Tag Archives: Conceal Carry

Hollyweird celebrities urge you to #RejectheNRA

These idiots probably believe that “silencers” really work like they do in their stupid movies.

Until Hollyweird celebrities decide to end their own #waronwomen in their industry, they can get bent with their feelings about the Second Amendment. #RejectHollywood.

From Yahoo: Celebrities are banding together to #RejectTheNRA in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting — the deadliest to date on U.S. soil — and they have a very specific plan to do so.

Melissa McCarthy, Emma Stone, Bill Hader, Elizabeth Banks, Julianne Moore, John Slattery, Sheryl Crow, and Adam Scott are some of the stars featured in a new PSA that targets efforts to roll back safety laws on gun silencers and concealed carry reciprocity legislation.

The Creative Council for Everytown for Gun Safety, which Moore started in 2015, announced a plan to send one million phone calls to Congress until the next vote in 2018 to urge representatives to reject the agenda of the National Rifle Association. The PSA offers simple instructions on how to do so by connecting callers with Everytown, the gun advocacy nonprofit, and guidelines on what to say.

Other celebrities joining the new PSA include Jack Antonoff, Kathryn Hahn, Samuel Harris, Zazie Beetz, Cynthia Rowley, Natalie Morales, Moby, and Laura Dern. All of them urge Congress to oppose the SHARE Act, which, as they say, would “roll back gun silencer safety laws” and “could make mass shootings even more deadly.” They also highlight concealed reciprocity legislation, which would allow gun owners to carry firearms across state lines.

“I feel really strongly that the time has come to reject the NRA’s dangerous agenda and put the safety of all Americans first,” Beetz and McCarthy said in the video. “We should not make it easy for people with dangerous histories to buy silencers,” Moore added.

Moore was incited to be a gun control advocate by the Sandy Hook massacre, which left 20 children and six adults fatally shot at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut on Dec. 14, 2012.

“At that moment, it felt ridiculous to me, and irresponsible as a parent and as a citizen, that I was not doing something to prevent gun violence,” she explained in an essay. “Simply keeping the news away from my child was putting my head in the sand. I wasn’t helping her, or anyone else, by doing that. So I decided to learn more.”

DCG

Advertisements

Schumer slams NRA for backing federal concealed carry bill

chuck schumer hypocrite

Hypocrite Schumer: Protection for me but not for thee…

In case you haven’t noticed Chuckie, the “Wild West” is happening in strict gun-controlled Chiraq.

From NY Post (from Mark Moore): The city could turn into the Wild West ​if an NRA-backed plan becomes law and allows any tourist with a concealed-weapons permit to carry a hidden gun in New York, Sen. Chuck Schumer said Sunday.

“How low can you go?’’ Schumer (D-NY) said of the National Rifle Assocation, referring to its support of the proposed “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act,’’ which would override New York’s strict gun laws.

He noted that the National Rifle Association, “just days after the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history … is engaging their allies in Congress to push through a dangerous national concealed-carry law.’’

New York has very stringent concealed-carry regulations and does not recognize out-of-state concealed-carry permits. But under the proposed legislation, New York would have to recognize carry permits issued in other states.

Schumer urged congressional lawmakers​ to tell the NRA that “enough is enough” for pushing the measure after Las Vegas, where a lone gunman opened fire on a country music concert, killing 58 and injuring hundreds more. ​

Schumer said the proposed law would allow visitors to make an end run around New York’s gun regulations, which are among the strictest in the country, and pack heat on the subway, in transportation hubs, Central Park and Times Square. “We must stop this madness, and Congress must stand up to the bosses of the NRA and say, ‘Enough is enough​,​’ ​” he said.​

Schumer said the powerful gun rights lobby signaled its intention to pursue the legislation when it released a statement on the Las Vegas shootings and asked the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to review regulations on “bump stocks,” which 64-year-old Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock used to enable his semi-automatic rifles to mimic automatic fire.

“On behalf of our five million members across the country, we urge Congress to pass National Right-to-Carry reciprocity, which will allow law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families from acts of violence​,​”​ the NRA said in its statement.

The NYPD and the city’s five district attorneys blasted the legislation last spring, shortly after it was introduced by US Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC).

Schumer said the House Judiciary Committee could take up the legislation as soon as this month.

DCG

College professor wears “combat gear” to protest Texas’ campus carry law

professor charles smith

Just a tad melodramatic…

From Fox News: A Texas professor is making waves on social media after protesting the state’s campus carry law by wearing protective combat gear to class.

San Antonio College geography instructor Charles K. Smith went to his class last week sporting a camouflaged bulletproof vest and helmet. He said he wore it because he doesn’t feel safe.

“It definitely makes me feel uneasy that there are more firearms on campus than there should be,” Smith told mySA.com. “[Dressing this way] was just a statement on how I felt.”

Campus Carry, which was signed into state law in 2015 and officially implemented into Texas community colleges on Aug. 1, allows individuals with a conceal license to carry a handgun on college premises. The law went into effect at 4-year institutions in 2016.

A photo of Smith wearing the combat gear was shared on Facebook, which generated a flurry of comments in favor of and against the professor.

“I realize students were carrying guns on campus illegally, but now it’s legal to do so. It increases the chances of something happening,” said Smith, who also acknowledged that no one had pulled a gun on him in his 10 years at the college.

“Used to, when they got mad at me, they had to go home to get the gun and had time to cool off. Now they will have it with them,” he added.

Smith said he’s concerned about an argument breaking out and one of the participants having a gun. “My assumption is that you will have more people carrying guns – that will lead to problems. It always has,” he said. “There is nothing on this planet worth a human life.”

James “Hot Mustard” Velten, who posted the photo on Facebook, told Fox News on Tuesday that response on campus has been mostly positive. “Many professors admire his statement about campus carry,” he said. “Many professors don’t feel safe because of the law.”

Velten also told mySA.com that Smith was a passionate professor. “Around people like that, you tend to listen a bit more,” he said.

Smith said his protest has nothing to do with San Antonio College, as they are following the law. He said he ran his plans by local police and the administration beforehand.

“Some of them were okay and some of them weren’t, but it’s freedom of speech,” he said.

DCG

Appeals court blocks DC’s conceal-carry law on Second Amendment grounds

second amendment3

The Constitution prevails.

From Fox News: A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in violation of the Second Amendment.

D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed carry permit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the regulation as too restrictive in a 2-1 decisionThe Washington Post reported.

“The good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on most D.C. residents’ right to carry a gun in the face of ordinary self-defense needs,” Judge Thomas B. Griffith (appointed by George W. Bush) wrote, according to the paper.

“Bans on the ability of most citizens to exercise an enumerated right would have to flunk any judicial test.”

Judge Stephen F. Williams (appointed by Ronald Reagan) joined Griffith in the decision.

The decision deals another legal blow to efforts by city officials to rewrite gun regulations since the Supreme Court declared a Second Amendment right to gun ownership in a 2008 D.C. gun case, the paper reported.

John R. Lott, Jr. of the Crime Prevention Research Center called the decision huge.

Right now, there are about 124 concealed handgun permit holders in D.C., Lott told Fox News. “If D.C. were like the 42 right-to-carry states, they would have about 48,000 permits. Right now D.C. prevents the most vulnerable people, particularly poor blacks who live in high crime areas of D.C., from having any hope of getting a permit for protection.”

The lone dissenter, Judge Karen Henderson (appointed by George H.W. Bush), said the district’s regulation “passes muster” because of the city’s unique security challenges as the nation’s capital and because it does not affect the right to keep a firearm at home.

Gun rights groups and Republican attorneys general from more than a dozen states told the court that the District’s system is unconstitutional because the typical law-abiding citizen could not obtain a permit, the paper reported.

City officials could ask all the judges on the circuit to rule on the matter, if they elect to appeal the decision.

DCG

Oregon Passes GOP Senator’s Bill Allowing Gun Seizure Order Without Gun Owner’s Knowledge

brian boquist

RINO Brian Boquist

Outrageous.

From Breitbart: Oregon lawmakers passed legislation co-sponsored by Sen. Brian Boquist (R-Dallas) that allows a judge to issue an ex parte ruling for the confiscation of an individual’s firearms.

The bill is SB 719, and it has now passed Oregon’s House and Senate. It creates an Extreme Risk Protection Order, which forces the subject of the order to hand over all firearms, as well as his concealed carry permit if he possesses one.

NRA-ILA reports:

Based on a California law enacted in 2014, SB 719A would create a so-called “Extreme Risk Protection Order” (ERPO) that could be obtained by a law enforcement officer, family member, or household member in an ex parte hearing to deprive someone of their Second Amendment rights without due process of the law.

The ex parte aspect of the law means the bill does not require the gun owner to be present for part of the hearing in which the judge decides whether guns should be taken from him.

On April 18, 2017, Breitbart News reported that Boquist was pushing this confiscation bill, and he emailed Breitbart News to suggest the bill simply puts forward a law that is popular in other gun-control states. For example, Boquist informed Breitbart News that a similar law “passed the voters in Washington by 70%.”

Boquist also told Breitbart News that SB 719 “is not confiscation.” However, the language of SB 719 is quite confiscatory. It says:

Requires court to order respondent to surrender deadly weapons and concealed handgun license within 24 hours of service of initial order, and immediately upon service of continued or renewed order. Provides for law enforcement officer serving order to request immediate surrender of deadly weapons and concealed handgun license and authorizes law enforcement officer to take possession of surrendered items.

If a requirement for “immediate surrender” of firearms and concealed carry license upon issue of an ex parte ruling is not confiscation, then what is?

The Times quoted Boquist’s defense of the confiscatory bill on the Senate floor, saying, “Everyone wants to promote this as a gun bill. It’s not.”

DCG

State laws expand concealed gun rights to college campuses, public facilities

second amendment2

Shannon Watts hardest hit.

From Fox News: Laws allowing concealed guns on college campuses took effect Saturday in several states, including Georgia and Kansas. In Tennessee, concealed guns may now be carried in a broader range of public buildings and bus stations. And in Iowa, permit holders are now able to carry concealed guns in the Capitol.

Jennifer Baker, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association Institute of Legislative Action, described 2017 as another “successful year for gun rights.”

The new laws continue a pattern of the expansion of gun rights in GOP-controlled states.

The firearms policies are among scores of laws that took effect Saturday, along with the start of the new fiscal year in many states. Some of those laws continue a recent trend of states taking the initiative to fix aging roads and address the drug overdose epidemic.

The gun laws reflect divided public preferences, highlighted by a recent Pew survey that found people nearly evenly split on whether gun control or gun rights were more important.

In Kansas, college students expressed mixed feelings about the new law. “A couple of my friends decided that they were going to go somewhere else, because it kind of freaked them out,” Elena Mendoza, who will start school at Johnson County Community College in the fall, was quoted as telling the Kansas City Star. “Most of us were like, if someone has access to a weapon, they can use it either way.”

Chris Gray, a Johnson County Community College spokesman, said that some students are concerned about the impact of the law. “Generally speaking, people do feel very safe and always have here on campus,” Gray told the Star. “There is that fear of the unknown. What is going to happen?” Gray said.

Johnson County Community College student Nick Serum, 20, believes the law will make the campus more secure. “Does it make me feel safer? I’d say yes,” Serum said to the Star.

Cale Ostby, 27, a Wichita State University student, said that many people in Kansas have concealed guns, and that the concept is nothing new. “It’s insane that I can carry everywhere else except school,” Ostby said.

A voter-approved gun-control initiative prohibiting people from possessing ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 bullets was to go into effect Saturday in California. But it was blocked by a federal judge, who said it would have made criminals out of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens who own the magazines. A similar law passed by the Democratic-dominated Legislature also is subject to the preliminary injunction.

For decades, the National Rifle Association pushed for state laws allowing people to carry concealed guns with permits. Having succeeded nationwide, gun-rights advocates now are gradually expanding where those weapons can be taken. Yet even some of the new laws contain exceptions.

Georgia’s law allows people with concealed handgun permits to take their weapons into classrooms but not dormitories, and college sports fans can pack weapons while tailgating but not inside stadiums.

A Tennessee law allowing guns in many local public buildings, bus stations and parks can be voided if authorities instead opt to install metal detectors staffed by security guards.

Concealed guns are now allowed at college campuses in Kansas as a result of a 2013 law that applies to public buildings lacking heightened security such as metal detectors and guards. A four-year exemption for universities expired Saturday. But in a setback for the NRA, a law that Republican Gov. Sam Brownback is allowing to take effect without his signature will make permanent a similar exemption for public hospitals and mental health centers.

In Iowa, the new law allowing permit holders to carry concealed guns in the Capital prompted the state Supreme Court to ban weapons in all courthouses statewide.

Gun rights advocates lauded the laws expanding the circumstances in which people may carry an arm.

Advocates for greater gun regulations also are pleased with the results. On Thursday, Democratic-led Hawaii became the third state to enact a law requiring notification to law enforcement when people prohibited from owning guns try to obtain them anyway.

“This was an excellent year for killing bad gun-lobby bills,” said Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. “The bills that the gun lobby did get through, in many cases, we helped to water those down.”

Read the rest of the story here.

DCG

Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court

erwin chemerinsky

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky: No right to have concealed weapons

If this does make it to the Supreme Court, I’m certainly hoping for an outcome which favors legal firearm owners.

From Fox News: The Second Amendment is only 27 words, but Americans have used millions of words arguing over what it means. It guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” But which people, what arms, and under what circumstances?

Two milestone cases involving the Second Amendment that reached the Supreme Court are District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), declaring an individual has a right to own a firearm, and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), affirming the Second Amendment applies to state law.

Now, if the Supreme Court decides to hear it, there may be a third major case in a decade: Peruta v. California.

At issue is the right to keep and bear arms outside the home. The Heller case specifically applies to situations within the home. Those who have petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case are hoping the justices will see it as a logical extension of their earlier opinions.

The case arose when Edward Peruta and other gun owners who lived in or near San Diego, Calif., couldn’t get concealed-carry permits in their county. The Sheriff’s Department handles permit requests and requires “good cause” to carry a gun outside of the home. This does not mean a generalized concern for safety, but something specific, such as fear of domestic violence or a regular need to move large amounts of money.

There were two separate lawsuits challenging the interpretation of “good cause,” but the district courts found no violation of the Second Amendment.

Then, in 2014, a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the policy did indeed violate the right to bear arms for self-defense. The state, however, got a new hearing in front of 11 9th Circuit judges, who decided 7-4, the restrictions for concealed-carry permits were allowable.

The case has now been appealed to the Supreme Court and though the Justices have rescheduled its consideration several times, some experts feel the court is finally ready to hear Peruta.

“I suspect they’re going to grant it,” said John Eastman, former law dean at Chapman University and the director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. Eastman told Fox News, “it’s percolating all across the country.”

He also feels the justices may have put it off while waiting for a full complement on the court, which they got when Neil Gorsuch was confirmed last month. Gorsuch, in fact, may be the justice to tip the opinion in one direction or the other, as previous Second Amendment cases were determined in a 5-4 ruling.

According to Eugene Volokh, professor of law at University of California at Los Angeles, this case is primed for the Supreme Court, as it deals with a basic constitutional right and “the lower courts are split on the issue.”

It would be a good time for the highest court to step in and settle the controversy. He also feels that while no one is sure how Gorsuch will vote, there is a “sense that he’s sympathetic to a broader view” of the Second Amendment.

The case may turn on how the court frames the issue. To Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law, the legal question to be settled is whether a state like California may determine its own rules on concealed-carry permits.

“The Second Amendment isn’t an absolute right,” Chemerinsky notes. Throughout British and American history, “there’s never been a right to have concealed weapons.”

But Eugene Volokh believes there’s a bigger issue at stake. If the state of California, which essentially bans open carry of a gun, makes it next to impossible for a typical citizen to get a concealed-carry permit, this is “tantamount to banning” the right to bear arms “except for a few favored people.”

Experts agree on one point. As Chemerinsky puts it, if Peruta is taken up, “no matter what the Supreme Court says, it will be a landmark decision.”

DCG