First, let me state I support both organizations. You may see links to them (along with other fine organizations) on this blog.
Frankly, I’ve not had the time (okay, the inclination) to study this issue in depth. Mea culpa.
Thankfully, Erin Palette of Lurking Rhythmically has done quite a fine, succinct analysis. You may see it here.
The issue appears to be The Second Amendment Foundation is considering acquiring the financially-troubled Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.
Like Ms. Palette, I’ve no opinion on this issue. Go to the link to see her analysis.
The kerfluffle appears to be some folks don’t like the SAF, and think they would somehow water-down or edit the JFPO’s message…
h/t Lurking Rhythmically
(via Legal Insurrection)
Federal Court Rules California 10-day Waiting Period Unconstitutional (for Some)
As reported by Calguns, California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases has been ruled unconstitutional (for at least some residents), in Silvester v. Kamala, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California (full decision embedded below):
California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge this morning in a significant victory for Second Amendment civil rights. The laws were challenged by California gun owners Jeffrey Silvester and Brandon Combs, as well as two gun rights groups, The Calguns Foundation and Second Amendment Foundation.
In the decision released this morning, Federal Eastern District of California Senior Judge Anthony W. Ishii, appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton, found that “the 10-day waiting periods of Penal Code [sections 26815(a) and 27540(a)] violate the Second Amendment” as applied to members of certain classifications, like Silvester and Combs, and “burdens the Second Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs.”
Under the court order, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) must change its systems to accommodate the unobstructed release of guns to gun buyers who pass a background check and possess a California license to carry a handgun, or who hold a “Certificate of Eligibility” issued by the DOJ and already possess at least one firearm known to the state.
BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!
Louisiana Court Rules Ban on Gun Possession Near Alcohol Unconstitutional
As reported at the Volokh Conspiracy, a Baton Rouge ordinance (§ 13:95.3) that banned the possession of guns on property where alcohol is served or sold–inclusive of the parking lots of such establishments, the scope of which includes grocery stores and Walmart–has been found unconstitutional in Taylor v. City of Baton Rouge by the US District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (decision embedded below). Interestingly, this decision was made in response to a motion for default judgment, indicating that the city of Baton Rouge had simply failed to adequately respond:
[T]he Court finds that Taylor’s allegations, which the Court accepts as true based on Defendants’ default, are sufficient to establish a viable claim for relief under the Second Amendment. Consequently, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has established a sufficient basis for judgment in his favor.
Our Rights are being gradually re-acknowleged, one court decision at a time! – Guffaw
(Courtesy of Fill Yer Hands, in part)
In a landmark ruling today (08-16-14) in the lawsuit against Cinemark by victims of the Aurora, Colorado theater shooting, US District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson ruled that because they are Gun Free Victim Zones,
“the patrons of a movie theater are, perhaps even more than students in a school or shoppers in a mall, ‘sitting ducks.’”
This means that the owners of the Century Aurora 16 Theater should have known its patrons faced a risk, and taken steps to protect them, which they did not.
Perhaps this is FINALLY the beginning of the end of forced victim, free-fire, targets-of-opportunity zones. Now, if we can extend this to all schools, colleges, churches and government buildings, we can take back some of our sovereignty!
And our right of self defense.
(in part from PawPaw’s House)
Regulars at the Vineyard Golf Club in Martha’s Vineyard were gobsmacked when President Obama unexpectedly strolled onto a nearby green and they were immediately frisked. “There was no warning he was coming,” sniffed a guest.
If the President showed up at my club and the members were frisked, I’d be pissed, but I don’t know all the niceties of presidential visits. So, I waited for Instapundit to weigh in. We realize, of course, that Insty is a professor of law in Knoxville.
How come nobody ever tells them to buzz off, and that if the President wants to play golf he can damn well respect the rights of others? The response to the ominous “So, you’re not cooperating?” should be “No, are you assaulting me?”
If the President wants to go out in public, fine. If he can’t do it without assaulting the rights of citizens, then he should stay home. But hey, most of these folks probably voted for him. So: Enjoy!
Citizens of a republic shouldn’t be subjected to frisking or wanding just because the boss shows up.
There was a time when most folks had access to firearms, and one could walk into the White House unimpeded. And nothing happened. Now, not only is visitation severely controlled and restricted, but encountering the Chief Executive on the golf course means impromptu cessation of civil rights.
What if he went jogging? Have an advance team feeling-up all the folks in advance of his running by? (And yes, I know Clinton went jogging – and even he didn’t molest the spectators!)
Just let me know if The President will be in my vicinity. I would leave, anyway, even if I weren’t legally armed.
Thanks, Rev. Paul, for the reminder!
Reportedly, Senate Democrats are pushing more gun control, TODAY!
CALL CAPITOL HILL TODAY!
||Gun Owners of America
Senate Democrats Gear up to Push More Gun Control
– Even after a CCW holder averts a mass shooting in Pennsylvania!
“More people are carrying concealed in this country, and yet the gun homicide rate has been dropping precipitously. We are safer today with more guns ‘on the street’ being carried in good people’s hands.” — GOA Communications Director Erich Pratt on WPFL, Florida (July 28, 2014).
Correction: This alert updates a couple of the broken links from last night’s alert. Also, there is an update in the DC case, which you can read about here.
Good News: There has been incredible news in the 2nd Amendment community over the past several days.
You may have heard that a DC federal judge struck down Washington, DC’s ban on carrying firearms in public on Saturday. Judge Frederick Scullen’s decision referenced the Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) — arguing that the carry ban violates the U.S. Constitution.
And last week, a concealed carry holder in Darby, Pennsylvania, saved countless lives when he used his firearm to stop a killer who was bent on taking down even more innocent lives.
Police said the armed doctor “saved lives” and prevented a disgruntled patient from walking down the hall and gunning down people “until he ran out of ammunition.”
See more good stories like this in real time by getting Facebook updates from GOA. Go to the GOA Facebook site and LIKE our page!
One would like to think that such good news would serve as an object lesson for our elected leaders. But not for Harry Reid and his cohorts.
Senate Democrats to Hold More Hearings on Gun Control
Even though the nation just witnessed a perfect example of how guns save lives in Pennsylvania, Senate Democrats are gearing up for another push to restrict 2nd Amendment rights.
It’s an amazing thing, really, especially considering that several D and F-rated Democrats are in tough reelection fights this fall. We are talking about Senators Mark Begich (D-AK), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Mark Udall (D-CO), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Al Franken (D-MN) and Mark Warner (D-VA).
So, what would you think Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are working on in order to aid their campaigns?
Answer: GUN CONTROL.
And the gun control which is being pushed on these Senators’ behalf is a particularly nasty piece of work.
Click here to read more about it to see what you can do!
ACTION: Contact your Senators. Tell them that Wednesday’s hearings show how much Senate Democrats hate the Second Amendment. Urge them to pass concealed carry reciprocity as the means for making people safer.
—– Conference on Concealed Carry —–
Students for Concealed Carry will hold their third National Conference in Washington, DC on Tuesday, August 5 in Washington. John Lott will be among the speakers. Click here for further information: http://concealedcampus.org/2014-scc-national-conference.
| h/t Rev. Paul, GOA
In a shame that rivals her Mayor being arrested and convicted for drug use, the District of Columbia is FINALLY forced by judicial edict to comply with the Constitution’s Second Amendment!
I’m reminded of a former friend and lawyer who carried concealed in D.C. in the 80’s, when doing so was a major felony. On one occasion he was forced to clear leather against
an armed assailant a misguided youth who confronted he and some female company near the Jefferson Memorial. The youth dropped his piece of rebar and fled the scene.
I asked Lew what if he had been forced to shoot the
bastard misguided youth, knowing the legal ramifications of having to do so. His reply? He would have taken the first available taxi to the Potomac, thrown the offending gun therein, and fled town!
This was a man not only known in D.C., but he had actually practiced before the Supreme Court. But he knew the then ‘law’ well enough to know he had no Constitutional protection of his right to possess and carry in that locale, much less shoot someone in self-defense.
At least, if he were alive today, he’d now have that carry right.
IF he were a legal resident…
For a number of years, I used to enjoy watching COPS and America’s Most Wanted back-to-back on Saturday nights. This was because I was usually dateless, and could live vicariously through the lives of videoed law enforcement and express outrage at criminals remaining at-large. And cheer when another miscreant was captured.
John Walsh was a heroic figure, because he spent years trying to get justice for his kidnapped and murdered son. The alleged perp finally died in prison. Good riddance. Having lost my daughter in an automobile accident – wherein the other driver paid only a fine – I could identify with him.
Mr. Walsh even copped to being a gun owner – for self-protection no less. I found this laudable.
BUT NOW, he’s picked up Piers Morgan’s mantle about NRA hating, and restricting the rights of the law abiding. It’s for the children(tm) ya know!
I no longer find him heroic and laudable. I no longer identify with him.
Disgusting is too kind a word. Hypocritical, too.
A Federal court in Denver ruled that it is acceptable for a police chief to order subordinates to attend an Islamic event — even if they object based on religious reasons.
When Paul Fields, a Tulsa, Oklahoma police officer, objected to being forced to go to an Islamic mosque that had featured a controversial speaker (who promotes the destruction of Western civilization and the creation of an Islamic caliphate), he was ordered by superiors he must attend the mosque or suffer the consequences.
Paul Fields is a Christian.
As a Christian, his unwillingness to attend centered around the fact he did not want to go to a religious event where the topics being covered “discussed Islamic beliefs, Muhammad, Mecca, and why and how Muslims pray.”
Fields, who was one of the key officers that lead a protection program for the mosque, …
Now, I believe in the rights enumerated in the First Amendment. Speech, Press, Assembly. Freedom of Religion (or from Religion) as mandated by State authority.
Doesn’t such an order violate such a Right?
I’m betting this was all done in the name of political correctness and inclusion. Because, after all even the opinions of those seeking to destroy us have value. (yeah, right – Guffaw)
I’m certain Hillary Clinton would agree. Except she stated legal firearms owners are terrorists and as such have no right to an opinion!
h/t Preserve Freedom
…or just duck…
An Oklahoma company has designed a bullet-resistant blanket that’s designed to protect children and teachers in the event of a school shooting.
The Bodyguard Blanket, made by ProTecht, is a bulletproof 5/16-inch pad that the company says is made from the same materials used by the U.S. military.
Steve Walker, a podiatrist who conceptualized the blanket, toldThe Oklahoman that the idea came to him after two tragedies: the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and the tornadoes in Oklahoma. He said the idea was to “stop that blunt-force trauma when that rubble is falling down on a child.”
The company estimates that the blanket can provide protection against 90% of all weapons that have been used in school shootings in the U.S.
The blanket has straps that can be fastened around users like a backpack. The lightweight pad is made of a high-density plastic used for ballistic armor. The material can also protect users from nails, shards of metal, and other sharp objects.
After testing the blanket at a shooting range, the makers said it provided protection against bullets from a 12-gauge buckshot, a .22-caliber, and a 9 mm, among others.
The $1,000 blankets are a cheaper alternative to tornado shelters, but its makers say they are better for school shootings. (says the manufacturer.)
HMMM…let me see…
$1000 per student (PLUS, they have to lug these things around!) versus hiring trained security personnel AND/OR TRAINING TEACHERS AND STAFF AND ARMING THEM!
I’m reminded of growing up during the Cold War, and the ubiquitous instructions for us to ‘duck and cover’ in case of a nuclear bomb attack.
And the lampooning by the 60’s college crowd of that practice, saying we should have put our heads between our legs and kiss our a**es goodbye!
h/t Facebook, Jodie Brown
(after yesterday’s ‘school shooting’ – aka a shooting which just happened to take place in a school – this was making the rounds – in addition to the usual calls for more ‘gun control laws’ – as though the kid yesterday hadn’t already violated numerous laws…THIS DOESN’T SOLVE THE PROBLEM – WHEN THESE CRIMES OCCUR, THE SCHOOLS CALL IN THE ONLY SOLUTION TO RESPOND – PEOPLE WITH GUNS! TRAIN AND ARM TEACHERS AND STAFF!) - Guffaw
Firehand bring us this from La La Land…
Under the proposed law, California gun owners could face a loss of their Second Amendment gun rights and confiscation of their firearms without prior warning. The proposed law allows the government up to two weeks following the issuance of a restraining order to set a hearing in which the subject of the order could argue for the reinstatement of their Second Amendment rights and return of any firearms seized.
“The subject of a restraining order and confiscation warrant may not even know they have been accused until there’s a SWAT team at their door.”
According to the bill’s text, courts would be required to issue a restraining order if a person–who doesn’t even have to know the target of the order–submits a form saying that a gun owner “poses a significant risk of personal injury to himself, herself, or others by owning or possessing” guns. (emphasis Guffaw)
Hey great! Fink on family, friends, neighbors – that annoying bastard down-the-street (or in the mall) to whom you took a dislike and decided they should be forced to give up their rights and guns without due process (or the Constitutional ability to face their accuser)…
And then they are given an opportunity to defend themselves up to two weeks after the fact to take the matter to court!
YES! We can all be mental health ‘professionals’ properly assessing the mental state of anyone; able to deprive them of their rights for any reason!
Just fill out this form.