Uncategorized

22 Months And Counting

April 3, 2012 by 1 Comment

This is getting to be something of a broken record – not that I’m complaining. March 2012 marks the 22nd straight month in which the NSSF-adjusted NICS checks (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) has increased when compared to the same period last year.

From the NSSF:

The March 2012 NSSF-adjusted National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) figure of 1,189,152 is an increase of 20.0 percent over the NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 990,840 in March 2011. For comparison, the unadjusted March 2012 NICS figure of 1,715,125 reflects a 19.3 percent increase from the unadjusted NICS figure of 1,437,709 in March 2011.

While NICS checks are not a direct correlation with firearm sales, they do give a good indication of the state of the firearms market. NICS checks are used by some states such as Kentucky, Iowa, and Michigan to conduct their concealed carry permit application checks. Moreover, in states such as North Carolina where a Concealed Handgun Permit is a substitute for the NICS check for the purchase of a firearm, you have some underreporting.

March 2012 was the highest month in the last decade with 1.2 million NSSF-adjusted NICS checks. It eclipsed even the then record number checks for March 2009 and March 2011.

The possibility of Obama’s reelection is one factor frequently cited as the motivation behind the increased sales of firearms. While this certainly is a major factor, the increase in the number of women taking responsibility for their own protection as well as the growth in concealed carry has to factor in as well.

With this 22nd continuous increase from prior year periods, I think there is little doubt that we will see that the April and May numbers will mark the 23rd and 24th consecutive months of increases. Josh Horwitz of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic) can rant and rave all he wants that these figures are meaningless in terms of gun sales and new gun owners. The tide has turned and it is sweeping over him and his hoodie-wearing wannabe staffers just like the tsunami swept over northern Japan.

Uncategorized

Weekend Tab Clearing

April 2, 2012 by 1 Comment

I read a number of posts and stories over the weekend that I just don’t have the time to do a full post on. Therefore, here for the first time is a tab clearing post.

In mostly good news from New Jersey, Brian Aitken had two of three gun charges against him tossed by the New Jersey Supreme Court. Brian, if you will remember, is the young man who was sent to prison for seven years for firearms that he legally bought in Colorado and was transferring to his new residence in New Jersey. His sentence had been commuted to time served by NJ Gov. Chris Christie.

Firing ranges are under fire in the Pacific Northwest and none more so than the range of the Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club in Kitsap, Washington. A local judge had declared the range a public nuisance and ordered it closed. The club has requested a stay while they appeal this decision.

Paul Valone, President of Grass Roots North Carolina, had an op-ed published in the Charlotte Observer regarding North Carolina’s recently adopted Castle Doctrine. He defends it against critics in the media noting that four weeks after its effective date it shielded a 14-year old teenager who had shot a home invader while protecting his sister.

In a generally positive story from California, the Ventura County Star has a story on the growth of women taking up shooting. and have a good time while doing it. The story did have the requisite tut-tutting from Brady Campaign’s local rep which was balanced by the NRA-ILA’s Stephanie Samford.

Lest we forget what yesterday’s date was, there is this post on the N.U.G.U.N blog which says he’s going to the dark side and joining the anti’s. Or is he?

Finally, Sheriff Jim Wilson had a short post on what he calls “classy gun rigs” which highlighted some very nice gun leather from Mike Barranti of Barranti Leather Company.

Uncategorized

Historical Quote Of The Week

April 2, 2012 by

This week’s historical quote from Proclaiming Liberty is by Manly C. Beebe who was a delegate to the Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention of 1872 and 1873.

“Thieves and murderers never would and never do regard any law of this kind, and the revolver under such circumstances is the best conservator of the public peace in the hands of law-abiding men. No man desires to be in the position of being assailed by a lot of drunken bullies who are reckless of anything they may do unless restrained by fear.”

Beebe, Manly C. Remarks on 25 Sept. 1873 in Pennsylvania’s constitutional convention, qtd. in Debates of the Convention to Amend the Constitution of Pennsylvania. Ed. unknown. Harrisburg, PA: Benjamin Singerly State Printer, 1873. 259. Print.

This quote is found on page 20 of Proclaiming Liberty which is available from Amazon.com for $12.95. The Kindle edition is now available for $3.95.

Uncategorized

Concealed Carry At The NRA Annual Meeting In St. Louis

April 1, 2012 by 5 Comments

Concealed carry has been a bone of contention over the years at the venues for the NRA Annual Meeting. Last year in Pittsburgh, there were no restrictions in the David Lawrence Convention Center and it was not unusual to see some people open carrying as well as concealed.

St. Louis will not be so accommodating to concealed carry and definitely not accommodating at all to open carry. The NRA posted this notice on the front page of their 2012 Annual Meeting website:

Note: The city of St. Louis prohibits the carrying of firearms at the America’s Center Convention Complex.

I don’t think I have to remind people that the State of Illinois – just across the Mississippi River from St. Louis – has no form of carry whatsoever  so don’t even think about it there.

I’ve had a couple of readers contact me about the rules for carry in Missouri and any peculiarities for St. Louis itself.

First from Michael with links to the relevant Missouri law. I’ve consolidated his emails but here is the info he sent:

BTW, here’s the Missouri weapons laws http://www.moga.mo.gov/STATUTES/C571.HTM

http://ago.mo.gov/Concealed-Weapons/

It appears the statutes don’t speak of facilities, in general, that seat over 5K but is limited to “Sports Arenas or stadiums…” (see the second highlighted section below). I’m not a sports fan so I had to look up Edward Jones Dome and it’s unfortunately where the Rams football team plays. Ugghhh. America’s Center appears to be complex surrounding or attached to the dome. I would hope the NRA would choose a location where law wouldn’t prohibit exercise of our rights. I am going to contact the America’s Center and find out for sure. I’ll let you know what I find out.

Regarding the question on restaurants that serve alcohol, see the first highlighted section below. I’m not sure how the “average Joe” would know if a restaurant makes 51% of it’s sales from food, but I would assume you would be okay if you chose a restaurant that also serves alcohol. I would assume bars & grills and pubs would not be allowed, or questionable at best, if you wish to carry. Based upon the information it would appear that you could enjoy a spirited beverages as long as you are not intoxicated. I would assume “intoxicated” would equate to the same standard as driving .08%, but it is not defined here.

The relevant sections that Michael highlighted are below:

On carry in establishments serving alcohol:

Section 571.107 (7) Any establishment licensed to dispense intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises, which portion is primarily devoted to that purpose, without the consent of the owner or manager. The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to the licensee of said establishment. The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to any bona fide restaurant open to the general public having dining facilities for not less than fifty persons and that receives at least fifty-one percent of its gross annual income from the dining facilities by the sale of food. This subdivision does not prohibit the possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of the establishment and shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises. Nothing in this subdivision authorizes any individual who has been issued a concealed carry endorsement to possess any firearm while intoxicated;

On carry in sports arenas:

Section 571.107 (16) Any sports arena or stadium with a seating capacity of five thousand or more. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

Now from “Dirk Diggler” who is an attorney located in St. Louis County. I had wondered if carry was legal in the Jones Dome and America’s Center as well as any prohibitions on carry in establishments which served alcohol.

I am a lawyer, so let me help you out. In regards to your questions, it is not so much that places are “banned”, it is just your permit does not authorize you or “it is not illegal to carry”. In other words, you can carry anywhere in MO, but if they search you, they can make you leave. Yes, this even applies to jails.

Therefore, “it is not illegal” so you can go into bars and restaurants in MO and even drink. You cannot be intoxicated (not defined) but everyone assumes it means DUI levels (0.08).

It is not “illegal” to carry into sporting events and arenas, but if they wand you or use a metal detector, they can make you leave. I have gone into many events w my glock. I just hold the door for the ladies and observe if they screen or not and then go back to my car.

The Missouri statutes are located at 571.101 et seq (the “not illegal to carry”) sections are located at 571.107.

David goes on to say that Missouri has state preemption on most firearms laws including concealed carry. However, they do currently let municipalities regulate open carry and the City of St. Louis does ban open carry.

The State of Missouri does recognize all concealed carry permits from other states so you would be good to go with your out-of-state permit in Missouri.

That said, whether you choose to try and carry at the Annual Meeting location is up to you. You may be refused entrance to the America’s Center and have to return to your car or hotel room to leave your firearm which would be a hassle.

UPDATE: Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned has a good post up on the constraints that the NRA has in choosing venues for their Annual Meeting. While we may want to have a CCW friendly location each and every time, it just isn’t always possible if they are to meet some of their other requirements.

Uncategorized

Shepard V. Madigan – A Loss In District Court

March 31, 2012 by 6 Comments

US District Court Judge William D. Stiehl granted the State of Illinois’s Motion to Dismiss yesterday in the NRA-ISRA challenge to Illinois carry laws. The case, Shepard v. Madigan, was brought in US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Judge Stiehl granted the state’s motion to “dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim”. At the same time he denied the plaintiffs’ motions.

The NRA has indicated that they will appeal the ruling:

“Late today, a federal district court in Illinois wrongly ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect a right to carry firearms for self-protection outside the home. The NRA funded this challenge to Illinois’ ban on citizens’ ability to carry firearms legally outside their homes and businesses for self-defense, and will also be supporting an immediate appeal to the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals–and to the Supreme Court if necessary.

The decision in the case of Shepard v. Madigan misreads the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions and will continue to deprive law-abiding Illinoisans of the right to protect themselves effectively against crime on the streets.  It also conflicts with a growing body of case law elsewhere in the country, where courts have increasingly recognized that the right to bear arms for self-defense doesn’t end at Americans’ front doors.

“The NRA’s legal efforts will not end until the right to carry firearms for self-defense is fully recognized throughout our land,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox.

Judge Stiehl found that intermediate scrutiny was the appropriate standard of scrutiny in this case. He then pointed to the 4th Circuit’s ruling in Masciandaro. However, unlike the judges in Woollard and Bateman, he read it differently, saying:

The defendants assert that the State of Illinois has significant governmental interests in protecting the safety of the public by restricting the availability and use of handguns in public. The Supreme Court has previously recognized that under intermediate scrutiny cases, the government’s interest need not be compelling. Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network, 519 U.S. 357, 376 (1997). As the Fourth Circuit noted in United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458, 473 (4th Cir. 2011), “[l]oaded firearms are surely more dangerous than unloaded firearms, as they could fire accidentally or be fired before a potential victim has the opportunity to flee.” The State of Illinois has determined that, for purposes of protection of its residents, a citizen’s interest in carrying a firearm in public should be subject to the governmental interest in safeguarding the welfare of the public at large from the inherent dangers in a loaded firearm. This Court FINDS that the state has, therefore, established a substantial interest in the regulations at issue.

It seems to me that Judge Stiehl was grasping for straws in this decision. It will be interesting to see what the 7th Circuit makes of his logic. 

The full opinion can be found here.

UPDATE: Prof. Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law and the Volokh Conspiracy examined the decision yesterday. He offers the opinion that Judge Stiehl misreads the 7th Circuit’s Ezell opinion regarding intermediate scrutiny.

I’m not claiming that Ezell clearly selected “a more rigorous” standard than intermediate scrutiny for law-abiding-citizen Second Amendment claims — it may be that its selection of that standard is limited to restrictions that interfere with gun possession in the home. (The Ezell plaintiffs “claim[ed] that the range ban impermissibly burdens the core Second Amendment right to possess firearms at home for protection because the Ordinance conditions lawful possession on range training but makes it impossible to satisfy this condition anywhere in the city.”) But I am saying that Ezell did not select “intermediate scrutiny” as the general standard for law-abiding citizen Second Amendment claims outside the home, and the district court was mistaken in concluding that Ezell did so. Rather, the district court should have recognized that the issue had not been decided by the Seventh Circuit, and the court should have accepted the responsibility for itself making the choice, rather than asserting that the choice was made for it.

Uncategorized

Four Wins In A Month!

March 30, 2012 by 4 Comments

Heads must be spinning at the Brady Campaign’s headquarters with news that the Second Amendment Foundation just won its fourth Second Amendment case this month. The latest case is from Massachusetts where U.S. District Court Judge Douglas P. Woodcock found that the commonwealth’s ban on handgun possession by permanent resident aliens contravened the Second Amendment.

