Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

2nd Amendment Tag

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 22, 2015 30 Comments
This is likely the final chapter in the saga of our two-year long fight to obtain important documents regarding the non-prosecution of David Gregory for possessing on Meet the Press an illegal high-capacity ammunition magazine. The short version is that the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department warned NBC News that it could not possess an actual high-capacity magazine, but NBC News went ahead and did it anyway. The MPD recommended a warrant for Gregory's arrest, but that request was nixed by the D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan because -- my paraphrase -- Gregory was just too nice a guy and had no other criminal intent. That attitude stood in stark contrast to the D.C. Attorney General's vigorous prosecution of other lesser-known people who also were nice people and had no other criminal intent, but violated D.C.'s gun laws. We served a Freedom of Information Act request but D.C. held back numerous documents. So we filed suit. We were assisted by attorneys Jim Peterson and Ramona Cotca of Judicial Watch, who did a great job. Everybody give them a round of applause. D.C. eventually produced more documents, but refused to give us the Arrest Warrant Affidavit. We eventually won a court decision, and today D.C. produced the Affidavit, with some personal information redacted. (Affidavit Below) The Affidavit demonstrates the facts as to NBC News' open defiance of the law. This was no innocent error. Yet no prosecution. Here is an excerpt from the Affidavit:

Posted by Leslie Eastman on January 19, 2015 20 Comments
I must admit, I had a serious attack of schadenfreude when I learned that the #BlackLivesMatter protesters in Boston were upset by the outrage directed at them after they blocked Route 93. I guess I wasn't surprised that some protest leaders live at home with their parents in wealthy suburbs. I guess they were stunned to learn that people trying to get to work felt that their own lives mattered, too. Let's contrast this event with another rally by gun rights activists in the blue haven of Washington state. The Washington Firearms Leadership and Activism Group (WAFLAG), Protect Our Gun Rights Washington, and the Gun Rights Coalition hosted Rally for Your Rights against I-594, an "18½-page incoherent, rambling, unconstitutional gun control initiative" that was recently passed by the state legislature. Given the crowd and the passion, I suspect it will not be the last event.
More than 200 gun-rights activists, most of them carrying firearms, rallied on the steps of Washington's Capitol Thursday morning to protest the expansive background-check law state voters passed in November. State legislators and other opponents of Initiative 594's requirement of background checks on all gun sales and transfers voiced their belief that the new law unfairly infringes on their constitutional rights, and a handful of the protesters carried long guns into the public viewing gallery of the state House of Representatives just as the morning's brief floor session ended. A series of speakers urged the crowd outside the Capitol to work to build support to repeal Initiative 594, both by contacting their legislators and by lobbying their friends and relatives. Several I-594 opponents carried signs with messages including "Prosecute criminals not harass us" and "I will not comply" during the chilly morning rally. ....Although the protest was explicitly directed against the new background-check law, a number of speakers and crowd members said their feelings extend to an opposition to gun control efforts in general.
But, like the Boston rally, there was some real drama. This video shows state representatives Graham Hunt and Matt Shea making an appearance to discuss some of their proposals to support the rights of Washington's gun owners, which seems typical of a political rally.

Posted by Mike LaChance on January 15, 2015 22 Comments
The Democratic Party has been unable to sway public opinion on the issue of gun control, but that hasn't stopped the Obama administration from using the Department of Justice to harass legal gun dealers under a program called Operation Choke Point. Guidelines designed to discourage banks from doing business with illegal and heinous operations involving things like human trafficking and child pornography are now being applied to legal and legitimate businesses which are deemed "high risk." Chuck Ross of The Daily Caller filed this report yesterday:
Audio Tapes Reveal How Federal Regulators Shut Down Gun Store Owner’s Bank Accounts Conversations recorded by a Wisconsin gun store owner provide perhaps the clearest glimpse yet into how the federal government uses regulators to target legal firearm and ammunition sellers. “Our hands are tied by it,” a regional manager with Heritage Credit Union told Hawkins Guns owner Mike Shuetz of federal regulations which forced the institution to close Shuetz’s bank accounts in November. Recordings of Shuetz’s conversations with the manager and a bank teller, which were published online by the U.S. Consumer Coalition, make it clear that the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) examined the credit union’s books and forced it to close Shuetz’s account — a move he blames on a Department of Justice initiative called Operation Choke Point. Schuetz’s saga began on Nov. 13, when he says Heritage Credit Union informed him that it would have to close his bank accounts.

