Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

Shooting Illustrated.

Tennessee joined 19 other states that allow constitutional carry when Gov. Bill Lee signed Senate Bill 765/House Bill 786 into law earlier this month. The measure takes effect July 1, applies to law-abiding citizens 20 and older, and a provision includes those serving in the military who are 18 to 20 years of age.

“This bill is a great step forward in the advancement of self-defense rights and Second Amendment freedoms for all Tennessee gun owners,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Jason Ouimet. “It simply means law-abiding Tennessean’s no longer have to pay a tax to exercise the right of self-protection.”

The number of states joining those with constitutional carry has grown quickly in 2021. On Feb. 18 Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte signed House Bill 102 into law, allowing constitutional carry for state residents. Iowa became the 19th state to enroll on April 2. The measures become effective June 1 and July 1, respectively.

The other 17 states with constitutional carry laws are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah (effective May 5), Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming.

The merits of similar or nearly identical measures are currently being considered by a number of other state legislatures. One passed muster in a Louisiana Senate committee and is headed for debate on the body’s main floor. Texas lawmakers are also considering a permitless carry provision and South Carolina’s House recently approved a constitutional carry measure. Others are in the works across the nation.

What?  And there isn’t blood running in the streets as the Karen’s predicted?

PJM.

On Monday, the Supreme Court decided to take up its first Second Amendment case in more than ten years.

The Court decided to take up the case New York State Rifle et. al. v. Corlett, focusing on the question of “Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

Robert Nash and Brandon Koch applied for licenses to carry firearms outside their homes in New York, SCOTUS blog reported. The licensing officer denied their requests after determining that, under New York law, they had “failed to show ‘proper cause’ to carry a firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense, because [they] did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense that distinguished them from the general public.”

This has a chance of doing good for folks in states like Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Hawaii.

If decided wrongly, this also has massive implications for the rest of America.  Or if weak like the Heller decision, it has the chance to encode and enshrine state power, and to be a catalyst for heavy social unrest and massive noncompliance.

If they plan on a weak or wrongly decided opinion, I would have preferred they just not take up the case at all.

Ammoland.

“This whole gunfight is going to come down to ‘Red Flag Gun Seizures.’ Moderates in the GOP think they can vote for that without getting burned…and if they pass ‘Red Flags,’ Biden will use that momentum to go for AR-15’s and mags next.”

That’s what one highly placed source on Capitol Hill told me just hours ago as the fight for gun control is being waged behind the scenes and behind closed doors with a vengeance!

[ … ]

… the backstabbing moderates in the Republican conference like Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, and Lindsay Graham do their best to convince the Republicans to ‘offer up a common-sense compromise so we do something on guns.’

And that’s why Florida Republican Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott are the lead sponsors on S. 292, a massive ‘Red Flag Gun Seizure’ spending bill that bribes state legislatures into enacting this law at the state level, with taxpayer dollars!

We’ll get to see just how serious the states and counties are when they declare themselves 2A sanctuaries.

The status of the bill can be found here, with a PDF of the full text here.

The people of Arkansas have vested the General Assembly with the authority to regulate the manufacture, possession, exchange, and use of firearms within this state’s borders, subject only to the limits imposed by  the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Arkansas Constitution, Article 2, § 5.

All acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the United States Government, whether past, present, or future, that infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to  the United States Constitution and Arkansas Constitution, Article 2, § 5, are invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state. (b) Such federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations that are null and void in this state under subsection (a) of this section include without limitation:

(1) The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq.; 11 (2) The Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq.; (3) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services that could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by  law-abiding citizens; (4) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens; (5) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens; (6) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of any type of firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law abiding citizens; and (7) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

This is just an excerpt.  The full text is powerful and deserves a hearing.  Its chances are unknown to me, but readers in Arkansas should contact their representatives about this.

Of course, it remains to be seen if this is just symbolic or if it ends up having teeth.  The wording has teeth.  Whether it will redound to real enforcement of the bill, should it become law, would be up to the people of Arkansas.

Opinions from S.C.

South Carolina Sen. Tom Corbin, R-Travelers Rest, sponsored a measure in anticipation of federal efforts to bolster gun control.

The senator wants to exempt from any new federal gun laws all members of South Carolina’s “unorganized militia,” which consists of all able-bodied citizens older than 17 who aren’t in the National Guard or the organized militia.

I infer from his measure that the senator is relying upon the Second Amendment to support his measure.

Had the senator taken the time to read the very document he swore an oath to support and defend, he would see that the Second Amendment states: “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.”

It says “well-regulated militia,” not “unorganized militia.”

How can we abide having a state senator draft laws who doesn’t even understand the seminal document that our free society is predicated upon?

It would seem South Carolina has greater concerns than gun control.

