Liberty for Thee, but not for DC residents…until now

Second Amendment supporters and the Second Amendment Foundation won a hard-fought ruling in Washington, DC. Over the weekend a federal Judge threw out DC’s ban on carrying a weapon. The Judge ruled that the constitutional right, inherent in the 2nd Amendment, to self-defense is not limited to ones residence.

People who live in Washington, D.C. can now carry guns in public. A federal judge this weekend that the district’s initial ban is unconstitutional violating the Second Amendment.

According to court documents, the 2008 law mandated that handgun owners specify where they planned to use their guns and denied permits to anyone planning to carry handguns outside of their homes.

The judge ordered a reversal on the law immediately, but police officers have not yet been told to stop enforcing it. FOXNews.

In another article, FOX’s Emily Miller writes:

Federal judge rules DC ban on gun carry rights unconstitutional

Time’s up!

Yesterday, July 14th, was the deadline for Governor Nixon to veto, sign or ignore the pile of bills on his desk. One, SB 656, was one of those waiting for Nixon’s action. Late yesterday—at the very last minute, he vetoed SB 656.

What was SB 656? It was a bill that among other things, allowed teachers to protect their students after extensive training and certification by law enforcement, similar training, in fact, that LEOs undergo.

Nixon vetoed it saying it endangered the children. He prefers School Resource officers. So he said. Some school districts cannot afford hiring police to patrol their schools every day nor does every police department have extra officers to station them at every school.

Regardless of his motives, what Nixon has done was to leave schools open for more shootings. Our students must continue to be taught in free-fire zones.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014 4:49

http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Jay-Nixon-kmov.jpgMissouri Gov. Jay Nixon (D) vetoed legislation Monday that would have allowed vetted and trained teachers and school administrators to carry firearms on campus. The measure had passed the Republican-dominated state house by a strong 111-28 vote and the state senate in a 21-7 vote.

“I cannot condone putting firearms in the hands of educators,” Nixon said. “Arming teachers will not make our schools safer.”

Nixon said he supports the use of duly authorized law enforcement officers employed as school resource officers.

The bill, SB 656, was designed to allow school districts to cross-train faculty to a new “school protection officer” standard. These volunteer teachers and administrators would need a valid Missouri concealed-carry permit and complete a Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission certification course. Following these steps, they would be allowed to carry on school grounds if the district opted to allow armed personnel on campus.

Over the summer, no fewer than 10 school districts have sent selected teachers and staff through up to 75 hours of training in anticipation of the bill being signed by the governor. This required training ran at a cost of $17,500 for every two staff members.

Bloomberg surrogates, Moms Demand Action, are ecstatic that student remain endangered.

***

In another firearm related issue, Jackson County quietly passed an ordinance earlier this year prohibiting firing a firearm within the county. The way the law is written, if you have to shoot to protect yourself, you will be arrested, regardless of the merits of the act, for shooting within the county.

Kevin Jamison, one of the creator’s of Missouri’s CCW law and President of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance, had this to say.

Jackson County has an ordinance which prohibits shooting in the “urban tier” of the country. There is a map of this urban tier but it takes some effort to get. It does not exempt self-defense. The ordinance was slipped through last December without public notice. It does allow for ranges but does not define them and no county permit for ranges exists. This complicates some of the CCW instructors who have a home range. There was a hearing on a repeal sponsored by County Legislator Greg Grounds. The hearing was continued to 28 July, 2014 at 2:30 in the Jackson County Independence courthouse, in the basement. There were a great number of people there today. That always gets a politician’s attention.

The Jackson County Sheriff’s office says that they did not request this ordinance.

Spread the word.

***

SJR 36, also known as Amendment 5 on the August 5th ballot continues to be under fire from gun control activists. An appellate hearing occurred yesterday before the Missouri Supreme Court. Ron Calzone, a gun-rights activist was present and made this report.

What do you think “unalienable right” means?

Today I went to the MO Supreme Court hearing over the ballot title for Amendment 5, the super strong gun rights amendment sponsored by Sen. Kurt Schaefer.

The lawyer for the anti-gun side said, (beginning at about 2:50 of the audio link): “The effect of the word ‘unalienable’ has no legal meaning, as we argued in our brief. Three states have, that I have found, have the phrase “inalienable right’ in their constitution. In all three of those states their Supreme Courts have said, specially, that the use of the word ‘inalienable’ does not trigger strict scrutiny standards and that they will review those under rational basis.

http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/fe8feff4659e0b7b8625699f0079eddf/46c3c6fb6b7bd9eb86257d0a00634fcf/$FILE/SC94293.mp3

This type of thinking is exactly why, in SJR 36, we advocated for the addition of a specific requirement that gun rights be protected by “strict scrutiny” standards in court.

For a 4 minute primer on Strict Scrutiny vs. the Rational Basis Test, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzETeTvYDu4

You’ll see that the rational basis test the anti-gun lawyer argued allows government restriction on gun rights for about any reason. You can also see why it’s so important to pass Amendment 5!

Friday Follies for July 11, 2014

Missouri Governor Nixon’s veto deadline is approaching. It has passed for some bills, but for those passed near the end of the legislative session, the deadline is July 14, 2014, this coming Monday. If Nixon does not veto any outstanding bill, it automatically passes into law without his signature. That tactic allows Nixon to fence-sit on some issues. He can claim he never signed the bill and the supporters get their bill passed. Neat!

One such bill is SB 656. This bill is an amalgam of several bills that update various gun issues in Missouri. Some of those issues are: allowing teachers to be armed in schools after certification by law enforcement, lowering the CCW age from 21 to 19, younger for those on active duty in the military, explicitly allowing open carry throughout the state superseding any local prohibitions.

I’ve not heard of any movements against this bill since it was passed in the legislature. The libs and gun-grabbers seem to be focusing on Amendment 5 (AKA SJR 36).

The gun-grabbers are attacking Amendment 5 again. They lost a suit in late June on how the amendment appeared on the ballot. The Cole County Judge declared the suit by a St. Louis police chief and a Bloomberg surrogate to be without merit. Now those same libs have appealed their suit to vacate or change the amendment.

The libs proclaim to support choice…as long as they can dictate what those choices are. My choice is to vote YES! on Amendment 5.

***

The Louisiana state education board is backing off on their threat to sue Governor Bobby Jindal over Common Core. Jindal is against it, the board is for it. The nation’s education elite is finding support for Common Core sifting through their fingers. Centralized control of education continues to take a beating.

Louisiana School Board May Back Down In Feud With Jindal

Vote Yes! on Missouri Amendment #5

There are a number of constitutional amendments on the ballot August 5th. All are worthy except for #7 which is a tax increase to pay for St Louis’ and Kansas City’s road and street maintenance. The cities should be funding that maintenance. I don’t know what St Louis is wasting their money upon. Kansas City announced a day or so ago they will spend 27% of their maintenance funds on…streetcars. Only 17% of the ‘new’ taxpayer funding will be for roads and bridges. With so little funding by the cities, the roads and bridges will continue to deteriorate.

But that is not the Amendment for today’s post. Amendment #5 is. The dems and libs attempted to block the amendment from the ballot by filing a lawsuit. A Cole County Judge turned it down saying the suitwas without merit and, due to the time frame, moot.

This is Amendment #5 as it will appear on the August 5th ballot.

Amendment 5- Right to Keep and Bear Arms
This amendment would reinforce the right of Missouri citizens to keep and bear arms, ammunition and accessories in defense of their family in addition to the current rights to protect a person’s home, property or themselves. The amendment would remove the language that states that the right ot keep and bear arms does not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. The amendment would make these rights inalienable and obligate the state of Missouri to uphold these liberties and under no circumstance decline to protect against their infringement. The amendment does not prevent the legislature from limiting the rights of certain felons and certain individuals adjudicated as having a mental order.

A yes vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to expand the right to keep and bear arms.

A no vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

The democrats and libs are making a number of false claims about this amendment.

They claim it will allow open carry across the state. It will not. SB656, laying on Nixon’s desk, has that provision. Amendment 5, as you can read above, says nothing about open carry.

The dems and libs claim there will be more lawsuits citing data from Louisiana. Louisiana has a number of legal differences with Missouri. Comparing the statistics from Louisiana to estimated statistics in Missouri is like comparing apples with rocks. Both can be thrown but that is about the only similarity.

Will there be lawsuits? Undoubtedly—from the dems and libs exploring the limits of the Amendment, especially that part about ‘strict adherence.’ You see, that phrase was added in response to the illegal machinations of the Department of Revenue and the upper tiers of the Missouri Highway Patrol violating state law by send CCW carriers information, names, addresses, to the Social Security Administration. The two Missouri agencies did not send a complete list of CCW holders to the Social Security Administration once, they did it twice! It was only after lengthy investigations by the Legislature this information was discovered.

Amendment 5 would not create more lawsuits. It would, however, make any such lawsuit more difficult for those wishing to override our legal rights.

The democrats claim, rightly, that Amendment 5 will remove that portion of the state constitution that prohibits concealed carry. The Missouri Supreme Court has already, responding to lawsuits after the passage of Concealed Carry some years ago, declared that phrase in the Missouri Constitution as moot. Amendment 5 makes the language in the Missouri Constitution conform to that state Supreme Court ruling.

The Western Missouri Shooters Alliance is backing Amendment 5 and has posted the text of this flyer on their websitehttp://www.wmsa.net/legacy-wmsa//images/WMSALOGO_300_blu-yel.gif. I urge you to support Amendment 5, print off this flyer and ask local businesses if they will allow it to be posted near their entries. Amendment 5 will strengthen our right to keep and bear arms bringing our state constitution up to the level of the US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment.

It’s a new month!

Today, if you haven’t yet noticed, is the first of July. Across the state line in Kansas, newly passed legislation comes into force. One of those is open carry. It is now legal to carry a weapon openly in Kansas. Are there restrictions? I don’t know. That is one reason why I won’t be open carrying when I cross the state line.

But the local news media has noticed. One TV station is already in the process of whipping up mass hysteria, just watch the biased video. So far, no one is biting.

Open carry law now in effect in Kansas

Did you know…?

…that the 2nd Amendment does not protect hunting nor hunters? According to one Federal Judge, it does not.

http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140509023613/vsbattles/images/8/8f/Elmer_fudd-2.jpgHave you heard the term, “Zumbo” or “Fudd?” It refers to the cartoon character, Elmer Fudd. Second Amendment rights activists use it in another form.

Fudd: Slang term for a “casual” gun owner; eg; a person who typically only owns guns for hunting or shotgun sports and does not truly believe in the true premise of the second amendment. These people also generally treat owners/users of so called “non sporting” firearms like handguns or semiautomatic rifles with unwarranted scorn or contempt.

I’ve not heard of any Second Amendment supporter use the term. I can understand how it could be used when we have hunters and hunter advocates support gun control. If it doesn’t affect hunting and hunters, they aren’t concerned. After all, an AR isn’t a hunting rifle (tell that to numerous varmint hunters!)

A legal case about hunting came before a Judge. The hunters attempted to use the 2nd Amendment in their case. The Judge ruled the 2nd Amendment didn’t apply to hunting.

Judge Rules That The Second Amendment Doesn’t Protect Hunting

“Fudd” isn’t exactly a term of endearment.

Fudds are generally uninterested in the Second Amendment, and are therefore the favorite of anti-gun politicians and the news media, like this collection of Fudds in a recent Jamie Tarabay article used to attack the National Rifle Association. They could generally care less about fighting for gun rights, because they assume that their guns are safe.

How is that working out for you now, Elmer?

A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit by a hunters’ group that had challenged Pennsylvania’s long-standing ban on Sunday hunting, saying she saw no proof the hunters’ constitutionally protected rights were being harmed.

U.S. District Judge Yvette Kane made the ruling in a suit brought by the Lancaster County-based Hunters United for Sunday Hunting against the Pennsylvania Game Commission, the agency that enforces the state’s game code.

Kane said she could find no proof that courts have extended Second Amendment protections to include recreational hunting. She also found that the hunters could not prove that the law unfairly discriminated between classes of hunters or that the ban on Sunday hunting violates their religious freedoms.

As stunning as this is for the Fudds, the ruling must be even more perplexing for gun control cultists. They’ve spent the last 30 or more years arguing that if the Second Amendment applied at all outside of their collectivist interpretation, then surely, the Second Amendment only applied for the purposes of hunting.

Now a federal judge has knocked over that strawman, and stomped that sucker flat.

It’s going to be interesting to see if this ruling registers with the gun controllers—my guess is that they’ll ignore it entirely, since it is inconvenient—but even more interesting to see if this has any effect on the Fudds, who are probably going to find out that they aren’t the “protected species” that they always assumed that they were.

