Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

Update on South Carolina open carry.

The Open Carry Training Act would allow anyone with a concealed weapons permit to carry a handgun out in the open.

Reaction to the proposed law is mixed.

“I understand good faith opposition to guns, I do, I get it, but the reality is this law is very narrowly tailored to address one specific concern and that is people who have CWPs if they are going to be criminalized for having that gun exposed,” Rep. Micah Caskey, R-Lexington, said.

Lowcountry pediatrician Dr. Anne Andrews cited 2019 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stating firearms are the leading cause of death for children in South Carolina between the ages of 1 and 19, surpassing motor vehicle accidents.

Let’s stop there.

First of all, there is no “good faith” opposition to open carry or to guns.  This is a God-given right.  Self defense is a God-given right to which objections should be appealed to the sovereign of the universe, not men and women who want to defend home and hearth.

Next up, Lowcountry pediatrician Dr. Anne Andrews must be an idiot.  ““Guns that are going to be open carried are most likely going to be loaded” has to be the most stolid statement I’ve ever heard in the context of weapons.

Is she implying that concealed firearms aren’t loaded?  Or is she implying that since guns must be assumed to be loaded, a child is going to intentionally attempt to assault an open carrier who is carrying without a weapon retention holster?  This is an equally ridiculous assertion, unless she’s referring to miscreant criminal teens, in which case they aren’t children.  The reference to this person in the article reeks of having to fill in white space by the author.  The objection has no place, makes no sense, and breaks the train of thought and flow of the report.

“One way to look at this bill is, what it does is say, if you’ve got a valid concealed weapon permit you won’t be penalized for this gun being exposed,” Caskey said. “So, if you got your coat caught behind your concealed weapon right now that would be a violation of state law. We are trying to decimalize that.”

Well that itself is a good enough reason to pass the bill, but let’s call this what it is.  It’s an open carry bill, or in other words, it’s a bill to undo what the law currently says about openly carried firearms and pull South Carolina into agreement with what 46 other states know: openly carried weapons don’t cause blood to run in the streets.  Open carry is legal in North Carolina, right across the border, and apparently no one has thought to investigate whether open carry in North Carolina causes blood to run in the streets.

“For people who are not familiar with me, I’m just another minority walking the streets,” he said. “I do have concerns if I would be able to open carry the same as my white counterparts.”

Bamberg defines himself as a pro-Second Amendment gun owner. But he is concerned about sheriffs who have spoken out against the idea.

Well, Rep. Justin Bamberg has given us a disorganized, random pile of mess to unravel.

First, if a minority doesn’t wish to open carry, he doesn’t have to.  This bill doesn’t require open carry.  Second, I think he’s lying and he isn’t really a 2A supporter, at least, not if he’s opposed to open carry.

Third, I’m perfectly comfortable seeing open carry, and I’ve walked right by black guys who were openly carrying in my own state.  But this isn’t about my comfort, nor his comfort, nor the comfort of anyone else.  Rights are not contingent upon comfort.  Many people are uncomfortable listening to street preachers.  I’ve seen people on the sidewalks change to the other side of the road to avoid them, while I’m happy to walk up and talk to them.

We don’t discuss limits on the first amendment because people are uncomfortable with street preachers, nor should we.  And I would hasten to repeat what I’ve pointed out before.  “Anything that can be done with an openly carried firearm can be done with a concealed firearm.  It’s an amazing thing that we actually have to cover this ground again, but the fact that someone cannot visually ascertain the presence of a firearm doesn’t mean it’s not there.  Any confusion on this fact points to a second-grader level psychological problem.”

We don’t infringe on God-given rights because of psychological problems.  Finally, there is this misdirect from Bamberg (whom we quoted earlier).

That’s simply a lie.  This piece of legislation is before the committee.  It’s simple, it’s easy, it’s clear, and it deserves a hearing before the entire legislature.  If Bamberg wants to reign in law enforcement in the state of South Carolina, that’s a worthy goal.  I’m with him on that one, whether LEOs who shoot first and investigate later, LEOs who shoot innocent victims through the doors of their own homes, and on the list could go.

But that all has absolutely nothing to do with this bill.  It’s irrelevant, and the excuse that “we have more important things to work on” is exactly what jettisoned this bill every time it has been brought up, as if the judiciary committee is trying to protect the rest of the legislature from having to stake out a position and cast a vote on it.  You see, killing the bill protects the closet gun controllers from self-identifying and answering for their position in the next election.  They know that.  They plan for it.  Maybe the author of the article, Adam Mintzer, could investigate the real reasons for killing this bill so many times before in his next article.  Perhaps it will be better than this one.

To the South Carolina legislature: it’s okay not to be like the four states who still live in the dark ages, and it’s okay not to be like the control freaks who live in New York.  You can admit that you’re supposed to be a free state.

Pass this bill through committee.  Let the legislature take a vote.  Make everyone take a stand.  It’s time.

Prior: South Carolina Open Carry Tag (many articles)

Expected news.

“As I’m sure you know, the president is a strong supporter of gun control and has been an advocate all of his life, professional life, on this question. The role of the Justice Department is to advance the policy program of the administration as long as it is consistent with the law,” Garland told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“And as I said, so far we have a little indication from the Supreme Court as to what this means. But we don’t have a complete indication. And where there is room under the law for the president’s policies to be pursued, then I think the president is entitled to pursue them.”

[ … ]

Garland is expected to be easily confirmed by the Senate with many Republican votes.

And remember that the next time you are tempted to believe that the republicans are your 2A friends.

This is all as expected.  He is capitalizing on the facts that (1) he’s a communist, the one who holds the presidency is a communists, most of the congress is communists and none of them speak the truth concerning God-given rights, and (2) the SCOTUS is full of communists too and have vacillated and equivocated until there is nothing left of the covenant under which we all agreed to live (the constitution).

So … here we are.  As soon as he is confirmed he will direct the DoJ to direct the ATF to enact new intolerable acts to infringe on God-given rights.

This is horrific.

Brooklyn: Flatbush Avenue & Parkside Avenue, person #CaughtOnCamera beating up a biker with a bat until he falls to the ground unconscious. pic.twitter.com/3PXr06gCNc

— NYC Scoop (@NY_Scoop) February 18, 2021

The victim is still not conscious and is in critical condition.  But the problem is easy to solve.  Shoot him.

Put a slug into the thug’s belly to stop him, and then put another into his head to make sure he doesn’t get back up and start again.  The upshot is that he would never be able to harm someone like this again.

Move from New York where you cannot defend yourself.  Get out of there.  It is the land of communists.

And remember Herschel’s Dictum.  Always.

News from New Hampshire.

The New Hampshire House is considering recommending a constitutional amendment that would prevent future state laws from restricting firearm ownership, one of a series of gun rights bills proposed this year.

The proposal, officially called Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution 8 would prevent the Legislature from passing any law “restricting the right to own, carry, or use firearms or firearm accessories.”

But some gun rights groups say that the amendment needs to be workshopped, and could have unintended consequences for firearms use in the state.

New Hampshire’s constitution already contains a version of the Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, which states: “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the State.”

This legislation would add two following sentences. “The Legislature shall enact no law that limits the right of a person to own, carry, or use firearms or firearm accessories in any manner that would create a greater burden than that in federal law,” the amendment states. “Any federal law that infringes upon rights guaranteed in this New Hampshire Constitution shall be unenforceable by New Hampshire law enforcement.”

Rep. Terry Roy, the bill’s sponsor, said the amendment was intended to protect firearm rights, and stop the see-sawing of gun legislation between Republican and Democratic legislatures.

“The reason I’m introducing this bill is because I’ve heard from many constituents that they are frankly a little tired of every two years, or four years, or whatever it may be, that power shifts in the State House, and they are concerned about having their rights infringed upon based on whatever political winds are blowing in Concord,” said Roy, a Deerfield Republican.

The constitutional amendment would recognize the federal government’s ability to pass its own firearms restrictions, Roy said, but it would prevent local and state law enforcement from enforcing it. Those new restrictions could only be enforced by federal agents, Roy added.

Roy said he would prefer the amendment to prevent any federal firearms laws from taking jurisdiction, but thought that it wouldn’t be constitutional.

This would be a step in the right direction for New Hampshire, but it doesn’t go far enough.  As for Mr. Roy, he’s kicking the can down the road.  This is all going to come to a head sooner or later, and when it does, the question of constitutionality won’t come up except in law offices here and there.

On the street, the people will demand what they are demanding in other states like Missouri, namely, that state and county LEOs arrest and charge federal agents for enforcing federal gun control laws.

You can run, but you cannot hide.  This is coming, and it’s better to get state legislators on board now with what must be done.

It proceeds apace.  This can be seen in recent movements towards gun control, or away from it.

Consider first the case of Utah.

Friday, February 12^th, Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed HB 60 into law … House Bill 60, sponsored by Representative Walt Brooks (R-75), allows a law-abiding adult to carry a concealed firearm in the State of Utah, without first needing to obtain government permission. This ensures that citizens have their right to self-defense without government red tape or delays. Additionally, this legislation maintains the existing Concealed Firearm Permit (CFP) system, so citizens who still wish to obtain a permit may do so.

Next up, consider the cases of Wyoming and Missouri.

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (Feb. 4, 2021) – A bill introduced in the Wyoming Senate would take on federal gun control; past, present and future. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.

A coalition of 19 Republicans and a Libertarian introduced Senate Bill 81 (SF81) on Feb. 3. Titled the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” the legislation would ban any person, including any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any past, present or future federal “acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

SF81 is similar to a bill moving forward in Missouri.

The bill includes a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” including but not limited to:

• taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services that would have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
• registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that would have a chilling effect;
• any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;
• any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

As we’ve noted before, the state must be serious about it, serious enough to dispatch local and state law enforcement to arrest federal agents enforcing federal laws, with provision in the code to prosecute them.

There is also a permitless carry bill before the legislature in Tennessee.  Finally, South Carolina is considering open carry again.  It should be shameful to South Carolinians that the last holdout state on the last vote on dissolution of relations with Britain in the continental congress, their very own state, is also one of the final few states who disallows open carry.

If they’re able to hold the communists in Charleston, Columbia and Greenville in check, they may have a chance.  It’s died in committee before many times, and at least this time it’s getting a hearing.  We’ll see just how serious South Carolina is about driving a stake in the ground and saying, “Here I make my stand.”

Contrast that now with Rhode Island.

In our last email we referenced upcoming bills we knew were coming since some legislators had given us a heads-up. After their release we can confirm they are worse than anyone could have imagined and are, at this point, the most restrictive proposals in the country.

What’s so egregious about these bills? Just a single bill, their so-called high capacity magazine ban, would ban almost every single firearm on the market in addition to the ones you already own. Any magazine with a “removeable floorplate and the ability to be extended” will be illegal. This encompasses all semiautomatic handguns, rifles and some manually operated firearms. No purchasing, transferring nor grandfathering. It would require less effort to list the firearms you CAN own rather than the restrictions themselves.

Additional bills call for the removal of shall-issue gun permitting, a ban on most semi auto rifles and full medical release forms when purchasing a firearm.

And in California they can’t let a session go by without more anti-gun bills.  These are only a few of the examples we could cite.

These actions aren’t by accident, of course.  State and local governments know exactly what’s coming, and the resistance can be organized or chaotic, with bite, or without any, meaningful or meaningless.

Polarization is occurring, the pace has quickened, and the stakes for the future of liberty are very high.  It will all happen on the state and local level.  But make no mistake about it, sides are organizing and preparing the field.

Dean Weingarten has a discussion up at Ammoland of South Carolina open carry, something we’ve pushed for years as regular readers know.

There are only five states which currently ban the open carry of handguns in most public areas, most of the time. They are: Illinois, New York, California, Florida, and South Carolina. New Jersey and Hawaii ban open carry in practice, but legally, anyone with a permit can open carry. It is just extremely difficult to obtain a permit.

South Carolina is moving toward restoring the right to openly carry handguns in public with House Bill 3094, labeled “Open Carry with Training”.

They’ve been moving for years, only to get torpedoed by the controllers who appear to control the controllers in South Carolina.

I’ve sent blast emails to every legislator in South Carolina before, but it has limited utility compared to communications a South Carolina resident would send.

To my readers in South Carolina: you’re on top of this, aren’t you?  You’re involved, aren’t you? Unless you’re involved, don’t complain when your state looks just like New York.

I can complain when I drive into South Carolina because my rights are not honored, but I don’t live there and they won’t listen to me.  They’ll listen to you, maybe, if you speak forcefully enough.

So you can’t complain.

Prior: South Carolina Open Carry Tag

News from South Carolina.

Some South Carolina Republican lawmakers are trying to get the decidedly conservative state to join 44 others that allow people to carry guns without concealing them.

South Carolina is one of only five states without so-called open carry, joining atypical partners such as California, Florida, Illinois and New York.

A House panel voted 3-1 along party lines to advance a bill Wednesday that would allow people who already have concealed-weapons permits to carry their guns without hiding them under a coat or other clothing.

The proposal has a long way to go before becoming law. But like another bill proposed each session that would ban almost all abortions, the open-carry bill got a boost when Republicans gained five seats in the General Assembly in the 2020 elections.

Before voting Wednesday, the subcommittee listened to the public speak for about two hours, both in person and virtually. Some speakers said the proposal would make them feel safer protecting their family, while doctors said they feared more gun violence and domestic killings in a state that is often among the worst in the country.

Doctors.  Experts in public policy, or so someone thinks.  Yea, that blood running in the streets thing hasn’t materialized anywhere open carry is legal, and they know it.

Some gun owners said the concealed-weapons law is just fine as it is. But Charleston’s police chief asked lawmakers to focus instead on laws ensuring that violent criminals serve more time in prison.

Chief Luther Reynolds, testifying by video, told lawmakers open carry is a bad idea given the recent increase in protests over racial injustice, which often involve angry people pitted against each other in close quarters.

“Adding the open carry of firearms raises tension,” Reynolds said. “It makes it even harder for law enforcement officers to determine who has and who has not been committing a crime.”

Both local and state law enforcement officials have been a significant force in preventing the bill from passing in previous years.

About a half-dozen of the 28 people who testified Wednesday were in favor of the bill.

Mark Roote said he carried his gun openly in Pennsylvania, which doesn’t require a permit, before moving to South Carolina. He said as a disabled veteran, a gun helps him defend himself and his family even if he can no longer physically fight.

“Having a pistol concealed on my hip requires extra motion,” Roote said.

I certainly wouldn’t deny a disabled veteran the right to choose what best suits his self defense needs, but the real issue is whether it is right and just to dictate to a man how he carries his weapons.  The answer is no, whether he’s a disabled veteran or simply doesn’t like IWB carry.

At least one speaker Wednesday said the proposal doesn’t go far enough. Tommy Dimsdale, who identified himself as belonging to a group of tens of thousands of gun owners in the state called Palmetto Gun Rights, said South Carolina needs to join about 16 other states that allow legal gun owners to carry their weapons any way they wish, without a permit.

“We’re disappointed that lawmakers think this bill adequately addresses the concern of gun owners,” Dimsdale said.

None of the lawmakers spoke about the bill before voting Wednesday. In the past, some African American legislators have suggested the measure might pose a danger to Black gun owners, who they said could be mistaken for criminals by police or other armed civilians.

“My reality is I am Black, and because of the color of my skin, I am feared by some of those same gun owners who have no idea I could be a good guy with a gun,” speaker Butch Kennedy said. “Open carry to me means open season on the hundreds of thousands of people who look like me.”

Good for Tommy.  He pressed the issue to constitutional carry.  As for the dude who is black being afraid of open carry, the answer is simple.  Then don’t open carry.  Lot’s of people don’t like it, just like lots of people don’t like concealed carry.

Much of this group sounds like a bunch of New Yorkers.  I suspect most of the naysayers came from law enforcement, gun control advocate groups, Greenville, Columbia and Charleston.

Maybe New York could annex those three cities and spare South Carolina the trouble of coddling their emotions.

News from Tennessee.

Is anyone surprised that those who risk financial loss (instructors for state-required classes) are opposed to this bill?

SanctuaryCounties.com.

Be it enacted by the Newton County Missouri Commission as follows: All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations passed by the Federal Government and specifically any Presidential Administration whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in the county, shall not be recognized by this county, and specifically rejected by this county, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this county.

(1) Such federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations include but are not limited to:

(a) Any tax levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(b) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(c) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(d) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens;

(e) And finally, any act whether past, present, or future passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by the Federal Government and specifically any Presidential Administration which infringes on the people’s right to keep and bear arms in Newton County Missouri shall be considered null and void in the county, and not recognized by this county. Current House bills include but are not limited to: H.R. 30, H.R. 38, H.R. 121, H.R. 137, and H.R. 167 those bills if past are null and void, and not recognized by Newton County Missouri, any past, present, or future bill passed by the United States Congress will be null and void, and not recognized by Newton County Missouri;

(2) Newton County Missouri declares that it must be the duty of the courts and law enforcement agencies to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms and that no person, including a public officer or county employee of this county or any political subdivision of this county, can have authority to enforce or attempt to enforce any federal laws, orders, or rules infringing on the right to keep and bear arms;

(3) Newton County Missouri declares that any person while acting as an official, agent, employee, or deputy of the United States Government who enforces or attempts to enforce any of the infringements identified in this ordinance or gives material aid and support to the efforts of others who enforce or attempt to enforce any of the infringements identified in this ordinance may be permanently ineligible to be hired as a law enforcement officer or to supervise law enforcement officers in the county or exceeds the authority of the Newton County Missouri Commission;

(a) There will be an exception made for Newton County Missouri local deputies and sheriffs, they shall and will not be held liable to this ordinance when assisting any and all federal agents in the arrests of suspected criminals;

(4) Any and all federal agents trying to enforce the regulations listed in Section (1) shall be subject to arrest by the Newton County Missouri Sheriff’s Department;

(a) The Newton County Missouri Sheriffs Department shall be given the full authority to make an arrest of any and all federal agents that violate state laws and enforce the regulations listed in Section (1);

(5) This ordinance will be known and cited as the “Second Amendment Preservation Act of Newton County Missouri”.

Regular readers know that I’ve long said that a prohibition on the participation of local law enforcement in confiscatory policies isn’t enough.  For it to be effective, any resolution MUST ensure that any agent of the federal government attempting to do the same be subject to immediate arrest.

West Virginia civil rights attorney.

Breaking news just this afternoon: the Walker case has been accepted for oral argument by the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, tentatively set for March 8 through March 12, 2021. This is the case with the video showing my client, Michael Walker, walking down the side of a public roadway in Putnam County, West Virginia, on his way coyote hunting. The video is at the link.

This is good news, being that we’re the ones appealing. Most appeals are decided with a written order and no oral argument. The ones with a good likelihood of success, or which are important issues of law, are generally set for oral argument.

I’ve been following this case for a while now, and the Fourth Circuit had better be consistent with their ruling in U.S. v. Nathaniel Black.  If they don’t, then they’re siding with a black man and leaving the white man at the mercy of tyrannical LEOs.

Yea, in Black, “Officer Strayer stated that although it is legal in North Carolina for a person to openly carry a firearm, in his years in the Eastway Division, he had never seen anyone do it.”

Well, officer Strayer is an idiot, poorly trained in the law, and lacks the temperament to be a LEO.  I live in N.C.  I see open carry all the time.  I do open carry.  I’ve seen kids open carry in uptown Charlotte before, walked right by them, nodded at them.  Strayer needs to get out more.

By the way, Mr. Walker was under absolutely no legal or moral obligation to provide the LEO with ID.  None.  He was under absolutely no legal or moral obligation to supply an answer for where he was going or what he was doing, or even why he was carrying a long gun.  None.

The only failure in this case was (a) the LEO who stopped him, and (b) the dispatcher who failed to fisk the caller to find out exactly what crime was being alleged.  They missed a great educational opportunity to teach the public the West Virginia law.

If they can’t do even that, then what good are they?  Why do they draw a paycheck?