Paul Valone’s gun rights group Grass Roots North Carolina (GRNC) issued an alert yesterday pointing out the fact that the 2013 NC General Assembly’s House Bill 937 was implemented just one year ago today.  From the text of the alert:

House Bill 937, which became effective on October 1, 2013, dramatically expanded North Carolina’s concealed handgun law into restaurants where alcohol is sold and consumed, assemblies of people for which admission is charged, parades and funerals, further into state and municipal parks, and even to a limited extent into educational properties.

As always when we expand concealed handgun laws, opponents and media naysayers predicted shootings in bars, guns stolen from vehicles at schools, and various other sorts of mayhem using platitudes like “guns and alcohol don’t mix.”

GRNC explained endlessly that concealed handgun permit-holders, by virtue of background checks and training, had proven themselves sane, sober and law-abiding since 1995, with a rate of permit revocation on the order of three tenths of a single percent.  We explained that permit-holders in restaurants would still be prohibited from imbibing alcohol.

But the dire predictions persisted.  Editorials ridiculed legislators.  UNC president Tom Ross sent UNC police chiefs to testify against the bill, claiming it would hamper their ability to protect students.  Gun control activists pushed restaurants to post against concealed carry.

It has now been one year since HB 937 became effective.  So what has happened?  Nothing.  GRNC monitors clipping services for gun-related incidents.  Just like Virginia, Ohio, Tennessee and other states which adopted restaurant carry, however, we have been unable to find a single instance of a concealed handgun permit-holder misusing a gun in a restaurant or educational property.

So, congrats, all you CCL and Open Carry practitioners, for keeping your cool.

Breitbart has up an article by AWR Hawkins detailing the 77-year progression of gun control in Great Britain.  The piece, HERE, includes an interesting graphic of the world’s most violent countries.  The United States is notably absent from the top ten.

Everyone is familiar with the Square debit and credit card reader (pictured at right) sold for use with smartphones, are they not?  Well, due to a change just over one year ago in their Terms Of Service agreement, Square has now joined PayPal in prohibiting the use of their service for transacting payments for firearms or ammunition.  This, of course, has put a crimp in the business model for many smaller gun dealers and sellers, particularly those that sometimes transact business off-site, such as at gun shows.

Jennifer Kerns has up an article at the Daily Signal blog with the details. An excerpt:

Last summer, around the same time the U.S. Department of Justice’s Operation Choke Point began pressuring banks to drop customers who buy or sell firearms, tobacco and other goods considered “not acceptable” by the Obama administration, Square quietly changed its terms of agreement.

The new terms stipulate that users of the Square card reader:

… will not accept payments in connection with the following businesses or business activities: …sales of (i) firearms, firearm parts or hardware, and ammunition; or (ii) weapons and other devices designed to cause physical injury.

Kern goes on to note that:

Today, the Square’s terms prohibit gun-shop owners from using the credit-card processor not only when they are conducting gun sales at their brick-and-mortar stores but even more so when they are offsite, representing their stores at gun shows where they often need the wireless Square Reader to ring up sales on smartphones or tablets.  Gun shows have been a target of anti-gun activists for nearly 20 years.

The full article is HERE.  And for those interested in alternative payment methods, check into the NRA Business Alliance, PistolPay, and PhoneSwipe services.

Earlier this week, Kelly Riddell of the Washington Times reported on a little-noticed change, dating back to early 2012, in which the Obama administration’s ATF changed the 4473 form to require a gun buyer to declare whether or not he/she was Hispanic.  For decades, the form has included a block in which the buyer was to declare their race, but the requirement for self-identification as to Hispanic origins is relatively new.

Some excerpts from Riddell’s article:

Requiring the race and ethnic information of gun buyers is not required by federal law and provides little law enforcement value, legal experts say.  And gun industry officials worry about how the information is being used and whether it constitutes an unnecessary intrusion on privacy.

