Thursday, June 29, 2017

Wouldn't You Like To Be Ian?


Ian McCollum of Forgotten Weapons got the chance to visit and to film at the British National Firearms Centre. Their collection includes the original Pattern Room collection. He released a teaser yesterday of some of the firearms he had a chance to examine.

He was able to visit the collection due to his work with ARES Armament Research Services.


Another One Down Thanks To The Firearms Policy Coalition


The City of Tacoma, Washington repealed their ban on the sale, use, and possession of "electronic arms". This means that stun guns and, presumably, Tasers will now be legal to possess and use for self defense in that city. As legal scholar Eugene Volokh notes, this is just one of many repeals in recent months. The legal reason can be traced back to the Supreme Court's decision in Caetano v. Massachusetts which found that stun guns were indeed covered by the Second Amendment.

Most of these cities would not have dropped their bans were it not for the Firearms Policy Coalition and their attorney Stephen Stamboulieh. They have been working their way through a list of municipalities with these sort of restrictions and have threatened lawsuits if the bans were not dropped. Mr. Stamboulieh, you may remember, was (unfortunately) an unsuccessful candidate for the NRA Board of Directors this year.

The FPC released the following on their win yesterday:
SACRAMENTO, CA (June 27, 2017) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today applauded the unanimous repeal of Tacoma Washington’s ban on the sale, use, and possession of electronic arms.

Attorneys for FPC sent a letter to the Tacoma City Council on April 10, which warned that the group was ready and willing to sue based on solid case law if the city refused to repeal the ban.

Said FPC attorney Stephen Stambouleih, “As the Supreme Court noted in Caetano v. Massachusetts it “has held that ‘the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.’”

As the latest municipality to repeal a ban, Tacoma was one of only a handful of municipalities nation-wide which still had an outright ban on possession and defensive use of electronic stun guns.

“The City of Tacoma did the right thing here,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “Our staff and attorneys are already reviewing regulations in other cities and states for legal violations. By no means is our work done yet.”

“I think it’s obvious the city knew they would lose any court challenge and they wisely chose to repeal this law,” said Philip Watson, FPC’s Northwest region lobbyist and spokesperson. “We’re not done taking on bans on arms protected by the Second Amendment.”

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

How They Really See Us


Twitter sends me tweets by email that they think I might find of interest. This was one of them. It led to a video being promoted by the Campaign to Close the Gunshow Loophole (sic). The video short is called "Guntown" and is produced by Los Angeles-based Rogue Kite Productions.




Ostensibly "Guntown" is a parody of open carry and "good guys with a gun". While it is a parody, I think if you look deeper this is how the gun prohibitionists actually see those who believe in armed self defense.

As the Nazis did with the Jews, if you can dehumanize a group of people then you can begin to persecute them with little or no consequence. The gun prohibitionists consider us a threat because we are individualistic, believe in providing our own self defense, and are not reliant upon the state. In their eyes, we are the untermenschen because we haven't accepted the "greater truths" that they as enlightened people hold. These "greater truths" include such falsehoods as the state should hold the monopoly on violence and the state is here to protect you.

We need to watch these stupid little videos and read their tweets and Facebook posts. Only by knowing what lies the enemies of self defense, responsible gun ownership, and liberty are promulgating about us can we counter them. Forewarned is forearmed.


Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Put This On Your Tuesday To-Do List


The Omnibus Gun Bill, HB 746, which contains a constitutional carry provision has been referred to the North Carolina Senate's Rules Committee. This is the final step before coming up for a floor vote.

It is important that this bill come to the floor before the session comes to a close in the next few days. While the bill was supposed to be on today's Rules Committee calendar, it doesn't look like it made it. We need to keep pushing the Republicans on the committee to do the right thing and get that bill out of committee.

Grass Roots North Carolina is asking that people both call and email Republican members of the committee. Their alert is below:

NUDGE SENATE RULES
COMMITTEE ON HB 746


Contact Senators on Rules Committee
It appears as though the NC Senate Rules Committee will be considering HB 746 on Tuesday. It is important that Republican members of the committee hear from gun owners, in order to remind the Senators of the proper course of action.

