Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Charlie T Waite

Super Moderators
  • Content Count

    2,933
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Charlie T Waite

  1. On December 10th, the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Health will hear House Bill 2005 to impose a mandatory requirement for doctors to ask patients about firearms in their homes and for the type of “counseling” they would have to provide for those who have firearms. This would essentially deputize health care professionals to spread whatever anti-gun propaganda the state wishes. Please contact committee members and urge them to OPPOSE H.2005. House Bill 2005, sponsored by Representative Jon Santiago (D-9th Suffolk), would direct state authorities to create a program for doctors to “screen all patients for the presence of firearms in the home” and would vaguely call for “guidelines for safety counseling for individuals that screen positive for the presence of firearms.” The government would inject itself into the vital doctor-patient relationship. Injecting politics and ideology into this relationship will sow distrust and resentment that could lead to adverse healthcare outcomes for the patient. Again, please contact committee members and urge them to OPPOSE H.2005. In addition, NRA members and Second Amendment supporters are encouraged to attend the public hearing. Details may be found here and below: December 10th, 2019, from 1:00PM-5:00PM Hearing Room A-2 24 Beacon St. Boston, MA 02133
  2. Bloomberg-Bought Virginia Legislature Seeks to Ban Private Firearms Transfers
  3. Dana Loesch is a nationally syndicated talk radio host, television personality, and best-selling author.
  4. December 5, 2019 Hearing a major Second Amendment case for the first time in a decade, the United States Supreme Court is showing little inclination to make a ruling on the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. V. City of New York. The case in question challenges the constitutionality of a New York City gun law that prevents law-abiding gun owners from transporting firearms outside of their residence. A pro-gun decision in this case would set a critical legal precedent against cities that attempt to restrict the rights of gun owners to travel with their legally owned firearms. Unfortunately, once the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, the New York City law was quickly repealed, and although the end of this clearly unconstitutional law is good news for gun owners in New York, it may have also killed any chance for the high court to declare such a law unconstitutional. On Monday, Justice Sotomayor summed up the position of the liberal wing of the Court saying, "You're asking us to take a case in which the other side has thrown in the towel and opine on a law that's not on the books anymore." 1 With the liberal Justices and the council for the City of New York arguing that the case is no longer valid, Justices Alito and Gorsuch challenged the mootness argument and pushed for a decision. Fellow conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh abstained from asking any questions pertaining to the case. Unfortunately, for pro-gun Americans, the efforts of Justices Alito and Gorsuch appear inadequate to push discussion further and the opportunity to set a monumental precedent against unconstitutional gun control may have been missed. The National Association for Gun Rights will continue to monitor this case and all events that pertain to the preservation of the Second Amendment. 1 = Williams Pete. Supreme Court appears unlikely to hand victory to gun rights backers in 2nd Amendment case. NBC News. Dec 2nd, 2019
  5. If you watch the news and listen to politicians, they’ll gleefully tell you that you need “less” gun for defensive purposes; in fact, as we all know, the opposite is true. As the saying goes, if you’re in a fair fight with an attacker, then you need to reconsider your tactics. If the AR-15 is “too much gun” for a home defense rifle, be sure not to tell this particular 61-year-old Summerfield, Florida man. One night in July 2019, four men, two of whom were armed with a pistol and shotgun, burst through the front and back doors of his home simultaneously to commit armed robbery. Using an AR-15 by his bedside, the homeowner fired back, hitting two of the home invaders. One criminal died at the scene and the other later at the hospital. Police quickly captured the remaining two. The homeowner was hospitalized for a gunshot wound he sustained in the attack. So, yes, in the real world, there are some compelling reasons to consider America’s Rifle for home defense. Here are three. Less Penetration Did I say “less penetration?” Why yes, I did. Compared to standard hollow point (or FMJ) pistol rounds or buckshot, the standard and inexpensive .223 caliber, 55-grain full-metal jacket AR-15 projectile will penetrate fewer barriers. The high speed combined with these relatively lightweight projectiles will cause yawing and fragmentation. While such a bullet will still penetrate several layers of drywall, it won’t