|
|
August 26th, 2009
 Louisiana has adopted a program we’d like to see state governments copy nationwide. From September 4th through 6th (Fri-Sun), Louisiana shoppers can buy guns, ammo, and hunting supplies without paying a penny of sales tax. The Sales Tax Holiday is authorized by a new Louisiana statute that waives gun-related sales and use taxes each year on the first consecutive Friday through Sunday in September. Now that’s a “stimulus program” all shooters can support.
The sales tax holiday will take place Friday, September 4, through Sunday, September 6, pursuant to the Louisiana Second Amendment Weekend Holiday Act. This law (Act 453 of the Regular Session of the 2009 Louisiana Legislature) provides a three-day exemption from state and local sales and use taxes on consumer purchases of firearms, ammunition, and hunting supplies.
Business Purchases Still Taxed
During Louisiana’s Sales Tax Holiday weekend, the sales and use tax levied by the state and its political subdivisions shall not apply to any consumer purchases (by individuals) of firearms, ammunition and hunting supplies. However, sales and use taxes will still be due on business purchases of guns and ammo. Also sales tax will still apply to sales of animals used for hunting purposes .
April 21st, 2009
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution restricts the powers of state and local government as much as it does those of the federal government. A three-judge panel issued this ruling in Nordyke v. King (Alameda County). This is the first case where a Circuit Court has declared that the actions of states or municipalities are subject to the Second Amendment protections recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in D.C. v Heller last year. (Other cases challenging state action on Second Amendment grounds are pending before the Seventh Circuit.)
In finding that the Second Amendment applies to actions of States, counties, and local municipalities, the 9th Circuit applied the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The Circuit Court concluded “that the right to keep and bear arms” as a personal right has been recognized by the Supreme Court in Heller, and that this applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.
 In Nordyke v. King, the plaintiffs challenged an Alameda County ordinance that effectively prevented plaintiffs from holding a gun show at the Alameda Fairgrounds. Though the 9th Circuit acknowledged the existence of rights under the Second Amendment, the three-judge panel concluded that D.C. v. Heller was limited in scope, and only recognized a right of “armed self-defense in the home”. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit ruled against plaintfiffs, and upheld the Alameda County ordinance, which banned possession of guns “on county property.” Disturbingly, the Ninth Circuit ruling attempts to carve out a “public property” exception to the Second Amendment. The Nordyke v. King opinion states that a gun ban on county property: “fits within the exception from the Second Amendment for ‘sensitive places’ that Heller recognized.”
We’re not certain that the U.S. Supreme Court would agree with the Ninth Circuit’s holding that a fairground was a ‘sensitive place’ where the Second Amendment, effectively, has no sway. If a state or county can ban guns at a fairground, then why not public parks, parking lots, bus stops and so on? This could lead to cities and counties declaring extensive “gun-free zones” within their boundaries. Ironically, public places such as parking lots may be exactly where citizens are most at risk of violent crime. And ask yourself this… what other Constitutional rights are geographically limited? Would a court dare to restrict the First Amendment so as to eliminate the right of free speech on public property?
CLICK HERE to Read Full 9th Circuit Decision (.pdf download).
February 10th, 2009
Whatever your politics, you owe it to yourself to learn more about the restrictive firearm laws adopted in the United Kingdom and Australia. These have effectively banned hand-gun and semi-auto rifle ownership in the UK. In Australia self-loading rifles and even pump shotguns were banned, and hand-gun ownership was severely restricted. In this 10-minute video, gun owners in the UK and Australia tell their own story. The message is clear–without unified, organized opposition by sportsmen and hunters, gun rights will be taken away. In the UK, even shotguns and 22LR pistols used by Olympic competitors have been banned. Think it can’t happen here? Well already in California, new sales of semi-auto AR15-style service rifles are completely banned.
To further highlight the absurdity of gun laws in the UK, Great Britain agreed to construct a new indoor pistol-shooting venue — in order to win the right to host the next Olympic Games. But Olympic authorities have announced the shooting range will be demolished (at public expense) at the close of the games. Why? Because Brits aren’t allowed to own or shoot handguns. Today, even Britain’s Olympic pistol shooters are prohibitied from shooting in the UK and are required to do their training abroad. When London hosts the 2012 Olympic Games, Parliament will have to pass legislation allowing the athletes to import and fire their target pistols.
This is a “must-see” video. Click on the image below to watch the video, hosted by YouTube. CLICK HERE to watch other NRA-produced videos.
July 30th, 2008
It took years of litigation to do so, but Dick Heller and his team of lawyers prevailed in the U.S. Supreme Court, establishing that the U.S. Constitution guarantees Heller’s right to have a handgun in his District of Columbia home for self-protection. Despite that landmark victory, the D.C. politicians charged with complying with the High Court’s ruling are still trying to impose strict requirements on handgun ownership. D.C.’s amended handgun laws limit the types of handguns allowed while imposing strict licensing requirements that are difficult to satisfy.
As a result, Dick Heller, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that overturned Washington’s 32-year-old handgun ban, has filed a new lawsuit against the District of Columbia. In a complaint filed Monday in U.S. District Court, Dick Heller and two other plaintiffs allege that DC’s new gun regulations still violate rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The lawsuit cites the District of Columbia’s ban on firearms that carry more than 12 rounds of ammunition, which includes most semi-automatic handguns. The suit also claims that the city’s regulations make it all but impossible for residents to keep a gun ready for immediate self-defense in the home.
Plainly, the District of Columbia is attempting to skirt the D.C. v. Heller decision. By imposing difficult licensing regulations, the District’s politicians hope to maintain a de facto ban on handguns in place of the previous absolute ban. We applaud Heller’s effort to haul the District back into Federal Court to ensure full compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
February 18th, 2008
As we noted recently, the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller, is slated to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 18, 2008. This landmark case squarely presents the High Court with the question whether the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution affords an individual right to own firearms.
Along with many other interested organizations, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) has filed a “friend of the court” Amicus Brief in the D.C. v. Heller case. The NSSF’s well-researched brief provides a fascinating history of the Second Amendment, explaining the factors which gave rise to its adoption. We recommend you read the brief and save it for future reference.
CLICK HERE to READ NSSF AMICUS BRIEF (.pdf format)
February 15th, 2008
As you probably know by now, an important gun rights case, District of Columbia vs. Heller (docket 07-290), is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. As it directly involves the issue of individual rights under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, this case may impact ALL firearms owners. Legal experts note that this is the first time in 70 years that the High Court has been asked to interpret the basic meaning of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court will hear the case on March 18. (Oral Arguments are scheduled for 10 am). Amicus briefs have been submitted by notable parties, including many U.S. States, and Vice President Dick Cheney recently lent his signature (in his role as President of the U.S. Senate) to a brief filed by a Congressional Caucus.
If you want to learn more, American Rifleman Magazine has an excellent article that covers the “Top 10 Facts” about D.C. vs. Heller. Authored by NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox, this is a “must-read” summary of the landmark case.
CLICK HERE to READ ARTICLE on SUPREME COURT CASE
November 21st, 2007
 The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the much-discussed District of Columbia v. Heller case (Docket 04-7041), previously known as Parker vs. District of Columbia. This means the High Court WILL review the decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down the D.C. statute banning residents from owning handguns. The Court of Appeals held that the District of Columbia’s anti-gun law violated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In reaching its decision, the Appellate Court found, as a matter of law, that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms. This was a “breakthrough” finding. Other Circuit Courts of Appeal have held that the Second Amendment merely confers a “collective right” to keep and bear arms. In practical terms, this means that the Second Amendment applies to an organized militia (i.e. the National Guard), but not to individuals.
The High Court’s decision to hear D.C. v. Heller is historically significant. This will represent the first time the Supreme Court rules directly on the meaning of the Second Amendment since the U.S. v. Miller case in 1939. The decision in Miller was poorly reasoned and left many basic issues unresolved, including the key question “Does the Second Amendment confer an individual or collective right?”
The “collective right” interpretation of the Second Amendment is disfavored among legal scholars, despite what anti-gun advocacy groups claim. Many of the nation’s most respected law professors, including Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law School, Akhil Reed Amar of Yale, William Van Alstyne of Duke, and Sanford Levinson of the Univ. of Texas, have strongly argued that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms.
BACKGROUND
The mayor of Washington, D.C., Adrian M. Fenty, filed the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, setting the stage for the High Court to rule. According to FBI statistics, Washington D.C., despite its gun ban, ranks as one of the most dangerous cities in the United States and maintains one of the highest per-capita murder rates in the country.
In March, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in striking down the District’s gun ban, held in Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia that “The phrase ‘the right of the people’ . . . leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.” This was the second time in recent history that a Federal Circuit Court upheld the view that the Second Amendment was an individual right. In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in the case of U.S. v. Emerson that “All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the
Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans.”
|
