Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying “the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner.”

link

Share/Save

Why is it so difficult for educated people to grasp the intent behind the 2nd amendment?  It was put in place for two primary reasons.  The first was if the “state” needed to defend itself or “call up” (draft) people to the militia they

1. had their own guns
2. were proficient with said guns

It had pretty much nothing to do with “hunting” or “personal protection”, it was so the people were cheaply trained when the state needed them.

Also, look at the government and oppression that they just finished fighting?  Naturally they were mistrustful of big government and huge regulation dealing with what people can or cannot do, they just finished fighting a war and wanted to make sure they were prepared to fight another one.  The 2nd amendment wasn’t drafted by the founding fathers….think about that for a minute.  None of the amendments were “important” enough for the fathers to put them in the constitution itself.  These were additions to the constitution to get the states on board.  The states had an interest in protecting themselves against the federal government.  The second reason it was included in the bill of rights was so the states could use the citizens to protect the citizens.

Naturally, over time, the ideas behind what the “founding fathers” and infant states wanted have been warped.  What about the founding father’s intent to give states sovereignty?  what about their intent that the federal government not be bigger than the states?  this idea has obviously gone out the window…why are we clinging to these few “rights” that are specifically outlined…like they can’t be tossed aside at any time as well.

Things change as technology moves forward and a nation matures.  The constitution is just a piece of paper, some general ideas laid out by some white haired old guys.  I’m not even sure the ideas contained in it are good for the long term growth and prosperity of a nation.  Can anyone look at the state of the US right now and say we are the best nation on the planet?  or that we have the best ideas on how to do thing?  Is our average quality of living better than the French?  Italians?  Sweeds?  I really don’t know.  I do know that from my limited perspective it doesn’t seem like our government is very effective or efficient.

Share/Save

Department of Defense has reacted to the Ft. Hood shootings by imposing regulations on private arms possession. Muslim fanatic Nidal Hasan would certainly have stopped in his tracks if he knew he would have to violate regulations in order to carry out a mass murder. Now we only need to promulgate regulations forbidden unlicensed possession of explosives in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then never get around to printing up the licenses, to bring Al-Queda to its knees.

link to fox news

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has signed off on a new policy regulating how privately owned guns can be carried or stored on U.S. military installations.

The policy was developed following the shooting at Fort Hood in November, which left 13 soldiers dead. The suspect, Major Nidal Hasan was able to bring weapons he bought onto the base.

The new standardized policy is part of list of recommendations accepted by Gates and adopted by the Department of Defense after a review of the November shooting.

The Defense Department announced Thursday some near-term actions to be taken to remedy the intelligence failures, including 26 of the 79 recommendations made by a panel charged with reviewing the shooting. The panel, headed by former Secretary of the Army Togo West and retired Admiral Verne Clark, former Chief of Naval Operations, announced the findings of their review in January.

One recommendation is to expand the use of the FBI’s “eGuardian” reporting system to handle all suspicious activities. The report also suggests complete deployment of the “Law Enforcement Defense Data Exchange” system to share this information between DOD agencies.

The report establishes the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America’s Security Affairs as the DoD lead for the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force program, according to Fox News.

Share/Save

There is an article that I read this afternoon about a guy that seems to be on a crusade for 2nd amendment rights.  I’m not sure I’d put myself out there like that, but I’m all for anyone standing up for something they believe in.  In the article they outline an encounter he had with the police.  What happened is a little disturbing to me.  It’s not so disturbing that the police would stop him, but cuffing him and all that is pretty ridiculous.  To me that is just like cuffing someone and throwing them in the back of a police car as soon as they walk out of a bar…there’s no proof they’ve done anything wrong yet…so why stop them?  Beyond that, what they did afterward is pretty weird…I wonder how much responsibility they would have if someone else had picked up the bullets before he was able to get to them.  Again, should they cuff you…take your keys, throw them down the block and tell you not to move until the police have left the scene?  Pretty ridiculous.

Something I don’t get about the general public is why do you assume that someone who is carrying a gun openly is a threat?  The person carrying the gun in that manner is drawing attention to themselves…it’s pretty unlikely that someone up to no good is going to try and draw attention.  I could understand if a police saw someone “printing” (concealed weapon visible through clothing).  In that case I could understand checking their permit…I still don’t like it, but it makes far more sense.

link

Just about everybody on the Metro Police force has heard of Tim Farrell, and he sometimes gets mistaken for a law enforcement officer.

Farrell is simply a 29-year-old wireless Internet engineer — and a gun rights crusader. He is one of what appears to be a growing number of people taking up the “open-carry” cause, advocating a constitutional right to openly carry firearms.

“The open-carry movement has gained momentum over the last four or five years because people are waking up to their rights,” Farrell says. “I don’t need a permit to exercise free speech. I don’t need a permit to be tried by a jury if I’m accused of a crime, so why do I need a permit to carry a gun if I have a constitutional right to carry a gun?”

Nevada is a better place than most for Farrell because it is “an open–carry state.” Nevada reiterates the right to bear arms in its constitution and does not have blanket restrictions on law-abiding citizens’ open carrying of firearms.

That’s why a dozen or so people who attended the March 27 Tea Party rally in Searchlight were able to openly carry firearms.

One was Dave Stilwell, a 44-year-old truck driver from Las Vegas who always carries a gun for self-defense.

He says he was jogging back from a garage sale near his house one morning last May with his .45-caliber pistol on his hip. Around Jones Boulevard and Cheyenne Avenue, a Metro patrol car rolled up slowly behind him.

A shopkeeper had called police after seeing the gun, said the officer, who took the pistol from Stilwell, removed the magazine and the bullet in the chamber, checked the ID number on the gun and then returned the weapon and ammunition to Stilwell before driving away.

“I just told the officer I was exercising my body and my rights,” he said. “In retrospect, I didn’t think that was such a big deal.

“I knew I would have contact with police at some point. Even though it’s my legal right to carry a gun, there’s a lot of propaganda out there, a lot of inaccurate information. When I started to open carry a couple years ago, I would have guessed that 90 out of 100 people didn’t think it was legal.”

So have open-carry advocates latched onto the Tea Party movement? Stilwell said that although he attended with gun in holster, his reason for going was to join others who care about their rights.

“Rights are becoming more prevalent because people feel like their backs are against the wall because of the government,” he says.

Farrell is not a Tea Partyer. He describes himself as libertarian and pro-choice on abortion. He and Stilwell are on the same page when it comes to guns, however.

Like Stilwell, Farrell says he carries his handgun wherever he goes, for self-defense. He says he has never been kicked out of a casino or other place of business but finds himself educating business owners who question why he is so brazenly armed.

Farrell says he has worn his gun many times into his neighborhood restaurant and bar near the U.S. 95-Summerlin Parkway interchange. But as he walks in one recent afternoon, a bartender who spots the gun is taken aback. She says the only pistol-packing customers she has served are undercover cops.

“So what I should have done is asked to see your concealed weapons permit because that is something that’s mandatory,” she tells Farrell.

“I don’t have a concealed gun on me,” he replies. “I do have a concealed-weapons permit but you do not need a concealed-weapons permit for a nonconcealed gun.”

“I mean, a regular permit just to carry the gun around,” she says.

“There is no permit in this state for that,” he tells her.

“It used to be years ago you would have to give your weapons to the bartender,” she says.

“This bar is private property, obviously,” Farrell says. “You can set whatever rules you want.”

“You can pull that out on me and shoot,” she tells him. “You see what I’m saying?”

“Well, of course. And that’s one of the reasons to carry openly, is for self-defense but it’s also to educate others as well that, one, it’s not against the law and, two, that not everyone with a gun is a bad guy. Certainly if there was a bad guy coming to rob you, he wouldn’t let you see the gun until it was too late.”

With that, the bartender goes about her business.

It undoubtedly helps that Farrell is not one of those guys who wears head-to-toe camouflage gear. He wears polo shirts and bluejeans.

He doesn’t have a gun collection. “I have a handgun and a shotgun, that’s all, just to keep me and my wife safe.”

When Farrell read Stilwell’s blog post about how he had been stopped by police, Farrell researched state and local laws, as well as police regulations and then conducted an experiment.

On the night of June 24, he holstered up his loaded 40-caliber Glock 23 pistol and proceeded to a sidewalk on Las Vegas Boulevard, just south of Charleston Boulevard, where he was certain he would be noticed by police. He was.

It wasn’t his first encounter with the law. While vacationing in Nashua, N.H., early last year, he was stopped on foot on the way to a bank by police who asked about his gun. Minutes later he was allowed to go about his business with gun in tow. Such is life in the “live free or die” state, apparently.

The Las Vegas Strip encounter was far more intense, with police arriving in squad cars and on motorcycles in a show of force, guns drawn. Farrell was handcuffed and his gun was confiscated, its bullets removed. Over the course of the next 23 minutes, Farrell invoked his right to talk to an attorney, told police not to touch his gun, and that he hadn’t consented to being searched and detained. He refused to answer questions about whether he possessed a registration card for the weapon, and invoked his right to remain silent.

Bottom line: He hadn’t committed any crime. After police ran a background check on Farrell, confirming his gun was properly registered, and finding that he also has a concealed-weapons permit and is not a dangerous criminal, he was uncuffed. He was handed back his gun but the bullets were dropped down one of his pants pockets and the empty magazine was placed on an irrigation box 100 feet away. He was ordered not to move until police drove away.

“I understand the need for officer safety,” Farrell said. “These guys have a tough job. But officer safety does not trump my rights. To stop me there has to be something other than the fact I have a gun. They shouldn’t have even taken my gun.”

Based on complaints from Farrell, Metro’s Citizen Review Board and internal affairs division each launched investigations into his case last summer. Although the officers involved were cleared of wrongdoing, Metro’s force had to take a refresher course on how to handle individuals who openly carry firearms.

Last month, a five-member panel of the Citizen Review Board found that police had complied with department policy related to the incident but that neither the policy nor police training at the time Farrell was stopped was specific enough on “open carry” stops. The board concluded that the police action was “the result of ambiguity among officers on how to handle an individual asserting his Second Amendment right to openly carry a gun in public.”

While cadets are trained in Metro’s police academy on how to handle constitutional rights, including those involving gun possession, the agency’s thick policy and procedure manual is silent on open-carry issues.

Andrea Beckman, the Citizen Review Board’s executive director, says Farrell’s case “brought to light the significance of how to train police officers on open carry.” Farrell’s case, in fact, was the first open-carry dispute heard by the board, and his name is now familiar throughout Metro.

A little more than a month after “the Farrell incident,” Metro’s 3,000 officers took their refresher course.

“When we don’t respond to something the way we should have, we’re quick to correct ourselves,” Metro Patrol Division Deputy Chief Kathleen O’Connor says.

The review board noted, however, that one police sergeant who confronted Farrell needed more training because it was clear from the sergeant’s testimony that if he had been given a test after the refresher, he would have failed.

The open-carry issue is tricky for police, O’Connor says, because officers are caught between preserving an individual’s open-carry rights and protecting the public from potential harm.

Of course, some police officers are not the only ones uncomfortable with the idea of lots of citizens walking around with guns on their hips. Opponents say the more guns that are being toted around, the greater the possibility that a bystander could be hit by a stray bullet, the more likely it is that a criminal will get a citizen’s gun and use it for no good. Even some Second Amendment advocates acknowledge that an individual who openly wears a gun in a crowded public area might result in the same reaction that a false warning of fire can in a crowded theater.

There are exceptions to Nevada’s open-carry rights. Among them is a state law that prohibits average citizens from carrying firearms on college campuses, at public or private schools and at day care centers without written permission from the heads of those facilities. An individual also cannot legally possess a firearm while intoxicated.

Local laws prohibit possession of guns in Clark County parks or in vehicles within North Las Vegas city limits.

Violation of the North Las Vegas “deadly weapons” ordinance, on the books since 1978, is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The ordinance provides exceptions to the weapons ban as it pertains to “ordinary tools or equipment carried in good faith for uses of honest work, trade or business, or for the purpose of legitimate sport or recreation.” The ordinance has only been enforced in conjunction with traffic stops for other violations, such as speeding or suspicion of criminal activity, police say.

It also appears to violate the state law that gives the Legislature, not local governments, the power to regulate firearms, UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Thomas McAffee says.

“The state statute does permit some older local registration requirements, but the city ordinance here is a complete ban on possession in a motor vehicle, which seems to clearly fall within the scope of the state reservation of authority,” McAffee says.

Michael Davidson, North Las Vegas’ chief criminal attorney, said his interpretation is that the ordinance is legal because when the state law was last revised in 2007, the intent was to preserve pre-1989 local gun laws that had nothing to do with firearm registration. He said there have been dozens of cases in recent years where convictions that included violation of that ordinance have been upheld in North Las Vegas Municipal Court without a single appeal of the weapons ban made to District Court in Clark County.

“The intent was to go after gangbangers, not mom and pop in the RV,” Davidson says.

Farrell and other local open-carry advocates counter that North Las Vegas’ law is unconstitutional on its face, no matter the intent.

These advocates staged peaceful protests in North Las Vegas last year — picking up litter “to show we’re just regular guys” — and in January in front of Bally’s on the Strip, where numerous tourists had their pictures taken with Farrell and roughly 20 of his fellow gun-toters.

Farrell had given a Metro watch commander a courtesy heads-up before his armed group headed down to the Strip. The police commander thanked him for the warning, acknowledged the group’s right to assemble, but also pleaded with Farrell to cancel his plans.

The tourists who took pictures, however, encouraged Farrell and his posse to keep standing up for the Constitution, he says, and that’s what he intends to do.

Share/Save

link

I am just not sure what is happening in the state I have called home for 30 years.

About two months ago, I left an eating establishment after discovering that there was a meeting of individuals all “bearing arms.” Since it was a buffet, they were walking all over the place, many carrying children along with their guns.

This week, I drove over 15 miles to eat at a healthy place that served soup and salad. Standing in line I saw a customer bearing his gun, while holding hands with his 5-year-old son. I got sick to my stomach and left the restaurant.

What are these people scared of? The only thing that scares me is them.

What happened to “In God we trust?” I hope more and more places embrace their right to refuse service to individuals bearing arms and post it in the window so all know it is a safe place to visit.

If the bill passes allowing people to conceal weapons with no permit, I may be forced to move out of the state I love. – Dan Dillon,Goodyear

Some choice excerpts:

About two months ago, I left an eating establishment after discovering that there was a meeting of individuals all “bearing arms.” Since it was a buffet, they were walking all over the place, many carrying children along with their guns.

I can understand someone being put off by a scene like this.  In my mind it’s no different than someone walking into a restaurant and seeing a large number of children.  If you don’t want to deal with the children you leave…if you chose to stay then don’t bitch.

This week, I drove over 15 miles to eat at a healthy place that served soup and salad. Standing in line I saw a customer bearing his gun, while holding hands with his 5-year-old son. I got sick to my stomach and left the restaurant.

What are these people scared of? The only thing that scares me is them.

I’d say the guy that got sick to his stomach was the one scared.

Then he follows with this doosey…

What happened to “In God we trust?”

Please invisible man in the sky, save us all!!!

Truthfully, I wouldn’t have commented on this article at all if the dumbass hadn’t added the line about “in god we trust”.  There is something fundamentally flawed with people that give up responsibility for anything and expect a “god” to keep them safe…provide…whatever.  God, used in that manor, is an excuse for the lazy.

God created man, Sam Colt made them equal

I don’t begrudge the man his opinion, and I would be completely behind him if he would have walked out of the place.  If you don’t like what’s going on, work within the law to change it…don’t patronize establishments that operate in a manner you disagree with.  Refusing to spend your dollar in a place is really the only “power” a common man has.

Share/Save

There are a couple of quotes in the article that are interesting

Why are they worried about law abiding citizens” carrying weapons?

Very spot on, there’s no reason to be concerned about people acting within the law.

“It all comes down to whether you believe allowing concealed carry makes a building more secure or less secure,”

and

“It is our firm belief that allowing weapons on campus would significantly increase the risk of violence and harm to students, faculty and others, rather than making anyone safer,”

Those seem to be the conflicting ideas.  The people scared of guns think there is no way you can be around one without being in danger of losing your life and there are others that think just because you have a gun you are instantly more secure.  People think if students had been armed during some of the campus shootings recently that there would have been less people dead.  We can play the “what if” game till the end of time…there could have been more people dead…we have no way of knowing.

The main issue I have with this is that a state institution might make rules that are different than other state properties.  It is my opinion that if a company/school…whatever takes state money than the same rules that apply to all other state “land” should apply to that property.  If the state allows you to carry on state land…then that’s the way it is…if they don’t then you can’t.  If the institution doesn’t like that, then quit taking state money and set their own rules.

Share/Save

This past deer season was the only time I carried openly all the time.  I was back home (small rural town if you haven’t been paying attention) and given the time of year I expect that no one really even noticed.  I did it for a couple of reasons, I carry the side arm when I’m out hunting.  It’s nice to have a pistol to plink around with occasionally.  I also use it to “finish” an animal with a quick shot to the head, I never have liked slitting anythings throat or breaking it’s neck.  When I’m carrying it’s a real pain to take it off and put it back on so I just leave it on all the time.  I could take the pistol out of the holster and walk around with an empty holster…but what would I do with the gun?  It’s stored safely and where I can make sure it’s not touched by someone that shouldn’t if it’s on my hip.

The second reason I carried it was to see what the reaction would be.  I know the laws as well as a citizen can, and every place I walked in to with it on was well within the law.  I walked in to walmart, pamada, nodak, grocery store, and a couple of gas stations…that’s really all there is in Bottineau.  I removed the gun from the holster when I walked into a restaurant that served beer and the couple of times I went to the bar (didn’t drink, just went in to shoot the breeze).  I know I couldn’t carry in the bars, and there is some goofy thing about the restaurants and what percentage of their income comes from alcohol…blah blah blah.  When the laws are written like that I think it’s better to just avoid the situation.  There were no signs posted on any businesses and from my knowledge there are not corporate policies for any of those places…and without a sign posted their policy is meaningless anyhow.  It is perfectly legal for a manager or someone else representing the business to ask you to leave, if you refuse at that point you are trespassing and could end up with a problem.

In the brief time I was carrying openly, no one said boo to me.  I was trying to notice if anyone gave me weird looks…they didn’t, no one asked a question…nothing.  I would attribute this to two factors.  The first being a small rural town, people are more exposed to guns and don’t freak out when they see one.  It’s not unusual for someone to have one in their vehicle, granted it’s a little more out of the ordinary to see them carrying it around in town…but not a big deal.  Also, the time of year I think is a big factor.  It was deer season so chances are they saw more guys walking around with knives on them, seeing someone carry a gun as well wouldn’t have been a big stretch.  (as a side bar, I did have a knife that would be considered under law to be a dangerous weapon.  I took that off going into the bar as well.)

If I were to do this same “experiment” in Fargo at the Wal-Mart I don’t think I’d make it 10 min before someone either said something to me or the cops were called.  I don’t necessarily blame the people for being scared or on edge about something they don’t understand.  I do think they should familiarize themselves with the laws and understand that even though they disagree with carrying a firearm it is probably legal.  If they choose to not patronize an establishment because they allow people to openly carry…good for them.  Voting with your dollar is the most powerful message you can send to a company.  The problem I have is when a person or group chastises and singles out another person or group for doing something that is completely within the law.  Work to change the law, worth to change the policy of the business, but don’t tell someone they are wrong when they are not breaking the law.  That just adds conflict and hostility to a situation, which strikes me as paradoxical.  The anti-2a people are afraid of citizens being armed.  They can call it many different things, concern about being shot, not trusting someone to be safe, concern for the children! whatever you want to label it, it’s fear.  I would also argue that some people that arm themselves do so out of fear as well.  It’s been my experience that if you think you need to carry a pistol into a situation, you should probably not be going in to that situation.

