|
The Friend of my Enemy… Can be Useful |
|
|
|
|
The Knox Report
|
|
Written by Daniel White
|
|
Friday, 04 July 2008 |
The Knox Report
From the Firearms Coalition
(July 1, 2008) Today is the day that Florida’s new; “You can’t ban guns in locked cars in parking lots law” goes into effect. Actually that should be; “You can’t ban guns of concealed carry permit holders hidden in locked cars in parking lots except for parking lots of schools, prisons, and sensitive security areas like nuclear power plants and defense contractors law.”
A similar law was struck down in Oklahoma and a lawsuit has been filed against this one as well. Many expect the law to die in the courts before the end of the month, though the Heller decision might make courts hesitant to reject a “gun rights” law too quickly. The lawsuit is sponsored by the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation, with help and support from the US Chamber of Commerce and many local chambers of commerce and business organizations in the state.
Which brings to mind to another story out of Indiana; a true gun rights success story.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Willowick to Help Spread Word Open Carry Is Legal |
|
|
|
|
OFCC News
|
|
Written by Daniel White
|
|
Thursday, 03 July 2008 |
Tonight, OFCC Director Daniel White, along with Coordinators Mike Kinsey and Tom McNaughton, joined member Bryan Ledford in meeting with representatives from the City of Willowick (the Chief of Police, a Lieutenant, the Sergeant involved, a City Councilman, and the Law Director) to discuss issues raised as a result of the harassment Bryan received while openly carrying a firearm in the City.
While the discussions were, on the whole, positive and fruitful, we will be continuing to work to try to prevent something like this from happening again elsewhere, and Willowick has indicated they will assist with this goal. |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Open Carry Harassment in Willowick Update |
|
|
|
|
Latest News
|
|
Written by Daniel White
|
|
Wednesday, 02 July 2008 |
We are aware that many of you are closely following the OFCC Member Detained and Harassed for Open Carry story and we wanted to provide everyone with an update on where we are on this issue.
OFCC Coordinator Mike Kinsey has been in contact with the Willowick Chief of Police and other city officials. OFCC Coordinator Todd Coughlin filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain materials relevant to the incident, and I spoke with member Bryan Ledford in length about his experience.
During our investigation, we discovered that the citizen who made the original complaint was an off-duty Eastlake police officer. During the original call, as well as the first dispatch call, it was known that Bryan was carrying his firearm in a holster. We are at a loss to explain how several officers, a sergeant, a detective, and a dispatcher were all unaware that open carry was not an illegal activity (although, one of them is heard on tape stating "We're not saying you can't , but why would you want to?"), leading them to decide to threaten to charge Mr. Ledford with either disorderly conduct or inducing panic. In listening to the phone conversation, the Eastlake officer making the call certainly didn't sound panicked. |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Breaking Down the SCOTUS Ruling - Part III |
|
|
|
|
National Law & Politics
|
|
Written by Daniel White
|
|
Monday, 30 June 2008 |
In parts one and two, we looked in detail at the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States. In this third part, we will examine the dissenting opinions. Dissenting opinions hold no rule of law, but are oftentimes cited as persuasive authority by those who wish to change laws or file additional lawsuits. They can even be used by a future court to overturn a previous decision.
While we won in this case and SCOTUS affirmed that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is indeed an individual right and that the DC gun ban is unconstitutional, we came within one justice of losing on both counts. The Dissenting Opinions will help us understand why.
The first dissenting opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, noted by Wikipedia as "widely considered to be the leader of the liberal side of the court". He argues that while the Second Amendment "protects a right that can be enforced by individuals," he feels that the scope of that right is the issue.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
NRA Files Second Amendment Lawsuits |
|
|
|
|
NRA News
|
|
Written by Daniel White
|
|
Saturday, 28 June 2008 |
NRA Files Second Amendment Lawsuits In Illinois And California Following Supreme Court Ruling
Friday, June 27, 2008
Following up on yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects a private right to possess firearms that is not limited to militia service, the NRA today filed five lawsuits challenging local gun bans in San Francisco, and in Chicago and several of its suburbs.
“The Supreme Court held yesterday that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. “These lawsuits will ensure that state and local governments hear those words.”
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Breaking Down the SCOTUS Ruling - Part II |
|
|
|
|
National Law & Politics
|
|
Written by Daniel White
|
|
Friday, 27 June 2008 |
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion of the Court. In his opening statement, he identified the specifics of the case before the court.
We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition
on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates
the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
This context must be kept in mind when considering the text of the findings. The repeated references to "in the home" are not meant to be misconstrued to mean that gun rights only exist in the home, merely that the facts in this case pertain specifically to the DC gun ban of guns in the home.
Any attempts by the anti gun community to enact an overly oppressive ban on firearms outside the home would likely lead to subsequent rulings that they are not permitted, suing this case as precedent and the fact that SCOTUS ruled unequivocally that the Right to Keep and Bear arms is an individual right. Unfortunately, they forgot the whole "shall not be infringed part," but that was expected. |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Breaking Down the SCOTUS Ruling - Part I |
|
|
|
|
National Law & Politics
|
|
Written by Daniel White
|
|
Thursday, 26 June 2008 |
Now that the Supreme Court Of The United States has ruled that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is truly an individual right and struck down the DC gun ban, proponents on both sides of the issue are planning their next move.
While the NRA and other groups are planning to file more lawsuits against other cities with similar bans (Chicago and San Francisco to name two), gun control groups are scrambling to find ways of using the ruling to their advantage.
To understand the next steps, we have to first understand just what the Court said. As a non-lawyer, I will attempt to give my interpretation. The full text of the ruling, with dissenting opinions, is available here.
In ruling in this case, the SCOTUS made three determinations.
- The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
- The Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
- The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense and is in violation of the Second Amendment.
All three of these are being spun by the opposition to favor their viewpoints. |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next > End >>
|
| Results 120 - 126 of 4061 |
