Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea

USA --(Ammoland.com)- “The concept of a ‘monopoly on force’ might sound foreign or even frightening to Americans that take great pride in our revolutionary beginnings,” Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Executive Director Josh Horwitz wrote in a Huffington Post citizen disarmament advocacy piece, “but it is the fundamental organizing principle of any political entity, including the United States.”

“To back up this assertion,” I explained in a GUNS Magazine Rights Watch column, “he cites, ‘German political economist and sociologist Max Weber.’”

“What he doesn’t cite,” I elaborated, “is Weber’s support for approving Article 48 into the Weimar constitution, establishing “emergency powers” to bypass Reichstag consent, and allowing Adolf Hitler’s rise to unchallenged power. Not to mention the attainment of a ‘monopoly of force,’ although Weber preferred the term ‘violence.’”

It’s no surprise someone representing an organization that changed its name from “The National Coalition to Ban Handguns” in order to mask its true intent would keep that bit of crucial information from his readers—after all, he must have boxes of books on the subject nobody’s buying or reading that he needs to unload.  But those who agree with Horwitz’s historically insupportable, and frankly, loopy conclusion, that the freest and safest citizens are those who cede their primal rights to an all-powerful state monopoly, might be interested to learn that one of the “founding fathers” of modern “progressivism” came to the exact opposite conclusion.

Continue reading on Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/progressive-icon-s-view-refutes-modern-monopoly-of-violence-advocates

About David Codrea:
David Codrea is a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He is a field editor for GUNS Magazine, and a blogger at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance. Read more at www.DavidCodrea.com.

California Rifle and Pistol Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gun Owners of America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea

USA --(Ammoland.com)- Gun owners must support Mitt Romney if he’s the Republican candidate, we are being told by some opinion makers, because the next president will be making all-important Supreme Court nominations. After all, we were just one vote away from losing Heller and McDonald.

It seems a compelling argument. But it’s also a desperate one, and one not based on anything besides wishful thinking if Romney’s actual record on judicial appointments is considered. And now we can consider it, thanks to a Washington Times analysis by rival GOP candidate Rick Santorum:

“Mr. Romney nominated 36 judges while governor, just nine of whom were Republicans. What he says of this record today is that the Massachusetts Governor’s Council had to confirm the nominees, and the members of the council were all Democrats. So his answer was to nominate persons palatable to Democrats…

“…There is no evidence that Mr. Romney ever fought for a conservative nominee…He passively accepted the reality that he needed to nominate four Democrats (or independents) for every Republican to the Massachusetts bench.”

Continue reading on Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/santorum-gives-insight-on-romney-judicial-nominees

About David Codrea:
David Codrea is a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He is a field editor for GUNS Magazine, and a blogger at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance. Read more at http://www.DavidCodrea.com.

National Rifle Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military. Visit: www.nra.org

When Heller Met McDonald

About: Tom McHale describes himself as a conservative gun-totin’ bible-clingin’ literary assault dude who enjoys finding humor in just about anything. His web blog My Gun Culture is an irreverent, twisted look at gun news bordering on the ridiculous. It covers shootin’ stuff, loud noises, defending your own, the occasional mall ninja, and about 200 years of the American way. These are the (partially) true stories of My Gun Culture says Tom. Visit: www.mygunculture.com

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

FirearmsTruth.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hawaii Concealed Carry

Hawaii -–(Ammoland.com)- On the 15th of April the District of Columbia Circuit court reversed a very important case for the Second Amendment.

This case relates to an alien purchasing a firearm. Alan Gura argued the cause for appellants.

Here is the opinion of the court given by Circuit Judge Ginsburg.

GINSBURG, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Stephen Dearth and the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. (SAF), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, claim that portions of 18 U.S.C. § 922 and related regulations are unconstitutional because they prevent Dearth from purchasing a firearm. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing. Because we conclude Dearth does have standing, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Previously the circuit court dismissed the Second Amendment foundations complaint, saying that they didn’t have standing to sue.

Navyinrwanda from the Calguns.net gave a very good explanation and has allowed me to post that here.

Although the underlying case concerns the federal regulatory scheme that prohibits the purchase of firearms outside of one’s state of residence (specifically, a citizen living outside of the U.S. without a specific “state of residence” attempting to purchase firearms for other than “lawful sporting purposes”), this specific appeal considered only whether or not it was possible to have standing in the federal courts to challenge this scheme.

Standing is an important – and complex – concept in law. Put simply, standing is the legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be an actual case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action. Supreme Court precedent has generally established three requirements for standing in the federal courts, all of which must be met:

1. injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical;
2. a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and
3. a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative.

The case most often cited as clearly establishing these three requirements is Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). The party asking for federal court intervention bears the burden of establishing each of these three elements of standing.

While it might seem clear that someone whose purchase of a firearm was denied because of how he or she answered a question on Form 4473 would certainly satisfy these three requirements, the courts have ruled otherwise. In fact, the circuit appeals courts are in some disagreement on what exactly counts as standing – and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has had the most restrictive view of what’s needed to have standing (based on what is know as the Navegar line of cases, Navegar, Inc. v. United States, 103 F.3d 994 (D.C. Cir. 1997)). This was made abundantly clear when the district court ruled that Dearth didn’t have standing to sue for relief of his inability to purchase a firearm:

Quote:
Navegar held that gun manufacturers had standing to seek a declaratory judgment against enforcement of the Violent Crime Control & Law Enforcement Act of 1994 where the law, by naming specific brands and models of firearms, “in effect single[d] out the [plaintiffs] as its intended targets.” The manufacturers did not have standing to challenge certain other provisions of the Act, however, because of the absence of “any special priority placed upon preventing these parties from engaging in specified conduct.”

The Court of Appeals has since explained Navegar’s “special priority” language, holding that preenforcement standing will exist only when a plaintiff has been “personally threatened with prosecution or . . . his prosecution has [a] special priority for the government.” Seegars questions whether Navegar’s stringency was consistent with Supreme Court precedent and precedent from other circuits, but nonetheless “faithfully appl[ied]” its holding to bar preenforcement challenges to several District of Columbia gun control laws. In Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007), the court again questioned whether its standing precedent was consistent with earlier Supreme Court decisions, but reiterated that it “must be faithful to Seegars [and] Navegar.” The court then held that all plaintiffs whose challenges presented only preenforcement issues lacked standing because they had not been singled out for prosecution. (emphasis added and internal citations omitted).

Navegar has been put forth by the federal government in (I believe) every non-criminal Second Amendment court case since Heller (and many before). Essentially, the federal government has claimed that one can’t challenge any infringement of their Second Amendment rights unless a specific law or regulation has actually been violated and the government has begun prosecution for that violation. This, of course, makes overturning bad laws almost impossible. And it’s in direct conflict with Supreme Court (and other appeals court) precedents.

Today’s ruling by the D.C. appeals court in Dearth v. Holder puts an end to this absurdity. It allows this case to move forward, and will prevent similar denials of justice in several other active cases. While the appeals court didn’t rule directly on the underlying issue (Dearth’s purchase denial), its opinion strongly suggests that the lower court should grant relief (i.e., overturn 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(9) as an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment). Such a decision would begin dismantling the entire federal framework prohibiting the purchase of firearms outside of one’s state of residence.

Because of this decision, it’s now possible to see the day when one could directly buy guns from a licensed dealer anywhere in the country, assuming that the purchase was legal in both states. And many, many more challenges to unlawful restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms will finally move forward in the federal courts. Justice delayed in justice denied no more.

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not …

About Hawaii Concealed Carry:
Hawaii Concealed Carry is a single-issue group formed with the mission to promote the restoration of Second Amendment rights contained within the constitution, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We are a non-partisan group; our only care being, whether people support the right of self-defense and defense of others. Our philosophy is that through responsible use, education, communication, and understanding we can promote a safer environment for Hawaii residents, while reducing crime, and supporting our fundamental constitutional rights. Visit: www.hawaiiccw.com

University of Kentucky HandGuns in Cars Lawsuit Heads to KY Supreme Court

Kentucky Concealed Carry Coalition

Frankfort, Ky --(Ammoland.com)- Just this week our attorneys were notified by the Supreme Court of Kentucky that they would hear the appeal of the lawsuit brought by Michael Mitchell against the University of Kentucky, charging them with wrongful termination.

The gist of the case is this: Mr. Mitchell was employed by UK at the medical center and when his supervisors learned that he had a fi rearm in his car, in the parking lot at Commonwealth Stadium, they seized his legally-stored handgun and subsequently terminated his employment.

Mr. Mitchell contacted KC3 and we agreed to support him in his suit for damages against UK.

Our attorneys, Stephen Wides and Christopher Hunt of Lexington, brought the suit in Fayette circuit court. The judge ruled against them and for UK. They decided to skip the Court of Appeals and proceed directly to the Supreme Court and have been successful. As of this time no date has been set for the arguments but the justices voted 5-2 to put the case on the docket.

UK has maintained that they have a unique right to keep people from having firearms in cars on their lots, in a bizarre reading of the statutes that is inconsistent with the application of the law in every other circumstance in the state. Nowhere else may a school or employer bar anyone from having a fi rearm in their car as long as it’s not removed from that car or brandished. Yet UK feels justified in their incomprehensible interpretation of the statute, and used that to justify fi ring Mr. Mitchell.

Now the case is moving to the highest court in Kentucky where we’re confident that that they’ll KC3 has funded this lawsuit exclusively We will soon have donation buttons on our Mr. Mitchell has suffered an indignity at the hands of these bureaucrats, who’ve displayed an arrogant disregard for his rights and the law. Now we stand poised to make them pay for that indignity and to establish that the colleges in Kentucky are also bound by the same laws that govern our citizens.

About Kentucky Concealed Carry Coalition:
Since 1994, KC3 has led the struggle to secure your right to carry a legally concealed weapon
for your defense and the safety of your loved ones. Visit: www.kc3blog.blogspot.com

Ohioans For Concealed Carry

Ohio --(Ammoland.com)- As released by the Ohio Supreme Court. Analysis to follow.

2009-2280. Cleveland v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-6318.
Cuyahoga App. No. 92663, 185 Ohio App.3d 59, 2009-Ohio-5968. Judgment of the court of appeals reversed, and cause remanded to the court of appeals.
Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
Brown, C.J., and Pfeifer, J., dissent.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-6318.pdf

(Dec. 29, 2010) The Supreme Court of Ohio today upheld as constitutional a state law enacted by the General Assembly in 2006 that provides that only federal or state regulations can limit an Ohioan’s individual right to bear arms.

In a 5-2 majority opinion authored by Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, the Court held that R.C. 9.68, which displaces all local gun-control ordinances previously adopted by Ohio municipalities, does not infringe on the “home rule” powers of those municipalities under the Ohio Constitution and does not violate the separation of powers doctrine.

Enacted in December 2006 as part of Sub. H.B. 347, the statute, R.C. 9.68: 1) stated that it was the legislature’s intention in enacting the section “to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, carrying, sale or other transfer of firearms, their components and their ammunition,” 2) declared that “except as specifically provided by the U.S. Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law or federal law” gun owners in Ohio may buy, sell, transfer, transport, store or keep any firearm “without further license, permission, restriction, delay or process,” and 3) directed that in any subsequent court case challenging a local gun control ordinance, state courts “shall award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person, group or entity that prevails in a challenge to an ordinance, rule or regulation as being in conflict with this section.”

The City of Cleveland filed a declaratory judgment action in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas challenging the constitutionality of R.C. 9.68 under the Home Rule Amendment to the Ohio Constitution. That amendment, contained in Article XVIII, Section 3, provides that municipalities within the state have the inherent authority to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their borders local police regulations to protect the safety and health of city residents, so long as such regulations do not conflict with “general laws” of the state. The city argued that R.C. 9.68 violated its home rule authority because the statute had the effect of invalidating multiple Cleveland city ordinances regulating the possession, sale and registration of firearms within the city. The state filed pleadings opposing the city’s petition for declaratory judgment and seeking summary judgment that the challenged statute was constitutional.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the state, citing the Supreme Court of Ohio’s 2008 decision in Ohioans for Concealed Carry v. Clyde. In that decision, the Court held that a Clyde city ordinance prohibiting the concealed carry of weapons in city parks was void and unenforceable because it was in conflict with the uniform statewide guidelines for concealed carry that had been adopted by the General Assembly as part of Sub. H.B. 347.

The city appealed. On review, the 8th District Court of Appeals held that R.C. 9.68 was unconstitutional because it violated both the Home Rule Amendment and the separation of powers doctrine. The court of appeals remanded the case to the trial court with a directive to enter summary judgment in favor of Cleveland. In its decision, the 8th District specifically found that R.C. 9.68 was not a “general law” under a four-part test set forth in the Supreme Court of Ohio’s 2002 decision in Canton v. State. The state sought and was granted Supreme Court review of the 8th District’s decision.

Writing for the Court in today’s decision, Justice Stratton noted that courts considering a constitutional challenge to a law enacted by the legislature must “presume the constitutionality of lawfully enacted legislation,” and may invalidate a challenged statute only if the challenger establishes that it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.

Justice Stratton wrote that in analyzing constitutional challenges to a state law based on the Home Rule Amendment, the Court has held that “A statute takes precedence over a local ordinance when (1) the ordinance is an exercise of the police power, rather than of local self-government, (2) the statute is a general law, and (3) the ordinance is in conflict with the statute.” In this case, she noted, “The first and third parts of the analysis are not involved … The city acknowledges that its firearm ordinances are an exercise of municipal police power. Further, the city does not argue that its local firearm ordinances do not conflict with R.C. 9.68. Thus, our focus is on the second part of the home rule analysis, which involves determination of whether R.C. 9.68 is a general law.”

“In Canton v. State (2002) … this court held that to constitute a general law for purposes of home-rule analysis, a statute must ‘(1) be part of a statewide and comprehensive legislative enactment, (2) apply to all parts of the state alike and operate uniformly throughout the state, (3) set forth police, sanitary, or similar regulations, rather than purport only to grant or limit legislative power of a municipal corporation to set forth police, sanitary or similar regulations, and (4) prescribe a rule of conduct upon citizens generally.’”

While the 8th District concluded that R.C. 9.68 was not a general law because it failed the first, third and fourth prongs of the Canton test, today’s majority opinion rejected each of those findings and held that R.C. 9.68 meets all four Canton criteria and therefore qualifies as a general law that takes precedence over conflicting local ordinances.

In addressing the 8th District’s holding that R.C. 9.68 is not “part of a comprehensive statewide legislative enactment” because the specific bill in which it was enacted (H.B. 347) did not address many aspects of firearms regulation, Justice Stratton wrote: “(T)he the court of appeals erred in analyzing R.C. 9.68 in a vacuum. She pointed to a host of state and federal laws regulating firearms, and noted that “… (a) comprehensive enactment need not regulate every aspect of disputed conduct, nor must it regulate that conduct in a particularly invasive fashion. ‘omprehensive’ does not mean ‘perfect.’ … Nor does ‘comprehensive’ mean ‘exhaustive.’ And the fact that regulations of firearms appear in various code chapters does not nullify the fact that they are all part of a comprehensive enactment concerning firearms.”

“We note that when we determined in (Ohioans for Concealed Carry v.) Clyde (2008)that R.C. 9.68 is part of a statewide and comprehensive legislative enactment, we took into account that the General Assembly had ‘express its intent for statewide comprehensive handgun possession laws.’ The General Assembly indicated that its intent in enacting R.C. 9.68 was ‘to provide uniform laws throughout the state’ for firearm ownership and possession. … We reaffirm the holding that R.C. 9.68 is part of a statewide comprehensive legislative enactment.”

The majority also rejected the court of appeals’ holdings that R.C. 9.68 does not set forth police or other regulations rather than merely limiting local authority to legislate, and that the statute does not set forth a rule of conduct upon citizens generally.

Finally, the Court contradicted the 8th District’s conclusion that the provision in R.C. 9.68 awarding attorney fees to litigants successfully challenging citations under local firearm ordinances violated the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches. Justice Stratton pointed to multiple provisions of state law that expressly provide an award of attorney fees to parties who prevail in certain types of cases, including public records requests, the motor vehicle “Lemon Law,” child support contempt proceedings and violations of the state Consumer Sales Practices Act, among others. In light of those provisions, and multiple court decisions affirming their validity, Justice Stratton wrote, “(T)he General Assembly is clearly within its legislative authority to authorize the award of attorney fees and costs in R.C. 9.68.”

While reversing the judgment of the 8th District on all of the constitutional issues that court addressed, the Court remanded the case to the 8th District for review of one remaining constitutional challenge to the legislation enacting R.C. 9.68. That claim, which the 8th District dismissed as moot, alleges that H.B. 347 violated the constitutional provision limiting legislative bills to a “single subject.”

The majority opinion was joined by Justices Maureen O’Connor, Terrence O’Donnell, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Robert R. Cupp.

Justice Paul E. Pfeifer entered a dissent, joined by Chief Justice Eric Brown, in which he cited the Supreme Court’s 2006 holding in American Financial Services Assn. v. Cleveland that “‘A statement by the General Assembly of its intent to preempt a field of legislation is a statement of legislative intent … but does not trump the constitutional authority of municipalities to enact legislation pursuant to the Home Rule Amendment …’ From this, I conclude that the General Assembly is incapable of casting a preemption blanket over an entire field.”

“The key issue when analyzing whether a local ordinance is a proper subject of home rule is whether the ordinance conflicts with general laws. In Cincinnati v. Hoffman (1972), we stated that ‘in order for … a conflict to arise, the state statute must positively permit what the ordinance prohibits, or vice versa, regardless of the extent of state regulation concerning the same object.’ … It is not enough to determine that R.C. 9.68 is a general law or that R.C. 9.68 is extensive, the Cleveland ordinances must be shown to conflict with the statute. In this case, I conclude that the Cleveland ordinances do not conflict with R.C. 9.68, because they do not permit something that the statute forbids or vice versa.”

Contacts

• Benjamin C. Mizer, 614.466.8980, for the state of Ohio.
• Gary S. Singletary, 216.664.2737, for the City of Cleveland.

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

National Rifle Association

Charlotte, NC --(Ammoland.com)- On Sunday, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer reminded Americans why it is important to vote for a president whose nominees to the court will likely be faithful to the Constitution, to vote for U.S. senators who will reject nominees who likely will not be faithful, and to vote for federal and state legislators who can check and balance justices like Stephen Breyer who don’t believe the Second Amendment protects any meaningful right.

On Sunday, during an interview with Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday,” Clinton nominee Breyer, who dissented from the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), claimed that the role of the court is to interpret the Constitution flexibly, in light of ever-changing circumstances. Breyer argues that the court should give consideration not to the Constitution’s “words,” but to the “values” that the Framers had in mind. Fox News’ article on the interview can be viewed here.

The Framers’ “values,” Breyer suggested, would allow a total ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. “It’s not a matter of policy, it’s a matter of what those Framers [of the Bill of Rights] intended,” he said.

What Second Amendment author James Madison intended, Breyer said, was only to prevent Congress from nationalizing state militias. That, of course, is not what Breyer said in his dissent in the Heller case. Then, Breyer said that the amendment was intended to prohibit Congress from disarming state militias.

Regardless of what Breyer was trying to sell on Sunday, Wallace didn’t seem to be buying it. Pointing out the plain language of the amendment’s “keep and bear arms” clause, Wallace asked Breyer whether, in ignoring those words, he was assuming the role of politician or policy-maker, rather than that of a judge.

Breyer grinned smugly, said “no,” and sarcastically asked whether the amendment should be interpreted to allow the ownership of machine guns and torpedoes, as well as handguns. Wallace countered that at the very least, the amendment “certainly . . . didn’t provide for a ban on all handguns, as we have here in Washington, D.C.”

To that, Breyer, still grinning, asked Wallace, “Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland.”

Realizing that Madison and the other Framers surely did not intend for the Second Amendment to mean one thing in Maryland and another in D.C., Wallace pointed out that allowing a ban on handguns in D.C. while not allowing it in Maryland would be “a policy issue, not a constitutional issue.” Breyer changed the subject.

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

Supreme Court

National Rifle Association

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

Conclusion: Yes

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

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

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

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

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

About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military. Visit: www.nra.org

National Association for Gun Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gun Owners of America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These statements are just the tip of the iceberg.

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

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

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

National Rifle Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military. Visit: www.nra.org

National Rifle Association

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

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

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

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

About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military. Visit: www.nra.org

Gun Owners of America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please vote NO on the nominee’s confirmation.

Sincerely,

——————————————–

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

Wisconsin

Wisconsin - -(AmmoLand.com)- Last week, in a resounding victory for all freedom-loving Americans, the United States Supreme Court confirmed that the Second Amendment’s protection of our right to keep and bear arms applies everywhere in America, and serves as a rampart against state infringement of this fundamental individual liberty.

In its ruling, the Court declared that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, and that self-defense is at the core of the freedoms protected by the amendment.

This Supreme Court ruling is binding on all states and local governments, and immediately renders some of Wisconsin’s current laws unconstitutional.

Therefore, in keeping with my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, I hereby declare that this office will no longer accept law enforcement referrals for violations of the following statutes:

• Section 167.31, prohibiting uncased or loaded firearms in vehicles;
• Section 941.23, prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, including firearms;
• Section 941.235, prohibiting the possession of firearms in public buildings;
• Section 941.237, prohibiting the possession of firearms in establishments where alcohol may be sold or served; and,
• Section 941.24, prohibiting the possession of knives that open with a button, or by gravity, or thrust, or movement.

All of these statutes constitute unjustifiable infringements on the fundamental right of every law-abiding American to arm themselves for self-defense and the defense of their loved ones, co-workers, homes and communities. This change also invalidates Jackson County Ordinance Sections 9.01 (firearms in public buildings) and 9.29 (CCW).

Prior to this historic ruling, our state Supreme Court placed the state’s interests first, and would only create an exception to these laws when the individual’s need for protection outweighed the state’s interest. In the area of concealed carry, only 2 cases have approved concealed carry, one at home, and the other one at the defendant’s personally owned place of business.

Well, as the United States Supreme Court held yesterday, that view was exactly backward.

As with the other fundamental rights, such as the freedom of speech, of religion, of association, or of security in our homes, persons, and effects, government limitations on fundamental rights are lawful only in the rare case that the state can show a compelling governmental need that can be accomplished only by enacting a narrowly-tailored restriction, in terms of time, place and manner. Clearly, a blanket prohibition against carrying your loaded firearm in your personal vehicle does not pass that test.

Put it another way: Does preventing the barkeep from protecting herself when she carries the bank bag home from the tavern make sense? Not here, not anymore.

That’s not an American value; it puts concern for the criminal’s welfare ahead of the barkeeper’s right to self-defense. The fact is, criminals don’t pay attention to gun laws, only we good folks do. After 15 years of criminal law practice, I can state positively that when criminals resolve to harm someone, no law will stop them. These so-called “public safety” laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over.

I will watch for the legislature to make needed corrections in these areas. In the meantime, while I am happy to declare that we will follow the Supreme Court’s ruling, I want to emphasize that with fundamental rights come grave responsibilities, and I will continue to vigorously enforce the laws against unlawfully using firearms, such as the prohibition against felons being armed; going armed while intoxicated; using a firearm to commit a crime; and endangering safety by negligent handling of a weapon, to name just a few. Only by the strictest adherence to firearm safety rules and common sense will we show that the elitists who seek to disarm all of us are wrong, and that every law abiding citizen can be trusted to protect themselves and their neighbors safely.

• A copy of the Supreme Court’s decision can be found at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
• A copy of the amicus brief joined by J.B. Van Hollen, the Attorney General of Wisconsin, can be viewed at: http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09- 10/08-1521_PetitionerAmCuStateofTexas.pdf

Mayor Daley Says "Stick It" To The Supreme Court

National Rifle Association

Charlotte, NC --(Ammoland.com)- Having previously told a reporter that he would stick a rifle “up” his rear end for questioning the value of Chicago’s handgun ban, Chicago mayor Richard Daley has told the Supreme Court where to stick its ruling in McDonald v. Chicago.

Only 96 hours after the Court handed down its ruling, paving the way for nullification of Chicago’s handgun ban, Daley got the Chicago City Council to unanimously impose a new law designed to thwart the Court’s intent.

The law prohibits dealer sales of firearms within Chicago; prohibits the possession of a handgun anywhere outside the home (even in attached garages); generally prohibits the possession of a long gun other than at home or in a fixed place of business; prohibits having more than one firearm assembled within the home; prohibits laser sighting devices; imposes a $100 fee for a mandatory three-year city pistol permit; bans imaginary “assault weapons”; bans magazines that hold more than 12 rounds; bans handguns the police superintendent deems “unsafe” due to their size, concealability, caliber or “other factors”; bans bullets made without a lead core; and imposes many other unreasonable restrictions.

Summing up NRA’s position on Daley’s move, NRA-ILA’s Chris W. Cox said “We’re going to stay in this fight until Chicago’s politicians respect the Second Amendment, and the residents of Chicago are able to fully exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and all other legitimate purposes.” Enough said.

About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military. Visit: www.nra.org

Gun Owners of America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
The GOA Team

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

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association

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

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

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

The Honorable Patrick Leahy The Honorable Jeff Sessions

Chairman Ranking Member

Senate Committee on the Judiciary Senate Committee on the Judiciary

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 152 Dirksen Senate Office Building

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

Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Wayne LaPierre Chris Cox

Executive Vice President Executive Director

NRA NRA-ILA

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

United States Senate

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

Below is a link for finding and contacting your representatives;

www.nraila.org/ActionCenter/

Let’s do it!

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

Gun Owners of America

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- The hearings on Elena Kagan — President Obama’s radical pick to join the U.S. Supreme Court – began yesterday.

This is a VERY IMPORTANT battle that gun owners must fight, as evidenced by the slim victory in the McDonald v. Chicago case that was handed down by the high Court yesterday.

Kagan doesn’t have a record of judicial opinions, but her views on the Second Amendment are no mystery:

• Kagan drafted a directive in favor of a semi-automatic import ban while serving in the Clinton administration;
• As a law clerk, she advised against allowing the Supreme Court to hear arguments in Sandidge v. United States that the D.C. gun ban was unconstitutional;
• Kagan was also part of the Clinton team that pushed the firearms industry to include gun locks with all gun purchases and was in the Clinton administration when the president pushed legislation that would close down gun shows; and
• Just today, Kagan gave a hint to her true colors. When asked a simple question by Senator Grassley of Iowa – does the Second Amendment codify a pre-existing right from God or is it a right created by the Constitution? – Kagan looked like a deer caught in the headlights. After an awkward pause, she said: “I’ve never considered that question.”

Yikes… the Supreme Court is no place for on-the-job training!

While two key Republican senators (Kyl and McConnell) had previously indicated that there would not be a filibuster of her nomination, Sen. McConnell seemed to open the door yesterday for such an action.

That’s why all Senators (especially the Republicans!) need to hear from you during this confirmation battle.

Note: Bill Olson, the Gun Owners Foundation attorney who spearheaded our amicus brief before the Court in the Chicago case, is scheduled to testify before the Judiciary Committee in opposition to Elena Kagan later this week.

By the way, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation last year should now shed some important light on the Kagan hearings. McDonald v. Chicago is the first Second Amendment case that Sotomayor has dealt with as a Supreme Court Justice.

It’s no surprise that she joined the anti-gun dissenters, but it highlights what a sham the judicial hearings are — and how Senators should put no stock in a nominee’s responses.

On July 14 of last year, Sotomayor was asked by Sen. Pat Leahy during the confirmation hearings:

“Is it safe to say that you accept the Supreme Court’s Decision [in Heller] as establishing that the Second Amendment right is an individual right? Is that correct?”

Sotomayor responded: “Yes, Sir.” In other words, she affirmed with her response that the right to keep and bear arms was a fundamental, individual right.

But then contrast this to the Chicago case where Sotomayor joined the dissent in stating:

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

Most people would say she lied to Senator Leahy and said whatever she needed to say to get confirmed… which is why Senators need to HEAVILY LOOK at Kagan’s record, not only in what she might say during these hearings.

ACTION: Please… please… please… contact your Senators and urge them to oppose Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court.

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written message to your Senators.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

I urge you to oppose and FILIBUSTER Elena Kagan’s nomination! Not based on what she says during these hearings, but based on what she has already done. Kagan may not have a record of judicial opinions, but her anti-gun views are no mystery:

* Kagan helped draft a directive in favor of a semi-automatic import ban while serving in the Clinton administration;

* As a law clerk, she advised against allowing the Supreme Court to hear arguments in Sandidge v. United States that the D.C. gun ban was unconstitutional; and

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

This is what she has done. What she might say to earn Senate approval is almost completely irrelevant. Consider that on July 14 of last year, Sonia Sotomayor was asked by Sen. Pat Leahy during the confirmation hearings: “Is it safe to say that you accept the Supreme Court’s decision [in Heller] as establishing that the Second Amendment right is an individual right? Is that correct?”

Sotomayor responded: “Yes, Sir.” In other words, she affirmed with her response that the right to keep and bear arms was a fundamental, individual right. But in the Chicago ruling from June 28, Sotomayor joined the dissent in stating:

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

Most people would say she lied to Senator Leahy and said whatever she needed to say to get confirmed… which is why Senators need to LOOK CLOSELY at Kagan’s record, not what she might blabber during these hearings.

Please oppose the Kagan nomination.

Sincerely,

——————————————————————————–

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

(Alan Korwin, AzCDL Member and prolific author, whose books include The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide, has been following the McDonald v. Chicago case closely. Alan’s extensive research and material were used in crafting AzCDL’s amicus brief for this case. The following is Alan’s synopsis of the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic decision.)

Arizona Citizens Defense League

Catalina, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- The big headline in the U.S. Supreme Court’s McDonald v. Chicago gun-ban-case decision, handed down on June 28, 2010, is that the states are now bound by the Second Amendment — the right to keep and bear arms is “incorporated” under the 14th Amendment and applies to the states, under the Due Process clause used to apply other Bill of Rights requirements to the states.

Exactly how bound the states are is unknown, and will be the subject of endless debate and future court actions. No standard of review for acceptable laws is provided, although the extremely low and virtually meaningless standard of “interest balancing” that Breyer would like to see is apparently off the table. This leaves legislatures and lower courts to pretty much do as they please, and seek further SCOTUS clarification in the years to come.

The decision does however give the pro-rights forces a strong leg up at the bargaining table.

The very troubling sub-head of the story is that Chicago apparently will be free to act like Washington, D.C. did after Heller. Chicago under Mayor Daley is likely to do everything it can – including maneuvers that will be totally rejected as unconstitutional -- to keep its people repressed and deny, as fully as possible, the right to own, have and use guns for personal defense and other lawful purposes.

While we on the pro-rights side of the aisle had hoped for “reversed,” meaning the 7th Circuit decision saying we had no rights would be overturned, what we got was “reversed and remanded,” meaning the 7th Circuit will get another crack at the law, and do something to make it acceptable. If precedent is any gauge, they’ll do as little as they can, and be subject to another lawsuit and endless wrestling with our rights.

This extraordinarily event-filled day at the Court included Justice Stevens’ last day in public as a member, Justice Ginsburg’s husband’s death the night before, the beginning of Senate confirmation hearings for liberal High Court candidate Elena Kagan, and the much awaited McDonald decision, on this the last day of the current session.

Although some people had held out hope that Sotomayor, in her first gun case, would lean on her known respect for civil rights and find for the right to keep and bear, she turned out to be the leftist most expected, and voted for denial of rights in the 5-4 squeaker decision. She joined Breyer’s dissent, a masterpiece of odd reasoning and lack of appreciation for this fundamental right (based on a very quick overview). Kagan, cut from similar cloth, is likely to respond similarly if confirmed.

The McDonald v. Chicago decision is a 214-page document, with a six-page syllabus (the summary that precedes decisions), a 45-page decision of the Court written by Justice Alito, a 15-page concurrence by Scalia, a separate 56-page concurrence by Thomas, and two dissents — 57 pages from Stevens, and 31 pages from Breyer (joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor), who includes a four-page appendix. That’s a lot of reading (116 pages of “you have rights,” 92 pages of “you should not”), and by the time you see this, news organizations will have moved on to other subjects, but I will have just finished figuring out what the Court actually said.

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

National Shooting Sports Foundation

NEWTOWN, Conn --(AmmoLand.com)- As Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s confirmation got under way yesterday, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee said he had “serious concerns” about her nomination, CQ Politics reports.

Among the questions that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) raised in his opening statements was one on Kagan’s role in forging gun policy while in the Clinton White House in the ’90s.

“During her White House years, the nominee was the central figure in the Clinton-Gore effort to restrict gun rights — and as the dramatic 5-4 decision today in McDonald shows, the personal right of every American to own a gun hangs in the balance,” he said.

Time magazine lists gun rights as No. 1 on a list of topics that Kagan is expected to be grilled on this week.

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

National Association for Gun Rights

Colorado --(Ammoland.com)-Hearings on President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court began yesterday, June 28th — a mere 49 days after Obama announced her nomination.

Arch-liberal, anti-gun Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is trying to ram through the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court before your voice can be heard.

That’s why I need you to act right now — Today!

Leahy, Obama, and their anti-gun allies want to have these nomination hearings over and done with even before all of the relevant documents concerning Kagan’s legal work in the anti-gun Clinton administration are available for review.

What are the gun grabbers afraid of?

They are afraid of you. They are afraid of the truth.

The truth is: Elena Kagan will be another solid vote against your Second Amendment rights if confirmed to the Supreme Court, but they don’t want the public to see that for themselves.

What we know already is that Kagan is not “sympathetic” to your Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

We also know that:

• Kagan supports gun licensing and registration.
• Kagan dismisses the notion that the Second Amendment deserves “unlimited protection against governmental regulation.”
• Kagan worked as an associate White House counsel from 1995-1996 and as a deputy assistant for domestic policy from 1997 to 1999 in the anti-gun Clinton administration.
• Kagan personally drafted an executive order for Bill Clinton that banned the importation of semi-automatic firearms.

We know that she drafted that executive order for Bill Clinton, but what else did she do for the anti-gun Clinton administration?

The answer to that question is contained in tens of thousands of documents still held by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

The Clinton Library originally refused to produce all of the relevant documents.

Now, after massive public outrage, the Clinton Library finally agreed to produce the documents; but it is producing them in dribs and drabs so that Senators have not had time to properly review the more than 160,000 pages before the hearings on Kagan’s nomination begin today.

Texas Senator John Cornyn (R-Tx) has said that Kagan herself told him that those documents would give “invaluable insight into how she would approach her job as a member of the Supreme Court.”

My friend, the fact is the anti-gunners and their allies in the Senate do not want you to see the information contained in those documents.

Neither does the Obama administration which is planning to assert executive privilege over documents that deal with Kagan’s work on “controversial” issues like “gun control.”

They want to hide her positions from you.

Leahy, with Obama’s blessing and support, specifically scheduled Kagan’s nomination hearings knowing that those documents were not going to be made available to the Senate, or to the public, i.e. you, in time to be adequately reviewed for the hearings.

What are Senator Leahy and his anti-gun friends afraid of? What are they hiding?

They are afraid of the truth. They are hiding Kagan’s real record.

They are afraid of you my friend and they are afraid of what will happen in November.

Leahy and his anti-gun friends know that once Kagan’s radical anti-Second Amendment views are confirmed through her work for the anti-gun Clinton administration, her confirmation will be less likely.

But Leahy and his anti-gun cabal in the Senate are also afraid of what will happen in the upcoming November elections — where the control of the Senate hangs in the balance.

The anti-gunners want the Kagan hearings over and done with long before the election cycle heats up so they can “spin” the public. They don’t want the public to remember their vote for an anti-Second Amendment nominee.

They think the more time between the hearings and the November elections means the public will forget their anti-gun votes.

They know that if the hearings were held during the Fall, the votes of the liberal anti-gunners in the Senate would be fresh in the minds of voters.

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

Demand that the Senate delay these hearings so voters can be fully informed about Kagan’s anti-Second Amendment bias this November when they go to the polls.

Let your Senators know you are watching them. Now is the time for your Senators to stand up for your Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The liberal anti-gunners are already gearing up, spending millions of dollars to ram this nomination through.

“Organizing for America”, Obama’s political arm at the Democratic National Committee just launched a “Kagan for Justice Action Center.” They are pulling out all the stops and spending Millions of dollars to ram this nomination through.

Let your Senator know that you:

• want Kagan’s full record available before she can be confirmed;
• want these hearings delayed until those documents are produced;
• demand they vote against this anti-gun nominee and join a filibuster against her confirmation.

Please join us. Together, you and me and the National Association of Gun Rights can hold your Senators accountable—let them know we will remember come election time.

P.S. We are out in front on this fight and we will do everything we can to stop Obama’s anti-gun agenda, but we must have the resources to continue.

Women’s Outdoor News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~Barbara Baird

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

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

IllinoisCarry.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gunfacts.info

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

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

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

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

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

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

NUMBER OF PRECEDENTS COURT OVERTURNED

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

Total 219

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

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

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

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

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

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

Virginia Shooting Sports Association

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

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

Scotusblog reports that the majority seems divided.

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

The text of the Opinion is here.

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

Second Amendment Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Shooting Sports Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

NSSF filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of McDonald.

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

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

ICarry.org

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

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

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

Here are some links for you!!

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

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

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

Today we celebrate victory in the highest court.

Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court

IllinoisCarry.com

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

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

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

National Association for Gun Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Virginia Gun Owners Coalition

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

That is why I need you to take immediate action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gun Owners of America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

—————————————————

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

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

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

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

National Rifle Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safari Club Internationa

Washington, DC –-(AmmoLand.com)- The U.S. Supreme Court today, in United States v. Stevens, struck down a federal law that could have criminalized the sale of hunting videos.

As reported on AmmoLand.com Safari Club International and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation joined to file an amicus (friend of the Court) brief that explained how the law could apply to many hunting videos. The Court quoted SCI’s brief and relied, in part, on SCI’s arguments to hold the law unconstitutionally overbroad.

The law made the production or sale of a depiction (e.g., video or picture) of “animal cruelty” punishable by up to five years in prison. The Supreme Court found that Congress wrote the law much too broadly. The law made illegal any depiction of the killing or wounding of a live animal if the act being depicted is itself illegal in the state where the video is sold. As a result, videos of hunting activities that are legal where filmed would violate the law if the videos were sold in a state where that type of hunting activity is illegal. One example from SCI’s brief on which the Court relied was the sharp-tailed grouse, which may be hunted in Idaho, but not in Washington.

The Court also quoted from SCI’s brief to reject the argument that hunting videos would be protected by the law’s exception for videos with serious educational or scientific value. The Court’s opinion stated “According to Safari Club International and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, many popular [hunting] videos ‘have primarily entertainment value’ and are designed to ‘entertai[n] the viewer, marke[t] hunting equipment, or increas[e] the hunting community.’”

SCI President Larry Rudolph said, “This tremendous victory is a great example of how SCI is First for Hunters. SCI did not hesitate to devote its resources to filing a brief with the Supreme Court to advocate our interests. The people who produce and sell the hunting videos we all enjoy should not have to risk five years in prison and now they will not. With this opinion, SCI has reached a new level of advocacy for SCI members and for all hunters.”

-SCI-
SCI-First For Hunters is the leader in protecting the freedom to hunt and in promoting wildlife conservation worldwide. SCI’s approximately 190 Chapters represent all 50 of the United States as well as 18 other countries. SCI’s proactive leadership in a host of cooperative wildlife conservation, outdoor education and humanitarian programs, with the SCI Foundation and other conservation groups, research institutions and government agencies, empowers sportsmen to be contributing community members and participants in sound wildlife management and conservation. Visit the home page www.safariclub.org or call (520) 620-1220 for more information.

National Association for Gun Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For freedom,