Heads up with Biden's gun control aka freedom control task force

Here's a lesson for politicians who lose their balls (to put it bluntly) when things get tough on an issue. We have LONG memories on 2nd Amendment issues. The reason there was no "president Gore" was due to him becoming a gun grabber. 1994 was partially in response to Clinton's gun bans. Bill Clinton himself blamed the NRA and had a personal agenda since.

Most of these excerpts are from The Hill

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) vetoed a concealed carry gun bill on Tuesday.

The bill would have let concealed gun owners with additional permits carry their weapons in places where it was previously illegal to carry them such as places of worship, bars, schools, and stadiums."

The last thing Snyder needs right now is to be double-flanked. The unions want revenge and now gun owners are mad. Many conservatives who finally were happy at something Snyder did are now irked. Again. Now I don't think the NRA would support Whitmer or Peters against Snyder, but John Cherry? They might stay out against a Mark Schauer now that their records on this issue are about equal (can't count on although not Joe Schwarz/Whitmer bad). This veto needs to be overridden or sent back to Snyder's desk. No CPL reform. No bridge.

Pragmatically, what would the independents rather have in these criminal empowerment zones - conceal carry, or open carry by CPL holders? The latter is probably legal under a technicality. Politicians also have to remember that the opinions of the public that matter are not now, but 19 months from now. In addition, criminal empowerment zones don't stop criminals from shooting people.

Now comes John Boehner who is showing Peter Principle tendencies of his own. He's already doing a piss poor job with the fiscal negotiations (No mention of spending?) and I'm concerned he's going to sell us down the river. I got one question for Boehner. "Do you want to lose the house?" I don't want to see him lose the house, but I wouldn't mind seeing him lose as speaker either in a caucus vote, or a primary challenge. Anyone in the Cincy or Dayton suburbs/exurbs/rural areas outside there want to take him on? It's a safe district in the general election.

"We need to have a discussion about guns," the lawmaker said, relaying Boehner's remarks, "and that doesn't mean that all of a sudden we abandon the Second Amendment or the NRA [National Rifle Association] or anything like that. But there needs to be a discussion and everybody needs to participate and we need to depoliticize it."

Boehner, you're talking about our constitutional rights here. Do you understand that? We don't need any federal discussion beyond "national reciprocity" of concealed carry. Don't sell us out, or there will be grave political consequences.  Democrats were taught that lesson twice. So were individual republicans at times. Lugar lost. Partly on this issue. Walt North and the guy before Mark Schauer (then state rep) lost over votes on either firearms or hunting. About the same comments on the level of Boehner came from dem Joe Manchin. When you two rush, you're wrong.

Obama loves his commissions and the noise they all make. Nothing like appointing a guy that voted to ban .30-30 ammunition (your grandfather's hunting round) as the head of that "task force." Joe Biden. From The Hill:

Earlier in the week, Obama conferred with Biden and other top Cabinet officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder, Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

"Their participation underscores the comprehensive way in which the president views this problem," Carney said.

The White House has indicated that in addition to supporting an assault-weapons ban, the president will call for restrictions on high-capacity ammunition clips and legislation that will close the gun-show exception for background checks. But Obama is also expected to examine mental-health programs and depictions of violence in entertainment, including movies and video games.

Of course these bans NEVER apply to the police.... Eric Holder supports even a handgun ban except to police, military, political buddies, and Mexican drug cartels with Fast and Furious. Also, anyone who doesn't know the difference between a clip and a magazine needs to shut the Hell up about that issue due to ignorance. As for gun show exceptions for background checks, they don't exist. I bought a shotgun from a gun show. I went through the Federal NICS check. ALL dealers are required to perform NICS checks or similar/stricter checks on the state level.

This is the same old schiesse that the democrats pushed in 1994 and 1999. It would have done nothing to stop theses. As for so called "assault weapons", Connecticut banned them. Yes. Banned them. The motive here isn't to save lives, but for politicians to take our freedoms and gain more power, or for politicians to pat themselves on the back and say that they did something (while doing nothing that solves a problem).

As far as blaming movies and games, that's just as stupid as blaming the guns. How long have we had violence in entertainment? There's actually less school shootings today than there was. The difference today is the 24 hour news networks and the internet. Not just CNN, but also Fox and MSNBC. Violent movies. Go back to the old gangster films. Westerns. John Wayne. Clint Eastwood. Godfather in the 70's. Scarface and Arnold/Stallone/Die Hard movies in the 80's. Goodfellas in the 90's. This ain't new. Video Games. They've been violent at times since the early 90's. Mortal Kombat is over 20 years old. So is Wolfenstein. Doom isn't far beyond that. People who grew up on those games are now in their mid 30's or older. 

What's the government going to push here, censorship? That's also freedom control. While I'd agree that either the movie or the game Scarface shouldn't be for kids, that's not the government's responsibility. That's a parent's responsibility. I'd trust parents more than government officials (including public school officials).

Right now we're on defense. The leftist media wants to blame us for all the bad people out there that shoot up schools. We need to be vigilant and think long term. We need to make sure politicians think long term - to election day. Those with us we need to thank and encourage to stay with us. Those against us need to be fired. When it comes to our constitutional rights, there is nothing to discuss. We do not need to give up our constitutional rights. Freedom control is unacceptable and those that partake in it need to pay with their jobs.

For the rest of us, buy magazines, scary looking firearms, .223 (which is really fairly low powered despite the media lies/ignorance), and .308 ammo today.  Magazines especially, since I think if anything gets banned, it will be that. Buy a lot of them, and you might even make a profit on the black market if it goes. Remember how much "pre-bans" went for in 2003?

Stay cool, and stay vigilant.

CPL changes passed Michigan Senate (SB59)

There was a lot of talk about reforming some of Michigan's gun laws. Snyder (and Michigan State Police) was behind the scenes pushing back against a lot of it. He's not a real friend of gun owners, although he's not Gretchen Whitmer or Joe Schwarz on this issue either from what I hear.  Probably similar to Granholm or Engler who won't oppose it if it is politically expedient. Granholm was awful as AG on this issue (tied too much with Duggan), not bad on this issue as governor (thanks to Cherry), and now back to her AG views with her talk show (ie Stand your ground comments after she signed a similar bill in MI). I was hoping to get rid of registration/licensing completely. That didn't happen.

I was hoping this would go further than it did. It's still much more good than bad. The two bads are the OC loophole in CEZ's by CPL holders is officially closed, and hearing notices are now first class mail instead of certified. The rest are improvements, including exemptions for "special" CPLS (rather repeal completely), and sheriffs doing all the gun board work (rather be gone completely, but it's better). This reminds me a bit of the original CPL bill. Some good steps, but it isn't perfect.

A compromise bill, SB 59, passed the Michigan Senate that did I think more good than bad. Mlive gives a brief run down. 

LANSING, MI - County concealed weapons licensing boards would be eliminated and sheriffs would take over their duties under a bill approved Thursday by the Michigan Senate.
The legislation – passed 27-11 in the Republican-led chamber – next goes to the Republican-led House for its consideration in the final weeks of the 2011-12 legislative session.
Some of the changes contained in the proposal, according to an analysis provided by Republicans:
• Concealed carry permit holders who get additional, enhanced training beyond basic requirements and spend more time at the gun range would be allowed to carry concealed in so-called “gun free” zones such as schools and churches. The pistol-free zones would remain in effect for others. “Open carry” in those zones would be prohibited.
• County concealed weapons licensing boards would be eliminated, and county sheriffs would assume their duties. County clerks and state police would continue to have roles in the process. Sheriffs would continue to consult with prosecutors and police on applicants.
• A license decision would have to be made within 45 days of application – one of the provisions aimed at streamlining the permit process.

Some of it I like. Some of it I wish goes further. I like the boards being eliminated period with the police out out of the equation completely (sorry Murph), but I'd much rather have the sheriffs there than the prosecutors and especially MSP. MSP out of the equation is a huge win and reduces gamesmanship. They are no friends of freedom.

One of the best aspects of this bill is that an applicant may no longer be required to meet with the sheriff's rep (formerly board) unless the sheriff's dept believes the applicant may not be qualified for a CPL. That's eliminates a major inconvenience in some counties. 

The bill prohibited licensing authorities from requiring other documents (Doctor's notes were a problem in Kent County) and extra fees outside what is legislated.

Stalling by counties on fingerprints does not affect the 45 day window for temporary licenses.

An exemption is required allowing CPL holders to carry in some CEZ's (criminal empowerment zones). Exemption requests that are denied can be appealed.

The training now requires firing at least 98 rounds of ammo, not 30.

The new exemption covers this:

k) An individual who applies for and is granted an exemption

from this section by the licensing authority. An individual is

eligible for an exemption from this section only if the individual

requests an exemption on his or her license application and 1 or

more of the following apply:

     (i) The individual is a licensee or is applying for an initial

or renewal license or an exemption under this subdivision who

provides a certificate indicating on its face that the individual

has completed not less than 8 hours of training in addition to the

training required under sections 5b(7)(c) and 5j that satisfies all

of the following conditions:

     (A) It includes both classroom and range time.

     (B) It includes the firing of not fewer than an additional 94

rounds.

     (C) It focuses on the training principles described in section

5b(7)(c) as they apply to public places and premises listed in

subsection (1) as limited under subsection (5).

     (D) It is provided by an agency of this state or by a national

or state firearms training organization.

     (E) The training instructor is certified as a firearms

instructor by this state or by a national or state firearms

training organization and is eligible under section 5j to provide

training under section 5b(7)(c).

     (F) The training is completed not more than 5 years

immediately preceding the date of application for an original or

renewal license or an exemption under this subdivision.

     (ii) The individual is certified as a firearms instructor by

this state or by a national or state firearms training

organization, and is eligible under section 5j to provide training

under section 5b(7)(c). It is prima facie evidence that the

individual is eligible for an exemption under this subparagraph if

the individual possesses a certificate as a firearms instructor

issued by this state or by a national or state firearms training

organization that meets the requirements of section 5j.

     (6) The licensing authority may delegate the responsibility

for issuing or denying issuance of an exemption under subsection

(5)(k) to the clerk of the licensing authority for current

licensees only.

     (7) The licensing authority or the clerk under subsection (6),

as applicable, shall within 10 days after receiving an application

for an exemption, either issue or deny issuance of the exemption

and send by first-class mail in a sealed envelope a replacement

license to the applicant with the exemption indorsement or, if the

exemption is denied, a notice of denial. If the exemption is

denied, the notice of denial shall specifically state the statutory

authority for the denial. Nothing in this subsection prohibits the

licensing authority or the clerk, as applicable, from making a

determination regarding the exemption at the time the application

is submitted and immediately either issuing a replacement license

to the applicant that contains the exemption indorsement or denying

the exemption and immediately providing the written notice of the

denial, including the statement of the statutory authority for the

denial, to the applicant.

     (8) If the licensing authority delegates the responsibility

for issuing or denying issuance of an exemption under section 5o to

the clerk of the licensing authority, the entire fee paid for the

exemption and the replacement license shall be deposited in the

concealed pistol licensing fund and credited to the account

established for the clerk of the licensing authority.

     (9) If the applicant is licensed under this act to carry a

concealed pistol at the time he or she is granted an exemption

under section 5o, the applicant shall surrender his or her license

to the licensing authority by mail or in person immediately upon

receiving his or her replacement license containing the exemption

indorsement.

     (10) An individual licensed under this act to carry a

concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section

12a(1)(h), shall not intentionally display or openly carry a pistol

on the premises listed in subsection (1)(a) to (h) unless the

individual owns the premises described in subsection (1) or is

employed or contracted by the owner or other person with control

over the premises described in subsection (1), if the possession of

the firearm is to provide security services for the premises or is

otherwise in the scope of the individual's official duties, or the

individual is acting with the express written consent of the ownerof the premises or an agent of the owner of the premis

Why does this always have to be so convoluted? I need to give Mike Green's office a call and see what is defined as a "state or national firearms training organization." At first glance, my gut tells me likely NRA, as they are the usual standard, but I'd like to rely on more than that. What is going to piss off some people is the subtle open carry ban by cpl holders in those CEZ's. Depending on some technicalities, one is possibly allowed to open carry in some cez's if that individual is a cpl holder. This is no longer the case without the exemption. Violations of carrying in criminal empowerment zones are the same. Civil infraction and CPL suspension for 1st offense. Misdeamenor and revoke for 2nd offense. Felony for 3rd offense and CPL revoked.

I don't like at all the certified mail being replaced by first class mail for hearing notices. I don't trust first class mail very much unless it's certified.

There's added projection for the "village idiot" clause. If there is "clear and present" danger, an applicant or CPL holder is a danger to the public, the applicant is entitled to legal council at the hearing to help make sure this actually is the case and not gamesmanship.

Interestingly, the Michigan Senate on guns is probably more partisan now than ever. Part of that is probably 2010 election results by location.

Roll Call No. 791 Yeas—27

Booher Green Kowall Proos
Brandenburg Hansen Marleau Richardville
Casperson Hildenbrand Meekhof Robertson
Caswell Hune Moolenaar Rocca
Colbeck Jansen Nofs Schuitmaker
Emmons Jones Pappageorge Walker
Gleason Kahn Pavlov

Nays—11

Anderson Hood Johnson Whitmer
Bieda Hopgood Smith Young
Gregory Hunter Warren

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Hansen

The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.

Anderson's vote surprised me a little. The rest did not. Gleason's the lone dem voting for this bill. Back in the original CPL days, about 1/3 of the dems supported it and 1/4 of the republicans opposed. Now no republicans opposed it, and only one dem supported it. It'll be interesting to see what the house does.  

 

The UN Arms Trade Treaty - Boy who cried wolf or actual wolf?

My opinion of the UN is that the US should get out of the UN. I have a real problem with Americans ceding sovereignty to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats.  That's not going to happen, so we need to stay alert.

There's a lot of hype over the last 15 years or so about global gun control and the UN Small Arms Treaty (now Arms Trade Treaty). A lot of the hype is dismissed in mainstream thought partly due to a lot of boy who cry wolf claims. Some of the facts to consider are this.

1. The US Constitution supercedes any treaty.
2. All treaties do not take effect until POTUS signs it and Senate ratifies it.
3. There currently is no signed agreement.
4. There ARE global gun control advocates who target "civilian" owners of firearms here in the US. Rebecca Peters is the most notable, and supports global gun control over the US "who needs to join the rest of the world."
5. There was a push for a very restrictive treaty opposed by the Bush administration which rejected it.
6. There was another treaty on the table in 2012. There was no vote, but discussion about more talks in 2013.
7. There's draft language from the last conference.

In short, right now there is a wolf pup. It's a potential threat, but not the same as a full grown timberwolf. We need to be wary and watch this, and make sure that there is no full grown wolf out there, but at the same time not to panic until it is there.

The draft language is on the UN website along with an assortment of views about what they think should happen. 

Some things from the draft language stand out.

"This treaty covers......."small arms and light weapons." 

Small arms for those who don't know cover almost all firearms outside of possibly black powder or some shotguns. It includes pistols, revolvers, and deer rifles. Keep in mind that hunting guns are or once were military guns, at least in style. The calibers are similar, or even more powerful. If you don't believe me, compare a .223 AR-15 round to a .30-06. Speaking of .30-06, that's the same caliber as the classic M1-Garand. Anyone who thinks that these don't target hunting firearms needs to "wake the bleep up and smell the Maple Nut Crunch." 

"Each state party shall establish...a national control list" 

That references small arms. 

"Each state party shall take all appropiate legislative and administrative measures necessary to impliment the provisions of this treaty and shall designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective and transparent national control system regulating the international transfer of conventional arms."

I read that as registration. "But it's international." Firearms owners reading this should look where their guns are made. While many are American, a lot of them are not. A lot of the firearms companies are not American, including some of the biggest here. Glock is an Austrian company. Beretta and Benelli are Italian. Walther, Sig Sauer, Lugar, and H&K are German. FN is Belgian. Makarov is Russian. Uzi is Israeli. Lee-Enfield is British. A lot of the American arms go overseas....or to Mexico through the Obama Administration's Fast and Furious plan.

Each state party shall designate one or more national points of contact to exchange information on matters related to implementation of this treaty. 

Sounds like registration to me.

"Each state party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of ammunition for conventional arms...."

Great. Ammo control. This should cause .223 and .308 sales to skyrocket. .45ACP as well. There's an identical measure for parts and components too.

There's also recordkeeping provisions as well. There's several references to "unauthorized end use" as well.

That's the draft language. It could be more or less restrictive. You have Amnesty Intl, Oxfam, and Iansa pushing hard for global gun grabs in addition to the unacceptable registration requirements in this draft language treaty.

Unfortunately, registration may very well make it past SCOTUS. It's not (yet) confiscation.  Be prepared for the wolf and keep an eye out on this come March.

Birmingham Open Carry Case - NOT GUILTY!

There was no crime committed here at all. Frankly, this shouldn't even have gone to trial, and I hope Sean and his attorneys look at appropiate legal measures in response to overzealous law enforcement and an overzealous city attorney. This was a travesty, and a firearm carried over the shoulder is not brandishing.

From the Detroit News

A recent Troy High School graduate was acquitted Thursday of all charges in his arrest for carrying a rifle in downtown Birmingham.
A jury in 48th District Court found Sean M. Combs, 18, not guilty of brandishing a firearm and disturbing the peace.
Judge Marc Barron on Wednesday had issued a directed verdict dismissing a charge of resisting and obstructing a police officer after Combs' attorney, James Makowski, argued that city attorney Mary Kucharek had not proven that offense.
"I think they came up with the right verdict," Combs said after his acquittal. "It took them a while, but at the end of the day, I think it was the right decision."
Outside the courtroom, Combs was all smiles as he hugged his mother, Pam Mytnik. His older brothers, Chris and Patrick Combs, and girlfriend, Lia Grabowski, also were present.
Mytnik said she hopes the case encourages people to learn the law. "I just think everyone needs to know the laws before we make arrests, and I would like to see that in the future," she said.
Combs' attorney said he was pleased with the verdict.
"I've said from the beginning this is not a gun rights case, this is a civil rights case," Makowski said. Kucharek declined to comment on the verdict.

Throwing in the catch-all bullshit made it worse. I second this quote 100%. 

Certainly his choice to open carry and his understanding of the law and the validity of the law have all been vindicated," said John Pierce, co-founder and spokesman for OpenCarry.org. "But what this was really a victory for is the fact that you can't use these nebulous provisions such as disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct as a way of chilling behavior that is otherwise legal."

Notice who didn't prosecute this case. It wasn't the county prosecutor. This was a city attorney who prosecuted this case. County didn't touch it.

I am a 2nd Amendment absolutist when it comes to rights and laws against it although I personally choose not to open carry. Open carry is however legal, and should continue to be legal. Period. However, I personally believe in using appropriate discretion. Sometimes, things that are legal are bad tactics. While open carry of a long gun is legal and should be legal, I question the judgment of long gun open carry in an urban or suburban setting. I've seen open carry of long guns quite often and have open carried them myself during hunting season. I would not open carry my shotgun in downtown Brighton. In parts of the Brighton Rec Area nearby, it'd hardly raise an eyebrow. Most people would assume that it was a hunter. 

I think someone who open carries should get a belt holster, get a pistol, and carry it on the side. It's not going to draw the same attention as long-gun carry does. I've seen that much more often, and I haven't seen anyone comment about it.

Whether you agree or disagree though with the judgment that Combs used, the bottom line here that there was a shady prosecution for a legal behavior that violates a social norm in Birmingham, long known as a very anti-gun area. Just because you may not like the behavior, doesn't mean it's okay to try and toss someone into jail and give a record over it. Using catchall and creative technicalities is an evil technique that needs to be slapped down hard. Certain law enforcement agencies and city attorneys need to be held accountable for this and face consequences. This prosecution is ten times more criminal than anything Sean Combs did. 

HB5225 - State House votes to end the pistol permit system!

This took over 80 years to fix. The state house, led by Paul Opsommer, Ray Franz, and Richard LeBlanc all came through for the 2nd Amendment by repealing the worst of Michigan's gun control laws. This puts the pistol system in line with federal law. The NICS checks would still be in effect if it passes the state senate.This would eliminate the pistol purchase permit requirements. There's still some registration, but this also requires MSP to destroy records within 6 months of passage.

This was a somewhat bipartisan effort. All republicans voted correctly on this, along with 11 democrats. I'm a little surprised at some of the dem votes both for and against.  I expected better from Hammel, Constan, Kandrevas, and Clemente. Downriver and Flint burbs have usually been favorable to 2a. Interestingly, this August will have a primary race between Liss and Switalski. If you are a 2a supporter of any party in parts of Warren, then remember that election time. I'm slightly surprised in a good way with Oakes (in Mike Hanley's old district?), Slavens, Schmidt, and Dillon (Man oh man have things changed in Kent County the last 15 years on this issue - in a good way), but that's largely due to the districts more than anything else.

There's three Republican votes that surprised me. I won't mention who because they did the right thing. I don't want to put doubt in minds of readers when reps vote correctly. Heise is a big improvement over the last two republicans in that district.

From Michigan Votes:

IN FAVOR

HOUSE DEMOCRATS

Brunner (D)	Byrum (D)	Dillon (D)	Lane (D)	LeBlanc (D)
Liss (D)	Oakes (D)	Schmidt, R. (D)	Segal (D)	Slavens (D)
Smiley (D)

HOUSE REPUBLICANS

Agema (R)	Bolger (R)	Bumstead (R)	Callton (R)	Cotter (R)
Crawford (R)	Daley (R)	Damrow (R)	Denby (R)	Farrington (R)
Forlini (R)	Foster (R)	Franz (R)	Genetski (R)	Gilbert (R)
Glardon (R)	Goike (R)	Graves (R)	Haines (R)	Haveman (R)
Heise (R)	Hooker (R)	Horn (R)	Hughes (R)	Huuki (R)
Jacobsen (R)	Jenkins (R)	Johnson (R)	Knollenberg (R)	Kowall (R)
Kurtz (R)	LaFontaine (R)	Lori (R)	Lund (R)	Lyons (R)
MacGregor (R)	MacMaster (R)	McBroom (R)	McMillin (R)	Moss (R)
Muxlow (R)	Nesbitt (R)	O'Brien (R)	Olson (R)	Opsommer (R)
Ouimet (R)	Outman (R)	Pettalia (R)	Poleski (R)	Potvin (R)
Price (R)	Pscholka (R)	Rendon (R)	Rogers (R)	Schmidt, W. (R)
Shaughnessy (R)	Shirkey (R)	Somerville (R)	Stamas (R)	Tyler (R)
Walsh (R)	Yonker (R)	Zorn (R)

---

AGAINST

HOUSE DEMOCRATS

Ananich (D)	Barnett (D)	Bauer (D)	Bledsoe (D)	Brown (D)
Cavanagh (D)	Clemente (D)	Constan (D)	Darany (D)	Durhal (D)
Geiss (D)	Greimel (D)	Hammel (D)	Haugh (D)	Hobbs (D)
Hovey-Wright (D)	Howze (D)	Irwin (D)	Jackson (D)	Kandrevas (D)
Lindberg (D)	Lipton (D)	McCann (D)	Meadows (D)	Nathan (D)
Olumba (D)	Rutledge (D)	Santana (D)	Stallworth (D)	Stanley (D)
Stapleton (D)	Switalski (D)	Talabi (D)	Tlaib (D)	Townsend (D)
Womack (D)

It's on to the State Senate. It should pass there if it goes up for a vote. Richardville isn't reliable on fiscal issues all the time, but he's solid on 2nd Amendment issues. Hopefully Snyder will sign it. I don't think he has that strong of opinion on this issue one way or the other, but I don't think he'd stand in our way with it if it heads to our desk.

George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin, Stand your ground, self-defense, and manslaughter

Everyone knows about the George Zimmerman case in Florida, or at least all of the speculation with it. The speculation has taken a life of its own. The reality is that few actual facts are known. They are as follows.

1. George Zimmerman is a neighborhood watch volunteer.
2. Zimmerman saw someone he thought was suspicious and followed him. This was Martin.
3. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed him when Martin tried to avoid him. Dispatch said he did not need to do that. That wasn't a lawful order, but is relevant to state of mind.
4. Zimmerman was armed. Martin was not.
5. At some point, there was a physical confrontation. There is speculation as to how it occurred and who initiated the physical confrontation.
6. Somebody was yelling for help. Speculation has conflicting sides to who it was.
7. Zimmerman had some sort of bleeding wound on the back of his head and nose, as well as grass standing showing that he was on the ground at some point.
8. As some point Zimmerman fired his weapon, killing Martin.
9. Police arrived and initiated a manslaughter investigation, detained Zimmerman and took him to the station.
10. Zimmerman was later released without charges. There is speculation as to whose decision it was for released. Zimmerman was not arrested. That means either there was no probable cause for an arrest or the prosecutor did not think there would be a conviction.
11. There is going to be further investigation, so this case is not closed.
12. Zimmerman has no convictions. Yes, he was arrested, but not convicted so that's irrelevant. Martin has no convictions. Yes he was suspended from school, but that's irrelevant. Those have no bearing on what happened in this individual case.

That's it. The rest is speculation, or irrelevant unless you have the inside information, and we don't outside of what has been released. Most of the rest is 'go team' bullshit going on between those who love the race card and limelight and those who want Zimmerman to win just so the Jesse Jacksons of the world lose. I like to see them lose too, but other things are more important here. You have politicians running their mouths on this when there's an ongoing case. Obama didn't help matters, but Santorum was actually worse with his comments, and I say that as a Santorum voter. Both of them are attorneys, should know better, and should let the system play out. The media at first, largely based on George Zimmerman's German or Jewish last name, played this up as a white on black shooting, stirring stuff up, even though Zimmerman's half Peruvian and does not look white. They made this a racial issue. Political correctness at its worst.

You have ABC likely doctoring a video so it fits their politically correct narrative. You have the New Black Panthers taking out a $10,000 bounty. You have Al Sharpton of Crown Heights infamy running his mouth. Jesse Jackson doing his thing. This is an ongoing case. State attorneys are still looking at this. Zimmerman deserves a fair investigation and if probable cause is found, a fair trial, and a chance to be either convicted or acquitted based on facts and the evidence, no more, no less.

You also have gun grabbers using this to attack the "stand your ground" law. Stand your ground has nothing to do with this. Michigan has a "stand your ground" law as does Florida. Here's Michigan's law. It sounds very controversial, right. Jennifer Granholm signed it, and she wore a hoodie in protest of this case and made comments on these laws. Does she know what she actually signed?

780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

This wasn't that controversial and passed easily.

Senate vote:
Roll Call No.463 Yeas--27

Allen Cropsey Jelinek Schauer

Barcia Garcia Kuipers Sikkema

Basham George McManus Stamas

Birkholz Gilbert Olshove Switalski

Bishop Goschka Patterson Toy

Cassis Hammerstrom Prusi Van Woerkom

Cherry Hardiman Sanborn

Nays--10

Brater Emerson Leland Thomas

Clark-Coleman Jacobs Scott Whitmer

Clarke Johnson

Excused--1

Brown

House Vote 1:
Roll Call No. 371 Yeas--91

Accavitti Elsenheimer Law, David Sak

Acciavatti Emmons Law, Kathleen Schuitmaker

Adamini Espinoza Marleau Shaffer

Amos Farhat Mayes Sheen

Anderson Farrah McDowell Sheltrown

Angerer Gaffney Meyer Smith, Virgil

Ball Garfield Miller Spade

Baxter Gillard Moolenaar Stahl

Bennett Gleason Moore Stakoe

Bieda Gonzales Mortimer Steil

Booher Gosselin Newell Stewart

Brandenburg Green Nitz Taub

Brown Hansen Nofs Vagnozzi

Byrnes Hildenbrand Palmer Van Regenmorter

Byrum Hoogendyk Palsrok Vander Veen

Casperson Hopgood Pastor Walker

Caswell Huizenga Pavlov Ward

Caul Hummel Pearce Waters

Clemente Hune Plakas Wenke

DeRoche Jones Polidori Williams

Dillon Kahn Proos Wojno

Donigan Kooiman Robertson Zelenko

Drolet LaJoy Rocca

Nays--15

Cheeks Hood Lemmons, Jr. Murphy

Clack Hunter Lipsey Smith, Alma

Condino Kolb McConico Tobocman

Cushingberry Leland Meisner


House Vote 2:

Brandenburg Green Mortimer Stewart

Brown Hansen Newell Taub

Byrnes Hildenbrand Nitz Van Regenmorter

Byrum Hoogendyk Nofs Vander Veen

Casperson Hopgood Palmer Walker

Caswell Huizenga Palsrok Ward

Caul Hummel Pastor Waters

Clemente Hune Pavlov Wenke

DeRoche Jones Pearce Williams

Dillon Kahn Plakas Wojno

Donigan Kooiman Polidori Zelenko

Drolet LaJoy Proos

Nays--16

Cheeks Hood Lipsey Smith, Alma

Clack Hunter McConico Smith, Virgil

Condino Kolb Meisner Tobocman

Cushingberry Leland Murphy Vagnozzi

--------

These passed with super-majorities. These passed easily nationwide, including Florida. Florida's version is quite similar.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

776.012 covers stand your ground.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013's circumstances are:

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

What's a forcible felony under Florida law? It's what you'd think it would be.

776.08 Forcible felony. —“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

Just to cover all the bases, here's aggravated assault and aggravated battery as defined under Florida law.

784.045 Aggravated battery.—
(1)(a) A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery:
1. Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; or
2. Uses a deadly weapon.
(b) A person commits aggravated battery if the person who was the victim of the battery was pregnant at the time of the offense and the offender knew or should have known that the victim was pregnant.
(2) Whoever commits aggravated battery shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

And:

784.021 Aggravated assault.—
(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.
(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

The stand your ground law there is very similar to ours, although Florida's more detailed. It doesn't cover this case at all any more than normal self defense.

Reasonable is a key word here. Reasonable not as viewed by George Zimmerman, his dad, those who don't like race baiting assholes and want to teach them a lesson, those who are race baiting assholes who want to teach cracker and whatever is derogatory for Peruvians a lesson, Al Sharpton, or anyone else except the jury or police/prosecutors when they decide to charge/not charge.

The questions that need to be answered are this as the process unfolds.
1. Is there probable cause to charge George Zimmerman with Manslaughter?
2. If yes, can he be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a fair trial?

No more, no less. The best thing the general public and media can do is let the system play out and quit poisoning the case.

House passes national reciprocity

HR 822 passed the house and will be going on its way to the Senate.

From Thomas

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

`(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)), a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--

`(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

`(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

`(b) The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.

`(c) In subsection (a), the term `identification document' means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

`926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.

(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. GAO AUDIT OF THE STATES' CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT OR LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-RESIDENTS.

(a) The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct an audit of--

(1) the laws and regulations of each State that authorize the issuance of a valid permit or license to permit a person, other than a resident of such State, to possess or carry a concealed firearm, including a description of the permitting or licensing requirements of each State that issues concealed carry permits or licenses to persons other than a resident of such State;

(2) the number of such valid permits or licenses issued or denied (and the basis for such denials) by each State to persons other than a resident of such State; and

(3) the effectiveness of such State laws and regulations in protecting the public safety.

(b) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).

There were several votes on this, including amendments. Nine amendments. All of them failed, as did the "motion to recommit"

The Final Bill passed 272-154 with 7 not voting. This was a mostly party line vote. 43 Democrats voted yes and 7 Republicans voted no. The Republican no votes were Justin Amash, Robert Dold, Michael Grimm, Peter King, Dan Lungren, Bob Turner, and Rob Woodall. Interesting, three of the no votes were from metro New York City.

Among the Michigan Delegation on the final Bill
Yes - Huizenga, Camp, Rogers, McCotter, Benishek, Upton, Walberg, Huizenga, Miller, Dingell
No - Amash, Peters, Levin, Clarke, Conyers,

Not good, Amash. Not good at all.

Roll Call has the amendments listed

Rob Woodall (R-Ga.), to protect the right of states that already have reciprocal agreements in place to continue enforcing those pre-existing agreements. Failed 140-280

. 14 Republicans supported, 63 dems opposed.
Michigan Delegation's yes votes voted no and vice versa.

Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), to specify that the legislation can only go into effect in states that have passed legislation enacting the bill. Failed 147-274.

That effectively kills the bill. 4 Republicans voted yes. 43 Democrats voted no. Republicans voting yes were Amash, Dold, Woodall, and King.

There's a few others amendments in the same mold. The Roll Calls are all here.

Open Carry and preemption court fight in Lansing

I'm going to start out with this. I am a 2nd Amendment absolutist when it comes to firearms laws. I support open carry as well from a RIGHTS standpoint - as in government shouldn't ban it. On the same note, we need to be smart and look at reality when it comes to public opinion on firearms and make sure our tactics are sound. Be smart.

Public opinion with gun laws is generally this. 25-30% are die hard pro-2nd Amendment supporters. They are on our side no matter what. 10-20% are die hard antis no matter what. 50-65% slightly lean one way or the other, but it's not a big issue with them. Mostly they don't want the boat rocked. That's why major gun legislation usually does not pass and why we have incremental pieces of gun control repeals.

In other words, when you represent firearms owners, you better make sure you don't piss off the independents.

The most divisive issue right now in the movement is open carry. It's a big one in Michigan, California, and Virginia, along with other places. I support open carry as a rights issue. We do not have the bill of needs. We have the Bill of Rights. If somebody wants to open carry, I personally have no problem with it despite my own choice not to open carry (I prefer concealed). I don't care if someone has no "so called need" to open carry. That's not my judgment call to make.

Open carry is legal in Michigan. Anyone who legally owns a firearm and passes the Federal NICS check or Michigan's pistol background check can carry openly in Michigan. It is legal. There is no law against it, only brandishing.

A different law on firearms is the preemption act. That's to avoid a patchwork of gun laws in Michigan so that one isn't unknowingly breaking the law, which is quite easy to do. The preemption act passed in 1990. Public Act 319 of 1990

In short, public act 319 disallows in most cases a "local unit of government" from being more stringent than state law. The statute defines “Local unit of government” means a city, village, township, or county. That's a big issue right now with open carry issue, because it's now in the news.

From The Lansing State Journal

A court order that bars people from openly carrying a firearm onto Capital Area District Library property will stand until at least June.

Ingham County Circuit Judge Rosemarie Aquilina on Tuesday broadened a Feb. 16 ruling to now keep anyone from openly toting firearms on the library's grounds. Her previous restraining order had applied only to members of Michigan Open Carry or associated people.

"I wish I could say that you could all carry weapons wherever you wanted, but I can't say that," Aquilina said during a hearing attended by gun rights advocates and library officials. "I do believe the library can regulate whether weapons come in or don't come in the library."

Library officials requested an injunction to bar people from openly carrying firearms on the premises in February, after four incidents since December where people believed to be members of Michigan Open Carry brought firearms into the building.

Aquilina said because the library is an "authority," it does not fall within a jurisdiction - city, township, village or county - where state law requires open carry to be allowed. She set a June 6-7 evidentiary hearing to more thoroughly go through evidence and make a declarative ruling on the issue.

I don't agree with the rules and have a lot of procedural concerns with it as the individual who caused the clustermuck by all accounts was not a member of Michigan Open Carry (and was not allowed to join). That's a side issue though that can be sorted out at the next hearing.

Now other statutes, including Michigan Constitution has "authorities" as local units of government. Both sides agree that the library is an "authority." The preemption statute does not specifically say authorities are local units of government, but other statutes do. While Michigan Open Carry had a great argument in their brief, there was just enough room for interpretation. We now have a court fight.

What's the point besides rights issues? Don't be a dumbass. Don't be a test case when you don't have to be one. That's the point. This whole fight, and the definition of what constitutes "local unit of government" in statute, was avoidable. While we as gun owners may win in the end, we did not have to put ourselves in a position to lose when we don't have to do so.

Open Carry in of itself isn't the problem. If I carried my pistol, in a side holster, exposed for all to see, it probably would not get much reaction. If I wore brown khakis and a button down shirt like I sometimes do, you'd probably think I was a cop or security.

If I walked in open carrying a shotgun or rifle outside of hunting season in a rural area, I'm going to have a lot of eyes on me and people wondering what the Hell I'm doing. If I saw someone open carrying a long gun, I would have one hand near my concealed gun while I look to get the Hell out of there. An open carry pistol in a holster, no big deal.

The Lansing area isn't known to be a friendly city in the first place to the 2nd Amendment. This is the area that gave us a lot of people who didn't even support the non controversial Vear Bill. Laura Baird, Lynne Martinez, Mike Murphy, Joan Bauer, Lingg Brewer, Virg Bernero, Gretchen Whitmer, and Mark Meadows have long records opposing firearms rights in the state legislature. All represented either Lansing, East Lansing, or both. Stuart Dunnings and Gene Wriggelsworth are two of the most anti 2a prosecutors and sheriffs in the state. It is what it is when it comes to that area.

So what caused this fight? An individual decided to open carry a shotgun to the Capitol Area District Library in Lansing. This alarmed people, and he was asked to leave. Others open carried there afterward and the CADL pushed for an injunction banning open carry there and got it. The judge considered "authorities" which the library is, not to be a unit of local government as it pertains to the preemption act. There will be another hearing on this in the future.

In my opinion (not a legal sense or political one), the individual open carried a shotgun there in the same way we have Jerry Springer shows. Shock value intended to inflame people, be in your face, and draw attention. It does not help the firearms movement. It is a bad tactic. While gun control is viewed as a big loser of an issue these days, our rights were in extreme danger of major bans back in 1999 and 2000 under Clinton/Gore, and no CPLs. I remember those days well. While open carry is legal, it won't be if this crap continues to happen. As gun owners, we need to exercise our rights, and do so in a responsible way. I doubt a pistol in a holster would garner the same reaction as a OCed shotgun. This created a bad test case which gave the antis an opening.

What's my biggest concern with this besides more gun control in general? Authorities cover a lot of aspects of local government. If the final decision in this is adverse, this can be expanded to a lot of other areas, most concerning to me being parking lots, and hence carrying in your car in those areas. This can be real bad news for us if the decision stands and holds up on appeals.

At best, this is going to cost a lot of money to defend. For those who don't like open carry, keep in mind that this case affects concealed carry and all gun control, as the challenge affects the preemption act, not specifically limited to open carry. While we as gun owners may not like what caused the fight and not want to be a part of it, the legal issues affect all of us, even those who do not open carry.

Stay tuned. This story isn't going away anytime soon. They'll be another hearing on this, and one side is going to appeal this no matter what happens.

SAFR-PAC ratings are released, as is some NRA ratings

I'm wearing a non-partisan for this post. The ratings for the Shooters Alliance for Firearms Rights (SAFR-PAC) has released their ratings for the 2010 primary. Some of the endorsements are out and have been in the press releases, most notably Mike Cox. Cox got the endorsement because of his record. That's not an attack on Bouchard or George (The others wern't considered because of no surveys) who have good records, but it was a case of good vs best on this issue. There is a typo that needs to be fixed. Tim Walberg was endorsed in the primary for 7th District congress.

I did not grade any surveys, records, or statements from any district where I have a client. I stayed out of those decisions due to conflicts of interest. That includes the 22nd District here in Livingston County.

SAFR-PAC is nonpartisan. It does not even ask party affiliation on its surveys and the only time it matters is in primaries where there is one democrat and one republican both worthy of an endorsement. This happened in a couple of races, most notably the 1st congressional, where Jason Allen and Gary McDowell both received endorsements in their primary, and in the 31st Senate District where both Jeff Mayes and Mike Green have received endorsements in the primary. McDowell and Mayes are unopposed, but those will be automatic general election endorsements if Allen and Green don't win. More and more democrats have received acceptable ratings and endorsements than in the past, and a lot of that has to do with the votes taken, and committee decisions. Believe it or not, Andy Dillon and Joel Sheltrown on natural resources did more for gun owners than the senate. Note to Republicans. Don't take gun owners for granted, especially on the state level. Virg Bernero, Steve Bieda and the Levin brothers are beyond unacceptable, but not all are like them.

If we get a matchup say between Dillon and Rick Michigan, I think there will be a large number of defections on this issue. Rick Michigan was given an unknown rating. It's very accurate, and that goes for most issues, outside of life and outsourcing. We know where he stands there, and it isn't good.

Close to home, Joe Hune and Cindy Denby have been endorsed. Bill Rogers received an acceptable rating. Paul Rogers received a mixed rating on his survey, and Chuck Fellows received an unacceptable rating (which means he supports more gun control). James Delcamp and Garry Post didn't turn in surveys. Paul Rogers was even more harshly graded by the NRA and got a D which translates to an unacceptable rating with SAFR-PAC. Ouch. Don't blame my ties to Joe for that one (or either of them really - since I didn't grade Paul))

The NRA ratings are similar, but there is one major difference. The NRA endorsed Fred Upton. SAFR-PAC rated him mixed (about equivalent to a C) and endorsed Jack Hoogendyk. Casperson was endorsed by the NRA, while SAFR-PAC solely endorsed Mike Lahti. Upton had a large number of bad votes in the past and his record with SAFR reflects that. It's gotten better, and that's why it was a mixed and not unacceptable rating, but it's not good enough for acceptable.

Interesting enough, gun control is not always a partisan issue in Michigan, and not just up North. The worst survey of anybody was by a Republican on the west side of the state. I won't say who, the NRA also rated him an F, and we rated him unacceptable. That's a good enough reference for someone that looks hard enough to figure out. This is particularly true in West Michigan, where there are more anti-gun republican politicians than one cares to admit. It's gotten better, but Schwarz, Byl, Steil Sr, Gast, Hollinrake, and Jellema all came from there.

The Second Amendment protects the rest, and those that don't support that safeguard are unworthy of our votes.

McDonald v Chicago in

I have mixed views about the Chicago gun case. To put it best, I concur with the judgement. I am not a believer in "substantive due process", only procedural due process. I believe that the Bill of Rights was intended to apply to the states through the 14th Amendment's Privileges and Immunities provisions. I would have loved to have seen Slaughterhouse, Cruikshank, and Presser eliminated completely. SCOTUS did not address those cases which was a shame. I tend to agree much more with Justice Thomas's partly concurring and concurring in the judgment opinion. I do have strong biases against the Doe, Roe, and Casey cases however.

SCOTUS followed the current "selective incorporation" process, much the same way as the 1st amendment was passed on to the states.

I don't believe in the perfect being the enemy of the good, and overall this was good. I think it could be better, but this is a big improvement over crooks and cops being the only ones to have the guns. When only the police have guns, the result is a police state.

Regardless of that, one scary determination is that we are one judge away from losing this. Obama's Sotomayor is who we thought she was and took her Cruikshank support to SCOTUS. Ginsburg's civil liberty support ends at those she doesn't like. Stevens and Breyer are well known in their views and are no surprise. It is absolutely critical that a firewall is built to stop Obama from replacing one of the five.

This isn't over, not by a longshot.

The rise of the Open Carry of firearms

I caught this in the Argus today. Open Carry made the news today.

From the Argus

An Ohio man was ordered at gunpoint to lie on the ground in July after someone called 911 to report that he was walking down the street with a handgun, which was holstered. One of the responding officers told him, "You cannot just walk down the street with a weapon."

The Constitution says otherwise.

"If one chooses to carry a weapon in Michigan, one can do so without a license," Brian Jeffs, president of Michigan Open Carry Inc., said. "There's no law that says it's illegal."

Livingston County Prosecutor David Morse agreed, saying, "You're granted the right through the Constitution."

Michigan Open Carry, a nonprofit organization that promotes the lawful carrying of a handgun, recently participated in a luncheon sponsored by the Christian motorcycle club In God We Trust M/C in the hopes of educating the public about openly carrying handguns. It's a movement that has grown nationwide since 2004, Jeffs said.

However, there are numerous incidents — some of which have led to lawsuits — in which police officers and the general public misunderstand or just plain don't know about the right to carry a weapon openly.

Any law-abiding citizen of Michigan who can legally possess a firearm may openly carry that firearm in a holster in all places not explicitly exempt by law without a concealed pistol license. Those exempt places — where weapons cannot be carried — include banks, churches, courts, theaters, sports arenas, day-care centers, hospitals and establishments under the Liquor Control Act, which would include bars and stores that sell alcohol.

A person may not, however, brandish the weapon. A Michigan attorney general opinion from 2002 states that to brandish is to "waive or flourish menacingly" or "to display ostentatiously." A person also may not openly carry a weapon in a vehicle unless that individual has a concealed pistol license.

Personally, I don't care to participate in open carry, although I understand it. I don't want the attention on me. I prefer concealed carry. I can understand why someone would open carry. It does not have the same restrictions as concealed carry.

County GOP chair and Undersheriff Mike Murphy's comments here made the paper.

Murphy said as an officer he has no problem with individuals exercising their right to openly carry a gun. However, he believes doing so should be a concern for everyone in the community.

"Everyone should be concerned for reasons such as, you don't know if they are mental or have ill intent," he explained.

Murph and I briefly discussed this issue before. He's supports concealed carry, but isn't a fan of open carry. That aside, everyone who buys a firearm from a dealer has to go through the background check. All pistol buyers also need to get registration. He knows that. I think the big reason is that his department gets a few calls over it, and that becomes a hassle. There aren't calls over concealed carry. To use an old CPL saying, concealed means concealed.

The calls to the police over this are from ignorance and uninformed citizens. That's expected. Most people don't know that open carry is legal. Many cops don't know it is legal. Many attorneys don't know that it is legal. Even I did not know until last year that it was legal. I thought it was considered brandishing. It's not, and an AG opinion clarified that.

I wrote about Open Carry last year. The open carry movement has come a long way since that time with their activism. That's not bad. Right now, open carry does not look like it will be a test case in court. That's a good thing.

However while I support it as a right, you won't see me open carry. I don't like drawing attention to myself, especially if I'm armed. I don't want the bad guys to know I'm armed. I don't have a problem with those who do open carry. I assume, as I do of most people until proven otherwise, that those who open carry are law abiding citizens. That's their decision, and I support that.