|
|
February 15th, 2010
Starbucks has rejected a request from the Brady Campaign to prohibit gun owners from openly carrying firearms in the company’s California stores. In a response to the anti-gun group’s request, the company said, “Starbucks does not have a corporate policy regarding customers and weapons; we defer to federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding this issue.”
While it is difficult to obtain permits for concealed carry in most California counties, open carry of UNLOADED firearms is permitted by California state law. Members of Bay Area Open Carry (BAOC), a group of open carry advocates, have been meeting in restaurants and coffee houses in Northern California. The sight of unloaded handguns on the hips of patrons aroused the ire of the national Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Peet’s Coffee and California Pizza kitchen caved in to anti-gun pressure, banning openly-carried firearms on their premises.
However, Starbucks has defied the Brady group, continuing to welcome Open Carry advocates at its many coffee centers. NRA instructor and BAOC member Brad Huffman declared: “We definitely applaud Starbucks for allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and we will continue to patronize them as long as they do.”
The Starbucks Open Carry situation attracted national attention when the NRA emailed its millions of members, urging them to support Starbucks. The email was entitled Maybe Brady Campaign Should Switch To Decaf.
You can read more about this story in the D.C. Gun Rights Examiner Blog, which has a cogent (and amusing) commentary by Mike Stollenwerk, of OpenCarry.org.
February 13th, 2010
Here’s good news for Washington State gun owners. A King County Superior Court judge has struck down a ban on guns in Seattle city parks because it violates Washington State’s long-standing preemption statute. Judge Catherine Shaffer ruled from the bench that the gun ban, adopted under former Mayor Greg Nickels, violates Washington’s law, which placed sole authority for regulating firearms in the hands of the State Legislature. That law was adopted in 1983 and amended in 1985, and has served as a model for similar laws across the country.
The lawsuit was litigated by the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association on behalf of five individual plaintiffs. “This is a great victory for the rule of law and Washington citizens,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, who added: “This case affirms the intent of lawmakers in 1983 to prevent cities like Seattle from creating a nightmare patchwork of conflicting and confusing firearms regulations.”
Gottlieb suggested a review of local ordinances may now be in order, so that city and county governments can be compelled to remove old gun regulations or face legal consequences. “This ruling puts anti-gun local officials on notice that legally-armed citizens have rights, too,” Gottlieb stated.
Founded in 1974, the 650,000-member strong Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education and legal action group dedicated to the Constitutional right to privately own and possess firearms.
January 8th, 2010
While some of the very best rifle shooters in the world are ladies (Such as Sherri and Michelle Gallagher, and Noma Mayo), a large percentage of women, at least in big cities, seem very “gun-averse” and react negatively to men who collect guns or enjoy shooting as a hobby. This can narrow the pool of women suitable as dating partners or potential “soul-mates”.
 If you’re looking for a lady who shares your interest in firearms, and who supports gun ownership by law-abiding citizens, there is a new website you should visit. Second Amendment Singles is a new match-making site design to bring together like-minded, gun-loving men and women. We think that’s a great idea, and we hope the site will successful. Right now the membership is just getting started, and nearly all of the early sign-ups are male. We do hope that, with time, more ladies join the service. Once the word gets out, more lady shooters may sign up.
The founder of the new service, Jared Gollnitz, explains why he set up this new online service: “Gun ownership can be polarizing in a relationship between a man and a woman, but the other dating sites just ignore it as an aspect of compatibility. This site is for the person who … makes NO APOLOGIES for living the armed lifestyle.” Gollnitz adds that his site lets you find “a dating partner who shares the belief that there is nothing as liberating as knowing you can defend yourself.”
November 15th, 2009
 Since 2001, November 19th has been decreed National Ammo Day. The backers of this event want each and every gun owner to purchase 100 rounds of ammunition this Thursday the 19th. The purpose of Ammo Day is to support the Second Amendment and to send a message to politicians.
There are an estimated 75 MILLION gun owners in the United States. If even 10% of them purchase ammo on Nov. 19th, this will demonstrate the size, and economic importance, of the gun-owning citizenry. If there’s one thing politicians cannot ignore, it’s tax revenues. The sales and excise taxes on guns and ammo help support many important public programs.
To learn more about National Ammo Day, visit www.Ammoday.com. Unfortunately, certain types of ammunition remain in short supply. Because of the surge in gun and ammo sales following last year’s Presidential election, most ammunition is quite a bit more costly than it was 12 months ago… if you can find it at all. One person, commenting on the Ammoday.com website, expressed his frustration with price hikes: “How about we don’t purchase any ammo on the 19th to send a message to the manufacturers that the price gouging better stop, or we’ll simply reload everything we shoot.” He has a point. However, in a market economy, supply and demand will always influence price levels.
October 2nd, 2009
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to hear McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521), a case challenging gun control laws in the city of Chicago. When it rules on this case, the High Court can be expected to refine and expand its landmark ruling in DC v. Heller. In Heller, the Supreme Court ruled, for the first time ever, that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to “keep and bear arms”.
The key issue in McDonald v. Chicago is whether state, county, and city goverment actions can be challenged on the basis of the Second Amendment. The First Amendment and other provisions of the Bill of Rights have already been held to govern state and local laws, but this would be the first time the U.S. Supreme Court determines whether the Second Amendment applies to “state action” through the Due Process or Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Legal analysts predict that the U.S. Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, will strike down (or modify) Chicago’s restrictive gun laws, holding that the Second Amendment applies to state and municipal laws under the Incorporation Doctine.
In the Newsweek.com Blog, Howard Fineman writes: “Now the court will take up the appeal of a case of a handgun ban in Chicago to clear things up [following DC v. Heller]. Expect another sweeping smackdown…. What that means in the case of guns is a full-scale legal assault on, and sweeping away of, many if not most existing regulations on their sale and possession of handguns, pistols, and rifles, at least initially. If the court decrees the use of the standard method of assessing limits on fundamental rights, it will require states and localities to show a ‘compelling state interest’ for the regulation they seek, and a narrowly, carefully-tailored statute to address it. It’s what the lawyers call ‘strict scrutiny’─and it will kill off laws by the score, at least at first.”
We think that Fineman exaggerates the potential effect of a pro-gun ruling in the McDonald v. Chicago case, but we certainly hope that a ‘strict scrutiny’ standard is established. That the High Court will impose ‘strict scrutiny’ is by no means certain, however.
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)
|