“This issue concerns me deeply because, first, it’s offensive, and, secondly, there’s no need for it,” said Evan Nappen, a private practice firearms lawyer in New Jersey.  “If there’s no need for an amendment, then there’s usually a political reason for the change.  What this indicates is it was done for political reasons, not law enforcement reasons.”

and

During the time ATF revised its 4473 form to include Hispanic or Latino as an ethnicity, the Obama administration was building gun control cases by saying U.S. firearms dealers were supplying Mexican gangs with weapons and that violence related to the sales was seeping across the border.

In March 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Mexico City and gave a speech against American gun stores and owners — blaming them for the drug cartels’ violence.  Mrs. Clinton subsequently told CBS News that “90 percent” of the “guns that are used by the drug cartels against the police and military” actually “come from America.”

About a week later, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. made the same points at a gun trafficking conference outside of Mexico City.  In April, the president himself flew down to Mexico to inform President Felipe Calderon that Mr. Holder was going to review U.S. law enforcement operations, according to a 2011 report by the American Thinker.

This political worldview may have fueled decision-making at ATF, Mr. Nappen suggests.

and

Although gun advocates speculate on the reasoning behind changing the form, on one thing they are clear: Requiring ethnicity and race to purchase a gun is a clear government overstep, violating Second Amendment rights.

For the full article, click HERE.

Fledgling teenager Brenna Strong (age 13) has written a book about life with her two open-carry parents, and about how she has learned to explain Second Amendment rights to her peers as a result.  More information on the book, “My Parents Open Carry”, available on Amazon, is HERE.

Most readers are probably aware that early this month, Target Stores, bending under the weight of criticism from gun control advocates, adopted a policy of continuing to permit concealed carry on their store properties while simultaneously asking people not to do so.  They apparently thought this would be a good compromise, but it meant, of course, that if a person with a CCL opted to comply with Target’s preference, they could be at risk of being unable to defend themselves while on Target properties.

Well, that didn’t take long.  ABC-News affiliate ABC7 in Los Angeles reported on Tuesday of this week the fatal shooting of what appears to be a crime victim on the parking lot of a Van Nuys Target store in the early morning hours, around 5am.  From their short article:

A suspect was arrested, and a weapon has been recovered.  He was also taken to a local hospital because police suspected he was under the influence of drugs.

The circumstances of the shooting remain unknown.  Authorities say the suspect is a known gang member, but the victim is not believed to be involved with gangs.

In a not surprising aspect, the shooter disregarded the wishes of Target Stores management.  Obviously, then, had he been a CCL holder, the victim might still be dead, but at least he would have had a chance of rehabilitating the gang member in the process.

According to a report from Moriah Costa of Reuters news service, a Republican member of Congress has poked the District Of Columbia hornet’s nest by introducing legislation that would nullify the District’s draconian firearms laws.  The legislation was in the form of an amendment to the current spending bill that is intended to support the local D.C. government.  An excerpt:

A 2008 Supreme Court decision struck down the district’s ban on handgun possession.  Residents now must register handguns every three years, complete a safety course and be fingerprinted and photographed.

The amendment sponsored by Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky would do away with those provisions.  In a statement, Massie criticized Washington gun laws as harassment of law-abiding citizens.

The bill will now go to the Senate where the offending provision will no doubt be deleted.  But at least Massie tried.  For the full article, click HERE.

And in a somewhat related Second Amendment legislation development, Democratic freshman Representative Robin Kelly of Illinois has introduced a bill to restrict the advertising of firearms to those under 18 years of age.  According to this WaPo article, the bill would:

• prohibit the use of cartoon characters in firearms marketing;
• prohibit branding of firearms products on tee-shirts and hats;
• require warning labels on any firearms products specifically designed and marketed to children.

This last would presumably include such products as the Crickett and Chipmunk lines of 22-caliber rifles from Keystone, some of which are offered with pink stocks.

Constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh has some thoughts, HERE, on Representative Kelly’s bill.

