Uncategorized

Uncategorized

National Right To Carry Reciprocity And The Senate

November 23, 2011 by 7 Comments

Now that HR 822 has passed the House of Representatives in overwhelming fashion, it moves to the Senate. Unless I am greatly mistaken, there is significant pressure on senators from both sides of the debate. The Brady Campaign is ramping up the pressure with an auto-mailer campaign asking senators to vote no. Nonetheless, even they admit they don’t have the votes to stop it.

I sent an email today to Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) about the bill. While I have no worries that Sen. Richard Burr will be a solid backer of the bill, Hagan can be wishy-washy despite her claims of being a Second Amendment supporter. What surprised me was that I got an email back from her office almost immediately discussing her stance – if you could call it that – on the bill. If she hadn’t been getting lots of mail on the issue, she wouldn’t have been so prepared to issue something other than a generic thank you for your letter response.

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me regarding National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 822). I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue.

This bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on February 18, 2011, and was referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

If enacted, the bill would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry their firearm in any other state that also issues concealed firearm permits. Currently, 48 states, including North Carolina, have laws permitting residents to carry concealed firearms.

While H.R. 822 has yet to reach the Senate, I pledge to keep your thoughts on this issue in mind. My family, like the great state of North Carolina, has a long tradition of hunting and gun ownership, and I take great pride in that heritage. I have opposed requiring gun owners to obtain federal licenses or creating a federal system to track gun sales and transfers, as I believe these proposals would infringe this important constitutional right. I will continue to support the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment.

Again, thank you for contacting my office. It is truly an honor to represent North Carolina in the United States Senate, and I hope you will not hesitate to contact me in the future should you have any further questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Kay R. Hagan

If you haven’t already done it, it is time to contact both of your state’s senators and urge them to vote for the National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. I wouldn’t want to think that our voices could be drowned out by an auto-mailer run by the Brady Campaign.

Uncategorized

Preliminary Injunction Win In Gonzalez v. Omaha

November 23, 2011 by 3 Comments

Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation, the Nebraska Firearms Owners Associations, and Armando Pliego Gonzalez have won a preliminary injunction against the City of Omaha over a city ordinance that prohibits the registration of handguns in the city by legal resident aliens.

You can read earlier posts about the case here and here.

BELLEVUE, WA – A federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement by the City of Omaha, NE of an ordinance that prohibits legal non-citizens from registering handguns in the city, in a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association and Armando Pliego Gonzalez.

The order was granted by U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon while the court considers whether the registration ban for legal immigrants is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

“We’re delighted with the judge’s order,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Mr. Pliego has been a legal permanent resident since 2008, and he jumped through all of the legal hoops to legally purchase a handgun to protect his family after his home was invaded and robbed in 2010.”

As it turns out, he noted, the city is currently reviewing its ordinance with an eye on amending it to allow legal immigrants to register handguns. According to the Omaha World Herald, the proposed changes have the support of Omaha Police Chief Alex Hayes, who was named as a defendant in the lawsuit, along with Mayor Jim Suttle and the city.

“We are encouraged at these developments,” Gottlieb stated. “We had a similar experience with a state law in Washington that was changed following a SAF legal action. We will oppose such discriminatory laws and regulations wherever we find them.

“Pliego Gonzalez and his wife are both legal permanent residents, and good members of the community,” he noted. “The couple has four children. It is simply wrong when a local regulation stands in the way of someone’s exercise of a constitutionally-protected, fundamental civil right, especially when the safety of his family is at stake.”

Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Bernie Glaser of Lincoln, and David Sigale of Glen Ellyn, IL.

Uncategorized

Haynie v. Harris, Round II

November 21, 2011 by

The original case, Haynie et al v. Harris, was dismissed in late October by the US District Court for the Northern District of California because the Court said they didn’t have a realistic chance of being re-arrested. The Court did give the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.

While the Court was actually considering the motion to dismiss from the State of California, Brendan Richards, one of the plaintiffs, was arrested again for possession of an “assault weapon”. Again the charges were dismissed after the state’s expert determined that Mr. Richards’ M1A was not an assault weapon under California law.

As one commenter on the CalGuns Forum said in response to the question as to what were the odds of this happening, they were “greater than unrealistic.”

An amended complaint was filed on November 4th. The complaint can be read here.

SAF FILES CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF CALIFORNIA ‘ASSAULT WEAPONS’ LAW

For Immediate Release: 11/21/2011

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” claiming that the statute is “vague and ambiguous” in its definition of assault weapons, leading to the arrest of a California man on two different occasions.

SAF is joined in the lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, by the CalGuns Foundation and Brendan John Richards, an honorably-discharged Marine and Iraq war veteran, who was arrested and jailed in May 2010 and August 2011. On both occasions, charges against Richards were dismissed when it was determined that he had not violated the law because firearms in his possession on both occasions were not “assault weapons” as defined by California law. They are represented by attorneys Donald Kilmer of San Jose and Jason A. Davis of Mission Viejo.

Named as defendants in the lawsuit are California Attorney General Kamala Harris, the California Department of Justice, the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office and Deputy Greg Myers.

“It’s an insult to be arrested once for violating a law that is so vague and ambiguous that law enforcement officers cannot tell the difference between what is and what is not a legal firearm under this statute,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “but to be arrested and jailed twice for the same offense is an outrage. Brendan Richards’ dilemma is a textbook example of why the California statute should be nullified.

“On both occasions,” he continued, “Mr. Richards was jailed and had to post non-refundable bail fees. He lost work due to his incarcerations. In both cases, the same Senior Criminalist John Yount issued reports that the firearms in Richards’ possession were not ‘assault weapons’ under California law. Mr. Richards now has a reasonable fear that his exercise of his fundamental Second Amendment rights will result in more wrongful arrests. We’re delighted to step in, with the CalGuns Foundation, on his behalf.

“This nonsense has to stop,” Gottlieb stated, “and the only way to insure that is to show California’s assault weapon statutes and regulations are unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous. Brendan Richards is not the only citizen faced with this kind of harassment under color of law.”

Uncategorized

I Prefer To Think Of It As Cruffler Heaven

November 21, 2011 by

SayUncle linked to the Forgotten Weapons Blog this morning. He said you could lose a whole morning there. He is absolutely correct!

However, given the number of old and odd weapons that they examine in detail, I think they should rename the site – Cruffler Heaven. It is that good. I mean where else are you likely to find a video disassembly guide to the Bergmann-Bayard M1910 as well as articles on the manufacturing process for the P.08 Luger. They even have manuals for the French MAS 49/56 which was one of my early C&R purchases. Now if I could only read French.

Uncategorized

Quote Of The Day

November 21, 2011 by 7 Comments

Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned has a very insightful look at the GOP field that he posted yesterday. As much as I don’t really care for Willard Mitt Romney, given the problems every other front-runner has had – and the media’s determination to sabotage them – it is looking more and more likely that Romney will be the last man standing. The Quote of the Day comes from a comment on Sebastian’s post by “Gnarly Sheen”.

This election feels more and more like someone taking you to a maximum security prison and asking you to pick whichever inmate you want to take care of your mother for the next four years.

Damn if Gnarly Sheen hasn’t hit the nail on the head!

As to Sebastian’s central position, that the next President could very well appoint 2-3 Supreme Court Justices and that is what really is at stake, I think he is right. Sandy Froman made that same observation at the Gun Rights Policy Conference when she quipped, “Pray for the Five”. There are a lot of post-McDonald cases wending their way through the District Courts. We need appellate level judges who will stand by the Second Amendment and for that reason, and that reason only, I would vote grudgingly for Romney.

It’s a helluva choice, ain’t it?

Uncategorized

This Is What The NRA Does Well

November 21, 2011 by 2 Comments

While I have often been critical of the NRA when they have meddled in court cases or have brought cases with not enough focus, I have also recognized that they are very good in the electoral and legislative arenas. A prime example of their legislative expertise can be seen in the items included of interest to gun owners in the recent minibus appropriations bill.

Friday, November 18, 2011

The final conference report on the combined Fiscal Year 2012 Agriculture, Commerce/Justice/Science (CJS) and Transportation/Housing/Urban Development (THUD) Appropriations bills—also known as the “Mini-Bus,” was passed by both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate, and has been signed into law.

One of the most important ways that Congress has protected the Second Amendment is through a number of general provisions included in various appropriations bills. Many of these provisions have been included in the bills for many years—some of the provisions go back almost three decades. This conference report is no exception, as it contains 12 provisions that strengthen the Second Amendment and protect the American people.

Specifically, the conference report makes PERMANENT the following protections:

  • Firearms Database/National Gun Registry Prohibition. No funds may be used to create, maintain or administer a database of firearms owners or their firearms. This prohibition has been in place since Fiscal Year 1979, and prevents the federal government from establishing a national gun registry.
  • Former Firearms Dealers Information Retrieval Prohibition. No funds may be used to electronically retrieve personally identifying information gathered by federal firearms licensees. The provision prohibits the creation of a gun registry from dealers’ records that are required by law to be surrendered to the federal government when a dealer goes out of business. This provision has been included since FY 1997.
  • Information Gathering Prohibition/24-Hour Destruction of Records. A prohibition on the use of funds to retain any information gathered as a part of an approved instant background check for more than 24 hours. This provision protects the privacy of law-abiding gun buyers by prohibiting gun buyers’ personal information about legal gun purchases from being retained by government authorities for more than 24 hours after a firearm background check. It has been included since FY 1999.


In addition, the conference report adds two NEW provisions designed to bolster our gun rights and protect the Second Amendment from unelected bureaucrats who would twist the law to facilitate their gun-control agenda.

  • Prohibit Funding for “Gun Walking” Operations. No funds may be used to knowingly transfer firearms to agents of drug cartels unless U.S. law enforcement personnel control or monitor the firearms at all time. This amendment is designed to prevent the Justice Department (or any government entity) from spending taxpayer dollars on “gun walking” programs like Operation Fast and Furious.
  • Shotgun Importation Protections. Prohibits the Department of Justice from requiring imported shotguns to meet a “sporting purposes” test that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) has used to prohibit the importation of shotguns with one or more features disliked by the Agency, such as adjustable stocks, extended magazine tubes, etc.


Finally, the conference report RETAINS the following provisions:

  • Curio and Relic Definition. A prohibition on the use of funds to change the definition of a “curio or relic.” This provision protects the status of collectible firearms for future generations of firearms collectors.
  • Physical Inventory Prohibition. Prohibition on a requirement to allow a physical inventory of Federal Firearms Licensees. The Clinton Administration proposed a rule in 2000 to require an annual inventory by all licensees. While the Bush Administration eventually withdrew the proposal, Congress has still passed this preventive provision every year since FY 2007.
  • Business Activity. A prohibition on the use of funds to deny a Federal Firearms License (FFL) or renewal of an FFL on the basis of low business activity. This provision prohibits BATFE from denying federal firearms license applications or renewals based on a dealer’s low business volume alone.
  • Firearms Trace Data Disclaimer. A requirement that any trace data released must include a disclaimer stating such trace data cannot be used to draw broad conclusion about firearms-related crime.
  • Firearms Parts Export to Canada. A prohibition on the use of funds to require an export license for small firearms parts valued at less than $500 for export to Canada. This provision removed an unnecessary and burdensome requirement on U.S. gun manufacturers that was imposed under the Clinton Administration.
  • Importation of Curios and Relics. A prohibition on the use of funds to arbitrarily deny importation of qualifying curio and relic firearms. This provision ensures that collectible firearms that meet all legal requirements for importation into the United States are not prevented from import by executive branch fiat.
  • Transfer of BATFE Authority. A prohibition on the use of funds to transfer any duty or responsibility of the BATFE to any other agency or department. This provision was written in response to a Clinton Administration plan to transfer firearms enforcement to the FBI or Secret Service. It also prohibits the Executive branch from skirting the will of Congress by allowing another agency to implement policies the BATFE is prohibited from implementing.
Uncategorized

Today Is National Ammo Day!

November 19, 2011 by 4 Comments

Lest you forget, November 19th is National Ammo Day. If you want to make it National Ammo Day week, you have through next Saturday, November 26th to make your purchase. Of course I placed an order this past week so it doesn’t count.

If you use the LuckyGunner.com link on the right side of this page to make your purchase, you will not only get good ammo at a good price but I donate all commissions paid to the Second Amendment Foundation.

Uncategorized

GRNC Alert For Garner, NC

November 19, 2011 by 1 Comment

The Town of Garner (North Carolina) is holding a meeting this coming Tuesday to discuss amending their local park ordinance to comply with HB 650. Grass Roots North Carolina believes that they will do the bare minimum possible and will attempt to make it as restrictive as the new law allows. Because of this, they have sent out this alert. Sean Sorrentino of An NC Gun Blog and a resident of Garner is heading up the efforts there.

Garner Anti-Self Defense Ordinance

As we have noted recently, the town of Garner is currently considering the issue of their local park ordinances in light of HB 650 which will go into effect on Dec. 1. Recent communications with council members indicate that they intend to offer up the bare minimum mandated by the new law. Meaning they plan to post in the few areas they are allowed to under a weakening amendment which GRNC fought to strip from the law. This allows them to post “recreation” areas. Communications with Council Member Buck Kennedy takes a tone that he believes they are doing you a favor by extending the carry areas as they are required by the new law.

Kennedy seemed unmoved when a constituent asked him to consider the following scenario:

You will say, “well, parents could just sit outside the immediate playground area and be within the law.” I can just see it. “Sorry little Johnnie, Daddy can’t push you on the swing because he would face 6 months and a $500 fine if he did.” Or maybe “Oh, little Julie, I’m sorry you fell off the slide and broke your leg, but Mommy can’t come hold your hand over there until the ambulance comes because she’d go to jail. Drag yourself onto the other side of this sign so I can help you.”

There is also to consider the recent attempted kidnapping of a 3-year old from a Charlotte park. It would be revealed afterward that the criminal in this case had been arrested 102 times. The child’s mother was forced to wrestle the man to the ground in order save her son from an uncertain fate. Her gutsy actions resulted in the man’s 103rd arrest… and that is just in Mecklenburg County. Should a mother be forced to physically grapple with a male felon who has spent time in jail and could well be: 1) physically larger and stronger; 2) armed with a gun or knife; 3) drugged; 4) diseased from his time in prison and habitual drug use? All this to make those with an unreasonable fear of weapons in the hands of the law abiding feel better? Is this reasonable?

The Council of Garner may feel that the bare minimum is good enough but, gun owners want more than the bare minimum. Now it is up to you to attend the meeting and let them know this.

You will need to attend their next meeting on Tuesday, November 22. Contact Sean Sorrentino, who will be coordinating our efforts in Garner at sean@seansorrentino.com for more information.

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED:

Contact

You may email or call the following people and let them know in a respectful manner that you wish them to permit more than the minimum that they are legally required to:

Mayor Ronnie S. Williams – 919-773-4404; rwilliams@garnernc.gov
Mayor Protem Kathy Behringer – 919-772-3515; kbehringer@garnernc.gov
Council Member Ken Marshburn – 919-662-0902; kmarshburn@garnernc.gov
Council Member Jackie Johns, Sr. – 919-772-0929; jjohns@garnernc.gov
Council Member Gra Singleton – 919-772-0924; grantraceysingleton@earthlink.net
Council Member Buck Kennedy – 919-624-3696; bkennedy@garnernc.gov

Attend the Meeting

All citizens of Garner MUST ATTEND the meeting on November 22 at Garner Town Hall, Building B in the Council Meeting Room.

Bring polite but pointed signs with the themes that

  • Concealed handgun permit-holders have proven themselves responsible; and…
  • People should be able to protect their families.

Uncategorized

Dave Kopel On The Fix Gun Checks Act

November 18, 2011 by 1 Comment

Dave Kopel appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism Tuesday to testify against Chuck Schumer’s S. 436 – the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011. I used part of his testimony for Wednesday’s Quote of the Day in which he described S. 436 as unconstitutional. Here he is discussing his full testimony – and his testimony in favor of HR 822 – with Cam Edwards of NRA News.

I had a chance to meet and chat with Dave on the bus from the airport at the Gun Rights Policy Conference. He is definitely an interesting guy and I’m glad he is on our side.