Uncategorized

Uncategorized

Well There Goes Her Rationale For Keeping Gun Free Zones

September 12, 2017 by

Shannon Watts, potential congressional candidate from Colorado and Bloomberg’s gift that keeps on giving, put up this tweet yesterday about the murders in Plano, Texas over the weekend. She is never one to let a family tragedy go to waste.

Watts and her minions have consistently argued against arming teachers and in favor of more gun free zones. Their argument is that a gun free zone is safer which people reading this blog know only creates a target rich environment for psychopaths.

Her whole supposed rationale for keeping schools, university campuses, and other public places “gun free” is to prevent mass shootings and “gun violence” (sic). Her Moms Demand Action was supposedly created in response to the murders in Newtown. (Actually, I think it was merely a vehicle to reinvent her moribund career.)

But if she is correct in stating that the majority of mass shootings take place in private residences, doesn’t that shoot down her rationale for more supposed gun free zones? Private residences will never be legally gun free. It will only be on an ad hoc basis at the whims of the individual residents. The Heller decision saw to that.

Shannon Watts is nothing if not consistently inconsistent. Her only consistencies seem to be guns are bad (unless they are used to protect me), “hey, look at me”, and how can I make a family tragedy into a PR gain for me.

Uncategorized

“Not Made of Cotton Candy”

September 11, 2017 by 2 Comments

It is somewhat hard to believe that September 11, 2001 was sixteen years ago. It still seems so clear in my memory that I feel like it was only yesterday that those four airplanes filled with mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, were hijacked and made into weapons. I guess this is the way all seminal events in our lives feel.

I listened to the speech given by Secretary of Defense James Mattis today. He said, “But we Americans are not made of cotton candy, we are not seaweed drifting in the current, we are not intimidated by our enemies.” He was right. It filled our nation with a terrible resolve to use Admiral Yamamoto’s words after the Pearl Harbor surprise attack. We struck back and we struck hard.

While today is officially known as Patriot Day, I will continue to use the old term of September 11th. I will remember those lost that day and those that died in the conflicts that followed.

Secretary Mattis’ full speech is below. His quote used in the headline comes at about the 1:45 mark.

Uncategorized

Verrit.Com Isn’t Reliable No Matter What They Or Hillary Says

September 7, 2017 by 3 Comments

Verrit.com is a new website founded by Peter Daou. They call themselves the media for the 65.8 million. That is a play on the popular vote received by Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential Election. Daou was an advisor to Clinton in her 2008 run for the presidency.

The website claims to have verified all the political nuggets that they put into little digestible bites. They even put a verification number of that little nugget of wisdom.

Verrit collects and contextualizes noteworthy facts, stats, and quotes for politically engaged citizens. Each “verrit” is a verified item of information marked with a 7-digit identification code. To authenticate a verrit, enter the code in the search bar and match it to our database.

The website and its “service” has been endorsed by Clinton. That said, it is getting grief from both the left and the right. Politico says it looks like “North Korean Agitprop.” The Washington Examiner calls it, in an opinion piece, “a leftist partisan blunder.” Finally, even the Washington Post – Pravda on the Potomac – calls it a media platform that “is looking worse and worse.”

Let’s look at one of their cards dealing with “gun violence” (sic).

You know that old saying about how figures lie and liars figure? This is one of them.

First, who in their right mind would use Newsweek as your source for anything authoritative? Really?

Second, it also depends on how you define children. To see what the real numbers showed, I went to the authoritative source on mortality statistics in the United States:  the Center for Disease Control and their WISQARS database.

The database has a tool where you can generate charts showing deaths by age and by cause. I broke down the age groups into less than one, 1-4, 5-9, 10-14, and 15-19. While it generated numbers for all age groups I don’t consider anyone over 19 to be a “child”. If I could have specified less than 18 only, I would have done that as 18 is the age of majority in virtually all the states.

Here are the top five leading causes of death for those under the age of 20 in the United States in 2015:

  1. Unintentional Injuries (minus firearm related) —- 7,863
  2. Congenital Anomolies —- 5,792
  3. Short Gestation —- 4,084
  4. All Firearm Related Deaths Combined —- 2,761
  5. Malignant Neoplasms (cancer) —- 1,802
So obviously, Newsweek and Verrit.com are wrong. Guns are NOT the third leading cause of death for children in America. To give you a better idea about firearm related deaths, I broke it down by age, type of death, and whether it involved a firearm in the chart below. All the data comes directly from the CDC database mentioned above. I would encourage everyone to run their own chart as they allow you to drill down.

Age Group Total Deaths Homicide w Firearms Suicide w Firearms Unintentional  w Firearms
Under 1 23455 263 8 0 0 1291 1
1-4 3965 369 50 0 0 1235 25
5-9 2402 140 69 0 0 755 7
10-14 3009 158 121 409 139 763 15
15-19 10186 1587 1397 2061 877 3919 52
Total 43017 2517 1645 2470 1016 7963 100
Total
Deaths 		 2761
Involving
a Firearm

I have underlined the deaths involving a firearm. All of these numbers are from 2015 which are the latest available.

What struck me about these numbers is that below the age of 15, the number of homicides and suicides involving a firearm are rather low. However, it is the cohort between the ages of 15 and 19 that are of concern. Without having the ICD-10 data that would allow me to drill down even further, I can only surmise what is behind the number of homicides in the later teen years. I would speculate that much of it is drug and gang related but I can’t say that for sure.

Suicides for this cohort are almost evenly divided between those involving a firearm and those that involve suffocation. Suicides in the younger 10-14 age range are more likely to involve suffocation while in the adult cohorts firearms are more likely to be used.

The bottom line here is that those opposed to the Second Amendment will fudge their numbers and that Verrit can put out as much “fake news” as anyone else even if it has a gimmicky verification number. If you want reliable data, you have to go to reliable sources. Even then, you have to dig to get it.

Uncategorized

Hmmm. Very Interesting. Trouble In (Gun Control) Paradise?

September 6, 2017 by 4 Comments

There is that old saying that says keep your friends close but your enemies closer.

In that spirit, I read with interest that Dan Gross has stepped down as the president of the Brady Campaign. He was the ad executive brought in to replace Paul Helmke as president back in early 2012 after a long search. Gross will be replaced by Co-Presidents Kristin Brown and Avery Gardiner.

Historically, the presidents of the Brady Campaign have been men since its formation in 1974 as the National Council to Control Handguns. Sarah Brady’s role was as chair of the organization from 1989 until her death in 2015.

I wonder if the switch to female co-presidents has something to do with what seems to be the female centric nature of the gun prohibitionists. Even beyond Moms Demand Action, any rally, protest, gathering, etc. seems to be composed primarily of women. I don’t know but it seems to have some logic to it.

Here is the press release from the Brady Campaign announcing the changes.

Board of The Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence Appoints Two Internal Executives to Lead Organization

Board Chair says “Mission to cut gun deaths has never been more urgent.”

WASHINGTON, DC – September 6, 2017 — The Board of Trustees of The Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence announced today it has appointed Kristin Brown and Avery Gardiner, as Co-Presidents of the Washington, D.C., nonprofit.

“The Brady Campaign and Center’s mission to cut gun deaths in half by 2025 has never been more urgent,” said Kevin Quinn, Chairman of the Board. “Brady has a focused strategy to prevent gun violence, and we need strong leaders with exceptional strategic and operational skills to achieve our goals. We have those leaders in Kristin and Avery. We are confident in the appointment of these two executives to lead this great community of Brady advocates and our organization.”

Brown and Gardiner will lead the organization from Washington, with a renewed focus on Brady’s three strategic campaigns to: (i) expand Brady background checks to all gun sales; (ii) change the cultural perception that a gun in the home makes you safer; and (iii) shut down or reform the small number of bad apple gun dealers that supply the vast majority of our nation’s crime guns. The new leadership brings extensive experience in law, policy, and public health, all of which are critical to leading these three campaigns, which have a core focus in each of those areas.

Kristin Brown was previously the Brady Campaign’s Chief Strategy Officer. She began her tenure at Brady as the National Policy Director and has a corporate, policy and legal background, having worked on Capitol Hill for more than 8 years where violence prevention and public health were two of her chief policy issues. Brown served for many years as a member of the Executive Management Board and Chief Legal Officer to a global logistics/airline services company based in Switzerland and, prior to that, represented companies in complex litigation and restructuring cases at the law firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges.

Avery Gardiner was previously the Brady Center’s Chief Legal Officer. She has been responsible for shaping and driving the organization’s legal strategy, as well as providing legal advice to all of the organization’s departments. She brings extensive litigation and strategic experience to the Brady Center, having litigated and provided strategic advice as a lawyer for a Fortune 15 telecommunications company and at the United States Department of Justice in addition to past roles at major national law firms.

Both Brown and Gardiner already served on Brady’s Executive Management Team.

The Board accepted the resignation of Brady’s immediate past president, Dan Gross, who will remain with the organization to assist with the transition. According to the Chair of the Board, “Mr. Gross has been an important and influential leader in the gun violence prevention movement for many years, has led Brady, and leaves the organization poised for even greater success. We are grateful for Mr. Gross’s service to this issue and organization and wish him the best in his future endeavors.”

The appointment is effective immediately.

Uncategorized

Appeal To The Supreme Court Filed In The Silvester Case

September 5, 2017 by 1 Comment

Silvester et al v. Becerra (formerly v. Harris) is a California case that involves a challenge to the 10-day waiting period for those individuals in classes where a waiting or cooling off period makes no rational sense. It was a win at the US District Court level. However, the 9th Circuit bizarrely ruled – but I repeat myself – that even those who owned a firearm and who held a concealed carry permit from California needed that cooling off period.

The Calguns Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation, Jeff Silvester, and Brandon Combs are the plaintiffs in this case. This past Friday, they have appealed to the US Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. Their petition can be found here.

More on the case in the Calguns Foundation’s release:

WASHINGTON, D.C. (September 1, 2017)­­­­­­ – Today, two individuals and two Second Amendment civil rights advocacy groups filed a petition for certiorari in the case of Silvester, et al. v. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra asking the United States Supreme Court to review and overturn a wrongly-decided Ninth Circuit decision about the State of California’s 10-day waiting period laws, noted The Calguns Foundation, one of the petitioners.

A copy of the petition to the Supreme Court and other relevant case documents can be viewed or downloaded at https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/silvester.

In 2014, Federal District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii—nominated to the bench by then-President Clinton—held that the waiting period laws were unconstitutional as applied to three categories of gun purchasers after undertaking significant discovery, depositions, and a three-day bench trial.

But in 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit bizarrely ruled that even a person legally carrying a concealed handgun as he buys another gun at retail, and who passes a further background check, needs to be “cooled off” for another 10 days before exercising his Second Amendment rights and taking possession of a constitutionally-protected firearm.

“I passed a rigorous state and federal background check and have a license to carry a handgun in public throughout the State of California,” explained individual plaintiff Jeffrey Silvester, an insurance broker in Hanford, California. “The DOJ knows that I am a law-abiding person, and I’m even in their Rap Back system. What possible reason does the State have in denying me my Second Amendment right to take possession of a firearm after I pass yet another background check?”

The petition, authored by Supreme Court and appellate attorney Erik. S. Jaffe of Washington, D.C., noted that it “is no secret that various lower courts, and the Ninth Circuit especially, are engaged in systematic resistance to” the Court’s landmark Heller and McDonald decisions. In doing so, the petitioners argue, the Ninth Circuit ignored important legal rules that govern how infringements on constitutional rights are to be scrutinized and that govern review of a trial court determinations of the facts in a case. Petitioners maintain that the Ninth Circuit’s decision represents one of the clearest example yet of open circumvention of Second Amendment rights, when even the results of a trial cannot survive the hostile appellate review often applied in Second Amendment cases.

The petition notes that the lax legal standard applied by the Ninth Circuit in this case conflicts with the more protective legal standard applied by the Supreme Court, “poses a threat not merely to Second Amendment rights, but to First and Fourteenth Amendment rights as well, and that review should be granted “to correct that conflict” and enforce the proper standard of constitutional scrutiny of laws that burden Second Amendment rights.

Brandon Combs, an individual plaintiff in the case as well as the executive director of organizational plaintiff The Calguns Foundation, believes that fundamental, individual Second Amendment rights are being treated like second-class rights.

“In its decision to ignore the trial court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as well as longstanding principles of appellate review,” said Combs, “the Ninth Circuit has made it crystal clear that it has no intention of following the Supreme Court’s precedents no matter how unconstitutional, arbitrary, or irrational the law. This case and the Ninth Circuit’s treatment of fundamental rights are beyond ripe for review.”

“We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will use t

he extensive record here to further develop its Second Amendment precedent and place the right to keep and bear arms on an equal footing with First Amendment rights, such as freedom of speech.”

Silvester, Combs, and The Calguns Foundation are joined in the petition by Second Amendment Foundation of Bellevue, WA, which also partially funded the case.

Uncategorized

The Remington Model 10 Goes To War

September 1, 2017 by 1 Comment

I stumbled across a video on the John Pedersen designed Remington Model 10 pump shotgun. The model featured in the video was the trench shotgun made for the American Expeditionary Force in WWI. Remington made approximately 3,500 of these shotguns equipped with a 23-inch barrel, a bayonet lug, and a wooden handguard or heat shield on top of the barrel. This shotgun was the lesser known trench gun used in that war. The Winchester Model 1897 was the shotgun that is more widely thought of when you say trench gun.

A copy of the original owner’s manual for the civilian version of the Model 10 is here. While only 3,500 of the military trench guns were made, Remington made approximately 275,000 of these shotguns from 1908 until 1929.

What makes this shotgun so interesting in my opinion is that it is a bottom ejecting shotgun like the more well-known Ithaca Model 37 or the Browning BPS. That combined with a simple, Garand-style safety, and you have a shotgun that can be used by everyone regardless of dominant hand. Add the long “pig sticker” bayonet and you have a very potent and deadly firearm for defending or attaching trenches.

Given that so few of these shotguns were made as trench shotguns and given that many of those were converted to riot guns, I’d hesitate to say what one of these would be worth nowadays except to say “a lot”.

Uncategorized

Product Safety Warning For Canik 9mm Pistols

September 1, 2017 by

Century Arms sent out a product safety warning regarding the Canik pistols that they import from Turkey. They note while these pistols meet current industry and military abusive handling standards, abusive testing can damage them and cause safety issues.

I can’t say that I’ve ever fired a Canik pistol but I did get to dry-fire the Canik TP9SFx at the SHOT Show in 2015. I would consider getting one of those if the price came down as it fit my hand nicely and the trigger seemed pretty decent.

Here is the release that Century Arms sent out this morning by email:

Product Safety Warning and Severe Duty Upgrade

 
Century
Arms, North America’s premier AK manufacturer, announced today the
Canik Product Safety Warning and Severe Duty Upgrade Notice. This notice
applies to Canik’s 9×19 mm pistols: TP9SA, TP9SF, TP9SFx, TP9SF Elite,
TP9SF Elite-S. Canik’s other products are not subject to this notice.
All Canik pistols comply with and exceed current industry and military
abusive handling standards. There are no safety concerns with the
pistols when used under ordinary conditions.

Canik is committed to continuously improving its product’s performance. Evaluations and tests have shown that repeated abusive dropping of pistols may result in damage to safety features and unintentional discharge.
DANGER: IF ANY FIREARM IS DROPPED INTERNAL PARTS MAY HAVE BEEN DEFORMED, DAMAGED OR DISABLED. The product must be inspected by a qualified gunsmith or returned for inspection after any significant impact.
WARNING: REPEATED IMPACTS TO YOUR PISTOL TO TEST ITS SAFETY FUNCTIONS WILL DAMAGE INTERNAL PARTS, AND VOID ITS WARRANTY. Firearm
abusive handling tests can be dangerous and should only be conducted by
qualified individuals in controlled environments with proper safety
precautions in place. Canik does not recommend that any customer conduct
drop tests or other endurance tests before or after this Severe Duty
Upgrade.
WARNING: CONSUMERS SHOULD ONLY USE CANIK PARTS IN OUR PISTOLS. AFTERMARKET PARTS COULD DECREASE OR DISABLE SAFETY FEATURES OF YOUR CANIK PISTOL. 
Canik is committed to manufacturing safe, reliable, innovative and affordable firearms. We are offering a voluntary
upgrade to the trigger safety spring and firing pin block spring on the
Canik models noted above. This is to further increase the safety of
Canik pistols for enhanced drop discharge prevention in heavy/severe
duty conditions that are beyond
industry standards. The Severe Duty Upgrade does not alter any feature
or design of the pistols. Canik will provide all parts and workmanship
at no charge, but customers will be responsible for shipping costs.
Steps for upgrading your pistol? Our goal is to have the Severe Duty Upgrade process in place by Friday, September 8, 2017. After this date, please visit www.CanikUSA.com for complete instructions on how to receive your Severe Duty Upgrade.
Uncategorized

Resolution Against Civil Rights In California

August 31, 2017 by 1 Comment

First, it was about guns for Native Americans. Then, it was to prevent Latinos and Chinese from obtaining firearms. Now, it is about carry for the rest of us. I won’t begin to even mention the Berkeley police standing down and letting domestic terrorists (Antifa) beat free speech advocates.

That’s a nice record you got going there California.

From the Firearms Policy Coalition on a new Assembly resolution that would oppose national carry reciprocity:

SACRAMENTO, CA (August 28, 2017) — Asm. Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles) is asking the California State Legislature once again express their contempt for civil rights with the introduction of Assembly Joint Resolution (AJR) 24.

AJR 24 voices the Legislature’s opposition to current efforts in congress to pass “concealed carry reciprocity” legislation (S. 446 and H.R. 38) and any other similar legislation because it would require all states to recognize the concealed carry licenses of other states, creating equity for all when it comes to exercising the constitutional right to bear arms.

“This is not the first time the California Legislature has expressed their complete and utter disregard civil rights” stated Craig DeLuz, Spokesman for the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). “California has a long and tortured history with using gun laws to pick winners and losers instead of supporting equality and civil rights for all.”

The first gun control law passed in California, AB 80 was enacted in 1854. It was, “An Act to prevent the sale of firearms and ammunition to the Indians in this State.” In 1924 the Hawes Act was enacted to prevent Hispanics and Chinese from obtaining firearms. It also modified California’s concealed carry permit program to allow local law enforcement to subjectively discriminate in the issuance of permits under the guise of “discretion”, a practice that continues to this day.

Under California law, even if a law abiding resident passes thorough federal, state and local background checks, successfully completes specified training, which includes the law relating to use of force, and demonstrates competency with their firearm, they can still be turned down by the local sheriff or police chief for absolutely no objective reason at all.

Then there was the Mulford Act of 1967, which banned the right to openly carry a loaded firearm. This measure was meant to disarm civil rights activists groups like the Black Panthers.

“Gun control in California has always seemed to be about keeping unfavored groups of people from owning, possessing or bearing firearms”, said DeLuz. “ In AJR 24, the unfavored group of people are those who visit here from states that actually respect the second amendment rights of their residents.”

AJR 24 has been referred to the Assembly Public Safety Committee, where FPC plans to vigorously oppose it. “California is not an island and needs to respect the rights of all Americans.” said DeLuz, “We understand that they don’t respect the rights of their own residents. But now they want to export their discriminatory policies to all 50 states.”

No hearing date has been set for either the Congressional bills or AJR 24.

Uncategorized

Greensboro Gun Show AAR

August 29, 2017 by 1 Comment

This past Saturday I attended the Greensboro (NC) Gun Show with my son-in-law Jeremy and his dad Jeff. The show is held twice yearly at the Greensboro Coliseum Complex. It had been a year since we’d last gone to this gun show. The show is an 800 table show which puts it about twice as large as the Asheville (400) and Winston-Salem (300) gun shows.

Much has changed in the year since we last attended this gun show. The largest change is in the political landscape which in turn has impacted the gun world and attendant sales. When it looked like vehemently anti-gun Hillary Clinton would win the presidency, gun sales stayed extremely strong and broke previous records. Many had a “better get it now” mentality. Then Donald Trump surprised both Hillary and the world by taking the presidency. While there are still threats on the state and local level, the pressure on the federal level is now off. Sales are down and so are the prices on certain firearms.

Along with that it seems so is the attendance at gun shows. The last time I attended the Greensboro show there were lines to buy tickets. This year, you could just walk up to one of the four ticket sellers and buy a ticket. Parking was easy and we got a good spot not that far from the entrance.

My experience in Greensboro is similar to what I’ve seen in Asheville. Aisles are not crowded. There are some tables going unsold and some vendors are missing. I spoke with one vendor who sold knives who said this was their last show at Greensboro unless they saw sales improve. They had an end of the row location with tables covering both sides and the end. In other words, a prime location to attract plenty of attention.

I didn’t see too many people wandering the aisles with guns or ammo for sale. That may just have been a Greensboro Gun Show thing as I often see it in Asheville. I did see a handful of tables with people conducting private sales of a limited number of firearms. These tended to be either older bolt action guns or double barrel shotguns.

In terms of prices, gun shows have never seemed to me to be the place to get the best prices on new guns. That said, I was more than a little surprised to see Ruger AR-556s selling for under $500. Indeed one vendor had them marked down to $445. That is as telling an indicator of the state of the AR market as anything. Of course, you had other vendors trying to sell these same carbines in the mid-$600 range. As many others have said or written, now is the time to buy an AR-15 if you don’t have one. I almost bought one to put away but I already have enough ARs as well as enough parts to build three or so more.

The one firearm category attracting the most attention are the new 12-gauge,14″ barreled not-shotguns, not-pistols, but merely firearms from Remington and Mossberg. I spoke to one vendor who had at least 8-10 Mossberg Shockwaves on his table and he said they were selling very well.

So what did I come home with? A set of AR handguards, a molle mag pouch to use as a knife pouch, a RCBS shellholder, and a Fenix mini-keychain flashlight. My best deal was on the handguard which were the old M16A1/Colt SP1 triangular handguards. While they can sell for as much as $200 for new old stock and in the $35-40 range (or more) used, I picked mine up for $15. I felt like I got a steal!

We ended our visit to the Greensboro Gun Show with a late lunch at Stamey’s BBQ which is across the street from the Coliseum. I know my friends from Texas and from eastern North Carolina will disagree but there is nothing finer than a sandwich of Lexington-style chopped pork BBQ topped with tangy BBQ slaw and some dip sauce. It was a great way to end the day.

If you have been to a local gun show recently, I’d love to hear your experiences so please leave them in the comments.

Uncategorized

DC Asks For En Banc Hearing In Wrenn Case

August 25, 2017 by 4 Comments

In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, we draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of gun violence, and we say gun control now, gun control tomorrow, gun control forever.

