California Rifle and Pistol Association

Sacramento, CA --(Ammoland.com)-On January 17, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to accept and review People v. Delacy, 192 Cal. App. 4th 1481 (2011), review denied (June 8, 2011), cert. denied, No. 11-290, 2012 WL 117549 (U.S. Jan. 17, 2012).

In his Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, lawyers with the Michel & Associates law firm representing Mr. Delacy asked the Supreme Court to decide whether language from its 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) concerning “presumptively lawful” restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms allowed courts to simply hold restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of those with certain misdemeanor convictions to be constitutional without being subjected to any level of heightened judicial scrutiny. The Delacy case also touched on what level of judicial scrutiny should apply to an Equal Protection challenge asserting the government is creating discriminatory classifications that deprive those so classified of their Second Amendment rights.

Even though the Supreme Court requested a response to the Delacy petition from the government in October 2011 - an unusual move that shows the high court had unusual interest in the case - Delacy ended up being another in a line of recent Second Amendment-related cases which the Supreme Court declined to accept for review.

Certiorari was also denied on the same day in Lowery v. United States, No. 06-CM-1195, 2010 WL 3501574 (D.C. Sept. 9, 2010), cert. denied, 11-5241, 2012 WL 117590 (U.S. Jan. 17, 2012). The Lowery case sought review of whether the right to keep and bear arms as set forth in Heller applied retroactively to a person who was convicted of possessing a handgun in violation of the very restriction struck down as unconstitutional in Heller.

Other Second Amendment-related cases recently denied review by the Court include Williams v. Maryland, U.S. v. Masciandaro, and Winters v. Willis.

Williams v. State (Maryland), 417 Md. 479 (2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 93 (U.S. Oct. 3, 2011) asked the Supreme Court to decide whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry or transport a registered handgun outside the home, the enjoyment of which cannot be conditional on first applying for a permit to do so that is practically unobtainable. Mr. Williams was appealing his conviction for possessing a handgun in public without the required state permit allowing him to do so.

United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, No. 10-11212, 2011 WL 2516854 (U.S. Nov. 28, 2011) involved a man convicted of violating the federal prohibition on carrying or possessing a loaded weapon in vehicles in National Parks after he was found asleep in his vehicle with a loaded handgun in a national parks. He sought review from the Supreme Court of whether that prohibition violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms; asking the high court, like the petitioner in Williams, whether the right extends beyond the home.

Willis v. Winters, 350 Or. 299 (2011) cert. denied, 11-120, 2012 WL 33296 (U.S. Jan. 9, 2012) involved a group of Oregon sheriffs asking the Supreme Court to clarify whether they can disregard an Oregon State Supreme Court decision requiring them to issue licenses to carry firearms to medical marijuana patients, which would arguably make them violate federal law. One question that would potentially had to have been resolved - like several other cases seeking review from the Supreme Court - was whether there is a right to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense. This case also could have potentially had a wide-reaching effect regarding who is considered an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance, which is a disqualifier for firearm possession under federal law.

Despite the number of certiorari denials in Second Amendment cases, the fact that the Supreme Court has been requesting responses in many of these cases shows the Justices are paying unusually close attention to the Second Amendment issue. Of the roughly 8000 petitions for review filed with the Supreme Court every year, the Court only requests a response from the opposing party in a few hundred. When the Court requests a response brief, it is a strong sign that the Court is interested in hearing argument in a case. Such a request increases the probability that the Court will grant oral argument by roughly 9 times, from 0.9% to 8.6%.

The fact that the Supreme Court requested a response in all these cases does not mean the Court thinks the cases were decided correctly. It more likely suggests that the Court is interested in further clarifying the scope of Second Amendment rights after Heller and McDonald, but is searching for the right case vehicle to do it in.

Perhaps one of the two remaining Second Amendment cases pending before the Court that we are aware of (United States v. Portillo-Munoz, 643 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2011), petition for cert. filed, No. 11-7200 (Nov. 2, 2011) (a challenge to federal law prohibiting gun possession by illegal aliens) or United States v. Booker, 644 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2011), petition for cert. filed, No. 11-6765 (Oct. 3, 2011)(a challenge to federal law prohibiting gun possession by persons convicted of domestic violence)) will become the vehicle that settles some of the issues that remain outstanding in the wake of the Heller ruling.

Seventeen years ago the NRA and CRPA joined forces to fight local gun bans being written and pushed in California by the gun ban lobby. Their coordinated efforts became the NRA/CRPA “Local Ordinance Project” (LOP) – a statewide campaign to fight ill-conceived local efforts at gun control and educate politicians about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. The NRA/CRPA LOP has had tremendous success in beating back most of these anti-self-defense proposals.

About:
In addition to fighting local gun bans, for decades the NRA has been litigating dozens of cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the Second Amendment. In the post Heller and McDonald legal environment, NRA and CRPA Foundation have formed the NRA/CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project (LAP), a joint venture to pro-actively strike down ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances and advance the rights of firearms owners, specifically in California. Sometimes, success is more likely when LAP’s litigation efforts are kept low profile, so the details of every lawsuit are not always released. To see a partial list of the LAP’s recent accomplishments, or to contribute to the NRA or to the NRA/CRPAF LAP and support this and similar Second Amendment cases, visit www.nraila.com and www.crpafoundation.org.

Gun Owners of America

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- The Supreme Court yesterday unanimously sided with Gun Owners of America in finding that the placement of a Global Positioning Device on an automobile constitutes a “search” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.

The majority opinion in U.S. v. Jones was written by Justice Antonin Scalia and follows GOA’s reasoning to throw out the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test which has been thought to be the dominant Fourth Amendment standard in recent years.

The Obama Administration argued that because the police could theoretically follow Antoine Jones’ car, he had no “reasonable expectation of privacy,” and thus, placing a GPS device on his car was justified. GOA argued, however, that this constituted an “unreasonable search and seizure” which violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

This decision will have dramatic ramifications for gun owners. Indeed, the Court looked to the Founders’ intentions with respect to the Fourth Amendment, which, until the latter part of the 20th Century, was understood to restrict the ability of police to “trespass” upon the persons or property of Americans.

“This is no less than a fundamental transformation of American jurisprudence concerning searches and seizures,” according to GOA’s Executive Director Larry Pratt. “And it is a transformation which throws out fake modern jurisprudence and restores the Founders’ intent.”

The “reasonable expectation of privacy” test flowed from a Justice Harlan concurring opinion in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). Gun Owners of America had argued that the Supreme Court should jettison that decision by an activist court, and a majority of the justices agreed.

“The ‘expectation of privacy’ test for searches and seizures arose without support in the text or historical context of the Fourth Amendment, and has proven wholly inadequate to protect the American people from their government,” argued GOA.

Four members of the court – led by Samuel Alito, and joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan – argued for the continuation of the “reasonable expectation of privacy test,” but concluded that planting a GPS device on a car for 28 days constituted a Fourth Amendment “search” under that standard as well.

The Obama administration, which had argued that planting a GPS device on a car was not a “search” under the Harlan standard, was unanimously repudiated by the High Court. And the case is being cited by the mainstream media as a defeat for Obama and his Justice Department, which is led by Attorney General Eric Holder.

Said Pratt: “This is yet another failure by Eric Holder, the most corrupt and incompetent Attorney General in the history of the Republic.”

Gun Owners would like to thank its activists for their support. Your contributions helps GOA to assist in future cases like this at the Supreme Court.

About:
Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. `The only no comprise gun lobby in Washington’ – Ron Paul

National Rifle Association

FAIRFAX, Va. --(Ammoland.com)- In case any reader of our weekly Grassroots Alert has not decided how to vote in the 2012 presidential election, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and First Lady Michelle Obama have volunteered to help him make up his mind.

Recently, Time magazine asked Stevens what he would fix about the American judicial system. Stevens’ response: “I would make all my dissents into majority opinions.” Fair enough, since he’s entitled to think he is right, even when a majority of his former colleagues and a larger majority of the American citizenry disagree.

But then Time asked Stevens to single out one issue in particular, and he said, “I would change the interpretation of the Second Amendment.” Referring to the Court’s decisions in the Heller and McDonald cases that the Second Amendment protects individuals from federal, state and local infringements on their right to possess and carry arms, he added “The court got that quite wrong.”

In his dissent in Heller, Stevens claimed that “there is no indication that the Framers of the [Second] Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.” And in his dissent in McDonald, he claimed that even if one assumed the Fourteenth Amendment protects a general right to self-defense, that didn’t mean that a person has a right to have a handgun. As if to suggest some logic to his theory, Stevens said “while some might favor handguns, it is not clear that they are a superior weapon for lawful self-defense.”

We have earlier noted the comment of another of the four justices who dissented from the majority’s Heller and McDonald opinions, Stephen Breyer, to the effect that District of Columbia residents who don’t like the city’s onerous gun laws should go to Maryland. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, another of the Heller and McDonald dissenters, has publicly indicated her hope that a “future, wiser court” will reconsider the Heller decision.

Of course, Justice Stevens and another of the four dissenting justices in Heller, Justice David Souter, have since retired and been replaced by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who dissented from the majority’s decision in McDonald, and Justice Elena Kagan, who joined the Court in August 2010 and who had a clear anti-gun record during her service in the Clinton White house.

Sotomayor and Kagan were nominated to the Court by President Barack Obama, of course. And not long ago, during a pre-2012 campaign event, First Lady Michelle Obama asked some of the president’s most ardent supporters to remember the Court’s two newest justices when they go into the voting booth next year. In the upcoming election, she said, “we’re going to make a choice that will impact our lives for decades to come . . . let’s not forget what it meant when my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices . . . let’s not forget the impact that their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come.”

Obama supporters will not forget, and neither should supporters of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment’s margin of safety on the Court remains intact by merely one vote. Given the likelihood of at least one retirement from the Court during the next presidential term, the future of the amendment could easily hinge on Election Day 2012

About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate 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 military. Visit: www.nra.org

Is it legal for me to clean my guns on my open front porch or in a detached garage?

FirearmsTruth.com

Michigan --(Ammoland.com)- D.C. v Heller and McDonald v Chicago were decided in favor of gun rights three and two years ago respectively.

Those of us who cherish our 2nd Amendment Rights were jubilant that finally the Supreme Court cleared up the issue in our favor. But as FirearmsTruth reported back then, not all issues were clearly defined by The Court.

Some jurisdictions, like the city of Chicago, disregarded the spirit of the McDonald holding and put as many bureaucratic obstacles against gun ownership as they could. Since Heller was decided three years ago, there have been over 400 legal challenges to constitutionally protected firearms possession. Most of these lower court rulings have been in favor of gun control.

Heller and McDonald make clear that a law abiding citizen has the right to own a firearm for home self-protection. But does this right extend beyond the inside of the home, and if so, how far?

For example, is it legal for me to clean my handgun on my open front porch or in a detached garage? If I am traveling to a shooting range by car how must my firearm be secured? Can it be loaded? What about travel by foot?

Lower federal and state courts have overwhelmingly ruled in favor of local or state restrictions.

Maryland’s highest state court was quite blunt in one of its decisions in favor of gun control: “If the Supreme Court … means its holdings to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.”

In the Maryland case, Charles Williams Jr. was convicted for transporting a firearm in public without a permit. He put the gun in a bag before traveling from his girlfriend’s house to his own. William’s attorney, Stephan Halbrook, argues that the Maryland law requiring a travel permit is unconstitutional because “basically ordinary people can’t get one.”

I want to know how you are supposed to get your firearm home from the store in Maryland. Do the police deliver and how much should you tip them?

Some of the restrictive ruling by lower courts will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Hopefully The Court will hear one or more of these and give clear guidelines on how restrictive gun control laws can be when it comes to the 2nd Amendment outside the home.

About John Kullman:
John Kullman holds a jurist doctorate from Thomas Cooley Law School, and a dual bachelor degree in English and Speech, as well as a minor in History from Central Michigan University. He previously was employed with Haliburton and Long & Wetzel. He is the managing editor of Firearmstruth.com, and is avid guns right advocate.

CalGunLaws.com

San Diego, CA --(Ammoland.com)- The Fourth Amendment guarantees our right to not be subjected to search and seizure under a “general” search warrant (i.e., a warrant not based on probable cause and not particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized).

Firearms are generally lawful to possess, and usually may not be seized without probable cause that a specific firearm was used in a crime. On August 24, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Millender v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (07-55518), confirmed that a general search warrant requesting the seizure of “all handguns, rifles or shotguns of any caliber, or any firearms capable of firing ammunition…” was unconstitutional when the police who sought the warrant were aware they were actually searching for just one specific firearm.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation (CRPAF) argued this point in an amicus (friend of the court) brief filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the Mrs. Millender. A copy of the brief, along with the opinion, other case related briefs, and memorandum analyzing the opinion is posted at http://michellawyers.com/millendervlosangeles.

Following the Ninth Circuit’s Millender decision, defendant County of Los Angeles sought review by the United States Supreme Court. On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case, and to address the question of whether law enforcement is entitled to qualified immunity against a civil rights law suit when a judge has signed off on the warrant – even when the officers seized property (i.e. firearms) unrelated to the case (and the specific firearm) they are investigating. The case will be heard by the Supreme Court next year. NRA and CRPAF will weigh-in again through an amicus brief at that time.

Far too often police seize entire firearms collections even when most of those firearms are not alleged as part of any criminal offense. In fact, to get to large gun collections local police even resort to “stinging” gun collectors with enticing too-good-to-be-true firearm deals that often involve grey areas of the law, making inadvertent violations of the law common. Some police are politically motivated to inflate statistics of the number of guns seized in order to justify increased funding for their efforts. These seizures often result in damage to the firearms, and inevitably cost their owners expenses and legal fees to get the firearms back.

The Millender case involved a domestic assault between Mr. Bowen and Mrs. Kelly. Bowen threatened Kelly using a specifically identified sawed-off shotgun. Kelly called the police. Police ran Bowen’s record and discovered he was a felon. Police then tracked down an address purported to be Bowen’s residence, and drafted a search warrant that included a request to seize all firearms and ammunition. Police included these general requests despite having a picture of the specific sawed-off shotgun Bowen allegedly used in the assault.

At 5 a.m. the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department SWAT team served the warrant at the address of Bowen’s foster mother, Mrs. Millender (law enforcement knew that this was her residence, not Bowen’s). Police broke in through her front security door and a front window. Bowen was not there, but law enforcement nonetheless seized from Mrs. Millender a 12-gauge “Mossberg” shotgun with a wooden stock that looked nothing like the sawed-off shotgun they were after, along with a box of .45 caliber ammunition.

Bowen was found the following day hiding under a bed in a motel.

The District Court held that the police had qualified immunity from the damages sought in the civil rights case because of the supposed validity of the warrant.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the warrant was over-broad, especially given law enforcement’s knowledge of the specific firearm Bowen used, and considering the total lack of any gang related evidence.

Due to the extreme degree in which the warrant was unconstitutional, the Court of Appeals held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity and could be sued for damages for violating the Millenders’ civil rights.

Support the NRA/CRPAF Legal Action Project
Seventeen years ago the NRA and CRPA joined forces to fight local gun bans being written and pushed in California by the gun ban lobby. Their coordinated efforts became the NRA/CRPA “Local Ordinance Project” (LOP) – a statewide campaign to fight ill-conceived local efforts at gun control and educate politicians about available programs to effectively reduce accidents and violence without infringing on law-abiding gun owners’ rights. The NRA/CRPA LOP has had tremendous success in defeating most of these anti-self-defense proposals.

In addition to fighting local gun bans, for decades the NRA has been litigating dozens of cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the Second Amendment. In the post Heller and McDonald legal environment, the NRA and CRPA Foundation have formed the NRA/CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project (LAP), a joint venture to proactively strike down ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances and advance the rights of firearms owners, specifically in California. Sometimes success is more likely when LAP’s litigation efforts are kept low profile so every lawsuit’s details are not always released. To see a partial list of the LAP’s recent accomplishments, or to contribute to the NRA or to the NRA / CRPAF LAP and support this and similar Second Amendment cases, visit www.nraila.com and www.crpafoundation.org.

About:
CalGunLaws.com is an online research resource designed primarily for use by attorneys and interested firearm owners. CalGunLaws.com strives to provide easy access to and facilitate understanding of the multitude of complex federal, state, and local firearm laws and ordinances, administrative and executive regulations, case law, and past and current litigation that defines the California firearms regulatory scheme in theory and practice. CalGunLaws.com is designed and organized to make it easy to research the law and to locate source materials and related information. All of the articles are cross referenced. Note the two sections on the right: Related Items and Related Law. Related Items will take you to any article related to the one you are currently viewing. Related law takes you to the related law and statutes for the item you are looking at.

Supreme Court

National Rifle Association

Charlotte, NC --(Ammoland.com)- Question: Does the Second Amendment apply to the states because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities or Due Process clauses and thereby made applicable to the states?

Conclusion: Yes

On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in McDonald et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al. – a case challenging handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois – ruled that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense nationwide.

The ruling reversed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which upheld the bans, and requires that court to reconsider McDonald in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Chicago thereafter passed an ordinance imposing unreasonable restrictions on gun ownership.

NRA is supporting Benson v. Chicago, challenging the ordinance.

An audio recording of the oral arguments in the Supreme Court has now been released. To listen to the audio, please click here.

About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate 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 military. Visit: www.nra.org

National Association for Gun Rights

Washington, DC--(Ammoland.com)- On June 28th, the Supreme Court ruled that the City of Chicago’s handgun ban was unconstitutional and the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to the Constitution.

Many have called this a stunning victory, but before you pop the cork on the champagne you’ve been saving for a special occasion, let me warn you: the devil is in the details.

This decision does not fundamentally change our continued need to fight to preserve and advance our right to keep and bear arms.

It’s certainly worth celebrating that Justice Samuel Alito specifically cited NAGR’s amicus curiae brief in the majority decision when he wrote “A clear majority of the States in 1868, therefore, recognized the right to keep and bear arms as being among the foundational rights necessary to our system of Government.” (page 30 of the opinion).

However, Justice Alito also stated, “We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as ‘prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,’ ‘laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.’ We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.”

According to Justice Alito’s ruling, the fight for your Second Amendment rights is just beginning.

What Justice Alito and the court is saying is simple: your right to keep and bear arms is fundamentally guaranteed so long as you abide by the state and federal laws which restrict those same rights.

In the end, some of the worst gun control may be struck down. In some cases, it may only take a few months. Other cases will grind through repeal after repeal. More Supreme Court cases in 2-5 years are all but guaranteed.

Meanwhile, anti-gunners will seize on every upheld state law as an opportunity to pass new gun control and they will respond to every defeated gun control law with new legislation designed to continue their anti-gun crusade (as Congress did with the gun-free school law after it was struck down and the District of Columbia after losing in the Heller case).

Even anti-gun groups like New Yorkers Against Gun Violence are trumpeting the ruling and pointing out that wording of the ruling means, “your [Second Amendment] rights can be restricted.”

Before the ink was even dry on the ruling, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley was already plotting to pass a host of new restrictions on handgun ownership in Chicago, which may follow the letter of the Court’s decision, but will make the requirements for ownership so onerous that the ban will remain in all but name.

Now more than ever gun owners must be active in the public policy arena. The anti-gunners in Washington D.C. and State Legislatures across the country are sure to be preparing the next round of attacks against our rights.

In D.C., anti-gunners like Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer want to ban all private firearms sales, and Hillary Clinton is working hard to force United Nations gun bans on American citizens.

And in states legislatures many of the little details of our right to keep and bear arms are under assault – and are being compromised – every day.

Make no mistake, the McDonald decision is not a magic bullet that will reverse generations of gun control legislation.

The only way to fight the anti-gunners is to organize grassroots activists and to turn up the heat on antigun politicians.

About:
The National Association for Gun Rights was founded in 2001 to serve as a grassroots gun rights group focusing on building state-level gun rights groups and lobbying for pro-gun federal legislation. Brown has been a gun lobbyist for more than 17 years. Visit: www.nationalgunrights.org

Editorial Disclaimer: The opinions and views expressed above do not necessarily reflect those of the staff, AmmoLand Shooting Sports News, or other sponsors and partners. See the Editorial-Review Process for more details.

“After reviewing Ms. Kagan’s record and testimony at her confirmation hearing, the GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA concluded that, ‘The available evidence portrays her as a forceful advocate of restrictive gun laws and driven by political considerations rather than rule of law.’” — Sen. John Thune (R-SD), August 5, 2010

Gun Owners of America

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE TODAY Senator Thune quoted GOA accurately. Elena Kagan is going to be a disaster on the Supreme Court.

Our gun rights are hanging by a thread. Prior to the vote in the U.S. Senate today, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama sounded the alarm: “Most Americans are totally unaware [that] the Second Amendment hangs by a mere thread [by] two 5-4 decisions recently….”

He was referring, of course, to the two gun-related decisions over the past couple of years where the Supreme Court narrowly ruled in favor of gun rights.

With this in mind, several Senators spent almost an hour today talking exclusively about the Second Amendment, its importance to all Americans across the country, and the danger that President Obama’s most recent pick to the U.S. Supreme Court poses to our gun rights.

Sadly, the Senate today voted 63-37 to confirm Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. While this is disappointing, you need to realize that we got more votes against Kagan than we have ever gotten against a Supreme Court Justice that we’ve opposed — more than we garnered against Justices Sotomayor or Ginsburg. (Imagine, Justice Gingsburg only received three negative votes!)

Today, we gained tremendous ground. There were Senators who voted against Kagan today who had NEVER before voted against a Supreme Court Justice. And come this November, we plan to gain even more ground when a new batch of candidates take their seats in the U.S. Senate… when we will probably be able to filibuster (and defeat) any future U.S. Supreme Court Justice that President Obama nominates.

So thank you for all your help in fighting this nominee. Now, it is time for us to shift into high gear and hold the turncoats in Congress accountable. But more on that — and on today’s vote — below.

STAND WITH GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA
While today’s loss on the Kagan nomination was disappointing, don’t forget that we won a VERY KEY battle last week against legislation to squelch our voice 60 days prior to a general election — legislation known as the DISCLOSE Act.

This victory means that we will be able to hold accountable those Senators who stabbed gun owners in the back and voted for Elena Kagan today — and we’ll be able to hold them accountable all the way up to Election Day.

So gun owners need to stay engaged in the battle to retain and reclaim our rights. Even though Congress will be out of session this month, you can help us INCREASE our voice in Congress — and INCREASE our ability to reach more gun owners – by renewing your membership with GOA and encouraging others to do the same.

You can go to www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm and join Gun Owners of America for the cost of a box of ammunition.

As you already know, GOA will NOT be compromising your rights. We will not compromise on your Second Amendment freedoms… nor will we compromise on your First Amendment freedoms which are necessary to defend those liberties.

During debate over the DISCLOSE Act last month, Senator Mitch McConnell praised GOA’s uncompromising approach on the floor of the Senate when he said that the legislation was “not about the Democrats’ affinity for the Second Amendment. If it were, they would have carved out an exception for the Gun Owners of America as well. As it is, the GOA vehemently opposes this bill. Why? Because they know it restricts First Amendment rights.”

We only have a little less than three months before the election. We need you now more than ever! Please go to http://gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm and renew today.

HOLD YOUR SENATORS’ FEET TO THE FIRE
Many of you have Senators who pride themselves as being independent thinkers. They claim they are “Blue Dog” Democrats who support the Second Amendment.

But guess what:
Virtually every single Blue Dog voted IN FAVOR of Kagan today. To see how your Senators voted, please go to: http://tiny.cc/r5gx3

Senators Harry Reid of Nevada, Jim Webb of Virginia, Max Baucus and John Tester of Montana, and many more… all the Blue Dogs voted for Elena Kagan, with the exception of Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

You need to realize: These so-called Blue Dogs can’t claim they didn’t know Kagan’s record on gun control. Nor can Lindsay Graham of South Carolina and the other four Republicans who voted for Kagan. They can’t claim that Kagan’s record is silent on the gun issue. They can’t claim she might support gun owner rights in the future.

Senator after Senator sounded the alarm on the floor of the Senate. Just take a look at what a dozen Senators had to say about Elena Kagan’s views on Second Amendment rights:

* Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL): “Ms. Kagan’s record regarding the Second Amendment leaves little doubt that she will be hostile to the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and possess firearms.”

* Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): “Solicitor General Kagan’s record clearly shows she is a supporter of restrictive gun laws and has worked on numerous initiatives to undercut Second Amendment fundamental rights.”

* Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL): “Ms. Kagan has spent her career implementing antigun initiatives and evidence of her antagonistic attitude towards the Second Amendment can be found from the beginning of her legal career.”

* Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT): “Ms. Kagan also worked in the Clinton administration to weaken and limit other individual rights such as the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. In her hearing, Ms. Kagan refused to acknowledge any real limits on the Federal Government’s power, which the Supreme Court has already expanded far beyond anything America’s Founders intended, to regulate everything imaginable in the name of interstate commerce.”

* Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA): “Documents made available from the Clinton Library show she was a key player in that administration’s gun control efforts. She was a key advocate for multiple gun control proposals and even authored multiple Executive Orders that placed restrictions on gun owner rights.”

* Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS): “General Kagan’s prior work suggests that she would not protect an individual’s constitutional right to bear arms. As a policy advisor to President Clinton, Kagan promoted several gun control proposals, including background checks for all gun purchases in the secondary market, a gun tracing initiative, and giving law enforcement the ability to retain background check information from lawful gun sales. She also drafted executive orders to restrict the importation of semiautomatic rifles and to require all Federal law enforcement officers to install locks on their weapons.”

* Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): “I was also troubled by her testimony with regard to the Second Amendment — the right to keep and bear arms. She did say the recent decisions in Heller and McDonald are ‘settled law,’ but I worry that her interpretation of settled law means until there are five new Justices who take a look at that settled law and just decide to change it…. Last year, [Justice Sonia Sotomayor] testified that Heller was settled law. But last month, she joined in a dissenting opinion in McDonald urging it be overturned, saying she did not believe the Second Amendment conferred a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms.”

* Sen. George LeMieux (R-FL): “I am also concerned about Solicitor General Kagan’s views on the right to bear arms enumerated in the Second Amendment. I think she has too little regard for some of our Constitution’s most fundamental protections. As a law clerk, she was dismissive of the Second Amendment, saying she was not sympathetic to the amendment.”

* Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID): “I am convinced [Kagan] does not believe the Second Amendment reserves to all Americans a strong and broad right to bear arms…. Countless law-abiding Americans were denied their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms for way too long. It is imperative that the next Supreme Court Justice fully understand and accept and support these rights. I am not convinced that Ms. Kagan does, and that causes me great concern.”

* Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX): “[I have] serious concerns about her Second Amendment views and her correlating judicial record on the Second Circuit Court.”

* Sen. John Ensign (R-NV): “When I had the opportunity to ask Ms. Kagan about her views on the Founders’ intent of the Second Amendment, she informed me that although she had read much analysis regarding the Second Amendment, she had never studied its history or origin. Certainly, this statement was surprising to me, especially given her documented history of hostility toward the Second Amendment.”

* Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK): “The conclusion I draw from all this is that Ms. Kagan is, at best, uninterested in the Second Amendment at this point in her career. At worst, she is unsympathetic to the millions of Americans who, similar to this Senator, believe the Second Amendment is one of the most important of our constitutional liberties.”

These statements are just the tip of the iceberg.

Senators who voted for Elena Kagan cannot claim ignorance. They voted anti-gun, and we need to let them know that we, the American people, are coming to take back our government on Election Day.

They need to hear over and over again that “we will remember in November.”

About:
Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. `The only no comprise gun lobby in Washington’ – Ron Paul

National Rifle Association

Charlotte, NC --(Ammoland.com)- Yesterday, the U.S. Senate confirmed Elena Kagan to the highest Court in the land.

To NRA members and gun owners nationwide, Ms. Kagan presents a clear and present danger to the right to keep and bear arms.

Her political record reveals that she does not believe the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and, in her recent testimony, she refused to acknowledge respect for the God-given right of self-defense. That is why, more than a month ago, the NRA announced its strong opposition to Elena Kagan’s confirmation to the Court. In that announcement, it was made very clear that this vote matters and will be considered in the NRA’s candidate evaluations.

The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual right that applies to all law-abiding Americans. Nonetheless, during the hearings Ms. Kagan refused to state her support for the Second Amendment, saying only that the matter was “settled law.” When asked about the Heller decision, Justice Sonia Sotomayor used the phrase “settled law” repeatedly during her confirmation hearings to win support. Justice Sotomayor then worked to destroy the Second Amendment in the McDonald case. We have no doubt that Ms. Kagan shares the same view of the Second Amendment.

Since she has no judicial record, we have only her political record to examine. And that political record demonstrates a clear hostility to our right to keep and bear arms. As a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, Ms. Kagan said she was “not sympathetic” to a challenge to Washington, D.C.’s ban on firearms. As a domestic policy advisor in the Clinton White House, a colleague described her as “immersed” in Clinton’s aggressive assaults on the Second Amendment. As U.S. Solicitor General, Ms. Kagan chose not to file a brief last year in the landmark McDonald case, thus taking the position that incorporating the Second Amendment and applying it to the states was of no interest to the Obama Administration or the federal government.

The expansive support that self-defense laws, the decisions in the historic Heller and McDonald cases, and the Second Amendment enjoy from the American public is a clear indication that Elena Kagan’s radical views are out of the mainstream. Any nominee, that far out-of-step with the American people, should not be on the Supreme Court.

The nomination and confirmation of two justices with an inherent bias against the Second Amendment is a direct assault on our treasured freedom. The fate of our Second Amendment hangs perilously – by one vote. The need for eternal vigilance on the part of every American has never been greater.

About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate 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 military. Visit: www.nra.org

National Rifle Association

Charlotte, NC --(Ammoland.com)-The nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court will be decided next week, when the Senate casts the final vote on her confirmation.

The NRA has announced our strong opposition to Ms. Kagan, due to her long record of antagonism toward the Second Amendment. Based on that record, it is very likely that as a Supreme Court Justice, Kagan would join the Court’s minority that just last month issued dissenting opinions claiming the Second Amendment does not guarantee a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

Elena Kagan represents the second time President Obama has nominated a person to the Court who aggressively opposes our right to keep and bear arms. Her confirmation would pose a direct threat to our rights for decades.
Every vote in the Senate is crucial on this issue. Please take a few minutes and contact your Senators at 202-224-3121 and respectfully ask them to filibuster and oppose Kagan’s confirmation.

To identify your U.S. Senators, please visit http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/

About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate 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 military. Visit: www.nra.org

Gun Owners of America

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)-The Senate Judiciary Committee voted to send the nomination of Elena Kagan to the full Senate floor today.

The 13-6 vote was not a surprise. Democrats outnumber Republicans 12-7 on the committee, and their ranks include the anti-gun extreme wing of their party, such as Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin.

Six Republicans opposed Kagan, with only turncoat Lindsey Graham of South Carolina voting to confirm the anti-gunner.

As this important battle moves to the Senate floor, it is important to keep the heat on all Senators — especially Democrats coming from rural states who claim to support the Second Amendment.

If a handful of these Senators vote NO on Kagan, her confirmation could be defeated.

While Kagan does not have a record of judicial opinions, her views on the Second Amendment are no mystery.

Some things that have come to light since her nomination include:

• While serving in the Clinton administration, Kagan drafted an executive order to ban certain semi-automatic firearms;
• As a law clerk, she advised against the Supreme Court considering Sandidge v. United States in a case that questioned the constitutionality of the D.C. gun ban, writing that she was “not sympathetic” to the gun owner’s Second Amendment claims; and
• Kagan was also part of the Clinton team that pushed the firearms industry to include gun locks with all gun purchases and was in the Clinton administration when the President pushed legislation that would close down gun shows.

During her hearings, Kagan ducked and dodged questions about the Second Amendment, and she refused to declare whether she believes the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

Kagan insisted that the Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald are precedent and “settled law,” but this in no way precludes her from ruling that almost any gun law – including gun owner registration, purchasing limits, waiting periods, private sale background checks, and more – are consistent with the Constitution.

Recall the confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor, the newest Supreme Court Justice. Sotomayor assured the Senate, and the American people, that she accepted the Court’s ruling in Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

Yet, in the McDonald case, Sotomayor joined the dissent in writing that “I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.”

Now Kagan has made the same promises to the Senate, but the available evidence portrays her as a forceful advocate of restrictive gun laws and driven by political considerations rather than the rule of law.

As GOA attorney William J. Olson, who testified at the hearings, noted: “If [Kagan] were to go on the Court, with what we know about her now, she could be the most anti-gun justice on that Court.”

There is NO WAY any Senator who claims to support the Second Amendment could vote to confirm anti-gun radical Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court of the United States!

ACTION: Please urge your two Senators to oppose the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

I stand with Gun Owners of America in opposing the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court.

While Kagan does not have a record of judicial opinions, her views on the Second Amendment are no mystery. Some things that have come to light since her nomination include:

* While serving in the Clinton administration, Kagan drafted an executive order to ban certain semi-automatic firearms;

* As a law clerk, she advised against the Supreme Court considering Sandidge v. United States in a case that questioned the constitutionality of the D.C. gun ban, writing that she was “not sympathetic” to the gun owner’s Second Amendment claims; and

* Kagan was also part of the Clinton team that pushed the firearms industry to include gun locks with all gun purchases and was in the Clinton administration when the President pushed legislation that would close down gun shows.

During her hearings, Kagan ducked and dodged questions about the Second Amendment, and she refused to declare whether she believes the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

Kagan insisted that the Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald are precedent and “settled law,” but this in no way precludes her from ruling that almost any gun law — including gun owner registration, purchasing limits, waiting periods, private sale background checks, and more — are consistent with the Constitution.

There is NO WAY any Senator who claims to support the Second Amendment could vote to confirm anti-gun radical Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court of the United States!

Please vote NO on the nominee’s confirmation.

Sincerely,

——————————————–

About:
Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. `The only no comprise gun lobby in Washington’ – Ron Paul

National Rifle Association

Charlotte, NC --(Ammoland.com)- There may be no vote a United States Senator casts that is more important than a vote to confirm a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now that the Court has clearly stated that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right that applies to all law-abiding Americans, NRA members and gun owners expect a nominee to the Court to fully support, defend and preserve that freedom.

We have carefully examined the career, written documents and public statements of nominee Elena Kagan and have found nothing to indicate any support for the Second Amendment.

Anti Gun Kagan dismissed the notion that the Second Amendment deserved “unlimited protection against governmental regulation.”

On the contrary, the facts reveal a nominee who opposes Second Amendment rights and is clearly out of step with mainstream Americans.

Therefore, the NRA is strongly opposed to Kagan’s confirmation to the Court.

About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group.

Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate 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 military. Visit: www.nra.org

Americans Agree With Supreme Court Cities Can’t Ban Handguns

CCRKBA.org

BELLEVUE, WA – -(Ammoland.com)- A new Rasmussen poll showing a majority of Americans believe cities cannot ban handguns “goes along with what we have been saying, and what the Supreme Court affirmed,” the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

“The high court ruled in its 2008 Heller decision that the handgun ban in Washington, D.C. violated the Second Amendment,” noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “and this week’s McDonald ruling incorporates the Second Amendment to the states. That effectively nullifies municipal gun bans nationwide. The court has spoken twice, and a majority of Americans concur.

“The recent Rasmussen survey also revealed,” he continued, “that only 35 percent of adults support stricter gun control, proving that gun prohibitionists are in the minority, and their influence is shrinking.”

Rasmussen conducted its survey earlier this week among 1,000 adults. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. The survey also found that only 14 percent of the respondents who live with someone who owns a gun believe cities can ban handguns, while a whopping 80 percent say cities do not have that authority. Fifty-five percent of those without guns in the home also agree, Rasmussen said.

“Without a doubt,” Gottlieb said, “the gun ban movement is on the ropes. I can think of a no more fitting moment for this to happen, on the eve of the Fourth of July weekend. Our American ancestors started the Revolutionary War when the British tried to confiscate their guns in Lexington and Concord. Privately-owned guns were essential to secure our liberty.

“Today, we are witnessing a new revolution,” he concluded, “in which America is rejecting the demagoguery of gun banners like Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. Court rulings and the Constitution are on our side.

We will keep fighting until firearms freedom is fully restored and liberty is secured.”

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org.

Gun Owners of America

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- On Thursday, Gun Owners of America had the important opportunity to testify concerning the Second Amendment views of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.

William J. Olson, counsel of record on amicus briefs for GOA in both the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court cases, testified at the hearing that Kagan has demonstrated “visceral hostility” to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Moreover, Olson demonstrated that Elena Kagan’s view of rights is tied in directly to her view of Judicial Supremacy, that is, that our rights “are whatever a majority of the Supreme Court rules at a particular time in a particular case.”

But under that philosophy, Olson said, “what the Court grants, the Court may take away.”

So what’s the bottom line? “f Ms. Kagan does not know whether our inalienable rights to defend ourselves from criminals and tyrants comes from God — as the Declaration of Independence states — or from government, she cannot be trusted to protect our God-given right to self-preservation,” Olson concluded.

Click here for video of Mr. Olson’s testimony.

GOA will have much more to say about the nomination of Elena Kagan in the coming days and weeks. In the meantime, have a happy, and safe, Fourth of July weekend.

Sincerely,
The GOA Team

About:
Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. `The only no comprise gun lobby in Washington’ – Ron Paul

Another Brick in the Wall for Gun Owner Rights - Image: Oleg Volk

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- (Washington DC, June 29, 2010) The Supreme Court of the United States delivered another victory to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights Monday when they declared Chicago’s handgun ban to be unconstitutional in the case of McDonald et al v. Chicago.

The real question in the case, which was managed and funded by the Seattle-based Second Amendment Foundation, was whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution restricts only the federal government or whether it also applies to state and local jurisdictions. In a 5-4 decision the Court majority held that the Second Amendment did indeed apply to the states under provisions of the 14th Amendment.

McDonald marks the second landmark Supreme Court victory for Second Amendment supporters (and lead attorney Alan Gura) in just 3 years. In June 2008 the Court’s Heller decision overturned Washington, DC’s handgun ban and declared that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right to keep and bear arms, but they were careful to keep their opinion very narrowly focused on just the circumstances represented in that case – gun bans in a federal enclave. With McDonald the impact spreads to encompass every level of government in every state in the Union. But, as in Heller, the Court was careful to include language supporting some limitations on the right, leaving gun control advocates hopeful that they can continue their harassment campaign against gun owners, and leaving rights advocates wondering what is ambiguous about the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed?”

The Court’s 5-4 split in this case was disheartening, just as their identical split in Heller was. When the McDonald case was argued I predicted that the final decision would be split and that there would be several separate concurring and dissenting opinions. I was right about that as there were three written opinions in favor of the decision and two in opposition. I had hoped for a more favorable split of 6-3 or even 7-2 in this case since it really was an obvious conclusion, but just as I did before the Heller case, I underestimated the lengths to which some Supreme Court Justices will go to reach the conclusion they wish to reach regardless of the evidence before them.

Of all of the 9 Justices and their 5 concurring and dissenting opinions, only Justice Clarence Thomas really got it right. Justice Thomas joined with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito in declaring the Second Amendment applies to the states and overturning Chicago’s handgun ban as a violation of that amendment, but only Justice Thomas based his decision on the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment rather than the Due Process clause that the others relied on.

As a practical matter the mechanism used to apply the right to arms to the states makes little difference. What matters is that it is applied. The application doesn’t change one way or the other, but many constitutional scholars were hoping that this case would be the key to correcting an outrageous opinion of the Court from 137years ago which emasculated the, then new 14th Amendment and paved the way for Jim Crow laws in the post-Reconstruction South.

Along with the majority opinion written by Justice Alito and the divergent concurrence written by Justice Thomas, Justice John Paul Stevens filed a rambling contradictory dissent, Justice Scalia wrote a scathing rebuttal to Stevens dissent, and Justice Breyer authored a dissent which was joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor.

I had expected emotional nonsense from Justice Stevens whose hoplophobia is worn on the sleeve of his robe, but I had thought that Justices Ginsburg and Breyer might at least concur with Justice Thomas’ position on the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment even if they went on to weasel out of actually applying the Second Amendment to the states and throwing out Chicago’s handgun ban. Instead they simply hid behind a few specious arguments and refused to treat the right to arms as a real right. The dissent is outrageous enough to remove all doubt as to Sonya Sotomayor’s animosity toward the Second Amendment and should fuel opposition to confirmation of Elena Kagan who worked on gun control policy in the Clinton Administration and once lumped NRA in with the KKK as “Bad Guy Orgs.”

In the final analysis, the McDonald decision is just one more brick in the wall being built to protect the right to arms. It’s a big, heavy brick which, combined with Heller, serves as a good foundation. The court cases will continue as the lawyers and judges try to sort out just what restrictions might be allowable under the Second Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” edict, but the real fight remains, as it always has, in the political arena and the election of politicians who have a healthy respect and understanding of Second Amendment issues and firearms ownership.

About:
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition is a project of Neal Knox Associates, Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association

New York - -(AmmoLand.com)- Below is a copy of a letter sent by the NRA to U.S. Senate Judiciary Chairman Senator Patrick Leahy and Ranking member Senator Jeff Sessions explaining their position on the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The letter is concise and to the point please read the letter and my comments following it.

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
11250 WAPLES MILL ROAD
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030
July 1, 2010

The Honorable Patrick Leahy The Honorable Jeff Sessions

Chairman Ranking Member

Senate Committee on the Judiciary Senate Committee on the Judiciary

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 152 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions:

We are writing to announce the National Rifle Association’s position on the confirmation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Other than declaring war, neither house of Congress has a more solemn responsibility than the Senate’s role in confirming justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Senate considers the nomination of Solicitor General Kagan, Americans have been watching to see whether this nominee – if confirmed – would respect the Second Amendment or side with those who have declared war on the rights of America’s 80 million gun owners.

During confirmation hearings, judicial nominees make carefully crafted statements regarding issues with which they do not personally agree. They often speak in terms of “settled law” or “I understand the right”. When those statements are contradicted by an entire body of work over a nominee’s career, however, it would be foolhardy to simply take them at face value. In Ms. Kagan’s own words, “you can look to my whole life as to what kind of justice I would be.” We agree.

As she has no judicial record on which we can rely, we have only her political record to review. And throughout her political career, she has repeatedly demonstrated a clear hostility to the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

As a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, Ms. Kagan said she was “not sympathetic” to a challenge to Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns and draconian registration requirements. As domestic policy advisor in the Clinton White House, a colleague described her as “immersed” in President Clinton’s gun control policy efforts. For example, she was involved in an effort to ban more than 50 types of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms – an effort that was described as: “taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns.” And as U.S. Solicitor General, she chose not to file a brief last year in the landmark case McDonald v. Chicago, thus taking the position that incorporating the Second Amendment and applying it to the States was of no interest to the Obama Administration or the federal government. These are not the positions of a person who supports the Second Amendment.

During her confirmation hearings last year, Justice Sonia Sotomayor repeatedly stated that the Supreme Court’s historic Heller decision was “settled law”. Even further, in response to a question from Chairman Leahy, she said “I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller’.” Yet last Monday in McDonald, she joined a dissenting opinion which stated: “I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes”.

We would also note that both Heller and McDonald were 5-4 decisions. The fact that four justices would effectively write the Second Amendment out of the Constitution is completely unacceptable. Ms. Kagan has repeatedly declined to say whether she agrees with the dissenting views of justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, which leaves unanswered the very serious questions of whether she would vote to overturn Heller and McDonald or narrow their holdings to a practical nullity.

This nation was founded on a set of fundamental freedoms. Our Constitution does not give us those freedoms – it guarantees and protects them. The right to defend ourselves and our loved ones is one of those. The fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms is another. These truths are what define us as Americans.

Any individual who does not believe that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less receive a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. Justice Sotomayor’s blatant reversal on this critical issue requires that we look beyond statements made during confirmation hearings and examine a nominee’s entire body of work. Unfortunately, Ms. Kagan’s record on the Second Amendment gives us no confidence that if confirmed to the Court, she will faithfully defend the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding Americans.

For these reasons, the National Rifle Association has no choice but to oppose the confirmation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. Given the importance of this issue, this vote will be considered in NRA’s future candidate evaluations.

Thank you for your attention to our concerns. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss further, please do not hesitate to call on us personally.

Sincerely,

Wayne LaPierre Chris Cox

Executive Vice President Executive Director

NRA NRA-ILA

cc: Majority Leader Harry Reid; Republican Leader Mitch McConnell; Members of the

United States Senate

The above letter states the position of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association as well. We must all contact our Senators demanding they vote NO on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. More importantly, we must also contact our Democratic Representatives in Congress urging them to bring pressure to bear on their Democratic colleagues in the Senate; explaining that reelection to either House is dependent on following the wishes of their constituency.

Below is a link for finding and contacting your representatives;

www.nraila.org/ActionCenter/

Let’s do it!

About:
The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association is the state’s largest and oldest firearms advocacy organization. Since 1871, our organization has been dedicated to the preservation of Second Amendment rights, firearm safety, education and training, and the shooting sports. Our membership consists of individuals and clubs throughout the state. We are a not-for-profit 501(c)4 organization and the official NRA-affiliated State Association in New York. Visit: www.nysrpa.org

ISRA and SAF Supreme Court Victory in McDonald v Chicago

Illinois State Rifle Association

Illinois - -(AmmoLand.com)- Statement of Richard A. Pearson, Executive Director, Illinois State Rifle Association, Regarding U.S. Supreme Court Decision

“On behalf of the officers, directors, and members of the Illinois State Rifle Association, and law-abiding citizens across Illinois, I would like to express my utter delight over the Supreme Court’s decision in the McDonald case. Today is certainly a great day for anyone who believes in the timeless wisdom the founding fathers set as the foundation of our Bill of Rights.

As happy as we are with the Court’s decision in McDonald v. Chicago, we must all keep in mind that our work is not finished. The McDonald decision, along with the Court’s 2008 decision in the D.C. v. Heller case, serve merely as cornerstones to a much larger effort to fully restore the law-abiding citizen’s rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution.”

“In the weeks and months ahead, our legal staff will be thoroughly analyzing Illinois gun control statutes along with the myriad of local firearm restrictions to assess their compliance with the McDonald and Heller decisions. Law-abiding Illinois citizens may rest assured that the ISRA will employ whatever political or legal means are necessary to ensure that no element of government persists in infringing upon their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.”

“In closing, I would like to recognize the tireless efforts of all of those who helped make this day possible. Among those are the named plaintiffs, the Second Amendment Foundation, the National Rifle Association of America, and the many dozens of support elements who contributed greatly to the success of this challenge to the egregious infringement on individual rights.

But, most of all, I would like to recognize the 80 million or so law-abiding American firearm owners whose patience and determination have served as such great inspiration during this 40-year fight to restore honor to, and recognition of, the Second Amendment.”

About:
The ISRA is the state’s leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership. Since 1903, the ISRA has represented the interests of over 1.5 million law-abiding Illinois firearm owners Visit: www.isra.org

Women’s Outdoor News

Rolla, MO --(Ammoland.com)- Yeah! Hooray!

Another victory for gun rights took place when the Supreme Court held that the Constitution’s Second Amendment restrains government’s ability to significantly limit “the right to keep and bear arms.”

The vote was a 5-4 split – typical these days, especially when it comes to firearms cases.

“Today’s ruling is a victory for freedom and liberty,” said National Shooting Sports Foundation President Stephen L. Sanetti.

“All law-abiding Americans, no matter whether they live in a big city like Chicago or in rural Wyoming, have the same Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Constitutional rights don’t stop at state or city borders. Cities like Chicago and New York and states like California must now respect the Second Amendment.”

What Sanetti and others need to add, though, is “This trend could change quickly and flip-flop to 5-4 the other way.” In fact, adding anti-gun Supreme Court justice nominee Elena Kagan keeps the progressive, anti-gun side of the bench in play for many years. Look at the executive branch and where it comes from and that is not a big surprise.

The big surprise will come when a conservative-leaning judge retires and is replaced by another Sotomayor or Kagan. It’ll be 5-4 the other way, and then, we’ll really have our work cut out for us.

~Barbara Baird

Twitter: http://twitter.com/babbsbaird
Facebook: http://facebook.com/babbsthewonBarbara Baird publishes The Women’s Outdoor News, that focuses on news, reviews and stories about women in the outdoors. She is also an NRA-certified pistol instructor. To take an NRA pistol class from Barbara Baird, see www.sheshoots2.com.

About:
The Women’s Outdoor News, aka The WON, delivers news, reviews and stories about women in the outdoors. Born out of a desire to serve the burgeoning outdoor market for women and to inspire as many women to go outside as possible, The WON pops into email inboxes, RSS feeds and Twitter Feeds with updates during the work week. Visit: www.Womensoutdoornews.com

IllinoisCarry.com

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- The U.S. Supreme Court announced its 5-4 decision today overturning the decades old Chicago ban on handguns!

Following on the heels of the Heller vs DC decision two years ago which ruled DC’s ban unconstitutional, the landmark case of McDonald vs Chicago finally brings the Second Amendment decision is a huge win for the entire nation but especially for Chicago residents who have for decades been denied the right to possess a handgun in their home.

Increasing opposition to the ban has been fueled by residents of the city demanding the right to protect themselves from the horrendous number of violent crimes in their neighborhoods.

The ruling is also a tremendous win for Illinois citizens whose state constitution holds that the right to keep and bear arms is “subject to police power”. The Court ruled the 14th Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment to the states meaning “ . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is a right protected even from local and state governments.  While this decision does not immediately change state law it does throw open the door to re-examination of current law and a whole new era of defining the words  “shall not be infringed”.

What does it all mean in our efforts to see a Right to Carry law passed in Illinois? It means a great deal in the IL General Assembly where some fence-sitters on the issue have been waiting to see “if” the Second Amendment truly does apply to the states.  It  will almost assuredly add votes to our side of the tally board and will make it increasingly more difficult to pass new laws restricting the right of a law abiding citizen’s to keep and bear arms.

Mayor Daley has vowed, regardless of the Supreme Court decision, to continue do everything he can to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of the people of Chicago – but he can’t do it alone - he must have the votes of the aldermen on the city council.  If you are a resident of Chicago, contact your alderman TODAY and demand they support your constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  Demand they put an end to Mayor Daley’s fanatical attack on their right to protect themselves and their families.

This is a great day in the history of this nation, the state of Illinois, and for the people of Chicago!!

IllinoisCarry extends our heartfelt gratitude and respect to the courageous plaintiffs who stood before the courts on behalf of all Americans – Adam Orlov, David and Colleen Lawson, and lead plaintiff Otis McDonald.  Thank you to the Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, lead attorney Alan Gura, and Chicago attorney David Sigale for making it happen!A copy of the ruling can be downloaded at SCOTUSblog.com.

Come Join with the Huge Celebration of McDonald vs Chicago Second Amendment Freedom Rally

Join the grassroots movement that is sweeping the state of Illinois— A movement to restore the Second Amendment right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms!

Do not miss this historical event in celebration of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in this landmark case to restore the Second Amendment throughout the nation! Sponsored by Illinois State Rifle Association and IllinoisCarry.com

About:
The IllinoisCarry forum was started in April 2004. The idea was that Illinois needed a central location to communicate ideas and information regarding 2nd Amendment issues in Illinois. There are many organizations in Illinois working to protect our 2nd Amendment Rights. Working with these groups IllinoisCarry has become the central location for information and Action Alerts. IllinoisCarry will not endorse political candidates. We simply provide information so voters can make informed decisions. Our goal is to join the other 48 states that allow their citizens to carry concealed firearms. We encourage you to register on our forum and join the fight for your 2nd Amendment Rights in Illinois. Visit www.IllinoisCarry.com

Gunfacts.info

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- Today America and civil rights won a huge victory … which will cause us much grief in the coming years. Celebrate tonight, then resume loading your intellectual ammo tomorrow.

As a marketing strategist by trade, my job is to anticipate what competitors will do. Now that banning certain types of guns (namely handguns) is no longer possible, the opposition will change their near-term goals and strategy.

Here are the issues I believe we must anticipate and prepare to defend against.

Registration and licensing: Pro-gun forces have resisted national registration and licensing because it would lead to confiscation. The gun control industry will now make the argument that since banning is no longer an option, registration is not a threat.

However, this only applies to handguns … for the moment. Banning guns remains an option for “assault weapons”, .50 caliber, machineguns and more. Thus registration remains a threat.

Additionally, this court decision is only as strong as future packed courts. Registered guns today become confiscated guns tomorrow if a future court reverses their opinion (and as summarized in my ancient copy of Constitutional law and Politics, Volume One, the court routinely reverses itself).

NUMBER OF PRECEDENTS COURT OVERTURNED

• Marshall Court (1801-1836) 3
• Taney Court (1836-1864) 4
• Chase Court (1864-1873) 4
• Waite Court (1874-1888) 13
• Fuller Court (1888-1910) 4
• White Court (1910-1921) 5
• Taft Court (1921-1930) 6
• Hughes Court (1930-1941) 21
• Stone Court (1941-1946) 15
• Vinson Court (1946-1953) 13
• Warren Court (1953-1969) 45
• Burger Court (1969-1986) 52
• Rehnquist Court (1986- 34

Total 219

Hamstringing: With banning off the table, the next best way to eliminate private ownership is to make it insanely difficult to obtain a firearm. Here in California moves are being made at the local level to make buying ammo difficult. In New York and D.C. the hurdles one must jump before obtaining a handgun are huge.

Expect the gun control industry to push laws at all levels to erect new roadblocks and test them in court. Each law that adds time and duties before acquiring a gun delays the exercise of your right, and as we chanted in the civil rights era, a right delayed is a right denied.

There is no “reasonable regulation” of a civil right.

Banning non-handguns: The gun control industry was effective in inventing the concept of “assault weapons” and thus banning many sporting rifles. Expect any firearm not specifically suited for self defense to become a banning target. We know that every firearm is protected by the Second Amendment. We know that every firearm has some self-defense or militia purpose. But the gun control industry knows how to confuse the public. Your dove gun may be reclassified as an “assault weapon” in the next round of legislation.

Ammo: In California some cities have tried to make ammo sales impossible. Guns without ammo are merely clubs, so the gun control industry will target ammo. Expect more bullet tax, registration/finger printing, and display restrictions if not an outright push to limit the amount of ammo you can buy (imagine a 50-round a month limit).

Friends, we can smile at today’s victory. But the gun control industry has been in business for over a hundred years. They have money, they have manpower, they have friends in the White House and they have an agenda. They are not defeated and they will not rest. Stay alert, stay prepared, and keep your power dry.

Virginia Shooting Sports Association

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- Reverses and Remands McDonald Case back to 7th Circuit. Justice Alito announced the decision in McDonald v. Chicago.

On a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed the 7th Circuit decision in the case and remanded the case back to the 7th Circuit. The opinion concludes that the 14th Amendment does incorporate the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller to keep and bear arms in self defense.

Scotusblog reports that the majority seems divided.

…presumably on the precise standard. The majority Justices do not support all parts of the Alito opinion, but all five agree that the 2nd Amendment applies to state and local government. Alito, in the part of the opinion joined by three Justices, concludes that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause. Thomas thinks the Amendment is incorporated, but not under Due Process. He appears to base incorporation on Privileges or Immunities.

The text of the Opinion is here.

In short, with the Court’s decision today, the Second Amendment applies to state and local regulation of the right to keep and bear arms. More on this later on the VSSA Blog.

Second Amendment Foundation

BELLEVUE, WA --(Ammoland.com)- Today’s Supreme Court ruling in the Second Amendment Foundation’s challenge of the Chicago handgun ban is “our call to action,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.

“This morning’s high court ruling clearly shows that the right of the individual citizen to have a gun is constitutionally protected in every corner of the United States,” Gottlieb stated.

“We are already preparing to challenge other highly-restrictive anti-gun laws across the country. Our objective is to win back our firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time.”

In striking down Chicago’s handgun ban, and incorporating the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms so that it applies to state and local governments as well as the federal government, the high court affirmed that a constitutionally-protected civil right cannot be arbitrarily regulated as though it were a privilege, he added.

Gottlieb announced that in recognition of SAF’s victory, the organization will host the 2011 Gun Rights Policy Conference in the Chicago area. The event will serve as SAF’s official celebration of today’s Supreme Court ruling.

“By that time,” he said, “we should have some exciting news about other actions we are currently planning.”

The ruling marks another important Second Amendment victory for attorney Alan Gura, who also successfully argued the Heller case in 2008. This time around, Mr. Gura represented SAF, the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) and four Chicago residents. The case was McDonald v. City of Chicago, named for plaintiff Otis McDonald.

“I’m glad the Supreme Court has ended the years of oppression of law-abiding gun owners by the City of Chicago,” added ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson.

“Thanks to the Supreme Court,” Gottlieb observed, “average Chicago residents like Mr. McDonald will now enjoy the same right of self-defense as a squad of bodyguards provides to Mayor Richard Daley. Now we can work to lower the deplorable violent crime rate in Chicago, something that the anti-gun mayor’s policies have been unable to accomplish.

“The Second Amendment Foundation is delighted to have worked with Alan Gura, who brought together the individual plaintiffs and organized this landmark case for us and our colleagues at ISRA,” Gottlieb concluded. “Today, it feels great to be the most effective community organizer Chicago has ever had.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s 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.

National Shooting Sports Foundation

NEWTOWN, Conn --(AmmoLand.com)- The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) – the trade association for the firearms industry – hailed today’s United States Supreme Court 5-4 decision written by Justice Alito that ruled the individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies to the states and local government.

“Today’s ruling is a victory for freedom and liberty,” said NSSF President Stephen L. Sanetti. “All law-abiding Americans, no matter whether they live in a big city like Chicago or in rural Wyoming, have the same Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Constitutional rights don’t stop at state or city borders. Cities like Chicago and New York and states like California must now respect the Second Amendment.”

The case before the Court, McDonald v. City of Chicago, was filed in 2008 a day after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller — in which the high court reaffirmed that the Second Amendment protects an “individual” right to keep and bear arms. The Heller decision, however, did not reach the question of whether the Second Amendment also applied to the states.

Immediately after Heller, several Chicago residents including retired maintenance worker Otis McDonald filed a federal lawsuit challenging the city’s long-standing gun ban. The Chicago-based federal courts ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states and local governments, setting the stage for the Supreme Court to decide the question it left unanswered in its Heller decision.

“Today’s decision marks the beginning of a new era of civil rights litigation as laws and regulations that infringe upon and violate the individual right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment, are challenged,” said NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane. “As the trade association for America’s firearms industry, our members make the products through which our Second Amendment rights are realized. Just as the First Amendment protects and shields newspapers and media, the Second Amendment secures constitutional protections for our industry.”

NSSF filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of McDonald.

For more information and commentary on today’s ruling, please visit: WWW.NSSF.ORG.

About NSSF
The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 5,500 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers. For more information, log on to www.nssf.org.

ICarry.org

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- A historic United States Supreme Court ruling just came down today!!!

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment does apply - also known as incorporation – to state and local governments.

The right to keep and bear arms is a FUNDAMENTAL right and Chicago and other cities cannot ban the ownership of handguns!!!

Here are some links for you!!

• The actual decision: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
• CNN: news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/28/court-rules-for-gun-rights-strikes-down-chicago-handgun-ban/
• Fox: liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/28/high-courts-big-ruling-for-gun-rights/
• MSNBC: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37972148/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
• Chicago Tribune: www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

If you live in Chicago, go out and buy yourself a handgun today because the ban has been lifted.  Daley will surely put new restrictions in place, but as of right now his ban has been lifted!!!

ICarry.org will keep you informed as more information becomes available, and we will be releasing our own analysis of the decision which applies the Heller decision to all 50 states.

Today we celebrate victory in the highest court.

Second Amendment March

Township of Washington, NJ --(Ammoland.com)- The New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense has once again applied a unique analysis tool to predict the outcome of the McDonald v. Chicago case currently being considered by the Supreme Court.

Using what’s known as the KJ Analysis, the NJCSD concluded that the justices will find in favor of McDonald and that the Second Amendment will be incorporated against the states under the 14th Amendment.

KJ is a method which analyzes reactions to a product, service or statement, compiles the voices, and organizes them into a hierarchy to understand key issues or needs. In this particular case the NJCSD team organized the Justice’s statements culled from the transcript of this important Supreme Court Case.

“I was thrilled to be asked by the NJCSD to once again contribute on this key SCOTUS case, as we did in Heller v. DC. I am confident that the KJ technique has yielded a good approximation of the key issues we will see decided very soon,” said Joe Ficalora, who led the analysis team. “This is an exciting time for me to watch as our trampled self-defense rights in NJ will eventually be restored because of Supreme Court cases like McDonald v. Chicago.”

The questions presented to the Court were whether the Second Amendment applies to the states because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities or Due Process clauses and thereby made applicable to the states, and whether the handgun ban, and other aspects of gun registration regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, in Chicago, Illinois are unconstitutional.

“The Supreme Court has already seen Washington DC thumb their noses at the Heller decision, so we hope they’ll have the wisdom to recognize what our Founders knew,” said Arthur Rosbury-Yoder, Executive Director of the NJCSD.

“They knew that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is fundamental not only to personal protection but to ward off the tyrannical forms of government and encroachments the likes of which we’ve already seen from this administration and in New Jersey.”

Skip Coryell, founder of the Second Amendment March, also considered the upcoming decision. “There is wide speculation about what level of ‘scrutiny’ the court will use to apply our 2nd Amendment right. Justices Scalia and Roberts seem to recognize that ‘reasonable’ regulations can give way too much wiggle room where some states or municipalities can essentially regulate the right out of existence, such as in New Jersey.”

“Americans across the country anxiously await the results of this case. We’re hoping that the Justices recognize our fundamental rights and no longer allow states or localities to trample our freedoms by permitting our safety or sportsmanship to be incremented or regulated into oblivion. Either way, it’s going to be an interesting July 4th holiday this year.” Said NJCSD President Robert Kreisler.

The NJCSD and Second Amendment March are not-for profit Second Amendment advocacy organizations. They can be found on the internet respectively at njcsd.org and secondamendmentmarch.org.

Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- A decision on the landmark Supreme Court case “McDonald vs. The City of Chicago” is expected by the end of June.

As with the previous “Heller vs. District of Columbia” decision some two years earlier, educated gun owners are on pins and needles regarding McDonald’s outcome.

On the Internet there are many articulate evaluations of the oral arguments the Justices heard in McDonald in March. It is assumed that a favorable 5-4 victory for gun owners is in the wind.

The question remains: How definitive a victory will it be?

In Justice Scalia’s majority commentary on the Heller decision there was unfortunately enough “wiggle room” in his language to allow D.C. to immediately pile layer upon layer of taxation, licensing, and bureaucratic barriers that the D.C. ban on ownership of a handgun in one’s home is still effectively in place.

No one can expect Richard Daley, Chicago’s authoritarian Mobster Mayor to concede with any less of a struggle.

No, McDonald will unfortunately not reverberate all that rapidly and positively in the huge urban areas. If you live in San Francisco, Boston, New York City, Chicago, or any other bastion of socialist liberalism, you’ll be made to jump through every hoop imaginable to register a handgun to just keep in your home, much less carry on your person.

What every pro-gun organization, from the smallest to the largest, must do, if a McDonald decision sides with our cause, is to legalistically and philosophically go on the ruthless offensive with every lawful means possible.

Lawsuits must fly.
Squeaky clean plaintiffs must step forward to take the heat. It will not be enjoyable. But the tragic alternative, armed resistance towards an intolerably tyrannical government, would be unimaginably worse.

To our knowledge, JPFO is the only established Second Amendment organization that has directly and unequivocally come out and called for the complete destruction of “gun control”. In our award winning documentaries “2A Today for the U.S.A.” and the controversial (but inarguable) “No Guns for Negroes”, JPFO explains how any form of “gun control” is a direct threat to our freedom. JPFO has, for more than twenty years, provided the “intellectual ammunition” needed to win the hearts and minds of our fellow Americans. But we have to use it to be effective.

What we must never forget is that the Richard Daleys, the Dianne Feinsteins, the Chuckie Schumers, and the Michael Bloombergs are not going to go away.[] Until “gun control” is completely destroyed in America, there will always be some unctuous politician, dictatorial police chief, or un-elected bureaucrat striving to smother your freedom with licensing, fees, hidden taxes, arduous and intrusive background checks, and (most dangerously) actual firearms registration.

Sadly, far too many of these police statists are Jews. JPFO was founded to take on these dangerous deceivers. JPFO can say what other pro-gun groups cannot. JPFO cannot be seriously labeled “anti-Semitic” without eliciting howls of derision. JPFO confronts and condemns the “Bagel Brained Jews” who are attempting to lead our nation into George Orwell’s nightmare.

JPFO is now completing a new documentary film titled “No Guns for Jews”. Some Jews, like Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer, are incurable authoritarians. But other Jewish politicians and policy makers can hopefully be reached. When this film is completed with your support, we ask you to give it as wide a presentation as possible…and silence Jewish gun prohibitionists.

Help JPFO destroy “gun control”. Please take a personal role in preserving freedom in America. Hopefully, we will celebrate a McDonald victory, but then we must strike while the iron is hot. Whatever the Supreme Court’s decision actually is, the much needed “intellectual ammo” from JPFO will help you battle our very misguided enemies.

Dianne Feinstein calls it a “culture war”. It is a war that we, not she and her ilk, must win. Failure is not an option.

About:
Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership Mission is to destroy “gun control” and to encourage Americans to understand and defend all of the Bill of Rights for everyone. Those are the twin goals of Wisconsin-based Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). Founded by Jews and initially aimed at educating the Jewish community about the historical evils that Jews have suffered when they have been disarmed, JPFO has always welcomed persons of all religious beliefs who share a common goal of opposing and reversing victim disarmament policies while advancing liberty for all.

JPFO is a non-profit tax-exempt educational civil rights organization, not a lobby. JPFO’s products and programs reach out to as many segments of the American people as possible, using bold tactics without compromise on fundamental principles. Visit www.JPFO.org Copyright JPFO 2010

Supreme Court

IllinoisCarry.com

Illinois --(Ammoland.com)- The U.S. Supreme court is expected to announce its decision in the landmark case against Chicago’s handgun ban.

It is believed the justices will hand down the ruling before their summer recess begins at the end of June. Rulings are announced at approx. 9:00 a.m. Central Time on Mondays and Thursday, leaving Monday June 21, Thursday June 24, or Monday June 28 as the potential dates for the big news to be released. Posting of the court’s rulings can be followed live at SCOTUSblog.com.

About:
The IllinoisCarry forum was started in April 2004. The idea was that Illinois needed a central location to communicate ideas and information regarding 2nd Amendment issues in Illinois. There are many organizations in Illinois working to protect our 2nd Amendment Rights. Working with these groups IllinoisCarry has become the central location for information and Action Alerts. IllinoisCarry will not endorse political candidates. We simply provide information so voters can make informed decisions. Our goal is to join the other 48 states that allow their citizens to carry concealed firearms. We encourage you to register on our forum and join the fight for your 2nd Amendment Rights in Illinois. Visit www.IllinoisCarry.com

National Association for Gun Rights

Colorado --(Ammoland.com)- The confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan, Obama’s anti-gun Supreme Court nominee, have been scheduled for June 28th.

That means NAGR barely has two weeks to mobilize the Filibuster for Firearms! The time to act is NOW.

Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, says she’s “not sympathetic” to your Second Amendment rights . . .

. . . That may be the understatement of this young century.

That is why I need you to join me in the National Association of Gun Rights’ Filibuster for Firearms.

Weak-willed Republicans like John Kyl of Arizona, are already talking about surrendering to the anti-gun extremists pushing Kagan, WITHOUT A FIGHT.

You see, not only is she “not sympathetic” to your Constitutional rights, Kagan is a hardened opponent of your Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Going back to her time as a Supreme Court clerk in 1987, Kagan supported gun licensing and registration.

As a lawyer in the gun grabbing Clinton Administration, Kagan personally drafted an executive order for Bill Clinton that would ban the importation of semi-automatic firearms.

During her recent confirmation hearings as Solicitor General, Kagan dismissed the notion that the Second Amendment deserved “unlimited protection against governmental regulation.”

Another “unsympathetic” appointment to the Supreme Court could reverse the recent gains we’ve worked hard to achieve to protect our Second Amendment rights, especially when that new justice is an activist against our rights.

Anti Gun Kagan dismissed the notion that the Second Amendment deserved “unlimited protection against governmental regulation.”

Tilting the scale with yet another anti-gun justice could jeopardize our most recent victory at the Court, D.C. v. Heller, where the Court properly held the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual right.

Remember, D.C. v. Heller was a 5-4 victory. One thing is for certain: one more liberal vote on the Supreme Court and D.C. v. Heller would have been a loss.

If we have more appointees like President Obama’s first nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, any ground we have gained in protecting our Second Amendment rights will be lost — maybe FOREVER.

If Kagan is confirmed, she could be that critical liberal vote for the anti-gun lobby and their allies.

That is why I need you to act now. There is no time to wait and see.

Cases involving the Second Amendment and an individual’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms are making their way through the appellate process and will be coming to the Supreme Court.

And, any day now, the Supreme Court could hand down the decision on the McDonald case.

As a lawyer I know how critical the composition of the Supreme Court is to preserving our Second Amendment rights — our ability to protect ourselves, our families and our freedoms.

That is why I need you to join the National Association for Gun Rights’ Filibuster for Firearms.

The anti-gun lobby is pulling out all the stops to get another gun-grabbing liberal on the Supreme Court. Obama’s and his anti-gun allies are already spending MILLIONS of dollars to force Senators of both parties to support Obama’s anti-gun nominee.

We cannot let them go unopposed. Our rights are too important! The National Association of Gun Rights is on the front line of this fight and if we are going to remain in this fight.

About:
The National Association for Gun Rights was founded in 2001 to serve as a grassroots gun rights group focusing on building state-level gun rights groups and lobbying for pro-gun federal legislation. Brown has been a gun lobbyist for more than 17 years. Visit: www.nationalgunrights.org

Virginia Gun Owners Coalition

Virginia --(AmmoLand.com)- President Barack Obama is about to appoint the most anti-gun Supreme Court Justice ever to sit on the bench.

That is why I need you to take immediate action.

You see, Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, is violently opposed to your Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Going back to her time as a Supreme Court clerk in 1987, Kagan supported gun licensing and registration.

As a lawyer in the gun grabbing Clinton Administration, Kagan personally drafted an executive order for Bill Clinton that would ban the importation of semi-automatic firearms.

During her recent confirmation hearings as Solicitor General, Kagan dismissed the notion that the Second Amendment deserved “unlimited protection against governmental regulation.”

Anti Gun Kagan dismissed the notion that the Second Amendment deserved “unlimited protection against governmental regulation.”

The appointment of Kagan could reverse the recent gains we’ve worked hard to achieve to protect our Second Amendment rights.

The appointment of Kagan could jeopardize our most recent victory at the Court, D.C. v. Heller, where the Court properly held the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual right.

Remember, D.C. v. Heller was a 5-4 victory.

If we have more appointees like President Obama’s first nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, any ground we have gained in protecting our Second Amendment rights will be lost – maybe FOREVER.

If Kagan is confirmed, she could be that critical liberal vote for the anti-gun lobby and their allies.

That is why I need you to act now. There is no time to wait and see.

Cases involving the Second Amendment and an individual’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms are making their way through the appellate process and will be coming to the Supreme Court.

That is why I need you to call Senators Webb and Warner and urge them to filibuster the Kagan nomination.

Call Senator Warner at 202 224 2023 and Senator Webb at 202 224 4024 and urge them to filibuster the Kagan nomination.

Obama’s anti-gun buddies are already spending MILLIONS of dollars to get Kagan appointed to the Supreme Court.

Please make a donation at www.vgoc.org to keep VGOC in the fight.

About:
Virginia Gun Owners Coalition is Virginia’s only no-compromise, non-partisan gun lobby patterned after Gun Owners of America on Capitol Hill. VGOC is a non-profit tax-exempt organization under 501(c)(4) of the IRS code. Because we lobby politicians to protect and defend the 2nd Amendment, contributions are not tax deductible for IRS purposes. Visit: www.vgoc.org

Gun Owners of America

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- The next justice of the Supreme Court could well cast the deciding vote on the constitutionality of ObamaCare.

And that justice will almost certainly preside, during the next thirty years, over dozens of cases which could very well chip away at the DC v. Heller decision, telling us which gun laws the court views as “constitutional” and which “unconstitutional.”

So it is more than a little interesting that Barack Qbama has reached into his closet of political leftists to bring out Elena Kagan — a woman whose legal views have been shaped by the most extreme socialist voices in Washington.

Kagan doesn’t have a record of judicial opinions. She hasn’t been a judge. So the crafty Obama figures that, without a paper trail, we won’t know of the ways she is moving American jurisprudence to the left until it’s too late.

But Kagan’s views on the Second Amendment are no mystery. According to columnist James Oliphant, Kagan was part of “a small group of staffers work[ing] behind the scenes to pursue an aggressive policy agenda” during President Bill Clinton’s second term.

Oliphant writes: “According to records at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ark., [Kagan] drafted an executive order restricting the importation of certain semiautomatic assault rifles. She also helped prepare a question-and-answer document advocating the campaign-reform legislation then proposed by Sens. Russ Feingold and John McCain.”

Kagan was also part of the Clinton team that pushed the firearms industry to include gun locks with all gun purchases and was in the Clinton administration when the president pushed legislation that would close down gun shows.

President Obama has made it very clear that he expects Kagan’s “powers of persuasion” to make her and Justice Anthony Kennedy the swing votes to uphold his anti-gun ObamaCare legislation.

Kagan’s opinion of the “greatest lawyer” of her lifetime was her former boss — the consistently left-wing Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Bloomberg News reported on May 13 that while working for Justice Marshall, Kagan urged him to vote against hearing a gun owner’s claim that his constitutional rights were violated.

Kagan wrote that she was “not sympathetic” toward the gun rights claim that was made in Sandidge v. United States — an amazing statement for a woman who is being heralded for supposedly showing a “special solicitude” for the interests of certain groups.

Alas, it seems that gun owners are not a part of those groups for whom she would like to show special concern.

After the Heller case was handed down, Kagan did concede that the Second Amendment was an “individual right.” But that makes her no different than the talking heads at the Brady Campaign.

Kagan, like the President who nominated her, is an extreme leftist. According to WeeklyStandard.com (May 6, 2009), she is so far to the left she has lamented that socialism has “never attained the status of a major political force” in our country.

And according to Politico.com (March 20, 2009), she says that foreign law can be used to interpret the U.S. Constitution in “some circumstances.” Considering that most of the world does not respect the freedoms that are protected in our Second Amendment, this is a bad sign.

While every Senator needs to hear from us, there are seven Republican Senators in particular who need to hear from their constituents.

These seven Republicans voted for Elena Kagan last year when she was confirmed as Obama’s Solicitor General:

• Coburn (R-OK)
• Collins (R-ME)
• Gregg (R-NH)
• Hatch (R-UT)
• Kyl (R-AZ)
• Lugar (R-IN)
• Snowe (R-ME)

ACTION: Contact your Senators and urge them to vote NO on Elena Kagan — and tell him or her that you want Kagan’s nomination filibustered and defeated. As Kagan could be the deciding vote on the constitutionality of ObamaCare and many other gun cases, it is imperative that Republicans stick together and filibuster every anti-gun nomination from the President.

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your legislators the pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

Please vote NO on the nomination of Elena Kagan. The next justice of the Supreme Court will almost certainly preside, during the next thirty years, over dozens of cases which could very well chip away at the DC v. Heller decision, telling us which gun laws the court views as “constitutional” and which “unconstitutional.”

But Kagan’s views on the Second Amendment are no mystery. Columnist James Oliphant writes: “According to records at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ark., [Kagan] drafted an executive order restricting the importation of certain semiautomatic assault rifles.”

She was also part of the Clinton team that pushed the firearms industry to include gun locks with all gun purchases and was in the Clinton administration when the president pushed legislation that would close down gun shows.

Bloomberg News reported on May 13 that while working for Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan urged him to vote against hearing a gun owner’s claim that his constitutional rights were violated. Kagan wrote that she was “not sympathetic” toward the gun owner’s claim.

Sure, after the Heller case was handed down, Kagan did concede that the Second Amendment was an “individual right.” But that makes her no different than the talking heads at the Brady Campaign.

According to WeeklyStandard.com (May 6, 2009), she is so far to the left she has lamented that socialism has “never attained the status of a major political force” in our country.

And according to Politico.com (March 20, 2009), she says that foreign law can be used to interpret the U.S. Constitution in “some circumstances.” Considering that most of the world does not respect the freedoms that are protected in our Second Amendment, this is a bad sign.

Please vote NO on Elena Kagan and support any filibuster attempt against her.

Sincerely,

—————————————————

GOF Brief in McDonald v Chicago
Speaking of the Supreme Court, the next high-court judicial battle regarding gun rights will be an attempt to rule Chicago’s notorious gun ban as unconstitutional as the one struck down in Washington DC in the landmark Heller case. In essence, will the “individual right” affirmed in Heller apply to every state or just DC?

To view what Gun Owners Foundation is doing to influence this upcoming Supreme Court decision, and/or to make a tax-deductible contribution to further these legal efforts, please see:

http://www.gunowners.com/mcdonald.htm

About:
Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. ‘The only no comprise gun lobby in Washington’ – Ron Paul

National Rifle Association

Fairfax, Va. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Today the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal animal cruelty law so broadly written that it would criminalize the distribution of hunting videos and magazines under many circumstances.

The 8-1 ruling in U.S. v Stevens is a big win for the National Rifle Association and hunters across America. A brief submitted by the NRA was cited in the majority’s opinion.

“The NRA condemns animal cruelty. However, hunting and depictions of hunting are not animal cruelty. This excessive law would have imposed felony penalties for creating, possessing or selling mainstream hunting images. Therefore, we are pleased that the Supreme Court ruled against this overbroad law,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.

“Indeed, NRA publications like American Hunter, the largest-circulation all-hunting magazine in the world, could have been in jeopardy if this law was upheld.”

Anti-hunting extremist organizations like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) were the primary advocates for the deliberately overreaching language in Congress and its defenders in Court. HSUS’s intentions should have been apparent from the beginning. Before becoming president of the organization, Wayne Pacelle said, “The definition of obscenity on the newsstands should be extended to many hunting magazines.” And, this is precisely what the law did.

“American hunters and sportsmen are our country’s true conservationists. It is offensive that those who work hardest for the preservation efforts of wildlife in this country are grouped with those who commit actual animal cruelty,” concluded Cox.

“Fortunately, the Supreme Court chose the First Amendment over Pacelle’s radical agenda, and the overruling of this law prevents the unwarranted punishment of ethical hunters and outdoor media in the United States.”

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four 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.

National Association for Gun Rights

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)- Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has announced his retirement.

Over the next few days, you’re bound to hear a lot of nice things said about Justice Stevens. The hard truth is, he was one of the most prominent leftist activists on the Supreme Court.

Stevens led the dissent — and even wrote the dissenting opinion — against the individual right to keep and bear arms in the D.C. v. Heller decision.

He was appointed to the Court in 1975 by President Gerald Ford and is expected to formally step down after the court has finished its business over the summer.

Stevens is a prime example of the kind of liberal judges that Republican presidents have appointed to the Supreme Court. Even George W. Bush, who is responsible for the appointment of conservative judges Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, was originally inclined to appoint another liberal to the court in Harriet Myers.

President Barack Obama has already appointed one radical leftist to the high court — Justice Sonya Sotomayor. Every indication is that Obama nominate another from the left to replace Stevens.

This is why it is vitally important that we elect strong conservative Senators in November. While we can rally around the existing principled leaders like Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), they need more principled conservative allies with them in the U.S. Senate.

I know I don’t need to tell you that this year is an election year. Many states around the country are right now in the heat of the primary election process to select candidates for state and federal office.

If you’re a gun owner and you’re concerned about the make-up of the Supreme Court, or that Nancy Pelosi and President Obama might force gun control on us, you must be involved in the political process in your state.

For freedom,

Letters to the AmmoLand Editor: Got something on your mind? Let us know and you can see it here.

Virginia --(AmmoLand.com)- I am constantly reading on the Net and in the media about so-called “gun rights” and “gun control.”

Some examples;

“The final briefs seeking to shape the Supreme Court’s coming decision on the reach of the Second Amendment’s protection of gun rights suggested Friday that states might be free to violate other parts of the Bill of Rights…”

“The National Association for Gun Rights, often referred to as “NAGR”, was founded to assist the growing movement of pro-Second Amendment organizations, especially state-level gun rights groups.

“The National Rifle Association is the largest gun rights lobbying organization in the United States.”

On one hand, we preach that guns are mere machines, inanimate objects and tools. On the other, we appear to be attempting to give ‘rights’ to these inanimate machines.

I submit to you a request; that we remove the phrase “gun rights” from our vocabulary and replace it with the more human, and more accurate, “gun-owner rights.”

The First Amendment does not guarantee rights to printing presses as machines; it guarantees the rights of people to use printing presses, radios, televisions and the Internet without restriction.

The Second Amendment guarantees no rights to guns themselves, as they are mere machines. However, it does guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear them.

The psychology behind what may appear as a minor ‘grammatical nit’ should be clear.

It is relatively easy for most people to hate an object. You can make up lies about an object, demonize an object and attempt to regulate and control objects. You can do so without fear of insulting the object, hurting its feelings, being sued by the object or facing any repercussions, it’s just a defenseless, soulless object.

When we replace gun rights with gun-owner rights, however, the issue becomes personal. Where many people and politicians [as opposed to people] find it easy and guilt-free to demonize guns as objects, it is far more difficult to for them to demonize a large segment of the population, gun-owners, as people.

Laws can not control inanimate objects, only what law-abiding persons do with those objects. Therefore, it’s technically not gun control, or a war against guns, it’s gun owner control, and a war against gun owners.

So let us end this futile battle for so-called, non-existent gun rights and gun control, and renew the charge in support of the very real and very important rights of the people who own defensive and recreational firearms.

It may seem like a grammatical nit, but impressions are everything.

That’s my opinion, and you’re welcome to it!

FirearmsCoalition.org

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)-  Oral arguments in the Supreme Court case of McDonald v. Chicago were an interesting show on March 2.

Most of the Justices made their positions on applying the Second Amendment to the states – and what mechanism to use to do it – fairly clear from the outset. Most observers agree that the Court will declare that states must recognize a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

A secondary issue in this case is not just whether the Second Amendment should apply to the states, but also how it should get there. The 14th Amendment was written and ratified specifically for the purpose of, among other things, clarifying who is a citizen of the US and to make the rights of US citizenship applicable and enforceable in the states.

That intent was thwarted however by a Supreme Court dominated by Justices with a strong state autonomy philosophy. In a ruling known as the Slaughterhouse cases, the Court interpreted, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” to be limited in scope to only such rights or privileges as were bestowed by the Constitution, not those which pre-existed and were merely reiterated in that document.

In the 140 years since that egregious decision no Court has been willing to reverse their esteemed predecessors and open the Pandora’s Box of “unenumerated rights”. mentioned in the Constitution. Instead they created a novel construct around another clause of the 14th which says, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” They have used this clause to somehow selectively “incorporate” virtually all of the Bill of Rights. Now they are poised to do the same with the Second Amendment.

This controversy leads to much speculation about how the Court will split on this question. Roberts and Scalia very clearly want to incorporate under Due Process.

Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas are likely to join them, but some of them could come out with a partial dissent favoring application of the right by means of the Privileges or Immunities clause rather than the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor seemed resigned to the fact that incorporation is inevitable, but would clearly prefer to selectively apply some limited version of the Second Amendment with lots of room for restrictions. Stevens might be the lone holdout dissenting on the grounds that applying the Second Amendment in cities like Chicago will cost lives – as if guns are only used for crime.

After losing in the 7th Circuit and being granted a review by the SCOTUS, Alan Gura, attorney for Otis McDonald and the Second Amendment Foundation, decided to use the opportunity to try and restore the Privileges or Immunities clause to its proper place in constitutional law. Some didn’t like that idea and so the NRA elbowed their way into the case to have their attorney, former Solicitor General Paul Clement, argue for the more traditional Due Process incorporation.

