Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Charlie T Waite

Super Moderators
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Charlie T Waite last won the day on May 27

Charlie T Waite had the most liked content!


About Charlie T Waite

  • Birthday 11/20/1955

Previous Fields

  • SASS #
    79885 Life
  • SASS Affiliated Club
    Dakota Rough Riders, Belfield Bandits, Montana Peacemakers, Buffalo Range Riders

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Berthold, ND
  • Interests
    SASS Life Regulator, TG, RO Instructor, Director Team SASS, NRA Golden Eagle Life Benefactor, CFDA, USPSA, BMRPA, RMEF, IACP/Dupont Kevlar Survivors Club, Scottish Rite, Stealth Bullet Society, PRCA, ND Cares, Ntl. Judicial College

Recent Profile Visitors

17,781 profile views

Charlie T Waite's Achievements

SASS Wire Vet

SASS Wire Vet (1/1)



  1. In a ruling praised by gun rights advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down New York's concealed-carry gun licensing law with a decision that Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey said flouts hundreds of years of state-level gun regulation and "poses a grave danger" to people traveling in public spaces. The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision holds that New York could not constitutionally require citizens to demonstrate a "special need" before they could receive a license to carry firearms in public for self-defense. "Nothing in the Second Amendment's text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of 'bear' naturally encompasses public carry," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority. "Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an 'individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,' .. and confrontation can surely take place outside the home." Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, the court's only justices appointed by Democrat presidents, were the three dissenting justices. "Many States have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence just described by passing laws that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds," Breyer wrote. "The Court today severely burdens States efforts to do so." The 6-3 ruling appears likely to force states, including Massachusetts, to rethink their gun laws. Hannah Hill, research and policy director for The National Foundation for Gun Rights -- the legal arm of the National Association for Gun Rights -- said the ruling "overturns similar laws" in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, and Massachusetts. "The Foundation will be doing everything in its power to help restore the right to carry for law-abiding Americans in these states, and we're eager to work with our members who've had their rights denied for far too long," Hill said. But a Gov. Charlie Baker spokesman said the ruling on New York's law "has no immediate effect on the Commonwealth's gun laws, which all remain in place." "The Baker-Polito Administration is proud of the Commonwealth's nation-leading gun laws and history of enacting bipartisan gun reform legislation," Baker press secretary Terry MacCormack said in a brief statement. Guns On Their Side? But while Healey, a leading candidate for governor, warned that "in a country flooded with firearms, today's reckless and anti-democratic decision poses a grave danger to Americans as they go about their daily lives in public spaces like supermarkets, hospitals, and playgrounds," the House chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Mike Day, promised "we're not going to see people walking around in churches and schools with guns on their side." Day didn't specify a policy response to the decision and said analysts are still digging through the ruling, including a concurring opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, and planned to talk with police chiefs, who play a significant role in gun licensing in Massachusetts. "We'll be ready to tighten up the nets to the extent that they're loosened by today's decision," said Day, who called the Supreme Court a "rogue court" and alleged that its decision was "intellectually dishonest" and "cherry picks history, it cherry picks what regulations they want to pay attention to, which ones they want to ignore, in order to carry out a political decision here." House Speaker Ron Mariano said a policy response may come before formal sessions wrap up for the year on July 31. "It certainly creates a bit of a cloud as to what's acceptable," Mariano said. "It's always been a sticking point around the Second Amendment, and the presumption of the qualifications to carry, so now we're in this never-neverland, and I'll leave it to the attorneys to read the law a lot closer than I could ever read it. But I do know that whatever road we take, it's not going to be easy. It's going to require a little bit of work." Defenders of Massachusetts gun laws credit those laws with lower rates of gun violence, and Mariano knocked the "activism" and "political agenda" that he sees on the high court. He called the ruling a "blatantly political decision that's been crafted by the leaders of the Republican Party in the Senate." "The Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen marks a significant expansion of the Second Amendment right," said Duke University law professor Jacob Charles, who is executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. "In vindicating an individual's right to carry loaded guns in public without any showing of special need, the court's decision is likely to call into question the half dozen other state concealed carry permitting laws similar to New York's," Charles said. "Though these constitute a minority of states, a sizeable portion of the population -- around 25 percent of Americans -- live in jurisdictions with these more restrictive laws." Healey did not propose any specific policy response to the ruling but said she's ready to defend the state's gun laws. "Gun violence is a public health epidemic, and I remain committed to doing everything I can to keep our residents and our communities safe," she said. "Massachusetts has one of the lowest gun death rates in the country because we know that strong gun laws save lives. I stand by our commonsense gun laws and will continue to vigorously defend and enforce them." "All That We Decide" Justice Alito devoted part of his concurring opinion to attacking arguments of the dissenting justices, including arguments about mass shootings. "Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years?" Alito wrote. "Does the dissent think that laws like New York's prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator." Alito said amicus briefs in the case described situations where citizens "used firearms to protect themselves from criminal attack," including "incidents in which a potential victim escaped death or serious injury only because carrying a gun for self-defense was allowed in the jurisdiction where the incident occurred." He concluded, "All that we decide in this case is that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding people to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense and that the Sullivan Law, which makes that virtually impossible for most New Yorkers, is unconstitutional." In his dissent, Breyer said the court in its new ruling failed to discuss "the nature or severity" of gun violence, which he said had surpassed car crashes as the leading cause of death in children and adolescents. The U.S. "suffers a disproportionately high rate of firearm-related deaths and injuries," Breyer wrote, citing a 2017 estimate of 393.3 million civilian-held firearms in the U.S., or about 120 firearms per 100 people. In 2015, about 36,000 people were killed by firearms nationwide, a number that rose to 45,222 in 2020. In a September 2021 brief with 19 other attorneys general, Healey had urged the court to affirm that the Second Amendment does not prohibit states and local governments from regulating the public carry of firearms "as they have done for hundreds of years." The brief argued that public carry regulations have varied from region to region through the history of the U.S., and said that "tradition" goes back more than 700 hundred years to England and pre-dates the founding of the United States. Regulations today and centuries ago, Healey's office said, "varied substantially between and within the States -- the result of accountable policymakers enacting regulatory schemes tailored to local needs and conditions." Interim Suffolk County District Attorney Kevin Hayden said he had "grave concern" about impacts of the ruling, which comes as the U.S. Senate is advancing a bill drafted in response to the recent school shootings in Uvalde, Texas. "It's ironic, and perhaps tragic, that just as the nation's top legislative body is formulating sensible firearm regulations, its top judicial body is undoing them," Hayden said. "We must never forget that included in the 2nd Amendment's establishment of citizen gun ownership are the words 'well-regulated.'" U.S. Sen. Edward Markey said the ruling undermines community safety, called for Congress to pass a gun safety bill, and said "we must commit to expanding" the Supreme Court to "reclaim the stolen seats, bring balance to an illegitimate far-right bench, and restore the American public's faith in the Court." "This decision places at risk Massachusetts laws that have effectively driven down the rate of gun in our Commonwealth, like those giving local police chiefs the authority to issue gun licenses, including after interviewing an applicant, and those that bar the concealment of deadly weapons in public," Markey said. "We know concealed weapons near schools or on street corners across Massachusetts -- or anywhere in our country -- won't make parents or their children feel any safer. The Supreme Court has now placed the safety of these families at risk." Saying "lives are on the line," a disappointed President Joe Biden urged states "to continue to enact and enforce commonsense laws to make their citizens and communities safer from gun violence" and called on Americans "to make their voices heard on gun safety." The Gun Owners' Action League in Massachusetts described itself as "absolutely thrilled" by Thursday's ruling. "While this decision will certainly have an impact on our rights as lawful and responsible gun-owners in Massachusetts, it is important that we take some time to digest and figure out what it actually means for Massachusetts license holders and firearms owners," GOAL said on its website. "We ask our members to be patient as we work through this process with legal counsel and determine what the next steps will be. We will keep you up to date as often as possible as to what our actions will be moving forward."
  2. BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation’s landmark pro-gun rights advertising campaign is entering its seventh month, and the effort continues to gain traction on several cable channels, alerting American gun owners to the serious threat the Biden administration poses to their rights. “SAF is not out of ammunition,” declared SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We will be running our updated 60-second message on about 30 different media outlets. The bottom line is that SAF’s high-caliber ad campaign is going ballistic!” Gottlieb said SAF’s message has, and will continue to appear on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business, Newsmax TV, One America News Network, Destination America, Bloomberg, BBC America, Discovery Channel, American Heroes Channel, SYFY (Science Fiction), TLC (The Learning Channel), TruTV, DirecTV, The Weather Channel, HLN, Dish TV, and CNBC, plus these additional channels: Great America Country, Outside TV, GAC Living, World Fishing Channel, TV Game, MGM-HD and RFD, among other networks. “Our updated message still features a video clip of Joe Biden publicly admitting he wants to ban not only semi-auto rifles, but 9mm pistols,” Gottlieb noted. “We are making Biden eat his own words.” Gottlieb said so far this year, SAF’s messaging, which has aired more than 1,000 times, has been viewed by more than 85 million people, including those who have seen the ads “multiple times.” “The response from people calling our ‘800’ number is continuing upward now that Joe Biden has doubled down on gun control,” he stated. “Americans were quick to understand the importance of our Second Amendment after watching the outrage in Eastern Europe, and now, with skyrocketing crime expanding into our neighborhoods, people also realize the threat Biden and his cronies pose as they attack our gun rights. “There is no time to waste,” Gottlieb said. “We’re asking viewers to call a special toll-free telephone number – (800) 344-8082 – and press number 1 to get in the fight, because once you lose your rights, you will never get them back.”
  3. Centralia, WA, Zev Technologies has announced an official campaign to support Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and its important legal work challenging the Washington State standard capacity magazine ban. Centralia, WA based Zev Technologies (Zev) is a premier designer and manufacturer of pistol and rifle accessories and products. Zev, a current Constitution Alliance member and strong supporter of individual liberty, will support FPC’s legal work by donating a portion of the proceeds from every Firearm sold by Zev. “ZEV Technologies is disturbed by the reckless actions of the Washington State Legislature for passing this unjust measure and Governor Inslee for signing it into law. This ban on protected arms is an attack on our inalienable rights and restrains our ability to operate our business and service our customers. Residents of Washington state are being put into harm's way by this measure and risk being jailed for availing themselves of their rights. ZEV will continue to stand and fight anti-Second Amendment legislation. We are absolutely committed for the duration of these legal battles ahead of us,” stated Dan Groce, Director of Brand Engagement. Zev is an early supporter of FPC through the Constitution Alliance. The Constitution Alliance is a collection of industry partners that refuse to allow individual rights to be continually trampled without a fight. Zev’s donations will help bring cases like the recently filed Sulivan v Ferguson, a direct challenge to the Washington magazine ban to the courts. Lauren Hill, Director of Corporate Relation at FPC added, “Bans like this can not stand unopposed. We must all be willing to pitch in and fight to preserve our intrinsic rights including those enumerated in the Constitution. Zev Technologies is a key partner in this ongoing battle for our civil liberties.” About Zev Technologies ZEV Technologies (zevtechnologies.com) designs and manufactures pistol and rifle accessories and operates facilities in Centralia, Washington. ZEV was started with a focus on competitive shooters, pioneering the first drop-in replacement triggers for GLOCK®. To this day, ZEV's triggers are the gold standard for competitors worldwide. From its beginning with triggers, ZEV has built its business with the philosophy that any product it made had to be the best product of its type available on the market. Over time, ZEV’s customer base expanded from competitive shooters to elite military and law enforcement and ultimately, into leading gun stores and ranges for every shooter. Today ZEV offers its own award winning lines of pistols and rifles in addition to providing the most comprehensive line of premium upgrade parts for GLOCK pistols. ZEV customers can be confident they are carrying the best product available whether it is in the competitive arena, the battlefield, or to their local range. For additional information, please contact: info@zevtech.com
  4. Last week, the United States Supreme Court handed down a huge victory for gun owners, confirming what has been known all along: that the 2nd Amendment is not a second class right and should not be treated as such. However, the California legislature is continuing their quest to completely undermine this inherent right to self-defense. Further, in the wake of California Attorney General Bonta issuing a legal alert in response to the Supreme Court decision that issuing authorities can no longer require "good cause" for concealed carry permits, he is simultaneously amending a bill (SB 918) in the legislature to completely undermines carry permits in California. Tomorrow, three policy committees will hear anti-gun bills. Three additional bills (SB 915, 1327 and 1384) are now eligible for votes on the Assembly floor after advancing from the Assembly Appropriations Committee last week. The bills on the Senate floor are still eligible for votes at any time. Please click the buttons below to take action on these bills. Assembly Judiciary Committee at 8:00AM on June 28th Senate Bill 505, introduced by Senator Nancy Skinner (D-9), makes a person who owns a firearm strictly civilly liable for each incident of property damage, bodily injury, or death resulting from the use of the firearm. Additionally, the legislation requires a firearm owner to obtain and continuously maintain insurance as well as keep evidence of this coverage with the firearm at all times. Please click the button below to contact the Assembly Judiciary Committee and ask them to OPPOSE SB 505. Assembly Public Safety Committee at 9:00AM on June 28th Senate Bill 918, introduced by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-25), will be amended to defy the recent Supreme Court ruling placing significant reforms to California's existing conceal carry laws. The amendments are expected to greatly reduce places where people can lawfully carry, as well as create additional costs and barriers to obtaining a permit. *At the time of this posting, the amendments were not publicly available. Please click the button below to contact the Assembly Public Safety Committee and ask them to OPPOSE SB 918. Senate Public Safety at 9:00AM on June 28th Assembly Bill 1227, introduced by Assembly Member Marc Levine (D-10), was gutted and amended to contain language from Assembly Bill 1223. It places an excise tax of 10% on the sales price of a handgun, and places an 11% excise tax on the sales price of all long guns, rifles, firearm precursor parts and ammunition. These taxes are to be collected from California retailers and placed in a newly created fund for appropriation by the state legislature. Assembly Bill 2870, introduced by Assembly Member Miguel Santiago (D-53), expands California's gun violence restraining order to allow additional reporters, to now include faith leaders, roommates, dating partners, and additional family members, out to the 4th level of consanguinity and affinity (this could include out to the first cousin in-law or a great-great-grandparent). Please click the button below to contact the Senate Public Safety Committee and ask them to OPPOSE AB 1227 and AB 2870. Eligible for Assembly Floor Senate Bill 915, introduced by Senator Dave Min (D-37), bans state officers or employees, operators, lessees, or licensees from entering into any agreement to allow for the sale of any firearm, firearm precursor parts, or ammunition on property that is owned, leased, occupied, or operated by the state. Senate Bill 1327, introduced by Senator Robert Hertzberg (D-18), creates a private right of action that allows individuals to file civil suits against anyone who manufactures, distributes, transports, sells, or imports firearms banned in California, as well as precursor firearm parts. Current law already allows for remedies for illegal activities by firearm dealers and manufacturers. Senate Bill 1384, introduced by Senator Dave Min (D-37), as amended, requires all licensed firearm dealers to have a digital video surveillance system meeting certain standards, and to have general liability insurance coverage of at least one million dollars. Please click the button below to contact your Assembly member and ask them to OPPOSE SB 915, SB 1327, and SB 1384.
  5. New Jersey’s acting Attorney General, Matthew J. Platkin, issued a directive “clarifying requirements for carrying firearms in public” a day after the historic ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen on June 23. That ruling struck down as unconstitutional the handgun permitting regime in neighboring New York State, which, like New Jersey’s, is based on a “may issue” approach. The Court held that “New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.” In New Jersey, the chief police officer or the Superintendent of the State Police has discretion in determining whether or not to issue a concealed weapons permit. State law requires an applicant to establish a special, individualized threat to life through a “written certification of justifiable need to carry a handgun, which shall be under oath and, in the case of a private citizen, shall specify in detail the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit…” The details of these specific threats or previous attacks must, where possible, be corroborated by the applicant “by reference to reports of the incidents to the appropriate law enforcement agencies.” Even after an applicant has been approved by the applicable law enforcement agency, state law requires that the application also be approved by the superior court. The court “shall issue the permit to the applicant if, but only if, it is satisfied that the applicant” is a person of good character, meets the objective requirements, and that he or she “has a justifiable need to carry a handgun.” Although the Supreme Court’s decision did not specifically invalidate New Jersey’s handgun carry permit law, the Court noted in Bruen that New Jersey is only one of six remaining jurisdictions using analogues to New York State’s unconstitutional “proper cause” standard, making it almost certainly unconstitutional as well. The NRA and Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs filed a lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s justifiable need requirement in 2020. Acting AG Platkin’s directive, Attorney General Directive No. 2022-07, effective immediately, requires “all law enforcement and prosecuting agencies operating under the authority of the laws of the State of New Jersey to implement and comply with the directives,” which in this case eliminates the requirement that an applicant submit a written certification of justifiable need to carry a handgun. “The decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, prevents us from continuing to require a demonstration of justifiable need in order to carry a firearm, but it does not prevent us from enforcing the other requirements in our law.” New Jersey statute law remains to be adjusted to reflect this change. However, this is a positive development, as some public officials in the remaining “may issue” jurisdictions had reacted to the Bruen decision with indications that they would nonetheless implement new restrictions on permits, as in the case of New York City’s mayor who reportedly stated he will use “every legal resource available” to “undo and mitigate” the effect of the Supreme Court decision.
  6. Anti-gun politicians in Trenton will have their opportunity this week to lash out against New Jersey gun owners who secured a major victory last week in the United States Supreme Court. Concealed carry, which for decades has been denied to Garden State gun owners, was reaffirmed as the “law of the land” last week. The state must start issuing permits to qualified gun owners who satisfy objective standards, and the Attorney General was forced to issue an order last week to law enforcement compelling them to stop enforcing “justifiable need.” Last week, your NRA-ILA also testified against a large package of gun bills in Trenton that included: microstamping, .50 Caliber BMG bans, new FID card requirements and mandatory training, regulation and registration of ammunition and firearms, raising the age to purchase long guns, and bans on body armor, among others. None of these bills will do anything to enhance public safety. In fact, your NRA testified last week in front of both committees in the Senate and Assembly and lamented that there were no school safety or mental health bills on the agenda. Now, more than ever, it is important to make your voice heard! Please contact your Assembly members and Senator immediately and tell them to vote NO on all of these bills.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.