Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

2nd Amendment Tag

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on May 31, 2015 23 Comments
Obama has famously (infamously?) long been enamored of the idea of fundamentally transforming America, and one of the foundational aspects of American culture that he has in his sights is the Second Amendment and Americans' firmly held belief in their right to keep and bear arms. His former attorney general, Eric Holder, went so far as to proclaim—back in the 1990's—that "we really need to brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way." At least he understood that it's the American people who resist infringement of this right.  The administration has tried to pass gun control legislation, most notably in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings, but such attempts fail. Completing missing the fact that Americans are strongly supportive of their right to bear arms, Obama and his assortment of anti-Second Amendment zealots blame the NRA:
“But the power of NRA and the gun lobby in Congress is formidable,” Obama said. “And you know, we’re going to keep chipping away at this, but until you get intense public demands for this, it’s probably not going to happen because some special interests and lobbyists in Washington are really, really strong and their membership feels very intensely about the issue. Whereas the general public is concerned about it, but doesn’t make it their top priority.”
He also recognizes that Congress—even when Democrats held supermajorities in both houses—is unable to pass the sort of sweeping gun control legislation he seeks.  In his 2014 State of the Union address, he promised gun control "with or without Congress," and it seems he's working on multiple fronts to make that happen. From taxing bullets, to gun locks, to gun recalls / buyback programs, to targeting children's pop-tarts and otherwise controlling the narrative about guns, Obama and other anti-Second Amendment advocates are working overtime in their frantic bid to disarm the American people.

Posted by Andrew Branca on May 18, 2015 32 Comments
As some of you may be aware, Attorney Alan Gura has been waging a legal battle against the District of Columbia (as well as other jurisdictions) based upon their unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment generally, and DC residents concealed carry rights in particular. Having already won a court decision compelling the District--and in particular, its Police Chief Cathy Lanier (pictured above)--to issue concealed carry permits to lawful, qualified residents, Gura naturally ran into the usual anti-gun rearguard position: "Sure, we'll issue permits--on terms of our own choosing. Terms that nobody except our rich friends and political comrades will ever be deemed to have satisfied." And those terms invariably require that the applicant have some special and unusual reason to be granted a concealed carry permit.  This is the kind of restriction still being employed in liberal states like New Jersey and New York, and which was being employed in California until the recent Peruta decision by the 9th Circuit. Gura responded to Lanier's demand that applications show some special reason--above and beyond simply being law-abiding Americans with civil rights--by filing a motion for an injunction with the US District Court for DC, to prohibit Lanier from imposing those special conditions. Today that Court handed down its decision on the requested motion--and Gura was the big winner, again:

Posted by Amy Miller on April 18, 2015 11 Comments
Color the rest of the country shocked: Texas is one of the few states in the nation (six, to be exact) that hasn't yet approved the open carry of handguns in some form. That all could change this legislative session, though, if Republicans in the legislature have their way. Yesterday, members of the Texas House of Representatives voted 96-35 to approve House Bill 910 by Republican Larry Phillips. HB 910 would allow anyone holding a concealed carry license to also also openly carry a weapon in a hip or shoulder holster. (In Texas, it's already legal to openly carry a long gun.) According to the Houston Chronicle, lawmakers worked through almost 20 amendments before finally moving the measure on to the Senate, including one that would have allowed for campus carry. (That issue, unfortunately, is another blog post entirely.) The Senate has already passed its own version of the bill, which means that the two chambers will have to reconcile their differences before the bill is sent to Governor Greg Abbott for his signature.

Posted by Andrew Branca on April 15, 2015 7 Comments
As I continue my homeward travels from the NRA Annual Meeting--yesterday was seven hours of riding in hard rain from wester North Carolina to northern Virginia, and I'm still drying out--here's another post looking back at the Annual Firearms Law Seminar. A particularly interesting Seminar talk was entitled "Gun Rights Restoration: The Nuts & Bolts and Present Day Military Issues," presented by Attorney Derek A. DeBrosse, who specializes in this area. We all agree, of course, that to the extent it's feasible to do so society should deny bad people access to firearms. (As a practical matter, of course, the feasibility of enforcing such constraints is zero, at least against any bad actor who seriously wishes to obtain possession of a gun, but that's fodder for another day.) In the United States there are certain classes of individuals who the law requires be stripped of their gun rights for some period of time, and sometimes for the remainder of their lives.

Posted by Andrew Branca on April 14, 2015 11 Comments
As I type this roughly 79,000 people are still happily recovering from their participation in the NRA Annual Meeting held this past weekend in Nashville, TN—your humble scribe among them. The massive scope of the event—three days of legal seminars, classroom instruction, political speeches, country music concert, and 9 acres (not a typo) of exhibits displaying an incredibly variety of firearms and related stuff and activities—is is obviously too great to cover in a single blog post. Accordingly, I’ll share my own view of the NRAAM 2015 through a series of relatively brief posts, focused largely within my particular area of expertise—the day-long Firearms Law Seminar held on Friday, April 10. (Full disclosure, I was a speaker at last year’s seminar, but merely an attendee at this one.) For those not familiar, the National Firearms Law Seminar is billed as providing “a unique opportunity for attorneys who represent firearms owners and firearms-related businesses to meet and discuss legal issues relevant to this expanding area of the law.” And I must say, they delivered, through a dozen talks on a variety of firearms-law related issues delivered by incredibly well-informed, experienced, and enjoyable speakers. I’ll do this first post on the talk given by Attorney Stephen Halbrook, who has for decades been a leading legal figure in gun rights legal actions, and is perhaps most commonly known for his ground-breaking book “That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right.”

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on April 12, 2015 6 Comments
Hillary is set to announce her presidential run today. At the same time, former Mayor Michael Bloomberg is holding one of his anti-Second Amendment events and the NRA is holding its annual meeting.  Hot Air reports:
The well monied former New York mayor and head honcho of Everytown for Gun Safety is holding his own event in Tennessee to focus attention on politicians who aren’t willing to sign on to ever increasing restrictions of the rights of gun owners.
This is just the sort of attention that Democrats are not eager to bask in.  According to the Washington Times:
The near unity among Republicans on gun rights contrasts with the Democratic divide on the issue, underscoring how the politics appear to have swung in the GOP’s favor. “It is a loser for the Democrats and so they shy away from it — except in Washington, D.C., or New York, where they have a strong liberal constituency and where it is not going to cost them votingwise,” said Robert A. Levy, of the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute.

Posted by Andrew Branca on April 03, 2015 34 Comments
Members of the Legal Insurrection community will be familiar with the travails of Pennsylvania nurse and single-mom of two Shaneen Allen under the heel of New Jersey's unconscionable anti-Second Amendment laws, as we covered the matter here in some detail, including PA Nurse Arrested on Gun Charges Given Reprieve (9/24/14) and The Memo that let Shaneen Allen — and Chris Christie’s political future — off the hook (9/29/14). In brief, Ms. Allen was in possession of a PA-issued concealed carry permit and a handgun when she drove across the Delaware and into New Jersey.  Pulled over for a routine traffic stop, Allen volunteered to the officer that she was in possession of the handgun.  She mistakenly believed that her PA concealed carry permit, like her PA driver's license, was legally valid in both states. The New Jersey authorities quickly disabused her of that notion, charged her with illegal possession of a handgun, threatened the mother of two small children with a multiple-year mandatory jail sentence, and refused to allow her to enter a diversion program for non-violent first-time offenders (the same program into which football star and wife knock-out puncher Ray Rice would be readily admitted without hesitation just months later).

Posted by Amy Miller on March 15, 2015 22 Comments
The Texas legislature has a reputation for creating headlines, and HB 2918, authored by Dallas-area state Representative Jason Villalba (R-HD 114), might just be the "lege" scandal that we've all been waiting for. Texans don't like it when you mess with their right to hold government accountable---especially when it comes to police action---and Villalba's HB 2918 appears to do just that. Citizens, advocates, and journalists alike are coming out in opposition to a bill that would restrict the rights of everyday citizens and bloggers to film the actions of police officers. The Dallas Republican is even taking heat from his own caucus, with colleagues speaking out publicly against the bill's filing: Screen Shot 2015-03-15 at 8.13.49 PM Villalba’s “cop watching” bill amends and adds to Section 38.15 of the Texas Penal Code, which applies a criminal negligence standard to civilian interference with police business. The problem is that the Villalba bill characterizes the filming or documenting of police action as "interference." Here’s the controversial language (emphasis mine):

Posted by Amy Miller on March 13, 2015 18 Comments
"Is your 401k retirement plan invested in public gun companies?" The "Unload your 401k" campaign wants to know. Their website is full of scare stats: did you know that almost $2 billion of investor money is partially buried in three gun companies? That number is followed by statistics highlighting gunshot wounds, the cost of gun violence, and even a nod to Columbine. The Unload your 401k backers are ramping up the effort to get investor money out of the gun industry, and they're using celebrities to do it. Watch: From CNN Money:
Snoop Dogg might seem like an unusual choice as an anti-gun advocate. He once exalted gun violence through songs like "Bang Out" about gangsters. In 2006 he was charged with felony gun possession. And in the 1990s he was tried -- and acquitted -- of murder charges. But Snoop Dogg has changed his tune. Last year, he released a song called "No Guns Allowed," which he produced with Drake and his daughter Cori B. (The B stands for Broadus.) The song contained references to the massacres at Sandy Hook Elementary and Columbine High School.

Posted by Andrew Branca on March 09, 2015 26 Comments
I covered the federal court ruling in Mance v. Holder in some detail last month, and if you haven't yet had an opportunity to get up to speed on that decision it might be useful to take a moment to click over: Federal Court: Handgun Transfer Ban Unconstitutional. (That post includes the full-length ruling.) In brief, in Mance v. Holder US District Court Judge Reed O'Connor found that the federal interstate handgun transfer ban was unconstitutional on its face--specifically, the provision that requires an out-of-state handgun purchaser to transfer the handgun through several FFLs before taking possession. Most interestingly, Judge O'Connor found the requirement to be an unconstitutional infringement of the 2nd Amendment under both strict and intermediate scrutiny, as well as an unconstitutional infringement of the 5th Amendment under strict scrutiny. As observed in our earlier post on the subject:
Based on its conclusion that the federal handgun transfer ban was, both facially and as applied to the facts of this case, unconstitutional under both strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for Summary Judgment (thus granting them victory without having to go to trial), and enjoined the Defendants (AG Holder and ATF(E) Director Jones) from enforcing those provisions of the federal handgun transfer ban.

Posted by Andrew Branca on February 16, 2015 28 Comments
On Wednesday, February 11, the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (BATFE) suffered a humiliating federal court defeat that struck at the very core of its power.  In response, it took the DOJ and the BATFE only two days to petulantly strike back at gun owners in the form of a late Friday order intended to ban a major type of ammunition for the single most commonly purchased rifle. (The BATFE's "framework notice" released Friday evening is embedded at the bottom of this post.) Last week's federal court summary judgment against the government in Mance v. Holder struck down a key provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) requiring all interstate handgun transfers to pass between FFLs in each state was struck down as an unconstitutional infringement of the 2nd Amendment under both strict and intermediate scrutiny, as well as on 5th Amendment Due Process grounds. (We covered that decision in detail right here at Legal Insurrection: Federal Court: Handgun Transfer Ban Unconstitutional, and the PDF of that court order can be found at that link.) Never before had the Gun Control Act of 1968 been so grievously wounded, and the BATFE's authority so profoundly shaken, and lawful American gun owners were appropriately ecstatic. Like any wounded beast, of course, the BATFE faced an existential imperative to reassert their authority, and late Friday afternoon (in a move that's long ago become standard operating procedure for the Obama administration) they did so with a vengeance.

Posted by Andrew Branca on February 15, 2015 76 Comments
When a 72-year-old retired school teacher faces a 10 year felony sentence (a likely life sentence) for possession of an unloaded 18th century flintlock pistol, one knows immediately that we can only be talking about a handful of states in which such a travesty can happen.  In this case, not surprisingly, it's the "Garden State" of New Jersey. (h/t Sebastian over at the Shall Not Be Questioned blog.) Gordon Van Gilder, who taught in the New Jersey school system for 34 years, is a collector of 18th century memorabilia.  He acquired a genuine antique flintlock pistol from that era, and had it unloaded and wrapped in a cloth in his glove compartment when he was pulled over for an alleged minor traffic violation.

Posted by Andrew Branca on February 12, 2015 14 Comments
Yesterday a federal district court in the 5th Circuit ordered summary judgment in favor of several plaintiffs who challenged existing restrictions on handgun transfers across state lines; the court found that the federal government’s existing handgun transfer ban was unconstitutional both on its face and applied to the facts of this case, under both strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny, and on 5th Amendment Due Process grounds. The order in the case of Mance v. Holder (PDF at bottom of post) is refreshingly clearly written, and I encourage even non-lawyers to “read the whole thing.” ™ In this post I’ll touch upon the high points of the decision, as well as some reasonably likely (and unlikely) practical consequences. First things first: a huge congratulations to Attorney Alan Gura for another tremendous win for the Second Amendment. While the immediate practical effects of this order are likely to be limited, it is yet another ratcheting of the law in the right direction. Everyone remembers, of course, that it was Alan who successfully litigated both of the groundbreaking Second Amendment cases Heller and McDonald before the US Supreme Court.

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.
Accessibility by WAH