state preemption

Uncategorized

Boulder City Council Sued In Federal Court

May 17, 2018 by

Tuesday, May 15th, the Boulder City Council unanimously passed a ban on semi-automatic rifles with cosmetics they didn’t like, a ban on standard capacity magazines, and bump fire stocks.

As the Denver Post reported:

The ordinance prohibits the sale and possession of assault weapons, as defined by the city. Also outlawed are magazines with high-capacity magazines and bump stocks.

Owners of the latter two items will have until July 15 to dispose of or sell them. Assault weapons will be grandfathered in; those in possession of such firearms have until the end of the year to receive a certificate proving prior ownership.

The grandfather clause was an olive branch to gun owners, said Councilman Sam Weaver, as was the abandonment of an early proposal to establish a registration system for assault weapons in the city.

Colorado has a state firearms preemption law that, on the face of it, forbids cities from adopting regulations which “prohibits the sale, purchase, or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law.” Firearms law is considered a matter of state concern. Denver, so far, is the only city in the state whose firearm regulations were upheld because it was considered a “special case” due to its size.

At the meeting where the Boulder City Council adopted their ban, representatives from the Mountain States Legal Foundation vowed that they would oppose the measure in court. They have kept their word.

In a release sent out late last night, the Mountain States Legal Foundation announced that they had filed suit in US District Court for the District of Colorado. The lead plaintiff is Jon Caldara who is a member of the Boulder Rifle Club. In addition, Caldara is the president of the Independence Institute, a libertarian think tank, based in Denver.

More on the lawsuit including a link to the complaint is below:

May 16, 2018 – DENVER, CO.  A group of
Boulder residents who face heavy fines and jail time for the mere
possession of firearms that are legal throughout Colorado and the United
States filed a lawsuit yesterday challenging the Boulder City Council’s
actions.  Represented by Mountain States Legal Foundation, the
plaintiffs are taking a stand against the city council’s
unconstitutional passage of a broad-sweeping ban of the most popular and
widely-owned firearms and magazines in America.  In a blatant act of
discrimination against a political minority, the city council also
unconstitutionally raised the minimum age for firearm possession in
Boulder city limits to twenty-one.  The lawsuit was filed in federal
district court in Denver, Colorado.
Jon Caldara, a well-known, pillar of the
community; the Boulder Rifle Club, which has been in existence since
1889; Bison Tactical, a small business in Boulder city limits; and Tyler
Faye, a member of the University of Colorado Shooting Team, all seek to
defend their rights and the rights of their fellow Boulder residents
against the illegal, unconstitutional, and discriminatory actions of the
City of Boulder.
“This ban is tantamount to Boulder
attempting to stop drunk driving by banning Subarus,” said Cody J.
Wisniewski, attorney with Mountain States Legal Foundation representing
the plaintiffs.  “It accomplishes nothing other than making criminals of
law-abiding citizens.”
“The West wasn’t won with a registered
gun,” said William Perry Pendley, Mountain States Legal Foundation’s
president.  “Colorado is not California; these laws have no place here.”
On May 15, 2018, the Boulder City Council
passed Ordinance 8245, amending the Boulder Revised Code to ban many
rifles, shotguns, pistols, and standard-capacity magazines, as well as
raising the minimum age for firearm possession to twenty-one, within
Boulder city limits. The ordinance was passed by a unanimous vote
despite an overwhelming number of public comments, telephone calls, and
emails expressing concerns with and opposition to the ordinance. 
Mountain States Legal Foundation will be seeking a preliminary
injunction to suspend enforcement of the ordinance pending the outcome
of the litigation.  Without such an injunction, Boulder residents may be
subject to up to $1,000 in fines and ninety (90) days in jail per
violation.
Mountain States Legal Foundation, founded
in 1977, is a nonprofit, public-interest legal foundation dedicated to
individual liberty, the right to own and use property, limited and
ethical government, and the free enterprise system. In 2012, Mountain
States Legal Foundation, on behalf of its clients, prevailed in the
Colorado Supreme Court in Regents of the University of Colorado v. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.
The Court’s unanimous decision in that case confirmed the right of
concealed carry permit holders to possess concealed firearms on the
public university’s campus.
For more information:  Caldara v. City of Boulder
Uncategorized

Witness Slips Need In Illinois – III

April 17, 2018 by

Illinois State Rifle Association issued this alert regarding the elimination of state preemption with regard to “assault weapons”.

