- 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
Posts Tagged second amendment
Court Finds 10-Day Waiting Period Unconstitutional
From CalGuns Foundation:
BREAKING: CGF wins fed #2A 10-day waiting period lawsuit! Support at http://t.co/svn6YFIOCQ. Statement to follow. pic.twitter.com/FKYscNS1Uy
— Calguns Foundation (@CalgunsFdn) August 25, 2014
Impossible Law Leads To No New Guns In California
California law requires a technology in guns that does not exist.
From San Diego Rostra:
Last year Democratic Attorney General Kamala Harris decided that a law signed by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007 would now be put into effect. The law requires every pistol sold by a dealer in California have a serial number on the tiny tip of the firing pin so that it imprints an identifying mark on the ejected casing of a firedcartridge. Without this, a pistol cannot get onto the “not unsafe†list. It was agreed upon at the time of passage that the law would not go into effect until the imprint technology was developed.
Anti-gun laws passed in Sacramento have already ended sales by manufacturers like Barrett Firearms and STI International. Smith & Wesson and Ruger have joined fellow manufacturer Glock and organizationsSecond Amendment Foundation and National Shooting Sports Foundation in a lawsuit against California regarding their “not unsafe†gun list scheme. The attorney heading the case is Alan Gura, who in 2008 helped win Heller vs. D.C. in front of the Supreme Court, which ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right.
Firearms on Traveling Across States
From Herald-Tribune:
Allen is a 27-year old single mom from Philly, who had a valid pennsylvania concealed carry permit. She strayed across the border into New Jersey last year, was subsequently stopped by police, and told the officer she was armed with a .380 Bersa Thunder.
She was arrested and charged with unlawful possession of a weapon and armor-penetrating bullets.
She is now facing a three-year mandatory minimum sentence.
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.
Professor Says People Should Piss Themselves and Run When They See Open Carry Activists
UND Philosophy Professor advocates irrational behavior when people see guns:
The questions that concerns me now is how we bystanders should react when people come into a store with guns. There really is no legitimate way of determining intent. Even if the people with guns are carrying a sign claiming to be activists (which they do not do), they could be lying, just setting us all up for slaughter. And since there is no way to know what is on their minds, all we have are our instincts, but as we all should know, our instincts are often racist, classist, and frequently mistaken. So, what should we do?
My proposal is as follows: we should all leave. Immediately. Leave the food on the table in the restaurant. Leave the groceries in the cart, in the aisle. Stop talking or engaging in the exchange. Just leave, unceremoniously, and fast.
But here is the key part: don’t pay. Stopping to pay in the presence of a person with a gun means risking your and your loved ones’ lives; money shouldn’t trump this. It doesn’t matter if you ate the meal. It doesn’t matter if you’ve just received food from the deli counter that can’t be resold. It doesn’t matter if you just got a haircut. Leave. If the business loses money, so be it. They can make the activists pay.
Here is his response after some criticism:
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.
California To Allow Family Veto Power Over Your Rights
From the Associate Press:
California could become the first state to allow family members, licensed therapists and health care providers to petition a judge to take firearms from someone who has shown signs that they could harm others or themselves.
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.
An Anti-Gun Bill Too Strong For California
From TheRightToBear.com:
According to the authors of the bill, AB 1014 would help to create de-facto gun restraining orders. The bill would let police officers seize a weapon based solely off the testimony of an immediate family member or health care professional and hold it for up to a year without any due process being extended to the gun owner.
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.