Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Charlie T Waite

Super Moderators
  • Content Count

    5,205
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    50

Everything posted by Charlie T Waite

  1. As a member of the bench I agree as we are taught that legislating from the bench is not to be done so yes, removal should happen. Charlie
  2. When you get involved in the effort to protect your rights, you are acting well within the norms of the constitutional system devised by the Founders. You are using freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to petition for redress of grievances to protect our right to keep and bear arms. In fact, if there is a “gun lobby,” it’s the activism and advocacy of people like you, the loyal Ammoland readers. This was once freely admitted by those who sought to infringe upon our rights. When you are doing this, you are doing nothing wrong. Well, Jon Ossoff does not believe that. Ossoff, who we noted earlier supports pretty much the entire Bloomberg wish list, yet who has the gall to try to gaslight the people of Georgia into believing the support the Second Amendment, has a markedly different view of our grassroots activism. He thinks it is “corrupt.” Don’t take my word for it. You can see it on his own campaign site. Your grassroots activism is corruption in his mind. Where he got such a notion that is so completely divorced from reality is beyond me, but it is a very serious threat. Now, we’ve seen this song and dance before, notably from Elizabeth Warren, who had also vowed to sic the Internal Revenue Service on the National Rifle Association. Warren’s presidential campaign went nowhere, but the attitude is one that Second Amendment supporters need to take seriously. As of this writing, the demonization of activism and advocacy in defense of the Second Amendment is in very high gear. See the comments and actions of Letitia James in New York, where she labeled the National Rifle Association as terrorists. Should Ossoff defeat David Perdue in the runoff, it is very likely he would use his office to urge that we be targeted for defending ourselves from being unjustly punished for crimes and acts of madness we did not commit. As of this writing litigation over a number of closely-contested states, including Georgia, is still pending, but either way, do you want another Senator who thinks your activism is corrupt? Second Amendment supporters can go check out Senator Perdue’s campaign site to help him secure his re-election. They also should support the National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund to not only help defeat Ossoff, but to also be ready for the 2022 midterm elections, no matter who is in the Oval Office. https://www.ammoland.com/2020/11/ossoff-thinks-you-are-corrupt-for-defending-your-rights/#axzz6eHy0UQRI
  3. Joe Biden doesn’t really care what America’s gun owners think of him. After all, he knows that damn near none of us were going to vote for him in the first place. The man ran on gun control as a key issue, though he and his allies in the media did a good job of hiding that during the general election. The man has never met a gun control proposal he didn’t like. Let’s face it, the guy wants to screw us over. He also probably wonders why we didn’t vote for him and not seeing the connection, but even if he did, I’m not sure he has the mental faculties to know what he was looking at. How badly does he want to bone us? Oh, for about $34 billion. American gun owners could face tens of billions of dollars in new taxes to keep the guns they already own under Democrat Joe Biden’s gun ban and tax plan. At least 20 million rifles and 150 million ammunition magazines would be caught up in the sales ban and registration scheme Biden touted on the campaign trail, according to a National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) report. The new taxes would cost Americans more than $34 billion, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis. NSSF told the Washington Free Beacon the sheer number of affected guns and magazines could pose a significant problem for Biden’s gun-control plans. “I think if [Biden and his team] were smart, they would look at those numbers and get an idea of where America stands on gun ownership and gun rights,” NSSF spokesman Mark Oliva said. But, well, Biden and his team aren’t particularly smart. Biden wants to ban new sales of AR-15 rifles and similar firearms as well as any ammunition magazine holding more than 10 rounds—sizes that come standard on most modern rifles and handguns. He would pay some owners to surrender the affected guns they legally own and force everyone else to register the guns under the National Firearms Act. The proposal would require owners to pay a $200 tax stamp for each item. That’s assuming that anyone actually admits to having the weapons in the first place. With no registration already, it’ll be on gun owners to admit they have not just the weapons, but the unserialized magazines as well. Good luck with that. Let’s be honest, $34 billion is a lot of money, but that’s a total for the entire nation. What each individual would be required to pay, though, would be different. Even someone with a modest collection of a single AR-15 and a couple of handguns could be on the hook for thousands of dollars simply because they have a relatively good-sized supply of magazines. And understand, this is Biden feeling magnanimous. He’s going to allow us to keep our guns, but we have to pay for the privilege. Yet people have the gall to say that Biden isn’t coming for our guns? Seriously? I can’t afford to drop $200 for each item I’ve got and I don’t have a massive collection with dozens of guns. For some of you, we’re talking tens of thousands of dollars just for your guns. Again, good luck with trying to get Americans to bother complying. This, of course, is why the Georgia senate races are so important. If Sen. Kelly Loeffler and Sen. David Perdue when their reelection bids, they’ll give the Republicans control of the Senate and there will be no chance of making something like this law. For a lot of us, it’ll be cheaper to contribute to those campaigns than to foot the bill for Biden’s gun plan. https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2020/11/19/biden-wants-to-tax-you/
  4. Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, tapped by the Biden transition team to be deputy chief of staff in a new administration, has expressed her full support for not only banning commonly-owned firearms, but confiscating them from legal gun owners as well. Fox News reports that Dillon, who served as Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke’s campaign manager before switching to the Biden campaign after O’Rourke’s departure from the Democratic primary, embraced O’Rourke’s plan to confiscate millions of legally-purchased rifles and guns defined as “assault weapons.” The former Texas congressman declared during a Sept. 2019 primary debate: “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.” “We are actually the only campaign with a plan…that supports mandatory buybacks of weapons of war,” she says in the video. “An assault weapon ban is very, very important, and we need to have it. But that only takes weapons of war off the streets in the future. It does nothing for weapons of war that are currently out there.” She estimated the mandatory buyback would affect “15 or 16 million” guns. According to the latest estimates by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, it’s actually closer to 20-million, neither Dillon, O’Rourke, or Biden himself have said how they plan to implement and enforce their desired gun ban. Biden’s plan, as detailed on his campaign website, would require the owners of so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines to either hand them over to the government in exchange for an undefined amount of cash, register those items under the National Firearms Act, or risk a ten-year prison sentence for possession of an unregistered NFA item. As we pointed out the other day, besides the glaringly obvious constitutional issues with Biden’s gun ban, there are also some big logistical problems with his not-so-bright idea. Obviously, a lot of Americans aren’t going to hand over their guns and magazines. Let’s say half of the current owners of these items decide instead that they’re going to register their rifles and various magazines with the government under the National Firearms Act. How exactly is the ATF going to deal with the flood of applications? In 2016, the agency processed about 2.5-million NFA forms. If just half of the guns and magazines that fall under Biden’s proposed ban were to be registered with the ATF, they’d be faced with an avalanche of 86-million forms to process. It would take years to clear out the backlog, and in the meantime, what happens to those gun owners who haven’t been yet been approved to maintain possession of their guns and magazines when the ban would take effect? There’s another logistical nightmare looming for gun-banners if they try to put Biden’s ban into effect. According to Biden himself, owners of “high capacity” magazines would be able to register them under the NFA, but he never explains how that would be possible. Magazines aren’t serialized, and there’s no real way to identify a particular magazine that would make it possible to register one. With Biden’s proposed gun ban, the devil isn’t just in the details. The very idea of trying to strip Americans of their constitutional right to keep and bear some of the most commonly-owned arms in America is hellaciously bad, but Biden’s surrounding himself with lackeys who truly believe they’re on the side of the angels with their confiscation plans. I still believe that if Biden takes office, he’s not going to have the votes to get his gun ban through Congress, but it’s become clear that Democrats plan to weaponize the executive branch to target as many firearms as they can, as well as the Americans who own them. https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2020/11/19/biden-pick-gun-confiscation/
  5. Yesterday, the Senate passed important School Security Legislation, Senate Bill 317. This measure now heads to the House for further consideration. Please contact your State Representative and ask them to support the right to self-defense of school employees. Senate Bill 317, sponsored by Senator Bill Coley, allows those school employees who are authorized to lawfully carry a concealed firearm for self-defense on school property, to do so without being required to undergo an extensive police training program. SB 317 clarifies the intent of the law and allows local school districts to continue to determine what is in the best interest of their faculty and students. Again, please contact your State Representative and ask them to support Senate Bill 317.
  6. On Wednesday, the Senate voted on a pair of pro-Second Amendment bills, giving the legislation final approval and sending both bills to the desk of Governor Tom Wolf. House Bill 2440 and House Bill 1747 both passed the Senate on a vote of 29-20. These bills were introduced and passed to protect constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and liberties during declared states of emergency, like we are experiencing this year with COVID. The Legislature’s action parallels guidance on critical infrastructure issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security earlier in the year. House Bill 2440, by Rep. Bill Kortz, would designate shooting ranges, sportsman clubs, hunting facilities and business relating to the sale or production of firearms and ammunition as life-sustaining. House Bill 1747, by Rep. Matthew Dowling, would prevent state and local governments from suspending or limiting the sale, dispensing or transportation of firearms during a declared emergency. It would also remove the carry prohibitions that exist with exemptions. COVID, and the closures occurring across much of the country, have forced a reexamination of statutes in many states as they relate to an Executive’s ability to summarily and unilaterally suspend constitutional rights. The current public health challenge has highlighted the need to review and update our laws with regard to declared states of emergency. Citizens are guaranteed basic fundamental rights that should never be infringed, particularly in these tumultuous times. We have witnessed firsthand the inability of government to protect people, and it is absolutely essential that citizens be able to provide for their own self-defense, especially during a declared state of emergency. This legislation is critical, and we need your help to get it signed into law. Please contact Gov. Tom Wolf at 717-787-2500, or by clicking the above “Take Action” button, and respectfully request that he sign both of these important bills.
  7. More SUBSCRIBE There are now more than 19.48 million citizens with permits to carry concealed handguns in America, and that’s not counting the millions who carry in the 16-plus states—depending on how you count them—that have some type of constitutional carry, where a permit is not required if you are a law-abiding citizen. This new and steadily rising number is from research done by the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), and its updated report shows a 34% increase in concealed carry since 2016. “Last year,” the report says, “the number of permit holders continued to grow by about 820,000. At 4.4% growth over 2019, that is the slowest percent and absolute increase that we have seen since we started collecting this data in 2011, but part of that is due to many states not issuing concealed handgun permits during the coronavirus pandemic.” According to this data, which was compiled by John R. Lott, the president and founder of the CPRC, 7.6% of American adults now have a carry permit. When you eliminate the most-restrictive states, such as New York and California, this number jumps to 9.2%. Also, five states now have more than 1 million carry permit holders: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Texas. Florida has over 2 million permit holders. Alabama has the highest percentage of permits at 28.5%; Indiana comes in second at 18.7%. Fourteen states have “more than 10% of adults” with permits. Those states are Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington and West Virginia. Last, but hardly an afterthought, here’s another telling number: Women make up 26.4% of permit holders in the 14 states that provide data by gender, according to the CPRC.
  8. A Pennsylvania appeals court ruled that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is unconstitutional. If upheld, this ruling could bankrupt the U.S. firearms industry, as a flood of junk lawsuits would be filed by anti-Second Amendment organizations with the express purpose of driving gun companies and dealers out of business. Superior Court Judge Deborah Kunselman overturned a trial court’s decision and ruled that the PLCAA violates both the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment. Politicians on the left often mischaracterize the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Judge Kunselman wrote: “The constitutional safeguards that override the PLCAA are the structural pillars of American government. ... Congressional tort-reform bills, like the PLCAA, have no place within that system. ...” Of course, there is no shortage of federal tort reform—see the Federal Tort Claims Act to get a taste. But, to put it plainly, this judge is attempting to use federalism to make gun manufacturers and dealers responsible for the actions of criminals. Though this ruling would only affect such reckless lawsuits in Pennsylvania, and is sure to be appealed, it’s worth addressing here because the PLCAA is a political issue nationally; for example, the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) 2020 platform says: “Democrats believe that gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.” This is disingenuous. The PLCAA does not protect gun companies from civil liability for product defects and more. The PLCAA merely protects gun makers from being sued because, for example, a criminal illegally obtained a gun and used it to commit a crime. Just imagine what would happen to the auto industry if they could be held liable for hit-and-run accidents, drunk-driving incidents and more. (The National Safety Council estimated that 4.5 million people were injured in auto accidents just in 2018.) If the DNC or Judge Kunselman get their way, activists will once again use frivolous lawsuits in an attempt to bankrupt America’s gun makers.
  9. For any who are note well read in Constitutional Legal Theory: Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional with respect to the United States Constitution (as opposed to the state's own constitution). Simply it is the failure or refusal of a U.S. state to aid in enforcement of federal laws within its limits, especially on Constitutional grounds. Charlie
  10. The battle for the soul of our country runs through Georgia. We must assure Republicans maintain control of the Senate by making sure David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler wins their runoff elections against their anti-gun opponents. Trump has not conceded the election, and legal challenges persist. No matter our feelings about this past election’s legitimacy, we must prepare for the most anti-gun presidential administration in our country’s history. If Trump pulls out the win, I will celebrate, but I am a realist, and I know it is a long shot. In all honesty, Trump doesn’t have the support of the Washington elite, mainstream media, or the Republican party, and that makes the battle hard to win. So what does that mean for our beloved Second Amendment? Let’s start with the Biden gun policy. Biden wants to ban the sale of so-called “assault weapons” and magazines that hold more than ten rounds. He would ban the most popular rifle in the United States. He does have a grandfather clause, but it would require all citizens to register every modern sporting rifle and magazine as NFA items. It would require citizens to pay $200 per item. I have a sizable collection of AR15s, AKMs, and various other rifles and pistols that fall under this category. I also own an uncountable number of magazines that are capable of holding more than ten rounds. In my case, I would have three choices. One, I could pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for the privilege of exercising my God-given rights. Two, I could turn all my previously legal items over to the government for a fraction of their value. Three, I could resist tyranny and put myself at risk of being prosecuted. Biden also wants to ban the online sale of guns, gun parts, and ammunition. That would put companies like Palmetto State Armory, Brownells, Midway, and many others out of business overnight. The cost of parts would skyrocket. The new laws would crush the firearms industry. Kamala Harris doesn’t believe in the individual right to own a firearm. For the fact-checkers on Facebook, this statement isn’t conjecture or my opinion. Her stance on the personal right to own a gun was stated publicly in an amicus brief that she signed and co-authored in the Heller Supreme Court decision. Harris believes that only a government-sanctioned militia has the right to bear arms. If something happens to Biden, then Harris would be President. If the Democrats control the Senate, they will push their anti-gun agenda to the President’s desk. Chuck Schumer will be in charge of the Senate. In the Senate, we have a safeguard from the party in charge ramming through anything they want and making the minority party obsolete. That safeguard is the legislative Filibuster. A lot of people don’t know that the Senate leader can get rid of the Filibuster with a simple rule change. Schumer has already stated that he would be open to killing the Filibuster. If Schumer does kill the Filibuster, then all the anti-gun legislation would be passed by Congress, and Biden would sign them into law. Scarier than the anti-gun legislation is the Democrat’s promise to pack the court. Court-packing would be expanding the Supreme Court from nine Justices to 13 or more, giving the anti-gun judges control of the court. Schumer would kill our only legal recourse against unconstitutional laws. He said Republicans would regret confirming Amy Coney Barrett, and I take him at his word. Even if the Democrats do not pack the court and SCOTUS decides to hear a gun law challenge (The courts scarcely hear gun cases), it will take years before a case gets to the high court. It would be impossible for gun companies to survive while waiting for legal challenges. If the court rules in gun owners favor (no guarantee), who will want to start a company in a hostile environment? When Governor Brian Kemp appointed Kelly Loeffler to the Senate, I was worried. I wasn’t sure if she was pro-gun enough for my liking. To my surprise, she has been everything I hoped. She has pushed back against every anti-gun bill that Democrats have introduced in the Senate. She has also pushed back against things like red flag laws. Loeffler has co-sponsored bills for national reciprocity, removing of suppressors from the NFA, and restoring veteran’s gun rights. She has championed the Second Amendment, and groups like Gun Owners of America and the NRA have endorsed her. Her opponent, Raphael Warnock, is anti-gun. He has actively campaigned against guns even in his church, where he gave anti-gun sermons. Warnock has taken money from Bloomberg backed front groups, including Everytown for Gun Safety. In addition to Everytown, groups like Brady Organization and Giffords have endorsed him. In the other Senate Race, David Perdue is running as the pro-gun candidate, vowing to resist any new guns. Although Perdue isn’t as strong on the Second Amendment as Loeffler, he is still worlds better on the issue than his opponent Jon Ossoff, who has accepted the endorsement of Everytown, Brady, and Giffords. Groups on both sides of the issues have descended on Georgia to fight for their chosen candidates. Giffords, Everytown, Moms Demand Action, and non-gun groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood are spending millions to flip the Senate and change the Republic forever. Pro-liberty groups like GOA, NRA, FPC, and SAF are working on the ground with local gun groups like Georgia Carry. GOA has even relocated staff to help out during the Georgia runoff election. I will even be making the trip down to Georgia myself to save our gun rights. Gun owners in Georgia can join the fight by volunteering with any of the campaigns. The pro-gun side needs people that are willing to door knock and educate the general public on what is at stake in this election. Gun owners that can’t make the trip can still volunteer to make phone calls and send text messages to remind pro-gun voters to vote on January 5th. Out of state Americans are also allowed to donate to both Loeffler and Perdue. We are in trying times. The election on January 5th in Georgia will have national implications that will affect us all. It is time for all gun owners to take action to defend the Republic. https://www.ammoland.com/2020/11/the-battle-for-georgia-is-the-battle-for-our-country/#axzz6eC5MVWj9
  11. Ohio Governor Mike DeWine has been stumping for his Ohio STRONG package of gun control legislation for close to a year now, but most Republican lawmakers in control of the statehouse in Columbus have shown little interest in passing the governor’s wish list. Instead, a group of GOP House members are looking at expanding the Second Amendment rights of residents in the state, including expanding the locations where folks can lawfully carry, lowering the age to purchase handguns to 18, and expanding “Stand Your Ground” protections in state law. The Cincinnati Enquirer has a pearl-clutching analysis of the proposals, complete with scare quotes from a longtime gun control activist in the state. “The combination of all of these things is really frightening because it’s almost an obsession with the access to guns,” said Toby Hoover, founder of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence. The proposals stand in stark contrast to Republican Gov. Mike DeWine’s pleas to address gun violence. DeWine has repeatedly asked lawmakers to increase penalties for people who provide guns to others prohibited from having them. Instead, changes to House Bill 248 would make it more difficult to prosecute someone who sells, lends or gives a firearm to someone who is intoxicated or banned from having a gun. The seller would have to “knowingly” provide the gun rather than “recklessly,” the requirement under current law. Another hotly contested concept – stand your ground – makes an appearance in proposed changes. With an amendment, the bill would eliminate a duty to retreat before firing in self-defense while at a business. Current law only allows Ohioans to “stand their ground” at their residences or vehicles. GOP lawmakers, in another bill, recently proposed eliminating a duty to retreat before firing during a riot. The amendments would allow concealed guns in more places, including colleges and universities, places of worship and state property. Other locations that currently ban concealed guns, such as police stations and airport terminals, could allow them if the governing bodies of those locations approve the change. In addition to the proposed changes laid out by the Enquirer, the amendments that are set to be added to HB 248 would remove current prohibitions on lawful concealed carry in an establishment that serves alcohol (though the carrier would still violate state law if they were under the influence), allow 18-year olds to obtain a concealed carry license (and allow those with a CCW to purchase handguns at age 18), along with several other measures aimed at strengthening and securing the right to keep and bear arms. Eliminate the requirement that concealed weapons licensees carry their license with them. Any valid identification could be used instead. Eliminate a requirement that concealed handgun license holders “promptly” inform police that they have a gun. Licensees would still need to inform police if they have a gun in the vehicle. Prohibit schools and universities from penalizing employees or students who carry a concealed weapon legally. Specify that state and federal lawmakers can regulate guns – not city and other local officials. Require police to auction unclaimed or forfeited firearms rather than destroy them. Would allow the manufacture, sale and possession of brass knuckles, cestus, billy, blackjack, sandbag, switchblade knife, springblade knife, gravity knife or similar weapon. Gun control advocates were hoping to make enough gains during the elections to make it impossible for pro-2A legislators to advance their agenda. Instead, Republicans expanded their majorities in the House and maintained their majority in the state Senate, which bodes well for the passage of HB 248. The bill was originally scheduled for a hearing on Tuesday, but the hearing itself was pushed back. Still, lawmakers are hoping to have the amended bill out of the House before Thanksgiving, so Ohio gun owners should be contacting their state representatives now to show their support for the legislation. https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2020/11/18/ohio-lawmakers-major-2a-push/
  12. Montana is on track to become the 17th state to restore Constitutional Carry. It will probably do so in 2021. Constitutional Carry means most people can carry, concealed or openly, most of the time in most public places, without any special governmental permission or permit. It was the state of affairs in the young United States when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. In 2020, Republican Greg Gianforte won the race for Governor in Montana. Greg is the first Montanan Republican governor since 2005. Greg won with 54.4% of the vote to his Democrat challenger's 41.6%. The former governor, Democrat Steve Bullock, was defeated in his attempt to win a Senate seat in Montana, with 53% to 47% of the vote. President Donald Trump received 56.9% of the vote to Candidate Biden's 40.6% of the vote. Democrat governors in Montana have vetoed Constitutional Carry three times, after it passed the legislature with hefty margins. Montana has Constitutional Carry for 99% of the state, in areas outside of town and city limits. But towns and city limits are where many people spend most of their time. In 2011, Democrat governor Brian Schweitzer vetoed Constitutional Carry bill HB 271. The legislature did not override the veto. In 2015, Democrat governor Steve Bullock vetoed Constitutional Carry bill HB 298. In 2017, Governor Bullock vetoed Constitutional Carry bill HB 262. Governor Bullock made a statement on Second Amendment rights. The statement was on the Governor's web site. That page no longer exists. Here is the statement: As a lifelong gun owner and as Montana’s former top cop, Steve Bullock is a staunch supporter of our Second Amendment rights and fights for the right of all law-abiding citizens to own and responsibly use guns. No right to carry guns or mention of the right to self-defense was included. In 2017, there were 32 Republicans and 17 Democrats in the Senate. There were 59 Republicans and 41 Democrats in the House. The vote for Constitutional Carry was 31 in the Senate and 60 in the House. In 2021, there will be a Republican majority Senate and House. There will be 67 Republicans of 100 House members, and 31 Republicans of 50 Senate members. There was an incredible 80.91% turnout of registered voters. From charkoosta.com: According to uncertified vote counts from the Montana Secretary of State’s office, Republicans picked up nine legislative seats in the Montana House and one in the Montana Senate — enough to expand their majorities to 67 of 100 House seats and 31 of 50 Senate seats. Going into the 2021 session, the Republican majority in the House will be sufficient to override a governor’s veto or to pass measures that require a two-thirds majority without winning Democratic votes. It is hard to see a reason for the Montana legislature to fail in a fourth attempt to pass Constitutional Carry, this time in 2021. I talked with Gary Marbut, the powerhouse in Montana on issues impacting the right to keep and bear arms. Gary has arguably been the most influential Montana citizen on these issues since 1987. He founded the Montana Shooting Sports Association. (MSSA) when the local NRA affiliate seemed unwilling to make waves. He and the MSSA have been responsible for the passage of 68 pro-gun and pro-hunting bills passed in Montana. The flagship bill Gary and the MSSA intends to introduce in 2021 will focus on eliminating gun-free zones. It will also remove carry restrictions. Gary prefers the term “permitless carry” to Constitutional Carry. Permitless carry will be part of the flagship bill. I asked Gary what the chances of passing the flagship bill with permitless carry. He said: “Excellent. We've gotten permitless carry through the legislature three times. We have a new governor who is a gun guy.” Montana is on track to become the 17th Constitutional Carry state in 2021. Right To Carry Map:2019 It happens, over a third of the states in the Union will have Constitutional Carry, or permitless carry, if you prefer. Other states which have a favorable climate for Constitutional Carry in 2021 are Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, and Tennessee. The Covid 19 lockdowns appear to have slowed legislative activity in 2020. https://www.ammoland.com/2020/11/montana-elected-a-republican-governor-expect-constitutional-carry-in-2021/#axzz6eBwnSwXJ
  13. A couple of weeks ago we reported on a pair of Oregon counties that approved Second Amendment Sanctuary ordinances on Election Day, making it a crime to enforce state-level gun laws like “red flag” firearm seizures and Oregon’s concealed carry statute. It took a little while, but now the state’s media is starting to take notice, and on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. we take a closer look at some of the coverage of the pro-gun referendums in Columbia and Umatilla counties. The biggest question is whether the new ordinances can stand up in court, or if they’re even capable of being enforced. As The Oregonian reports, at least one of the district attorneys in the new sanctuaries says he still plans on enforcing red flag laws, even if that violates the county’s new Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance. If he were to ignore the new sanctuary law, who would prosecute the prosecutor? Legal experts — and even some national gun rights advocates — say the resolutions are on shaky ground because they require police to ignore laws they’re sworn to uphold. The measures also appear to undermine the state’s legal authority to regulate guns. Under Oregon law, the power to regulate almost all aspects of firearms rests with the Legislature. Umatilla County District Attorney Daniel Primus doesn’t expect the voter approval to have much of a practical effect for his office. He will uphold the law, he said. “I took an oath,” Primus said, “and I am going to follow that oath.” Telling law enforcement to ignore state-level laws that have been upheld by the courts is going to be problematic from a legal perspective, and the law still lacks an enforcement mechanism for public officials who continue to enforce the current state statutes on the books. I suspect, however, that most voters who approved the measures care less about the legal intricacies of enforcement and more about sending a message to lawmakers in Salem to back off their push to impose more restrictions on the Second Amendment. In that, they may have gotten their wish. While Democrats maintained their supermajority in the legislature, there are enough Republicans to deny Democrats a quorum in the state Senate if they walk out, which they’ve done repeatedly over the past year to stop votes on controversial pieces of legislation. As for Second Amendment Sanctuaries, I actually think it’s generally both easier and more effective to push for Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions over ordinances. As one 10th Amendment advocate told The Oregonian, 2A sanctuary supporters don’t have to reinvent the wheel here. Michael Boldin, executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, a small organization that describes itself as a “non-partisan think tank that supports the principles of strictly limited constitutional government,” called the measures “convoluted, confused, messy at best.” He said he has encouraged gun rights activists to model their ordinances after immigration sanctuary laws, like the one passed in Oregon decades ago that forbids local law enforcement from using public resources to find or detain undocumented immigrants not suspected of a crime. Boldin’s group promotes the controversial theory that states may nullify federal laws they consider unconstitutional. Oregon’s gun sanctuary measures don’t just address federal gun laws. They target state ones too, and that may undermine their effectiveness. “I actually will tell you right out front, I am fully on board with the concept,” Boldin said. “I am with the gun rights people in concept, but I think they have crafted these so poorly that in practice they actually do nothing.” Looking at the language of sanctuary policies for illegal immigrants is a good place to start, and as Boldin notes, the ordinances or resolutions typically condemn the use of local funds to enforce federal immigration laws. When it comes to 2A Sanctuaries, we’ve seen similar language used in many cases, but we’ve also seen some resolutions encourage law enforcement not to prioritize the enforcement of certain gun control measures. Law enforcement uses discretion every day in terms of enforcing the laws, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong, legally speaking, with local police deciding that enforcing non-violent possessory offenses like carrying without a license is going to be a priority. The same holds true with enforcement of a gun ban, magazine ban, universal background check law, or any of the other proposals frequently tossed out by anti-gun activists. Of course, in order for that to be effective local law enforcement has to go along, which gets us back to the same issue that Umatilla County has with their District Attorney vowing to ignore the local ordinance. Ultimately, in order for Second Amendment sanctuaries to be truly effective, they have to represent not only the will of the voters, but the will of local politicians too. https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2020/11/18/new-2a-sanctuaries-legal-scrutiny/
  14. Found on the Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms | The Common Sense Gun Lobby website, some pretty good reading here.
  15. SAN DIEGO (November 18, 2020) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that the final pre-trial brief in Miller v. Becerra, its federal Second and Fourteenth Amendment challenge to the State of California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” was filed today. The brief can be viewed at FPCLegal.org. The final pre-trial conference in Miller is scheduled to take place in San Diego on December 16, 2020, before Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez, with the bench trial to follow on January 21, 2021. The plaintiffs are represented at trial by attorneys George M. Lee, John Dillon, and Erik Jaffe. FPC’s brief argues that the “arms and conduct proscribed by the [State’s Assault Weapons Control Act] are categorically protected under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and the Supreme Court’s precedents.” It further argues that under the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, the ban is categorically unconstitutional, and that the laws also fail strict and intermediate scrutiny, two approaches that courts sometimes use to decide constitutional questions. It concludes by requesting that the Court issue an opinion declaring the laws and regulations at issue are unconstitutional, as well as a permanent injunction preventing Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms Chief Luis Lopez, and all law enforcement throughout California from enforcing those unconstitutional laws against the Plaintiffs and all law-abiding adults in the State. “Today’s brief, as we will prove at trial, shows just how incredibly broad and unconstitutional California’s ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ really is,” said FPC Director of Legal Strategy Adam Kraut. “States and local governments may not criminalize the exercise of the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. Through this and other cases, we intend to strike down and enjoin bans on common arms across the United States so that the People may lawfully exercise their rights without fear of arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment.” Recently, Firearms Policy Coalition has filed several major federal Second Amendment lawsuits, including challenges to California’s Handgun Ban and “Roster” laws (Renna v. Becerra), Maryland’s carry ban (Call v. Jones), New Jersey’s carry ban (Bennett v. Davis), New York City’s carry ban (Greco v. New York City), the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition by federal firearm licensees (FFLs) to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. BATFE), Pennsylvania’s ban on carry by adults under 21 years of age (Lara v. Evanchick), and others, with many more cases being prepared today. To follow these and other legal cases FPC is actively working on, visit the Legal Action section of FPC’s website or follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube. The Miller v. Becerra case is another important lawsuit filed as part of FPC’s comprehensive strategy to defend freedom, advance individual liberty, and restore the Constitution and its guarantees for individuals throughout the United States. Individuals who wish to support the lawsuit can do so at JoinFPC.org and www.firearmspolicy.org/miller. NOTICE: POTENTIAL PLAINTIFFS NEEDED! FPC is urgently seeking individual and FFL plaintiffs for a number of lawsuits that are being prepared to challenge laws and policies that infringe on fundamental rights, including (but not limited to): Laws and policies that prevent individuals from purchasing and/or possessing so-called “assault weapons” (semi-automatic firearms with standard characteristics) and “high-capacity” magazines (standard magazines that hold more than 10 rounds) Laws and policies that prevent 18-20-year-old young adults (under age 21) from obtaining handguns from FFLs and carry loaded, operable arms in public for self-defense Laws and policies that prevent individual adults (over the age of 18) from carrying loaded handguns and other arms outside of their home Laws and policies that prevent individuals from acquiring and/or possessing handguns and other arms without first acquiring a “purchase permit” Laws and policies that prevent individuals from acquiring or possessing firearms due to a conviction for a non-violent crime, or mental health adjudication that did not involve an involuntary commitment Laws that prevent honorably discharged veterans from acquiring or possessing firearms because they have been classified as “a mental defective” due to the agency’s determination that they “lack the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs” because they need assistance managing VA benefits and have a fiduciary If someone you know meets the criteria above, or if you would be interested in participating in litigation as a supporting FFL, please contact us: On the web at www.firearmspolicy.org/hotline By email at potentialplaintiffs[at]fpchq.org By phone at (855) 252-4510 (FPC Legal Action Hotline available 24/7/365) If you would like to support FPC’s Miller case and many other pro-Second Amendment lawsuits, legal action, and research, please chip in $5, $10, $25, or whatever you can at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/donate or Join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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