Link to Article

In a case that drew attention from the Gun Owners Action League and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the Supreme Judicial Court yesterday upheld a state law requiring trigger locks on guns kept in people’s homes.

 In what was seen by some as a victory for law enforcement and advocates of gun control, the state’s highest court ruled that the Second Amendment does not restrict the right of Massachusetts to impose its own rules on gun ownership.

“We conclude that the legal obligation safely to secure firearms in [state law] is not unconstitutional,’’ Justice Ralph Gants wrote for the unanimous court.

The gunlock case involved Richard Runyan, a Billerica man facing prosecution for keeping a rifle under his bed without a trigger lock. Police in 2007 discovered the firearm as they investigated complaints that Runyan’s then-18-year-old developmentally disabled son was shooting a BB gun at a neighbor’s house.

A Lowell District Court judge threw out the case. Middlesex District Attorney Gerard T. Leone Jr.’s office appealed in 2009.

Leone said in a telephone interview yesterday that the SJC had struck the proper balance between the right to self defense and the right of society to prevent tragedies — such as a child mishandling a loaded firearm.

“What they did for us as a state is they allowed us to continue to engage a balance between how we provide for our own self-defense and how we . . . avoid tragedy, especially when guns are in the hands of those who shouldn’t have them,’’ Leone said.

Runyan’s attorney, Brenden J. McMahon said he had hoped the SJC would have brought the prosecution to an end. Now the case will limp along, he said.

“It doesn’t really give closure to my guy,’’ McMahon said.

In a companion ruling yesterday, the SJC upheld the conviction of a New Bedford man who had argued that the Second Amendment right to bear arms trumped state law making it a crime for an unlicensed person to have a handgun.

Nathaniel DePina was arrested by gang officers after a .22-caliber revolver fell out of his clothing. Gants said the Second Amendment does not apply in DePina’s case because the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights has never meant that an individual is free to own firearms.

Gregg Miliote, spokesman for Bristol District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter, said the court was right to uphold DePina’s convictions and to leave state firearms laws intact.

The unanimous decisions by the SJC flow from a landmark ruling by the US Supreme Court in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller.

The Supreme Court said for the first time that the US Constitution’s Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a firearm for self-defense, but the court limited the reach of its ruling to “federal enclaves’’ like the District of Columbia.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a gun ownership case in Illinois in which, legal specialists say, the court is likely to determine whether the Second Amendment will now be explicitly extended to the states — and state laws and regulations set up to control the use, sale, and storage of firearms.

In yesterday’s SJC cases, Justice Gants wrote that an 1875 US Supreme Court ruling (called Cruikshank) remains in force and gives Massachusetts the authority to chart its own course when it comes to regulating firearms and ammunition.

“Under Cruikshank, the Second Amendment imposes no limitations on the ability of the Massachusetts Legislature to regulate the possession of firearms and ammunition,’’ Gants wrote. “These cases are the law of the land until the Supreme Court decides otherwise, and we are therefore bound by them.’’

In a statement on the trigger lock case, Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center, applauded the SJC. “Courts must continue to reject efforts by the gun lobby and gun criminals to strike down common-sense gun laws that save lives,’’ he said.

But Edward F. George Jr., attorney for the Gun Owners Action League, faulted the SJC, saying they left intact a confusing law and should have waited for the US Supreme Court to clarify the muddy legal waters later this summer.

“They jumped the gun,’’ he said of the SJC.

Attorney General Martha Coakley, whose office sided with Leone as did county prosecutors, said she approved of the SJC’s findings.

The court is protecting “the public, especially our children, from the risks of unsafe firearm storage practices while also recognizing a gun owner’s right to use a firearm for self-defense in his or her home,’’ she said.
 

Posted by ShaunKranish on Thursday, March 11, 2010 @ 22:56:11 EST (1 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)

http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/2010/03/thank-you-ms-lawson.html

• Hi, SCC. My name is Colleen Lawson, and I am one of the plaintiffs in McDonald v Chicago.
  
  I'm writing you to share an incident that occurred yesterday, and in hope that you might allow me to publicly thank and acknowledge those involved.
  
  Yesterday, two Chicago cops pulled up next to me while I was parked at a gas station. I was standing by my car. They got out of their squad car, walked up to me, and thanked me.
  
  I would like those officers to know that their words, and their handshakes, meant more to me than anyone else's have.
  
  I was deeply, deeply touched by the fact that these officers, who place their lives on the line every day for citizens like me and my fellow plaintiffs and every single Chicagoan and visitor, these officers who never can be quite sure where they'll be at the end of the day ... that they had come over to speak to me, and to voice their support.
  
  I apologize for my quick exit -- I was kind of stunned as they continued speaking and probably just mumbled my thanks back to them, then got back into my car and just cried as I drove home. I completely forgot to go into the store and make my purchases; but then, no one has ever flustered me to that extent before.
  
  Truly. Not high-up, celebrity, mucky-muck or thug. Yesterday's cops trump them all, and that one moment with them is my highest treasure.
  
  I am humbled and intensely grateful. You, all of you, have my thanks.
  
  
• It's just occurred to me that this is the only letter I've written publicly since this case began. That's how honored I feel by the words of your officers :)

Well, for our part, we'd just like to add our thanks to those of our fellow officers. Standing up for your fellow citizens and saying, "Enough!" may not seem like a big deal, but in some countries around the world, it lands you a term in prison, a session with the torturers or even death. Inaction is one of the worst sins any civilized society can commit because it makes it that much easier for the next bad act to occur. It is our hope that by your action, you have inspired countless others to step up when necessary.

We and literally million of others are in your debt.

Note from Shaun from ICarry.org:

I was driving my old car in downtown Chicago one night, in a left-hand turn lane.  My car had no fewer than 7 PRO-GUN bumper stickers on it at that time.  A cop cruiser was behind me, stuck at a red light, and I could feel them reading my stickers and I was thinking, "oh, no."  Light turns green, I start driving in the left lane after the turn, and the cop pulls up right next to me.  I ignore him at first, then he's waving at me with his arms so I roll down the passenger window.  He goes "hey man, right on!!!" and gives me the thumbs-up sign.  This is a true story and after having been wrongfully arrested a couple times already for lawfully exercising my rights, what a relief it was.  I kept on driving thinking "that's awesome!"

Chicago politicians, and the politicians-with-badges who are appointed in charge of the police at the highest levels oppose law-abiding citizens having guns.  But the cops don't!!  That's right - the average cop on the streets of Chicago is supportive of gun rights because they see what happens to people who can't defend themselves.  They're sick of the blood and guts on the streets because people don't defend themselves and are outlawed from doing so.  They know the gang-bangers have guns anyways and the handgun ban has been a miserable, utter failure!!!  They support US and not these boneheaded elitist politicians.

Posted by ShaunKranish on Tuesday, March 09, 2010 @ 21:41:08 EST (17 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)

Link to Article

The Brady Bunch folks are having a difficult time coming to grips as to what has been happening lately.  Their world is crumbling around them and they have no answers.

Take for instance what the gun-grabbers have been saying since McDonald v. Chicago was heard this past Tuesday.

They keep bringing up quotes from the Heller ruling and affirmations made in this case of "reasonable regulations" as said by several of the justices.

 

 

 

 

Now, we don't know what those "reasonable regulations" will be as they have yet to be defined by the court.

But Dennis Hennigan of the Brady Campaign thinks he's figured it out.   Here's his most recent quote:

"The argument in McDonald gives hope that the McDonald majority, even if it strikes down Chicago's handgun ban, will amplify the Heller message that the Second Amendment erects no constitutional barrier to reasonable laws – at any level of government - to make it harder for dangerous people to obtain dangerous weapons. The gun lobby will be displeased, but the American people will have dodged a constitutional bullet."

The gun lobby will be displeased?  I consider myself part of the gun lobby and I didn't hear the part where dangerous people will obtain dangerous weapons.  Did you?  Both Heller and McDonald focused on law-abiding citizens being prevented from owning handguns.  Did I miss something here?  I think not.

What it all boils down is Mr. Hennigan desperately trying to pluck victory out of defeat.  He is, as the entire anti-gun lobby, are running for their lives.  They're trying to figure out what they can do, if anything, since Alan Gura launched a missile in the Heller case.  They throw a little meat to their rabid left-wingers out there to let them know that they're still on top of the situation.  How sad.

About all they can seem to muster is that no matter what happens dangerous people, meaning criminals I presume, will not obtain dangerous weapons, guns most likely.  Well, tell that to the people of Chicago who live in a world where the only people that have dangerous weapons are dangerous people.  Another example, as was Washington D.C. of gun control creating nothing but chaos for law-abiding citizens.

Good luck Mr. Hennigan, because 40 years of partying are over.  The game has changed and now it's your turn to play defense.
 

Posted by ShaunKranish on Tuesday, March 09, 2010 @ 13:49:15 EST (8 reads)
(comments? | Other | Score: 0)

Original article link

With many people predicting that the Supreme Court will overturn Chicago's ban on handguns following arguments heard Tuesday, Mayor Daley expressed outrage.

His voice "dripping with sarcasm," the mayor ripped SCOTUS on Wednesday. The Sun-Times reports:

"Why can't I go to the Supreme Court and sit there with a gun and listen to the arguments? If a gun is so important to us on the street or someone's home, why can't I go to the Supreme Court and sit there with a gun? I'm not gonna shoot anyone. But, I have a right to that gun," Daley said.

"Why can't I go see my congressman who doesn't believe in gun laws? Why can't I carry my gun into congressmen's offices or go to his home and knock on his door and say, 'Don't be worried. I have a gun. You want me to have a gun.' Why is it they want to be protected by all the federal money ... to protect all the federal bureaucrats, but when it comes to us in the city" there's no protection?

Handguns have been outlawed in Chicago for 28 years. But in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court reversed a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., emboldening gun-rights activists to challenge the Chicago law. Suburban Oak Park, which has even stronger gun legislation, is also involved in the lawsuit.

Daley called the 2008 ruling "frightening," the Sun-Times reports.

"When a child gets shot or killed, that is a failure of society," Daley said. "Adults should stand up and say, guns don't solve things in homes or streets. If it was, then everyone here would be carrying a gun in our own corporations." 

Following the DC ruling, the D.C. Council replaced its ban with regulations that require gun owners to receive five hours of safety training, register their firearms every three years and face criminal background checks every six years, according to the Sun-Times.

Though a decision is not expected until June, those familiar with the case predict that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Scalia, Alito, Kennedy and Thomas would favor overturning the ban, for a 5-4 majority.

Posted by ShaunKranish on Saturday, March 06, 2010 @ 19:51:43 EST (21 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)

Article taken from my local paper the NW Herald.

Link to Article

Lee Lexow spent 28 years in the U.S. Army and Air Force. He served on President Reagan’s and Vice President Bush’s security detail.

“I’m probably pretty qualified to carry a firearm, don’t you think?” said Lexow, of Bull Valley.

Not according to state law.

Lexow can’t keep a handgun with him in public because Illinois is among two states that prohibit carrying concealed weapons. However, he and other gun rights supporters are optimistic that a case to be heard today by the Supreme Court could prompt changes to those laws.

This morning, the high court is expected to hear oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago, a case challenging the city’s gun ban.

Gun rights supporters are optimistic that when the court issues its decision in June, it will rule that state and local governments can’t supersede the Bill of Rights. And although the case deals with a city ban, they are counting on a ripple effect.

“The best case is that ... they find the Second Amendment to be a fundamental right,” said Todd Vandermyde, a state lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.

Supporters also are hopeful that a ruling against the ban could pave the way for an open or concealed carry law in Illinois. But opponents of gun rights are keeping just as close of an eye on the case – for opposite reasons.

“It’s almost inconceivable to me that any level of government would allow people to carry guns at all,” said the Rev. Dan Larsen, recently retired minister at Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Woodstock.

Wisconsin is the only other state that prohibits residents from carrying concealed weapons, and supporters in McHenry County and elsewhere long have called the law unfair.

“I think everybody pretty much wants the same rights as other states have,” said Lexow, vice president of the McHenry County Sportsmen’s Association.

What was particularly interesting about the other states was that in many cases, crime went down when concealed carry laws were passed.

Consider Washington D.C., where the Supreme Court in 2008 struck down legislation barring handguns, requiring licenses for pistols and mandating that legal firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled or trigger locked.

Since the ban was lifted, the homicide rate reached its lowest point in at least 20 years, according to the district police department Web site.

The number of homicides in the district decreased by about 23 percent between 2008 and 2009, from 186 to 143, according to the Web site.

John Lott, a leading researcher on the relationship between gun bans and crime rates, said he expected that result after the District of Columbia v. Heller ruling.

“The fact that a would-be victim might be able to defend themselves will deter criminals from attacking,” said Lott, who also authored “More Guns, Less Crime.”

“Every place in the world that has had a gun ban has seen an increase in murder rates,” he said.

Lott said the primary reason was because gun laws stopped only law-abiding citizens – not criminals – from carrying weapons.

“We all want to try to keep guns from criminals,” Lott said. “The problem is … who is most likely to obey the law?”

McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren agreed with Lott.

Nygren said he supported a concealed carry law if certain provisions were met, such as a state-issued permit, training in handling and use of firearms, experience on a range and the ability of local law enforcement to recommend reasons a permit should be denied to particular people, among other provisions.

“Concealed carry should be a privilege, not a right,” he said.

Private citizens who have guns could prove especially helpful in circumstances in which police were not instantly at the scene of an incident.

“When something happens to you or your family … the likelihood that there will be a policeman standing next to you is probably not very great,” he said.

But Larsen said regardless of the research and lines of thought such as Nygren’s, an area like McHenry County did not need concealed carry laws.

“There’s plenty of police protection and people looking out for each other,” he said. “To bring about a law like that would just violate that whole sense of community that we have out here.”

Still, those on the front lines of the debate said it isn’t a matter of guns and feel-good politics; it’s a question of American principles.

“It isn’t so much a gun issue as it is a constitutional issue and a rights issue,” Lexow said. “It’s basically just supporting the U.S. Constitution and the Illinois Constitution.”
 

Posted by ShaunKranish on Saturday, March 06, 2010 @ 19:15:57 EST (17 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)

Statement by Joe Walsh Regarding Personal Financial History in Response to today's Daily Herald article

LAKE ZURICH, IL --   Our country faces critical challenges. I'm running for Congress to address those challenges. It is incredibly disappointing to me - and to the majority of voters in the Illinois 8th Congressional District - that the news media has focused not on these issues that matter to the future of our nation, but instead has consistently sought to ridicule, demean, and condescend to anyone who tries to challenge the status quo. The politics of personal destruction is the reason we so seldom see legitimate "change agents" running for office. I won the Republican primary by a large margin, despite being outspent because voters identified with my message. I feel like I'm losing my country and too few we've sent to D.C. are doing anything about it. Here are the facts: I am not a wealthy man - I never have been.  We have lived the past couple of years on a salary that averages $40K year, and which is more in line with the average family in the 8th. I believe that public service, including elective office, should be accessible to people of all income levels, not just the wealthy. Frankly, I believe that one of the reasons we have so many problems and we see so many bad policy choices made is because Congress is a millionaires' club. Too many of our elected officials are insulated from the devastating financial impacts of the rules and regulations they impose on us. I know all too well what 8th district families are going through to make ends meet because I've experienced some of the same difficult and humbling financial challenges. Like so many others in Illinois in recent years, and 1 in 9 Americans nationally, I know what it's like to lose a home to foreclosure. After graduating from the University of Chicago in 1991 with a Master's Degree in Public Policy, I chose a career in public service, knowing that the salary levels would never make me wealthy. Instead, I got satisfaction from working as a social worker in inner city Chicago, teaching American history and government at community colleges, and running the non-profit Daniel Murphy Scholarship Fund. After my first marriage ended in divorce, I purchased a condominium in Evanston to be my primary residence. This was back in 2004. In 2006 I remarried  and realized that with our combined family of five children we needed a larger home. In 2006, I put the Evanston condo up for sale. By 2008 with no buyers in a down real-estate market, I found myself struggling to keep up with two homes, and five children. I accepted responsibility for the situation and worked with my bank to foreclose on the condo. It was my problem and I didn't ask anyone to bail me out. Additionally in 2008, I tried to improve my financial situation by changing careers to work with a Chicago-based boutique banking group focusing on helping new and small businesses raise investment capital. I took responsibility for my cir*****stances and have endured the financial consequences while working diligently to abide by my obligations. This experience helped me gain a better appreciation for the very real economic anxieties felt by 8th district families, many of whom are just a paycheck or two away from facing similar difficulties. Frankly, the perspective I gained from this challenge helped me grow as a person and I believe will make me a better representative of working people's interests in Washington. I knew getting into this race that the local media would do Melissa Bean's dirty work for her.  And the Daily Herald has now lived down to my expectations. The media elites are part of a dysfunctional political establishment that has destroyed our economy in pursuit of reshaping America into a country working people don't even recognize and cannot afford.   I got in this race to represent the people I grew up with, the people who go to work every day and who try to make ends meet. While Melissa Bean hides from her constituents for fear that she would have to defend her radical left-wing votes for cap-and-trade and a government takeover of health care, I stand before the electorate in the light of day ready to present my views and answer all inquiries.   If enduring the ridicule of a few media types is the price I have to pay to demonstrate that a regular guy can stand up to the political establishment on behalf of middle class, working families, so be it. The issues facing our country are too serious to allow a couple of cheap shots to get me off my message. I'm grateful for the support of  fellow Republicans, specifically Gene Dawson, who told me this morning, "I'm behind you 100%." I'm going to keep doing what I've been doing since the day I started this race - talking to real voters about bringing real change to Washington D.C.

Joe Walsh is the Republican candidate running against Democrat in*****bent Melissa Bean in 2010 for the Illinois 8th Congressional District. Born and raised in North Barrington, a policy advocate, teacher, and business entrepreneur, Joe has spent his adult life advancing limited-government and conservative principles. For more information on Joe Walsh and his campaign visit  www.joewalshforcongress.com

Posted by ShaunKranish on Thursday, March 04, 2010 @ 20:06:51 EST (22 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)

Link to original article here

Posted by ShaunKranish on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 @ 13:14:26 EST (30 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns and found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. On March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court will hear oral arguments on whether that right applies to states and localities. The Court is expected to hold that it does: a key purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified at the height of Reconstruction in 1868, was to allow newly freed slaves and white Unionists to defend themselves against Southern reprisals by protecting their right to keep and bear arms. But if the Court reaches that result via the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which was specifically enacted to protect various individual rights, including particularly the right to armed self-defense, would help determine the future of gun rights in America and also constitutional law generally, because it could lead to the reinvigoration of a variety of important liberties that courts have long neglected. Speakers: Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute Doug Kendall, Founder and President of the Constitutional Accountability Center Timothy Sandefur, Principal Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation Moderated by Roger Pilon, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Cato Institute

 

According to C-Spans website, today's events will be televised on C-1.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/292308-1


Program ID292308-1
CategoryPublic Affairs Event
FormatForum
LocationWashington, DC, United States
Will AirMar 1, 2010
Airing DetailsShow
Airing DetailsMar 1, 2010 16:00 (C1)

I am assuming that is Eastern Time 4:00pm eastern, 3:00pm Central


Streaming online here.

http://www.cspan.org/Watch/C-SPAN.aspx

Submitted By Mark Palmisano

Posted by ShaunKranish on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 @ 20:10:45 EST (33 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)

From the New York Times (click here)

By IAN URBINA
Published: February 23, 2010

When President Obama took office, gun rights advocates sounded the alarm, warning that he intended to strip them of their arms and ammunition.

Tennessee has challenged federal regulation of some guns. Adam Henderson recently shopped for a gun in Greenbrier, Tenn.
Related

And yet the opposite is happening. Mr. Obama has been largely silent on the issue while states are engaged in a new and largely successful push for expanded gun rights, even passing measures that have been rejected in the past.

In Virginia, the General Assembly approved a bill last week that allows people to carry concealed weapons in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, and the House of Delegates voted to repeal a 17-year-old ban on buying more than one handgun a month. The actions came less than three years after the shootings at Virginia Tech that claimed 33 lives and prompted a major national push for increased gun control.

Arizona and Wyoming lawmakers are considering nearly a half dozen pro-gun measures, including one that would allow residents to carry concealed weapons without a permit. And lawmakers in Montana and Tennessee passed measures last year — the first of their kind — to exempt their states from federal regulation of firearms and ammunition that are made, sold and used in state. Similar bills have been proposed in at least three other states.

In the meantime, gun control advocates say, Mr. Obama has failed to deliver on campaign promises to close a loophole that allows unlicensed dealers at gun shows to sell firearms without background checks; to revive the assault weapons ban; and to push states to release data about guns used in crimes.

He also signed bills last year allowing guns to be carried in national parks and in luggage on Amtrak trains.

“We expected a very different picture at this stage,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun control group that last month issued a report card failing the administration in all seven of the group’s major indicators.

Gun control advocates have had some successes recently, Mr. Helmke said. Proposed bills to allow students to carry guns on college campuses have been blocked in the 20 or so states where they have been proposed since the Virginia Tech shootings. Last year, New Jersey limited gun purchases to one a month, a law similar to the one Virginia may revoke.

But recent setbacks to gun control have been many.

Last month, the Indiana legislature passed bills that block private employers from forbidding workers to keep firearms in their vehicles on company property.

Gun rights supporters also showed their strength last year by blocking legislation to give District of Columbia residents a full vote in Congress by attaching an amendment to repeal Washington’s ban on handguns.

Asked by reporters about the Brady group’s critical report on the Obama administration, a White House spokesman, Ben LaBolt, pointed out that the latest F.B.I. statistics showed that violent crime dropped in the first half of 2009 to its lowest levels since the 1960s.

“The president supports and respects the Second Amendment,” Mr. LaBolt said, “and he believes we can take common-sense steps to keep our streets safe and to stem the flow of illegal guns to criminals.”

Still, gun rights groups remain skeptical of the administration.

“The watchword for gun owners is stay ready,” said Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association. “We have had some successes, but we know that the first chance Obama gets, he will pounce on us.”

That Mr. Obama signed legislation allowing guns in national parks and on Amtrak trains should not be seen as respect for the Second Amendment, Mr. LaPierre said. The two measures had been attached as amendments to larger pieces of legislation — a bill cracking down on credit card companies and a transportation appropriations bill, respectively — that the president wanted passed, Mr. LaPierre said.

Regardless of Mr. Obama’s agenda, gun dealers seem to be reaping the benefits of fears surrounding it.

Federal background checks for gun purchases rose to 14 million in 2009, up from 12.7 million in 2008 and 11.2 million in 2007. But from November 2009 to January 2010, the number of background checks fell 12 percent, compared with the same months a year earlier.

In Virginia, the success of new pro-gun laws is partly a result of the Republican Party’s taking the governor’s office after eight years of Democratic control.

A major setback for state gun control advocates was this week’s House vote repealing the one-gun-per-month law, which was passed in 1993 under Gov. L. Douglas Wilder, a Democrat, and has long been upheld as the state’s signature gun control restriction.

Supporters of limiting gun purchases to one a month said the law was important to avoid Virginia’s becoming the East Coast’s top gun-running hub. Opponents dismissed the concern.

“We shouldn’t get rid of our Second Amendment rights because some people in New York City want to abuse theirs,” Robert G. Marshall, a Republican delegate from Manassas who supported repeal of the one-gun-a-month limit, told reporters.

Gun control advocates hoped to win new restrictions after the Virginia Tech massacre on April 16, 2007, in which a student, Seung-Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people before turning a gun on himself.

After the shooting, Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, pushed for stronger gun control measures. But last year the legislature rejected a bill requiring background checks for private sales at gun shows and repealed a law that Mr. Kaine had supported to prohibit anyone from carrying concealed weapons into a club or restaurant where alcohol is served.

In previous years, the guns-in-bars bill cleared both chambers but was vetoed by Mr. Kaine. But the new governor, Robert F. McDonnell, has said he supports the measure.

Virginia is also considering a measure adopted in Montana and Tennessee that declares that firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress. The measure is primarily a challenge to Congress’s power to regulate commerce among the states.

The Montana law is being challenged in federal court, and the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has sent a letter to Tennessee and Montana gun dealers stating that federal law supersedes the state measure.

Posted by ShaunKranish on Wednesday, February 24, 2010 @ 11:18:48 EST (46 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)

• Open Carry Solidarity Event in WI a huge success!!
• Container/Holster event in CHICAGO - Wednesday MARCH 3rd
  Right to Carry meeting and discussion at
  Northeastern Illinois University in CHICAGO!!!

The unbelievably-successful open carry event in Wisconsin over the weekend didn't make it out in our email broadcast.  We're not going to make that mistake twice!

Check out
 
----> http://www.youtube.com/icarrytv

to see the video from the event.

"State Police Interaction" under favorites in our youtube channel is what sparked this event.  An ordinary open carry advocate was harassed and troubled while he finished his lunch at a Chinese restaurant by state troopers.  They instigated and created a problem where none existed.  They treated this man differently only because he was openly carrying a pistol on his side, as the law fully allows in Wisconsin.

How did the community respond?  Politely, proudly, perfectly!  At least 50 people gathered in three locations: Starbucks, the State Police headquarters in Waukesha (where we stood on the steps to the front door, fully armed in plain sight!), and the Chinese restaurant where the harassment occurred.  The restaurant owners were so happy to have us on a Sunday.  They even gave us all free ice cream!!

Thank you to everyone who went, and especially to Wisconsin Carry, Inc. who helped volunteers organize and promote the event.  Wisconsin Carry, Inc. has shown that they are serious about Right to Carry and serious about supporting gun owners who exercise their rights.  They have also reached out to ICarry.org in friendship and camaraderie to work together and keep pushing open carry in order to remove restrictions on concealed carry in Wisconsin!!!

As a matter of fact, even though I live in Illinois, I just joined Wisconsin Carry!  You see, many of us who live in northern Illinois will be traveling frequently to open carry events in Wisconsin to give our brothers and sisters to the north our support.  I'm sure we will see that support reciprocated.  This has already begun, and it will turn into something that's not been seen anywhere else in the nation.  Why?  We're the last two states without concealed carry, so we're in this together and ICarry.org is leading this tag-team effort!!!  If you live in Wisconsin, you should really check Wisconsin Carry, Inc. out at:

----> http://www.wisconsincarry.org


FOR THOSE OF US IN ILLINOIS - Our own display of right to carry resolve!!!

In keeping with our mission and stance, as approved by the ICarry board and prompted by ICarry members, we're launching container/holster displays in 2010 at this meeting.

----> http://www.icarry.org/mission.html

UTATU Collective Presents
A TOWN HALL MEETING:
GUNS, VIOLENCE, AND THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE!

Wednesday, Mar. 3, 2010
7:00 to 9:30 p.m.

Northeastern Illinois University
Carruthers Center for Inner City Studies
700 East Oakwood Blvd., Chicago, IL

Speakers from various groups will discuss the transition to right to carry for Illinois.  The fact that police have no duty to protect us will also be exposed including Supreme Court decisions!


Media has been contacted and will be expecting us at the event with fannypacks, pouches, and/or EMPTY holsters.  What you store inside closed containers is your own business.  We are not asking that you do or do not have anything specific.  We recommend you follow the law at all times and seek legal advice from a competent attorney if necessary.  We only ask that you follow all laws, keep the contents of your personal belongings private, and waive/refuse any search of your belongings.

I was really happy to see Chris Morley, ICarry board of directors, at the open carry event last Sunday.  Despite a long drive, Chris and his lovely and supportive girlfriend Sandy made it and spent the day with us.  Chris used to reside in Chicago and container carried for nearly 10 years before he was arrested after a coworker went through his locked desk to discover his unloaded and encased pistol.

Chris is physically disabled and walks with a cane.  That pistol of his stopped multiple attacks on the streets of Chicago - NO SHOTS FIRED.  His court battle wasn't pleasant, but Chris prevailed IN COOK COUNTY.  That's right - "Crook County" victory for container carry.

My court case from Cherry Valley, IL is still ongoing.  Neither of us tried to get arrested - but when we did we fought it 100% all the time - never bending because IT IS THE LAW.  Open carry in Wisconsin is not prescribed by law - it is simply not regulated by law.  Container carry in Illinois IS ACTUALLY SPELLED OUT AND INSTRUCTED BY STATUTE.

We haven't made much progress until now.  Because now is when we start exercising our rights.  Now is when we show the legislators that we're making a stink over right to carry, that we are NOT going to be intimidated from exercising our rights, and we're not going away or calming down until right to carry a loaded pistol for self-defense is respected!!

Before we can demand our rights restored, we must exercise what we've got, like we're doing up in Wisconsin.  You see, before we can demand seconds we need to eat what's on our plates right now.  Talking is not enough - we need to politely communicate the idea of carrying guns with more than talk.  Then we can get the media coverage and new people into the fight.  Then we can convince the rest of the public - by showing that we're confident and proud, that we're 100% certain that right to carry is what is needed.

Few people are truly anti-gun.  Most are indifferent and simply ignorant.  Show them how important this is to you, show them you believe in it to the bottom of your heart, show them they don't need to be afraid.  Do that and the hoards of indifferent Chicagoland people will decide it's safe and the people who want it are confident.

This year we will see many open carry and container carry events like: highway cleanups, food drives, picnics and barbeques, marches, and whatever our members and volunteers come up with!  You can host your own event.  We're looking for events and locations right now, so be a hero and start one.

For questions/discussion on the March 3rd event in Chicago, please go here:

----> http://www.icarry.org/ftopict-2460.html

We're asking for the support of everyone who can possibly attend this event.  This is the inaugural container/empty holster event to welcome a brand new firearms rights horizon in Illinois.  Don't miss it.  If you can't go, video will be taken and posted right away to ICarryTV.  See you there!!!

ICarry.org Board of Directors

Posted by ShaunKranish on Wednesday, February 24, 2010 @ 00:05:41 EST (112 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)

Article from NAGR

What is it again the anti-gun politicians say would be “all ours” if we’d just give up our guns?

“Safety,” right?  “Security?”

That’s the gun grabbers’ Big Lie.

And it’s the same Big Lie the anti-gunners are using to try to ram through a new “REAL ID” Bill (more appropriately named, DANGEROUS ID).

That’s why I hope you’ll agree to help me fight back TODAY.

You see, President Obama and the rest of his anti-gun administration are upset.

Thanks to your help -- and help from folks just like you from all over the country -- 23 states have come to their senses and REFUSED to comply with the original DANGEROUS ID Bill!

But Barack Obama and the gun grabbers aren’t giving up.

In fact, they’re going all out to ram “PASS ID” -- the new DANGEROUS ID Bill -- into law.

That’s the LAST thing we need.

In fact, we should do everything we can to repeal DANGEROUS ID altogether!

But that can’t happen unless you act TODAY.

The fact is, the Obama Administration is trying to sell the new “PASS ID” bill introduced by Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI) as a “softer, more palatable” version of the original DANGEROUS ID Bill.

Not surprisingly, it’s anything but.

Just like the old bill, the new DANGEROUS ID Bill is nothing more than a transparent attempt to establish a National ID System.

And since drivers’ licenses are required to buy firearms, DANGEROUS ID will almost certainly be used to create a national gun registry.

Have a concealed carry permit?  Well, concealed carry information is commonly included in state police databases...

...so you can bet your permit would be “registered” in the Federal Government’s new National ID system as well.

And just consider the incredible authority Congress would transfer to Barack Obama’s Surveillance Czar Janet Napolitano should the new DANGEROUS ID Bill pass.

If passed, she could establish virtually any standards she wants!

Retinal scans.  Fingerprints.  DNA data.  RFID tracking chips so anti-gun government goons can watch your every movement.  You name it.

Are you feeling “safe” and “secure” yet?


In fact, after reading all those Homeland Security “memos” and “directives” calling patriotic Americans like you and me “terrorists,” all this sends shivers down my spine.

If you agree, please act today: Click here to sign the petition urging your Congressman and Senators to stop PASS ID, and instead repeal DANGEROUS ID altogether.

But as bad as all this is, it gets way worse.

You see, the anti-gunners tipped their hand during the debate over the original DANGEROUS ID Bill.

In the original draft of the legislation, the proposed National ID database would have been linked to Mexican and Canadian ID databases.

And the photograph requirements in the current “PASS ID” act follow the United Nations’ biometric formatting standards to a tee.

Under these standards, government software can analyze facial characteristics and generate a unique identification number that includes not only your identity...

...but virtually any other information an international bureaucrat might want to know about you as well...

...like gun ownership, for example.

You and I both know the anti-gunners ultimate goal is to strip EVERY private citizen of the right to own ANY gun.

And if they have to use the UN or another world government body to succeed, so be it.

Need I remind you that right outside United Nations headquarters in New York City stands a sculpture of a handgun with a knotted barrel?

The fact is, you and I MUST do everything we can not only to defeat the new “PASS ID” act, but to repeal DANGEROUS ID altogether.

The good news is the National Association for Gun Rights has a plan to do exactly that.

First, I’ve planned a massive take-no-prisoners grassroots mailing to really turn up the heat on targeted U.S. Senators.

With any luck, this will slow “PASS ID” down, and -- just as importantly -- begin building the support for a total repeal.

But that’s far from all I have planned.

You see, if we’re going to win, you and I are going to have to go toe-to-toe with the gun grabbers with a full-scale media campaign.

You know the deal.

Targeted leafleting. Guest editorials. Blogging. Media interviews. Even newspaper, radio and TV ads if possible.

And just in case the U.S. Senate doesn’t get the message right off the bat, we’re going to be ready to hammer them with mailing after grassroots mailing until they finally “see the light.”

But none of this is cheap.

In fact, a massive program like this will be very expensive.

Trust me, I know how tough things are for many folks right now, and I didn’t make the decision to launch a fight to stop “PASS ID” and repeal DANGEROUS ID altogether lightly.

At the same time, the decision to fight DANGEROUS ID wasn’t hard.

You and I don’t have a choice. We simply must win this fight.

We’ve made some good headway in the last couple of years against DANGEROUS ID, and more and more Americans are aware of the danger.

But Barack Obama, Janet Napolitano and the rest of the Second Amendment’s sworn enemies aren’t happy -- and they’re determined to get their way.



 

Posted by ShaunKranish on Tuesday, February 23, 2010 @ 08:36:47 EST (60 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)

Since we declared our affection for McDonald v. Chicago, the big gun rights case that will be heard next month by the Supreme Court, the pre-gaming analysis has continued unabated. (LB background here.)

Today LB colleague Jess Bravin weighs in with his own take on the alliances and buzz surrounding the case, and he’s got a lot to say, particularly about Justice Scalia (pictured) and the above passage the justice wrote in a 1997 book.

In 2008 Scalia wrote the majority opinion in the court’s 5-4 decision to strike down a local handgun ban in Washington D.C., a unique federal enclave. The question in McDonald, which is a challenge to bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., is whether the ruling applies to states and cities.

In his 1997 book, “A Matter of Interpretation,” Scalia wrote that he viewed “the Second Amendment as a guarantee that the federal government would not interfere with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

Yet, he added, “properly understood, it is no limitation upon arms control by the states.”

Now a claim to the contrary—that the Second Amendment does limit arms control by the states—is being decided.

Does Scalia still believe what he wrote? Through a court spokeswoman, Scalia declined to comment to WSJ.

Meanwhile the case, Bravin writes, has also scrambled traditional alliances.

For example, the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal advocacy group with ties to members of the Obama administration, is urging the justices to strike down the Illinois gun bans. The center says the case allows the court to correct a poor constitutional interpretation from the late 19th century and that establishing a federal right to self-defense could open the door to progressive readings of individual rights in future cases

Posted by ShaunKranish on Saturday, February 20, 2010 @ 21:31:49 EST (95 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)

This article is a good reference that any of us can use to talk to our future Reps,Senators or any public office. You can use this as a comparison or you can use it to just ask the questions. You all know how you feel on these issues, now make your politicians tell you how they feel. make sure you right the answers down so you have them for future conversations with other politicians.

 

Posted by ShaunKranish on Saturday, February 20, 2010 @ 21:23:05 EST (49 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)

NRA: Final 2 States Without Right-to-Carry Gun Laws Will Fall

By Wayne LaPierre, NRA Executive Vice-President

There are only two states in this entire country that don't have some sort of law on the books to allow people to carry handguns for self-defense: Illinois and Wisconsin. Wisconsin's legislature has approved "shall-issue" Right-to-Carry not once but twice, only to have the legislation vetoed by Governor Jim Doyle. But with Governor Doyle term-limited, and Right-to-Carry getting increasing support in Illinois, some anti-gun politicians seem to be concerned that Right-to-Carry is inevitable. That's why they're doing their best to sound reasonable, while instead asking gun owners to accept a poison pill agreement.

The D.A. and police chief in Milwaukee have stated publicly that they'd support some type of Right-to-Carry law (with details to be ironed out later) as long as other changes to the state's gun laws are made, including making it a felony to engage in a straw purchase, and new restrictions on gun shows in the state. 

The NRA is second to no one in wanting to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, but the NRA can't support new restrictions on lawful firearms owners and retailers at gun shows across the state. Anti-gun politicians trying to save face by offering a "compromise" won't find a receptive audience among NRA members. The gun-banners were wrong to block Right-to-Carry in the legislature, and they're wrong to say their lukewarm support for Right-to-Carry is contingent on new gun-control laws being passed as well.

Shaun from ICarry.org's comments: Good article, and it definitely is inevitable for new Right to Carry laws to pass in Illinois and Wisconsin.  I think LaPierre made a huge mistake by leaving out the fact that those officials in Wisconsin want to make it a FELONY to Open Carry as countless Wisconsin citizens responsibly do on a daily basis - in exchange for permission-based licensing/permit system for concealed carry.  Yes, they want to increase the penalties for straw purchases and change private sales and gun shows.

It looks as if the NRA is only interested in permit-based systems that force people to hide their self-reliance and the fact they are exercising such an important right.  This is very disappointing, and as an NRA member I have contacted them about this.  Open carry is a fantastic way to raise awareness, educate, and decrease the chances of violent attack.  The bigger issue is that Right to Carry truly is a right, and a right is something that doesn't require permission.  This right still exists in Wisconsin through open carry, and the NRA's failure to capitalize on this and lay the groundwork for right to carry nationwide is very disappointing.

Posted by ShaunKranish on Thursday, February 18, 2010 @ 13:01:30 EST (93 reads)
(Read More... | 1 comment | Score: 0)

SEATTLE, WA – A King County Superior Court judge has ruled in favor of a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association, striking down a ban on guns in city parks because it violates Washington State’s long-standing preemption statute.

Judge Catherine Shaffer ruled from the bench that the gun ban, adopted under former Mayor Greg Nickels, violates Washington’s law, which placed sole authority for regulating firearms in the hands of the State Legislature. That law was adopted in 1983 and amended in 1985, and has served as a model for similar laws across the country.

SAF and NRA were joined in the lawsuit by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Washington Arms Collectors and five individual plaintiffs.

“This is a great victory for the rule of law and Washington citizens,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Greg Nickels was so blinded by his personal hatred for firearms owners and his own arrogance that he imagined the city under his control could simply ignore state law. That arrogance cost Nickels his job last year. We repeatedly warned him not to push a gun ban, but he refused to listen.

“It is also a victory for the Legislature,” he observed, “because this case affirms the intent of lawmakers in 1983 to prevent cities like Seattle from creating a nightmare patchwork of conflicting and confusing firearms regulations. The ruling solidifies the legislature’s authority and sends a message to city and county governments to stop meddling with the rights of Washington citizens.”

Gottlieb suggested a review of local ordinances may now be in order, so that city and county governments can be compelled to remove old gun regulations or face legal consequences.

“This ruling puts anti-gun local officials on notice that legally-armed citizens have rights, too,” Gottlieb stated.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Posted by ShaunKranish on Monday, February 15, 2010 @ 00:37:05 EST (67 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)