The first step has been taken in the expansion of the Federal Background Check passed in the House of Representatives March 11, 2021 and is now headed to the newly appointed Democrat-led Senate for approval. We feel it’s important for 2A supporters to be fully educated on the actual bill and invite you to read for yourself the measures that are being taken that will affect your future rights.
Just when you thought Trudeau couldn’t neuter Canada much further, he goes and does something like this. Read On!
Nearly two weeks after the deadliest mass shooting in Canada’s history, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Friday introduced an immediate ban on what he described as “assault-style military weapons.” The 14 hour Nova Scotia shooting spree left 23 people dead, including the gunman.
“These weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time,” Mr. Trudeau said. “There is no use and no place for such weapons in Canada.”
The killer did not have a firearms license and many of his guns and rifles had been smuggled into Canada from the United States, according to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, highlighting one difficulty Canada may face in enforcing the new measure. The gunman’s “arsenal” included two models banned on Friday, said Bill Blair, the country’s public safety minister.
Mr. Trudeau said the government will introduce legislation to buy back the rifles, another part of his campaign promise, at a future date. Until then, owners have been given two years to keep their rifles although they can no longer use them, trade them or sell them except to buyers outside Canada with a permit. Gun shops can return any of the weapons they now have in stock to manufacturers.
The leader of the Conservative Party, Andrew Scheer, once again spoke out against any ban or buyback of military-style weapons, noting that many mass killers, including Gabriel Wortman in Nova Scotia, and other criminals use illegal firearms brought in from the United States. “It’s easy but lazy government to ask the people who follow all the rules to follow more rules,” Mr. Scheer told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. He also criticized Mr. Trudeau for introducing the measure through a cabinet order while Parliament is not meeting in normal sessions because of the coronavirus pandemic.
In an interview with Fox News anchor Ed Henry Thursday on new control measures being decided on in the coming weeks, President Trump said that negotiations on the issue are “going very slowly.”
“No, we’re not moving on anything. We’re going very slowly in one way, because we want to make sure it’s right. We want to — we’re doing a very careful job,” Mr. Trump said.
If you’re nudged a few inches each time something happens, eventually you’ve been moved a mile. I’ve heard this for years, and always put stock in it. In 2019 it seems the trend may continue with more measures being taken by the current administration to impose some form of “common sense” gun control.
In the wake of two shootings in August, the Trump Administration began the process of working with warmed over gun control measures proffered in 2013 from senators Manchin and Toomey. The measures in question carry a stronger background check system, without calling for universal checks, but even this has been walked-back since it’s announcement. Attorney General Barr, and Senator Murphy are said to be in on the architecture of the new proposals expected to roll out after the United Nations General Assembly next week.
In the Fox News interview, Mr. Trump also slammed Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke, who has called for a ban on assault weapons and a mandatory buyback for any assault weapons currently possessed by gun owners.
Beto (honestly, what is a beto?) said in the previous debate, “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” referring to his support for mandatory buybacks of war weapons {sic}.
“Part of the problem that we have is because of Beto O’Rourke’s statement about taking away guns,” Mr. Trump said. “A lot of Republicans and some Democrats now are afraid to do anything, to go down that slippery slope. A lot of people think this is just a way of taking away guns and that’s not good, because we’re not going to allow that.”
He went on to say “I am, if it’s not going to hurt a good, solid, great American citizen from keeping his weapon because they want that and they are entitled to that. We have a Second Amendment. I don’t want to have crazy people have guns. I don’t want to have bad people have guns, but we’re going to do nothing to hurt the Second Amendment, and what we want to do is see if we can come up with a compromise, and that’s what we’re working on.”
Here we stand, waiting with baited breath, for our current republican lead government to decide on yet another “nudge.” Until the root cause of the recent rash of shootings, stabbings, and other cruel acts of the mentally unstable are confronted, any act to diminish the rights of law abiding citizens is yet another inch we’ve been moved toward tighter restrictions on our Second Amendment right.
Is there a right answer? Is there a test? Is there an amount of freedom we’re willing to give up in order to ensure the wrong people don’t end up with a weapon capable of doing harm on a scale larger than hand to hand combat? Is it all or nothing? Keep it civil in the comments, but please feel free to discuss!
What the absolute heck is Wal-Mart doing? Once a proud symbol of American Capitalism, and the face of big-box retail, Wal-Mart continues to alienate it’s base of consumers with another knee-jerk reaction prodded by woke-troopers and social justice warriors.
by Midsouth Shooters
Wal-Mart has been steadily rolling back their support of the Second Amendment since 1993 when they stopped the sale of all handguns in every state except Alaska. Then, in 2015 it ended the sale of AR-15 style MSR rifles, and any toy or airgun resembling any “military-style rifle used in mass shootings,” per the published Wal-Mart policy. Last year, it raised the minimum age for gun purchases from 18 to 21, two weeks after 17 students and teachers were killed in a shooting at a high school in Parkland, FL.
Just this past week, Wal-Mart rolled out another set of policies after the recent shooting at a Wal-Mart Super Center in El Paso, TX. The shooting resulted in 22 deaths and 24 injuries. Patrick Crusius, a 21-year-old from Allen TX, was arrested shortly after the shooting and charged with capital murder. Police believe he published a document, described by others as a white nationalist, anti-immigrant manifesto, on 8chan shortly before the attack, citing inspiration from that year’s Christchurch mosque shootings in New Zealand.
Wal-Mart CEO, Doug McMillon was quoted as saying:
“After selling through our current inventory commitments, we will discontinue sales of short-barrel rifle ammunition such as the .223 caliber and 5.56 caliber that, while commonly used in some hunting rifles, can also be used in large capacity clips on military-style weapons,” Walmart CEO Doug McMillon said in a memo to employees on Tuesday.
Wal-Mart has also stated in it’s newly minted policy they will no longer sell handgun ammo. McMillon previously said Walmart was responsible for 2% of firearm sales in the US and 20% of ammunition sales. Walmart expects its share of ammunition sales to drop to between 6% and 9% as a result of the newly announced changes. The company will continue to sell the shotguns and rifles that it carries.
“In a complex situation lacking a simple solution, we are trying to take constructive steps to reduce the risk that events like these will happen again,” McMillon said in a memo to employees on Tuesday. “The status quo is unacceptable.”
Another rider on the new Wal-Mart policy affects customers who open-carry in their stores. If shoppers openly carry guns into Walmart stores going forward, store managers may ask the shopper to leave and safely secure their gun in their vehicle before returning to the store. “The policies will vary by location, however, and shoppers who are openly carrying guns may not always be asked to leave the store,” a Walmart spokesman said.
“We encourage our nation’s leaders to move forward and strengthen background checks and to remove weapons from those who have been determined to pose an imminent danger,” McMillon said. “We do not sell military-style rifles, and we believe the reauthorization of the Assault Weapons ban should be debated to determine its effectiveness.”
In the days since the new policies have taken effect, Kroger, and it’s holdings have also announced their plans to cease the sale of handgun ammunition.
It’s the belief of this writer the precedent set here is a slippery, if not inherently dangerous one. Capitalism is the lifeblood of any strong economy, and works hand-in-hand with a strong republic, but allowing a company to be swayed by social temperature is inherently dangerous, not only for the company, but the population at large.
In a quote from 2007, Jason Hornady of Hornady Ammunition said, “As long as a Hornady is at Hornady, we will never sell direct to Wal-Mart. They are no friend of the industry.”
Midsouth Shooters was founded on the tenants of honesty, family, and fairness, rooted in American and God. For a company, or organization, to be swayed by knee-jerk reactions sets a precedent of allowing the mob to dictate overreaching policies which put many in harms way. Effectively, Wal-Mart has been bullied into cow-towing to the social justice warriors, and woke-ninjas in the vocal minority.
Wal-Mart may not sell the ammo you need, and more companies beholden to the pressure of the vocal minority may follow suit. Midsouth will continue to sell the ammunition and reloading supplies you need, regardless. Our Second Amendment right is a sacred right, and for you to protect your family with the tools available, you need access to fairly priced ammunition and firearms.