Posted by Mike LaChance on January 02, 2015 20 Comments
The ink on 2015 is barely dry, but that hasn't stopped liberals from continuing their push for increased gun control. Seizing on the still-raw emotions of the shooting at Sandy Hook, Adam Gopnik of The New Yorker outlined what he calls their "moral work":
The Newtown Lawsuit and the Moral Work of Gun Control The news that the parents of the children massacred two years ago in Sandy Hook, near Newtown, Connecticut, by a young man with a Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle, were undertaking a lawsuit against the gun manufacturer was at once encouraging and terribly discouraging. The encouraging part is that those parents, suffering from a grief that those of us who are only witnesses to it can barely begin to comprehend, haven’t, despite the failure to reinstate assault-weapons bans and stop the next massacre, given way to despair. Like Richard Martinez, after his son was murdered by a weapon that should never have been in the hands of a lunatic, or anyone else, for that matter, they’re allowing themselves to be angry, and then turning their anger into action: they’re naming the business that helped kill their children and asking a court to hold that business responsible. The filed complaint—the numbered paragraphs give it an oddly religious feeling, like theses nailed to a church door—is worth reading in full, however painful that might be, not only because of the unbelievable suffering and cruelty it details on that terrible morning but also because it offers, in neatly logical fashion, an indisputable argument: the gun manufacturer is guilty of having sold a weapon whose only purpose was killing a lot of people in a very short time.
John Hinderaker of Powerline wrote an excellent response to this which you can read here. Leftists claim to support the rights of law abiding gun owners when it's politically convenient, but they will never stop pushing gun control.

Posted by Amy Miller on January 01, 2015 11 Comments
Back in February, then-gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis attempted to rock the boat by claiming that she supported Texas' open carry movement.Her opponent Greg Abbott, an already-beloved-by-most Attorney General and popular favorite to win the election, already supported the measure, so perhaps at the time it seemed like a savvy move. Texans love their guns, but they don't love them that much. The Texas Democratic Party lashed out against her, Davis lost by 20, and her ill-fated run went down in history as one of the most embarrassing for Texas Democrats. Now, she's backpedaling on her open-carry stance. From the Daily Caller:
“There is one thing that I would do differently in that campaign, and it relates to the position that I took on open carry,” Davis told the San Antonio Express-News in her first interview since losing to Republican Greg Abbott last month. “I made a quick decision on that with a very short conversation with my team and it wasn’t really in keeping with what I think is the correct position on that issue,” Davis continued. ... Davis’ announcement came just weeks after her campaign suffered its first of many major blows when it was reported that she had fibbed about her background. Davis’ new admission on her open carry stance appears to support those critiques. “Though I certainly support people’s right to own and to bear arms in appropriate situations, I fear with open carry, having watched that issue unfold during the campaign, that it will be used to intimidate and cause fear,” Davis told the Express-News. “What I do know is that as an elected public servant, I’ve always been true to my core beliefs. Always. And I’m so proud of that,” she added. “And this was the only time I felt like I’d strayed a bit from that.”
If you look back on Davis's campaign as a whole, this incident (and it truly was an "incident"---Texas politicos still talk about it) was a flash in the pan that provided a minor distraction from a transparently astroturfed campaign.

Posted by Mike LaChance on December 29, 2014 29 Comments
While most Americans were enjoying Christmas Eve, the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty went into effect. On the surface, the treaty is supposed to help regulate international arms trade but Awr Hawkins of Breitbart reports that there's more than meets the eye (emphasis is mine):
Gun Control Groups Cheer as UN Arms Trade Treaty Takes Effect Gun control groups cheered as the UN Arms Trade Treaty went into effect on Christmas Eve. Although the treaty’s ubiquitous aim is regulation of the export and import of small arms for signatories, Breitbart News has previously reported the treaty poses international gun control and, to be enforceable, will require the creation of an international gun registry. According to Reuters, Control Arms’ Anna Macdonald praised the treaty, saying, “Campaigners have been pushing for this moment for a decade.” She said the treaty could usher in the “dawn of a new era” if “robustly implemented.” She also indicated the UN treaty subjugates arms trade to “international law.”
Although the Obama administration has signed on to the treaty, Hawkins reports that Republican Senator James Inhofe prevented the senate from ratifying it. Liberal news outlet The New Republic describes the treaty as 'most reasonable' but controversy has followed the plan for over a year.

Posted by Amy Miller on December 21, 2014 22 Comments
In the first ruling of its kind since 2008's DC v. Heller, a three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the federal ban on gun ownership for anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution” violates the Second Amendment. Michigan resident Clifford Tyler sued in federal court after the 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) provision regarding firearm ownership by those adjudicated mentally ill prevented him from buying a gun. Bloomberg has the background on the case:
Tyler, 73, was committed to a Michigan mental institution in 1985 after suffering a breakdown tied to a contentious divorce, according to court filings. After a month he was released and went back to work and had no other instances of being committed, the filings show. When Tyler sought to get a gun permit in 2011, he was denied it on the basis that federal law excludes those with past history of mental illness from owning a weapon unless they fall into the statute’s exceptions. Other classes of people, including undocumented workers, convicted felons and drug offenders, are also barred from legally owning a weapon under the law, but they are supposed to have an opportunity to show they fall into exceptions to the statute.
Until 1992, Congress provided funding for gun application review, which gave applicants with a history of mental illness the opportunity to prove that they were statutorily fit to own a firearm. When that funding dried up, many states, including Michigan, discontinued the program, leaving people like Tyler in a no-win situation.

Posted by Amy Miller on December 18, 2014 32 Comments
The New York machine is responding to the tragic death of 12 year old Tamir Rice by reigniting its own war on realistic looking toy guns. Tamir Rice was killed in Cleveland last month after police officers mistook his pellet gun for a deadly weapon. According to New York law, it is illegal to sell a toy gun missing a tell-tale orange stripe, marking it as a fake as opposed to a hot gun. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is firing cease and desist letters to Amazon.com, Wal-Mart, and Kmart, retailers that have all allegedly sold toy guns lacking the stripe, arguing that those sales took place in violation of New York laws intended to keep both civilians and officers safe. Via Bloomberg:
“When toy guns are mistaken for real guns, there can be tragic consequences,” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said today in a statement. “Retailers cannot put children and law enforcement at risk by selling toy guns that are virtually indistinguishable from the real thing.” Schneiderman said his office found that toy guns banned in the state have been widely available online and accessible to New Yorkers. Some were advertised as “realistic looking” and “full size,” including imitation assault rifles, shotguns and pistols, he said. Since 1997, four people have been killed in New York when law enforcement mistook toy guns for real ones, he said.
In a recent article in New York Times Magazine, Jay Kang makes a great point (albeit floating in a sea of progressive order victimology) about these types of laws, and putting the burden on manufacturers and retailers to "keep us safe." The problem? Kids will be kids. Boys will be boys. If the draw of realistic weaponry overpowers the draw toward "safety first," you can kiss those orange warning stripes goodbye:

Posted by Amy Miller on December 15, 2014 38 Comments
When you think of Texas, you probably think of a magical wonderland of beer, brisket, and high-powered weaponry, all proudly put on display as if to say, "This is America, and we have won it." If you're indeed thinking that, you're absolutely right, of course; but you may be surprised to know that Texas is just one of a handful of states still harboring an outright ban on the open carry of handguns. During the past three legislative sessions (the Texas legislature meets every other year,) elected officials have tried and failed to cobble together a viable open carry bill; but Greg Abbott, current Attorney General and Governor-elect, pledged during his campaign to make open carry happen for gun-loving Texans, and he doesn't seem to be backing down. Via Fox News:
"If open carry is good enough for Massachusetts, it's good enough for the state of Texas," Abbott said the day after his election last month. And if Texas, which allows concealed handguns, embraces open carry — rolling back a 140-year ban — it would be the largest state to have done so. Open carry drew wide support in the 2014 statewide election, and at least six bills have already been filed for the upcoming session, which starts in January. Abbott has already pledged to sign one into law if sent to his desk. Coni Ross, a 63-year-old rancher in Blanco, carries a handgun in her purse for personal protection and said she'd like the option to carry it openly on her belt if she could. She already does when she's on her ranch and feels comfortable with her gun by her side. "In one-and-a-half seconds, a man can run 25 feet with a knife in his hands and stab you before you get your gun out," Ross said. "If your weapon is concealed you're dead."
Coni Ross is absolutely right, and brings up an excellent point: the Texas gun culture isn't rooted in a perverse desire to brandish exciting-looking weapons at the huddled masses, but in a desire to protect lives and property.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on December 09, 2014 20 Comments
For those of you who are new to the blog, or who have not been paying attention, Legal Insurrection filed a FOIA suit against the District of Columbia seeking records related to the non-prosecution of David Gregory and NBC News despite their clear violation of D.C.'s gun law by possessing a 30-round ammunition magazine. We are represented by Judicial Watch, which has done a wonderful job. It's a real credit to them that they work hard to dig out the truth not only on big issues like IRS targeting, but also smaller issues like how draconian D.C. gun laws are not enforced against the famous and connected D.C. elites. In the Gregory case, NBC News was warned by the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department that possession of the magazine was illegal, and that NBC News should use a photo not the real thing, but NBC News ignored the warning and used it on Meet the Press. Gregory OAG Email Dec 21 2012 NBC to MPD4 Legal Insurrection was one of the first to note the violation of law, and we pursued the story in a long series of posts. Despite the clear violation of law, the D.C. Attorney General, Irvin Nathan, decided not to prosecute Gregory or any NBC News personnel.

Posted by Andrew Branca on November 13, 2014 15 Comments
Peruta v. County of San Diego (742 F. 3d 1144) was the 9th Circuit 2-to-1 ruling this past February that found unconstitutional California's "may issue" scheme to restrict the public carry of a firearm to the wealthy and politically influential. (The full-length opinion is embedded at the bottom of this post.) Specifically, the court found that:
San Diego County’s “good cause” permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.
(As an aside, I had the opportunity to meet briefly with Mr. Peruta when I spoke at the NRA's 17th Annual Firearms Law Seminar this past April, and found him quite personable.) One potential consequence of this ruling was that the losing parties could request the case to be reheard by the entire 9th Circuit panel, consisting of 11 judges.  It was generally believed that the larger panel would be much less amenable to the plaintiff's claims than was the two-judge majority in the underlying Peruta decision. (The 9th Circuit as a whole is widely referred to as "the most liberal circuit in the country.") The San Diego County defendants, however, declined to seek an en banc rehearing of the case. In an effort that can only be described as desperate, the state of California and various gun control organizations (including the moribund Brady Campaign) sought to step into the defendants' shoes by obtaining intervenor status; this would have enabled them to request the en banc hearing not sought by the actual defendants. Yesterday, however, the 9th Circuit crushed these hopes by denying them intervenor status.  This decision ends Peruta for purposes of the 9th Circuit, and thus has been perceived by many as being the final decision on the "may issue" matter in the Circuit.

Posted by Amy Miller on November 03, 2014 9 Comments
Gallup's latest gun rights-themed poll shows that by and large, Americans haven't been swayed by high-profile shootings into ceding their Second Amendment rights. In the wake of the 2012 shootings at Newtown, 58% of Americans polled said they favored stricter laws governing gun ownership; since then, however, that number has dropped to 47%. Via Gallup:
The percentage favoring stricter gun sale laws in the two years since Newtown occurred has declined despite steady and tragic high-profile shootings in the U.S at schools, malls and businesses. This past week, shootings occurred at a Seattle-area school and of police officers in Sacramento and Placer County, California. Amidst events like these in 2014, and the resulting calls for stricter gun sale laws, the 47% who favor stricter laws is just above the historical low of 43% measured in 2011. Ten years ago, three in five Americans (60%) said they favored stricter laws regulating the sale of firearms, but support fell to 44% in 2009 and remained at that level in polls conducted in the next two years. Days after the Newtown shooting, support for stricter gun sale laws swelled. Since 2012, however, Americans have retreated from those stronger attitudes about the need for more gun control, and the percentage of Americans who say the laws should be less strict -- although still low -- has edged up.
Numbers reflecting the percentage of Americans who favor a law banning the private ownership of handguns is also low, with only around 26% supporting a ban: 9byfbvyise22kwqz5zbcaq

Posted by Andrew Branca on October 14, 2014 10 Comments
Dr, John Lott, head of the Crime Prevention Research Center and long-time researcher and perhaps best known as the author of the seminal book, "More Guns, Less Crime," has taken a thorough look at a recent report issued by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and found it severely flawed. The report, entitled "A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013," (embedded below) purports to show that "mass shootings" have increased at an average annual rate of more than 16% over that time period.  Dr. Lott demonstrates that this figure can be arrived at only by a tortuous methodology that is rational only if showing a large increase in "mass shooting" is the actual goal of the report. Sadly, we live in an era in which "science" is routinely twisted in pursuit of purely political ends, and it appears that the authors of this FBI report may have adopted this approach. Dr. Lott's formal analysis is embedded under the FBI report below, I do encourage you to read the whole thing.  As a taste, the paper's abstract reads:

Posted by Amy Miller on September 17, 2014 32 Comments
The White House chose to commemorate yesterday's one year anniversary of the shootings at Navy Yard by calling once more for a rollback of the Second Amendment. From the White House website:
One year ago, our dedicated military and civilian personnel at the Washington Navy Yard were targeted in an unspeakable act of violence that took the lives of 12 American patriots. As we remember men and women taken from us so senselessly, we keep close their family and friends, stand with the survivors who continue to heal and pay tribute to the first responders who acted with skill and bravery. At the same time, we continue to improve security at our country’s bases and installations to protect our military and civilian personnel who help keep us safe. One year ago, 12 Americans went to work to protect and strengthen the country they loved. Today, we must do the same – rejecting atrocities like these as the new normal and renewing our call for common-sense reforms that respect our traditions while reducing the gun violence that shatters too many American families every day.
If I didn't know any better, I'd think that Obama's foundering administration is trying to use the deaths of "12 American patriots" as a springboard for another gun control debate---just in time for November.

Posted by Andrew Branca on September 13, 2014 45 Comments
The majority Republican Missouri legislature handed yet another victory to pro-children activists yesterday, and a stunning defeat to those who would leave school children vulnerable to murderous psychopaths, when it overwhelmingly overrode the Democrat Governor's veto of legislation allowing teachers to be armed in schools, as reported by the NRA and other news sources. SB656 was passed and delivered to the Governor in May 2014, who vetoed the bill on July 14.  Yesterday the Missouri Senate voted to override the veto by a vote of 23 to 8, and the House by a vote of 117 to 39.  Supporters of the override came from both Democrats and Republicans. A full copy of the bill is embedded at the bottom of this post. SB656 allows the school district to designate teachers or administrators to receive extensive training as school protection officers as well as to carry a gun on school property. The law also included other pro-self-defense provisions, including allowing open carry anywhere in the state for people possessing a concealed carry license. This is very useful even for those license holders who never intend to openly carry, because it protects them from the risk of a brandishing charge in the even they unintentionally reveal their concealed handgun to casual observation. The law also lowered from 21 to 19 the age at which a person can obtain a concealed carry license, as well as other favorable provisions. SB656 will take effect no later than October 23.

Posted by Amy Miller on August 28, 2014 32 Comments
Democrats are still smiling over the recent felony indictment of Rick Perry, even as the Governor's legal team is taking steps in court to reveal the spurious nature of the charges. One consequence of the indictment, however, has thrown conservatives in Texas for a loop. Texas media began reporting last week that because of the charges against him, Governor Perry's concealed carry license has been suspended by operation of law. §411.187 of the Texas Government Code states that the Department of Public Safety shall suspend (not revoke, as it has been reported) a concealed carry license if the license holder is charged with the commission of a felony under an information or indictment. The same section of the statute states in part that if the suspension is due to a felony indictment, that the Department shall suspend the license until dismissal of the charges.

Posted by Andrew Branca on August 26, 2014 29 Comments
Just a quick note on a pretty good 24 hours for the Second Amendment with a pair of favorable Federal court decisions out of California and Louisiana, respectively.

Federal Court Rules California 10-day Waiting Period Unconstitutional (for Some)

As reported by Calguns, California's 10-day waiting period for gun purchases has been ruled unconstitutional (for all least some residents), in Silvester v. Kamala, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California (full decision embedded below):
California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge this morning in a significant victory for Second Amendment civil rights. The laws were challenged by California gun owners Jeffrey Silvester and Brandon Combs, as well as two gun rights groups, The Calguns Foundation and Second Amendment Foundation. In the decision released this morning, Federal Eastern District of California Senior Judge Anthony W. Ishii, appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton, found that “the 10-day waiting periods of Penal Code [sections 26815(a) and 27540(a)] violate the Second Amendment” as applied to members of certain classifications, like Silvester and Combs, and “burdens the Second Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs.” Under the court order, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) must change its systems to accommodate the unobstructed release of guns to gun buyers who pass a background check and possess a California license to carry a handgun, or who hold a “Certificate of Eligibility” issued by the DOJ and already possess at least one firearm known to the state.
Here's the full decision:

Posted by Andrew Branca on July 29, 2014 20 Comments
Not that it comes as any surprise, but Washington DC has filed an appeal for a stay of the Palmer v. DC ruling this weekend that ordered stopped DC's laws banning the public carry of handguns. This District's motion asks for a stay pending appeal of the DC Court's ruling, are in the alternative a stay for at least 180 days to allow the District to enact a compliant gun carry licensing mechanism.  Of course, they also request an immediate stay while the Court considers the District's motion. The District's motion states that they have consulted with opposing counsel--presumably Alan Gura--who has indicated that they do not oppose a 90-day stay, effective immediately, "pending the city council enacting legislation that complies with constitutional standards."  Opposing counsel also intends to file their further views on the motion by August 4. In the meantime, aia the Washington Times:
D.C. Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier issued guidance late Sunday to police officers on how to enforce gun laws in the wake of the ruling and to outline scenarios under which the carrying of a firearm would be illegal. ... “Under the current ruling, possession of a firearm outside of the home or business in and of itself MAY NOT be criminal,” Chief Lanier wrote in a memo issued to police and the public. “For example, a District resident that has a legally registered firearm may legally possess it outside of the home or business. However, District residents are still PROHIBITED from possessing a firearm that is not legally registered in the District.”
Accessibility by WAH