Uncategorized

Peruta Mandate Stayed

March 3, 2014 by 5 Comments

Late Friday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed its mandate in Peruta v. San Diego at the request of the Brady Campaign and Kamala Harris. They had requested an extension of time to file an appeal, intervenor status, and a stay of the mandate. They were given the extension of time and the stay but not the intervenor status. While they may get it later, it was not granted at this time.

From the court’s order:

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence’s Motion to Extend Time for
Filing a Petition for Rehearing En Banc and Stay the Issuance of the Mandate, and
Proposed Intervenor State of California’s Motion to Extend Time to File a Petition
for Rehearing En Banc and Stay Issuance of the Mandate, both filed with this
Court on February 27, 2014, are GRANTED. Any proposed petitions for rehearing
filed with this Court by February 27, 2014 will be considered timely if this Court
grants the petitioners’ concurrently filed motions to intervene. This order does not
extend the time for filing petitions for rehearing for any petitioner who did not
move to intervene by February 27, 2014.

Submission with respect to the pending motions to intervene is deferred
pending further order of the Court. Issuance of the mandate is stayed pending further order of the Court.

I don’t know if the plaintiffs are allowed to file an objection to the motions to intervene but would certainly expect it if allowed. There remains the question of what standing either the Brady Campaign or Kamala Harris have to intervene and to appeal. Harris, you may recall, declined to be a part of a similar case.

H/T Alphecca

Uncategorized

Great Response To California AG Harris’ Attempt To Appeal Peruta

March 3, 2014 by 5 Comments

Attorney Chuck Michel is the West Coast attorney for the National Rifle Association and was the trial counsel in Peruta v. County of San Diego. He issued an interesting statement on Friday regarding the attempt by California Attorney General Kamala Harris to intervene and appeal the case.

Michel notes that when the Attorney General was named in other suits regarding carry, she successfully argued that the power to administer carry licenses lay with the sheriffs and not her. In the statement below, he uses her own language in official filings to impeach her efforts to intervene in the Peruta case.

From the statement:

The Attorney General’s office was repeatedly invited to participate in this case both by Sheriff Gore’s attorney, and by the plaintiffs. The Attorney General declined to participate in the case, just as she has refused to get involved in similar cases challenging policies in other cities and counties that refused to accept self-defense as justification to get a license to carry a firearm in public to defend yourself and your family.

In fact, when the Attorney General’s office was named as a defendant in some of those cases, it has successfully moved to be dismissed from the cases because the court has accepted the Attorney General’s argument that she is not the official vested with the authority of the state when it comes to administering these licenses – the Sheriff is.

Excerpts from Mehl:

1) “Since only sheriffs and chiefs of police have authority under the CCW statutes to grant, deny or revoke licenses, Applicants cannot establish Article III jurisdiction over the Attorney General with regard to their facial challenges to the validity of the statutes or for review of the Sheriff’s refusal to grant their CCW licenses.”

2) “Only sheriffs and chiefs of police are authorized to perform these functions. . . . Contrary to Applicants’ implication, the Attorney General is not authorized by the CCW statutes to review the decisions of the sheriffs and chiefs of police. Because Applicants’ alleged injury can occur only through the actions of the Sheriff, independent of the authority of the Attorney General, any ostensible harm cannot be traced to the Attorney General.” Mehl v. Blanas.

It is ironic that the Attorney General does not recognize that the arguments she made about her authority to abandon the defense of the gay marriage ban apply equally here. The Sheriff has the ultimate authority to decide whether to continue to fight this case, and he has made his decision to refrain from doing so. But now that it suits her political agenda, Kamala Harris wants the court to impose a double standard.

Uncategorized

Like Your Relatively Inexpensive Wolf Or Silver Bear Or Tula Ammo?

March 2, 2014 by 2 Comments



David Codrea has an interesting column up this morning in the National Gun Rights Examiner. Given that it is fairly obvious by now that Putin has sent Russian troops into Crimea which is part of Ukraine, what sort of response will the Obama Administration come up with short of sending troops?

How about doing something to screw US gun owners that would also hit the Russians in the pocket book? In other words, a win-win in their minds.

“I had a fellow tell me this morning that he was completely unconcerned about the Ukraine situation, believing that Obama would take the ‘Chamberlain way out’ of confrontation,” Mike Vanderboegh related this morning on his Sipsey Street Irregulars blog.

“No he won’t,” Vanderboegh replied, “he’ll take the Clinton way out — do nothing about the larger issue but he’ll cut off our access to Russian ammunition just like Clinton cut off our access to inexpensive Chinese ammo in the 90s, to ‘punish them for human rights violations.’”

