Reason.

There are at least five major differences between Clement’s QP and the Court’s QP.

First, the Court’s QP focuses on the state’s decision to deny “concealed-carry licenses” to the petitioners. Clement’s QP challenged the law on its face, and as applied. Is the Court’s decision now limited to an as-applied challenge, rather than a facial challenge? Might the Court leave open the possibility that other may-issue regimes are unconstitutional? Are there some unique aspects of the New York law that would distinguish it from other may issue regimes? Is there the possibility the Court will need to remand for further explication of the regime? Is there some evidence that the state improperly denied licenses to these particular plaintiffs? Might there be some Due Process Clause argument? Then again, the QP references the Second Amendment, so a Due Process issue would not be squarely presented. I see this slippery change as a way for the Court to issue a very, very narrow decision that will leave the issue unsettled.

But of course.  Cowards and totalitarians.

There is more at the link.  Zelman Partisans makes is simple for us.

By changing it from a question about law-abiding citizens carrying in public, to denial of licenses Period — no mention of “law-abiding” people carrying — the InJustices can now say, Gee, states have to be able to deny some licenses, otherwise prohibited persons could apply and get licenses. No one wants that to happen.

They’ve dodged the entire issue of denial of rights based on an arbitrary you didn’t show good enough need to carry a gun. The point of contention was shall versus may issue, and if the Second Amendment applies outside the home. Now it’s is licensing constitutional?

Prediction: 5/4 denial of licenses does not not violate the Second Amendment; Roberts with the majority. “May issue” remains because the Court refused to look at that.

Although it could go 6/3. Gorsuch is such an insufferable hair-splitter that he may go along with the majority, too. On the other hand, he might object to the reframed question itself. Hard to say.

As I observed, I’d rather that the SCOTUS not have taken the case up at all.  Is there anything requiring courage that the SCOTUS is actually willing to do?  They take the easy ones, leave aside the hard ones, and when they do take a hard one they limit the scope of the review so they don’t have to actually decide anything of significance.

Of what worth are they?  Why do we even have a supreme court?  Wouldn’t we be better off without them?

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.

News.

On April 27^th, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee is hearing House Bill 3094, to legalize the open carry of handguns. Please contact subcommittee members and ask them to SUPPORT HB 3094.

House Bill 3094 allows citizens who hold a concealed weapons permit, to carry a handgun in the manner they choose. Currently, South Carolina is one of just five states that does not explicitly allow open carry, among them Illinois, New York, and California. Self-defense situations are difficult to predict and everyone has different circumstances. It is unreasonable for the law to impose a one-size-fits-all method of carrying a handgun for self-defense.

This is very good news.  We’re tracking names, yes?

This narrows the field substantially.  We let Luke Rankin know just very recently that we expected him to pass this bill on for a vote in the senate.

If this fails, the House isn’t to blame.  Right now the finger of attention points to the senators in this subcommittee.  We’re watching you.  Luke, we’re still watching you too.

Should this pass on to a vote in the senate, if the bill fails, I’ll publish the votes of every senator, along with the city they live in and area they represent.

The field is being winnowed.  You cannot hide from this vote.  The only thing you can do is take it and be prepared for what comes.

Bearing Arms.

A bill introduced in South Carolina is both common sense and closes a seriously dangerous loop in their law. H 3432 will give much needed protections to those that do opt to carry a firearm for self-defense. From the summary of the bill we have the following:

Immunity from prosecution and civil action for stand your ground

A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 16-11-440 AND 16-11-450, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BOTH RELATING TO IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON (STAND YOUR GROUND), BOTH SO AS TO INCLUDE DISPLAYING DEADLY FORCE IN THE PURVIEW OF THE STATUTES.

Brandishing a firearm can come with serious penalties. But what happens when someone is being attacked, they deploy their firearm, and then the attacker turns and runs away? Well, in my book and anyone that has any wits about them would chalk this one up to a big win.

I agree, and the notion that law enforcement would arrest and charge someone with brandishing is ridiculous if that action stopped an attacker.  But that would require intelligence by LEOs, and moral scruples by prosecuting attorneys, neither of which is realistic.

This is a worthy bill, but if it hasn’t already been heard in committee and passed on, it’s unlikely to get a vote this session.

From a reader, this one took me off guard and surprised me.

North Carolina would scrap its pistol permit system, which requires local sheriffs to sign off on handgun purchases, under a proposal unveiled Tuesday with support from the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association.

Gun rights advocates have pressed for the change for years, but the sheriffs’ association – a lobbying force at the General Assembly – always opposed it. Under the current system, anyone who doesn’t already have a concealed carry permit must file with a sheriff to buy a handgun. That’s not a requirement for rifles.

With recent advances in the database checks gun dealers run at purchase, the pistol permit is no longer needed, Sheriffs’ Association Executive Vice President and General Counsel Eddie Caldwell said Tuesday. The administrative arm of the North Carolina courts system finished uploading involuntary commitment records to the system in 2019, he said.

“Now that those records are uploaded, the [National Instant Criminal Background] check and the pistol permit are duplicative,” he said.

House Bill 398 would do away with that system, and the bill moved through an initial House committee Tuesday on a divided vote. Several Democrats, backed by gun-control groups, said they fear the change will open a loophole, since only licensed firearm dealers have to run background checks.

Regular people who sell a gun to a friend, or to someone they meet at a gun show, for example, don’t have to.

As you know, this isn’t a “loophole.”  That’s just a madeup word the communists like to use for something they don’t like.

Not all Sheriffs support this.  I suspect the Mecklenburg County Sheriff didn’t go for this, and I know the Wake County Sheriff didn’t.  Listen to his interview.  He exudes all the intelligence and mastery of the facts as a second grader.

North Carolina has this antiquated system where you must demonstrate fealty to the CLEO and prove yourself by turning over fees to be licensed to carry or purchase a handgun.

This initially surprised me, but I think I know what’s happening.  The communist governor of NC, the awful, terrible, loathsome, despicable, reprehensible Roy Cooper, will veto it – that’s a sure thing.  There aren’t enough votes to override his veto.  The Sheriff’s association having come out in favor of repealing the permitting scheme is good cover for the Sheriffs who run as republicans.

Politics.  Do you see how this works?  They can take a vote that helps reelect them, but their vote on a bill that will never be approved is as meaningless as the permitting system – except for the revenue it provides.

From reader Richard, awful news about a man being killed by a bear in Yellowstone.

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — Grizzly bears are part of life in the gateway communities around Yellowstone National Park, and backcountry snowmobile guide Charles “Carl” Mock knew well the risks that come with working, hiking and fishing among the fear-inspiring carnivores, his friends said.

Mock was killed after being mauled by a 400-plus pound (181-plus kilogram) male grizzly while fishing alone at a favorite spot on Montana’s Madison River, where it spills out of the park and into forested land that bears wander in search of food.

The bear had a moose carcass stashed nearby and wildlife officials say it likely attacked Mock to defend the food. The grizzly was shot after charging at a group of seven game wardens and bear specialists who returned the next day.

Bear spray residue found on Mock’s clothing suggested he tried to ward off last week’s attack using a canister of the Mace-like deterrent, considered an essential item in the backcountry. He usually carried a pistol, too, but wasn’t on the day he was killed just a few miles north of the small town of West Yellowstone where he lived, according to two friends.

While some on social media questioned the inherent perils of such a lifestyle in the wake of Mock’s death, those who knew him said he accepted the risk as a trade-off for time spent in a wilderness teeming with elk, deer, wolves and other wildlife.

“People don’t understand that for us who live here, that’s what we do every day,” said Scott Riley, who said he fished, hunted, hiked and kayaked numerous times with Mock over the past decade.

[ … ]

Mock, 40, managed to call 911 following the mauling and was found by rescuers propped against a tree with the cannister of bear spray in one hand, his father, Chuck Mock, told the Billing Gazette. His other hand had been “chomped off” as he tried to protect himself.

One of the animal’s teeth punctured his skull and Mock died two days later in an Idaho hospital after undergoing extensive surgery.

One more failure in the bear spray category.  The pistol he usually carried didn’t do him much good sitting at home.  While the risk wouldn’t have been nonexistent, it would have been reduced with a large bore handgun.

The only update I can find.

First of all, that’s an idiotic objection.  Her problem is psychological.  The fact of a weapon not being visible means nothing concerning whether an individual has a weapon or is a “bad guy.”

Second, this is the page for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Luke Rankin.  The future may look bleak for open carry in South Carolina.  It appears that Luke Rankin has pulled open carry before and is possibly anti-gun.

Perhaps Luke Rankin needs to meet the same fate as Larry Martin and be ejected from the S.C. Senate.  So what gives, Luke?  Where do we stand?  Why hasn’t action been taken?

Here is his place of employment and here is his contact page.  Are you a gun controller, Luke?

Via WiscoDave, news about FedGov.

The law enforcement arm of the U.S. Postal Service has been quietly running a program that tracks and collects Americans’ social media posts, including those about planned protests, according to a document obtained by Yahoo News.

The details of the surveillance effort, known as iCOP, or Internet Covert Operations Program, have not previously been made public. The work involves having analysts trawl through social media sites to look for what the document describes as “inflammatory” postings and then sharing that information across government agencies.

“Analysts with the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP) monitored significant activity regarding planned protests occurring internationally and domestically on March 20, 2021,” says the March 16 government bulletin, marked as “law enforcement sensitive” and distributed through the Department of Homeland Security’s fusion centers. “Locations and times have been identified for these protests, which are being distributed online across multiple social media platforms, to include right-wing leaning Parler and Telegram accounts.”

A number of groups were expected to gather in cities around the globe on March 20 as part of a World Wide Rally for Freedom and Democracy, to protest everything from lockdown measures to 5G. “Parler users have commented about their intent to use the rallies to engage in violence. Image 3 on the right is a screenshot from Parler indicating two users discussing the event as an opportunity to engage in a ‘fight’ and to ‘do serious damage,’” says the bulletin.

“No intelligence is available to suggest the legitimacy of these threats,” it adds.

The bulletin includes screenshots of posts about the protests from Facebook, Parler, Telegram and other social media sites. Individuals mentioned by name include one alleged Proud Boy and several others whose identifying details were included but whose posts did not appear to contain anything threatening.

“iCOP analysts are currently monitoring these social media channels for any potential threats stemming from the scheduled protests and will disseminate intelligence updates as needed,” the bulletin says.

[ … ]

When contacted by Yahoo News, civil liberties experts expressed alarm at the post office’s surveillance program. “It’s a mystery,” said University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone, whom President Barack Obama appointed to review the National Security Agency’s bulk data collection in the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks. “I don’t understand why the government would go to the Postal Service for examining the internet for security issues.”

Because it’s buried and hidden from view of the rest of FedGov and the people.  After all, who would have suspected the Postal Service as being filled with communists?

Er, never mind.  Anyway, we’ve come a long way from the days of the pony express, yes?

The Reload.

An internal Department of Justice document explaining how the Biden Administration plans to restrict so-called ghost guns was leaked on Tuesday.

The 107-page document, obtained by The Reload, outlines changes the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) wants to make to outlaw the sale of homemade gun kits by unlicensed manufactures. At the direction of President Joe Biden, the agency plans to propose federal rule changes, which would require anyone selling unfinished firearms receivers to obtain a federal license and mark the parts with a serial number. Anyone who continues to sell unfinished receivers without a license could face federal felony charges.

Utterly unconstitutional.  What are we going to do next?  Serialize springs and pipes?

Attaboy.  Don’t worry about what other people think.  I wear what I want, I don’t listen to other people tell me how to dress, I couldn’t care less if I print, and I’d rather open carry if circumstances permit it.  I conceal well in non-permissive environments (no one will know if I’m armed), I will dress fine for fine occasions, and internet experts on tacticool don’t impress me at all.

I dress for the occasion, and I will wear baggy pants if I want to, or other pants and a nice shirt if I have to.  And I don’t wear fishing vests or try to keep others from feeling uncomfortable around me.  When I carry, I do so because I choose to exercise my God-given right to do so.