- Comms
- Law
- Medic
- News
- Opinion
- Threat Watch
- Training
- Warrior Tools
- Accessories
- Ammo
- Body Armor
- Books
- Clothing
- Commo
- Gear
- Handguns
- Holsters
- Knives
- Long Guns
- ACC
- Accuracy International
- Barrett
- Benelli
- Beretta
- Blaser
- Bushmaster
- Custom
- CZ
- Desert Tactical Arms
- DPMS
- FN
- Forums
- HK
- IWI
- Kel-Tec Long Guns
- LaRue
- LWRC
- McMillan
- Mosin Nagant
- Mossberg
- Para
- Remington
- Rock River Arms
- Ruger Long Guns
- Sabre Defense
- Sako
- SIG Sauer
- SKS
- Smith & Wesson Long Guns
- Springfield
- Styer
- Weatherby
- Wilson Combat
- Winchester
- Magazines
- Maintenance
- Navigation
- Optics
- Sights
- Tech
- Warriors
Archive for category Law
California Congressman Wants To Ban Body Armor
Why would the government need to ban body armor unless it thought it would fight its citizens?
From Congressman Mike Honda:
Washington, DC – Congressman Mike Honda (D-CA17) today introduced the Responsible Body Armor Possession Act of 2014, which allows law enforcement to respond to active shooters more effectively. It accomplishes this by prohibiting the sale, purchase, use, or possession of enhanced military-grade body armor by anyone who is not a member of law enforcement, active duty military, or other authorized users.
“There is no reason this type of armor, which is designed for warfare, should be available in our communities except for those who need it, like law enforcement,â€Â Congressman Honda said. “There’s nothing more dangerous than what a well-armored, unstoppable active shooter can do. This bill is common-sense and long overdue.â€
The Responsible Body Armor Possession Act has the support of Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen, Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, Alameda County Sheriff Gregory Ahern, Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith, Santa Clara Chief of Police Mike Sellers, and Milpitas Chief of Police Steve Pangelinan; along with the Fraternal Order of Police, the Violence Policy Center, the Coalition for Peace Action, and Stop Handgun Violence.
Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen said, “There is an ongoing arms race between violent criminals and police officers. Let’s make sure that the men and women who stand bravely between us and the gunfire win that high-stakes race. Let’s make sure criminals and gang-bangers never walk our streets shielded with military-grade body armor and the arrogance of someone who cannot be stopped.â€
 Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley said, “I commend Congressman Honda on this important piece of legislation, and thank him for his long-standing leadership in keeping our communities safe and strong. This law will serve to combat our nation’s epidemic of gun violence and protect communities and law enforcement from mass shootings.â€
“By limiting civilian access to body armor that is designed to protect against ‘law enforcement ammunitions’ and weapons that are ‘generally only used in tactical situations,’ the legislation would be an important step forward in reducing the availability of military-style gear that enables shooters to attack innocent civilians and confront law enforcement responders with a level of firepower that has no place on America’s streets,†said Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center.
Judge Says AR-15s Not Covered Under Second Amendment
The case of Kolbe v O’Malley, stems from the Maryland law that severely restricted the sale and possession of AR and AK rifles. From the decision:
Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.
First, the court is not persuaded that assault weapons are commonly possessed based on the absolute number of those weapons owned by the public. Even accepting that there are 8.2 million assault weapons in the civilian gun stock, as the plaintiffs claim, assault weapons represent no more than 3% of the current civilian gun stock, and ownership of those weapons is highly concentrated in less than 1% of the U.S. population.
Under this logic if only three percent of the public exercised their right to speak their minds and criticize their government, that would not be covered under the first amendment. Criticizing the government could be seen as dangerous and undermining it and if only a few people engaged in such criticisms it could be found that such speech is not protected.
An Open Letter to President Barack H. Obama by Gun Owners of America
Dear President Obama:
As Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, Inc., and Executive Vice President of Gun Owners Foundation, and on behalf of our over 300,000 members and supporters, I respectfully bring to your attention a matter that requires your immediate action.
The official White House website includes a page1Â which purports to describe key provisions of the United States Constitution. With respect to the Second Amendment, the complete description of the Second Amendment on the website is as follows:
“The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.” [Emphasis original.]
Even recognizing that the website attempts to present only a simple summary of provisions of the Constitution, the description is highly inaccurate, and should be immediately corrected so as not to mislead the American people as to the true nature and scope of the Second Amendment. There are two separate problems with the White House website. Read the rest of this entry »
Next Big Gun Case
From Business Week:
“There is no longer any basis on which this court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny,†federal Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. ruled in a decision made public on July 26. “Therefore, the court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional.†If the ruling is upheld by an intermediate appellate court, the justices (of the Supreme Court) could be forced to return to the radioactive Second Amendment.
NY State Confiscating Guns
Posted by Brian in Law, News, Threat Watch on 6/Aug/2014 07:00
I thought “they” said it wouldn’t happen?
From Conservative Daily:
We learned of another incident from a post on NewYorkFirearms.com. A Nassau County man answered his front door to see a swarm of cops. He was told that the police were there to check his firearm’s serial numbers. Under New York law, the police have the authority to verify that the serial numbers registered with the State are correct. That is one of the conditions of owning a firearm. However, in this particular incident, Police entered the home without a warrant.
It was only after the safe was opened that the police informed the homeowner that this wasn’t a routine inspection… it was a confiscation order. After registering his firearms with the state, the police realized that the man had been found guilty of a misdemeanor charge FIFTEEN years ago. Not only was it a misdemeanor, but it might as well have been a lifetime ago!
California Anti-Gun Bill AB 1964 Signed
From NRA-ILA:
Last Friday, July 18, Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed into law anti-gun Assembly Bill 1964. AB 1964 unnecessarily removes existing exemptions for all single-shot pistols, other than those with a break top or bolt-action, from California’s roster of “not unsafe†handguns. It is unfortunate that this legislation was passed and Governor Brown signed such a law that does not address any legitimate public safety problems and conflicts with well-established constitutional principles.
CA Bill To Require Ammo Registration and “Permit for Purchase”
From NRA-ILA:
SB 53 would require the purchasers of ammunition to register with the state Department of Justice (DOJ) prior to purchasing any ammunition. This registration would require the submission of fingerprints, a background check and fees to the DOJ. If passed and enacted into law, SB 53 would require the collection and reporting of personal consumer information and thumbprinting for all ammunition purchases throughout the state. It would also ban online and mail-order sales of all ammunition, including hunting and collectible ammunition. In addition, SB 53 would require anyone wishing to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms to obtain a costly ammunition purchaser permit that must be renewed every two years.
Read the bill here
From smartgunlaws.org:
Status: This bill passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee on June 10, and is currently on the Assembly floor.Â
Gun Manufacturers Moving South
From Reuters:
PTR Industries Inc is among a wave of firearms makers moving or expanding away from the industry’s traditional base in the U.S. Northeast to the more gun-friendly South.
Police Need To Know The Law, Same As Citizens
From The CATO Institute:
To execute any search or seizure, a police officer must reasonably suspect that a crime has been or is being committed based on the facts available to him at the time he executes the search or seizure. Under this standard, searches can be lawful even if the officer is mistaken in his understanding of the facts before him, as long as his understanding led him to reasonably suspect criminal activity. But what if the officer is mistaken about whether a particular activity is actually criminal?
Supreme Court: Any Gun Purchase For Someone Else Is A “Straw” Purchase
If you buy a gun for a friend as a present, that is now illegal.
From GOPUSA:
A divided Supreme Court sided with gun control groups and the Obama administration Monday, ruling that the federal ban on “straw” purchases of guns can be enforced even if the ultimate buyer is legally allowed to own a gun.
The justices ruled 5-4 that the law applied to a Virginia man who bought a gun with the intention of transferring it to a relative in Pennsylvania who was not prohibited from owning firearms.
Colorado Man Receives Settlement After Open Carry Arrest
From ABC Denver:
The City of Thornton is shelling out $25,000 to a man who was arrested by police while openly carrying a holstered weapon into a movie theater one week after the shootings in Aurora.
2010 Presidential Directive Authorizes Military To Quell Civil Unrest
The directive, which can be viewed here, was issued in 2010 by President Obama.
The Washington Times reports:
“In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances†under two conditions.
The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.†A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.â€
The militarization of federal agencies, under little-known statues that permit deputization of security officials, comes as the White House has launched verbal attacks on private citizens’ ownership of firearms despite the fact that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens.
Related links: Posse Comitatus Act