Second Amendment

Uncategorized

Free Webinar On Gun Control And The Second Amendment

March 7, 2013 by

Professor Jeffrey Welty of the UNC School of Government will be leading a free webinar on Wednesday, March 20th. The webinar is scheduled to run for 75 minutes. The topics include:

  • The Second Amendment
  • The right to bear arms under North Carolina’s state constitution
  • Existing federal and state gun laws
  • Proposed gun regulations, including the proposed federal assault weapons ban
  • City and county power to regulate guns
  • Whether state law enforcement officers may or must enforce federal gun laws
  • The legal status of “open carry”

 This webinar is open to the public. They have also applied to the State Bar for CLE credits for this webinar.

Equipment requirements are a high-speed Internet connection and Adobe Flash Media Player.

Pre-registration is required. Go here to pre-register. Instructions on how to register are here.

This sounds like a great opportunity if you can make it. I plan to clear my schedule so as to participate in it.

UPDATE: I just signed up. It takes about 3-5 minutes as you have to register for their store and set up a user ID/password. It was not a big deal.

Uncategorized

Guntersville Does The Right Thing

February 28, 2013 by 3 Comments

Guntersville, Alabama Mayor Leigh Dollar had proposed a change to the emergency ordinances of that city that would have allowed law enforcement to disarm residents. Mayor Dollar said it was to protect officers in the aftermath of an emergency such as the 2011 tornadoes.

While most of the ordinance was sensible and provided for the mayor to act without council in the aftermath of a disaster, it was the sixth of seven sections that caused the uproar. That was the section that allowed any law enforcement officer to disarm residents for the protection of the officer or other individuals. If someone was brandishing a firearm in an unsafe or threatening manner, Alabama law already gave an officer the authority to disarm them – and to arrest them.

I think Mayor Dollar was genuinely surprised by the outpouring of opposition to the ordinance caused by that section of the law. She quickly issued a statement saying her intent was not to disarm people and undermine the Second Amendment.

“As Mayor, I can say there is absolutely no intent to undermine the right to bear arms. I live
in a house full of hunters and I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, as are all
members of the City Council.

“The City’s intent was never to ‘disarm our citizens or seize firearms’. The purpose is for the
City to be able to respond in a timely manner in the event of a disaster which we hope never
happens. However, after April 27, 2011, we know what can easily become a reality.

“The entire proposed local ordinance follows the state emergency ordinance, and the section
related to firearms follows existing state statutes. That section was included so public
workers and volunteers helping during a state of emergency are protected from someone
causing harm or potentially causing harm. In no way is this ordinance trying to infringe upon
anyone’s constitutional rights.”

 Yesterday, the Guntersville City Council had a special meeting and voted to withdraw the ordinance in its entirety from consideration. The whole meeting lasted probably less than five minutes. According to one report, Mayor Dollar said “This entire council is a strong proponent of the Second Amendment. We all own guns.”

We in my home state of North Carolina had to go to US District Court to secure our right to be armed in defense of home and family during an emergency. So I am pleased Mayor Dollar and the Guntersville Council did the right thing when they realized the magnitude of their actions. If this story has a moral, it is that about the power of social media to alert and activate opposition to threats to our rights. It doesn’t always work but in this case it succeeded beautifully.

Uncategorized

LaRue Tactical Steps Up And GRNC Asks Why Not More

February 10, 2013 by 10 Comments

LaRue Tactical of Leander, TX is well known for both their tactical accessories and their highly accurate AR-style rifles. On Friday, Mark LaRue, the owner and president, issued a notice stating his company would limit their sales to state and local law enforcement agencies to what the citizen of that state or locality was permitted to own or possess. In other words, if, for example, the residents of California or New York are limited in what they may possess due to “assault weapons bans”, then sales to the LAPD or NYPD will be limited to that as well.

Grass Roots North Carolina is starting a campaign to get other companies on board with this. Their position with which I agree is that the “Only Ones” should not be allowed to have special weapons that are forbidden to the average citizen by state or local law.


Do other manufacturers support the Second Amendment only when it’s profitable to do so?

The Second Amendment has always had fair-weather friends. LaRue Tactical, manufacturers of firearms and firearm accessories, is one company that will never be accused of being our fair-weather friend. When New York State passed its unconstitutional anti-gun law, LaRue swung into action. In a move reminiscent of Barrett Firearms’ banning of all sales to California law enforcement (http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-50.html) after California banned .50BMG rifles, LaRue has stated that it will not sell anything to local law enforcement that it can’t sell to you and me.

In a news release dated 2-8-13, LaRue states:

Effective today, in an effort to see that no legal mistakes are made by LaRue Tactical and/or its employees, we will apply all current State and Local Laws (as applied to civilians) to state and local law enforcement / government agencies. In other words, LaRue Tactical will limit all sales to what law-abiding citizens residing in their districts can purchase or possess.

(http://www.facebook.com/LaRueAccuracy#!/LaRueAccuracy/posts/529849683721877)

Lest you think that LaRue, more famous for accessories than anything else, is making an empty statement, take a look at the AR style rifles they manufacture (http://www.laruetactical.com/rifles). New York banned them for sale to citizens, so LaRue won’t sell them to the NYPD either. Will other firearm manufacturers have the guts to stand up like LaRue and Barrett do?

The NYPD allows officers to select one of three firearms for duty carry: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department#Firearms):

• SIG P226 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_P226)

• Smith & Wesson 5946 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_5906)

• Glock 19 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock_19#9.C3.9719mm_Parabellum).

All of these pistols are equipped with a greater than 7-round magazine, making them illegal for sale to law-abiding New York residents.

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!

• Send the following letter to SIG, Smith & Wesson, and Glock and ask them to follow LaRue Tactical’s lead. Tell them to adopt the same rule: If it can’t be sold to citizens, it won’t be sold to State and local government.

• Go to LaRue Tactical’s Facebook page and thank them for standing up for your Second Amendment rights: http://www.facebook.com/LaRueAccuracy#!/LaRueAccuracy/posts/529849683721877

Contact

Cut and paste email list: publicsafetysales@sigsauer.com, dgrier@smith-wesson.com, LE.info@glock.us

Deliver This Message

Suggested Subject: If it’s illegal for us, don’t sell it to police!

Dear Law Enforcement Sales Manager,

Recently New York rushed an ill-advised and unconstitutional law infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Other states are poised to write similar laws. I urge you to follow the lead of LaRue Tactical which has adopted this policy: If it can’t be sold to law-abiding citizens, it won’t be sold to state and local police agencies either.

There are 800,000 sworn police officers in the entire United States. The FBI reports a total of 2,495,440 NICS checks, and thus firearms sales, in January alone. Police sales are not your major business. It’s time for firearm manufacturers to send a clear message that you will not participate in the slow erosion of our Second Amendment rights.

(NICS numbers Source http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/20130205_1998_2013_monthly_yearly_totals.pdf)

Signed,

A Concerned Gun Owner

Uncategorized

S.82 – A Senate Bill On Guns That I Can Support

January 24, 2013 by 4 Comments

With all the noise created by the media over the new gun control bills introduced in both the House and Senate, pro-gun bills get a little lost in the background noise. Here is a bill that I think most pro-gun people can support. It was introduced by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) yesterday.

S.82 – Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
A bill to provide that any executive action infringing on the Second
Amendment has no force or effect, and to prohibit the use of funds for
certain purposes. 
Has been read the first time but has not been referred to a committee yet.

Uncategorized

Rep. Meadows’ Response Is Good

January 24, 2013 by 1 Comment

I got the following response to a letter sent to Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC-11) who is my Congressman. Unlike some letters I’ve seen which speak of not wanting to “unnecessarily” infringing upon the Second Amendment, Meadows doesn’t believe additional laws will help. Moreover, he is pushing firearms training which I endorse.

Dear Mr. Richardson:


Thank you for contacting my office regarding your concerns over the possibility of increased gun regulation in light of the recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. Your views are very important, and I appreciate you taking the time to share them with me.


When I heard about the tragedy that took place in Connecticut on December 14, 2012, I was shocked and deeply saddened over this senseless attack on innocent children, teachers and school administrators. As a father, I cannot begin to imagine the horror that those families are going through, as they grieve the loss of their children and loved ones. My thoughts and prayers are with all of them during this difficult time.


Like most Americans, I am horrified by these crimes. The tragedy in Newtown has, once again, brought the debate over our Second Amendment rights to the forefront and has renewed assertions that more restrictive guns laws would have prevented the tragedy in Newtown and other violent crimes.


As a strong defender of the Second Amendment, I will always fight to secure the right of law-abiding citizens to purchase and bear personal firearms. I believe that the best way to prevent acts of violence is to resolutely enforce our criminal laws and to give our citizens proper guidance and training so that they are familiar with firearms and prepared to defend themselves should the need arise. I am working hard with local school officials and sheriff’s departments to figure out what additional measures we can take to ensure that our schools are as safe as possible.


The bottom line is that criminals and individuals who intend to do harm to others are not deterred by additional rules and regulations prohibiting gun ownership. Restricting the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their families against harm by enacting strict gun-control laws would only further expose the innocent to violent crime.


Again, thank you for contacting my office. Your feedback and suggestions are always welcome. It is an honor to serve as your United States Congressman. If you have not done so already, please visit my website – www.meadows.house.gov – and sign up for my eNewsletter.


Sincerely,
Mark Meadows
Member of Congress


MM/pf

Uncategorized

Dave Kopel On The Second Amendment In 2013

January 14, 2013 by 1 Comment

Attorney and law professor Dave Kopel was interviewed about the Second Amendment for the Cato Institute Daily Podcast last week. Much of what he says about the presidential power to use executive orders is increasingly relevant given President Obama’s press conference today. In the press conference Obama didn’t rule out the use of executive orders for gun control.

As Kopel points out, Obama would have broad powers to impact imports under the Gun Control Act of 1968 but less power domestically. Kopel does touch upon the reclassification of existing rifles to put them under the purview of the National Firearms Act by the use of executive order.

Uncategorized

Interesting But Not The Best Of Ideas

December 26, 2012 by 5 Comments

By now you may have read about the DC Metropolitan Police Department’s active investigation into David Gregory. The host of NBC’s Meet the Press thought a 30 round AR magazine would make a cool prop to shake in the face of Wayne LaPierre this past Sunday. What Gregory didn’t think about was the DC law which forbids the mere possession of any magazine that is capable of holding more than 10 rounds. If he did think about the law, he obviously assumed it didn’t apply to “esteemed journalists” such as himself.

Now conservative attorney Aaron Walker is offering to defend Gregory on Second Amendment grounds in a challenge to the DC law. Walker, who blogs and tweets as “Aaron Worthing”, made the offer yesterday on Twitter. Twitchy has aggregated the tweets by Walker on the subject here. Walker is better known for the whole Brett Kimberlin saga.

While at first blush it sounds like a great idea challenging the DC law on Second Amendment grounds to get a gun hater off, in this case it is rather short sighted. As Alan Gura has pointed out many times in many venues, Second Amendment litigation needs to be strategic. Case law needs to built bit by bit and precedents set. It is a cumulative process where the success of the current case depends upon earlier positive precedents. This is the same process that Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund used over time to defeat both de jure and de facto segregation by race.

The threat to this strategy comes from both criminal attorneys trying to use the Second Amendment to get crooks off the hook and misguided ideologues like Leonard Embody who represent themselves in court. I think defending David Gregory in a court of law on Second Amendment grounds would likewise be a threat to this strategy. While you and I may disagree, I think it highly unlikely at this time that a court would find the DC restrictions unreasonable and inconsistent with the Heller decision.

So I would say to Aaron Walker, while it sounds like a cool idea, don’t go there if you care at all about the Second Amendment.

Uncategorized

Dave Kopel on Second Amendment Election Results

November 8, 2012 by

Ginny Simone of NRA News interviewed attorney Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute regarding how the 2012 elections impacted the Second Amendment and gun rights. It fleshes out his column from the Volokh Conspiracy and gives more detail.

It will be interesting to see if the Louisiana amendment setting strict scrutiny as the standard is exported to other states. I’d love to see something like that in North Carolina.

Uncategorized

Editorial Stupidity

August 9, 2012 by 1 Comment

The Norfolk Virginian-Pilot published an editorial today entitled “Don’t surrender to such violence”. While there were things I could agree with in it such as increased funding for mental health and substance abuse programs, there were some parts that just were beyond the pale. I certainly disagree with their support for the Southern Poverty Law Center which, to be frank, exists primarily to keep founder Morris Dees living in the style to which he has become accustomed.

However, the really egregious part of the editorial was this:

And we should be talking about how to shape gun-control measures to limit access to weapons and ammunition for people not sane enough or civil enough to possess them.

The intent of the Second Amendment has been interpreted historically as a right to self-protection. It has been proved, of late, to be a license to kill innocents – and as many as possible.

You have to wonder how they would react if this was applied to the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. There are plenty of journalists who’s sanity I’ve questioned and who are barely civil. The famous journalist H. L. Menchen comes to mind with regard to civility. Moreover, for many journalists, freedom of speech and of the press has become a license to publish stories with their own slant and, in all too many cases, knowingly based on lies.

I believe in all the Bill of Rights including the First Amendment. I just wish those in the media felt the same way towards the Second Amendment as I do towards the First Amendment.

H/T Josh Horwitz who approvingly pointed out this editorial.