Unbelievable news folks! NASCAR rejects gun ads, cites “gradual shift” on attitude toward guns. READ MORE
Looks like this is where NASCAR might be heading with gun owners.
SOURCE: article by David Dolbee, and other sources
One of the largest professional sports organizations on the planet, and one of the most popular, is risking losing the faith and support of a large segment of their fan base.
Nascar’s “Gradual Shift”
In March and April 2019, several firearms retailers and manufacturers were contacted by National Event Publications, official media sales agent for the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, NASCAR, PGA, NHRA, and USA Today Lifestyle. The pitch was to buy advertising in the official program for the last 26 races of the season. K-Var, a well respected figure in the firearms industry, opted to advertise, as did at least 16 other manufacturers or retailers including CZ-USA, Beretta, Daniel Defense, and others. The deadline to have artwork submitted for approval was April 19, 2019. Then, on August 19, 2019 (four months later) K-Var was contacted by National Event Publications with the following message:
“We just heard from NASCAR on a number of gun related ads and unfortunately, due a gradual shift in NASCAR’s position on guns, these ads must be edited/changed — especially those that are depicted as assault-style rifles/sniper rifles. NASCAR is still open to some of the less controversial gun accessories, concealed carry, or classes.”
Here’s the ad that K-Var had banned by NASCAR.
Did you know NASCAR was going through a “gradual shift on guns?” What does that even mean? NASCAR has allowed ads from firearms manufacturers for several years. AK-47s, AR-15s, and scoped rifles have all been featured in the past, so, by that statement, it can only mean that NASCAR is marching toward a complete anti-gun stance — it is just slow rolling it for some reason.
We can only wonder what NASCAR might be thinking, or if they’re thinking at all. We don’t have figures in hand, but one can only imagine that a good percentage of their fan base are gun owners, it might be 50 percent, 80 percent, 20 percent, more, less, but it’s bound to be enough that this “gradual shift” will backfire beyond their imagination. Winston Churchill said it many years ago: ‘Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.’ Do they not know the ramifications, the fervent uproar and boycotts the pro Second Amendment supporters have waged against the likes of Dick’s Sporting Goods or Yeti Coolers? All Yeti had to do was state it was cutting ties with the NRA for political reasons to earn the ire of the pro firearms forces, which expressed their displeasure in rather spectacular fashion. What will they do with NASCAR?
Gander Outdoors sponsors the NASCAR Truck Series. Does NASCAR realize all that is for sale at Gander? Bass Pro Shops sponsors a car. Has NASCAR checked out what Bass Pro is selling? This all happened after the Bass Pro Shops NRA Night Race at Bristol Motor Speedway. Reports now say Henry USA is vying for a new NASCAR sponsorship. The mixed messaging leaves many scratching their heads.
Whether or not you are a NASCAR fan, do you think the majority of its fanbase is pro Second Amendment or pro gun control? Does anyone really believe an overwhelming majority of NASCAR fans are not going to rebel at NASCAR’s “gradual shift?”
During the recent disaster wrought by Hurricane Harvey in Texas and the impending landfall in Florida of Hurricane Irma, many of our members have been asking if the government can confiscate their firearms if the Governor or Federal Government declare a state of emergency.
Following the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the New Orleans police went door to door seeking people who rode out the storm in their homes to force them to comply with the forced evacuation ordered by the government. As part of the effort, the officers were also confiscating firearms.
This created an outrage among the law-abiding gun owners of the country and resulted in the passage of state and federal laws to prevent such confiscations from occurring in the future.
In 2006, Congress passed the DISASTER RECOVERY PERSONAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2006. The law was intended to prevent the government from seizing legally owned firearms during the time of a disaster. It was incorporated as an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act 2007 and signed into law on October 4, 2006.
CAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONFISCATE MY FIREARMS?
This law amended 42 U.S.C 5201 Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to add the following provision:
SEC. 706. FIREARMS POLICIES.
