To Where: Washington Monument Mall Washington, DC
When: Monday, April 19, 2010 10:00 AM – to – 4:00 PM

Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore

Maryland --(AmmoLand.com)- Join us for the Washington, D.C. rally in support of the 2nd Amendment sponsored by the 2nd Amendment March. Click here for the 2nd Amendment March Home Page.

The Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore (AGC) has reserved two 54 passenger buses to provide comfortable, stress free transportation to and from the rally. Enjoy the comradery of fellow shooters, perhaps catch up with old friends, and make some new friends.

In order to accommodate as many persons as possible, the buses will leave from different locations, each will make intermediate stops as noted below and the buses will rendezvous at the Broken Land Park & Ride West. The buses will then travel together to the 2nd Amendment March Rally. Each bus will make the same stops on the return trip as needed.

The AGC is now using a new system to register participants and receive payments by credit card or personal PayPal account on a secure Internet connection.

Please note that the system requires that each person be registered separately AND by the bus you wish to ride in order to avoid overbooking the buses. Once we have reached 54 guests on a bus, the system will no longer accept additional bookings for that bus.

The AGC must pay in advance for the bus rental and therefore all bookings are final. No refunds will be made for any reason.

Click a link below to register for the bus you wish to ride on.

========================================

Bus #1

Departs:

Timonium Park & Ride
Greenspring Drive, North of Timonium Road

Departs Timonium Park & Ride at 8:00 AM

Intermediate Stops at:

Catonsville Park & Ride
Rt. 166, Rt. 195 & Rolling Rd.

Departs Catonsville Park & Ride at 8:40 AM

Broken Land Park & Ride West
Rt. 32 & Broken Land Parkway

Departs Broken Land Park & Ride at 9:00 AM

Click here to register for Bus #1 – Timonium Park & Ride Greenspring Drive – North of Timonium Road

=======================================

Bus #2

Departs:

AGC Marriottsville Trap Range
11518 Marriottsville Road

Departs AGC Marriottsville at 8:00 AM

Intermediate Stops at:

Rt 32 & I 70 Park & Ride
Rt. 32 .25 miles North of I-70

Departs Rt. 32 Park & Ride at 8:25 AM

Broken Land Park-n-Ride WEST
Rt. 32 & Broken Land Parkway

Departs Broken Land Park & Ride at 9:00 AM

Click here to register for Bus #2 – AGC Marriottsville Trap Range – 11518 Marriottsville Road

The 2nd Amendment March has provided the following Rally Rules and Code of Conduct:

• NO UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS.
• If you do not intend to comply with item #1, do not attend.
• If you break the law, Second Amendment March and the AGC will not be responsible.
• It is each attendee’s own personal responsibility to be familiar with the firearm laws in the areas in which he/she will be traveling.
• Please be courteous to everyone you encounter, including D.C. police and National Park Service rangers.
• Please be sure to dispose of all trash. Let’s strive to leave the grounds in better condition than when we arrive.
• If you have any concerns while at the event, please notify a volunteer or event organizer immediately.
• Your attendance at the Second Amendment March indicates your intent to comply with these rules/code of conduct and all local and federal laws.

This is a rain or shine outdoor event. Please bring whatever food, drink,equipment or supplies you anticipate needing, e.g. blanket, chair, sunscreen, lunch, beverages (no alcohol, wine or beer).

About:
Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc. (AGC), located in Marriottsville, Maryland. The Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc. was formed on July 1, 1944 when a number of World War II veterans in the Baltimore, Maryland area began looking for a place for recreational and competitive shooting. They organized with several other Baltimore area shooting clubs to form the “AGC” Visit: www.associatedgunclubs.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

2nd Amendment Rally in Washington, DC Bus Trip – Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore

Montana Shooting Sports Association

MISSOULA, MT --(AmmoLand.com)- There will be a Second Amendment and Tenth Amendment rally on the front steps of the Montana State Capitol Building in Helena at High Noon on Saturday, March 27th.

The event is expected to last until about 2 PM.

Rally organizer Tim Ravndal is advising that any carried firearms be unloaded for safety reasons.

Feel free to bring and display posters and banners.

Tim says he has ordered nice weather for the event.

About Montana Shooting Sports Association:
MSSA is the primary political advocate for Montana gun owners. SAF is a national organization headquartered in Bellevue, WA that works nationally to advance the interests of gun owners. Visit: www.mtssa.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Montana Second Amendment And Tenth Amendment Rally

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

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Deciphering the Court Deciphering Your Rights

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.)

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Supreme Court Hears Landmark 2nd Amendment Gun Case

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

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Oral Arguments in Mcdonald V. Chicago Second Amendment Case Eyewitness Report

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

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Mcdonald V. Chicago Second Amendment Case Eyewitness Report

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

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in ISRA Case McDonald v Chicago

Gunlaws.com

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)-  Are the 50 states required to obey the Second Amendment?

Or can they do whatever they want, with no obligation to respect our right to keep and bear arms?

That’s what’s at stake in the Chicago gun-ban case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, at the U.S. Supreme Court, where oral arguments will be heard this Tuesday, March 2, with a decision expected in June.

I’m hitting the road tomorrow (for two Texas conventions) and will be at the Court for eyewitness reports. The circus atmosphere does not appear to be in the air — yet this case could have more far-reaching consequences than the Heller case.

There’s no disagreement that when the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights were ratified in 1791, they were designed to control the federal government only, not the states. Did the 14th Amendment change that?

The Colonists and the Founders were intensely afraid that a strong central government would eventually confiscate the rights cherished by early Americans — the very things that made America great and that have drawn people here like magnetism.

It was not a baseless fear, as we can see clearly from constant and growing federal usurpations of our rights and freedoms, with massive accumulations of power in Washington, D.C.

The First Amendment says it plainly: “CONGRESS shall make no law…” (emphasis added). The whole idea was to control the central government, not the states (which had their own protections and statements of rights).

The idea that the states should also be obligated to respect the fundamental rights in the national Bill of Rights didn’t arrive until 1868, with the 14th Amendment. And that was a result of the end of slavery – the former Confederate states did everything they could think of to deny virtually any rights to newly freed slaves – especially the right to keep and bear arms.

Congress, led by the northern states, declared that all Americans had rights and that, “…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” (the key 52 words of the 14th Amendment’s 435 words, emphasis added). The historical record is emphatic in noting that the right to arms, especially for freedmen, was a prime mover in passing this amendment.

That language is clear, but here’s where it gets tricky, and the heart of the McDonald case. Passage of 14A didn’t automatically protect all citizens. What exactly are all the rights, privileges and immunities of the people? For reasons too complex to go into now, rights in the Bill of Rights have been applied to control the states, but only one at a time, by the U.S. Supreme Court.

There were two main ways to do this — the Privileges and Immunities clause (which protects only citizens), and the Due Process clause (which applies to “any person”). The Court has essentially abandoned the P&I clause, and relied mainly on Due Process.

A set of cases, combined into “The Slaughterhouse Cases” (look that up, it’s fascinating) pretty much gutted the Privileges and Immunities clause, by saying the only rights you have as an American are extremely narrow. The P&I clause has essentially been a dead letter since that case in 1873 — and this is why McDonald v. Chicago is seen as so critical — it could breathe life into the heart of the 14th Amendment. The Second Amendment is the subject matter, but the 14th Amendment is what’s at stake. OK, OK, they’re both at stake.

With a key chunk of the 14th essentially dead, the High Court has relied on Due Process to apply (legal eagles say “incorporate”) the Bill-of-Rights rights against the states. That’s why states can’t search and seize your property without a warrant (well, in theory at least — the states have usurped enormous powers too). The Due Process clause is why free speech cannot be denied by the states (again, only in theory — the abuses here are so great it’s the subject of my next book: Bomb Jokes At Airports — And 186 Other Things You’d Better Not Say).

So now we’re at the case in hand. Chicago has pretty much outlawed or severely infringed firearms rights for anyone in the city. All the city’s powers are basically derived from the state of Illinois. Does Chicago have legitimate power to outlaw your rights? It says yes.

Is Chicago obligated, under the 14th Amendment, to honor and respect your rights? It says no, it can do as it pleases and screw your rights, just like other abhorrent petty tyrants currently running loose without nooses in the United States. (FWIW, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey filed briefs supporting Chicago, a total of three arguing against RKBA rights.)

I say, along with a huge chunk of this great country, that the states should be as totally bound to protect and safeguard the rights you have as an American citizen as all government should be. (38 briefs were filed in defense of our rights, including one by 251 congressmen and 58 senators). I go a bit further and say the bigots who have been denying and repressing your rights all this time belong in prison, but we’re not likely to go that far. This time.

People who know about these things believe it is most likely that, if the High Court decides the states are obligated to honor the Second Amendment (and by implication, the entire rest of the Bill of Rights) they will apply the Due Process clause to justify their reasoning. That’s how it’s always been done, that’s the most safe and precedent-ready route, and that’s the best argument to press. Or is it?

Hopes are huge and the Court has subtly signaled that it is ready to finally breathe life into the P&I clause, and that has become the dominant argument for the petitioners (McDonald, et al.) and their attorneys, led by Alan Gura. The Court has all it needs to go the Due Process route, why not give it the encouragement it needs, seems to want, to rebirth P&I.

And here’s where it gets really interesting. McDonald v. Chicago is seen as the best opportunity in more than a century to fix the harm done by Slaughterhouse. There is virtually unanimous consensus that Slaughterhouse was bad law, decided for bad reasons, and that it needs to be overturned. It has killed off a crucial part of a crucial constitutional amendment, and the times, and the Court, and the legal system are ready to set it right. It means upsetting a huge apple cart, but it’s time.

Even though the subject matter of McDonald is gun rights, and a positive decision will have enormous positive impact on everyone’s right to arms, many on the political left are supporting this case. Talk about strange bedfellows. They want that 14th Amendment restored because they see it as a linchpin for all sorts of possible “civil rights” they envision in the future. Think of every wacky demand the left makes, and then imagine these are “found,” one by one, to be civil rights the federal government can force the states to honor and protect.

Yes, we’re delighted that the states may be forced — by our friends the feds — to honor our right to keep arms and our right to bear arms. We can conveniently overlook and rationalize any concerns about federalism — the concept that states are sovereign and independent, and in many matters can decide on their own how their territories will be run. Force from federal mandates seems just fine to protect free speech or stop search-and-seizure abuse, or to protect RKBA. But how well that flies if it’s “newly discovered privileges and immunities” (polygamy? drugs? animal rights? affirmative action? debt? medicine? carbon neutrality? diversity? greenness? diet?) remains to be seen.

Those are far fetched and unlikely concerns, according to most people in the know. And the idea of losing the case, leaving states free to trample our precious right to arms, is just unthinkable. Giving up the best chance we’ve had in our history to right the wrongs of Slaughterhouse is not an easy option to consider. But the NRA, with laser aim on reinstating the rights of Chicagoans, has stepped into the fray, and asked for and received part of the tiny argument time (30 minutes) Alan Gura has before the Court.

The NRA has retained Paul Clement, the former solicitor general whose experience before the Court is unrivaled (and who wrote the pro-rights brief signed by 58% of the U.S. Congress for this case). The NRA wants to make sure the Due Process arguments are firmly made, since Mr. Gura has chosen the somewhat riskier focus on the Privileges and Immunities clause (though both camps make arguments for both approaches). The NRA’s request for time, unusual but not unheard of, was definitely a fly in the ointment, but an ointment they felt needed a stir and examination.

To be sure, many of the friend-of-the-court amicus briefs filed in this case brought up and documented well the value, need and reasons to re-establish the P&I clause — but it would break very new ground. So the NRA’s position is not out in left field — they are recognizing and making the more traditional case based Due Process. It’s a double-barreled approach for success. which is a good thing. Probably. You never know when the Supreme Court gets its hands on an issue.

The most dangerous game may be the side note about Chicago’s gun-registration scheme. If you can have a gun there at all it must be re-registered every year, most guns simply cannot be registered, and if you miss your renewal date (and fee for every gun you own) the gun(s) becomes permanently unregisterable and contraband. Is that OK? The Court’s handling of this policy if they decide to touch it (and it seems they may have to based on the facts of the case), is fraught with danger for gun rights.

So there you have it.

In the amicus brief my company Bloomfield Press filed with lead attorney Chuck Michel and dozens of district attorneys, gun rights groups from Texas, Virginia and Arizona, sheriff Richard Mack who was behind the original Brady law case (which he won) and others, we mainly left the 14A arguments for others. Instead, we addressed some essential points that got far less attention.

Our brief establishes this crucial point: the Second Amendment protects an American right that is long standing, deeply rooted and truly fundamental, and therefore meets the tests for incorporation under the 14th Amendment.

We did this with five separate arguments, two of which were a direct result of the work I did with attorneys Dave Kopel and Stephen Halbrook on my 10th book, Supreme Court Gun Cases. We found 92 gun-related cases the Court had heard (starting in 1820) up to that time (2003) and they were uniformly consistent with an individual right to keep and bear arms. (By my count, the Court has actually heard 103 gun-related cases at this point. McDonald will be the 104th).

In 14 of these prior cases the Court repeatedly stated every basic tenet of self defense in effect today. The Heller case forced the modern-day judiciary to finally unambiguously recognize and accept self defense as a core reason and justification for the right to arms in the first place. The public already understood this well. We carefully documented which classic cases supported which aspects of self defense (innocence, reasonable belief, grounds for belief, actions not words, necessity, equal force, immediacy ends, retreat and chase, plus rightfully armed, mutual combat, wounding and withdrawal) to show how solidly grounded these rights and issues are in the High Court’s existing jurisprudence.

Supreme Court Gun Cases

The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed! has the complete case that saved the Second Amendment, with 400 key quotes highlighted and plain English analysis, plus summaries of the first 96 gun cases the High Court has decided.
http://www.gunlaws.com/hc.htm

My next post is planned for the evening before the oral argument (I’m breaking my infrequent-posts rule, but you understand). I’ll be down at the courthouse to see the theatrics, though I’m not expecting much. The wind went out of those sails with the Heller case (and camping out in early March is a much tougher gig than in D.C. in October). Still, with both the left and the right focused on this seminal 14A hearing, well, I’ll let you know what I find. Fortunately, I’ll spend the night in my hotel.

P.S. In Heller, when we waited with bated breath for the bottom-line result we wanted to hear “Affirmed.” And we did. In this case, we’re rooting for “Reversed.” That means the lower court decision supporting Chicago’s gun-rights denial, which is being challenged here, is overturned.

The McDonald v. Chicago petitioners website, with background:
http://www.chicagoguncase.com

The amicus brief joined by Bloomfield Press:
BLOOMFIELD PRESS McDonald v. Chicago amicus curiae brief

Background on all Supreme Court Gun Cases:
http://www.gunlaws.com/supreme.htm

My initial summary and press release on the issues:
http://www.gunlaws.com/McDonald_v_Chicago_BP_Amicus.htm

Every amicus brief filed:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/feb2010.shtml#mcdonald

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

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

What’s At Stake In The Chicago Gun-Ban Case, McDonald v. Chicago

National Shooting Sports Foundation

NEWTOWN, Conn –-(AmmoLand.com)- The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) – the trade association for the firearms industry - hailed today’s ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court holding that the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans are applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment.

“This decision by the Washington State Supreme Court is a welcomed development and victory for the rights of law-abiding firearms owners,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel.

“America’s firearms industry remains optimistic that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in the upcoming McDonald v. City of Chicago case that the Second Amendment is a fundamental individual liberty that all states and local governments must respect.”

The NSSF filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in McDonald v. City of Chicago, set to be heard by the High Court next month.

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 5,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers. For more information, log on to www.nssf.org.

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Firearms Industry Hails Washington State Supreme Court Decision

Paul Erhardt of MH Media

MH Media

BETHESDA, Md. – -(AmmoLand.com)- MH Media, an award-winning political communications and advertising agency based in Bethesda, Md., announced that Paul Erhardt has been named Vice President. Mr. Erhardt most recently served as senior consultant to MH Media during the 2008 election cycle.

With more than 20 years’ experience in communications, marketing and public relations, Mr. Erhardt is a seasoned political veteran whose campaign experience includes races in Idaho, Michigan, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, among others. In 2008 he served as a member of the McCain for President media team working closely with MH Media to execute the campaign’s winning media strategy during the primary election season.

Said Mike Hudome, agency president, “Paul is an excellent field producer with a keen eye for design and composition. We are delighted to formalize our business relationship and offer Paul`s creative talent to our clients.”

Mr. Erhardt is also an accomplished public relations professional, recognized expert in Second Amendment issue advocacy, and a skilled photographer.

About MH Media:
An award-winning political communications and advertising firm, MH Media has provided the margin of victory for candidates, political committees, and trade associations from coast to coast. A recognized leader in its field, MH Media specializes in crafting a seamless blend of its highly regarded strategic communications advice with its renowned production of television, radio, online, and print advertising. Vist: www.mhmediaonline.com

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

MH Media Names Erhardt Vice President

Harrisburg, PA 5th Annual Gun Rights Rally

Firearms Owners Against Crime

Pennsylvania --(AmmoLand.com)- The Fifth Annual 2nd Amendment Rally date has been set for 10 AM on April 27, 2010 in Harrisburg, Pa. Once again we ask for your help and participation in this event.

We will use this event as a springboard to pass vital pro gun legislation that will affect how FFL’s conduct business and your ‘right to bear arms’ throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

It cannot be repeated often enough that the more interest shown at these kinds of events, the more our elected officials will notice our presence and the more impact our efforts will have throughout the day.

Our past four rally’s have highlighted needed changes in Pennsylvania Firearms laws resulting in improvements and protections being enacted into law such as ‘prohibiting the confiscation of firearms in an emergency’ and protecting the rights of hunters to carry a self defense firearm with them when in the field and eliminating the gun ban when riding a snowmobile and numerous other needed changes.

With YOUR help we can begin to raise the awareness of other problems (political minefields) that exist and encourage changes that the ‘people’ want and deserve. After all being the 10th most restrictive state in the country on firearms (according to the Brady Campaign) certainly hasn’t stopped criminals and cop killers!

After the rally, team leaders will break the attendees up into groups and visit every State House member and State Senator in the State Capitol to ask for their support for bills such as HB 40 (Castle Doctrine), HB 750 (Transportation of Firearms), HB 1541 (Penalties for Municipalities that enact local gun laws), and SB 842 (Castle Doctrine companion to HB 40) plus several other bills. Everyone that pre-registers will be informed of the team (organized by county of residence) they are on ahead of time by e-mail.

We need your help to pack the halls of the State Capitol Building to make this a successful event! After we visit all of the Legislators in teams, we suggest that you focus your attention on ‘your’ Senator and House member and let them know that he/she needs to listen to the needs of their constituents. The preferred dress is business casual. If you don’t own a suit or sports coat, try to borrow one and dress appropriately. Our appearance is a key factor in credibility. Once you see how the team leaders present the issues to their Legislators, you may want to again pay a visit to your Senator or Legislator at their district offices at a later date to follow up on the issues discussed in Harrisburg.

It is important to point out that each person attending will need to pre-register on the rally website (www.2ARally.com) and be present if you want a chance to win the prize, which is a Smith and Wesson M&P 15-22. If you haven’t pre-registered on the website, plan to show up a little earlier so that we don’t experience a last minute rush. This gun can be seen at www.2Arally.com along with the downloadable event flyer, details of the event, maps to the Capital Building, plus some of the bills we deem to be important issues in the Commonwealth. Also included are some of the guest speakers invited. If you plan to arrive armed, try to be there by at least 9 AM to check in your firearm at the door (rear entrance of Capitol building by fountain).

About:
The Firearm Owners Against Crime (FOAC) is non-partisan, non-connected Political Action Committee organized to empower ‘all’ gun owners, outdoors enthusiasts and supporters of the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution Visit: www.foac-pac.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Harrisburg, PA 5th Annual Gun Rights Rally Set

(Senator Gronstal (at left) hurls hundreds of 2nd Amendment petitions to the floor in disgust. The papers are seen in the lower right corner moving so fast that the camera had a hard time capturing their motion. And no, the man sitting down and using a laptop is not a staffer who just 'missed' the throw.)

Iowa Gun Owners

Iowa --(AmmoLand.com)- You have got to take a moment to learn about the outrageous conduct of State Senator Michael Gronstal in the Capitol yesterday in Des Moines. Senator Gronstal, who has an A+ rating from a national gun group and who even takes their PAC money, made it very clear yesterday what his views on the 2nd Amendment really are.

But you don’t have to just take our word for it – check out the pictures!

Iowa Gun Owners Betrayed!

Voters in the Council Bluffs and Carter Lake area today were slapped in the face by their State Senator, Mike Gronstal.

For a long time Senator Gronstal has told the voters in his district what he’s recently been telling representatives of Iowa Gun Owners: “I’m pro gun.”

Knowing that he says he’s pro-gun and knowing that he’s received an A+ endorsement from a national gun group, not to mention the fact that he took money from that organization, one would think that he would be quick to help us pass our REAL Right-to-Carry bill.

What a faulty assumption!

After approaching him two weeks ago to ask him for his direct support to move our Senate version of the REAL Right-to-Carry bill (S.F. 473) out of committee and onto the floor for a vote and getting a noncommittal answer, we approached him again today.

This time we brought with us hundreds of petitions that many of you signed at our gun shows in Council Bluffs (this is Sen. Gronstal’s district so these petitions were signed by his voters) or through the mail that you’ve received from us. We brought these to him to show him that you – the voters in his district – want him to represent you and support the 2nd Amendment.

We presented these petitions to him and respectfully asked him to help move this bill and guess what he did with your petitions: he threw them on the floor!!!!

That’s right; at the Capitol, in the rotunda, in front of a hundred people.

His actions spoke loud and clear on what he thinks of your 2nd Amendment rights. He thinks its trash – not even worth looking at!

Further, he made it very clear what he thinks of your right to petition the government for redress of grievance when he threw your wishes on the floor without even looking at them.

This is outrageous! Senator Gronstal may be the Senate Majority Leader and one of the most powerful men in Iowa, but he was put in that position by the voters of Senate District 50.

Please take a moment to express your frustration with his antics by using the pre-written email below. Also, if you would prefer to call him (or do both) feel free to call him at his office by calling 515-281-3901. You don’t have to be a resident of the Council Bluffs area to do this either. As the Majority Leader in the Iowa Senate, Gronstal has assumed the primary leadership position at the Capitol – contact him today.

IGO Executive Director Aaron Dorr (at middle right holding yellow petitions) speaks to Senator Gronstal.

After receiving another non-answer from the Senator, IGO Executive Director Aaron Dorr (at right) delivers a stack of hundreds of signed petitions to Senator Gronstal.

——————————————————————
Pre-Written Email

State Senator Michael Grontstal,

I find it outrageous that you care so little for the opinions of the voters of your district.

That you would actually throw our petitions on the ground and stomp off is the height of arrogance.

Regardless of the issues involved, when you are presented with signed petitions, from actual voters, I expect you to do the job you were elected to do and represent us.

I expect you to fight for our 2nd Amendment rights by moving SF473 out of committee and I also expect you to apologize to the members and representatives of Iowa Gun Owners and show more respect next time you are speaking with them.

Sincerely,

——————————————————————

Compromises

Many of you have acted on our recent email alert and have done a fantastic job at letting the members of the House know that you do not support any compromised bill when it comes to your gun rights.

In fact, yesterday, when representatives of Iowa Gun Owners were talking with one State Representative for a few moments he received multiple emails on his cell phone from you! He said he gets a steady supply of IGO member communication.

Another State Representative told us that the pressure that Iowa Gun Owners has brought to bear at the Capitol this session has been ‘incredible’ and that we’ve been gaining ground steadily.

Thank you for that! This only happens due to the constant pressure that you are keeping on your elected officials.

As our recent article stated the sell-out Baudler bill (HF2255) was brought forth in committee yesterday. Your pressure helped us to generate much opposition to this bill proposal. In fact, Representative Dwayne Alons (R-4) made a courageous stand and led an amendment charge trying to replace the compromised bill with the REAL Right-to-Carry bill that would allow all Iowans who are not felons to carry without a permit. (Rep. Alons deserves your thanks for this and can be contacted by emailing this address: dwayne.alons@legis.state.ia.us.)

Unfortunately we lost this vote 14-7, with members of both political parties voting both yes and no.

The good news here is that your contact with your elected officials has caused serious concern in both parties. Yesterday’s vote confirmed this when we saw Representatives who cosponsored this compromised bill vote in favor of amending that same bill in committee. They are feeling your pressure.

Now we have to prepare to halt this bill on the floor assuming that it does come up.

We will give you more updates when the time comes but please be prepared to call, email, and visit with your State Representatives and Senators when you get our alert.

In the meantime, more and more of you are contacting us wanting to come to the Capitol to express your outrage at your inability to carry a gun for self-defense.

If you would like to come down to the Capitol sometime please get in touch with us and we’d be happy to show you around.

Contact Us
You can contact us in the following ways:
Email: info@iowagunowners.org
Phone: 515/309-7858
Mail: P.O. Box 3585, Des Moines, IA 50323
Website: www.IowaGunOwners.org

Yours for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms,

About:
Iowa Gun Owners (IGO) was formed in January of 2009 to combat the oppressive gun laws in the State of Iowa. IGO does not believe that you, as a law abiding citizen, should have to beg permission from the government to be able to defend yourself and your family. That’s why we are working so hard to get a Vermont/Alaska style carry law passed in Iowa. In these states, unless you are a convicted felon or otherwise barred from possessing weapons, you don’t need a permit to carry a gun for self-defense! Join us now! Visit: www.iowagunowners.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Anti-Gun Senator Gronstal “Slaps” Iowa Gun Owners in the Face

National Rifle Association

FAIRFAX, Va. --(AmmoLand.com)- Delaware gun owners and Second Amendment advocates earned a victory this week as the Newark Housing Authority (NHA) withdrew a gun ban that had prohibited its residents from legally possessing firearms in their homes.

The Caesar Rodney Institute (CRI), a research and education organization in Delaware, recently released a series of Special Reports drawing attention to the plight of public housing residents being stripped of their right to self-defense, which prompted swift action from NRA.

Thousands of Delaware’s most vulnerable residents live in some of the state’s most dangerous neighborhoods, and have been prohibited from possessing firearms to defend themselves from the drug dealers and thugs who infest their communities. Violating the gun ban can result in eviction, which for many families would mean living on the streets.

As CRI reported, a residents’ handbook containing rules and regulations for anyone living in property operated by the NHA contained a section requiring that tenants “not possess explosives, firearms or flammable material on NHA’s property.”

According to Rob Detwiler, chairman of the NHA’s Board of Commissioners, that section of the handbook is misleading, and will be removed—effectively ending the ban.

The NHA is the first to withdraw its ban, rather than face litigation from NRA. The state’s three other public housing authorities—the Dover Housing Authority, Wilmington Housing Authority, and Delaware State Housing Authority—still ban their residents from owning firearms.

Commenting on NHA’s decision, immediate past NRA President and Dover attorney John Sigler said, “Obviously I am very pleased to learn that the Newark Housing Authority’s Board of Commissioners has reconsidered its ban on the otherwise lawful ownership and possession of firearms within their public housing properties. They are to be congratulated for doing the right thing by lifting their ban and restoring their residents to full citizenship.”

“Newark did the right thing for their residents and for the taxpayers whose monies support the Newark Housing Authority,” Sigler continued. “By acting responsibly and quickly to resolve this issue, the Newark Housing Authority’s Board of Commissions has saved the taxpayers the expense of attempting to defend an indefensible position in court. Now it is time for the Wilmington Housing Authority, the Dover Housing Authority and the Delaware State Housing Authority to follow Newark’s lead.”

NRA moved quickly to inform the other housing authorities of possible legal action if the unconstitutional gun bans are not immediately withdrawn.

“It has been brought to our attention by members of the National Rifle Association and by the Caesar Rodney Institute that the Dover Housing Authority, Newark Housing Authority, and Wilmington Housing Authority contain lease provisions that prohibit a resident from possessing a firearm. Such a restriction is unconstitutional,” said NRA General Counsel Robert Dowlut in a series of letters sent to the executive directors of the agencies.

A person shouldn’t be forced to give up his Second Amendment rights just to have a roof over his head. Many public housing projects are high-crime areas where people most desperately need the right to defend themselves. NRA has long fought this battle both in the courts and in legislatures around the country and recently settled a similar lawsuit against the San Francisco Housing Authority.

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Housing Authority Lifts Gun Ban, Restores Second Amendment Rights

Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- One wonders if NRA members should be proud of their organization’s apparent newfound fiduciary conservatism.

The so-called “premier” gun rights organization has now managed to finagle its way into the spotlight after someone else’s sweat and money rented the hall, built the stage, and set up the sound system.

NRA lawyers are now second guessing pro-gun lawyer Alan Gura’s expertise. And this, after Gura masterminded and navigated the vitally crucial landmark Heller case to a victorious decision in favor of the Second Amendment.

The NRA’s leadership must have looked at each other and realized that (coming so close on the coat tails of Heller) McDonald actually had a good chance at victory. I can just hear them clinking their drinks in toast and chuckling: “Gura will likely win this one too. Let’s get on board now!”

All that might not be so bad, but look who the NRA has hired as their head counsel in this wedge into McDonald: Paul Clement, the very attorney who advocated against our gun rights in Heller!

That’s right, Clement led the federal government’s charge to protect the Washington D.C. ban on handgun ownership!

Here are some of Paul Clements espousals during Heller. These are from Clement’s oral arguments to SCOTUS and from the written brief filed in the case. He penned or uttered these little nuggets of liberty loving patriotism.

“In our view it makes a world of difference, Justice Ginsburg, because we certainly take the position, as we have since consistently since 2001, that the Federal firearm statutes can be defended as constitutional, and that would be consistent with this kind of intermediate scrutiny standard that we propose.”

Oh yeah?

Now take a look at this one:

“The Second Amendment talks about “the right to bear arms”, not just “a right to bear arms”. And that preexisting always coexisted with reasonable regulations of firearms.”

Don’t you love the word “reasonable”? It sound so…so reasonable! Unfortunately what Clement is talking about here is a ban on the possession of a handgun in your own home for your own self defense!

And here’s an intriguingly slippery one for you:

“Absolutely, Justice Ginsburg, and just… I mean, to give you a clear example, we would take the position that the kind of plastic guns or guns that are specifically designed to evade metal detectors that are prohibited by Federal law are not “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment and are not protected at all.”

Hmmm…. Very lawyerly. I’m not going to comment on that one. Just read it a couple of times for your own smell test.

And now a couple of tidbits from Paul Clement’s written brief in Heller:

“Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulations are permitted by the Second Amendment.”

How does “shall not be infringed” somehow sneak past this guy’s obviously impressive intellect?

Some icing on the cake:

“Nothing in the Second Amendment, properly understood — and certainly no principle necessary to decide this case — calls for invalidation of numerous federal laws regulating firearms.”

Oh boy…

Yes, friends, this is the man the NRA has hired to defend your gun rights in the unbelievably crucial McDonald vs. The City of Chicago case.

This is the same NRA that still believes the BATFE has a warm and fuzzy place in our lives. See: “NRA Letter”

This is also the same NRA that has not called for the completed destruction of “gun control” laws. And it’s the same NRA that does not appear to have a problem with Nazi “gun control” laws used as a basis for “The Gun Control Act of 1968”. See: this handbill and see also: the film “No Guns for Negroes“.

In a recent JPFO alert article I speculated on what might knock McDonald off the rails. See: “Will Your Gun Rights Live or Die?” This present turn of events should certainly not deter our fears. JPFO is not alone in our concern with this NRA/Clement issue. See: this Cato @ Liberty article.

Paul Clement is like a shark who just tried to bite our legs off. And now the NRA has crashed the pool party and tossed him in with us! Is it “hire a crook to catch a crook” logic?

How can Clement’s oral arguments in the upcoming McDonald case possibly be all that effective? Those nine Justices (four of whom are obviously anti-gun Liberals) might truly wonder to themselves: “Hey! This guy was here about a year ago and argued the exact opposite of what we’re hearing now!”

Hey NRA, do you call that good legal strategy?

And more importantly: Do you really want a McDonald victory?

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

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

The NRA Elbows Its Way Into The Mcdonald Case

National Rifle Association

Fairfax, Va. – -(AmmoLand.com)- Today, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the National Rifle Association’s motion to allow it to participate in the upcoming oral argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

“We are pleased with the Court’s decision to grant our motion,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist.

“NRA’s solitary goal in McDonald is to ensure that our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms applies to all law-abiding Americans, regardless of the state in which they live. We are hopeful that the Court will share our view that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly intended to apply the Second Amendment to the states.”

Last September, the Court agreed to consider the McDonald case, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That court incorrectly claimed that prior Supreme Court precedent prevented it from holding in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment.

The NRA believes the Seventh Circuit should have followed the lead of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Nordyke v. King, which found that Supreme Court precedent does not prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

As a party in McDonald, the NRA looks forward to participating in the upcoming oral argument.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement will be representing the NRA at oral argument, which will occur on March 2.

About:
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.

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

U.S. Supreme Court Grants NRA Motion for Divided Argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago

Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Coming up in our lives is perhaps the most critical Supreme Court decision in a century.

Sometime towards summer of this year the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is going to decide on the case McDonald vs. The City of Chicago.

Oral arguments begin March 2nd. The implications are immense.

A favorable ruling for McDonald would overthrow the Chicago ban on handgun ownership and would open the floodgates for an immense wave of (likely successful) pro-gun lawsuits against American cities, counties, and States.

Second Amendment advocates felt that a win in the Heller decision was vitally important for gun owners (JPFO filed a “friend of the court” brief in Heller). Well, McDonald is Heller on steroids.

McDonald is Heller on steroids.
A victory for gun owners could profoundly change the face of our nation. State by State by State, gun prohibitionists could finally be rousted out and smashed into impotence. Remember that Heller only dealt with guns in the District of Columbia. Let us remind ourselves: D.C. is not a State.

JPFO has also filed a “friend of the court” brief on McDonald.  The ramifications of this ruling could either impact the Second Amendment for the better … or for the absolute worst.

What McDonald does is attempt to persuade the Supreme Court to bring the Second Amendment under the “protection” of the 14th Amendment. This is called “incorporation” in legalese.

Here is the immediately relevant portion of the 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

SCOTUS has opined, over decades of decisions, that, because of the 14th Amendment, the States must obey the First Amendment. The high court has also found the same for the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, as well as other specific sections of the Bill of Rights.

… the States must obey the First Amendment.
However, until the Heller case, SCOTUS, since 1939, had literally kept 2A off the table, an untouchable “States Rights” issue. But Heller forced 2A right up to the front burner. The Supreme Court rather obviously had to pay attention to Heller, as D.C. is its immediate jurisdiction. So many pro-gun strategists see Heller as the “wedge” needed to open to door to McDonald.

But, as with all things legal, there are some unsettling ramifications. McDonald would undeniably give added power to the Federal government. No increase in federal power has ever benefited gun ownership. One need look no further than the “Gun Control Act of 1968” and the BATFE, with its draconian registration and “tracing” schemes, to understand this reality.

No increase in federal power has ever benefited gun ownership.
But in McDonald, it would seem, this added federal power, because it would add support to the individual right to gun ownership, would most likely be a positive thing. After all, freedom of speech and freedom of religion in all the States have actually been nurtured (or at least certainly not hindered) by “incorporation” under the 14th Amendment.

It seems a relatively safe bet that States with existing pro-gun stances would not be restricted by a positive McDonald decision. Or so we assume.

What is obvious is that the gun prohibitionists do not like what they see coming down the pike with McDonald. Are they hoping for a miracle?

Are they hoping for a miracle?
What could happen between now and the end of March to toss McDonald into disarray? Several events come to mind:

1. What if a horrific “lone gunman” massacre takes place?

Remember, both Australia and New Zealand reacted hysterically against gun ownership under such circumstances. And don’t ever forget that Patrick Purdy’s schoolyard slaughter in Stockton, CA was the emotional fuel that launched the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban”.

Could such another appalling event result in the inclusion of “weasel clauses” in the language of a McDonald verdict, or even a complete victory for gun prohibitionists?

Look to the pitifully anti-gun Anti Defamation League for an indication of how such a horrific (yet convenient) tragedy might be scripted.

The ADL is shrill in its concern about “white supremacists”. Therefore look for a “lone gunman” to be white. For the “shock and awe” psychological effect to be truly wrenching, the unarmed victims will have to be either blacks … or Jews. The ADL and its ilk desperately need to be able to wring their hands in perversely satisfied anguish and scream out: “We told you so! We told you so!” or…

2. What if one of the Justices who voted in favor of Heller (and can therefore be assumed to vote favorably in McDonald) was to die between now and March?

Heller was a five to four win. What if a “pro-gun” Supreme Court justice was to die, or be killed, before McDonald is decided? What if Barack Obama is then able to bring forth a rabidly anti-gun candidate as a replacement before McDonald is decided? Are there enough votes in the Senate to deny such an appointment? Don’t bet on it.

What if a “pro-gun” Supreme Court justice was to die, or be killed, before McDonald is decided?

3. What if a prominent politician, bureaucrat, spokesperson, or worshipped celebrity is reportedly killed by a “lone nut case”?

4. What if another terrorist attack occurs? Mass casualties would create the perfect excuse for martial law, and an end run around the Constitution, making any decisions by the Supreme Court irrelevant.

Anybody familiar with the American history of clandestine government and elite class (establishment) activities since WWII should not be shocked if any of the above mentioned scenarios occur.

Yes, friends of freedom, crucial times are upon us. Pay very close attention, and redouble your effort to save the Second Amendment. JPFO has plenty of “intellectual ammunition” on our site waiting for you to use, such as its ground breaking award winning films “2A Today for The USA” and “No Guns for Negroes“.

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

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Will Your Gun Rights Live or Die?

Second Amendment March

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- As you know, the April 19 date for the D.C. march is fast approaching.

There are many things that need to be accomplished before and during the event. We need your help! Below are a few of the volunteer opportunities we have identified so far.

If you can help with any of these, please send an email to Terri Stocke at Terri.Stocke@SecondAmendmentMarch.com.

We will add you to a specific volunteer list and will start organizing each group of volunteers as the march date draws near.

Emergency Medical Technicians
We are looking for volunteer EMT’s who will be at the march in D.C. We are required to have a certain number of licensed EMT’s working the event (based on size of the crowd). If you would like to volunteer for this, please let us know.
Petition Table

We need 6-8 people to man a petition table (petition is available on our website) to gather signatures at the D.C. March. This can be divided into shifts if we have enough volunteers.
Hosts

Volunteers needed to direct people to the rally location (Washington Monument) from various points within the city. During the rally, circulate amongst the crowd to answer questions and provide assistance as needed.

Second Amendment March
The mission of the Second Amendment March is to galvanize the courage and resolve of Americans; to petition our elected officials against establishing anti-gun legislation; and to remind America that the Second Amendment is necessary to maintain our right to self defense.

It is the one right that protects all others.

We will accomplish our mission by a peaceful march in Washington DC, the United States Capital, supported by satellite marches to State Capitols and smaller cities all across America.

The march in D.C. will take place on Monday, April 19, 2010 on the grounds of the Washington Monument.

About:
The mission of the Second Amendment March is to galvanize the courage and resolve of Americans; to petition our elected officials against establishing anti-gun legislation; and to remind America that the Second Amendment is necessary to maintain our right to self defense. Visit: www.secondamendmentmarch.com

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Second Amendment March Needs Volunteer Help

New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense

Belleville, NJ --(AmmoLand.com)- One of our members wrote to us recently about trying to get firearms photos printed at a Walgreens Pharmacy in Belleville, NJ.

The NJCSD member and his brother are both gun collectors and active members of the community as a whole.

The brother recently took photos of his collection for insurance purposes, and emailed them to Walgreens to have them printed.

Gun Photos are "Offensive" at Walgreens

When the brother’s wife went to pick up the prints, she was told by the cashier that Walgreens did not print them because they were deemed “offensive”.

Our member’s brother returned to the store and spoke to the manager, who told him that he personally found the pictures offensive, and so did his staff. When the brother asked if it was Walgreens’ policy not to print pictures of guns, he refused to give a straight answer.

The member’s brother contacted Walgreens Main Office on Tuesday December 29th regarding the issue. We’ll be following the story.

About:
NJCSD – Defending Your Right to Defend Yourself Visit: www.njcsd.org

AmmoLand Comments: Please write Walgreens Corporation and tell them how offensive this is. Sample letter provided.

Sample Letter ——————–

Re: Wallgreens Anti-Gun Employees

Dear Sirs:

I find your employees refusing to print photos of firearms offensive and insulting.

As a believer in the Bill Of Rights I find your censorship of  a persons photos, by employees, to be discrimination against gun owners is an attack on my first amendment right to free speech.

I demand that you educate your employees of our right to keep and bear arms and issue a public apology or I will be forced to take my business somewhere else.

Sincerely;

Name
Address

——————–

You can contact Walgreens Coprorate here at: http://www.walgreens.com/marketing/contactus/forms.jsp?storenumber=2121

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Gun Photos are “Offensive” at Walgreens

NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund

FAIRFAX, Va. --(AmmoLand.com)- The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund has announced the winners of its annual Second Amendment essay contest, open to students in grades K-12, which celebrates the Second Amendment as an integral part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The theme for the essay was “The Second Amendment to the Constitution: Why it is important to our nation.” All students enrolled in an elementary, junior high, or high school during the 2008-2009 academic year who had not previously placed in the contest were eligible to enter. Nearly 1,500 essays were submitted this year.

Essays were judged on originality, scholarship and presentation. Prizes were awarded in two categories: senior (grades 10-12) and junior (grades nine and below). The first-place prize in each category was $1,000 in U.S. Savings Bonds, with $600 in savings bonds awarded for second place, $200 in savings bonds for third place, and $100 in savings bonds for honorable mentions.

In the senior category, first place went to 17-year-old Alyssa Moore of Simi Valley, California, while Jessica Busker, 14, of Charlotte, North Carolina, won first place in the junior category. A complete list of winners follows.

The deadline for students to enter the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund’s 2010 essay contest is December 1. For more information about the contest and how to enter, please visit www.nradefensefund.org/writingcontest.aspx

NRA Second Amendment Essay Contest Winners

Senior Category

• First Place: Alyssa Moore, age 17, Simi Valley, CA
• Second Place: Caleb Valentine, age 16, Aurora, IL
• Third Place: Katharine M. Poe, age 17, Midlothian, VA
• Honorable Mention: Te Chen, age 16, Grand Rapids, MI

Junior Category

• First Place: Jessica Busker, age 14, Charlotte, NC
• Second Place: Rachel Grech, age 14, Fenton, MI
• Third Place: Grant Carson, age 9, Fairfield, CA
• Honorable Mention: Ira Ko, age 13, Staten Island, NY

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Winners Announced in NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund’s Second Amendment Essay Contest

Second Amendment March

Michigan - -(AmmoLand.com)-  Well, folks, the Second Amendment March is now less than 100 days away, and I can feel the momentum building, swelling, growing like a live organism beneath my feet. I feel as if I’ve been pushing on a giant rock for the past ten months, pushing as hard as I can for all I’m worth. Pushing when I’m tired. Pushing when I’m sore. And pushing when I’m discouraged.

But I have good news for you. Last week I pushed and the rock moved. And not just a little, but a lot!

Last week we added our first two corporate sponsors: United States Concealed Carry Association and Front Sight Firearms Institute.

I’d like all of you to consider joining United States Concealed Carry Association. They have a top-of-the-line magazine plus email tips and great articles to help you in your concealed carry journey through life. They are a great organization with a great radio show as well. (www.armedamericanradio.com) Check them out at www.usconcealedcarry.com.

If you need firearms training, then you should consider taking an excellent course from Front Sight near Las Vegas, Nevada. Check out their website at www.frontsight.com. Front Sight gives excellent training and you can get a great price if you purchase one of our training class certificates through the Second Amendment March online store. (http://secondamendmentmarch.americommerce.com)

I’d also like to take a moment to thank Larry Pratt from Gun Owners of America for all the help he’s given us. (www.gunowners.org) GOA is the premier no-compromise gun rights organization in America. You can join and also help out Second Amendment March in the process by going to our online store.

So, as you can see, the rock moved last week, and next week I expect it to move even further. I’ll be at the infamous SHOT show (www.shotshow.org) all next week talking to the movers and shakers of the Shooting, Hunting, and Outdoors Trade industry, trying to glean even more support for the Second Amendment March. If any of you will be there and wish to meet up for coffee, just give me a call at 269-838-5586.

God bless you all and thanks again for helping me move that giant rock!

About:
The mission of the Second Amendment March is to galvanize the courage and resolve of Americans; to petition our elected officials against establishing anti-gun legislation; and to remind America that the Second Amendment is necessary to maintain our right to self defense. Visit: www.secondamendmentmarch.com

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

News From the Second Amendment March – January 2010

Wisconsin Gun Owners

Madison, Wis. —-(AmmoLand.com)- In a recent story appearing in Madison’s Capital Times (Ready, Set, Fire! Pols take on NRA), State Senator Spencer Coggs (D-Milwaukee), revealed his true agenda when he admitted recent gun control bills introduced in the state are only the beginning.

But Coggs’s statements revealed something even more chilling: State democrats don’t believe gun owners can or will defend themselves against gun control advances, and more anti-gun legislation has been planned.

““When you look at the fact we are taking on the NRA and other pro-gun groups during a re-election year, we’re bucking the trend,” said Coggs, a sponsor of several gun control bills before the Wisconsin legislature. “I used to be surprised by the power of the pro-gun opposition, but not anymore.”

Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc. (WGO) has been warning gun owners all session that two bills by Coggs — one a scheme to ban the private sales of handguns in the state, the other a ploy to impose “microstamp” technology on handgun makers — were only steps toward more draconian gun control.

According to the story, “…loopholes in the law, along with a surge in gun violence across the state, have prompted Milwaukee-based Democratic lawmakers and others across the state to take action.”

State Republicans Holding Hands with Democrats to Push Gun Control

The story continues, saying, “Coggs may not have that tough of a fight. Rep. Scott Gunderson, R-Waterford, has already introduced a similar bill in the Assembly. Gunderson has sought to make straw purchasing a state felony for the past 10 years but with no luck.”

Gunderson laughs at gun owners
State Rep. Scott Gunderson (R-Watergord) snickers at gun owners during a public hearing on concealed carry. Photo by WGO.

In their rush to fashion the chains that bind us, state republicans Alberta Darling and Scott “Gundy” Gunderson aren’t stopping there: They continue to push (in defiance of the wishes of gun owners) AB 70 and SB 44, two bills to expand the scope of the state-run National Instant Check System (NICS) by rolling in mental health data.

“No one wants the mentally-ill to buy guns,” said Corey Graff, Executive Director of Wisconsin Gun Owners (WGO). “The problem we have with expanding Sarah Brady’s background check system is that it will now be fueled with a database supplied by psychiatristrs and psychologists and will act outside of any due process afforded to the accused. If an anti-gun psychiatrist says you’re mentally ill, you lose your guns.”

Gunderson’s trusty sidekick Mike Bruhn praised his boss’s anti-gun bills, saying, “He wants to make sure law-abiding citizens have the opportunity for self-protection, but he also wants to make sure criminals cannot get their hands on guns.”

That sounds like the same message from both sides of the aisle, Graff pointed out.

Gun owners are urged to contact Gunderson and tell him that his efforts to turn gun owners into a whole new class of criminals aren’t appreciated.

To check the status of AB 70 and SB 44, check out WGO’s Bill Watch page.

If you’re tired of the broken system of compromise and access — a system which has netted gun owners only more gun control — we urge you to Join Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc. today!

About:
WGO works for grassroots gun owners, not politicians. While many gun lobbies fight for “reasonable gun control,” WGO sets a higher standard: Defining the terrain of pro-gun political battle. Sure, many groups claim they’re “pro-gun” — all the while they provide cover for anti-gun deals cut by politicians — but only WGO truly informs gun owners, remaining committed to a 100% pro-gun position. We oppose all gun control — regardless of the political party — and work tirelessly to restore the Second Amendment. Visit www.wisconsingunowners.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Wisconsin Politicians Admit to War on Gun Ownership

National Rifle Association

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- For several months, we have been reporting on the landmark McDonald v. City of Chicago court case. The McDonald case is one of several that were filed immediately after last year’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court upheld the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right and invalidated Washington, D.C.’s ban on handgun possession, as well as the capital city’s ban on keeping loaded, operable firearms for self-defense in the home.

On November 16, the NRA filed its brief with the U.S. Supreme Court as Respondent in Support of Petitioner in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The NRA brief asks the Court to hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the 14th Amendment, and makes a clear and strong case in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment.

The Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case on Tuesday, March 2, 2010.

There are two provisions in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution through which the Supreme Court should apply the Second Amendment to the states. One is the Due Process Clause, which the Court has used to incorporate a majority of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, and the other is the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The Supreme Court has asked the parties in McDonald v. Chicago to address both issues. Counsel for the petitioner, Otis McDonald, focused overwhelmingly in his brief on the Privileges or Immunities Clause. NRA, as a party to the case, focused its brief largely on the Due Process Clause (although the NRA brief also discusses the Privileges or Immunities Clause).

NRA believes that the Court should reach the same conclusion -that the Framers of the 14th Amendment clearly intended to apply the Second Amendment to the states – under either provision of the 14th Amendment. NRA has asked for the opportunity to participate in the oral argument to ensure that all arguments for applying the Second Amendment to the states are fully considered. Gun owners will have the best chance of ultimate victory on this critical issue if all options are fully explained to the Court. As always, NRA’s goal in McDonald is to see that our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms applies to all law-abiding Americans, regardless of the state in which they live.

Rest assured we will continue to update you on the case as it progresses.

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

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Supreme Court Update: McDonald v. City of Chicago

Kennesaw , GA --(AmmoLand.com)- On Nov. 16, 2009, the NRA filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court as Respondent in Support of Petitioner in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The NRA brief asks the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The McDonald case is one of several that were filed immediately after last year’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court upheld the Second Amendment as an individual right and invalidated Washington, D.C.’s ban on handgun possession, as well as the city’s ban on keeping loaded, operable firearms for self-defense in the home.

In September, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the McDonald case, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That court incorrectly claimed that prior Supreme Court precedent prevented it from holding in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment. As the NRA argued at the time, the Seventh Circuit should have followed the lead of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Nordyke v. King, which found that Supreme Court precedent does not prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Support for incorporation of the Second Amendment is very strong, and numerous additional briefs have recently been filed and signed by both federal and state officials.

Recently, an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate signed an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief supporting the NRA’s position that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The amicus brief bears the signatures of a record 251 Members of Congress and 58 Senators—the most signers of a congressional amicus brief in the history of the Supreme Court.

In addition to the federal brief, a large bipartisan group of state legislators and other elected officials from all 50 states, along with more than three-fourths of state attorney generals also filed amicus curiae briefs in the McDonald case this week. They, too, are supporting the NRA’s position that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

About:
GunBroker.com is an informative, secure and safe way to buy and sell firearms and hunting/shooting accessories. GunBroker.com promotes responsible gun ownership. Aside from merchandise bearing its logo, GunBroker.com sells none of the items listed on its Web site. Third-party sellers list items on the site and Federal and state laws govern the sale of firearms and other restricted items. Ownership policies and regulations are followed using licensed firearms dealers as transfer agents. Visit www.GunBroker.com

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

SCOTUS to Determine Scope of Second Amendment

Gun Owners of America

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- On Monday, November 23, 2009, Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the United States Supreme Court in support of four Chicago residents seeking to invalidate a city ordinance prohibiting them from owning or possessing a handgun in their own home.

Just one year and ninth months previously, GOA and GOF filed a similar brief in support of a Washington, D.C. resident who was seeking relief from an almost identical city ordinance.

On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the D.C. ordinance was unconstitutional because an absolute ban on handgun ownership and possession “infringed” on the D.C. citizen’s right to keep and bear arms as secured by the Second Amendment.

“The question now before the Court is whether an American citizen who resides in Chicago, Illinois has the same right to keep or bear arms as the American citizen who resides in the District of Columbia,” said GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt.

“Since both residents are American citizens, it seems logical that both ought to have the same rights,” Pratt said.

According to Heller, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms belongs to “all Americans.” The current GOA brief, which is supported by seven other like-minded organizations, contends that this right extends to every American citizen without regard to state of residence.

That argument is based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s straightforward prohibition against any state that makes or enforces any law that “abridge[s] the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

By relying expressly on this “privileges and immunities” clause, the GOA brief urges the Court not to use a gun rights case to extend the power of the federal judiciary to impose its predilections upon the states in unrelated areas, such as business regulation and moral license.

Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation usually take the side that is against the federal government because it has become too big for its britches. And the Chicago case is no exception from that policy and principle.

Thus, it bears repeating that the Supreme Court found in Heller that the very purpose of the unalienable right to keep and bear arms is to prevent “tyrants” from “taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents.” To the Court’s credit, it saw that the D.C. ban on handguns was just the kind of regulation prohibited by the Second Amendment. Thus, the Court ruled that the keeping of handguns for self-defense was a “central component of the right itself.”

Another successful outcome of GOA’s Heller brief was in countering the Bush Administration, which had asked the Court to use the D.C. case as a justification for all sorts of gun control. GOA was pleased that the Justices heeded our admonition to limit the Court’s holding to the case before it, thus shooting down both the D.C. government and the Bush Administration in their quest to validate other firearms restrictions.

A brief like the one we are filing regarding the Chicago case is very expensive. We constantly hear from gun owners that we need to be challenging gun bans in court, to counter the efforts of the Brady Bunch, the ACLU and other leftist organizations.

So won’t you please join us in this monumental battle with a special year-end contribution to help pay our expenses for this important effort?

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

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

GOA and GOF File Brief in Chicago Handgun Ban Case

National Rifle Association

Indianapolis , IN --(AmmoLand.com)- This week, the Indianapolis Star revealed its own gun database in an attempt to capitalize on the same controversial limelight as the Bloomington Herald-Times.

The Star’s database is modified from a street-based catalog of the number of permit holders in a defined area, to a demographic listing of Indiana ZIP codes, including the percentage of the population permit holders make up, as well as the their gender, race and age.

However, such differences do not hide the paper’s intent.

The search-able database of law-abiding carry permit holders is included in the “Public Safety” section of the paper’s website.

The paper seems to believe that it’s a matter of “public safety” for people to know how many permit holders live near them. Apparently the Star thinks that law-abiding concealed carry permit holders are to be regarded with caution.

Below is a list of the demographic information available for permit holders in one Indiana ZIP code from the Indianapolis Star website:

Concealed carry permit holders (as of Aug. 20, 2009)

Here’s a detailed look at concealed carry permit holders in ZIP code 4****7, compared to overall adult population characteristics from the 2000 census:

Permit holders
Overall population

Gender :

Female
16.06%
52.42%

Male
83.94%
47.58%

Race :

Black
1.72%
0.86%

White
97.32%
97.37%

Other
0.96%
1.77%

Age :

Under 21
0.67%
3.64%

21 to 40
25.14%
29.56%

41 to 64
58.03%
53.14%

65 and older
16.16%
13.66%

Purpose
for permit :

Personal protection
99.24%

Gun dealer
0.19%

Hunting
0.29%

Former police
0.29%

Unknown reason
0.00%

It remains NRA’s firm belief that media outlets abuse their First Amendment rights when they harass and demonize lawful citizens for exercising their Second Amendment rights.

ACTION: Please call and express your disapproval of the Star?s treatment of law-abiding gun owners. The paper has a toll-free number for long-distance callers who would like to respectfully voice their displeasure:

Toll-Free Switchboard:
1-800-669-7827

In-State Subscriptions and Billing:
1-888-357-7827

Michael G. Kane, President and Publisher
michael.kane@indystar.com

Dennis R. Ryerson, Editor and Vice President
dennis.ryerson@indystar.com

Juli Metzger, Executive Editor, Digital and Custom Publications
juli.metzger@indystar.com

Jenny Green, Managing Editor
jenny.green@indystar.com

D. Todd Moore, Administrative Editor
todd.moore@indystar.com

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.

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Indianapolis Star Jumps on the Concealed Carry Permit Database Bandwagon

Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership

Hartford, WI - -(AmmoLand.com)- To: Members of Congress and Appointed Bureaucrats.

As Bill of Rights Day approaches, Americans’ personal freedoms are waning rapidly. Our nation has been invaded and infiltrated in front of our eyes, while, at the same time, actual American citizens have seen our own most fundamental unalienable rights denigrated and eroded. You have done absolutely nothing effective or meaningful to stop it. A preponderance of the blame can be laid directly at your feet.

Why? Because many of you are, unequivocally, deceivers and liars.

How can I call you liars? It’s actually quite clear and simple. Upon your election or appointment here’s what you promised us:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me G-d.”*

(*Out of respect, Jews do not spell out the name of the Almighty in secular texts.)

Are you a “domestic” enemy as described in your oath? Your oath of office is a contract, both verbal and signed. If you are in breach of that contract you are now both a liar and a criminal.

If you are in breach of that contract you are now both a liar and a criminal.

Additionally, are you knowingly, or unwittingly a traitor? This is not simply a rhetorical or overblown question. It is fundamental to what is happening within our nation today.

A traitor commits treason. Here’s how the Constitution defines “treason”:

Article III Section 3
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

The first thing to notice is that the Constitutional definition of treason is specific and limited. The word “only” means what it means. So, Constitutionally, there are only two types of people who can be traitors, those who physically levy war against the people of any of the States of the Union … and those who give “aid and comfort” to those who are levying war.

Also implicit within this definition would be the obvious fact that one must first be an American before one can commit treason. Foreign nationals waging terrorism on American soil are not traitors. They are, quite obviously “enemies, foreign” (see your oath of office). Are you aiding and abetting them intentionally?

Are you aiding and abetting them intentionally?

Have your lax, pandering stances on illegal aliens allowed our “enemies foreign” to burrow into our nation? Have your disgusting politically correct policies about “racism” and “hate speech” given virulent Muslim extremists, who hate and want to murder Christians and Jews, the very cloak and cover that no amount of planning and money could buy?

What immediate convenience or passing luxury could lure so many of you into your present and insane politically correct points of view? It must be asked: Are you taking bribes? Are you being blackmailed? What is the promise or price being offered for you to so transparently betray America?

If you’re not taking bribes, or under some secret duress, what perverse reasoning blinds you to your betrayal of those you have sworn to serve?

You were not elected or appointed to bow to the whims of foreign nationals. You were elected or appointed to serve Americans, and only Americans. If you want to serve foreign nationals go get a job with the U.N. or some global charity.

You need to be reminded that the victim of treason as defined in the Constitution is not some conglomerate entity known as “The United States” in the sense of a nation. In the definition of treason the words “them” and “their” distinctly refer to the individual States in their separateness and sovereignty, and, most importantly the People of those States. Please refresh your memory of this essential detail by reading the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution.

The Founders knew that your corrupting and dangerous species would rise up and fester within our nation. To counteract this inevitability, on top of the “checks and balances” of a three branched form of government, in their wisdom the designers of the American Experiment penned a Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is a “No Trespassing” sign meant for you, not for those of us you have falsely sworn to serve.

The Bill of Rights is a “No Trespassing” sign meant for you, not for those of us you have falsely sworn to serve.

You should stand on this December 15th, Bill of Rights Day, right hand raised once again, and re-take your oath of office … and mean it.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have shed their blood and died to defend our nation from the very evils you have embraced. Your laws now destroy our rights instead of defending them.

Your actions, under the clear and simple “litmus test” of the Bill of Rights have been revealed as poison to our freedoms. You allow a literal invasion of thirty million illegal aliens (many of whom hate, and would destroy, American culture) while, at the same time take every effort to neutralize decent Americans with your victim disarmament “gun control” schemes.

You call those of us who would attempt to preserve the American Experiment “intolerant” or “xenophobic” (or even “domestic terrorists”) the moment we open our mouths in protest against your blatant sabotage of this nation. You would actually pass laws that prohibit our protests, and would jail us for speaking our minds. It appears you view the First Amendment as an exclusive vehicle to further your malevolent agenda.

You breed bureaucracies brimming with criminal intent against The People of the States. A perfect example: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

There is not one facet of the Constitution you have not ground down and defiled with either your stupidity, arrogance, or blatant dishonesty.

Show integrity and guts. Demonstrate just a fragment of the courage that founded and forged this nation, the greatest testament to individual liberty in the history of the human race. There is still time for you to defend the American way by embracing the Bill of Rights, and repeal any and all laws that desecrate the spirit of that document.

Because, if you don’t change course, how long do you think the American people are going to tolerate your charade of loyalty?

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

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

An Open Letter to All American Politicians and Bureaucrats

National Rifle Association

FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA --(AmmoLand.com)- NRA News’ investigative reporter Ginny Simone takes a look at the global gun control goals of the United Nations.

By pushing for a binding international treaty aimed at superseding the U.S. Constitution, the United Nations is committed to rendering Americans’ Second Amendment rights to own a firearm meaningless.

Simone interviews past and current U.N. officials and politicians and examines the debates at the United Nations Small Arms Summit to expose the international anti-gun agenda.

View the video above or follow this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMeDmV0ufU

What is IANSA?
International Action Network on Small Arms says they are “The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) is the global movement against gun violence – a network of 800 civil society organizations working in 120 countries to stop the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons (SALW).”

What they really are is a well organized, well funded group of anti-gun partner organizations, including the Brady Campaign” from around the world, funded by governments that hate and fear the freedoms of the USA.

IANSA has one goal….to take a way the right of free Americans to own guns.

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.

National Rifle Association of America

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

UN & IANSA Plotting to Tear Down the 2nd Amendment & Take Away Our Guns

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association

TROY, NY --(AmmoLand.com)- All freedom-loving New Yorkers are invited for a day to celebrate and advocate for 2nd Amendment civil rights in the State legislature. The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and Assembly Minority Leader Brian M. Kolb announce a day of celebration and advocacy of the 2nd Amendment in Albany with NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.

This event will take place on January 12, 2010 from 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM in the Well of the Legislative Office Building at South Swan and State Streets.

Call your State Assemblyman and State Senator to make an appointment to meet with them in their offices on January 12th. Assembly switchboard: (518)455-4100; Senate switchboard: (518)455-2800. Then call Assemblyman Kolb’s office and let him know you’re coming: (518)455-4751.

Each year New Yorkers Against Gun Violence and members of the legislature hold Gun Control Day to promote anti-gun, anti-freedom legislation and blame YOU for crime and violence. It is time to fire back and celebrate our freedoms! See you in Albany!

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

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

NYSRPA Announces 2nd Amendment Advocacy Day in Albany

New Jesery

Trenton, NJ --(AmmoLand.com)- On Thursday, December 10, the New Jersey Senate passed three bills of interest to New Jersey gun owners. Two bills, S3068/A4304 and S3076/A4301 both head to Governor Corzine’s desk for his consideration and S3104 moves to the Assembly for consideration in January.

Since the introduction of “one-gun-a-month” legislation, we have argued that the bill was poorly drafted, ill conceived and relied upon the false premise that law-abiding New Jersey gun owners are the cause of crime.

The truth of the matter is that New Jersey residents are already some of the most heavily regulated in the nation and New Jersey’s “one-gun-a-month” law simply heaps additional complications on an already overly burdensome process. Prospective gun owners in New Jersey already have to apply for a Firearms ID card, which includes a background check, fingerprints, photographs and references. In addition to possessing a Firearms ID Card, those wishing to purchase a handgun must obtain a Permit to Purchase from local police for each handgun purchase, which may take as long as 12 to 14 weeks.

S3068/A4304 passed 39 to 0 in the Senate and will clarify the original language of the “one-gun-a-month” law, by exempting the “transfer of handguns among licensed retail dealers, registered wholesale dealers and registered manufacturers; or transfers of handguns from any person to a licensed retail dealer or a registered wholesale dealer or registered manufacturer.” A4304 and S3068 would exempt purchases by licensed dealers from firearm distributors or manufacturers from the law prohibiting the purchase of more than one handgun in a 30-day period.

Assembly Bill 4301/S3076 approved 36 to 0, is a good faith attempt by New Jersey to comply with the grant eligibility requirements set forth in the NICS Improvement Act, passed by Congress in 2007.

S3104, passed 38 to 0, now moves over to the Assembly Law & Public Safety Committee in January. Proponents claim that that this measure will address the problems with New Jersey’s “one-gun-a-month” law; however, it falls far short of doing so. While it would, in limited circumstances, allow a law-abiding person to purchase multiple handguns, an individual would only be able to do so after filing a formal application with the State Police. In addition, the individual would need to justify why they “need” to purchase these firearms together and why it would not be “feasible or practical” to purchase the firearms separately.

The notion that honest persons, thoroughly investigated by the state, should have to beg further permission and show why it is not “feasible or practical” to ration their Constitutional rights is offensive and insulting, and represents another promise broken by the politicians involved in the Firearms Task Force.

S3104 now heads to the Assembly Law & Public Safety Committee in January. It is important that you contact your Assemblymember and respectfully urge them to remove the language forcing law-abiding citizens who have cleared a background check to justify their multiple purchases.

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

New Jersey Senate Passes Three Bills Related to the Second Amendment

NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund

FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA --(AmmoLand.com)- Designate CFC #10006 to support the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, founded to defend the fundamental right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund has assisted in court cases involving hunting, range protection, self-defense, and onerous gun laws as in the Heller v. District of Columbia case that affirmed our individual right to keep and bear arms.

The NRA Foundation Designate CFC #11872 to support The NRA Foundation, Inc., founded to foster a culture of safe firearms use and ownership.

The NRA Wants You!

The NRA Foundation supports programs that include:

• The Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program works with schools, police departments, and other organizations nationwide to teach kids to avoid gun accidents.
• NRA Youth Programs are administered jointly with Boy and Girl Scouts, 4-H, and other civic and community organizations to give young hunters and shooters the best gun safety, conservation, and hunter ethics training available.
• NRA’s Disabled Shooting Services develops equipment, provides technical support, and improves facility access to offer disabled persons greater access to recreation opportunities through hunting and the shooting sports.

CFC is a method of workplace giving for federal government employees. Not a government employee? You may still be eligible to give through your employer – contact us to find out!

For more information please call (888) 467-2363 or visit our websites: www.nrafoundation.org • www.nradefensefund.org

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.

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund

National Rifle Association

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case on Tuesday, March 2, 2010.

The McDonald case is one of several that were filed immediately after last year’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court upheld the Second Amendment as an individual right and invalidated Washington, D.C.’s ban on handgun possession, as well as the capital city’s ban on keeping loaded, operable firearms for self-defense in the home.

On November 16, the NRA filed its brief with the U.S. Supreme Court as Respondent in Support of Petitioner in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The NRA brief asks the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

As a party in McDonald, the NRA is actively involved in this case and we believe our brief makes a clear and strong case in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment (to see a copy of NRA’s brief, please click here).

Support for incorporation of the Second Amendment is very strong, and numerous additional briefs have recently been filed and signed by both federal and state officials.

Briefs were filed by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, a large bipartisan group of state legislators and other elected officials from all 50 states, and more than three-fourths of state attorneys general. All are supporting the NRA’s position that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The NRA is gratified that so many members of Congress and such a large number of state legislators and state attorneys general have joined this historic effort in support of our Second Amendment freedoms. Along with gun owners everywhere, we are grateful for their participation in ensuring that the Second Amendment applies across the nation—not just in federal enclaves—and look forward to the case moving forward.

Rest assured we will continue to update you on the case as it progresses.

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.

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Date Set For Oral Arguments McDonald v. City of Chicago Second Amendment Case

National Rifle Association

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Is your name the same as, or similar to, that of someone on the FBI’s “terrorist watchlist?” Or, have you been erroneously placed on the watchlist?

You can’t find out because the FBI won’t say exactly why people get watchlisted, won’t say who has been watchlisted, and therefore doesn’t offer watchlisted people the chance to clear their names immediately. In fact, small children, federal air marshals, military personnel who have fought terrorists overseas, the late Sen.

Edward Kennedy, members of Congress, and many other good Americans have even been stopped from boarding commercial aircraft for this reason. The government has reported that there were 700,000 names in the watchlist as of April 2007, and the ACLU estimates that the number has since risen to 1.3 million.

Obviously, these people are not all terrorists. However, politicians who hate the Second Amendment know that some of the good Americans who are erroneously on the list, or who get incorrectly flagged by the list, are gun owners. And, because the FBI won’t reveal its watchlisting criteria, those politicians think that more gun owners can be placed on the list over time, by like-minded bureaucrats making arbitrary determinations about who ought to have guns.

One such politician is Michael Bloomberg, whose hobbies include being mayor of New York City and raising intellectually deficient complaints about gun laws. Never one to concern himself with the facts when there is a chance to get his name in the paper, Bloomberg recently claimed that the recent murders on Ft. Hood would have been prevented if the FBI hadn’t been required to erase NICS-approved gun purchase records after 24 hours.

Mischaracterizing events related to the Ft. Hood murders for political reasons shows disrespect to the lives that were lost there and is crass to the extreme. That said, the reason that the FBI didn’t know about the Ft. Hood suspect’s gun purchase is not that his NICS record was erased after 24 hours. Rather, it’s that he wasn’t on the watchlist in the first place, as NICS checks the list and alerts the FBI if a listed person tries to buy a gun.

Another such politician is Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), author of legislation Bloomberg supports (S. 1317, H.R. 2159 in the House), which would allow the Attorney General to stop watchlisted people from buying guns through NICS. It would also prevent those people from contesting their rejections in a full and open hearing in court. Obviously, that scheme would violate not only the Second Amendment, but also the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law.

This week Lautenberg introduced a separate bill (S. 2820), calling for NICS firearm transaction records to be retained for 10 years on a person suspected of being a member of a terrorist organization. That, however, is a smokescreen for another provision in the same bill, to retain NICS records of approved firearm transfers for 180 days for other gun buyers.

While Lautenberg introduced S. 2820 in the wake of Ft. Hood (with terrorism fresh on Americans’ minds), gun control supporters have wanted NICS records retained for longer than 24 hours since NICS’ inception. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a co-sponsor of the Lautenberg bill, argued in favor of a 180-day retention back in 2001. After all, the Brady Act, as passed by Congress, required that NICS “destroy” the records of approved firearm purchases.

Along with the Lautenberg bills described above, gun control supporters are concurrently campaigning for a law to force all private gun sales to be run through NICS. Connecting the dots is a simple task. The goal shared by gun control supporters and by government entities for whom no amount of knowledge about American citizens is too much, is to incrementally increase the amount of information the government possesses on gun owners who, through no fault of their own, end up on a secret government list.

Action: Please call your U.S. Senators and urge them to oppose S. 1317 and S. 2820. You can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121.

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.

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Bloomberg And Lautenberg Pair Up To Violate The Second And Fourteenth Amendments

Arizona Citizens Defense League

Glendale, AZ --(AmmoLand.com)- The Arizona Citizens Defense League has joined with other pro-rights individuals, groups and several district attorneys in the filing of an “amicus (friend of the court) brief” with the United State Supreme Court in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, the most critical Second Amendment case since the Heller decision upheld our individual right to keep and bear arms.

In April 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment is “incorporated” through the Fourteenth Amendment and applicable to all state and local governments. However in McDonald v. Chicago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment is NOT incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment and that state and local government laws regarding firearms are not affected by the Second Amendment.

In September, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the McDonald case. We are asking the Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. You can find a copy of the amicus brief at: http://tinyurl.com/McdonaldAmicus .

Alan Korwin, AzCDL Member and prolific author, whose books include The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide, is following the McDonald case closely and has posted a plain English summary of the issues at stake at his website: www.gunlaws.com/McDonald_v_Chicago_BP_Amicus.htm.

Alan’s extensive research and material were used in crafting our amicus brief, which was submitted by California attorney Chuck Michel (http://www.michelandassociates.com/).

You can also read more about the McDonald case at the Second Amendment Foundation’s website: http://www.chicagoguncase.com/ .

These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), an all volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization. Join today! http://www.azcdl.org/html/join_us_.html

AzCDL – Protecting Your Freedom

About:
AzCDL believes that the emphasis of gun laws should be on criminal misuse and that law-abiding citizens should be able to own and carry firearms unaffected by unnecessary laws or regulations. AzCDL was founded by a group of local activists who recognized that a sustained, coordinated, statewide effort was critical to protecting and expanding the rights of law-abiding gun owners. As a like-minded coalition of activists, the AzCDL founders were instrumental in the successful passage of the first major improvement to Arizona’s CCW (concealed carry) laws since they were instituted in 1994. Visit: www.azcdl.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

AzCDL Joins In Amicus Brief On Supreme Court Gun-Ban Case

Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus (CSC) Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Caucus Vice-Chair Sen. Jon Tester, along with CSC House Vice-Chair Rep. Mike Ross, and Rep. Mark Souder, joined together with 58 Senators and 251 House members in filing a bipartisan, bicameral amicus curiae brief asking the Supreme Court to hold the Second Amendment applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment in the case McDonald v. City of Chicago.

“The Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus really stepped up to the plate in further protecting our Second Amendment rights by working across party lines in filing this landmark brief,” said Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation President Jeff Crane.

The McDonald v. City of Chicago case will decide whether the Second Amendment is a fundamental individual right that applies to states in the same way the Supreme Court found that it applied to the Federal government in last year’s District of Columbia v. Heller decision.

“Working together, we’re making our gun rights in this country stronger,” said Sen. Tester. “This isn’t about partisan politics. It’s about the rights all law-abiding Americans have under our Constitution, and those rights are always worth fighting for.”

CSC Senate Co-Chairs, Sen. Ben Nelson and Sen. Mike Crapo, and CSC House Co-Chairs Rep. Dan Boren and Rep. Paul Ryan led an effort to urge fellow members of the Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus to sign on to the brief.

“As an avid hunter, I believe the government has a limited role in regulating the ownership of guns,” said Nelson.

Last year, members of the Caucus joined in the filing a similar amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller case in support of the Court upholding the Second Amendment as a fundamental, individual right.

“Banning guns will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will keep guns out of the hands of those trying to defend themselves against criminals,” said Rep. Ross. “The Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller affirmed the right of D.C. residents to own and bear arms and I am optimistic these same rights will be extended to the law abiding citizens of Chicago and across the United States in McDonald v. the City of Chicago.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case in February 2010.

About:
We can have the best wildlife habitat imaginable and a record number of people who buy fishing and hunting licenses, but it won’t matter if misguided laws and regulations are made at the federal and state levels that negatively impact our outdoor traditions. Keeping sportsmen’s issues front and center is what the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation does. Day in and day out, our sole focus is on providing a voice for sportsmen in the political arena. Serving as the first line of defense in protecting America’s outdoor traditions as well as promoting the sportsmen’s agenda through the collective muscle of sportsmen’s caucuses. Visit: www.sportsmenslink.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus Members Sign 2nd Amendment Court Brief

National Rifle Association

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)- As we reported last week, on November 16, the NRA filed its brief with the U.S. Supreme Court as Respondent in Support of Petitioner in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

The NRA brief asks the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The McDonald case is one of several that were filed immediately after last year’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court upheld the Second Amendment as an individual right and invalidated Washington, D.C.’s ban on handgun possession, as well as the capital city’s ban on keeping loaded, operable firearms for self-defense in the home.

In September, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the McDonald case, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That court incorrectly claimed that prior Supreme Court precedent prevented it from holding in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment.

As we argued at the time, the Seventh Circuit should have followed the lead of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Nordyke v. King, which found that Supreme Court precedent does not prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

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.

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Overwhelming Support For Incorporation of the Second Amendment

Texas State Rifle Association

Texas --(AmmoLand.com)- Governor Rick Perry and Texas Lt. Governor David Dewhurst head a list of nearly 900 State Legislators initiating a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court again seeking to secure Constitutional rights for all citizens, the right to keep and bear arms.

The list includes two governors, Rick Perry of Texas and Charlie Crist of Florida. In Texas the list of Texas Senators and Texas House Members reflects a bi-partisan consensus of support.

The thrust of the friends of the court brief, signed by 890 state legislators representing all 50 states, is to allow States’ Legislatures to clear up uncertain legal boundaries surrounding gun rights ownership and allow State Legislators to pass effective and Constitutionally compliant legislation in their respective state.

This brief adds depth to other briefs including one initiated in Texas by Attorney General Greg Abbott. This document bears the signatures of 75 percent of America’s state attorneys general in further support of a favorable outcome in the U.S. Supreme Court case, Otis T. McDonald v the City of Chicago and Village of Oak Park, Ill.

Other supporting briefs include one joined by the Texas State Rifle Association and other NRA state affiliate associations from across the country and a brief initiated and signed by Texas U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison with 56 additional members of the U.S. Senate and 249 additional members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

For more information on this and other pro-Second Amendment Issues go to www.tsra.com

Please up-grade or renew your TSRA membership TODAY. As with voting, only numbers count!

About:
The Mission of the Texas State Rifle Association is to protect and defend the inalienable rights of the individual Texan to acquire, possess, transport, carry, transfer ownership and enjoy the right to lawful use of firearms for self preservation, for the defense of family and property and the common defense of the Republic and the individual liberties of the people. Visit: www.TSRA.com

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Texans Submit Amici Curiae Briefs In Support of McDonald v. Chicago 2nd Amendment Case

Gunlaws.com

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)- Should individual states be required to honor your guarantees under the Bill of Rights?

Phoenix-based Bloomfield Press has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to say yes, in an amicus (”friend of the court”) brief just filed.

The goal is to require states to be bound by the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. They are not currently obligated to do so. This principle is up for review in McDonald v. Chicago, expected to be argued at the High Court in February, 2010, and decided by June. See the filing here — http://www.gunlaws.com/supreme.htm

The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791 only to control Congress (e.g., “Congress shall make no law…”), and the High Court has only applied the Bill to the states in bits and pieces. Studies have shown most people are unaware of this.

The 14th Amendment in 1868 said states cannot abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens, or deprive or deny the rights of the people, but it provided few details — and the High Court has been evaluating that since then.

Working piecemeal, the Court has declared states cannot deny free speech, protection against unreasonable searches, the right to counsel in a criminal trial and more. This principle is now on trial in what may be the highest-profile case of its kind — the right to arms in the Second Amendment.

Chicago has flatly banned this right, leaving its citizens defenseless, and insists it has the power to do so. The city’s ban does little to disarm hardened criminals who simply roam free, carrying guns illegally at will.

“The core issue is whether a state has legitimate power to deny any fundamental right to its people,” says Alan Korwin, author of eight books on gun law and the publisher at Bloomfield Press, the nation’s largest producer and distributor of gun-law books. “This issue is so broad and crucial to America that pro-rights and even anti-rights people on the gun issue are aligned to overturn Chicago’s blanket denial of a fundamental right,” he says.

The avowedly anti-gun-rights Washington Post observed that,

“Lawyers from both the left and right of the political spectrum will present strong arguments that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments.”

That sentiment was echoed in the similarly anti-rights LA Times, which stated editorially,

“It’s tempting to hope that the court will rule that states aren’t bound by the Second Amendment,” but continued, “Allowing the states and cities to ignore this part of the Bill of Rights could undermine the requirement that they abide by others… this is no time for the Court to start picking and choosing when it comes to the Bill of Rights.”

Bloomfield Press joins 34 California DAs, eight Nevada DAs, former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack (the hero of the successful Brady-bill case that set 10th Amendment limits on federal invasion of states’ rights), several law-enforcement associations, and citizens’ rights groups in Arizona, California, Texas and Virginia in the amicus filing.

Mr. Korwin’s extensive research and material appears throughout the brief, drafted by California attorney Chuck Michel of Michel and Associates.

The main points argued include:

1. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a deeply rooted “fundamental right” and thus properly applied to the states;
2. The Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment necessarily incorporates the Second Amendment to apply against the states;
3. The right to armed self defense is a fundamental right recognized repeatedly by the Supreme Court dating back to the 19th century;
4. The right to self defense, in addition to the right to arms, has been well established as fundamental for centuries in state constitutions, and in federal law and state law;
5. Firearms are and have always been recognized as essential to exercise the right to self defense, with each one reliant upon the other; and
6. Federalism (states rights) presents no obstacle to incorporating a fundamental right of the people.

The entire brief may be downloaded here
(it will be on the Supreme Court website shortly).
http://www.gunlaws.com/supreme.htm

——–

The 14th Amendment, Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The amici include the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), The Texas Concealed Handgun Association (TCHA), and The Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), all easily googled. The complete list of amici with descriptions of their interests are in the brief.

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Bloomfield Press Files Amicus Brief In Chicago Gun-Ban Case

National Rifle Association

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)- On November 16, the NRA filed its brief with the U.S. Supreme Court as Respondent in Support of Petitioner in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The NRA brief asks the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The McDonald case is one of several that were filed immediately after last year’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court upheld the Second Amendment as an individual right and struck down Washington, D.C.’s ban on handgun possession, as well as the capital city’s ban on keeping loaded, operable firearms for self-defense in the home.

The follow-up cases were filed by NRA and other organizations against Chicago and several of its suburbs. Each of these suits was aimed at the same goal: establishing that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments as well as the federal government.

In September, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the McDonald case, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That court incorrectly claimed that prior Supreme Court precedent prevented it from holding in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment. As we argued at the time, the Seventh Circuit should have followed the lead of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Nordyke v. King, which found that Supreme Court precedent does not prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

As a party in McDonald, the NRA is actively involved in this case and we believe our brief makes a clear and strong case in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment

The McDonald case will be argued in February 2010. NRA members should be proud of our efforts to bring this issue to the court’s attention through the many lawsuits we brought to overturn local bans on gun ownership and self-defense immediately after Heller. We are hopeful that McDonald v. Chicago will achieve another major victory for gun owners’ rights.

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.

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

McDonald v. City of Chicago

National Rifle Association

FAIRFAX, VA –-(AmmoLand.com)- As a critical Second Amendment case goes before the United States Supreme Court, U.S. Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Jon Tester (D-MT), and Congressmen Mike Ross (D-AR) and Mark Souder (R-IN) are gathering signatures for an amicus curiae (”friend of the court”) brief by Members of Congress.

And we need your support for this important effort next week.

The case is McDonald v. City of Chicago, and it will answer the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states-as the Congress clearly intended in the 1860s, when it adopted the Fourteenth Amendment to protect constitutional rights against abuse by state and local governments.

This brief is an opportunity for today’s Congress to show just as clearly that it respects the Second Amendment’s importance to all Americans-not just residents of the District of Columbia and other federal territories.

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.

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Ask Your U.S. Senators To Sign Amicus Brief Supporting Second Amendment

Ohioans For Concealed Carry

Ohio --(AmmoLand.com)- The 8th Ohio District Court of Appeals has overturned the trial court’s decision and ruled that Ohio Revised Code 9.68, which provided for statewide preemption of gun laws, to be unconstitutional as it pertains to rifles and shotguns and open carry. The 8th District court feels it applies only to concealed carry licensing laws.

Cleveland sued the State in March 2007 alleging that the preemption law violated home rule and that they should be able to ban “assault weapons,” prohibit open carry of firearms, maintain a gun registration scheme, and pass any such gun ordinance they wished. Ohioans For Concealed Carry and the National Rifle Association filed a joint motion to intervene, but that motion was denied and Cleveland lost at the trial court level on the strength of the Ohioans For Concealed Carry v. City of Clyde case where the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that R.C. 9.68 was constitutional because it was a “general law that is part of a comprehensive statewide legislative enactment.” Cleveland appealed their loss, and OFCC and the NRA appealed the denial to intervene.

In this ruling, the 8th District found that R.C. 9.68 was unconstitutional partially on the grounds of the 1993 Ohio Supreme Court case Arnold v. Cleveland which upheld an assault weapons ban, a case decided thirteen years before R.C. 9.68 was passed preempting such laws.

The Court agreed with Cleveland’s assertion that R.C. 9.68 violated the Home Rule provision of the Ohio Constitution which states:

Municipalities shall have authority to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws.

Cleveland argued that R.C. 9.68 is unconstitutional because it is not a general law, despite the findings of the Ohio Supreme Court, and attempts to curtail the City’s police powers in matters other than the concealed carry of firearms.

In particular, they were concerned about Cleveland Codified Ordinance (C.C.O.) 627.08, possession of firearms by minors; C.C.O. 627.09, possessing deadly weapons on public property; C.C.O. 627.10, possessing certain weapons at or about public places; C.C.O. 627A.02, access to firearms, prohibiting children access to firearms; C.C.O. 628.03, unlawful conduct, prohibiting possession and sale of assault weapons; and C.C.O. 674.05, registration of handguns.

The State of Ohio countered that R.C. 9.68 read in conjunction with Substitute House Bill 347 did in fact demonstrate a comprehensive scheme to regulate firearms, as previously ruled in the OFCC v. Clyde case. The 8th District Court disagreed, saying that the OSC ruling only applies to concealed carry and that the Clyde case only referred to Section 9 of H.B. 12 (the original concealed carry bill) and not R.C. 9.68., though admitted that “the Clyde court impliedly upheld R.C. 9.68 as it relates to handguns.”

Therefore, the 8th District Court felt comfortable ignoring the Clyde ruling and applied R.C. 9.68 only to concealed carry laws because it was not “comprehensive” enough to be a General Law in their opinion because it “leaves unregulated: (1) the discharge of firearms, (2) the possession and sale of assault weapons, (3) the open carry of firearms on public property and public places, (4) the possession and use of firearms by minors, (5) the registration of handguns as required by the City, (6) the registrations and licensure of firearms dealers, (7) permit or licensing requirements before an individual purchases a handgun, and (8) background checks before the purchase or transfer of firearms.”

O.R.C. 9.68 reads:

The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio, the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition. Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.

The 8th District ignored “the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition” and only focused on the next sentence which left off the word “carrying.” The Court does not believe that “possess” and “transport” applies to carrying a firearm, therefore found that the City prohibiting open carry is legal.

The 8th District also found that “R.C. 9.68 does not establish police regulations but instead limits legislative power of municipal corporations” and “attempts to curtail the City’s home-rule police powers without enacting legislation to remedy the purported ill of a confusing ‘patchwork’ of municipal regulations involving firearms.” Citing this shortfall, the Court found that 9.68 is not comprehensive and does “little to fill in the gaps” in what they see for laws regarding “firearm possession, use, transfer, and ownership” and “does not prescribe a rule of conduct upon citizens generally.”

Taking all of that into account, the 8th District ruled that “R.C. 9.68 fails to satisfy the general law test” and “that it is not a general law.” In another section, they ruled that it was an abuse of legislative power because it awarded attorney fees to any citizen who challenged a City ordinance if that ordinance was found to be violation of R.C. 9.68.

Ohioans For Concealed Carry strongly believes that the 8th District used flawed logic in determining that R.C. 9.68 is unconstitutional and that the Ohio legislature rightfully and legally passed R.C. 9.68 with the intention of not only preempting local laws regarding concealed carry, but all firearms laws in the state while lawfully granting municipalities the ability to regulate firearms discharges and zoning laws for commercial firearms sales.

The Ohio legislature was quite explicit that carrying firearms is a protected right as noted in the Ohio Constitution which states in Article 1 Section 4 that “the people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security.”

OFCC expects that Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray will appeal the 8th District’s faulty decision to the Ohio Supreme Court and that the OSC will correctly rule that Statewide Preemption is a Constitutional and General law and halt the attempts of anti-gun administrations from denying gun rights to their citizens. OFCC will also continue our fight to not be shut out in our attempts to intervene and defend the gun rights of Ohio citizens.

About:
Ohioans for Concealed Carry, founded in 1999, is a grassroots political activist organization. When founded, the primary goal of OFCC was getting concealed carry passed into law in Ohio. With that accomplished, our mission became to refine the concealed carry law and to expand and preserve the rights of all gun owners in Ohio. Visit: Ohioccw.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Cleveland Wins Appeal To Ban Assault Weapons