Comments:
The National Rifle Association has gained more than 100,000 new members in the past 18 days, the organization told POLITICO’s Playbook on Thursday. The number of paid new members jumped from 4.1 million to 4.2 million during that time.Comment: nra.org
A guy who walks around with a bunch of bodyguards criticizes self-defense laws
Excerpt:
If we all had half a dozen bodyguards to protect us like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, we might all think that Florida's "stand your ground" law and other self defense measures were a "license to murder." But most of us aren't that lucky - which is why most of us thank the Lord that we live in a country with a second amendment.Comment: If the police were everywhere, we wouldn't need the 2nd Amendment ... But then we would be a police state!
Walgreens pharmacist fired for using gun to foil robbery
Excerpt:
You'd think the suits at Walgreens would be grateful. Instead, they fire a dedicated employee who foiled a robbery using a concealed weapon he carried.
The bizarre reason? Walgreens has a "no escalation" policy on robberies:
One week later, after being praised for staving off the suspects, Hoven was fired. His attorney, Dan Swanson, says a Walgreens District Manager fired Hoven, citing a "non escalation policy."
While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:
Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification. Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
- Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
- Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
- Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
- Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
- In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.
Police arrest Uptown robbery suspect
Excerpt:
61-year-old Edward Curtis was attacked at about 10 p.m. in the 2500 block of Pillsbury Avenue S. after he got out of his car. Curtis was beaten about the head and shoulders and suffered fractures to his face and nose, then robbed of his wallet. The attack ended when Curtis drew a concealed handgun and fired three shots. It's not known if he struck either of his attackers.
After the attack, Curtis said he was not proud of what he'd done but felt he had no choice. "I thought they were going to kill me," he said. "They didn't get a chance to."
I was anti-gun, until I got stalked
Excerpt:
"You need to arm yourself."
I blinked at the Portland police officer in my living room. This uniformed bear of a man -- packing a gun, a nightstick, a radio and who knew what else -- was responding to an ongoing stalker problem that had started several months earlier. I'd received letters, a phone call, a few packages and several e-mails from this unbalanced stranger who'd read a few newspaper stories I'd written and taken a shine to me. When the latest letter arrived -- mentioning my boyfriend, Mike, thoughts on religion, and a trip I'd taken but hadn't told anyone about -- I was seriously alarmed.
But get a gun? Surely, I'd misheard him.
"Getting a concealed carry permit isn't hard," the officer continued. "And they make ladies' purses with concealed weapons compartments."
The Credit Card Act: Who Benefits and Who Doesn’t
Excerpt:
Consumers will also likely see a decrease in credit card rewards or cash rebates, as well as increased Annual Percentage Rates. According to the LowCards.com Complete Credit Card Index, the advertised rate for credit cards averaged 13.46% last week. Six months ago, the average was 12.11%. A year ago, the average was 11.51%.
However, it’s not all bad news. The CARD Act will benefit those who want to visit national parks while carrying loaded firearms. Current laws only allow people to carry guns in national parks if they’re unloaded and out of reach. (Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma realized how important the CARD Act was to President Obama and traded his vote in exchange for slipping in this wholly unrelated amendment.)
From an investment perspective, analysts believe credit card companies’ revenues should be stable in the short-term, but looking forward, the CARD Act could sting slightly.
Attorney General Eric Holder voices concerns about current rules on gun-buy records
Excerpt:
The Obama administration may seek to reduce legal limits on sharing gun-purchase data, Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress Thursday.
Holder said at a congressional hearing that the so-called Tiahrt amendment — the subject of a years-long fight between opponents and supporters of gun control — may limit evidence-sharing by state and local authorities.
"We are concerned about the impact the amendment has had on the ability to share information that is needed by state and local authorities," Holder said, though he added he wanted to make sure that increased information-sharing does "not put anybody at risk."
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a national gun control advocate, has long urged Congress to abolish the Tiahrt amendment. Gun rights advocates say the legislation only prevents frivolous lawsuits against gunmakers, and the further spread of such information may compromise police investigations.
For more than five years, cities suing the gun industry and anti-gun organizations have sought access to confidential law enforcement data on firearms traces. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) compiles these records when it traces firearms in response to requests from law enforcement agencies.
Every year since 2003, the U.S. Congress has passed increasingly strong language to keep this information confidential. The legislation—a series of "riders" to the appropriations bill that funds BATFE—is widely known as the "Tiahrt Amendment," after its sponsor, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.).
Police Stop Man For Carrying Gun Out In Open
Excerpt:
As WISN 12 News was interviewing a West Allis man about his past arrest for carrying a gun in the open, police confronted him again Tuesday night -- one day after the state's attorney general ruled it's legal.
"Somebody called the police that somebody was walking around with a gun on their hip," a West Allis police officer said.
"I would fit that description," Krause said.
"That would be you," a West Allis police officer said.
Police arrived up to investigate Krause while 12 News was interviewing him about his previous arrest for carrying a holstered gun on his hip outside his home. One officer saw Krause's gun and asked what agency he's affiliated with.
"I'm the same guy I was when you arrested me the last time," Krause said.
The officers asked for his name and called dispatch.
"The reason I'm checking is because felons can't have guns in Wisconsin," West Allis police said.
Krause is not a felon. He's a certified firearms instructor.
"Pretty much any time my pants are on, I'm armed," Krause said.
That includes carrying a gun outside his home as Wisconsin's attorney general has ruled is legal.
Excuse Me While I Get My Gun: Washington, D.C., defies the Supreme Court's Second Amendment ruling
Excerpt:
Under D.C. law, "machine guns" include not only guns that fire continuously but also guns that fire once per trigger pull if they can fire more than 12 rounds without reloading or "can be readily converted" to do so. According to the District's interpretation, even a pistol that fires 12 or fewer rounds counts as a "machine gun" if it could accept a bigger magazine.
That's why Dick Heller, the man who successfully challenged D.C.'s handgun ban, was not allowed to register his seven-shot .45-caliber pistol, which in the District's view might as well be an Uzi. Instead he applied to register a .22-caliber revolver.
Speaking of registration, the District has established a burdensome 12-step process that involves multiple trips to gun dealers and government offices, fingerprinting, a written exam, and ballistic testing. How long does all this take? "Up to 14 days," according to one police department publication. "Approximately eight weeks," according to another. "There are circumstances where it could take months," says Police Chief Cathy Lanier.
Registration easily could turn out to be so onerous or capricious that it effectively denies D.C. residents the right to keep and bear arms. The District's revised firearm storage requirements are even more clearly unconstitutional, since they unreasonably interfere with the very function, self-defense in the home, that the Supreme Court said is protected by the Second Amendment. Likewise the arbitrary ban on semiautomatic handguns, the most commonly used self-defense weapons.
"I am pretty confident that the people of the District of Columbia want me to err in the direction of trying to restrict guns," D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty told Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher.
Silver Bullet
Excerpt:
... it all the more troubling that no less than four Justices were willing to explain this right away. These are the same four liberal Justices who routinely invoke the "right to privacy" – which is nowhere in the text of the Constitution – as a justification for asserting various social rights. Yet in his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens argues that a right to bear arms that is plainly in the text adheres to an individual only if he is sanctioned by government.
Justice Breyer, who wrote a companion dissent, takes a more devious tack. He wants to establish an "interest-balancing test" to weigh the Constitutionality of particular restrictions on gun ownership. This balancing test is best understood as a roadmap for vitiating the practical effects of Heller going forward.
Using Justice Breyer's "test," judges could accept the existence of an individual right to bear arms in theory, while whittling it down to nothing by weighing that right against the interests of the government in preventing gun-related violence. Having set forth this supposedly neutral standard, Justice Breyer shows his policy hand by arguing that under this standard the interests of the District of Columbia would outweigh Mr. Heller's interest in defending himself, and the ban should thus be upheld.
But as Justice Scalia writes, no other Constitutional right is subjected to this sort of interest-balancing. "The very enumeration of the right takes [it] out of the hands of government" – even the hands of Olympian judges like Stephen Breyer. "Like the First, [the Second Amendment] is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people – which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew."
Comment: Good read.
SCOTUS: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
Comment: For all you SCOTUS and 2nd Amendment fans .. here are the details. Link has the full ruling.
Excerpts:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
...
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Excerpt:
Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.
Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.
In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place.
Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right
Excerpt:
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
Comment: I was hoping for a 7-2 or 6-3 decision. That was 5-4 underscores the importance of Bush's appointments to the Supreme Court. Had Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004 been elected the outcome would have been against this! Watch for Obama's reaction to this!
The Democrats and Gun Control
Excerpt:
Mr. Obama's campaign Web site touts his belief in the Second Amendment rights to have guns "for the purposes of hunting and target shooting." Conspicuously absent is the right to have firearms to defend one's self, home and family. In 2001, as a state senator, Mr. Obama voted against allowing the beneficiaries of domestic violence protective orders to carry handguns for protection.
Yet, as Mr. Obama has mockingly pointed out, Mrs. Clinton is not exactly a modern-day Annie Oakley wiling away weekends in a duck blind. As first lady, she helped organize the Million Mom March for "sensible gun laws" in 2000. It was led by the shrill gun prohibitionist Rosie O'Donnell.
Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly voted for antigun proposals, and co-sponsored many of them. After Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans and St. Tammany police confiscated guns from law-abiding citizens, violating an explicit Louisiana law. In some cases, the confiscation was carried out with the assistance of federal agents, and was perpetrated via warrantless break-ins into homes.
The next year, the U.S. Senate voted 84-16 for a homeland security appropriations rider stating: "None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used for the seizure of a firearm based on the existence of a declaration or state of emergency." Mrs. Clinton was one of the 16 who voted "no." Mr. Obama commendably voted with the majority.
Forty states currently allow most law-abiding adult citizens to carry concealed handguns for lawful protection, after a background check and (in almost all such states) a safety class. Of course those laws only apply to carrying within the relevant state. Mr. Obama told the Chicago Tribune in 2004 that he favored a national ban on concealed carry, to "prevent other states' laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." Mrs. Clinton campaigned against a licensed carry referendum in Missouri.
Support pours in for pizza driver
Excerpt:
A Des Moines pizza delivery driver who was suspended after he shot an alleged armed robber last week said Tuesday that he has been overwhelmed by support from people who cheered what happened.
"But no one had contacted me directly about a job offer," said James William Spiers III, 38, who was suspended by Pizza Hut after he fired multiple shots at a man who allegedly put a gun to his head Thursday and demanded money at the Sutton Hill Apartments, 2100 S.E. King Ave.
Comment: Dominos or Papa Murphys ... here I come!
Guns and Legal Ammo
Excerpt:
District of Columbia v. Heller has become the test case for a question that has animated legal scholars, politicians and lower courts for much of our modern history: Is the Second Amendment guarantee a collective right, which is to say it is reserved only for state militias, or is it an individual right?
Judge Laurence Silberman's landmark opinion last year for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down D.C.'s ban on handguns, rejecting the militia argument and scouring the historical and legal record to show that the Founders clearly intended to protect an individual's right to defend himself and family. The District appealed, and so the Supremes will issue the most important Second Amendment ruling in decades.
Judging by Tuesday argument, the High Court has a majority in support of the circuit court opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts asked why the Framers included the word "people" if the Amendment only applied to militias. Justice Antonin Scalia discussed the importance the Framers attached to providing citizens the means to protect against tyrannical government. Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the Court's swing vote, informed all in attendance that "In my view, there's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way."
Comment: Results in June
WSJ: Gun-Rights Showdown
Summary:
Conclusion:
But although the implications of striking down the D.C. gun ban are limited, a decision upholding an unqualified individual right in Heller would still be a significant victory for individual rights and constitutionalism. To shrink from enforcing a clear mandate of the Constitution -- as, sadly, the Supreme Court has often done in the past -- would create a new precedent that would be far more dangerous to liberty than any weapon in the hands of a citizen.
Transcript: Heller SCOTUS case (PDF)
Excerpts:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: If you're right, Mr. Dellinger, it's certainly an odd way in the Second Amendment to phrase the operative provision. If it is limited to State militias, why would they say "the right of the people"? In other words, why wouldn't they say "state militias have the right to keep arms"? (p 4)
JUSTICE KENNEDY: One of the concerns, Mr. Dellinger, of the framers, was not to establish a practice of amending the Constitution and its important provisions, and it seems to me that there is an interpretation of the Second Amendment differing from that of the district court and in Miller and not advanced particularly in the red brief, but that conforms the two clauses and in effect delinks them. The first clause I submit can be read consistently with the purpose I've indicated of simply reaffirming the existence and the importance of the militia clause. Those were very important clauses. As you've indicated, they're in Article I and Article II. And so in effect the amendment says we reaffirm the right to have a militia, we've established it, but in addition, there is a right to bear arms. (pp 5-6)
JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't see how there's any, any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a -- as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State- managed. But why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (p 7)
JUSTICE SCALIA: Blackstone thought it was important. Blackstone thought it was important. He thought the right of self-defense was inherent, and the framers were devoted to Blackstone. Joseph Story, the first commentator on the Constitution and a member of this Court, thought it was a personal guarantee. (p 8-9)
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, there's no question that the English struggled with how to work this. You couldn't conceal a gun and you also couldn't carry it, but yet you had a right to have it. Do you think the Second Amendment is more restrictive or more expansive of the right than the English Bill of Rights in 1689? (p 16)
JUSTICE SCALIA: Doesn't "well regulated" mean "well trained"? It doesn't mean -- it doesn't mean "massively regulated." It means "well trained." (p 26)
Comment: 108 pages!
NYTimes: Supreme Court Hears Gun-Control Case
Court decision on gun-control is personal for 2 women
Excerpt:
"In the event that someone does get in my home, I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them," she said. But Parker lives in the nation's capital, which does not allow its residents to possess handguns.
Elilta "Lily" Habtu thinks that is how it should be. She knows about gun violence firsthand, surviving bullets to the head and arm fired by the Virginia Tech University shooter nearly a year ago.
Comment: Is personal protection guaranteed? Previous CFG post
More: Supreme Court considers 'right to bear arms'
Excerpt:
The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment in the 216 years since its ratification. The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."
But Dick Anthony Heller, 65, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for self-defense. His lawyers say the amendment plainly protects an individual's right.
The court's ruling, expected by the end of June, could have a far-reaching impact on gun-control laws in the United States and could become an issue in the November election.
