Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

David Kopel:

You might think that a government unit called the “U.S. Army Corps of Engineers” would mainly perform projects such as building military forts and similar facilities. Yet the Corps of Engineers has acquired jurisdiction over many things that have nothing to do with the military. In particular, “The Corps of Engineers is the nation’s largest provider of water-based outdoor recreation. It administers 422 lake and river projects in 43 states, spanning 12 million acres, encompassing 55,000 miles of shoreline and 4,500 miles of trails, and including 90,000 campsites and 3,400 boat launch ramps. Waters under its control constitute 33 percent of all U.S. freshwater fishing.” (Here is a list of the Corps’ 1,969 recreational facilities.) Thanks to a lawsuit brought by the Mountain States Legal Foundation, the Corps has announced that it is reconsidering the gun ban on its outdoor property.

The Corps allows hunting on some of its land. Except for hunting, possession of a functional firearm is prohibited on Corps land — even a handgun inside one’s own tent. In Nesbitt v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Mountain States Legal Foundation (a public-interest law firm based in Denver) filed a lawsuit on behalf of two Idaho residents, regarding Corps recreational land in Idaho. In 2014, Federal District Judge B. Lynn Winmill (appointed in 1995 by President Bill Clinton) ruled that the ban violates the Second Amendment. The Obama administration then appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

The prohibition was adopted in 1973, during the Richard Nixon administration. Nixon – -the only U.S. president ever to resign in order to avoid certain removal from office by the House and Senate — thought “guns are an abomination.” His administration promulgated a variety of anti-gun regulations.

[ … ]

Note that by banning ammunition, the regulation also forbids the possession of unloaded firearms that could be loaded in an emergency (if sufficient time were available).

Winmill held that “this complete ban goes beyond merely burdening Second Amendment rights but ‘destroys’ those rights for law-abiding citizens carrying operable firearms for the lawful purpose of self-defense.” Accordingly, the ban was unconstitutional. The opinion recognized the Corps’ authority to regulate guns on its outdoor property, but not to forbid them altogether.

A similar case in Georgia, involving a different attorney and plaintiffs, was remanded by the 11th Circuit. GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 788 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2015). The 11th Circuit held that the total ban was not a destruction of Second Amendment rights, since visitors spend only part of any given year on Corps property.

[ … ]

As the Corps follows through on its reconsideration, it has a very useful model available. In 2009, Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed (as an amendment to bill involving credit card laws) legislation allowing the lawful carrying of firearms on lands in the National Park Service. This was later extended to include the National Wildlife Refuge System. 54 U.S.C. § 104906; 36 C.F.R. § 2.4. In short, a person can carry a firearm on such property if the person can legally own a firearm and if the carrying is compliant with the law of the host state. Some states require a permit to carry a firearm; some require a permit for concealed carry but not for open carry; and others do not require a permit for either mode.

Although some people predicted disaster when the National Parks law was enacted, its operation in the past eight years has been uneventful. It is reasonable to presume the same for a similar regulation for Corps of Engineers recreational property.

A number of comments are in order.  First of all, it’s inappropriate in the superlative for the Army Corps of Engineers to have control of land and waterways like they do.  This is a misuse of tax monies and of the Army as well.  If the Army did engineering well, SL-1 wouldn’t have had a control rod ejection accident and they would be the reactor operators rather than the Navy, or at least in addition to the Navy.  Perhaps they are doing an outstanding job with dam engineering, I wouldn’t know, except for the fact that they’re not.  But they certainly don’t do sporting and recreation well.  Good Lord.  I can think of a million uses for the Army, and control of sports and recreation isn’t one of them.

Second, it’s inappropriate in the superlative for the Army to have restricted guns on property like this.  The horrible Richard Nixon notwithstanding, the Army could have reversed this without a court fight.  Instead, they had to look and act like progressive social justice warriors in court rather than the robust, constitution-loving group they are supposed to be.

Third, I cannot think of a more ridiculous argument than the 11th Circuit’s ruling that prohibition of guns sometimes doesn’t infringe the second amendment because that’s not the same thing as a prohibition all the time.  It’s okay, under this schema, to make it impossible to defend yourself if you’re at location “x” because sometimes you’re at location “y.”  The phrase “shall not be infringed” means nothing anymore and the English language is Swahili while the sky is the earth.  Contradiction and beclownment is our friend.

Fourth, consider a second the Army’s argument, and as you do, it should be insulting to you.  Returning to the article, it says “The Corps pointed out that the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision District of Columbia v. Heller allows gun bans in “sensitive places” such as “schools and government buildings.” Winmill explained that the “sensitive places” principle might justify a gun ban for Corps buildings, but not for “outdoor parks.” As for the Corps’ concerns that many of its recreational visitors are drunks who sometimes assault park officers, the court held that this cannot justify prohibiting everyone from exercising a constitutional right. The district court issued an injunction against gun prohibition on Corps property in Idaho. That injunction is still in effect.”

Drunkards, you are.  Many of you, if you frequent Army Corps of Engineers Land.  Many of you.  Just troublemakers and drunkards, and potential murderers.  And yet the fact that it’s precisely the innocent and peaceable man who may be assaulted by drunkards who needs that protection that is overlooked and unaddressed.

At one time I conducted my own research of homicides in National Parks before and after guns were again legalized in 2010, and the parks were no less safe in 2011 than they were in 2010.  Kopel is right about this, and perhaps soon I’ll submit another FOIA request for updated information.  As always with constitutional and open carry, mothers and children don’t run screaming and blood doesn’t run in the streets.  These are all just hysterical reactions.

This whole episode should be embarrassing to the Army, and it shouldn’t just mediate this case until a satisfactory conclusion is reached.  It should forthwith reverse the regulation and recognize the very constitution it should be defending.  David Kopel is a truly nice guy.  I’ve exchanged email with him before.  He thanked the Army Corps of Engineers.  I’ll reserve my thanks, thank you very much.  This has redounded to a lot of wasted taxpayer money and nanny state collectivism by the Army.  The Army should be ashamed it ever got this far.

The State:

Proponents of gun reform and House Democrats were rattled Thursday when they learned a bill that would allow South Carolinians to carry a concealed firearm without a permit advanced without debate or public input.

The proposed law, by Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, was met with no opposition during a hearing by the Judiciary Constitutional Laws Subcommittee.

It calls for what is often referred to as “constitutional carry,” which allows those who can legally own a firearm to carry it – concealed or in the open – without a government-issued permit.

“The right to carry is a constitutional amendment in the Bill of Rights,” Pitts said. “It is a constitutionally protected right, and that’s why I don’t think the government should (issue a) permit” for the carrying of a gun.

Pitts introduced a similar bill in 2016. But this year’s bill also would allow for “open carry,” which means a person can carry a firearm without having to conceal it.

The proposal does not change where firearm owners can carry their weapons. They would still be barred from carrying into schools and other already prohibited locations. And private businesses could still bar firearms from their establishments.

Carrying of a firearm while committing a crime also would remain prohibited.

The bill also would keep the state’s concealed weapons permitting system in place for those who would prefer that or need to have a permit when traveling out of state with a firearm, Pitts said.

No one from the public signed up to speak during Thursday’s hearing, which lasted about five minutes. The bill, which was filed Tuesday, passed with the support of the three Republicans serving on the panel. Reps. James Smith, D-Richland, and Mandy Powers Norrell, D-Lancaster, were absent.

Smith said he was out of town, while Powers Norrell said she was out of the country when both were reached by phone. Smith said if either had been present, they would have attempted to delay a vote, giving more time for word to spread to the public.

“The meeting was set Wednesday for Thursday morning,” Smith said. “It’s clearly being fast-tracked, which has undermined the ability for adequate public input because nobody had the time to react.”

The panel’s advancement of the bill without testimony from constituents or without all of the committee members present frustrated Sylvie Dessau, a local volunteer with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, an organization that calls for “common-sense legislation” to address gun violence.

“Simply put, this is not how our democracy works,” Dessau said. “We urge House leadership to reject this stunt to advance legislation pushed by gun lobby extremists. South Carolinians deserve to have a say in legislation that may impact our lives for years to come.”

But Rep. Greg Delleney, R-Chester – who is also the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee that will debate the proposal next – stressed the bill’s timing was related to the Legislature’s shorter session this year.

[ … ]

Delleney said he thinks the bill will be well-received by members of the House. The House has previously passed legislation that allows for constitutional carry. But the bills have died in the Senate, with its rules that allow deliberation and easier blocking of legislation.

The State just had to consult moms against something or other.  God forbid they write a piece on proposed gun legislation without talking to folks funded by Michael Bloomberg.  You can almost sense the panic in the article.

Good on the S.C. House.  We’re watching.  Let’s push this thing through and get it done.  Quickly.  Use whatever rules you have to in order to minimize debate.  One delaying tactic is to let bills like this rot on the vine by debating them forever, and then close the legislative session without taking action because, well, there’s just not enough time left to finish the job.  You can finish this job and you know it.  It’s also especially good that this bill includes open carry.  For us, this is like Christmas.  It’s most of what we want wrapped up in one present.

Larry Martin was thrown out of the S.C. Senate for delaying this action in the past, forcing it to dry up in the judicial committee.  We watched.  We took action.  We’re watching you too, Senators.  We’re watching all of you, and we will seek retribution on a name by name basis.  Every one who delays or votes against this will be a target in the next primary or election.  Do this thing.  Get it done.

Don’t listen to LEOs who stand to lose money if you pass this bill.  Very few LEOs ever want this sort of thing because it interferes with their revenue stream for buying the newest and latest Dodge Chargers and all of that new, fancy Comms gear and automatic weapons for the SWAT teams for throwing grenades and busting in doors.  Listen to your voting constituency.  That’s us.

We’re American gun owners, and we don’t compromise or forget.

Hartford Courant:

If a police officer stops and asks a person to show their pistol permit, most gun owners comply.

But that is not the law in Connecticut, where police must have suspicion of a crime in order to force the gun owner to display the permit. If the gun owner refuses, police say there is nothing they can do.

That’s why more than 35 police chiefs joined key legislators Tuesday in Hartford to call for changing the law.

The issue has prompted controversy in West Haven and Bridgeport, where gun owners refused to show their permits when requested. The issue arose in June 2013 when two men were walking on the boardwalk in West Haven with their guns obvious to public view in hip holsters.

When stopped by police, one of them agreed to show his permit. The other did not and was charged with interfering with police. A judge dismissed the case, and a prosecutor said the arrested man, Scott Lazurek of Derby, had a permit but simply did not want to show it to police. Lazurek told police that he did not need to display the permit under the law – and the prosecutor and the judge agreed.

Rep. William Tong, a Stamford Democrat and co-chairman of the judiciary committee, said the bill is “a very simple, but important, initiative” that is necessary at a time of increased concern about gun violence and mass killings in Connecticut and beyond.

“It’s because of Newtown,” Tong said. “It’s because of Aurora and Columbine and other places across the country. We know that reality far better than other states and other communities. We feel that acutely.”

Tong rejected arguments that the issue was a violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful searches and seizures.

“It’s not an infringement on your liberty,” said Tong, an attorney who has studied constitutional law. “It is not even considered a Fourth Amendment stop.”

Tong said he is concerned about Second Amendment activists “staging confrontations with police officers … to make a point.”

Uh huh.  To make a point.  Except in the case cited, the carriers were doing nothing whatsoever to justify being detained, much less arrested.  It’s the LEOs who staged the confrontation.

Let’s finish this thing about Newtown and Sandy Hook once and for all.  From the comments in this article, one commenter linked this video.  Watch it in its entirety.

It looks like a very nice gun for a very good price.

WFMY:

GREENSBORO, NC – A Cabarrus County lawmaker introduced a bill Wednesday that would allow North Carolinians to carry a concealed handgun without a permit.

North Carolina is an open carry state. The current concealed carry law in North Carolina requires an applicant to take and pass a safety and training course that involves the actual firing of handguns and understanding of North Carolina gun laws. Prior to 1995, it was illegal for someone to conceal carry at all.

After news of the proposed bill broke, hundreds on social media voiced their opinions on House Bill 69.

We took some of those recurring comments on Facebook to Guilford County Sheriff BJ Barnes and Gary Lewallen, a certified firearms instructor and former Archdale Police Chief.

Barnes is a pro-second amendment advocate but doesn’t agree with the proposed bill. Lewallen is also a pro-gun and pro-second amendment, and was more neutral on the bill, with limitations.

Comment: If it is legal to open carry without training or a permit, why can’t a person conceal carry without training or a permit?

BARNES: “The CCW class, the concealed carry class, teaches you what and when you can use your gun.”

Barnes added the law requires someone to tell law enforcement they have a concealed weapon should an officer approach them. He’s worried if the proposed bill passes, people would no longer have to tell police they had a gun hidden on their body or in their car.

LEWALLEN: “They need to be able to understand their rights to carry and conceal as well understand when to use deadly force. There should be no reason why we can’t have an eight-hour class on your basic firearms and your rights to carry and conceal in North Carolina.”

Both Barnes and Lewallen agreed, they would like to see training classes take place prior to someone purchasing a gun in any situation, whether to open or conceal carry.

Comment: You already go through a background check to buy a gun, so why be redundant? A permit to conceal carry makes zero sense and it makes it zero percent safer.

BARNES: “When you open carry everyone knows you are carrying and you can avoid that person. Someone can also see if that person is violating the law while open carrying, say,  if they were to try and go into a location, such as a gun or store where they don’t want people armed.”

LEWALLEN: “It (open carrying) doesn’t prevent someone from calling the police or the sheriff and saying hey, I’ve got a person here and they’re making me feel uneasy, I’m in fear because of this gun on their side and they (police) have to come and investigate it.”

Well, there you go.  If this is the best among the “experts” this journalist could come up with, that station ought to be shut down.  As for the statement that “There should be no reason why we can’t have an eight-hour class on your basic firearms and your rights to carry and conceal in North Carolina,” hey, you don’t suppose that he stands to lose some business if constitutional carry passes in N.C., do you?  All of those concealed handgun permit classes he teaches?  I wonder how much he makes on all of that?

As for the awful Sheriff, this is just stunning.  He ought to be teaching his deputies that everyone is assumed to be carrying, all of the time.  Asking the question or waiting for someone to self identify is ridiculous and dangerous.  You understand that, right?  Only peaceable, law-aiding men and women will self-identify, whereas criminals will not, and this may lead the police into a false sense of security.  The law cannot be trusted.  If he isn’t teaching his cops that, he needs to be replaced with someone who has some common sense.

As for their idiotic comments on openly carrying, they are making this out to be something it isn’t.  North Carolina is a “Gold-Star” traditional open carry state.  I openly carry all of the time and have never had any problem from citizens or LEOs.  Women and children do not go running and screaming, and I’ve had many people stop me and chat about it.  Sending deputies out to “investigate” open carriers is a silly waste of time.  He ought to be telling the dispatchers to ask the caller what law is being broken.  “Ma’am, was he brandishing a weapon or threatening someone?”  “No?  Okay, then what he is doing is legal, and we don’t investigate legal use of firearms any more than we investigate mowing the lawn.”

In every state that has it, constitutional carry isn’t a problem, and the world doesn’t come to an end regardless of what these old timers have to say.  They’re stuck in the dark ages advocating Jim Crow laws that are bigoted and prejudiced.  Don’t be like them.

AP:

PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — Senate lawmakers approved bills Monday that would allow guns in the state Capitol and let people carry concealed handguns without a permit despite Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s threat to veto both proposals.

Daugaard’s opposition is a steep obstacle for lawmakers pushing the bills, neither of which received the two-thirds support required for a potential veto override.

The Senate voted 19-15 to send the Capitol carry bill to the governor’s desk. It would allow people who have an enhanced permit to bring concealed handguns into the Capitol if they register beforehand with security.

I like the proliferation of constitutional carry bills across the nation.  These are good things regardless of whether they end up as laws.

The upshot is that it causes all parties, from senators and members of the house to the governor and law enforcement, to go public with their views.

Then gun rights activists know who to target in the next election.  Here’s a note to politicians.  We’re watching you.  No, I’m not talking about the NRA, although they should be scoring each and every vote in cases like this.  The “we” is us, the gun-owning voters.  And we never forget.

David Codrea:

“LGBTQ people must fight for their safety against the epidemic of gun violence, just as hard as they have fought for equality,” they insist, citing a Southern Poverty Law Center anecdotal “report” on alleged harassment that says nothing about guns, but instead quotes from a handful of unsubstantiated and subjective accounts to smear Donald Trump supporters as intimidating haters.

These folks (SPLC, Everytown) and their ilk throw in virtually every progressive cause they can think of, and throw in gun control in order to connect it to the communities they are courting.  It’s their bread and butter.  They use people and then throw them away.

This particular community had better understand that their best bet is to buy guns, learn to use them, and oppose any and all connection with people and groups who would use them for gain.

And in that same vein, they should ask some Donald Trump supporters to teach them the proper use of guns.  My bet is that there would be many willing teachers.  Don’t disparage instruction.  Everyone needs it, regardless of how it feels to have to go to someone else for help.

In the gun community if you just avoid the know-it-alls who think they are God’s gift to tacticool, most folks are more than glad to help out new gunners.

Give it a try.

Eugene Volokh responds to the recent Florida Supreme Court decision on open carry.  He first cites part of the ruling.

Before the Fourth District, the State argued that by restricting how firearms are carried in public so that they may only be carried in a concealed manner under a shall-issue licensing scheme, deranged persons and criminals would be less likely to gain control of firearms in public because concealed firearms — as opposed to openly carried firearms — could not be viewed by ordinary sight.

Norman contends that the State has not produced evidence that Florida’s Open Carry Law reasonably fits the State’s important government interest. However, under intermediate scrutiny review, the State is not required to produce evidence in a manner akin to strict scrutiny review….

[W]hen reviewing under intermediate scrutiny Second Amendment challenges to laws regulating the manner of how firearms are borne, “courts have traditionally been more deferential to the legislature in this area.” This is especially so when considering that “[r]eliable scientific proof regarding the efficacy of prohibiting open carry is difficult to obtain.”

Therefore, we agree with the Fourth District and are satisfied that the State’s prohibition on openly carrying firearms in public with specified exceptions — such as authorizing the open carrying of guns to and from and during lawful recreational activities — while still permitting those guns to be carried, albeit in a concealed manner, reasonably fits the State’s important government interests of public safety and reducing gun-related violence.

He then responds with this.

Really? Open carry is being banned because, by being visibly lethally armed, open carriers are putting themselves at more risk of crime? Would a reasonable person, deciding whether to openly carry a gun, think, “I probably shouldn’t do that, since people will be more likely to target me because they see I have a gun”?

This strikes me as quite implausible. To be sure, we can imagine some situations in which open carry could make a person more vulnerable. Indeed, as the court points out, in some situations, an attacker “might be more likely to target an open carrier” because the “visibly armed citizen poses a more obvious danger to the attacker.” In others, open-carrying by a gang member onto another gang’s turf might be seen as especially provocative and might therefore lead to a shoot-out.

But those would be relatively rare instances, no? On balance, wouldn’t there be many more situations where a would-be attacker would try to steer clear of a visibly armed person than where the attacker would deliberately target that person first? And given that the government interest is in preventing crime generally, the question is whether the law would on balance reduce crime, not whether it could in some rare circumstances reduce crime but in more common circumstances increase crime.

True, I know of no empirical studies one way or another. But even under “intermediate scrutiny” (as opposed to the highly deferential “rational basis” scrutiny), one should have either empirical studies or at least an inherently plausible theory, rather than mere hypothetical and unlikely speculation. And here the theory that, on balance, being visibly lethal will draw attackers rather than deterring them doesn’t strike me as plausible.

Now perhaps open carry bans might be justifiable on other grounds, such as that open carry (even holstered, rather than brandished) causes law-abiding passersby to feel uneasy. The two dissenting justices discussed that theory, and here’s what they had to say:

[The majority’s] reasons may not be totally irrational, but they do not provide any substantial justification for the ban on open carrying. Such “speculative claims of harm to public health and safety” are “not nearly enough to survive the heightened scrutiny that applies to burdens on Second Amendment rights.” There is no substantial link between the ban and public safety, and the State’s speculation is no substitute for such a link.

The suggestion that someone committing a crime “might be more likely to target an open carrier than a concealed carrier” is subject to the rejoinder that a criminal confronted with the presence of an open carrier may be more likely to leave the scene rather than face the uncertain outcome of exchanging gunfire with an armed citizen. In hostile encounters between armed individuals, the outcome is seldom certain, and even criminals can understand that fact.

Many — admittedly not all — armed criminals will give a wide berth to someone they know to be armed. Likewise, speculating about the disarming of individuals who are openly carrying firearms by “deranged persons and criminals,” is a grasping-at-straws justification.

The reality is that it is highly unlikely that these feeble proffered justifications had anything to do with the adoption of the statute banning open carrying…. The ban on open carrying is best understood as the Legislature’s response to the public concerns swirling around adoption of the concealed-carry law…. [T]he Legislature decided that the sacrifice of open carrying was a necessary and appropriate response to the public opposition generated by the passage of the concealed-carry law. But the legal landscape has now dramatically shifted. Heller has settled that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. And Heller‘s historical analysis points strongly to the conclusion that the individual right includes the right to carry arms openly in public.

This truth should be acknowledged: opposition to open carrying stems not from concrete public safety concerns but from the fact that many people “are (sensibly or not) made uncomfortable by the visible presence of a deadly weapon.”

Of course, many people are made uncomfortable by the fact that others are permitted to keep and bear arms at all. But contemporary sensibilities cannot be the test. Such sensibilities are no more a basis for defeating the historic right to open carrying than for defeating the understanding that the Second Amendment recognizes the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

This is a tangled web, yes?  So let’s break it down.  The Supreme Court deferred to the legislature on what keeps folks safe, having relegated this question to intermediate scrutiny.  They found plausible (or said they did) the notion that someone could snatch a gun from an open carrier and thus make the public less safe.

But here they leave unaddressed the question why the legislature doesn’t prohibit LEOs from openly carrying weapons as it merely provides opportunity for gun theft.  And if the answer to that is the function they expect LEOs to perform, the obvious answer must be that according to Tennessee v. Garner, LEOs cannot do any more with weapons than you or I, to wit, self defense.  If the open carry of guns is unsafe, then prohibit LEOs from doing it.

Furthermore, why must we conclude that the public is less safe with open carriers just because the possibility exists that open carriers might be targeted first in any confrontation or mass shooting?  Wouldn’t that make the public safer?  That’s been my argument all along.  That an open carrier is the first target is an awful, terrible, cowardly reason not to open carry.

There might be good reasons, but that you don’t want to be the first target is not among those reasons.  I would rather I face an attacker than any women and children who might be around me.  Otherwise, what use am I?  Why am I here on earth if I cannot honor God in this way (John 15:13)?  If openly carrying a gun makes you the first target, and if there are people willing to be that target, then it stands to reason that this is advantageous to public safety and health.

Finally, the dissent make clear the real issue, and it was legal concealed carry is a compromise for squeamish and childlike people who think that the lack of visible presence of a gun on your hip means that you’re not armed.  Truth telling by the justices is a good thing. In other words, it’s an appeal to myth and fairy tale.  Few criminals are going to advertise their intentions in this manner, which is the reason that concealed carry at one time in history was considered ungentlemanly and boorish.

Free Beacon:

A California man is in custody after unsuccessfully trying to light a gun owner and his home on fire Wednesday.

Maurilio Miranda, 48, is being charged with trespassing, attempted arson, and assault with a deadly weapon, Lt. Joe Gomez of the Fresno Police Department told the Fresno Bee. The charges stem from Miranda trying to burn down a house in the city. When the homeowner discovered Miranda pouring gasoline around the perimeter of the home, he confronted him with his semi-automatic handgun.

That’s when Miranda threw gasoline at the homeowner and flicked a lighter. In response, the homeowner fired a shot into the ground. That didn’t deter Miranda, the Fresno Bee reports. He then grabbed a board and threatened to hit the homeowner with it. The homeowner fired a second shot into the ground and threatened to shoot him which prompted Miranda to give up. Police then arrived on the scene and arrested Miranda.

Do not unholster your weapon unless your life is in danger.  Do not point in the direction of anything you aren’t willing to kill, and if your life is legitimately in danger, shoot the person or animal who is causing that danger.

Do not fire warning shots.  To the attacker, warning shots means you aren’t willing to use your weapon to defend your life.  Tactically, it delays the very response that could save your life.

Newstimes:

NEWTOWN – The 10 families whose lawsuit against the world’s largest dealer of AR-15 rifles was dismissed last year say their case should be reinstated, arguing that the Sandy Hook massacre was no accident.

“The notion that what happened at Sandy Hook on December 14, 2012, was unimaginable is a lie,” argues the families’ lawyer, Josh Koskoff, in 50-page brief submitted to state Supreme Court this week. “Sandy Hook was simply gratuitous, senseless proof of what was already known: preparation is no match for an AR-15.”

The families’ argument that Remington is liable for the massacre of 26 first-graders and educators by an AR-15-wielding 20-year-old named Adam Lanza was thrown out of Superior Court in October. The judge ruled that Remington is protected by federal law against claims when people misuse firearms.

The families are sticking to their argument that Remington was liable, saying the company ssly marketed the semi-automatic rifle to civilians.

Remington has until May 1 to respond to the brief. A court date to hear both sides of the appeal has not been set.

The families argue that the Remington rifle used by Lanza was developed “as a weapon of war so powerful, so accurate and so destructive to the human body, it vanquished the need for skilled hands or forgiving terrain.”

I’ll bet you didn’t know you were that good at close quarters battle just because you own an AR-15, did you?  Your purchase of an AR-15 has literally “vanquished the need for skilled hands.”  There is no need to go to the range and practice.  Your gun is magic.

Okay, let’s play this game one more time.  Here’s a note to attorney Koskoff.  Let’s start the discovery process by you producing all of the death certificates resulting from the Sandy Hook event.

I’m waiting.