To read the particular bill, click on the link SB2314 below, click on Full Text.
 
OPPOSE THE FOLLOWING BILLS :

Scheduled Date 4/17/2018 – 4:00 PM
SB2314    Julie A. Morrison    ASSAULT WEAPONS-MUNICIPALITY

Synopsis: Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that the regulation of the possession or ownership of assault weapons are exclusive powers and functions of each municipality (rather than this State) . Eliminates existing preemption provision concerning the regulation of assault weapons.  This provision would mean, if passed, that a person maybe fully legal in one municipality but if transporting a particular firearm to another municipality be in violation of that municipality’s law.  The ISRA’s view is that this should remain the purview of the State and NOT individual municipalities.

TO CREATE A WITNESS SLIP 
 

Click on the following link Create a WitnessSlip

 
I. IDENTIFICATION: Enter your personal information. Enter “NA” for the Firm/Business or Agency and Title fields unless you are officially representing an organization.
 
II. REPRESENTATION: Enter “Myself” unless representing an organization.
 
III. POSITION: Select Original Bill and choose Opponent.
 
IV. TESTIMONY: Select the “Record of Appearance Only” radio button.
 
If filing manually, complete the Captcha challenge and agree to the ILGA Terms of Agreement.
 
Then click Create Slip.

TO VIEW A WITNESS SLIP 

Click on the following link View a Witness Slip 

Uncategorized

Quote Of The Day

March 15, 2018 by 6 Comments

“Guns don’t have much legitimate purpose in cities outside of the hands of trained law enforcement,” Cook said. “I think many cities would want to reinstitute a blanket ban or licensing requirements on carrying in public.”

Philip Cook is the ITT/Terry Sanford Professor Emeritus of Public Policy Studies at Duke University. He is a well-known researcher in “gun violence” (sic) with a significant anti-gun bias. The quote above comes from Duke’s student newspaper, The Chronicle, in which Cook was interviewed about past and proposed firearms-related legislation in the North Carolina General Assembly.

He advocated much tighter restrictions on concealed carry as well as doing away with state preemption so that cities like Durham where Duke is located could enact their own gun controls. As to enacting a ban on carrying in public, at least for open carrying, it would be an unconstitutional act. The North Carolina Supreme Court decided that in 1922 in the case of State v. Keener where the court ruled that open carrying was a constitutional right.

Another gem in this article deals with a total mischaracterization of why North Carolina has the pistol purchase permit wherein one must apply for a permit from their local sheriff to buy a handgun.

“That is relatively unusual, especially among Southern states,” said Cook, who researches gun control and crime prevention…


“The wisdom of the time [in 1919] was that rifles and shotguns are used for hunting and target shooting and other sports uses. Handguns are used against people,” Cook said. “And I think that remains true today.”

No, the wisdom of the time had nothing to do with handguns being used against people. The wisdom of the time was that blacks, union organizers, populists, and even Republicans had to be kept relatively disarmed. This was so that these people could not present a challenge to segregationist Democrats and their Klan allies. I have researched it extensively and have had many posts over the years on this subject. You can find some of them here, here, and here. I would note again that the co-sponsor of the 1919 bill was State Sen. Earle A. Humphrey (D-Goldsboro) who was the brother-in-law of ardent segregationist and Democrat party boss Furnifold Simmons.

Uncategorized

Why State Preemption Matters

August 7, 2015 by 1 Comment

I read two stories in the last 24 hours that reinforced why every state should have preemption on firearms issues. The gun prohibitionists oppose this saying, in essence, different laws for different locales lets us preserve our pockets of irresponsible gun control.

What makes these two stories different is that they come from red states where gun ownership is more the norm than the exception.

The first story comes from Nebraska where a judge last Friday ordered the return of a Lincoln man’s gun collection. The only problem is that the city ordinances of Lincoln won’t allow him to have them within the city. Under their city ordinances, a person convicted of a weapons charge (including knives) is forbidden to possess firearms within the city for the next 10 years.

Police confiscated 24 handguns last August from Kevin Williams, who was accused of illegally possessing them after being convicted of having an illegal pocketknife, the Lincoln Journal Star reported.

City Attorney Jeff Kirkpatrick said that during a 2010 traffic stop, Williams told a police officer that he had a butterfly knife. Police ticketed him for carrying a concealed weapon, because the knife was too long, and he ultimately paid a $75 fine.

Police learned four years later that Williams had purchased many guns, and his conviction on the weapons charge for the pocketknife made him ineligible to possess a gun in Lincoln for 10 years. An officer then seized Williams’ guns under a city ordinance on unlawful firearm possession.

The knife in question was a butterfly knife. The city charged Williams with unlawful firearm possession. However, he fought it in court and the city requested the charge be dismissed. The Nebraska Firearm Owners Association says this illustrates the need for consistent regulations statewide and I would agree.

The second story comes out of Idaho. In this story, an investigation of the Madison County Sheriffs’ Department shows that they used concealed carry permit fees to buy firearms for the department and for new carpeting. This came just months after the county commissioners approved a request by Sheriff Roy Klinger to increase permit fees by 38% (an additional $20) back in 2013. The sheriff had argued for the increase saying they couldn’t keep up with the demand.

Records turned over to IdahoReporter.com revealed the agency has spent more than $60,000 on expenses not directly related to concealed weapons permit administration since 2011, including two carpet purchases and one outlay for tile in the office. Klingler characterized those expenses as necessary upkeep for his agency and said his office vetted the purchases through the county’s legal team.

He also said critics focused only on larger purchases, but ignored how long his agency saved to be able to spend on the big-ticket items.

Klinger said his critics have a “nefarious” agenda and are engaging in a “hate campaign against government/law enforcement”. Interestingly, both the sheriff and his critics in the Idaho Second Amendment Association agree on permitless carry.

While Pruett and Klingler agree on permitless carry, the ISAA president said Klingler needs to take action to ease the burden on Idaho’s gun owners.

“The ISAA is here to protect Idaho gun owners and regardless of our agreement on permitless carry, we felt it necessary to bring this issue to light,” Pruett said with a nod towards Klinger’s advocacy for statewide permitless carry.

What surprises me most about the Idaho story is that there isn’t a uniform charge for a carry permit throughout the state.

Both of these stories reinforce the need for statewide preemption on firearms matters just like the arrest of a tourist at Ground Zero in New York City illustrates the need for nationwide reciprocity on carry permits.

H/T Josh and Susan

Uncategorized

Warning And Call To Action For Illinois Residents

May 7, 2015 by 3 Comments

In the wake of the 7th Circuit’s ludicrous decision in Friedman v. City of Highland Park in which the court upheld a gun ban based on “feelings“, the gun prohibitionists in the Illinois legislature are trying to strike while the iron is hot. State Sen. Julie Morrison (D-Deerfield) has filed SB 2130 which would eliminate state preemption of local firearm ordinances. The state preemption of local ordinances was part of the grand compromise in the bill that allowed shall-issue carry in Illinois. Assault weapons (sic) bans in place before July 19, 2013 were allowed to remain in plan but no new ones could be enacted.

Both Illinois Carry and the Illinois State Rifle Association have issued alerts for their members and supporters on Sen. Morrison’s move to gut state preemption.

From Illinois Carry:

Currently, the Firearm Concealed Carry Act and FOID Act concerning concealed carry and transportation of firearms is the same throughout the entire state. On May 5, 2015, Senator Julie Morrison filed SB2130 Firearm Owners ID – Assault Weapons, a bill proposing to eliminate preemption of local ordinance related to modern sporting firearms and their accessories. Preemption was included as agreed language when the Firearm Concealed Carry Act was passed and, at the time, allowed ample opportunity for home rule municipalities desiring local regulation to enact such ordinances.

Eliminating preemption now would open the door to an ever growing patchwork of ordinances, making it nearly impossible for law abiding citizens to understand the legal status of their firearms when moving from place to place, and could turn legal firearms into illegal firearms in the blink of an eye.

This late in the session we do not get the same advance notice of committee hearings, readings, etc.. Everything is ramped up to move fast, sometimes overnight or faster, so instead of waiting for notice to file witness slips, it’s time to go directly to your legislators and voice your position. Please contact Senator Morrison immediately and express your concern about her bill interfering with your rights as a law abiding firearm owner.

Senator Morrison can be reached at:

(217) 782-3650
(847) 945-5200

jmorrison@senatedem.ilga.gov

Please contact your own State Senator to voice your opposition to SB2130.

Telephone numbers and email addresses can be found at this link.

I will add the Illinois State Rifle Association alert at a later time as I don’t have access to it at work.

UPDATE: Here is the alert from ISRA.

URGENT ALERT – YOUR IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED

MASSIVE GUN GRAB INTRODUCED IN ILLINOIS SENATE

IF THEY WIN – THEY’LL EMPTY YOUR GUN CABINET

Anti-gun extremist State Senator Julie Morrison (D-Deerfield) has introduced a dangerous gun control bill that would ban the possession of most of the guns you now own. If passed, SB 2130 would allow city councils and village boards to decide which firearms you would be allowed to own – and you know what that means.

Many insiders believe that SB 2130 is the gun control movement’s first stab at legislation that would allow city councils and village boards regulate concealed carry at the local level – and you know what that means too.

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT TOGETHER WE MUST STOP SB 2130

The gun-grabbers have tipped their hand. They are planning a full-out assault on your gun rights in the closing days of the spring legislative session.

HERE’S WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO SAVE YOUR GUN RIGHTS:

1. Call State Senator Julie Morrison at (217) 782-3650 and politely tell the person that answers the phone that you are a law-abiding firearm owner and that you oppose Julie Morrison’s efforts to crush your gun rights. You should also call Senator Morrison’s district office at (847) 945-5200 to deliver that same message.

2. Call your state senator and politely tell him or her that you are a law-abiding firearm owner and that you do not appreciate Sen. Morrison’s efforts to restrict your rights. Politely ask your senator to vote against SB 2130. If you do not know who your senator is, or if you do not know how to get in touch with your senator, then click this link: Find Your Senator.

3. Please post this alert to any and all Internet blogs, bulletin boards or social media sites to which you belong.

4. Pass this alert on to your friend and family and ask them to make phone calls as well.

REMEMBER – ONLY YOU CAN STOP THE GUN-GRABBERS FROM DESTROYING THE 2nd AMENDMENT!

Uncategorized

Florida Carry Plans Appeal

July 31, 2014 by 2 Comments

Florida Carry has been active in holding state universities in Florida to the letter and spirit of the law regarding weapons restrictions on campus. Florida has state preemption on firearms issues but many municipalities and other governmental units want to go their own way. This would include the University of Florida in Gainesville. As a result, Florida Carry is suing them in state court. Unfortunately, a circuit court judge (and loyal alumnus) ignored a higher court ruling and granted summary judgment to the University of Florida. Florida Carry will be appealing to the 1st District Court of Appeals where they won an earlier case against the University of North Florida.


From Florida Carry:

Florida Carry case against University of Florida gun ban regulations moving to the First District Court of Appeal

On January 10th, 2014 Florida Carry, Inc. filed a lawsuit against the University Florida (UF),
seeking a permanent injunction to protect the rights of students,
faculty, and the public from the university’s illegal and
unconstitutional regulations prohibiting or severely restricting
firearms and weapons on all university property including in student’s
personal vehicles and in university managed housing.

Since 1987
the Florida Legislature has preempted firearms law and issued state-wide
licenses to carry concealed for self-defense. In December Florida
Carry won a similar case against the University of North Florida (UNF).
In Florida Carry v. UNF
the First District Court of Appeal ruled that “The legislature’s
primacy in firearms regulation derives directly from the Florida
Constitution… Indeed, the legislature has reserved for itself the
whole field of firearms regulation in section 790.33(1)…” No public
college or university has any authority to prevent students and the
public from having a functional firearm in places that are
constitutionally protected or permitted under state law.

The
University of Florida has failed to comply with the court’s ruling by
doing nothing more than adding an “Intent” footnote to only one of its
illegal policies.

In 2008 the United States Supreme Court ruled
that the right to keeps arms in the home is at the very core of the
Second Amendment.

Today, (Wednesday July 30th, 2014) Circuit Court Judge Toby S. Monaco granted motions to dismiss and for summary judgement in favor of his alma mater and granted sovereign immunity to UF President Manchen.
The lower court Judge ignored the plain language of multiple Florida
firearms laws, multiple binding court cases from Florida and the US
Supreme Court, turned to blind eye to university policies that are
promulgated in continued violation, and refused to conduct any analysis
of the right to keep and bear arms.

This is the same failure to
follow the law and protect the fundamental right to keep and bear arms
that we saw from another lower court in our case against the University
of North Florida. Prior to winning the landmark Florida Carry v. UNF
case that secured the right of students to store firearms in their cars
parked on campus in the First District Court of Appeals late last year,
another Florida Circuit Court Judge entered a similarly poorly reasoned
decision.

“It’s disappointing but this type of ruling is exactly what we have come to expect from far too many intellectually dishonest lower court judges at this phase of any Second Amendment case.” said Florida Carry Executive Director Sean Caranna “Once again, we’ll appeal to the First DCA… and once again, we’ll win.”

Uncategorized

Strong State Preemption Bill Passes In Kansas

April 7, 2014 by

The Kansas State House of Representatives gave their approval on Saturday to HB 2578 which provides for state preemption of local ordinances and regulations regarding both knives and firearms. It also overturns restrictions on open carry by the Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City (KS).

The vote in favor of passage of the conference committee substitute was 102 in favor with only 19 opposed. On Friday, the Kansas State Senate approved the bill 37-2. The bill now goes to Gov. Sam Brownback (R-KS) who has traditionally been a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights.

From the Topeka Capital-Journal:

Kansas law doesn’t expressly forbid the open carrying of firearms, and the attorney general’s office has in the past told local officials that some restrictions are allowed. The Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kan., has prohibited the practice, but the bill would sweep any such ban away, except to allow cities and counties to prevent openly carried weapons inside public buildings.


The measure also would prevent cities and counties from enacting restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition, or imposing rules on how guns must be stored and transported. Existing ordinances would be void, and local governments couldn’t use tax dollars for gun buy-back programs.

According to a summary of the conference committee report, the bill would also remove the arbitrary discretion from chief law enforcement officers to deny NFA transfers, it would forbid municipal governments from requiring disclosure of carry permits by their employees, and it extends the prohibition about carrying under the influence to all methods of carry.

The bill was strongly supported by the Kansas State Rifle Association, the NRA, and the American Silencer Association. As you can imagine, the gun prohibitionists are full of sour grapes over the passage of a strong bill that could be a model for other states.

But Jonathan Lowry, director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence’s efforts to defend gun control policies in court and oppose the lessening of existing regulations, called the Kansas measure “undemocratic.”

“The gun lobby likes to prevent people who believe in sensible gun laws from having a say in protecting their own communities,” Lowry said. “It’s cynical, and it’s dangerous public policy.”

No word on any organized opposition to the bill from (former) Mayor Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors or the Kansas Chapter of the Demanding Mommies.

Kudos to the Kansas State Legislature for passing such a strong bill that includes both firearms and knives under its preemption requirements.