president of Brady, reads. ”We may know their tricks, but we’re going to need all the support we can get if we’re going to overcome another extremist gun lobby group, and that’s why I’m reaching out today.”

The email doesn’t specify how Brady assisted New York Attorney General Letitia James. But it does provide a list of its complaints against the NSSF.

According to the email, the NSSF spends millions of dollars lobbying on behalf of the gun industry. The email says the NSSF opposes universal background checks and state laws to allow lawsuits against gunmakers whose products are used in the commission of a crime and has branded President Joe Biden as “waging war on the Second Amendment.”

Mr. Oliva said the email contains tiny bits of truth while leaving out significant facts.

When it comes to background checks, he said groups such as Brady are late to the party.

“I think it’s important for everyone to understand that the firearms industry was actually the progenitor. We came up with the point-of-sale background check system,” Mr. Oliva said.

According to Mr. Oliva, this resulted in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

He added that NSSF came up with the Fix-NICS plan after it was clear that not all states were sending relevant records to the FBI for NICS. This resulted in federal legislation to make the background check system truly keep guns out of the wrong hands, he said.

“Brady had nothing to do with that,” Mr. Oliva said.

Yeah, I’d rather NSSF focus their efforts on ending the background check at all rather than make it better or help codify it.

NSSF is an industry advocacy group, not a gun owners advocacy group. To the extent we can cooperate with them on important things, I’m okay with that. But we may find ourselves in different ends of the spectrum on certain issues, and when we do, I will see them as my enemy.

As long as Brady focuses on NSSF, they ignore GOA and FPC. That’s fine with me. GOA and FPC is where the action is.

Source.

COLUMBIA, S.C. (WIS) – Some law enforcement agencies are weighing in on Gov. Henry McMaster’s decision to sign a constitutional carry ― or permitless carry ― bill into law.

McMaster signed the constitutional carry into law on Thursday just a day after the South Carolina Senate passed a compromise.

It would allow a person 18 or older who can legally own a gun to openly carry their weapons without a permit or training.

Last year, several law enforcement agencies from across the state testified before legislators on why the legislature should not pass a bill like this.

But of course they did, just like in every other state (who considered constitutional carry) where they said there would be blood in the streets, and the wild, wild west, and that cops are “the only ones.”

Academy Director Jackie Swindler said he believes this new law will have an impact on the dynamic between law enforcement and the community.

“The potential is there for a lot of things to happen,” Swindler said.

Because of that, Swindler said officers and deputies may approach situations differently than they would before the constitutional carry bill was signed into law.

“People seem to have lost patience, people seem to have different temperaments,” he said.

“Now with the readily available of anyone having a gun or carrying a gun, that certainly does have the potential for different interactions between people. It certainly changes the dynamic of police answering calls and stopping cars,” he continued.

Newbery County Sheriff Lee Foster said, “I think the training should be mandatory, because I think a lot of people with good intentions, may get into trouble because they don’t know what the laws are.”

Let’s examine his objections so far: the nature of mankind has changed, it changes dynamics, people may get into trouble. Well, the nature of mankind hasn’t changed in millennia, cops should have always assumed that good and bad men carry weapons because that’s the way it’s always been, and criminals don’t care about the law.

The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division sent this guidance to law enforcement immediately after the governor signed constitutional carry into law.

Some of the points included in the guidance were possession of a firearm alone is not a reason to stop an individual, a person carrying a weapon does not have to notify law enforcement, and there are no restrictions on having a gun inside of your vehicle.

Well, at least the SLED, led by a corrupt leader, got that part right. S.C. isn’t a stop and identify state, and that would be unconstitutional even if it was.

We also reached out to Sheriff Leon Lott for a response to this law. He sent this statement which reads in part:

“I said a prayer last night that Richland County does not turn into the wild wild west,” he said. “This is a win for the criminals, who can now walk around with a gun and law enforcement cannot do anything about it.”

“I support the right to carry and it was already in place with conceal weapons permit and the proper training, but this does nothing to make our communities safer; instead of getting guns off the street we just put more guns on the street,” the statement continues.

The wild, wild west. Like every cop everywhere has said in every state so far. It never happens. Oh, and you left out the part about “blood running in the streets.” As for putting more guns on the streets, you don’t know that. You just made that part up.

Oh my, such emotion, such drama. But if this law does one thing good – causing cops to become more respectful of the folks they’re interacting with and less tyrannical – it will have been worth it.

As I had said earlier, I was skeptical about the chances for success, especially given the gamesmanship in the senate. The previous attempt “codified the right to carry without a permit as long as you had a permit. No, I’m not kidding.”

But it looks like it has happened, adding to the list of constitutional carry states. But there are caveats I want to call out.

Greenville News.

Permitless firearm carry is now legal in South Carolina. Gov. Henry McMaster on Thursday afternoon signed the bill, which was prefiled in the state House of Representatives in December 2022. The legislation was heavily debated by members of the state’s House and Senate.

After a joint committee with members of both chambers met Tuesday, that committee’s report was approved by the House later the same day and by the Senate on Wednesday.

Rep. Bobby Cox, R-Greenville, told the Greenville News Wednesday afternoon that McMaster signed the bill into law at a private 2 p.m. ceremony. South Carolina becomes the 29th state with permitless carry after Louisiana enacted a similar measure last week.

The new law enables individuals 18 and older who are legally allowed to own firearms to carry them, openly or concealed, without requiring training or registration for a permit.

Previously, the 2021 Open Carry law allowed a concealed weapons permit (CWP) holder to open carry handguns. With House Bill 3594 – dubbed “constitutional carry” by some – signed into law, it negates the legal need for CWPs in South Carolina.

“(People) can open or concealed carry if they can legally own guns,” Cox told the News. “If you’re prohibited from owning guns, you’re breaking the law.”

Cox, the Vice President for Government Affairs at Sig Sauer, a firearms company, was the lead sponsor of the bill, which originated in the House, and was one of six legislators on the joint legislative conference committee that convened Tuesday.

There are restrictions of where an individual may carry a gun, such as hospitals, doctor’s offices, churches, many government buildings, schools, polling places, detention facilities, post offices, or personal residences without permission.

However, some places, such as churches and doctor’s offices, may choose to allow individuals to carry weapons onto the premises.

Businesses have the right to label themselves as a gun-free zone.

I am an incrementalist (something I’ve learned from the controllers) and believe in taking chunks where we can get them. This is a big chunk, but there is still more to go.

We had a difficult fight with open carry, but a permit was still required. At the time I said that police would have a difficult time enforcing that because if open carry was legal, then it wouldn’t be a so-called “Terry Stop” if police stopped you and demanded to see your permit. Additionally, the S.C. legislature didn’t do anything in the open carry law to make S.C. a stop and identify state (which would have been unconstitutional anyway). If they had wanted to enable police to stop folks, they would have had to make that change to S.C. law. They didn’t do that when they passed the open carry bill.

But there was still that nagging issue of the fact that a permit was required to exercise a God-given right. Now that permit has vanished, but churches are exempt from carry unless specifically posting that firearms are allowed.

So this is the same trap into which New York fell in essentially making everywhere a gun-free zone without specific posting by the establishment, and that feature of the NY law has been struck down (and furthermore doesn’t comport with the Bruen decision). I say trap, but of course anything the controllers can do in NY to infringe upon rights isn’t so much a trap as it is a reward for reflexive behavior.

Churches shouldn’t have to specifically post that firearms are allowed. Rather, like every other establishment, they should have to post if firearms are not allowed. Gun rights advocates are also property rights advocates, and if an establishment doesn’t want firearms, then they have that right (just as I have a right not to patronize that establishment).

This chunk of liberty should be the focus of effort going forward. Remove the exemption for churches in the current law. This is another increment of freedom for future work by our community.

Source.

COLUMBIA, S.C. (WIS) – Within a matter of days, South Carolina could become the 29th state in the country to allow adults to carry guns with no permit or training.

On Tuesday, a group of legislative negotiators struck a compromise after weeks of discussion on the bill known as “permitless carry” or “constitutional carry.”

“The dialogue we’ve been having with the Senate, the House, and the governor’s office is that they want this to immediately become law,” Rep. Bobby Cox, R – Greenville and the bill’s lead sponsor, told reporters following the conference committee’s meeting Tuesday morning.

The Senate and House had already passed this permitless carry gun bill, but their versions of it were different.

Yeah, the gamesmanship in the S.C. senate codified the right to carry without a permit as long as you had a permit. No, I’m not kidding.

The compromise they reached Tuesday now allows the bill to move closer to the governor’s desk.

In their agreement, the bill would allow adults 18 and older to carry loaded handguns openly with no permit or training.

Guns would still be banned in the same places they are now, including schools, courthouses, and the State House, and people could still obtain a concealed weapons permit if they wanted.

It would also tack on the governor’s top request, increased penalties for people who illegally carry, like felons who possess guns despite being legally barred from doing so.

The negotiation committee adopted most of the Senate’s changes, including optional, free training offered twice a month in every county and tougher penalties for people who do not have a permit and are caught carrying where it is prohibited.

“Is it really fair to, I guess, punish those particular folks more severely than the ones who choose to get a CWP when the state doesn’t require it anymore?” Rep. Justin Bamberg, D – Bamberg, asked.

Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, who advocated for those enhanced penalties during the Senate’s debate on the bill earlier this year, pointed out they would only apply to people already convicted of certain gun crimes.

“Y’all, we’re talking about criminals now,” Massey said. “We’re talking about shooting into a dwelling, we’re talking about sneaking a gun into a school, we’re talking about pointing a weapon at somebody.”

But they nixed a Senate provision that would allow state lawmakers to carry guns in places where the general public cannot, an exemption that judges and prosecutors currently have.

“We’re not special. We’re servant leaders, and what’s good for our constituents is good for us,” Cox said.

They also omitted a House section that could have, unintentionally, allowed local school boards to vote to override the ban on guns in schools.

Well, congratulations, maybe, for the win for civil liberties. I want to see the bill first. This has been a long, hard-fought battle to get open carry first (with a permit), and then constitutional carry next (because of law enforcement opposition – as always, of course, you know, because of the “blood running in the streets” and all of that). I have always advised incrementalism, and the gains have been nothing if not incremental.

I will try to find out the gesticulations of the committee and get the final bill and share as I can.

Occasionally, I disagree with Mark. This is one of those times.

I understand the reflexive response to defend the NRA, but believe me when I say that he shouldn’t. Relying on the NRA was the smartest thing that lawyer did in his arguments.

The NRA wasn’t a hero for keeping pistols out of the NFA. They were traitorous for allowing anything at all in the bill or even in allowing the bill to hit the floor of Congress.

Congratulations on your victory over the powers of darkness.

Louisiana is showing the state of South Carolina how it’s supposed to be done. If you will recall, S.C. tried to pass a bill that agreed to permitless carry as long as you had a permit. No, I’m not kidding.

The Louisiana House has given final legislative approval to a bill allowing law abiding citizens to carry a firearm without a permit or training. The bill now goes to the governor’s desk. Gov. Jeff Landry says he will sign it into law. ⁦@WWLTV⁩ pic.twitter.com/1DPSHZwK6t

— Paul Murphy (@PMurphyWWL) February 28, 2024

Jonathan Turley fisks the Hawaii supreme court decision on guns.

On Wednesday,  in State v. Wilson,  Justice Todd Eddins wrote the decision dismissing the appeal of Christopher Wilson, who was arrested in December 2017 for publicly carrying a .22-caliber pistol in his “front waist band.” Wilson insisted that he carried the gun while hiking for self-protection.

Under Section 134-25 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes,  “all firearms” must be “confined to the possessor’s place of business, residence, or sojourn.” The only exceptions are for transporting guns in closed containers, hunting or target shooting, and for those with a license.

Wilson argued that “prosecuting him for possessing a firearm for self-defense purposes outside his home violated his right to bear arms” under the Second Amendment. While the trial court rejected his motion, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) and Circuit Court Judge Kirstin Hamman dismissed the charges with prejudice.

Justice Eddins wrote that the Hawaii Constitution “does not afford a right to carry firearms in public places for self defense.” Eddins notes that “Article I, section 17 of the Hawaii Constitution mirrors the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.” However, “we read those words differently than the current United States Supreme Court. We hold that in Hawaii there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.” He then adds:

“The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities. The history of the Hawaiian Islands does not include a society where armed people move about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others.”

Ponder that for a moment. He even admits that the proper usage of firearms is to combat the deadly aims of others. They don’t want it, they said. While parroting stupid words about peace and tranquility, they still know that there will be deadly aims, but say that men cannot defend themselves.

They say this: “A ruling by Hawaii’s high court saying that a man can be prosecuted for carrying a gun in public without a permit cites crime-drama TV series “The Wire” and invokes the “spirit of Aloha” in an apparent rebuke of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded gun rights nationwide.

“The thing about the old days, they the old days,” the unanimous Hawaii Supreme Court ruling issued Wednesday said, borrowing a quote from season four, episode three of the HBO series to express that the culture from the founding of the country shouldn’t dictate contemporary life.”

I’ve seen a number of analyses of this, from stupid, to ignorant, to childish (which of course it is), to uneducated.  Here’s the thing I think most folks are missing.

This is all by intent, and the Hawaii supreme court is doing the bidding of their masters, whomever that is. This is all being done in the Fourth Circuit, the Third Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, the Fourth Circuits, as well as numerous appeals courts before that.

Courts everywhere are daring the SCOTUS to act, and as I have said before, they are so far running like scare rabbits at the inferior courts, who are winning the day.

They have a chance to act and bring and end to all of this with a new appeal Bianchi, but will they? If they don’t, they have become irrelevant since no inferior court will listen to them on any future decision since any decision won’t carry the weight of precedent. They must be willing to stand on the 2A, censure judges, and remove judges.  Otherwise, no one will care what they say.

So will they continue to run from Bruen, Heller, Caetano and McDonald? Hawaii, New York Illinois, Delaware, Connecticut, California, Washington and other states and courts are telling the SCOTUS to go away. What will SCOTUS do?