Bill Introduced In NC Senate To Protect Gun Rights During State Of Emergencies

Senators Doug Berger (D-Franklin) and Andrew Brock (R-Davie) have introduced S. 594 in the North Carolina Senate. The bill introduced on Thursday would allow the possession or transport of a weapon during a state of emergency. The bill would also prohibit the enactment of any directive, proclamation, or local ordinance that would the confiscation or seizure of legally owned and possessed firearms during any declared state of emergency. Finally, the bill would prohibit the imposition of “additional restrictions or prohibitions upon the possession, carrying, transportation, sale, purchase, storage, or use of otherwise lawfully possessed firearms, ammunition, or ammunition components.”

This bill goes to the heart of the restrictions on firearms contained in NCGS § 14-288 which are now being challenged in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina in Bateman et v. Perdue et al.

In what is obviously unintended timeliness, Central North Carolina was hit by very severe storms today including tornadoes. These storms are responsible for the deaths of 17 across four states including at least seven in North Carolina. The Raleigh News and Observer is reporting that three people were killed in a mobile home park in Raleigh, another three were killed in Bladen County, and one person was killed in Cumberland County.

Gov. Bev Perdue has not yet declared a state of emergency. She is reported to be out of state on personal business. However, Wake and Cumberland counties have both declared states of emergency as has the City of Fayetteville. The power of municipal and county governments to declare states of emergency is found in NCGS § 14-288.12 through 14-288.14.

Please keep the people of central North Carolina in your thoughts and prayers. Tornadoes are a rare occurrence in North Carolina and we aren’t prepared for them like residents of tornado alley with storm cellars and safe rooms. On a side note, a couple of well-known gun bloggers, Bob Owen (Confederate Yankee) and Sean Sorrentino (A NC Gun Blog) live in the Raleigh area.

UPDATE: The damage from the storm in terms of lives was much worse that I previously reported. The N&O is reporting 22 deaths from the tornadoes including 11 in Bertie County. Sean’s personal report on the storm is in the comments below.

Governor Perdue declared a state of emergency due to the storm and it can be found here. Executive Order No. 87 enacts the state of emergency under powers granted to the Governor under Chapter 166A of the North Carolina General Statutes. Unlike, declarations enacted under Chapter 36A, Section 14, this does not prohibit the possession of firearms.

The text of S. 594 is embedded below.

NC SB 594v1
(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

HB 798: Anti-Bloomberg Bill Introduced In North Carolina General Assembly

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has made news over the years by sending his private investigators to gun shows in Arizona and other states. While he portrays his efforts as preventing the flow of “illegal guns” into New York City, it can also be portrayed as an effort to encourage people to commit a felony.

HB 798 was introduced in the North Carolina House last week by Rep. Mark Hilton (R-Catawba). My reading of the bill is that if Bloomberg sent his investigators to North Carolina, then both they and he could be found guilty of a Class F felony for their actions. Other offenses that are Class F felonies in North Carolina include involuntary manslaughter, assault causing serious injury on a law enforcement officer, extortion, bribery, and, oh yes, incest. The average Class F sentence for a first offense is 13-16 months in prison according to sentencing guidelines.

I hope this bill passes and that Mayor Bloomberg sends his minions South. It’d be nice to see Mike picking up trash along the highways of North Carolina.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA

SESSION 2011
H 1
HOUSE BILL 798

Short Title: Fraudulent Firearm Purchase Prevention Act.

(Public)

Sponsors: Representative Hilton (Primary Sponsor).
For a complete list of Sponsors, see Bill Information on the NCGA Web Site.

Referred to:
Judiciary.

April 7, 2011

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT to Enact the Fraudulent firearm purchase prevention act.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as “The Fraudulent Firearm Purchase Prevention Act.”
SECTION 2. Article 53A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:
“§ 14‑408.1. Solicit unlawful purchase of firearm; unlawful to provide materially false information regarding legality of firearm or ammunition transfer.
(a) The following definitions apply in this section:
(1) Ammunition. – Any cartridge, shell, or projectile designed for use in a firearm.
(2) Firearm. – A handgun, shotgun, or rifle which expels a projectile by action of an explosion.
(3) Handgun. – A pistol, revolver, or other gun that has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.
(4) Licensed dealer. – A person who is licensed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 923 to engage in the business of dealing in firearms.
(5) Materially false information. – Information that portrays an illegal transaction as legal or a legal transaction as illegal.
(6) Private seller. – A person who sells or offers for sale any firearm, as defined in G.S. 14‑409.39, or ammunition.
(b) Any person who knowingly solicits, persuades, encourages, or entices a licensed dealer or private seller of firearms or ammunition to transfer a firearm or ammunition under circumstances that the person knows would violate the laws of this State or the United States is guilty of a Class F felony.
(c) Any person who provides to a licensed dealer or private seller of firearms or ammunition information that the person knows to be materially false information with the intent to deceive the dealer or seller about the legality of a transfer of a firearm or ammunition is guilty of a Class F felony.
(d) Any person who willfully procures another to engage in conduct prohibited by this section shall be held accountable as a principal.
(e) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity or to a person acting at the direction of the law enforcement officer.”
SECTION 3. This act becomes effective December 1, 2011, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date.

Two More Anti-Gun Measures Introduced In Congress

The anti-gun forces have been active this week in the U.S. House of Representatives. On Wedneday, Rep. Peter King (R-NY-4) introduced the House version of Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s bill that would ostensibly deny anyone suspected of being or giving aid to a terrorist the ability to purchase firearms or explosives.

On Thursday, Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY-2) introduced HR 1552. The bill’s working title is ” To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the possession of a firearm by a person who is adjudicated to have committed a violent act while a juvenile.” The full text of this bill is not yet available so I don’t know if it only applies to felonies committed by a jevenile or all violent acts. Nor do I know just what is deemed a violent act.

Finally, on Friday, Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL-5) introduced HR 1642. This bill would “prevent the illegal sale of firearms.” Again, the text is not available yet. Therefore, I don’t know what is considered an “illegal sale of firearms”. Quigley is the Cook County Democrat who succeeded Rahm Emanuel in Congress when Emanuel became White House Chief of Staff. This is also the seat held by disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. I’d say this is quite the record for one Congressional seat.

Quigley’s bill has four co-sponsors – Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA), Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.(D-IL), Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC). Rep. Steve Israel’s bill, HR 1552, has no co-sponsors.

When the text of the bills become available, I will post them. As it is, I don’t think any of them should make it out of committee.

HR 1506: A Bill That Needs To Go Nowhere (Updated With Text)

Rep. Peter King (R-NY-3) introduced HR 1506 yesterday. It is titled a bill to “To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.”

I am guessing – and it is only a guess – that this bill is the House version of Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s S 34 – Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2011. The language of King’s bill is not yet available. However, the purpose of the Lautenberg bill is exactly the same as the preliminary title of HR 1506, so I think it is fair presumption.

The 11 co-sponsors are your usual cast of anti-gunners along with one NRA C-ranked Country Club Republican (Lance) thrown into the mix.

Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5]
Rep Chu, Judy [CA-32]
Rep Deutch, Theodore E. [FL-19]
Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14]
Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17]
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12]
Rep Lance, Leonard [NJ-7]
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC]
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15]
Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1]
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30]

While the bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, it will probably get more attention than it deserves because King is the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. The bill should be consigned to the dustbin of history but it probably will get some traction thanks to King’s sponsorship of it.

Republican or not, Peter King is no friend of gun owners and made plenty of stupid remarks in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings. His HR 496 would create a 1000 foot “gun-free bubble” around “high-ranking government officials” which, of course, includes Congressmen. If he were a Republican from the Mid-West, the South, or even California, I doubt he could get away with some of the stuff he has said. However, he represents a Long Island district that adjoins the district of Carolyn McCarthy and stupidly confuses gun control with anti-terrorism measures.

UPDATE: The bill now has 14 co-sponsors and the text has been released. The text of HR 1506 is not word for word the same as Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s S. 34 but it is pretty damn close.

In essence, you can be accused of international or domestic terrorism by some unknown accuser and then be turned down for a firearms purchase. If the Attorney General deems it in the interest of “national security”, then he doesn’t need to even tell you why you were denied and you are prohibited from suing to seek answers. This law would strip you of your right to due process.

Here is the text of the bill as reported by the Government Printing Office.

A BILL

To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2011′.

SEC. 2. GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY TO DENY THE SALE, DELIVERY, OR TRANSFER OF A FIREARM OR THE ISSUANCE OF A FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES LICENSE OR PERMIT TO DANGEROUS TERRORISTS.

(a) Standard for Exercising Attorney General Discretion Regarding Transferring Firearms or Issuing Firearms Permits to Dangerous Terrorists- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(1) by inserting the following new section after section 922:

`Sec. 922A. Attorney General’s discretion to deny transfer of a firearm

`The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’;

(2) by inserting the following new section after section 922A:

`Sec. 922B. Attorney General’s discretion regarding applicants for firearm permits which would qualify for the exemption provided under section 922(t)(3)

`The Attorney General may determine that an applicant for a firearm permit which would qualify for an exemption under section 922(t) is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the applicant may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’; and

(3) in section 921(a), by adding at the end the following:

`(36) The term `terrorism’ means `international terrorism’ as defined in section 2331(1), and `domestic terrorism’ as defined in section 2331(5).

`(37) The term `material support’ means `material support or resources’ within the meaning of section 2339A or 2339B.

`(38) The term `responsible person’ means an individual who has the power, directly or indirectly, to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of the applicant or licensee pertaining to firearms.’.

(b) Effect of Attorney General Discretionary Denial Through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) on Firearms Permits- Section 922(t) of such title is amended–

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii), by inserting `or State law, or that the Attorney General has determined to deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922A’ before the semicolon;

(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting after `or State law’ the following: `or if the Attorney General has not determined to deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922A’;

(3) in paragraph (3)(A)(i)–

(A) by striking `and’ at the end of subclause (I); and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

`(III) was issued after a check of the system established pursuant to paragraph (1);’;

(4) in paragraph (3)(A)–

(A) by adding `and’ at the end of clause (ii); and

(B) by adding after and below the end the following:

`(iii) the State issuing the permit agrees to deny the permit application if such other person is the subject of a determination by the Attorney General pursuant to section 922B;’;

(5) in paragraph (4), by inserting after `or State law,’ the following: `or if the Attorney General has not determined to deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922A,’; and

(6) in paragraph (5), by inserting after `or State law,’ the following: `or if the Attorney General has determined to deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922A,’.

(c) Unlawful Sale or Disposition of Firearm Based on Attorney General Discretionary Denial- Section 922(d) of such title is amended–

(1) by striking `or’ at the end of paragraph (8);

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting `; or’;

(3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:

`(10) has been the subject of a determination by the Attorney General pursuant to section 922A, 922B, 923(d)(1)(H), or 923(e) of this title.’.

(d) Attorney General Discretionary Denial as Prohibitor- Section 922(g) of such title is amended–

(1) by striking `or’ at the end of paragraph (8);

(2) by striking the comma at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting; `; or’; and

(3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:

`(10) who has received actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination made pursuant to section 922A, 922B, 923(d)(1)(H), or 923(e) of this title.’.

(e) Attorney General Discretionary Denial of Federal Firearms Licenses- Section 923(d)(1) of such title is amended–

(1) by striking `Any’ and inserting `Except as provided in subparagraph (H), any’;

(2) in subparagraph (F)(iii), by striking `and’ at the end;

(3) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period and inserting `; and’; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(H) The Attorney General may deny a license application if the Attorney General determines that the applicant (including any responsible person) is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the applicant may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’.

(f) Discretionary Revocation of Federal Firearms Licenses- Section 923(e) of such title is amended–

(1) in the 1st sentence–

(A) by inserting after `revoke’ the following: `–(1)’; and

(B) by striking the period and inserting a semicolon;

(2) in the 2nd sentence–

(A) by striking `The Attorney General may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, revoke’ and insert `(2)’; and

(B) by striking the period and inserting `; or’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

`(3) any license issued under this section if the Attorney General determines that the holder of the license (including any responsible person) is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the applicant may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’.

(g) Attorney General’s Ability To Withhold Information in Firearms License Denial and Revocation Suit- Section 923(f) of such title is amended–

(1) in the 1st sentence of paragraph (1), by inserting `, except that if the denial or revocation is pursuant to subsection (d)(1)(H) or (e)(3), then any information on which the Attorney General relied for this determination may be withheld from the petitioner if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security’ before the period; and

(2) in paragraph (3), by inserting after the 3rd sentence the following: `With respect to any information withheld from the aggrieved party under paragraph (1), the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.’.

(h) Attorney General’s Ability To Withhold Information in Relief From Disabilities Lawsuits- Section 925(c) of such title is amended by inserting after the 3rd sentence the following: `If receipt of a firearms by the person would violate section 922(g)(10), any information which the Attorney General relied on for this determination may be withheld from the applicant if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security. In responding to the petition, the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.’.

(i) Penalties- Section 924(k) of such title is amended–

(1) by striking `or’ at the end of paragraph (2);

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `, or’ and inserting `; or’; and

(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:

`(4) constitutes an act of terrorism (as defined in section 921(a)(36)), or material support thereof (as defined in section 921(a)(37)), or’.

(j) Remedy for Erroneous Denial of Firearm or Firearm Permit Exemption- Section 925A of such title is amended–

(1) in the section heading, by striking `Remedy for erroneous denial of firearm’ and inserting `Remedies’;

(2) by striking `Any person denied a firearm pursuant to subsection (s) or (t) of section 922′ and inserting the following:

`(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), any person denied a firearm pursuant to section 922(t) or pursuant to a determination made under section 922B,’; and

(3) by adding after and below the end the following:

`(b) In any case in which the Attorney General has denied the transfer of a firearm to a prospective transferee pursuant to section 922A or has made a determination regarding a firearm permit applicant pursuant to section 922B, an action challenging the determination may be brought against the United States. The petition must be filed not later than 60 days after the petitioner has received actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination made pursuant to section 922A or 922B. The court shall sustain the Attorney General’s determination on a showing by the United States by a preponderance of evidence that the Attorney General’s determination satisfied the requirements of section 922A or 922B. To make this showing, the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security. On request of the petitioner or the court’s own motion, the court may review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera. The court shall determine whether the summaries or redacted versions, as the case may be, are fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents. The court shall not consider the full, undisclosed documents in deciding whether the Attorney General’s determination satisfies the requirements of section 922A or 922B.’.

(k) Provision of Grounds Underlying Ineligibility Determination by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System- Section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-159) is amended–

(1) in subsection (f)–

(A) by inserting after `is ineligible to receive a firearm,’ the following: `or the Attorney General has made a determination regarding an applicant for a firearm permit pursuant to section 922B of title 18, United States Code’; and

(B) by inserting after `the system shall provide such reasons to the individual,’ the following: `except for any information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security’; and

(2) in subsection (g)–

(A) in the 1st sentence, by inserting after `subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code or State law’ the following: `or if the Attorney General has made a determination pursuant to section 922A or 922B of such title,’;

(B) by inserting `, except any information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security’ before the period; and

(C) by adding at the end the following: `Any petition for review of information withheld by the Attorney General under this subsection shall be made in accordance with section 925A of title 18, United States Code.’.

(l) Unlawful Distribution of Explosives Based on Attorney General Discretionary Denial- Section 842(d) of such title is amended–

(1) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting `; or’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(10) has received actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination made pursuant to section 843(b)(8) or (d)(2) of this title.’.

(m) Attorney General Discretionary Denial as Prohibitor- Section 842(i) of such title is amended–

(1) by adding `or’ at the end of paragraph (7); and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:

`(8) who has received actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination made pursuant to section 843(b)(8) or (d)(2),’.

(n) Attorney General Discretionary Denial of Federal Explosives Licenses and Permits- Section 843(b) of such title is amended–

(1) by striking `Upon’ and inserting the following: `Except as provided in paragraph (8), on’; and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:

`(8) The Attorney General may deny the issuance of a permit or license to an applicant if the Attorney General determines that the applicant or a responsible person or employee possessor thereof is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation of, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the person may use explosives in connection with terrorism.’.

(o) Attorney General Discretionary Revocation of Federal Explosives Licenses and Permits- Section 843(d) of such title is amended–

(1) by inserting `(1)’ in the first sentence after `if’; and

(2) by striking the period at the end of the first sentence and inserting the following: `; or (2) the Attorney General determines that the licensee or holder (or any responsible person or employee possessor thereof) is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and that the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the person may use explosives in connection with terrorism.’.

(p) Attorney General’s Ability To Withhold Information in Explosives License and Permit Denial and Revocation Suits- Section 843(e) of such title is amended–

(1) in the 1st sentence of paragraph (1), by inserting `except that if the denial or revocation is based on a determination under subsection (b)(8) or (d)(2), then any information which the Attorney General relied on for the determination may be withheld from the petitioner if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security’ before the period; and

(2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following: `In responding to any petition for review of a denial or revocation based on a determination under section 843(b)(8) or (d)(2), the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.’.

(q) Ability To Withhold Information in Communications to Employers- Section 843(h)(2) of such title is amended–

(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting `or section 843(b)(1) (on grounds of terrorism) of this title,’ after `section 842(i),’; and

(2) in subparagraph (B)–

(A) by inserting `or section 843(b)(8)’ after `section 842(i)’; and

(B) in clause (ii), by inserting `, except that any information that the Attorney General relied on for a determination pursuant to section 843(b)(8) may be withheld if the Attorney General concludes that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security’ before the semicolon.

(r) Conforming Amendment to Immigration and Nationality Act- Section 101(a)(43)(E)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii)) is amended by striking ` or (5)’ and inserting `(5), or (10)’.

SAF Sues Massachusetts On Gun Rights For Legal Resident Aliens

The Second Amendment Foundation along with Commonwealth Second Amendment is suing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts because of their refusal to grant legal resident aliens the ability to obtain a Firearms ID Card or a License to Carry.

As was the case in two earlier suits involving legal resident aliens, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is on shakey legal ground denying them permits. Laws that discriminate based on “alienage” are subject to strict scrutiny. I am a bit surprised that the ACLU of Massachusetts didn’t see fit to bring this case as they did in Kentucky and South Dakota. Here is a link to the Kentucky case for some background on how courts have dealt with denial of gun rights to legal resident aliens.

SAF SUES OVER MASSACHUSETTS GUN BAN FOR LEGAL ALIEN RESIDENTS

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit challenging a law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that denies legal resident aliens the licenses required to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense, or purchase any kind of firearm.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Joining SAF in this lawsuit are Commonwealth Second Amendment, a Massachusetts grassroots organization, and two British citizens who reside in the commonwealth. They are represented by attorney Joseph M. Hickson III of Springfield. Defendants are Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert C. Haas, Northboro Police Chief Mark k. Leahy and Jason A. Guida, director of the Firearms Records Bureau in Chelsea.

The lawsuit alleges that Christopher M. Fletcher of Cambridge and Eoin M. Pryal of Northboro – both legal resident aliens – have been specifically denied the ability to obtain a Firearms Identification Card or a License to Carry of any kind. Before moving to Massachusetts, Fletcher lived in California, where he had a Basic Firearms Safety certificate and Handgun Safety certificate, which allowed him to purchase and own firearms including handguns. Pryal, who is married to a citizen of this country, and had a shotgun certificate and international dealer’s license while living in the United Kingdom.

“One of the fundamental principles in this country is that people have rights,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Among those rights is the right of self-defense, especially in one’s own home. Christopher Fletcher and Eoin Pryal live here legally, they have been firearms owners, they are productive members of the community, yet they are being denied a basic right by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This is wrong and our court challenge aims to correct that.”

“This lawsuit truly illustrates the contradictory and irrational nature of the Commonwealths’ firearms laws,” Comm2A President Brent Carlton added. “Governor Deval Patrick’s administration has broadly supported the immigrant community and noted our dependence on them for our continued prosperity while Massachusetts law treats those same individuals as inherently dangerous enough to justify their exclusion from certain fundamental rights protected by the Constitution of the United States. This blanket prohibition runs contrary to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and today’s challenge is supported overwhelmingly by well-established legal precedent.”

The Second Amendment Foundation has posted a copy of the complaint in Fletcher et al v. Haas et al here.

Great Headline

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal ran the following headline in their Marketplace Section:

Loonie Hinders Canadian Firms

Reading that headline you’d think that an escapee from a mental institution was stalking companies in Canada and causing them trouble. Fortunately or unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

The article was about how the rising strength of the Canadian dollar and how it is hindering some exports. To understand the headline, it helps to know that the Canadian $1 coin has a picture of a loon engraved on it. Because of this, the Canadians refer to their dollar as the loonie.

In a way, that is too bad that it is only about their nickname for the Canadian dollar. The story would have been much more interesting if it did involve a mental patient who was upset that the companies were not polite enough or something like that.

National Buy A Gun Day

Today is National Buy A Gun Day. Since it seems everyone is posting pictures of the gun they are going to buy today (or have on order), I thought I’d do the same.

I have a Springfield Armory Range Officer 1911 on order from one of my local gun shops. I thought what a better way to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Model 1911 by buying one. It is as JayG at MArooned calls it, “this 100th year of our Lord JMB (PBUH)”.

The only modification that I plan to make right now is to have a gold bead added to the front sight. My old eyes need a little help! I’ve already spoken to John Harrison at Harrison Customs about that and he assures me it will be no problem.

Now, I just have to wait (or continue waiting) for the pistol to arrive.