Daily Archives: August 6, 2017

By Doug Pennington By Doug Pennington August 4

Doug Pennington is a communications professional and D.C. resident.

News has been virtually exploding from our phones and televisions of late so much so that a cannon shot of a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit late last month was barely heard: Two judges on a three-judge panel struck down the Districts system of concealed-carry gun regulations as a violation of the Second Amendment.

What happens next holds critical implications for the safety of our neighborhoods, not only in the District but also in cities and states across the United States. Weak concealed-carry laws do not make Americans more secure.

The courts wrongheaded decision does not entirely come as a surprise. As I testified before the D.C. Council in 2014, One can hardly avoid the writing on the wall when it comes to ... laws that totally, or even virtually, prohibit carrying firearms outside the home.

That said, four other U.S. circuit courts have upheld the constitutionality of laws similar to the Districts, in which license applicants must provide local authorities with a good reason to carry a loaded, hidden handgun in public to justify the risks of doing so. For its part, the Supreme Court has so far shown little interest in plunging again into the thicket of gun violence prevention policy, and small wonder.

This area of law has produced general agreement among lower courts, in part because it presents a web of complex life-or-death problems that are far better suited for the peoples representatives to balance and resolve, rather than judges in the peace of [their] judicial chambers as Ronald Reagan appointee Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III eloquently wrote in 2011.

The two D.C. Circuit judges, however, shot through that restrained judicial wisdom. They stretched the limited holding of the Supreme Courts landmark decision in D.C. v. Heller to press the broader cause of firearms deregulation. How?

It is important to recall that Justice Antonin Scalias majority opinion in Heller narrowly held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms at home for self-defense. In the courts first substantive Second Amendment case in nearly 70 years, however, Scalia also added a great deal of discussion of the amendments text and history, as he saw it including his understanding of what it means to bear, or carry, arms.

The D.C. Circuits majority opinion drafted by George W. Bush appointee Judge Thomas B. Griffith took advantage of this added verbiage, circumventing Hellers narrow holding in favor of essentially rewriting it to say there is a core constitutional right to carry guns outside the home.

The D.C. Circuits decision ham-handedly sweeps aside centuries of practice and precedent for strict concealed-carry regulation reaching back to 1300s England through the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The opinion also managed to take a snide, condescending tone, in a manner sadly consonant with the Trump era and beneath the gravity of the issues at stake.

Perhaps most significant, Griffiths opinion failed to acknowledge the fundamental difference about the Second Amendment identified years ago by Dennis Henigan, former vice president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: The gun right recognized in Heller is the most dangerous right, unlike any other in the Constitution.

A wealth of empirical evidence shows, Henigan wrote, that the exercise of the right to possess guns increases the risk of harm to individuals exercising the right, to their families and to the community at large. Rather than respect this evidence and recognize that more than 125 D.C. residents have already received concealed-carry gun licenses, Griffiths opinion repeatedly compared gun rights with free speech rights. But as Americans have seen all too often from concealed-carry permit holders including the Washington Navy Yard shooter there are life-or-death matters at stake here.

This deeply problematic, and potentially dangerous, D.C. Circuit ruling should be vacated by the full D.C. Circuit, and the case should be reheard. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush wrote a masterful dissent that is practically a road map for such a reexamination. It soberly respects the text and history of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent and the demonstrated public-safety concerns of the people of the District. As she wrote, Regulations restricting public carrying are all the more compelling in a geographically small but heavily populated urban area like the District. Quoting another case, she wrote that Washington is the seat of our national government, a city full of high-level government officials, diplomats, monuments, parades, protests and demonstrations and, perhaps most pertinent, countless government buildings where citizens are almost universally prohibited from possessing firearms.

If the full D.C. Circuit were to apply the same diligence to its analysis, it would follow Hendersons lead, reiterating a cross-ideological consensus from courts across the United States: We must uphold our Second Amendment rights while also allowing our elected officials to take reasonable steps to protect public safety.

See the original post:
D.C.'s concealed-carry regulations just suffered a shot across the ... - Washington Post

A couple of Second Amendment stories to get your weekend started. The first has to do with the apparently endless debate over so-called smart guns and the efforts by #2A opponents to mandate the clunky and still basically experimental technology on the entire country. There was an event in Washington, D.C. this week where a group of gun control enthusiasts enlisted the aid of sympathetic law enforcement officers to push for the use of such technology by the nations police departments. It was organized by Washington CeaseFire and they were pushing the idea that smart guns which recognize the fingerprints of the cops who use them wouldnt be stolen and put to use by the bad guys. Meanwhile, they would work just fine when the police officers need them.

As Dan Spencer at RedState was quick to point out, this may sound nice in theory, but it simply doesnt work that way in the real world.

Smart guns can be hacked. In fact, just last week, a hacker rendered the technology in a leading German-manufactured smart gun completely useless. He could extend the firing range beyond the allowed distance, jam the gun from firing in the hands of its user or even disable the smart mechanism completely to fire it himself

For the IP1, the smart gun offers its owner nothing more than the appearance of security. Yet, the German manufacturers marketing claimed that the gun would usher in a new era of gun safety.

If theres one thing that law enforcement needs in the field, its reliability. Unfortunately, smart gun technology doesnt offer that. Until it does, we cannot even consider it, regardless of the stats or stunts that activists push.

The hacking question is certainly a valid one (and it remains a growing concern in all aspects of IT far beyond firearms) but its hardly the only issue. Plenty of experts have reviewed most of these guns before and found other, more fundamental problems. The time it takes for the weapon to initialize so that it recognizes the owner can be far too long. And a delay in being able to deploy your firearm in a critical law enforcement situation can add up to some dead cops pretty quickly. Also, some models have inherent flaws which allow the safety features to be disabled by someone with very little in the way of expertise. In short, this technology remains far from being ready for prime time. Its bad enough that some legislators want to mandate it for private use, but forcing this on law enforcement is simply a disaster waiting to happen.

Not all of the #2A news is bad, however. The National Rifle Associations Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) reports that New York Congressman Chris Collins has introduced new legislation which would standardize gun control laws across the country for popular rifles and shotguns, including specific parts for such firearms. Named the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), the bill will be of particular interest to owners of so-called assault rifles such as the AR-15.

The bill is a response to antigun laws in a small handful of states including California, Connecticut, D.C., Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York that criminalize the mere possession of highly popular semiautomatic long guns widely available throughout the rest of the country. Although rifles or shotguns of any sort are used less often in murders than knives, blunt objects such as clubs or hammers, or even hands, fists, and feet, gun control advocates have sought to portray the banned guns as somehow uniquely dangerous to public safety

The SAGA would ensure that state regulations could not effectively prevent the manufacture, sale, importation, or possession of any rifle or shotgun lawfully available under federal law or impose any prohibitive taxes, fees, or design limitations on such firearms.

The NRA thanks Rep. Chris Collins for leading this important effort and urges his colleagues to cosponsor and support this staunchly pro-gun legislation.

Its a fine idea in theory, but given the Supreme Courts stubborn reluctance to say much of anything about the inherent nature of Second Amendment rights since Heller, its tough to predict how they might react. The entire states rights issue inevitably gets dragged into the question, despite the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is supposed to universal. The court has similarly been vague at best when it comes to questions of modifications to firearms such as larger capacity magazines, suppressors and adjustable stocks.

Still, Ill join with the NRA in thanking Congressman Collins and his co-sponsors for at least making the effort. The Senate Democrats will probably doom it to failure before it gets off the ground, but if nothing else it might bring the argument back to the forefront for voters as we approach the midterms.

The rest is here:
Smart guns and SAGA. The Second Amendment fight drags on - Hot Air

Roll Call reports that Moore was at the club on Thursday responding to a constituents question as to whether he supported the Second Amendment. Moore responded by saying, We carry, and pulling a handgun out of his wifes purse.

UNITED STATES AUGUST 3: GOP candidate for U.S. Senate Roy Moore returns his wifes hand gun to her after displaying it as a way to show support for the 2nd amendment after candidates were asked about their views on gun rights during a candidates forum in Valley, Ala., on Thursday, Aug. 3, 2017. The former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court is running tin the special election to fill the seat vacated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

The gun was a snub-nose revolver that appeared to be made of lightweight materials for concealed carry.

Moore then handed the gun back to his wife so she could tuck it back into her purse. He later said, I will uphold the SecondAmendment.

The 70-year-old Moore is a former Alabama Supreme Court Justice. He is vying for a Senate seat currently held by Republican Luther Strange. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) is trying to win Stranges seat as well, which makes the primary election extremely important.

All three men claim to be pro-Second Amendment and Rep. Brooks has released a number of ads focused on his pro-gun stance.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host ofBullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter:@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

See the original post here:
U.S. Senate Candidate Pulls Out Gun at GOP Meeting to Prove He Is ... - Breitbart News