Not Only No But Hell No!

Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) is floating a plan where one of the sitting justices of the Supreme Court retires, President Trump appoints Judge Merrick Garland to that seat, and the Senate would then confirm Judges Gorsuch and Garland at the same time.

“You had President Trump saying, ‘I want to unite the country, I’m a deal-maker, I’m going to bring people together,’” Udall told reporters following his meeting with Gorsuch on Monday. “Well, the deal right now for President Trump, if he wanted to do it, would be to put Gorsuch and Merrick Garland on the court at the same time.”

This is how Udall described it: Trump would discuss the option with one of the three Supreme Court justices often mentioned as retirement prospects in the coming years – Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer or Anthony Kennedy – and secure a resignation letter from one of them, contingent on Garland getting nominated and confirmed as their replacement.

Then the two nominees would have a simultaneous confirmation process and votes, Udall said.

Has Udall been sneaking up to Colorado to visit brother Mark (former US Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) and then partaking of some of Colorado’s best weed?

The answer President Trump should give Sen. Udall is an unequivocal no. Both surveys and my own anecdotal evidence suggest that the primary reason many people voted for Trump over Hillary Clinton was the Supreme Court and court appointments. The era of the GOP making deals with liberal Democrats on judicial appointments is over.

We have just seen the impact of President Obama’s appointments on gun rights in the 4th Circuit with their nonsensical ruling in Kolbe v. Hogan. We need that sixth originalist justice if we want to preserve the Second Amendment as an individual right and as a right that the courts will actually respect. Judge Merrick Garland is not that man.

Ted Cruz Responds To The 4th Circuit Ruling

CPAC or the Conservative Political Action Conference is going on now in Washington, DC. It is where the leading lights of the conservative movement show up to see and be seen. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is one of those people.

In an interview with radio talk show host and author Mark Levin, Cruz discussed the fallacies of the majority opinion in Kolbe v. Hogan. He eviscerated the logic (or illogic) shown by Judge Robert King in the majority opinion.

Watch and listen:

Comment Of The Day

The comment of the day comes from Jim Shepherd of the Outdoor Wires. He concludes his discussion of the 4th Circuit’s majority opinion in Kolbe v. Hogan with this:

But don’t forget, that if this silly ruling were to survive, it wouldn’t be much of a reach- at least for lawyers and legislators- to extend the withdrawal of protections to everything from bolt action rifles and pump shotguns (trench guns in World Wars I & II and Vietnam) to the venerable cowboy action lever guns carried by the U.S. Army in the 1800s.

Will this one head to the Supreme Court?
Probably.

But with the District of Columbia and Chicago still thumbing their noses at the high court after rulings that should have repealed their oppressive anti-gun regulations, what real difference would it make?

When it comes to protecting the enumerated right defined in the Second Amendment, the United States Supreme Court isn’t just divided.

It’s toothless.

Why should any state or local official be concerned with the “supreme court” and its rulings if the court itself lacks the conviction to compel compliance?

Unenforced rules aren’t rules, they’re suggestions.

Jim is absolutely correct. The Supreme Court has had multiple opportunities to reinforce and correct misinterpretations of their rulings in Heller and McDonald. Every time they have blinked and let them go unchallenged.

Erin Palette was correct to call Supreme Court nominations “the Kardashians of politics”. By extension and given their reluctance to take another Second Amendment case, I’d call the justices themselves “the Kardashians of politics”.

New Hampshire Becomes 12th State With Constitutional Carry

Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH) signed a bill today making New Hampshire the 12th state to have permitless concealed carry. The bill he signed had been vetoed in each of the preceding two years by then-Gov. Maggie Hassan (D-NH).

There are a number of other states where constitutional concealed carry bills have been introduced this year including both North Carolina and Texas. My fellow co-host on the Polite Society Podcast, Rachel Malone, is leading the charge in Texas.

From the NRA-ILA on the New Hampshire signing ceremony:

Today, in a private signing ceremony, Governor Chris Sununu signed Senate Bill 12 into law. Similar legislation had been vetoed by former Governor Maggie Hassan for two years in a row, but thanks to your active involvement, law-abiding gun owners will now be able to carry their firearms without a required permit in the state of New Hampshire! This law goes into effect immediately. Please take the time to thank your state legislators for passing this important legislation and Governor Sununu for signing it into law.

Sponsored by Senator Jeb Bradley (R-3), SB 12 will repeal the license requirement to carry a concealed pistol or revolver, unless a person is otherwise prohibited. For those who choose to obtain licenses, SB 12 will also increase the length of time in which a license is valid from four years to five years.

In New Hampshire, existing state law recognizes the right of any citizen who can legally own and possess a firearm to carry it openly, either loaded or unloaded, anywhere in the state not prohibited by law. However, if a firearm becomes covered by a coat or if a woman prefers to carry a firearm for protection in her purse, he or she would need a concealed carry handgun license. The new law will extend permitless open carry to permitless concealed carry, allowing law-abiding gun owners to protect themselves and their loved ones in the manner that best suits their needs.

Keep your fingers crossed and your calls to legislators coming in that more states will adopt this.

The 4th Circuit Has Gone To Hell In A Handbasket!

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in its infinite wisdom has decided that the most common rifle in America in not entitled to the protection of the Second Amendment. Thank you President Obama for stacking this Court of Appeals with nitwits and halfwits given that seven of the 15 active judges (non-senior status) were his appointments.

The 4th Circuit issued an en banc decision in Kolbe et al v. Hogan et al which upheld the Maryland law that banned so-called assault weapons (sic) and standard capacity magazines. The case was decided in a 9-4 split with the majority opinion written by Judge Robert B. King, a Clinton appointee, and a native of West Virginia.

Using intermediate scrutiny, Judge King wrote:

Because the banned assault weapons and large-capacity
magazines are clearly most useful in military service, we are
compelled by Heller to recognize that those weapons and
magazines are not constitutionally protected. On that basis, we
affirm the district court’s award of summary judgment in favor
of the State with respect to the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment
claims.

Earlier he wrote:

Thankfully, however, we need not answer all those difficult
questions today, because Heller also presents us with a
dispositive and relatively easy inquiry: Are the banned assault
weapons and large-capacity magazines “like” “M-16 rifles,” i.e.,
“weapons that are most useful in military service,” and thus
outside the ambit of the Second Amendment?
See 554 U.S. at 627.
The answer to that dispositive and relatively easy inquiry is
plainly in the affirmative.

Simply put, AR-15-type rifles are “like” M16 rifles under
any standard definition of that term.
See, e.g., Webster’s New
International Dictionary 1431 (2d ed. 1948) (defining “like” as
“[h]aving the same, or nearly the same, appearance, qualities,
or characteristics; similar”); The New Oxford American
Dictionary 982 (2d ed. 2005) (defining “like” as “having the
same characteristics or qualities as; similar to”). Although an
M16 rifle is capable of fully automatic fire and the AR-15 is
limited to semiautomatic fire, their rates of fire (two seconds
and as little as five seconds, respectively, to empty a thirtyround
magazine) are nearly identical. Moreover, in many
situations, the semiautomatic fire of an AR-15 is more accurate
and lethal than the automatic fire of an M16. Otherwise, the
AR-15 shares the military features — the very qualities and
characteristics — that make the M16 a devastating and lethal
weapon of war.

To quote the philosopher Forrest Gump, “I may not be a smart man” but that is utter bullshit! The opinion, concurrences, and dissents go on for 116 pages. I just can’t bring myself to read the whole thing tonight I’m so pissed off.

 The Wall Street Journal opines that this case will go to the Supreme Court. If so, it is time to get Judge Gorsuch on the court as Associate Justice Gorsuch. Moreover, it is time to start using the nomination process to appoint judges who are originalists and not some flim-flam men and women who misinterpret the plain words of Justice Scalia in the Heller decision.

