by As Greg Hickok aka Hickok45 said at the end of this video, “Life is good!” Having participated in the LuckyGunner Blogger Shoot, I couldn’t agree more. Greg and his son John shot more machine guns than I did but I think we all had a great time.
Month: June 2011
CSGV And Neo-McCarthyism
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence likes to cast aspersions on gun rights activists. Their Facebook and Twitter posts are littered with the terms “gun extremist”, “insurrectionist”, and “treason”. I, for one, have been labeled a “gun extremist” because I dared to question the sainted Carolyn McCarthy’s continued use of her family tragedy for political purposes. However, being called a “gun extremist” is not in the same league as being accused of “treason”.
Kurt Hofmann is one of those who has been called a traitor by CSGV and Ladd Everitt. In his St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column for Thursday, he discussed how Ladd Everitt and the CSGV are engaging in a new McCarthyism. He notes that, just like Sen. Joe McCarthy, CSGV likes to toss around accusations of treason with the same amount of proof as the late Senator. In other words, none.
Kurt concludes:
A nation of people who meekly accept the notion that they commit “treason,” merely by stating the obvious fact that the Second Amendment exists to guarantee their ability to resist government tyranny, is indeed a nation of sheep. That’s the nation the CSGV would like to see the U.S. become.
Over my dead body, CSGV–and I won’t die alone.
Treason is an ugly word. Those who would toss it around it with impunity need to be called out on it. Kudos to Kurt for exposing the neo-McCarthyism of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence for what it is.
Quote Of The Day
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) seems to be big news these last few days. Howard Nemerov looked at his stands on the issues for the P.J. Tattler and had this to say.
Weiner’s endorsed by the Brady Campaign. This means that Weiner supports a woman’s “right to choose” when it comes to ending a pregnancy, but does not support her right to choose when a rapist wants to end her life.
Weiner is praised by NARAL for his voting record but is ranked “F” by the National Rifle Association.
CalGuns Demands San Franscisco Sheriff Obey Law
The CalGuns Foundation issued this press release yesterday demanding that San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey obey California state law regarding concealed carry.
San Carlos, CA (June 2, 2011) – As part of its ongoing Carry License Compliance and Sunshine Initiative, The Calguns Foundation sent San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey a letter demanding that he immediately bring his firearm carry license application acceptance, processing, and evaluation policies into compliance with the law.In the letter sent Tuesday, Calguns notes that the Sheriff has failed to comply with state law for nearly thirteen years, even after being notified of the deficiency on a number of prior occasions. Calguns also claims that the policies of the Sheriff in issuing licenses to some, including one of his employees, while refusing to accept all applications from “regular” San Francisco residents violates applicants’ constitutional rights of self-defense and equal protection under the law.
“While the Sheriff may have grown accustomed to following only those laws he chooses, we intend to hold the County’s highest law enforcement officer to the same laws he took an oath to uphold,” notes Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation. “The rights of San Francisco residents are no less valuable than those of his employees and friends.”
In 1998, then-Assemblymember Rod Wright authored a bill to make firearm carry permit applications consistent across the state due to tremendous variations in local practices by licensing authorities. That bill, AB 2022, established a mandate that all licensing authorities create and publish a written policy on carry license applications by April 1, 1999. It also instituted a specific process that licensing authorities – county sheriffs and city chiefs of police – must use in receiving and processing applications.
“We’ve spent thousands of hours requesting and reviewing the policies and practices of hundreds of law enforcement agencies across the state. Sheriff Hennessey’s, obviously, stood out – it simply didn’t exist,” said Brandon Combs, member of the Board of Directors of Calguns Foundation. “It’s exceedingly frustrating to see the Sheriff turning away so many qualified San Francisco residents who are complying with the law.”
In an effort to avoid litigation, Calguns provided Sheriff Hennessey with a comprehensive model carry license policy. “We would strongly prefer that the Sheriff simply choose to use our model policy, much as San Francisco has done with LCAV policies in the past,” Brandon Combs said. “However, should he choose to go another direction, we’re prepared to litigate as necessary to bring his policies and practices in line with the law.”
A downloadable copy of the model policy is available at this link. CGF’s letter to Sheriff Hennessey is located here.
More information on Calguns Foundation’s Carry License Compliance and Sunshine Initiative can be found at www.gotcarry.org. For more information on other Second Amendment-related litigation and educational efforts, please visit www.calgunsfoundation.org.
I had the distinct pleasure of getting to know Gene Hoffman, chairman of the CalGuns Foundation, at the LuckyGunner Blogger Shoot. I’m proud to say that he is a Tar Heel native and bleeds Carolina Blue especially during basketball season.
Gene and the CalGuns Foundation are doing great work in California in their efforts to preserve, protect, and expand our Second Amendment rights in that state. As one-fifth of all Americans live in California, what happens in California eventually will impact the rest of us. Rather than mocking those gun owners who choose (or are forced by economic necessity) to live in California, we ought to be asking how can we help.
Leon Leonwood Bean Is Rolling Over In His Grave
I will freely admit that I’m not a fashionista.
The Wall Street Journal had an article in their Personal Journal section yesterday noting that Mr. Hilfiger had brought in two designers to update his brand. Normally, I would have just ignored it. However, one of the pictures caught my eye.
They had taken the L.L. Bean Maine Hunting Shoe (or Bean Boot or duck boot) and tranformed it into a thigh-high boot with 5″ heels. Searching for more information on this, I find out that it was one of the staples of Mr. Hilfiger’s 2010 Fall Collection and the boot retailed for $498.
I also found out that they had an ankle boot version of this boot called the Bennington Duck Boot which was much more reasonable in price. It is only $298.
I have had many pairs of the Maine Hunting Shoe over the years but none like that! I’m not sure where you’d wear these but I know it isn’t in a field. Even the much-discussed LuckyGunner Ammo Girls wore sneakers at the LuckyGunner Memorial Day Blogger Shoot.
As I said in the title, I’m sure old Mr. L. L. Bean is rolling in his grave over those boots. That is, of course, unless the Tommy Hilfiger Company paid Bean’s a royalty for copying their basic design. Those old Maine Yankees understood the value of a dollar.
Weakening Amendments For HB 650?
This alert was released this evening by Grass Roots North Carolina. Looks like it is time to contact your state rep and put the fear of God in them about weakening amendments.
WEAKENING AMENDMENTS MAY BE PENDING
House Bill 650, “Amend Various Gun Laws,” passed from the NC House Judiciary C Committee yesterday and heads for a floor vote: Tuesday, June 7. As you may recall, special interest groups have tried to subject the bill to the “death of a thousand cuts” by attacking individual provisions. Nonetheless, HB 650 is still a far-reaching improvement in NC gun laws, including:
- Castle Doctrine (a strong version comparable to SB 34, which earlier passed the Senate);
- Permitting concealed handgun permit-holders to have firearms in locked vehicles on educational property;
- Enabling rifle and shotgun purchases in non-contiguous states beyond NC;
- Allowing guns in locked vehicles at businesses or places of employment;
- Reducing issuing times for concealed handgun permits from 90 to 45 days;
- Reducing penalties for minor CHP violations to civil infractions; and
- Changing concealed handgun to straight recognition of out-of-state permits;
HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER MAY TRY TO WEAKEN BILL
Thanks to continued anti-gun attacks by House Majority Leader Paul (“Skip”) Stam (R-Wake, GRNC 0-star), sponsor Mark Hilton (R-Catawba, GRNC ****) was forced to limit the “guns-in-locked-vehicles” provision above to concealed handgun permit-holders. It is expected that Stam will further attempt to weaken the bill via floor amendments, meaning you must IMMEDIATELY deliver the message to House members that you WILL NOT tolerate further weakening amendments to the bill.
HB 650 Expanded In Committee
The NRA-ILA released this today regarding North Carolina’s omnibus gun law – HB 650 – which passed out of the House Judiciary C Subcommittee yesterday. Before it left the subcommittee, the committee amended the bill to add the castle doctrine and parking lot provisions among other gun rights strengthening provisions.
North Carolina: Castle Doctrine Language and Parking Lot Provision in NRA-Backed Omnibus Bill Threatened!
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Urge Your Representative to Oppose Any Amendments to House Bill 650!
As reported by the NRA yesterday, the North Carolina House Judiciary Subcommittee C sent House Bill 650, the NRA–backed omnibus gun bill, to the House floor for a vote. However, there is now a strong effort by the anti-gun lobby to add amendments that would weaken both the current Castle Doctrine language and Parking Lot/Employee Protection provision contained in this bill. It is vital that you let your state Representative know that he or she needs to support HB 650 in its current form and oppose all amendments, especially those that would weaken Castle Doctrine and Parking Lot language.
HB 650, introduced by state Representative Mark Hilton (R-96), originally focused on making a number of improvements to the Right-to-Carry (RTC) law, as well as improving the firearm preemption statute that prevents municipalities from enacting gun control laws more onerous than what has been passed by the state. A Proposed Committee Substitute (PCS) for the bill was approved by the subcommittee at a previous hearing, which greatly expanded the bill’s scope in a very positive way. The PCS includes a number of other issues, such as Castle Doctrine language, Parking Lot/Employee Protection language, Fraudulent Firearms Purchase Prevention language, and language to ensure North Carolina residents are not prohibited by state law from purchasing long guns in states that do not border North Carolina.
It is essential to the passage of this bill that you contact your state Representative IMMEDIATELY and urge him or her to support the current version of HB 650 with NO amendments, especially any amendments that would weaken Castle Doctrine and Parking Lot provisions. Contact information for your state Representative can be found here.
You Don’t Get Grenades From Gun Shops In Arizona
Watch the latest video at <a href=”http://video.foxnews.com”>video.foxnews.com</a>
NRA-ILA Statement On Court’s Decision On Attorneys’ Fees
Chris Cox, head of the NRA-ILA, released this statement this afternoon regarding the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision regarding the awarding of attorneys’ fees in NRA et al v. City of Chicago et al and McDonald et al v. Chicago et al.
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Holds NRA Entitled to Attorneys’ Fees in Lawsuits Against Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Fairfax, VA—Today, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals conclusively and forcefully held, without need for oral argument, that the National Rifle Association has the right to recover attorneys’ fees in its lawsuits against the city of Chicago’s and the village of Oak Park’s unconstitutional gun bans. The court held that the NRA was a prevailing party in the case of National Rifle Association v. City of Chicago and Village of Oak Park.
“This is a Second Amendment victory and a civil rights victory. The National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment prevailed against those who sought to deny the right to keep and bear arms in Chicago and Oak Park,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “The attempt to avoid paying the NRA’s attorneys’ fees was rightly found to be unjust by the Court.”
After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right to keep and bear arms for all Americans in the historic McDonald v. Chicago and NRA v. Chicago and Oak Park cases, it remanded them for the purpose of issuing an injunction against Chicago and Oak Park’s unconstitutional gun ordinances. Before that injunction was issued, however, those ordinances were repealed. The City and the Village then argued that the NRA was not a prevailing party and should not be allowed to recover attorneys’ fees. The District Court, which originally ruled against the NRA, agreed and denied the fee award.
Today’s Seventh Circuit decision overturns that ruling, holding instead that the NRA is indeed a prevailing party and is entitled to receive reimbursement for attorneys’ fees. The amount to be recovered will be established by the District Court.
“This is a major victory for the NRA. While we are grateful to recover our attorneys’ fees, however, we remain steadfast in our belief that Chicago and Oak Park continue to circumvent the law of the land and deny their law-abiding residents the Second Amendment freedoms protected by the Constitution. We will continue to fight those efforts until the Second Amendment is fully respected,” concluded Cox.
I see Mr. Cox still has a problem saying the name of the attorney who won the case actually heard in the Supreme Court as well as the Heller case. Let me say it for him – AH-lin Grrr-AH.
Heh! Chicago Has To Pay Up.
After the City of Chicago lost McDonald et al v. City of Chicago et al in the Supreme Court, they changed their gun ban ordinances. Because of this, they argued that the plaintiffs were not “prevailing parties” and thus weren’t entitled to attorneys’ fees. U.S. District Court Judge Milton Shadur agreed with them and denied Alan Gura and the attorneys for the National Rifle Association the attorneys’ fees that should have been due them.
Today, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision overturning Judge Shadur and ordering “reasonable attorneys’ fees under §1988.” This decision applied both to the McDonald case and the cases brought by the NRA against the City of Chicago and the Village of Oak Park, Illinois.
The Court of Appeals noted that Judge Shadur was correct in that the plaintiffs didn’t receive a favorable judgment from the District Court. However, they continued:
But they did better: They won in the Supreme Court, which entered a judgment in their favor. When the Supreme Court rendered its decision, the controversy was live.
The Court goes on to add noting that Chicago and Oak Park changed their ordinances in response to the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision:
Many a defendant gives up after a district court’s final decision and does not appeal; some other parties settle to avoid the risk of reversal. If a cessation of hostilities after a district court’s decision does not deprive the victor of prevailing party status, why should conceding defeat after a decision by the Supreme Court do so?
The attorneys for Chicago and Oak Park argued that the decision in McDonald only addressed a “preliminary legal issue” and didn’t resolve the plaintiff’s claims against the municipalities. Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook writing for the Court of Appeals didn’t think much of that argument.
After the Supreme Court held that the second amendment applies to the municipalities’ ordinances, defendants’ position was untenable; neither Chicago nor Oak Park contends that the ordinance in force in 2008 could have been sustained under Heller’s substantive standards. This litigation was over except for the entry of an injunction by the district court. Chicago and Oak Park capitulated, which made the exercise unnecessary. By the time defendants bowed to the inevitable, plaintiffs had in hand a judgment of the Supreme Court that gave them everything they needed. If a favorable decision of the Supreme Court does not count as “the necessary judicial imprimatur” on the plaintiffs’ position (Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 605), what would?
According to his Twitter feed, Alan Gura just happened to be in Chicago today. He notes it is a beautiful day. Indeed it is and it is good to see that the City of Chicago is going to have to shell out the big bucks for their obstinacy as well they should.