Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

Cam Edwards at Bearing Arms.

Lawmakers in Stamford, Connecticut are asking for the state legislature to impose a new restriction on legal gun owners: require them to produce their gun permit upon request by police.

The move is billed by supporters as a way to get “illegal guns off the street,” but some of the representatives sitting in the town’s legislature say the measure would be unconstitutional and could lead to big problems.

“Rep. J.R. McMullen, one of the nine representatives who voted against the resolution, said he couldn’t vote in favor of a resolution that asks the state legislature to consider making a law that he claims would be unconstitutional.

“I don’t know why we’re asking the state to do something that wastes their time, when there is so much other stuff that they failed to do over the last year and half that we should get them to focus on,” McMullen said.

McMullen was joined by Gloria DePina, Bradley Michelson, Susan Nabel, Selina Policar, Robert Roqueta, Bob Lion, Dennis Mahoney and Nina Sherwood in opposing the resolution.

Nabel said the reason she couldn’t support the resolution was she felt it could be used as a backdoor for police to racially profile city residents.

“I’m still of the feeling that this is too fragile a situation, too likely to lead to profiling and possibly puts police officers and the public around them in danger,” she said.

I happen to agree with both McMullen and Nabel in their objections. This is really a non-issue, and I have no doubt taht (sic) imposing the requirement on legal gun owners will lead to a disproportionate number of minorities being stopped and questioned by police.

[ … ]

So there’ve only been six cases in the past two years where police were called to check on a person carrying a gun, and only once did a gun owner refuse to voluntarily produce their permit (Connecticut requires all legal gun owners to have a permit, which also serves as their carry permit). Because one person didn’t submit to the police’s request (and acted lawfully in doing so), Curtis wants to change state law and allow police to view anyone exercising their Second Amendment rights as a suspected criminal?

Cam’s objection has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the law.  Whether “disproportionate number of minorities being stopped and questioned by police” has to do with how the law is being implemented, not whether it can be implemented.  It’s an irrelevant objection.

This goes back to the issue of open carry in South Carolina we’ve recently discussed.  Regardless of the fact that open carriers are supposed to be permitted, South Carolina isn’t a stop and identify state.  Neither is Connecticut.

Even if there was such a statute, precedent forces LEOs to have reasonable suspicion beforehand for it to be a so-called “Terry Stop.”

This is the objection Cam should have pointed to, not whether blacks are going to be hit the hardest by this law.  The law is prima facie unconstitutional and will eventually be challenged in court.

It’s all the rage.

First, to no one’s surprise, Columbia did it.

The city of Columbia has banned openly carrying guns during events, such as festivals and parades, in the wake of a recent state law.

City officials approved a measure Sept. 7 to banning the open carry of firearms during permitted city events and from carrying a gun of any kind into city buildings or facilities without permission from the city manager or police chief.

Next up, Greenville.

The city may ban guns from being carried openly at events and by people picketing after South Carolina changed its law to allow open carry of firearms.

On the first of two readings, and without public discussion, City Council voted 7-0 to ban open carry of firearms at permitted public events like Fall for Greenville and Saturday Market or by individuals seeking to protest. It still must pass a second vote.

Ah, Fall for Greenville where all the crappy hot dog vendors get to sell their awful food.

Finally, Spartanburg has had its first reading of the same sort of statute.

SPARTANBURG, S.C. (WSPA) – Spartanburg City Council has moved ahead on the first reading for a ban on openly carrying a gun at city-permitted events in Spartanburg.

During the first reading of the ordinance at Monday evening’s city council meeting, council members voted unanimously to prohibit the open carrying of firearms during city-permitted events on public property.

Councilwoman Erica Brown told 7 News, the ban applies to citywide-permitted events, like festivals and protests. Council is able to do this through a clause in the Open Carry with Training Act.

Brown said the vote couldn’t be timelier.

“Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you would see that the City of Spartanburg has had quite a bit of gun violence as of late,” said Spartanburg City Councilwoman, Erica Brown.

Kyle Marlow is passionate about guns. He told us, especially using them safely. In fact, he calls himself a Second Amendment advocate.

“South Carolina is doing it the right way. It’s an Open Carry with Training law so they still have to go through all that training and background checks,” said Manager at T & K Outdoors, Kyle Marlow.

But with that being said, he told us he understands the intent behind the ban for protests.

“Just encourage all these people to follow all laws, whether that’s in the city, state or federal level,” Marlow told us.

In spite of his slow venture towards freedom, Kyle Marlow loves his enslavement.  Open carry with permit – still a government permission slip.  Open carry, except when we say not to.

We in N.C. don’t have much room to talk.  We’re under the same restrictions concerning permitted events.  Here’s one solution.  Don’t go to permitted events.

News from Missouri (this link may or may not work, it’s a paywall NYT article accessed via Google News via cell phone).

OZARK, Mo. — Brad Cole is a fiery defender of the Second Amendment, a set-jawed lawman with a lacquered alligator head on his desk, a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum on his hip and a signed picture of himself with former President Donald J. Trump on his office wall.

So the NYT found themselves somebody they think can give their case creds by describing him as some sort of local yokel who supports gun rights and voted for Trump.  But it’s a “terribly written law.”  Let’s see how so.

Even with the changes, the Second Amendment Preservation Act represents a challenge to federal authority that Biden administration officials and other critics see as a clear-cut violation of the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which prohibits states from passing laws that nullify federal statutes.

Last month, the Justice Department filed an affidavit supporting an effort by the city and county of St. Louis to strike down the law in state court, saying it had already hamstrung weapons and drug investigations. The judge in the case recently rejected a request to keep the law from going into effect, and, in response, Attorney General Merrick Garland is considering a federal lawsuit, according to two administration officials.

That’s a splash of cold water, yes?  Biden and his AG hate the law.  Weapons and drug investigations.  Remember that.

At the heart of the law is an audacious declaration — that all state firearms laws “exceed” the federal government’s power to track, register and regulate guns and gun owners.

The law, however, is as vague as it is expansive: Its authors did not focus on any specific federal law or policy, and state officials say they will not try to stop federal agents from executing raids, conducting background checks for gun buyers or enforcing existing laws, like the prohibition on gun purchases by felons.

They’re “poisoning the well,” an informal logical fallacy, and they know it.  Missouri FFLs still conduct background checks, and the NYT is trying to assert that this law makes it legal for convicted felons to own firearms.  Let’s continue.

But the law features a provision, the first of its kind in the nation, that allows Missourians to sue local law departments that give “material aid and support” to federal agents — defined as data sharing, joint operations, even social media posts — in violation of citizens’ perceived Second Amendment rights.

The law’s sponsors say that mechanism is protective and proactive, intended to counter Democratic gun-control efforts, especially President Biden’s attempts to ban semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines. As one of its co-authors, State Senator Eric Burlison, put it, the bill was intended to tell Democrats considering new restrictions to “pound sand.”

After the misdirect, they get to the meat of the thing.  The law was intended to ensure that new infringements on the second amendment are nullified by virtue of lawsuits unique to Missouri where individual citizens go after LEOs.  I think it’s a brilliant idea, worthy of acceptance in every state.

Chief among the activists pushing the Missouri gun law was Aaron Dorr, who leads a family-run, Iowa-based network of far-right nonprofits in the Midwest and South. In an interview, Mr. Dorr described himself as a defender of conservative values and cast the Missouri battle in national terms, as an effort to force Republican moderates to take up his broader cause of confronting Washington.

“Obviously, it’s about far more than simply gun rights,” Mr. Dorr said of his involvement.

At least eight other states, including West Virginia, have recently passed similar bills, but most are more symbolic and less far-reaching than Missouri’s, and feature more explicit carve-outs for coordination between local and federal law-enforcement agencies. The Missouri law has the sharpest teeth: the provision allowing citizens to sue any local police agency for $50,000 for every incident in which they can prove that their rights were violated, provided they were not flouting state law.

That reliance on citizens’ lawsuits — bypassing police officers and prosecutors who may be reluctant to pursue highly politicized criminal cases — represents another political strategy gaining popularity on the right, most notably in the highly restrictive Texas abortion law that the Supreme Court recently let stand.

The Missouri law only went into effect at the end of August. But its critics, at home and in Washington, say it has already done damage, making some local officials afraid to work with federal partners, even on routine criminal cases, at a time when greater cooperation is needed.

“But its critics, at home and in Washington, say it has already done damage, making some local officials afraid to work with federal partners, even on routine criminal cases, at a time when greater cooperation is needed.”  Good.  Local and state law enforcement has no business cooperating with the FedGov on infringement of 2A rights.  This means that the law has served its purpose.

In that respect, it is also testing the limits of one-party Republican state rule: The National Rifle Association, a bedrock Republican-allied institution, did not support the bill, and many local law-enforcement officials fear it will impinge on their ability to fight violent crime and stop drug trafficking. (Sheriff Cole ultimately accepted the political inevitability of the bill’s passage, but says he remains deeply concerned about its consequences.)

Some of those consequences were detailed in the Justice Department’s affidavit.

Nearly a quarter of state and local law-enforcement officials who work directly with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — 12 of 53 officers — have withdrawn from joint task force collaborations. State and local agencies have also begun to restrict federal access to investigative resources, including the Missouri Information Analysis Center, a state crime database, and the Kansas City Police Department’s records system.

Did you catch that?  Read it again.  The NRA did not support the bill.

The police department in Columbia, home to the flagship campus of the University of Missouri, went so far as to disconnect from a national database of ballistics on weapons and ammunition recovered at crime scenes, A.T.F. officials reported.

The law, “has caused, and will continue to cause, significant harms to law enforcement within the state of Missouri,” wrote Brian M. Boynton, the acting head of the Justice Department’s civil division.

Again, all I can say is good.

Mr. Dorr has long drawn scrutiny for his far-right positions on abortion and guns and name-calling tirades against opponents (an unflattering portrait of his family’s organization was the subject of a Pulitzer Prize-winning NPR podcast in 2020). Critics from across the ideological spectrum have accused him of latching onto political controversies, especially resistance to mask orders related to the pandemic, to raise cash for his network.

Mr. Dorr has few compunctions about calling out the N.R.A. — he said it was a “public disgrace” in the interview with The New York Times — and as the gun bill was moving through the legislature, he ridiculed Republicans who did not immediately sign on. As his supporters bombarded lawmakers with emails and phone calls, he labeled one wavering Senate leader a “rodent” in one of his characteristic Hannity-esque Facebook Live broadcasts.

“He ridiculed Republicans who did not immediately sign on.”  Good.  They deserved to be ridiculed.

The Missouri Sheriffs’ Association had quietly opposed the measure, but now intervened to negotiate a compromise. It dispatched several red-county sheriffs, including Sheriff Cole, to persuade sponsors to direct penalties at local departments rather than at officers.

The revised bill passed the Senate in May, as the session was set to end — but not before the majority leader, Caleb Rowden, an eventual yes vote, requested police protection after reporting threats from backers of the bill.

Lauren Arthur, a Democratic senator from the Kansas City area who opposed the bill, said that since the vote she had been approached by Republicans privately expressing hope that it would be struck down in court.

“Republicans around here need to have some kind of legislation they can hold up as a trophy at the end of every session — the dark joke is it is either on abortion or on guns,” said Ms. Arthur, who led an unsuccessful effort to ban gun sales to people convicted of domestic-violence offenses.

Well how about that.  Nothing says liar and cheat like someone who wants to hold high a piece of trophy legislation for the sake of reelection, when they don’t really believe in it and want it to fail.

She added, “I’m not creative enough to think of what else we can do to be more pro-gun other than, I don’t know, giving a gun to every newborn baby.”

Drama queen.

In mid-June, the police chief in O’Fallon, a St. Louis suburb, quit in frustration, writing in an open letter that the new law was so “poorly worded” that it would “decrease public safety” by stigmatizing all interactions with federal agents. Even some who supported its passage started voicing concerns.

Good.  The law took its first victim, and a worthy one at that.

Many sheriffs rely on close collaboration with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the F.B.I. and the U.S. Marshals Service’s fugitive task forces, among other agencies, to help track down criminals. The biggest problem, they say, has been determining which joint investigations run afoul of the new law.

Here’s an idea.  Stop cooperating with FedGov at all.  That’ll fix the problem for you.

As I said earlier, the law is working as intended, and that’s a laudable thing.

Survival Blog.

I am strongly opposed to this proposed rule. It is a gross violation of the Second Amendment. For the ATF to contravene their numerous and long-standing rulings that arm braces are legal is an absurd over-reach of regulatory authority. This is truly an “arbitrary and capricious” move.

Pistol arm braces serve a useful purpose for those who are crippled, deformed, injured, elderly, or infirmed.

Because of the numerous and long-standing rulings that arm braces are legal, there are now more than 3 million braces in private hands. Many of the guns equipped with these braces have changed hand numerous times, without any paper trail, as private party sales. So, even if the original owners were informed of the change in legal status via letters from the manufacturers or retailers, the subsequent owners may very well be oblivious. The end result will be that hundreds of thousands of people will become unwitting FELONS, overnight, with the stroke of the pen.

Because there is no compensation for the owners of the 3 million braces in circulation, the proposed rule is a grossly unconstitutional “taking”. Here is the math: 3 million braces valued at an average of $155 each equals $465,000,000. ($465 million dollars!)

These sorts of arbitrary and capricious moves by regulatory agencies undermine public trust in our government. If they continue, they will sow the seeds of so much discontent that they may lead to a revolution by righteously angry gun owners.

Good enough that I thought you should see it.

I could have titled this “South Carolina Attorney General Versus Columbia On Everything,” and it would have been just about right.

First off, while I don’t think we discussed it, S.C. AG Alan Wilson won against Columbia over gun rights restrictions a few months ago (May 2021).

The Court of Common Pleas has agreed with South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson and ruled that three local gun ordinances passed by the City of Columbia violate state law. AG Wilson sued the city in April 2020, arguing that state law specifically says local governments cannot pass gun ordinances that are stricter than state law.

“We’ve said for three decades now that state law doesn’t allow cities, towns or counties to regulate firearms, so we appreciate the judge’s ruling,” Attorney General Wilson said. “These Columbia ordinances clearly violate the state law that prohibits local governments from passing any gun laws or ordinances that regulate the transfer, ownership, or possession of firearms.”

In 2015, the City of Columbia was first advised by this office that local gun ordinances are preempted by state law. Since that time, the City has continued to pass similar ordinances. One of Columbia’s ordinances would allow the city to confiscate firearms from those people who have Extreme Risk Protection Orders against them. Another ordinance bans the possession of firearms within 1000 feet of a public or private school. A third ordinance prohibits homemade firearms which have no serial number, known as ghost guns.

Next up, mask mandates.

In the latest of several such legal cases across a nation where cultural and political clashes have erupted over the COVID-19 response, the court ruled 5-0 to issue a declaratory judgment for South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, who brought the case against the city of Columbia.

Wilson, a Republican, argued a state law that allows parents to decide whether their children wear masks in school trumps the city’s mask mandate ordinance for private and public elementary and middle school students and staff.

The emergency school mask ordinance, brought by Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin in response to the surge in infections, had been approved by the city council in Columbia two weeks ago. The ordinance, which also applied to daycare centers, was aimed at children too young to be vaccinated.

South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster said in a tweet https://twitter.com/henrymcmaster/status/1433511028327915521 that the court had come to “a sound conclusion” based on the rule of law.

“A parent’s right to decide what’s best for their child is now definitively protected by state law,” he said, while encouraging residents to get vaccinated.

Benjamin, a Democrat, said in a statement that the city “will always act to preserve and protect the lives, health and safety of our children. This is a sad day for children in South Carolina.”

They want to be their own little country down there in Columbia, yes?  What happened that those folks would decide to give themselves such petty tyrants on the city council and for mayor?

Sounds like it’s time for a reckoning in the state capital.

News from North Carolina.

RALEIGH, N.C. — Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed a bill Monday that would do away with the Jim Crow era permit someone must obtain from a county sheriff before buying a pistol, turning back a key agenda item of conservative gun-rights activists.

Cooper’s veto was expected, and an override will be difficult for Republicans who control the General Assembly since they lack veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate. Only two Democrats – both in the House – voted for doing away with the pistol purchase permitting system, which goes back more than 100 years.

Most North Carolinians know nothing about this requirement until they attempt to go purchase a firearm for the first time.  That happened a lot this past year.

People become incensed when they learn about it.

But there are enough progs in Mecklenburg and Wake Counties that we can’t seem to rid ourselves of the controllers.

So there you have it.  If you voted for the Goober and his Goober wife, are you proud?

Ammoland.

There’s a “virus” — far more deadly than COVID-19 — spreading in North Carolina. This is the plague of gun control, which has historically been used by tyrants to kill hundreds of millions of people.

The latest “epidemic” is coming from local ordinances that are being rewritten to effectively ban shooting on private property.

North Carolina law is requiring local ordinances to be updated and reorganized.

While getting rid of old and obsolete ordinances is probably a good idea, anti-gunners are trying to sneak in restrictions that should gravely concern property owners and gun owners.
Consider, in Rockingham County, a proposed ordinance would have required a shooter to not only be a half-mile from any residence to discharge a firearm, but also have a 15-foot berm as a backstop.

Any gun owner can see how ridiculous, impractical, and unenforceable this proposal was. If this went into effect, shooting on private property in Rockingham would have been effectively outlawed, unless a landowner owned significant acreage with few neighbors.

Thankfully, due to the outcry from gun owners — especially those who flooded the County Commissioner’s meeting — the proposal was fully withdrawn.
Another attack on private shooting occurred just to the South in Guilford County. The Democrat-led commission sought to require over 16 acres of land to comply with the ordinance and discharge a firearm on one’s own property.

Gun owners again turned out in large numbers and flooded the chambers to oppose the proposal. Of the members of the public who signed up to speak, nine supported the restriction, but thirty-five signed up opposed. Andy Stevens, my colleague at GOA, and I both spoke out against the ordinance.

It appears the surge of emails and residents flooding the Commissioner’s meeting has worked — at least for now. As of the time this article was written, Guilford has backed away from further restricting private property shooting.

Yet, the attack on private property and shooting did not end in Guilford. Just an hour’s drive down Interstate 85, Cabarrus County also considered a private property shooting ban. This Ordinance required effectively 23 acres of land to shoot on one’s own property unless one had written permission from his or her neighbors.

Again, due to the turnout of gun owners, the idea was tabled for a later meeting.

Thanks to Jordon Stein for pointing this out.  I live in North Carolina and didn’t know this.  The controllers never sleep and always look for more ways to control others.  We must stay vigilant.

News from Missouri.

The Justice Department on Wednesday asked a Missouri court to invalidate a new state law that prohibits state and local officials from enforcing federal firearms laws, arguing it violates the Constitution and has already done harm to public safety in the state.

Federal prosecutors filed a statement of interest in a challenge to the Missouri law brought by St. Louis and Jackson Counties, which seeks to block enforcement of the measure. The Justice Department told the Cole County Circuit Court it supports a finding that the law, known as HB85, is unconstitutional and an order halting its enforcement.

“HB85 has caused, and will continue to cause, significant harms to law enforcement within the state of Missouri,” the Biden administration wrote in its filing. “HB85 is also plainly unconstitutional.”

Funny.  I’m so old I can remember when they didn’t argue that that the states had to enforce border and illegal immigrant laws.