This call to action relates to a Second Amendment issue.  It came to my attention first via an e-mail alert from Grassroots North Carolina (GRNC), and concerns pending NC General Assembly legislation that will make the penalties more severe for carrying a firearm into a space, public or private, in which they are prohibited.  As most will know, such spaces typically include most buildings owned by the Federal, state, county, or municipal governments, as well as any privately owned building or open space on which the owner has posted a sign advising the public that concealed or open carry is not allowed.  In addition, in many instances, the prohibition extends to the building’s parking lot or parking structure, even when the prohibiting sign is not visible until the individual enters the adjacent building.

Unfortunately, some folks will occasionally violate the law unintentionally regardless of whether they have a valid CCL.  In recognition of this, the original CCL legislation made a first offense a Class 2 misdemeanor, and the subsequent offenses a Class 1 felony.  The revised penalties, incorporated at the last minute by the NC-House, make the first offense a Class A1 misdemeanor, and subsequent offenses a Class H felony.

The GRNC alert did not give much in the way of detail, but this afternoon Paul Valone, who heads up Grassroots North Carolina, was kind enough to fill in some gaps for me.  The essence of it is — JAIL TIME!  The original Class 2 misdemeanor did not involve jail time, but the proposed change to a Class A1 misdemeanor may very possibly mean jail time for granny if she fails to lock her glove box when her pistol is inside!

It is not clear at the moment, but it looks as if this started out as a omnibus (everything but the kitchen sink) Senate bill that went to the House, where the objectionable amendments were added.  Representative Larry Pittman tried to add an amendment that would have nullified the penalty escalations, but his amendment was defeated (and Pat McElraft voted to defeat it).  The House went on to pass the bill with the stronger penalties (and McElraft voted for it), and it has now moved to the Senate.  The Senate will vote first on the amendments that the House made to the bill, then on the revised bill a few days later.

What we must do now is to let our NC-Senators know that we do not want the Senate to agree to these penalty escalations that were incorporated by the House at the last minute.  Since the Senate may vote as early as Wednesday, please contact your Senator immediately, by e-mail and/or phone, to say some variation of this:

Please Do Not Approve The House Amendments to SB-594

Please do not vote to approve the provisions added by the House to SB-594, the “Omnibus Justice Amendments”, as the provisions include harsher penalties for violated the prohibited spaces measures in North Carolina’s concealed and open firearms carrying statutes.  I ask you to act so that inadvertent, first time violations do not result in well-meaning citizens becoming eligible for jail time upon conviction.

Thanks for your attention to this constituent contact.

Name, address, etc..

Senator Norm Sanderson’s e-mail is Norman.Sanderson@ncleg.net, and his office phone number is 919/733-5706.  I think it would also be helpful if Representative McElraft were copied on any e-mail messages that are sent.  Her e-mail address is PatM@ncleg.net.

Please respond to this call to action, and if you wish, you may also copy me on any e-mail messages with the address VMT@Salacia.com.

1st UPDATE

I sent Senator Sanderson an e-mail, and followed by calling to leave a message on his Raleigh office phone.  When I hung up a couple of minutes ago, his message box was NOT YET FULL.  Get cracking, tea partiers.

2nd UPDATE

When I briefed the members attending our Tuesday night meeting on this issue, some wanted to know who among the General Assembly legislators was responsible for initiating this new penalty provision in the House and/or Senate bills.  As it happens, the folks at GRNC have put up an informative timeline, HERE, which I would commend to all who value common sense gun laws.  And it is NOT TOO LATE to let your voice be heard.  If you haven’t done so, send your elected representatives in the House and Senate an e-mail message to communicate your views.

As I remarked at our CCTPP meeting in Morehead City tonight, some members have heard me say lately that I think our Representative Pat McElraft has cast some votes that are not consistent with Tea Party principles, and at least two of them were cast in the last two weeks.  However, I have also said that I think we should remember that Representative McElraft owes some deference to Representative Thom Tillis (who is continuing in his final term as Speaker of the House), since Tillis appointed her as Chairman of the Appropriations Committee (budget committee) for the short session.  Stated plainly, if Tillis strongly supports a bill, then it would be prudent if Rep. McElraft would support it as well.