From the Second Amendment Foundation’s announcement of their win in Fletcher v. Haas:

SAF WINS 2A CASE IN MASS, STRIKING DOWN GUN BAN FOR LEGAL ALIENS

For Immediate Release: 3/30/2012

BELLEVUE, WA – A Federal District Court Judge in Massachusetts today granted summary judgment in a Second Amendment Foundation case challenging that state’s denial of firearms licenses to permanent resident aliens.

U.S. District Court Judge Douglas P. Woodcock concluded that “…the Massachusetts firearms regulatory regime as applied to the individual plaintiffs, contravenes the Second Amendment.”

The case involves two Massachusetts residents, Christopher Fletcher and Eoin Pryal, whose applications for licenses to possess firearms in their homes for immediate self-defense purposes were denied under a state law that does not allow non-citizens to own handguns. SAF was joined in the case by Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. and the two individual plaintiffs. The case is Fletcher v. Haas.

“This is our fourth court victory this month in our campaign to win back firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “It is one more step toward repairing decades of Second Amendment erosion.”

In his 41-page ruling, Judge Woodcock wrote, “The Massachusetts firearms regulatory regime, as applied to Fletcher and Pryal, does not pass constitutional muster regardless of whether intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny applies…The possibility that some resident aliens are unsuited to possess a handgun does not justify a wholesale ban.”

“With each strategic victory over a specific statute,” Gottlieb said, “SAF and its fellow plaintiffs are advancing the line a little more. Since our landmark victory in the McDonald case that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states, we’ve been carefully picking laws to challenge, chipping away at years of gun control extremism. So far this month, we have posted victories in Maryland, North Carolina, Washington and now, Massachusetts.

“Our battle is hardly finished,” Gottlieb concluded. “We’ve got to roll back generations of onerous gun laws. It’s going to be a long march, and these wins are just the first small steps.”

Uncategorized

Will Bateman Be Appealed?

March 30, 2012 by

Yesterday after the ruling in Bateman et al v. Perdue et al was released, I reached out to the public information officers for Gov. Beverly Perdue (D-NC) and the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office for their response. Specifically, I asked if they planned to appeal the ruling and if they had any comment on the ruling. I was fortunate to get responses from both offices.

From Noelle Talley, Public Information Officer, NC Department of Justice:

Attorneys with our office are currently reviewing the judge’s ruling. No decision has been made yet on an appeal.

Meanwhile, Mark Johnson of Gov. Perdue’s office had this to say:

Governor Perdue’s executive orders already address this issue – and will in the future – by including the following language:

This order is adopted pursuant to my powers under Article 1 of Chapter 166A of the General Statutes and under Article 36A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes. It does not trigger the limitations on weapons in G.S. § 14-288.7 or impose any limitation on the consumption, transportation, sale or purchase of alcoholic beverages.

The legislature would have to make any change in the statute.

If one goes by what the Attorney General’s Office says, there remains some possibility of an appeal. However, my reading of the response from Gov. Perdue’s office seems to indicate that they don’t plan any appeal. My feeling is that it won’t be appealed.

After the heat that Perdue took over earlier Executive Orders declaring states of emergency, she has started to include the language stated above in her Executive Orders. Unfortunately, until Judge Malcolm Howard found them unconstitutional, any declaration of a state of emergency under Article 36A of Chapter 14 of the NC General Statutes did trigger the firearms prohibitions regardless of what modifying language the governor put in them. While she may have thought she addressed that issue, she did not as there was never a provision to exempt the gun bans on the governor’s say-so.

Uncategorized

World’s Only Night Time 3 Gun Match

March 30, 2012 by

Iain Harrison sent out a notice this afternoon about an event that Crimson Trace will be sponsoring this summer – the Midnight 3 Gun Invitational. What is not to like about this event – full-auto weapons, thermal imaging, and night vision gear. I hope they provide some good video of this event.

From their release:

(Wilsonville, OR) Crimson Trace today announced the most unusual shooting event on the 2012 match calendar – a fast-paced 3-gun match shot entirely at night in the high desert, near Bend, OR. The event will occur after sunset, July 16-18 and the organizers will be providing full-auto firearms, thermal imaging equipment and state of the art night vision gear to all the competitors on several of the eight challenging stages.

Many of the country’s top 3 gun competitors have already signed up for the match, citing the additional challenge of competing in darkness as a big factor. “All the top guys have years of experience running & gunning in daytime conditions, but there are very few who’ve competed at this kind of level at night,” said Iain Harrison, media relations manager for Crimson Trace, and 3-gunner himself. “It’s going to be fascinating to see who comes out on top, and with what equipment.”

The match was scheduled for a week when there will be little to no moonlight, forcing the competitors to rely heavily on whatever weapon-mounted lights and lasers they feel will offer the best advantage, and the match rules have been written to favor innovation and adaptability. “We deliberately didn’t write a restrictive rulebook for this match – if the shooter decides that their rifle would benefit from an aircraft landing light powered by a portable generator, then they can go ahead and bolt one up. Though I suspect they’d be better served with one of our MVF-515™ vertical foregrips,” joked Harrison.

Many of the leading outdoor-related companies based in the area have thrown their weight behind the event. Sponsors include Nike, Leatherman, Danner, PWS, Blade-Tech and Warne, in addition to Crimson Trace, giving the match a distinctly Pacific Northwest flavor. CTC is offering a $3000 check to the eventual winner, doubling that amount if their products are used on all three of the competitor’s guns. With a sizeable media contingent showing up to both shoot in and cover the match, anyone who can’t make it out to central Oregon should be able to follow their favorite athlete’s progress as the event unfolds.

Uncategorized

That Other O’Reilly

March 30, 2012 by 4 Comments

Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) want to hear what O’Reilly has to say. Not Bill O’Reilly who has the show called The O’Reilly Factor but White House staffer Kevin O’Reilly. This was the person with whom Bill Newell, former SAC of the ATF’s Phoenix Field Division, had back channel communications regarding Operation Fast and Furious. Conveniently enough, Kevin O’Reilly moved to the State Department and is now in Iraq on assignment.

Yesterday Rep. Issa and Sen. Grassley sent a letter to Kathryn Ruemmler, Counsel to the President, requesting that Mr. O’Reilly be allowed to testify. They note that Mr. O’Reilly’s personal attorney is willing to let him testify if it is allowed by the White House. Moreover, in a break from normal procedures, they are willing to let him testify by phone from Iraq.

What they want Mr. O’Reilly to testify about is the nature of the back channel communications between himself and Bill Newell.

To this day, Newell has failed to disown Fast and Furious or admit the flawed nature of the program. This failure has raised new questions. Was Newell looking for authorization outside of his chain-of-command in order to continue this deadly program? What did O’Reilly know about the objectives and tactics used in Fast and Furious and with whom did he share his knowledge? These answers are gemane to the Committee’s investigation. O’Reilly is the only person capable of supply accurate answers to them.

Of course, as Dave Workman points out, the White House is denying that they knew anything about gun walking. Eric Schultz, the Associate Communications Director, had this to say to FoxNews:

“White House Counsel is reviewing the letter and will respond as appropriate. But broadly speaking, while some personnel in the White House were made aware of ATF’s efforts to combat gun trafficking along the southwest border, including Operation Fast and Furious, there has been no evidence to suggest that anyone at the White House knew about any decision to allow guns to ‘walk’ to Mexico.”

Schultz is the White House staffer or, as I would call him, the punk, who thought his position gave him the right to berate and curse CBS News investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson over her coverage of Project Gunwalker. We have come to find out this is standard operating procedure in the Obama White House when they are seeking to kill a story.

Sen. Grassley was interviewed by Jon Scott of FoxNews about his letter and his efforts to get testimony from Mr. O’Reilly. Sen. Grassley says that they have one side of the story from ATF SAC Bill Newell and they need the other side of the story from Kevin O’Reilly. He also said that they were being stonewalled by the White House and that this continual stonewalling leads one to look guilty of something. He has a point there – if the White House has nothing to hide then they should make Kevin O’Reilly available for telephonic testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. I’m guessing it isn’t going to happen.