Wouldn’t You Like To Be Ian?

Ian McCollum of Forgotten Weapons got the chance to visit and to film at the British National Firearms Centre. Their collection includes the original Pattern Room collection. He released a teaser yesterday of some of the firearms he had a chance to examine.

He was able to visit the collection due to his work with ARES Armament Research Services.

Another One Down Thanks To The Firearms Policy Coalition

The City of Tacoma, Washington repealed their ban on the sale, use, and possession of “electronic arms”. This means that stun guns and, presumably, Tasers will now be legal to possess and use for self defense in that city. As legal scholar Eugene Volokh notes, this is just one of many repeals in recent months. The legal reason can be traced back to the Supreme Court’s decision in Caetano v. Massachusetts which found that stun guns were indeed covered by the Second Amendment.

Most of these cities would not have dropped their bans were it not for the Firearms Policy Coalition and their attorney Stephen Stamboulieh. They have been working their way through a list of municipalities with these sort of restrictions and have threatened lawsuits if the bans were not dropped. Mr. Stamboulieh, you may remember, was (unfortunately) an unsuccessful candidate for the NRA Board of Directors this year.

The FPC released the following on their win yesterday:

SACRAMENTO, CA (June 27, 2017) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today applauded the unanimous repeal of Tacoma Washington’s ban on the sale, use, and possession of electronic arms.

Attorneys for FPC sent a letter to the Tacoma City Council on April 10, which warned that the group was ready and willing to sue based on solid case law if the city refused to repeal the ban.

Said FPC attorney Stephen Stambouleih, “As the Supreme Court noted in Caetano v. Massachusetts it “has held that ‘the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.’”

As the latest municipality to repeal a ban, Tacoma was one of only a handful of municipalities nation-wide which still had an outright ban on possession and defensive use of electronic stun guns.

“The City of Tacoma did the right thing here,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “Our staff and attorneys are already reviewing regulations in other cities and states for legal violations. By no means is our work done yet.”

“I think it’s obvious the city knew they would lose any court challenge and they wisely chose to repeal this law,” said Philip Watson, FPC’s Northwest region lobbyist and spokesperson. “We’re not done taking on bans on arms protected by the Second Amendment.”

How They Really See Us

Twitter sends me tweets by email that they think I might find of interest. This was one of them. It led to a video being promoted by the Campaign to Close the Gunshow Loophole (sic). The video short is called “Guntown” and is produced by Los Angeles-based Rogue Kite Productions.

Ostensibly “Guntown” is a parody of open carry and “good guys with a gun”. While it is a parody, I think if you look deeper this is how the gun prohibitionists actually see those who believe in armed self defense.

As the Nazis did with the Jews, if you can dehumanize a group of people then you can begin to persecute them with little or no consequence. The gun prohibitionists consider us a threat because we are individualistic, believe in providing our own self defense, and are not reliant upon the state. In their eyes, we are the untermenschen because we haven’t accepted the “greater truths” that they as enlightened people hold. These “greater truths” include such falsehoods as the state should hold the monopoly on violence and the state is here to protect you.

We need to watch these stupid little videos and read their tweets and Facebook posts. Only by knowing what lies the enemies of self defense, responsible gun ownership, and liberty are promulgating about us can we counter them. Forewarned is forearmed.



Put This On Your Tuesday To-Do List

The Omnibus Gun Bill, HB 746, which contains a constitutional carry provision has been referred to the North Carolina Senate’s Rules Committee. This is the final step before coming up for a floor vote.

It is important that this bill come to the floor before the session comes to a close in the next few days. While the bill was supposed to be on today’s Rules Committee calendar, it doesn’t look like it made it. We need to keep pushing the Republicans on the committee to do the right thing and get that bill out of committee.

Grass Roots North Carolina is asking that people both call and email Republican members of the committee. Their alert is below:

NUDGE SENATE RULES

COMMITTEE ON HB 746



Contact Senators on Rules
Committee

It
appears as though the NC Senate Rules Committee will be considering HB
746 on
Tuesday. It is important that Republican members of the committee hear
from gun owners, in order to remind the Senators of the proper course of
action.

Below, see how you can easily
contact these key senators to encourage them to move HB746 out of
committee, and to
the Senate floor for a vote. They need to hear from you as soon as
possible. Please send them the email provided, and make the phone calls
to those
noted below. If necessary, leave a voice-mail message.


IMMEDIATE ACTION
REQUIRED!