That said, House committee chairmen serve at the pleasure of the Speaker.  Since Tillis will not be Speaker in the next session of the General Assembly, there is a good chance that McElraft will be displaced by whomever the new Speaker favors.  Therefore, I think it is fair to ask now long Representative McElraft’s gratitude should persist, especially when it constrains her to vote against the interests of the people in Carteret and Craven counties who worked so hard for her re-election.

Obviously, I am giving Representative McElraft the benefit of the doubt in postulating a scenario in which she acts in accord with Tillis’ leanings rather than her own.  Frankly, I hope that to be the case.  If not, then we conservatives may have misjudged her ideological inclinations.

I welcome this development and have for a long time, ever since Mrs. Saunders confiscated my high-quality German-made switchblade in the seventh grade.  Darned ole’ busybody.  I paid five bucks for that knife, and it was the envy of every other boy on the schoolyard.

Below is the full text from the article that appeared on Brietbart:

With gun control defeated in 2013 and unlikely to make any headway with the 2014 elections, forcing Democrats to tack to the center, many citizens are lining up to push back laws restricting knife ownership.

The battle is being led by Knife Rights, an organization Doug Ritter founded in 2006 after realizing “there was not an NRA for knife owners.”

According to KnifeRights.org, Ritter has already succeeded in seeing “knife preemption laws” enacted in Arizona, Utah, New Hampshire, Georgia, Kansas, and Alaska.

Moreover, the National Journal reports that a knife bill which repeals the carrying and sale of switchblade knives has been passed in Tennessee, and Governor Bill Haslam (R) is expected to sign it.

The bill repeals the state’s ban on switchblade knives and the 4-inch blade limit heretofore placed on knives carried by those “with intent to go armed.”  The legislation “also preempts any city or town ordinance that regulates knives.”

NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre fully supports the work of Knife Rights, calling them “the premier grassroots organization protecting our right to own knives.”  He adds: “Those who love freedom need Knife Rights.”

And yes, there is a Second Amendment issue here.  After all, the one-armed, gun averse folks among us have the right to concealed carry also, don’t they?

That wacky 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has again come up with a doozy of a ruling, this time on a Second Amendment case arising out of a San Francisco ordinance that requires gun owners to keep all their firearms either disabled (via use of a trigger lock) or locked in a gun safe EXCEPT WHEN BEING CARRIED ON THEIR PERSON.  The ordinance applies to all residents, even those without children or those living alone.

A key excerpt from the Court’s ruling:

Thus, even when a handgun is secured, it may be readily accessed in case of an emergency.  Further, section 4512 [of the San Francisco ordinance] leaves open alternative channels for self-defense in the home, because San Franciscans are not required to secure their handguns while carrying them on their person.  Provided San Franciscans comply with the storage requirements, they are free to use handguns to defend their home while carrying them on their person.

Yeah, right.  Pajamas with a holster pocket, coming to San Francisco area Wal-Marts soon.  Check out Eugene Volokh’s analysis of the silliness at the Volokh Conspiracy, HERE.

Yesterday I posted the results of the informal poll taken of his readers by Professor Glenn Reynolds at his Instapundit blog.  Comparison with the CPAC poll, below, is interesting.  Rand Paul won at CPAC, of course, as CPAC attracts a very libertarian crowd.  Senator Ted Cruz faired very well in both polls, as did Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.  The standout differences seem to be with the results for Governor Chris Christie, Senator Marco Rubio, and Doctor Ben Carson.

Dr. Ben Carson may have done well simply because he was a featured speaker at CPAC, and conversely, he may have done poorly in the Instapundit poll because Professor Reynolds’ readers may be inclined toward conservatism rather than libertarianism, and conservatives do not like Dr. Carson’s squishy-ness on Second Amendment rights.

For those not aware of Dr. Carson’s views on gun rights, most of what is known stems from an interview he did with Glenn Beck about a year ago during which Beck asked him if citizens should be allowed to own semi-automatic weapons.  Dr. Carson’s reply is quoted as “It depends on where you live.  I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it.”  Oddly, this view corresponds fairly closely to the dissent filed by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer in the DC v. Heller case, which suggested that an individual had a more legitimate right to own a firearm for hunting purposes than for self-protection.  Lastly, the phrasing of his response suggests to me that Dr. Carson may not realize that virtually all firearms now in the hands of civilians are semi-automatics, from your run-of-the-mill revolver up to the legal AK-47 versions.

Recently, however, Tony Lee has reported at Breitbart that Dr. Carson now says:

… he does not believe in gun registration because America’s massive debt could transform the nation into a third-world country in which martial law may be imposed.

Carson, the retired neurosurgeon who has been getting buzz in conservative circles, said that he changed his mind and was against gun registration because of the “sinister internal forces” that could surface in that scenario.  He said he “used to think they needed to be registered, but if you register them they just come and find you and take your guns.”

That seems to me to be a weak rationale for getting to where he needs to be on the issue, but still, maybe Dr. Carson has been boning up on the history and justification for the Second Amendment.  I hope so, for the sake of any future political ambitions he may have.

Want to know how a California gun store was able to trigger an uproar in far-off New Jersey?  Well, bear in mind that a “smart gun”, in this context, is one that has built-in technology that will allow it to function only while being in the presence of the bonafide owner.  Now, click HERE.

Coming less than three months after MS-NBC dumped fellow English commentator Martin Bashir, Piers Morgan is now out at CNN.  Morgan’s show, which had replaced Larry King’s upon King’s retirement three years ago, will end soon, probably within a month or so.  CNN’s experiment with having a Brit constantly trashing America’s gun culture, along with persistently advocating for more strict gun control laws, did not go well for some reason.  The full New York Times story is HERE.

In the wake of the SCOTUS decisions in the Heller and McDonald cases, most federal courts have begun to assess second amendment (2A) cases in two stages.  In the first stage, they seek to determine whether the case at hand involves the 2A right.  If they decide that it does, they move on to stage two, which is to consider whether the state law (or county law, city law, etc.) under which the defendant was charged effectively destroys the defendant’s 2A right.  If they decide that it does (i.e., has the demonstrable effect in practice of making it impossible or inordinately difficult to exercise the right), then the law is struck down as being plainly unconstitutional.  Stage three is invoked if the judges decide that the law merely restricts the right rather than destroys it, and then other considerations come into play.

Peruta versus San Diego deals with the California statutes that define the conditions under which California citizens may be granted a permit to carry a handgun.  At issue was a provision that requires permit applicants to have a “good cause” for wanting a permit to carry a handgun.

An edited excerpt from constitutional law professor David Kopel’s post earlier this week at the Volokh Conspiracy law blog:

California law … also requires that the applicant have “good cause,” which was interpreted by San Diego County to mean that the applicant is faced with current specific threats.  (Not all California counties have this narrow interpretation.)  The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion written by Judge O’Scannlain, ruled that Peruta was entitled to Summary Judgement, because the “good cause” provision violates the Second Amendment.

The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

and

… the “good cause” requirement, as interpreted by San Diego, is a near-total destruction of the right to bear arms.  “Heller teaches that a near-total prohibition on keeping arms (Heller) is hardly better than a near-total prohibition on bearing them (this case), and vice versa.  Both go too far.”

The ruling was by a three-judge panel, not the full Ninth Circuit Court, and the next step may involve a re-consideration by the full eleven-member court (an en banc review).  Beyond that, the case may also be incorporated into a case before the Supreme Court, as there have been conflicting rulings among several Federal district courts on the base issue.

For more, click HERE to get to the Volokh Conspiracy blog, then search for “Peruta” to bring up all of their posts about the case.

The article, mostly discouraging, from the law blog Volokh Conspiracy, is HERE.