- Threat Watch
- Warrior Tools
- Body Armor
- Long Guns
- Accuracy International
- Desert Tactical Arms
- Kel-Tec Long Guns
- Mosin Nagant
- Rock River Arms
- Ruger Long Guns
- Sabre Defense
- SIG Sauer
- Smith & Wesson Long Guns
- Wilson Combat
Posts Tagged civil rights
About Carry Guard:
An armed encounter is likely to be the most stressful moment of someone’s life. We can do our best to avoid trouble, but bad things sometimes happen to good people. That’s why right behind your firearm, your second most important protection is a rock-solid carry policy.
NRA Carry Guard is a two-pronged program. It was created to provide insurance coverage to those who legally defend themselves with a firearm, and to offer an elite, one-stop training option. The insurance provides a comprehensive set of benefits and protection that will help spare gun owners from costly financial and legal consequences, even if they did everything right. The training was developed by an expert team of military and law enforcement veterans and focuses on the unique legal, mental and physical circumstances you must be prepared to face after pulling the trigger.
Gun-control advocates often argue that gun-control laws must be more restrictive than the original meaning of the Second Amendment would allow, because modern firearms are so different from the firearms of the late 18th century. This argument is based on ignorance of the history of firearms. It is true that in 1791 the most common firearms were handguns or long guns that had to be reloaded after every shot. But it is not true that repeating arms, which can fire multiple times without reloading, were unimagined in 1791. To the contrary, repeating arms long predate the 1606 founding of the first English colony in America. As of 1791, repeating arms were available but expensive.
From The Federalist:
The Supreme Court has refused to hear “assault weapon” cases in the past. However, previous cases were lower profile and the result of narrow readings, not the backwards interpretation exhibited in Kolbe. In its bravado, the Fourth Circuit may have crossed a bridge too far, sparking national debate and possibly forcing the issue to finally make it to the Supreme Court.
The Kolbe court justified their holding through a misplaced reliance on Heller’s discussion of weapons not protected by the Second Amendment: “dangerous and unusual weapons” and those “most useful in military service – M-16 rifles and the like.” This reliance was completely out of context, most obviously because the M-16 and its stablemates are machine guns, not in common lawful use by civilians anywhere. This is a far cry from the pedestrian semi-automatic weapons Maryland actually targeted.
House Bill 1169 codified the right of those with a North Dakota drivers’ license or state-issued ID card to carry a concealed handgun. The bill passed the House last month 83-9 and the Senate this week 34-13. Burgum, who carried an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association during his election campaign last year, contends the measure reaffirms Second Amendment rights.
From The Libertarian Republic:
Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez (R-Lake Elsinore) says “It is our Constitutional right to defend ourselves.” She, of course, is referring to the right to bear arms. California’s laws regarding firearms are some of the most confusing in the nation. By introducing Assembly Bill 757, Melendez is attempting to standardize the criteria used in California to issue concealed carry permits. Similarly to how states often issue driver’s licenses, Melendez says, “If a citizen passes the background check and completes the necessary safety training requirements, there should be no reason to deny them a concealed carry permit.’’
From The Trace:
Writing for the 10-4 majority, Judge Robert King of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said that the landmark Heller v. District of Columbia decision rendered in 2008 explicitly allows governments to regulate firearms similar in design and function to those issued to members of the military.
The decision marks the fifth time that a federal appeals court has upheld a state assault weapons law, but it goes further than those previous decisions. It is the first to exclude AR-15s and other similar guns from Second Amendment protection on the grounds that they are virtually indistinguishable from weapons of war. The court found that such designation overrides considerations of the common usage or suitability for home self-defense of a gun like the AR-15.
The judges in this case are choosing to be willfully ignorant of the weapons used at the time of the Constitution. There was no difference between arms used in the military/militia and those used for hunting or self defense. Townships had their own armories stocked with cannons (the equivalent of modern artillery). Their argument that the lethality of the weapons disqualifies the weapons is exactly what you would expect from elites in positions of power. They fear the power that the people would wield if allowed to keep and bear such weapons. On another point I would like to know how many of these judges have ever shot or held a gun, let alone own one.
From Military Arms Channel:
Sen. Maralyn Chase (D-Edmonds) says people have to buy insurance for their homes, their cars, and other items, so having it for guns makes sense to her.
Chase insists her bill is not about gun control, but rather public and private protections.
“I fully believe in Second Amendment rights, however, with those rights come great responsibilities,” Chase said. “We see the destructive power of guns almost nightly on the news and yet we do not require gun owners to have any type of liability insurance. Requiring liability insurance may cause an irresponsible gun owner to exercise extra care in preventing firearm-related accidents, especially in tragic accidents involving children.”
As previously reported, after the California Department of Justice submitted regulations regarding newly classified “assault weapons” to the Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) for publication in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), NRA and California Rifle & Pistol Association submitted a joint-letter to the DOJ explaining the flaws in the regulations and demanding that the regulations be withdrawn or we would be forced to pursue legal action.
Late on Friday, February 10, the DOJ withdrew the problematic regulations from the OAL’s consideration. It is unclear exactly why the DOJ took this action, however it can be surmised that the NRA-CRPA legal letter likely prompted the move. NRA/CRPA’s letter explains the flaws in both the content and process in which DOJ sought to adopt the submitted regulations. While the regulations have been withdrawn, the underlying statutes remain in effect and new/revised regulations will likely be submitted to OAL in the near future.
From KTVZ Oregon:
A measure challenging gun regulations is popping up around the state. Since 2015, four counties have passed a measure known as the Second Amendment Preservation ordinance, and commissioners in Malheur, Union and Lake counties have heard the same measure in the past few weeks.
The ordinance is a reaction to the Oregon Firearms Safety Act, passed by the state Legislature in 2015, which requires background checks for transfers of firearms between private parties. These county ordinances allow sheriffs to ignore this law – which gun advocates see as unconstitutional.
From The Verge:
In the film, Wilson is openly positive about the election of Donald Trump, which may help explain the film’s chilly reception among the liberal-leaning Sundance audience. Then again, there are plenty of reasons for people on the left — Lough included — to find Wilson unsettling. Lough interviews him at length in The New Radical, about other pioneers of the crypto movement, other libertarian radical activists, and how printable weapons level the playing field for anyone who wants a potentially undetectable plastic gun without any government oversight.
From Phoenix New Times:
Fortunately for DPS Trooper Edward Andersson, whose life hung on the edge before Yoxall showed up on January 12, Yoxall had his gun rights restored in 2003 after he successfully completed probation.
Yoxall has paid back his debt to society — big-time.
From National Review:
So, if concealed-carry permit holders are presumptively dangerous, does this mean that they forfeit other constitutional rights? Wynn explained (approvingly) that under the majority’s reasoning they certainly do:
I see no basis — nor does the majority opinion provide any — for limiting our conclusion that individuals who choose to carry firearms are categorically dangerous to the Terry frisk inquiry. Accordingly, the majority decision today necessarily leads to the conclusion that individuals who elect to carry firearms forego other constitutional rights, like the Fourth Amendment right to have law enforcement officers “knock-and-announce” before forcibly entering homes. . . . Likewise, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that individuals who choose to carry firearms necessarily face greater restriction on their concurrent exercise of other constitutional rights, like those protected by the First Amendment.
On Wednesday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit handed Second Amendment advocates a major victory when it struck down multiple gun range regulations imposed by the city of Chicago as unconstitutional infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. The majority opinion in the case, Ezell v. Chicago, was written by Judge Diane Sykes, whose name appears on Donald Trump’s short-list of possible Supreme Court nominees.