The quote above is actually a paraphrase of a line in the 1963 inaugural address of the late Alabama Gov. George Corley Wallace (D-AL). Wallace was talking about the segregation of the races. The absolutism shown by the District of Columbia on the matter of the right to keep and bear arms is strikingly similar to that of Wallace on race. However, unlike Wallace who publicly recanted his racist and segregationist positions, the District of Columbia Council shows no such inclination towards the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, it was no surprise that DC filed for an en banc hearing of the Wrenn decision which invalidated their “good reason” requirement for a carry permit.

The brief filed yesterday requesting an en banc rehearing attacks the majority decision on two fronts. First, they argue that they are a special place that is entirely urban and that contains many sensitive places like foreign embassies. They argue that the majority ignored the special needs of such a locale and then contend that their “good reason” may-issue carry law helps reduce crime and save lives. They cite a pantheon of anti-Second Amendment academics ranging from Saul Cornell to John Donohue as their evidence for this contention. They especially rely on the latter and ignore the criticism of his work due to “synthetic statistics”.

The second front of their attack on the majority decision is to say that it ignored historical precedent and the two-step process established in Heller I.

Rather than follow this well-worn path, the panel majority failed to conduct its own historical analysis at the first step, instead drawing assumptions from
Heller I’s historical analysis. Op. 14-17. And then the panel majority did not even proceed to the second step of the Second Amendment inquiry, mistakenly finding the District’s law categorically unconstitutional. Op. 25-29. These missteps departed from established precedent and warrant en banc review.

In this second front they also point out binding precedents in other circuits such as Kachalsky in the 2nd and Peruta in the 9th which ruled against shall-issue carry in the former or any carry in the latter. As to the 7th Circuit and the twin cases of Moore v. Madigan and Shepard v. Madigan which did find a right to carry outside the home, they cherry-picked from that decision.

They conclude:

Even if Heller I’s historical analysis did imply something about the scope of public carry in general, it did not hold anything about whether the pre-existing
right codified in the Second Amendment included a right to publicly carry firearms on crowded city streets in the nation’s capital with no particularized self-defense reason―let alone do so clearly enough to warrant the entry of judgment on appeal from a preliminary-injunction ruling. This Court should grant en banc review to correct the error and consider the District’s law using the appropriate analysis dictated by Heller I, II, and III.

It is a toss-up to whether they will be granted the rehearing and also a toss-up on what the full panel of judges on the DC Circuit might decide. Given former President Obama’s stacking of the DC Circuit, we could very well see a decision like that of the 9th Circuit in Peruta where a win was nullified.

The Second Amendment Foundation, which is an organization plaintiff in the case, released a statement yesterday regarding the petition for an en banc rehearing. Quoting Alan Gottlieb, it said, in part:

“The Second Amendment Foundation expected the City of Washington, DC to file this appeal in an attempt to try to overturn our court victory that said their virtual ban on the right to carry a firearm for self-protection was unconstitutional,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

SAF has been battling the city over this issue for some time. The city has strenuously resisted these legal efforts, arguing in its latest petition that the city is “unique” because of its dense population that includes “thousands of high-ranking federal officials and international diplomats.” But earlier this summer, the District Court of Appeals majority opinion is that the “good reason” restriction violates the Second Amendment rights of citizens living in the district.

“They have no intention of complying with any court decision that supports the right to keep and bear arms,” Gottlieb said. “It took the Heller decision to force them to allow a gun in your own home for self-defense. It took the Palmer decision, another SAF case, to force them to repeal their total ban on carry and now they are kicking and screaming about losing the Wrenn decision.”

Gottlieb maintains that even if the District is “unique,” the citizens living there still retain their right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. The city’s “good reason” requirement makes it far too easy to deny all but a few people their rights on the flimsy grounds that average citizens never have a good enough reason. The court recognized this problem and ruled against the District’s requirement, he noted.

“Municipal stubbornness cannot be allowed to outweigh the constitution,” Gottlieb said. “A civil right should not be subject to bureaucratic neurosis.”

I like that last line – a civil right should not be subject to bureaucratic neurosis.