  • PHONE REPUBLICAN SENATE RULES
    COMMITTEE MEMBERS
    :
    Use the phone numbers provided
    below. Tell them:
    I’m
    calling to encourage  you, as
    a member of the Senate Rules Committee, to vote for  the gun bill,
    HB746, thereby sending it to the Senate floor for a vote. Ultimately,
    gun
    rights voters are only asking that you live up to the Republican State
    Platform, which states: ‘We support constitutional carry statutes and
    salute the states that have passed them.
    ‘ Please support this bill. Vote ‘yes’ on the bill in committee and ‘yes’ on the floor of the Senate.
    Thank you.

  • EMAIL THE SENATE RULES COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Use the copy/paste text and the copy/paste email list(s) provided below.

CONTACT INFO

Republican Sen. Rules Committee phone numbers:

Sen. Bill Rabon: (919) 733-5963

Sen. Chad Barefoot: (919) 715-3036

Sen. Andrew C. Brock: (919) 715-0690
Sen. Warren
Daniel: (919) 715-7823
Sen. Kathy Harrington: (919) 733-5734

Sen. Ralph Hise: (919) 733-3460

Sen. Brent Jackson: (919) 733-5705
Sen. Michael V. Lee: 
(919) 715-2525
Sen. Wesley Meredith:  (919) 733-5776

Sen. Louis Pate: (919) 733-5621

Sen. Shirley B. Randleman: (919) 733-5743 
Sen. Jerry W.
Tillman: (919) 733-5870
Sen. Tommy Tucker: (919) 733-7659

Sen. Trudy Wade: (919) 733-5856

Republican Senate Rules Committee copy/paste email
list:

Bill.Rabon@ncleg.net;
Chad.Barefoot@ncleg.net; Andrew.Brock@ncleg.net;
Warren.Daniel@ncleg.net; Kathy.Harrington@ncleg.net;
Ralph.Hise@ncleg.net; Brent.Jackson@ncleg.net;
Michael.Lee@ncleg.net; Wesley.Meredith@ncleg.net; Louis.Pate@ncleg.net;
Shirley.Randleman@ncleg.net; Jerry.Tillman@ncleg.net;
Tommy.Tucker@ncleg.net;
Trudy.Wade@ncleg.net


DELIVER THIS
MESSAGE


Suggested Subject: “Vote for HB746 in Committee and on
Senate Floor
”  
Dear Senator,

I understand that the Senate Rules
Committee is considering the gun bill, HB746, on Tuesday, and I am writing to strongly encourage you to support this bill. 


In accordance with the NC Republican Party’s platform, which states: “
We support constitutional carry statutes and salute the states that have passed
them,” vote ‘yes’ on HB746 in committee, and vote ‘yes’ once it reaches the Senate floor. 


I will be monitoring your
actions on this important issue through alerts from Grass Roots North
Carolina.



Respectfully,  

Not All Bad News Today From SCOTUS

It wasn’t all bad news on gun rights from the US Supreme Court today. Despite the negative ruling on certiorari for the Peruta case, we did get a win today when the court denied the government’s appeal in Sessions et al v. Binderup et al. Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor would have granted certiorari to the government.

The case involved the loss of gun rights for individuals convicted of non-serious misdemeanors. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that it violated the Second Amendment to deny such individuals their right to possess and purchase firearms. The Justice Department under former AG Loretta Lynch appealed that ruling. For some unknown reason, they didn’t move to dismiss the case under AG Jeff Sessions.

By refusing to grant certiorari, the court preserved the ruling of the 3rd Circuit. The Second Amendment Foundation which represented the plaintiffs in this case released the following statement on their win:

BELLEVUE, WA – The Supreme Court of the United States has declined to review an important Second Amendment Foundation case involving firearms rights for individuals convicted of certain non- violent misdemeanor crimes .

The decision allows an earlier favorable en banc ruling for SAF by the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania to stand . In the case of Binderup v. the U.S. Attorney General , the appeals court ruled that individuals convicted of certain non-serious misdemeanor crimes do not lose their fundamental rights under the Second Amendment for life . After SAF won at the appeals court level, the Obama Justice Department sought Supreme Court review .

The case involve d a man named Daniel Binderup , who pleaded guilty in 1996 to a misdemeanor charge related to a consensual relationship he had with a 17-year-old female employee . He received three years’ probation and a $300 fine. However, because the crime could have resulted in jail time of more than one year for which the federal gun law blocks firearms possession , Binderup sought protection of his rights via the courts .

“While we were confident that our case would once again prevail before the Supreme Court, we’re delighted at the high court’s decision that allows our victory in the Third Circuit to stand,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We establish ed the principle that people who are convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes cannot be stripped of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms for life. ”

The Third Circuit Court’s favorable ruling combined Binderup’s case with another SAF case involving a man named Julio Suarez . He was stopped in 1990 on suspicion of driving while intoxicated. At the time he was carrying a handgun and spare ammunition without a permit. He pleaded guilty in Maryland state court to the charge and received a 180-day s uspended sentence and $500 fine . As a result, he also lost his gun rights because the crime could have resulted in jail time of more than one year . Neither man was ever incarcerated.

“We cannot allow government to simply deny constitutionally-delineated rights on such flimsy grounds,” Gottlieb said. “While SAF’s goal is winning firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time, this time we won two!”

SCOTUS Denies Cert In Peruta Case

Damn, damn, damn. I thought the Peruta case had a chance to bring carry before the Supreme Court. In the orders released this morning, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case of Peruta et al v. California et al.

Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch dissented in this denial of cert. Justice Thomas wrote a strong dissent with which Justice Gorsuch joined. I am putting the full dissent below. I will be adding comments after I have had time to read the whole thing.

The addition to the Court of Justice Gorsuch was good. I just wish there were more like him and Justice Thomas who care about both the precedents of Heller and McDonald as well as the Second Amendment.

1
Cite as: 582 U. S. ____ (2017)



THOMAS
, J., dissenting



SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
EDWARD PERUTA,
ET
AL
.
v.
CALIFORNIA,
ET AL



.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



No. 16–894. Decided June 26, 2017


The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.


JUSTICE
THOMAS
, with whom JUSTICE
GORSUCH
joins,
dissenting from the denial of certiorari.



The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees
that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arm[s] shall
not be infringed.” At issue in this case is whether that
guarantee protects the right to carry firearms in public for
self-defense. Neither party disputes that the issue is one
of national importance or that the courts of appeals have
already weighed in extensively. I would therefore grant
the petition for a writ of certiorari.



I


California generally prohibits the average citizen from
carrying a firearm in public spaces, either openly or con­
cealed. With a few limited exceptions, the State prohibits
open carry altogether. Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§25850,
26350 (West 2012). It proscribes concealed carry unless a
resident obtains a license by showing “good cause,” among
other criteria, §§26150, 26155, and it authorizes counties
to set rules for when an applicant has shown good cause,
§26160.



In the county where petitioners reside, the sheriff has
interpreted “good cause” to require an applicant to show
that he has a particularized need, substantiated by docu­mentary evidence, to carry a firearm for self-defense. The
sheriff ’s policy specifies that “concern for one’s personal
safety” does not “alone” satisfy this requirement.
Peruta
v.
County of
San Diego
, 742 F. 3d 1144, 1148 (CA9 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, an applicant
must show “a set of circumstances that distinguish the
applicant from the mainstream and cause him to be placed
in harm’s way.”
Id.
, at 1169 (internal quotation marks
and alterations omitted). “[A] typical citizen fearing for
his personal safety—by definition—cannot distinguish
himself from the mainstream.”
Ibid.
(emphasis deleted;
internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). As a
result, ordinary, “law-abiding, responsible citizens,”
District of Columbia
v.
Heller
, 554 U. S. 570, 635 (2008), may
not obtain a permit for concealed carry of a firearm in
public spaces.



Petitioners are residents of San Diego County (plus an
association with numerous county residents as members)
who are unable to obtain a lic
ense for concealed carry due
to the county’s policy and, because the State generally
bans open carry, are thus unable to bear firearms in public
in any manner. They sued under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42
U.
S. C. §1983, alleging that this near-total prohibition on
public carry violates their Second Amendment right to
bear arms. They requested declaratory and injunctive
relief to prevent the sheriff from denying licenses based on
his restrictive interpretation
of “good cause,” as well as
other “relief as the Court deems just and proper.” First
Amended Complaint in No. 3:09–cv–02371, (SD Cal.)
¶¶149, 150, 152. The District Court granted respondents’
motion for summary judgment, and petitioners appealed
to the Ninth Circuit.



In a thorough opinion, a panel of the Ninth Circuit
reversed. 742 F. 3d 1144. The panel examined the consti­
tutional text and this Court’s precedents, as well as histor­ical sources from before the founding era through the end
of the 19th century.
Id.,
at 1150–1166. Based on these
sources, the court concluded that “the carrying of an oper­able handgun outside the home for the lawful purpose of
self-defense . . . constitutes ‘bear[ing] Arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment.”
Id.
, at 1166. It thus
reversed the District Court and held that the sheriff ’s
interpretation of “good cause” in combination with the
other aspects of the State’s
regime violated the Second
Amendment’s command that a State “permit
some form
of
carry for self-defense outside the home.”
Id.,
at 1172.