go through as many as a 9 mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP or buckshot load typically will. To cut penetration even more, use a fragmenting varmint load like Hornady’s V-Max. Adjustability That adjustable stock on the back end isn’t to shorten and lengthen scariness. It’s to fit different-sized people or those who change clothing. While a police officer may shorten the stock when wearing a bullet-resistant vest, we civilians of varying size may change it if we need a shorter length of pull owing to our physical size. We might also shorten the stock when wearing heavy clothing in the colder months. Whatever the reason, you’ll shoot better when using a gun that fits. Modularity Perhaps the most interesting consideration is that there’s no “standard” AR-15. As a platform with a variety of configurations and accessories, you can decide what you need for home defense and configure yours accordingly. Choose your barrel length, handguard types, grip styles, stock, trigger, bolt and virtually anything else. And we’re not even considering the vast array of compatible accessories like slings, lights, lasers, sights and optics. There are a number of compelling reasons to consider an AR-15 for home defense. In fairness, there are some drawbacks to consider, especially when comparing the rifle to a handgun. Maneuverability is a factor as the AR-15 is longer and bulkier. You’ll also want to consider that rifles require two hands to operate. While most of us shoot handguns better two-handed, one will do in a pinch, thereby freeing up the other for a cell phone or light.
  6. There was nothing on city council's agenda about Second Amendment Sanctuaries, but hordes of people showed up at its meeting to support the city becoming one.
  7. “The sole entity responsible for the actions of a madman is the madman.” — Erich Pratt Springfield, VA — Gun Owners of America (GOA) today released a statement on the Supreme Court’s denial of cert in the Soto v. Bushmaster case. The case involves a lawsuit against Bushmaster Firearms (and its parent company Remington) in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting. At issue was a ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court, allowing the plaintiffs in the case to circumvent the federal Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (which protects firearm manufacturers, distributors, and dealers from suit) through an absurd reading of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), the legal arm of GOA, filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to take up the case. “The Supreme Court’s decision, while disappointing, was not completely unexpected. SCOTUS typically only grants cert to a small fraction of cases that are appealed,” Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of GOA, said. “Nevertheless,” Pratt continued, “the Court’s decision not to hear the case is disappointing, because it allows judges to hijack state law in order to sidestep the clear protections of gun manufacturers that Congress enacted. The sole entity responsible for the actions of a madman is the madman.” The Soto v. Bushmaster case is not at an end, but will continue in state court, with the plaintiffs now required to prove that Bushmaster’s advertisements actually caused the Sandy Hook shooting, a prospect that the Connecticut courts have admitted is unlikely.
  8. December 3, 2019 For immediate release GOA Praises Introduction of Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act Springfield, VA — On December 2, 2019, the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Roger Marshall. The bill undoes the egregiously unconstitutional registration, taxation, and regulation of short-barreled rifles by removing them from the National Firearms Act (NFA) and forcing the ATF to destroy all related records. “The introduction of this bill is yet another landmark towards restoring the constitutionally-recognized right to keep and bear arms without infringement by federal regulations and whimsical rulemaking by anti-gun D.C. bureaucrats,” said Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs for GOA. “When the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, intending to protect individuals from infringements, they did not ‘leave room’ for a federal agency to regulate barrel lengths on rifles or pistols.” Under current law, the difference between a “pistol AR-15” and a “short barreled rifle AR-15” is ATF rulemaking and mind-numbing definitions and differences between “rifle stocks” and “pistol braces.” GOA supports a full repeal of the NFA and has challenged the NFA’s unconstitutional regulation of suppressors with the Silencers Help Us Save Hearing Act, the Hearing Protection Act, and Kettler v. US. But for far too long, other aspects of the National Firearms Act—an act of gun control by nature—have gone unchallenged in Congress. “Now gun owners have a legislative vehicle to attack another element of the National Firearms Act’s meaningless regulation,” Johnston concluded. “GOA urges every member of the House of Representatives to cosponsor this bill.”
  9. According to a recent Facebook post by Mark Twain, reports about the AR-15 are greatly exaggerated. It’s true. Anyone who doesn’t own one likely holds plenty of views on the topic that are mythical. Let’s explore a few of the more egregious myths that are circulated more frequently than the common cold at a gun show. Myth 1: The AR-15 Is Too Powerful for Civilian Use First, let’s recognize that any firearm is “powerful,” meaning that if used with ill-intent, it can cause harm; after all, the whole point of a defensive firearm in the hands of a law-abiding citizen is to help even the odds against an aggressor to protect self and family. With that said, as far as rifles go, the AR-15 is on the lower end of the power scale. Virtually any hunting rifle exceeds the kinetic energy figures for the standard .223 Remington, 55-grain cartridge. Let’s consider real numbers: A 55-grain projectile flying at 3,000 feet per second generates 1,099.3 foot-pounds of kinetic energy. As a comparison, a standard .30-06 with a 150-grain bullet delivers 2,820 foot-pounds; a .270 load using a 140-grain bullet cranks out just over 2,700 foot-pounds. The ubiquitous 12-gauge? How about 2,487.3 foot-pounds for a slug moving at a whopping 1,600 feet per second. Even a.30-30 lever-action rifle generates 2,500 give or take. There’s a reason that some states don’t allow hunters to use an AR-15 chambered in .223 Remington for deer hunting. Some think—and a lot of this is based on old bullet design performance—that the .223 caliber isn’t powerful enough for medium to large-sized game. Myth 2: The AR-15 is a Weapon of War The terminology used by MSNBC and CNN to describe America’s Rifle varies a bit, but the top contenders include: “assault weapon,” “assault rifle” and “weapon of war.” The latest I’ve seen is “military-style” rifle. I have to believe this new one is an intentional nod to the inaccuracy of the other terms. While I’m sure that AR-15s have been used in conflict zones, they’re not issued by the United States to its various armed services. Those would be select-fire—capable of semi-automatic, full-auto, or three-round burst fire—and full-auto variants like the M4 and M16. Do they look similar? Sure. But AR-15 rifles are strictly semi-automatic. Myth 3: You Can Easily Convert an AR-15 to a Machine Gun Listening to the news, you’d think a dyslexic tree sloth could convert an AR-15 to an M249 Squad Automatic Rifle. In reality, converting a standard semi-automatic AR-15 into a full-auto M16 or M4 is no easy thing to accomplish. Oh, and it’s insanely illegal even if you have a machine shop, knowledge and the appropriate metalworking skills. Don’t even think about trying unless you want an all-expenses paid vacation to a federal penitentiary. Myth 4: An AR-15 Is Too Powerful for Home Defense We will explore this in more detail in the next installment, but for now, know that AR-15s and similar semi-automatic rifles make a perfectly good home-defense option, too; in fact, with standard .223 ammo, its projectiles will penetrate fewer walls than most pistol and buckshot loads. Surprised? Hold that thought until next time. Oh, and by the way, the “AR” in AR-15 doesn’t stand for “assault rifle,” regardless of how often the talking heads repeat that myth. It stands for “Armalite,” the company that developed the AR-15.
  10. Here's another quick summary of Monday: The U.S. Supreme Court heard New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. City of New York on Monday. This is the first time the high court has accepted and heard argument on a case involving Second Amendment rights since 2010. The Court’s ruling could, theoretically, come at any time, but we are not likely to know the outcome until at least late next month and perhaps considerably longer. The Court could still, however, avoid the Second Amendment issues and rule the case “moot,” meaning it could decline to rule on the merits because the dispute, which dealt with the transportation of firearms by New York City residents, has already been resolved. This is the outcome the four left-leaning justices on the Court seem to prefer. “What’s left of this case?” asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “You’re asking us to take a case in which the other side has thrown in the towel and opine on a law that’s not on the books anymore,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. These two left-leaning justices were referring to the fact that New York City largely repealed the disputed law after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The law now no longer restricts the few determined residents of New York City who have jumped through the city’s many hoop to obtain “premises” licenses from taking their legal handguns anywhere but directly to and from an approved gun range located in New York City. The gun owners who sued “got everything they asked for,” said New York City’s attorney Richard Dearing to the nine justices. Attorney Paul Clement, who is representing the gun owners (the plaintiffs in the case), pointed out that city laws that are still in effect do restrict the right to take a gun outside the home. This is clearly the case, as New York City all but makes it impossible for normal, law-abiding Americans to exercise their Second Amendment-protected right to bear (as in carry) arms. Even those with “premises” licenses from the City can’t carry their firearms outside the home in a usable condition, and lawful transport of unloaded, encased firearms has to be “continuous and uninterrupted, leading to questions about what sort of necessary stops, if any, the law permits. . During the hearing, Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, asked about these restrictions on travel with a legal handgun. Dearing responded that no one would be punished for taking brief breaks, such as for coffee or gas. “They are entirely permissible,” he said, even though such decisions would be made at the City’s discretion. Chief Justice John Roberts, who is widely thought of as the swing vote on this issue, asked if violations of the old law could be used against current gun owners. Dearing said they couldn’t be. Clement, meanwhile, also argued that the Second Amendment clearly is not a “home-bound right.” From early American history to today, gun owners have always carried their firearms outside their homes. Clement asked the Court to clearly rule that citizens have the right to “bear arms.” “Read naturally, the right to ‘bear’ firearms includes the right to transport firearms outside the home,” said Solicitor Gen. Noel Francisco in his brief to the court. While it’s true that courts are only supposed to rule on “live controversies,” there are no assurances that, if the U.S. Supreme Court rules this case moot, the City wouldn’t simply pass another law that would seriously infringe on Second Amendment rights. The conduct of anti-Second Amendment politicians has, in fact, been so appalling in this case that earlier this fall, five U.S. senators, all Democrats, actually threatened the U.S. Supreme Court justices over this case. “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” said the brief from the five senators. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’ Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.” Clearly, it’s time for another ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court affirming that the American citizenry’s’ right “to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
  11. BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today expressed high hopes that the U.S. Supreme Court will “step up to the plate” and expand further on the right to keep and bear arms that is protected by the Second Amendment in the case of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York. SAF Board member and syndicated broadcaster Tom Gresham was in the audience and he noted afterwards, “This may be the case that indicates whether the court considers the Second Amendment to be a legitimate right on the same level as the First Amendment.” Gresham suggested that if the high court decides to reject the case, it will do so shortly. However, if the Court decides to rule in the case, that decision could be as far away as June, on the final day of the current session. The case is a challenge of a now-changed city regulation that forbade handgun owners from taking their guns outside the city limits. “It has been ten years since the Supreme Court took a Second Amendment case, and this one could have far reaching ramifications,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The last time the court ruled on the Second Amendment was in 2010 with McDonald v. City of Chicago, our landmark victory that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment. “We’re hopeful the High Court sees through New York’s attempt to moot this case by changing the law,” he continued. “The only reason that change was made is because the Court accepted the case for review earlier this year, and everybody knows it. That maneuver suggests the city knew all along its restriction would not pass constitutional muster, but only changed the law in an effort to prevent a court ruling that smacked it down. “We will be watching this case closely,” Gottlieb said. “The City of New York, and any other government body for that matter, should not be allowed to trample on a constitutional right and then change a law at the last minute to avoid being penalized for their demagoguery.” The case is New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, No. 18-280.
  12. Gun manufacturer Taurus’s move from Miami to a 73-acre property in Bainbridge, Georgia is nearly complete, with a ribbon-cutting ceremony scheduled for Dec. 5. The company’s arrival is bringing new manufacturing jobs to the community and sparking growth in complementary businesses, such as real estate and restaurants. Taurus Holdings Inc., owned by Brazil-based Forjas Taurus, S.A., began selling guns in the United States in 1968. The company is known for creating unusual guns like the Judge, which shoots both .45 Colt handgun and .410 shotgun ammunition, and the Curve, a squared-shaped .380 pistol, in addition to more standard firearms. “These new jobs have a huge impact on a small community like ours,” Rick McCaskill, Bainbridge/Decatur County Development Authority executive director, told America’s 1st Freedom in a phone interview. “Our real-estate market is benefitting, and retail and restaurants have surged as well.” “Taurus moving here has caused people to call my office asking ‘Why Bainbridge?’ McCaskill added. “We were a little surprised ourselves – we didn’t think those Miami folks were going to want to move to South Georgia. But the folks who came to look fell in love with what a special place this is.” Bainbridge has 14,000 residents—about half the population of Decatur County, where the town is located. It is a rural and agricultural area about 40 miles northwest of Tallahassee, Fla. Taurus has invested over $22.5 million in infrastructure and expects to add 300 new jobs to the community. About 20% of its Miami workforce decided to move to Bainbridge as well, according to Kim Cahalan, a Taurus media consultant. David Blenker, president and CEO of Taurus USA, said in a press release, “The decision to relocate stems from our desire to expand our facility, keeping all operations in one location.” The new facility is 200,000 square feet, most of which is allocated for manufacturing. The site also incorporates indoor and outdoor ranges for product testing. Part of the move’s motivation is doubtless Georgia’s gun-friendly environment. “The hunting and shooting culture is big here,” McCaskill said. “They [Taurus] have been great corporate citizens already, and we haven’t had any blowback on anything about this.” Taurus’ president has already integrated himself and the business into the community in many ways. Blenker wanted Chick-fil-A to open near the new facility, and it has. Taurus has also been sponsoring many community events. In addition, the local technical college is involved in training new employees. Together, Blenker and McCaskill are also working toward having a new 500-acre outdoor range for all types of shooting. It will cater to “corporate outings as well as ‘Joe Smith’ off the street,” noted McCaskill. In fact, the land for that range has been purchased and the plans are already drawn up. The facility is expected to open as soon as next Fall.
  13. Annually, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) publishes national data on the prevalence of crimes of all types. Recently, the FBI’s “2018 Crime Statistics” revealed that, yet again, violent crime in America has declined. Unfortunately, the mainstream media, in its never-ending quest to promote more gun control, gave this data little to no coverage. Why not? Given their biases, it doesn’t feel cynical to say they don’t want to let people know about this wonderful fact because it runs counter to their narrative that America is an increasingly violent place. If the mainstream media were to truly examine the numbers and then print what they found, they would have to explain how the FBI’s 2018 statistics mostly show a 30-year decline in violent crimes. A decline, it should be noted, that coincided with a huge increase in the number of civilian-owned firearms and with the expiration of the “assault-weapons” ban. Many in the media told us in 2004, when the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 sunset, that ending this gun ban would cause the homicide rate to go up. Data gathered by the FBI tells a different story: “The [2018] violent crime rate fell 3.9% when compared with the 2017 rate; the property crime rate declined 6.9%…. The estimated number of three violent crime offenses [murder, nonnegligent manslaughter and aggravated assault] decreased when compared with estimates from 2017…. [M]urder and nonnegligent manslaughter offenses fell 6.2%, and the estimated volume of aggravated assault offenses decreased 0.4%.” Violent-crime rates in America hit a low point in 2014, according to the FBI–the lowest since 1970. The violent-crime rate in 2018, by comparison, represented the third-lowest rate since 1970. To the extent the mainstream media even dealt with the FBI statistics, based on a search of 20 major media outlets, they briefly noted the general decline and then talked about places where violent-crime rates were higher than average—they did this, however, without noting that these areas tend to have the strictest gun-control laws. Some media outlets opted to focus on the one category where the numbers are up: rape. But these articles didn’t then mention that gun rights also empower women. What a missed opportunity. They could have interviewed victims who have since armed themselves or firearms instructors who teach women how to protect themselves. But again, that wouldn’t fit their narrative. Meanwhile, another very interesting statistic was circulating among the gun community, though as always, the mainstream media ignored it. According to Dr. John Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), “The number of concealed handgun permits has increased for the third year in a row. The figure now stands at over 18.66 million, a 304% increase since 2007. It’s also an 8% increase over the number of permits we counted a year ago in 2018.” And the actual numbers are even higher because we don’t have precise data regarding how many people lawfully carry firearms in 16 states. Why? Those 16 states have some form of “consitutional” carry. So, the FBI data proves that violent crimes are down, and the CPRC data shows the number of concealed-carry permit holders is increasing fast. Does this mean that the increase in people carrying concealed is making America safer? The mainstream media won’t even entertain that question. Scientifically speaking, there are many factors at work here. These include various crime-prevention programs, local economic conditions and a host of other sociological and legal factors that can affect violent-crime rates. Still, it is dishonest of the media to ignore the fact that more people are carrying. Unfortunately, we don’t often see honest analysis of gun-related issues from the mainstream media. They prefer to push the provably false narrative that violent crime is plaguing America because of the availability of firearms. They like this storyline because they want people to believe we need more gun-control laws. Another constituency that was silent on the new FBI findings were, surprise, the gun-control groups. An internet search of the websites for the Brady Campaign, Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action found no reference to the FBI crime report and no mention that violent crimes are in a steady decline. Actually, all three websites made rather sensationalist claims about violent-crime increases. Perhaps that’s not shocking; after all, if these groups admitted the truth about the decline in violent crime, their reason for being would dry up. As would, one suspects, their fundraising efforts.
  14. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 18 on behalf of Alabama and 20 other states asking the high court to hear a challenge to an anti-Second Amendment law in Maryland. “The overwhelming majority of states recognize that the Second Amendment allows law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms outside their homes for self-defense,” said Marshall in a press release. “However, a handful of states have decided that citizens’ rights to possess a handgun outside their residence should apply only to when they meet certain limited criteria. In this case, a Maryland citizen was denied the fundamental right to self-defense because he failed to convince a bureaucrat that he faced some special danger to his safety.” In the brief, Marshall says the “courts of appeals are deeply divided and the states are in need of guidance from [the U.S. Supreme Court].” Furthermore, he argues “the Second Amendment’s guarantee is a fundamental right that extends beyond the home.” Brian Kirk Malpasso and the Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, plaintiffs in the case at hand, are challenging Maryland’s may-issue statute as an “unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms.” Currently, Maryland is one of eight may-issue states in the nation. To obtain a concealed-carry permit in Maryland, a “good and substantial” reason must be provided. This determination is made by the Maryland State Police. Maryland also does not honor any concealed-carry permits from other states. Maryland Secretary of State Police William Pallozzi is named defendant in the case. “Because of this requirement, Maryland residents must prove they are under some extraordinary imminent threat in order to be granted a permit. This effectively bans most citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights outside of their homes,” reported the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. “In 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. By denying Maryland residents the right to bear arms by carrying a firearm, the state is clearly violating the Court’s holding in Heller.” Alabama is joined on the amicus brief by Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. Alabama Solicitor General Edmund G. Lacour Jr. and Deputy Solicitor General A. Barrett Bowdre also joined Marshall on the brief. The NRA also filed an amicus brief in support of the challenge, which concludes, “This Court should grant the petition to ensure that this Court’s clear and consistent Second Amendment teachings are faithfully applied by the lower federal courts in the context of carrying arms for self-defense in case of confrontation outside the home and to ensure that the constitutional rights of Maryland – and all American – citizens are protected.” Maryland Shall Issue (MSI) applauded the NRA’s decision and said, “it is well past due time that the State of Maryland join each of its immediate neighbors and an overwhelming majority of the country in observing that the people have the natural and civil right to self-defense beyond their doorsteps. MSI will continue monitor this suit as it develops and offers its full support to the challenger and the NRA.”
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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