Posts Tagged ‘Gun Laws’

Homeless woman’s stun gun a right-to-bear-arms case

Posted: November 29, 2014 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , ,
0

BOSTON — Jaime Caetano was beaten so seriously by her former boyfriend that she ended up in the hospital. So when a friend offered her a stun gun to protect herself, she took it.

Caetano, who is homeless, never had to use it but she now finds herself at the center of a Second Amendment case headed to the highest court in Massachusetts.

The Supreme Judicial Court is being asked to decide whether a state law that prohibits private citizens from possessing stun guns infringes on their right to keep and bear arms. In an unusual twist, the court is also being asked to examine whether the Second Amendment right to defend yourself in your own home applies in the case of a homeless person.

Police found Caetano’s stun gun in her purse during a shoplifting investigation at a supermarket in 2011. She told police she needed it to defend herself against her ex-boyfriend, against whom she had obtained multiple restraining orders.

During her trial, Caetano, 32, testified that her ex-boyfriend repeatedly came to her workplace and threatened her. One night, she showed him the stun gun and he “got scared and left me alone,” she said.

She was found guilty of violating the state law that bans private possession of stun guns, devices that deliver an electric shock when pressed against an attacker.

In her appeal, her lawyer, Benjamin Keehn, argues that a stun gun falls within the meaning of “arms” under the Second Amendment. Keehn wrote in a legal brief that the state’s ban “cannot be squared with the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.” He also argues that self-defense outside the home is part of the core right provided by the Second Amendment.

Massachusetts is one of five states that ban stun guns and Tasers for private citizens, said Eugene Volokh, a constitutional-law professor at UCLA who has written extensively about Second Amendment issues. The devices are used by law-enforcement agencies around the country.

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2025125177_stungunxml.html

The Eight Dumbest Anti-Gun Political Statements of All Time

Posted: November 27, 2014 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery, anti-gun idiocy
Tags: , , ,
0

California Attorney General Seeks En Banc Review of Ninth Circuit’s Denial of her Request to Intervene in Peruta Case

Posted: November 27, 2014 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , ,
0

Today, November 26, California Attorney General (AG) Kamala Harris filed a request for en banc review of the Ninth Circuit’s denial of her request to intervene in the NRA supported case of Peruta v. San Diego, which produced a landmark decision striking down as a violation of the Second Amendment San Diego County Sheriff William Gore’s policy of refusing to issue licenses to carry firearms in public unless an applicant could demonstrate a special need for one.

The AG’s latest request comes after the Court denied the AG’s and several gun ban advocacy groups’ requests to join the case once they learned Sheriff Gore had decided not to further appeal the case.  The anti-gun rights groups have also filed a similar request for en banc review of the Ninth Circuit’s denial of their requests to intervene in the case.

If Harris is successful in overturning the Court’s order and is allowed to intervene in the Peruta case, all Ninth Circuit judges will then vote on whether to re-hear the Peruta case itself before an 11 judge en banc panel. If they decide to do so, the panel will either uphold the current decision supporting the Second Amendment or overturn it. The court could, however, simply vote not to rehear the case, thereby allowing the three-judge panel decision to stand.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/11/california-attorney-general-seeks-en-banc-review-of-ninth-circuit%E2%80%99s-denial-of-her-request-to-intervene-in-peruta-case.aspx

More Guns for Gabby, While Vets Lose Theirs

Posted: November 25, 2014 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , ,
1

We all know that Gabby Giffords was injured in a murderous attack by a deranged Democrat activist. We know that she suffered serious brain trauma and needed more than a year to regain even partial mobility and speech. We also know that she has staged a remarkable recovery becoming the figurehead of a gun control operation started by her husband, Mark Kelly. Rep. Giffords and Capt. Kelly often point out that they are not anti-gun and make show of buying, owning, and shooting guns.

Since we know all of that about Gabby Giffords, let me tell you about someone you don’t know; or maybe you do. We’ll call him Larry to protect his privacy. As with so many working-class American gun owners, Larry is a patriot, and when others were burning draft cards, he volunteered for the US Army. He suffered a traumatic brain injury from grenade shrapnel in Vietnam and, like Gabby, had to relearn simple things like walking, talking, and feeding himself. He never completely recovered, and the couple made due with Larry’s small disability pension and what his wife earned cleaning other people’s houses. One of his few joys has been getting out into nature and hunting – for the solitude he finds, and for meat – or just tinkering and plinking.

Age and health issues caught up with Larry’s wife a few years ago, putting the family in crisis. Larry’s VA benefits advisor told them that they could get more help from the government based on problems Larry was having managing their money. By agreeing that Larry was unable to handle his financial affairs, and having his wife appointed fiduciary for him, his disability payment would go up by an extra thousand dollars a month.

The couple grasped at the opportunity. A few weeks later I got a tearful call from Larry and his wife, looking for my advice. A letter had arrived from the VA informing them that Larry’s disability status was being upgraded. Then the letter said that Larry’s name would be forwarded to the FBI for inclusion in the National Instant Check System as someone who is “mentally incompetent,” and that he would be prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition. The VA advised that all firearms and ammunition in the home must be removed, and that ever allowing Larry to have access to a firearm or ammunition would be a federal felony.

No one suggested that Larry is a danger to himself or anyone else. No one suggested that he is violent or unstable, or that anyone in the world will be safer or better off if Larry is not allowed to have access to firearms, but in order to get the help they needed, Larry must lose his right to arms for the rest of his life

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/more-guns-gabby-while-vets-lose-theirs

Connecticut Child Advocate report on Newtown argues for gun bans

Posted: November 22, 2014 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery, anti-gun idiocy
Tags: , , , , , ,
0
Gov. Malloy's latest "report" confirms he's not interested in any information that does not promote an incremental citizen disarmament agenda.
Gov. Malloy’s latest “report” confirms he’s not interested in any information that does not promote an incremental citizen disarmament agenda.
Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Unsurprisingly, a report released Friday by the Connecticut Office of the Child Advocate prioritizes placing the blame for the “Shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School” on ownership of firearms, with particular emphasis on the semi-automatic kind that can accept standard capacity magazines. The “findings” are the result of direction from the Connecticut Child Fatality Review Panel “to prepare a report that would focus on Adam Lanza [and] develop any recommendations for public health system improvement that emanated from the review.”

That administration functionaries concluded impeding the right to keep and bear arms would be a “public health system improvement” is also unsurprising. An advocacy role in itself is telling, along with the office’s allegiance to Gov. Dannel Malloy though his appointment of “primary author” Sarah Eagan to head a state agency that holds powers of intervention and subpoena.

“Access to assault weapons with high capacity magazines did play a major role in this and other mass shootings in recent history,” the government polemic masked as authoritative study results declares, in the first of 13 references to the term “weapon” contained in the report. “Our emphasis on AL’s developmental trajectory and issues of mental illness should not be understood to mean that these issues were considered more important than access to these weapons or that we do not consider such access to be a critical public health issue.”

That “conclusion” is restated several times, along with several side trips obviously intended to further demonize private gun ownership.

Along with “gun-related homicides in Australia … The firearm-suicide rate dropped 65 percent,’” the advocates claim, citing a 2010 “study” in the American Journal of Law and Economics This was after meaningful gun control regulations which outlawed possession of assault weapons were passed following a mass shooting.”

Interestingly, the much-touted Australian experience is not all those with an agenda to advocate for defenselessness would have us believe. No less an authority than The British Journal of Criminology observed “The Australian situation enables evaluation of the effect of a national buy-back, accompanied by tightened legislation in a country with relatively secure borders. AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) was used to predict future values of the time series for homicide, suicide and accidental death before and after the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA). When compared with observed values, firearm suicide was the only parameter the NFA may have influenced, although societal factors could also have influenced observed changes.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/connecticut-child-advocate-report-on-newtown-argues-for-gun-bans?CID=examiner_alerts_article

Ill-conceived Washington State Background Check Initiative Already Causing Absurd Outcomes

Posted: November 22, 2014 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

Barely two weeks after Washington State voters approved Initiative 594 — a measure the NRA warned was “deeply flawed” — our predicted consequences are beginning to emerge.

Under I-594’s restrictive language, a person simply handing his or her firearm to another is presumptively required to broker this “transfer” through a gun dealer.  This also necessitates the accompanying background check, fee, paperwork, taxes and, in the case of a handgun, state registration.

Proponents of the initiative had assured voters that fears of this overreach were exaggerated.  Prior to the vote on I-594, Geoff Potter, spokesman for 1-594 proponents Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, said I-594 “simply applies the current system of background checks to all sales.”

As recounted in a Washington State news report, however, the Lynden Pioneer Museum has opted to pull eleven loaned WWII rifles currently on display and return these firearms to their collector owners before the “transfer” requirement in I-594 takes effect next month.  The reason?  The law contains no exemptions for firearms loaned for museum displays, or loaned for similar educational or cultural institution study or uses.  Once the law takes effect, the firearms could not be returned to their owners without the mandatory background checks and all the logistics and expenses that entails.

The museum director in Washington came to this decision reluctantly but unavoidably.  “I read through the law about 10 different times looking for a loophole,” he said.  He found none.  Unfortunately, there is no guidance at the state level because Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson has reportedly not formed an opinion about I-594, and no authoritative interpretation of the initiative is available to the public, apart from the text of I-594 itself.  In the meantime, the museum’s attorney has stated he would welcome assurances from the state that it would not enforce the law to the detriment of the museum or the owners of the firearms on display.  To date, however, no such assurances have been forthcoming.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2014/11/ill-conceived-washington-state-background-check-initiative-already-causing-absurd-outcomes.aspx

Does Florida outlaw a militia becoming ‘well-regulated’?

Posted: November 21, 2014 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery, anti-gun idiocy
Tags: , , , ,
0

Earlier this month, an accused white supremacist in Florida named Marcus Faella was sentenced for two counts of the “crime” of “paramilitary training.” The sentence he must serve is six months in prison–vastly less than the 30 years he might have received. From WFTV 9:

The man found guilty of leading a white supremacist group in Osceola County has been sentenced to six months in jail.

Marcus Faella could have faced up to 30 years in prison after being found guilty on two counts of paramilitary training, but he instead got only a few months.

The “white supremacist” accusation, if true (and there appears to be some question about that, according to witnesses called by the defense) paints Faella as an unsavory, and indeed reprehensible, individual. But it does not–cannot, in a free society–make him a criminal. As National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea notes in his online journal War on Guns:

As for the guy being a racist, if he hurt anybody, prosecute him. If he didn’t, life is full of distasteful people. Tolerance doesn’t mean approval, as much as some insist otherwise.

But rather than Faella’s specific case, let’s look at the Florida law he was convicted of violating (one count of “paramilitary training by teaching,” and one count of “paramilitary training by participation”). Couldn’t, after all, any kind of training intended to make a militia more effective (or “better-regulated”) be considered “paramilitary training”? Well, the law is a bit more specific than that:

(3)(a) Whoever teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, destructive device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder within the United States, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) Whoever assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, destructive device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, intending to unlawfully employ the same for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder within the United States, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Well, OK, then–the training is only illegal if intended to prepare people to engage in civil disorder. Who could object to that?

Well, anyone who thinks to ask who gets to define what constitutes “civil disorder,” and determine the intentions of the teachers and participants in the training. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, after all, designates as “insurrectionists” anyone who dares utter that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the people’s means of resisting a tyrannical government. That list includes even mild-mannered gun rights advocates.

The Brady Campaign expressed outraged indignation when National Public Radio profiled the Southeast Michigan Militia as a benign organization that prepares to help maintain civil order, rather than reinforce the anti-gun groups’ preferred narrative of militias as terrorist groups.

