Articles published in February, 2010
On Friday, Utah Governor Gary Herbert finally signed into law SB11, the Utah State-Made Firearms Protection Act. The bill passed both the House and the Senate, then sat on Herbert’s desk for 10 days while the governor debated whether he would sign or veto the bill. Had the governor neither signed nor vetoed the bill by Saturday, it would have automatically gone into effect as law. Herbert said the decision to sign came after careful review of the potential fallout from the controversial legislation.
“There are times when the state needs to push back against continued encroachment from the federal government. Sending the message that we will stand up for a proper balance between the state and federal government is a good thing,” the governor said. “But in these challenging economic times, when Utah families continue to struggle and our Legislature must account for every dollar it spends, we must also be thoughtful about the cost of that message.”
SB11 creates statute that allows guns and ammunition manufactured and sold in Utah to be regulated by the state of Utah, not by the federal government. At its heart, SB11 is a states’ rights bill, not a weapons bill. It lashes out at the federal government and attempts to regain some of the control and power the federal government has usurped from the states through overreaching use of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Senator Margaret Dayton, the bill’s sponsor, said the bill is all about control. But asserting control will likely come with a constitutional challenge. The bill was modeled after Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act, which passed last year, and has since gone into litigation. Litigation was brought against the federal government by a private group who asserts that current interpretation of constitutional law, as it regards to the Interstate Commerce Clause, is incorrect. The federal government has filed a motion to dismiss the matter, which is awaiting a hearing. Tennessee is the only other state that has adopted a similar law.
Governor Herbert has consulted with the state Attorney General and other legal advisers, who assured him that the state can take a stand on this issue of controlling intrastate commerce without incurring onerous legal expenses.
“The attorney general has assured me that, should a legal challenge be filed against the state, his office can take a variety of actions to ensure the defense of this legislation will have a minimal cost to the people of Utah,” said Herbert. “I am satisfied that Utah can stand confidently with other states that are taking a stand against the federal government’s overreach in this area.”
One small step for Wyoming, one giant leap for gun rights
Wyoming is on the verge of passing two key pieces of gun rights legislation.
HB-95, The Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act, and HB-113 “Alaska-style” permit-less concealed carry, are facing an up-or-down vote before the Wyoming State House of Representatives.
On Tuesday, National Association for Gun Rights Director of Operations Luke O’Dell was on hand to testify before the Wyoming State House Judiciary Committee on behalf of both HB-95, the Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act, and the HB-113, “Alaska-style” permit less carry.
You may be asking yourself, “Why do I care, I don’t live in Wyoming?”
It’s simple: The higher the bar is set, the more pro-gun pieces of legislation pass across the country, the stronger the gun rights movement gets.
Passage of permit-less “Alaska-style” concealed carry in Wyoming would be a huge step forward toward true firearms freedom. Only in Alaska and Vermont can law-abiding citizens carry concealed firearms for their own protection without getting Big Brother’s approval. Should Wyoming join their ranks, the right-to-carry will have taken a major step forward.
Additionally, Wyoming’s Firearms Freedom Act was written with much stronger language than similar legislation in other states. Wyoming’s bill included penalties for state law enforcement enforcing Federal laws which contradict Wyoming state law.
I’m happy to say that Wyoming Gun Owners, a partner of ours, has been leading the charge for both pieces of legislation.
Now it’s our turn to help out.
If you live in Wyoming, or know someone who does, please have them contact their Wyoming legislator and tell them to vote “Yes” on HB-95 and HB-113.
You can find contact information for Wyoming State Legislators here.
If you’re not from Wyoming, go ahead and drop them a line anyways. Tell them that you support their efforts to advance freedom in Wyoming.
And if you’d like to help Wyoming Gun Owners pass this legislation by making a donation, click here.
This from the NRA-ILA “NRA has always supported applying the Second Amendment to every American. All law-abiding Americans have the fundamental, individual right to self-protection no matter where they live.”
Lets start of by calling this what it is sour grapes. This particular ruling came down by NO effort by the NRA. In fact they had nothing to do with the case. This ruling was brought to us thanks to the SAF Second Amendment Foundation. So NRA nothing to do with it, SAF be praised for it.
Now on to ripping the statement apart. First of all they say “NRA has always supported applying the Second Amendment to every American.” Which is what it was intended for. Every single American no matter what. 200 years ago, every single person could and did own a firearm. Great however these hypocritical moron’s go on to add the final sentence. “All law-abiding Americans have the fundamental, individual right to self-protection no matter where they live.”
There was no intent from the founders to prevent “criminals” from owning firearms. Especially since they them selves were considered criminals by the king of England. Not to mention all the laws they have supported to take firearms out of the hands of the so called “law abiding”. National firearm acts of 1934, 1981, and so on. So lets just call them what they are lying hypocritical fools.
Did I ever mention I HATE being lied to, thought a fool, or considered ignorant?
Washington State supreme court ruled on the side of reason visa vie cun rights and the second amendment
Thursday the Washington State Supreme court rulled that the Second Amendment does actually incorporate to the states. Basically the founds of our great nation intended that the second amendment WAS intended for the states not only the federal government. So the second amendment was meant to apply to the to the people and the states. This ruling is thanks to the Second Amendment Foundation. Good job guys.
an Idaho lawmaker wants Washington D.C. to keep its mitts – and its laws – off guns and ammunition manufactured in his state
In yet another shot from Idaho over the federal government’s bow, an Idaho lawmaker wants Washington D.C. to keep its mitts – and its laws – off guns and ammunition manufactured in his state.
Rep. Dick Harwood, from St. Maries, introduced the “Idaho Firearms Freedom Act” Thursday in the House State Affairs Committee.
Montana passed a similar bill last year, saying guns made and kept within its borders are exempt from national gun laws. Gun advocates sued in federal court to validate the law, while U.S. attorneys want the case to be dismissed.
Meanwhile, Tennessee passed the same law and legislators in a couple dozen other states are considering following suit.
Harwood, who comes from rural northern Idaho where suspicions of federal agents runs high among some, called this a “sovereignty issue.”
You decide and post your thoughts.
Gun rights advocates have a California police detective in their crosshairs after he apparently posted comments on Facebook advocating that “open carry” supporters should be shot.
East Palo Alto Police Det. Rod Tuason apparently posted the remarks on his Facebook page in response to a friend’s status update, which suggested that gun advocates who carry unloaded weapons openly — which is legal in California — should do so in places like “Oakland, Richmond and East Palo Alto” and not just in “hoity toity” cities.
“Haha we had one guy last week try to do it!” Tuason replied. “He got proned out [laid face-down on the ground] and reminded where he was at and that turds will jack him for his gun in a heartbeat!”
Several comments later, the detective suggested shooting the gun rights advocates, some of whom have carried firearms openly in recent weeks in California’s Bay Area, particularly at Starbucks locations.
“Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night!” Tuason wrote. “Should’ve pulled the AR out and prone them all out! And if one of them makes a furtive movement … 2 weeks off!!!” — referring to the modified duty, commonly known as desk duty, that typically follows any instance in which an officer is investigated for firing his weapon.
Those comments caught the attention of a California attorney and blogger, as well as a Virginia man who started a Facebook group calling for Tuason’s termination.
John Taylor, whose Facebook group had 54 members as of midday Friday, said the
Facebook thread confirmed gun owners’ worst fears.
“Any sworn officer who suggests shooting law-abiding citizens for exercising their most basic constitutional rights deserves the full wrath of America’s gun owners,” Taylor told FoxNews.com. “It’s an affront.”
California’s Penal Code makes it illegal to carry concealed weapons without a county-issued license. But it is legal to carry an unloaded weapon in plain view in a holster. In most cases, it is illegal for an unconcealed weapon to be loaded.
Taylor, of Arlington, Va., who has a concealed weapons permit in his home state, said he planned to write a letter to the East Palo Alto Police Department demanding that Tuason be fired.
“The targeting, harassment and intimidation of law-abiding citizens who are peacefully agitating for their rights by a police officer is an abomination to the Constitution, and is in fact the exact reason our Founding Fathers created the Second Amendment,” Taylor said. “Police officers who think they are going to get between law-abiding Americans and their Second Amendment rights are going to find themselves in the line of fire.”
Tuason’s comments were first noticed by California attorney Kevin Thomason, who posted a screen grab of the detective’s remarks on his Web site on Sunday.
“[Tuason] didn’t realize that actual PRO-GUN people also read Facebook,” Thomason wrote. “Amazingly, he posted the following comment about law abiding gun owners on a friend’s page. Basically, he’s saying ‘prone them out’ (face down on the ground), and if anyone moves, kill them. I don’t make this crap up.”
Thomason, a member of the National Rifle Association, wrote that Tuason’s comments were “worth a call” to the East Palo Alto City Council, as well as to his superior officers.
Tuason, who has since removed his Facebook profile, did not return messages seeking comment on Friday. He is reportedly being investigated by the police department’s professional standards division regarding the Facebook remarks.
East Palo Alto Police Sgt. Rod Norris said he was unable to comment on the matter, but Capt. Carl Estelle told the San Jose Mercury News that police officials must be careful not to violate Tuason’s First Amendment rights, since the comments appeared on his personal Web site.
“In no way are his personal comments reflective of any policies or procedures here at the department nor does he speak for the police department,” Estelle told the newspaper.
The NRA issued a release today saying that it supports a ban on ammunition sales in the U.S..”It’s a fact”, said a spokesman, “guns don’t kill people, bullets do”. The NRA has long been of the opinion that any restrictions on gun ownership would violate the constitutional right to bear arms. “Nowhere in the constitution does it give the right to bear ammo, so we’re fine with a ban on bullets”, said Arnold “Pop gun” Gunnarson, at an NRA conference.” We still get to keep our weapons, which is all we really wanted in the first place.”. Some of the membership were a little reluctant to endorse the NRA’s stance. These are generally considered to be fringe elements. ” Those guys are kind of crazy anyway. Who would want a bunch of people running around with loaded guns? They might shoot somebody”, said Gunnarson.
This is from our friends at JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
One wonders if NRA members should be proud of their organization’s apparent newfound fiduciary conservatism. The so-called “premier” gun rights organization has now managed to finagle its way into the spotlight after someone else’s sweat and money rented the hall, built the stage, and set up the sound system.
NRA lawyers are now second guessing pro-gun lawyer Alan Gura’s expertise. And this, after Gura masterminded and navigated the vitally crucial landmark Heller case to a victorious decision in favor of the Second Amendment.
The NRA’s leadership must have looked at each other and realized that (coming so close on the coat tails of Heller) McDonald actually had a good chance at victory. I can just hear them clinking their drinks in toast and chuckling: “Gura will likely win this one too. Let’s get on board now!”
All that might not be so bad, but look who the NRA has hired as their head counsel in this wedge into McDonald: Paul Clement, the very attorney who advocated against our gun rights in Heller!
That’s right, Clement led the federal government’s charge to protect the Washington D.C. ban on handgun ownership!
Here are some of Paul Clements espousals during Heller. These are from Clement’s oral arguments to SCOTUS and from the written brief filed in the case. He penned or uttered these little nuggets of liberty loving patriotism.
“In our view it makes a world of difference, Justice Ginsburg, because we certainly take the position, as we have since consistently since 2001, that the Federal firearm statutes can be defended as constitutional, and that would be consistent with this kind of intermediate scrutiny standard that we propose.”
Now take a look at this one:
“The Second Amendment talks about "the right to bear arms", not just "a right to bear arms". And that preexisting always coexisted with reasonable regulations of firearms.”
Don’t you love the word “reasonable”? It sound so…so reasonable! Unfortunately what Clement is talking about here is a ban on the possession of a handgun in your own home for your own self defense!
And here’s an intriguingly slippery one for you:
“Absolutely, Justice Ginsburg, and just… I mean, to give you a clear example, we would take the position that the kind of plastic guns or guns that are specifically designed to evade metal detectors that are prohibited by Federal law are not "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment and are not protected at all.”
Hmmm…. Very lawyerly. I’m not going to comment on that one. Just read it a couple of times for your own smell test.
And now a couple of tidbits from Paul Clement’s written brief in Heller:
"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulations are permitted by the Second Amendment."
How does “shall not be infringed” somehow sneak past this guy’s obviously impressive intellect?
Some icing on the cake:
“Nothing in the Second Amendment, properly understood — and certainly no principle necessary to decide this case — calls for invalidation of numerous federal laws regulating firearms.”
Yes, friends, this is the man the NRA has hired to defend your gun rights in the unbelievably crucial McDonald vs. The City of Chicago case.
This is the same NRA that still believes the BATFE has a warm and fuzzy place in our lives. See: "NRA Letter"
This is also the same NRA that has not called for the completed destruction of “gun control” laws. And it’s the same NRA that does not appear to have a problem with Nazi “gun control” laws used as a basis for “The Gun Control Act of 1968”. See: No Guns for Negroes".
In a recent JPFO alert article I speculated on what might knock McDonald off the rails. See: "Cato @ Liberty article.
Paul Clement is like a shark who just tried to bite our legs off. And now the NRA has crashed the pool party and tossed him in with us! Is it “hire a crook to catch a crook” logic? How can Clement’s oral arguments in the upcoming McDonald case possibly be all that effective? Those nine Justices (four of whom are obviously anti-gun Liberals) might truly wonder to themselves: “Hey! This guy was here about a year ago and argued the exact opposite of what we’re hearing now!”
Hey NRA, do you call that good legal strategy? And more importantly: Do you really want a McDonald victory?