Below, see how you can easily contact these key senators to encourage them to move HB746 out of committee, and to the Senate floor for a vote. They need to hear from you as soon as possible. Please send them the email provided, and make the phone calls to those noted below. If necessary, leave a voice-mail message.


IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!


  • PHONE REPUBLICAN SENATE RULES COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Use the phone numbers provided below. Tell them:
    I'm calling to encourage  you, as a member of the Senate Rules Committee, to vote for  the gun bill, HB746, thereby sending it to the Senate floor for a vote. Ultimately, gun rights voters are only asking that you live up to the Republican State Platform, which states: 'We support constitutional carry statutes and salute the states that have passed them.' Please support this bill. Vote 'yes' on the bill in committee and 'yes' on the floor of the Senate. Thank you.

  • EMAIL THE SENATE RULES COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Use the copy/paste text and the copy/paste email list(s) provided below.
CONTACT INFO
Republican Sen. Rules Committee phone numbers:

Sen. Bill Rabon: (919) 733-5963
Sen. Chad Barefoot: (919) 715-3036
Sen. Andrew C. Brock: (919) 715-0690
Sen. Warren Daniel: (919) 715-7823
Sen. Kathy Harrington: (919) 733-5734
Sen. Ralph Hise: (919) 733-3460
Sen. Brent Jackson: (919) 733-5705
Sen. Michael V. Lee:  (919) 715-2525
Sen. Wesley Meredith:  (919) 733-5776
Sen. Louis Pate: (919) 733-5621
Sen. Shirley B. Randleman: (919) 733-5743 
Sen. Jerry W. Tillman: (919) 733-5870
Sen. Tommy Tucker: (919) 733-7659
Sen. Trudy Wade: (919) 733-5856

Republican Senate Rules Committee copy/paste email list:

Bill.Rabon@ncleg.net; Chad.Barefoot@ncleg.net; Andrew.Brock@ncleg.net; Warren.Daniel@ncleg.net; Kathy.Harrington@ncleg.net; Ralph.Hise@ncleg.net; Brent.Jackson@ncleg.net; Michael.Lee@ncleg.net; Wesley.Meredith@ncleg.net; Louis.Pate@ncleg.net; Shirley.Randleman@ncleg.net; Jerry.Tillman@ncleg.net; Tommy.Tucker@ncleg.net; Trudy.Wade@ncleg.net

DELIVER THIS MESSAGE


Suggested Subject: "Vote for HB746 in Committee and on Senate Floor"  


Dear Senator,

I understand that the Senate Rules Committee is considering the gun bill, HB746, on Tuesday, and I am writing to strongly encourage you to support this bill. 

In accordance with the NC Republican Party's platform, which states: "
We support constitutional carry statutes and salute the states that have passed them," vote 'yes' on HB746 in committee, and vote 'yes' once it reaches the Senate floor. 

I will be monitoring your actions on this important issue through alerts from Grass Roots North Carolina.

Respectfully,  

Monday, June 26, 2017

Not All Bad News Today From SCOTUS


It wasn't all bad news on gun rights from the US Supreme Court today. Despite the negative ruling on certiorari for the Peruta case, we did get a win today when the court denied the government's appeal in Sessions et al v. Binderup et al. Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor would have granted certiorari to the government.

The case involved the loss of gun rights for individuals convicted of non-serious misdemeanors. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that it violated the Second Amendment to deny such individuals their right to possess and purchase firearms. The Justice Department under former AG Loretta Lynch appealed that ruling. For some unknown reason, they didn't move to dismiss the case under AG Jeff Sessions.

By refusing to grant certiorari, the court preserved the ruling of the 3rd Circuit. The Second Amendment Foundation which represented the plaintiffs in this case released the following statement on their win:
BELLEVUE, WA – The Supreme Court of the United States has declined to review an important Second Amendment Foundation case involving firearms rights for individuals convicted of certain non- violent misdemeanor crimes .