When you hear hunters support gun control, tell them about this. They have as much invested in a strong 2nd Amendment as do the rest of us.

Recap: MO 2014 Legislative Session – Successes and Failures

All in all, the view for the 2014 Legislative session is one of failure. When push came to shove, the ‘Pub leadership caved to the dems and unions. The influence of union money was obvious. Right-to-Work never got out of the chute and Paycheck Protection fared little better.

The ‘Pubs hold veto-proof majorities in the House and the Senate. They could, if they really wanted, push any bill through the Legislature and then override Nixon’s veto? Proof? They did just that for the Tax Cut Bill, SB509. But the rest? Once again, the team of Tom Dempsey (R-St. Charles) and Ron Richard (R-Joplin), controlling the Senate, betrayed the conservatives of Missouri.

Here’s a quick breakdown of some of the bills:

Tax Reform, SB509. Passed, veto overridden. The legislation will cut Missouri’s top individual income tax rate for the first time in almost 100 years and make the state the third to enact a special deduction for business income reported on personal tax returns. — ABC News.

COMMON CORE, HB1490. Passed, pending Nixon’s signature or veto. This bill requires the Missouri Department of Education to write new guidelines for student achievement standards for English, math, science and history. New goals would replace Common Core Standards being pushed by the US Department of Education. This bill did not block Common Core but does place a one-year moratorium while new standards are written.

“It’s a step in the right direction.” — Breitbart.

Pending Nixon’s signature or veto…

Abortion, HB1307. Extends the 24 hour waiting period for an abortion to 72 hours. This makes Missouri only the 3rd state, after Utah and North Dakota, to impose a 3-day waiting period. Read more here.

Early Voting, SB892. Allows early voting during the six working days prior to an election. The period is only for Monday through Friday of the prior week and the Monday before the election, during normal working hours and does NOT allow voting on the weekend.

In addition, “Lawmakers on May 5 granted final approval to legislation that would move Missouri’s future presidential primary elections from February to March starting in 2016. The bill, SB 892, passed 25-7 in the Senate and 101-47 in the House of the Representatives. The bill now awaits action by Gov. Jay Nixon.”

“The legislation was prompted by national Republican and Democratic party rules that prohibit all but certain states from holding their presidential primaries prior to March. Under SB 892, the Missouri’s 2016 presidential primary would take place on March 15. The primary would be held on Feb. 2, 2016, under existing law.”Capitol Report.

Guns, SJ36 and SB656. SJR 36 passed 122-31 in the House of Representatives and 23-8 in the Senate. It is a Constitutional Amendment, that would, “declare the right to keep and bear arms to be ‘unalienable,’ meaning it is a universal right that isn’t subject to restriction. The measure also would repeal existing language that says the constitutional right to bear arms ‘shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.’ ” Because it goes before voters, it bypasses Gov. Jay Nixon and isn’t subject to veto.

SB656 Allows specially trained teachers and administrators to carry concealed weapons in public schools and lowers the age to get a concealed gun permit to 19 from 21.

Failed to pass…

Paper Ballots, SB623. “Establishes the paper ballot as the official ballot and requires audits before election certification” — Missouri Precinct Project Newsletter. Failed in committee.

Property Rights (Anti-Agenda 21),HB 1647. “Prohibits the state and political subdivisions from implementing policies affecting property rights and from entering into certain relationships with organizations” — Missouri Precinct Project Newsletter. Failed in committee.

Second Amendment Preservation Act, HB1439. A collection of individual bills to expand guns laws in Missouri, impose state regulation on the enforcement of federal acts and regulations deemed to violate the US 2nd Amendment and impose restrictions on employment for federal agents and employees who attempt to enforce Federal regulations that violate the 2nd Amendment. A poison-pill amendment was added that effectively killed the bill. The ‘Pub House conference committee added the poison-pill amendment and then blocked further action until the legislative session ended. Failed in committee.

Voter ID, HJR47. Asks voters to approve to a constitutional amendment allowing a requirement that voters show government-issued photo identification at the polls. Passed the House but not the Senate. HJR47. Failed in committee. — Missouri Precinct Project Newsletter.

Yes, there was one significant success in the passage of the Tax Cut bill. Overall, however, this legislative session must be viewed as a failure. With over whelming numbers, the ‘Pubs in the Legislature, with a few exceptions, showed once again they were spineless and ineffectual.