Leatherneck Blogger

Archive for the ‘2nd Amendment’ Category

Christian Science Monitor: Right to Self-Defense Added to 2nd Amendment ‘Only Recently’

leave a comment »

By Awr Hawkins
Breitbart
January 9, 2018

In a long and circuitous piece intended to explain that national reciprocity violates states’ rights, the Christian Science Monitor claimed the right to self-defense was added to the Second Amendment “only recently.”

Their exact claim: “[National reciprocity legislation] has pitted a sense of overriding states’ individual wishes and local character against shifting legal views of the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court has expanded only recently to include self-defense.”

This appears to be a not-so-veiled reference to District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), although neither case created or added a right to the Second Amendment. Rather, the ruling in Heller reaffirmed the individual nature of the rights that had always been protected by the Second Amendment and the ruling in McDonald held that the rights protected by the Second Amendment are incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, they are doubly protected.

To be clear, Justice Samuel Alito wrote the McDonald majority opinion and did use a small portion to explain that self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment, but he did not do this because SCOTUS made it central. Rather, he did it as a way of showing self-defense has always been a crucial right protected by the Second Amendment. It was the centrality of self-defense that supported the ruling of incorporation, not the other way around.

Nevertheless, the Christian Science Monitor says the right to defend oneself was added to the Second Amendment “only recently.”

They also suggested Americans may not even possess a right to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense. They said, “The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether there is a right for law-abiding Americans to carry a concealed weapon.” This would be strange thinking to our Founding Fathers, who risked their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor, to secure the exercise of God-given rights that predate the United States, and certainly the Supreme Court.

The Founders hedged in the right not simply to keep arms but to bear them as well, as the Second Amendment plainly states. And the Founders also used the words “shall not be infringed” to ensure a widespread understanding that keeping and bearing arms was not something placed under the purview of government. Rather, it was (and is) a natural right possessed and exercised by free men.

 

Well Done, Hollywood Left: You Just Got The Second Amendment Totally Wrong (Again)

with 2 comments

By Matt Vespa
Townhall
December 29, 2017

If there’s a reason why Hollywood should just stay out of politics, especially gun politics, and this is your classic example. Ed Asner and Ed Weinberger, a screenwriter, decided to teach the National Rifle Association a history lesson on the left wing site Salon. It dropped a little before Christmas, and it ended with both men getting a face full of buckshot. They argued that our Founders were pro-gun control, which is odd given that the first shots fired in our American Revolution at the battles of Lexington and Concord, were in response to British soldiers trying to seize our guns. Still, let’s go through their arguments:

Now that we have your attention, let’s consider the case made by the NRA, its Congressional hired hands, the majority of the Supreme Court, and various right wing pundits who claim the Second Amendment is not simply about state militias but guarantees the unfettered right of everyone to own, carry, trade and eventually shoot someone with a gun.

[…]

First, here’s that elusive Second Amendment as it now appears in the Bill of Rights: “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.”

Arguably not the clearest amendment in the Constitution. And that’s the problem with it: While stating the need for a “well-regulated Militia,” does it at the same time also guarantee the individual citizen the personal right to “keep and bear arms?” In 2008, Justice Antonin Scalia, ruling for the Majority, said that it was. Ignoring over 200 years of precedent, historical context, the Framers’ Intent and the D.C. laws of its elected officials, Scalia relied solely on the text, arbitrarily dividing the Amendment into two parts. The first – “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” — he called the prefatory clause. The second part – “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” — he called the operative clause. Claiming that second part was all that really mattered; Scalia discarded as irrelevant that inconvenient reference to a “state militia.

[…]

Here is Madison’s first draft of the Second Amendment:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Madison’s intent could not be more obvious: his Second Amendment refers only to state militias. If not, why include that exemption for what we now call “conscientious objectors?”

When Madison’s amendment was rewritten by a joint committee from the House and Senate in 1791, the “religious” exemption was lopped off as too cumbersome in language and too complex to enforce. Thus, the Amendment as it now stands.