The decision allows an earlier favorable en banc ruling for SAF by the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania to stand . In the case of
Binderup v. the U.S. Attorney General , the appeals court ruled that individuals convicted of certain non-serious misdemeanor crimes do not lose their fundamental rights under the Second Amendment for life . After SAF won at the appeals court level, the Obama Justice Department sought Supreme Court review .

The case involve d a man named Daniel Binderup , who pleaded guilty in 1996 to a misdemeanor charge related to a consensual relationship he had with a 17-year-old female employee . He received three years’ probation and a $300 fine. However, because the crime could have resulted in jail time of more than one year for which the federal gun law blocks firearms possession , Binderup sought protection of his rights via the courts .

“While we were confident that our case would once again prevail before the Supreme Court, we’re delighted at the high court’s decision that allows our victory in the Third Circuit to stand,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We establish ed the principle that people who are convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes cannot be stripped of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms for life. ”

The Third Circuit Court’s favorable ruling combined Binderup’s case with another SAF case involving a man named Julio Suarez . He was stopped in 1990 on suspicion of driving while intoxicated. At the time he was carrying a handgun and spare ammunition without a permit. He pleaded guilty in Maryland state court to the charge and received a 180-day s uspended sentence and $500 fine . As a result, he also lost his gun rights because the crime could have resulted in jail time of more than one year . Neither man was ever incarcerated.

“We cannot allow government to simply deny constitutionally-delineated rights on such flimsy grounds,” Gottlieb said. “While SAF’s goal is winning firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time, this time we won two!”

SCOTUS Denies Cert In Peruta Case


Damn, damn, damn. I thought the Peruta case had a chance to bring carry before the Supreme Court. In the orders released this morning, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case of Peruta et al v. California et al.

Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch dissented in this denial of cert. Justice Thomas wrote a strong dissent with which Justice Gorsuch joined. I am putting the full dissent below. I will be adding comments after I have had time to read the whole thing.

The addition to the Court of Justice Gorsuch was good. I just wish there were more like him and Justice Thomas who care about both the precedents of Heller and McDonald as well as the Second Amendment.

1 Cite as: 582 U. S. ____ (2017)

THOMAS , J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES EDWARD PERUTA, ET AL . v. CALIFORNIA, ET AL

. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 16–894. Decided June 26, 2017

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

JUSTICE THOMAS , with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arm[s] shall not be infringed.” At issue in this case is whether that guarantee protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. Neither party disputes that the issue is one of national importance or that the courts of appeals have already weighed in extensively. I would therefore grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.

I

California generally prohibits the average citizen from carrying a firearm in public spaces, either openly or con­ cealed. With a few limited exceptions, the State prohibits open carry altogether. Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§25850, 26350 (West 2012). It proscribes concealed carry unless a resident obtains a license by showing “good cause,” among other criteria, §§26150, 26155, and it authorizes counties to set rules for when an applicant has shown good cause, §26160.

In the county where petitioners reside, the sheriff has interpreted “good cause” to require an applicant to show that he has a particularized need, substantiated by docu­mentary evidence, to carry a firearm for self-defense. The sheriff ’s policy specifies that “concern for one’s personal safety” does not “alone” satisfy this requirement. Peruta v. County of San Diego , 742 F. 3d 1144, 1148 (CA9 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, an applicant must show “a set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and cause him to be placed in harm’s way.” Id. , at 1169 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). “[A] typical citizen fearing for his personal safety—by definition—cannot distinguish himself from the mainstream.” Ibid. (emphasis deleted; internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). As a result, ordinary, “law-abiding, responsible citizens,” District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U. S. 570, 635 (2008), may not obtain a permit for concealed carry of a firearm in public spaces.

Petitioners are residents of San Diego County (plus an association with numerous county residents as members) who are unable to obtain a lic ense for concealed carry due to the county’s policy and, because the State generally bans open carry, are thus unable to bear firearms in public in any manner. They sued under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging that this near-total prohibition on public carry violates their Second Amendment right to bear arms. They requested declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the sheriff from denying licenses based on his restrictive interpretation of “good cause,” as well as other “relief as the Court deems just and proper.” First Amended Complaint in No. 3:09–cv–02371, (SD Cal.) ¶¶149, 150, 152. The District Court granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment, and petitioners appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

In a thorough opinion, a panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed. 742 F. 3d 1144. The panel examined the consti­ tutional text and this Court’s precedents, as well as histor­ical sources from before the founding era through the end of the 19th century. Id., at 1150–1166. Based on these sources, the court concluded that “the carrying of an oper­able handgun outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense . . . constitutes ‘bear[ing] Arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment.” Id. , at 1166. It thus reversed the District Court and held that the sheriff ’s interpretation of “good cause” in combination with the other aspects of the State’s regime violated the Second Amendment’s command that a State “permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.” Id., at 1172.

The Ninth Circuit sua sponte granted rehearing en banc and, by a divided court, reversed the panel decision. In the en banc court’s view, because petitioners specifically asked for the invalidation of the sheriff ’s “good cause” interpretation, their legal challenge was limited to that aspect of the applicable regulatory scheme. The court thus declined to “answer the question of whether or to what degree the Second Amendment might or might not protect a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms openly in public.” Peruta v. County of San Diego , 824 F. 3d 919, 942 (2016). It instead held only that “the Sec­ ond Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.” Id., at 924 (emphasis added).

II

We should have granted certiorari in this case. The approach taken by the en banc court is indefensible, and the petition raises important questions that this Court should address. I see no reason to await another case.

A

The en banc court’s decision to limit its review to whether the Second Amendment protects the right to concealed carry—as opposed to the more general right to public carry—was untenable. Most fundamentally, it was not justified by the terms of the complaint, which called into question the State’s regulatory scheme as a whole. See First Amended Complaint ¶63 (“Because California does not permit the open carriage of loaded firearms, concealed carriage with a [concealed carry] permit is the only means by which an individual can bear arms in pub­ lic places”); id. , ¶74 (“States may not completely ban the carrying of handguns for self-defense”). And although the complaint specified the remedy that intruded least on the State’s overall regulatory regime—declaratory relief and an injunction against the sheriff ’s restrictive interpretation of “good cause”—it also requested “[a]ny further relief as the Court deems just and proper.” Id., ¶152.

Nor was the Ninth Circuit’s approach justified by the history of this litigation. The District Court emphasized that “the heart of the parties’ dispute” is whether the Second Amendment protects “the right to carry a loaded handgun in public, either openly or in a concealed man­ ner.” Peruta v. County of San Diego , 758 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1109 (SD Cal. 2010). As the Ninth Circuit panel pointed out, “[petitioners] argue that the San Diego County policy in light of the California licensing scheme as a whole violates the Second Amendment because it precludes a responsible, law-abiding citizen from carrying a weapon in public for the purpose of lawful self-defense in any man­ ner.” 742 F. 3d, at 1171. The panel further observed that although petitioners “focu[s]” their challenge on the “li­ censing scheme for concealed carry,” this is “for good reason: acquiring such a license is the only practical ave­nue by which [they] may come lawfully to carry a gun for self-defense in San Diego County.” Ibid. Even the en banc court acknowledged that petitioners “base their argument on the entirety of California’s statutory scheme” and “do not contend that there is a free-standing Second Amend­ ment right to carry concealed firearms.” 824 F. 3d, at 927.

