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
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?
Mark is looking for data. You may have some you want to provide him. Be specific with dates and sources. Or provide it here and I’ll contact Mark for you with a list.
Gun control groups had gotten most of what they’d wanted. That wasn’t surprising. They had actively participated in drafting legislation and worked directly with senior bureaucrats. Allan Rock’s policy advisor called their contributions “very instrumental.” In 1995 Heidi Rathjen of gun control group PolySeSouvient said, in response to Pierrette Venne’s question about what the group would do if Bill C-68 came into effect, that “…if [Bill C-68] is passed as it was tabled, without major amendment, then, as far as we are concerned, after what we’ve presented today, we will no longer fight for a federal legislation.” No major amendments were made. In 2015 she essentially re-endorsed their 1995 position, and blamed their continued activism on Harper-era tweaks and the post-1995 invention of “new” “assault weapons” — though many of the “assault weapons” her group wanted banned were on the market decades prior to C-68, were not prohibited by it, and remained legal until 2020.
C-68 was touted as the “end of the struggle to strengthen gun control in Canada.” While some advocates pledged to continue a push for a total ban on the remaining murkily-defined “military assault weapons,” the compromise was set. Subsequent Liberal and Conservative governments accepted the core philosophy and most core elements. The 2004 Conservative manifesto retained all of the central components except for the controversial, expensive, and ineffective registration of hunting guns, a position eventually supported by Trudeau the Younger.
Gun-control groups used to be realistic about the scope of their goals and the Canadian way of life. They acknowledged hunting and sporting use, the importance of having “a supply of ammunition in the home” for predator defence in rural areas, and maintained that the Chief Firearms Officers should have discretion over license issuances or revocations when a person has been rehabilitated, a policy which C-21 would abolish. They didn’t even push for a total ban on handguns. In turn many gun owners came to see licensing as a point of pride. They saw it as a badge of honour indicating they belonged to the safest and most trusted citizens, clearly set apart from the criminal class and even safer than the general public.
[ … ]
These groups consider removing firearms from society an unalloyed good, yet consumer demand shows plenty see it differently. There are 2,300,000 licensed gun owners in Canada who rely on firearms for needs as diverse as agriculture, sport, wilderness protection, trapping, investment, heritage and hunting. Fifty thousand jobs and billions in GDP rely on them. Loss of livelihood is bad enough, but we also cannot ignore the loss of life that economic harm entails or that every dollar we spend or lose here could be spent on a nurse we do not employ, a soldier without proper equipment, or a diversion program for an at-risk youth.
For fun, I once roughly estimated the building costs for central storage units using comparable public contracts. It came to just over $600 million, before any operational costs. Six hundred million bucks is a lot of money in any scenario, but here’s the kicker: that’s for only 20,000 guns, in just the Northwest Territories. Where guns are critical to food security. Canada has about 12.5 million firearms. There’s a reason almost no serious comparator uses central storage, even in far smaller countries.
No one, especially the central government, is going to foot the bill for central storage of firearms, and especially not locked down and manning those storage locations with guards and stewards.
Rather, the goal is just to make all firearms illegal. His work to compute the cost was a waste of time.
Notice how proud gun owners were of their licensure – and notice how earnestly and honestly gun owners negotiated the new laws. But there will never be “end of the struggle to strengthen gun control in Canada.” Governments don’t care one whit about “sporting” applications of firearms. They are trying to protect and ensure the survival of government, of the elitists, of the rulers, not a way of life or the ability to defend home and hearth. That’s why self defense with a firearm in Canada is illegal.
Negotiation and compromise is the road to hell. Just don’t do it. Ever.
Americans as so stupid, ignorant, stolid and uneducated. How could this ever have been in question? Most of the men who fought the loyalists at King’s Mountain were of average age of 14 – 15, and were men enough to travel there from “over-mountain.”
The founders knew what they were doing. All rights in the bill of rights are individual, including the second amendment. In order to make sure everyone knew why they were writing the 2A, they explicitly stated it. Every individual must be able to muster, so they have the right to keep and bear arms. Stay way from our ability to call an army of our own if we want to. For no other reason than we want to, but there’s good enough reason given the nature of man to rule badly over others.