J. BROOKS DAVIS

Attorney

Coleman Boulevard

Mount Pleasant

This confusion occurs a lot and while it’s impossible to correct it every time, some things bear repeating.

First of all, let’s address the 2A again.  The founders didn’t rely exclusively on the notion of militia to honor the RKBA.  Remember, bearing arms was so common in and among the people in the colonies that it would have been unnecessary to stipulate that people had that right given by God.

In the colonies, availability of hunting and need for defense led to armament statues comparable to those of the early Saxon times. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were “well armed”; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to “bring their peeces to church.” In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and in 1644 it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed.

When the British government began to increase its military presence in the colonies in the mid-eighteenth century, Massachusetts responded by calling upon its citizens to arm themselves in defense. One colonial newspaper argued that it was impossible to complain that this act was illegal since they were “British subjects, to whom the privilege of possessing arms is expressly recognized by the Bill of Rights” while another argued that this “is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense”. The newspaper cited Blackstone’s commentaries on the laws of England, which had listed the “having and using arms for self preservation and defense” among the “absolute rights of individuals.” The colonists felt they had an absolute right at common law to own firearms.

The concern at the time was that the militia could be federalized and put to uses against the states themselves.  The militia comes from the people, is armed by personal ownership, and serves the interests not of the federal government, but of the people.

All the founders needed to stipulate that the constitution honors the RKBA (not grants it, but recognizes and honors it as pre-existing and axiomatic) was one reason, and the militia serves as that reason.

Now that’s out of the way, let’s get to the notion of well-regulated.  It doesn’t mean what the lawyer says it means.  Standing armies were anathema to the founders.  Calling up the militia was calling up free men, calling them from their labors into battle.  Hence the term “unorganized.”

People also misinterpret the intent when they affirm that the existence of state sponsored armies (like the N.G.) replace the unorganized militia.  They usually use the term “well-regulated” to infer that they must exist under formalized, federally recognized statute, regulation, or federal code.

Let’s cover again what the term means.

“It is also important to note that the Framers’ chose to use the indefinite article “a” to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article “the.” This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.

This comparison of the Framers’ use of the term “well regulated” in the Second Amendment, and the words “regulate” and “regulation” elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term “militia” had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, “the people,” had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, “well regulate” themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb “regulate” the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers’ use of the indefinite article “a” in the phrase “A well regulated Militia.”

This concept of the people’s self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress “for calling forth” the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to “provide for” the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The “well regula[tion]” of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, “well regula[tion]” referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.”

It is quite clear that the Founders used the phrase “well-regulated” to denote that militia forces should be skilled with arms of contemporary military utility and relevant military tactics, so that they can serve in the defense of Republic against both foreign invaders  and the threat of domestic tyrants commanding a national army against the liberty of the citizenry.

A well regulated machine is one that runs correctly.  If a clock doesn’t keep time, it isn’t well regulated.  If your car engine knocks, it isn’t well regulated.  If your scope hasn’t been zeroed, the rifle/scope system isn’t well regulated.

The founders recognized that in order to e effective, free men operating under the axiom of the RKBA need to be drilled, need to know how to shoot, need to have weapons that were zeroed, operating correctly, and in good working order, all operated by men who knew how to do it.

Thus, the lawyer is wrong.  The proposed bill for S.C. is a good start, but still shouldn’t get in the way of either (a) open carry for S.C., or (b) constitutional carry for S.C.

Via David Codrea, this academic publication co-authored by David Kopel appears very interesting and yet a time-consuming study.

Feel free to download and read it.  Supply comments via email if you wish on important things.

I have not seen a significant number of things eye-to-eye with Rob Pincus.  I’ll offer one brief example, i.e., shouldering stabilizing braces on AR pistols.  I recall Rob’s counsel of his viewers and readers not to shoulder stabilizing braces (this was before the latest ATF “interpretation”), and his reluctance (and even refusal) to do videos showing such tactics.

On the other hand, I have long said that you should do what feels natural and what you find necessary.  There are many legitimate reasons for firearms ownership: sporting, range shooting, competition precision shooting, self defense, collecting, and on and on the reasons could go.  It’s no more the business of the state to interest itself in your what firearms you own than what forks you have in your kitchen drawers, or how or why you have them.

But if you have a firearm with which you intend the use of home defense, and it has a stabilizing brace, if you need to shoulder the weapon to best use it, then do so.  Your responsibility is to your own life and the lives of your loved ones, not an ATF interpretation.

So I have had a difficult time trusting Rob, for whatever reason.  This latest commentary at Ammoland adds to that mistrust.  He co-authored a piece on common ground with Dan Gross, Former President of the Brady Campaign.  I will quote extensively.

Although many other issues have understandably dominated the news cycle, we are at a critical moment for guns. Over the last year, gun sales have reached unprecedented levels, as have gun-involved homicides, and the House has recently passed H.R. 1446, The Enhanced Background Check Act of 2021, which is currently being debated in the Senate. Recently, a wave of tragic mass shootings has put the gun issue in national headlines as President Biden has called on the Senate to pass the background check bill, adding that he supports a ban of “assault weapons.”

We are two advocates, activists and leaders from opposite sides of the “gun debate” who have come together because we both believe we are at a make-or-break moment. Suffice it to say, there is plenty that we disagree on, but for anyone with the genuine goal of reducing the number of preventable gun deaths in our nation, we believe we have an opportunity for real impact that has not existed in years and, if we are not able to seize it, it is likely to have negative repercussions for years to come.

Stop there.  This is strong language.  It means that Rob thinks that unless the policy recommendations that we are forthwith to read in the commentary are implemented, there will be negative repercussions.  No one is holding a gun to Rob’s head.  He appears to desire what we are about to read.  There seems to be no other reason to suspect that we need to “seize” the opportunity before us (Biden is president, the senate is split).

To expect meaningful and lasting change, we must first change the entire conversation, from one defined by politics to one defined by our common values and goals. This is not just a matter of deciding whether to call it “gun control,” “gun violence prevention,” “responsible gun ownership” or “gun safety.” It is about advocates, leaders and the media considering, far more than they have in the past, the narrative they are helping to create. It is about those who really care about impact, changing that narrative from one that is too-often divisive and counterproductive to one that genuinely unites the American public and provides the foundation that is necessary for real, lasting and fundamental change.

I have a bit of an issue with the notion of having “common goals” with progressives.  Philosopher Cornelius Van Til flatly debunked the idea that Christians can have a common goal or common starting point with unbelievers.  Now, this isn’t a theological debate, but the point is salient.  One doesn’t come into a conversation with neutrality.  There is always a set of presuppositions involved.  For the progressive, this is it.

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it.  The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them.

This is true at least for the commoner.  For the controller, they want a monopoly on violence.  This is the starting point.  There is no common ground with them.  But we must continue.

Fortunately, the policy area with the most synergistic message is also the one that represents what we believe is the greatest potential for impact: Expanded Background Checks. The overwhelming majority of gun owners have already accepted that anyone engaged in the business of selling guns commercially, should be required to conduct a background check. At the same time the two of us believe that many private transfers, such as gifting a gun to a family member or letting a fellow member of a gun club borrow a firearm for a competition or hunting event should be legal and remain a private transaction outside of government regulation. We believe any expansion of the Background Check requirement should be focused on transfers to strangers. Sure, there are some important details to work out around exceptions such as specific definitions of “strangers,” and exceptions that would make it impossible for the government to compile a comprehensive list of gun owners; but we are confident that there are solutions that can make a huge impact if we stick to the principle and message of only keeping guns from the people we all agree shouldn’t have them. This is also how to “walk the walk” in terms of demonstrating that we are not trying to limit gun ownership among responsible gun owners and how to give substance and true credibility to the claim of respecting gun owners and the Second Amendment.

It’s wrapped up in nice words like “Expanded Background Checks.”  It’s padded to reduce the impact.  The claim is made up front that people support it, which if true, would obviate the need to say it all the time.

But make no mistake about it, Rob Pincus has come out in favor of universal background checks.  He, along with the former president of the Brady Campaign, supports it.

Thus Rob has in a single commentary thrown away what little he had left of his credibility as a defender of the RKBA.  I’m sure he’ll go on with his tactical training business, but for me, I do not see him as a credible defender of liberty.

For the record, I support the liberty to conduct person-to-person transfers of firearms of any sort.  We had this discussion at the dinner table a few nights ago, and I laid it out at the beginning by saying that I believe felons have a RKBA.  They have as much right to self defense as I do.

Eyes opened wider, and I explained what we all know to be true.  If a felon cannot be trusted to own a firearm, then a felon cannot be let out of prison to purchase fertilizer at the local Tractor Supply.  Besides which, felons guilty of murder, rape or kidnapping should be executed.

So, I suspect, ends the relationship of the 2A community with Rob.  I hope it was worth it for him.

UPDATE: I see that the editor has found it necessary to “apologize” for printing the article.  A quick note to the editorial staff.  Don’t worry about it.  If you publish enough, you’ll offend someone.  Ask me how I know?  I found this commentary useful even if I didn’t agree with its contents.  It’s useful because I know where Rob stands now.  That means you did the right thing.

Courthouse News Service.

Americans have no right to carry guns in public, a divided en banc Ninth Circuit panel ruled Wednesday, reversing a prior Ninth Circuit decision that struck down a Hawaii firearm restriction as unconstitutional.

“There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment,” U.S. Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote for the majority of an 11-judge panel in a 127-page opinion.

Looking back on 700 years of legal history dating back to 14th century England, seven judges in the majority found “overwhelming evidence” that the law has never given people “an unfettered right to carry weapons in public spaces.”

The seven-judge majority traced legal texts and laws back to 1348 when the English parliament enacted the statute of Northampton, which banned carrying weapons in fairs or markets or before the King’s justices. It also cited multiple laws from colonial and pre-Civil War America in which states and colonies restricted the possession of weapons in public places.

“The Second Amendment did not contradict the fundamental principle that the government assumes primary responsibility for defending persons who enter our public spaces,” Bybee wrote. “The states do not violate the Second Amendment by asserting their longstanding English and American rights to prohibit certain weapons from entering those public spaces as means of providing ‘domestic tranquility’ and forestalling ‘domestic violence.’”

Writing for the dissent, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said the majority failed to properly interpret the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columba v. Heller, which overturned Washington D.C.’s total ban on handguns and a requirement that rifles and shotguns be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger-lock device.

“The Second Amendment’s text, history, and structure, and the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Heller, all point squarely to the same conclusion: Armed self-defense in public is at the very core of the Second Amendment right,” O’Scannlain wrote.

What they failed to get is God’s laws.  And so just like that, they declared God’s Holy Scriptures outmoded and irrelevant.

I’ll briefly make another observation.  I consider citations of British laws irrelevant and even ridiculous.  Judges who do that forget that we fought a war over the concept of rights, and forged a new covenant with the body politic based on winning that war.

I couldn’t possibly care any less about old British standards, morays or rules.

News from South Carolina.

A Statehouse proposal aimed at ensuring South Carolinians can keep their weapons no matter what gun-control measures the White House or Congress might take won early backing in the state Senate.

The bill attempts to buffer any future federal gun restrictions by classifying all guns and bullets legally owned by South Carolinians as weaponry of the state’s unorganized militia.

A 2-1 vote March 23 sent the bill to the Senate’s full Veterans’ Services Committee.

State Sen. Kevin Johnson, D-Manning, who cast the lone “no” vote, called the proposal unnecessary nonsense.

The measure, sponsored by Travelers Rest Republican Sen. Tom Corbin, adds language to an obscure 1881 state law regarding South Carolina’s “unorganized militia” — to which all “able-bodied” citizens over age 17 automatically belong.

The governor has the authority to assemble that militia in times of war, rebellion or insurrection, though that’s never happened.

There likely hasn’t been a militia fighting in South Carolina “since Francis Marion and the swamp foxes were shooting at the British” in 1781 during the American Revolution, Corbin told reporters after the hearing.

Corbin sees his proposal, coming some 240 years after those swamp skirmishes, as a way of ensuring South Carolina’s guns are never confiscated.

It would give the state’s “militia” members the right to buy and possess all types of firearms, ammunitions and their components — including magazines and clips — that were legal as of Dec. 30.

“At the end of the day, a federal government cannot disarm a state standing army,” Corbin told the subcommittee.

I’ve bolded the objectionable part of the article, but you already know that.  Only God gives rights, and only God can take them away.

If this has a chance of passing, then please go for it.  On the other hand, if this dog won’t hunt in a short session, then it may be another poison pill, or something to grab attention away from the need to pass open carry.

As for open carry, it appears that the bill stipulates barrel length, so the open carry of long guns may have been made illegal in S.C. with the open carry bill.

Again, it may be imperfect, but problems with it may be able to be fixed in the future.  If those problems can be ironed out in committee between the House and Senate, then do so.

Time is short, so get open carry done.  Focus on constitutional carry next session.

News from S.C.

The South Carolina House gave key approval Wednesday to a bill allowing people to carry guns without concealing them.

Legislators voted 82-33 in favor of the so-called open-carry bill after more than six hours of debate, with some Democrats joining Republicans. The legislation would allow people who already have a concealed-weapons permit to keep those guns visible in public.

The state is just one of five without open carry, joining atypical partners such as California, Florida, Illinois and New York.

[ … ]

“This bill brings us in line with the vast majority of the country,” said lead bill sponsor Rep. Bobby Cox, a Republican from Greenville.

Some of the debate was clownish.

Freshman Rep. Jermaine Johnson, D-Richland, said as a 6-foot, 7-inch tall, 285-pound Black man, having a gun on his side would make him a target.

The bill doesn’t force people to open carry, it only allows it.  If you’re concerned, then don’t do it.  Your objections have nothing at all to do with open carry.  Spend your time trying to reign in law enforcement.  I’ll be right there with you.

Now, it’s time to start on the South Carolina senators, who, I predict, won’t be as enthusiastic as the House.  They’ll gesticulate, hem and haw, vacillate, supply unctuous commentary and prose, and in the end, if South Carolinians don’t move on them, let this die on the floor of the senate with words like, “It’s complicated, we need to study this some more, we ran out of time doing the business of the people,” and such claptrap.