Grass Roots North Carolina On Their Win In The Bateman Case

Grass Roots North Carolina, the other organizational plaintiff in Bateman et al v. Perdue et al, released a statement this afternoon on the decision. The statement notes that it helps to extend the right to keep and bear arms outside the home. They also note that their attorney Alan Gura has extended his string of victories in Second Amendment cases.

Grass Roots North Carolina & Second Amendment Foundation expand gun rights

Lawyer Alan Gura extends string of Second Amendment wins

CHARLOTTE, N.C., March 29, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Writing for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Senior U.S. District Judge Malcolm J. Howard today added another to the growing list of gun laws struck down on Second Amendment grounds.

State of Emergency Gun Ban

In Bateman et al. v. Perdue et al., at issue was the state’s blanket prohibition on carrying firearms outside the home during declared states of emergency. During numerous states of emergency involving hurricanes and other phenomena, lawful North Carolinians have been prevented from protecting themselves outside the home, including an incident in which King, NC posted the entire town against firearms in anticipation of a snowstorm. Plaintiffs for the case were gun rights organizations Grass Roots North Carolina, the Second Amendment Foundation, and citizens Michael Bateman, Virgil Green and Forrest Minges, Jr.

Second Amendment Scholarship

The Bateman decision further extends the right to bear arms outside the home. Extensively cited in the decision were the recent Supreme Court decision affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms in D.C. v. Heller, the “incorporation” of the Second Amendment in Mc Donald v. Chicago, and recent Fourth Circuit decisions in U.S. v. Chester and U.S. v. Masciandaro.

From the decision:

Citing from Masciandaro: “…the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms ‘is not strictly limited to the home environment but extends in some form to wherever those activities or needs occur.'”

“It cannot be seriously questioned that the emergency declaration laws at issue here burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment…”

“…the statutes here excessively intrude upon plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights by effectively banning them (and the public at large) from engaging in conduct that is at the very core of the Second Amendment at a time when the need for self-defense may be at its very greatest.”

In addition to the Heller and McDonald victories, attorney Alan Gura recently won a victory against Maryland’s restrictive handgun permit law in Woollard et al. v. Sheridan et al.

The Second Amendment Foundation On The Bateman Win

The Second Amendment Foundation, an organizational plaintiff in Bateman v. Perdue, released this concerning the win today. There were those who had suggested that we go through the NC General Assembly to get the Emergency Powers ban changed. Many of us in North Carolina as well as Grass Roots NC and the Second Amendment Foundation opposed that move while this case was still active. I think the judgment of SAF, GRNC, and those who felt it was important to wait for this victory was vindicated with Judge Howard’s decision.

SAF VICTORY STRIKES DOWN NORTH CAROLINA EMERGENCY POWERS GUN BAN

For Immediate Release: 3/29/2012

BELLEVUE, WA – A federal district court judge in North Carolina has just struck down that state’s emergency power to impose a ban on firearms and ammunition outside the home during a declared emergency, ruling that the provision violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The case, Bateman v. Purdue, was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, Grass Roots North Carolina FFE and three individual plaintiffs. Defendants in the case were Gov. Beverly Purdue and Reuben F. Young, secretary of the state’s Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, in their official capacities.

In his opinion, Judge Malcolm J. Howard, senior United States district judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina, wrote, “…the court finds that the statutes at issue here are subject to strict scrutiny…While the bans imposed pursuant to these statutes may be limited in duration, it cannot be overlooked that the statutes strip peaceable, law abiding citizens of the right to arm themselves in defense of hearth and home, striking at the very core of the Second Amendment.”

“When SAF attorney Alan Gura won the Heller case at the Supreme Court,” noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “the gun ban crowd said that we were a ‘one-trick-pony’ and that we would never knock out another gun law. Well, SAF has now knocked out gun laws in Maryland, Illinois and North Carolina.

“We filed this lawsuit on the day we won the McDonald case against Chicago,” he added, “extending the Second Amendment to all 50 states. This was part of our strategy of winning firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time.”

Gottlieb pointed to language in Judge Howard’s ruling that solidifies the Second Amendment’s reach outside the home. The judge noted that the Supreme Court in Heller noted that the right to keep and bear arms “was valued not only for preserving the militia, but ‘more important(ly) for self-defense and hunting.”

“Therefore,” Judge Malcolm wrote, “the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms ‘is not strictly limited to the home environment but extends in some form to wherever those activities or needs occur.”

“Under the laws at issue here, citizens are prohibited from engaging, outside their home, in any activities secured by the Second Amendment,” Judge Malcolm wrote. They may not carry defensive weapons outside the home, hunt or engage in firearm related sporting activities. Additionally, although the statutes do not directly regulate the possession of firearms within the home, they effectively prohibit law abiding citizens from purchasing and transporting to their homes firearms and ammunition needed for self-defense. As such, these laws burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment.”

Bateman Is Another Win For Alan Gura

Bateman et al v. Perdue et al was the first Second Amendment case after the win in McDonald. It challenged North Carolina’s Emergency Powers statutues. These statutes when invoked by either the Governor or local government officials banned the off-premises carry of firearms and ammunition during a declared state of emergency.

The case has been in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina since June 2010 and today we have a decision.

From the order by Judge Malcom J. Howard:

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and hereby DECLARES N.C. Gen.Stat §§ 14-288.7. 14-288.12(b), 14-288.13(b), 14-288.14(a) and 14-288.15(d)unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs. The court DENIES defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative for summary judgment.

In other words, a complete win!

I am in the process of reading Judge Howard’s decision and will, of course, have a full summary as soon as possible.

As a North Carolinian, I want to thank Alan Gura and the Second Amendment Foundation for believing in us enough to make this the first post-McDonald case.

Ruger Introduces A Take-Down Version Of The 10/22

As I said earlier this morning, Ruger was planning to introduce a new firearm to their line today. It has been announced and it is a take-down version of the Ruger 10/22 rimfire carbine. I don’t know if it is intentional or not but I think this will attract a lot of attention from the prepper community for use as a survival rifle. If I had to make the choice between the AR-7 Survival Rifle from Henry or this, I’d be leaning towards the take-down 10/22 especially if weight wasn’t the number one criteria.

From the Ruger press release:

A New Take on the Ruger 10/22
March 28, 2012
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (NYSE: RGR) is proud to introduce the Ruger 10/22 Takedown™. Readily separated into two subassemblies, the Ruger 10/22 Takedown offers a convenient transport and storage option for the popular Ruger® 10/22®. As reliable and accurate as every 10/22, the Ruger 10/22 Takedown makes it even easier to keep America’s favorite rimfire rifle by your side.

The barrel and forend of the Ruger 10/22 Takedown are easily separated from the action and buttstock by pushing a recessed lever, twisting the subassemblies, and pulling them apart. Reassembly is the reverse of takedown, and is quick and easy. The friction fit lockup of the assembly joint is simple to adjust, but will rarely need re-adjustment after the first assembly. The lockup is secure and repeatable, ensuring an accurate return to zero, even when receiver-mounted optics are used.

The Ruger 10/22 Takedown is shipped in a ballistic nylon backpack-style case that features internal sleeves which hold the subassemblies. External pockets with MOLLE webbing provide storage for magazines, ammunition, and other accessories. Multiple attachment points for the padded, single shoulder strap offer different carrying options.

The 4.67-pound Ruger 10/22 Takedown is 37″ long when assembled; each subassembly is less than 20 1/4″ long when disassembled. Utilizing the standard 10/22 action and ten round rotary magazine (one magazine is provided), the Ruger 10/22 Takedown offers legendary 10/22 reliability in a compact and portable package.

From the Spec Sheet:

Catalog Number: K10/22-TD | Model Number: 11100 | Caliber: .22 LR
Stock: Black Synthetic Finish: Clear Matte
Rear Sight: Adjustable Front Sight: Gold Bead
Barrel Length: 18.50″ Overall Length: 37.00″
Material: Stainless Steel Length of Pull: 13.50″
Weight: 4.67 lbs. Capacity: 10
Grooves: 6 Twist: 1:16″ RH
Backpack-Style Bag Included Suggested Retail: $389.00

Ruger has a full set of videos showing how the 10/22 Takedown is broken down and reassembled. For more on the features including a rather good line drawing showing how it breaks down go here.

Commonwealth Second Amendment Sues Massachusetts In Federal Court

Commonwealth Second Amendment or Comm2A has filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts challenging the state’s use of bonded warehouses for holding confiscated firearms.

Comm2A Sues over Property Forfeiture

For Immediate Release: 3/28/2012

NATICK, MA – Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. (Comm2A) has filed suit in federal court in Massachusetts challenging the state’s misuse of bonded warehouses to force the forfeiture of privately owned firearms in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process guarantees.

Comm2A’s lawsuit on behalf of Russell Jarvis, James Jarvis and Robert Crampton is supported in part by a grant from the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys David Jensen of New York and Patrick M. Groulx of Somerville, Massachusetts. Defendants are Village Vault, Inc. and Mary E. Heffernan, Secretary of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security. Complaint

Massachusetts law allows police departments to turn confiscated firearms over to unregulated bonded warehouses who then charge the firearm owners onerous and prohibitive fees for the storage and ‘administration’ of those firearms. Bonded warehouses are authorized to sell these firearms once accumulated fees are in arrears for 90 days.

Massachusetts has failed to regulate bonded warehouses allowing them to levy fees that quickly exceed the value of the confiscated property and virtually assure that confiscated property is forfeit to the bonded warehouse. In many cases gun owners are not properly notified that their property has been transferred to a bonded warehouse until fees have accumulated to a point where they exceed the value of the seized property making their recovery economically irrational.

Valuable firearms belonging to each of the individual plaintiffs were involuntarily transferred to the bonded warehouse operated by defendant Village Vault. Those firearms were subsequently sold at auction by the defendant. In no instance did the plaintiffs have any meaningful opportunity to challenge the forfeiture of their property in a court or other neutral venue. None of individual plaintiffs have ever been convicted of or charged with any crime or are otherwise disqualified from possessing firearms under state or federal law.

*****

Commonwealth Second Amendment (Comm2A) (www.comm2a.org) is a Massachusetts based non-profit dedicated to preserving and expanding the rights of gun owners in the northeast. Our activities include educational programs designed to promote a better understanding of Massachusetts and Federal firearms laws and rights as well as legal action programs to defend and protect the civil rights of Massachusetts gun owners.

GunsAmerica Hasn’t Broken The Ruger News Embargo…Yet

Jim Shepherd had this announcement today in the Outdoor Wire about a new firearm set to be announced by Ruger.

Ruger Will Announce New Firearm This Morning

Later this morning, Ruger will announce a new firearm to the marketplace. We’ve shot the new gun-extensively-and have a review prepared for wire readers. Due to the release timing of today’s announcement, it does not appear in this morning’s editions. We will have the product review and information in tomorrow’s editions.

You may remember that GunsAmerica broke the news embargo on the release of the Ruger LCR-22 by announcing it earlier than allowed back in December. You also may remember that the head of GunsAmerica, Paul Helinski, objected to bloggers and other members of New Media being considered “media” at the SHOT Show and having access to Media Day.

I checked GunsAmerica earlier today and I guess they learned their lesson about breaking news embargoes.

If past history is any indication, Ruger’s PR staff will announce the new firearm around 11am EDT on their website and by email.

Since Sturm, Ruger is a publicly traded company they have to abide by SEC Rule FD governing the release of material information. The announcement of a new firearm is something that could impact their stock price and advanced knowledge of it would give an unscrupulous investor an advantage. This is why they have rigorous non-disclosure agreements and news embargoes.

An ISRA Alert On Senate Bill That Would Establish A Tax Per Handgun Owned

The Illinois State Rifle Association sent out this alert this evening about an attempt to tax each handgun owned. If you live in Illinois, I’d suggest you contact your legislator even if you know that they are anti-gun. That way they can’t say they only got pro-gun control mail.

The Chicago Mayor’s efforts to punish Illinois gun owners for Chicago’s out of control crime problem continue in the Illinois Senate.

SB3625 – This bill would tack a $20.00 tax on every hand gun you own and require you to register like a sex offender.

THIS BILL HAS ONE PURPOSE AND ONE PURPOSE ONLY – TO PUNISH LAW-ABIDING FIREARM OWNERS

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and State Sen. Antonio Muñoz (IL-1) are continuing their attacks on firearm ownership in Illinois. Monday, Senator Muñoz amended a bill to turn it into Emanuel’s handgun registration scheme, blaming law abiding Illinois handgun owners for his failure to control crime in Chicago. This bill makes it a felony, equivalent to arson, to possess an ‘unregistered’ handgun in the state and further punishes victims of crime through a ‘Lost or Stolen’ mandate, in other words, if you have your firearms stolen and don’t report it to the police in a ‘reasonable’ amount of time, YOU will become the criminal. To them, owning a handgun without government permission is the same as burning someone’s house down.

The only purpose of this bill is to make firearm ownership more onerous and expensive for Illinois residents during a time of economic hardship. It will have no effect on criminals except to give them peace of mind knowing that fewer people will be able to defend themselves.

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP PRESERVE AND PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS

1. Contact your State Senator and politely inform him/her that you are a law-abiding firearm owner and that you do not support registering firearm owners like sex offenders. Tell him/her that you expect to see them vote AGAINST SB3625 if this antigun bill comes to the floor. If you do not know who your State Senator is, click this link to go to the Illinois Board of Elections:
http://www.elections.state.il.us/DistrictLocator/DistrictOfficialSearchByAddress.aspx .

2. Contact the sponsor of the Emanuel/Obama gun tax, State Antonio Muñoz, (217) 782-9415, (773) 869-9050, and tell him that you do not appreciate the idea of being registered like a sex offender and having to pay a tax for exercising your constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Question Of The Day

Joe Huffman says there is only one question he wants answered about the Trayvon Martin case. And depending on the answer, that will be all he needs to know about the case.

The one question I have that will probably settle the issue for me is when the authorities said, “Zimmerman then shot Martin once in the chest at very close range”; What was that range? I’ve probably spent more time and money than most on learning about such things and if the investigators know what they are doing, and I have no reason to believe they don’t, then they should be able to determine that range quite accurately. If the range was under 12 inches they can probably determine the range to within a fraction of an inch. And of course the angle can be determine quite closely as well.

If the range is determined to be within six inches and the bullet path matches Zimmerman’s story then I have to conclude the two were in a fight at contact distance and Zimmerman was losing badly. If I were on a jury I would insist that Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of imminent permanent physical injury or death and was justified in using deadly force to protect himself.

End of story for me.

This is a very interesting question and one I hope will be answered sooner than later.