You Want Craven, I’ll Give You Craven

If you have listened to the news any in the last few days, you have seen an orgy of media reporting devoted to the murders in Santa Barbara. I say murders because while three of the killings by the narcissistic individual  involved a firearm, the other three involved a machete and a hammer. Nonetheless, one of the parents of the victims in his grief blamed the killings on “craven, irresponsible politicians and the NRA”.

This post isn’t meant to go into all the legal niceties that the killer observed in obtaining his firearms or how stringent a process the California DOJ’s DROS (Dealer’s Record of Sale) imposes on firearm sales but rather the blood dancing coming from the Brady Campaign. I would go so far as to call it “craven”.

Below is an email I received from the Brady Campaign at noon today. I don’t know why I’m supposed to call Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) as I live in North Carolina and not Arizona. Nonetheless, I’m sure millions of these emails are going out today aimed at senators who voted against Manchin-Toomey last year.

Dear (redacted),

This Memorial Day weekend, while Americans across the nation were honoring our fallen soldiers, we were also overwhelmed by another tragedy – a murderous rampage by a gunman at the University of California-Santa Barbara that claimed six lives and left eight others wounded.

One of those killed was Chris Martinez, whose father Richard had this to say about his devastating loss:

“Chris died because of craven, irresponsible politicians and the NRA. They talk about gun rights. What about Chris’ right to live?”

The Brady Campaign stands firmly with Mr. Martinez. He got it exactly right. Politicians continually ignore the will and the well-being of the American public and, instead, take their marching orders and money from the corporate gun lobby.

Shamefully, these politicians do not care who is buying guns – convicted felons, domestic abusers, rapists – just as long as the corporate gun lobby is happily making the biggest possible profit.

Now more than ever, it is essential that we Americans rise up and call out the corporate gun lobby and the ‘craven’ politicians who do their bidding.

Call Senator Flake at 1-866-383-3901

Tell him that you haven’t forgotten when he voted against the amendment to expand Brady background checks and chose to stand with the corporate gun lobby instead of representing the overwhelming majority of his constituents who support background checks.

The gun lobby has millions of dollars from big gun corporations. We have the truth and the voice of every decent American who wants and deserves a nation safe from gun violence.

Thanks to Americans like Richard Martinez, that voice of truth is starting to be heard. Let’s show Mr. Martinez that we are right there beside him. Call Senator Flake today and remind him that he works for the American public and not the corporate gun lobby.

Dan Gross
President
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

P.S. You can make a difference by joining Brady supporters from around the country at the 2014 Brady National Summit in D.C. from June 9 – 10.

Given that Dan Gross began his career in the advertising industry, I’m not surprised that he cherry-picks his “facts” and doesn’t let the truth get in the way of his agenda.

Does the National Rifle Association get substantial donations from firearms manufacturers? Yes but the amount is dwarfed by the amount of money that memberships and individual donations bring in. The gun lobby is you and me and not some amorphous big corporation where big-wigs sit around lighting their cigars with $100 bills.

Would the universal background checks for private sales mandated by Manchin-Toomey have prevented the tragedy in Santa Barbara? No. The killer purchased his firearms legally, underwent the California DOJ’s background checks, was limited to one handgun purchase within a 30 day period, had to wait 10 days (or more) before taking possession of his handgun as required by law, and only had California-compliant magazines in his possession. It should be pointed out that the DROS system is available on-line to any law enforcement officer to check on purchases and is linked to mental health reports including whether a person had been hospitalized or has been prescribed anti-anxiety medications.

And that link at the bottom of Gross’ email?  If you want to attend their so-called summit, you have to pay and they take all major credit cards including Amex and Discover.

If you want to see craven behavior, just go to any of the gun prohibitionists’ websites. Whether it is the Brady Campaign trying to raise money, the Violence Policy Center trying to push their “research”, or Everytown Moms for Illegal Mayors trying to build their email list, you are going to see craven behavior – or what I’d call blood dancing – at its worst.

What Did We Do To Deserve Men Like This?

