Cap'n Bob & the Damsel

Second Amendment

How Sweet This Would Be

gunns.jpgFor a moment it was fun to think that our Sacramento Gun and Ammo Grabbers might be overruled by Federal mandate . . . but it’s probably going to be DOA in the House.

Image – A California-educated gun protester.

U.S. Representative John Boozman (R-AR) today introduced bipartisan legislation that protects the rights of gun owners. The Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act allows law-abiding citizens who can legally carry guns in their home state to carry all across the country.

“The right to bear arms shouldn’t end at a state’s border,” Boozman said. “This legislation is key to giving gun owners the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.”

The SAFE Act will replace laws that only establish reciprocity between gun control states forcing gun owners to get carry permits before they bring their firearms into neighboring states.

“Growing up in Arkansas where it’s not uncommon to see gun rights held in high regard, I never felt like there was any potential for questioning this right,” Boozman said. “I feel very strongly that this law is needed to address national gun right concerns.”

Gun Owners of America, a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners is a proponent of the SAFE Act.

“Americans can travel from state to state with their driver’s licenses. Now, it’s time to do the same thing with our concealed carry permits. Kudos to Rep. Boozman for introducing this reciprocity bill,” said Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, Larry Pratt.

The SAFE Act has 33 bipartisan original cosponsors.

15 Apr 2008 by Congress Second Amendment Whacko Politics

Call 911 and Hope Help Arrives

Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association had this observation about a recent 911 call and the murder that happened while the caller was on the phone with the dispatcher.

The Sound of Silence

I read a heartbreaking story the other day. A woman is on the phone with 911 to report a burglar in her home. Dispatchers hear gunshots, then silence. When deputies arrive, the homeowner is dead.

Her husband arrives a few minutes later, only to be told that his wife is dead. News reports say “he collapsed and started to cry, saying ‘No! She just called me. You lie.'”

The real lie is that gun control and gun bans make us safer. All they do is put innocent people at risk of violent criminals. In 2005, the FBI says there were more than 2,000,000 burglaries in this country. There were also more than 400,000 robberies. If you were one of the millions of victims of crime, would you not want the option to defend yourself with a firearm?

Gun bans like Washington, D.C.’s only affect the law abiding. They don’t disarm criminals, but they ensure that residents are left with one option: call 911 and hope help arrives before it’s too late. And sadly, we know all too well how that often works out.

dial911.jpgMinstrel posted a recent article on this topic – 9.1.1 – Dial-A-Prayer for the Unarmed. In the post, there was a quote by Richard Stevens, a Washington, D.C. lawyer and author of Dial 911 and Die, wherein he gives the two reasons that 911 and police response are inadequate:

First, the police cannot and do not protect everyone from crime.

Second, the government and the police in most localities owe no legal duty to protect individuals from criminal attack.

When it comes to deterring crime and defending against criminals, individuals are ultimately responsible for themselves and their loved ones. Depending solely on police emergency response means relying on the telephone as the only defensive tool. Too often, citizens in trouble dial 911 . . . and die.

The murder in question occurred in California – whose gun control laws make it one of the most difficult places to obtain firearms for protection. The laws are intimidating – people who would like to buy a gun for self-protection find themselves faced with absurdly-high fees and a myriad of red tape not seen in most states.

The ultra-liberal majority in California state politics is as culpable for murders like this as are the perpetrators who pull the trigger of a stolen or illegally obtained gun.

04 Apr 2008 by Law and Order Second Amendment

Striking Down Gun & Ammo Laws – Wishful Thinking

scales-of-justiceIt would be nice if we could add the draconian California micro-stamping and lead ban laws along with the pending insane ammunition bill to Connecticut’s list as suggested by the following opinion from the Republican American (Waterbury, CT). The article contends that “guidance” offered by the Court will prove to be contentious for years to come.

Unfortunately, the SCOTUS case will only decide on the individual ownership issue without regard to whacko laws that over regulate our legally-owned weapons and tax us to death with fees. Any guidance given will likely be ignored by states and local governments.

State Gun Bills Should Be Spiked

When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy says the Bill of Rights guarantees Americans’ “general right to bear arms,” chances are very good the tone and direction of the long national debate over gun laws is about to change radically.

. . .

It’s good that justices finally will rule the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to bear arms, but their desire to offer guidance on what constitutes “reasonable” and “common-sense” gun restrictions may prove problematic for legislatures, lower courts and law-abiding citizens for years to come. What a sportsman would consider common sense, for example, no doubt would seem unreasonable to a gun-controller.

With the gun debate changing so dramatically, it makes sense for Connecticut lawmakers to shelve the two unreasonable gun-control bills under consideration. The first would mandate serial numbers on bullets, the second, firing pins that stamp a code on the shell cartridge.

In theory, these measures would enable police to trace the bullets to their owner. But in the real world, the serial number would be obliterated the instant the bullet strikes an object less malleable than lead. Meanwhile, the stamping technology is in its infancy, is easily defeated, would not be required on the types of guns favored by criminals, and would require gun companies to retool their manufacturing and assembly processes; most have said it would be more economical to move their operations and high-paying jobs to other states. Finally, both bills would impose expensive unfunded costs on state and local police without guaranteeing any improvement in public safety.

Lawmakers should be in no hurry to enact gun-control laws that justices likely will vaporize when they strike down the D.C. gun ban in June.

I added the emphasis.

27 Mar 2008 by Firearms Law and Order Second Amendment Whacko Politics

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

Categories

Archives