GRNC: HB 69 – Constitutional Carry – Needs Your Help

HB 69 was introduced in the North Carolina House of Representatives earlier this month. It provides for permitless concealed carry just as we have permitless or constitutional open carry in the state. It was introduced by Rep. Larry Pittman (R-Cabarrus) and has been referred to the Judiciary I Committee. That last part is not good for the bill’s chances of success and Grass Roots North Carolina has issued an alert requesting it be moved to the Judiciary II Committee where it will receive a fair hearing.

11 states now have constitutional carry and it looks like New Hampshire will be joining the list if Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH) keeps his promise to sign the bill which has passed both houses of the legislature. That would make the three northern New England states bastions of freedom unlike the southern three.

GIVE HB 69 A FAIR HEARING!



As you know, Representative LARRY PITTMAN
(R-Cabarrus) 
introduced House Bill 69 (with GRNC’s feedback and support) to restore
our rights to constitutional (permitless) carry. The primary sponsors
of the
bill include Reps. MICHAEL
SPECIALE
(R-Beaufort, Craven, Pamlico), BEVERLY BOSWELL (R-Beaufort, Dare, Hyde, Washington),  and JAY ADAMS (R-Catawba).

Since its introduction, HP 69 currently resides in House Judiciary I which is chaired
by Representative TED DAVIS,
JR
.  We have reported his
actions in previous GRNC Alerts
and feel strongly that HB 69, if it stays in House Judiciary I under Rep. Davis, will be in danger of being
stopped.

GRNC
feels strongly that the seriousness of this bill deserves a fair hearing
and is asking everyone to contact your representatives to urge them to
move
HB 69 to House Judiciary II,
chaired by Representative JOHN M.
BLUST
.

To
recap the details of HB 69
(“Constitutional Carry Act”) and the reasons for GRNC’s support:
  • Establishes a new Article 54C, under which handguns may be carried concealed without
    permits;
  • Removes the need
    to have a concealed handgun permit to carry a concealed handgun in
    restaurants, public assemblies, parades and funerals, and (with the same
    limitations as currently in law) onto educational properties;
  • and Retains the current CHP system for purposes of reciprocity with other states.
HB
69 is designed to be a “clean”
reciprocity bill (i.e. without other measures) in order to draw fewer
objections from potential supporters. GRNC will shepherd the
introduction of
additional legislative initiatives in other bills.

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!

  • CONTACT SPEAKER TIM MOORE and CHAIRMAN DAVID LEWIS at:

    919-733-3451, Tim.Moore@ncleg.net
    919-715-3015, David.Lewis@ncleg.net


    Tell them to move HB 69 from House Judiciary I to House Judiciary
    II
    in order for it to receive the fair hearing it deserves. You can use the
    copy/paste text below, under ‘Deliver This Message,’ to send an email
    message
    to Speaker Moore and Chairman Lewis.
  • CONTACT CHAIRMAN JOHN M. BLUST at:
    919-733-5781,
    John.Blust@ncleg.net

    Urge him to work with Speaker Moore to take the HB 69 into his
    committee
    and give it the fair hearing it deserves.  You can use the copy/paste text below, under ‘Deliver This Message,’ to send an email message to Representative
    Blust.
     

DELIVER THIS MESSAGE


Here are two suggested messages to deliver:
Suggested Subject: “Give HB 69 a fair hearing and move
to House Judiciary II
”  
Dear [Speaker Moore or Chairman Lewis]:
House
Bill 69, sponsored by Reps. Larry Pittman, Michael Speciale, Beverly
Boswell, and Jay
Adams, has been introduced and currently resides in House Judiciary I,
chaired by Rep. Ted David, Jr. I feel that Rep. Davis will not give
the bill
the fair hearing it deserves and urge you to please move it to House
Judiciary II chaired by Rep. John M. Blust.