B

Had the en banc Ninth Circuit answered the question actually at issue in this case, it likely would have been compelled to reach the opposite result. This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion. As we explained in Heller , to “bear arms” means to “ ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offen­sive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” 554 U. S., at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United States , 524 U. S. 125, 143 (1998) (GINSBURG , J., dissent­ing); alterations and some internal quotation marks omit­ ted). The most natural reading of this definition encom­ passes public carry. I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. See Drake v. Filko , 724 F. 3d 426, 444 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting) (“To speak of ‘bearing’ arms solely within one’s home not only would conflate ‘bearing’ with ‘keeping,’ in derogation of the [ Heller ] Court’s holding that the verbs codified distinct rights, but also would be awkward usage given the meaning assigned the terms by the Supreme Court”); Moore v. Madigan , 702 F. 3d 933, 936 (CA7 2012) (similar). already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion. As we explained in Heller , to “bear arms” means to “ ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offen­sive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” 554 U. S., at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United States , 524 U. S. 125, 143 (1998) (GINSBURG , J., dissent­ing); alterations and some internal quotation marks omit­ ted). The most natural reading of this definition encom­ passes public carry. I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. See Drake v. Filko , 724 F. 3d 426, 444 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting) (“To speak of ‘bearing’ arms solely within one’s home not only would conflate ‘bearing’ with ‘keeping,’ in derogation of the [ Heller ] Court’s holding that the verbs codified distinct rights, but also would be awkward usage given the meaning assigned the terms by the Supreme Court”); Moore v. Madigan , 702 F. 3d 933, 936 (CA7 2012) (similar). The relevant history appears to support this under­ standing. The panel opinion below pointed to a wealth of cases and secondary sources from England, the founding era, the antebellum period, and Reconstruction, which together strongly suggest that the right to bear arms includes the right to bear arms in public in some manner. See 742 F. 3d, at 1153–1166 (canvassing the relevant history in detail); Brief for Na tional Rifle Association as Amicus Curiae 6–16. For example, in Nunn v. State , 1 Ga. 243 (1846)—a decision the Heller Court discussed exten­sively as illustrative of the proper understanding of the right, 554 U. S., at 612—the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a ban on open carry although it upheld a ban on concealed carry. 1 Ga., at 251. Other cases similarly suggest that, although some regulation of public carry is already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in p ublic in some fashion. As we explained in Heller , to “bear arms” means to “ ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offen­sive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” 554 U. S., at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United States , 524 U. S. 125, 143 (1998) (GINSBURG , J., dissent ing); alterations and some internal quotation marks omit­ ted). The most natural reading of this definition encom passes public carry. I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. See Drake v. Filko , 724 F. 3d 426, 444 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting) (“To speak of ‘bearing’ arms solely within one’s home not only would conflate ‘bearing’ with ‘keeping,’ in derogation of the [ Heller ] Court’s holding that the verbs codified distinct rights, but also would be awkward usage given the meaning assigned the terms by the Supreme Court”); Moore v. Madigan , 702 F. 3d 933, 936 (CA7 2012) (similar).

The relevant history appears to support this under­ standing. The panel opinion below pointed to a wealth of cases and secondary sources from England, the founding era, the antebellum period, and Reconstruction, which together strongly suggest that the right to bear arms includes the right to bear arms in public in some manner. See 742 F. 3d, at 1153–1166 (canvassing the relevant history in detail); Brief for National Rifle Association as Amicus Curiae 6–16. For example, in Nunn v. State , 1 Ga. 243 (1846)—a decision the Heller Court discussed exten­sively as illustrative of the proper understanding of the right, 554 U. S., at 612—the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a ban on open carry although it upheld a ban on concealed carry. 1 Ga., at 251. Other cases similarly suggest that, although some regulation of public carry is permissible, an effective ban on all forms of public carry is not. See, e.g., State v. Reid , 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840) (“A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).

Finally, the Second Amendment’s core purpose further supports the conclusion that the right to bear arms ex­ tends to public carry. The Court in Heller emphasized that “self-defense” is “the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself.” 554 U. S., at 599. This purpose is not limited only to the home, even though the need for self-defense may be “most acute” there. Id., at 628. “Self­ defense has to take place wherever the person happens to be,” and in some circumstances a person may be more vulnerable in a public place than in his own house. Volokh, Implementing the Right To Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443, 1515 (2009).

C

Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come fo r the Court to answer this important question definitively . Twenty-six States have asked us to resolve the question presented, see Brief for Alabama et al. as Amici Curiae , and the lower courts have fully vetted the issue. At least four other Courts of Appeals and three state courts of last resort have decided cases regarding the ability of States to regulate the public carry of firearms. Those decisions (plus the one below) have produced thorough opinions on both sides of the issue. See Drake , 724 F. 3d 426, cert. denied sub nom. Drake v. Jerejian , 572 U. S. ___ (2014); 724 F. 3d, at 440 (Hardiman, J., dissenting); Woollard v. Gallagher , 712 F. 3d 865 (CA4), cert. denied, 571 U. S. ___ (2013); Kachalsky v. County of Westchester , 701 F. 3d 81 (CA2 2012), cert. denied sub nom . Kachalsky v. Cacace , 569 U. S. ___ (2013); Madigan , 702 F. 3d 933; id., at 943 (Williams, J., dissenting); Commonwealth v. Gouse , 461 Mass. 787, 800– 802, 965 N. E. 2d 774, 785–786 (2012); Williams v. State , 417 Md. 479, 496, 10 A. 3d 1167, 1177 (2011); Mack v. United States , 6 A. 3d 1224, 1236 (D. C. 2010). Hence, I do not see much value in waiting for additional courts to weigh in, especially when constitutional rights are at stake.

The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case re­ flects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right. See Friedman v. High - land Park , 577 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (THOMAS , J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 6) (“The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions”); Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco , 576 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (same). The Constitution does not rank certain rights above others, and I do not think this Court should impose such a hierarchy by selectively enforcing its pre­ferred rights. Id. , at ___ (slip op., at 1) (“Second Amend­ment rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document”). The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years—since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago , 561 U. S. 742. Since that time, we have heard argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This discrepancy is inexcusable, especially given how much less developed our jurispru­dence is with respect to the Second Amendment as com­ pared to the First and Fourth Amendments.

For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem anti­quated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it. I respectfully dissent.
-

A Safety Reminder From NSSF


There are many ways to store a firearm when not in use. The National Shooting Sports Foundation video below goes over a few of those. I am in the market for one of those quick-access lockboxes myself.

One thing I might note. If we don't take storing our firearms safely seriously, someone aka big government will do it for us and I doubt they'd get it right.


Sunday, June 25, 2017

Fast And Furious Revisited


Sharyl Attkisson had a story this morning on her Full Measure news show about Operation Fast and Furious and BATFE Senior Agent John Dodson. Since it isn't syndicated in all markets, I have embedded it below.

As I watched her interview with Agent Dodson, I was struck by a few things. First, Dodson is a brave and ethical man. He is still with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives despite all the crap thrown his way by his own agency. He has been transferred 11 times in the six years since he blew the whistle on Operation Fast and Furious. It is obvious that the powers that be in BATFE - who just happened to be in positions of power six years ago - want him gone. Dodson has gone into some detail about his experiences in his own book over the scandal.

Second, I am aghast that the Department of Justice under President Trump and AG Sessions has not seen fit to release all the documents sought by the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee. I have to hope that the reason the documents haven't been released is because the issue hasn't been brought before Sessions himself. If I remember it correctly, Jeff Sessions and his staff were some of the first people approached by the late Mike Vanderboegh regarding the gunwalking.

Third, the Deep State exists. There are still people in positions of power who are working tirelessly to retaliate against whistleblowers like John Dodson and to continue submerging the truth about Project Gunwalker aka Fast and Furious. Until these people are rooted out and dismissed, I doubt the full truth will ever be known.

Earlier this month, the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee released another report which dealt with the obstruction of Congress by the DOJ with regards to Operation Fast and Furious. The report concluded that there were failures (1) to provide answers to the Terry family, (2) there was a failure to objectively gather the facts, (3) there was a significant lack of respect for Congressional oversight, and (4) that former Attorney General Eric Holder's priorities were politics and spin.