http://www.spw-duf.info
comments in () by the same
Whom to Support: I have received a few e-mails from list members
lately soliciting either information or opinions about resigning from
the NRA. The NRA provides many services besides its lobbying
activities. Because my instructor certification comes from their Law
Enforcement Activities Division, I must not only remain a member. I've
been an Endowment Member since January 1, 2000, and a Life Member for
several years earlier,which means I can't remember the last time I
paid annual dues, but I must also must pay a fee every three years to
keep my business entity affiliated. If you are an Annual Member, you
ought to assess whether there are any other services for which you
depend on the NRA. If you are a Life Member or higher, I see no value
in resigning. Realizing that not all list members share the same anger
with the NRA for withdrawing its opposition to the DISCLOSE Act, those
who do may wish to adopt the philosophy of "keep your friends close
and your enemies closer." I will simply reply to solicitations of
contributions from NRA-ILA and NRA-PVF with an explanation of why
those entities will receive no more funds from me. If you currently
have funds to contribute to the fight on the national level, you may
wish to think about the Second Amendment Foundation. SAF was the
primary organization behind the McDonald suit and is currently suing
to overturn North Carolina's infringement of the RKBA during declared
emergencies. (In the spirit of fairness, I have also received one
e-mail stating disagreement with my outrage at NRA's sell-out on the
DISCLOSE Act.)
http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=safdonation
---
Then There's GOA: On Thursday, Gun Owners of America had the important
opportunity to testify concerning the Second Amendment views of
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. William J. Olson, counsel of record
on amicus briefs for GOA in both the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court
cases, testified at the hearing that Kagan has demonstrated "visceral
hostility" to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Moreover, Olson demonstrated that Elena Kagan's view of rights is tied
in directly to her view of Judicial Supremacy, that is, that our
rights "are whatever a majority of the Supreme Court rules at a
particular time in a particular case." But under that philosophy,
Olson said, "what the Court grants, the Court may take away." So
what's the bottom line? "If Ms. Kagan does not know whether our
inalienable rights to defend ourselves from criminals and tyrants
comes from God - as the Declaration of Independence states - or from
government, she cannot be trusted to protect our God-given right to
self-preservation," Olson concluded... GOA will have much more to say
about the nomination of Elena Kagan in the coming days and weeks. In
the meantime, have a happy, and safe, Fourth of July weekend... (Video
of Olson's testimony is available.
http://gunowners.org/a070210.htm
---
...And Local Groups: The gun rights movement may have more momentum
now than ever, but the groups behind it aren't all united.Many are
grass-roots organizations formed in the last few years because the
powerful National Rifle Association was too busy, or too big, to help
fight city and statewide gun laws. The constellation of smaller
splinter groups are more aggressive and will play a leading role in
hashing out the scope of the Supreme Court's latest ruling supporting
gun rights, in part by filing lawsuits at the local level. The
nation's highest court ruled this week that Americans have the right
to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live, a ruling that
certainly means the end of Chicago's 28-year-old gun ban, and the
justices left a lot of room for lower courts to determine the exact
limits on gun laws... While the NRA entered the latest case only after
the Supreme Court allowed them to join, the nearly 138-year-old group
has been reluctant to wade into other legal battles because they have
for years been on the losing end, said Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law
school professor who has written extensively on Second Amendment
issues. In that vacuum, smaller groups have exposed a tactical
advantage by drafting talented and passionate attorneys who are often
willing to file pro bono legal challenges... The NRA is by no means
struggling. The group said its membership has surged 20 percent since
2007 to about 4.1 million members, and many politicians from both
parties still clamor for its endorsement...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gjQRxA_L2v2U-su2qitTlf29N7xQD9GN2JE83
---
NRA Taking Fire over Reid: The National Rifle Association is in
unfamiliar terrain on the conservative firing range this election
year: It's the target. The conservative Netroots are abuzz over the
possibility that the NRA may endorse Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
(D-Nev.). This would be the second major slight by the NRA for
political conservatives - the gun group also just negotiated a big
exemption on a campaign finance bill loathed by the right.
Conservatives say there's a clear political calculation at work: If
Reid loses, he's almost certain to be succeeded as majority leader by
a fierce gun-control advocate, either Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin or New
York Sen. Chuck Schumer. The NRA isn't even denying this line of
reasoning but says it hasn't made a decision about whether to endorse
Reid... It all portends a nasty and prolonged fight between
Republicans and a highly influential lobby that has long been a GOP
partner in Washington policy battles - and it could hardly come at a
worse time for Republicans, who see the Nevada race as one of the
GOP's best opportunities to cut into Democrats' 59-seat majority.
