Federal Appeals Court Confirms Second Amendment Protects Right to Carry in Public

FAIRFAX, Va. – The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action applauded (NRA-ILA) a ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday that confirmed the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.

“This is a critical issue for law-abiding gun owners who want to exercise their right to self-defense outside the home,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “The Second Amendment clearly protects the right to bear arms in public.”

The ruling reversed a decision by a Hawaii district court that upheld Hawaii’s ban on carriage outside the home.

“This is an important ruling that confirms what NRA members already know – the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” Cox concluded.

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at NRA on Facebook and Twitter @NRA.

Witch Hunt Continues

I an truly amazed that congress has nothing to do but waste time and money while important bills need their attention.

They should get to work on things that matter instead of following the witch hunt of the Democrats. I for one think that the people are getting very tired of these tactics that are distracting and hampering the progress they were sent there to complete.

Hillary-Orlando

Full Definition of assault (Websters Dictionary)

1

a : a violent physical or verbal attack

b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces

c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)

2

a : a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact — compare battery 1b

b : rape 2
So What Is an ‘Assault Rifle’ Really? We Look at the Definitions and How the Term Is ‘Demonized’

Jan. 11, 2013 10:22am Liz Klima

“Make a promise to yourself that you will stop calling rifles ‘assault weapons.’”

That’s what Glenn Beck said on his morning radio show Thursday as he discussed AR-15s. But why? Is an AR-15 not an assault rifle? Does the “AR” in AR-15 not stand for “assault rifle”?

Gun Experts Decry Use of the Term Assault to Describe Civilian Firearms

A man with an AR-15, which is a semi-automatic rifle allowed for civilian ownership. (Photo: Shutterstock.com)

It doesn’t. In fact, it doesn’t mean “automatic rifle” either, as many might think. AR actually stands for ArmaLite rifle, which is the company that first developed it in the 1950s.

It seems that there is a lot of confusion as to the difference between military rifles and those designed for civilian ownership, especially because of the language often used to describe the latter. The most popular terms to describe the weapons at the center of the recent gun control debate are “military-style” and “assault.” These words have long been used to to describe civilian firearms like the AR-15, but some consider it an inappropriate association that is deliberately being made to “demonize” the guns.

As Beck radio producer Stu Burguiere put it on the show Thursday, “they are targeting these weapons because they think the public is confused enough that they can get away with it — and they are.”

With what seems to be little understanding or agreement on the definition of what constitutes an assault rifle and the difference between civilian and military arms, TheBlaze went searching.

Military vs. Civilian Rifles — What’s the Difference?

For the purpose of this article, we’ll focus on AR-15s since it is what CBS calls “the most popular rifle in America” and one often designated an “assault” rifle. An AR-15 is the civilian equivalent to the military’s M-16. So what’s the difference?

Kelly Alwood, a firearms trainer and consultant, told TheBlaze the only difference is that one is fully automatic and the other is semi-automatic. It’s a small yet simultaneously big distinction. Firearms for use by the military are able to shoot continuously with one pull of the trigger, machine-gun style. Civilian firearms, on the other hand, only allow one shot per trigger pull.

Gun Experts Decry Use of the Term Assault to Describe Civilian Firearms

M-16, a military automatic rifle. (Photo: Wikimedia)

Chris Parrett, a firearms enthusiast, pointed out that modifying a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic one is not only highly illegal with extreme penalties but also no easy feat.

What Constitutes an ‘Assault’ Rifle?

Merriam-Webster Dictonary defines “assault rifle” as “any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use.” The keywords here are “designed for military use.”

If that definition doesn’t quite cut it for you, here’s how David Kopel (via the Washington Examiner) describes it in an article in the “Journal of Contemporary Law” based on a definition from the Department of Defense (emphasis added):

As the United States Defense Department’s Defense Intelligence Agency book Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide explains, “assault rifles” are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.”[21] In other words, assault rifles are battlefield rifles which can fire automatically.[22]

Weapons capable of fully automatic fire, including assault rifles, have been regulated heavily in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934.[23] Taking possession of such weapons requires paying a $200 federal transfer tax and submitting to an FBI background check, including ten-print fingerprints.[24]

Many civilians have purchased semiautomatic-only rifles that look like military assault rifles. These civilian rifles are, unlike actual assault rifles, incapable of automatic fire.

Based on these two definitions, since AR-15 is designed for civilian use, it therefore doesn’t fit with the definition of an “assault” weapon. This then begs the question why the association is being made in the first place.

“It was the Left who needed a term to call them,” Beck said on radio Thursday. “They are trying to make you think …’an AR-15, nobody needs that.’ An AR-15 is just a rifle, unless it has a fully automatic switch on it and then it becomes a machine gun — and you can’t buy that.”

