Image 01 Image 03

2nd Amendment Tag

Following the riots of this spring, Baltimore has found itself a city on the edge. In fact, Baltimore has now surpassed New York City in homicides for the year. Justin Fenton of the Baltimore Sun:
Baltimore has surpassed New York City in homicides Baltimore has surpassed New York City for homicides this year. A New York Police spokeswoman said the city had seen 208 homicides as of Wednesday. Baltimore recorded its 213th homicide Wednesday night. It's a seemingly impossible milestone -- New York has more than 8.4 million people, Baltimore just 620,000. New York peaked with 2,245 homicides in 1990, but that number has been tumbling and hit a historic low in 2014, with 328. Baltimore saw a peak of 353 killings in1993, and recorded 211 homicides in 2014. Baltimore surpasses the number of murders for all of last year, with more than four months to go. The dubious distinction comes as the mayor faces growing public criticism. Mike Hellgren reports. Adjusted for population, Baltimore's murder rate through Aug. 19 is 34 per 100,000 people, while New York's is so far this year 2.5 per 100,000. If New York had Baltimore's murder rate, it would have seen 2,874 killings already this year.

Obama has stated that the "most frustrating part" of his presidency has been his inability to pass gun control legislation, and progressives are not going to give up on their gun grabbing goal any time soon. The Washington Post has published an article by E. J. Dionne entitled "How American can free itself from guns."  Dionne argues, much as Eric Holder did, that the key is to change the American mind about guns. Watch Eric Holder explain how we need to "brainwash" people against guns: Dionne doesn't use the word "brainwashing," but he makes the same comparison to public service messages about cigarettes.  He writes:

In no small part because this administration seems to dish up scandal and outrage on a seemingly weekly basis, the Fast and Furious scandal has yet to be fully investigated or resolved.  After Eric Holder cleared Eric Holder of any wrong-doing, and the mainstream media outlets began reporting, erroneously, that Fast and Furious was the same program that began under President Bush as Project Gunrunner, the story sort of faded from the public eye. Apparently intended by the Obama administration to, at least in part, serve as a rationale for more gun control regulations in the U.S., Operation Fast in Furious is back in this news. Last week, it was reported that the Garland, Texas terrorist, for whose acts ISIS claimed credit, purchased a gun through a Fast and Furious gun shop in 2010. And this week, we learn that the man charged in the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry has received a plea deal from the U. S. government.  KVOA in Tuscon reports:
One of the men charged in the murder of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry pleaded guilty to one count of murder, Monday morning. Once a potential candidate for the death penalty after the murder of the agent, the drawn up plea deal now states that the U.S. and the defendant will ask for 360 months imprisonment, with credit for time served since his arrest in October 2012.

As a member of Generation X, I have a very clear memory of 1970's TV shows. In the days before cable, our choices were limited but the quality of many shows was much higher. Every week, my entire family would sit down together to watch certain programs and one of them was Little House on the Prairie, which was based on a classic series of books by real life settler Laura Ingalls Wilder. You've probably heard of the show and the books, but you may not have heard that Melissa Gilbert, who played Laura Ingalls on TV, is running for congress in Michigan. From the Detroit Free Press:
Melissa Gilbert running for Congress Actress Melissa Gilbert, best known for her portrayal of Laura Ingalls Wilder on NBC’s “Little House on the Prairie” in the 1970s and ‘80s, said Monday she will run for Congress in Michigan’s 8th District -- though her campaign will have to tamp down questions about a tax bill. Gilbert, who lives in Livingston County with her husband, actor Timothy Busfield, is running as a Democrat in a district that has been a Republican stronghold in recent elections: U.S. Rep. Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, won the race to replace former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Howell, last year, beating Democrat Eric Schertzing, 54%-42%.

As I've noted previously, "If the gun grabbers can’t repeal the Second Amendment or get laws passed to infringe on our right to bear arms, they’ll simply tax guns and ammo until we can no longer afford to buy guns or use the ones we have.  At least that is their hope." And it's full steam ahead in Seattle, where they are moving forward with their "gun violence" tax.  David Workman explains:
The committee voted unanimously [Wednesday] to send the proposal to the full city council for consideration next Monday, according to the Seattle P-I.com. Monday's vote could set the stage for a legal confrontation, and there were hints that existing gun shops could move out of the city, and that gun owners living in Seattle will simply shop outside the city, thus thwarting any dreams that this tax will generate $300,000 to $500,000 annually for the city's gun control efforts. . . . . Another part of the Burgess gun control effort is a second proposed ordinance requiring the reporting of lost or stolen firearms to police within 24 hours that the theft or loss is discovered. This requirement also appears to go beyond state statute, and thus violate the preemption statute, passed in 1982, strengthened in 1985 and reinforced with the defeat of Seattle’s attempted parks ban three years ago when the state Supreme Court refused to hear Seattle’s appeal after the city lost at trial and at the appeals court.
The NRA argues that this is bad policy.  From the NRA-ILA website:

Dr. John R. Lott Jr., who runs the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), today released yet another of the Center's outstanding reports, entitled: "Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the US". (The full report is embedded at the bottom of this post.) The report's biggest takeaway was the continued acceleration of concealed carry licensing across the country. Those familiar with Dr. Lott's seminal book "More Guns Less Crime" will not be surprised to learn that murder rates in the United States continue to plummet even as concealed carry continues to skyrocket: murder rates v. CC The report revealed a change in demographics behind this ongoing acceleration of concealed carry licensing.

New York's unpopular SAFE Act takes another hit this week as Cuomo suspends a plan to require background checks for the purchase of ammunition.  The New York Times reports:

The decision, which the administration did not publicize, was the result of an unusual deal the governor’s office reached with the State Senate’s Republican majority. The Senate’s Democratic minority and the speaker of the State Assembly condemned the move.

The background-check system was approved as part of the Safe Act, the set of tough gun control measures that Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, persuaded lawmakers to pass in January 2013, shortly after the mass school shooting in Newtown, Conn.

Apparently, the suspension is based on the lack of an acceptable database:

On Friday, a top aide to Mr. Cuomo signed a memorandum of understanding suspending the portion of the Safe Act related to the background checks. The memorandum, citing “the lack of adequate technology,” said the database “cannot be established and/or function in the manner originally intended at this time.”

Constitutional carry is the means by which Americans are pushing back against government interference with their right to bear arms.  By eliminating the permitting process, Maine has passed a constitutional carry law that makes it legal for residents to carry concealed without a permit. Reuters reports:
Maine will allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons without a permit, a practice called "constitutional carry" by Second Amendment advocates, under a bill signed into law on Wednesday by Republican Governor Paul LePage. The measure will make Maine the fifth state to pass a law legalizing the carrying of a handgun, either openly or concealed, without the requirement of a government permit. Maine joins Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and Kansas in voting to allow the practice, according to National Rifle Association spokesman Lars Dalseide. Vermont has never required a permit. Arkansas and Montana also allow more limited forms of constitutional carry.

Today, South Carolina's confederate flags were lowered for the last time, thus ending the long and drawn out battle over what the flag means, what it doesn't mean, and whether or not it should be flown above the state's capitol building. After Dylann Roof allegedly killed 9 people at a church in Charleston last month, many activists came out of the woodwork to blame not Roof's mental state, or his admitted racism, for the massacre, but the pernicious influence of the Civil War, the race wars, and the continued unfurling of the Confederate Flag. It was a field day for social justice warriors. Even President Barack Obama was quick to blame the country as a whole for the murder of innocents; but as it turns out, he needn't look further than the front door of FBI Headquarters if he's still in search of a more controversial scapegoat. As it turns out, as per the federal government's own procedures, Roof shouldn't have been able to buy a gun at all. The New York Times explains:
Mr. Roof first tried to buy the gun on April 11, from a dealer in South Carolina. The F.B.I., which conducts background checks for gun sales, did not give the dealer approval to proceed with the purchase because the bureau needed to do more investigating about Mr. Roof’s s criminal history.

I don't know about you, but I need some good news this week.  And there is a happy crumb to report: the House Appropriations Committee has rejected an amendment that would allow the CDC to "study the underlying causes of gun violence" (not that guns are violent in and of themselves, but you know the drill). In doing so, House Republicans stopped Democrats from funding Obama-directed CDC research designed as subterfuge for laying the foundation of an attack on our Second Amendment rights.  Instead of turning gun control into a national health issue, Obama and his bureaucrat cronies are back to having to fight the Second Amendment on emotional pleas and using victims as political pawns. Politico reports:
The House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday rejected, 19-32, an amendment from top Democratic appropriator Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) that would allow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the underlying causes of gun violence.
The CDC hasn’t done any such research since 1996, when the National Rifle Association accused it of trying to use science to promote gun control. Congress threatened to totally defund the agency if the work continued, and appropriators ever since have included a prohibition on funding that kind of research with spending bills.
A House GOP staffer said the existing provision technically doesn’t bar gun-violence research. Rather, it blocks any gun-control advocacy by the CDC. However, Republicans would consider any CDC findings that recommend limitations on guns to be gun-control advocacy.

After the Charleston shootings, there was a renewed push by President Obama for restricting access for law-abiding citizens to guns. Scott Walker wasn't having any of it. He signed into law a loosening of waiting periods that have been on the books for decades. From FOX News:
Wisconsin Gov. Walker ends decades-old waiting period for handguns Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed two bills loosening his state's gun laws on Wednesday, including one ending the state's 48-hour waiting period for handgun purchases. The timing of the bill signing comes amid a renewed debate over gun control and race relations after the fatal shootings at a Charleston, S.C., black church on June 17; a white man faces multiple murder charges. But the measures on Walker's desk predated the massacre and passed earlier this month in the GOP-majority Legislature with bipartisan support. The second measure would allow off-duty, retired and out-of-state police officers to carry firearms on school grounds.
CNN covered the topic too, and to their credit, they were fair:

We last saw Attorney Alan Gura just last week, when we covered his oral arguments in front of the 9th Circuit en banc on the matter of "good cause" concealed carry requirements in California (see Full 9th Circuit hears “Good Cause” 2A Ruling and Analysis: Government’s laughable arguments in 9th Circuit 2nd Amendment case, both of which include video of the arguments as well as a rough transcript). Today, we catch up with Gura again as he enjoys a favorable Second Amendment decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case of Dearth v. Lynch (previously, Dearth v. Holder).  (The full decision is embedded at the bottom of this post) This case has had a long and tortuous history, as noted today on Twitter by Gura himself: Alan Gura Twitter 6-23-15 Of course, the case is far from over.  Indeed, what Gura has just won after fighting for this case now for more than six years is merely the right to take the case to trial. (The original complaint was filed March 27, 2009, and is also embedded below; indeed, it more clearly sets out the basic facts than does today's ruling)

Here's an interesting article about how it might have been a good thing if the attendees at the Bible study meeting in Charleston had been armed. That's not just a fanciful thought. Mass murders, even mass murders at churches, have been thwarted before by a good guy wielding a gun and stopping the bad guy (and here I use the word "guy" in the completely non-PC sense that includes "woman"):
Murray had already shot and killed two people in the parking lot when he burst into the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. Before he could pull the trigger again, however, the 24-year-old shooter was gunned down by Jeanne Assam, a volunteer security guard with a concealed-carry permit. That was eight years ago, but even though Ms. Assam was credited for saving as many as 100 lives that day, a dozen states continue to restrict the carrying of concealed firearms in churches — including South Carolina.
There have been quite a few similar cases of a law-abiding citizen with a gun (often an ex- or off-duty police officer, but not always) stopping or even preventing a mass shooting. A list of similar incidents can be found here. That there are not even more is probably due to the fact that mass shootings are actually quite rare to begin with---despite our perceptions that they are common, and despite the fact that even a single one is too many---and so it is not surprising that there are not so very many cases where a witness pulled a gun and even tried to stop such a shooting. Another reason is likely to be that mass murderers understand that they will be more likely to achieve their goals if they attack people in a gun-free zone, and so many attacks occur in such places. But the shoot-em-up fantasy of someone like MSNBC's Bob Shrum appears to lack any real-world precedent:

Self-described socialist and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has a record of being remarkably supportive of the Second Amendment.  (Remarkable because he's a favorite among progressives.)   Considering the leftward movement of the Democratic party and their avid support for all sorts of gun control, this could be a potential problem for Sanders. In the wake of the Charleston shootings, Sanders was asked about gun control, and despite the president's latest push, he was very cautious in his response.  CNN reports:

Two days after a white man walked into a historically black church in Charleston, South Carolina, and killed nine people, the Vermont senator and presidential candidate took a cautious approach on gun control Friday when speaking with reporters after an event in Las Vegas.

"I think the people of Vermont understand that guns in Vermont are different than guns in Chicago or guns in Los Angeles," Sanders said, telling the assembled journalists that he thinks "it is wrong" when people are "in some cases suicidal and in some cases homicidal" are "still being able to purchase guns."

Sanders, saying his home state of Vermont has "zero gun control," acknowledged that different parts of the country have different outlooks on guns.

Gun control has never been a winning issue for Democrats but that hasn't stopped them from trying. In the wake of the Charleston shootings, Obama is pursuing the issue with renewed vigor. Edward-Isaac Dovere of Politico reports:
Obama: I'm not giving up on guns SAN FRANCISCO—Wrapping together his frustrations with the country’s continuing problems with racism and his own inability to make progress on gun control in the wake of the South Carolina church shooting, President Barack Obama stood before a bipartisan gathering of mayors here Friday and declared, “It is not good enough simply to show sympathy.” “The apparent motivations of the shooter remind us that racism remains a blight that we have to combat together. We have made great progress but we have to be vigilant because it still lingers,” Obama said. There must be a popular outcry for gun control, Obama said, to change the minds of a Congress that he said he knows right now won’t touch the issue. “I refuse to act as if this is the new normal or to pretend that it’s simply sufficient to grieve and that any mention of us doing something to stop it is somehow politicizing the problem,” he said.
FOX News pointed out Obama's political conundrum on Friday night:

This past Tuesday, the 9th Circuit held oral arguments en banc on two consolidated Second Amendment cases, Peruta v. County of San Diego and Richards v. County of Yolo. For a bit of background on this matter, please refer to yesterday’s post, “Full 9th Circuit hears 'Good Cause' 2A Ruling,” in which we provide this relevant background as well as a discussion of the pro-Second Amendment side of the argument as presented by Attorneys Paul Clement and Alan Gura. In this post we cover the gun control side of the argument as presented by Attorneys Edward Dumont, for the State of California and San Diego County, and John Whitesides, for Yolo County. We also include the three-minute rebuttals each by Clement and Gura, thus completing the entirety of the en banc hearing. Video of the full-length en banc hearing can be viewed in here, if you’ve the inclination. Also, a full-length rough transcript of the hearing is embedded at the bottom of this post.

This past Tuesday, the federal 9th Circuit held oral arguments on a re-hearing en banc on two consolidated gun control cases, Peruta v. County of San Diego and Richards v. County of Yolo. Both Peruta and Richards involve a provision of California gun control law that allows county Sheriffs to deny the issuance of a concealed carry permit unless the applicant can demonstrate “good cause” for the permit—typically a showing of some extraordinary risk of danger to the applicant, rather than a mere generalized interest in self-defense. Most California county Sheriffs define “good cause” broadly, such that a mere generalized interest in self-defense is sufficient to qualify an otherwise qualified applicant for a concealed carry permit. The Sheriffs for the Counties of San Diego and Yolo, however, define “good cause” so narrowly as to effectively preclude nearly all applicants from receiving a concealed carry license. The video of the entirety of the hearing, from gavel to gavel, below.  A rough transcript of the portion of the hearing in which the appellants attorneys, Paul Clement and Alan Gura, argue for their clients’ Second Amendment rights also is embedded below.  Both do an outstanding job, but I expect that won't help much before this Circuit.

For anybody who loves their civil rights, the dismantling of unconstitutional gun control schemes across the United States has been a marvel to behold. Today, only a handful of states continue to substantively restrict the ability of law-abiding residents to carry concealed handguns. One of those "states" still aggressively crushing fundamental civil rights is, ironically enough, the nation's capital, the District of Columbia. Pro-gun advocates suffered a modest and rare setback yesterday, according to Hotair.com and other sources, when a federal appeals court re-instated a gun control provision that that is used to effectively deny gun permits to almost all applicants. The District has long operated under some of the most oppressive gun control laws in the country, at one point even requiring the few guns legally owned to be dismantled while within the District. (These rules were upheld in spite of the fact that DC was also one of the "murder capitals" of the country, and practically awash in illegally owned guns used by criminals.) In recent years, however, the District's gun control scheme has come under assault in the form of a pro-2nd Amendment attack led by civil rights attorney Alan Gura. Last July, as part of a suit brought by Gura, Federal Judge Frederick Scullin ordered that the District begin issuing concealed carry permits to qualified persons.