Saturday, May 08, 2021

SC: Open Carry Recalled from Judiciary; Full Senate Debate to Come

South Carolina State House, Christmas 2006, Brandon Davis, public domain, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten

On 27 April, 2021, the Senate Judiciary subcommittee failed to vote on Open Carry with Training, HB3094. An activist had written, in 2018, the Judiciary committee is where gun reform bills go to die. He seemed to be prescient, from long experience.

Then the unexpected happened. The Senate voted to recall HB3094 from the Judiciary committee. A recall vote for a bill is not common, but it does happen. 

This correspondent spoke with Senator Rex Rice, a strong proponent of Constitutional Carry in the South Carolina legislature. He had predicted the subcommittee would approve of HB3094, but if it did not, there would be a recall vote.

Senator Rice was the Republican who had won the primary against Senator Larry Martin, the Republican who previously Chaired the Judiciary committee, after Senator Martin had made some less than judicious remarks denigrating open carry. The primary happened in 2016. Senator Rice won by a few hundred votes.  From  an article by this correspondent in 2015:

He had this to say, according to WLTX: 

“You can carry a weapon openly if this bill is adopted and I’m offended by that,” said committee chair Sen. Larry Martin (R-Pickens).

The recall  vote was a very strong 27 for and 12 against, with 1 not voting. There are 40 South Carolina senators. 

This correspondent asked Senator Rice, with more than a two thirds vote to recall the bill, wasn't passage of the bill almost certain?

The answer showed how complex political maneuvering can be. Senator Rice said about half of those voting to recall the bill were serious proponents of Constitutional Carry. They had told the other half, if they did not obtain something this session, the others would not obtain anything they wanted to pass, either.

It is nearly certain a move will be made to substitute a version of Constitutional Carry (passed by the House as HB3096), for HB3094.

The South Carolina House voted to pass Constitutional Carry with a strong 69 to 47 majority.

Senator Rice believed the votes are sufficient in the Senate to override a filibuster against Open Carry with Training, but not necessarily to override a filibuster on Constitutional Carry. 26 votes are needed in the South Carolina Senate to override a filibuster.

It seems likely Open Carry with Training will pass the Senate, and be signed into law. It is less likely, but plausible Constitutional Carry will be passed and signed into law.

Senator Rice believes Governor Henry McMaster will sign either bill, if they pass the legislature.

Much depends on what is happening in the rest of the nation. South Carolina is one of only five states to ban open carry.  Twenty states have passed Constitutional Carry.  Four of those twenty passed Constitutional Carry in 2021. Both Texas and Louisiana are in play to pass versions of Constitutional Carry in the next few weeks.

In politics, there are trends and waves. With the close and contested election of President Biden, voters and state legislatures feel the need to assert Constitutional rights. Constitutional Carry is riding the wave. Nearly 50% of the land area of the United States is covered by law where adults can carry handguns, openly or concealed, without government permission, in most public spaces.

90% of the states provide for the open carry of handguns in their laws.



Follow up NV: Suspect Shot by Homeowner Identified

RENO, Nev. (KOLO) - The Douglas County Sheriff’s Office has identified the suspect who was shot early Wednesday morning after authorities said he broke into a home on Alicia Circle and Tilman Lane in Gardnerville.

The sheriff’s office said the homeowner confronted Christian Gorham around 4 a.m. and shot him. The homeowner detained Gorham until authorities arrived. Gorham was taken to Carson Valley Medical Center and treated and released.

More Here

OK: Armed Smaritan Gunfight with Armed Robbery Suspect


A good Samaritan helped Oklahoma City police track down a suspected armed robber. Police said Christopher Parker, 19, was arrested shortly after he held up a business near Northwest 63rd Street and Meridian Avenue last week. Investigators continued to look for Parker’s accomplice.

The owner of the auto shop that is tucked behind a northwest Oklahoma City strip mall was still shaken up days after the robbery. He came face-to-face with the armed and masked suspect. 

More Here

Friday, May 07, 2021

FL: Homemade Shotguns at Pensacola Gun Turn-In?


 Images from facebook City of Pensacola. Long gun and handgun table images combined, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten.

A gun turn-in event was sponsored by the Florida city of Pensacola on 20 March, 2021. Numerous sources are claiming some homemade shotguns were sold to the city at the event. The picture above shows the guns the city says they purchased. The homemade shotguns are not among them.


From Escambia carry on facebook, picture by Jeremy Bosso, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten. 

You can see three slam-fire homemade shotguns in the photograph by Jeremy.  They are being checked out by the police at the Pensacola turn in event.

The City says the homemade guns were not purchased. From facebook:

RUMOR ALERT: There is an inaccurate post circulating from Saturday’s gun buyback event with a photo of a homemade gun. The homemade gun pictured was NOT purchased by the City of Pensacola.
Here are photos of the guns that were actually purchased at the event. As a reminder, this event was 100% VOLUNTARY, and all guns purchased were from citizens who participated voluntarily.
 The city received some pushback from other people on facebook. From facebook
Crystal Nay wrote: 
This picture from the actual event and told by multiple witnesses? Just want to be clear

City of Pensacola - Government wrote: 

The gun was brought to the event, but was not purchased by the city.
Another poster on facebook claims the guns were bought. writes the three Boomstick 1776 pipe guns were purchased by the city. From  

Members of the local Second Admendment advocacy group Escambia Carry showed up to the event with a sign that read “Don’t Get Ripped Off By The City With This Stupid Gun “Buyback’ Program – See Me To Get Fair Market Value For Your Firearm.”

“Other than these rifles, the vast majority were junk,” Escambia Carry’s Jeremy Bosso said in a Facebook post. “Numerous people told us they sold their old junk guns to buy new firearms. Someone sold a Marine Emergency Flare gun. Other attendees had air pistols (BB/pellet guns). The City ran out of money by 9:27am – less than 30 minutes into the event.”

One man showed with three homemade “Boom Stick 1776” pipe shotguns, which were sold sold to police after he demonstrated that they were operable.

This correspondent checked with Escambria Carry. The posters there did not say the slam fire homemade shotguns were purchased. Jeremy Bosso says they were approved to be purchased.  From Escambia carry on facebook:

The gentleman selling the "Boom Stick 1776" shotguns told me he called the City rep beforehand and asked if they would purchase a single-shot shotgun - because the flier said they were buying semi-automatic firearms. Allegedly, he was told they would pay $125 for single-shot shotguns.
I realize the "Boom Stick 1776" was homemade, but it was apparently a functional single-shot shotgun (a "slam fire shotgun").
There are quite a few interesting pictures of "slam fire shotguns" on Google Images.