Okay—what am I missing here? Asner and Weinberger really just ignore the Supreme Court to peddle a recycled liberal talking point. Of course, the anti-gun Left peddled the tired and disregarded state militia provision, just as they ignore the Citizens United decision and its implications on expanding free speech rights. Also, this line, “the unfettered right of everyone to own, carry, trade and eventually shoot someone with a gun” is just pure trash. Law-abiding gun owners are not killers in waiting. Second, it’s not an unfettered right; Justice Scalia said so in the Heller decision, which they don’t mention in their piece:

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 fire- arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

You hear that guys. You have the right to own a firearm unconnected to a militia, but states have the right to impose their own restrictions, like on concealed carry rights. This is a rather explicit recognition of federalism, along with limiting the Court’s impact so as to not produce challenges to laws prohibiting domestic violence abusers, the mentally ill, and convicted felons from owning firearms—all common sense provisions. Stephen Gutowski found some of Madison’s quotes about the Second Amendment as well. It doesn’t help the pro-gun control hypothesis that’s rather shoddy in this piece. In fact, if these two guys had read Heller, they would see it’s not some SCOTUS opinion intended to turn the country into the Wild West. Anti-gunners, you guys have lost this debate. Gun rights have expanded since this landmark 2008 decision. Every state recognize concealed carry rights, even in Washington D.C. The Second Amendment isn’t going anywhere. Deal with it.

 

Why Colorado Doesn’t Need New Gun Laws

with one comment

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
January 5, 2018

Almost any loss of life qualifies as a tragedy. Even the loss of someone so despicable that most of us would gladly have pulled the trigger may well be an unmitigated tragedy for someone who cared about that individual.

However, even the loss of a deputy’s life shouldn’t spur new gun laws without a darn good reason. Luckily, it seems people in Colorado get that.

After the killing of Douglas County sheriff’s deputy Zackari Parrish on Sunday as well as the shooting of others, including four other deputies, some gun control activists are calling for new state laws.

“We don’t have any tools in Colorado for the police to disarm the individual,” said Eileen McCarron, president of Colorado Ceasefire, a gun control advocacy group.

McCarron is arguing for the Gun Violence Restraining Order, which would allow family members and police to ban gun ownership from individuals for up to a year.

Any request for a ban would have to be signed off by a judge. California, Washington, Oregon and Connecticut have signed similar measures into law.

The gunman had an apparent history of mental illness, including a psychotic episode with the Wyoming VA in 2014 as well as concerns from the University of Wyoming.

But multiple sources said there is little appetite for new gun control laws at the state Capitol — at least right now.

That’s because Colorado, nor any state for that matter, has a need for additional tools to disarm people.

The gunman in question should have been mentally adjudicated as being a danger and he wasn’t. Had he been, his ability to legally own firearms would have ceased and this incident wouldn’t have happened.

The problem with these Gun Violence Restraining Orders is that they allow people to be disarmed over some awfully tenuous circumstances. Note the phrasing here. It “would allow family members and police to ban gun ownership.” Family members.

How many of us have family that disagrees with gun ownership? Do you really think someone won’t try to use this to settle personal scores?

No, don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there needs to be more to it than a family member’s desire to disarm someone. And yes, there needs to be a judge’s approval for anything to happen. Yes, I get all that.

However, people lie and judges believe those lies all the time.

Plus, there are plenty of existing laws on the books that could have averted this particular tragedy if only someone had utilized them. They didn’t. Why didn’t they? Who knows. Maybe they thought the killer would get better. Maybe they thought that while he was disturbed, he wasn’t a threat. Who knows.

What we do know is that the ball got dropped plenty of places along the way.

So why wouldn’t the gun grabbers in Colorado want to try and push for one more anti-gun law in the process? Why not? It’s what they do, especially when it’s just too damn hard to look at the problem objectively and try and address the root of the problem for a change.

Anti-Gun Celebs Gather For Golden Globes Under Protection Of Men With Guns

with 2 comments

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
January 7, 2018

One of Hollywood’s premiere events is taking place later today with the Golden Globes set to take the stage. Host Seth Meyers has already promised to get political during the show–which never turns out badly for Hollywood, now does it–and that may well mean some slams on guns and gun ownership.

Even if it doesn’t, however, the audience will be filled with people who have pontificated on the topic of firearms and the Second Amendment, usually without having a freaking clue what they’re talking about. They’ll be sitting there with their fellow celebrities and, oddly enough, they’ll be nice and safe.

Why?

Because despite their insistence that guns are a problem, they’ll be protected by men with guns.

With this year marking the 75th anniversary of the Golden Globes, organizers have heightened security for the event.

With the Globes and subsequent after-parties scheduled to take place Sunday at and around the Beverly Hilton, the Beverly Hills police are collaborating with multiple law-enforcement agencies on security. The FBI and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department are working with Beverly Hills P.D.

Meanwhile, private security officers employed by event organizers are expected to play a major role. The Hilton on Wednesday provided Variety with details of its plan to move after-party attendees through a revised transportation and security system following last year’s check-in meltdown that saw long wait times for guests arriving at the after-parties from off-site. The new plan calls for an increase in the number of security stations processing party-goers as they check in to the event, and expedited travel for shuttle buses through security checkpoints.

Asked whether attendees can expect to once again see armed officers wearing body armor at and around the Globes and related events, as was the case last year, Hoshino said, “Absolutely. That’s the norm.” He added, “I know that we’re using a lot of technology at the event. We consider this a large-scale event, and there’s going to be a multi agency response.”

For all their arrogant talk about guns and gun ownership, they have no problem hiding behind armed security, not just in their day-to-day lives, but in their social lives as well.

The thing is, most Americans don’t get armed security everywhere they go. We don’t get the virtual army of private security that celebrities at the Golden Globes get. We get whatever we can muster ourselves, and only an elite few can afford professional bodyguards. Most of us can’t.

That means we buy guns. We get guns to protect our homes and our families because we don’t have the resources to hire security.

It remains to be seen just what topics Meyers will spout off on. He may be wise enough to leave guns off the table, especially if he’s self-aware enough to understand that pontificating on guns for average Americans while surrounded by armed men paid to keep you safe is just begging to get everyone labeled as hypocrites.

As it stands, plenty of them are. They enjoy the safety provided by men with guns, but would rather see you unable to provide that safety to your family, just because it makes them feel funny.

Mother Of Dead Robber: ‘Why Did He Shoot Him Five Times?”

with one comment

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
January 8, 2018

I feel bad for Cynthia Ruiz. In addition to being a widow, she has now had to bury her son. It’s a horrible thing to lose one of your children, but she did.

However, I can only feel so bad for her. After all, her son brought this on himself.

Ruiz’s son, Andrew Herrera, was shot and killed when he tried to rob a Popeye’s Chicken in Texas. That’s when he came face-to-face with the state’s self-defense laws.

Now, Ruiz has questions.

 “Did my son deserve to be punished? Yes, he did,” Ruiz said.

Police said Herrera, wearing a hoodie and a mask, entered the South Side restaurant with gun and confronted a man and his family who were eating.

After the man told Herrera he had spent the money he had on their dinner, Herrera turned toward the counter and pointed the gun at one of the workers, who was running away.

That’s when the man, who had a concealed handgun license, fired several shots at Herrera.

A police spokesman later said, “Here in Texas, if you’re in fear of loss of life, loss of property, you have a right to defend yourself.”

Ruiz said she understands the man who shot her son was defending his family, but she asked, “Why shoot him four more times? Why did he shoot him five times?”

I hate to break it to Ruiz, but the reason the man shot him five times was simple. You shoot until there’s no longer a threat. The armed citizen judge there was still a risk to him and his family–and the word “family” means no self-respecting man is going to take a chance at that point–and kept shooting until there was no longer a threat.

Shootings aren’t like the movies or on TV. You don’t shoot to wound. A wounded person can still kill you. You shoot until the threat has been eliminated. If the first shot wounds them but they drop their weapon and surrender, so much the better for everyone, but only a complete and total idiot expects that to happen.

Herrera threatened the lives of human beings, and he paid a price for that. It’s a price that Ruiz is being forced to pay, which is a pity, but either she failed to teach him it was wrong to steal, or he failed to heed the lessons. Either way, he tried to rob a chicken place and came face-to-face with someone who was not going to be a victim.

Why was Herrara shot five times? Because he stood there, gun in hand, and threatened the innocent.

Ruiz contends that a second suspect who served as Herrera’s getaway driver claims the gun wasn’t loaded. To that I reply, “So what?”

If you point a gun at me, my family, or anyone else in my vicinity, I’m not going to assume that it’s unloaded. That is stupid, especially since one of the basic rules of firearm safety is to treat all firearms as if they’re loaded. For me, that applies to the one in the criminal’s hand. I’m going to act as if it’s loaded because the alternative is the loss of innocent life if I’m wrong.

Why did they have to shoot him five times? Because he was a threat, and common wisdom is to just keep shooting until he’s not a threat any longer.

If you want your kids to not be shot, impress upon them that this is what happens when you threaten people with a gun.

‘Black Guns Matter’ Group Joins World’s Largest Gun Show With a Unique Message

with 2 comments

By Lauretta Brown
Townhall
January 5, 2018

Black Guns Matter, a Second Amendment education group with an urban focus, will be featured in and sponsoring SHOT Show, the largest gun show in the world.

