guns

9th Circuit: There’s No Constitutional Right to Sell Firearms

(Firearm Daily)

A recent court case in California could have long reaching implications for Second Amendment rights and the way firearms can be sold to the public.
The case, Teixeira v. County of Alameda, has not gotten a lot of attention, but could drastically impact the ability of individuals to sell firearms in private party sales. As it stands, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision is a victory for those who wish to limit gun and firearm sales.
In the case, an individual wanted to open a full-service firearms shop; the intended location fell into a zone that required a conditional permit. In this location, a conditional permit is needed to open a gun shop near a school, daycare, residential area, liquor store or other firearms location. In short, the current law makes it very difficult to open a facility at all, since pretty much every location in the county is near one of the outlawed facilities or near a residential neighborhood.
The business owner challenged the ordinance, but was struck down by the court. Both the original decision and the appeal ruled in favor of the county, restricting the shop owners second amendment rights. As the plaintiff and business owner pointed out, restricting their ability to open a shop at all also prevented local citizens from purchasing firearms, potentially impacting their Second Amendment rights as well.
Should the plaintiff wish to appeal, the case could be heading to the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices would address whether the county’s ordinance and the court ruling were truly constitutional. The argument that prospective customers might not be able to buy firearms is not at the heart of the case; there are other gun shops nearby — the county could be infringing upon the owner’s Constitutional rights.
California’s 9th Circuit is already well-known for supporting laws and rulings that limit the rights of gun owners. In recent years, the court has upheld restrictive concealed carry laws and with this recent case, restricted the rights of business owners as well. Will this be the case that requires the Supreme Court to weigh in and clarify what rights individuals have to sell firearms and establish businesses under the Second Amendment?
As more and more locales seek to restrict rights, particularly in Democrat led areas, it may be time for the highest court in the nation to make rulings that clarify the protections the Constitution holds for law abiding citizens.

They’ll just keep battering away at common-sense language until nothing means what it says.  Much as the Communists do with rights.

Gee, I wonder if there’s a connection somewhere?

Governor in U.S. Virgin Islands Orders Gun & Ammo Confiscation

(from Liberty Headlines)

(WND) A hurricane is on the way, and preparations always include boarding up windows, stocking up on food, water and batteries, and sometimes fleeing inland.
A governor in one U.S. territory, however, has another plan: Grab all the guns.
According to the Daily Caller, the governor of the Virgin Islands, a U.S. territory, has signed an order to that effect.

The order explains that Gov. Kenneth E. Mapp authorized the territory’s adjutant general “to mobilize such units of the National Guard as are necessary to maintain or restore public order, and to guarantee the safety of life and property,” as Hurricane Irma approaches from the Atlantic.

The adjutant general, he said, “is authorized and directed to seize arms, ammunition, explosives, incendiary material and any other property that may be required by the military forces for the performance of this emergency mission, in accordance with the Rules of Force promulgated by the Virgin Islands National Guard and approved by the Virgin Islands Department of Justice.”

Irma was reported on Tuesday to be a Category 5 hurricane, with winds up to 175 miles her hour, and the eye is expected to pass just north of the heart of the islands on Wednesday.
The Daily Caller said Mapp signed the order Monday.
He warned, “This is not an opportunity to go outside and try to have fun with a hurricane.

“It’s not time to get on a surfboard,” he continued.

The gun seizure order technically also allows authorities to take control of “any other property.”

Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselo and Florida Gov. Rick Scott also declared states of emergencies in anticipation of Irma. But they did not include the gun confiscation authorization.

Mapp wrote that the order was issued under authority of Title 23, Chapter 19, Virgin Islands Code, and insisted it is necessary “to maintain the health, welfare, and safety of the people of the Virgin Islands.”

The adjutant general is given the right to “take whatever actions she considers necessary to carry out the assigned missions.”

The order provides for “payment for salaries, benefits, health insurance, worker’s compensation, necessary meals, fuel and other operational and administrative costs.”

But there was no mention of compensation to gun owners.

DON’T THESE CLOWNS REMEMBER KATRINA AND THE RESULT OF ILLEGAL GUN CONFISCATION THERE?

Now, For All You Arizonans Out There

(or any other interested parties)

New Arizona Laws

The 2017 legislative session ended on May 10.  Laws passed during a session are generally effective 90 days after adjournment.  The following pro-rights bills will become law on August 9.  You can view the status of all the bills AzCDL monitored during the session at our website’s Bill Tracking page.

Pro-rights Legislation

HB 2216 (Rep. Paul Boyer, R-LD20) makes it unlawful to require a person to use or subject themselves to electronic firearm tracking technology, a component of “smart gun” technology that limits the operation of a firearm as well as tracking its location and logging its use.

SB 1122 (Sen. Gail Griffin, R-LD14) prohibits a city, town, county, or the state from requiring the search of any federal or state database as a requirement for transferring personal property, such as your firearm.  Passage of this law should help complicate efforts we expect to see requiring “universal background checks” on private firearm transfers in Arizona.

SB 1344 (Sen. John Kavanagh, R-LD23) is the AzCDL-requested bill that clarifies that state and local governments cannot regulate the possession of weapons by employees or contractors in or on their privately owned property or vehicles.  This bill grew out of over-zealous local governments believing they can control all aspects of an employee’s or independent contractor’s private life.

Ballot Measure Reforms

The Constitution of Arizona, along with several other states, contains a provision influenced by the “Progressive” (i.e., Socialist) movement of the early 20th Century.  This provision allows for changes in state law, or even the Constitution itself, via a “citizen initiative” ballot measure bypassing the legislative process.  All that’s required to put an issue on the ballot are petition signatures from a small percentage of registered voters.  Unlike other states, once a citizen initiative ballot measure is passed in Arizona it can never be overturned by the Legislature.

Billionaire and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been exploiting this weakness in state constitutions to further his drive to disarm law abiding Americans.  In 2014 he successfully used the ballot measure process to achieve gun owner registration via “universal background checks” in the state of Washington.  In 2015, the Oregon legislature accommodated Bloomberg by passing similar laws.  In 2016, a Bloomberg backed ballot measure passed in Nevada.  We expect to see a Bloomberg backed ballot measure calling for “universal background checks” in Arizona, possibly in 2018.

This year the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, two laws that restore integrity to Arizona’s petition gathering process for ballot measures.

HB 2244 requires strict compliance to the ballot referendum constitutional and statutory requirements.

HB 2404 prohibits payment to petition “circulators” based on the number of signatures collected.  It also invalidates signatures collected by a paid circulator who fails to register with the Secretary of State.  New provisions have been added for challenging a ballot measure.  Apparently this new law is so threatening to those who want to take your rights away that a ballot petition has already been filed to overturn the provisions of HB 2404 in 2018.

We expect bigger challenges next year.  Those who want to disarm you, realizing that there is little chance of restricting your rights at the national level, are redoubling their efforts at the state level where they have the greatest chances to succeed.  Arizona is their number one target.  Stay alert.  Don’t succumb to “Trump Sleep.”

---

These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), an all-volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization.

AzCDL – Protecting Your Freedom

SIG Advertising

Dammit!

THIS appeared in my email today (from SIG)!

(Obviously, they don’t know my about my financial condition!) 😛

I DO like .45 ACP, and even though I never owned a 10 mm, I have shot them.  And I like them!

(I miss the SIG 220 I had marked West Germany!)

Sadly, until I win the Publisher’s Clearing House these are only a pipe dream…

(FTC – SIG has given me nothing.  Buy your own!)

Was the P320 Hammer Test Scientific? No. Did It Illustrate An Issue? Yes.

(from TFB)

There have been many comments left on our P320 hammer test video that dispute the validity of the test I performed with a hammer. I hate to tell you guys, but that was never supposed to be a scientific test. The reality of the matter is that I am flat out not set up for lab quality testing for failures with firearms, nor do I want to be.
I have seen all of your comments but have been on the road and unable to spend the time fielding them as I would like to have.
So why did I perform the test in the first place and why did I show you guys? Since the first news of the P320 drop safety failure hit the internet, I started having an extended conversation with a friend of mine who is well known for his aftermarket support of the P320. He and I spent some time spitballing what might be going on with the gun. As a result of those conversations, I shot the slow motion footage on my iPhone that made its way into the video.
Did I look at the footage frame by frame before shooting the video? Nope. I shot something quickly a few hours before I was due to be at the airport and on my way to Rockcastle Shooting Center in Kentucky. I probably got a bunch of things wrong, in fact I know I got some of it wrong.
For example, the trigger only traveled 1/8″ rearward when the back of the pistol was struck and allowed the striker safety to be disengaged. We still aren’t sure what is going on with the sear allowing the striker to be released, but at this point, it doesn’t really matter. All we can do now is wait for Sig to get the upgraded pistols out to shooters and see if they fail in the same manner as we have seen the P320 do so before.
You can watch the video above if you would like to see what video is being referenced.

A number of governmental entities have adopted the P320.  Then have walked-back their endorsement.  The most prominent being, of course, the DOD.