Jeremy Bosso took the time to clarify what happened on the Pensacola City facebook page.  From facebook:

UPDATE: To clarify, these are my pictures. I was standing right there.
The gentleman selling the "Boom Stick 1776" shotguns told me he called the City rep before the event, and asked if they would purchase a single-shot shotgun - because the flier said they were buying semi-automatic firearms. Allegedly, he was told they would pay $125 for single-shot shotguns. So he attended the event.
At the checkpoint, he did have to demonstrate that they were functional (they were), and he was sent to the payment line, guns in hand. However, while standing in line, they informed everyone that they had run out of money - about 27 minutes after the start.
I realize the "Boom Stick 1776" was homemade, but it was apparently a functional single-shot shotgun (a "slam fire shotgun"). You can find some pretty interesting images online of said "slam fire shotguns.

Jeremy makes clear: The homemade guns would have been purchased, but the city ran out of money before they reached the head of the line.

The lesson is clear. If you wish to take advantage of one of these programs, get there early.

Some private purchasers did just that, and were rewarded for their efforts.


Image from facebook of private purchases at Pensacola, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten

The guns purchased by the private buyers appear to be a Ruger 1022 with scope, an SKS, and a double barreled shotgun.  

The Pensacola News Journal reports 71 guns were collected, expending the $10,000 budget in half and hour. 

Prices for the program were set at $150 for semi-automatic pistols, $125 for revolvers and $200 for semi-automatic rifles.

Robinson announced at his press conference that 63 guns were purchased, but city officials later clarified that 71 guns were collected at the event. The city only paid for 68 of the guns, as three of them were turned over without payment after funds had run out.

From the pictures of the guns purchased, as displayed on facebook, this correspondent was able to tentatively identify the following:


21 revolvers listed at $125 each, or $2,625.

27 semi-auto pistols, listed at $150, or  $4,050.

1 derringer, unknown price

11 semi-auto .22 rifles, 1 unknown semi-auto, listed at $200, or $2,400

1 semi-auto shotgun, unknown price

3 single-shot shotguns, unknown price 

1 carcano military bolt gun, unknown price 

1 single shot .22, unknown price

2 undetermined guns, unknown price.

The known prices come to $9,075, leaving $925 to pay for the semi-auto shotgun, bolt guns, single shot shotguns,  and undetermined guns, a total of 9 guns. It seems to be about right.

Before the current bubble, many .22 semi-auto rifles could be purchased for under $200, brand new. 

The Remington 550 would have been a good deal, if it were working, for $200. The Carcano is worth more than $125. Most of the handguns appear to be inexpensive, with retail values somewhat less than what was offered by the city. 

©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch


NV: Man Shot and Killed while Trespassing in Douglas County

An investigation is now underway after a man was shot and killed while trespassing at a home in Douglas County early Tuesday, deputies say. 

The shooting happened in the 1500 block of Topaz Ranch Road just before 6 a.m.

The man died less than hour later.

More Here

Followup FL: McKenzie Shooting of Roger Erwin found Justified

Prosecutors have ruled the shooting death of a 56-year-old man was self-defense, and for the time being have not charged the shooter. 

According to a three-page memorandum about the incident, prosecutors did leave open the possibility they could re-open the case.

More Here

Thursday, May 06, 2021

How Texans Lost the Right to Bear Handguns

Image from wikipedia, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten

During the debate over HB1927, in the Texas Senate Special Committee on Constitutional Issues, Senator Eddie Lucio (D) made a starting assertion. He stated Texans could not have the right to bear arms restored,  because the right to bear arms has not been infringed. At about 05:01:50, He asked, During the testimony of Andi Turner, Legislative director for the Texas State Rifle Association:

When did we lose them?...

Later he said, about 05:04:30 : 

We never lost the right to bear arms in this state. 

Then he references Matt Dillon and Dodge as an example of where the right did not exist. ("unless they are lying to us on those shows..."). Who would think a fictional western might not be true..?

In the case of Texas, we know precisely when the right to bear arms was taken away. It was on 5 July, 1869, when the Texas Constitution of 1869 was ratified. The right to bear long guns was restored on 15 February, 1876. The right to bear handguns was never restored.

Texas was born in revolution, with many similarities to the American revolution, only 50 years after the American declaration of independence in 1776.  In 1835, Santa Anna and a new Mexican government assumed absolute power and overthrew the existing liberal Constitution. Texans decided to fight to maintain their rights, along with several other Mexican states. As with the United States, the initial skirmish occurred with an attempt to confiscate weapons. Texas was successful in its bid for independence and wrote its first constitution in 1836. 

The Texas Constitution of 1836 had strong right to keep and bear arms protections. It came directly from the recent experience of the necessity of arms for defense of self and the community. From the 1836 declaration of rights:

"Fourteenth. Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the Republic. The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power."

In 1845, Texas joined the United States. Texans approved of a new state constitution. It contained a very strong right to keep and bear arms. From the Texas Constitution of 1845, considered one of the best ever written:

SEC. 13. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State.

The right to arms was considered to be so strong in Texas, the Texas Supreme Court wrote the right to keep and bear arms for self defense was absolute. From Clayton Cramer, quoting Cockrum v. State, 1859: 

Cockrum v. State (Tex. 1859): upheld a sentence enhancement for manslaughters committed with a Bowie knife, but acknowledged that the Texas Constitution's right to keep and bear arms guaranteed a right to carry such a weapon, and appears to have conceded that the Second Amendment also guaranteed an individual right.  "The object of the clause first cited [the Second Amendment], has reference to the perpetuation of free government, and is based on the idea, that the people cannot be effectually oppressed and enslaved, who are not first disarmed.  The clause cited in our Bill of Rights, has the same broad object in relation to the government, and in addition thereto, secures a personal right to the citizen.  The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defence of himself or the State, is absolute....  The right to carry a bowie-knife for lawful defence is secured, and must be admitted."

Texas joined with the Confederacy in 1860.  The Confederacy lost the war. Texas created a new constitution in 1866. The new constitution eliminated slavery and repudiated the Ordinance of Secession. It was created to regain entry to the Union. The Constitution of 1866 kept the right to keep and bear arms. From the Constitution of 1866:

SEC. 13. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defence of himself or the State.

The radical Republicans were not satisfied with the Constitution of 1866. They created a new Texas Constitution in 1869.

The 1869 Constitution gutted the right to keep and bear arms, with this adulterated version of a "right", which was not a right at all.

 "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the state, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe."

In the contentious elections of 1872  and 1873, Texans voted out the carpetbagger government.  The governor begged for federal troops to support him, but none were sent.  He escaped the governor's mansion as a spontaneously organized militia of armed citizens threatened to throw him out.

After the end of reconstruction, the Texas legislature approved of a new Constitution, in 1876.  The Democrats in charge appear to have liked the power to disarm former slaves and others out of favor with the local authorities. They did not return to the right to arms of the 1845 and 1866 Constitutions. 

They removed the right to bear "wearable arms" and gave the state the power to regulate them. From the 1876 Constitution:

"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."

The right to bear all arms had been taken away in 1869. It was only partly restored on 15 February, 1876, with the ratification of the Texas Constitution of 1876. The right to bear "wearable arms" such as pistols and knives, remained lost. Democrats would control Texas for over a century.


©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch 

OK: Gunfight at Highest Choice Dispensary, Suspect Shot, Killed

ARDMORE, Okla. (KXII) - A suspect is dead after getting shot during an armed robbery at an Ardmore dispensary.

It happened around 8 p.m. Friday at the Highest Choice dispensary on Grand Avenue and H Street in Ardmore.

Police say the suspect went inside armed with a handgun, and the employee got out a gun.

They say shots were fired and the suspect was shot and died on scene.

More Here

KY: Home Invader Shot, Killed, Resident Wounded

At 1:17 a.m. on Thursday, Kentucky State Police in Morehead received a call from the Rowan County Sheriff’s Department about a home invasion on Dawson Way.

Troopers say detectives learned Cody Elliott, 27, from Hillsboro, and another man went inside a residence. Elliott and other people inside fired several shots.

Elliott was taken to the hospital where he died from his injuries.

More Here

Wednesday, May 05, 2021

Learn to Think like Someone who Chose to be Unarmed

Image from NRA Annual Meeting in Dallas, 2018, courtesy Dean Weingarten

People in the gun culture often express amazement about people who want them disarmed. They ascribe the desire to hostility and malice. It may be true for a minority of those who actively wish for a disarmed population.  A significant number, likely a majority, have made a voluntary decision to be unarmed.

It is important to know your opponent and to understand their motives. 

Three years ago, this correspondent wrote an essay on how to understand people who want a disarmed population. It was popular, but did not appear on AmmoLand. 

I have updated the essay for current conditions. 

There is an easy way to understand people who wish you to be unarmed.

It takes a little discipline. You may have  a little mental discomfort. It is not particularly difficult.  For the ability to understand the other, assume you have deliberately chosen to be unarmed.

Choosing to be armed is more difficult. It requires action. It requires training. It requires an investment in money and time. You think about unpleasant realities and plan for unpleasant possibilities. You devote time and money to be armed. A higher level of responsibility is required.

Once you internalize the decision to be unarmed, arguments on the other side become understandable. The voluntarily unarmed people we are attempting to understand are those who have moved from the decision to be unarmed, to the policy statement "guns are bad".

Armed people have a power advantage over unarmed people. People do not want others to have a power advantage over them. It makes them uncomfortable. To prevent this, the voluntarily unarmed often want everyone else to be unarmed

It is why many who are voluntarily unarmed dislike concealed carry, but violently abhor open carry. Open carry presents them with a reality they cannot easily ignore. It destroys their comfortable fantasy. 

People more easily accept information which reinforces what they already believe. It is a form of selection bias. If you choose to be unarmed, you easily accept news that validates your choice. If authority figures tell you your decision to be unarmed makes you safer and more virtuous, you want to accept that as true.

If a politician proposes restrictions on gun owners and gun buyers, you appreciate their efforts. You do not own a gun. You do not intend to own a gun. Such proposals cost you nothing. The costs are born by other people, people who made a different choice. Armed people.

Restrictions on armed people appear to be positive, because you believe fewer guns means you will be less likely to have a personal conflict with an armed person.  You are unconcerned with whether the proposed restriction is stupid, draconian, ineffective, or unjust. To a deliberately unarmed person, the cost is zero. Any reduction in the number of guns is seen as a reduction of risk to you.

One of the costs you avoid by choosing to be unarmed is any necessity to learn about firearms, firearms technology, and the dynamics of armed conflict. When people who are knowledgeable point out technical mistakes in proposed legislation, discussion, or articles, it strikes you as meaningless babble. Semi-automatic, automatic, who cares? You are not interested in guns, so the technical distinctions seem unimportant. 

Remember, you have voluntarily decided to be unarmed. If you admit arms are effective in preventing crime, or might be necessary for any defense, you might need to re-evaluate your assumptions.  Re-evaluating assumptions about reality is painful for most people.

This explains attempts to minimize crime, minimize the dangers of wild animals, minimize government ineffectiveness in emergencies. It explains why so much effort is expended to discredit the number of times firearms are used for self defense and to prevent crime.  It explains the insistence that government can never become tyrannical.

It is difficult for an unarmed person to disarm an armed one.  Because you fear those who are armed, you need a champion to disarm them. Your champion is the government.  To believe the government is your champion, you assume the government is benevolent; the government is concerned with your safety; the government will be there to protect you in need. This mindset is easier to maintain if you believe the need for a protector is minimal. Many voluntarily unarmed people  put significant effort in an attempt to minimize the need for armed protection.

The purpose of learning to think like someone who made the decision to be unarmed is to understand how to persuade those who have adopted the mindset, or who may be deciding to be unarmed or not. It is easier to persuade them if you understand the mindset.

Deciding to be unarmed depends on a perceived high cost to be armed, and a perceived low cost to being unarmed. 

Many people who once were voluntarily unarmed have been persuaded and see the advantages of being armed.

There are several effective methods to persuade the undecided and voluntarily unarmed. The methods show the benefits of being armed for the individual and society, and the costs of being unarmed. They work on both emotional and logical levels.

An important part of persuasion is to present yourself as polite and reasonable. On the Internet, you are speaking to the world. Being polite and reasonable does not mean you have to agree.  It is not hard to show people their misconceptions in kind ways. It helps persuade those who are reading but not participating.

One strong way to change the cost - benefit ratio for deliberately unarmed people is to show armed citizens make them safer. Show armed - or - legally armed - people make them more safe rather than less safe.  Show how armed people work to prevent crime, rather than to cause it. 

Examples of people who used firearms to prevent crime can be used to good effect. Show them people who are legally armed are more law abiding than police. Show legally armed people have stopped mass murder.  Show where armed people have saved police lives.

The voluntarily unarmed do not need to become armed to see advantages in having legally armed people about. Legally armed people become another force to preserve order, in addition to the police.

Another method is to lower the personal fear of firearms. This is very effective. Invite them to go shooting. Make this a pleasant experience.  Have them shoot a .22, using hearing protection or a suppressor. Have the target up close, so it is hard for them to miss. A great many people change their opinion about firearms after a trip to the range. It is one of the reasons those who wish to disarm us work hard to make it difficult to shoot legally. There are no public ranges in Chicago open to ordinary people. 

You can reduce the perception of the cost of an armed population by showing them facts about firearm accidents. Tremendous strides have occurred to reduce fatal firearms accidents. The rate of fatal gun accidents have been reduced by 94% in the last 90 years. Show them fatal gun accidents involving young children are extremely rare, less frequent than fatal accidents involving bicycles or glass tabletops.

Explaining the uncertainty of the future can help them become aware of potential future needs for firearms. They may want to be armed in the future. Use historical examples. You do not have to go far. Consider rooftop Koreans, or shop owners in Ferguson, Missouri.

This shows them the benefit of keeping their options open. Explain how changes in society or their personal situation may make the ownership of a firearm more important or useful. People often become more aware of the need for defense when they become parents or homeowners.

The surge in new gun owners shows how effective this motivation can be.

The desire to be armed is rooted in human nature, in the desire to protect ourselves, those we love, our possessions, and our society. 

Many who are voluntarily unarmed took the road of least resistance. If they can be gently persuaded to consider and reflect on their choice, they can change their mind.

The other side of the cost - benefit ratio is worthwhile. People who have chosen to be unarmed should be educated that disarming others is not cost free.  Increased distrust in society, increased black markets in arms, increased risk of armed resistance and low level warfare can increase their personal risk. 

Society becomes fragmented and divided. Everyone becomes far less secure. Attempting to disarm society carries serious risks for those pushing the disarmament as well as those society attempts to disarm.  Draconian gun restrictions have not reduced murder rates or numbers of illegal guns. 

In a society with 470 million privately owned guns, and gun sales at record levels, It will either take societal upheaval, or many generations to disarm the American population if it is possible at all. Those who are unarmed will be vulnerable.

Very few choose to obey a law to register guns.  For fear of sparking serious unrest, the 90-98% who do not comply are not subject to house to house searches.  The media attempt to convince people that guns are useless when social cohesion breaks down.  Have you seen movies where guns, lying about, are ignored while the hero picks up a club, or runs away? They are common on the net, but not very popular. 

You can tell them how strict gun control is seen by a large percentage of the population as violating basic human rights, the Constitution, and the rule of law. Most people can understand how bad it is for a country to lose trust in the rule of law. Look at Chicago, Venezuela, the U.S. Virgin Islands. In all those areas, the rule of law has broken down.  This is a powerful argument, which is why those desiring an unarmed population spend so much time misrepresenting and attacking the Second Amendment. 

Explain the physical limits of gun control. Show how people with minimal technology make guns with ease; explain that gunpowder, priming, and bullets were all made in households and small shops by 1880. People today still use those techniques. They are supplemented by easily obtained and inexpensive machine tools, chemical equipment, and even 3D printing.  The information is available to anyone with a computer. 

The gun culture and Second Amendment supporters have physics, chemistry, facts, human nature and the Constitution on their side. Those who wish a disarmed population can win if they suppress and control the flow of information. Those who oppose Second Amendment rights necessarily oppose free exercise of the First Amendment. 

Above nearly the entire rest of the world, people in the United States have retained the ability to choose to be legally armed or unarmed. Most people in the USA want to keep the option. Nearly all the rest of the world does not have it.

©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch




CO: Domestic Defensein Colorado Springs, Woman Shoots Man to Stop Attack

It was about 2 in the morning when a man called 911 claiming he was shot in the head. This happened in the 5000 block of Ridenour Dr. just northwest of the Colorado Springs Airport on the southeast side of the city.

According to police, the investigation revealed the man had strangled the woman and threatened to kill her. The woman was able to get a gun and shot the man one time, “fearing for her life,” according to police.

More Here

FL: Woman Held Man at Gunpoint for Police

A woman held a man at gunpoint after he tried breaking into her residence, the Marion County Sheriff's Office reported. The man was arrested once deputies arrived.

The homeowner said she was in her residence, located off Southwest Second Place, when she heard a noise by her back door. The woman said she grabbed her handgun and confronted the would-be burglar.

More Here

Tuesday, May 04, 2021

NE: Legal Gun Carrier Stands Guard in Gun Free Zone During Shooting at Mall (video interview)


 Link to video

On 17 April, about noon, there was a shooting at the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska. One person was killed, another was wounded.  A police officer had been shot at in the Mall a month earlier.

The Westroads Mall is reported to be a gun free zone. When the shooting happened on 17 April, 2021, Scott Tafoya was carrying his pistol with a Nebraska permit. He drew the pistol to protect himself and others, knowing there might be legal consequences.


"Every indication said our lives were in danger and I was going to do everything in my power to make sure we got out of there OK,” Tafoya said.

He's a legal conceal carry permit holder, even though Westroads Mall is a weapon-free zone.

"I knew that if I ever pulled that out it would truly be a life and death situation and I would deal with the consequences later," he said.

As Von Maur employees shuttled shoppers into a bathroom, he stood guard.

"I said I have a permit, I’m legal,” he said.

He said he stood near the escalators to draw any threat away from where his family was.

"Everyone else on the third floor just got added into that because the best way to keep my family safe was to make sure nobody with ill intentions came up that escalator.”

 When the police came to investigate the shooting and provide security, he unloaded his pistol placed it in his holster with the slide locked back, and approached the police with his hands up. The police told him to leave, and have not charged him with any offence, yet.

In 2007, a mass murderer killed seven people and himself on 5 December, using a stolen Century WASR-10 (AKM clone) rifle.  

Nebraska had become the 48th state to allow for legal concealed carry in January of 2007.  There were probably very few permits issued in the first year. The permit fee was $100, and two sets of fingerprints had to be taken by the Nebraska State Patrol. The application for a Nebraska permit requires photographs.  About 4.6% of Nebraska adults have a permit to carry as of 2020.

To be charged with illegally carrying at the mall, the Nebraska legislature requires a prominent notice be posted, or a request be made in person to remove the handgun from the premises. From  

(2) If a person, persons, entity, or entities in control of the property or an employer in control of the property prohibits a permitholder from carrying a concealed handgun into or onto the place or premises and such place or premises are open to the public, a permitholder does not violate this section unless the person, persons, entity, or entities in control of the property or employer in control of the property has posted conspicuous notice that carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited in or on the place or premises or has made a request, directly or through an authorized representative or management personnel, that the permitholder remove the concealed handgun from the place or premises.

 In the various images of entrances to the Westroads mall in Omaha, this correspondent did not notice any prominent signs prohibiting concealed firearms.

©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch



VA: Aid to Sen. Amanda Chase uses AR-15 style Pistol to Defend Her

The driver, Shayne Snavely, said in an interview Friday that a small sedan tried to drive the campaign van off the road as it exited the highway, following directions from the GPS to Chase’s home in Chesterfield County.

Snavely said the campaign van pulled off at a median and was confronted by a member of the other vehicle.

“He jumps out of the car, has his hands in his waistband charging towards the car. That’s when you hear the click of my gun, pointed at him. He spun around and got back in his car,” Snavely said.

More Here

PA: Domestic Defense, Brian Miller, 44 Violates Protective Order, is Shot, Killed

Jeremy Weston, who admits to shooting and killing Miller in self-defense, says it all started when Miller drove his car into his fiancé's mother's trailer earlier in the day. Weston described Miller was the former boyfriend of his fiancé's mother and both of them had active Protection From Abuse Orders against Miller. Weston says at the time, he was trying to leave with his step-daughter, when Miller started following him, eventually hitting his car. Weston says he left the area in an attempt to deescalate the situation and when he came back, Miller was gone.

He says Miller came back a couple of hours later and that's when Weston witnessed Miller beating his fiancé's mother in a car.

"I grabbed the gun, put it in my pocket and he chased my fiancé down to the front of my trailer and he tripped and I told him look you need to leave and then he stood up and he started coming towards me," Weston said. "And I said look you need to go and by the third time I told him ,I was backed up against the trailer and pulled my pistol out and I said listen I'm going to give you one more chance, you need to leave."

More Here

MO: 1 of 3 Home Invaders shot, Killed, Other 2 Charged under Felony Murder rule

Detectives said Johnson admitted to going to the home in Independence that night with friends, including Lockhart, to rob the homeowner's son of marijuana and cash. Documents show Johnson told detectives that after he, Lockhart, and Mays got into a fight at the front door of the home, a person inside the home started shooting at them.

Lockhart was killed while Johnson and Mays fled.

Charging documents state Mays told detectives that the robbery was Johnson's idea, and that he didn't know the target of the robbery, just that Johnson said the target had $12,000 they could all split.

The Jackson County Prosecutors Office has charged Johnson and Mays each with second-degree murder, attempted first-degree robbery, and armed criminal action in connection with his accomplice's death.

More Here

Monday, May 03, 2021

Restoring Second Amendment Rights: Incrementalism vs All or Nothing

Dean Weingarten at the Supreme Court, courtesy Dean Weingarten

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 bring a case to the Supreme Court? 

The assumption was the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the clear words of the Second Amendment, and all those unconstitutional infringements would go away. 

The assumption was Supreme Court justices were honorable men and women who would do their job to uphold the Constitution. 

The assumption was wrong.

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.  

Let me be clear: The policies promoted by Progressives were and are actually regressive. They worked to return us to a period where government has unlimited power, and a small, powerful, wealthy group rules over everyone else. Still, they call themselves Progressives. In a way it is fitting, as much of their policy is based on the ability to deceive. 

The Progressive revolution in the courts was greatly accelerated by the Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) administration. The revolution in the courts was underway in 1932, but the FDR administration made the courts a center of Progressive power. Progressives have been a majority on the Supreme Court for decades. Progressive ideology holds the Constitution has no fixed meaning. 

Progressives hold that limitations on government power are bad policy.  Progressive ideology holds the ruling elite must shape public opinion to what Progressives want public policy to be.

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

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.

Reliance on the courts to uphold the Second Amendment was futile from 1939 until at least 2006. Even then, the Heller Decision barely squeaked past the activist Progressive justices.

Unable to restore Second Amendment rights in the Courts before 2006, Second Amendment supporters turned to the legislative branch. At the Federal level, it was primarily a defensive fight. At the state level, Second Amendment supporters started passing significant legislation in the 1980's. 

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. Incrementalism worked.

One of the all or nothing group was talented author Claire Wolfe, who made a splash with her book "101 Things to do  'Til the Revolution", published in 1999. In 2016, She wrote:

Do I now approve of the “shall issue” permits that laid the groundwork for this? Nope. No way. But even I have to admit that the grassroots “shall issue” ccw movement gave birth to the constitutional carry movement. And constitutional carry is an unreservedly good thing.

Back in the day — those dark old days of seemingly unstoppable federal overreach — I thought we’d have to fight (real “blood in the streets”) to restore our gun rights. Of course, we may yet have to fight to preserve our freedom.

But thanks to the new and expanded gun culture across the land — a culture in part built and normalized by the very activists I doubted — We the People are becoming an ever more formidable power.

Every one of the states which restored Constitutional Carry first adopted a shall-issue concealed carry permit law. 

The "principled" or "all or nothing" group have the end goal correctly identified. It is important to keep the goal in mind. It is important to understand the progress which has been made, and how it was made. 

It was made incrementally. Part of the incrementalism was to expand the number of people who own guns, who have real potential to become part of the gun culture.  Part of the process was/is to teach about the Second Amendment, and what reform should be aiming for. 

When this correspondent taught his own concealed carry course in Arizona (before the law was changed to mandate a standard state lesson plan), the lesson plan made clear the permit was an infringement on the rights guaranteed by both the U.S. and Arizona Constituons. 

The goal of Constitutional Carry was always in mind, and explained in the classroom.

The permit was a lesser infringement than the complete ban on concealed carry.

The Second Amendment is a beautiful lodestone to detect which politicians take the Constitution and Bill of Rights seriously, and which do not. 

Politicians tend to be accomplished liars. You have to study what they do, not just what they say. 

Even voting records can be deliberately misleading. Politicians routinely cite votes which had no real effect, or which were rigged specifically for them to be able to claim to their constituents they had voted the "correct" way, in order to be re-elected.

Most politicians are not particularly interested in principles. They are interested in perks and power and being re-elected. Thus, they can be swayed and persuaded to vote, incrementally, by interested and engaged voters. There are far more interested and engaged Second Amendment supporters than there are those who wish for an unarmed population.

It is important to realize incrementalism, while valuable in itself, has a goal: Full recognition and practical application of the Second Amendment, so that people in the United States can be practically and legally armed as they go about their daily lives; and they can be practically and legally armed so as to prevent tyranny by the governments they have created.

When Alaska became the first state to restore Constitutional Carry in 2003, a Democrat legislator in the state explained how it happened. He said carry legislation kept coming up, year after year. He was sick of it. It was popular. He did not want to deal with it any more. Just pass Constitutional Carry, and be done with it.  

Those who insist on full implementation of Second Amendment rights, immediately, have made valuable contributions. As a practical effect, they show incrementalists to be practical "moderates".

Those who have had the most practical effect are those who insisted on the ultimate goal, while accepting incremental movement toward the goal. 

When Claire Wolf made her statement praising the work of the incrementalists who had restored Constitutional Carry in 2016, eight states had restored Constitutional Carry. Today there are eighteen states with Constitutional Carry. 

Idaho moved from Constitutional Carry for residents only (a dubious Constitutional provision), to Constitutional Carry for all who can legally own guns, a year ago. 

Utah and Montana became the latest members of the Constitutional Carry club early in 2021. 

It is very likely one or more states will join the club before the end of 2021. 

The disagreement between those who preach "all or nothing" and those who practice incrementalism to achieve the goal, will never end. It is often seen in comments on this correspondent's articles.

The practical effect is no longer in doubt. Incrementalism works. It has worked wonders in the states. Virtually no one in 1990 would have predicted the almost miraculous results we have seen in restoring Second Amendment rights by 2021. 

There are numerous Second Amendment cases in the pipeline to the Supreme Court. Today, there is hope a majority of justices will uphold their oaths of office and honor the Second Amendment.

Every victory in the States for Constitutional Carry improves the odds. Those justices read the papers. They know the state of the law in the States.  If they don't, the amicus briefs on the cases will make sure they do.

Upholding the Second Amendment may no longer seem miraculous. 

Prayer for the Justices to be guided by divine providence in their decisions, would not hurt.  

©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

AZ: Domestic Defense; Woman asks for Help, Armed Samaritan Shoots Man

Officers were called to a shooting in the Wells Fargo Bank parking lot, in the 1700 block of West Valencia Road, just after 7:30 p.m. and located a man with gunshot wounds. Despite first aid, the man was pronounced dead at the scene. Police identified him as Juan Carlos Velderrain, 32.

Detectives determined that Velderrain was physically assaulting his girlfriend in the bank's parking lot before the shooting. The woman managed to get away from Velderrain and approached a bystander for help. The woman got into the bystander's vehicle as Velderrain verbally confronted them, police said.

During the confrontation, the bystander, an adult male, pulled a handgun and shot Velderrain, police said.

More Here

TX: Intruder Shot, Husband and Wife Injured in Struggle

"I have a firearm. … I keep a pistol, and I grabbed it," DeHoyos said, according to KHOU-TV of Houston.

The suspect entered the home in Pearland, outside Houston, just after DeHoyos and wife Lisa had gone to bed April 17, he said.

When David went downstairs to investigate, the suspect came at him with a hammer, according to the report. 

"I stuck the pistol in his side and I pulled the trigger three times," he said.

At some point during the struggle, Lisa DeHoyos tried to help her husband and wound up struck twice in her head with the hammer, the report said.


More Here

Followup SC: Domestic Defense Woman who Shot Christopher Druvon Kennedy acted in Self Defense

A South Carolina man injured in a Sunday shooting is facing charges after authorities determined the woman who fired on him acted in self-defense.

Lt. Ryan Flood with the Greenville County Sheriff’s Office confirmed to WYFF on Monday that Christopher Druvon Kennedy, 37, is accused of hitting and choking a woman with whom he has a domestic relationship.

More Here

Sunday, May 02, 2021

Ninth Circuit Panel Finds in Favor of SAF, First Amendment, State Departement, and 3D Freedom

Image screenshot from C-Span, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten

On 27 April, 2021, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found, in a split decision, that Judge Lasnik of Washington State did not have the authority to issue a preliminary injunction preventing a final rule change in the Department of State and Department of Commerce from taking effect. From the decision:

R. NELSON, Circuit Judge:

The U.S. Department of State (“DOS”) and Department of Commerce appeal the district court’s order granting the motion of 22 states and the District of Columbia to enjoin DOS’s final rule removing 3D-printed guns and their associated files from the U.S. Munitions List. Because Congress expressly precluded review of the relevant agency actions here, we vacate the injunction and remand with instructions to dismiss.

The decision is the latest chapter in a long string of judicial actions where the powers that be have attempted to throttle both the First and Second Amendments under the dubious claim of "national security".  

The current decision is ultimately in favor of both First and Second Amendment freedoms, albeit in exceedingly technical arguments about court authority, congressional intent, and executive actions. 

Here is a sum of the history leading to the current decision:

 On 6 May, 2013, Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed demonstrated the feasibility of using a 3D printer to make a crude, single shot pistol.

Three days later, Glenn Smith of the State Department sent a letter to Wilson and Defense Distributed demanding they stop sending files about the 3D printed pistol to the Internet, claiming they *might* be "ITAR-controlled technical data". Defense Distributed immediately complied.

In July of 2015, Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) joined together to file a lawsuit against the state Department for violating their First and Second Amendment rights.

In June of 2018, the State Department agreed to settle the lawsuit. It was a victory for both First Amendment free speech, but for Second Amendment rights as well, moving all small arms up to .50 caliber from State Department jurisdiction to the Department of Commerce.

In August of 2018, Judge Robert Lasnik of  Washington State issued a temporary injunction against the final rule agreed to in the lawsuit settlement from taking effect. 

Here is a video of the response from the State Department, as well as an explanation of the issues involved.

In November of 2019, Judge Lasnik ruled the State Departement violated administrative procedure in making the final rule. 

Now, on 27 April of 2021, the three judge panel finds Judge Lasnik was outside his authority in ruling against the rule-making authority of the State Department and Commerce Department. 

Ever since the topic of 3D printed guns has come up, the Left has been apoplectic in their demand to have government control the flow of information. It is a direct assault against the First Amendment.  The information on how to make guns has been widely available for hundreds of years. People have made guns outside of government control the entire period.  These facts have been well known for the entire period.

Somehow, the concept of 3D printed guns reaches deep into the dark heart of those who desire total control over every aspect of the human  condition. 

A few months ago, Defense Distributed won a critical decision in the Fifth Circuit, allowing a lawsuit against New Jersey AG  Gurbir Grewal for violating their First Amendment rights.

The next part in the drama is whether the parties desperate to control the flow of information will appeal the decision of the three judge panel to the Ninth Circuit for an en banc panel. If the history of Second Amendment jurisprudence in the Ninth Circuit is any indicator, any decision which limits government power with the Second Amendment, will be appealed to an en banc panel. 

We should know the answer to this in the next few days. Beyond that, the decision will be made moot. The files in question have been circulating on the Internet for at least seven years. They are commonly available. The suggestion the Department of State has a viable interest to violate the First Amendment in controlling information about making small arms is absurd. 

Update: Defense Distributed has started releasing files on the Internet. No appeal to an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit as of 1 May, 2021.

©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch





LA: Baton Rouge Fatal Shooting of Aaron Hudson ruled Justified

Kenneth Jobbers was charged with possession of a controlled substance, and illegal gun possession. 

The fatal shooting Saturday night of a man in a motel near Siegen Lane in Baton Rouge was justified, and the shooter won't be charged with a homicide, the East Baton Rouge Sheriff's Office said Sunday.

Deputies arrived at the Motel 6 on Rieger Road after reports of multiple gunshots around 7:45 p.m. When they arrived, they found Aaron Hudson, 35, with multiple gunshot wounds, according to an affidavit. Hudson died at the scene.

Police found Kenneth Jobbers, 42, at the scene and questioned him. Jobbers said he was returning to his room when Hudson, who he knew through Hudson's late brother, confronted him, the affidavit said. Jobbers said Hudson entered his room and pulled out a gun, so Jobbers got his own gun and shot Hudson.

More Here

SC: Rock Hill Shooting Death of Kamal Woodard, 19, Ruled as Justified Self Defense

Officials have identified the Rock Hill teen shot and killed Saturday in a case where no charges were filed because the shooting was ruled self-defense.

Kamal Woodard, 19, died around 5 a.m. Saturday at an apartment on Eagle Place, said Sabrina Gast, York County Coroner. Woodard died after he was shot, Gast said.

Police reviewed the evidence with York County prosecutor Willy Thompson, 16th Circuit Deputy Solicitor. Thompson determined no charges should be filed against the shooter because the shootings were done in self-defense.

Read more here:

More Here

Saturday, May 01, 2021

Illinois Judge Finds FOID Unconstitutional under Second Amendment


Image from Court Document, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten

Judge T. Scott Webb, of White County, Illinois, Found the requirement to obtain an Firearm Owner IDentification card (FOID) before owning a firearm in Illinois, to be unconstitutional. From the decision, Case 17-CM-60, 26 April, 2021:

“A citizen in the State of Illinois is not born with a Second Amendment right. Nor does that right insure when a citizen turns 18 or 21 years of age. It is a façade. They only gain that right if they pay a $10 fee, complete the proper application, and submit a photograph. If the right to bear arms and self-defense are truly core rights, there should be no burden on the citizenry to enjoy those rights, especially within the confines and privacy of their own homes. Accordingly, if a person does something themselves from being able to exercise being able to exercise that right, like being convicted of a felony or demonstrating mental illness, then and only then may the right be stripped from them.”

The theory of Constitutional rights is they belong to people by the existence of the person. They are not granted by the state. They are to be protected by the state. In the case of Illinois, the process is reversed. 

Judge Webb found, in the state of Illinois, the right to own arms and defend oneself in one's own home was not assumed by the existence of the person. Instead, the state required the person to jump through hoops and apply to the state to receive permission to exercise their rights.  This is precisely the opposite of Constitutional principles. 

The rights are presumed to be there. They may only be taken away in certain strictly defined circumstances. In Illinois, they are taken away from everyone, and individuals may then petition the government to get their rights back. 

The FOID case of Vivian Claudine Brown has been moving through the courts for over four years. The case started in March of 2017. It was taken to the Illinois Supreme Court, then remanded back to the circuit court in White County, Illinois a year ago, in April of 2020. 

The Illinois State Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation deserve considerable credit for pursuing this case. 

White County is in far southern Illinois almost as far from Chicago as one can be, and still be in Illinois.  The county has one border with Indiana. The south boundary of the county is only a few miles from Kentucky. 

Illinois is an outlier among the states. The FOID requirement is of recent vintage, created in 1968, the same year the infamous Gun Control Act of 1968 was pushed through a reluctant Congress by President Lyndon Johnson, and signed into law on October 22, three months before Johnson was forced from office, less than two weeks before the Democrats lost the Presidency on 5 November. 

The United States has suffered under infringement after infringement of Second Amendment rights for more than 50 years. In the 1970's Second Amendment supporters started seriously organizing and fighting back. 

The FOID court findings reflect the recent roll backs of infringements on the Second Amendment. Illinois has lost two major federal cases on Second Amendment rights. The Illinois Supreme Court has paid attention.

It may be months or years before this case is resolved. The case is likely to be appealed again. It is likely to go to the Illinois Supreme Court again. The entire FOID system should simply be eliminated. There is no evidence it accomplishes any significant good. Its only purpose seems to be to create criminals.

While the courts have ruled some fees, in limited circumstances, may be allowed in order to exercise fundamental Constitutional rights in certain locations at certain times, Judge Webb finds that is not the case for fundamental Constitutional rights exercised in the privacy of ones own home, for the purpose of self-defense.

©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

MI: Detriot Mother Fires Gun to Stop Home Invasion

Intruders broke into a family's Walled Lake home in the middle of the night. A mother jumped into action to protect her children.  

The woman got the family's gun out, as they waited for police to arrive to protect her children. Police ended up arresting the three suspects, while tense moments were caught on video inside.

More Here

OH: Shooting of Robert Allan Hill Ruled Justified Self Defense

A Butler County grand jury declined to indict a man who shot another man in Hamilton after he reportedly intervened during an assault on a woman in the 400 block of Seventh Street.

The grand jury determined that the shooting came in self-defense and did not indict the man, whom the Journal-News is not naming because he was not charged.

More Here

U.S. Supreme Court Grants Certiorari for New York State Rifle v. Corlett (Carry Permit Case)

On Monday, April 26, 2021, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of New York Rifle, Et Al. v. Corlett, for the question of whether the denial of applications for carry licenses violate the Second Amendment. From the

  The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted.  


  The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

This is the first significant Second Amendment case the court has decided to take, arguably, in a decade. While the court decided to hear a previous New York State Rifle case, it decided the case was made moot before arguments were heard.  Others might argue the Caetano case was important, which while true, it was not as important as a case directly dealing with carry of firearms outside the home.

This New York State Rifle case is primarily about whether a local authority may arbitrarily deny otherwise qualified citizens from obtaining concealed-carry licenses for self defense outside the home. 

Ideological Leftists, Progressives, Cultural Marxists or Woke (all versions of the same unlimited government power ideology), have feared a case such as this for some time. It is why the District of Columbia refused to appeal the Wrenn v. D.C. decision in 2017. 

The make up of the Supreme Court has not changed to favor those who view the Constitution as a "living document". Three originalists and textualists have been appointed to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump.

On the other hand, Chief Justice Roberts has moved further to the left, often siding with the three far left justices.

The very limited question in this case may be the result of bargaining by Chief Justice Roberts, to insure some form of permit law remains after the decision by the Supreme Court. As the question is limited to whether the denial of a permit is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, the implication is the permit itself is acceptable. 

As the case will be limited to the question of denial, the court would have room in the future to decide if permits themselves are an infringement.

Leftist on the court seem to be working hard to deny Second Amendment rights through delay, as long as possible. They may hope for a Biden administration to bolster their numbers by packing the Court. They certainly expected reinforcements under a Hillary presidency.

This correspondent has yet to see this case scheduled for oral arguments. It seems likely they would be heard in November of 2021. 

©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

Friday, April 30, 2021

SC: Homeowner Fires Pistol during Encounter with Burglary Suspect

The Myrtle Beach Police Department is investigating after a homeowner in Myrtle Beach shot at a burglary suspect Monday morning.

Police responded to a home on Beach Drive around 5:30 a.m. to reports of a burglary, according to a report.

More Here

OK: Armed Homeowner Holds Intruder for Police

FOX23 News spoke to the homeowner Jeff Bray the next day. He says he woke up to his mother-in-law screaming.

Bray said he had a gun by his bed and got up to check the home. He said Benitez had walked in the garage, inside the house and went upstairs.

When Bray spotted Benitez, standing there, by the bedroom door, he says he then grabbed Benitez by the neck and forced him down the stairs and out the front door.

More Here

Thursday, April 29, 2021

SC: Luke Rankin schedules Senate Subcommittee Heaing for Open Carry with Training

A breakthrough may be happening in South Carolina's move to incrementally restore Second Amendment rights.

In past history, some Second Amendment supporters have seen the Senate Judiciary Committee as the place where the Senate leadership places bills to restore Second Amendment rights to die. The mechanism is simple. Do not schedule a hearing or a vote on such bills until it is too late to pass them in the legislature or to get them to the Governor for signature.  Second Amendment activist, James Moffitt wrote, on 24 March, about the Senate Judiciary Committee:

This is typically where most 2A friendly bills go to die. Everyone reading this should be contacting the Senate Judiciary committee members now. I can guarantee you Moms Demand Action will be filling up their inboxes and flooding their voice mail. The time for action is NOW!!

Senatore Luke Rankin took over the chairmanship of the Judiciary committee in 2017. 

Larry A. Martin was chair of the Judiciary committee from 2011 to 2016. Martin was credited with killing Constitutional Carry, because it authorized open carry, in 2014. From an article by this correspondent:  

Senator Larry Martin is credited with killing S115 in South Carolina last year.  He had this to say, according to WLTX: 

“You can carry a weapon openly if this bill is adopted and I’m offended by that,” said committee chair Sen. Larry Martin (R-Pickens).

Senator Larry Martin was defeated in a Republican primary in 2016 by Rex Rice. Senator Rice was on a Senate Judiciary subcommittee in  2018.  S 0449 was the Constitutional Carry Bill in play in 2018. The bill was heard in the subcommittee, then it died. The 2018 subcommittee had Senators Malloy (ch), Fanning, Goldfinch, Rice, and Senn as members.

Senator Rice had been a primary sponsor of S 0449

Chairman Rankin had not scheduled a hearing for either the open carry with training bill, H3094 or the Constitutional Carry bill, H 3096, as of 23 April, 2021. That has changed. A subcommittee has been scheduled on H3094 (open carry with training) for a hearing on the 27th of April. The subcommittee is scheduled to start at 9:30 a.m.The subcommittee can kill the bill or keep it alive. From

Tuesday, April 279:30 am -- Gressette Room 105 -- Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on H.3094

(Contact Info: 803-212-6627)

REVISIONS: Meeting added with agenda in PDF format on 04/23/2021 at 11:15 am
Scheduled for Live Broadcast on 04/23/2021 at 11:20 am

In 2021, the subcommittee members have changed to Young (ch), Malloy, Massey, Kimpson, Garrett. Without detailed knowledge of the internal politics of the Senate Republicans and the Judiciary committee, it is hard to know what this portends. 

Bills that restore Second Amendment rights are often opposed by establishment politicians. All the tools of legislative procedure are used to kill bills without showing the responsibility for doing so. 

The responsibility for H3094 and H3096 rests squarely with Senator Luke Rankin. His past history indicates he may pass open carry with training, and may kill Constitutional carry. A third option would be to pass open carry with training this year and hold Constitutional Carry to await developments in 2022. 

The hearing on H3094 will tell us much about whether the bill has a chance of passing this year. There is limited time in each session. The longer a bill sits without passage, the less likely is passage.

Second Amendment Supporters are lobbying for support of H3094 in the Senate sub-committee. 

South Carolina is one of only five states that ban the open carry of handguns in public places.  It is worthwhile for the Second Amendment supporters to reduce that number to four. A ban on open carry is an outlier in the history of gun laws.

South Carolina does not appear to have instituted the ban on both open and concealed carry until 1962

Earlier South Carolina banned slaves "going armed" with any weapon (1855), and restricted handgun sales to law enforcement (1902)

Update: the Judiciary subcommittee failed to vote on HB3094. This delay, in effect, is a move to kill the bill.

©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch