Uncategorized

The Battle On the Second Front Has Opened

June 9, 2011 by

As Doug Ritter, chairman of Knife Rights, likes to say, they are the second front in the battle for the Second Amendment. At the 2010 Gun Rights Policy Conference he discussed the plans of his organization to eventually sue the City of New York and District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. over NYC’s vague knife laws.

The second front was opened today with a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The attorney of record is David Jensen who some may be familiar with from his work for the Second Amendment Foundation. Below is Knife Rights’ release announcing the lawsuit.

Knife Rights Sues New York City

Knife Rights today filed a federal civil rights lawsuit to stop New York City from arresting law-abiding citizens carrying common pocket knives.

The lawsuit challenges New York State law on “gravity knives” and “switchblades,” and New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance’s attempt to mischaracterize the most widely-owned pocket knives in America as contraband. The case seeks a judicial determination that the law is unconstitutionally vague as applied to these ordinary pocket knives.

“District Attorney Vance is trying to advance his political career by exploiting a vague state law to demonize common pocket knives,” said Knife Rights Chairman Doug Ritter. “In the process, hundreds of law abiding knife owners are being arrested and Vance has extracted nearly $2 million from retailers to avoid prosecution on bogus charges. This lawsuit intends to put a stop to Vance’s abusive and unconscionable civil rights violations.”

“One-hand opening pocket knives are legal tools, used and carried every day by millions of law-abiding citizens for work, recreation and self-defense,” said Ritter. “Shame on D.A. Vance for demonizing common tools and turning honest citizens into criminals for purely political ends.”

If you are a retailer or individual who has been targeted for the sale or possession of so-called illegal knives (one-hand opening and assisted opening knives inappropriately claimed to be gravity knives or switchblades), we urge you to immediately contact Knife Rights at: email nycity@KnifeRights.org or call toll-free: 1-866-889-6268.
Joining Knife Rights as plaintiffs are two private citizens, John Copeland, an internationally acclaimed artist, and Pedro Perez, an artist and fine art dealer, both New York City residents. The defendants are New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr., the New York State Attorney General, and the City of New York. Knife Rights is represented by attorney David Jensen. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Knife Rights is supported in this lawsuit by the Knife Rights Foundation Sharper Future Legal Fund™ whose major donors include at Platinum level: Benchmade Knife Co., Blue Ridge Knives, Buck Knives, Columbia River Knife & Tool, Taylor Brands and United Cutlery; Silver level: KnifeWorks.com and Wenger NA; Titanium level: Smokey Mountain Knife Works; Bronze level: Ethan Becker and KA-BAR Knives. Please support those who support your knife rights.

A copy of the complaint can be found here.

Uncategorized

Now We Know Why Dept Of Education Bought Those Shotguns (Updated)

June 8, 2011 by 4 Comments

Last spring there was a story going around the blogs concerning a solicitation to buy from the U.S. Department of Education for 27 short barrel shotguns.

Now we know what they planned to do with them. They went to their SWAT Teams for use in collecting student loans. Unfortunately, this isn’t a joke as this story from Stockton, California illustrates. (The Department of Education is now saying it wasn’t about student loans but may have involved fraud or bribery in connection with student loans.)

According to the story from Sacremento’s KXTV News10 ABC, the Department of Education did issue the search warrant and authorized the SWAT team due to defaulted student loans held by Mr. Wright’s estranged wife who no longer lived with him or their children.


According to the Department of Education’s Office of the Inspector General, the case can’t be discussed publicly until it is closed, but a spokesperson did confirm that the department did issue the search warrant at Wright’s home.

The Office of the Inspector General has a law enforcement branch of federal agents that carry out search warrants and investigations.

Stockton Police Department said it was asked by federal agents to provide one officer and one patrol car just for a police presence when carrying out the search warrant.

Stockton police did not participate in breaking Wright’s door, handcuffing him, or searching his home.

H/T WizardPC 

UPDATE: Links to the embedded video on KXTV are down. I’m not sure why but I have sent an email to KXTV’s news desk asking about the reason. This has been a very popular story on both blogs and Twitter today. Could be that their servers are overloaded.

I just updated the story link as KXTV has updated the story on their website.

UPDATE II: The video and story links have been updated to reflect the latest coming from KXTV News10. The Department of Education is still mum on why they thought they needed a SWAT team to execute a search warrant on the wrong guy.

UPDATE III: Here is a link to a redacted search warrant. There are allegations that Mr. Wright’s wife engaged in student loan fraud. Unfortunately, for Mr. Wright and his kids, the confidential informant wasn’t aware that suspect didn’t live there anymore.

Frankly, I don’t see any justification for a SWAT team on a white collar crime where there is no indication of violent actions. I am assuming that the sole reason that the Dept of Ed’s OIG used a SWAT team was to justify having one.

Uncategorized

Knife Rights Win In The Granite State

June 8, 2011 by

Knife rights just got a boost in the state of New Hampshire. Gov. John Lynch just signed into law a bill that provides state preemption on knives. From the Knife Rights release:

New Hampshire Governor Signs Knife Rights Preemption Bill

June 9, 2011: New Hampshire Governor John Lynch has signed into law the Knife Rights backed Knife Law Preemption Bill, HB 544. New Hampshire becomes the third state in the nation to enact Knife Law Preemption.

Congratulations to NH Rep. Jenn Coffey who sponsored this bill and who worked tirelessly with her colleagues, local advocates and our lobbyist to ensure the bill passed unanimously in both houses of the New Hampshire legislature. Rep. Coffey’s efforts enacted a strong preemption law which will protect knife owners from senseless local ordinances well into the future.

Rep. Coffey won Knife Rights’ Freedom’s Edge award last year for her successful effort to repeal New Hampshire’s prohibitions on switchblades, dirks, daggers and stilettos.

Knife Rights’ National Knife Law Preemption Campaign started successfully last year in Arizona. Earlier this year Utah enacted knife law preemption. Preemption prevents the creation of, or eliminates, a patchwork of ordinances and rules which serve to confuse or entrap those traveling within or through the state. A person traveling in a state without preemption laws could be charged with a violation of local law when they have no intention of violating the law. Preemption ensures citizens only have to know and abide by state law.

Preemption allows Knife Rights to focus its legislative efforts at the state level where it can more easily succeed in improving the legal environment for knife owners or opposing efforts to impose further restrictions on knives.

 As Doug Ritter of Knife Rights likes to say they are the Second Front in the battle for the Second Amendment.

Uncategorized

How They Voted On NC’s HB 650

June 8, 2011 by

HB 650 is one of the two important gun rights bills to pass this North Carolina State House so far this session. The first was HB 111 which allows concealed carry holders to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol (but not drink and carry) as well as carry in state, county, and municipal parks. HB 650 is the more important of the two because it contains the Castle Doctrine as well as a whole host of other improvements in North Carolina’s firearms laws. To get a section by section breakdown of all the bill does, go to A NC Gun Blog where Sean has a complete rundown on each section of the bill.

Because HB 650 is so important, it is critical to know who our friends were on the bill, who was against us, and who talks a good game but you can’t really trust with your gun rights. There were three votes of real consequence on the bill: the McGrady (A3) and Rapp (A4) Amendments and the vote on the Second Reading. Frankly, the vote on the Third Reading was mostly a pro forma vote with only one change – McGrady voting Aye instead of Not Voting – when compared to the Second Reading.

Amendment 3 – The McGrady Amendment

As discussed in more detail here, the McGrady Amendment removed the parking lot protections as well as protection from OSHA from the bill. A No vote on the amendment was the pro-gun vote.

Ayes

Democrat

Adams; Alexander, K.; Alexander, M.; Bell; Bordsen; Brandon; Brisson; Bryant; Carney; Cotham; Crawford; Earle; Farmer-Butterfield; Fisher; Floyd; Gill; Glazier; Goodman; Graham; Hackney; Haire; Hall; Hamilton; Harrison; Insko; Jackson; Jeffus; Keever; Lucas; Luebke; Martin; McGuirt; McLawhorn; Michaux; Mobley; Moore, R.; Owens; Parfitt; Parmon; Pierce; Rapp; Ross; Tolson; Wainwright; Warren, E.; Weiss; Womble; Wray

Republican

Brubaker; Daughtry; Dockham; Dollar; Guice; Howard; McCormick; McGee; McGrady; Rhyne; Stam

Noes

Democrat

Faison; Hill; Spear

Republican

Avila; Barnhart; Blackwell; Blust; Boles; Bradley; Brawley; Brown, L.; Brown, R.; Burr; Cleveland; Collins; Cook; Current; Dixon; Faircloth; Folwell; Frye; Gillespie; Hager; Hastings; Hilton; Hollo; Horn; Hurley; Iler; Ingle; Johnson; Jones; Jordan; Justice; Killian; Langdon; LaRoque; Lewis; McComas; McElraft; Mills; Moffitt; Moore, T.; Pridgen; Randleman; Sager; Samuelson; Sanderson; Setzer; Shepard; Starnes; Steen; Stevens; Stone; Torbett; Warren, H.; West

Not Voting

Democrats – None (Excused – Wilkins)
Republicans – Holloway; Murry; Tillis (SPEAKER)

Amendment 4 – The Rapp Amendment

The Rapp Amendment would have removed the protection given CHP holders on educational properties if they had a firearm in a locked car or locked case within the motor vehicle. Again, a No vote was the pro-gun vote. Unlike the McGrady Amendment, this one failed.