Seems there are some ‘safety’ issues.  Like they fail drop and hammer tests.

(As do a number of other already prominent firearms!)

We never used to see such waffling in sales/promotion of firearms.

While I’ve no dog in this hunt, I suspect LAWYERS are involved!

AH! The ‘Stuff’ Of The Internet…

I try to limit the flotsam and jetsam (i.e. Spam) in my primary email inboxes.  Not because I fear viruses (I do!) but because they are a waste of time.

But, spam filters being imperfect, sometimes ‘things’ get through!

Witness below:

(From a free DVD!)

Would You Like To Own A 100% Legal Glock 9mm That The Government Doesn’t Know Exists?…

Using Nothing But A Hacksaw, File, Drill And This Breakthrough FREE DVD You Can Literally Create A Fully Functional Undetectable Glock 9mm In Your Garage In Under An Hour, Just Like This…

P.S. This is currently 100% legal in all 50 states and I’d love to give it to you for free right now…

To the spam cave!

Second Amendment Guarantee Act Would Protect Popular Rifles, Shotguns from Antigun Politicians

(from NRA/ILA)

This week, Congressman Chris Collins (R-NY) introduced legislation that would shield popular rifles and shotguns, including the AR-15, from being banned under state laws. The bill, known as the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), would also protect parts for these firearms, including detachable magazines and ammunition feeding devices.
The bill is a response to antigun laws in a small handful of states – including California, Connecticut, D.C., Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York – that criminalize the mere possession of highly popular semiautomatic long guns widely available throughout the rest of the country. Although rifles or shotguns of any sort are used less often in murders than knives, blunt objects such as clubs or hammers, or even hands, fists, and feet, gun control advocates have sought to portray the banned guns as somehow uniquely dangerous to public safety.
Ask Your Representative to support the Second Amendment Guarantee Act
Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 3576, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act. You can call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121.
TAKE ACTION TODAY
Anti-gunners’ focus on these so-called “assault weapons” was renewed after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That decision made clear that handguns – by far the type of firearm most commonly used in crime – were subject to Second Amendment protection and could not be banned. This led gun control advocates to seek out other sorts of guns to demonize, and they’ve since been strenuously promoting the myth that semiautomatic rifles and shotguns with certain features such as detachable magazines, pistol grips or adjustable stocks are “weapons of war” with no legitimate civilian use.
Yet Americans overwhelmingly choose these types of firearms for legitimate purposes, including protection of their homes and properties, “three-gun” and other practical shooting sports, and hunting and pest control. And, indeed, the states’ legislative attempts to ban these guns has spurred a market for innovative products that use the same basic calibers and firing mechanisms, but with stock, grip, and accessory configurations that comply with legislative guidelines.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to review any of these state bans, lower courts have come up with increasingly strained readings of the Second Amendment and Supreme Court precedents to try to justify them. The Seventh Circuit, for example, held that even if a ban’s incursion on Second Amendment rights had no beneficial effect on safety whatsoever, it could still be justified on the basis of the false sense of security it might impart to local residents with exaggerated fears of the banned guns. “[I]f it has no other effect,” the majority opinion stated, the challenged “ordinance may increase the public’s sense of safety.” That’s hardly an acceptable offset for the infringement of a constitutional right.
Members of the Supreme Court have criticized their colleagues for failing to review these cases and the lower courts for misapplying Supreme Court precedent. As noted in a dissent filed by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Heller’s author, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, “Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles.” Moreover, the “overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting.” “Under our precedents,” Thomas concluded, “that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.”
With states’ violating Americans’ rights and federal courts allowing them to act with impunity, it is up to Congress to ensure that all Americans, wherever they may live, have access the best, most modern and innovative firearms for their lawful needs, including the protection of themselves and their families.
The SAGA would ensure that state regulations could not effectively prevent the manufacture, sale, importation, or possession of any rifle or shotgun lawfully available under federal law or impose any prohibitive taxes, fees, or design limitations on such firearms.
The NRA thanks Rep. Chris Collins for leading this important effort and urges his colleagues to cosponsor and support this staunchly pro-gun legislation.
Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 3576, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act. You can call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121.

IT’S ABOUT TIME!

Where were bills like this when the various ‘assault weapon bans’ were introduced?  Of course, the political climate has changed.

Let’s support bills like this before the pendulum swings back again the other way!

The truly sad part is if State and federal legislators truly followed their oaths, none of this would be necessary.

Does Possession Of A Firearm Justify A Stop And Frisk?

(from Tamara, via FB)

Guy A. Relford

July 31 at 1:07pm · Carmel, IN ·

If you carry a gun, you should know that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has ruled that you have relinquished your rights under the Fourth Amendment (contrary to the holding of the Indiana Supreme Court).

Please share!

http://www.wibc.com/…/indiana-ag-citizens-dont-forfeit-thei…

Florida Got It Backward

TWICE!

(from Wirecutter)

Florida arms tax collectors

by Wirecutter

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “A Central Florida tax collector says a new policy will allow his employees to openly carry firearms while they work,” The Associated Press reports. “Seminole County Tax Collector Joel Greenberg told the Orlando Sentinel that according to Florida law, he and his employees are considered ‘revenue officers’ and are exempt from the state’s ban on the open carrying of firearms while performing their duties.”

The rationale behind the move is to save taxpayers money by eliminating the need to hire private security.

“Tax collector Joel Greenberg says he is a ‘big believer in the Second Amendment,’” letter to the editor writer Gordon Crawford points out in the Orlando Sentinel. “If that is truly the case, he would know that this constitutional amendment was put in place to protect the public from government tyranny, not to arm the government.”
MORE
-JD

Supreme Court Declines To Take Carry Case

(from NRA-ILA GRASSROOTS VOLUME 24, NUMBER 26, in part)

Supreme Court Declines to Take Carry Case, but Gorsuch Casts a Solidly Pro-Gun Vote

Gun owners received disappointing news on Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that effectively let stand California’s “may-issue” permitting regime. The upshot of this decision is that law-abiding Californians in many areas of the state will be effectively denied the right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense.
But there was a silver lining to this development as Justice Neil M. Gorsuch – President Trump’s pick to replace the late, great Antonin Scalia – came out strongly in favor of the Second Amendment by joining a dissent from the court’s decision penned by Second Amendment stalwart Justice Clarence Thomas. Gorsuch’s participation in the dissent confirmed that he, unlike so many of his colleagues in the federal judiciary, is indeed prepared to take the Second Amendment seriously.
The underlying case was Peruta v. San Diego. The plaintiffs had complained of being arbitrarily denied concealed carry permits, the only way for law-abiding persons in California to exercise the right to carry loaded, operable firearms in public for self-defense. Each plaintiff met all the qualifications for a permit but one: they could not show an extraordinary need for self-protection that distinguished them from the general population, as required by licensing officials in their counties of residence.
The case therefore presented the court with an opportunity to clearly state whether or not the Second Amendment extends its protections beyond the home. Indeed, the three-judge panel that originally heard the case in the Ninth Circuit recognized that its defining issue was “whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”
The panel answered that question affirmatively, stating: “the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.” The panel also noted that it was California’s own decision to make concealed carry permits the only lawful path to do so. It therefore held the plaintiffs could prevail with “a narrow challenge to the San Diego County regulations on concealed carry, rather than a broad challenge to the state-wide ban on open carry ….”
After the panel’s opinion was published, the full Ninth Circuit voted for a larger en banc panel to rehear the case. The en banc decision, however, avoided the real issue presented by the case and held that “the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.” It therefore summarily disposed of the plaintiffs’ claims without confronting the question of whether the Second Amendment applies beyond the home at all.
The Supreme Court majority, as is typical, did not issue an opinion explaining why it refused to review the en banc decision. Its refusal to do so does not, however, represent an endorsement of the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning or holding. As commentators have mentioned, federal appellate and state courts of last resort have come out different ways on the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection for carrying outside the home, and these disparate outcomes are not affected by the Supreme Court’s decision this week. The court may simply have decided, for example, that it did not want the differences between the panel and en banc approaches to the case to cloud the issue presented for its own resolution.
Whatever the majority’s thinking, the opinions of Justices Thomas and Gorsuch came through with vivid clarity in a sharply worded dissent from the decision to pass over the case. “At issue in this case,” Thomas wrote, “is whether [the Second Amendment] protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.” They called the en banc court’s resolution of this issue “indefensible” and “untenable” and asserted it was “not justified by the terms of the complaint, which called into question the State’s regulatory scheme as a whole.” They also opined that that “[h]ad the en banc Ninth Circuit answered the question actually at issue in this case, it likely would have been compelled to reach the opposite result.”
Thomas and Gorsuch additionally chided their judicial colleagues for treating the Second Amendment as a “disfavored right.” Thomas explained:
The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years—since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742. Since that time, we have heard argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This discrepancy is inexcusable, especially given how much less developed our jurisprudence is with respect to the Second Amendment as compared to the First and Fourth Amendments.
The dissent also contrasted the plight of the average citizen who must largely provide for his or her own security with that of government elites “who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force.” The Framers, Thomas wrote, “reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.”