Cap'n Bob & the Damsel

Second Amendment

California Contemplating Ammunition Sales Restrictions

ammo.gifThis is just some more California craziness, not to mention another tax on legitimate gun owners and sportsmen. Just like all other gun-prohibitive laws, this one will be ignored by criminals and will punish honest law-abiding firearms enthusiasts and those seeking self-defense in their homes.

No rational person will fail to see that the target of this legislation is me and other firearms enthusiasts. However, gangstas, hoods, sickos and perps of all descriptions will add this to the list of the insane gun laws of California that they ignore.

Next Wednesday, March 25, the Assembly Public Safety Committee will consider legislation that would require gun owners to obtain a “permit-to-purchase” before buying handgun ammunition.

Introduced by State Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), Assembly Bill 2062 puts ammunition sales in the crosshairs. AB2062 would require that law-abiding gun owners obtain a permit to buy handgun ammunition and would impose severe restrictions on the private transfers of handgun ammunition. Applicants for a “permit-to-purchase” would be required to submit to a background check, pay a $35 fee, and wait as long as 30 days to receive the permit.

Under AB2062, it would be unlawful to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the Department of Justice’s database. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. The bill would also require vendors to keep a record of the transaction including the ammunition buyer’s name, driver’s license, the quantity, caliber and type of ammunition purchased, and right thumbprint, which would be submitted to the Department of Justice or the number of his handgun ammunition purchase permit. Vendors would be required to contact the purchase permit database, to verify the validity of a permit before completing a sale. All ammunition sales in the State of California would be subject to a $3 per transaction tax. Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited. Any violator of AB2062 would be subject to civil fines.

The whole NRA-ILA article is here.

If you’re in California you can contact the committee members. The contact list is below.

Continue reading…

25 Mar 2008 by Firearms Second Amendment Whacko Politics

Highlights From the D.C. vs. Heller Oral Arguments

Here are some comments from a couple of folks after oral arguments in the landmark second amendment D.C. vs. Heller case before the Supreme Court earlier this week. The case is a challenge by the District of Columbia to overturn a ruling by a federal court that their total ban on handgun ownership is unconstitutional.

NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre was in attendance:

I was at the Supreme Court [Tuesday], and based on what I heard, I have every expectation that the Court will soon restore the Second Amendment to the District of Columbia.

Everything I saw in court shows the District’s ban on functional firearms is out of sync with American history. The arguments today clearly indicated the Second Amendment is an individual, and not a collective, right. The District’s attorneys spent their time swimming upstream against the U.S. Constitution.

Alan Gura, attorney for Heller et al, made these comments in response to criticism about his remarks regarding continuing the ban on machine guns:

The solution to 922(o) will have to be political in the end. The fact is, outside the gun community, the concept of privately owned machine guns is intolerable to American society and 100% of all federal judges. If I had suggested in any way — including, by being evasive and indirect and fudging the answer — that machine guns are the next case and this is the path to dumping 922(o) — I’d have instantly lost all 9 justices. Even Scalia. There wasn’t any question of that, at all, going in, and it was confirmed in unmistakable fashion when I stood there a few feet from the justices and heard and saw how they related to machine guns. It was not just my opinion, but one uniformly held by ALL the attorneys with whom we bounced ideas off, some of them exceedingly bright people. Ditto for the people who wanted me to declare an absolute right, like I’m there to waive some sort of GOA bumper sticker. That’s a good way to lose, too, and look like a moron in the process.

I think Heller got himself a pretty good attorney.

Finally, there is this viewpoint shared by anti-second amendment gun haters:

right side of the court

It looks like the no-gunners are running scared.

20 Mar 2008 by Second Amendment

Kay Bailey Hutchison and Ted Cruz – Freedom Fighters

Senator Kay Bailey HutchinsonU.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) led the charge in the U.S. Congress where she, and 54 other Senators, along with 250 U. S. Representatives and Vice President Dick Cheney signed on to one of the many amici filed in the D.C. vs. Heller case. Senator Hutchison also authored an article containing rationale on how the D.C. Gun Ban affects the entire nation.

In the article, Senator Hutchison concludes:

The U.S. Supreme Court has the perfect case to affirm an individual’s Second Amendment right to self-defense. Though gun-control advocates have questioned this through the years, Congress never has.

From the Freedman’s Bureau Act of 1865 to the Property Requisition Act of 1941, Congress reaffirmed the solemn position of the U.S. as a defender of one’s right to protect his being and his home with an operable firearm. I hope the Supreme Court will affirm the individual right to self-defense with a firearm so that it is clear and unambiguous.

It is an opportunity, perhaps, of a lifetime.

Texas Solicitor General Ted CruzMeanwhile, Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz, organized the Solicitors General from 31 States in filing another amicus brief. The 31 states filed a brief explaining that “the individual right to keep and bear arms is protected by the United States Constitution and the constitutions of forty-four states.” The 31 amici states also note that “the District of Columbia’s categorical gun ban is markedly out of step with the judgment of the legislatures of the fifty states, all of which protect the right of private citizens to own handguns.”

Ted Cruz will argue the States’ rebuttal to the petitioners ‘state militia’ before the Supreme court. Alan Gura, one of the attorneys arguing the case on behalf of Heller, has allotted time for Ted to engage the Court’s attention.

Gura, in his post The States Weigh In speaks highly of Ted Cruz, while allowing as how the U.S. Solicitor General, with their failure of principle and logic, can get their own time for arguments.

The opportunity to collaborate with so many old friends is among the many perks of working this case. Among our amici briefs coming this Monday, we expect a brief from over thirty states, voicing support for the individual right view and rejecting the Petitioners’ “state militia” theory, authored by Texas SG Ted Cruz. I’ve known and respected Ted for many years for his legal (and poker) acumen. Considering the significance of this brief, we’re delighted to consent to Ted’s request for ten minutes of argument time. [Ted and I had discussed dividing argument time at the D.C. Circuit stage, but we did not have enough time to divide.]

Of course, we would not begrudge the U.S. Solicitor General’s desire for argument time as well. However, considering his position is adverse to our clients, it would be inappropriate for him to detract from our argument time. Accordingly, we suggest to the Court that should the U.S. Solicitor General desire argument time, he be granted such time in addition to, and not instead of, the parties’ time.

Thanks to Senator Hutchinson and Ted Cruz – and also to many other significant Respondents Amici, there will be a lot of energy working to save our basic second amendment freedoms.

18 Feb 2008 by Firearms Law and Order Second Amendment

Important – Sign the Petition

revolversSecond Amendment Alert – Via Redstate via The Wandering Minstrel:

Redstate has a post today about the intervention of the Solicitor General of the United States in the Heller vs. D.C. case. In the post is a link to savethesecond.org where Congressman Eric Cantor (R – VA) is organizing a petition to let the government know that you value your second amendment rights.

Click here to sign the petition.

Here’s an excerpt from the petition site:

Last Friday, the United States Solicitor General filed formal briefs asking the Supreme Court not to affirm the lower court’s decision. This is just outrageous. The Solicitor General is the Federal Government’s lawyer. So, now we have the federal government using our tax dollars to argue for a delay on a ruling concerning our fundamental rights.

Take action today – sign this petition to let the government know that you value your second amendment rights. Together, we can ensure that your rights are protected. For the first time in years we have the opportunity for the Supreme Court to clearly say that the second amendment applies to all Americans and that no government can ban all handguns.

Let your voice be heard – sign the petition today.

14 Jan 2008 by Firearms Second Amendment

San Francisco Gun Owners Win

Breaking News from the NRA:

NRA Wins Big in California State Court of Appeals

sealThe California State Court of Appeals announced today their decision to overturn one of the most restrictive gun bans in the country, following a legal battle by attorneys for the National Rifle Association (NRA) and a previous court order against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

“Today’s decision by the California State Court of Appeals is a big win for the law-abiding citizens and NRA Members of San Francisco,” declared Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist.

In 2005, NRA sought an injunction against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to prevent them from enacting one of the nation’s most restrictive gun bans. NRA won the injunction, but the City’s mayor and Board of Supervisors ignored the court order and approved a set of penalties, including a $1,000 fine and a jail term of between 90 days and six months, for city residents who own firearms for lawful purposes in their own homes.

“We promised our California NRA members in 2005 that we would fight any gun ban instituted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and we haven’t given up that fight,” continued Cox. “Today we see our second win for the Second Amendment against the San Francisco gun ban. We beat them once in court and the City’s attorney appealed based on his personal disagreement with the court’s first decision to overturn the ban. Now we’ve beaten them again. The California State Court of Appeals has upheld the state preemption law.”

Today’s decision came in the form of a 3-0 opinion in favor of the lower court ruling overturning the gun ban.

“This decision is a thoughtful and well-reasoned legal opinion,” concluded Cox. “I’d like to thank our approximately 4 million members, including the hundreds of thousands of members in California, for their continued commitment to protecting our cherished freedoms.”

Let’s hope that SCOTUS will follow suit in the D.C. Gun Case.

09 Jan 2008 by Firearms Judiciary Second Amendment

Fred Thompson on the DC Handgun Ban

Excerpt from an editorial by Senator Fred Thompson:

Fred ThompsonIn general, lawful gun ownership is a pretty simple matter. The Founders established gun-owner rights so that citizens would possess and be able to exercise the universal right of self-defense. Guns enable their owners to protect themselves from robbery and assault more successfully and more safely than they otherwise would be able to. The danger of laws like the D.C. handgun ban is that they limit the availability of legal guns to people who want to use them for legitimate reasons, such as self-defense (let alone hunting, sport shooting, collecting), while doing nothing to prevent criminals from acquiring guns.

The D.C. handgun ban, like all handgun bans is necessarily ineffectual. It takes the guns that would be used for self protection out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, while doing practically nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns to use to commit crimes. Even the federal judges in the D.C. case knew about the flourishing black market for guns in our nation’s capital that leaves the criminals armed and the law-abiding defenseless. This is unacceptable.

Fred seems to have the most acceptable views on the Second Amendment and Law and Order of all the candidates running for President. You can read the entire editorial in the Hawaii Reporter.

Hat tip to NRA-ILA.

UPDATE: Minstrel has information on the recent firing of a lawyer for D.C.

03 Jan 2008 by Law and Order Second Amendment

Sage Advice

Arguably, one of the best US Presidents ever, Ronald Reagan, has some sage advice for those who would pervert the second amendment language to mean anything other than “individual right to own and bear arms.” Read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution – realize that that’s exactly what the founders meant: to keep individuals free and independent, with the right to defend themselves from tyranny, both at home and abroad.

Ronald Reagan“The second amendment gives the individual citizen a means of protection against the despotism of the state. Look what it refers to: “The security of a free state.” The word “free” should be underlined because that is what they are talking about and that is what the Constitution is about–a free nation and a free people, where the rights of the individual are preeminent. The founding fathers had seen, as the Declaration of Independence tells us, what a despotic government can do to its own people. Indeed, every American should read the Declaration of Independence before he reads the Constitution, and he will see that the Constitution aims at preventing a recurrence of the way George III’s government treated the colonies.”

— President Ronald Reagan

14 Dec 2007 by Firearms Patriotism Second Amendment

Categories

Archives