The Ninth Circuit
sua sponte
granted rehearing en banc
and, by a divided court, reversed the panel decision. In
the en banc court’s view, because petitioners specifically
asked for the invalidation of the sheriff ’s “good cause”
interpretation, their legal challenge was limited to that
aspect of the applicable regulatory scheme. The court thus
declined to “answer the question of whether or to what
degree the Second Amendment might or might not protect
a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms
openly in public.”
Peruta
v.
County of San Diego
, 824
F.
3d 919, 942 (2016). It instead held only that “the Sec­
ond Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a
member of the general public to carry
concealed
firearms
in public.”
Id.,
at 924 (emphasis added).



II


We should have granted certiorari in this case. The
approach taken by the en banc court is indefensible, and
the petition raises important questions that this Court
should address. I see no reason to await another case.



A


The en banc court’s decision to limit its review to
whether the Second Amendment protects the right to
concealed carry—as opposed to
the more general right to
public carry—was untenable. Most fundamentally, it was
not justified by the terms of the complaint, which called
into question the State’s regulatory scheme as a whole.
See First Amended Complaint ¶63 (“Because California
does not permit the open carriage of loaded firearms, concealed carriage with a [concealed carry] permit is the
only means by which an individual can bear arms in pub­
lic places”);
id.
, ¶74 (“States may not completely ban the
carrying of handguns for self-defense”). And although the
complaint specified the remedy that intruded least on the
State’s overall regulatory regime—declaratory relief and
an injunction against the sheriff ’s restrictive interpretation of “good cause”—it also requested “[a]ny further relief
as the Court deems just and proper.”
Id.,
¶152.



Nor was the Ninth Circuit’s approach justified by the
history of this litigation. The District Court emphasized
that “the heart of the parties’ dispute” is whether the
Second Amendment protects “the right to carry a loaded
handgun in public, either openly or in a concealed man­
ner.”
Peruta
v.
County of San Diego
, 758 F. Supp. 2d 1106,
1109 (SD Cal. 2010). As the Ninth Circuit panel pointed
out, “[petitioners] argue that the San Diego County policy
in light of the California licensing scheme
as a whole
violates the Second Amendment because it precludes a
responsible, law-abiding citizen from carrying a weapon in
public for the purpose of lawful self-defense in
any
man­
ner.” 742 F. 3d, at 1171. The panel further observed that
although petitioners “focu[s]” their challenge on the “li­
censing scheme for concealed carry,” this is “for good
reason: acquiring such a license is the only practical ave­nue by which [they] may come lawfully to carry a gun for
self-defense in San Diego County.”
Ibid.
Even the en banc
court acknowledged that petitioners “base their argument
on the entirety of California’s statutory scheme” and “do
not
contend that there is a free-standing Second Amend­
ment right to carry concealed firearms.” 824 F. 3d, at 927.



B


Had the en banc Ninth Circuit answered the question
actually at issue in this case, it likely would have been
compelled to reach the opposite result. This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects
the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion. As
we explained in
Heller
, to “bear arms” means to “
‘wear,
bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a
pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offen­sive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another
person.’
” 554 U. S., at 584 (quoting
Muscarello
v.
United
States
, 524 U. S. 125, 143 (1998) (GINSBURG
, J.,
dissent­ing); alterations and some internal quotation marks omit­
ted). The most natural reading of this definition encom­
passes public carry. I find it extremely improbable that
the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect
little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the
kitchen. See
Drake
v.
Filko
, 724 F. 3d 426, 444 (CA3
2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting) (“To speak of ‘bearing’
arms solely within one’s home not only would conflate
‘bearing’ with ‘keeping,’ in derogation of the [
Heller
]
Court’s holding that the verbs codified distinct rights, but
also would be awkward usage given the meaning assigned
the terms by the Supreme Court”);
Moore
v.
Madigan
, 702
F. 3d 933, 936 (CA7 2012) (similar). already suggested that the Second Amendment protects
the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion. As
we explained in
Heller
, to “bear arms” means to “
‘wear,
bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a
pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offen­sive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another
person.’
” 554 U. S., at 584 (quoting
Muscarello
v.
United
States
, 524 U. S. 125, 143 (1998) (GINSBURG
, J.,
dissent­ing); alterations and some internal quotation marks omit­
ted). The most natural reading of this definition encom­
passes public carry. I find it extremely improbable that
the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect
little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the
kitchen. See
Drake
v.
Filko
, 724 F. 3d 426, 444 (CA3
2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting) (“To speak of ‘bearing’
arms solely within one’s home not only would conflate
‘bearing’ with ‘keeping,’ in derogation of the [
Heller
]
Court’s holding that the verbs codified distinct rights, but
also would be awkward usage given the meaning assigned
the terms by the Supreme Court”);
Moore
v.
Madigan
, 702
F. 3d 933, 936 (CA7 2012) (similar).
The relevant history appears to support this under­
standing. The panel opinion below pointed to a wealth of
cases and secondary sources from England, the founding
era, the antebellum period, and Reconstruction, which
together strongly suggest that the right to bear arms
includes the right to bear arms in public in some manner.
See 742 F. 3d, at 1153–1166 (canvassing the relevant
history in detail); Brief for Na
tional Rifle Association as
Amicus Curiae
6–16. For example, in
Nunn
v.
State
, 1 Ga.
243 (1846)—a decision the
Heller
Court discussed exten­sively as illustrative of the proper understanding of the
right, 554 U. S., at 612—the Georgia Supreme Court
struck down a ban on open carry although it upheld a ban
on concealed carry. 1 Ga., at 251. Other cases similarly
suggest that, although some regulation of public carry is already suggested that the Second Amendment protects
the right to carry firearms in p
ublic in some fashion. As
we explained in
Heller
, to “bear arms” means to “
‘wear,
bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a
pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offen­sive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another
person.’
” 554 U. S., at 584 (quoting
Muscarello
v.
United
States
, 524 U. S. 125, 143 (1998) (GINSBURG
, J.,
dissent
ing); alterations and some internal quotation marks omit­
ted). The most natural reading of this definition encom
passes public carry. I find it extremely improbable that
the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect
little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the
kitchen. See
Drake
v.
Filko
, 724 F. 3d 426, 444 (CA3
2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting) (“To speak of ‘bearing’
arms solely within one’s home not only would conflate
‘bearing’ with ‘keeping,’ in derogation of the [
Heller
]
Court’s holding that the verbs codified distinct rights, but
also would be awkward usage given the meaning assigned
the terms by the Supreme Court”);
Moore
v.
Madigan
, 702
F. 3d 933, 936 (CA7 2012) (similar).



The relevant history appears to support this under­
standing. The panel opinion below pointed to a wealth of
cases and secondary sources from England, the founding
era, the antebellum period, and Reconstruction, which
together strongly suggest that the right to bear arms
includes the right to bear arms in public in some manner.
See 742 F. 3d, at 1153–1166 (canvassing the relevant
history in detail); Brief for National Rifle Association as
Amicus Curiae
6–16. For example, in
Nunn
v.
State
, 1 Ga.
243 (1846)—a decision the
Heller
Court discussed exten­sively as illustrative of the proper understanding of the
right, 554 U. S., at 612—the Georgia Supreme Court
struck down a ban on open carry although it upheld a ban
on concealed carry. 1 Ga., at 251. Other cases similarly
suggest that, although some regulation of public carry is permissible, an effective ban on all forms of public carry is
not. See,
e.g., State
v.
Reid
, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840) (“A
statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts
to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be
so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose
of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).



Finally, the Second Amendment’s core purpose further
supports the conclusion that the right to bear arms ex­
tends to public carry. The Court in
Heller
emphasized
that “self-defense” is “the
central component
of the [Second
Amendment] right itself.” 554 U. S., at 599. This purpose
is not limited only to the home, even though the need for
self-defense may be “most acute” there.
Id.,
at 628. “Self­
defense has to take place wherever the person happens to
be,” and in some circumstances a person may be more
vulnerable in a public place than in his own house. Volokh, Implementing the Right To Keep and Bear Arms for
Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research
Agenda, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443, 1515 (2009).



C


Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that
the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public
carry, the time has come fo
r the Court to answer this
important question definitively
. Twenty-six States have
asked us to resolve the question presented, see Brief for
Alabama et al. as
Amici Curiae
, and the lower courts have
fully vetted the issue. At least four other Courts of Appeals and three state courts of last resort have decided
cases regarding the ability of States to regulate the public
carry of firearms. Those decisions (plus the one below)
have produced thorough opinions on both sides of the
issue. See
Drake
, 724 F. 3d 426, cert. denied
sub nom.
Drake
v.
Jerejian
, 572 U. S. ___ (2014); 724 F. 3d,
at 440
(Hardiman, J., dissenting);
Woollard
v.
Gallagher
, 712
F.
3d 865 (CA4), cert. denied, 571 U. S. ___ (2013);
Kachalsky
v.
County of Westchester
, 701 F. 3d 81 (CA2 2012),
cert. denied
sub nom
.
Kachalsky
v.
Cacace
, 569 U. S. ___
(2013);
Madigan
, 702 F. 3d 933;
id.,
at 943 (Williams, J.,
dissenting);
Commonwealth
v.
Gouse
, 461 Mass. 787, 800–
802, 965 N. E. 2d 774, 785–786 (2012);
Williams
v.
State
,
417 Md. 479, 496, 10 A. 3d 1167, 1177 (2011);
Mack
v.
United States
, 6 A. 3d 1224, 1236 (D. C. 2010). Hence, I do
not see much value in waiting for additional courts to
weigh in, especially when constitutional rights are at
stake.



