SC:Constitutional Carry Killed in Committee

Senator Lee Bright, Sponsor of the Constitutional Carry Bill

South Carolina's up and coming governor, Nikki Haley is in favor of Constitutional Carry (the ability to exercise second amendment rights without first receiving government permission), but the Senate Judiciary Committee shot down the bill anyway.   The Committee's Chairman, Senator Larry Martin,  R-Pickens, is credited with killing the bill last year as well.  He is a fervent opponent of the open carry of firearms.   

 "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). 

South Carolina is one of only six states that ban the open carry of holstered handguns.  It is likely that the number will soon be reduced to five.  Both of the likely candidates for Texas governor have said that they are in favor of restoring legal open carry.

Governor Haley signed a gun law reform bill just a few days ago.  Perhaps the committee members want to digest the current reforms before taking a bigger bite toward restoring second amendment rights in South Carolina.

Senator Lee Bright, the sponsor of the bill, is expected to be endorsed by several "Tea Party" groups in his primary bid  for the U.S. Senate.

Senator Bright is not shy about his efforts:

"Many thanks to Rachel Maddow and MSNBC for [inadvertently] spreading the word about my Constitutional Carry bill! I'm proud to have the terrific support of Governor Haley in this effort."

Senator Bright raffled off an AR-15 rifle as part of his campaign.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

MI: "Assault Rifle" (Hi-Point Carbine) Used to Stop Detroit Home Invasion

Hi-Point Carbine used in defense of home.

The Hi-Point carbine shown comes with 10 round magazines. It is inappropriately described as an "assault rifle". It is a good choice for home defense because it is short and easy to handle, has little recoil or muzzle flash, and takes much less practice for the average person to use accurately than does a handgun. From the dailymail.co.uk:

This is the dramatic moment a mother-of-two opened fire with an assault rifle on intruders who tried to smash their way into her home.

The woman took action after three hooded individuals kicked down the door of her Detroit home on Monday night where she lives with her two young children.

She fired off rounds in a bid to deter the would-be burglars, later saying she 'didn't have time to get scared'.

I do not expect the Daily Mail to have a gun expert on hand (hint: I am available for very reasonable rates), but to call a Hi-Point carbine an "assault rifle" is a bit over the top, even if it fits the elastic legal definition of "assault weapon"  in some state law, based on cosmetic features.  On the plus side, I give them credit for carrying the story without ever saying that the mother and her children would have been better off without a gun.  They get additional points for mentioning a case where a Brooklyn boy of 10 drove off home invaders by picking up a pistol that they dropped and firing it at them.

To add to any controversy, this appears to be another case of successful use of "warning shots".

As the intruders fled the home while shots rang out, one dropped a handgun. He grabbed it and tried to get back into the house but was scared off by more shots.

I do not recommend "warning shots", but there is no question that sometimes they are used with positive results. Consider the Korean grocers during the Rodney King riots, and these teenage criminals.   Unless, of course, the mother simply needs some time at the range.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

NH: Two Takes on Gun Fight Two to One Vote

Two articles in two local papers provide two takes on the two to one vote that defeated the "universal background check" or "ban on private sales" a week ago on the 12th of February.

Depending on whether you read the seacoastonline or the New Hampshire Union Leader, the bill went down to defeat because of confusing parliamentary wrangling (the house is controlled by Democrats 215-177) or the Democrats want the bill to go down, but did not want their names attached to its defeat.
From seacoastonline:

HB 1589 would have required most private sellers to conduct background checks through federally licensed dealers, using a system already in place for dealer sales.

Breaking the law would have been a misdemeanor charge. An exception would have been made for noncommercial private sales between individuals not prohibited by federal law from buying a gun. 

The final vote came after a long and confusing debate that lawmakers said left many shaking their heads.

After this, I was a little confused about what a "commercial" private sale would be, so I took a look at the bill, HB 1589.

V. “Transfer” means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person, either with or without consideration of payment or promise of payment, and includes gifts and loans.

159-E:2 Firearms Sales to be Conducted Through a Licensed Dealer.
I. No person shall sell or transfer a firearm unless:

(a) The person is a licensed firearms dealer; or

(b) The purchaser or transferee is a licensed firearms dealer; or

(c) The requirements of paragraph II are met.

II. If neither party to a prospective firearms transaction is a licensed firearms dealer, the parties to the transaction shall complete the sale or transfer through a licensed firearms dealer as follows:

There are exceptions in the bill for transfers among immediate family, at a range, while hunting, or during a competition.    I guess everything else is considered a "commercial private sale", but there might have been an amendment to the bill that was not shown on the legislative web site.

In contrast, The New Hampshire Union Leader wrote that the bill failed because the Democrats wanted it to fail, but did not want their names attached to the failure.  It is not hard to see why they would not want their names attached to it.  Consider the attacks on Senator Ayotte after the she refused to vote for a flawed "universal background check" bill, even though she voted for one that could not have been used to impose a registration system.   From the Union Leader:

Last Wednesday's House votes on House Bill 1589, to require background checks for almost all guns sales in New Hampshire, revealed that New Hampshire Democrats are divided about the utility of universal background checks. Despite the party's official bluster about the need for such legislation, House Democrats would not stand up to have the final vote on the bill recorded. Dozens of them wanted to vote against it, but only if they could do so secretly.

 It is possible for legislators to be confused by parliamentary procedure.  It is a strength of any leadership to use parliamentary rules to their advantage  and to the disadvantage of their opponents.  It seems less likely that those in leadership positions did not realize what was happening and were as confused as those who where pushing for the ban on nearly all private sales.

New Hampshire is a gun friendly state.  It has very low rates of homicide.  The neighboring states have much more onerous gun laws and higher homicide rates.   Homicide is mostly a matter of culture rather than the availability of weapons.

My money is on the Union Leader;  the Democrat leadership in the New Hampshire House  were only too happy to have this whole issue just go away. 


©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

TX:Showing Gun to Scare Smariitan Did Not Work

An off-duty officer with the Houston Police Department fatally shot a robbery suspect outside a convenience store on Sunday night. The veteran cop was coming to the rescue of a man who was jumped and beaten by two men as he was leaving the store with groceries.

The officer, identified as 22-year Houston Police Department veteran C. Rodriguez, told investigators he noticed two men hiding behind a dumpster outside of the store, arousing his suspicion. He then saw the men jump out and start beating the victim.

More Here at the Blaze

IN:Father Stops Kidnap Scam with Gunshots

This seems to be one of those cases where warning shots were effective.

Phillips had sent his father text messages that Miller and Artis had kidnapped him, and they were bringing him to the Phillips’ home, according to a probable cause affidavit.

Upon arrival, Miller tried to open the overhead garage door. As Miller put gloves on, Phillips’ dad, John, exited the home carrying a gun.

John Phillips then ordered Miller and Artis to the ground. When they refused, John Phillips fired shots into the air, and they complied. He held them there until police arrived.

More Here

David Codrea:Courant could be shown costs of calling for arrests of ‘undocumented gun owners’

With its call to the state of Connecticut to identify, arrest and prosecute gun owners who have not complied with “assault weapon” registration edicts, The Hartford Courant has removed all pretenses of “common sense gun safety” advocacy, and placed itself squarely in the confiscation and persecution camp. That has not been lost on defiant activists who correctly think of themselves as “undocumented” rather than "illegal."

By demanding the state enforce the unenforceable and deal with both predictable and unintended risks and consequences, the paper’s hard line "leadership"approach is a departure from its earlier panting follower role in its relationship with government, that is, as a publicist for citizen disarmament legislators and a trusted chronicler for the enforcement apparatus. As this column documented about the December, 2012 joint law enforcement agency raid on the Riverview Gun Shop in East Windsor, evidence and timing point to their being given insider information about an ongoing criminal investigation, something generally withheld from the media as a matter of policy so as not to endanger lives and jeopardize prosecutions.

“It’s fair to ask how The Courant was able to produce such a detailed report practically simultaneously to the events without advance information of the ongoing raid,” a September, 2013 Gun Rights Examiner report observed. “It would appear to be especially relevant as the situation was deemed by professional federal law enforcement to be dangerous enough to send dozens of armed agents and police officers ostensibly into harm’s way, not to mention posing real risks to store employees and any customers who may have been on premises.”

 Rather than being a government watchdog concerned with protecting rights against infringements, the publisher and editors have instead assumed the role of cheerleaders and inciters. And that has gun owners understandably angry over the betrayal of everything journalism is ideally supposed to stand for.

