HR 38 Moves Forward

The House Judiciary Committee passed HR 38 – Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 – yesterday on a 19-11 vote. There were a number of amendments offered. Many of these amendments were meant to gut the bill. Of the 22 amendments offered, only three were adopted and all came from Republican members of the committee. The bill now moves to the whole House of Representatives for consideration.

The first amendment was in the form of a committee substitute offered by Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) which added a third section to the bill concerning off-duty and retired sworn law enforcement officers. The amendment would allow these individuals to both carry concealed and discharge weapons in school zones.

The second amendment that was accepted was offered by Rep. John Rutherford (R-FL). His amendment clarified that nothing in HR 38 would prevent a law enforcement officer from “conducting a brief investigative stop in accordance with the Constitution of the United States” if they had a reasonable suspicion to the violation of any law. This passed on a voice vote.

The final amendment that passed was from Rep. Daryl Issa (R-CA) and concerned the carrying of concealed firearms by Federal judges. It allows Federal judges to carry concealed in any state so long as they are not prohibited from receiving a firearm. In other words, if Justice Ginsberg can pass a NICS check, then she could carry a concealed firearm not that that would be likely.

The whole list of amendments and their disposition is on this page on the House Judiciary Committee website.

Firearms Policy Coalition Seeks Improvements In HR 38

The Firearms Policy Coalition is headquartered in Sacramento, California. Being as they are in one of the bluest states with some of the worst gun laws, they are hoping for passage of HR 38. However, they want to make it better for those who live in states like California, New York, New Jersey, etc. They also want the bill to include those living in Federal districts like DC, commonwealths like Puerto Rico, and other territories like the Northern Mariana Islands.

Many legal scholars agree with the FPC that the bill would be on stronger Constitutional grounds if it was based not on the commerce clause. The FPC would like to see the right to carry nationally be based upon the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. They hold that this would reinforce the rulings in Heller and McDonald.

Their full release with embedded links to their proposed changes is below:

SACRAMENTO,
CA (November 28, 2017) — Yesterday, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC)
sent a second letter regarding H.R.38 (the Concealed Carry Reciprocity
Act of 2017) to bill sponsor Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) and House
co-sponsors. The letter says the pro-gun bill could potentially “leave
law-abiding people exposed” because of “a byzantine patchwork of state
and local prohibitions” and suggested solutions to 6 individual legal
problems in the bill’s text.
The
group’s concerns also include “vague and undefined terms,” an exemption
to the federal Gun Free School Zone Act they say is “of limited
utility,” and the bill’s total reliance on
“constitutionally-antagonistic Commerce Clause doctrine.” FPC also
suggests that the measure’s scope be extended to include protections for
people in places that are not a “State or political subdivision
thereof,” like Washington, D.C. (a federal district), as well as
commonwealths, republics, and territories “administered or controlled by
the United States (i.e., American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana
Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands).”
FPC’s
letter says that, if H.R38 is passed without some important changes, it
“may very well indirectly cause people to be prosecuted and lose their
Second Amendment rights over harmless mistakes.” And, if “H.R.38 is not
amended to address our concerns,” they “predict that this
well-intentioned measure would leave millions of peaceful and
law-abiding people exposed to serious criminal liability.”
“As
we said in March, H.R.38 is a significant piece of legislation
that—properly amended to address the issues discussed above—would
establish one of the greatest, if not the greatest, legislative
advancements of Second Amendment rights so far in the history of our
federal government,” said FPC President Brandon Combs in the letter.
“And with just a few simple but important changes, H.R.38 could unlock
and protect the Second Amendment right to bear arms for all law-abiding
people—especially where it is denied today.”
Explained
FPC Spokesperson Craig DeLuz, “Any bill that seeks to expand the right
to keep and bear arms must be carefully crafted to ensure protection for
all law-abiding people, but especially for those in ‘battleground
states’ and cities hostile to Second Amendment rights.”
“If
a bill doesn’t protect people in places like California, New York, New
Jersey, and Maryland, then it doesn’t really get the job done,” DeLuz
concluded. “Our reasonable suggested amendments would help ensure that
people in anti-gun jurisdictions can exercise their fundamental,
individual right to bear arms.” 
A copy of FPC’s letters supporting H.R.38 can be viewed or downloaded at http://bit.ly/support-hr-38. Gun owners who wish to send letters supporting H.R.38 may use FPC’s free Grassroots Action Tools at http://bit.ly/support-hr-38.
FPC has also established #OurGunVote, a grassroots campaign to urge pro-gun bill passage in the House and Senate, available at http://www.ourgunvote.com/.
H.R.38 is scheduled to be next heard by the House Judiciary Committee at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, November 29.
Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org)
is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the
fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Rep. Richard Hudson On His Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

One of the speakers at this year’s Gun Rights Policy Conference held in Dallas was Shaneen Allen. She made a plea for the passage of HR 38 so as to protect anyone else from having to go through what she did when she crossed into New Jersey. As attorney Evan Nappen who has handled multiple firearms cases in New Jersey noted yesterday on Facebook, passage of national reciprocity will change that state from being the “North Korea of CCW”. Nappen was the attorney for both Shaneen Allen and Brian Aitken.

Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) specifically mentions that Allen case in his release announcing that his bill is scheduled for markup today.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representative Richard Hudson (NC-08) released the following statement after the House Judiciary Committee announced it will mark up his bill, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38), on Wednesday, November 29:
 
“For me and the vast majority of Americans who support concealed carry reciprocity, this is welcome progress. I want to thank Chairman Bob Goodlatte for his strong leadership to protect our Second Amendment rights. I will continue to work with my colleagues and President Trump to pass this common sense legislation to protect law-abiding citizens.”
 
Concealed carry reciprocity is one of the most important pro-Second Amendment measures in Congress. Currently, the patchwork of reciprocity laws and agreements between states is confusing and has caused law-abiding citizens like Shaneen Allen to unwittingly break the law and suffer arrest and detention. Even the most careful and knowledgeable concealed carry permit holders find it difficult to navigate the current maze of state and local concealed carry laws. H.R. 38 is a common sense solution. The bill, which is supported by major pro-Second Amendment groups and has 213 cosponsors, would allow law-abiding citizens with a state-issued concealed carry license or permit to conceal a handgun in any other state that allows concealed carry. It would also allow law-abiding residents of Constitutional carry states the ability to carry in other states that recognize their own residents’ right to concealed carry.
 
H.R. 38 would allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed only if they are not federally prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm, are carrying a valid government-issued photo ID, and are lawfully licensed or otherwise entitled to carry a concealed handgun. Each person would have to follow the laws of the state, county and municipality in which they are carrying concealed.
 
For a one-pager on the bill, click here. For a Q&A document, click here.
 
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,” which is “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” This fundamental right does not stop at a state’s borders and law-abiding citizens should be able to exercise this right when crossing state lines. In addition, Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution states, “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” This is the clause that allows a driver’s license to be recognized across state lines.
 
Contrary to the misinformation critics spread, under H.R. 38, states would retain their authority to enact time and place restrictions on where people can lawfully carry in the state. In addition, the bill would not make it any easier to buy a gun. It has nothing to do with the purchase of guns, it would not alter access to guns, and it would not change the federal law requiring background checks.
 
The American people understand these facts. That’s why an overwhelming majority of Americans support concealed carry reciprocity – 73% according to a recent New York Times survey.

HR 38 – Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 – Comes Up For Committee Vote This Morning

The House Judiciary Committee is holding its markup hearings on three bills this morning at 10 am EST. HR 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, and HR 4434, the Fix NICS Act of 2017, will be two of the bills included in the markup. The other bill concerns amber alerts on Indian reservations.

Passing national reciprocity was one of the promises that President Trump and the Republicans made to the gun rights community in 2016. Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) introduced HR 38 on the first day of this session of Congress and we have been waiting (and waiting) for any movement on the bill. The bill currently has 210 Republican and 3 Democrat co-sponsors.

HR 4434 and S. 2135 are identical bills introduced to correct some of the problems with the reporting of data to the FBI for inclusion in the databases used to conduct the NICS instant background checks. Both bills were introduced after the murders at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs. In that instance, the murderer had convictions on his record that made him a prohibited person. However, the US Air Force failed to report his convictions to the FBI and the murderer was able to buy multiple firearms after passing multiple NICS checks. The House bill is sponsored by Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) and the Senate bill by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). There is bipartisan support for both of these bills.

You can view the hearings live on YouTube.

When, Oh When, Will The SCOTUS Actually Defend The Second Amendment Again?

I am disappointed in the US Supreme Court. That’s nothing new for either me or most people regardless of their political leanings.

My disappointment stems from the absolute refusal by the Court to hear any and all Second Amendment cases since 2010 when they ruled in McDonald v. Chicago. The latest case to bite the dust is the Maryland case of Kolbe et al v. Hogan et al which challenged that state’s ban on ARs, AKs, and standard capacity magazines.

From the Orders released today:

17-127 KOLBE, STEPHEN V., ET AL. V. HOGAN, GOV. OF MD, ET AL.

The motion of Edwin Vieira, Jr., et al. for leave to file a
brief as amici curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of
certiorari is denied.

This case was a loss at the District Court level with an absolutely ridiculous opinion by Judge Catherine C. Blake which was then followed by a 2-1 win in the 4th Circuit that got overturned by an en banc ruling affirming the District Court.

If it is true that President Trump will have the ability to appoint up to 40% of the Federal bench with conservative judges, it can’t come soon enough. Moreover, I hope they aren’t in the mold of Judge Harvey Wilkinson either.

Pre-Thanksgiving Present For California Gun Owners

When politicians want to announce news or launch a new policy and they don’t want it to get a lot of attention they release it without fanfare on either a Friday afternoon or the afternoon before the beginning of a long holiday weekend. Such is the case with the California Department of Justice and their newly announced “assault weapons” regulations. The 52 pages of the new regulations can be found here.

The Firearms Policy Coalition challenged their rulemaking in the past and won based upon how they sought to implement them without public comment. According to their release below, I think it is reasonable to expect more challenges to these regulations and the implementation of them by the California Department of Justice.

From FPC:

SACRAMENTO,
CA (November 22, 2017) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has issued the
following statement regarding the latest California Department of
Justice (DOJ) proposed regulations on so-called “assault weapons”:
Once again, the California DOJ and Attorney General Xavier Becerra have used 11th-hour
tactics to push its anti-gun agenda, this time by releasing new
proposed “assault weapons” regulations right before a major holiday.
FPC has published the new proposed regulations at BulletButtonBan.com
a Web site it established in 2016 for tracking the new California
assault weapon laws and regulations — where members of the public can
use FPC’s grassroots action tools to submit written comments to DOJ
regarding the proposed regulations. A public hearing on the new
regulations is scheduled for 10 a.m. on January 8, 2018, at the
Resources Building Auditorium in Sacramento.
Last
December, the California DOJ submitted its first attempt at “assault
weapons” regulations under the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) “File
& Print” process, which means that the DOJ believed the regulations
were not subject to public notice or comment. However, thousands of FPC
members and Second Amendment supporters sent letters opposing the secret
process through FPC’s grassroots tools and, without further comment,
the DOJ withdrew the regulations near the end of OAL review period.
Then,
in May, the DOJ re-submitted regulations under the same “File &
Print” process. Those regulations were summarily rejected by OAL a
little more than a month later. Following that, the DOJ submitted a
virtually-identical set of regulations under the “File & Print”
process, which OAL approved in July.
Now,
the Department is attempting to promulgate a new regulation to apply
the July regulations to all aspects of the State’s “assault weapons”
laws, including for purposes of criminal prosecutions.
FPC’s
attorneys are hard at work reviewing the regulations and have been
instructed to take every appropriate legal action to defend California
gun owners and individual liberties.
Earlier
this year, FPC was forced to sue the DOJ over the Department’s actions
to block access to public records and a previous version of the
regulations.

New One-Day NICS Check Record Set

A new one-day NICS background check record was set on this year’s Black Friday or the day after Thanksgiving. USA Today reports the FBI processed 203,086 background check requests on November 24th. This compares to 185,713 checks last year which had been the previous all-time one-day record.

According to FBI records, four out of the five highest days have been Black Friday. This includes the years 2017, 2016, 2015, and 2014. The outlier was the Friday before Christmas 2012. This was two days after then-President Obama said he planned to submit new gun control legislation to Congress in the aftermath of the shootings in Newtown, CT.

As I always caution, while NICS checks are a stronger indicator of firearm sales, there is not a one-to-one correlation between check and a firearm purchase. A check could be used for the purchase of more than one firearm. Furthermore, in many states, concealed carry permits substitute for the NICS check on a purchase. Finally, NICS background checks are used by some states as part of the carry permit process though I think it probably could be assumed that few of Friday’s checks were related to carry permits.

Doing My Part To Stimulate The (Gun) Economy – 2017 Edition

I have been doing these Black Friday posts annually since 2010. The state of the firearms industry is a bit different this year. After many years of double-digit growth, it appears the bubble has burst. In earlier years you would have been lucky to find an AR-15 upper for $400 or so. Now you can get the whole AR for that price.

Let’s just say it has not been a great year for the firearms industry in general. The thought that we would have a President Hillary and you better grab while grabbing is good was crushed late on the night of November 8th when Donald J. Trump was elected president. Dennis Badurina of Dragon Leatherworks who also owns a small gun store in Tennessee has been pointing out the state of the retail firearms industry with his posts on his Facebook page for a number of months. As Dennis notes, the industry is in freefall and is in a state of contraction.

I am going to make the assumption that the industry will be using Black Friday and Cyber Monday as a major tool to rid itself of excess inventory. If you are in the market for anything, I think you should find some good deals with careful shopping.

As with last year, I have decided not to reinvent the wheel and will point out some of the better aggregations of Black Friday/Cyber Monday sales. I will be adding links to individual companies as I go through the weekend when I find something that might not be covered elsewhere.

Starting off, there is the Black Friday page of Slickguns.com. It has links to the sales at all the major big box sporting and outdoor stores.

Crowd-sourcing is a great way to put many eyes together to find the deals. The /gundeals subreddit page of Reddit is one such place. They have a Black Friday megathread going that has a little bit of everything. The other major crowd-sourced effort is on Arfcom. Their “official GD Black Friday” thread is at 6 pages and counting. The first thing that caught my eye there was $8 PMags. You can never have enough magazines! Now if I can find some less expensive CZ P-09 mags, I’ll be in hog heaven.

If you trend more towards the tactical, SoldierSystems.net has a dedicated post that is continually updated with Black Friday sales.

As for me, I’m good on most things. However, I’m in the market for a good quality handgun safe/strongbox with a mechanical keypad. My granddaughter Olivia Grace is almost three and has a little sister due in April. Little fingers can get in places they shouldn’t be and I want to protect against that.

Finally, I’d like to remind everyone that No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money is an Amazon affiliate. All commissions that I earn from your purchases go to non-profit gun rights organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund.

If you are in the market for an inexpensive tablet device, the Kindle Fire 7 is only $29.99. It was $33.33 last year. The Complementary Spouse uses her Fire daily to keep up with email, crafts, and family.

UPDATE:


There is a thread at 24hourcampfire.com with some more hunting related Black Friday specials.

My friend Andy Langlois of Ching and Rhodesian sling fame is having a sale on all his products. Save 20 percent off all his products from Nov. 22 – 28 and 10 percent off all products from Nov. 29 – Dec. 24, 2017. I have both his belts, both style of slings, and even a couple of holsters by Andy and the quality is top-notch. Go to https://www.andysleather.com/collections/black-friday-sale. Use the code “BlackFriday”.

UPDATE II:

Steve Johnson at The Firearm Blog has posted what he considers his Top 5 deals in firearms for Black Friday. You can find it here.

Tom Gresham of Gun Talk Radio has compiled his own list of holiday deals in firearms, ammo, and accessories. He has a special page for it.

He’d Should Have Still Been In Prison

It has been widely reported that the Air Force had erred in not forwarding the conviction for domestic violence of the killer in the Sutherland Springs, TX church murders. The Air Force has acknowledged their error in not forwarding this information for inclusion in the FBI’s National Instant Criminal background check system. If they had done so, the killer – who was legally prohibited from owning a firearm – would never have passed NICS background checks in both Colorado and Texas. There was another error in my estimation as I make clear in my discussion of the potential sentences the killer could have gotten in both the military and civilian courts.

The first document is a record of the killer’s general court martial held at Holloman AFB in New Mexico. It is clearly marked a Crime of Domestic Violence.

If you read this document carefully, the killer pled guilty to two charges of assault and had another five dismissed or withdrawn. This was obviously a plea bargain though there is no mention of it in the document. Later mentions in the press confirm it.

Looking at the Air Force’s Manual for Courts-Martial that was in effect in 2012, Specification 2 meets the UCMJ’s definition of “aggravated assault”. Remember, he hit the child so hard that he fractured his skull according to Col. Don Christensen (USAF-Ret.) who was the prosecutor in the case.

(4) Aggravated assault.
(a) Assault with a dangerous weapon or other
means or force likely to produce death or grievous
bodily harm.

(i) That the accused attempted to do, offered
to do, or did bodily harm to a certain person;

(ii) That the accused did so with a certain
weapon, means, or force;

(iii) That the attempt, offer, or bodily harm
was done with unlawful force or violence; and

(iv) That the weapon, means, or force was
used in a manner likely to produce death or grievous
bodily harm.

(Note: Add any of the following as applicable)
(v) That the weapon was a loaded firearm (vi) That the person was a child under the
age of 16 years.

The manual goes on to add that inflicting grievous bodily injury upon a child under the age of 16 increases the maximum punishment. The sentence for the aggravated assault on the step-son in which he intentionally inflicted grievous bodily injury could have been dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay, and eight years of confinement. Even if they deemed it a simple assault, he still would have gotten a dishonorable discharge and two years of confinement. He got a bad conduct discharge and one year of confinement.

Let’s compare this to how a civilian court would have defined the crime and what sentence a civilian judge would have imposed. Because I am most familiar with North Carolina law, I’ll use it for my purposes. Other states will have different definitions and different sentencing guidelines.

North Carolina differentiates between “physical injury” and “serious bodily injury”. The former causes great pain and suffering. By contrast, “serious bodily injury” is an injury that “creates a substantial risk of death”, permanent disfigurement, coma, extreme and prolonged pain, etc. I think a reasonable person would agree that a fractured skull is a serious bodily injury.

North Carolina law also differentiates between assaults on adults and those on children. The assault on the former wife which included strangulation (among other things) would be covered by NCGS 14-32.4. It only needs to cause physical injury or pain. That would be treated as a Class H felony.

The more serious charge would be the assault on the child and would be covered by laws detailing child abuse. NCGS 14-318.4.(a3) states:

A parent or any other person providing care to or supervision of a child less than 16
years of age who intentionally inflicts any serious bodily injury to the child or who
intentionally commits an assault upon the child which results in any serious bodily injury to the
child, or which results in permanent or protracted loss or impairment of any mental or
emotional function of the child, is guilty of a Class B2 felony.

Looking at the sentencing guidelines for felonies that were in effect in North Carolina for the time period in question, Specification 1 of the charges against the killer would have been a Class H felony. The presumptive range for incarceration for this charge as a first time offense would be 5 to 6 months in prison. However, it is the charge for the attack on the step-son that brings serious time. It is a Class B2 felony which has a range of 94 to 196 months in prison. The presumptive range is 125 months to 157 months imprisonment. In other words, even if the sentences ran concurrently and he got the absolute minimum sentence for his vicious attack on the child, he would not have gotten out of prison until sometime in 2020.

I have a great respect for the military. My father served 28 years in the Army. Likewise, the Complementary Spouse’s dad, brother, and sister-in-law all were Air Force officers. I have been assured that the Air Force takes child abuse seriously and every base has a Commanders Council on Child Abuse. That said, I think the military justice system failed the people of Sutherland Springs, Texas and the people of the United States. In my opinion, the main goal of this General Court Martial and the attendant sentence was to get rid of an undesirable airman and the quicker the better. The less the Air Force had to deal with him in the future, the better in their (grossly incorrect) estimation.

“I’m From The Government And I’m Here To Kill You”

That is the title of Second Amendment attorney Dave Hardy’s new book. It details how Federal negligence and arrogance got people killed and how the perpetrators got away free due to the law. I’ve been reading the book and will post a full review of it in the near future. From what I’ve read so far, I highly recommend it.

However, this post isn’t about Dave’s book but rather about how negligence on the state and local level in California allowed a mentally disturbed and often violent man to kill five people before he himself was killed in a shoot-out with police. The murders happened earlier this week in Rancho Tehama Reserve. In addition to the murders, this mad man shot up the local elementary school wounding one student.

The murderer was out of jail on bail from an assault in January where he had been charged with a total of five felonies and two misdemeanors. At the time he was released on bail, the judge in the case ordered him to surrender his firearms and had issued a protective order which barred him from “owning, possessing, purchasing or attempting to purchase firearms.” He had certified to the court that he had turned in his firearms to the custody of a local gun shop.

At the time of his shootout with police, the murderer was found to be in possession of two semi-auto rifles which seem to have been made by him as well as two handguns registered to someone else.

As reported by the Orange County Register, police were called to his residence many time between January and this week’s murders. However, he always refused them entrance.

Why were police called to his residence?

At a tense news conference Wednesday, police conceded that neighbors had repeatedly complained about (the murderer) firing hundreds of rounds from his house.

Tehama County Assistant Sheriff Phil Johnston said authorities responded to calls several times, but the 44-year-old (murderer) wouldn’t open the door, so they left.

“He was not law enforcement friendly. He would not come to the door,” Johnston said. “You have to understand we can’t anticipate what people are going to do. We don’t have a crystal ball.”

So you have neighbors reporting that a prohibited person is having target practice in his yard and the local law enforcement does nothing about it. Let me repeat that he was out on bail awaiting trial on five felonies and had a protective order against him banning his possession of any firearm.

WTF?

As law professor Laurie Levenson of Loyola Law School makes clear below, they didn’t need his permission to enter.

“You can have probable cause even if officers don’t see a gun or hear shots,” she said. “They do not have to see the suspect with the weapon if all the circumstantial evidence indicates that he is violating the orders.”

Levenson said officers don’t even need a warrant to search a suspect’s home if they believe the caller and the evidence they are hearing and collecting indicate the suspect is firing a gun.

“If an officer believes there is someone with a weapon who is not entitled to have a weapon, the law permits the officer to go in,” she said.

While I imagine confronting a man who reportedly had both anger issues and was somewhat psychotic is dangerous, that is what police are paid to do and that is why they have SWAT teams.

No one knows if the killer’s wife, neighbors, and the random people shot or killed would still be alive if the police had intervened when the neighbors called to complain but the odds certainly are higher.

I don’t know California law as to whether the Tehama County Sheriffs’ Department can be held liable for negligence. As Dave Hardy makes clear in his book, under Federal law this negligence would come under the “discretionary function exemption” and not a damn thing would happen to that department.

The other thing I do know is that no new gun control law would have stopped this killer. There were laws on the books that were meant to prevent him from having firearms. They were ignored. Moreover, the police declined to enforce them even in the face of complaints from neighbors that indicated he was violating the law. Gun  control laws stop the law abiding. They don’t stop criminals and they don’t stop those intent on ignoring the law.