Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

News.

South Carolina senators debating a bill that would allow people with concealed weapons permits to carry their guns on Wednesday rejected an attempt to get rid of the requirement for the permits.

Senators voted 25-21 against the so-called constitutional carry amendment after several hours of debate.

It would have allow anyone who can legally own a gun to carry it anywhere the weapons are legally allowed.

The Senate was on its second day of debate on a gun bill that Republicans rapidly brought to the Senate floor. The bill would allow anyone who passes the background check and a roughly eight-hour course to get a South Carolina concealed weapons permit to carry their pistol in the open.

Senators adjourned about 7:15 p.m. Wednesday and said they expected a final vote on the bill after several hours of debate Thursday.

Well I could be disappointed in Shane Massey, and it was a valiant effort on the part of the 21 who voted in favor of the amendment.  But as for disappointed, maybe not.

Maybe Shane knows something we don’t.  Perhaps he knows that this was a poison pill, one that would doom open carry from passing because he knows whether they have the votes.

If that’s the case, then let’s move on.  As I’ve said before, let’s be incrementalists.  Open carry this year, constitutional carry next year.

The ninnies, frightened and the tepid must see for themselves when the state is let out of its cage that the sky doesn’t fall like law enforcement and “The Karens” said it would.

They’re like a frightened, psychologically stunted animal who has been caged its entire life, afraid to leave the confines of its own imprisonment.

Let’s be smart about this.  Move on.

We’re watching.

Open carry.  Let’s get it done guys.  Proceed with intentionality and purpose.

Move it.

Via WiscoDave, this wonderful account serves as an example for us all.  It mirrors what I’ve observed elsewhere.

In 1640 it was ordered in Massachusetts that in every township the attendants at church should carry a “competent number of peeces, fixed and compleat with powder and shot and swords every Lords-day to the meeting-house;” one armed man from each household was then thought advisable and necessary for public safety. In 1642 six men with muskets and powder and shot were thought sufficient for protection for each church. In Connecticut similar mandates were issued, and as the orders were neglected “by divers persones,” a law was passed in 1643 that each offender should forfeit twelve pence for each offence. In 1644 a fourth part of the “trayned hand” was obliged to come armed each Sabbath, and the sentinels were ordered to keep their matches constantly lighted for use in their match-locks. They were also commanded to wear armor, which consisted of “coats basted with cotton-wool, and thus made defensive against Indian arrows.” In 1650 so much dread and fear were felt of Sunday attacks from the red men that the Sabbath-Day guard was doubled in number. In 1692, the Connecticut Legislature ordered one fifth of the soldiers in each town to come armed to each meeting, and that nowhere should be present as a guard at time of public worship fewer than eight soldiers and a sergeant. In Hadley the guard was allowed annually from the public treasury a pound of lead and a pound of powder to each soldier.

No details that could add to safety on the Sabbath were forgotten or overlooked by the New Haven church; bullets were made common currency at the value of a farthing, in order that they might be plentiful and in every one’s possession; the colonists were enjoined to determine in advance what to do with the women and children in case of attack, “that they do not hang about them and hinder them;” the men were ordered to bring at least six charges of powder and shot to meeting; the farmers were forbidden to “leave more arms at home than men to use them;” the half-pikes were to be headed and the whole ones mended, and the swords “and all piercing weapons furbished up and dressed;” wood was to be placed in the watch-house; it was ordered that the “door of the meeting-house next the soldiers’ seat be kept clear from women and children sitting there, that if there be occasion for the soldiers to go suddenly forth, they may have free passage.” The soldiers sat on either side of the main door, a sentinel was stationed in the meeting-house turret, and armed watchers paced the streets; three cannon were mounted by the side of this “church militant,” which must strongly have resembled a garrison.

[ … ]

… a community that always began and ended the military exercises on “training day” with solemn prayer and psalm-singing; and that used the army and encouraged a true soldier-like spirit not chiefly as aids in war, but to help to conquer and destroy the adversaries of truth, and to “achieve greater matters by this little handful of men than the world is aware of.”

The Salem sentinels wore doubtless some of the good English armor owned by the town,–corselets to cover the body; gorgets to guard the throat; tasses to protect the thighs; all varnished black, and costing each suit “twenty-four shillings a peece.” The sentry also wore a bandileer, a large “neat’s leather” belt thrown over the right shoulder, and hanging down under the left arm. This bandileer sustained twelve boxes of cartridges, and a well-filled bullet-bag. Each man bore either a “bastard musket with a snaphance,” a “long fowling-piece with musket bore,” a “full musket,” a “barrell with a match-cock,” or perhaps (for they were purchased by the town) a leather gun (though these leather guns may have been cannon). Other weapons there were to choose from, mysterious in name, “sakers, minions, ffaulcons, rabinets, murthers (or murderers, as they were sometimes appropriately called) chambers, harque-busses, carbins,”–all these and many other death-dealing machines did our forefathers bring and import from their war-loving fatherland to assist them in establishing God’s Word, and exterminating the Indians, but not always, alas! to aid them in converting those poor heathen.

The armed Salem watcher, besides his firearms and ammunition, had attached to his wrist by a cord a gun-rest, or gun-fork, which he placed upon the ground when he wished to fire his musket, and upon which that constitutional kicker rested when touched off. He also carried a sword and sometimes a pike, and thus heavily burdened with multitudinous arms and cumbersome armor, could never have run after or from an Indian with much agility or celerity; though he could stand at the church-door with his leather gun,–an awe-inspiring figure,–and he could shoot with his “harquebuss,” or “carbin,” as we well know.

No picture here of Jesus as a Bohemian, peacenik flower child.  No, this is a picture of a church militant.

Men ready to protect themselves, their centers of worship, and the families.

Take note that not only did men go about armed (I’ve always claimed that true gentlemen don’t hide their weapons, that’s for criminals), but they took them to the place their families are most vulnerable.

That’s where they are sitting in one place with their attention focused on something other than threats, ingress and egress, and inside a confined space.  When vulnerable, men didn’t cower and call someone else to protect them, or “run, hide and fight.”**  They met this God-given duty themselves.

Because liberty and responsibility.  That’s why.

** The most recent video I’ve seen of run, hide and fight has men throwing potted plants at armed assailants after cowering behind doors and in dark rooms, a picture of effeminate cowardice.

Editorial from low state South Carolina where the southern liberals live.

There’s probably nothing we can say at this point to convince S.C. senators who don’t already realize that it’s a bad idea to let concealed-weapon carriers start carrying their guns on their hips.

After all, they’ve heard all the arguments against it, and still they voted more than 2-to-1 last week to bypass committee and put a House-passed open-carry bill at the top of their agenda for debate as early as Tuesday.

They’ve heard from people who say they would feel threatened if they encountered someone wearing a gun, even if that person does nothing (other than wearing the gun) to threaten them. And from those who argued that having those guns visible puts everybody on edge, increasing the risk that disagreements will escalate into deadly violence.

They’ve heard from police who warn that it’ll be even tougher to distinguish the bad guys from the good guns in active-shooter situations. And more commonly, they’ll be placed in a legally precarious situation when citizens call to complain about someone walking around their neighborhood with a holstered gun — because that’s not a crime, and legally speaking, they have no more justification for questioning someone walking down the street with a gun than someone walking down the street without a gun. (Retired SLED Chief Robert Stewart warned that the bill could get a lot of permit holders killed, because carrying a handgun openly would make them target No. 1 if they were present when a crime was being committed.)

Read the rest.  A veritable catalog of stupidity.  None of that has ever happened in open carry states.  Ask me how I know.

Feel threatened.  As if rights are subject to how it makes people feel when they are exercised, a standard never applied to street preachers.

Tough on cops.  As if cops won’t be able to tell perpetrators from people defending themselves, or can’t slow down enough to understand what and who they’re shooting at.

Target #1.  Oooo … such dramatic language.  “Get a lot of permit holders killed.”  Not one, not a few, but a LOT.  Get a LOT of permit holders killed.  That’s what he said.  Those are his words, not mine.  I just want to make sure you aren’t ascribing his stupid words to me.  Besides, whether a man wishes to openly carry and be target #1 is his own business, not yours.  Because freedom.  This bill doesn’t force anyone to do anything he doesn’t choose to.

But you know the general gist of their position when you read the caption under the top photo: “No one has presented a good reason to allow anyone other than police to carry guns openly.”

Because cops, and special rights, and you’re not special, you see.

To which I respond, “No one has presented a good reason to allow you to tell me what to do.”

So we discussed the awful Luke Rankin, head of the South Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee, and how the committee managed to stall open carry just long enough that it wouldn’t be heard this year.

But there is news from S.C.

A state Senate often resistant to loosening South Carolina’s gun regulations could next week pass legislation that would further expand those rules by allowing legal gun owners to carry their weapon out in the open.

In a 3-2 vote down party lines Thursday morning, a Senate Judiciary Committee panel advanced a House-sponsored bill — H. 3904 — that would still restrict where someone could carry their gun, but allow permitted gun owners with the required training to carry their gun out in the open in the public if they so choose.

But hours later, and minutes before the Senate adjourned for the week, Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey successfully pulled the bill out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, placing the bill on the chamber’s priority list when senators return Tuesday.

The Legislature only has six days left on its regular work calendar, and Republicans have called for the measure to be a priority before the legislative session ends.

“That’s the only way we’re going to have an opportunity to have a full debate on it before the session ends is to do that,” said Massey, who chairs the Senate Rules Committee. “There’s significant interest among our caucus to try to move forward with it, so we made it an issue that we want to try and address this year.”

So after the “panel” heard it (a subcommittee of the full committee, no, I’m not making this up) and then sent it on to the full committee, who doubtless would have further stalled it, Shane Massey apparently got sick of it and pulled the bill from the committee.

There must be some thick, heavy politics going on in South Carolina.

From here we hope this gets a vote.  The real name taking and vote counting starts.  Every word will be recorded, every vote tallied, and the record permanent.

Take care what you do, gentlemen.  We’re watching you.

Epoch Times.

A group of Senate Republicans, led by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), have introduced a bill that would allow individuals with concealed carry privileges in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state with concealed carry laws.

“This bill focuses on two of our country’s most fundamental constitutional protections—the Second Amendment’s right of citizens to keep and bear arms and the Tenth Amendment’s right of states to make laws best-suited for their residents,” Cornyn said in a statement. “I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this important legislation for law-abiding gun owners nationwide.”

Says the man who, along with Lindsey Graham and Rubio is pushing federal red flag laws.  No thanks Senator quisling.  I’ll do without your bill.

Besides, if you really cared, you’d make it applicable to more than just “any other state with concealed carry laws.”  And I have no desire to get on any federal list of persons with permits.

This is pandering to idiots.  Don’t be one.  Just say no to this bill.

Ammoland.

This correspondent has been involved in the struggle to restore Second Amendment rights for more than 50 years. For much of that period, many of those who wanted the Second Amendment to be honored in the United States asked a simple question:

Why doesn’t the NRA[or any other pro 2A group] bring a case to the Supreme Court?

[ … ]

So our example group, the NRA, would not bring a case, because the courts had made clear they would not enforce the Constitution. The courts routinely chipped away at Constitutional checks and balances, including the Second Amendment, for decades after the revolution in the courts brought about by Progressives.

The Heller case was not brought by the NRA. It was brought by Robert A. Levy of the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think-tank. They believed the time was finally ripe for a case.

[ … ]

President Reagan was able to place Justice Scalia, an originalist, to the Supreme Court in 1986, and wishy-washy Kennedy in 1988. President G.W. Bush appointed the stalwart Thomas in 1991. Chief Justice Roberts, who claims to be an originalist, was appointed in 2005.  Justice Alito, an originalist, was appointed in 2006. Those five were just enough to overturn the ban on the ownership of handguns in the District of Columbia in D.C. vs Heller in 2008.  The decision was severely restricted by the insistence of including limitations on the Second Amendment, to obtain the vote of Justice Kennedy, as engineered by Justice Stevens.

From the abajournal.com:

Stevens previously has called for repeal of the Second Amendment or a clarification saying it applies only to people serving in militias.

In the book, Stevens said he had hoped to persuade Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas to agree with him that the amendment was intended to prevent the disarmament of state militias. He circulated his dissent emphasizing historical texts supporting his view in hopes it would prove persuasive.

His only success, he said, was in getting Kennedy to persuade Justice Antonin Scalia to include language limiting the reach of his majority decision in Heller.

Here is the limiting language Justice Stevens claims to have been influential in having inserted, in trade for Justice Kennedy’s vote:

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

A major point of disagreement among Second Amendment supporters was how to approach the problem.

One group claimed anything but full and complete recognition of Second Amendment rights was futile and counter-productive. The argument was: any lesser legislation, moving incrementally toward full Second Amendment rights, would only legitimize infringements on those rights. They were/are the “All or Nothing” group. Some called/call themselves “principled”.

The other group of Second Amendment supporters argued Second Amendment rights could be restored bit by bit. Pass legislation first, for a permit system. Keep reforming and improving the permit system. Reduce requirements, reduce fees, reduce “gun-free zones”.  Keep on incrementally improving the law, until Second Amendment rights were fully restored. They were/are the “Incrementalists”.  In the middle 1990’s it was not clear if either approach would be effective.

Twenty years later, it was clear. Second Amendment Incrementalism worked.

He goes on to outline some of the success.  This is an educated and valuable read, and I commend it to you.

I am an incrementalist as I’ve explained before.  But this isn’t the same thing as what Dean is describing.

I support incrementalism when it is in our benefit.  Thus, I support open carry for South Carolina now, and then work on constitutional carry next year.  We can’t let perfect become the enemy of good.

Where I differ with Dean is his invoking the example of the NRA.  While I have no comment on NRA refusal to take a case to the Supreme Court, the incrementalism Dean is describing of the NRA isn’t really the incrementalism for which they’re hated.

They sided with the NFA, the Hughes Amendment, the initial AWB, and the bump stock ban, and against open carry in many states.  They haven’t just incrementally or judiciously surveyed the court scene to ascertain the best time or strategy to ensure 2A rights.

They have incrementally given away recognition of God-given rights.  They will always be hated for that, as they should be.

News.

But maybe they stalled it the first time just long enough to prevent the full committee from hearing and passing it, and then the senate.  This was a subcommittee.

What a ridiculous protocol.  The bill could have just been sent to the floor of the senate when passed by the House.  But that would have given South Carolina open carry, and that’s what they don’t want South Carolinians to have.

So they got what they were after.  They played politics with God-given rights.

Shooting Illustrated.

Tennessee joined 19 other states that allow constitutional carry when Gov. Bill Lee signed Senate Bill 765/House Bill 786 into law earlier this month. The measure takes effect July 1, applies to law-abiding citizens 20 and older, and a provision includes those serving in the military who are 18 to 20 years of age.

“This bill is a great step forward in the advancement of self-defense rights and Second Amendment freedoms for all Tennessee gun owners,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Jason Ouimet. “It simply means law-abiding Tennessean’s no longer have to pay a tax to exercise the right of self-protection.”

The number of states joining those with constitutional carry has grown quickly in 2021. On Feb. 18 Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte signed House Bill 102 into law, allowing constitutional carry for state residents. Iowa became the 19th state to enroll on April 2. The measures become effective June 1 and July 1, respectively.

The other 17 states with constitutional carry laws are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah (effective May 5), Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming.

The merits of similar or nearly identical measures are currently being considered by a number of other state legislatures. One passed muster in a Louisiana Senate committee and is headed for debate on the body’s main floor. Texas lawmakers are also considering a permitless carry provision and South Carolina’s House recently approved a constitutional carry measure. Others are in the works across the nation.

What?  And there isn’t blood running in the streets as the Karen’s predicted?

PJM.

On Monday, the Supreme Court decided to take up its first Second Amendment case in more than ten years.

The Court decided to take up the case New York State Rifle et. al. v. Corlett, focusing on the question of “Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

Robert Nash and Brandon Koch applied for licenses to carry firearms outside their homes in New York, SCOTUS blog reported. The licensing officer denied their requests after determining that, under New York law, they had “failed to show ‘proper cause’ to carry a firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense, because [they] did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense that distinguished them from the general public.”

This has a chance of doing good for folks in states like Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Hawaii.

If decided wrongly, this also has massive implications for the rest of America.  Or if weak like the Heller decision, it has the chance to encode and enshrine state power, and to be a catalyst for heavy social unrest and massive noncompliance.

If they plan on a weak or wrongly decided opinion, I would have preferred they just not take up the case at all.

Ammoland.

“This whole gunfight is going to come down to ‘Red Flag Gun Seizures.’ Moderates in the GOP think they can vote for that without getting burned…and if they pass ‘Red Flags,’ Biden will use that momentum to go for AR-15’s and mags next.”

That’s what one highly placed source on Capitol Hill told me just hours ago as the fight for gun control is being waged behind the scenes and behind closed doors with a vengeance!

[ … ]

… the backstabbing moderates in the Republican conference like Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, and Lindsay Graham do their best to convince the Republicans to ‘offer up a common-sense compromise so we do something on guns.’

And that’s why Florida Republican Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott are the lead sponsors on S. 292, a massive ‘Red Flag Gun Seizure’ spending bill that bribes state legislatures into enacting this law at the state level, with taxpayer dollars!

We’ll get to see just how serious the states and counties are when they declare themselves 2A sanctuaries.