With foreign imports growing to accommodate the already stretched supply of ammunition that has domestic manufacturers running operations around the clock, such a move would not only send an easy and immediate signal that would meet with “progressive” political and media approval, it would also continue with a long-established tactic of the “gun control” movement: punishing peaceable gun owners for something they are not responsible for.

Sure you can get 7.62×39 ammo from other countries including the US. However, checking the prices at LuckyGunner.com and elsewhere, US made ammo will cost you 3-5 times as much while most non-Russian, non-US made 7.62×39 will still cost 2-3 times as much. The only exception is the Romanian made, Century International imported “Red Army” brand of ammo.

I’m not trying to start a run on ammo but think we need to be aware and consider what the Obama Administration might do in the Ukranian situation. I think David and Mike are on to something here.

Uncategorized

Interesting Controversy Going On In Canada

February 28, 2014 by 3 Comments



The Royal Canadian Mounted Police recently made a decision to reclassify the Swiss Arms PE90 as a prohibited firearm. The Swiss Arms PE90 is the Canadian version of SigSauer’s SIG551. The RCMP are in charge of how firearms in Canada are classified. As I understand it, a firearm can be classified as unrestricted, restricted, or prohibited by the RCMP’s Canadian Firearms Program.

The problem here is that the RCMP had originally classified the Swiss Arms Green Classic PE90 as either unrestricted or restricted depending on barrel length 10 years ago. Since then, Canadians have purchased upwards of 2,000 of these rifles at a cost between $3-4000 each. Now the RCMP is telling the gun owners that they must surrender these rifles to them without any sort of compensation.

The CBC has a rather good story on the whole controversy which is shown below:

Uncategorized

California Attorney General’s Statement Regarding Peruta Appeal

February 28, 2014 by 8 Comments

California Attorney General Kamala Harris released this statement yesterday explaining why she was appealing the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Peruta v. San Diego.

Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today filed a petition in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, on behalf of the State of California, urging the court to review and reverse its decision in Peruta v. County of San Diego.


In its February 13, 2014 Peruta decision, the Ninth Circuit ruled that San Diego County violates the Second Amendment by requiring individuals to show “good cause,” beyond a mere desire to carry a gun, when applying for a concealed-carry weapons permit.


“Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon,” Attorney General Harris said. “I will do everything possible to restore law enforcement’s authority to protect public safety, and so today am calling on the court to review and reverse its decision.”


California state law currently requires individuals to show “good cause” to carry a concealed weapon, but gives local law enforcement control over the permit process. If the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is allowed to take effect, officials throughout the State could be required to issue concealed-carry permits to individuals based on nothing more than the applicant’s assertion that they wish to carry a gun for self-defense.


In San Diego County, concealed-carry permit applicants have, until now, been required to show “good cause” by demonstrating “a set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way.”


On February 21, 2014 San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore announced he would not seek further review of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.

As I read Harris’ statement I was struck by two things which I have highlighted. First, she wants “Only Ones” to be able to say yea or nay to who may have a carry permit. This is the same situation we had until recently in the Jim Crow-era South. In North Carolina, pistol purchase permits are still in the hands of local sheriffs but they now have less discretion to deny a permit. When the law was passed by the NC General Assembly in 1919, the intent was that local sheriff would grant pistol purchase permits to upstanding white men and women while denying that same right to blacks. It was racist then and its racist now.

The second thing in Harris’ statement that struck me was the horror expressed that California officials would be required to issue carry permits “based on nothing more than the applicant’s assertion that they wish to carry a gun for self-defense.” Can you imagine the nerve of those ordinary people wanting the same privilege reserved for the high and mighty and/or large donors to sheriffs’ election funds? Does not the ordinary citizen have the same right to self-defense of him or herself?

California prides itself on being a trendsetter. In this case, it is lagging the nation including states like Illinois where, until late last year, carry was reserved for cops and Chicago aldermen.

Uncategorized

Anti’s Seek En Banc Review Of Peruta Decision

February 28, 2014 by 7 Comments

You just knew that the gun prohibitionists would not take the win in the Peruta decision lying down especially since San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore decided to accept the decision.

Today, in what seems to be a coordinated effort, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, the Brady Campaign, the Legal Community Against Violence, the California Peace Officers Association, and the California Police Chiefs Association filed petitions requesting an en banc hearing. The State of California represented by Harris and the Brady Campaign also filed motions to intervene in the case.

02/27/2014
 121  		Filed (ECF) Amici Curiae California
Peace Officers Association and California Police Chiefs Association
petition for rehearing en banc (from 02/13/2014 opinion). Date of
service: 02/27/2014. [8996109]–[COURT UPDATE: Attached searchable
version of petition. Resent NDA. 02/27/2014 by RY] (PRC)
02/27/2014
 122  		Submitted (ECF) Intervenor brief for
review and filed Motion to intervene. Submitted by State of California.
Date of service: 02/27/2014. [8996638] (GDB)
02/27/2014
 123  		Submitted (ECF) Intervenor brief for
review and filed Motion to intervene. Submitted by Brady Center to
Prevent Gun Violence. Date of service: 02/27/2014. [8996736] (NRO)
02/27/2014
 124  		Filed (ECF) Amicus Curiae Legal
Community Against Violence petition for rehearing en banc (from
02/13/2014 opinion). Date of service: 02/27/2014. [8996737] (SJF)

In an article by Emily Miller this evening, Chuck Michel questioned whether any of these parties have standing.

Chuck Michel, the west coast counsel for the National Rifle Association, said Ms. Harris‘ motion to intervene was far out of line because her office wasn’t part of the lawsuit.


“They are trying to improperly influence the court,” Mr. Michel said in an interview. “The are stretching the rules to file in order to get their arguments in front of the court in the hopes that a liberal judge will get the message and ask for a vote himself.”…


“Obviously, what this tells us is the folks that advocate civilian disarmament are upset about the opinion and want to throw everything they can at it to bottle up the 9th Circuit or get it overturned,” said Mr. Michel, whose firm, Michel and Associates, represented the plaintiffs in the Peruta case up to the appeals court level.

UPDATE: As to why Kamala Harris et al are trying to get the Peruta decision reviewed and overturned, I think this story from Fox News pretty much gives the reason.

Gun owners are flooding the sheriff’s offices in two California counties with applications for concealed weapon permits following a bombshell ruling two weeks ago by a federal appeals court that citizens need not justify their requests.

Orange and Ventura counties have dropped the “good cause” standard for issuing conceal carry permits after the requirement was struck down Feb. 13 by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. A three-judge panel of the court ruled 2 to 1 that the Second Amendment bars California counties from requiring law-abiding gun owners who want to carry concealed firearms to demonstrate special, individualized needs for protection.

More than 500 applications have poured in to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department in just two weeks — roughly the total number of applications filed in 2013, a spokesman said. Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens announced on the department’s website that the county will comply with the federal court’s order immediately, sparking the wave of applications.

Once the proles get their permits to carry you just can’t keep them down anymore.

Uncategorized

I Wonder Where He Got That AK-47

February 26, 2014 by 3 Comments

Making the headlines this past weekend was the capture of Sinaloa drug cartel kingpin Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman by Mexican marines in a joint US-Mexico operation. What caught my eye in the story of how they got Guzman was this little detail.

“He had an AK-47 next to the bed. When the Mexican marines entered the condominium, he was still asleep,” said Michael Vigil, a former Drug Enforcement Administration official who says he was briefed on the raid. “They used the element of surprise, and he did not have a chance to react and seize his weapon.”

Guzman had an assault rifle and ammunition close by when Mexican marines broke into the apartment in a “surgical” operation, the Mexican official said.

What makes this detail so intriguing is that so many of the AKs “walked” to Mexico during Operation Fast and Furious ended up in Sinaloa Cartel hands. Indeed, the cartel’s logistics head who is in US custody, Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla, has argued in court filings that the walked guns were meant to arm the Sinaloa Cartel in their fight with their rivals.

You have to wonder if that AK-47 was a walked firearm and, if so, will the serial numbers be sent to BATFE for tracing. For some reason, I think while the Justice Department is quite pleased that they “got Shorty”, I don’t think they will ever want that particular AK-47s serial numbers traced. The answer might not be to their liking.

Uncategorized

The Roadkill Platform

February 26, 2014 by 1 Comment

If you are a deer hunter and you have ever used scent products, you know of Tink’s #69 Doe-in-Rut deer scent. It is the most famous of products developed by Tink Nathan. Now Mr. Nathan is looking beyond just deer scents and lures to politics. He is a candidate for the Texas House of Representatives running as a Republican.

His platform? Roadkill! More specifically, an end to the prohibition in Texas on picking up roadkill for human consumption.