(a) PROHIBITION ON CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS- No officer or employee of the United States (including any member of the uniformed services), or person operating pursuant to or under color of Federal law, or receiving Federal funds, or under control of any Federal official, or providing services to such an officer, employee, or other person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, may–
(1) temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure of, any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under Federal, State, or local law, other than for forfeiture in compliance with Federal law or as evidence in a criminal investigation;
(2) require registration of any firearm for which registration is not required by Federal, State, or local law;
(3) prohibit possession of any firearm, or promulgate any rule, regulation, or order prohibiting possession of any firearm, in any place or by any person where such possession is not otherwise prohibited by Federal, State, or local law; or
(4) prohibit the carrying of firearms by any person otherwise authorized to carry firearms under Federal, State, or local law, solely because such person is operating under the direction, control, or supervision of a Federal agency in support of relief from the major disaster or emergency.
(b) LIMITATION- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any person in subsection (a) from requiring the temporary surrender of a firearm as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation during a major disaster or emergency, provided that such temporarily surrendered firearm is returned at the completion of such rescue or evacuation.
Following the lead of the federal government, most state legislatures adopted their own version of this law.
TEXAS LAW ON FIREARMS CONFISCATION
In Texas, Government Code Chapter 418 (EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT) permits the Governor to declare a State of Disaster which suspends certain state laws and regulations to allow local authorities to conduct rescue and recovery operations.
However, it does not allow for the seizure of any legally owned firearms, with limited exception.
Specifically,
Sec. 418.003. LIMITATIONS. This chapter does not:
(5) except as provided by Section 418.184, authorize the seizure or confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from an individual who is lawfully carrying or possessing the firearm or ammunition;
Sec. 418.184. FIREARMS.
(a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful execution of the officer’s official duties during a state of disaster may disarm an individual if the officer reasonably believes it is immediately necessary for the protection of the officer or another individual.
(b) The peace officer shall return a firearm and any ammunition to an individual disarmed under Subsection (a) before ceasing to detain the individual unless the officer:
(1) arrests the individual for engaging in criminal activity; or
(2) seizes the firearm as evidence in a criminal investigation.
To read Governor Abbott’s actual declaration, click here.
FLORIDA LAW ON FIREARMS CONFISCATION
Article IV, Section 1(a) of the Florida Constitution permits the Governor to issue an Executive Order to declare a State of Emergency in times of a natural disaster, allowing him to enact provisions of the State’s Emergency Management Plan.
For Hurricane Irma, the Executive Order provides specific provisions regarding the activities permissible to state and local officials during the emergency, as provided for in Florida Statutes beginning with Chapter 252.31 “State Emergency Management Act.”
In part, the Executive Order states:
Section 2. I designate the Director of the Division of Emergency Management as the State Coordinating Officer for the duration of this emergency and direct him to execute the State’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and other response, recover, and mitigation plans necessary to cope with the emergency. Pursuant to section 252.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, I delegate to the State Coordinating Officer the authority to exercise those powers delineated in sections 252.36(5)-(10), Florida Statutes, which he shall exercise as needed to meet this emergency, subject to the limitations of section 252.33, Florida Statutes.
But those powers have certain limitations with regards to firearms. In particular,
Chapter 252.36(5)(h) states the Governor may:
(h) Suspend or limit the sale, dispensing, or transportation of alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives, and combustibles. However, nothing contained in ss. 252.31-252.90 shall be construed to authorize the seizure, taking, or confiscation of firearms that are lawfully possessed, unless a person is engaged in the commission of a criminal act.
FINAL WORD
So, there you have it. During our times of disaster, we can all focus on recovery and not have to worry about the authorities coming along and confiscating our firearms. The Second Amendment survives disasters.
[Addendum: Due inquiries from Members, this story was updated on Sept. 7.]
U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS CONFISCATING FIREARMS
On Tuesday, the island’s Governor ordered the National Guard to confiscate weapons and ammo that may be required for them to carry out their mission. What that specifically means is unclear. Also, the U.S. Virgin Islands IS NOT governed by the U.S. Constitution, but instead by the “Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands,” a federal law approved by Congress in 1954. The island does not have its own constitution yet.
The NRA has threatened to file a lawsuit, and here is their take:
In 1997, the chairman of the House Committee on Resources asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to clarify just how the U.S. Constitutional applies to various “U.S. Insular Areas,” including the U.S. Virgin Islands. Its findings were inconclusive and unsettling, especially to those now living under Governor Mapp’s orders. Said the report:
Under the Insular Cases and subsequent decisions, rights other than fundamental rights, even though they may be stated in the Constitution, do not apply to the territories or possessions unless the Congress makes them applicable by legislation. The Congress can by law extend the coverage of the Constitution in part or in its entirety to a territory or possession, and has done so with respect to some territories. In the absence of such congressional action, however, only fundamental rights apply.
Digging further, one finds that only parts of the Fifth Amendment are considered to be “fundamental” based on court rulings, and none of the Sixth Amendment applies. And nothing is said in the 75-page report about the Second.
If the NRA does sue and their position is sustained by the courts that people living on the island are U.S. Citizens with full protection of the U.S. Constitution, the issue will be settled. If not, or no suit is filed, those living on the island will be subjected to having their weapons confiscated by the National Guard.
The TSRA outlines the new laws taking effect September 1.
Read this release from TSRA to learn about ALL of the changes in Texas gun law on September 1. See below:
LTC Fee Reduction Legislation
(SB16 by Senator Robert Nichols/Representative Phil King)
Background:
In 1995 the Texas Legislature passed the concealed handgun license. At that time the fee to the state for the CHL was put into statute at $140 for the initial license and $70 to renew. The only discounts in 1995 were for seniors over 60 at a 50% discount and to indigents for the same 50% discount.
Over the years the Legislature created discounts for various groups such as judges, district attorneys, military, law enforcement and others but nothing for the average hardworking Texan. In addition, the process of issuing the license became streamlined.
With SB 16:
Those who would have paid $140 will now pay $40, and their renewal will also be $40. The cost will be $40 for seniors for their first license instead of $70, and a senior renewal will remain $35.
$40 is the most any Texan will pay the state for the License to Carry.
While TSRA strongly supports unlicensed possession of a handgun, the Texas license has become acceptable even to those who opposed the issue for decades.
Special thanks to Senator Robert Nichols the author of SB 16, to Representative Phil King for HB300, Representative Dustin Burrows for HB339 and to Representative Kyle Kacal for HB1024; all filed to create support for SB 16.
SB 16 was Lt. Governor Dan Patrick’s #1 priority for Texas gun owners.
Governor signed (5/26/2017) Effective Date 9/1/2017
Caliber Requirement for LTC Qualification
(SB263 by Senator Perry/Representative Drew Springer)
Since 1995 there has been a minimum caliber requirement in the statute for the range proficiency portion of the Texas License to Carry class. Range Proficiency requires the applicant shoot a 50-round course of fire.
Currently, those seeking a license must test with a .32 caliber or higher handgun although there is no caliber requirement regarding the firearm carried by the licensee on a day to day basis.
This minimum caliber requirement negatively impacts those with hand injuries and the elderly who wish to obtain a license.
SB 263 by Senator Perry removes the caliber requirement for the range proficiency exam to obtain a Texas License to Carry. The bill takes effect September 1.
Governor signed (6/9/2017) Effective Date 9/1/2017
Volunteer First Responders
(HB435 by Representative Ken King/Senator Perry.) Relating to handgun laws as they apply to licensees who are volunteer first responders.
Governor signed (June 15, 2017) Effective Date 9/1/2017
TSRA Suppressor Bill plus a Friendly Amendment
On Friday, May 19th, at 8:55 p.m. the Texas House passed HB 1819, authored by Rep. Drew Springer (R-Muenster) with Senate sponsor, Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock) plus an amendment by Sen. Craig Estes (R-Wichita Falls).
HB1819 sets up Texas law in preparation for the Hearing Protection Act (HR 367) to pass in Congress. The Hearing Protection Act would remove suppressors, also known as silencers, from the provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA). This means the purchaser of a suppressor would no longer be required to pay the suppressor dealer a deposit, fill out the form 4, transmit digital fingerprints, send BATFE $200, followed by waiting as long as a year for their application to be processed, the “tax stamp” issued and the purchase finalized. Again, we’re only talking about suppressors. A device which simply muffles sound.
The US Congress, under our current administration, is expected to act and when the change occurs Texas law will be ready to accommodate the change. This means law-abiding Texans wanting a suppressor for their firearm will show their LTC or submit to NICS as though they were purchasing a firearm. No forms and no $200 tax to BATFE when the Hearing Protection Act passes in Congress.
But wait, there’s more! Mossberg Shockwave!
It was brought to our attention by State Rep. Poncho Nevarez (D-Eagle Pass) and by TSRA members that the Mossberg 590 Shockwave could not be purchased in two states: Texas and Ohio. There is a Mossberg manufacturing facility in Eagle Pass.
You see BATFE does not require this 14″ barrel, pistol grip “firearm” to be registered as an NFA device. The Shockwave is not a shoulder-mount shotgun.
The Mossberg amendment was added in the Senate by Senator Craig Estes. Thanks of course to Senator Charles Perry the Senate sponsor for HB 1819.
HB1819 has now been signed by Governor Abbott and takes effect September 1. We may have a wait to purchase a suppressor, but we will purchase the Mossberg 590 Shockwave and other similar firearms after September 1.
HB1819 Bill History with Co-Author’s List
Governor Signed (5/26/2017) Effective Date 9/1/2017 for Texas law but we wait on Congress!
Online LTC Course Option
(HB3784 by Representative Justin Holland (R-Rockwall and Senator Van Taylor (R-Plano))
Creates an optional online course for the Texas LTC. The shooting portion must be done with a DPS certified instructor.
Governor signed (6/15/2017) Effective Date 9/1/2017
Church Volunteer Security
Relating to the exemption from the application of the Private Security Act of certain persons who provide security services on a volunteer basis at a place of religious worship.
The original bill didn’t pass but was successfully amended to SB2065 by Senator Kelly Hancock (R-N. Richland Hills)
Governor signed (6/15/2017) Effective Date 9/1/2017
Primary and Secondary Teachers and School Parking Lot
The language of HB1692 by Representative Cole Hefner (R-Mount Pleasant) Relating to the transportation and storage of a handgun or other firearm and ammunition by a license holder in a motor vehicle in a parking area of a primary or secondary school.
This legislation protects the jobs of hard-working primary and secondary teachers with an LTC. This group was not previously covered by the employer parking lot bill from years ago.
Neither the House Bill nor the Senate bill passed, but the language was amended.
Representative Hefner successfully amended his language to SB1566 by Senator Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham).
Governor signed (6/15/2017) Effective Date 9/1/2017
Legalize the Bowie Knife
HB1935 by Representative John Frullo/Senator John Whitmire eliminates daggers, dirks, stilettos, poniards, swords, spears, and Bowie knives from Texas law, allowing them to be carried in Texas. Governor signed (6/15/2017) Effective Date 9/1/2017
LTC Range Qualifications and Veterans
SB138 by Senator Van Taylor/Representative Morgan Meyer to exempt certain military veterans and active duty service members with military range qualifications from the state required range portion of the LTC course. SB138 passed as an amendment to HB3784 Effective Date 9/1/2017
A viral social-media post is suggesting that it may be okay to shoot someone to defend a statue. Our Independent Program Attorneys beg to differ.
Here is U.S. & Texas LawShield® Independent Attorney Edwin Walker’s response:
Independent Program Attorney Edwin Walker
Texas LawShield recently became aware of a viral Facebook post telling people they can shoot someone vandalizing a statute.
Based on recent events, we understand the importance of knowing whether or not this is valid legal information.
It appears this viral story started as a blog post that reported on one individual’s opinion on the use of force and/or deadly force to protect public property.
The position advocated by the Facebook post cited in the blog is not a very good idea.
