Uncategorized

Leon Leonwood Bean Is Rolling Over In His Grave

June 3, 2011 by 2 Comments

I will freely admit that I’m not a fashionista.

The Wall Street Journal had an article in their Personal Journal section yesterday noting that Mr. Hilfiger had brought in two designers to update his brand. Normally, I would have just ignored it. However, one of the pictures caught my eye.

They had taken the L.L. Bean Maine Hunting Shoe (or Bean Boot or duck boot) and tranformed it into a thigh-high boot with 5″ heels. Searching for more information on this, I find out that it was one of the staples of Mr. Hilfiger’s 2010 Fall Collection and the boot retailed for $498.

I also found out that they had an ankle boot version of this boot called the Bennington Duck Boot which was much more reasonable in price. It is only $298.

I have had many pairs of the Maine Hunting Shoe over the years but none like that! I’m not sure where you’d wear these but I know it isn’t in a field. Even the much-discussed LuckyGunner Ammo Girls wore sneakers at the LuckyGunner Memorial Day Blogger Shoot.

As I said in the title, I’m sure old Mr. L. L. Bean is rolling in his grave over those boots. That is, of course, unless the Tommy Hilfiger Company paid Bean’s a royalty for copying their basic design. Those old Maine Yankees understood the value of a dollar.

Uncategorized

Weakening Amendments For HB 650?

June 3, 2011 by

This alert was released this evening by Grass Roots North Carolina. Looks like it is time to contact your state rep and put the fear of God in them about weakening amendments.

WEAKENING AMENDMENTS MAY BE PENDING

House Bill 650, “Amend Various Gun Laws,” passed from the NC House Judiciary C Committee yesterday and heads for a floor vote: Tuesday, June 7. As you may recall, special interest groups have tried to subject the bill to the “death of a thousand cuts” by attacking individual provisions. Nonetheless, HB 650 is still a far-reaching improvement in NC gun laws, including:

  • Castle Doctrine (a strong version comparable to SB 34, which earlier passed the Senate);
  • Permitting concealed handgun permit-holders to have firearms in locked vehicles on educational property;
  • Enabling rifle and shotgun purchases in non-contiguous states beyond NC;
  • Allowing guns in locked vehicles at businesses or places of employment;
  • Reducing issuing times for concealed handgun permits from 90 to 45 days;
  • Reducing penalties for minor CHP violations to civil infractions; and
  • Changing concealed handgun to straight recognition of out-of-state permits;

HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER MAY TRY TO WEAKEN BILL

Thanks to continued anti-gun attacks by House Majority Leader Paul (“Skip”) Stam (R-Wake, GRNC 0-star), sponsor Mark Hilton (R-Catawba, GRNC ****) was forced to limit the “guns-in-locked-vehicles” provision above to concealed handgun permit-holders. It is expected that Stam will further attempt to weaken the bill via floor amendments, meaning you must IMMEDIATELY deliver the message to House members that you WILL NOT tolerate further weakening amendments to the bill.

Uncategorized

HB 650 Expanded In Committee

June 3, 2011 by

The NRA-ILA released this today regarding North Carolina’s omnibus gun law – HB 650 – which passed out of the House Judiciary C Subcommittee yesterday. Before it left the subcommittee, the committee amended the bill to add the castle doctrine and parking lot provisions among other gun rights strengthening provisions.

North Carolina: Castle Doctrine Language and Parking Lot Provision in NRA-Backed Omnibus Bill Threatened!

Thursday, June 02, 2011

Urge Your Representative to Oppose Any Amendments to House Bill 650!

As reported by the NRA yesterday, the North Carolina House Judiciary Subcommittee C sent House Bill 650, the NRA–backed omnibus gun bill, to the House floor for a vote. However, there is now a strong effort by the anti-gun lobby to add amendments that would weaken both the current Castle Doctrine language and Parking Lot/Employee Protection provision contained in this bill. It is vital that you let your state Representative know that he or she needs to support HB 650 in its current form and oppose all amendments, especially those that would weaken Castle Doctrine and Parking Lot language.

HB 650, introduced by state Representative Mark Hilton (R-96), originally focused on making a number of improvements to the Right-to-Carry (RTC) law, as well as improving the firearm preemption statute that prevents municipalities from enacting gun control laws more onerous than what has been passed by the state. A Proposed Committee Substitute (PCS) for the bill was approved by the subcommittee at a previous hearing, which greatly expanded the bill’s scope in a very positive way. The PCS includes a number of other issues, such as Castle Doctrine language, Parking Lot/Employee Protection language, Fraudulent Firearms Purchase Prevention language, and language to ensure North Carolina residents are not prohibited by state law from purchasing long guns in states that do not border North Carolina.