Florida House Speaker Paul Renner is shooting down any hopes of Florida becoming an open-carry state, at least for now.
During last Thursday’s remarks to reporters, Renner said while he supports the idea of open carry, it would be unlikely to see a law get passed this year.
“I’m a supporter of the Second Amendment across the board in many aspects,” said Renner. “There’s not an appetite in both chambers to get that done.”
Renner’s comments come after Rep. Mike Beltran, R-Riverview, filed legislation to make changes to the state’s current gun laws, including allowing people to openly carry firearms on college campuses.
“We always have to measure whether it’s worth the committee [and] House floor time to pass a bill that would be controversial that would take a lot of time, that we know is dead on arrival.”
The bill(HB 1619), would also allow guns to be carried in certain government buildings and at voting polls. The proposal comes just a year after the state made it legal for most Floridians to carry guns without a permit, as long as it’s concealed.
It was the first bill submitted when they came back into session. They had plenty of time to work on it. What a bunch of pusillanimous cowards and spiritless, lying scoundrels.
Cops are against it, and that would be enough for the bootlickers to stop the bill, but they enacted gun control in the wake of the Parkland shooting and they won’t reverse course now. They would be seen as the duplicitous punks they are. So along with NY, Hawaii, California and Illinois, the communists in Florida (you know, the “law and order conservatives”) have left it all in place and don’t even mind telling you they don’t care about it immediately after the bill was filed.
MASSIVE 2A VICTORY JUST NOW: CALIFORNIA'S "SENSITIVE PLACE" LAWS KNOCKED OUT BY NINTH CIRCUIT ORDER. US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has allowed the preliminary injunction entered by US District Court Judge Cormac Carney to go into effect. Thus, a long list of…
— Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar (@fourboxesdiner) January 7, 2024
🚨 FPC WIN 🚨
The 9th Circuit has dissolved the administrative stay in our Carralero v. Bonta California Public Carry Bans Lawsuit and DENIED CA’s Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal.
This means all public carry bans blocked by our District Court injunction are blocked again. pic.twitter.com/NJDokAdPmP
(FOX40.COM) — A new California law that would restrict licensed gun holders from carrying their firearms in many public places will not go into full effect on Jan. 1 as scheduled, after a federal judge deemed it unconstitutional.
The law, Senate Bill 2, was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on Sept. 26 and included an array of gun control measures. On Dec. 20, U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney issued an order to stop one of SB 2’s regulations, the ban on licensed gun carrying in a public place. According to SB 2, it would have been illegal in California for licensed gun carriers to have their firearms at bars, churches, parks, public events, stadiums, casinos, financial institutions, medical facilities, on public transportation, and other places.
“The Second Amendment preserves a fundamental constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense,” Carney said in his ruling. “Increasingly in modern times, with ‘the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence,’ ordinary law-abiding people feel a need to carry handguns in public to protect themselves and their families against violence.”
Carney mentioned that people who legally carry guns are “among the most responsible, reliable law-abiding citizens” and have been through a “vigorous vetting and training process” to carry a handgun. According to Carney, CCW permitholders are not the gun wielders legislators should fear.
“CCW permitholders are not responsible for any of the mass shootings or horrific gun violence that has occurred in California,” Carney said. “SB2 requires that law-abiding citizens open themselves up for slaughter at the hands of people flaunting the law and creates numerous areas ripe for mass murder by ensuring there is no one there to protect people.”
He added that some people who have a concealed weapons permit (CCW) live in high-crime neighborhoods where they reasonably fear being robbed, murdered, and raped. Carney said CCW holders should be able to carry a weapon to protect themselves in those situations.
“SB2 provisions unconstitutionally deprive this group of their constitutional right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense,” Carney said. “Therefore, those provisions must be preliminarily enjoined.”
Well, that’s part of the purpose of the second amendment, but not even nearly all of it, the major part having to do with tyranny. It’s the last part that scares the powerful, rich and famous.
But it’s nice to see the occasional win. But it will probably be stayed by the communists on the Ninth Circuit.
1 year ago