The defense of property justifications (TPC 9.41, 9.42, and 9.43) are all based upon the finding that the person’s conduct was based upon a “reasonable belief” that the use of force is “immediately necessary” to prevent the harm to property.
With regard to deadly force, it can only be used if the person “reasonably believes that … the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by ANY other means.”
This presents a lot of room for a jury to find that someone was unreasonable in using force or deadly force to defend against an act of criminal mischief.
Further, deadly force can never be used in response to the crime of criminal mischief in the daytime.
Many people who have commented on this post have posed a “…but what if they come at me…” scenario.
It is true that the circumstances that allow for the use of force and/or deadly force can change instantly. If a person is simply trying to stop a vandal by shouting at him or calling the police, and as a result the vandal attempts to attack the person, then the person being attacked would be justified in using force and may even escalate to deadly force to defend themselves if they have a reasonable belief that they are going to be murdered.
However, if a person were to physically intervene to stop a vandal (any offensive, unwanted, or injurious touching is an assault) and then were to be physically assaulted themselves, the issue that a jury would have to decide is whether or not the person had disqualified themselves from claiming self-defense because of their initial “assault” on the vandal.
Needless to say, this is a very complex issue and should not have been addressed by anyone in a cavalier manner.
It is unfortunate that civilized behavior in our society has devolved to such a state that it is even necessary to consider these issues.
To learn more, we invite Members and guests to attend seminars and workshops presented by experienced attorneys as they discuss laws regarding the legal use of force and legal use of deadly force. To stay on the right side of the law, it is critical you stay current on any legal changes. Don’t miss this opportunity. Click Gun Law Seminar to find out more.
“Unconstitutional” is what a federal appeals court has ruled on the D.C. gun law that says people must show “good reason” to have concealed handgun permits.
“In fact, the Amendment’s core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizen’s ability to carry common arms generally,” wrote Judge Thomas B. Griffith in the ruling on the case Wrennv. District of Columbia.
Subsequently, the appeals court instructed lower courts to block the D.C. law with permanent injunctions. City officials indicated they’re exploring an appeal, while gun-control groups claim the ruling shrinks public safety in the nation’s capital.
D.C. gun laws are among the strictest in the U.S., but they’ve also faced several legal challenges in the last few years, said Kirk Evans, President of U.S. & Texas LawShield.
The D.C. Council—the enclave’s municipal government—responded by creating the “good reason” rule, which only issued permits to citizens who could prove they faced legitimate threats, Evans said.
But, according to the appeals court’s decision, the “good reason” rule negated what the Supreme Court decided in Heller.
“The District’s good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents,” Judge Griffith wrote. “That’s enough to sink this law under (Heller).
Second Amendment advocates praised the latest ruling, including Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).
Gottlieb added, “We are particularly pleased that the opinion makes it clear that the Second Amendment’s core generally covers carrying in public for self-defense.”
In the days after the ruling it was too early to tell how far the case would rise through the appeals process. The Supreme Court in June declined to consider another Second Amendment case, Peruta v. California, in which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a San Diego County law requiring gun owners to prove they have “good cause” to apply for concealed carry permits.
But Gottlieb said the latest victory in D.C. spurs confidence among Second Amendment advocates.
“To say we are delighted with the ruling would be an understatement,” Gottlieb said. “We are simply more encouraged to keep fighting, winning firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.” — Bill Miller, Contributor, Texas & U.S. Law Shield blog
The “purple paint law” became official in Texas on September 1, 1997. The law doesn’t appear to be common knowledge for every hunter in the Lone Star State, even though Texas hunting regulations describe it.Can your employer restrict your ability to carry firearms at the workplace? Click to watch Emily Taylor, Independent Program Attorney with Walker & Byington, explain that in Texas, employers call the shots regarding workplace self-defense.In this excerpt from a U.S. Law Shield News live report, watch Emily Taylor, independent program attorney with Walker & Byington, discuss the ground rules for carrying firearms into restaurants and bars. Click the video below to find out the significant differences between blue signs and red signs in Texas establishments, and how getting those colors crossed up could lead to some orange jumpsuit time. If you would like to see these reports live on Facebook, click here to join the Texas Law Shield Facebook page and sign up for live notifications.
The application of the state’s Campus Carry Law at community and junior colleges across Texas kicked off with a whimper—not a bang—on Tuesday (Aug. 1), to no surprise of TSRA Legislative Director Alice Tripp.
Texas LawShield Independent Program Attorney Edwin Walker visited with TSRA Legislative Director Alice Tripp in Austin earlier this year.
“This effort started in 2007 and we’ve gone through four sessions of the Legislature and 10 public hearings,” said Tripp, who works closely with legislators as a representative of the Texas State Rifle Association.
“It has required a lot of work and effort.
“Now we will focus on making sure the state colleges follow the letter of the law,” she added, noting that every regular session of the Legislature colleges must send a report about their specific rules and regulations pertaining to the law and why they created them.
She said dire predictions of problems by the anti-gun crowd have proven to be groundless, just as when the law took effect at four-year public colleges on Aug. 1, 2016.
History
“There have been firearms on campuses since 1996—in the parking lots, on the grounds, in the dorms—this just opens up carrying firearms into buildings and classrooms.
“I am sure that students have been sitting next to someone carrying a handgun into a classroom all along. They were just doing it without permission—now they have permission,” she said.
Tripp pointed out that the negative attention on the issue has been focused mainly on students carrying firearms, while the driving force behind the effort to allow licensed carry on campus has come from faculty and staff members at the institutions of higher learning.
“What the faculty and staff members have told us is that they wanted to feel safe walking to their car in the parking lot after dark or in other areas where they might face a threat,” she said.
With the backing and support of the TSRA, state Senator Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury, filled SB 11, also known as the Campus Carry Law. It passed during the 2015 Legislative session.
Incidents
Tripp noted that incidents related to the implementation of the law last year at four-year public colleges have been limited to one accidental discharge where no one was injured and a couple of cases where licensed concealed-carry holders inadvertently entered restricted areas.
Campus Carry Legal Issues
On the legal side of the issue, three University of Texas at Austin professors sued the state and the university after enactment of the Campus Carry Law, claiming that the potential presence of guns in classrooms has a chilling effect on class discussion.
A federal judge rejected their claims, ruling that the professors failed to present any “concrete evidence to substantiate their fears.”
Colleges may ban or restrict firearms from certain areas of the campuses. The Legislature must review these restrictions every other year.
There was at least one demonstration opposing the implementation of the state law at community and junior colleges on Tuesday. It was a one-man protest by a San Antonio College geography instructor.
Minor Pushback
According to the San Antonio Express-News, the 60-year-old instructor conducted classes on Tuesday while wearing a Kevlar helmet and a flak jacket in his protest of the law.
Reaction on the comments page of the paper was mostly negative. One reader wrote that the instructor’s action was a “melodramatic and buffoonish spectacle in protest of the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.” —by Ralph Winingham, Contributor, U.S. and Texas LawShield blog
The “purple paint law” became official in Texas on September 1, 1997. The law doesn’t appear to be common knowledge for every hunter in the Lone Star State, even though Texas hunting regulations describe it.Can your employer restrict your ability to carry firearms at the workplace? Click to watch Emily Taylor, Independent Program Attorney with Walker & Byington, explain that in Texas, employers call the shots regarding workplace self-defense.In this excerpt from a U.S. Law Shield News live report, watch Emily Taylor, independent program attorney with Walker & Byington, discuss the ground rules for carrying firearms into restaurants and bars. Click the video below to find out the significant differences between blue signs and red signs in Texas establishments, and how getting those colors crossed up could lead to some orange jumpsuit time. If you would like to see these reports live on Facebook, click here to join the Texas Law Shield Facebook page and sign up for live notifications.
The reloading blog where you can find articles, tips, industry news, gear reviews, and more!
“In fact, the Amendment’s core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizen’s ability to carry common arms generally,” wrote Judge Thomas B. Griffith in the ruling on the case Wrenn v. District of Columbia.