And the Florida “justice” system is definitely on board with a wide open interpretation of what constitutes paramilitary training intended to foment “civil disorder.” According to another WFTV 9 article about the Faella case, a conviction for the “crime” of “paramilitary training” does not even require the prosecution to prove any specific plans on the part of the accused:

http://www.examiner.com/article/does-florida-outlaw-a-militia-becoming-well-regulated

Bloomberg ‘background check’ expansion to Nevada part of warned-against plan

Posted: November 14, 2014 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , ,
0

Nevadans for Background Checks submitted a ballot measure petition with over 246,000 signatures as the next step emulating a successful effort in Washington State, Dave Workman noted Thursday, citing a KTNV News report. That move, Workman recalled, had been predictable, along with expected efforts in other states.

The Nevada effort was warned against in this column last August, in its revelation that, far from being a group springing up from the grassroots, Nevadans for Background Checks is a front group backed by Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety organization. The corporation name was reserved with the Nevada Secretary of State by the same New York law firm that represented Everytown’s trademark registration. The Political Action Committee was headed by the Everytown treasurer, who also directed the I-594 Action Fund in Washington State.

That was all part of a well-planned and funded effort to expand “action group” efforts to the states reported in this column, initially in July of 2013, and warned of again in December of last year because no one else seemed to be noticing. It’s hard to organize against developing threats if the existence of where they are and how they’re structured is unknown.

Significantly, the KTNV “legitimate news media / real reporter” story mentioned none of this. I guess letting Nevadans know outside special interests are trying to buy an election isn’t newsworthy and/or doesn’t help advance the agenda.

http://www.examiner.com/article/bloomberg-background-check-expansion-to-nevada-part-of-warned-against-plan?CID=examiner_alerts_article

Concealed gun ruling stands: Foes can’t fight loosening of California permit standards

Posted: November 14, 2014 by gamegetterII in gun rights
Tags: , , ,
0

A court ruling that dramatically loosened California’s restrictions on concealed firearms came closer to taking effect Wednesday, as an appeals court quashed legal maneuvering that might have staved it off.

As a result, sheriffs all over California — including the Bay Area, where many are reluctant to grant concealed-carry permits — could soon have to hand them out based on nothing more than the applicant’s stated wish to carry a gun for self-defense.

Currently, some sheriffs require applicants to prove a specific threat to their safety requires a concealed weapon while other sheriffs don’t. Those in most urban counties hand out permits by the dozens; those in many less-populated rural counties hand them out by the thousands. The court ruling involved a San Diego sheriff’s restrictions.

The state is one step closer to removing the concealed weapons permit decision from police chiefs and sheriffs, said Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California. “We’re starting to smell the hint of freedom in the air, and it smells good,” he said.

http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_26923154/concealed-gun-ruling

Proposed Ohio reforms described as extension of ‘Castle Doctrine’ on self-defense

Posted: November 13, 2014 by gamegetterII in gun laws, gun rights
Tags: ,
0

COLUMBUS — In the few weeks remaining in the legislative session, lawmakers may send Gov. John Kasich a bill eliminating the legal duty of Ohioans to retreat from danger before using deadly force to protect themselves.

“A person facing a life-threatening situation should not have a duty to flee and hope for the best,” Rep. Terry Johnson (R., McDermott) told the Senate Civil Justice Committee weighing his bill containing numerous changes to Ohio gun laws.

“They should have the right to protect themselves and protect their loved ones.”

House Bill 203 passed the House nearly a year ago by a bipartisan vote of 63-27. It has drawn comparisons with Florida’s controversial “Stand Your Ground” law.

Florida’s law was tried in the court of public opinion but not in the actual courtroom when George Zimmerman was accused but acquitted in the 2012 shooting of unarmed teen Trayvon Martin.

But Dr. Johnson noted that Ohioans in such situations would still have to show they acted in self-defense and did nothing to escalate the danger. Under Florida’s law, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the shooter did not act in self-defense.

“Ohio is one of the toughest states in the union to prove self-defense,” Dr. Johnson said. “In other states you don’t have nearly that barrier to get across.”

Read more at http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/2014/11/13/Gun-law-overhaul-could-go-to-Kasich.html#r3m2OxZg1JTrFIqr.99
Newer Entries