Advertisement

During the oral arguments Gura and James Feldman, Special Counsel for Chicago were both rigorously questioned, almost badgered, by the Justices to the point that neither ever got more than a few words out before being interrupted again. The contrast between this and how the Justices handled Clement, was simply startling. Clement was able to breeze through his talking points with only a few, very cordial interruptions for polite, agreeable questions.

It was very clear that the Justices – at least the vocal ones – were downright hostile to the idea of overturning Slaughterhouse and most were equally hostile to the idea of not applying the Second to the states. It was also clear that these justices were predisposed to buy what Clement was selling. That had to be tough on Gura. This was his case from the beginning and he was very unhappy when NRA forced their way in and took one third of his argument time. Then to have their lawyer come out the heroes of the day while Gura’s arguments remained largely unuttered… It had to be frustrating, especially since Gura was planning all along to include Due Process in his arguments.

Since Clement came in, Gura had little choice but to concentrate virtually all of his time on the Privileges or Immunities argument.

In the end, it doesn’t matter how the right to arms is applied to the states so long as it is applied. Of course, winning this case is only the beginning. There will be multiple lawsuits over many years costing millions of dollars, and still the citizens of Chicago will probably have a difficult – if not impossible – time acquiring and maintaining legal handguns for self-defense in their homes – much less out in the wilds of the city streets.

About:
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition is a project of Neal Knox Associates, Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org

National Association for Gun Rights

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court case.

Otis McDonald, the named plaintiff in the case, has sued the city of Chicago over their 28-year-old ban on the sale and possession of handguns. Alan Gura, the attorney from 2008’s famous Heller Case, argued the case for Mr. McDonald.

The National Association for Gun Rights joined the fight and filed a “friend of the court” amicus brief on behalf of Mr. McDonald. (You can read the full amicus brief by clicking here.)

Alan Gura, in response to questions from Justice Sotomayor, summed up the case well when he said, “…States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional.” A full transcript of Tuesday’s oral arguments is available online, by clicking here.

Now that the oral arguments have been heard, legal analysts believe a decision could be handed down by mid-summer.

In theory, if Chicago’s handgun ban is indeed overturned, it would open the door to additional lawsuits against cities, municipalities and potentially even states that ban entire classes of weapons.

In practice, this ruling will likely have very little effect on the day-to-day lives of most gun owners. If the Heller Decision taught us anything, even a ruling in our favor doesn’t mean that gun control advocates won’t work tirelessly to restrict our rights.

After the Heller decision, D.C. passed draconian restrictions on firearms possession, and still bans the entire class of semi-auto handguns. I fully expect Chicago to follow suit, by passing a host of restrictions and regulations on the right of Chicago’s residents to defend themselves with handguns.

It does, however, mean that gun owners can make a role for themselves in the process. By being involved in state and local elections, gun owners have a direct impact on the politicians and the legislation they pass.

Now is not the time to sit on the sidelines. Gun owners must be involved in the political process to affect real, Constitutional change.

(For a refresher on the McDonald case, the Associated Press has a good write up on the plaintiffs in the case; David and Colleen Lawson, Otis McDonald and Adam Orlov.)

Oregon Firearms Federation

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Yesterday, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of “Macdonald Vs Chicago.”

The outcome of this case will be pivotal in determining the future of gun rights in the states.We now have a transcript of the arguments on our website.

You can download them in PDF format at this link:

About:
The Oregon Firearms Federation has proven itself to be Oregon’s only no compromise lobbying group, OFEF takes the same tough stands and serves as a vehicle for educating gun owners, promoting their rights and when necessary, fighting the freedom haters in court. Visit: www.oregonfirearms.org

People Lining Up for McDonald v. Chicago

Gunlaws.com

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)- This case was way more complicated than Heller.

Both attorneys faced hostility from the bench. Chicago’s lawyer got hit from all sides with little in the way of what you might call support. But the surprise was the way Alan Gura got blasted, even by the best friend gun-rights has up there, Justice Scalia.

Whoever or however we believed the Court might be ready to review the Privileges or Immunities clause of 14A was totally wrong. Every Justice had problems with the scope of such a decision, and poor Gura had to withstand withering assaults on his reasoning and approach.

I definitely need a transcript to go over what exactly happened, I thought audio was weak in chambers, complexity was way large, and in chatter afterwords found I wasn’t the only one.

How those aging Justices keep up — and they did, note for note, cite for cite — is a bloody miracle.

BOTTOM LINE
It looks like the Heller majority may hold together for this case, and the Second Amendment will be incorporated against the states, under the familiar selective incorporation of Due Process. The same 2A that controls federal activity will apply to the states, no more, no less, though that issue of degree got a lot of attention. Not that the scope of 2A is all the well defined, but there was animus to the idea that incorporation would yield a “shadow” version for the states.

Gura may get the win, but not for any brilliant strategic planning — there was open hostility to the idea, central to his arguments, of 2A being a Privilege or Immunity of citizenship (I’ll discuss soon). The win, if there is one, may be more of a result of the bench being unprepared to treat 2A as some special bastard child the states do not have to follow, unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights that has been incorporated so far.

And let me tell you, thank God for the NRA. They took a lot of heat for asking for and getting some of Gura’s oral argument time, using Paul Clement who had argued the government’s unsavory position for a low standard of scrutiny in Heller, getting their hat in the ring.

That turned out to be baloney, they were life savers. Considering the ferocity with which Gura and P&I were attacked, we were lucky to have at elegant, articulate, eloquent voice to apply 2A through Due Process. (Don’t get me wrong, Chicago fared just as poorly, but for different reasons.)

Clement’s arguments were so well made and so compelling, he got to speak at length without interruption, with the Justices in rapt attention. I asked him about that afterwords and he said yeah, it was really nice getting some “air time.”

There’s so much more to tell, the back-and-forth over substantive and procedural due process, and the – un-frickin-believable – lengthy consideration by the Justices of how much RKBA we’d enjoy if there was “no Second Amendment” (protected instead as a privilege or immunity), plus Breyer’s astounding hostility towards guns in general (“guns kill!”), and Stevens’ ‘parading around with guns’ concerns… it’ll have to be later (been on the go since 5:30 a.m), probably when I return to Phoenix, beginning of next week.

It was an honor and a thrill witnessing it all.

Supreme Court official website: http://www.supremecourtus.gov

Guns Saves Lives: Click If You Agree

Alan Korwin
Bloomfield Press
“We publish the gun laws.”
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 Fax
1-800-707-4020 Orders

http://www.gunlaws.com

alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for free full-color catalog

Supreme Court

Down Range TV with Michael Blain

Howard, KS - -(AmmoLand.com)- Today and tomorrow, Down Range TV will be covering the McDonald v. City of Chicago Oral Arguments with commentaries from Michael Bane, Jim Shepherd, Dave Kopel and Dave Hardy.

Down Range Radio will also have the oral arguments as one of the topics in this week’s edition airing from midnight.

http://www.downrange.tv/blog/?cat=354

About:
DOWN RANGE Television (DRTV) has quickly become the gold standard for Internet firearms sites. Founded in February 2007 by television personality and journalist Michael Bane and his partner Marshal Halloway founder of the first Internet firearms social community — CAS City — in 1995, DRTV offers original short-form video, original articles, moderated forums, gun giveaways, links to blogs and original weekly audio podcasts.

People Lining Up for McDonald v. Chicago

Gunlaws.com

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)- I’m back in my hotel, having endured the weather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, anticipating oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago in the a.m., the case that will decide the standing of our Second Amendment rights in the 50 states.

Well, people are lining up all right. Young people who can withstand it.

It’s bitter cold with a 20 MPH wind, but if you’ve decided to come here for the latest most seminal gun-rights case imaginable that’s not going to stop you.

At 5PM when I arrived (night before the oral argument) there were eight people awaiting seats for tomorrow’s McDonald v. Chicago 14th Amendment/Second Amendment case. By the time I left, with my feet too numb to feel, there were thirteen people trickled in, including a GW law-school student and her Mom who brought an air mattress and a comforter. When I cell-phoned some of the stalwarts later, before beginning this draft, I was told there were nearly 50 people there, including 15 or so high-school students who decided to rough it and see a landmark case at the Supreme Court.

Only 50 are guaranteed seats, so the window of opportunity is pratically closed. The Marshall’s office expected the crowd to develop in the a.m., looks like they’ll be SOOL.

Coulda been worse — for Heller, the line started TWO days ahead of time. This night-before stuff is child’s play. But it’s COOOOOLD.

As usual, the hale and hearty on line are more knowledgeable about this case than most of the public (and the media — Wash Post made their above-the-fold front-page story today a referendum on Justice Scalia, read like an unsavory biography (they don’t like the guy!), instead of the merits of the case; what facts Court reporter Robert Barnes did provide were out of whack, thin, misleading, pretty standard for that rag. Guess what they chose for an illustration — a picture of Chirs Broughton carrying his AR-15 at the Obama rally in Phoenix!! I kid you not. That makes sense, right? The Wash Compost’s idea of a gun image is a months old piece of discriminatory controversy, not something depicting basic human rights.

We had dynamic chats on the street about the premise of the case (the Post barely touched it), constitutional realities, the unknowns, the likely outcomes, the vote — Mike the blogger, incredibly knowledgable and with past cases at his fingertips with such detail and a tongue too fast even for me to follow, predicts a 9 -0 result — the Court will not overrule its Heller jurisprudence, and even hopelessly anti-gun-rights Ginsburg will forgo her hatred of 2A to reintstate 14A, or so he believes. Robert Cumberland flew in from California and is first in line — and he knows his stuff. This case affects him more than even Heller — that case set the groundwork, but this is the one that might actually force reinstatement of his abrogated rights, and he wants to be here to see it.

The carnival atmosphere is definitely lacking, there isn’t a single camera crew set up — at Heller there were dozens at this point, but no doubt there will be some tomorrow. Yet this case stands to have more net effect than Heller, it just doesn’t break ground in the same way. Dick Heller was out there after I left (phone tips from the folks I met, seven men and one woman), chatting up the crowd, enjoying his 15 years of fame, his nephew plans to be on line to see the proceedings, some guy named Robert is holding a place in line in the freezing cold for a party unnamed, at $20 an hour. Dan Schmutter, attorney for JPFO dropped by to see what’s up, this is definitely the hot ticket in town — all seats in Chambers are reserved, save for the precious few for the rabble (what we call the public).

Perhaps the most telling perspective came from a British theology professor visiting here, met in a bar on the frigid way home — he thinks the only rights you legitimately have are those the government gives you. You can have a gun if government “allows” it, with no ammo, locked in a locker, and this is freedom. If he was on the Court we’d be doomed. I’m not making this up.

Exhausted, need to pack, will observe tomorrow and provide my observations soon. Real soon.

Supreme Court official website: http://www.supremecourtus.gov

Guns Saves Lives: Click If You Agree

Alan Korwin
Bloomfield Press
“We publish the gun laws.”
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 Fax
1-800-707-4020 Orders

http://www.gunlaws.com

alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for free full-color catalog

Illinois State Rifle Association

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- On March 2, 2010, the Supreme Court will hear arguments opposed to and in support of the Chicago handgun ban which has been in place since 1982.

This case, McDonald v Chicago was filed by the Illinois State Rifle Association immediately following the landmark 2008 case Heller v DC. Currently 38 states, 305 US Senator and Representatives and over 700 state legislators, to name just a few, have filed briefs in support of the defendants.

View all the available filings and briefs at ChicagoGunCase.com.

This case is expected to not only overturn the ban in Chicago but to finally provide incorporation of the Second Amendment to the states.

To think that this will end Mayor Daley’s attempts to maintain Chicago’s draconian gun laws, however, would be to ignore his recent statements made at the US Conference of Mayors:

“In the face of strong opposition from the NRA and other gun extremists, we will continue to advocate for the rights of cities to regulate guns and to coordinate efforts with other cities that share our position.”

As soon as possible, the ISRA website will have links to the oral arguments. Those links will go out over Twitter as well as an additional email message.

The ISRA will continue to advocate for YOUR rights as firearm owners and citizens (which Mayor Daley considers extremist) but it does not have the support of taxpayer dollars or the Joyce Foundation. If you are an ISRA member, we need your continued support. Please make a donation on-line, or over the phone at 815-635-3198.

About:
The ISRA is the state’s leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership. Since 1903, the ISRA has represented the interests of over 1.5 million law-abiding Illinois firearm owners Visit: www.isra.org