A powerful trend is sweeping across
the
United States in which eleven states have now adopted (or previously
had) statutes under which lawful citizens could carry firearms for
self-protection without obtaining burdensome permits.

The states with
permitless concealed carry now include Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho,
Kansas,
Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Indeed, Missouri’s law went into effect on January 1, and West
Virginia’s went into effect in May. Additionally, more limited versions
of permitless carry exist in Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and
Oklahoma.

It is high time North Carolina joined those enlightened states
by relieving lawful North Carolinians from expensive and burdensome
permit
requirements which discriminate against people with lesser means.
Accordingly, I ask you to give a prompt hearing to HB 69
(“Constitutional
Carry Act”).

Each time we have expanded concealed carry – whether
into parks, restaurants, educational property or elsewhere –
naysayers have predicted gloom and doom. Each time, they have been
wrong. In fact, I am aware of no instance in any of the states which
have adopted
constitutional carry in which it has caused problems.

Again, I urge you to
give HB 69 a fair hearing and move it from Rep. Davis and House
Judiciary I
to House Judiciary II and Rep. Blust. I will be monitoring this issue
through Grass Roots North Carolina legislative alerts.

Respectfully,

Suggested Subject: “Please work with Speaker Moore and give HB 69 a fair
hearing in House House Judiciary II

Dear House Chairman Blust:

House Bill 69, sponsored by Reps. Larry Pittman, Michael
Speciale,
Beverly Boswell, and Jay Adams, has been introduced and currently
resides in House Judiciary I, chaired by Rep. Ted David, Jr. I feel
that Rep.
Davis will not give the bill the fair hearing it deserves and urge you
to please work with Speaker Moore to move it to House Judiciary II under
your
leadership.

As you know, Rep. Blust, a powerful trend is sweeping across
the United States in which eleven states have now adopted (or previously
had)
statutes under which lawful citizens could carry firearms for
self-protection without obtaining burdensome permits.

The states with permitless
concealed
carry now include Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Maine,
Mississippi, Missouri, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Indeed,
Missouri’s law went into effect on January 1, and West Virginia’s went
into effect in May. Additionally, more limited versions of
permitless carry exist in Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and
Oklahoma.

It is high time North Carolina joined those enlightened states by
relieving
lawful North Carolinians from expensive and burdensome permit
requirements which discriminate against people with lesser means.

Each time we have
expanded concealed carry – whether into parks, restaurants, educational
property or elsewhere – naysayers have predicted gloom and doom.
Each time, they have been wrong. In fact, I am aware of no instance in
any of the states which have adopted constitutional carry in which it
has
caused problems.

Again, I urge you to work with Speaker Moore to move HB
69 to your House Judiciary Committee, House Judiciary II, to give it the
fair
hearing it deserves. I will be monitoring this issue through Grass
Roots North Carolina legislative alerts.

Respectfully,

Sincerely,

“The Kardashians Of Politics”

The headline comes from an analogy made by Erin Palette on Episode 130 of the GunBlog Varietycast regarding nominations to the Supreme Court. Sean Sorrentino and Erin were discussing the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court to fill the seat vacated with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. They also noted that there are currently 117 district and appeals court judgeships waiting to be filled.

Erin said, “Supreme Court nomination are the Kardashians of politics.” As with the Kardashian of the day, they get virtually all the attention unlike your neighbor down the street. However, that neighbor down the street will have a far stronger impact on your life than the Kardashians. Likewise, the judges that will fill those empty District Court and Appeals Court slots will probably have a stronger impact on your constitutional rights – and especially your Second Amendment rights – than the justices on the Supreme Court. The reason, of course, is that very few cases ever are accepted for certiorari by the Supreme Court.

You can listen to the discussion between Sean and Erin here starting at the 22:20 mark.

I was struck by Erin’s analogy and how apt it was with regard to not only judicial nominations but also politics at the local, state, and national levels. With even local newscasts discussing Trump said this and the Democrats said that, it is hard sometimes to remember that County Commissioner Billy Bob Jones will have a bigger impact on your day to day exercise of your Second Amendment rights. How Commissioner Jones and his colleagues grant variances or pass zoning ordinances will determine where you can buy a firearm and if there is a range where you can practice with it. Moreover, unless you live in a state with statewide firearms law pre-emption, Commissioner Billy Bob and his good friend Councilwoman Maura McGillicuddy will determine where you can carry, the penalties for a firearms discharge in the city even if it is in self-defense, and even what firearms and accessories you are allowed to possess.

I’m not saying either national politics or Supreme Court nominations are irrelevant like the Kardashians. Rather that for every 10 minutes we spend on those, we need to be spending the other 50 minutes of the hour on stuff closer to home.

Jesus Needs A Rear Sight

The Houston Chronicle has published a series of photos of members of the Sinaloa Cartel. They come from the blog El Blog Del Narco. It shows these Mexican drug cartel soldiers getting ready for what is presumably a leadership war now that “El Chapo” is in a US prison.

The one that caught my eye was of a cartel member named Jesus Mendoza. He has a cigarette dangling from his sneering lips, a black chest rig, and an AR15. He’s a bad-ass and he wants you to know it.

Photo courtesy of El Blog Del Narco

Jesus would be a more effective bad-ass if he had a rear sight on that AR15 carbine.

Just sayin’.

Comment Of The Day

President Trump held a news conference yesterday and, from what I’m reading, it was pure Trump.
The heads of the media personalities are still exploding and they don’t know why.

The best comment came in response to a post by Professor William Jacobson regarding the news conference. VaGentleman had this to say:

I’m reminded of the scene in ‘Patton’ where he is standing on the hill overlooking the battlefield and shouts, “Rommel, you bloody bastard, I read your book!”. Alinskyites, take note.

Charles Heller of Liberty Watch Radio, JPFO, and AzCDL made the nearly the same point when we recorded him for an interview with The Polite Society Podcast. He urged gun rights activists to read the Rules for Radicals and use them.

11th Circuit Rules Against Florida In “Docs V. Glocks” Case

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling en banc found that parts of  the State of Florida’s Firearms Owners Privacy Act were unconstitutional restrictions on the freedom of speech. This 10-1 overturned an earlier ruling by a 3-judge panel of the 11th Circuit that had ruled in favor of the act. The case, Wollschlager v. Florida, had been euphemistically called  the “Docs v. Glocks case”. The State of Florida had brought this case to the 11th Circuit on appeal from the US District Court for the District of South Florida.

In reaction to anecdotal evidence that some doctors, particularly pediatricians, were refusing treatment to children whose parents refused to answer questions regarding firearms as well as “interrogating” children regarding firearms outside the presence of their parents, the Florida Legislature passed the act in 2011. The Firearms Owners Privacy Act added provisions to medical privacy concerning firearms ownership and included disciplinary measures for violating this privacy. The provisions at issue were the ones dealing with record keeping, inquiry, anti-discrimination, and anti-harassment.

There were two majority opinions on this case from the court. The first by Judge Adalberto Jose Jordan, an Obama appointee, found that:

Exercising plenary review, see ACLU of Fla., Inc. v. Miami-Dade County
Sch. Bd., 557 F.3d 1177, 1206 (11th Cir. 2009), and applying heightened scrutiny
as articulated in Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 564 U.S. 552, 563–67, 571–72 (2011),
we agree with the district court that FOPA’s content-based restrictions—the
record-keeping, inquiry, and anti-harassment provisions—violate the First
Amendment as it applies to the states.
See U.S. Const. amend. I (“Congress shall
make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech[.]”); Stromberg v. California,
283 U.S. 359, 368 (1931) (“[T]he conception of liberty under the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment embraces the right of free speech.”). And
because these three provisions do not survive heightened scrutiny under Sorrell,
we need not address whether strict scrutiny should apply to them. We also
conclude, this time contrary to the district court, that FOPA’s anti-discrimination
provision—as construed to apply to certain conduct by doctors and medical
professionals—is not unconstitutional.
Finally, we concur with the district court’s
assessment that the unconstitutional provisions of FOPA can be severed from the
rest of the Act.

He concluded by remanding the case back to District Court so that their permanent injunction could be amended to reflect the findings of the Court of Appeals.

Judge Stanley Marcus, a Clinton appointee, agreed with the other majority opinion but was rather skeptical that the anti-discrimination section of the law wouldn’t be used to also regulate speech.

I also worry that the discrimination provision appears to be a variant of the
harassment provision. Because the majority opinion strikes down the harassment
provision, my concern is that the state will now use the discrimination provision to
punish harassing conduct. The Act defines neither harassment nor discrimination.
It seems to me that the same speech that constituted harassment could now
constitute “discriminatory harassment”3 and thus be prohibited.

However, I also recognize that the Supreme Court has stated that
anti-discrimination provisions prohibiting discriminatory conduct “do not, as a
general matter, violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments.” See Hurley v. IrishAm.
Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 571–72, 115 S. Ct.
2338, 2346 (1995). Based on this guiding principle, and on a narrow reading of
the provision, I would not strike down the discrimination provision. But I remain
skeptical of the government’s motivation behind this Act. And I urge that in all
future cases reviewing content- and viewpoint-based speech regulations we remain
steadfast in our resolve to protect speech and be wary of any law that muzzles
entire categories of speech.

Judge William Pryor, a Bush appointee and presumed finalist for the recent Supreme Court vacancy, also wrote a concurring opinion. He argued that both the First and Second Amendments were important. However, in the course of protecting one right, another right should not be slighted.

We should not be swayed by the argument that the First Amendment may be
curtailed when other constitutional rights need “protection.” In this context,
“protection” is a misnomer. The Constitution protects individual rights from
government infringement, but freedom thrives on private persuasion.
That the
government may not establish a religion, U.S. Const. Amend. I., or ban handguns,
U.S. Const. Amend. II, does not suggest that private individuals may not start a
church or give away their guns. The Second Amendment is not infringed when
private actors argue that guns are dangerous any more than when private actors
support the positions of the National Rifle Association. The “theory of our
Constitution” is that “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself
accepted in the competition of the market.” Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616,
630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). The Florida Legislature overstepped the
boundaries of the First Amendment when it determined that the proper remedy for
speech it considered “evil” was “enforced silence,” as opposed to “more speech.”
Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring).

Finally, Judge  Gerald Tjoflat, a Ford appointee, wrote a blistering dissent which called into question the appropriate level of scrutiny applied by the majority opinions. Unlike the rest of his colleagues, he found that FOPA was narrowly tailored and would have passed even strict scrutiny. He concluded:

The majority and I agree that Florida possesses a substantial interest in
protecting both Floridians’ reasonable expectation of privacy during medical
treatment and the full exercise of their Second Amendment rights. If that is so,
then it is hard to imagine a law more precisely tailored to advance those substantial
state interests than the one presently before us. The Act does not categorically
restrict the speech of medical professionals on the subject of firearms. Instead, it
simply requires an individualized, good faith judgment of the necessity of speech
related to firearm ownership to provide competent medical care to a patient. The
individualized assessment of medical appropriateness required under the Act does
not foreclose the ability of a physician to question a patient, but instead carefully
weighs that right against Florida’s undoubtedly substantial interest in regulating
the medical profession to protect the constitutional rights of all Floridians. In my
judgment, the Act “narrowly protects patients in a focused manner in order to
advance the State’s compelling interest in protecting the Second Amendment’s
guarantee to keep and bear arms and patients’ privacy rights in their medical
records, exactly the sort of tailoring [even] strict scrutiny requires.” Id. at 1201.

Therefore, I respectfully dissent from my colleagues’ judgment that the First
Amendment requires us to declare Florida’s well-considered legislative judgment
unconstitutional.