Uncategorized

Now Where Have I Heard That Name Before

October 3, 2014 by 3 Comments

North Carolina judicial elections at all levels are officially non-partisan. The trend towards non-partisan judicial elections started in 1996 with superior court judges, continued in 2001 with district court judges, and culminated with appellate level (both Court of Appeals and Supreme Court) judges and justices in 2002. The North Carolina Board of Elections sends out the General Election Judicial Voter Guide to every resident.

I got the 2014 edition in the mail today. I’m reading through the candidates for the various seat on the Court of Appeals and I came across a name that struck a bell – Mark A. Davis. It noted that he was appointed to the Court of Appeals by former Gov. Beverly Perdue (D-NC) and had served as a Special Deputy Attorney General and General Counsel to the Governor. It hit me and a quick check showed I was correct.

Mark Davis was the lead attorney for the State of North Carolina in Bateman v. Perdue. He was the man charged with defending North Carolina’s law that stated, during times of officially declared emergency, off-premises possession of a firearm was banned. Put another way, it was his job to keep North Carolinians defenseless when they were at their most vulnerable. Fortunately, he failed.

Davis makes note of all his endorsements by former judges and by groups such as the Advocates for Justice and the NC Association of Educators. Advocates for Justice used to be named the NC Academy of Trial Lawyers which is an organization of primarily plaintiffs attorneys. Davis notes that the judges that endorsed him are both Republicans and Democrats. Frankly, I don’t care.

What I care about is not having a judge on the North Carolina Court of Appeals that wrote something so dismissive of my Second Amendment rights as did Davis in his Reply in Response to Motion. The State of North Carolina had filed a Motion to Dismiss which drew a Memorandum in Opposition from Alan Gura. Davis started off his response to Gura with this.

Plaintiffs’ Response Brief is most notable for its refusal to even acknowledge the substantial
governmental interest in placing restrictions on the carrying of guns in public. Guns are designed
to injure or kill, and possession of a gun poses a real risk of death or serious bodily harm to others
– that is, in fact, the very purpose of a gun. Consequently, the State’s interest in imposing
appropriate restrictions on the carrying of guns outside of one’s premises is even stronger than the
State’s well-recognized interests in establishing reasonable limits on First Amendment and other
constitutional rights, the exercise of which carry far less potential for death and destruction.


While Heller notes some similarities between the First Amendment and the Second
Amendment, there is one major and obvious difference between the two. Unlike even the most
hateful and offensive speech, guns are capable of inflicting violent bodily injury and death. In order
to protect citizens from the risks of gun-related violence, States must be given reasonable latitude
to set limits on the carrying of firearms in public, and this governmental interest is at its greatest
during a state of emergency.

As most people know, Judge Malcolm Howard rejected the state’s argument and declared the Emergency Powers statutes unconstitutional as they burdened the Second Amendment.

I can’t say that Mark Davis was appointed by former Gov. Perdue to the Court of Appeals based upon this case. However, given that he served as her General Counsel during her last two years of office, I think it is safe to say his appointment was a reward for good service to her. His appointment came as she was about to leave office.

Davis says he will bring “good old-fashioned North Carolina values to the Court of Appeals.” Working to suppress my Constitutional rights is not a North Carolina value insofar as I’m concerned. It is for that reason I urge a vote for his opponent Judge Paul Holcombe.

Uncategorized

Why I Love People In The Gun Culture

October 3, 2014 by 4 Comments

Despite the stereotypes propagated by the gun prohibitionists, people in the gun culture are some of the nicest, most inviting people around.

My case in point. I had mentioned in a post early (very early!) Monday morning that I was headed to Phoenix for a business training conference. On Monday afternoon I got this Facebook message from Jaci J of Team Gunblogger.

Hey, I just read your post about the Gun Rights Conference. Will you still be in Phoenix tomorrow? If so, would you like to shoot IDPA with us? We can scrounge up a gun and equipment for you. It’s at 5:30 at Phoenix Rod and Gun Club.

 While I couldn’t take her and Robert up on that invitation as my conference extended into the evening, I was really touched by her invitation. It goes to show that the gun culture is full of really nice people.

And next time, I’ll skip the steak dinner for a chance to go shooting!

Uncategorized

GRPC – Next Year, Phoenix

September 29, 2014 by 6 Comments

The location for the 2015 Gun Rights Policy Conference has been announced and it is Phoenix, Arizona. The conference will be held the last weekend of September as usual.

Let’s assume you just can’t make it to the conference due to cost or work or, God forbid, another suicidal maniac screwing up the FAA’s air traffic control system. Thanks to the joint efforts of Ammoland.com, the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, and The Polite Society Podcast (of which I’m a co-host)  you can watch the entire conference live via streaming video.

Paul Lathrop, host of The Polite Society Podcast, announced the joint effort late last night on Facebook.

I am proud to announce that at the Gun Rights Policy Conference 2015 The Polite Society Podcast will partner with AmmoLand.com – Shooting Sports News & Business and NJ2AS News and Events to provide LIVE video streaming of the conference!

I want to thank Fredy Riehl of Ammoland, Frank Jack Fiamingo, president of NJ2AS, and Rob Morse each of whom helped hatch the plan. It is going to take quite a bit of planning to get it done the way that it should be done, but I am certain that it will be a fun time.

I think this is great news.

And in one of those weird coincidences, I’m leaving for a business conference in a few minutes in….Phoenix.

Uncategorized

Shades Of Gregg Marmalard

September 29, 2014 by

Reading a story about the veto of a student campus carry resolution at Baylor University, I couldn’t help but think of the character Gregg Marmalard in the movie Animal House. Marmalard was the student body president at Faber College who did the bidding of Dean Wormer in trying to get rid of Delta House.

The Student Senate at Baylor had passed a resolution on September 18th urging that those legally licensed to carry concealed be allowed to do so on campus. The sponsor of the resolution, senior Gannon McCahill said it would make the campus a safer place and noted that people can legally carry most everywhere else.

However, this resolution was vetoed by Baylor Student Body President Dominic Edwards on Thursday and thus won’t be presented to the university administration. Edwards contended the Student Senate did not properly seek in put from students, faculty, and staff. The move to override the veto failed to achieve the requisite two-thirds needed.

It seems that this is not the first veto by Edwards of a student senate resolution.

McCahill also aired frustration about the ability of the senate to push measures forward, noting that controversial issues tend to be “vetoed and pushed aside so the administration doesn’t have to deal with it.”

The student senate last fall approved a measure to drop “homosexual acts” out of the university’s sexual misconduct policy, but the body could not override a presidential veto.

I don’t think the Baylor University President and Chancellor really needs to be protected from a little controversy. This is quite minor compared to what Ken Starr has dealt with in the past.

Uncategorized

Joe Manchin Said He Supported The Second Amendment, Too

September 28, 2014 by 2 Comments

Democrats running for the US Senate from red states love to say they are for the Second Amendment.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) said he was for gun rights, boasted he was endorsed by the NRA, and even showed himself shooting a rifle at the “cap and trade” bill. That was in 2010. In 2013, he introduced a bill that would “only add gun checks to online sales and gun shows.” That was a myth among many other problems.

Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) said she supported the Second Amendment in 2008 when she won against a lackluster Liddy Dole in the Obama landslide. That didn’t stop her from voting for Manchin-
Toomey in 2013 along with gun prohibitionists like Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and the late Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ).

Now comes Kentucky Sec. of State Alison Lundergan Grimes who is running against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). She said she disagrees with Obama on guns, coal, and the EPA. She even ran an ad showing herself at the skeet range. She even chides McConnell’s waving a Kentucky long rifle a’la Charlton Heston at the 2014 NRA Annual Meeting saying, “That’s not the way you hold a gun.”

Then she was a guest on the Kentucky Sports Radio show in which she said was for the Second Amendment but supported closing the mythical “gun show loophole.”

I’m sorry but if you say you support closing the non-existent “gun show loophole” (sic) then that means you support universal background checks. Answering a question about whether you’d support banning any guns by saying “I support the Second Amendment” is nothing more than obfuscation. You want to appear gun friendly but you are supporting exactly the same thing as Bloomberg, Watts, and the rest.

Mitch McConnell is not my favorite Republican. I think what he’s done to undercut the non-establishment wing of the Republican Party is stupid politics. However, I vote the Second Amendment and he supports gun rights. I am also well aware that we are but one Supreme Court justice away from seeing Heller and McDonald overturned. The only way to ensure Obama doesn’t get a chance to seat another Kagan or Sotomayor on the Supreme Court is with a Republican-majority Senate. If Grimes wins, that isn’t going to happen.

UPDATE: Alison Lundergan Grimes’ support for closing the non-existent gun show loophole gets a “hallelujah” from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic).

Can we get a “hallelujah”? Thank you Alison Lundergan Grimes, for good old fashioned common sense.

We were told growing up that we are known by our friends. If these are her friends, well…..

Uncategorized

Off To The 2014 Gun Rights Policy Conference

September 26, 2014 by 5 Comments

I leave in a couple of hours for my flight to Chicago to attend the Gun Rights Policy Conference. It has been a momentous week leading up to the conference.

First, Atlantic County Prosecutor Jim McClain said he would be recommending pre-trial intervention for Shaneen Allen. This comes after the Attorney General John J. Hoffman “clarified” his directive to prosecutors regarding the prosecution of legally licensed visitors to the State of NJ who ran afoul of their onerous laws. And it formally happened yesterday as Ms. Allen stood before NJ Superior Court Judge Michael Donio “who formally put on record that she had been entered into PTI, and that all motions have been withdrawn and all pending court dates — including an Oct. 20 trial — suspended.”

As for Ms. Allen herself, she had this to say:

“I have no words for how I feel,” Shaneen Allen said outside the courtroom. “I won’t be going to jail and can stay home with my kids and get back to my life.”

That includes finding work after losing her three jobs as a result of a felony charge hanging over her head.

Now, she wants to head to nursing school — a plan detoured after she was arrested and jailed for 46 days after she was stopped on the Atlantic City Expressway with her gun.

Frankly, I don’t think this would have been the outcome if she hadn’t been such a sympathetic figure AND if Ray Rice hadn’t gotten a slap on the wrist after brutally knocking out his wife-to-be. It also goes to show that politicians can find ways to act correctly if the heat is high enough.

Second, Alan Gura chalks up another win for the Second Amendment with a case from Pennsylvania.  Binderup v. Holder involved a guy who lost his Second Amendment rights for sleeping with the wrong woman. Dan Binderup had pled guilty to a the misdemeanor crime of “corruption of a minor” which could have carried a five-year sentence. He got a fine and probation. However, under Federal law, you lose your Second Amendment rights if the crime could carry a penalty of more than a year. Dave Hardy give a good explanation of that here. It is a shame that Jefferson Schrader didn’t live long enough to see this decision.

Finally, Eric Holder resigned as Attorney General of the United States. I was so busy with work yesterday I didn’t know about this until the Complementary Spouse came home and told me. As the editorial headline from Investor’s Business Daily said, “Holder’s Exit Not Fast Or Furious Enough”.

In a just world, Eric Holder would be headed to prison. As it is, he’ll become just another Obama Administration alumnus getting his multi-million dollar payday from some business or law firm that wants an “in” with Obama.

More will be written about Holder’s departure in the coming days but right now it is my own departure for Chicago that is more pressing.

UPDATE: After having my first flight cancelled at 8:45 this morning, going to the airport (5 minute drive) and waiting a half hour for a United ticket agent, getting rebooked out of Greenville-Spartanburg, driving to GSP, waiting 3 hours, and then having my second flight cancelled at 4:00 pm, attending this year’s Gun Rights Policy Conference will be nothing more than a fond dream. It sucks but it also is a good lesson in the fragility of technology. Who would have thought one suicidal man could have wreaked so much havoc?

Uncategorized

Interesting Second Amendment Case Out Of Massachusetts

September 25, 2014 by 8 Comments

If you travel abroad to a foreign country you carry your US Passport with you to prove that you are an American citizen. You don’t carry your birth certificate nor, if you weren’t born in the United States, do you carry your Certificate of Naturalization. Every foreign country around the world recognizes a passport as evidence of citizenship yet the Boston Police Department would not recognize Phuong Ngo’s US Passport as evidence of his US citizenship when he applied for a License to Carry. They demanded a US birth certificate or a Certificate of Naturalization and only would accept only one of  those documents.

Mr. Phuong Ngo came to the United States as a child with his parents. In  2006 his father became a naturalized citizen of the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1431 provides that a child born outside the United States automatically becomes a citizen if at least one parent is a US citizen by either birth or naturalization; that the child is under age 18; and that the child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence (i.e., not an undocumented or illegal alien). Mr. Ngo thus became a US citizen without having either a US birth certificate or a Certificate of Naturalization. Nonetheless, he is a US citizen or the Department of State would not have issued him a passport.

22 U.S.C. § 2705 states that during its period of validity a US Passport shall have the same force and effect as proof of United States citizenship as certificates of naturalization or of citizenship issued by the Attorney General or by a court having naturalization jurisdiction.

Because of the intransigence of the Boston Police Department acting as the BPD Licensing Authority, Mr. Ngo and Commonwealth Second Amendment have filed suit in US District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Commissioner William Evans. They are seeking to have Boston’s requirements for a License to Carry to be declared unconstitutional, as applied and facially, on Second and Fourteenth Amendment grounds as well as on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. They are also seeking a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction enjoining the BPD Licensing Authority from refusing to accept Mr. Ngo’s US Passport as evidence of his US citizenship.

From Comm2A’s press release on the case:

NATICK, MA – On Monday September 22nd, Commonwealth Second Amendment (Comm2A) and an individual plaintiff filed suit in federal district court against Boston Police Commissioner William Evans seeking a temporary restraining order against the department’s policy of refusing to recognize valid US passports as proof of US Citizenship.


“I think most Americans would find it deeply offensive to learn that the police don’t consider a US passport evidence of citizenship,” said Comm2A President Brent Carlton. “Sadly this is no surprise from a Police Commissioner who believes no one in Boston ‘needs’ a rifle or a shotgun. The US Constitution that Commissioner Evans has sworn to uphold has a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs. This is just one more tool that the Boston Police use to prevent the people of Boston from exercising a fundamental right.”


Despite federal law to the contrary, the department refuses to acknowledge that a valid US passport is proof of US citizenship. The Plaintiff attempted to apply for a ‘License to Carry’ on several occasions but was turned away by the Boston Police Department because he did not possess the requisite birth certificate or certificate of naturalization. Mr. Ngo became a US citizen as a minor child when his father became a citizen. Mr. Ngo does not possess nor is he able to obtain either a US birth certificate or certificate of naturalization. Mr. Ngo was repeatedly told that his valid US passport would not be accepted.


In refusing to acknowledge a valid US passport as evidence of citizenship, the complaint alleges that the Boston Police have trampled upon Mr. Ngo’s rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, as well as violated the Supremacy Clause of Article IV of the US Constitution.


Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Margarita Smirnova and J. Steven Foley.

Frankly, I don’t see that Boston has a leg to stand on but that certainly has NOT stopped anti-gun bureaucrats in the past.

Uncategorized

How Do Silencers Work?

September 24, 2014 by 2 Comments

I am a sucker for a really good infographic and SilencerCo has put one out. They are the Utah-based manufacturer of silencers/suppressors for rifles, pistols, AND shotguns.

SilencerCo has always put a lot of effort into educating people on the legality, history, and usage of silencers. This infographic is their latest effort. Interestingly enough, it has caught the attention of the business press. BusinessInsider ran a story featuring the infographic below on Monday. Unlike most stuff you see in the media, it was accurate and non anti-silencer.

As someone who has a hearing related problem – tinnitus – due to shooting without hearing protection earlier in life, I really wish silencers and suppressors were not NFA items. At most, they should be listed as AOW or any other weapon and have a $5 transfer fee. The reality is that hearing loss is a public health issue and silencers, despite all the myth and legend about them coming out of Hollywood, are a hearing safety device.