Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog A blog for and by Guns and Ammo Enthusiast's

Proposed state legislation would give more legal protection to homeowners and residents who use deadly force

Proposed state legislation would give more legal protection to homeowners and residents who use deadly force to defend themselves from an intruder who has broken in.

The proposal addresses situations such as Jamie Chen’s shooting and killing of Roberto Vega-Gil Wednesday, after Vega-Gil broke into Chen’s Fitchburg home with what police officials said was the intention to carry out a burglary.

Current law only allows a homeowner to use lethal force as a defense if he or she believes the force was necessary to prevent death or serious injury. District attornies typically review such situations to establish whether a homeowner possessed a credible belief.

“The legislature ought to have a firmer policy,” Sen. Jim Holperin (D-Conover).

Holperin’s proposal requires courts to presume a homeowner believed death was a possibility, if lethal force was used in self defense.

“The individual should have the benefit of the doubt that the harm is going to come to the homeowner.”

There are both senate and assembly versions of the proposal. The senate proposal is being considered by the judiciary committee.

Can someone explain the anti gun show movement?

The bureau of Justice statistics state that less then 1% of guns used in crimes where bought at a gun show. So why do some governors (California New York Just to name a few) so anti gun show? Or is it just a political ploy to please the sheepal? Please the anti gun Nazi’s? Can someone explain this?

Pittsburgh City Council seems to be backing off an Illegal unconstitutional “assault weapon” ban

We can still win the fight for our second amendment rights. Here is dome proof.

Thanks to your activism, the Pittsburgh City Council removed language from a proposal that attempted to undermine our Second Amendment rights by targeting so-called “assault weapons.” The fight, however, is not yet over. The possibility still remains that the language could be re-submitted when the City Council meets tomorrow.

The poorly written and misguided proposal was labeled as an effort to help create a secure environment for next month’s G-20 Summit, even though the City Council allocated $16 million for security and accepted $14.3 million in federal and state aid for such purposes. Make no mistake – this is a back door attempt at an illegal gun ban. Pennsylvania’s preemption statutes outlaws localities from enacting firearm laws more strict than state law.

On this the Eighth anniversary off the attacks on the world trade centers and pentagon (9/11) just some thoughts

No matter how you feel about the government, current and past president’s, or the war in total, there are a few things you MUST do. Always respect and show reference for the USA troops who are overseas in the war zone. We have an ALL volunteer military. Those men and women are doing what they are ordered to do. (Trust me my brother is in the Army. For I know where I speak.)

We should also remember those who lost their lives in New York, Washington DC, Pennsylvania. Including the pilots, crew, and all of those poor people in the plains. This is a day of remembrance. Please keep all those mentioned above and everyone who has lost their lives fighting on OUR behalf in the middle east, in your thoughts and prayers on this day.

Brady Campaign is so diluted they must believe in Santa Clause and the damn tooth fairy.

Facts, figures, and the truth does not seem to matter to the Brady Campaign. Here are some facts, figures, and truth out of California.

Despite California’s bans on “assault weapons,” “unsafe” handguns, private gun sales, and sales of two handguns in a 30-day period; its 10-day waiting period on all gun sales; and its denial of carry permits to people who don’t have the right connections, the Golden State’s murder and robbery rates are 12 and 20 percent higher, respectively, than in the rest of the country.

Nevertheless, the Brady Campaign calls California’s “assault weapon” ban “a model for the nation,” and gives the state a high “grade” just for having more gun control than other states. Washington, D.C.’s city council adopted California’s “assault weapon” ban and “unsafe handgun” ban whole cloth in January, backtracking on handguns this summer only in the face of court challenges.

As California goes so goes the country as far as guns and ammo laws all Illegal!

Last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed Assembly Bill 962 out of committee. The bill will now move to the Senate floor for a vote very soon. No action has been taken on Senate Bill 585, which is still pending a vote by the full Assembly.

Sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), AB962 would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the Department of Justice’s database. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. The bill would also require that purchasers submit to fingerprinting, which would be kept in dealers’ records and subject to inspection by the Department of Justice. Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited.

SB585, introduced by State Senator Mark Leno (D-3), would prohibit the sale of firearms and ammunition on the property or inside the buildings that comprise the Cow Palace. In short, SB585 is a stepping-stone to banning gun shows on all publicly-owned property in California.

Alaska and Texas put forth bills to completely opt out of Illegal Federal Firearm Laws

Executive Summary – There are now bills in the Texas and Alaska legislatures to exempt from Federal regulation firearms made and sold inside the respective states. The bills would not apply to firearms not made in the state or made in the state and sold outside of the state. These bills are very similar to the bill voted and signed into law in Montana. They are also similar to the bill proposed recently by Tennessee.

Texas Bill – This bill exempts from federal regulation firearms, accessories and ammunition made in the state of Texas intended for sale within Texas. This bill requires the State of Texas to pay for the defense of the Texas citizens if prosecuted by the Fed for firearms violations that this bill allows for. This means the State of Texas would throw the book at the Fed with a barrage of lawyers and seek a ruling that was favorable. It is really impossible for Texas to lose unless the Federal judges throw the case illegally.

The constitution has no provision for Federal gun control and to the contrary provides for gun ownership rights. These rights are specifically intended for military weapons, not hunting guns as one can glean from the use of the term “militia”. Militia is not a word used to describe foxhunts. If Texas got their favorable ruling they would attempt to use this to recover legal fees from the Fed. The decision would also be used to cookie cutter more favorable judgments. When other states saw this they too would pass similar laws. It is more likely the Fed would pick a case and jurisdiction where they could rely on the judge to throw the case their way.

This of course sets the stage for secession. Texas would have to blatantly accept an insulting and illegal ruling or just throw in the towel and secede. The constitution specifically grants certain rights to the fed and any other rights are reserved to the states. The fed can jump in and try to control firearm sales by screaming it is interstate commerce. This is a fact. Now when the guns are made and sold in Texas only there is no legal basis for the fed to step in and try to regulate them. A line has been drawn in the sand.

Alaska Firearms Freedom Act – This great piece of legislation was passed by the Alaska house 32 to 7 and now moves on the their senate for passage. The outlook is encouraging. This bill basically charges the Federal government with using the Interstate Commerce Clause and US Code 18 USC 922 as an excuse for them to regulate firearms that are involved in interstate commerce. We all know the goal of gun control is to confiscate privately owned guns. This bill calls for the State of Alaska Attorney General to defend any firearms manufacturer located inside of Alaska that is charged by the Fed when they a re compliant with the soon to be new Alaska law.

The Anti-Gun Fed Marches On – A member of the US house of Representative, Peter King of NY, has sponsored H.R. 219. The name of this bill is “The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009”. This absurd bill wishes to deny transfers of a firearm to any known or suspected dangerous terrorist. This is basically a way for the fed to stop anyone they want from getting a new gun by treating them as suspected terrorists. This can be anyone opposed to Obama, a pro-gun rights person, etc. It does not call for confiscation of existing firearms. This would be like the much abused no fly list. If any bureaucrat wishes you to be on the list, that is that. They never tell you that you are on the list. Because of nonsense like this the states rights firearms laws are needed or they will eventually get the guns.

Discussion – Well I always said Obama is the perfect President for secession. The states gun rights bills are a line in the sand. The Fed cannot safely move on to their next level of control unless they get the guns out of private hands. Obama causes a flurry of gun and ammo sales. Seems like people do not trust this junior inexperienced senator with birth certificate problems. Someone with a lot of money thrust this inexperienced guy at the public. He played well. He talked well. He has a personality. He slung a good line of promises, which he promptly broke. He magnified the money supply by a lot. He basically did nothing to even stop the freefall in the economy.

In a word he is a joke and he is there because he played well at the polls. Obama may not be with us much longer. His college transcripts at Occidental College showed his application for a Fulbright Scholarship, which is only available to a foreigner. His Grandmother says she witnessed his birth in Kenya. The Kenya government said his birthplace was going to be a monument in Kenya. Then someone told them a naturalized person cannot be President of the USA and then the birth records became classified as secret. The Supreme Court has finally agreed to review one of the cases on appeal regarding Obama not being qualified to be President by nature of his birth. Obama is going to have a lot of trouble remaining in office and this is a shame.

He is like the perfect storm, something that rarely ever occurs. Just what we needed to spur secession of the states from the union. He is insecure. He is buried with massive problems and running scared from the threat of riots. He is going to have a tendency to not deal with states rights. People in glass houses should not throw stones. He has a lot of problems even hanging onto his Presidency so the last thing he needs is for the states to bring his flaky citizenship issues into the legal fight over states rights thus magnifying the problems to the point where they make it to the headlines in the major papers. Another possibility is Obama will resign. He would not be prosecuted and then they would not have to void all of the bills he signed. Then there would be a transition government and probably a new election. This would be another wonderful time for more states rights bills and of course secession.

If the states get the fed out of their guns then the concept could be expanded. States could coin lawful silver and gold money. States could prohibit Federal Reserve notes. States could attack the federal debt as fraudulent and deny it. Stop income taxes. All sorts of wonderful possibilities.

The media says the states right gun laws are a legal challenge to the fed. This is a lie. What it is simply a way to defend themselves against a government saying they are empowered by the constitution and then not agreeing to abide by what rights the constitution grants them and to the individual states. Usurping power illegally is the term. The federal government does not want private citizens to have guns but they a re sure fond of them and spend fortunes on getting the latest and greatest weaponry. It is guns they respect and fear.

Tennessee New Park Carry Law Goes into Effect on Tuesday, September 1st! Some areas are violating the new law!

On Tuesday, September 1, the local carry provision of the new Tennessee park carry law goes into effect. This law enables law-abiding Right-to-Carry permit holders to carry a firearm for self-defense in state and local parks. The state park component of this bill went into effect on June 12, but the effective date for local parks was delayed until September 1 to give local municipalities time to study the issue. This important provision allows Right-to-Carry permit holders to carry handguns for self-defense within the boundaries of their local parks.

Local government bodies have had more then two months to study the issue and were given the opportunity to opt out of the law prior to its effective date. While a majority of Tennessee localities chose not to restrict permit holders, a few voted to opt out of by passing ordinances and resolutions that ban the possession of firearms in local parks, creating arbitrary boundaries that prohibit law-abiding permit holders from protecting themselves.

Thank you to all of the NRA members who spoke out in support of this critical self-defense measure. Without your activism, this monumental victory would not have been possible.

Please note that some localities may still take steps to opt out of this provision even after the effective date. In an effort to protect your right to self-defense, please contact your local officials immediately and respectfully continue to urge them to oppose any proposal or resolution that would prohibit law-abiding permit holders from protecting themselves in local parks.

The following counties and municipalities have voted to opt out of this important self-defense legislation. However, please be sure to check with your local government to ensure that carrying in your local park has not been prohibited.
COUNTIES
Davidson County
Dyer County
Hamilton County
Henry County
Knox County
McNairy County
Putnam County
Shelby County
Washington County
Williamson County
CITIES/TOWNS
Alcoa
Arlington
Athens
Brentwood
Bristol
Chattanooga
Clarksville
Clinton
Cookeville
Erin
Franklin
Gatlinburg
Germantown
Goodlettsville
Hendersonville
Johnson City
Knoxville (will consider removing ban on 9/3)
Lebanon
Lookout Mountain
Maryville
Medina
Memphis
Murfreesboro
Nashville
Oak Ridge
Paris
Pigeon Forge
Selmer
Signal Mountain
Thompson’s Station
White Bluff
Winchester

Ninth Circus Court of Appeals is likely to decide whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee of a right to “keep and bear arms”

A federal appeals court on September 24 will hear a high-profile gun rights case that’s a leading candidate to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Ninth Circus Court of Appeals is likely to decide whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee of a right to “keep and bear arms” restricts only the federal government — the current state of affairs — or whether it can be used to strike down intrusive state and local laws too.

A three-judge panel ruled that the Second Amendment does apply to the states. But now a larger Ninth Circuit panel will rehear the case, a procedure reserved only for issues of exceptional importance, which means the earlier decision could be upheld or overruled.

Two other circuits have said the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, a legal term known as “incorporation.” If the Ninth Circuit’s en banc panel continues to disagree with its peers, the Supreme Court almost certainly would step in.

The Ninth Circuit case involves Russell and Sallie Nordyke, who run a gun show business that would like to rent Alameda County’s fairgrounds (the county includes Oakland and is across the bay from San Francisco). After being blocked, they sued. The author of the ordinance in question, then-county supervisor Mary King, actually claimed such shows are nothing but “a place for people to display guns for worship as deities for the collectors who treat them as icons of patriotism.”

The hearing is set for 10 a.m. PT in the federal courthouse at 95 Seventh Street in San Fagcisco.

Some “gun rights” groups join forces to sue feds to protect Montana gun law

There is ONLY 1 type of firearm rights group that we would support and not mock. One that is fighting and suing to return the firearm law’s to pre 1934. Which is the only way the constitution provides for. Well enough of our ranting and raving here is the story. (If a group like this exists please let us know)

That the guns and ammo not be used outside Montana is important, Gottlieb said. So far, the federal government has justified federal control over guns by citing the “interstate commerce clause,” which states that the federal government can regulate commerce between the states.

But if a gun will not be leaving Montana, there is no “interstate commerce” and the federal government has no standing to enforce its laws, Gottlieb said.

Marbut said he’ll planning to file suit in Montana federal court the day the law goes into effect. He said he’s received letters from Montanans interested in making their own guns, but who aren’t sure the new law will protect them from federal prison time.
This makes perfect sense to anyone that hasn’t read the Federal case law that came out of the 1930s (and since). But after hearing about the case law in which a farmer growing wheat on his own land for his own use was found to be engaging in Interstate commerce you realize we have a much higher hurdle to clear with this sort of lawsuit. That one case was just the beginning. There have been thousands of cases and laws built upon that one finding. How can a gun rights case find a niche in that “wall”?

Everyone I have talked to about this thinks the Firearms Freedom Acts (Montana and Tennessee so far) are only good for entertainment value. But SAF throwing it’s weight behind this causes me some doubt. Sure, it makes great copy for fundraising. But so would a lot of other gun lawsuits that are lost causes. I’ve had a lot of “behind the scenes” conversations with the SAF people over the years and while I acknowledge fundraising is one of their objectives I know they are smart enough to not back a completely lost cause. Winning lawsuits is far better for fundraising than losing a case no matter how noble a cause.