Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

Epoch Times.

“Luckily, we at Brady know how to fight the NSSF because we’ve been fighting the NRA for years, and we’re seeing the disgraceful end of their organization play out because of our dedicated work,“ the email, written under the name Kris Brown, president of Brady, reads. ”We may know their tricks, but we’re going to need all the support we can get if we’re going to overcome another extremist gun lobby group, and that’s why I’m reaching out today.”

The email doesn’t specify how Brady assisted New York Attorney General Letitia James. But it does provide a list of its complaints against the NSSF.

According to the email, the NSSF spends millions of dollars lobbying on behalf of the gun industry. The email says the NSSF opposes universal background checks and state laws to allow lawsuits against gunmakers whose products are used in the commission of a crime and has branded President Joe Biden as “waging war on the Second Amendment.”

Mr. Oliva said the email contains tiny bits of truth while leaving out significant facts.

When it comes to background checks, he said groups such as Brady are late to the party.

“I think it’s important for everyone to understand that the firearms industry was actually the progenitor. We came up with the point-of-sale background check system,” Mr. Oliva said.

According to Mr. Oliva, this resulted in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

He added that NSSF came up with the Fix-NICS plan after it was clear that not all states were sending relevant records to the FBI for NICS. This resulted in federal legislation to make the background check system truly keep guns out of the wrong hands, he said.

“Brady had nothing to do with that,” Mr. Oliva said.

Yeah, I’d rather NSSF focus their efforts on ending the background check at all rather than make it better or help codify it.

NSSF is an industry advocacy group, not a gun owners advocacy group. To the extent we can cooperate with them on important things, I’m okay with that. But we may find ourselves in different ends of the spectrum on certain issues, and when we do, I will see them as my enemy.

As long as Brady focuses on NSSF, they ignore GOA and FPC. That’s fine with me. GOA and FPC is where the action is.

Source.

COLUMBIA, S.C. (WIS) – Some law enforcement agencies are weighing in on Gov. Henry McMaster’s decision to sign a constitutional carry ― or permitless carry ― bill into law.

McMaster signed the constitutional carry into law on Thursday just a day after the South Carolina Senate passed a compromise.

It would allow a person 18 or older who can legally own a gun to openly carry their weapons without a permit or training.

Last year, several law enforcement agencies from across the state testified before legislators on why the legislature should not pass a bill like this.

But of course they did, just like in every other state (who considered constitutional carry) where they said there would be blood in the streets, and the wild, wild west, and that cops are “the only ones.”

Academy Director Jackie Swindler said he believes this new law will have an impact on the dynamic between law enforcement and the community.

“The potential is there for a lot of things to happen,” Swindler said.

Because of that, Swindler said officers and deputies may approach situations differently than they would before the constitutional carry bill was signed into law.

“People seem to have lost patience, people seem to have different temperaments,” he said.

“Now with the readily available of anyone having a gun or carrying a gun, that certainly does have the potential for different interactions between people. It certainly changes the dynamic of police answering calls and stopping cars,” he continued.

Newbery County Sheriff Lee Foster said, “I think the training should be mandatory, because I think a lot of people with good intentions, may get into trouble because they don’t know what the laws are.”

Let’s examine his objections so far: the nature of mankind has changed, it changes dynamics, people may get into trouble. Well, the nature of mankind hasn’t changed in millennia, cops should have always assumed that good and bad men carry weapons because that’s the way it’s always been, and criminals don’t care about the law.

The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division sent this guidance to law enforcement immediately after the governor signed constitutional carry into law.

Some of the points included in the guidance were possession of a firearm alone is not a reason to stop an individual, a person carrying a weapon does not have to notify law enforcement, and there are no restrictions on having a gun inside of your vehicle.

Well, at least the SLED, led by a corrupt leader, got that part right. S.C. isn’t a stop and identify state, and that would be unconstitutional even if it was.

We also reached out to Sheriff Leon Lott for a response to this law. He sent this statement which reads in part:

“I said a prayer last night that Richland County does not turn into the wild wild west,” he said. “This is a win for the criminals, who can now walk around with a gun and law enforcement cannot do anything about it.”

“I support the right to carry and it was already in place with conceal weapons permit and the proper training, but this does nothing to make our communities safer; instead of getting guns off the street we just put more guns on the street,” the statement continues.

The wild, wild west. Like every cop everywhere has said in every state so far. It never happens. Oh, and you left out the part about “blood running in the streets.” As for putting more guns on the streets, you don’t know that. You just made that part up.

Oh my, such emotion, such drama. But if this law does one thing good – causing cops to become more respectful of the folks they’re interacting with and less tyrannical – it will have been worth it.

As I had said earlier, I was skeptical about the chances for success, especially given the gamesmanship in the senate. The previous attempt “codified the right to carry without a permit as long as you had a permit. No, I’m not kidding.”

But it looks like it has happened, adding to the list of constitutional carry states. But there are caveats I want to call out.

Greenville News.

Permitless firearm carry is now legal in South Carolina. Gov. Henry McMaster on Thursday afternoon signed the bill, which was prefiled in the state House of Representatives in December 2022. The legislation was heavily debated by members of the state’s House and Senate.

After a joint committee with members of both chambers met Tuesday, that committee’s report was approved by the House later the same day and by the Senate on Wednesday.

Rep. Bobby Cox, R-Greenville, told the Greenville News Wednesday afternoon that McMaster signed the bill into law at a private 2 p.m. ceremony. South Carolina becomes the 29th state with permitless carry after Louisiana enacted a similar measure last week.

The new law enables individuals 18 and older who are legally allowed to own firearms to carry them, openly or concealed, without requiring training or registration for a permit.

Previously, the 2021 Open Carry law allowed a concealed weapons permit (CWP) holder to open carry handguns. With House Bill 3594 – dubbed “constitutional carry” by some – signed into law, it negates the legal need for CWPs in South Carolina.

“(People) can open or concealed carry if they can legally own guns,” Cox told the News. “If you’re prohibited from owning guns, you’re breaking the law.”

Cox, the Vice President for Government Affairs at Sig Sauer, a firearms company, was the lead sponsor of the bill, which originated in the House, and was one of six legislators on the joint legislative conference committee that convened Tuesday.

There are restrictions of where an individual may carry a gun, such as hospitals, doctor’s offices, churches, many government buildings, schools, polling places, detention facilities, post offices, or personal residences without permission.

However, some places, such as churches and doctor’s offices, may choose to allow individuals to carry weapons onto the premises.

Businesses have the right to label themselves as a gun-free zone.

I am an incrementalist (something I’ve learned from the controllers) and believe in taking chunks where we can get them. This is a big chunk, but there is still more to go.

We had a difficult fight with open carry, but a permit was still required. At the time I said that police would have a difficult time enforcing that because if open carry was legal, then it wouldn’t be a so-called “Terry Stop” if police stopped you and demanded to see your permit. Additionally, the S.C. legislature didn’t do anything in the open carry law to make S.C. a stop and identify state (which would have been unconstitutional anyway). If they had wanted to enable police to stop folks, they would have had to make that change to S.C. law. They didn’t do that when they passed the open carry bill.

But there was still that nagging issue of the fact that a permit was required to exercise a God-given right. Now that permit has vanished, but churches are exempt from carry unless specifically posting that firearms are allowed.

So this is the same trap into which New York fell in essentially making everywhere a gun-free zone without specific posting by the establishment, and that feature of the NY law has been struck down (and furthermore doesn’t comport with the Bruen decision). I say trap, but of course anything the controllers can do in NY to infringe upon rights isn’t so much a trap as it is a reward for reflexive behavior.

Churches shouldn’t have to specifically post that firearms are allowed. Rather, like every other establishment, they should have to post if firearms are not allowed. Gun rights advocates are also property rights advocates, and if an establishment doesn’t want firearms, then they have that right (just as I have a right not to patronize that establishment).

This chunk of liberty should be the focus of effort going forward. Remove the exemption for churches in the current law. This is another increment of freedom for future work by our community.

Source.

COLUMBIA, S.C. (WIS) – Within a matter of days, South Carolina could become the 29th state in the country to allow adults to carry guns with no permit or training.

On Tuesday, a group of legislative negotiators struck a compromise after weeks of discussion on the bill known as “permitless carry” or “constitutional carry.”

“The dialogue we’ve been having with the Senate, the House, and the governor’s office is that they want this to immediately become law,” Rep. Bobby Cox, R – Greenville and the bill’s lead sponsor, told reporters following the conference committee’s meeting Tuesday morning.

The Senate and House had already passed this permitless carry gun bill, but their versions of it were different.

Yeah, the gamesmanship in the S.C. senate codified the right to carry without a permit as long as you had a permit. No, I’m not kidding.

The compromise they reached Tuesday now allows the bill to move closer to the governor’s desk.

In their agreement, the bill would allow adults 18 and older to carry loaded handguns openly with no permit or training.

Guns would still be banned in the same places they are now, including schools, courthouses, and the State House, and people could still obtain a concealed weapons permit if they wanted.

It would also tack on the governor’s top request, increased penalties for people who illegally carry, like felons who possess guns despite being legally barred from doing so.

The negotiation committee adopted most of the Senate’s changes, including optional, free training offered twice a month in every county and tougher penalties for people who do not have a permit and are caught carrying where it is prohibited.

“Is it really fair to, I guess, punish those particular folks more severely than the ones who choose to get a CWP when the state doesn’t require it anymore?” Rep. Justin Bamberg, D – Bamberg, asked.

Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, who advocated for those enhanced penalties during the Senate’s debate on the bill earlier this year, pointed out they would only apply to people already convicted of certain gun crimes.

“Y’all, we’re talking about criminals now,” Massey said. “We’re talking about shooting into a dwelling, we’re talking about sneaking a gun into a school, we’re talking about pointing a weapon at somebody.”

But they nixed a Senate provision that would allow state lawmakers to carry guns in places where the general public cannot, an exemption that judges and prosecutors currently have.

“We’re not special. We’re servant leaders, and what’s good for our constituents is good for us,” Cox said.

They also omitted a House section that could have, unintentionally, allowed local school boards to vote to override the ban on guns in schools.

Well, congratulations, maybe, for the win for civil liberties. I want to see the bill first. This has been a long, hard-fought battle to get open carry first (with a permit), and then constitutional carry next (because of law enforcement opposition – as always, of course, you know, because of the “blood running in the streets” and all of that). I have always advised incrementalism, and the gains have been nothing if not incremental.

I will try to find out the gesticulations of the committee and get the final bill and share as I can.

Occasionally, I disagree with Mark. This is one of those times.

I understand the reflexive response to defend the NRA, but believe me when I say that he shouldn’t. Relying on the NRA was the smartest thing that lawyer did in his arguments.

The NRA wasn’t a hero for keeping pistols out of the NFA. They were traitorous for allowing anything at all in the bill or even in allowing the bill to hit the floor of Congress.

Congratulations on your victory over the powers of darkness.

Louisiana is showing the state of South Carolina how it’s supposed to be done. If you will recall, S.C. tried to pass a bill that agreed to permitless carry as long as you had a permit. No, I’m not kidding.

The Louisiana House has given final legislative approval to a bill allowing law abiding citizens to carry a firearm without a permit or training. The bill now goes to the governor’s desk. Gov. Jeff Landry says he will sign it into law. ⁦@WWLTV⁩ pic.twitter.com/1DPSHZwK6t

— Paul Murphy (@PMurphyWWL) February 28, 2024

Jonathan Turley fisks the Hawaii supreme court decision on guns.

On Wednesday,  in State v. Wilson,  Justice Todd Eddins wrote the decision dismissing the appeal of Christopher Wilson, who was arrested in December 2017 for publicly carrying a .22-caliber pistol in his “front waist band.” Wilson insisted that he carried the gun while hiking for self-protection.

Under Section 134-25 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes,  “all firearms” must be “confined to the possessor’s place of business, residence, or sojourn.” The only exceptions are for transporting guns in closed containers, hunting or target shooting, and for those with a license.

Wilson argued that “prosecuting him for possessing a firearm for self-defense purposes outside his home violated his right to bear arms” under the Second Amendment. While the trial court rejected his motion, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) and Circuit Court Judge Kirstin Hamman dismissed the charges with prejudice.

Justice Eddins wrote that the Hawaii Constitution “does not afford a right to carry firearms in public places for self defense.” Eddins notes that “Article I, section 17 of the Hawaii Constitution mirrors the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.” However, “we read those words differently than the current United States Supreme Court. We hold that in Hawaii there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.” He then adds:

“The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities. The history of the Hawaiian Islands does not include a society where armed people move about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others.”

Ponder that for a moment. He even admits that the proper usage of firearms is to combat the deadly aims of others. They don’t want it, they said. While parroting stupid words about peace and tranquility, they still know that there will be deadly aims, but say that men cannot defend themselves.

They say this: “A ruling by Hawaii’s high court saying that a man can be prosecuted for carrying a gun in public without a permit cites crime-drama TV series “The Wire” and invokes the “spirit of Aloha” in an apparent rebuke of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded gun rights nationwide.

“The thing about the old days, they the old days,” the unanimous Hawaii Supreme Court ruling issued Wednesday said, borrowing a quote from season four, episode three of the HBO series to express that the culture from the founding of the country shouldn’t dictate contemporary life.”

I’ve seen a number of analyses of this, from stupid, to ignorant, to childish (which of course it is), to uneducated.  Here’s the thing I think most folks are missing.

This is all by intent, and the Hawaii supreme court is doing the bidding of their masters, whomever that is. This is all being done in the Fourth Circuit, the Third Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, the Fourth Circuits, as well as numerous appeals courts before that.

Courts everywhere are daring the SCOTUS to act, and as I have said before, they are so far running like scare rabbits at the inferior courts, who are winning the day.

They have a chance to act and bring and end to all of this with a new appeal Bianchi, but will they? If they don’t, they have become irrelevant since no inferior court will listen to them on any future decision since any decision won’t carry the weight of precedent. They must be willing to stand on the 2A, censure judges, and remove judges.  Otherwise, no one will care what they say.

So will they continue to run from Bruen, Heller, Caetano and McDonald? Hawaii, New York Illinois, Delaware, Connecticut, California, Washington and other states and courts are telling the SCOTUS to go away. What will SCOTUS do?

Mark is looking for data. You may have some you want to provide him.  Be specific with dates and sources. Or provide it here and I’ll contact Mark for you with a list.