Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) will sign the bill that makes Wisconsin the 49th state with some form of concealed carry on Friday in Wausau, WI.
The primary sponsor of the bill, State Senator Pam Galloway (R), represents Wausau in the Wisconsin State Senate.
The location of the signing will be at the Grand Lodge Hotel just outside of Wausau in Rothschild. Looks like a nice place for this historic event.
It has been some time since I updated my blog roll and especially the gun blogs on it.
I have tried to add the bloggers I met in person at the NRA Annual Meeting and the Lucky Gunner Memorial Day Blog Shoot to the list. If I met you at either event and forgot to add you, just pop me an email and I’ll update it. I met so many bloggers at both events that I’m sure I’ve missed someone!
I have also deleted those blogs that seem either dead or very, very inactive. If I didn’t see a post since January or December, I dropped it.
I hope everyone has had a great Fourth.
I sincerely believe that every American needs to read this document on at least a yearly basis. It is a reminder why we exist as a nation and why we must fight to preserve what so many in earlier generations gave their lives for.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
— John Hancock
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew ThorntonMassachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge GerryRhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William ElleryConnecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver WolcottNew York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis MorrisNew Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham ClarkPennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George RossDelaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKeanMaryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of CarrolltonVirginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter BraxtonNorth Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John PennSouth Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur MiddletonGeorgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
If you are a gunnie living in Texas and you like to wear Aloha shirts (aka Hawaiian shirts) for concealed carry, have I found a shirt for you. A company named Tropically Yours out of Willis, Texas has designed the ultimate gunnie shirt that they call the Texas Tropical Shirt which can be had with the Gozales Flag on the back.
Now for the cost. Bearing in mind that this is a hand-sewn, custom-made shirt which can’t be found elsewhere and that it is “art”, you shouldn’t be too surprised that it isn’t cheap. The price for the shirt in regular sizes is $145 and $5 extra for XXL and up.
I don’t want to take anything away from Tropically Yours but the Complementary Spouse assures me that anyone who sews (or has a spouse that does) could make something similar for a lot less. Just sayin’…
John Adams was a member of the Committee of Five that were charged by the Second Continental Congress with drafting the Declaration of Independence. The other four members were Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston. The document they produced was formally presented to Congress on June 28, 1776 and was approved by a vote the Second Continental Congress on July 2, 1776. It underwent minor revision and the final version that we know today was adopted on July 4, 1776.
In a letter to his wife Abigail dated July 3rd, Adams wrote on the Declaration and the voted resolve of the Congress of the preceding day:
The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.
I suggest that we follow the advice of John Adams and celebrate the Declaration of Independence by going shooting.
Grass Roots North Carolina just released an extensive analysis of HB 650 – the bill that amended a number of North Carolina gun laws and strengthened the Castle Doctrine. They also named names as to who was helpful in the passage of the bill and who was an impediment. Finally, they examine the rest of the gun legislation that was introduced in this session of the General Assembly, what is still alive, and what is dead.
THE GOOD, THE BAD, & THE DISAPPOINTING
“The idea of a concealed-carry in an Applebee’s bothered people…” – Republican Speaker Thom Tillis, after restaurant carry language was removed from gun legislation which passed.
[Analysis] With HB 650 signed by the Governor and scheduled to become law on December 1, congratulations are due to all who responded to GRNC alerts by calling and e-mailing the NC General Assembly. Thanks are also due volunteers of the Legislative Action Team for many hours spent at the legislature, our Director and Co-Director of Communications for dozens of alerts, often sent with little notice, to our Webmaster for alerts promptly posted, to gun show volunteers for alerts distributed to thousands of gun owners and to all others who helped win this crucial victory. Once again, you have demonstrated the value of an all-volunteer organization in defending our rights.
CHAMPS
As usual, politicians’ records are more checkered. Heroes of the General Assembly include Rep. Mark Hilton (R-Catawba, GRNC ****), who acted as primary sponsor for nearly all gun bills in the House; Sen. Buck Newton (R-Nash, Wilson, ****), who spent long hours restructuring bills to make them acceptable to leadership, and who delivered on committee hearings promised, House Rules Chairman Tim Moore (R-Cleveland, ****), for courage in giving hearings to bills not always favorably regarded by leadership, Sens. Debbie Clary (R-Cleveland, Rutherford, ****) and Andrew Brock (R-Davie, Rowan, ****), for working to support numerous pro-gun bills, Rep. George Cleveland (R-Onslow, ****) for his stalwart support in committee and during floor debates, Rep. Glen Bradley (R-Franklin, Halifax, Nash, ****) for introducing the “Firearms Freedom Act” and for supporting gun bills on the floor, and Rep. Kelly Hastings(R-Cleveland, Gaston, ****) for being the most tenacious Second Amendment supporter among incoming House freshman.
CHUMPS
House Majority Leader Paul (“Skip”) Stam (R-Wake, GRNC eval. under review) worked to weaken both Castle Doctrine and HB 650, and then paradoxically voted for final passage of both. From his proposed committee substitute for Castle Doctrine to apparently orchestrating the McGrady amendment, which removed language for guns in locked vehicles at places of employment from HB 650 (during which debate Stam employed the bizarre argument that he owns everything which crosses his property), to objecting in caucus to bringing gun bills to committee votes, Stam worked to undermine gun bills in the GOP caucus.
Beyond the usual anti-gun Democrats, others who worked to subvert your rights included Rep. Deborah Ross (D-Wake, 0-star), who tried to insert a “poison pill” into HB 111 for parks and restaurant carry, Rep. David Guice(R-Henderson, Polk, Transylvania, GRNC eval. under review) who weakened parks carry by exempting certain recreational facilities, and Rep. Chuck McGrady(R-Henderson, GRNC eval. under review), who offered the amendment to remove guns in locked vehicles from HB 650. Perhaps most pathetic was Sen. Ellie Kinnaird (D-Orange, Person, 0-star), who after initially being ruled out of order during the floor debate over HB 650, eventually managed to insert her usual anti-gun screed (albeit pointlessly) into the record, neatly lumping gun owners in with terrorists. Poor, old Ellie. She seems increasingly out of touch.
Disappointing
Frankly, we expected more from Republican leadership, specifically Speaker Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg, ****) and Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger(R-Guilford, Rockingham, ****). But it quickly became apparent that support for gun rights voters who helped “bring ’em to the dance” would be forthcoming only insofar as it could be done without sticking their necks out.
What resulted was a “thrust and parry” fencing match as we pressured chamber leaders to move gun legislation and they responded by adding and then removing bills from committee calendars, playing a “shell game” of inserting gun language into this or that bill, insisting on veto-proof majorities rather than simple majorities before bringing bills to the floor, and worst of all, removing items deemed “too controversial” from the legislation which passed.
What we got…and what we will
The result was, at best, half a loaf. We got the long-awaited Castle Doctrine, and somewhat weakened version of the parks carry GRNC has sought since 1997, and some other enhancements. Meanwhile, Tillis and Berger nixed guns in locked vehicles at places of employment, guns in locked compartments on educational property, and concealed carry in restaurants. The stated reason for the latter was poor polling on the topic. Said Speaker Tillis to the Charlotte Observer: “”The idea of a concealed-carry in an Applebee’s bothered people…”
The good news is that HB 111 – which contains restaurant carry – passed the House and remains alive for consideration when the legislature convenes next year. GRNC will be working hard on a campaign to pass it. As an opening shot, we suggest gun rights supporters contact Senator Berger and Speaker Tillis and tell them that what “bothers” them are Republican leaders who more or less immediately forgot who put them there.
WHAT HB 650 MEANS FOR YOU*
Like other gun bills this session, HB 650 went through multiple versions, meaning that if you read it, you need to ensure you are reading the correct version. The one signed by the governor may be found at:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2011/Bills/House/PDF/H650v6.pdfSection 1: Thanks largely to the diligence of Rep. Hilton and Sen. Newton, we got a fairly strong version of Castle Doctrine. A few of the main points:
Legal presumption of “reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm” if the perpetrator makes a “forcible and unlawful” entry into a home, vehicle or workplace. While a few other states cover vehicles, few if any cover workplaces. Note: This presumption is “rebuttable” in court. While that might seem like a weakening amendment, it is likely to help us by ensuring the law isn’t used with criminal intent. Among cases in which the presumption does not apply are against lawful resident of the dwelling, guardians of minors removing them from the premises, and intruders who are attempting to flee.
Immunity from civil or criminal liability in cases of a justifiable use of deadly force.
No duty to retreat in any place you have a lawful right to be.It should be noted that Castle Doctrine does not apply if the “defender” provokes the use of force (with some exceptions) or if the person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the performance of his or her duties.
Section 2: Repeals old castle language which applied only in the home and which is now replaced with more expansive Castle Doctrine.
Section 3: Establishes or expands concealed carry for district attorneys, retired law officers and, to a limited extent, correctional officers. GRNC did not advocate this section, but did not oppose it as a “sweetener” to facilitate passage of the overall bill.
Section 4: Exempts from criminal prosecution people who accidentally bring guns onto educational property by adding “knowingly” to the requirement to be convicted of a Class I felony.
Section 5: Slightly modifies gun laws in and around courthouses. Most important to gun owners is an exemption allowing concealed handgun permit-holders to keep firearms in closed containers within locked vehicles.
Section 6: Reduces chances of minors becoming “accidental criminals” by adding “willfully and intentionally” to the prohibition on possession of handguns by minors.
Section 7: Changes flaw in current prohibition on possession of firearms by people under “50B orders” (domestic protective orders) such that although the prohibition on possession still exists, ownership is now within the law.
Sections 8 & 9: Resolves conflict between NC statutes with respect to ownership of Title II firearms regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Aligns NC law with 26 US Code.
Section 10: Adds additional identification requirements to existing law under which law enforcement officers purchasing duty weapons are exempt from handgun purchase permit statute.
Section 11: Makes it a crime to provide materially false information when purchasing a firearm, such as done during New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s “sting” operations in other states.
Section 12: Brings NC law into compliance with federal law by allowing North Carolinians to purchase rifles and shotguns in other states, including non-contiguous states.
Section 13: Adds people who have received pardons to list of felons who may have gun rights restored.
Section 14: Makes technical and conforming changes to support other sections.
Section 15: Limits use of medical/mental health history data collected by sheriffs as part of concealed handgun applications.
Section 16: Makes minor change to concealed handgun permit application.
Section 17: Shortens concealed handgun permit application period from 90 days to 45 days provided mental health checks are complete.
Section 18: Deletes finger print requirement for renewal of concealed handgun permits.
Section 19: Removes social security numbers from concealed handgun permits.
Section 20: Makes technical changes to prohibitions on duplicating or altering concealed handgun permits.
Section 21(a): Reduces penalty for minor transgressions regarding permits (e.g. failure to have a permit on your person while carrying concealed) from, in some cases, Class 2 misdemeanors to infractions.
Section 21(b): Amends statewide firearms preemption such that local governments may still ban firearms “on local government buildings and their appurtenant premises,” but may no longer ban firearms in parks. Due to the weakening amendment made by Rep. David Guice, a local government may still ban firearms in specifically named “recreational facilities” (defined as playgrounds, athletic fields, swimming pools, and athletic facilities), but gun owners may still keep firearms in enclosed compartments within motor vehicles.
Section 22(a): Improves concealed handgun reciprocity to a straight recognition law wherein any concealed handgun permit issued in another state is valid in North Carolina.
Section 22(b): Expands concealed carry for district attorneys to a broad range of areas not normally legal for permit-holders.
Section 23: Amends firearms surrender for individuals under domestic 50B (protective) orders such that although the individual still may not possess firearms, legal ownership is no longer prohibited.
Section 24: Amends G.S. 50B to remove ownership from crimes punishable as a Class H felony.
Section 25:
Enables legislators and staff to keep firearms in vehicles on state-owned parking lots. Again, GRNC does not support privileges for elite groups, but did not oppose the measure in the interest of getting the whole bill passed.
WHERE WE STAND ON OTHER BILLS
HB 63: “FIREARMS/LOCKED VEHICLES”
The good news is that although this bill is dead, the language in the bill got a recorded vote in HB 650. The bad news is that, thanks to anti-gun opposition orchestrated by House Majority Leader Skip Stam (R-Wake, GRNC 0-star), the language was amended out of the bill.
HB 111: “HANDGUN PERMIT VALID IN PARKS & RESTAURANTS”
Sponsored by Rep. Mark Hilton (R-Catawba, GRNC ****), after passing the House by a vote of 76-42 with a weakening amendment allowing municipalities to ban guns in recreational facilities offered by Rep. David Guice (D- , GRNC ), the bill headed to the Senate. There it was first referred to Rules – widely regarded as the graveyard for bills leadership has no intention of hearing. After negotiations with Rules Chair Sen. Tom Apodaca (R-Henderson, ****), HB 111 was re-referred to Judiciary II on the agreement that GRNC would wait for a hearing until after completion of the state budget. Although HB 111 will remain alive for next year, Senate Republicans are running scared from polling which reportedly shows lack of public support for concealed carry in restaurants. Meanwhile, parks carry has passed in HB 650.
CASTLE DOCTRINE (SB 34/HB 52/HB 74)
SB 34, sponsored by Sen. Doug Berger (D- , ****) is the only one of these still alive, having passed the Senate and been referred to the House. However, nearly identical Castle Doctrine language has been added to HB 650 and passed.
SB 560: “SPORT SHOOTING RANGE PROTECTION”
Sponsored by Sen. Brock, this bill closes loopholes in our existing range protection law by offering “grandfather” protection to ranges forced to relocate by rezoning, annexation or development. Although the bill suffered a weakening amendment in the Senate Judiciary II Committee, essentially limiting range relocation to within the same county, it passed the Senate by a vote of 36-13, has been referred to the House Agriculture Committee, and remains alive for consideration next year.
HB 241: “NC FIRARMS FREEDOM ACT”
Sponsored by Rep. Glen Bradley, this aggressive bill was patterned after what became law in Montana, and would have exempted from BATFE regulation any firearm manufactured and kept solely in North Carolina. Although the bill got a hearing, however, it’s time has apparently not yet come. The bill is dead.
HB 227: “PURCHASE OF FIREARMS IN OTHER STATES”
Sponsored by Reps. Mark Hollo, Mitch Gillespie, Mark Hilton and Bert Jones, this bill allowed long gun purchases from other states, including non-contiguous states. After its contents were rolled into HB 650, the now-redundant bill was gutted and devoted to other purposes.
SB 765: “NO FIREARMS QUESTIONS DURING MEDICAL EXAMS”
Patterned after the bill which recently became law in Florida, this bill, sponsored by Sen. Brock, would have prohibited pediatricians and others from probing for gun ownership among patients. Unfortunately, it never received a hearing and is now dead.
Paul Valone, President of GRNC, was interviewed by Stacy Davis of WRAL TV about the Castle Doctrine. Ms. Davis produced a balanced piece on the bill.
width=576; height=324; wral_insert_video_player_9807392(576, 324);
Privacy is a big concern nowadays. This Wall Street Journal report details how “Whitey” Bulger lived off the grid for 16 years while on the lam from the FBI. I’m guessing he didn’t have a Facebook account and used a lot of cash and USPS money orders.
When the New Chicago Gun Law was passed in 2010, shooting ranges for civilians were banned. This became the basis of the lawsuit brought by the Second Amendment Foundation in Ezell v. Chicago.
Judge Kendell’s denial of a preliminary injunction was appealed by Alan Gura to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals where it appears quite likely he will win his injunction. When a judge says to you, “Mr. Gura, what would you like your injunction to say”, any reasonable person would take that as a good sign.
Against this background comes a report in the Chicago Sun-Times that Mayor Rahm Emanuel will introduce an ordinance next week to allow shooting ranges in Chicago.
The new ordinance should address the concerns raised in the lawsuit, officials say.
The proposed ordinance limits gun ranges to areas zoned for manufacturing. Outdoor ranges would be banned.
Anyone opening a gun range would have to obtain a gun permit from the city and obtain approval from the Chicago Police Department for a safety plan.
The Court of Appeals has not rendered a decision in this case and, presumably, an ordinance allowing shooting ranges would moot the case.
Chicago Police Department Superintendent Gerry McCarthy said that Federal gun laws were tantamount to “government sponsored racism” in a speech at St. Sabina’s Catholic Church in Chicago. Recognizing that McCarthy had a poor education in history growing up in New York, the NRA-ILA gives him a history lesson on where the real connections between racism and gun control lie.
Chicago’s Top Cop: The Racist Roots of Gun Rights?
Friday, July 01, 2011
Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, newly appointed by anti-gun Mayor Rahm Emanuel, has wasted no time in sharing his views on Chicagoans’ individual right to keep and bear arms. Less than a month after his approval by the City Council, McCarthy attended a service at St. Sabina’s Church (a parish led by anti-gun extremist Father Michael Pfleger) and made a speech claiming that a lack of restrictive gun control laws is “government sponsored racism.”
Those with a better understanding of history will find themselves confused trying to interpret McCarthy’s logic, as decades of scholarship have proven just the opposite; that gun control, rather than its absence, has often been used as a means of government sponsored racism.
In his 1995 Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy article, “The Racist Roots of Gun Control,” Second Amendment scholar Clayton E. Cramer outlines the historical case that “racism underlies gun control laws.” Cramer notes that racist gun control in America stretches as far back as 1751 with a French law in the Louisiana territory that required colonists to “‘[i]f necessary,’ beat ‘any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane.’”
Though Superintendent McCarthy might be excused for not looking that far back, he should certainly be aware of last year’s U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the case of McDonald v. Chicago. In a concurring opinion in that case, Justice Clarence Thomas explained that in the years preceding the Civil War, “Many legislatures amended their laws prohibiting slaves from carrying firearms to apply the prohibition to free blacks as well.” After the Civil War, little improved. Justice Thomas writes: “Some States formally prohibited blacks from possessing firearms… Others enacted legislation prohibiting blacks from carrying firearms without a license, a restriction not imposed on whites.”
Other Reconstruction Era (and later) laws were less candid. For example, an 1870 Tennessee law barred the sale of all but the most expensive pistols, effectively disarming newly freed blacks and the poor. New York’s Sullivan Law of 1911, requiring a permit for handgun possession, was largely targeted at Italians and other disfavored immigrant groups. (That law is still on the books.) And the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was denied a concealed carry permit in Alabama under a similar discretionary permitting law—even after his house had been bombed.
We suggest that in the future, Superintendent McCarthy might do a little more research before conflating respect for a fundamental individual right with its antithesis, government-sponsored racism.
If one goes by the press release sent out the esteemed senior Senator from California, then any person convicted of a felony overseas for a crime that would also be a felony in the United States would not be eligible to own a firearm.
Opposition to an authoritarian state and agitating for democratic reforms is probably considered treason in countries like Cuba, the former Soviet Union, and others of their ilk. Treason is most definitely a crime in United States courts. So by Senator Feinsten’s reasoning, if you were convicted of treason and sent to the gulag for opposing a Communist state (and somehow survived), you were convicted of a felony in a foreign court thus are ineligible to own a firearm if you make it here as a political refugee.
I’m sure she and her fellow travelers would object to this example but unless she carves out an exception for political crimes then it would apply. Of course, what you have to do to be convicted of treason in the United States is not the same as what it would take in Cuba.
Feinstein: Prevent Foreign Felons From Obtaining Firearms
“Cannot continue to give foreign-convicted murderers, rapists and terrorists the right to buy firearms in the United States”
Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today introduced legislation to close a loophole in current law to ensure that individuals convicted of foreign felonies and crimes—including domestic violence—cannot possess firearms in the United States.
Under current federal law, people who are convicted in the United States of violent felonies like rape, murder and terrorism are prohibited from possessing firearms. However, the law does not currently prohibit criminals convicted of these same violent crimes in foreign courts from possessing guns.
“America cannot continue to give foreign-convicted murderers, rapists and even terrorists the right to buy firearms in the United States,” said Senator Feinstein. “It makes no sense to have a law that forbids convicted Americans from possessing a firearm, but leaves the door wide open for foreign convicts to possess a firearm in our country. We must close this loophole before it is exploited by terrorists, drug gangs, and other dangerous criminals who threaten our communities.”
The No Firearms for Foreign Felons Act of 2011 would make it clear that if someone was convicted in a foreign court of an offense that would have disqualified them from possessing a gun in the United States, then they will be similarly disqualified from gun possession under American law.
This loophole for foreign convicts is the result of a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Small v. United States. In that case, the Court analyzed the 1968 Gun Control Act, which states that anyone who has been convicted of a felony “in any court” cannot possess firearms. The Court concluded the phrase only applied to American courts, despite the fact the Gun Control Act had routinely been applied to foreign felonies since 1968, the year it took effect.
As it is, many criminal offenses committed overseas including the ones that Sen. Feinstein specifies in her press release are a bar from even entering the United States legally. You cannot be given a visa for a whole host of reasons including having engaged in any terrorist activity, having been convicted of prostitution, and, of course, murder and rape. And that is just for visitors. Immigration requires an even higher bar to jump over.
Since this is the case, why introduce a bill that applies to virtually no one who is here legally? Could it be that Senator Feinstein is trying get more publicity for one of her pet causes, i.e, gun control? The multitudes of illegal aliens in her home state of California are already precluded from purchasing a firearm. In case she doesn’t realize it, that is one of the questions on the ATF Form 4473.
Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell has more on Feinstein and “the foreign felon loophole hobby horse”.
by