(snip)

A way to discourage that is to cut off the enemy’s -- and that’s what they are -- supply lines. Major advertisers like automobile dealerships and realtors provide “aid and comfort” to that enemy via advertising revenues. A group of committed and organized gun rights activists could discourage that by approaching one or more with a phone, email and letter campaign, and even weekend sidewalk demonstrations, asking them if they agree with The Courant that the state should lock up their gun-owning customers. It would be especially effective if gun owners who have done business with such firms in the past contact the reps who made the commissions and who send them new business card refrigerator magnets every year.

More Here at Gun Rights Examiner

CA:Contradictory Reporting on "en banc" Appeal of Second Amendment Rulling

Immediately after the the historic Ninth Circuit ruling that the second amendment right to bear arms extended outside of the home, it was reported that an appeal to an "en banc" panel of 11 justices would be in the works.

Securityinfowatch.com quotes Bob Egelko of  the San Francisco Chronicle as reporting:

James Chapin, the San Diego deputy county counsel who defended the permit system, said the county will ask the full appeals court for a rehearing before an 11-judge panel.

It appears that Mr. Egelko either misunderstood Mr. Chapin, or that Mr. Chapin changed his mind.   The LA Times reported that:  

Officials in San Diego County said they may seek a rehearing before a larger 9th Circuit panel,

A press release from the 14th of February says that the Sheriff's office is "reviewing and studying the decision" which is consistent with the LA Times version of events.  This seems prudent, considering that Sheriff Gore is up for election this year, in a relatively conservative county.

Noted lawyer and second amendment legal guru David Hardy wrote that an en banc appeal can be asked for by any justice on the Ninth Circuit.  There are currently 27 justices on the Ninth Circuit, the largest in the nation.  No appeal to the Ninth Circuit decision is yet shown on the guncasetracker site of michellawyers.com, the firm who handled the appeal that resulted in the Ninth Circuit ruling in favor of the right to bear arms outside the home.

Rob Morse at slowfacts.wordpress.com writes that Sheriff Gore told him that he wanted to issue CCW licenses:

He said he wanted to issue licenses so citizens could carry a concealed weapon in public.  He really wanted to.  That is what he told me.  He said, sadly, that California law prevented him from granting those licenses.

There is no doubt that Sheriff Gore can issue licenses if the Ninth Circuit ruling is not appealed.  In fact, there was little if any doubt before the Ninth Circuit ruling.   James Chapin, the deputy counsel who works for San Diego County and, presumably, Sheriff Gore, will certainly consult with his clients before they make a decision to appeal or not to appeal.  Attorneys are hired guns, to use a well worn but appropriate metaphor.  They are to do what their clients wish, not the other way around.

I suspect that some Justice on the Ninth Circuit will alleviate the potential embarrassment of Sheriff Gore by requesting an appeal for an en banc panel.

It has not happened yet.  The justices of the Ninth Circuit have until the 6th of March to do so. 

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

GA:Man who Threatened Couple, Shot, Killed

Police say according to witnesses and surveillance footage, Battle pointed a handgun at the couple and the man responded by pulling a gun from his car and shooting him.

More Here

FL:Chiropracter Defends Self, Shoots Attacker

 HOLIDAY — On Monday morning, authorities say, 33-year-old Jaime Velez put on a pair of rubber gloves and slipped a gun into his waistband.

(snip)

Recently, Linardos told the woman that Velez was having an affair with an employee at the chiropractic office.

Velez called Linardos and threatened him, Nocco said. Linardos, 46, took the threats seriously. Nocco said Velez showed up at the clinic around 11 a.m. Monday. Once inside, he confronted Linardos, who shot Velez.

More Here

Words Make a Difference in Description of Arizona Defensive Shooting

Kriston Charles Belinte Chee was shot to death at the Chandler Walmart. (Source: Arizona Department of Corrections)

AP or the police made an interesting choice of words in describing the shooting that took place in the Chandler Walmart on Sunday, the 16th of February.  The AP story says:

PHOENIX (AP) — A man who shot and killed another man inside a suburban Phoenix Walmart opened fire in self-defense, Chandler police said Monday.

 According to Chandler police, Kyle Wayne Quadlin, 25, shot Kriston Charles Belinte Chee, 36, following a fight at a service counter Sunday afternoon.

If Mr. Quadlin did not start the fight, it would be just as appropriate to say that he "shot Kriston Charles Belinte Chee, 36, after being attacked".

Under Arizona law, you cannot claim self defense if you were the aggressor and then did not attempt to withdraw from the encounter and make clear that you were attempting to withdraw.  Here is Arizona Statute 13-404 with the relevant sections:

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person. 

Since the police have not charged Mr. Quadlin, it seems likely that he was attacked and not the other way around.  The use of the words "following a fight" implies two things that are in jarring contrast with the self defense claim in the article.   It implies that the "fight" was a mutually agreed to combat.  It implies that the fight was over, because of the word "following".

Notice the difference in the account by CBS5, a local station:

 CHANDLER, AZ (CBS5) -
Police said an argument led to a fatal shooting at a Walmart in Chandler on Sunday afternoon.

Kyle Wayne Quadlin, 25, of Chandler, and Kriston Charles Belinte Chee, 36, got into an argument at the store's service counter just after 4 p.m. that escalated to a physical fight, said a Chandler police spokesman.

Quadlin told police he was losing the fight and said he "was in fear for his life" so he pulled a gun and shot Belinte Chee, the spokesman said.

In this account, we learn that an argument "escalated to a physical fight" though we still do not know who struck the first physical blow, which is important.  The store video may have been of assistance here, but we do not have access to it.  We know that Quadlin was released, is said to be cooperating, and has not been arrested, all of which is consistent with him being attacked, instead of the other way around.  We know that Chee was a big man,  6'2 inches tall, and 225 lbs, and that at one point he spent a couple of months in jail for a DUI.

We also know that more than twice as many people in this country are murdered with hands and feet as are murdered with rifles.   It is clear that the use of deadly force can be justified against someone using their personal weapons.   A great deal depends on who initiated the physical altercation.  That is the part that is missing from the accounts that have been published so far.

Certainly, if Mr. Quadlin had an opportunity to defuse the encounter or to refrain from an argument, it would likely have led to a better result.   All of this is unknown, however, because we do not know what happened.   There may not have been time or circumstances to defuse the situation before the attack was initiated.  It is likely that witnesses and store video are collaborating Mr. Quadlin's account, or he would have been arrested.   Being arrested after a self defense shooting is fairly common.   Not being arrested, especially after leaving the scene (though he did stay for a while) is a little unusual, indicating a pretty clear understanding of events by the police.

The narrative of the AP is a bit reminiscent of the narrative put out in the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman story.   Just because a person is "unarmed" does not mean that they cannot be a deadly threat.  Many people are killed by a single blow to the head from a fist.   Everyone recognizes that a blow to the head can render a person unconscious, at which point they are at the mercy of their attacker, and can easily be maimed or killed without resistance.

Being "unarmed" is not a license to attack people with the assurance that they may not use a weapon against you.  Weapons are the great equalizer that assures smaller/weaker people that the large and strong among us cannot assert their will without fear of resistance.  I have not been able to determine the height and weight of Mr. Quadlin.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch 

TX:Two Shot in Robbery Attempt by Off Duty Officer

“Instead the front passenger (Zelaya) produced a pistol, pointed it at the couple and demanded their belongings,” said HPD spokesman Kese Smith. “At that point Officer Johnson, fearing for his girlfriend’s safety as well as his own, drew his duty weapon firing more than once hitting the vehicle.”

More Here

AR: Pine Bluff Constitutional Carry Walk 15 February

Second amendment supporters march in Pine Bluff

A couple of dozen second amendment supporters marched with openly carried firearms in Pine Bluff Arkansas on Saturday.  The march was in support of Act 746, the legislation that reformed Arkansas law, removing language that made it illegal to carry arms without permission from the government.  The change in the law specifies that it is only illegal to carry arms if the purpose is to use them for illegal activity.   This is the same standard that has been in Vermont  law for the last hundred years.  Vermont is the only state that was able to keep constitutional carry through the Civil War and the Progressive era. 

Attorney General McDaniel, a Democrat, muddied the waters with an opinion that did not mention the most important change in the law.

Supporters gather for the March

In order to clarify understanding of the law in the mind of the public and for the education of the various law enforcement agencies in the state, second amendment supporters have been conducting marches around the state while openly carrying firearms.  These marches have been termed "open carry" marches, "constitutional carry marches" or "celebration of Act 746" marches.  They all amount to the same thing.  Openly walking through town with visible firearms, to show that they will not be arrested and that the law means what it says.

Arkansas Carry is the organization that has conducted many of the marches.  Their facebook page has hundreds of pictures from the many marches around the state.  Arkansas is the fourth state to restore constitutional carry in the United States.  The other four constitutional carry states are Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming.   A half dozen other states considered constitutional carry last year or have pending legislation in 2014.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

OK:Home Invasion, one Killed, one Wounded

TULSA, Oklahoma -

One man is dead and a second seriously injured after what Tulsa police call an attempted home invasion. It happened at about 8:30 p.m. Saturday at the Greens of Bedford Apartments, in the 6500 block of South 106th East Place.

Police say a man in his 40s tried to force his way into an apartment, but the resident was armed. He shot and killed the intruder.

More Here

CT: Use Background Check Data to Enforce Gun Registration

When second amendment supporters say that "Universal Background Checks" is just a step toward universal registration, which leads to confiscation over time, those who want a disarmed population insist, no, it cannot happen, background checks can never lead to registration.  

In Connecticut, the Hartford Courant is calling for exactly that.  From courant.com:

But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

Any time legislators have attempted to create a way for background checks to be conducted without a paper or digital trail that can be used for later gun confiscation, those proposals have been shot down by the people who claim that "no one wants to ban your guns".   

If "the state must try to enforce the law", what are the writer's views are on enforcing the law on illegal immigration, marijuana possession, and voter fraud?  I suspect that the writer only wants the laws that he likes enforced.


It is clear that the ban on future ownership of so-called "assault weapons" in Connecticut is in direct violation of the second amendment of the Constitution.  It is a clear infringement, if ever there was one.  It is directly in violation of the highest law of the land.  

The article in the Courant shows exactly why "universal background checks" are a very bad idea, and why private sales should remain private.   They are the safety valve that prevents gun registration and gun confiscation.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

CA:Cook Cleared in Knife Defense

SAN JOSE -- A cook who stabbed an off-duty bouncer to death during a confrontation downtown has been released from jail after prosecutors declared that he was acting in self-defense, a decision sparked by the revelation that the man who died was also armed with a knife.

More here

San Diego Sheriff Expects High Volume of CCW Permits

Here is an interesting press release from the San Diego County Sheriff Department.  The Sheriff, William Gore, is up for election in a few months.  The release is decidedly ambiguous, but having worked in bureaucracies, that is to be expected.  No one wants to be seen as making a decision, or telegraphing what the decision is until there has been time to consider the possibilities.

The chairwoman of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors has commented that she has no problems with the Ninth Circuit decision.  From the LA Times:

Dianne Jacob, chairwoman of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, said her initial reaction was positive."I have no problem with law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons in the name of self-defense," Jacob said.

It is clear that Sheriff Gore is anticipating a large run-up in CCW applications.    This is a positive indication.  Sheriff Gore is up for election in a few months.  He needs to hear from his constituents. 

Here is the link to the CCW license applications page.

On the licensing page there is this sentence:

 We will continue with existing procedures and all CCW applications will be handled by appointment only.

That will not serve to process a flood of applications.

Here is the link to the San Diego County Sheriff Department facebook page.  I do not see any place to put comments about the CCW process.

I found this email for Sheriff Gore:

  bill.Gore@sdsheriff.org 

I sent an email and have not received an error message, so it may be a good one.  I called the Sheriff's office and obtained the phone number of the public affairs office:

  (858) 974-2184

I called but no one picked up, and while I waited for several rings, I did not get an answering machine.    They will not be open until Tuesday, 18 February.


Here is the email that I sent to Sheriff Gore:

Sheriff Gore

Thank you for your service.  I would like to offer a campaign contribution, but I wish to be sure of your commitment to upholding the second amendment of the Constitution.

The issue seems quite simple.  The best way for you to show your support of the second amendment is to not appeal the recent Ninth Circuit ruling in Peruta v County of San Diego. 

I look forward to seeing that no appeal has been made, and the ruling is allowed to stand. 

While I am sure that Sheriff Gore is studying the implications of this ruling, it does not hurt to remind him of the strong level of support that exists for the Constitution and the second amendment.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

LA Times Misreads Second Amendment Decision of Ninth Circut

The Los Angeles Times ran an article on the decision of the Ninth Circuit in Peruta v County of San Diego, by Maura Dolan and Tony Perry.   While I have come to expect old media reporters to be ignorant about guns, the first sentence in the article makes me wonder about their reading comprehension about judicial matters as well:

"In a significant victory for gun owners, a divided federal appeals court Thursday struck down California rules that permit counties to restrict as they see fit the right to carry a concealed weapon in public."

Uh.. no.  The court did not strike down "California rules that permit counties to restrict as they see fit" .   The court struck down the County of San Diego rules that require the showing of special needs outside of the mainstream in order to obtain a concealed carry permit.  It is a very significant difference.  In the first instance, the court would have ruled against the State of California.  They did not.  In the second instance, they ruled against the choices made in the County of San Diego.  It makes a huge difference in the law, because it defines who is responsible to take action.  In this case it is the counties, not the state.

They also say that the ruling will not go into effect for some time, pending appeals:

California's rules will remain in effect for the foreseeable future, pending appeals.

That may be literally true, as no one can foresee the future. But it appears to be a bit misleading, as there are no indications yet that the decision will be appealed. It does not appear that the State of California has any standing. The decision does not require them to do anything, it is against the County of San Diego and the Sheriff of the County of San Diego. The Chairwoman of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego is quoted as saying that her initial reaction was positive:

Dianne Jacob, chairwoman of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, said her initial reaction was positive."I have no problem with law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons in the name of self-defense," Jacob said.

The Sheriff, William D. Gore, is up for election in 2014, in a relatively conservative county. So who is going to appeal the decision, and why?

It is good that the LA Times is covering these important decisions, but it would be nice if they were a bit more precise.

The cynical part of my mind wonders if the LA Times is trying to muddy the waters in an attempt to justify an appeal of the ruling by the State of California.


©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch

torontosun.com: RCMP at High River Lawless Mass Gun Confiscation

 Great investigative journalism by Lorne Gunter:

I don’t want to be right about what Mounties appear to have done in High River this summer after southern Alberta’s historic June floods forced the evacuation of all 13,000 townspeople.

I don’t want to believe our much-admired national police force used the cover of the worst natural disaster in Canadian history to conduct a mass seizure of guns from the town’s law-abiding firearms owners. But having covered the High River Gun Grab for the past six months — and especially after having worked three months for the Sun News Network on a documentary about the confiscation (which will premiere Tuesday at 7 p.m. Eastern, 5 p.m. Mountain) — there is no escaping the conclusion that Mounties did indeed break down the doors in more than a third of High River’s 5,300 homes in a deliberate attempt to disarm the civilian population.

It is one of the most massive violations of civil and property rights in modern Canadian history.

The RCMP may believe they were acting with the best of intentions, to keep the guns safe from looters or maintain public order as evacuees began returning to their homes two or three or even more weeks after the rising Highwood River overflowed its banks.

But the very fact that Mounties thought it was better for High Riverites’ safety to leave 1,900 of their homes with doors smashed off the hinges — wide open to thieves and the elements — rather than leave homes locked with guns locked away safely inside, shows just how distorted police thinking has become regarding private ownership of guns.

More here at torontosun.com

Open Carry March in Little Rock Arkansas, Act 746

Open Carry Act 746 walk in Little Rock, 1 February, 2014

More and more people are being exposed to the reality of Act 746 in Arkansas law.   The law itself is clear.  If you are carrying a weapon without any intent to use it in violation of the law, you are not committing a crime.   The law passed with large majorities, but those who oppose an armed citizenry claim that the law was never meant to do what it clearly does.   Attorney General McDaniel, a Democrat, issued an opinion that did much to muddy the waters.

Taking on the task of educating the public in spite of a hostile media has fallen to Arkansas Carry,  a group that has been organizing marches featuring the open carry of arms to show that such is legal throughout the state.  Some local media are beginning to understand that the law actually says what it says.   From arkansasmatters.com:

LITTLE ROCK, AR- Saturday one of the many open carry walks being staged across the state went off without a hitch.

More than 100 gun toting Arkansans walked through down town Little Rock.

"120 people out today," said Nicholas Stehle. "Which is about double our biggest crowd so we're pretty happy with that."

The numbers keep growing as the Arkansas carry members organize each weekend in a different city.

Another constitutional carry march is planned for Pine Bluff this Saturday, 15 February.

Arkansas Carry "PINE BLUFF" Constitutional Carry Celebration Walk

Saturday, February 15 at 11:00am in CST

820 South Main Street, Pine Bluff, AR 71601

Whether AG McDaniels likes it or not, Arkansas is gradually being normalized to constitutional carry.


©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

California, Hawaii: Apply for Carry Permits Now

The long awaited decision of the 9th Circuit on whether the second amendment extends to carry outside of the home was answered yesterday by a three judge panel in Peruta v. County of San Diego.  Their answer was a resounding "Yes" though it was a 2-1 decision.   While I have only skimmed through the decision, the logic, historical references, and quotes from the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions and  appeals court decisions are well written and clear.

The question is, what should those who support the restoration of second amendment rights do?  Do they need to do anything in response to this decision?

There are two actions that seem appropriate immediately.   First, remember that this was a three judge panel, not the entire Ninth Circuit.   The first possibility of appeal is to have the entire Ninth Circuit revisit the decision en banc.   If a decision is made to appeal, then the County of San Diego and/or Sheriff William D. Gore could ask the 9th Circuit to stay the decision while the appeal was taking place.

My belief is that only the defendants in the case have standing to appeal.  Significantly, that would be the County of San Diego, and William D. Gore, Sheriff of San Diego County.  Sheriff Gore is up for election in 2014, and is already soliciting money for his campaign.  Questions about his campaign may be asked of Kelli Maruccia at 619-239-1721.   The San Diego County Board of Supervisors consists of five members, four Republicans and a Democrat.  "Moderate" Republican Kevin Faulconer  won the mayor's race on Wednesday with 55% of vote, and that is in the City of San Diego, which has an edge in Democrat voters.   This site says that an en banc appeal must be requested by 28 February.

San Diego County is the most conservative urban county in the State.  The first thing that I would do, as a San Diego County voter, would be to insist that the Sheriff and the County Supervisors not make an en banc appeal, and not request a stay.   This decision is probably the best that could be hoped for out of the Ninth Circuit at this time.  There is nothing to be gained by having an appeal to the full court, and everything to be gained by having this decision in place for months, if not years.    The decision does not require action by the legislature, only by the counties.  The counties only have to change their procedures from "may issue" to "shall issue".    What will then happen is what we have seen in every other jurisdiction where the change from "may issue" to "shall issue" has occurred: a tremendous surge in the number of concealed carry permits.

Once a jurisdiction goes to shall issue, it creates a large class of politically savvy, educated voters with a direct interest in keeping shall issue and reforming the law by making it easier to obtain a permit, renewal, and to move toward lesser burdens on the permit holders.  This will place California permanently in the "Shall Issue" camp, and will do the same thing for Hawaii, as Hawaii is in the 9th circuit as well, and Hawaii law does not allow people to carry pistols for self defense without a permit.

The second action that seems indicated, is to apply for a concealed carry permit in the effected jurisdictions as soon as possible.   Very soon, if not immediately, every county in California is/will be required to issue permits without requiring a specific and unusual "need".   This situation will last until either a stay is placed on the Ninth Circuit's decision and/or until the decision is appealed and the appeal overturns it.  This period might last for a few days, a few months, a couple of years, or for the foreseeable future.  If a county denies an eligible person a permit during that period, it seems quite likely that the person would have standing to sue the County under this decision.   Lawyers may correct me, but I believe it would apply everywhere that the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction, including Hawaii and the Pacific territories.

I suspect that most places would issue the permits rather than risk the potential lawsuits.   Even if the case is overturned sometime in the future, there would still be an educated and active class of people to whom some future politician will have to explain why he or she now wants to take away a right that they have had and exercised without any problem.

If I lived in a jurisdiction under the Ninth Circuit (I do) and was afflicted with burdensome laws like California, Hawaii or Guam (I am not), I would apply for a permit to carry as soon as possible.   This both demonstrates intent and gains standing for future suits.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.  I would love to have real lawyers school me on what the legal pitfalls of what I have written are, and what problems might result.  I suppose that people could lose the fee required to apply for the permit.    There may be other negative possibilities that I am not recognizing.

Illinois has already received nearly 50,000 permit applications in the first month.  They expect to receive 400,000 in the first year, 2014.   Illinois has a population of nearly 13 million.   Wisconsin issued 144,000 permits for a population of a little less than 6 million in the first year of its permit program.  California has a population of nearly 39 million, about three times as many as Illinois.   California could easily see a permit population of one million in the first year.  One million voters are not easy to ignore on a specific, focused, issue.

No state that has had a shall issue permit system has ever gone back to a may issue system.   California, Hawaii and Guam all have systems in place.   They only need to switch from a "may issue" to a "shall issue" system.  Around 11 California counties are already effectively "shall issue" because of other lawsuits brought by calguns and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).

This may be a major turning point in restoring the second amendment.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch