If you are anti-guns, or afraid of guns, or just don't like them and don't want them in your house, then this blog is for you.
(It might just change your mind)

Friday, September 13, 2013

IL Supreme Court strikes down gun ban in 9-0 decision

By GunsSaveLife.com 9/12/2013

Illinois prohibition on carrying firearms outside the home was struck down by the Illinois State Supreme Court in 9-0 decision People v. Aguilar.

As far as we know, this is the first time a state supreme court in the United States has ruled the right to keep and bear arms applies outside the four corners of a residence.

“The constitutional right of armed self-defense is broader than the right to have a gun in one’s home.”  
"The need for self-defense is most acute in the home, that doesn't mean it is not acute outside the home." 
"The second amendment guarantees not only the right to “keep” arms, but also the right to “bear” arms, and that these rights are not the same: “The right to ‘bear’ as distinct from the right to ‘keep’ arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of ‘bearing’ arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home."
“The right to have arms was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.”


Houston: Armed Civilian stops carjacking

A driver who pulled up to a McDonald’s in north Houston said he had to use deadly force after he was attacked by two carjackers.

The incident happened at the McDonald’s in the 7500 block of the North Freeway just before 10 p.m. Tuesday.

The victim told police he had just rented a couple of movies from the Redbox outside the restaurant when he was forced out of his car and pushed on the ground by two men.

Police said the men were apparently going after the victim’s car. The carjacking victim pulled out a gun and shot both men. One died at the scene while the other one ran away wounded. Police said a third suspect drove away in the getaway car.


Thursday, September 12, 2013

Awesome rebuttal letter from Jerry Patterson TX Land Commissioner

Texas CHL - A Letter To The Editor
Jerry Patterson, Texas Land Commissioner

Statesman Editorial Board staff,

I don’t know who wrote Sunday’s editorial but it is chock full of bad information and needs to be corrected lest the public again be misinformed by a hoplophobic journalist with a bias.

The most glaring error is the writers belief that the State Preservation Board has the authority to ban lawfully carried firearms at the capitol. They do not. While they do have the authority to place metal detectors, ONLY the Texas penal code regulates where and how firearms can be carried, and Article 1 Section 23 of the Texas Bill of Rights states that a Texan has the right to “Keep and Bear Arms in the lawful defense of himself or the state” and that “the legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime”. This legislative exclusivity is further backed up by statute which pre empts any government entity or agency from regulating firearms (of course this doesn’t apply to federal regulation on federal property).

When I passed the CHL law in 1995, certain prohibited locations were enumerated. These locations were fine tuned again in 1997. The capitol was specifically not included as a prohibited location in part because of the hypocrisy of passing a law and then excluding the capitol where those of us who voted for the law spend our time. There can be no other prohibited locations, other than on private property or on federal property.

The statement that “most courthouses and other government buildings around the state” are gun banned locations is also false. ALL courthouses are prohibited locations because the legislature chose to ban by statute carry at courthouses, and NO state or local government buildings are prohibited locations because the legislature chose not to make them so. It is permissible to ban firearms at a “meeting of a government entity” if “effective notice” is given. What constitutes “effective notice” is specifically spelled out in PC 46.035. What that means is a city council could ban only in the council chambers, and only while the meeting is in progress, or the Senate or House could ban in the chamber or the gallery when actually in session. You cannot ban lawful carry of a firearm at the capitol, or at city hall, or the portion of any other state or local government building (exception: school buildings, prisons etc.) that is open to public access. That doesn’t mean cities or counties haven’t placed signs banning carry, but signs do not make law, and anyone who defies such a sign can suffer no penalty. I routinely ignore these signs.

The statement “Why anyone needs to carry a concealed gun in the capitol is beyond us,” begs the question: where in the writers opinion does anyone need to carry a concealed gun? We’ve had a crazed shooter at the capitol, could that be a reason maybe? We’ve had two elected officials murdered at the capitol (albeit a very long time ago) might that be a reason? I carry at the capitol, and candidly I don’t think I need to do so. I also have a smoke detector at my house that I don’t think I’m going to need. If one carries a firearm, making decisions based on this venue or that venue as being a “need to carry” or “not need to carry” venue is actually kind of humorous. Can you imagine the thought process of “I think I’m going to be accosted in the mall parking lot tonight so I’ll pack my gun, but I don’t think I’m going to be robbed walking from capitol parking to the capitol tomorrow night so I won’t”? Carrying a gun is like fire insurance, you don’t just have a policy when you believe you’re going to have a fire.

The Violence Policy Center is just not credible, and candidly has lied on more than one occasion, so their “data” that 166 people have been killed by CHL holders is suspect. How many of those CHL holding shooters were convicted of a crime? Might that be an important bit of information? Could it be that some, if not most of the 166 dead were in the process of committing an assaultive offense against the CHL holder? Has a citizen ever been wrongfully shot and killed by a police officer? Should we take guns away from the police?
To paraphrase the writers closing statement in the editorial:

“We promise, editorial writer, we won’t think you are any less of a journalist for correcting your errors”
Jerry Patterson
Texas Land Commissioner


WIN for Colorado! Colorado state anti-gun senators successfully recalled from office

 Teresa Mull

In an unprecedented move which holds national significance, Colorado voters have successfully recalled two state lawmakers for enacting too-strict gun legislation.
Colorado Senate President John Morse (D) of Colorado Springs was defeated on a 51%-49% vote yesterday, and State Senator Angela Giron (D) of Pueblo was defeated by an even larger margin: 56% to 44%.
Both lawmakers are responsible for passing legislation imposing stricter gun laws (limiting the size of ammunition magazines and requiring universal background checks), which many voters say violate the Second Amendment.
Luke Wagner of the Basic Freedom Defense Foundation, who is leading the effort to depose the senators, said of Sen. Morse: “[He] couldn’t have given us a better gift than to have thrown something in everybody’s face. He decided that rural Coloradans aren’t as important as urban Coloradans. He doesn’t like gun owners.”
“The new gun laws were just the catalyst. A lot of people are very upset about being ignored, so finding vocal moral support hasn’t really been a hard sell.”
Two Republicans now take their place.

Monday, September 9, 2013

Ohio town's anti-gun law in conflict with Ohio state law. Expect litigation

We have same problem in Texas - illegal use of 30-06 style postings, and some outdated but still displayed signage.

Oberlin's law on firearms in parks makes city a target for gun litigation
By John Caniglia

Oberlin, OH, a bastion of liberalism, is bracing itself to deal with a state gun law that many residents and officials oppose. 
City Council is reluctantly mulling a change to its law that prevents firearms in city parks, as it conflicts with an Ohio statute that permits guns in most public places, including parks. If City Council does not rescind the measure, gun owners can take the city to court. Cleveland lost a similar fight over a guns-rights issue in 2010. 
"I'm not in favor of any of this,'' said Council President Ron Rimbert. "No one on Council is. But we need to get this passed. We have a responsibility to our citizens that we don't get caught up in any litigation. In Oberlin, we're protective of our family and friends. But this is a state law.'' 
The move comes weeks after an Ashland County man notified city police that the state law supersedes the city's. Brian Kuzawa told Tom Miller, the city's police chief, in an email Aug. 2 that he and his family would be attending a city park the next day.  
He said he and his wife would be carrying guns, and they did not want to be "accosted by'' Oberlin police. He said Miller called back a few hours after the initial email and said it is legal to carry weapons in the city's park. 
To show support for the state law and to educate others, Kuzawa said, guns-rights advocates went to the Park Street Park about 11 a.m. today to picnic and spend time with their families. About 36 people attended. Some carried firearms in the park where Kuzawa went with his family last month. 
Oberlin Council revisited the local ordinance, passed in 1998, and sought solutions. Council is expected to decide Sept. 16. It has few options: It can rescind the local law so that the city follows the state's, which went into effect in 2006, or it can prepare for a legal fight. 
Doug Deeken, an executive with Ohioans for Concealed Carry, said the issue is simple: "We don't want law-abiding citizens getting arrested in Oberlin for an unenforceable law. That's the crux of the matter.'' 
But Sharon Fairchild-Soucy, a member of Council, said her colleagues are opposed to the state dictating what the city can and cannot do, especially when it comes to guns. 
"Oberlin does not want people bringing guns into its parks,'' she said. 
Eric Norenberg, the city manager, agreed: "One of the biggest frustrations is that our council must act on this when there is clear, local sentiment against it.'' 
City officials have learned that others fought similar battles -- and lost. 
The NRA and the Ohioans for Concealed Carry, previously successfully sued the city of Clyde over the same issue.  
In 2007, Cleveland sued Ohio, claiming that the state law involving guns was unconstitutional because it infringed on Cleveland's home-rule authority, or its ability to adopt and enforce its local laws. Three years later, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled against the city, saying the law was constitutional. 
In its decision, the state high court said that law brought uniformity to gun statutes across the state and without it "law-abiding gun owners would face a confusing patchwork of licensing requirements, possession restrictions and criminal penalties as they travel from one jurisdiction to another.'' 
David Noice, a guns-rights advocate from central Ohio, emailed Oberlin officials Aug. 2, the same day Kuzawa sent his notice to the police department. Noice was blunt: "Your city ordinance restricts the possession of firearms in city parks. This is no longer permitted by state law.'' 
He said the city is not alone in violating that law. 
"There are numerous public entities that aren't compliant with state law,'' Noice said in an interview. "A lot of them simply don't realize it and are happy when we point it out to them. They move immediately to correct it. Oberlin looks like it will resolve this. But it is complaining every step of the way. It's fine that it has dissenting views, as long as it fixes the problem.'' 
Fairchild-Soucy said she believes she and her colleagues on Oberlin's council will fix the problem. She expects City Council to rescind the city's law, a move that would put the city in line with state law. 
And she expects City Council to follow that with a vote of protest immediately afterward.

Thursday, September 5, 2013

States join NRA in SCOTUS suit on behalf of 2nd Amendment rights for 18-20 year old adults.

22 States Join the National Rifle Association in Supreme Court Fight for the Second Amendment Rights of Young Adults

Posted on September 3, 2013

Fairfax, Va. – Twenty-one state attorneys general have co-signed an amicus brief filed by Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange in support of the National Rifle Association’s challenge against a federal law that restricts the sale of handguns to young adults aged 18 – 20. The case, National Rifle Association of America, Inc., et. al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, et al., seeks to end the federal prohibition of young adults to purchase handguns from federally licensed dealers.

“Young adults, many of whom have fought and sacrificed life and limb for their country, should not be prohibited from fully exercising their fundamental Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “The Second Amendment should receive no less respect than our other enumerated constitutional freedoms.”

Attorney General Strange’s brief notes that most states allow 18-20 year old adults to exercise this aspect of their Second Amendment rights, and “yet Congress has sought to withdraw this liberty from the same class of people.” The history of the Founding era makes clear that 18 year olds were considered adults in regards to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; for example, the Militia Act of 1792 required 18 year olds to “be enrolled in the militia” and to arm themselves accordingly.

The states joining Alabama in the amicus brief are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

“The NRA has been engaged in this ongoing fight for years – in Congress, in state legislatures, and in the courts – and we will not rest until the Right of every law-abiding American to Keep and Bear Arms is fully protected by our nation’s laws,” concluded Cox.


Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. More than 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. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at www.facebook.com/NationalRifleAssociation and on Twitter @NRA.

NSA starting 'gun registry' - NRA & ACLU are suing

NRA joins ACLU lawsuit, claims NSA starting 'gun registry' (video)By Brendan Sasso

The National Rifle Association joined the American Civil Liberties Union's lawsuit on Wednesday to end the government's massive phone record collection program. In a brief filed in federal court, the NRA argues that the National Security Agency's database of phone records amounts to a "national gun registry."

It would be absurd to think that the Congress would adopt and maintain a web of statutes intended to protect against the creation of a national gun registry, while simultaneously authorizing the FBI and the NSA to gather records that could effectively create just such a registry," the group writes.

The group claims that Congress could never have meant to authorize such a vast surveillance operation because it has repeatedly rejected proposals to create a national gun registry