Prosecutors warned the law has already hindered law enforcement efforts to promote public safety in the state and is undermining law enforcement activities, as it interrupts federal, state and local partnerships.

Signed by Republican Governor Mike Parson in June, the measure at the center of the legal battle enacts a $50,000 fine on any law enforcement agency with officers who knowingly enforce federal firearms rules.

Under the law, called the Second Amendment Preservation Act in Missouri, federal gun laws that fall into five categories are considered a violation of the Second Amendment and therefore not recognized by the state.

I’m sure they’ll go judge shopping and find someone who will strike this down.  I wish not since I don’t approve of either the war on guns or the war on drugs.  I wish state law enforcement would arrest FedGov agents the second they set foot inside of Missouri.

But this break between the states and the almighty FedGov must occur at some point, or else there might as well not be any such thing as states.

News from North Carolina.

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) – North Carolina Republicans completed a push Wednesday to eliminate the state’s long-held requirement that a handgun buyer obtain a permit from the local sheriff. But the repeal is likely to get vetoed by Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, who supports more gun-access restrictions.

The Senate voted 27-20 along party lines to approve a House bill that would end the pistol purchase permitting system. The current law directs a sheriff to perform a background check on applicants, evaluate their character and ensure the gun will be use for a lawful purpose.

Any Cooper veto would likely survive an override effort since there are enough Democrats in each chamber opposing the measure. The GOP-controlled House approved the measure in May on a near party-line vote.

The removal has the backing of the group representing the state’s sheriffs, which for years opposed a repeal. The North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association reversed itself this year, saying the background check is redundant given the federal background checks that licensed gun dealers must conduct before a sale are more comprehensive and reveal possible problems, such as mental health commitments or substance abuse.

Oh I can assure you that Cooper the goober will veto it.  Unfortunately, Wake and Mecklenburg Counties control too much of the vote to give us a patriotic governor.  At least he has the House and Senate to hold him in check or things would be much worse.

News from South Carolina.

In hotels, though, gun owners will have additional rights, and will likely be allowed to carry their weapons into the hotel and up to their rooms, regardless of what hotel owners say.

As it should be.  If I stay on a hotel, it is my home for the night.  I have as much God-given right to self defense there as anywhere else.

But there’s something more interesting in this article.  The author cites 707 Gun Shop owner Robert Battista in the caption to a video saying “Robert Battista, 707 Gun Shop owner, is opposed to a law allowing anyone to buy and openly carry a weapon in South Carolina.”

So I figured that Robert is either an idiot (it has never been the case that anyone can purchase a firearm) and allowed himself to be used by the media, or friendly to tyrants.

Listen to the video.  It’s worse than that.  First of all, he isn’t in favor of constitutional carry, but prefers what he calls “national carry” where every state is the same and it’s all controlled by the FedGov.  So he isn’t just friendly with tyrants, he is a tyrant himself.

Second, he lies about S.C.  He says it is a tourist state.  That’s not correct at all.  Myrtle Beach may be a tourist destination (a poor one at that), but the upper part of the state has the largest inland port in the Southeast, and the scale of the industrial production between Greenville, S.C., and Charlotte, N.C., would stagger anyone.

Third, he says that it’s going to be a “law enforcement nightmare” if S.C. passes constitutional carry.  This, despite the fact that in the 22 other states that passed constitutional carry haven’t experienced a nightmare, and blood isn’t running in the streets.  He’s lying.  He isn’t just fabulating or exaggerating, he’s lying.

Fourth, he lies again and says that the people who want constitutional carry are the people who can’t pass the background check.  What a liar, and what an idiot.  You can’t purchase without filling out Form 4473 (unfortunately), and the people who are pushing constitutional carry are patriots like you and me.

He wants the schema where you just have to ask the government for the permit.  “All you have to do is ask,” he says.

His accent gives him away.  He’s not a native South Carolinian.  He’s from out of state.  Go home, tyrant.  And to any readers in his area, never visit his store.