Jump to content

Open Club  ·  42 members  ·  Free

OOB v2.0

2nd Amendment Thread


Muda69
 Share

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

SCOTUS has struck down New York’s “may issue” licensing scheme. A big win for the citizens of the handful of remaining states that still have may issue licensing scheme. 
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

This is potentially a huge win for the 2nd Amendment folks. The specific holding of the case is as follows:

“New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.”

Some might call this a formal acknowledgement of the inability of the government to protect its own citizens from the lawless elements in our country. And it’s not just limited to state laws. It includes local ordinances like those cities that use “may issue” laws to limit handgun ownership.

Edited by Bobref
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be noted that one of the major proponents of this case was the New York Public Defenders. Their contention was their case load is crammed with an inordinate amount of weapons charges against otherwise non-criminal actors. They maintained that prosecution of such cases is in large part against minorities. 
Big win for the 2A, I believe there are 7 or 8 may issue states that this will affect. There were already several lawsuits pending in various courts pending this ruling. 
Indiana itself used to be a may issue state. The state SC overturned it in the early 70’s. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The New York Times Is Surprised To Find Public Defenders Championing the Second Amendment: https://reason.com/2022/08/01/the-new-york-times-is-surprised-to-find-public-defenders-championing-the-second-amendment/

Quote

A group of public defense lawyer organizations recently joined forces with Second Amendment advocates to urge the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate a New York gun control scheme. Now that the scheme has been successfully overturned in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that the Second Amendment includes the right "to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home," public defenders have begun citing the Court's ruling to protect the rights of their clients.

This state of affairs has left some New York Times journalists scratching their heads in surprise. As a recent Times headline put it: "Unlikely Fans of Supreme Court Ruling on Guns: Public Defenders." The accompanying article describes the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, the Bronx Defenders, and other groups as "unexpected" allies of the gun rights movement.

But the alliance seems less "unexpected" when you remember that gun control has a racially disparate impact. As the public defender groups told the Supreme Court in an amicus brief, "New York enacted its firearm licensing requirements to criminalize gun ownership by racial and ethnic minorities. That remains the effect of its enforcement by police and prosecutors today." In other words, Bruen was a win for both gun rights and criminal justice reform.

Likewise, the alliance seems less "unlikely" when you remember that the American civil rights movement has long had a gun rights component. This dates back as far as the abolitionists, such as Frederick Douglass, who declared in 1854 that "the True Remedy for the Fugitive Slave Bill is a good revolver, a steady hand, and a determination to shoot down any man attempting to kidnap."

Douglass continued to preach the virtues of armed self-defense throughout the rest of his life. In 1893, as the noble aims of Reconstruction were giving way to the horrors of the rising Jim Crow regime, Douglass argued that "the liberties of the American people were dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge box." Without all three securely in place, he maintained, "no class of people could live and flourish in this country."

Leading civil rights activists carried on Douglass' position in the 20th century. "I'm alive today because of the Second Amendment and the natural right to keep and bear arms," declared John R. Salter Jr., one of the organizers of the famous sit-ins against segregated lunch counters in Jackson, Mississippi. "Like a martyred friend of mine, NAACP staffer Medgar W. Evers, I, too, was on many Klan death lists and I, too, traveled armed: a .38 special Smith and Wesson revolver and a 44/40 Winchester carbine," Salter said. "The knowledge that I had these weapons and was willing to use them kept enemies at bay."

 

Really like that quote by Mr. Douglass.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rise of "Constitutional Carry" Is a Sign of Failing Trust in Government

https://mises.org/wire/rise-constitutional-carry-sign-failing-trust-government

Quote

Come next January, Alabama will be the 25th state to allow the carrying of concealed weapons without a permit. Alabama will soon join Indiana which in March of this year passed a new statute allowing permitless concealed carry in that state—sometimes called "constitutional carry." In 2021 alone, at least six states passed their own provisions legalizing permitless concealed carry: Arkansas, Iowa, Montana, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah. Essentially, any law abiding citizen over a certain age (usually 18 or 21 years of age) can now carry a concealed firearm in these states. 20 years ago, only Vermont allowed unrestricted concealed carry. Beginning ten years ago, however, more than twenty states adopted new laws deregulating the carrying of firearms. 

Why is this happening now? On its most simple level, these laws are passed because lawmakers and constituents at the state level have advocated for their passage. Moreover, whatever opposition has existed among interest groups and the public has been insufficient to block their passage. 

On a deeper ideological level, increased access to concealed carry is likely the result of a growing feeling among much of the public that they need increased access to firearms for self-protection. In other words, the spread of constitutional carry points to a growing sentiment that state and local authorities are insufficient to provide a reasonable expectation of safety from violent crime, and that private self-defense is therefore more necessary now than in the past. 

Moreover, many of these laws expanding access to concealed carry have been passed over the objections of local law enforcement. Police organizations have been among the most vocal of opponents to new constitutional carry measures, yet Republican lawmakers—a group often happy to fall all over themselves announcing how much they "back the blue"—have passed these laws anyway. It is one thing to support law enforcement officers on a vague philosophical level, of course, but the continued spread of constitutional carry suggests there are limits to this support among even conservatives. Rather, the passage of these laws suggests a growing lack of faith that even well-meaning law enforcement can or will provide meaningful defense from violent criminals when the time arises. 

Declining Faith in Institutions

The survey data continues to point to declining public faith in public institutions, and this includes law enforcement and the legal system. As faith in these institutions falls, the perceived need to provide one's own self-defense naturally increases. As one sociologist puts it, "legal cynicism" leads to greater demand for "protective gun ownership" and "lower levels of police legitimacy are significantly related to a higher probability of acquiring a firearm for protection."

In the worst cases, this can even lead to extralegal "self-help" with a firearm, and this phenomenon has been explored by historian Randolph Roth who notes that declining perceptions of state legitimacy can lead to high rates of violent crime. That is, when the public believes that official coercion will be insufficient to restrain crime, private citizens may feel the need to take matters into their own hands. 

Moreover, crime data in some cases suggests a correlation between gun ownership and high crime levels. Advocates of gun control naturally interpret this correlation as evidence that the presence of guns is the cause of more crime. Yet the causality more likely runs in the other direction: more crime leads to more people arming themselves. Statistical studies are insufficient to prove causality in any case, as a Rand study on gun violence notes

Whether [the correlation between guns and crime] attributable to gun prevalence causing more violent crime is unclear. If people are more likely to acquire guns when crime rates are rising or high, then the same pattern of evidence would be expected. ... existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but, because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide.

And, as one New Jersey study concluded after surveying young residents of high-crime areas,

most participants said they carried guns to increase their feelings of safety. “They held a widespread belief that they could be victimized at any time, and guns served to protect them from real or perceived threats from other gun carriers.”

The perceived need for personal protection is likely more urgent and immediate in high crime areas, but the sentiment certainly is not unique to these areas. Suburban and rural advocates for broadening concealed carry frequently invoke the need for personal protection from violent crime as justification for new laws expanding the right to carry in nearly every situation. 

Laws Passed Over Police Opposition 

Although many individual police officers support nearly untrammeled gun ownership by law abiding citizens, many others do not. In the case of Alabama's legislative battle over permitless carry, for instance, "the bills have been roundly criticized by police and gun control advocates, who argue that removing permits poses a safety risk to citizens and officers." The head of Alabama's Sheriff's Association wants to change the Second Amendment to ban concealed carry altogether. And elsewhere "Some of the loudest opponents of permitless carry laws are the police. They spoke out in Indiana, Texas, and Kentucky but that didn’t stop lawmakers from passing “constitutional carry” laws." In Georgia, many law enforcement officers voiced their opposition to conceal carry, much to the delight of the state's Democratic party. In Ohio, constitutional carry has been opposed by the Fraternal Order of Policethe public labor union that provides free lawyers to abusive and incompetent police officers. Even in Republican-controlled legislatures—where professed support for police runs high—police efforts to quash expanded conceal carry have failed repeatedly. 

The continued spread of constitutional carry is, of course, related to the surge we've seen toward more private gun ownership overall. For example, Americans in 2020 and 2021 went on what CNN calls a "gun buying spree" and this included a 58% surge in gun purchases in 2021 among Black men and women. Violent and destructive "mostly peaceful" protests exposed the limited ability of law enforcement to do much other than protect government property during periods of unrest. In the wake of lockdowns, which shut down vital social institutions such as churches and schools, crime surged in the US, and not just in the "usual" places like urban cores. Police legitimacy also suffered a serious blow with the abject failure of local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies at the Uvalde school shooting in May of this year. The officers who chose to do nothing while children were massacred will likely face no serious legal repercussions, and this will further highlight that police officers are under no legal obligation to actually protect the public from violent crime. 

It's no wonder that permitless concealed carry continues to make gains in American states. In the past, many Americans may have simply trusted to the regime to provide "law and order." But that sentiment is apparently becoming more and more rare. 

Indeed it is.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

The Rise of "Constitutional Carry" Is a Sign of Failing Trust in Government

https://mises.org/wire/rise-constitutional-carry-sign-failing-trust-government

Indeed it is.

 

Constitutional Carry has nothing to do with trusting the government. It is simply saying you don’t have to pay a fee to they government and beg permission to exercise and right granted to us by our creator. 
 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Constitutional Carry has nothing to do with trusting the government. It is simply saying you don’t have to pay a fee to they government and beg permission to exercise and right granted to us by our creator. 
 

And doesn't the 2nd Amendment exist because the Founding Fathers didn't trust the government to not infringe on that right? Constitutional Carry laws just better enumerate that right.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Desperate California Anti-Gunners Wreck Junior Shooter Clubs: https://reason.com/2022/08/05/desperate-california-anti-gunners-wreck-junior-shooter-clubs/

Quote

Organized youth shooting is disappearing in California as a result of a new law sold as banning advertising guns to kids but also potentially penalizes any promotion of firearms to minors. Rightfully criticized as a totalitarian attack on gun-oriented speech, the law is also an example of desperation on the part of those opposed to firearms, who lost big in the Supreme Court, see DIY firearms makers slipping beyond their grasp, and are now reduced to lashing out at an entire culture.

"A new California law that bans marketing guns to kids isn't sitting well with some Glenn County shooting teams," ActionNewsNow reported July 29. "Some parents and students say this law could end up costing them their sport."

Glenn County families aren't alone.

"Due to recent legislation from the California State Assembly, and signed into Law by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the USA Clay Target League, DBA USA High School Clay Target League/California State High School Clay Target League, has been forced by law to suspend all operations within California," USA Clay Target League notes on its website. "California Assembly Bill 2571 … provides for a civil penalty of $25,000 for any and each instance of firearm-related marketing to persons under the age of 18. That includes the '… use, or ownership of firearm-related products…' as well as '…events where firearm-related products are sold or used.'"

The law's chilling effect on shooting sports extends to simple speech involving minors and firearms.

"Due to California Bill A.B. 2571, Junior Shooters is no longer available to juniors (Under 18) from the state of California," the youth-oriented publication warns online. "If you are a minor in California, please do not continue, otherwise, welcome to Junior Shooters."

Understandably, the publishers of Junior Shooters are suing the state of California with the assistance of the Second Amendment Foundation.

"The broad-sweeping law applies not only to 'commercial speech' targeting children or encouraging them to engage in unlawful behavior, but to a great deal of political and educational speech, truthful commercial speech aimed at adults, and speech promoting activities that are perfectly lawful to engage in—even by minors in California," warns their motion for a preliminary injunction, which will be heard in federal court on August 22. "Because the law is not tailored to serving a compelling governmental interest, it violates the First Amendment rights to free speech, assembly, and association."

Of course, A.B. 2571 wasn't sold as an attempt to prohibit passing an appreciation for shooting sports from one generation to the next. It was peddled instead as a restriction on marketing guns to kids, as if there's a danger of tiny tots disguising themselves as their parents to get through the background checks at sporting-goods stores.

"California has some of the strongest gun laws in the country and it is unconscionable that we still allow advertising weapons of war to our children," Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D–Orinda) huffed in a press release when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the measure into law on July 1.

But the actual law goes well beyond restricting targeted advertising. Its language could easily be construed to encompass youth shooting teams, firearms publications, and activist organizations. Arguably, A Christmas Story might not pass muster over young Ralphie's hankering for a Red Ryder BB gun. That's why legislators were warned by legal experts that their bill didn't just tread into territory protected by the First Amendment, it stomped all over that ground.

"A gun magazine publisher, for instance—or a gun advocacy group that publishes a magazine—would likely be covered as a 'firearm industry member,' because it was formed to advocate for use or ownership of guns, might endorse specific products in product reviews, and might carry advertising for guns," cautioned UCLA's Eugene Volokh in testimony that dubbed the measure "unconstitutional."

The courts will do what the courts will do, of course. But A.B. 2571 resembles a likely piñata for any judge who cares about protections for free speech, without even getting into the Second Amendment implications. So why would gun-hating California lawmakers waste time, effort, and taxpayer money on legislation seemingly doomed to go down to ignominious defeat?

Well, the Supreme Court's recent decision in Bruen capped off a tough stretch for gun-rights opponents that began in 2008 with Heller. Many of their favorite restrictions now look legally vulnerable if not outright impermissible under the Constitution's Second Amendment. On top of that, years of threatening to prohibit popular firearms helped launch a DIY culture of enthusiasts who make guns at home using techniques resistant to regulation. Anti-gunners target unfinished 80 percent firearm receivers only to have innovators respond with zero-percent receivers. And bans on using 3D printers, computer numerical control (CNC) machines, or traditional workshop tools to manufacture firearms are largely unenforceable against people who set out to evade control. So, authoritarians are reduced to desperation and overreaching.

"The problem with this bill is the same problem as the Texas anti-abortion law it mimics: it creates an end run around the essential function of the courts to ensure that constitutional rights are protected," the California ACLU objected to the state's recent application to guns of the ill-considered approach in Texas's law, passed before Dobbs overturned Roe's protections for abortion. "Specifically, this bill creates a 'bounty-hunter' scheme that authorizes private individuals to bring costly and harassing lawsuits designed and intended to intimidate people from engaging in a proscribed activity without requiring—or even permitting—the government to defend the law the defendants are alleged to have violated."

As with the Texas law it copies, California's anti-gun bounty law is widely seen as excessive and dangerous even by many of those who sympathize with its intent. Likewise, a prohibition on "advertising" firearms to minors that criminalizes sports teams, censors publications, and targets an entire culture seeks to escape protections for established liberties in a sweeping attack that has already inflicted collateral damage.

Wounded animals are dangerous, of course, and that's what anti-gun authoritarians resemble at the moment. With dwindling means to impose their will, and their prey escaping their grasp, anti-gunners are lashing out at more people and freedoms than ever before. They're going down to defeat, but they'll take some victims with them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...