Ayes

Democrat

Adams; Alexander, K.; Alexander, M.; Bell; Bordsen; Brandon; Brisson; Bryant; Carney; Crawford; Earle; Faison; Farmer-Butterfield; Fisher; Floyd; Gill; Glazier; Goodman; Graham; Hackney; Haire; Hall; Hamilton; Harrison; Hill; Insko; Jackson; Jeffus; Keever; Lucas; Luebke; Martin; McGuirt; McLawhorn; Michaux; Mobley; Moore, R.; Owens; Parfitt; Parmon; Pierce; Rapp; Ross; Spear; Tolson; Wainwright; Warren, E.; Weiss; Womble; Wray

Republican

Guice; Holloway; Howard; Samuelson; Stam

Noes

Democrat

None

Republican

Avila; Barnhart; Blackwell; Blust; Boles; Bradley; Brawley; Brown, L.; Brown, R.; Brubaker; Burr; Cleveland; Collins; Cook; Current; Daughtry; Dixon; Dockham; Dollar; Faircloth; Folwell; Frye; Gillespie; Hager; Hastings; Hilton; Hollo; Horn; Hurley; Iler; Ingle; Johnson; Jones; Jordan; Justice; Killian; Langdon; LaRoque; Lewis; McComas; McCormick; McElraft; McGee; McGrady; Mills; Moffitt; Moore, T.; Pridgen; Randleman; Rhyne; Sager; Sanderson; Setzer; Shepard; Starnes; Steen; Stevens; Stone; Torbett; Warren, H.; West

Not Voting

Democrats: None (2 Excused – Cotham; Wilkins)
Republicans: Murry; Tillis (SPEAKER)

Second Reading

An Aye vote on the Second Reading is the pro-gun vote. Unlike the almost pro forma vote on the Third Reading, a vote on the Second Reading is the make or break vote.

Ayes

Democrat

Brandon; Brisson; Crawford; Faison; Graham; Hill; Lucas; McGuirt; McLawhorn; Owens; Spear; Wray

Republican

Avila; Barnhart; Blackwell; Blust; Bradley; Brawley; Brown, L.; Brown, R.; Brubaker; Burr; Cleveland; Collins; Cook; Current; Daughtry; Dixon; Dockham; Dollar; Faircloth; Folwell; Frye; Gillespie; Guice; Hager; Hastings; Hilton; Hollo; Horn; Howard; Hurley; Iler; Ingle; Johnson; Jones; Jordan; Justice; Killian; Langdon; LaRoque; Lewis; McComas; McCormick; McElraft; McGee; Mills; Moffitt; Moore, T.; Murry; Pridgen; Randleman; Rhyne; Sager; Samuelson; Sanderson; Setzer; Shepard; Stam; Starnes; Steen; Stevens; Stone; Torbett; Warren, H.; West

Noes

Democrat

Adams; Alexander, K.; Alexander, M.; Bell; Bordsen; Bryant; Carney; Cotham; Earle; Farmer-Butterfield; Fisher; Floyd; Gill; Glazier; Goodman; Hackney; Haire; Hall; Hamilton; Harrison; Insko; Jackson; Jeffus; Keever; Luebke; Martin; Michaux; Mobley; Moore, R.; Parfitt; Parmon; Pierce; Rapp; Ross; Tolson; Wainwright; Warren, E.; Weiss; Womble

Republican

None

Not Voting

Democrats: None (Excused – Wilkins)
Republicans: Boles; Holloway; McGrady; Tillis (SPEAKER)

Uncategorized

HB 650 Passes Third Reading

June 8, 2011 by

HB 650 has passed the Third Reading and is being sent to the Senate. While I didn’t expect it to happen tonight, it did. The final vote was 77 Ayes to 39 Nays.(corrected)

A fourth weakening amendment to the bill was proposed by Rep. Ray Rapp (D-Madison) who just happens to be my state representative and one of the Minority Whips. His amendment would have deleted that part of Section 4 (see below) which would have allowed a concealed carry holder to have his firearm in a locked car or locked container while on educational property.

(f1) It shall not be a violation of either subsection (b) or (f) of this section for any person to possess or carry a firearm on educational property or to a curricular or extracurricular activity sponsored by a school if the person has a permit issued in accordance with Article 54B of this Chapter or that is valid under G.S. 14-415.24 and the firearm is in a closed compartment or container within the person’s locked vehicle or in a locked container securely affixed to the person’s vehicle. A person may unlock the vehicle to enter or exit the vehicle provided the firearm remains in the closed compartment at all times and the vehicle is locked immediately following the entrance or exit.

Rapp’s amendment failed 55 Ayes to 61 Nays.

Hopefully, the Clerk of the House will have the roll-call votes available tomorrow so we can see who are our friends, who are just kinda with us unless they can find an alterative, and those who are against gun rights in general.

Uncategorized

More On HB 650 From GRNC

June 8, 2011 by

Grass Roots North Carolina’s leadership is pissed about the way certain Republicans including House Majority Leader Paul Stam are treating HB 650. Normally, the Third Reading is done almost immediately and is pro forma. Delaying the Third Reading is done when opponents want to put further amendments on a bill.

Dead-of-night sellout by some members of GOP stands to gut HB 650

Over the strenuous objections of HB 650 sponsor Rep. Mark Hilton (R-Catawba, GRNC ****), part of the Republican caucus is still hammering at HB 650. After first deciding to take up the third and final reading for the bill tomorrow, instead they are taking up the bill again with the intention of stripping language enabling concealed handgun permit-holders to keep firearms in locked compartments on educational property.

Earlier, under the direction of Reps. Paul Stam (R-Wake) and Chuck McGrady (R-Henderson), the following Republicans voted to remove the provision allowing concealed handgun permit-holders to keep guns in locked vehicles at places of employment. The anti-gun votes by Republicans were cast by: Brubaker, Daughtry, Dockham, Dollar, Guice, Howard, McCormick, McGee, McGrady, Rhyne, and Stam.

Uncategorized

HB 650 Passes 2nd Reading In NC House But With Amendments

June 7, 2011 by 3 Comments

The North Carolina State House passed HB 650 which amends various firearms laws and includes the Castle Doctrine on the 2nd Reading. There is no report of the actual vote totals yet on the North Carolina General Assembly website or if it was even a roll-call vote. The bill will now go for its 3rd and final Reading before it is sent to the State Senate.

Unfortunately, the bill did not pass unscathed. There were three amendments to the bill that were considered and passed before the bill passed its 2nd Reading.

Amendment 1 was sponsored by Rep. Mark Hilton (R-Catawba) who was one of the primary sponsors of HB 650. This amendment seems to be merely clarifying language which doesn’t weaken the bill. This amendment was adopted unanimously.

Amendment 2 was also sponsored by Rep. Hilton and it slightly weakened the protections given to those who use defensive force. The presumption remains that a person had a reasonable fear of death or severe bodily injury and was justified in using defensive force if someone was illegally and forcefully attempting to enter a motor vehicle, home, or workplace and if the person using the defensive force had reason to believe that the attacker or entrant was doing so illegally. However, this presumption is now rebuttable in all cases. Previously, only the presumption for using defensive force in a motor vehicle or workplace was rebuttable. In essence, law enforcement and prosecutors can now try to impeach your story if you use defensive force to protect your home as well as your car and place of business. This amendment passed 112 to 3.

Amendment 3 was sponsored by freshman Rep. Chuck McGrady (R-Henderson). This amendment which passed 59-57 deletes the section of the bill that prohibited employers from banning storage of a firearm in a locked vehicle and the section that stated the carrying of a handgun by those with handgun permits when allowed by the business, commercial enterprise, property owner, or employer did not constitute an occupation safety and health hazard. Thus employers still can force their employees to be at risk on their way to work and the Federal agency OSHA can still harass businesses or property owners who recognize the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

I don’t have the vote breakdown on Amendment 3 but I am making the presumption that it was a coalition of wobbly Republicans and anti-gun Democrats who provided the bare majority for this amendment to pass. I am guessing the rationale given by the Republicans will be that they were respecting property rights and the Democrats that a gun near the workplace will cause a worker to go “postal”.   If I am incorrect on this once the roll-call vote becomes available, I will make the correction. However, I doubt that I am wrong.

I will be emailing Mr. McGrady tonight to see if I can get an explanation for his actions.

UPDATE:  That was quick. I have gotten a response from Rep. McGrady and I was correct – the rationale was “property rights”. His response is below.

Chuck: I offered the amendment because I felt that the bill, as drafted, infringed upon private property rights. I think the vote count reflects the fact that these are hard issues when one has to balance one person’s rights against another person’s rights. Thanks for your question.

I have sent a response back to him asking for more detail as Section 27 seems to me to give private property owners more – not less – protection by protecting them from claims that they are allowing an occupational safety and health hazard when they allow handgun permit holders to carry on the property.

UPDATE II: WRAL-TV is reporting by Twitter that the vote on the 2nd Reading was 77 Ayes to 38 Nays.

WRAL also reported that the bill’s sponsor Rep. Mark Hilton (R-Catawba) and Rep. Paul Stam (R-Wake), House Majority Leader clashed over property rights versus gun rights on the House floor. Stam, who has stood in the way of more expansive gun rights legislation, reportedly said “land property rights predate gun rights.”

Uncategorized

Official Notice Of House Oversight Committee Hearing

June 7, 2011 by

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee just posted their official notice of the hearing into Operation Fast and Furious. It will be a full committee meeting and is schedule for 2 hours on the afternoon of June 13th.

Full House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Hearing

Date: Monday, June 13, 2011
Duration: 2 Hours
Contact Info: (202) 225-5074

The Full Committee hearing entitled, “Obstruction of Justice: Does the Justice Department Have to Respond to a Lawfully Issued and Valid Congressional Subpoena?” will take place at 1:00pm on Monday, June 13th in room 2154 of Rayburn House Office Building.

The hearing will be streamed live at http://oversight.house.gov

I have to work that day but I definitely plan to watch as much of it as possible as it streams live.

UPDATE: The Oversight Committee has released a notice that includes the witness list. The main purpose of this hearing is to establish the constitutional framework for issuing subpoenas to the Executive Branch. The time has been pushed back to 1:30pm EDT from the 1pm previously reported.

Operation Fast and Furious Hearing to be Held June 13th

Title: Obstruction of Justice: Does the Justice Department Have to Respond to a Lawfully Issued and Valid Congressional Subpoena?

Date/Time: 1:30 p.m. on Monday June 13th

Location: 2154 Rayburn House Office Building

This hearing will examine the constitutional questions raised by both the Department of Justice’s refusal to comply with a Congressional subpoena as well as the withholding of documents from a Congressional subpoena. It is the first in a series of hearings on Operation Fast and Furious.

The following witnesses are currently slated to appear at the hearing. Testimony will be posted online as it becomes available. The hearing will be webcast live at Oversight.House.Gov.

Witnesses

• Professor Charles Tiefer, Commissioner, Commission on Wartime Contracting

Professor Tiefer was chief litigator for the House of Representatives and was a courtroom advocate in numerous major cases. He served in 1996 as deputy minority counsel of the U.S. House “Bosniagate” investigating sub-committee and in 1987 as the Special Deputy Chief Counsel for the House Iran-Contra Committee. Professor Tiefer has had extensive immersion in investigative processes on diverse issues, including oversight investigations of foreign affairs and government contracting. He was appointed to his current role by Senator Harry Reid.

• Mr. Morton Rosenberg, Former Specialist in American Public Law with the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.

Mr. Rosenberg specialized in the areas of constitutional law, administrative law and process, congressional practice and procedure, and labor law, and in the problems raised by the interface of Congress and the Executive which involve the scope of the congressional oversight and investigative prerogatives, the validity of claims of executive and common law privileges before committees, and issues raised by the presidential exercise of temporary and recess appointment power.

• Mr. Todd Tatelman, Legislative Attorney, Congressional Research Service’s American Law Division

Mr. Tatelman specializes and advises Members of Congress, Committees, and Staff in the areas of Congressional Laws and Procedure (oversight and investigations), Constitutional Law, Transportation Law, and International Trade Law.

Uncategorized

Winning

June 7, 2011 by 3 Comments

KCRA Television reports that concealed carry permits are up dramatically in Sacramento, California. According to reporter Danielle Leigh, the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office has approved more concealed carry permits this year than in the history of the department. While neither she nor the spokesman for the Sheriff’s Office mention it, this is directly attributable to the agreement reached by the Second Amendment Foundation and the CalGuns Foundation with the Sheriff’s Department where “self-defense” is now recognized as showing “good cause”.

The reporter asks the Sheriff’s Department spokesman whether the rise in CCW permits means things are “out of control” and he replies, “I don’t think so.”

There is the obligatory interview with a Brady Campaign representative. Rebecca Gonzales says she is afraid that “gun violence” will go up. The response from the Sheriff’s Department spokesman is that they have never had anyone shot by a  CCW holder and that he hopes that trend continues.

Click on the link below to watch the video report.

Concealed Weapons Permits Up In Sacramento – Video – KCRA Sacramento

H/T Josh