The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case re­
flects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second
Amendment as a disfavored right. See
Friedman
v.
High

land Park
, 577 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (THOMAS
, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 6) (“The Court’s
refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second
Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the
Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that
disregard our other constitutional decisions”);
Jackson
v.
City and County of San Francisco
, 576 U. S. ___, ___
(2015) (same). The Constitution does not rank certain
rights above others, and I do not think this Court should
impose such a hierarchy by selectively enforcing its pre­ferred rights.
Id.
, at ___ (slip op., at 1) (“Second Amend­ment rights are no less protected by our Constitution than
other rights enumerated in that document”). The Court
has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in
over seven years—since March 2, 2010, in
McDonald
v.
Chicago
, 561 U. S. 742. Since that time, we have heard
argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the
question presented turned on the meaning of the First
Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of
the Fourth Amendment. This discrepancy is inexcusable,
especially given how much
less developed our jurispru­dence is with respect to the Second Amendment as com­
pared to the First and Fourth Amendments.



For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded
constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the
guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem anti­quated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear
choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear
arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by
idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly
when their very lives may depend on it. I respectfully
dissent.

A Safety Reminder From NSSF

There are many ways to store a firearm when not in use. The National Shooting Sports Foundation video below goes over a few of those. I am in the market for one of those quick-access lockboxes myself.

One thing I might note. If we don’t take storing our firearms safely seriously, someone aka big government will do it for us and I doubt they’d get it right.

Fast And Furious Revisited

Sharyl Attkisson had a story this morning on her Full Measure news show about Operation Fast and Furious and BATFE Senior Agent John Dodson. Since it isn’t syndicated in all markets, I have embedded it below.

As I watched her interview with Agent Dodson, I was struck by a few things. First, Dodson is a brave and ethical man. He is still with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives despite all the crap thrown his way by his own agency. He has been transferred 11 times in the six years since he blew the whistle on Operation Fast and Furious. It is obvious that the powers that be in BATFE – who just happened to be in positions of power six years ago – want him gone. Dodson has gone into some detail about his experiences in his own book over the scandal.

Second, I am aghast that the Department of Justice under President Trump and AG Sessions has not seen fit to release all the documents sought by the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee. I have to hope that the reason the documents haven’t been released is because the issue hasn’t been brought before Sessions himself. If I remember it correctly, Jeff Sessions and his staff were some of the first people approached by the late Mike Vanderboegh regarding the gunwalking.

Third, the Deep State exists. There are still people in positions of power who are working tirelessly to retaliate against whistleblowers like John Dodson and to continue submerging the truth about Project Gunwalker aka Fast and Furious. Until these people are rooted out and dismissed, I doubt the full truth will ever be known.

Earlier this month, the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee released another report which dealt with the obstruction of Congress by the DOJ with regards to Operation Fast and Furious. The report concluded that there were failures (1) to provide answers to the Terry family, (2) there was a failure to objectively gather the facts, (3) there was a significant lack of respect for Congressional oversight, and (4) that former Attorney General Eric Holder’s priorities were politics and spin.

A Rite Of Passage

As we go through life we all have rites of passage. It might be a momentous occasion such as our graduation from high school or college, our wedding, or, sadly, the death of a parent. Rites of passage can also be simpler things such as our first kiss or our first hit in Little League.

I had such a rite of passage on Friday:  I closed on the sale of the house I grew up in. The house had been in the family for just a few months short of 51 years.

My mom bought the house in September 1966. She had been looking for a house in the Sunset Hills neighborhood of Greensboro for years and finally found one in her price range. Her goals in buying this house were to cut down on her commute to the high school where she taught and, more important in her mind, to allow me to walk to Our Lady of Grace School which was a mere 1 1/2 blocks away. She also wanted me to be in a neighborhood where there were a lot of kids my age with which to play. I just didn’t have that in Asheboro.

I was nine and had just started 4th grade when we moved in. My grandmother soon joined us as the stairs in her house in New York were getting to be too much for her. She would live there until she passed away in the house in 1972.

This house was my permanent residence until I left for grad school in Chapel Hill in 1979. Even then I would come back many a weekend to see my mom or just hang out. My mom lived there until her dementia and another broken hip made it impossible. Save for the occasional renter and my sporadic visits, the house sat empty for the last number of years.

Given all the things this house saw, I have been asked whether I am happy or sad about selling the house. Actually, I am quite happy. Aaron, the new owner, is excited about buying the house and he loves the fact that basics of the house have not changed since it was built in 1927 (or so). Aaron has plans to make this a home for he and his partner and I think it will be the showplace that I had neither the time nor the inclination to make it. He will transform something that was becoming a burden for me into a source of joy.

So goodbye old house. Protect Aaron and his partner from the elements and give them another 50 years of memories just as you have given them to me.

Smug Mugs In NC Senate Need A Reminder Who Put Them There

Leave it to Alex Trebek and Jeopardy to help me with a headline.

Nonetheless, the Republicans in the North Carolina State Senate need a reminder that it was gun owners and their votes that helped them get a super-majority. They currently are dragging their feet on HB 746 – the Omnibus Gun Bill – which has passed the House and which contains constitutional carry as one of its provisions. With the projected adjournment date of July 1st fast approaching, they need to act soon or all gun rights legislation will be lost for 2017.

Grass Roots North Carolina is calling upon gun owners to contact the Republican leadership, all Republican state senators, and their own state senator to urge them to get a move on regarding HB 746.

ARE SMUG REPUBLICANS

BRUSHING OFF GUN VOTERS?



Does it now appear that NC’s Republican Senators were never serious about Constitutional
Carry…? 

Are Smug Republicans Working to Kill Constitutional Carry?

After pro-gun posturing by
Republicans in the NC Senate, it turns out they may never have had any
intention of
voting with gun owners on HB746. Senate leadership insisted, as long as
gun owners were patient, as long as we were quiet, and we minded our
“Ps&Qs,” we could count on the Senate to uphold their own Party
platform, live up to campaign rhetoric, and push Constitutional Carry to
the governor’s desk. Well, we’ve re-learned the lesson about the value
of a politician’s promises. With the projected date of
adjournment fast approaching, July 1st, Republican senators have yet to
budge on Second Amendment legislation.  If they don’t move
NOW, all gun legislation is likely dead for 2017!

Remind Senators of Approaching
Elections


Thank goodness for the ballot box. Every time
an
election is over, there is always another one just down the road. And
nowadays, voters have electronic reminders on their phones, a
twenty-four hour
news cycle, GRNC’s alerts, and GRNC’s “Remember in November” campaign to
remind them during Primary season, and again in November,
which politicians stood with them, and which did not. Nowadays, finding
new blood to send to Raleigh is almost too easy.

With that in mind, we’re
asking you to once again phone a couple of key Republican senators,
along with your own senator, and to also send an email to the entire
Republican
Senate. It appears that the entire Republican caucus may be giving you
the brush off, and one wonders if they’re having a good laugh over the
little
trick they played: “Be patient with us, and we’ll live up to our Party’s
platform and our campaign promises.”

Wipe That Smug Smile off Their Faces

Well, we’re not laughing, and if these senators do not immediately
redeem themselves in the eyes of gun rights supporters, we the voters
will
have the last laugh—during election season. Below, see how you can
convey this message to the Republicans in the Senate, particularly a
couple
of senators in leadership positions.


IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!


  • CALL KEY SENATE REPUBLICANS AND YOUR SENATOR (Do this immediately. Time is running out. Leave a voice-mail if you must):
    Phone numbers for two key Senate leaders are listed below.
    Use the link
    provided find your own senator’s phone number. Use the following text to deliver a phone message:
Hello,
I am calling Senator [name] because I’m incensed
over the treatment gun owners like me are receiving from Senate
leadership, and by extension, from all Senate Republicans. Gun voters
like me have
been politely requesting the advancement of HB746, and we’ve been
patiently waiting amid promises that the bill will be heard in caucus
and sent
to the Senate floor for a vote. None of this is happening and time is
up. You must move HB746 Thursday (June 22).