From the Dallas Observer:

He’s also the only candidate, apparently in the entire state, bold enough stand up and defend Texans’ God-given right to eat animals they run over in their cars.

As it stands, picking up roadkill is a crime. Partly, this is because of health-and-safety concerns (hard to know what vile pathogens might be swarming over any given carcass), partly it’s to discourage people from using their cars as hunting weapons. (This has actually been documented. In a 2012 Dallas Morning News story, a state game warden’s staffer recalled a couple of incidents in which motorists intentionally ran over exotic deer in Kerr County, right in Nathan’s backyard.)

Nathan thinks that scavenging roadkill is a personal decision best left up to a driver and the critter he just flattened. There’s no need for the government to stick its nose in.

Besides, he told the San Antonio Express-News, why should buzzards be the only ones to benefit from the frequent animal-car collisions that occur by the thousands on Texas roads. “That meat goes to waste,” Nathan says. “Why not utilize it?”

I think he might have a point. In other states it is legal and oft times fresh (emphasis on fresh) roadkill is taken to charitable food pantries for distribution.

Besides, I like his campaign slogan – “Don’t Send Another Lawyer To Austin” – not to mention the fact he is a Life Member of the NRA.

Uncategorized

I’ll Bet He Wishes He Still Played For The Bobcats

February 25, 2014 by 3 Comments

What is considered normal and lawful in most of the rest of the country is illegal in New York City. Knicks guard (and former UNC Tar Heels star) Raymond Felton unfortunately found this out the hard way. Felton was arrested this morning on two felony counts of possession of an unregistered firearm. The firearms were taken to a local police precinct house by an attorney for his wife Ariane Raymondo-Felton.


From ESPN:

But before the Monday night game, an attorney for wife Ariane Raymondo-Felton arrived at a Manhattan police precinct with a Belgian-made FN Herstal pistol, police spokesman Sgt. Lee Jones said. Ramondo-Felton later went to the precinct that night and made a statement to detectives, police said.

Investigators then contacted the director of security at Madison Square Garden in an attempt to reach Felton, police said.

Felton made no statement after he arrived at the precinct with a lawyer, police said.

He was charged with second- and third-degree criminal possession of a firearm, which are felonies, and fourth-degree possession of a firearm, a misdemeanor, a police spokesman told ESPNNewYork.com. Police said Felton was in possession of a gun he wasn’t registered to own.

Felton is expected to appear in criminal court in Manhattan later Tuesday.

Raymondo-Felton is a law student at Fordham University School of Law, a spokeswoman confirmed. Court records show she filed for divorce from Felton on Feb. 18.

Felton, a South Carolina native, started his NBA career playing for the Charlotte Bobcats. Given the hell that New York Police are going to put him through, I’ll bet he wishes he still was in Charlotte. 

Uncategorized

Tenn Law Review – New Frontiers In The Second Amendment

February 25, 2014 by

The Tennessee Law Review will be hosting a symposium on the Second Amendment this Saturday in Knoxville. The symposium will feature a number of Second Amendment scholars including Glenn Reynolds, Stephen Halbrook, and David Kopel. It will have three panels discussing state regulation, the Second Amendment in the “academy”, and the reach of the Second Amendment after Heller and McDonald.

The symposium will take place at the UT School of Law located at 1505 W. Cumberland Avenue in Knoxville. Free parking is available in the White Avenue parking lot. Entrance to the law school is from White Avenue.

The Tennessee Law Review will be publishing the papers presented in an upcoming issue of the Tennessee Law Review (81:3 Spring 2014).  The cost for this issue will be $10 plus postage and can be ordered from TLR.

If you live within driving distance, this sounds like a good way to spend a Saturday morning if you have an interest in Second Amendment scholarship. Oh, and did I mention that this symposium is free? Knoxville is right at a two hour drive for me and I’m going to do my damnedest to be there.

The schedule and list of speakers is below:

Tennessee
Law Review
New
Frontiers in the Second Amendment
Panel
Schedule—March 1, 2014
Time
Topic
Participants
9:15
Introduction
Cottone
and Reynolds*
9:30–10:30
State
Regulation and the Second Amendment
O’Shea*
and Halbrook*
10:30–11:30
The
Second Amendment in the Academy
Wolitz,*
Reynolds, Denning, Kopel, O’Shea, Pratt, and Blackman
11:30–12:45
Lunch
12:45–2:45
Defining
the Reach of Heller and McDonald: Second Amendment Penumbra
and First Amendment Corollaries
Kopel,*
Pratt,* Denning,* and Blackman*
* Indicates
article presentation