Lake Erie Conservative

thoughtful discussion(s) about issue(s)

Posts Tagged ‘gun rights’

… Er , No ! [#fight for Religious Liberty in D.C.]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,September 20th,2016

.. somehow , even being in the Nation ‘ s capital , the D.C. City Council seems to have not gotten the message …t

.. we have constitutional protections to religious freedom [the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights , duh !]…

.. [h/t — m.NationalReview.com]..
.. [link] to the blog news account …

.. what is the City Council doing ? They are trying to force any person or organization [whether they be for – profit or non – profit] to bend to their legal will . Specifically , they want these groups to adopt standards related to sexual orientation in legal and other matters …

.. it repeals an exemption that existed in law for many decades . Now , the city ‘ s Human Rights Act will control affairs , which is even more sweeping an issue regarding sexual orientation . No , bad move . It should not happen . It must not happen . Congress must step in …

.. Congress has a clear power in the Constitution as regards to the government of the Nation ‘ s Seat of Government . Much of the time , especially with Home Rule , Congress stays out of the way . However , there are times that Congress either needs to or must step in . In this case , Congress must step in , whether POTUS likes it or not ….

…it must do so in this case , and edit D.C. law to ensure that individuals and organizations rights are protected in the nation ‘ s capital . It may end up wrapping in gun rights , as regards Palmer v DC as well , if the D.C. City Council does not get its act together and follow the Home Rule Act , as well as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ….

— [update] — right now , this one is tied up in court . it will be for  some time , though …

Advertisements

Posted in 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, constitutional opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Thank You , Moore v. Madigan [#gun rights]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,September 11th,2016

.. crime in Chicago is down , markedly …

.. don’t expect Mayor Rahm Emmanuel to take credit for the reason why …

.. concealed – carry …

.. [h/t — HotAir.com]..
.. [link] to the news report …

.. you can thank the court case Moore v Madigan for that . The loonie left is too damn scared to appeal it to the Supreme Court . You send this beauty up there , and it goes through , you in effect get nationwide concealed – carry . Boy , would the anti – gun crowd choke on this …

— [update] — the left , especially the anti – gun nuts ,  are scared to death of this case . You take this one , mix in another , say , Palmer v D.C. or Peruta v Cty of San Diego ,  and it goes to the U.S. Supreme Court . Especially if the 9th Circuit tries to play around with Peruta . Then all of those state – level and local – level gun restrictions [say , SAFE Act or Williams Act in NY is the best example] go bye – bye ….

Posted in 2nd Amendment, judgement (law enforcement), legal question, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… What Part of Palmer v DC do those Dummies Not Understand ?!?! [#second amendment rights]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,August 31st,2016

.. Palmer v DC [and several other cases] made it clear . The residents of D.C. have full 2nd Amendment rights , just like any other citizen of any other state in our Union ..

.. that includes the rights to keep and bear arms [emphasis mine]…

.. the dummies on the D.C. City Council and the D.C. Government seem not to get it . They were ordered to pass a bill to correct legal defects in order to comply with Palmer . They have not done so . Doing what they have done [or , in their case , they have not done] is going to get them into serious trouble …

.. [h/t — HotAir.com]..
.. [link] to the blog news ..

.. one item sure to come is renewed legal action . Palmer is still before the D.C. District Court [and Judge Frederick Schillin] . Atty Alan Gura and the plaintiffs can haul the D.C. Govt back before the judge …

.. what Schillin can do is simple : throw out the new D.C. Gun , bill , and drop the gun restrictions , entirey . Boy , the D.c. government would go hyper over that . So would the ObamaCraps . The Supremes , though , would likely take the case away from the D.C. Circuit , given recent history on Halbig v Burwell …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Another Victory for Gun Rights [#gun sales][#gun purchases]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,May 30th,2016

.. hopefully ..

.. this case centers on a case out of the 9th Circuit , that came out of a case that was originally dismissed in 2013 . The case revolved around an ordinance in Alameda County, California, which banned gun stores from being located within 500 feet of a residential zone. Three businessmen—John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga, and Gary Gamaz—argued the ordinance violated their Second Amendment rights when they were prevented from opening a gun store. They claimed that the ordinance was intended to keep legal gun dealers from operating in the county.

.. as I understand it , the way the ordinance was written basically would not allow any gun stores at all to be opened in Alameda County . When this happened , the 3 men [who wanted to open a gun store] sued . The district court dismissed the case . To say the least , a 3 – 0 ruling at the appeals level against the County was a shock ..

.. [h/t — WFB.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. the case still has a long way to go . Alameda Cty could well appeal this to the full 9th Circuit , which has over 30 judges . It is also extremely liberal . It is also a question of whether the SCOTUS would even take up the case ..

.. but the first victory is at hand . Now , what will the County do ? How will the State of California react ?? ..

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Our Nation ‘ s Capital has a Nasty Problem with its Gun Laws [#court case]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,May 30th,2016

.. they keep getting picked apart and rejected ..

.. this time the case is Grace v. D.C. . The plaintiff [Matt Grace] helps represents gun groups in D.C. on behalf of the Pink Pistols , a LGBTQ rights group dedicated to self – defense . Also , they got lucky on the choice of judges . They drew District Judge Richard Leon , who was a George W. Bush appointee . Then , how did the case turn out ?? ..

.. [h/t — VolokhConspiracy.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. for the most part , very well . Judge Leon ruled that D.C. must become a ” shall – issue ” jurisdiction , due to the precedent laid out in the Heller decision ..

The District’s Concealed Carry Scheme Is Likely Unconstitutional . . .

Strict Scrutiny Is Likely the Appropriate Level of Constitutional Scrutiny . . .

Because the Second Amendment’s text places the right to “keep” and to “bear” arms on equal footing, it follows that the right to “bear” arms for self-defense also lies at the core of the Second Amendment’s protections. Indeed, the purpose of the Second Amendment, as articulated by the Supreme Court, supports this conclusion. . . . The need for self-defense is, of course, greater outside the home than it is within it. . . . Furthermore, I note that plaintiffs here are the very type of “law-abiding, responsible citizens” whose Second Amendment rights are entitled to full protection under Heller.

The District’s “Good Reason” Requirement Imposes a Substantial Burden on Core Second Amendment Conduct. . . .

[T]he burden imposed by the statute at issue is [not] as insignificant as that of a “time, place, and manner restrictions” on speech that leave open “ample alternative channels of communication.” . . . Indeed, the requirement’s intended effect is to prohibit the typical citizen from carrying a firearm outside his or her home for several legitimate and constitutionally protected purposes — including when in dangerous neighborhoods, where the need for protection is as undeniable as it is unfortunate, or for self-defense from unanticipated, suddenly arising threats — notwithstanding the fact that he or she can successfully clear a multitude of qualifying hurdles. . . .

The District’s Concealed Carry Scheme Likely Fails Strict Scrutiny. . . .

[T]his Court agrees with defendants that the District’ s interest in public safety is implicated by people carrying guns in public, and certainly more so than when they keep guns within the confines of their homes. But, unfortunately for defendants, it does not automatically follow that the District has a compelling interest in reducing to the greatest extent possible the number of law-abiding, responsible citizens eligible to carry guns in public. Rather, when the District’s pursuit of public safety substantially burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, as issuing licenses only in certain self-defense situations does, it must at the very least prove that the policy achieves significant public safety gains and that those gains would not be achieved by a more inclusive licensing policy.

Defendants have failed to meet these criteria, and I am skeptical that they can. They waste much ink on the irrelevant contention that plaintiffs cannot prove that “more guns equals less crime.” In strict scrutiny review, however, defendants bear the burden of justifying their policy. More important still, defendants do not even attempt to explain why the District’s licensing scheme could not be broader and allow for more responsible, law-abiding citizens to obtain concealed carry permits for their legitimate self-defense needs, while simultaneously protecting public safety.

All they offer by way of reasoning is that all guns, even guns carried in self-defense, increase the incentive for criminals to carry guns, or increase the chances for accidents. But as plaintiffs rightly emphasize, “it is ‘not a permissible strategy’ to reduce the alleged negative effects of a constitutionally protected right by simply reducing the number of people exercising the right.”

Rather, the District’s licensing restrictions would only be narrowly tailored to achieve public safety if they were targeted at keeping guns away from the people who are likely to misuse them or situations where they are likely to be misused. On the record before me, I must agree with plaintiffs that defendants are unlikely to be able to show the “good reason” requirement is narrowly tailored to this end. . . .

Although the District’s “good reason” requirement likely does keep guns out of the hands of some people likely to misuse them, it does so only by keeping guns out of the hands of most people. . . . Because the District’s law is likely wholly disproportionate to the public interest it could legitimately serve, there is a strong likelihood plaintiffs will ultimately succeed in showing the law is not narrowly tailored and is, therefore, unconstitutional. . . .

Conclusion

In Heller, the Supreme Court’s unequivocally asserted that “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” The District’s understandable, but overly zealous, desire to restrict the right to carry in public a firearm for self-defense to the smallest possible number of law-abiding, responsible citizens is exactly the type of policy choice the Justices had in mind.

Because the right to bear arms includes the right to carry firearms for self-defense both in and outside the home, I find that the District’s “good reason” requirement likely places an unconstitutional burden on this right. Accordingly, I hereby GRANT plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction and enter an order that enjoins the District of Columbia from denying concealed carry licenses to applicants who meet all eligibility requirements other than the “good reason” requirement. . . .

Of course, I doubt that this will be the courts’ last word on the subject; I expect the decision will be stayed pending appeal to the District of Columbia Circuit, and from there it may well reach the Supreme Court, especially if the District of Columbia Circuit agrees that the D.C. carry restriction is unconstitutional. What will happen at the Supreme Court of course likely depends on what will happen in the political process in the next six months.

.. the District has a real problem . They will obviously want to appeal this one to the D.C. Appeals Court , which will give them precious time [and a presidential election] to stop it . However , the SCOTUS may well step in and take the case away from the appeals court , as it has done in several cases , recently ..

.. so , there is hope in D.C. for gun rights !! …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… People are Free to Ban Guns from their Businesses or Not [#gun rights]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,March 27th,2016

.. this is the case in Ohio .

.. people have the right to ban guns from the premises of their stores .

.. it makes common sense , and it is also Ohio state law ..

.. [h/t — TruthRevolt.org]..
.. [link] to the blog news ..

.. Kroger is , fortunately , standing up to the pressure of the mob ..

.. the radicals want to pressure businesses to ban guns , no matter what makes sense . Or , no matter what the stance of the law in any particular state . Well , Kroger is standing up to the pressure …

.. thank you , Kroger ! …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… the Virtues of Self – Defense [#gunfire]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Friday,November 13th,2015

.. what a armed individual can do for his community …

.. Mark Vaughn is a reserve county sheriff in Moore , Oklahoma . He is also the c.o.o. of his family ‘ s company , Vaughn Foods , a food processing company . When crisis came , he got his gun , and stepped up to the plate …

.. [h/t — theBlaze.com]..
.. [link] to the news article …

.. when an ex – con former employee went berserk , and murdered a customer service employee , and then attacked and wounded another person , he stepped up …

.. he went and got his gun ..

.. as a result , the perp is still alive , unfortunately . Vaughn saved probably countless other lives as a result of his actions . How ? He did it with his personal sidearm that he kept under lock and key in his office …

Posted in 2nd Amendment, gun rights, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Excellent News [#Peruta v Cty of San Diego]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,November 2nd,2015

.. I thought that the State of California would try to pull this stunt ..

.. what I was thoroughly surprised at was that the Full 9th Circuit dismissed their antics ….

.. [h/t — TruthRevolt.org]..
.. [link] to the legal opinion // news …

.. the state never thought or realized that San Diego County would not challenge the case , or the original ruling . When the County stood down , the state screwed around and did nothing …

.. now , the State of California tried to intervene . It realized that the Peruta ruling applied to the entire state , as well as the state of Hawaii [the 2 states in the 9th Circuit] . They would then become a ” shall issue ” state when they did not intend to do so …

.. the full 9th Circuit shut the State of California down . As much as they may have agreed with the State [philosophically] , procedurally , the Circuit knew that the State royally screwed up and did not challenge the decision when they should have . Now , they are stuck with the decision …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Earth to D.C. [#pro gun rights]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,August 7th,2014

.. what part of Palmer v DC do you not understand ? ..

.. from the initial flurry of news out of the District , it appears they need to have someone hit them upside the head with a baseball bat in order to get the message …

.. [h/t — TruthRevolt.org]..
.. [link] to the news piece ..

.. it appears that the D.C. City Council is filled with a bunch of anti – gun rights radicals . Some are as bad as the Chairman of the Council Judiciary Committee , who is as bad as it gets ..

.. it also appears that D.C. is going to follow the example of New York Stae and New York City . that State is infamous for its Williams Act , which is basically a ” may issue ” measure . That will not fly here . The Williams Act is notorious for being next – to – impossible to get a gun permit …

.. if you follow the text of Palmer , you will see quotes from Heller , McDonald , Moore v Madigan , and Peruta v Cty of San Diego . That makes it a very , very strong pro – gun rights ruling . It makes Palmer a ” shall – issue ” ruling , in all likelihood . If the D.C. City Council does not get the message , someone else just might do the drafting . Say , like Judge Skilling himself , or Congress . His Lordship would just love that …

..Further research on Judge Skilling shows him to be a moderate conservative . He is familiar with the District , contrary to popular belief . He served for many years on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court [or , F.I.S.C.] , and sat for many cases on the D.C. bench . That is how he got Palmer , due to the game – playing by the judges on the D.C. bench ..

.. there is obviously more to come on this dandy . Stay tuned ….

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Stupid Move , Maryland [#gun rights]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,August 4th,2014

.. incredibly stupid move ..

.. you chase one of the best and brightest of Europe ‘ s gun makers [and their American ops] out of the state …

.. [h/t — whiskeyTangoFoxtrot]..
.. [link] to the blog post …

.. are you maniacs so anti – gun that you want to take away every gun ? It appears so …

Posted in 2nd Amendment, gun rights, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Great News on Gun Rights [#Peoples Republic of D.C.]

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,August 3rd,2014

.. yes , it is free .

.. our nation ‘ s capital is now no longer a gun free zone ..

.. for many years , the District of Columbia has had one of , if not the fiercest gun grab laws in the country . You simply could not carry a gun on the streets of the District for ANY reason , for more than 50 years ..

.. [h/t — LegalInsurrection]..
.. [link] to the legal opinion ..

.. it will be interesting to see what the D.C. city government decides to do . This case is in federal court , not the captive courts of the District , and would go up to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals , where both Heller and McDonald originated . I think that the government wants to appeal this , and maintain their precious gun ban , but the gun grab groups may well be having second thoughts ..

.. First , this one has to go to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals . It now has a more stacked 7to4 democrap majority , but Heller and McDonald are binding precedent . They just may well try to mess with them, surprisingly enough . Doing so , though , would piss off the Supremes ….

.. Heller and McDonald were decided 6 to 3 , not 5 to 4  , so they are not slim majorities . The gun – grab groups may not want to risk setting a nationwide case precedent . Drake v. Jerejian might be one case . Moore v Madigan might be another case . Palmer just may be a case were  the gun grab groups are stupid enough to push it up the way , and have it blow up in their faces  ..

.. especially when the definition of ” bear ” arms comes from , not a majority opinion , but a dissent , and of all people , from Justice Ginsberg in a dissent in another case …

Posted in 2nd Amendment, constitutional opinion, legal opinion, legal question, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Interesting News in Gun Rights [#Palmer v DC]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,July 29th,2014

.. Palmer v DC is , of course , the great victory for gun rights in the nation ‘ s capitol …

.. Palmer was brought to finally bring down the idiotic gun restrictions in our Nation ‘ s Capitol . The Heller case brought them down , in theory , but the DC government played dirty with their local laws . They passed local laws so onerous and disgusting that it was impossible for anyone to legally carry a gun outside the home …

.. [h/t — HotAir.com]..
.. [link] to the blog news post ..

.. now , Palmer changes all of that . It is also interesting that none of the local federal district court judges heard the case . The case went to a senior judge , and one from upstate New York . The D.C. government had to groan at that prospect , and they were right . They lost …

.. What happens now ? An appeal to the D.C. Circuit (that is the normal appeals circuit that would hear the case ) is in the offing . The anti – gun rights groups , though are scared to death , either way . The appeals decision in Moore v Madigan in the 7th Circuit is hanging over their collective heads …

.. So , win or lose , an appeal would set up a conflict between circuits , one that the US Supreme Court would love to get its hands on ….

.. now , all sorts of DC and federal agencies are going to have to come up with firearms policies …

Posted in 2nd Amendment, gun rights, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… from the Killer ‘ s own Words [Santa Barbara shooting tragedy]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,June 5th,2014

.. the N.R.A. puts it best …

NRA (good guy with gun)

.. [h/t — TruthRevolt]..
.. [link] to the blog news ..

.. Some will use the killer ‘ s name . I will not do so …

Posted in 2nd Amendment, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Nice One , Dummies [Bloomberg goof up]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,May 6th,2014

.. when you talk about gun , at least you should know something about how they work ..

.. unfortunately for former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg , his latest anti – gun effort has , to say the least , ” backfired …. ”

.. [h/t — gunssavelives.net]..
.. [link] to the picture / blog news ..

gun blooper (bloomberg group)

.. notice something about the photo above ? I thought that you would …. the bullet in the photo / poster still has its casing on … duh !! … nice going , dummies ! …

.. if you are going to put out a poster or photo about guns and / or gun safety , at least try to idiot – proof it … nice going , dummies …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Beautiful Way to Put It , Sheriff [David Clarke]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,May 4th,2014

.. evidently , Milwaukee County [yes , that is Wisconsin] sheriff David Clarke is one very fervent advocate for our gun rights and the Second Amendment …. here is his version of how the Second Amendment should be updated …

.. [h/t — TruthRevolt]..

.. [link] to the blog news

Milwaukee Sheriff David A. Clarke spoke at the NRA convention this weekend and called for a 7-word addition to the 2nd Amendment. His addition sounded like this:


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed – Keep your hands off our guns, dammit.

His addition was in response to former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ book “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” in which Stevens called for a 5-word addition to the 2nd Amendment. Stevens’ addition was “the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.”

In his speech, Clarke said, ““My reaction was, What! Just what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ does Justice Stevens not understand?”

Clarke became a well-known figure in the gun world when last year he took out a radio ad urging Milwaukee residents to learn how to properly use a firearm to defend themselves while waiting for the police to arrive.

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

.. Oh , Joy ? … Fast and Furious Guns are coming Our Way …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,April 23rd,2014

.. according to Bob Owens .

.. not only are hundreds of Mexicans dying because of the gun – trafficking antics from the scheme of F & F , the idiots in the Federal Government are making things worse …. much worse . The cartels are starting to move in on our side of the border , and they are bringing F & F guns with them …

.. [h/t — BearingArms]..
.. [link] to the news post …

.. guess what that means ? Yep , innocent Americans are going to end up dying because of the lax (try , non – existent) border security [or , lack thereof] and those damn Fast & Furious guns …

Posted in congressional oversight, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… DemoCraps gone Crazy [on Gun Rights]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,April 20th,2014

.. yes , there are Dems that have lost their marbles ..

.. now these dummies want to confiscate your right to buy weapons (from overseas) . It is easily clear that arms manufacturers may be regulated , but they cannot be stopped from doing business in this country . It gets more interesting when one is dealing with importing weapons from overseas …

.. the buyer and the importer can be regulated , but they cannot be stopped from doing business . The question is from the other end . The Second Amendment stops , unfortunately , at the waters ‘ edge , as I best understand it ..

.. [h/t — TruthRevolt]..
.. [link] to the blog post …

.. these loons want to ban the import of weapons over a certain size . I think that the loons have lost it trying to stop people and businesses trying to import weapons . Unless those weapons are specifically , legally , and constitutionally banned , then you cannot ban them …

Posted in 2nd Amendment, constitutional opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… You Participate in Public Discourse …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Friday,April 11th,2014

.. and , what does it get you ?

.. a suspension from your community college …

.. [h/t — theGatewayPundit]..
.. [link] to the blogpost …

.. it seems that two neighbouring states , New York and Connecticut , are two of the most anti – gun states in the Union . New York ‘ s Williams Act [just over a century old] is infamous in gun rights circles . It makes getting a permit just to own a gun next to impossible . Connecticut is almost as bad …

.. this young man , Nicolas Saucier confronted gun – grabbing Connecticut Governor Dan Milloy [who , himself is in deep political trouble] at an event at his school , Asanuntuck Community College . Well , the authoritties at his school did not like it one bit . So , what happened ?

.. bye – bye . Saucier was suspended from school . I wonder how those folks feel about a lawsuit from the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education , or F.I.R.E. . I would think that Saucier would have grounds for a civil rights action against his school , along with being transferred to the school of his choice ….

Posted in constitutional opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… More Detail on Baker v. Kealoha [gun rights case] …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Saturday,April 5th,2014

.. this one is another gun rights stunner .

.. yea , it is out of the state of Hawaii . Believe it or not . However , the case was not filed against the state ; it was filed against Honalulu County . If that sounds familiar , then you got it … it was the same tactic that was pulled off in Peruta v Cty of San Diego ….

.. in both cases , nicely done …

.. [h/t — Guns.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..
.. [linkBaker-v.-Kealoha (Hawaii — gun rights) Opinion] to the court decision .. it is not as dry or indecipherable as one might think …

Aloha: Federal court strikes down Hawaii’s ‘may issue’ practice

Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain along with Judge Consuelo M. Callahan found the Honolulu Police Chief's policy on CCW permits, not consistent with "protected Second Amendment activity.” (Photo credit: The Recorder)

In a decision released Thursday by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in the case of Baker v. Kealoha, the court followed the lead of the recent Peruta case to declare Hawaii’s restrictions on firearms carry unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The case was heard by the same trio of judges who sat on the earlier Peruta and Richards cases in California, which challenged the state’s restrictive ‘may issue’ policies that required concealed carry permit applicants to show “good cause” to warrant a permit. The judges, Diarmuid O’Scannlain, Sidney Thomas and Consuelo Callahan, heard Baker in December 2013 and issued their findings Thursday.

“In Peruta, we concluded that the Second Amendment provides a responsible, law-abiding citizen with the right to carry an operable handgun outside the home for the purpose of self-defense,” wrote O’Scannlain for the two-judge majority decision in a memorandum.

“In light of our holding in Peruta, the district court made an error of law when it concluded that the Hawaii statutes did not implicate protected Second Amendment activity.”

Thomas, who also dissented on the Peruta case, chose to do so on the Baker decision as well, citing that the Hawaii case came to the 9th Circuit via a different procedural process than its predecessor. He also noted that, “there is simply no justification for a broadside interference with state law enforcement” by the court.

Hawaii has some of the strictest concealed carry laws in the country. In 2012, just four private citizens applied for a concealed carry license in the city and county of Honolulu, while one applied in Maui County, and all five were denied at the discretion of the respective county police chief.

This case is one of plaintiff Christopher Baker, a resident of Honolulu County who applied for and was denied a concealed carry permit by the Honolulu Police Chief without reason or explanation.

Baker then filed suit against Chief of Police Louis Kealoha for denial of his Second Amendment rights. The case was denied by a district court and then appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit, who issued its findings Thursday. Baker was represented by Hawaii based attorneys Richard Holcomb and Alan Beck.

“I think it’s promising. Everything is dependent now upon making Peruta a filed decision,” said Chuck Michel, senior partner and CEO of Michel and Associates, the firm responsible for the win in the Peruta case earlier this year, to Guns.com.

Following that decision in February, county sheriffs across California started to reevaluate how they issue firearms permits and qualify “good cause.”

The decision in that case was used in a precedent in the later suit of Richards v. Prieto earlier this month.

“If Peruta stays in there, Hawaii will have to change its program,” explained Michel.

Even though Baker was an unpublished decision closed by memo, similar to how the Richards case was concluded, and cannot be cited in other cases, it is something of a validation of Peruta that improves the chances that California and now Hawaii could move to a ‘shall issue’ concealed carry standard for good.

“The most interesting part is that the Yolo County Sheriff, Prieto, has asked for en banc review in the Richards case,” advised Michel. “I expect that the defendant in the Hawaii case, the Honolulu Police Chief [Kealoha], that they are going to ask for en banc review too. At this point en banc review is inevitable because there is so many ways for it to happen.”

Others agree that the battle in Hawaii is still very much uphill.

“Hawaii’s Attorney General and law enforcement leaders will oppose shall issue as will our current liberal Legislature,” Dr. Max Cooper, president of the Hawaii Rifle Association told Guns.com Friday. “It is time for more people to apply for permits and another hearing on a shall issue bill in the 2015 Hawaii Legislature.”

“There is still politics in this, so people need to be pushing their issuing authorities to adopt the Peruta decision and start issuing permits and people should go on down and apply,” explained Michel.

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Hawaii is Now a ” Shall Issue ” state …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Friday,March 28th,2014

.. for now , at least ..

.. the 9th Circuit is going to want to get its hands on this case , too . It was handled by the same panel of appeals judges that heard Peruta v Cty of San Diego . This case (Baker v Kealoha) hits one of the toughest states in the country , and by far the toughest state in the West for gun rights …

.. with the gun rights case in the ease in New Jersey (Drake v. Jerejian) now on the U.S. Supreme Court docket , the appeals judges on the 9th Circuit are blocked from trying to do anything , especially anything funny . The Supremes keep their eye on the 9th Circuit for a very good reason ‘ normally it is because of their antics on death penalty cases . In this case , it is a different subject area , but the same habit …

.. [h/t — NationalReview]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. trust me , the Dems in Hawaii are not going to like this one bit . If it were a state issue , then there could be impeachment proceedings against the state supreme court judges . Alsas , for them , they are federal appeals court judges , so they cannot be touched..

.. I am willing to bet that this case was targeted at a county , as it was in California . It would force the statewide folks [the Governor and the AG] to keep their hands off of the case , and force the county Prosecutor to deal with it on his own … Nice tactic , and smart . It effectively forces ” shall issue ” on Hawaii through the backdoor …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… ObamaCraps gone wild [ATF] …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,March 20th,2014

.. story , courtesy of the Libertarian Republic …

.. gun store finds loophole in law , allows them to sell 80% complete AR15 rifle , legally , without background checks …

.. gun can be easily completed by buyers . Government is embarrassed , big time , by loophole . Government tries to strike back …

.. tries to get and seize records and inventory of gun store . Before government acts , gun store strikes back , gains court order to block government from harassing gun store , business , gun buyers …

.. video included …

.. [h/t — theLibertairian Republic]..
.. [link] to the news report …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… I was Right [9th Circuit Gun Case (Peruta v Cty of San Diego)]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Friday,February 21st,2014

.. I picked up on this article , and this one comes from another legal blog that I like to follow , entitled the Volokh Conspiracy . It is well worth your while to look at and sample …

.. this 9th Circuit case is going to get wrapped into the New Jersey gun rights case , and both will make it to the United States Supreme Court . The full 9th Circuit might want to try to go ” en banc , ” but the Supremes will beat them to the punch , and take up the other case … it thus blocks any move against this one ….

.. Also , this one is usable in the circuit against Hawaii and California ‘ s much more odious gun laws . The district court judges may or may not respect it , but they have to follow it . Much more so when a 6-3 ruling comes down overturning the New Jersey gun law …

.. [h/t — Volokh Conspiracy]..

.. [link] to the blog post ..

Growth chart of right to carry

David Kopel

The chart below shows how Shall Issue laws for the licensed carrying of firearms for self-defense have become the American norm.

As of 1986, slightly less than 10% of the U.S. population lived in states where there were objective and fair procedures for the issuance of concealed handgun carry permits. About a third of the population lived in states where there was not even a process to apply for a permit. The majority of the population lived in states where issuance in permits was highly discretionary, and many issuing authorities refused to issue to ordinary law-abiding citizens.

By 2014, the percentage of people living in the Red states, with no possibility of even applying for a permit, has declined to zero. Illinois’ 2013 reforms ended the problem of states not even having a process theoretically available. (The problem persists in DC, but this chart is only for states.)

As of January 2014, about 2/3 of the population lived in a Green state, with a Shall Issue licensing statute.

Purple states (concealed carry is allowed without need for a permit) have increased from Vermont only in 1986 to several states comprising about 4% of the population. Currently, the Purple states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont, and Wyoming (residents only).

The Yellow states (arbitrary permitting) were the national norm in 1986, but they are now outliers. Unless the 9th Circuits’ decision in Peruta is overturned, California and Hawaii will have to become Shall Issue states.

This will leave Yellow states at less than 1/7 of the U.S. population.

Moreover, some parts of the Yellow “may issue” states are already issuing permits as if they were Green. In New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Delaware, permits are issued by local authorities, and in some jurisdictions, local authorities issue in a manner consistent with respect for the right to bear arms. Permits are rarely issued in Maryland, and are extremely rare in New Jersey.

The six hold-out states are increasingly isolated. Not counting tiny Rhode Island and Delaware, the four larger hold-out states each are all bordered mainly by Green states. (Mass. by upper New England and Connecticut; NY by Penn., Vt., and Conn.; NJ by Penn.; Maryland by Penn., Vir., and WV). It should also be noted that in two of Delaware’s three counties, permit issuance is often approximately what a Green state would do.

Rhode Island is sui generis. There are two licensing statutes: a “may issue” statute for the Attorney General, and a “shall issue” state for municipalities. Getting a municipality to follow the statute and issue a permit may require great persistence, and even that is not always successful.

It is interesting to compare the above chart to the map showing the demise of laws against “sodomy” (oral or anal sex), between 1970 and 2003. On the eve of Lawrence v. Texas, there were still 13 states which had sodomy statutes.

Thanks to Rob Vance for gathering the data and producing the chart.

David Kopel
David Kopel is Research Director, Independence Institute, Denver, Colorado; Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C; and Adjunct professor of advanced constitutional law, Denver University, Sturm College of Law. He is author of 15 books and 90 scholarly journal articles.

Posted in constitutional opinion, legal opinion, legal strategy, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Illinois Will Have Concealed – Carry , Whether Governor Quinn Likes It or Not …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,July 4th,2013

Also , the Gun Grabber crowd is scared [bleep]less to appeal Moore v Madigan to the United States Supreme Court

.. Concealed Carry law is coming to Illinois . Their legilature may not be wild about it . I will guarantee you that their current governor , Pat Quinn , does not like the idea one bit . It explains some of his recent actions , described below …

Quinn writes stricter rules into concealed carry bill

Ray Long and Monique Garcia

11:05 PM CDT, July 2, 2013

Gov. Pat Quinn on Tuesday made sweeping changes to a bill that would allow concealed guns to be carried in public, writing in tougher regulations he deemed “common sense” amid staunch criticism from lawmakers who say they are poised to overturn his efforts when they return to Springfield next week.

Flanked by gun control advocates during a veto ceremony, Quinn argued the legislation lawmakers sent him would harm public safety by letting people carry as many guns as they wanted in places they shouldn’t be allowed.

“I think this is an example of a situation in Illinois where the legislature passed a bill in a hurried way at the inspiration of the National Rifle Association, contrary to the safety of the people of Illinois,” Quinn said after announcing the changes. “We don’t need the NRA telling us how to keep people safe in Illinois.”

The move sets up a showdown in Springfield between the Democratic governor and state lawmakers who overwhelmingly backed a rare and carefully constructed compromise on the often volatile issue of gun regulations despite ideological, cultural and geographic divisions. Lawmakers were trying to beat a federal appeals court deadline to set up rules allowing people to carry concealed weapons after judges tossed out Illinois’ last-in-the-nation ban in December.

It took sponsoring Rep. Brandon Phelps less than an hour to file a motion to override the governor’s changes. Phelps said Quinn’s actions were more about politics than policy, contending Quinn is seeking to build support among anti-gun voters in the Chicago area ahead of what could be a tough re-election bid next year.

“This puts us in a very precarious situation where those who choose to override him so that we’re compliant with the (7th) Circuit Court of Appeals reject some of the things he pointed out that are legitimate concerns,” said Rep. Andre Thapedi, D-Chicago, who said he supports an override. “Had he raised some of these issues earlier, they could have been incorporated into the bill.”

Quinn’s office argued that the governor fought for a number of changes while the bill was being drafted, only to be hampered by negotiators friendly with gun rights advocates.

Looking ahead, lawmakers return to the Capitol on July 9 and Quinn faces a tough fight given the overwhelming support the legislation received in both chambers. To override Quinn’s changes, the effort would need the support of three-fifths of lawmakers in both chambers. That’s 71 members in the House and 36 in the Senate.

The measure passed with 89 votes in the House and 45 in the Senate, meaning as many as 18 House legislators and nine senators could choose to stand with Quinn and his changes to the bill still would be rejected. That’s a tough feat for any governor, not to mention one that has routinely been criticized for issuing demands to lawmakers without working to first build support.

Lawmakers also could move to accept the governor’s suggestions, but that seems unlikely to happen, even though it puts some legislators in the position of taking a tough vote against what gun control groups say are needed public safety changes to the bill.

“He might have had some good ideas,” said Rep. Jack Franks, D-Marengo. “But if he doesn’t engage in the process, he’s not relevant.”

Quinn appealed to the public for help, encouraging people to reach out to their lawmakers over the Independence Day weekend to demand they support his plan.Last fall, Quinn launched a similar effort when he asked the public to talk about public employee pension reform during Thanksgiving dinner. A pension reform bill has yet to reach the governor’s desk.

“I think it is important in the coming week that people across our state have the opportunity to look carefully at what the legislature has proposed, and what I have changed in this bill to make it safer for the people,” Quinn said. “We ask the people of Illinois to tell their legislators, ‘please support the common sense changes that I have made in this bill.'”

Specifically, Quinn recommended that citizens be allowed to carry only one concealed weapon that can carry a maximum of 10 rounds of ammunition — a major change from the legislation which puts in place no limits on how many guns or rounds could be carried.

Quinn also wants to ban guns from all places that serve alcohol, not just businesses in which booze makes up the majority of sales, as is currently written in the bill. He also wants to clarify language to make sure guns be completely concealed instead of partially, saying a gun peeking out of a pocket or purse could incite chaos.

In addition, the governor wants to give store and business owners more authority to ban guns from being carried on their property. Under the measure passed by lawmakers, guns would be allowed on the private property unless a sign was posted prohibiting them. Quinn wants to reverse that and ban guns from being carried on the private property unless an owner posts a sign giving “express permission.”

Quinn also wants employers to have more leeway to stop guns from being carried into the workplace and to require those carrying guns to immediately inform police they are carrying a gun if questioned. And he wants to strip out a provision that would give cities only 10 days after the state law takes effect to enact a local assault weapons ban, saying local officials shouldn’t have their hands tied when determining public safety needs.

The Illinois State Rifle Association ripped Quinn, saying he is attempting to severely restrict how and where citizens may carry firearms.

“Self defense isn’t some sort of carnival game where the house stacks the odds against the good guy,” said Richard Pearson, the group’s executive director, in a statement. “We’re talking about defending the lives of everyday Illinoisans here. The new restrictions appearing in Quinn’s amendatory veto encumber good citizens to the point where carrying concealed becomes pointless — which is exactly the intention of the governor and his friends in the gun control movement.”

 

[-] amendatory veto

an amendatory veto is an unusual bird . Most vetoes are the bill itself , line items , or budget items . this one allows a governor (in 7 states , matter of fact)

to amend bill , with veto protection . It could drastically overhaul a bill , and if the governor has protection , then his / her veto would be upheld , and the bill would be adopted , as amended .

Where things can be confusing , is that in Illinois , you cannot legally carry a gun on the streets , outside of your own home . That is the essence of what the court case (Moore) seeks to overhaul . The bill does allow guns to be finally carried on the streets , but the debate is over concealment , and concealed – carry .

[-] limits on guns

[-] limits on rounds

these 2 together — Quinn in essence wants to change the law , when the gun has

then been concealed , and relieve people , or limit their rights .

[-] where a gun can be taken

related to booze , and where booze is sold

[-] local assault weapon ban(s)

what an assault weapon is

He is taking off the limits on ” assault weapon ” bans on localities . It is supposed to be state-wide policy , one way or the other .

[-] concealment

none

partial

total

[-] gun possession on private property

allowed , unless banned

quinn reverses [banned , unless allowed]

LEC here — right now , this battle is over the bill . It is a carefully crafted compromise . The Democrats are not wild about the subject , but , pun intended , they have a “gun  to their head . ” They have found out that the 7th Federal Circuit court is not kidding around . Neither is Pat Quinn .

.. A veto override is likely , reinstating the original legislation , and negating Governor Quinn ‘ s proposed changes . Even with the likely override , the big question is , will the Appeals Court be O.K. with it ? They may not .

.. Also , the gun – grabbing crowd is scared to death over a possible appeal to the United States Supreme Court . If Moore v Madigan were to be appealed , and it would be upheld (by 6 to 3 , as is likely) , that type of precedent would do all sorts of damage to gun restrictions at the state level (such as Illinois ‘) . New York ‘ s Williams Act , and its recent S.A.F.E. law would , in all likelyhood , be swept away .

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »