Top court rejects challenge to Maryland assault weapons ban

 

http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/27...d-amendment-refusing-hear-semi-auto-ban-case/
Supreme Court Guts Second Amendment By Refusing To Hear Semi-Auto Ban Case


well read it for yourselves if you can read

 

Actually you just proved my case for me.

 

I knew you were a leftist.

 

Who's idea was it to let Australian's have guns in the first place? It wasn't the US's idea...Wasn't Australia a penal colony?

We have laws here in the US prohibiting criminals from owning firearms.

The Aussies or who ever gave them guns to begin with, should have known better....

 

They need to stick to using boomerangs.

 

Aw come on, peeps!

Crocodile Dundee.

And Men At Work....



Australia can't be all bad.

 

House passes gun reciprocity, faces challenge in Senate from Dems and gun control advocates

House Republicans on Wednesday voted in favor of making concealed-carry permits valid across state lines, scoring a major victory for gun-rights supporters.

But similar Senate legislation still faces an uncertain future, with top Democrats and other gun-control advocates rallying in opposition on Capitol Hill.

The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act passed 231-198 in the GOP-controlled House, with six Democrats voting in support.

“For the millions of law-abiding citizens who lawfully carry concealed to protect themselves, for conservatives who want to strengthen our Second Amendment rights, and for the overwhelming majority of Americans who support concealed carry reciprocity, Christmas came early,” Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., the bill's sponsor, reacted.

Hudson had tried unsuccessfully for years to pass such legislation, which he says simply attempts to clarify the patchwork of state laws that confuse citizens who might unwittingly be arrested while going from state to state.

"Despite scare tactics by the bill’s opponents, concealed-carry licensees as a group have proven to be more law-abiding than the general population and even the police.”

- NRA statement before balloting
The three-term congressman has garnered strong support for his bipartisan legislation -- including 213 co-sponsors as well as 24 state attorneys general and the National Rifle Association.


“Despite scare tactics by the bill’s opponents, concealed-carry licensees as a group have proven to be more law-abiding than the general population and even the police,” the NRA said before balloting. “We are on the eve of passing the most expansive piece of self-defense legislation in the history of Congress.”

New York Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler said at a rally outside House chambers, that Hudson’s bill represented “a gift to the gun lobby.”

Another critic is Jane Dougherty, whose sister, a teacher, was killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. She said, “This bill would weaken laws that I have worked hard for.”

Those attending the rally continued to make the argument that the bill would put guns in the hands of criminals, and suggested that those from states with loose concealed-carry laws would be able to exercise those privileges in places like New York City that have stricter requirements.

“When I go to New York, I have to follow New York’s laws,” Hudson recently told “Fox News @ Night." He also maintains that the bill in no way softens background checks.

Those at the rally also also contended that the House bill was combined with so-called “Fix NICS” legislation so it could pass. The reciprocity bill includes efforts to create “maximum coordination” in states providing the federal government with mental health records and other information for FBI gun background checks.

The Fix NICS Act of 2017 is a bill that applies penalties to government agencies for not reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

“They are combining these to pieces of legislation together because they know the conceal carry (bill) is extremely unpopular,” said Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy. Murphy praised Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a Repuiblican who sponsors the Senate version of the concealed-carry legislation, for keeping the measures separate.


Sen. John Cornyn.

Gun-control advocates are also reportedly getting $25 million from ex-New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, through his Everytown for Gun Safety group, to block the reciprocity bill.

Cornyn’s bill is now in his chamber’s Judiciary Committee.

In 2013, Cornyn got support for his bill from 13 Democrats, including seven who are still in the Senate. He would need their support and more to pass the measure with a 60-vote majority, considering Republicans have 52 senators in the chamber.

 

Where you have the most armed citizens in America, you have the lowest violent crime rate. Where you have the worst gun control, you have the highest crime rate.

 

This forum is still screwed up. Lets see where this post will land if I quote myself?

 

Pelosi claim that GOP invites violent criminals to carry concealed weapons gets her 'Three Pinocchios'


Nancy Pelosi earned “Three Pinocchios” from The Washington Post's Fact Checker over a tweet claiming that House Republicans are inviting violent criminals, domestic abusers and convicted stalkers to carry concealed weapons.

The House minority leader sent the tweet last week after House Republicans passed the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, sending it to the Senate by a 231-198 vote.


The Washington Post awarded Three Pinocchios to Pelosi for what it said was a mostly false tweet accusing House Republicans of inviting criminals to carry guns.

“Inviting violent criminals to carry concealed weapons doesn’t save lives,” Pelosi tweeted. “Inviting domestic abusers to carry concealed weapons doesn’t save lives. Inviting convicted stalkers to carry concealed weapons doesn’t save lives. Yet the @HouseGOP just voted to do exactly that.”

“We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchios but ultimately settled on Three because her last line — 'the @house GOP just voted to do exactly that' — is so over the top and exaggerated.”

- Washington Post Fact Checker on Pelosi tweet
The Washington Post rated the tweet mostly false in a column on Tuesday.

“We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchios but ultimately settled on Three because her last line — 'the @house GOP just voted to do exactly that' — is so over the top and exaggerated,” the Fact Checker wrote.

Statements rated Four Pinocchios are "whoppers" under the paper’s rating scale.


The House bill, making concealed-carry permits valid across state lines, included the support of just six Democrats.


According to the Fact Checker’s analysis, Pelosi’s tweet was focused on a possible loophole in the law and then used inflammatory language such as “inviting.”

But the reality is that most states already allow for reciprocity agreements with other states, and federal law also already prohibits violent criminials, abusers and stalkers from having guns, the Fact Checker wrote.

“Pelosi’s tweet inspired such anger because responsible gun owners believe their rights are being curtailed, even if they follow the concealed-carry rules — while violent criminals who want to have a gun are not going to be bothered with following such rules in the first place,” the Fact Checker added.

The House bill includes language to improve federal record-keeping to ensure guns stay out of the hands of criminals and domestic abusers.

Pelosi’s office is standing by the tweet, saying the bill is terrible, according to the Fact Checker.

 

HCSO: Employee cleaning gun accidentally shoots, kills man at gun range

 

Delaware Supreme Court Upholds Right to Arms
December 14, 2017 by Dean Weingarten


The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware has upheld the right to keep and bear arms provision of the State Constitution, which was enacted in 1987, passing through two separately elected legislatures.

The case was a challenge to the state ban on the possession of weapons in state parks and forest.

In Bridgevile Rifle & Pistol Club v. Small, the court ruled that a ban on the possession and carry of guns, enacted by unelected bureaucrats, was unconstitutional under the Delaware Constitutions Article I, Section 20.

From delaware.gov:

This appeal concerns guns and, as such, has attracted numerous amici curiae raising politically fraught questions concerning gun rights.1 However, at its core, this case raises straightforward questions of Delaware constitutional and administrative law. We are asked whether unelected officials from the State’s parks and forest departments, whose power is expressly limited, can ban (except for a narrow exception for hunting) the possession of guns in state parks and forests in contravention of Delawareans’ rights under the State’s constitution. Clearly they cannot. They lack such authority because they may not pass unconstitutional laws, and the regulations completely eviscerate a core right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and family outside the home–a right this Court has already recognized. As such, the regulations are unconstitutional on their face. Thus, we REVERSE for these reasons and those that follow.

Here is Article I, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution. The meaning is clear:

“A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.”

It is interesting to see the logical pretzels the dissent turns in attempting to keep the ban in place. They amount to a number of assertions of Progressive dogma.

Essentially they are:

• There are no pre-existing natural rights to arms.
• The State never explicitly granted a right to arms in its Constitution, early on, so any legislative acts done before the right was added are grandfathered in.
• The legislature never really intended Section 20 to mean what it says.
• England restricted the right to arms in some times and places, so we can do so as well.
• The Second Amendment never applied to the States until recently, so any reasoning based on Heller and McDonald does not apply.
• Nobody challenged the law before, so it must be Constitutional

The dissent drones on for dozens of pages. But it all comes down to the same old Progressive doctrines: the state can do what it wants, and guns are bad.

It is sad that two of five Delaware Supreme Court Justices are willing to ignore the clear words of Delaware's constitution to obtain a result they want. But it is basic Progressive practice and dogma.

It is heartening that three of the five Justices upheld the clear meaning of Article I, Section 20.

Only six states do not have some provision in their state constitutions that protect the right to keep and bear arms. Those states are California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York.

It is unsurprising that those states include the four of the states that most egregiously infringe on the exercise of Second Amendment rights.

State constitutions provide another layer of protection for the right to keep and bear arms. States, in a federal system, serve as part of the checks and balances that limit government power in the United States.

2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

 

Ho ho ho! (Or "Pow pow pow!")

 

L.A. County Issues Carry Licenses to the Well-Connected, Skirts Own Policies
Friday, December 22, 2017



With 42 states and the District of Columbia now recognizing the Right-to-Carry, California’s retrograde may-issue Carry Concealed Weapon licensing regime is atypical. However, a recent state audit of three of California’s CCW license issuing authorities shows that Los Angeles County does operate much like another large jurisdiction, New York City, when it comes to granting licenses. That is, licenses are reserved for the well-connected and officials don’t bother to follow the rules when issuing them.

Under California law, a sheriff of a county may issue a CCW license to an applicant upon receiving proof,

(1) The applicant is of good moral character.

(2) Good cause exists for issuance of the license.

(3) The applicant is a resident of the county or a city within the county, or the applicant’s principal place of employment or business is in the county or a city within the county and the applicant spends a substantial period of time in that place of employment or business.

(4) The applicant has completed a course of training as described in Section 26165.

Statute does not further define “good moral character” or “good case,” which gives a local sheriff’s department significant discretion to determine the criteria necessary to acquire a permit in their jurisdiction.

Los Angeles County has a written Concealed Weapons Licensing Policy that elaborates on what the sheriff’s department considers sufficient “good cause” to merit a license. The policy states,

good cause shall exist only if there is convincing evidence of a clear and present danger to life, or of great bodily harm to the applicant, his spouse, or dependent child, which cannot be adequately dealt with by existing law enforcement resources, and which danger cannot be reasonably avoided by alternative measures, and which danger would be significantly mitigated by the applicant’s carrying of a concealed firearm.

Moreover, the policy makes clear that “No position or job classification in itself shall constitute good cause for the issuance, or for the denial, of a CCW license.”

It is exceedingly difficult for a law-abiding citizen to meet Los Angeles County’s criteria for a CCW license. Los Angeles County has issued 197 licenses to its 10.2 million residents. This works out to about 1 license for every 50,000 residents.

The audit, conducted by the California State Auditor, researched samples of 25 CCW licenses issued by three sheriff’s departments, Los Angeles County, Sacramento County, and San Diego County. For Los Angeles, the auditors concluded that the county “did not completely adhere to its policies when issuing any of the 25 CCW licenses we reviewed.” The researchers also determined, “Los Angeles issued all but one of these licenses without the level of documentation it expects to demonstrate that the applicant has met the good cause requirement.”

Rather than require the level of documentation for “good cause” outlined in their policy, Los Angeles County simply granted licenses to the well-connected. The auditors found the following,

22 of the 25 CCW licenses we reviewed were issued to applicants with professions that connected them to the law enforcement community: the individuals were former or current law enforcement officers, judges, court commissioners, retired federal agents, and deputy district attorneys.4

In fact, we found that of the 197 licenses that Los Angeles had issued that were active as of mid-August 2017, only nine were issued to applicants outside of that community.

As pointed out earlier, Los Angeles County’s written policy states that “No position or job classification in itself shall constitute good cause for the issuance, or for the denial, of a CCW license.”

The auditor’s report shares the story of a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge who did not provide information of a personal threat to his safety on his license application, as required under county policy. This judge was granted a license. The report then contrasts this case with that of a worker who stated that he wanted a license because “he worked in undesirable and remote areas and carried large amounts of cash.” This individual’s application was denied. The audit report called Los Angeles County’s practices judging “good cause” for issuing licenses “inequitable.”

The auditors also found that Los Angeles County failed to obtain requisite documentation concerning some licensees’ residency, “moral character,” and training.

In contrast to Los Angeles County, the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department has a more lenient policy concerning “good cause.” At the direction of Sheriff Scott R. Jones, Sacramento considers self-defense or the defense of other sufficient to meet the “good cause” requirement. This has resulted in far more permits being issued in Sacramento County than Los Angeles County. With a population of 1.5 million, Sacramento County has 9,130 CCW license holders.

Sacramento County’s shall-issue carry regime is part of what prompted the state audit. In a letter responding to the auditor report, Jones explained that following the failure of legislation put forward by NRA F-rated Assemblymember Kevin McCarty that would have made it more difficult for ordinary Californians to acquire CCW licenses statewide, the Assemblymember targeted Sacramento and other shall-issue carry jurisdictions for retribution. Jones’s letter notes, “Assemblymember McCarty threatened on social media on December 21st, 2016, to use the legislative audit function to intervene in my and others’ CCW permit processes because of his legislative failures. This audit is a consummation of that threat.”

However, the audit didn’t come to McCarty’s desired conclusions. The state auditor did not recommend that his legislation be adopted. Further, concerning Sacramento’s policy, the auditor report explained,

Although we believe the differences between Sacramento’s criteria for good cause and the criteria of the other two departments are most likely the reason for the higher number of licenses it issued during the period we audited, we cannot conclude that a higher rate of license issuance is necessarily a harmful effect of local discretion.

The California State Auditor’s office was right to describe Los Angeles County’s permitting procedure as “inequitable.” May-issue licensing regimes have always been ripe for this type of abuse. In the early 20th century, New York’s Sullivan Law was used to prohibit immigrants from owning handguns. In the 1950s, civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. was denied a carry permit in Alabama. This year, officials from the New York City Police Department’s License Division were indicted on federal corruption charges for what amounted to selling handgun licenses.

Members of Los Angeles County’s law enforcement community should be able to exercise their Right-to-Carry for the defense of themselves and others. However, the county’s law-abiding residents should have that same opportunity. Until California and the small handful of holdout jurisdictions join the 21st century and respect the Right-to-Carry, these abuses will continue. Of course, given ongoing federal litigation and legislative efforts on the Right-to-Carry, sometime soon the regressive politicians of these backwards enclaves may no longer have a say in the matter.

 

Many years ago I was stopped in a small Oklahoma town. I received 5 tickets. One of the tickets was for carrying a loaded weapon and one was for carrying an illegal weapon. The other three tickets were for minor things, 130mph in a 35mph zone, driving left of center, and having an open container in my car.
The fine for all 5 tickets was $100 but they wouldn't let me pay my own fine. I had to call my father to come hand over the money to them.
They set him down and told him all I had done and especially about carrying a loaded weapon. My father listened then asked them.
What the hell good is a gun if it isn't loaded. Might as well carry a hammer.
Oh, I forgot about having to pay for towing my car. That was an extra $25.

Now I can strap on a pair of 45s on each hip and go anywhere I want with no problem. Time are changing.

 

If everyoner carriedf knives there would be more stabings

 

Found on the Twitterverse: