Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

2nd Amendment Tag

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 25, 2014 40 Comments
Oh, how I miss my formerly home State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. A State run by the best and the brightest -- and the indicted and the investigated and the Democrats and the Unions. Just a few days ago the feds and State Police raided the office and home of the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives -- who has since resigned as Speaker. Among other things, there is a huge legislative push for more gun control legislation, as reported by ABC6:
Some Rhode Island lawmakers...are again taking aim at gun control. No fewer that nine bills are now being considered - from banning assault style weapons; to boosting sales tax on ammunition; and, limiting gun clips to no more than ten rounds. "People do have the right to own a gun. I believe in that. But I think there's also a new type of responsibility that has to come with controlling a gun and the guns that go out into the street," said State Rep. Joe Almeida (D) Providence, who sponsored three of the bills. Gun owner's rights advocates are already firing back. "We're in an election year and there is an element of this that is obviously election year antics," said State Rep. Mike Chippendale (R) Foster.
The arrogance of the politically powerful is demonstrated in this response by Democratic State Senator Josh Miller and an unidentified compatriot (added -- apparently a photographer accompanying Miller) to a question regarding the pending legislation. Miller describes himself as "[o]ne of the true "left of center" Democrats of the R.I. State Senate." The questioner, Dan Bidondi, has a radio show and is affilated with Alex Jones' InfoWars. Here's the video:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 04, 2014 38 Comments
We have witnessed a series of "zero tolerance" incidents in which school officials punish young children, usually boys, for using their imagination to play act guns: Here's another one, from The Columbus Dispatch:
A Columbus principal suspended a student for three days last week after the child pointed a “ lookalike firearm” at another student in class and pretended to shoot. The boy’s age? 10. The “level 2 lookalike firearm” cited in his suspension letter? His finger. “I was just playing around,” said Nathan Entingh, a fifth-grader at Devonshire Alternative Elementary School in a far northern section of the district. “People play around like this a lot at my school.” Other kids have been caught playing pretend gun games on the playground at Devonshire and weren’t suspended, Nathan said. Devonshire Principal Patricia Price has warned students about pretend gun play numerous times this year, and everyone should know the rules by now, district spokesman Jeff Warner said. Nathan put his finger to the side of the other student’s head and pretended to shoot “kind of execution style,” Warner said.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 21, 2014 36 Comments
I saw the videotape below at Ace of Spades HQ, as well as at Hot Air, regarding a Detroit mother at home with her children when three men, at least one of whom was armed with a handgun, attempted to kick open the front back door. Fearing for her safety and that of her children, this mother used a rifle in self-defense. She didn't hit any of the intruders, but it was enough to scare them off initially, and again when one of them tried again to break in: Viewing the video, I wondered whether the rifle this mother used would be legal in New York State under the new SAFE Act, which was rushed through the NY State legislature on short notice after the Newtown, CT, school shooting. The SAFE Act was irrational in many respects, including a 7-round magazine limit that was unworkable and ultimately thrown out by the courts, a requirement that even 10-round magazines not be loaded with more than 7 bullets, and a definition of "Assault Weapon" that relied on physical characteristics that were cosmetic and common. The SAFE Act has led to a rebellion by upstate county legislatures, almost all of whom have voted to reject the SAFE Act. Even Martha Robertson, the liberal Emily's List-backed Democratic challenger in my home NY-23 congressional District, says she is against the SAFE Act. The criminalization of otherwise law-abiding people has led numerous Sheriffs and police unions to call for repeal, and to ignore violations for now. But the SAFE Act remains the law of NY. Would this Detroit mom who save herself and her family from the violence of the armed intruders herself be a criminal in NY because of her rifle? I didn't feel knowledgeable enough about weapons, so I turned to someone who does have that knowledge, Bob Owens, Editor of BearingArms.com. Bob explains in the text below, which he forwarded to me, that the rifle would be an illegal "Assault Weapon" under the SAFE Act, not available for new purchase and required to be registered by April 1 for those who owned it prior to the SAFE Act. In NY State, this mom would be a criminal because of cosmetic features of her rifle. Here is Bob's analysis:

Posted by Jack Park on February 13, 2014 18 Comments
In a decision issued earlier today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the California law conditioning the right of “responsible law-abiding” citizens to carry firearms in public for self-defense purposes on a showing of “good cause” unlawfully restricts Second Amendment rights. California prohibits the open carry of firearms and imposes limits on concealed carry. In particular, San Diego County requires applicants for concealed carry permits to produce supporting documentation to establish not just that the applicant is concerned for his or her own safety, but that the applicant can identify “circumstances that distinguish [him or her] from the mainstream.” As the Second Amendment states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Ninth Circuit explained, “[C]arrying weapons in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is a central component of the right to bear arms.” Accordingly, it concluded, “[I]f self-defense outside the home is part of the core right to ‘bear arms’ and the California regulatory scheme prohibits the exercise of that right, no amount of interest balancing under a heightened form of means-ends scrutiny can justify San Diego’s policy.” The Ninth Circuit’s decision contributes to a split in the circuits that makes Supreme Court review likely. The Seventh Circuit is on the side on the Ninth, but the Second, Third, and Fourth go the other way. A petition for certiorari seeking review of the Third Circuit’s decision has been filed in the Supreme Court. In addition, a petition for certiorari that raises the question whether there is a Second Amendment right to bear arms in public has been distributed for the Supreme Court’s conference on February 21.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 31, 2014 10 Comments
NY-23, my home district, is a focus for both parties for 2014 because it is one of only a few competitive districts. The district is geographically enormous, a mostly rural area running along the Southern Tier of upstate New York. Once you leave Ithaca, it's a whole other country. Which is why incumbent Republican Tom Reed should be okay by a few percentage points. 2nd Amendment rights, and opposition to the NY SAFE Act, are big issues. Tompkins County, which includes Ithaca, is the exception. Tompkins County is one of only two upstate counties which has not passed a Resolution opposing the SAFE Act. County Opposition to SAFE Act ao January 2014 Guess who was the Democratic Chair of the Tompkins County legislature: Martha Robertson, the Emily's List-backed challenger to Reed. The SAFE Act is in play in the race because of Robertson's confusing voting record, where she appears to have both voted for and against the SAFE Act. WETM 18 reports:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 27, 2014 17 Comments
A legislator in Oklahoma has proposed legislation to ease the "zero tolerance" school policies that have created absurdities in which young children with toy or imaginary guns are punished. We're seen so many of these instances: The legislator has an opponent, the Oklahoma Education Association, as explained in this report:
A proposed law that would ease school rules when it comes to fake weapons is causing a stir. It's called the "Common Sense Zero Tolerance Act" and the bill's author says it will protect children in school. "Real intent, real threats and real weapons should always be dealt with immediately. We need to stop criminalizing children's imagination and childhood play," explained Sally Kern, Republican from Oklahoma City. "If there's no real intent, there's no real threat, no real weapon, no real harm is occurring or going to occur, why in the world are we in a sense abusing our children like this." .... It also prevents schools from punishing students "using a finger or hand to simulate at weapon," "vocalizing imaginary firearms" or "drawing a picture of a firearm." But the Oklahoma Education Association isn't on board with Kern's proposed law.

Posted by Andrew Branca on January 18, 2014 19 Comments
The Washington Free Beacon did a wonderfully humorous job fisking a post at Gawker regarding Florida's so-called "Warning Shot" law.  I previously have explained and debunked many of the myths about the law, Florida “Warning Shot” Bill Advances. The headline of the WFB piece, written by CJ Ciaramella, captures the gist of the matter succintly:  "Gawker Got Literally Everything Wrong About Florida’s New Warning Shots Bill." In reading the Gawker  article by Adam Weinstein, one can't help but wonder if the piece wasn't the product of a bet challenging Weinstein to achieve utter perfection in getting every facet of the subject matter wrong. From the headline--"The NRA Literally Wrote Florida's New Bill to Legalize Warning Shots"--forward, about the only correct thing contained in the piece is the spelling of individual names.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 16, 2014 23 Comments
There has been a mostly quiet refusal of county and local officials to implement and enforce the onerous provisions of the NY State gun law rushed through the state legislature in almost comical fashion after the Newtown, CT, school shooting. In the rush to legislate, the text of the law failed to exempt police and other law enforcement from limits on the number of rounds in a magazine, and imposed a ludicrous 7-round magazine limit that even the State agreed was unworkable.  That 7-round limit has been declared unconstitutional by a federal court, although the rest of the law was upheld. But what has slowed the law the most was an upstate insurrection, where almost every county legislature declared its opposition, and many clerks and local police simply ignored the law. Local Sheriff groups have come out against the law as have police unions. The Ithaca Journal reports on the result:
When a gunman killed 26 people in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, New York’s top elected leaders rushed to toughen state gun laws in a month’s time. Propelled by the flash of emotions following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, the state Legislature approved the NY Safe Act on Jan. 15, 2013, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed it hours later. Now, a year later, the new gun law has yet to be effectively implemented. Officially called the NY Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, the law regulates weapons ownership, sales, permits and ammunition. In dozens of interviews with The Ithaca Journal, county sheriffs, county clerks, a retailer, a target shooter and a hunting guide described the law’s shortcomings, administrative delays and a maze of gun permit paperwork that some local public officials predict will take years to sort out. Those delays and flaws have weakened the enforcement of the SAFE Act — designed to protect New Yorkers from the national horror of mass shootings in schools, shopping centers and theaters.

Posted by Andrew Branca on December 31, 2013 21 Comments
Federal District Court Judge William M. Skretny has found that most provisions of NY's SAFE Act--passed only one month after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting--do not infringe the Second Amendment. He did, however, find that the provision that limits magazine capacity to only seven rounds was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. This seemingly small win for gun owners is actually very important. Almost no semi-automatic pistols have 7-round magazines available.  Because semi-automatic pistols are the overwhelming preference for civilian self-defense--as well as for police and military use--the 7-round limit would have effectively banned the large majority of semi-automatic pistols on the market.  (Technically, one could use a large capacity magazine and only load it to 7-rounds; if, that is, one were willing to risk a felony conviction based on a police officer's honest ability to accurately count to seven. Not me, thanks.) Ironically, one of the few semi-automatic pistols for which 7-round magazines are readily available is the model 1911, which most folks not familiar with guns will know as the Colt .45 pistol of WWII fame.  Thus, this relatively lethal handgun firing the potent .45 ACP cartridge would have been granted preference over many handguns of lesser lethality. Thus the tossing of the 7-round limit saves for law-abiding citizens the vast majority of contemporary handguns for their self-defense use. Unfortunately, the remainder of the SAFE Acts egregious restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens were allowed to stand, including severe restrictions on so-called "assault weapons," mandatory registration which can only serve the purpose of future confiscation  of firearms possessed by law-abiding citizens (because criminals do not register their guns or otherwise obey gun laws), and so forth. The full-length judicial opinion from Judge Skretny is available below. Happy New Year! --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by Anne Segal on December 13, 2013 6 Comments

According to the left-leaning Sunlight Foundation, "Thanks in part to outgoing New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, gun control groups could match or outspend gun rights forces in 2013 electoral contests, and are heading into 2014 with formidable campaign war chests." It was Bloomberg, via his "Mayors against...

Posted by Andrew Branca on December 06, 2013 9 Comments
“Dumbing Down the Courts: How Politics Keeps the Smartest Judges Off the Bench” (2013) is the most recent of Dr. John Lott Jr.’s excellent books applying economics to better understand the societal dynamics around controversial issues. Gun owners will be most familiar with his past work on the defensive uses of force by lawfully armed citizens (“More Guns, Less Crime”). In “Dumbing Down the Courts” Dr. Lott examines how political forces are increasingly driving the federal courts to be staffed by judges (and justices) who are less intellectually capable than their predecessors. In short, his hypothesis — supported by data on more than 1,500 federal court nominees — is that the smarter, more respected (by their legal peers), and more academically talented a candidate for a federal court, the longer the confirmation process and the less likely confirmation will be successful. Indeed, this reality has become so widely accepted on an anecdotal level that many of the most promising candidates for federal judgeships simply decline to accept even consideration for such an appointment. Dr. Lott uses rigorously analyzed data to move this discussion beyond mere anecdote.

Growing Stakes, Increased Left-Wing Radicalization

Being nominated and confirmed to a federal judicial appointment was not always the arduous process it is today, nor was it always geared towards rejection of the most talented candidates.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 11, 2013 28 Comments
We reported over the weekend that Two Gonzaga students alive but facing expulsion because ignored gun-free policy. The students just found out that they will not be suspended.  Via KREM.com, Gonzaga Univ. students allowed to stay following gun incident
Gonzaga University will not expel two students for using a gun to defend themselves in an off-campus and Gonzaga owned apartment. They will be placed on probation for the rest of their time at the university. Students Erik Fagan and Dan McIntosh were originally threatened with expulsion after they flashed a gun at a man with outstanding felony warrants who came to their door asking for money. That man was later arrested. Fagan and McIntosh were told by campus security that they violated school policy by having a firearm on Gonzaga University property. Gonzaga said the building is part of university property even though it is off campus. The Gonzaga President sent an open email to students on Saturday acknowledging calls to reevaluate the school’s rules on guns.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 10, 2013 25 Comments
Thanks to reader Michael for the heads up about this story. Gonzaga Students Face Possible Expulsion After Pulling Gun On Home Intruder:
Two Gonzaga students are facing possible expulsion from the University after they pulled a weapon in self defense as a six time felon attempted to get into their on campus apartment. According to the student handbook, students may not possess handguns on campus or university owned property. On Friday a university discipline board decided to move forward with sanctions, including possible expulsion, for using the weapons. The students will learn in the near future about their future with the school. It all happened late in the night on October 24th when roommates Erik Fagan and Dan McIntosh were hanging out in their university owned apartment. At 10:15 Fagan answered the door and was greeted by John Taylor. Taylor is a felon with an extensive criminal history and when he arrived Fagan said Taylor showed him what appeared to be an ankle bracelet as he tried to intimidate him. Fagan said Taylor then demanded money and was frustrated when he was turned down.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 06, 2013 17 Comments
A rare dose of sanity at Salon.com, Who will protect us? Why I’m still conflicted about guns as a black feminist:
I was 15 years old when my mother and I were robbed at gunpoint. It was 1982.... I don’t own a gun but I know plenty of educated black women who do. These are working- and middle-class women, some of them single and some with families, and  statistics support what I see. According to a National Shooting Sports Foundation report, 78.6 percent of retailers reported an increase in the number of women buying guns in 2012. Although a 2013 Pew research report reveals that gun ownership remains overwhelmingly white and male, black women made up the fastest growing purchasers of concealed handguns in Texas between the years 2007 and 2012. J. Victoria Sanders, a black Texan and journalist, reported this trend in a 2011 article detailing the increased marketing of guns to women and Sanders’ own journey toward gun ownership. This movement toward guns seems a rational decision for black women when you consider some of our experiences. Historically, black women have been left unprotected as a matter of law and custom, our bodies designated as commodities, used as “de mule uh de world” as Zora Neale Hurston wrote, and as sites for sexual violence and mockery. In an analysis of 2011 data, the Violence Policy Center reported that black women are murdered at rates three times that of white women and these murders usually involve a gun used by someone that the woman knows. Given these realities, some of us are pragmatic about self-defense. Even when we identify as feminist, as I do, we remain uncommitted to anti-gun feminism that erases our specific experience....

Posted by Leslie Eastman on October 26, 2013 6 Comments
California Governor Jerry Brown's had a mixed reaction to several pieces of gun control legislation that recently hit his desk:
California Gov. Jerry Brown split the difference Friday on the pile of gun-control bills sitting on his desk, opting to sign five but veto seven, including a bill that would have banned the sale of many popular hunting rifles. “The state of California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, including bans on military-style assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines,” said Mr. Brown in his veto message. “While the author’s intent is to strengthen these restrictions, this bill goes much farther by banning any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine.”
Yet, Brown still managed to sign bills that prohibit the use of lead ammunition for hunting, ban kits that convert ammunition magazines to hold more than 10 rounds, make it a crime to leave a loaded gun in an area where it may be accessed by a minor without permission, and a bill that prohibits gun ownership by people who make serious threats to psychoanalysts. Dawn Wildman, President of San Diego's SoCal Tax Revolt Coalition, noted that without the help if the National Rifle Association working with Californians, the results could have been much more restrictive. She cites a list of items that were defeated before hitting Brown's desk, including:
Assembly Bill 174: This bill would have banned the possession of any firearm, magazine, or ammunition that was previously “grandfathered in” by previous legislation. Assembly Bill 108: This bill would have placed criminal liability on gun owners for failing to lock their firearms away every time they left the house, regardless of whether anyone would be present in the home.
In response to the legislation that did garner Brown's signature, a California Assemblyman is using Colorado's recent recall elections as a model for sending a message to elected advocates of excessive gun restrictions.
Accessibility by WAH