Maj Toure founded Black Guns Matter in 2015. The group is focused on providing Second Amendment education and information to urban communities that are plagued by violence.

“I don’t think there’s a black gun culture or white gun culture,” Toure says on the group’s website. “I think there’s an informed gun culture and an ignorant gun culture.”

In their December feature on black gun ownership, Toure told The Huffington Post why gun ownership and education has become so important to him.

“Guys in my neighborhood would get drunk and shoot their guns into the air on New Year’s Eve,” Toure recounted. “Bullets come down though, number one. Number two, you’re wasting ammo. And number three, that’s just not responsible. I had uncles who were in Desert Storm, I got uncles who were in Vietnam. And seeing their understanding of firearms and how they carried themselves, I immediately had what to do and what not to do.”

Toure explained what his group is doing to spread more education about gun safety and laws.

“We give classes free to all on firearm safety, on knowing the law, on how to apply state laws and for different permits, how to get a license to carry in your particular town, who are some trainers that you can work with,” he said. “We work with trainers locally for whatever city, lawyers that know firearm laws, the Sanskrit, the basics, conflict resolution, de-escalation tactics. We give lessons on basics, so in essence it’s a class on the Second Amendment, on human rights, on civics, firearm safety and the cultural differences between communities.”

He went on to address the historical significance of the Second Amendment and his perspective as a black gun owner.

“America would not have even been created without firearms,” Toure emphasized. “Some people say it’s a contradiction for me as an African-American man to have a position: ‘When they wrote the Second Amendment, they didn’t mean it for you.’ I don’t give a f**k who they meant it for. It’s mine now.”

John McNamara, senior director for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) that sponsors SHOT Show, told the Washington Examiner Friday that “the era of cultural divide when it comes to firearms ownership should be a thing of the past, and thanks to the work of Maj Toure and Black Guns Matter, we’re a lot closer to that being a realization.”

“He’s putting his money where his mouth is through this sponsorship, but his real impact will be in the ‘Black Guns Matter: Engaging Urban Communities in the 2nd Amendment Fight’ Retailer Seminar he’ll be conducting,” he said.

SHOT Show will kick off January 23rd at the Sands Expo Center in Las Vegas.

NY County Executive Bans Gun Sales On County Property

with one comment

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
January 5, 2018

The idea of a New York politician who hates guns is is only slightly more shocking than finding out about a fish that prefers water to dry land. It’s just not terribly surprising.

For one recently elected official, however, he wasted no times trying to establish his bonafides.

Democrat George Latimer took office Monday as Westchester County Executive and among the first order of business was to bounce future gun shows.

Latimer in November defeated two-term Republican incumbent Robert Astorino for the spot as head of the executive branch of the million-resident county in the Hudson Valley and his First Year Plan includes prohibiting gun shows from the County Center. The new county head said he felt having gun shows on government property did not reflect the community and signed an executive order this week temporarily banning future events.

“While I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, I do not believe that there is any proper role for government in promoting guns and gun paraphernalia,” said Latimer. “Additionally, the Westchester Gun Show has brought with it horrendous problems, including the availability of Confederate and Nazi memorabilia.”

According to local media, the last show held at the Center in early 2017 drew about 7,500 over two-days and a spokesman for then-county boss Astorino said the event was “well-run and well-attended.” The Democrat-heavy county legislature had previously voted 9-8 to ban further gun shows, a move Astorino vetoed, saying there was no basis for a restriction.

I do so love how he claims to be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.

Here’s a pro tip for you. If you start off a sentence with, “While I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment,” then you’re probably about to do something that shows that you aren’t.

While we can agree to disagree over whether a government should promote guns in any way, renting a space to someone doesn’t constitute “promotion” in any way, shape, or form.

In fact, I suspect Latimer is likely to find his county being sued rather quickly. Absent a problem stemming from gun shows, there’s no basis to ban them from county-owned property except personal politics.

Even the argument surrounding the presence of Confederate and Nazi memorabilia falls flat for one simple reason, these items are typically being marketed for historical reasons, not racial ones. Like it or not, both of these entities existed and there are people who are fascinated with the material culture of both armies for whatever reason. Since a Venn diagram of military history buffs and gun buffs would show a massive overlap, it’s not hard to understand why these items are sold there, especially since there are so few places that will sell either these days.

But it seems that Latimer, despite his claims of supporting the Second Amendment, is really just virtue signaling like so many of his fellow Democrats. From here, it looks like he wants all the other Democrats to know that he’s doing his part to fight gun owners.

If he wants to claim to be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, then he needs to act like one.

Abbas orders staff to sever ties with US over Trump Jerusalem declaration

with one comment

By Christine Douglass-Williams
Jihad Watch
December 27, 2017

he Palestinian Authority’s rift with the U.S. is growing deeper, according to Israeli media outlets. PA President Mahmoud Abbas president has come to see U.S. President Donald Trump as “a lost cause,” according to the Tims of Israel.

Abbas is unglued and will not be comforted. Why? because America exercised its right to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, in keeping with Jewish history of its land. This naturally does not bode well for Palestinian interests, as their primary goal is to obliterate the Jewish state. The world still has not come to grips with the fact that appeasement of jihadists just does not work. The more they are appeased, the more empowered and emboldened they become.

According to a report aired by Channel 2 news, Abbas was “not only closing the door, but throwing away the key” on the chance of any future Palestinian-American relations.

Now the “White House is reportedly looking for a Palestinian liaison other than Abbas.” Congratulations to the White House in attempting to maintain its honor in getting along, but its dream is rather unlikely, unless the PA changes its charter to accept Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.

“Reports: PA President Mahmoud Abbas Instructs Staff to Sever Ties With U.S.”, Breitbart, December 25, 2017:

The Palestinian Authority’s rift with the U.S. is growing deeper, according to Israeli media outlets.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas president has come to see U.S. President Donald Trump as “a lost cause,” according to the Tims of Israel.

The PA leader reportedly instructed his staff to sever all ties with US diplomatic officials at every level, including relations between the Palestinians and American diplomats posted at the U.S. Consulate in East Jerusalem.

The White House is reportedly looking for a Palestinian liaison other than Abbas.

Last week, the Palestinians announced they would not meet with U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, who was scheduled to arrive in the region. Pence visited U.S. soldiers posted in Afghanistan instead.

According to a report aired by Channel 2 news, Abbas was “not only closing the door, but throwing away the key” on the chance of any future Palestinian-American relations.

A White House official who was interviewed by the Times of Israel said in response to the Channel 2 report: “Apparently, the outlet that has reported this hasn’t been paying attention over the past several months. As we have said over and over again, we will not impose a peace deal. That is not news. We anticipated a cooling off period and remain as committed to peace as ever and are working hard on our plan, which we will present when the time is right.”

The Palestinians, according to Channel 2, have no plans to lift their boycott of the U.S.

2017 gun rights wins, losses in the courts

with one comment

By Chris Eger
Guns.com
December 18, 2017

Second Amendment litigation saw important gains in the restoration of gun rights, but also significant reverses in other areas at both the federal and state level.

‘Assault weapons’

Just hours before a ban on grandfathered “high capacity” magazines was to take effect in California, a federal judge found a host of flaws with the pending ban and put it on hold.

In December, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up a challenge to Maryland’s assault weapon ban. At stake in Kolbe v. Hogan was the 2013 Maryland law signed by staunch anti-gun Democrat Gov. Martin O’Malley that banned guns deemed “assault weapons” due to cosmetic characteristics and limited magazine capacity to 10 rounds. The backers of the lawsuit, to include 21 state attorneys general and several gun rights groups, argued the firearms subject to the Maryland ban are protected under existing case law related to arms lawfully carried in common use.

Carry rights

The U.S. Supreme Court in January turned away a challenge to the concealed carry permitting system in Illinois brought by gun owners who say they were refused permits and offered no explanation by the state for their denial. Likewise, the court upheld California’s strict concealed carry permitting practices – leaving conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch to cry foul.

In a win for campus carry advocates, a federal court in Texas dismissed a lawsuit brought by a trio of university professors who argued the carry of guns in their classes would chill discussion, thus hindering their right to free speech.

Florida, one of just five states that ban the open carry of firearms, saw a challenge to the prohibition rejected by both the highest courts in the state and the nation this year. Backed by Florida Carry, the group argued the ban is unconstitutional as concealed carry in the state is a licensed privilege, and conflicts with the right to keep and bear arms protected under the Second Amendment.

Officials in Washington, D.C. decided to scrap their controversial “good reason” test as part of its gun licensing program, which resulted in more permits declined than granted and effectively barred most people from carrying firearms outside of their home. The move came after a series of setbacks handed to the city by the courts and immediately saw the number of permit applications double.

In Delaware, the state supreme court lifted a long-running ban on the carry of firearms in 40,000 acres of forests and parks maintained by the state, citing the agencies that established the gun free zones lacked the authority to make such a call.

Gun fees, taxes and waiting periods

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit said in June that California’s allocation of $5 of the $19 fee on firearms transfers to fund efforts to collect guns from those the state deems no longer able to possess them is constitutional. The state argued that the use of the money to fund a gun confiscation program was a “common sense connection” between the payment of a fee to ensure that people who want firearms in California and the “use of that fee to recover firearms from persons who become prohibited from possessing them.”

Meanwhile, another California practice, that of a mandatory 10-day waiting period on all firearms purchases, was challenged to the U.S. Supreme Court on grounds that it is a violation of the Second Amendment.

In October, the Washington Supreme Court held that large cities such as Seattle can establish and collect local taxes and that– contrary to claims in a lawsuit filed by gun rights groups– a planned $25 fee on firearms and up to 5-cents per round of ammunition, did not violate the state’s preemption law.

Gun ranges and shops

Chicago’s efforts to keep gun ranges out of the city was rebuffed by the U.S. 7th Circuit in January who found the Windy City’s regulations on such businesses unconstitutional.

In a decision handed down by the U.S. 9th Circuit, a panel held that local governments could regulate the sale of firearms and that the Second Amendment does not protectthe ability to engage in gun sales. The ruling came in a challenge to an Alameda County law barring gun stores within 500 feet of residential properties which effectively prohibited new shops in the area.

Loss of gun rights

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a decision that restored the lost gun rights of two men who lost them due to relatively minor sentences. One pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of corrupting a minor — a 17-year-old he was in a relationship with — to which he received three years’ probation, while the other pleaded to unlawfully carrying a handgun without a license and received a 180-day suspended sentence. That case came just weeks after a panel of the U.S. 10th Circuit unanimously found that a Kansas man prohibited from gun possession due to a prior domestic battery charge shouldn’t be.

In December, a federal court found that an involuntary emergency treatment of a Pennsylvania man for less than 24 hours did not trigger a lifetime ban on firearms. Listed as a prohibited firearms possessor in the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System over the brief hospital stay, the judge in the case held the man’s brief history of mental illness did not square against federal gun prohibitions on those who have been committed to a mental institution.

Microstamping

A 2014 case challenging California’s microstamping mandate has spent most of the year under review by the state Supreme Court. The lawsuit is backed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, who insist the legal requirement for semi-auto handguns to mark cartridges with a microscopic array of characters, that identify the make, model and serial number of the pistol upon firing was “impossible to accomplish.” The groups argue the technology is unproven in actual field conditions and easy for criminals to defeat. A decision in the matter could be forthcoming in 2018.

Tasers

Following up on a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court decision clarifying tasers and stun guns were protected under the Second Amendment, gun rights groups and community activists filed a flurry of litigation targeting often longstanding prohibitions on the devices. As a result, city-wide bans in Annapolis, Baltimore, New Orleans, Philadelphia, and Tacoma fell by the wayside as did a statewide restriction in New Jersey. Further legal actions are still underway in Massachusetts and New York.

Savor the irony: 3 sanctuary cities sue feds for lapses in adding names to gun background check database

with one comment

By Thomas Lifson
American Thinker
December 27, 2017

Some reporting requirements are more equal than other reporting requirements, it seems. New YorkPhiladelphia, and San Francisco all proudly and deliberately flout reporting requirements that would allow federal authorities to keep illegal aliens who have committed crimes out of our country, and unable to victimize future Kate Steinles.

Yet, these same reporting scofflaws now are hardliners when it comes to inadvertent failures to add names to the federal firearms background list. This would have done nothing to save Kate Steinle, whose assailant illegally obtained his weapon (he claims he found it under a bench).

Colleen Long of the Associated Press reports:

Three large U.S. cities filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against the Department of Defense, arguing that many service members who are disqualified from gun ownership weren’t reported to the national background check system. (snip)

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, seeks an injunction and judicial oversight to ensure ongoing compliance with the Defense Department’s obligation to submit records. (snip)

“The department continues to work with the services as they review and refine their policies and procedures to ensure qualifying criminal history information is submitted to the FBI,” said Tom Crosson, a Pentagon spokesman.

Just so. It is important in ensuring the safety of Americans that dangerous people – including veterans who were disqualified from firearms during their service – be added to federal databases. But the same logic also applies to dangerous illegal alien criminals when they are released from custody by states and localities.

How stupid do the Democrats running  these big cities think we are?

%d bloggers like this: