“The three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that a federal ban on gun ownership for those who have been committed to a mental institution violated the Second Amendment rights of 73-year-old Clifford Charles Tyler,” foxnews.com reports. [Click here for the ruling.] “Tyler attempted to buy a gun and was denied on the grounds that he had been committed to a mental institution in 1986 after suffering emotional problems stemming from a divorce. He was only in there for a month.” Does the length of his treatment matter? In fact . . .
In the wake of the George Zimmerman trial, gun control advocates (and race hustlers) demanded the repeal of “stand your ground” laws. Although the laws simply remove the legal obligation to retreat when attacked, and Zimmerman’s defense team never evoked SYG, the antis tried to rebrand SYG as the “shoot first ask questions later” and “a license to kill” law. In truth, a SYG defense is subject to the same “reasonable person” standard as any other use of deadly force. Would a reasonable person have done the same thing? In a Montana murder trial where SYG was raised, the jury’s answer was of course not . . .
“The parents of 10 children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School have filed or soon will file notices in probate court that they plan to make wrongful death claims on their children’s behalf,” msn.com reports. This they’re doing as a prelude to suing Bushmaster, Newtown and/or the Newtown School Board and the estate of Nancy Lanza (the mother of spree killer Adam Lanza, murdered by her son before the attack). “The deadline to file civil lawsuits against the town of Newtown or the school board is Sunday, two years after the shooting. There are circumstances where a lawsuit against a private company, such as a gun manufacturer, could be filed within three years but . . .
In the Peruta v. County of San Diego, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department couldn’t mandate that concealed carry license applicants must prove “just cause” for exercising their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. After the ruling, the San Diego Sheriff’s office said no mas. California Attorney General Kamala Harris jumped in, claiming an interest in the case, demanding a chance to appeal. Too late, the court ruled. And now an unnamed, anti-2A judge on the Ninth Circuit has called for a vote to determine if the Circuit will hear the case en banc. Note: this is a call for a vote to review the original decision. Here’s the order . . .
“The Los Angeles City Council tentatively approved a measure to require electronic tracking of ammunition sales, and considered a second gun control measure,” abc7.com reports, preparing to get out the bloody shirt wavers. “In an effort to keep tabs on who is buying bullets in the city of Los Angeles, the city council approved an ordinance that requires gun stores and dealers to automatically email the LAPD after each sale of ammunition.” LAPD Captain Charles Hearn reckons that’s OK because dealers already keep logs of ammo sales. This just makes it easier to…you know. Be proactive! So what’s the second measure? Bringing itself in line with all of Massachusetts . . .
National Bar Association Statement:
WASHINGTON, DC – The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown. National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson. “We will not rest until Michael Brown and his family has justice” states Pamela Meanes, President of the National Bar Association . . .
For the last two years I have been hunting with suppressed rifles in the state of Texas, and in my experience silencers just make everything better. For starters, it removes the need for hearing protection so you can hear your surroundings much better and often hear animals before they approach. The real reason they rock, though, is plain common courtesy. Guns are loud, and especially in an area densely packed with hunting blinds, one or two big loud guns can scare the game away for everyone else. Plus, the barking of the guns ruins the early morning calm for non-hunters looking to just enjoy the beauty of the day. According to the American Suppressor Association, it looks like those in Florida can now enjoy this same awesome experience effective immediately . . .
COULD THIS MEAN THE END OF THE SIG BRACE FOR AR PISTOLS? the headline at shootingsportsretailer.com asks. “In a letter to short-barreled shotgun manufacturer feds say shouldering an SB15 could be illegal,” the sub-head suggests. “No, it’s not the end of the SIG Brace for AR pistols,” SIG Brace inventor and manufacturer Alex Bosco told TTAG. “The author needs to learn how to read.” Indeed. The ATF letter above addresses an inquiry from Florida gunmaker Eric Lemoine (of blackacestactical.com) about using a SIG Brace on a short-barreled shotgun. And only that proposal. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the SIG Brace and AR pistols. As Bosco makes clear . . .
The impassioned video above didn’t stop the passage of Washington state’s “universal background check” bill. And so an unknown number of gun rights advocates are set to convene at the state capitol to violate the law in plain site. They’ll exchange guns, buy and sell guns and generally play pass the firearm – all in contravention of the newly-approved I-594’s provisions. The cops have yet to declare their intentions for this act of mass (the participants hope) civil disobedience. So it could be a damp squib (hardly anyone shows, the police do nothing and only local media pays attention), an ugly police action (a bit more local media coverage) or something really not good (LOADS of media coverage). Click here for the I Will Not Comply Facebook page. At the time of writing, Resolute for Arms and Liberty has a scant 1650 followers. Still, as Shannon Watts will tell you, the longest journey starts with a single like. [h/t CM]
Now that the Georgia legislature passed their “guns everywhere” bill (as described by its opponents) Peach Tree State streets are running red with the blood of innocents. Or not. Yup. Not. But gun owners still have some heavy lifting to do, as hoplophobic semi-public entitites do what they can to avoid to the carry-on consequences of the Safe Carry Protection Act. To wit: “A Gwinnett County man sued the Atlanta Botanical Gardens Wednesday because he was escorted off the property on the basis that he was opening carrying a gun,” ajc.com reports. “According to the suit filed by Phillip Evans and the gun rights group GeorgiaCarry.org . . .
You may remember that the 9th Circuit Court struck down the “good cause” provision for concealed carry in the County of San Diego. The ruling went to appeal, thanks to The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Presidential heartthrob Attorney General Kamala D. Harris. The two parties attempted to weigh-in on the side of – you guessed it – reversing the ruling, so that statists like San Diego Sheriff William Gore could continue to deny Americans their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. [Click here for Aaron J. Bailey most excellent analysis of the appeal.] The Court has ruled that Brady’s and Harris’ interest in Peruta came too late in the game. [Click here for the Court’s decision.] In the Court’s words . . .
Press Release on the legalities of converting 80% lowers into finished firearms from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive (and Really Big Fires) [via ammoland.com]:
1. Is ATF aware of the receiver blanks, commonly referred to as 80% receivers?
ATF routinely collaborates with the firearms industry and law enforcement to monitor new technologies and current manufacturing trends that could potentially impact the safety of the public.