It is essential to the passage of this bill that you contact your state Representative IMMEDIATELY and urge him or her to support the current version of HB 650 with NO amendments, especially any amendments that would weaken Castle Doctrine and Parking Lot provisions. Contact information for your state Representative can be found here.

Uncategorized

NRA-ILA Statement On Court’s Decision On Attorneys’ Fees

June 2, 2011 by 3 Comments

Chris Cox, head of the NRA-ILA, released this statement this afternoon regarding the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision regarding the awarding of attorneys’ fees in NRA et al v. City of Chicago et al and McDonald et al v. Chicago et al.

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Holds NRA Entitled to Attorneys’ Fees in Lawsuits Against Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois

Thursday, June 02, 2011

Fairfax, VA—Today, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals conclusively and forcefully held, without need for oral argument, that the National Rifle Association has the right to recover attorneys’ fees in its lawsuits against the city of Chicago’s and the village of Oak Park’s unconstitutional gun bans. The court held that the NRA was a prevailing party in the case of National Rifle Association v. City of Chicago and Village of Oak Park.

“This is a Second Amendment victory and a civil rights victory. The National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment prevailed against those who sought to deny the right to keep and bear arms in Chicago and Oak Park,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “The attempt to avoid paying the NRA’s attorneys’ fees was rightly found to be unjust by the Court.”

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right to keep and bear arms for all Americans in the historic McDonald v. Chicago and NRA v. Chicago and Oak Park cases, it remanded them for the purpose of issuing an injunction against Chicago and Oak Park’s unconstitutional gun ordinances. Before that injunction was issued, however, those ordinances were repealed. The City and the Village then argued that the NRA was not a prevailing party and should not be allowed to recover attorneys’ fees. The District Court, which originally ruled against the NRA, agreed and denied the fee award.

Today’s Seventh Circuit decision overturns that ruling, holding instead that the NRA is indeed a prevailing party and is entitled to receive reimbursement for attorneys’ fees. The amount to be recovered will be established by the District Court.

“This is a major victory for the NRA. While we are grateful to recover our attorneys’ fees, however, we remain steadfast in our belief that Chicago and Oak Park continue to circumvent the law of the land and deny their law-abiding residents the Second Amendment freedoms protected by the Constitution. We will continue to fight those efforts until the Second Amendment is fully respected,” concluded Cox.

I see Mr. Cox still has a problem saying the name of the attorney who won the case actually heard in the Supreme Court as well as the Heller case. Let me say it for him – AH-lin Grrr-AH.

Uncategorized

Heh! Chicago Has To Pay Up.

June 2, 2011 by 1 Comment

After the City of Chicago lost McDonald et al v. City of Chicago et al in the Supreme Court, they changed their gun ban ordinances. Because of this, they argued that the plaintiffs were not “prevailing parties” and thus weren’t entitled to attorneys’ fees. U.S. District Court Judge Milton Shadur agreed with them and denied Alan Gura and the attorneys for the National Rifle Association the attorneys’ fees that should have been due them.

Today, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision overturning Judge Shadur and ordering “reasonable attorneys’ fees under §1988.” This decision applied both to the McDonald case and the cases brought by the NRA against the City of  Chicago and the Village of Oak Park, Illinois.

The Court of Appeals noted that Judge Shadur was correct in that the plaintiffs didn’t receive a favorable judgment from the District Court. However, they continued:

But they did better: They won in the Supreme Court, which entered a judgment in their favor. When the Supreme Court rendered its decision, the controversy was live.

The Court goes on to add noting that Chicago and Oak Park changed their ordinances in response to the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision:

Many a defendant gives up after a district court’s final decision and does not appeal; some other parties settle to avoid the risk of reversal. If a cessation of hostilities after a district court’s decision does not deprive the victor of prevailing party status, why should conceding defeat after a decision by the Supreme Court do so?

The attorneys for Chicago and Oak Park argued that the decision in McDonald only addressed a “preliminary legal issue” and didn’t resolve the plaintiff’s claims against the municipalities. Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook writing for the Court of Appeals didn’t think much of that argument.

After the Supreme Court held that the second amendment applies to the municipalities’ ordinances, defendants’ position was untenable; neither Chicago nor Oak Park contends that the ordinance in force in 2008 could have been sustained under Heller’s substantive standards. This litigation was over except for the entry of an injunction by the district court. Chicago and Oak Park capitulated, which made the exercise unnecessary. By the time defendants bowed to the inevitable, plaintiffs had in hand a judgment of the Supreme Court that gave them everything they needed. If a favorable decision of the Supreme Court does not count as “the necessary judicial imprimatur” on the plaintiffs’ position (Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 605), what would?

According to his Twitter feed, Alan Gura just happened to be in Chicago today. He notes it is a beautiful day. Indeed it is and it is good to see that the City of Chicago is going to have to shell out the big bucks for their obstinacy as well they should.

Uncategorized

Quote Of The Day

June 2, 2011 by

From the amicus brief submitted to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Peruta v. County of San Diego by the Second Amendment Foundation and the CalGuns Foundation.

An official’s personal views of someone’s suitability to enjoy constitutional rights, or of an individual’s moral virtue, simply cannot be factors in regulating the exercise of constitutional rights.

This was written by Alan Gura in response to the requirements of California Penal Code Section 12050 which states that an applicant for a concealed carry permit must show “good cause” and be of “good moral character”.

Uncategorized

NW Multigun Challenge Will Use Crimson Trace Lights And IR Lasers In Competition

June 2, 2011 by

This sounds interesting – a 3-gun competition using a dark house and night vision goggles along with Crimson Trace IR lasers.

Crimson Trace continues its support of the competitive shooting sports this summer, donating prizes, guns and ammo to several prestigious events as part of its drive to promote personal security with the advent of the lightweight, slim, Lightguard™ platform. Latest in the long line of matches is the NW Multigun Challenge, July 9&10 in Albany, OR where the company will be building a dark shoot house. Competitors will test their skills, engaging multiple targets using both white light from the company’s innovative Lightguard™ handgun-mounted lights, as well as carbine-mounted IR lasers in conjunction with night vision equipment.

“This is a unique opportunity to shoot in both low light and no light scenarios and to my knowledge, no one has ever attempted it at a major 3 gun match.” Said Kent Thomas, Director of Marketing for Crimson Trace. “The new Lightguard was developed specifically for target engagement in across-the-room situations and our MVF-600 IR laser is currently in the hands of US Special Forces troops, so shooters will have the best tools available in the match.”

Crimson Trace has a 15 year history of serving its customers with the best of US-made defensive tools, first with the award-winning Lasergrip™ instinctively activated laser sight and now with the Lightguard 100 lumen white light for Glock, S&W and Springfield handguns.

The picture below shows the Lightguard for the S&W M&P, the Glock, and the XD.

Uncategorized

HB 650 Passes Committee Vote In NC General Assembly

June 2, 2011 by

HB 650 – the omnibus bill that amends a number of North Carolina’s firearms laws – passed out of the House Judiciary C Subcommittee today. Grass Roots North Carolina issued this on the passage.

HB 650, the massive gun bill we have been telling you about is now passed in House Judiciary C Sub-Committee. We now need you to contact the full House list to express your support for this important bill.

To recap:

HB 650 is a huge and aggressive bill, meaning it will be difficult to pass. But if passed, it will go far toward reversing the creeping encroachment on gun owners’ rights perpetuated in previous sessions of the legislature, including (but not limited to):

  • Castle Doctrine (yet another vehicle for popular Castle Doctrine is now moving);
  • Reducing penalties for carrying firearms on “educational property,” including a protection against accidentally becoming a criminal by requiring that offenders “knowingly” brought the gun onto educational property;
  • Enabling concealed carry at events for which admission is charged;
  • Reducing penalties for a host of minor (often inadvertent) gun violations;
  • Adding protections for gun owners whose guns are confiscated pursuant to domestic protective orders;
  • Improves concealed handgun reciprocity to straight recognition of out-of-state permits;
  • Removes provisions for concealed handgun applicants under which sheriffs are conducting intrusive investigations of medical history; and
  • Enabling employees to keep guns in locked vehicles at places of employment.

Checking the legislative calendar for the rest of the week, this bill has not been put on the calendar for the 2nd and 3rd reading. Unless it passes out of the State House by June 9th, it can’t be considered for passage in the 2012 session of the General Assembly.