Officially, the NRA is holding its fire for now in the race between
Reid and tea-party-backed Republican nominee Angle, but conservatives
are building a case that it's a matter of when, not if, Reid will get
the gun group's nod..
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39340.html
---
A Former NYPD Detective Comments on McDonald: ...We all owe Mr.
McDonald our gratitude because his courage in taking on Chicago's gun
ban has resulted in a ruling that reinforces what the champions of
liberty meant when they wrote about not infringing on the people's
right to bear arms. We're also indebted to five of the nine justices,
who decided that the Second Amendment is the law of the land,
superseding local gun control laws. Writing for the majority, Justice
Samuel Alito made it clear that "self-defense is a basic right ...
individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second
Amendment." Can I have an "amen"? (Weir's comments would have carried
more weight with me had he also addressed the arbitrary and capricious
handgun-licensing scheme of his former employer.)
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/thanks_to_otis_mcdonald_and_th.html
Speaking Of...: Congressional Candidate and attorney Michael Giuliano
(R. 28th Dist.), released this statement today in response to this
week's Supreme Court decision applying the Second Amendment to the
States: "I commend the Supreme Court for correctly concluding that the
Constitutional and fundamental right to bear arms, a right of
self-defense, is binding on the states. If we need the permission of
the police and judges to bear arms, it's not a right but a privilege.
The Court also demonstrated that it understands that so-called "gun
control" in America had its origins in government discrimination and a
desire to prevent newly freed slaves from defending themselves against
lynch mobs.Yet, we in the North should not be too smug. Under present
law, New York makes it very difficult for lower-income people, the
people who often need them most, to obtain pistol permits. If people
have a right to bear arms for self-defense, it is unconscionable for
state officials to make them jump through hoops for a year or longer
to get a permit. In many high-crime neighborhoods, people can't wait
that long to protect themselves..."
O'Reilly Jumps on the Bandwagon: Even a simple guy like me can figure
out these words from the U.S. Constitution: "The right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." That's contained in
the Second Amendment. So why did four Supreme Court justices this week
vote to infringe on the right to bear arms? he court ruled 5 to 4 that
76-year-old Otis McDonald, an African-American Democrat who lives in
Chicago, can own a handgun. McDonald, a retired working-class guy,
sued the city for taking away his right to protect himself. McDonald
was blunt: He said his neighborhood is full of thugs who threaten his
well-being and the city cannot control the situation. So he has to
protect himself from harm. But Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen
Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg basically told
McDonald to take a hike. They opined that guns cause a lot of damage
to society; therefore, if a city wants to ban them, it can. But that
is a policy belief, is it not? Where in the Constitution does it say
that if guns become a menace to society they can be banned? Where does
it say that? ... (Since you bring it up, Bill, where does it say that
private ownership of firearms can be banned if they look similar to
the ones used by our troops? Have you not previously endorsed such
bans?)
http://townhall.com/columnists/BillOReilly/2010/07/03/shooting_down_the_constitution/page/full
---
According To Rasmussen...: A new Rasmussen poll showing a majority of
Americans believe cities cannot ban handguns "goes along with what we
have been saying, and what the Supreme Court affirmed," the Citizens
Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today. "The high
court ruled in its 2008 Heller decision that the handgun ban in
Washington, D.C. violated the Second Amendment," noted CCRKBA Chairman
Alan Gottlieb, "and this week's McDonald ruling incorporates the
Second Amendment to the states. That effectively nullifies municipal
gun bans nationwide. The court has spoken twice, and a majority of
Americans concur. "The recent Rasmussen survey also revealed," he
continued, "that only 35 percent of adults support stricter gun
control, proving that gun prohibitionists are in the minority, and
their influence is shrinking." Rasmussen conducted its survey earlier
this week among 1,000 adults. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage
points. The survey also found that only 14 percent of the respondents
who live with someone who owns a gun believe cities can ban handguns,
while a whopping 80 percent say cities do not have that authority.
Fifty-five percent of those without guns in the home also agree,
Rasmussen said."Without a doubt," Gottlieb said, "the gun ban movement
is on the ropes. I can think of a no more fitting moment for this to
happen, on the eve of the Fourth of July weekend. Our American
ancestors started the Revolutionary War when the British tried to
confiscate their guns in Lexington and Concord. Privately-owned guns
were essential to secure our liberty..." (CCRKBA, for those who don't
recognize the name, is a sister organization to SAF. The latter is
limited in its political expression by its 501(c)(3) tax status, hence
the sister group.)
McDonald Ruling May Help Defeat Montana Campus-Carry Bans: The head of
a prominent gun-rights group is mulling whether to challenge a
firearms ban on Montana's public college campuses now that the U.S.
Supreme Court has given gun owners a green light to take on local and
state governments over Second Amendment protections. Gary Marbut,
president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, said Thursday
that he will review state regulations and laws to see whether it's
worth challenging any gun restrictions. Although he said the state is
pretty good about respecting rights of firearm owners, he said the ban
on guns at public colleges stands out as an infringement that should
be removed. "The Montana Constitution does give the Board of Regents
broad power to manage the university system, but it doesn't give them
any power at all to suspend people's constitutional rights. But
they're doing it," he said. Marbut and gun-rights advocates across the
country are feeling more empowered after recent Supreme Court rulings
- one in 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and
re-affirmed the right to keep and bear arms; and a 5-4 decision Monday
in a Chicago case that allows gun owners to challenge local
regulations as a violation of their Second Amendment rights.Experts
predict that the high court's decision could encourage lawsuits over
many regulations, such as gun-licensing requirements and limits on
firearms carried outside the home...
Nice Editorial from Ohio: Gun advocates can thank two African-American
men for the significant roles they played in this week's U.S. Supreme
Court ruling that affirmed U.S. citizens' right to own a gun for
self-defense wherever they live. Justice Clarence Thomas' vote in
favor of the ruling in McDonald vs. Chicago was steeped in the 14th
Amendment and the historical treatment of blacks. The case involved a
black man's desire to own a firearm to protect himself from an enemy
unlike the enemies who once openly mistreated blacks. The case
originated in Chicago, where a resident tried to follow the rules to
have a gun at home. Otis McDonald, 76, is a retired maintenance
engineer at the University of Chicago and an Army veteran. He has been
on the front lines as a civil rights activist and union leader, and
lately has been out front in the gun-rights debate, where blacks are
not normally in the lead...In the nearly two decades that Clarence
Thomas has been on the high court, I never thought he would garner my
support. But he has in this case, voting with the court's conservative
majority. In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote that during
the 19th century, whites' fear of slave revolts compelled them to
ensure that blacks had no weapons...
http://toledoblade.com/article/20100703/COLUMNIST24/7030308/-1/OPINION
---
The Problem with the Firearm Owners' Protection Act: ...Here's the
difficulty in a nutshell: If you're traveling from Virginia to
Vermont, and are going through New York, you might know that your
possession is lawful in Virginia and Vermont. If you're prosecuted for
violating New York gun law and move to dismiss under § 926A, the judge
should be able to figure out that your possession is lawful in
Virginia and Vermont. But how is a police officer deciding whether to
arrest you, or seize your weapon, or detain you in a way that makes
you miss your flight to know? Police officers are supposed to know the
laws they are enforcing (though that can be pretty difficult). But
knowing the gun laws of all 50 States is quite a bit harder.In any
event, one can imagine a legal regime that requires the officers — or
at least those who routinely encounter such situations, such as
airport police in airports where FAA-required declarations that you're
checking a gun in your luggage lead to automatic calls to the police —
to have reference works that they can consult on this. But it looks
like courts are reluctant to require such a regime; the Torraco panel
holds that any interference with § 926A doesn't lead to liability for
the police, because of the difficulty the police would face figuring
out the law...
From Wisconsin: List member Gene German sent the following statement
from Jackson County DA Gerald Fox:
Yesterday, in a resounding victory for all freedom-loving Americans,
the United States Supreme Court confirmed that the Second Amendment's
protection of our right to keep and bear arms applies everywhere in
America, and serves as a rampart against state infringement of this
fundamental individual liberty. In its ruling, the Court declared that
the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, and that
self-defense is at the core of the freedoms protected by the
amendment.
This Supreme Court ruling is binding on all states and local
governments, and immediately renders some of Wisconsin's current laws
unconstitutional. Therefore, in keeping with my oath to uphold and
defend the Constitution, I hereby declare that this office will no
longer accept law enforcement referrals for violations of the
following statutes:
Section 167.31, prohibiting uncased or loaded firearms in vehicles;
Section 941.23, prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons,
including firearms;
Section 941.235, prohibiting the possession of firearms in public buildings;
Section 941.237, prohibiting the possession of firearms in
establishments where alcohol
may be sold or served; and,
Section 941.24, prohibiting the possession of knives that open with a
button, or by
gravity, or thrust, or movement.
All of these statutes constitute unjustifiable infringements on the
fundamental right of every law-abiding American to arm themselves for
self-defense and the defense of their loved ones, co-workers, homes
and communities. This change also invalidates Jackson County Ordinance
Sections 9.01 (firearms in public buildings) and 9.29 (CCW). Prior to
this historic ruling, our state Supreme Court placed the state's
interests first, and would only create an exception to these laws when
the individual's need for protection outweighed the state's interest.
In the area of concealed carry, only 2 cases have approved concealed
carry, one at home, and the other one at the defendant's personally
owned place of business. Well, as the United States Supreme Court held
yesterday, that view was exactly backward.
As with the other fundamental rights, such as the freedom of speech,
of religion, of association, or of security in our homes, persons, and
effects, government limitations on fundamental rights are lawful only
in the rare case that the state can show a compelling governmental
need that can be accomplished only by enacting a narrowly-tailored
restriction, in terms of time, place and manner. Clearly, a blanket
prohibition against carrying your loaded firearm in your personal
vehicle does not pass that test. Put it another way: Does preventing
the barkeep from protecting herself when she carries the bank bag home
from the tavern make sense? Not here, not anymore. That's not an
American value; it puts concern for the criminal's welfare ahead of
the barkeeper's right to self-defense. The fact is, criminals don't
pay attention to gun laws, only we good folks do. After 15 years of
criminal law practice, I can state positively that when criminals
resolve to harm someone, no law will stop them. These so-called
"public safety" laws
only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when
it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this
decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over.
I will watch for the legislature to make needed corrections in these
areas. In the meantime, while I am happy to declare that we will
follow the Supreme Court's ruling, I want to emphasize that with
fundamental rights come grave responsibilities, and I will continue to
vigorously enforce the laws against unlawfully using firearms, such
as the prohibition against felons being armed; going armed while
intoxicated; using a firearm to commit a crime; and endangering safety
by negligent handling of a weapon, to name just a few. Only by the
strictest adherence to firearm safety rules and common sense will we
show that the elitists who seek to disarm all of us are wrong, and
that every law abiding citizen can be trusted to protect themselves
and their neighbors safely.
A copy of the Supreme Court's decision can be found at
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
A copy of the amicus brief joined by J.B. Van Hollen, the Attorney
General of Wisconsin, can be viewed at:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_PetitionerAmCuStateofTexas.pdf
Let Freedom Ring.
Gerald R. Fox
Gene is now urging residents of other Wisconsin counties to ask their
respective district attorneys to emulate Mr. Fox, follow their oaths
and uphold the Constitution as well.Officials for the various counties
can be found via the following link.
http://www.wisconsin.gov/state/core/wisconsin_counties.html
Related Article:
http://www.newsmax.com/US/US-Supreme-Court-Guns/2010/07/02/id/363734
---
Virginia Gunners Celebrate Discreet Restaurant Carry: When Anthony
Dahm visited Champps Americana restaurant and bar Thursday, his menu
of options had doubled: Thanks to a change in Virginia's gun laws, he
could carry a semiautomatic handgun hidden behind the pouch holding
his children's allergy medicine -- as well as the one worn openly on
his hip -- without fear of committing a crime.hat was cause enough for
Dahm to celebrate at the Reston restaurant with about 80 other members
of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights organization
that had long pushed for the new law, which allows people with
concealed-weapon permits to go armed in places that serve alcohol as
long as they don't imbibe.Dahm, 44, a stay-at-home father from Vienna,
said he seldom drinks and would rather run from a confrontation than
shoot, yet the law gives him peace of mind that he can pack a friend
in restaurants such as Champps... But, for the most part, the Supreme
Court and Virginia's new gun-friendly governor have put gun-rights
folks in a mood to party -- even if, at Champps, the average diner
might not have known anything special was going on. Except for the
unusual number of people openly toting guns and wearing blaze-orange
"Guns Save Lives" stickers, members of the Virginia Citizens Defense
League celebrated quietly, carving steaks, sipping iced tea and
talking guns. Altogether more than 450 VCDL members celebrated in
Reston and at similar parties in Norfolk, Richmond, Woodbridge,
Vinton, Yorktown and Charlottesville... (Not surprisingly, the Post
ignores the fact that it has always been legal to carry openly in
restaurants and bars in Virginia and that the ban on consuming alcohol
only applies to those who now do so discreetly.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070202929.html
---
Pennsylvania Stand-Your-Ground Bill Stalled in Committee: Supporters
are trying to salvage a bill stalled in a House committee that would
allow a person to shoot an assailant in self-defense outside of the
home, without taking steps in retreat. The so-called "stand your
ground" legislation, hailed by gun advocates, is an extension of the
"Castle Doctrine" law that allows a person to use lethal force without
retreat on an intruder in one's home, or "castle." Outside the home,
the law requires a person who is threatened to literally step backward
before shooting an attacker in self-defense. House Bill 40 eliminates
the duty to retreat when outside the home - in a driveway, yard, the
street, or any place that person is legally permitted to be, according
to a House Judiciary Committee analysis... Perry and other supporters
hope to advance the legislation this fall, through amendments or a
parliamentary maneuver. Short of that, the House bill appears to be
dead for the 2009-10 session. This could be the sixth year in a row
that supporters failed to get such legislation passed...
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_688820.html
---
Oops, Wrong House: Adrenaline coursing through his body, Benjamin
Jackson dropped to his knees and clasped his hands behind his head,
forced to watch -- helplessly -- as the masked, armed intruder
rummaged through his home. This, apparently, was Jackson's reward for
trying to help his neighbor. Just minutes earlier, the 29-year-old
maintenance man had spotted what looked like two men forcing a
screaming woman into an apartment across the hall from his. Uncertain
of what he had just seen, he knocked on the door. A man with a gun
answered and forced him to walk backward into his own residence."Is
the young lady next door okay?" Jackson thought as he knelt on his own
floor. "What is he attempting to do? Is he going to kill me?"Then
Jackson grabbed his own gun. "I just couldn't allow it to go down the
way it was trying to go down," Jackson said in an interview on
Thursday, his first public statements since Monday's fatal shooting,
which Prince George's County [MD] police say seems to be a case of
self-defense. "I know pretty much he was capable of doing what he had
to do. First chance, I had to go for it." Jackson shot and killed
Keith L. Fletcher, 20, a father of two young boys who lived in
Southeast Washington and in Oxon Hill with his mother. Law enforcement
sources, speaking on the condition of anonymity because police are
still looking for other suspects, said he was shot multiple times in
the upper body - but only after he squeezed off a shot at Jackson...
Shootings that are both fatal and justifiable are a rarity nationwide,
which makes Jackson's case all the more astonishing. In 2008, FBI
statistics show, there were 204 justifiable homicides by civilians
using firearms. That compares with 9,484 criminal homicides involving
firearms... (Nice dig from the Post but, due to the currently advanced
state of medical care in the US, the fatality rate from gunshot wounds
usually runs between 20 and 25%. On top of that, the FBI reporting
system is not exactly set up to monitor self-defense shootings by
private citizens. This does not even begin to address the issue that
most defensive uses of firearms succeed with the mere display of the
gun)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070205316.html
---
South African Gun-Banner Convicted of Corruption: Jackie Selebi, the
former police commissioner of South Africa and once a signal figure in
international law enforcement, was found guilty of corruption here on
Friday.The verdict ended a grueling trial that began last October. Mr.
Selebi was accused of providing favors to a drug trafficker in
exchange for gifts of about $160,000 and an array of designer clothing
- Canali ties, Hugo Boss knitwear, Louis Vuitton shoes and an Etienne
Aigner jacket. The two men shopped together at high-fashion boutiques,
though only one paid the bills... (Prior to the ANC takeover, while
South Africa strictly licensed the ownership of firearms, licenses
were available, regardless of race. Now everything is being done to
disarm everyday citizens while violent crime is rampant.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/world/africa/03safrica.html?_r=1&ref=world
---
NRA-ILA Alerts: List members are encouraged to check the alerts for
the week, posted on the NRA-ILA website.
http://www.nraila.org/GrassrootsAlerts/read.aspx
---
Tangentially Related: A federal court has ruled unconstitutional an
attempt by New Mexico politicians to regulate the political free
speech of activists working to hold their elected officials
accountable to the people. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
District in Denver, Colo., ruled that New Mexico Youth Organized could
not be classified as a political organization subject to government
regulation simply because it advocates political issues and educates
the public on how lawmakers vote on those issues. The Tenth Circuit's
holding is significant," explains a statement from The James Madison
Center for Free Speech, which filed an amicus brief in the case,
"because it limits government's ability to regulate organizations as
full-fledged political committees, thereby imposing on them all the
burdens – including registration, extensive recordkeeping requirements
and extensive reporting requirements – that go along with being a
political committee."As the Supreme Court has explained, these burdens
are so onerous that many organizations, rather than complying with
them, will just forego their political speech," the Center explains.
"This is at odds with the Supreme Court's repeated holdings that
political speech is at the very core of what the First Amendment
protects." ...