As a country we should be asking what did we do to deserve fine young men like Corporal Kyle Carpenter (USMC-Ret.). The White House announced last week that Carpenter will be awarded the Medal of Honor for his gallant actions during a Taliban attack in 2010.

From the announcement:

On June 19, 2014, President Barack Obama will award Corporal William “Kyle” Carpenter, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret), the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry. Corporal Carpenter will receive the Medal of Honor for his courageous actions while serving as an Automatic Rifleman with Company F, 2d Battalion, 9th Marines, Regimental Combat Team 1, 1st Marine Division (Forward), I Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward), in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.

Corporal Carpenter will be the eighth living recipient to be awarded the Medal of Honor for actions in Iraq or Afghanistan. He and his family will join the President at the White House to commemorate his example of selfless service.

The White House announcement unfortunately does nothing to tell the story of Carpenter’s selfless actions that day in Afghanistan which left him grievously wounded.

What Carpenter did was fall on a hand grenade that had been tossed up on the roof where he and LCpl Nick Eufrazio were posting security. The Marine Corps Times had a report on the incident that was published in 2012. At the time, the incident was under investigation to see exactly what happened during that attack. Carpenter doesn’t remember and his fellow Marine LCpl Eufrazio suffered traumatic brain injury from a piece of shrapnel.

Lance Cpls. Kyle Carpenter and Nick Eufrazio were posting security together on a dusty rooftop in Afghanistan when an insurgent tossed a hand grenade at them. The world melted in a white-hot blast, and the two men were rocked by an explosion that could be heard nearly a mile away.

More than a year later, the Marine Corps continues to investigate what occurred, said Lt. Col. James Fullwood and Capt. Michael Manocchio, who served as two of the senior officers in their unit, 2nd Battalion, 9th Marines, out of Camp Lejeune, N.C., during that deployment. Other personnel in the compound during the Nov. 21, 2010, attack insist there’s no doubt Carpenter shielded Eufrazio from most of the blast, and deserves the Medal of Honor.

“Kyle covered that grenade,” said Hospitalman 3rd Class Christopher Frend, the corpsman who first rendered medical care to Carpenter and Eufrazio. “Grenade blasts blow up; they don’t blow down. If he hadn’t done it, what we found would have looked completely different.”

Carpenter describes his injuries in an interview with Marine Corps Times.

Carpenter was medically retired from the Marines in 2013 and is now a full time student at the University of South Carolina. Despite the 30 surgeries over 19 months to repair the injuries he suffered that day in 2010, Carpenter’s spirit wasn’t crushed. Indeed, as he says in the video below, he’s just getting started.

As I said in the intro, we should be asking what did we do as a country to have such fine men who were willing to sacrifice everything in order to protect us. I’m not sure of the answer but I know we should be extremely grateful and I am. So on this Memorial Day 2014, I would like to thank Cpl. Carpenter for his selfless gallantry and I would especially like to remember those who gave everything so that we could be free.

While I’m On The Subject Of Open Carry

Rachel, my fellow co-host of The Polite Society Podcast and a gun rights activist in Texas, sent me this link about an agreement on a unified protocol and general policy regarding open carry events put out by a number of open carry groups. As Rachel notes, this is huge given the behind the scenes disagreements among the groups on the best way to push the Texas Legislature to approve open carry of handguns.

The joint release from Texas Carry, Gun Rights Across America, Ellis County Open Carry and Open Carry Texas announcing their unified policy:


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – Come and Take It Texas, Texas Carry, Gun Rights Across America and Open Carry Texas Joint Statement on OC of Long Arms – May 21, 2014


Over the past year, our members have done what no other organization has been able to do – put open carry at the forefront of the fight to restore gun rights for all Texans. As we have grown, we have had to adjust our efforts based on lessons learned through hundreds of open carry events, big and small.


Looking back, it has become clear that there is one area in which we have gotten the most resistance and suffered the largest setbacks: open carry of long arms into private businesses. This is not a new phenomenon. Early on, because of our efforts, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) sent a message to all TABC licensees warning them about allowing our members to open carry into their businesses. This resulted in places like Smashburger asking us to leave our guns at home. Since then, Starbucks, Wendy’s, Jack In The Box, Applebees and most recently, Chipotle have come out asking we not carry our firearms into their establishments.


Whereas, our mission is to get open carry of handguns passed in Texas, we must once again adjust in a way that shines a positive light on our efforts, our members, and our respective organizations. We are humbly and emphatically imploring our members to cease taking long arms into corporate businesses unless invited. Black Powder revolvers have proven to be very effective and align with our goal of legalizing open carry with a handgun. We do understand that not everyone will be able to afford one, but if you can, we are requesting you do so. Almost every leader has gone to Black powder for a reason. It works.


For all further open carry walks with long guns, we are adopting the following unified protocol and general policy to best ensure meeting our respective legislative mission to legalize open carry:

1) Always notify local law enforcement prior to the walk, especially the day of.
2) Carry Flags and signs during your walk to increase awareness.
3) Carry the long gun on a sling, not held.
4) Do not go into corporate businesses without prior permission, preferably not at all.
5) If asked to leave, do so quietly and do not make it a problem.
6) Do not post pics publicly if you do get permission and are able to OC in a cooperate business.
7) Do not go into businesses with TABC signs posted with a long gun (Ever).
8) If at all possible, keep to local small businesses that are 2A friendly.

We ask that members take a step back and make an objective assessment of what we are trying to accomplish and help us to get open carry passed for everyone. We must be willing and able to recognize what works and what doesn’t, but we need your help to make these efforts a success. It will be very difficult to spin holstered, black powder revolvers into a negative story. This is the goal we are currently striving for, open carry of handguns. We know everyone is working hard for this cause. It is simply time to focus on what has been proven to work. The conversation has shifted from open carry of handguns to rifles in businesses, negating our efforts and distracting us from our mission.


We are winning. Because we are winning, we have come under increased scrutiny by media and politicians. Let’s use that spotlight and make the most positive impact we can!


Carry on!


CJ Grisham, Open Carry Texas 

Terry Holcomb, Sr, Texas Carry 

Murdoch Pizgotti, CATI-TX 

Eric Reed, GRAA

Eric Reed of Gun Rights Across America points out some very valid points that are being ignored by the mainstream media and groups like Everytown would have you not know.

Now under Texas state law, a holder of a concealed handgun license is only required to abide by certain signs that have very specific legal verbiage. Up to this point, none of the above aforementioned businesses have posted these legal signs. So it remains legal for a concealed handgun licensee to concealed carry into these establishments with a valid Texas CHL.

The anti-gun groups have won nothing but a public statement by these businesses to make them just go away. As stated in the press release, gun rights is winning. The fight is in Austin, not at Jack in the Box or Chipotle.

Hey Shannon, This Is Old News

Shannon Watts would have you believe that Smashburger is going to be the next place they lobby to ban “open carry” thanks to open carry activists. That is, if you believe the tweets she sent out this afternoon.

The only problem is that this is old news. Smashburger has had a policy in compliance with Texas ABC Board regulations that open carry of any sort is banned. They did this in 2013. Prior to the clarification in ABC Board regulations, Smashburger was welcoming to open carriers.

The picture below is from GlockTalk in March of this year.

Take a good look at that second picture she tweeted. It is the same one from this July 2, 2013 blog post in Open Carry Texas. 

Next time Shannon tweets about a picture featuring open carry activists, take a good look. It probably is an old picture she is using to drum up business for Everytown Moms for Illegal Mayors.

Peruta Case Isn’t Done Yet

On May 1st, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Sheriff William Gore to respond within 14 days to two questions. First, did the sheriff have a position on whether California AG Kamala Harris should be allowed to intervene in the case? Second, did he consider this case moot as he had starting issuing carry permits on a shall-issue basis?

Gore responded on Wednesday, May 14th in a letter signed by the Senior Deputy County Counsel James Chapin that was sent to the Clerk of Court. The letter said:

The Court has requested the position of Appellee William Gore on the
pending motions to intervene and a response to the suggestion that this case is
moot. Appellee responds as follows:

Motions to Intervene.