It’s
beginning to seem as
though gun owners  were duped by the double-talk of establishment
politicians. With this in mind, I demand that HB746 be sent to the floor
for a
vote, and then on to the Governor’s desk immediately. If it is not, you
can be 100% sure that this will not be forgotten, and I will be looking
for a primary candidate in 2018. Reminders on my phone will be set so I
don’t forget how the Senator treated me during a non-election year, and
I will be paying close attention to GRNC alerts and their “Remember in
November” campaign during 2018. Get HB746 to the floor, and to the
Governor’s desk now. Thank you.

  • EMAIL THE ALL SENATE
    REPUBLICANS
    : use the
    copy/paste email address list(s) below, and the copy/paste text provided under ‘Deliver This Message.’
CONTACT INFO
Sen. Phil Berger: (919)
733-5708

Sen. Bill Rabon: (919) 733-5963

Click Here to find your Senator, and call him/her, too

(or go
to:
http://www.ncleg.net/representation/WhoRepresentsMe.aspx).

NC Senate Republicans copy/paste email *list(s):

John.Alexander@ncleg.net;
Deanna.Ballard@ncleg.net; Chad.Barefoot@ncleg.net;
Tamara.Barringer@ncleg.net; Phil.Berger@ncleg.net; Dan.Bishop@ncleg.net;
Danny.Britt@ncleg.net;
Andrew.Brock@ncleg.net; Harry.Brown@ncleg.net; Bill.Cook@ncleg.net;
David.Curtis@ncleg.net; Warren.Daniel@ncleg.net;

Jim.Davis@ncleg.net;
Cathy.Dunn@ncleg.net; Chuck.Edwards@ncleg.net; Rick.Gunn@ncleg.net;
Kathy.Harrington@ncleg.net; Ralph.Hise@ncleg.net; Rick.Horner@ncleg.net;
Brent.Jackson@ncleg.net; Joyce.Krawiec@ncleg.net; Michael.Lee@ncleg.net;
Tom.McInnis@ncleg.net; Wesley.Meredith@ncleg.net;

Paul.Newton@ncleg.net;
Louis.Pate@ncleg.net; Ron.Rabin@ncleg.net; Bill.Rabon@ncleg.net;
Shirley.Randleman@ncleg.net; Norman.Sanderson@ncleg.net;
Jeff.Tarte@ncleg.net;
Jerry.Tillman@ncleg.net; Tommy.Tucker@ncleg.net; Trudy.Wade@ncleg.net;
Andy.Wells@ncleg.net


*Spam
filters or email program limitations may
cause the need to send more than one email, to cover the entire list of
representatives. If so, the list above is split into three pieces, for
your
convenience.

DELIVER THIS MESSAGE

Suggested Subject:
Move HB746 Now or Face Voters’ Wrath”  
Dear Senator:



I am writing today because it
appears
that the Republican Senate’s interest in passing Constitutional Carry
and other pro-gun legislation, in the form of HB746, may have been
entirely insincere.
To be clear: I am insisting that HB746 be moved through
caucus and to the Senate floor on Thursday, June 22nd; not a day later.
I fear that senators’ talk about gun rights was only
posturing designed to hush gun owners while Republicans quietly brushed
us off. I am insisting you alleviate that fear with action. 

This
non-action on gun rights is unacceptable, and I assure you, if the
Republicans in the Senate do not redeem themselves by sending HB746 to
the floor
for a vote, and ultimately to the Governor’s desk, there will be heavy
political consequences. Keep in mind, after you adjourn this year, there
is yet another legislative session next year, and gun owners like me
will not stop pushing for our civil rights. We will continue to demand
that you
live up to your pro-gun rhetoric.

Thank goodness for the ballot box, and
the times we live in do indeed complement the ballot box quite well.
Never
have voters had so much power at their fingertips. Memories have never
been longer, with electronic reminders on our phones (which can be setup
years
ahead of the next election), a twenty-four hour news cycle, GRNC alerts,
and GRNC’s “Remember in November” campaign to name a few
useful tools. Yes, these simple tools remind gun voters like me, during
Primary season, and again in November, which politicians stood with me,
and
which did not during an odd-numbered year. 

Frankly, I am incensed
over your treatment of gun owners like me. We’ve done our job. We have
consistently renewed your veto-proof majority, and supported you when
you needed us, with our money and our votes. Now, as our
representatives,
it’s time to live up to your end of the bargain. Support the Party
platform you profess to believe in. Follow through on your pro-Second
Amendment campaign rhetoric.

Move HB746 to the Senate floor for a vote
now—on Thursday, June 22nd. Vote “yes,” and send it to the
Governor’s desk. Voters will not forget your actions during this
critical time.

I will be monitoring your actions on Constitutional Carry
through
alerts from Grass Roots North Carolina.

Respectfully,