• Category Archives Legal
  • Man Wearing Pro-Gun T-shirt Thrown Out of Voting Booth in Texas

    Election officials ejected a Texas man from a voting booth because he was wearing a Second Amendment t-shirt.

    Chris Driskill was prevented from voting at the Waller County Courthouse on Tuesday after officials claimed he was violating Texas Election Code section 85.036, which states that “a person may not electioneer for or against any candidate, measure, or political party” in or within 100 feet of a voting location.

    “I heard a gentleman’s voice over my shoulder say ‘he can’t vote with that shirt on. You’ll have to either turn it inside out our you’ll have to leave,’” Driskill told KVUE.

    The officials used the election law to throw Driskill out of the voting booth even though the shirt simply stated “Second Amendment – 1789 – America’s Original Homeland Security” on the front without any mention of a political candidate or proposition.

    This is simply an attack on free speech and voting rights through the color of law as well as another example of the continued demonization of gun owners across America.

    Read More…


    The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for review of its challenge to the exorbitant gun permit fees charged by the City of New York. The case is Kwong v. de Blasio.

    SAF is joined in the lawsuit – which was filed in 2011 against former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has been replaced by current Mayor Bill de Blasio – by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and seven private citizens. They are represented by New York attorney David Jensen.

    The lawsuit challenges New York City’s $340 fee for a three-year handgun license, which is the highest such fee imposed for a gun possession license anywhere in the United States. SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb noted that the fee anywhere else in the entire state of New York is $10, but the city is exempted from that law, The city’s higher fee, he said, “discourages city residents from exercising their civil rights while violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

    “The fee structure discriminates against all but the wealthy and well-connected elites,” Gottlieb said. “This prohibitively high fee leaves average citizens defenseless due to their financial situation, but the right of self-defense and exercise of the Second Amendment should not be limited solely to those with deep pockets and fat wallets.”

    The federal district court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals both sided with the city’s argument that the higher fee is allowable to recover costs and promote public safety.

    “This recurring fee constitutes a substantial burden on the exercise of a fundamental civil right,” Gottlieb stated. “Nowhere in the Constitution does it condition the exercise of a civil right on the amount of money one has in the bank.”

  • Two Anniversaries Gun Control Supporters Aren’t Celebrating

    Gun control supporters have lately used the 20th anniversary of Bill Clinton’s signing of the Brady Act into law as an excuse to repeat their demand for “universal” background checks. Even though most people who commit crimes with guns defeat the Brady Act by getting their guns by theft, on the black market, or from straw purchasers, anti-gunners have portrayed the law as having saved countless lives.

    Nevertheless, the gun ban movement is altogether ignoring two other significant anniversaries associated with its efforts.

    Last month marked the 40-year anniversary of the founding of the National Council to Control Handguns, which in its early days openly admitted that it supported banning the private possession of handguns. It has since been renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and while its handgun banning rhetoric is more muted, its goals are still to ban guns by any means necessary.

    Since the group’s formation, Americans have bought over 60 million handguns, bringing the total to somewhere around 100 million; 32 more states have adopted Right–to-Carry laws, bringing the total to 42; and, contrary to the group’s predictions, the nation’s murder rate has decreased to a 49-year low. That’s not much for anti-gun rabble-rousers to celebrate.

    The other anniversary relates to something with a more contemporary significance. On Saturday, it will have been 25 years since the late-Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) introduced the first federal legislation in anti-gunners’ war against the most universally useful firearms of all time: general-purpose semi-automatic rifles, such as the extraordinarily popular AR-15.

    The bill was S. 386, the “Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989,” and it came as no surprise. The previous year, Josh Sugarmann had advised gun control supporters to start attacking the rifles to boost their efforts to ban handguns. Mr. Sugarmann is a former staffer with the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, as well as Amnesty International. At the time, he had formed his own little anti-handgun group called the New Right Watch, which he later renamed the Violence Policy Center.

    As Sugarmann put it, “assault weapons [will] strengthen the handgun restriction lobby. . . . It will be a new topic in what has become to the press and public an ‘old’ debate. . . . Handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. . . . Efforts to restrict assault weapons are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns.”

    To the dismay of anti-handgun activists everywhere, Metzenbaum’s rifle-focused bill didn’t pass. President George H. W. Bush firmly opposed a ban on American-made rifles (although he later ordered that importation of over 40 models of foreign-made semi-automatic rifles be suspended, pending a new review of their eligibility for importation under the Gun Control Act’s “sporting purposes” test).

    Metzenbaum’s bill would have banned the manufacture of the AR-15, various other firearms, and magazines holding more than 10 rounds, regardless of the firearm for which they were designed. Furthermore, S. 386 would have required owners of banned firearms to register those that they already had and allowed the Treasury Secretary and Attorney General to designate other detachable-magazine semi-automatic firearms as “assault weapons.” In these ways, the bill was even worse than legislation Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) sponsored five years later, which ultimately became the federal “assault weapon” and “large” magazine ban of 1994.

    Metzenbaum’s bill was extreme, to be sure, but he was typical of most radical gun control supporters; ignorant of basic facts about guns but still self-righteous and indignant about them. In November 1993, when “assault weapons” were being debated in the Senate, Metzenbaum said, “I don’t know much about the weapons” but “they look quite ominous. We have pictures of them.”

    He wasn’t kidding about the “pictures.” In putting together his bill that year, Metzenbaum’s staffers had flipped through an issue of Gun Digest and written down whatever names they saw printed beside “ominous-looking” guns. Indeed, because the book had mislabeled one rifle, the bill even ended up proposing to ban a gun that didn’t exist. The media, who would have ridiculed any pro-Second Amendment senator for a comparable error, let Metzenbaum slide without comment.

    Metzenbaum’s bills and a bill authored by then-Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.) in 1989 were used as the starting point when Feinstein put together the language of her gun ban. Feinstein proved just as zealous and poorly informed as her fellow gun control supporters. A police officer from the Los Angeles Police Academy told NRA-ILA that Feinstein had visited the academy, ostensibly on a fact-finding mission. Nevertheless, she rejected information that officers at the academy gave her concerning the infrequent use of “assault weapons” in crime and the foolishness of categorizing rifles according to whether they have a flash suppressor, bayonet mount or other external attachment.

    Proving the officers right and Feinstein wrong, at least 730,000 AR-15s (sans flash suppressors and bayonet mounts) were manufactured and bought during the 10 years that Feinstein’s “ban” was in effect. Meanwhile, the nation’s murder rate plummeted anyway. Later, an independent study for Congress determined that the supposedly-banned firearms had not been used in much crime in the first place. Thus, over Feinstein’s tiresome protestations, Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004.

    Since Metzenbaum introduced S. 386, Americans have bought about four million additional AR-15s, raising the total to about five million, and an uncountable number of their components and accessories. Gun controllers have continued to insist that AR-15s and similar rifles are the “weapon of choice of drug dealers” and “not useful” for self-defense. Yet most AR-15s are carbines configured for defensive applications, while also useful for target practice and a variety of shooting sports, such as “3-Gun” and the NRA’s new National Defense Match. For some 20 years, longer-barreled AR-15 rifles have dominated NRA and Civilian Marksmanship Program service rifle competitions, including those held during the annual National Rifle Trophy Matches and National Rifle Championships. These days they are also used for hunting everything from deer to coyotes to prairie dogs.

    Over the last 25 years, gun control supporters have told more lies and spread more misinformation and disinformation in the context of the “assault weapon” issue than perhaps on any other gun control issue of our time. But the American people aren’t stupid, and they aren’t buying it. Today, general-purpose semi-automatic rifles are going strong. In particular, the AR-15 has become the 21st century version of the 1898 Mauser–the platform upon which the most versatile defensive, hunting and target shooting rifles are built.

    Nothing is set in stone, of course. If President Obama was able to replace even one of the five Supreme Court justices who sided with the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, gains that took decades to achieve could evaporate almost overnight. The Court’s statement that the right to keep and bear arms applies to all defensive arms that are commonly used for lawful purposes could be swept aside, banning handguns might be constitutionally permissible, and the Second Amendment could be reinterpreted as something that protects nothing more than a “right” of National Guardsmen to be issued guns while on-duty.

    On the other hand, if everyone who owns a gun the prohibitionists have proposed to ban over the last 40 years votes for pro-Second Amendment candidates this November and in 2016, we will continue to deny gun control supporters the celebrations which have thus far eluded them.

  • A prosecutor’s report debunks misconceptions about the Sandy Hook massacre

    Man-Boy Love Advocate and Mass Murderer Adam Lanza


    In December 2012, less than a week after Adam Lanza murdered 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the New York Post described his “eerie lair of violent video games,” where he “obliterated virtual victims until the virtual became a reality.” The Post reported that the troubled 20-year-old “was enthralled by blood-splattering, shoot-’em-up electronic games.”

    The official report on the massacre, released in November by State’s Attorney Steven Sedensky, paints a more complicated picture. It casts doubt on the significance of Lanza’s gaming habits as well as several other theories about why Lanza killed or how he could have been stopped.

    Contrary to the impression created by stories focusing on Lanza’s enthusiasm for violent titles such as Call of Duty, he enjoyed a wide variety of games. “One person described the shooter as spending the majority of his time playing non-violent video games all day,” the report says, “with his favorite at one point being ‘Super Mario Brothers.'”

    Another game that “enthralled” Lanza in the months before the massacre: Dance Dance Revolution, which he played at a local movie theater for hours at a time every Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. If it seems absurd to portray Lanza’s obsession with dance moves as a warning sign of the violence to come, it is only slightly less absurd to imply that “shoot-’em-up electronic games” enjoyed by millions of young people who never hurt anyone turned him into a mass murderer.

    There is a similar problem with the theory that mental illness made him do it. “The shooter had significant mental health issues that affected his ability to live a normal life and to interact with others,” the report says, but “whether this contributed in any way is unknown.” Lanza was anxious, isolated, socially awkward, rigid, and persnickety -traits his mother attributed to Asperger syndrome. But as The New York Times noted in November, “there is no evidence that people with Asperger’s are more likely than others to commit violent crimes.”

    Read More…

  • Colorado sheriffs stand up, resist new restrictions on gun rights!

    Colorado sheriffs stand up, resist new restrictions on gun rights

    County sheriffs unhappy with gun control laws enacted in the Centennial State last year remain steadfast in undoing unenforceable and unconstitutional laws.

    “Technically every law enforcement agency in the state is committing a crime,” said Weld County Sheriff John B. Cooke, the first-named plaintiff in a federal lawsuit against Colorado Gov. John W. Hickenlooper, Jr., a Democrat,who was elected into office in 2010 with 51 percent of the vote.

    Under state law when one individual sells or loans a firearm to another, that “transfer” must be conducted through a Federal Firearms Licensee, said Cooke. “The deputies come on duty and are transferring weapons without a federal firearm license making it an illegal transfer.”

    In March lawmakers passed and the governor signed into law various gun-control measures that precipitated the federal lawsuit, he said.

    Read More…

  • Ohio Cop NOT Prosecuted for Masturbating with Pre-Teen Boy! (Police State Protects Their Own)

    A highway patrol trooper in Sandusky County, Ohio, will not face charges after allegations surfaced that he and a pre-teen boy masturbated together five years ago.

    Trooper Ricky Vitte Jr. told his wife “he did not want (the boy) to feel pressured on feeling the need to have to have sex with someone, when he can fix those needs by masturbating to porn,” according to a police report. The report says that on two separate occasions Vitte and the boy watched porn and masturbated in unison, with a dresser between them blocking their views of one another, the Sandusky Register reports.

  • NYC Cop Assaults Man Recording Him in Brooklyn Subway Station (Video)

    Police Officer Efrain Rojas confronted a man who was recording him give a summons to another man by pulling out his iPhone and recording the encounter.

    Shawn Thomas recorded Police Officer Efrain Rojas inside the Utica Ave. station while he was giving a summons to another person. Rojas came over with his iPhone and started recording his encounter with Thomas. Rojas asked Thomas to stop recording and leave while Thomas hurled profanities. Thomas’ phone was taken away and the was video deleted but later recovered. He was charged with multiple offenses.

    A transit cop allegedly assaulted, then arrested a 47-year-old man recording another man getting a summons at a Brooklyn subway station, according to a bombshell video released Wednesday.

    Shawn Thomas of New Rochelle claimed Police Officer Efrain Rojas attacked him, arrested him and then tried to delete the video of Saturday’s interaction at Brooklyn’s Utica Ave. station.

    Thomas told photographyisnotacrime.com that Rojas dragged him out of the station, forced him face down on a snowswept sidewalk and slammed his head into the pavement, splitting his lip.

    “I was bleeding profusely,” he told the website. Attempts to reach Thomas for comment were unsuccessful Wednesday. “I was having really bad head pains while in jail, so they took me back to the hospital the following morning.”

    Thomas was transported to the hospital twice as he awaited his arraignment Sunday, he said, according to the site.

  • It may soon be easy to carry a permitted concealed handgun in California


    California may soon join 42 other states in letting people carry concealed handguns once they meet certain objective criteria.

    Thursday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state couldn’t ban both concealed and open carry guns. The court also struck down the so-called “good cause” requirement for getting a permit, saying that concern for one’s personal safety should be sufficient justification.

    The Constitution guarantees Americans the right to “keep and bear arms.” To “bear” means to carry.

    Ironically, California may have opened the door to make it much easier for people to get concealed handgun permits by recently banning people from openly carrying guns. The court wrote that while it might indeed be constitutional for a state to ban concealed handguns or to ban people openly carrying handguns, it simply can’t ban both options.

    Counties such as Los Angeles have only let a few hundred people get concealed handgun permits out of 7.5 million adults. In San Diego, only about 700 out of 2.4 million can carry. And in San Francisco, no one is granted a permit to carry a gun.

    Read More…

  • Victory in Peruta v. San Diego: Ninth Circuit Confirms Right to Carry Arms in Public

    In a tremendous victory for the right to keep and bear arms, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has confirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to carry firearms for self-defense in public. The landmark decision came in the NRA-supported case of Peruta v. San Diego County, brought on behalf of the CRPA Foundation and five individuals who were denied carry licenses by the San Diego Sheriff. In its ruling, this federal court struck down a San Diego County Sheriff’s policy that prevented most law-abiding adults from getting a license to carry a firearm.

    California law generally prohibits the carrying of firearms in public places, but allows sheriffs and chiefs of police to issue licenses to carry that exempt people from that prohibition. California law also sets out criteria for issuing those licenses. An applicant must: 1) be a resident of their respective city or county, 2) be of “good moral character,” and 3) have “good cause” for such a license. Applicants must also pass a firearms training course.

    Although many rural California counties accept self-defense as “good cause” to get a license to carry, many urban sheriffs and scores of urban chiefs of police across California have a policy, like that of San Diego Sheriff William Gore, that does not recognize self-defense as sufficient “good cause” to get a license to carry. Instead, San Diego requires individuals to prove that they have a special need, beyond the desire to defend themselves and their families, in order to get a license. Under this heightened standard nearly all citizens are disqualified. So Sheriff Gore’s restrictive policy was essentially a ban on carrying firearms outside the home for most law-abiding adults, including the plaintiffs.

    Peruta was filed in the federal district court in October 2009. That court upheld Sheriff Gore’s policy as constitutional, so the plaintiffs immediately appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case got a great deal of attention when former Solicitor General, Paul Clement joined plaintiffs’ legal team. Mr. Clement argued eloquently on behalf of gun owners before the Ninth Circuit on December 6, 2012.

    In its opinion reversing the district court’s decision, the Court of Appeals held that San Diego’s “good cause” policy is unconstitutional, and echoed the points made in the briefs and by Mr. Clement at oral argument; that the government can ban open carry or concealed carry, but the Second Amendment prohibits the government from banning both.

    Peruta was one of many cases that have been filed all over the country challenging the constitutionality of laws limiting the issuance of licenses to carry a firearm in public since the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed in 2008 and 2010 that the Second Amendment prohibits state and local governments from infringing the right to keep and bear arms. The cases decided since then have met with mixed results. Many were unfavorable and contrary to the Heller decision’s analysis. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals did confirm the right to carry is protected outside the home in its opinion in another NRA-supported case, Shepard v. Madigan. The Peruta court was heavily influenced by the rulings in the Sheppard and Moore cases. But those decisions did not go as far as Peruta, because the issue of carry licenses was not before the court in them. So Peruta is the first appellate decision to hold that licenses to carry cannot be denied to law-abiding citizens just because they do not have a special need to carry.

    The Peruta ruling is a significant victory for the Second Amendment, and for the constitutional rights of all Americans, especially those in the Ninth Circuit. We want our members and supporters to know that your hard work and loyalty is paying big dividends in the vindication of the Second Amendment.

  • Arizona Senate Panel Approves Bill to Nullify Federal Gun Laws


    Today, an Arizona state senate committee approved a bill that would virtually nullify all federal gun acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations. The vote was 6-3.

    Along with twelve sponsors and co-sponsors, Arizona State Sen. Kelli Ward introduced the Second Amendment Preservation Act in the Grand Canyon State. SB1294 prohibits the state from enforcing “any federal act, law, order, rule or regulation that relates to a personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition within the limits of this state.”

    “We’ve sat back and allowed the federal government to trample the Constitution long enough,” Ward said. “We’re going to pass this bill and stop the state of Arizona from helping the feds violate your rights.”

    Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said that a single state refusing to enforce federal gun laws would make them “nearly impossible to enforce.” Napolitano praised Arizona’s effort in the current session.

    After initial backing from the Tenth Amendment Center, SB1294 garnered support from the well-respected Arizona Citizens Defense League, along with national organizations such as Gun Owners of America and the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA).

    “We are in league with this legislation, and we encourage every state to enact similar laws,” said Sheriff Richard Mack, founder of CSPOA and a lead plaintiff of the 1997 Printz case which provides the legal basis for the bill.

    Read More…

  • NRA Applauds House for Passing NRA-backed SHARE Act

    The NRA praises members of the U.S. House of Representatives who voted to pass H.R. 3590–the “Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act.” The measure, which passed with broad bipartisan support by a vote of 268 to 154, promotes and protects the rights of hunters in a variety of critical ways.

    “Hunting is part of our unique American heritage and the NRA is committed to preserving it,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. “Congressman Bob Latta (R-OH) has been a stalwart friend to our nation’s hunters and on behalf of our 5 million NRA members we thank him for his leadership on this important legislation. The NRA will continue to work with the Congress to protect the rights of hunters from increasingly hostile and litigious environmental groups seeking to curtail our freedoms.”

    Despite increasing urbanization in America, hunting and other outdoor sports continue to grow in popularity as people seek the simple pleasure of being outdoors with friends and family. The nation’s 13.7 million hunters spent $38.3 billion in 2011, helping to create 680,000 jobs. Hunters and sportsmen contribute another $1.6 billion annually to conservation through license and permitting fees and charitable donations.

    The SHARE Act would give law-abiding gun owners more access to carry firearms on land managed by the Army Corps of Engineers, protect lead-based ammunition, and promote the construction and maintenance of public target ranges.

    The NRA worked with lawmakers to defeat a series of anti-hunting amendments supported by anti-hunting groups and environmental extremists designed to undermine hunting and fishing access and opportunities. The measure now heads to the Senate where the NRA will urge senators to take up and pass the SHARE Act.

  • Catholic Bishops concerned about SAFE’s mental health reporting provisions

    New York’s Catholic bishops supported the year-old SAFE Act gun control law, but are worried the more stringent reporting standard it requires for mental health professionals will chase people away from seeking help.

    The old standard required mental health professionals to report an individual who posed an “imminent threat” to themselves or others. The SAFE Act, however, requires reporting if a patient “is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.”

    “Providers fear that this lower standard will discourage individuals from getting the help they need, out of fear of being reported,” reads the policy proposal sheet that accompanies “For I Am Lonely and Afflicted,” the bishops’ letter on care for the mentally ill. “Without mental health services, a mentally ill person with violent tendencies may not get the medication or therapy he or she needs that would prevent such incidents in the first place.

    “We therefore join with the mental health community in urging an amendment to the NY SAFE Act to return to the ‘imminent danger’ language, with a specific definition of what constitutes an imminent danger. This definition may include past patterns of behavior that point toward a real threat. We further urge that records of previous mental health hospitalization be expunged sooner than the five years in current law, also with the goal of reducing barriers to persons seeking treatment.”

    Read More…

  • CuHomo’s Epic Fail: NY Safe Act Mandatory Background Checks for Ammo Purchases


    Background checks for ammunition sales – required under New York’s Safe Act – won’t start anytime soon, New York State Police Superintendent Joseph D’Amico told lawmakers in Albany today.

    The new gun laws, signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo in January 2013, require background checks on ammunition sales at point of purchase. State police are still developing a system that won’t disrupt sales and still comply with the law.

    “We’re not ready to do it,” D’Amico said. “When we are, we will give ample notice.”

    The part of the law dealing with ammunition sales has no effective date, D’Amico said today.

    So state police are working with vendors and sellers to create a system that is “seamless” for businesses and customers, D’Amico said.

    “It can’t bring the transaction to a halt,” he said during a budget hearing.

    For now, it’s unclear whether the ammo checks will require dealers to buy extra equipment once a background check is in place. D’Amico said the intention of the law is not to cause extra costs to dealers. But he couldn’t say for sure what would happen because the solution doesn’t yet exist.

    Read More…

  • Fla. Bill Banning Suspension for Gun-Shaped Pop-Tarts Moves Forward

    Legislators here are working to keep students from getting in serious trouble for simulating a weapon with harmless objects like their fingers, Pop-Tarts or Legos.

    Rep. Dennis Baxley, a Republican from Ocala, Fla., said his bill is designed to bar overreactions under zero-tolerance policies designed to keep weapons out of public schools.

    The bill cleared a state House panel Wednesday and would bar school districts from suspending students for “brandishing a partially consumed pastry or other food item” bitten into the shape of a weapon or “possessing a toy firearm or weapon made of plastic snap-together building blocks.”

    Read More…

  • Supreme Court to weigh what it means to have a right to “bear” guns

    At the NRA convention in Houston in May 2013, Janet Bero waits to have her German Luger appraised.  JOHNNY HANSON / Houston Chronicle

    The Second Amendment, at its core, spells out not one, but two, rights when it protects “the right of the people.” There is a right to “keep” a gun, there is a right, to “bear” a gun. There is an “and” between the two in the text, so that might well be taken as a significant indication that these are separate rights.

    The Supreme Court in 2008 made it clear that the right to “keep” a gun is a personal right, and that it means one has a right to keep a functioning firearm for self-defense within the home. But it has refused repeatedly since then to take on the question of whether that right exists also outside the home. If there is a separate right to “bear” a gun (and the Court, in fact, did say in 2008 that the two rights were separate), it has not said what that means.

    The National Rifle Association, and some of its members, are now pressing the Supreme Court to answer that question. They are doing so in two cases testing whether the federal government and the states can restrict the rights of minors to possess a gun outside the home. The Court is expected to take its first look at those cases later this month, to decide whether it will hear either or both of them. The federal government, once again, is urging the Court to bypass those cases, as it has done with perhaps a half-dozen others seeking clarification of the Second Amendment’s scope.

    Read More…