Appellee believes that the Attorney General is the appropriate intervenor in
this case because the panel opinion finds California’s legislative scheme regarding
the carrying of handguns unconstitutional. Appellee requests that the Court grant
the Attorney General’s Motion to Intervene. Appellee takes no position on other
intervenors.

Mootness.

This case is not moot. Appellee has not changed his policy or procedures for
the issuance of concealed carry licenses. All current applications that do not meet
the existing policy are being held without action, pending final direction from the
Court or the Legislature.

Intervenor status was also sought by the Brady Campaign. An en banc review of the Peruta decision is being sought by Harris, the Brady Campaign, the California Peace Officers Association, and the California Police Chiefs Association.

As attorney Chuck Michel made clear back in March, both Gore and the plaintiffs had asked Harris to participate in the case she declined. It was only after Peruta was decided in favor of the plaintiffs did she try to intervene. I guess she never thought the 9th Circuit would decide in favor of the plaintiffs and in such a forceful decision.

CalGuns And Cal-FFL Have To Take AG Kamala Harris To Court – Again

In a release sent out on Tuesday, the CalGuns Foundation and Cal-FFL have announced that they are or will be suing California Attorney General Kamala Harris over a new policy she has implemented for the California Department of Justice. The new policy limits those who have a California issued certificate of eligibility and a federal firearms license to the purchase of one handgun per month. They assert that Harris’ reinterpretation of an existing statute is contrary to the meaning of the law itself.

From their joint release announcing the lawsuit:

California Attorney General Kamala Harris Sued Over New Handgun Purchase Ban

Gun rights groups back lawsuit to restore the right to buy handguns in the Golden State.

(Sacramento, CA – May 20, 2014) – California Attorney General Kamala Harris continues to substitute anti-gun policies for black letter law, say California gun rights groups The Calguns Foundation (CGF) and California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL).

In a new lawsuit filed today against the state’s highest law enforcement officer and Department of Justice firearms bureau chief Stephen Lindley, plaintiffs Alvin Doe–who is using a fictitious name to protect their privacy due to a fear of criminal prosecution and retaliation–and Paul Gladden say that “the DOJ’s new [handgun] enforcement policy is contrary to the plain language” of the law.

The case challenges a recently enacted DOJ policy that denies people who have both a DOJ-issued “Certificate of Eligibility” to purchase firearms and a federal firearms license the ability to purchase more than one handgun in a thirty-day period. Holders of these licenses and certificates, such as the plaintiffs, have successfully completed rigorous fingerprint-based background checks that include full investigations of all state and federal criminal and mental health databases. The policy, say the plaintiffs, is simply not consistent with the law and does nothing to enhance public safety.

“The Attorney General’s new policy blocks individuals from exercising rights that the Legislature granted them,” said the plaintiffs’ attorney, Bradley Benbrook of Sacramento-based law firm Benbrook Law Group. The firm, which recently filed a brief to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of 33 members of Congress in support of the Second Amendment right to carry handguns for self-defense, is asking the court for an injunction against the DOJ policy.

“Ms. Harris’ attempt to restrict lawful handgun sales by reinterpreting a 15 year old statute is entirely inconsistent with the democratic process and separation of powers,” said CAL-FFL President Brandon Combs.

Continued Combs, “Her latest ban is nothing short of an attempt to choke off handgun purchases and shutter California gun dealers. We cannot stand by and let her hostility towards the gun rights culture go unchallenged.”

“The Attorney General is there to be the chief law enforcement officer, not to make up laws to fit her policy preferences,” explained Gene Hoffman, chairman of The Calguns Foundation. “We look forward to the courts rejecting her extralegal interpretation.”

The plaintiffs expect to file their motion for preliminary injunction on Friday and are cautiously optimistic that the case will be heard within the next month.

A Plea For Attention

The Brady Campaign and the other older gun prohibitionist groups such as the Violence Policy Center and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic) have been marginalized by Michael Bloomberg and his money. His Illegal Mayors, his merger with Shannon Watts and the Demanding Mommies, and his willingness to parachute legions of lobbyists into purple states like Colorado to get new laws imposed have created a far more dangerous foe to gun rights than the Brady Campaign.

It is within this context that we should examine the lawsuit brought yesterday in New Jersey by the Brady Campaign to force certification of the so-called “smart gun”. While it may be seen as a plea for attention, such pleas by a marginalized foe can be dangerous.


The lawsuit filed yesterday seeks to force NJ Acting Attorney General John J. Hoffman to comply with the reporting requirements of the Personalized Handgun Law. By doing so, it could trigger the 3-year clock after which only “personalized handguns” may be sold in New Jersey. Unlike the California microstamping law which allows existing handguns on the California Handgun Roster to still be sold, there is no grandfathering in of existing handguns.

New Jersey is an anomaly in that its Attorney General is appointed and not elected. The Attorney General is appointed by the Governor and then confirmed by the NJ State Senate much like the US Attorney General. Mr. Hoffman, the Acting Attorney General, was appointed to the position when his predecessor was appointed to fill the US Senate seat held by the late Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). Politically, he is registered as an Independent. His law career has been primarily in the public sector with the bulk of it being as a trial attorney in the US Department of Justice Civil Division and as an Assistant US Attorney for the District of New Jersey. Hoffman, while he was politically astute enough to get appointed Acting AG, seems to be more a bureaucrat than a politician.

The Brady Campaign sent Hoffman letters in February and in April noting that the Attorney General’s Office had failed to do its semi-annual reports on the availability of personalized handguns since 2003. The February letter mentioned the Armatrix iP1 pistol and asked that he file the requisite report with the Governor and Legislature affirming that it was available for sale. The April letter was a reminder and hinted of further action.

I have to believe that the Brady Campaign had the complaint written and ready to go when the time was right. It is no coincidence that the lawsuit was filed in Mercer County Superior Court the day after Ernst Mauch, designer of the Armatrix iP1 pistol, had an op-ed published in the Washington Post. Whether or not Herr Mauch colluded with the Brady Campaign on the timing is up for speculation but it certainly looks suspicious. The timeline of information requests presented in the complaint makes clear that the Brady Campaign and its affiliate NJ Million Moms (sic) had been planning this since 2013.

The complaint itself is rather straight forward with the exception of the recitation of accidental shootings by children with handguns. It basically says the Attorney General of NJ was supposed to be putting out semi-annual reports on personalized handguns (NJS 2C:58-2.3(c), the one report from 2003 could not be found, and that Deputy AG Bruce Solomon had affirmed that no report had been issued from 2004-2012. The complaint goes on to say that a dealer in California had offered a personalized handgun for sale and that a Maryland dealer had received one from the manufacturer. This is important to the case because of how the statute determines personalized handguns are available (NJS 2C:58-2.3(b)).

For the purposes of this section, personalized handguns shall be deemed to be available for retail sales purposes if at least one manufacturer has delivered at least one production model of a personalized handgun to a registered or licensed wholesale or retail dealer in New Jersey or any other state. As used in this subsection, the term “production model” shall mean a handgun which is the product of a regular manufacturing process that produces multiple copies of the same handgun model, and shall not include a prototype or other unique specimen that is offered for sale.

The fact that the NJ Attorney General’s Office has screwed up by not issuing the semi-annual reports is a given. The question remains as to whether the so-called smart guns available in California or delivered to dealer in Maryland were actual production models or prototypes. The Attorney General’s Office, if it was smart and/or pressured to do so by Gov. Chris Christie, could issue the required report immediately, affirm that no “production models” were available for sale, that only specimens or prototypes had been delivered, and ask for the case to be dismissed as moot. Whether they are smart enough or politically agile enough to pull that off remains to be seen.

As I noted earlier, even a marginalized foe can be dangerous. This lawsuit shows that Brady Campaign, while losing in the court of public opinion, still is astute enough to have been planning this assault on gun rights for well over a year. It calls for an energetic response from our side.

Coyote Hunting Banned In Five North Carolina Counties

US District Court Judge Terence Boyle has granted a preliminary injunction that will ban coyote hunting in five eastern North Carolina counties. The Red Wolf Coalition brought suit to stop coyote hunting in the five-county red wolf restoration area. The counties involved are Dare, Tyrrell, Hyde, Washington, and Beaufort counties. The US Fish and Wildlife Service began the reintroduction of the red wolf in 1987 in the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. The red wolf was declared endangered in 1973. The USFWS estimates that there are now about 100 red wolves in this area of eastern North Carolina.

The red wolf is smaller than the gray or timber wolf and larger than a coyote. Its coloration isn’t the red of a red fox but rather it has a brown or buff colored coat with some reddish fur around its ears, legs, and head. And therein lies the problem. It can be mistaken for a coyote. Moreover, there has been some interbreeding between coyotes and the red wolf though the USFWS is trying to stop this by sterilizing coyotes. Pictures of both critters are below:

Coyote – picture from NCSportsman.com
Red wolf – picture from AWI

In his ruling, Judge Boyle granted the NC Wildlife Resources Commission’s request to dismiss the suit against them as it violated the state’s sovereign immunity. However, he let it continue against the director of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission as he was not protected by legislative immunity. The decision to expand coyote hunting a few years ago was considered an administrative and executive action.

From the ruling:

Hunting coyotes pursuant to 15A NCAC 10B.0219 in the five-county red wolf recovery
area is hereby preliminarily ENJOINED. Entry of this preliminary injunction on coyote hunting
will support the exclusion of coyotes in the five-county red wolf recovery area by promoting
breeding pairs of red wolves which, in conjunction with sterile placeholder coyotes, appear to
effect a better deterrent to the increase in coyote population than an increase in coyote hunting
deaths would. A further intended benefit of this preliminary injunction is both the preservation
and enhancement of the red wolf and deer populations in this area.

The Court is not inclined, however, to provide greater protection to the coyote than that
which is applicable to the red wolf. Therefore, during the pendency of the preliminary
injunction, the following exceptions apply to the prohibition on coyote hunting in the five-county
red wolf recovery area: a coyote may be shot in defense of a person’s safety or the safety of
others, or if livestock or pets are threatened. Each exception shall apply subject to reporting of
such shooting to defendants within twenty-four hours, and defendants shall maintain a record of
reports of coyote shootings for review by the Court. This injunction is not applicable to the
activities of scientists and researchers associated with USFWS and the Commission, nor does it
have any effect on the trapping of coyotes.

Further, this preliminary injunction shall not remain in effect without review for the
entirety of the duration of this lawsuit. As the evidence and data are further developed in this
matter, the Court shall revisit the efficacy and necessity of this preliminary injunction one
hundred and eighty (180) days following the date of entry of this order.

The Wildlife Resources Commission and its board members are considering their options. In the meantime, the WRC has issued the following release outlining what is and isn’t permitted in terms of coyote hunting in the state of North Carolina as well as in the impacted counties.

From the WRC release:

RALEIGH, N.C. (May 16, 2014) — The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission is notifying the public that a U.S. District Judge has issued a court order prohibiting hunting of coyotes in Dare, Hyde, Beaufort, Tyrrell and Washington counties, day or night, except under extremely limited circumstances. This notification is due to a lawsuit in which the Wildlife Resources Commission is alleged to have violated the federal Endangered Species Act by allowing coyote hunting in those counties where a non-essential experimental reintroduction of the red wolf is occurring.

In North Carolina’s other 95 counties, coyote hunting regulations allow coyote hunting on private land at any time, day or night, with no bag limit, and on public land at night with a permit.

The Wildlife Commission and the N. C. General Assembly through its House Select Committee on Nuisance Coyote Removal implemented tools to provide North Carolinians the ability to manage coyote predation on livestock, pets and native wildlife through hunting and trapping. These lethal removal methods provide the best means of removing offending animals while instilling fear of humans in other coyotes in the immediate vicinity. Hunting at night is often more effective than during the daytime because coyotes are often more active during nighttime hours.

Coyote distribution in North Carolina has sharply increased since the mid-1980s when coyote occurrences were documented in fewer than a dozen counties. Coyotes are now well established throughout North Carolina, occurring in all 100 counties. Estimates of coyotes harvested by hunters and trappers also indicate dramatic increases in abundance. For example, statewide estimated coyote harvest by hunting exceeded 27,000 coyotes in the 2012-13 season and estimated coyote harvest by trapping has increased 26-fold in the last decade.

The court order affecting the five counties allows that coyotes may be shot in defense of a person’s safety or the safety of others, or if livestock or pets are threatened. In accordance with the order, any coyotes shot under these circumstances must be reported to the Wildlife Commission within 24 hours. To report a coyote kill persons may call 1-800-662-7137. Landowners needing assistance with other coyote problems in the five counties affected by the court order may contact the Wildlife Commission at the same number.

In issuing the order, the U.S. District Judge stated that he would revisit his ruling in six months pending the outcome of a lawsuit that seeks to end coyote hunting permanently in the five counties.

“The Commission is deeply concerned about potential impacts to private landowners, hunters and native wildlife resulting from this order,” said Jim Cogdell, chairman of the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.

The board of the Wildlife Resources Commission will meet next week to consider other legal and procedural steps regarding the judge’s order. Interested parties may visit www.ncwildlife.org for information and updates.

The same group of plaintiffs had filed a suit in 2012 to stop coyote hunting in the five county area. They were able to get an injunction in Wake County Superior Court to temporarily halt hunting while a temporary rule from the WRC was in effect. Once the permanent rule was adopted, the injunction was lifted.

From Knife Rights On Their NYC Case Appeal

Knife Rights has appealed their case challenging New York City’s knife laws for their vagueness to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. US District Court Judge Katherine Forrest had ruled against them saying that they hadn’t specified the knives in question and thus didn’t have standing to sue. Given that the whole point of the lawsuit was the very vagueness of what was or wasn’t a “gravity knife”, this ruling was more than a bit absurd.

From Knife Rights including a link to their appeal:

Last week, Knife Rights filed an appeal of a U.S. District Court’s absurd ruling in its ongoing Federal Civil Rights lawsuit against New York City and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. The 62-page legal brief can be viewed at: www.KnifeRights.org/Knife_Rights_Appeal_Brief.pdf

The lawsuit challenges the City’s practice of treating common folding knives as prohibited “gravity knives,” then arresting and prosecuting law-abiding knife owners and intimidating retailers into paying large cash “sanctions” to avoid prosecution. Under the City’s vague and subjective approach, it is impossible to know whether any particular knife will be treated as legal or prohibited.

Last Fall, U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled that the case could not proceed because Knife Rights and three other plaintiffs (who were falsely arrested or threatened with arrest for possessing common folding knives) did not identify specific knives being wrongly classified in their complaint, and therefore lacked standing to sue. Requiring identification of specific prohibited knives, in a case about the inability to know what is prohibited or permitted, turns the very idea of this lawsuit on its head.

Judge Forrest then added insult to injury by refusing a request to let Knife Rights amend the complaint to attempt to comply with her requirement that specific knives be identified. Briefing on the appeal will continue for several months.

UPDATE: Second Amendment scholar and attorney David Kopel has a good write-up on the case in the Volokh Conspiracy. You can read it here.

Amazon Affiliates, Donations, And Other Such Stuff

Amazon changed its policy regarding collecting sales tax for the state of North Carolina at the beginning of February. As a result, North Carolinians are now able to participate in the Amazon Affiliates program and I decided that it was about time I joined. If you look on the right side of the blog, you will see the Amazon widget with a list of recommended books. They are all related to either gun rights or self-defense.

I am changing my policy on what to do with the commissions earned on these affiliate sites. When I first put up the LuckyGunner banner, I decided to donate all the commissions to the Second Amendment Foundation. I continued that policy when I added the Balloon Goes Up store widget.

I am going to expand the list of organizations getting these commissions. While SAF will still get some of the money, I’d like include other 501(c)(3) organizations that work for gun rights in the mix. Some organizations that I’m thinking of including are the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, the Crime Prevention Research Center, and some of the state level groups working for gun rights.

If you know of a state or local level gun rights group that I should include in the mix, please feel free to suggest it in the comments section. The only requirement is that it have 501(c)(3) status.