That said, Hillary you are wrong. There is no such thing as going to the gun shop and buying an assault rifle. 

If you are not restricted from buying a gun and you pass the background check you are allowed to legally possess a weapon.

Today’s Rant

Today, after years of watching and a lot of thought, I have come to a conclusion on PC (political correctness).

PC does not exist. If you’re black, gay, lesbian, white, yellow, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, or anything else, you 

are what you are. No apologies at all. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Government is greedy, intrusive, and as 

crooked as Henry Lawders walking stick. Politicians who are not crooked before they’re are elected are the instant

they assume office. They think anything they disagree with is not PC and they think they are better than anyone else 

because they have a position of power and are above the law. The only PC thing is to return to the founding principals

of our nation. Adhere to the documents of our founding. You can’t please everyone and you can’t legislate PC. 

NRA-ILA | Hillary Remains Willing to Ignore Federal Firearms Law

1. Hillary Remains Willing to Ignore Federal Firearms Law

Source: NRA-ILA | Hillary Remains Willing to Ignore Federal Firearms Law

NRA-ILA | Second Amendment

The Second Amendment of the United States allows: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Source: NRA-ILA | Second Amendment

West Virginia: Permitless Carry to Go Into Effect on May 24

MONDAY, MAY 9, 2016

   https://www.nraila.org/

The enactment of House Bill 4145, West Virginia’s Permitless Carry legislation, represents an unprecedented expansion of rights for law-abiding West Virginians. It is also unprecedented in its path to eventual enactment. House Bill 4145 overwhelmingly passed both chambers of the Legislature on February 24, 2016. Governor Tomblin then waited the full constitutionally permitted time-period before he vetoed the legislation on March 3, 2016. Two days later, on March 5, 2016, the West Virginia Senate concurred with the House’s veto override vote the previous day and reaffirmed their support of HB 4145. After this significant victory for law-abiding, responsible gun owners in West Virginia, everyone’s immediate attention turned to deciphering when HB 4145 would go into effect.
Given its path to eventual legislative approval—notwithstanding the objections of the Governor—there was considerable confusion as to when the “in effect 90 days from passage” would begin to toll. Today, Attorney General Patrick Morrisey put all of that confusion to rest. In a statement released today, Attorney General Morrisey wrote, “[the June 5, 2016 effective date] was intended to be conservative and avoid any improper prosecution of gun owners. We are now accelerating the date based upon a thoroughly researched interpretation and letting everyone know when this law should be enforced. That date is May 24th. Citizens should not worry about the potential gap in dates of interpretation because this is how my office will enforce the law. We will make that clear to all the county offices.”
As West Virginia’s chief law enforcement officer and top attorney, Attorney General Morrisey’s support of law-abiding gun owners was crucial to securing ultimate passage of permitless/constitutional carry. His efforts to ensure that law-abiding gun owners are adequately informed on the law should, once again, be applauded. Please contact Attorney General Morrisey at 304-558-2021 and thank him for supporting your Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Gun control laws the biggest con job in our nation’s history

CARLO DI FALCOMercury
THIS year marked the 20th anniversary of the Port Arthur tragedy, and the same prohibitionist groups have been exploiting this as they have for the past two decades.

The Port Arthur tragedy is not now mentioned without referring to banning the Adler lever-action shotgun.
While no one denies what happened at Port Arthur was an unprecedented tragedy, Norway had a massacre in 2011 that claimed 77 lives and yet there was no gun buyback or tightening of their gun laws. There has not been a repeat despite citizens having access to the same types of firearms used by Anders Brievek and Martin Bryant.

New Zealand has not had a mass shooting since 1997 and likewise allows its citizens the same semiautomatic, high-powered firearms as do some European countries.

The proposition you can vicariously control criminal or psychopathic behaviour by confiscating private property and burying law-abiding citizens under a mountain of regulation is simply absurd.

Former Australian prime minister John Howard has claimed success because there had not been another mass shooting. The reality is last year we had our first mass shooting (four or more victims in a single incident) when a man shot his wife and three children before taking his own life at Lockhart, NSW. Mental health issues were a factor and firearms had been confiscated from this house previously.

Since the National Firearms Agreement, we have had seven massacres resulting in 62 victims and 17 were children. Only one of these murder sprees involved the perpetrator using a firearm.

It is irrelevant whether the murders were carried out with a firearm or any other method, the end result was exactly the same for the family, friends and community.

Since 1915, the Australian Bureau of Statistics recorded the number of gun murders, including mass shootings in Australia. In only four years did the total for any one year exceed 100 victims – 1996 was one of them at 104 fatalities. The lowest year totalled 15 and the highest 128.

In 2008, researchers Jack Dearden and Warwick Jones, working for the Australian Institute of Criminology, reported that 93 per cent of gun murders involved an unlicensed perpetrator with an unregistered firearm.

Our gun laws completely miss the mark when you realise the chance of any one of Australia’s 800,000 licensed gun owners committing murder are so minuscule that you are more likely to die from a bee sting.

When you look at the major AIC researchers peer-reviewed work on Australian crime trends, the conclusion in a number of studies is that the decrease in gun murders started well before the NFA and has continued to date. No researcher has been able to find a statistical break after the implementation of the NFA.

To massage the numbers, prohibitionists refer to gun deaths rather than murders, this means they include suicides and they ignore method substitution. In any case, suicides are a mental health issue, not a gun issue.

As a proportion of murders, gun murders have decreased since 1969, when they were 44 per cent of deaths well before the NFA, to the 14 per cent they are at currently.

Both total murders and suicides using all methods have decreased over time. Suicide numbers decreased from a high in 1997 until 2006 and then continued to climb, with the latest total reaching 2864 deaths in 2014.

The proportion of firearm suicides has stayed down, but it can hardly be called a success based on the number of suicides. We lose on average 20 more people every week to suicide than died at Port Arthur.

It is a strange quirk of human nature that the things least likely to kill us are the things that concern us the most. To put it into context, if you average out the ABS figures for drug-induced death between 1997 and 2000 the yearly figure is 1569.

The threat to Australia’s population of legal firearm ownership is wildly overstated and John Howard effectively pulled off the biggest con job in its history by preying on irrational fears.

For help, advice and information about anxiety, depression and suicide prevention, contact the beyondblue support service on 1300 22 4636 or at http://www.beyondblue.org.au/get-support.

More support and information about suicide prevention is available at Lifeline on 131 114, Kids Helpline 1800 551 800, headspace.org.au, ReachOut.com, and the Suicide Call Back Service on 1300 659 467.

Carlo Di Falco is a competitive target shooter, hunter and a committee member of Blue Hills Sporting Shooters Club.

 

Attorney General Patrick Morrisey Leads 21 States In Amicus Brief Supporting Citizens’ Second Amendment Right To Own Guns

11/18/2014

​CHARLESTON — Attorney General Patrick Morrisey today announced that he led a bipartisan coalition of 21 state attorneys general in an amicus, or friend of the court, brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to declare unconstitutional a Maryland law that forbids the possession, sale, transfer or receipt of certain firearms.

The brief argues Maryland’s law violates citizens’ core Second Amendment right to keep firearms in their home for self-protection. Plaintiffs in the case, Kolbe, et al., argued that the Maryland ban completely prohibited the possession of commonly used firearms and some of the most popular guns used by citizens for self-defense. A U.S. District Court ruled the law did not violate the constitution.

“Our Office is committed to defending law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights, and we believe this law clearly violates the Constitution,” Attorney General Morrisey said. “This law’s broad categorical ban is no different than trying to impose a content-based ban on speech. It simply cannot be done.”

In their brief, Morrisey and the other state attorneys general argue the Maryland law runs counter to previous Court decisions that deemed other bans prohibiting citizens’ private ownership of other common firearms as unconstitutional.

West Virginia was joined in the brief by the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

“We are proud to have led this bipartisan group of states in this amicus brief,” Morrisey said. “States must band together in times when they see citizens’ rights being diminished or infringed upon. If the courts decide this law passes muster, it would undermine a core part of the Second Amendment.”

To read a copy of the brief, click here.
Contact Information

Beth Ryan, (304) 558-2021, beth.g.ryan@wvago.gov

Letter: Concealed carry public in Delaware

Letter: Concealed carry public in Delaware

September 18, 2014 7:30 pm

Dear Editor:

In a letter to the editor (“Draw the line on concealed carry names,” The Sentinel, Sept. 10), Brian Smith states, “You claim that the public has the right to know who has character worthy of having a concealed carry permit, and likewise who has failed to measure up. What exactly do you think the ‘public’ should do with this information?”

He goes on to state “the bottom line is that there are limits to the public’s right to know, just as there are limits to civil rights.”

I’d like to pass along some information to Mr. Smith — don’t ever move to Delaware and apply for a concealed carry permit. One of the requirements for obtaining a carry permit in Delaware follows:

“Publication of your intent: You must publish your full name, your home address and indicate your intent to make application for a Delaware CCDW in a newspaper, published in your county, that has a circulation of at least 35 percent of the population in your ZIP code. Check your local newspapers if they meet this qualification — prices for a legal notice can run from $15-$75 depending on the publication. The notice must run at least 10 days before you file your application and the newspaper will send you a notarized letter that your ad was run.”

It would be interesting to check with Delaware authorities to determine the intent of this requirement to obtain a carry permit. Apparently, in Delaware the public does have the right to know.

William Walsh

Hampden Township