That brings me to the news article that prompted this little bit of a tirade (which was only suppose to be a small bullet post but is turning into a featured post).  I check fox news once or twice a day.  I believe it’s the national enquirer of news sites, but I like to see just how out in left (or is it right?) field they go sometimes.  The main article on their page was about a pro-2a vs anti-2a standoff that Starbucks finds itself in the middle of.  Curious, I read more.  I was a bit relieved when I saw the article linked back to the wall street journal.  I would label them as more credible than fox news.  As I’m reading through the article one thought resonates in my mind…how dumb are the pro-2a people?  Well, 2 thoughts I guess…California lets you open carry an unloaded weapon?  How stupid is that?  Why would you want to carry around a gun you would have to stop and load?  That’s just carrying for the sake of looking like Rambo.  I suppose you could ask your attacker to stop while you load the gun…you go barney…you go.

But, getting back to the stupid pro-2a monkeys….how intelligent is it to all gather in one specific place that is allowing you to openly carry…and just congregate.  It seems to me that such a display would really push the place to actually change it’s policies to be unfavorable to the 2nd.  If you feel the desire/need to open carry…just do it and stay out of these damn protests.  People that are carrying are at a disadvantage.  If someone on the other side decides to get hostile, the person carrying is required to have more restraint than would commonly be “acceptable”.  If tensions escalate and things come to blows, the person carrying is by law in an “armed conflict” even if they don’t draw their weapon.  I’m not saying that’s likely to happen…but what I am trying to point out is that there is absolutely nothing to gain and the potential to lose ground.

There are a couple of lines from the article that are interesting:

The company added: “The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores.”

I think every company should take this position.  We follow state laws, if you don’t like that pester the state to change the law and we will comply with that.  It’s safe and takes the pressure off the store.

In 29 states, it’s legal to openly carry a loaded handgun, without any form of government permission.

It’s my opinion, and the opinion of most pro-2a, that “permission” is given in the 2nd amendment.  There is no additional “mother may I?” required.  Hopefully the supreme court will tell us this year if that is in fact true or not.

“We are concerned that the open display of firearms would be particularly disturbing to children and their parents,” said a spokesperson for the California Pizza Kitchen restaurant chain.

I’ve always hated it when people us “for the children” as an excuse.  It wreaks of desperation and lack of credibility.  Let people be parents and they can decide what is best “for the children”.  If the parents disagree with people carrying openly, they are free to leave the establishment.  Like I said before though, I don’t have a problem with a business saying they do not allow guns on their premises.  I would probably chose to spend my dollar elsewhere though, if there is another option available to me.

It sucks that any business gets caught up in this issue.  It’s something that should be handled at the legislative level, not by hassling the businesses that are doing what they can to appeal to the masses.

link

By VANESSA O’CONNELL And JULIE JARGON

Starbucks Corp. and some other chain stores in the U.S. are finding themselves caught in the middle of a firearms debate, as gun-control advocates go up against a burgeoning campaign by gun owners to carry holstered pistols in public places.

The “open carry” movement, in which gun owners carry unconcealed handguns as they go about their everyday business, is loosely organized around the country but has been gaining traction in recent months. Gun-control advocates have been pushing to quash the movement, including by petitioning the Starbucks coffee chain to ban guns on its premises.

Anti-gun activists gathered at the original Starbucks in Seattle to push retailers like the coffee chain to ban customers from openly carrying guns, WSJ’s Nick Wingfield reports.

Journal Community

Businesses have the final say on their property. But the ones that don’t opt to ban guns—such as Starbucks—have become parade grounds of sorts for open-carry advocates.

Starbucks on Wednesday, while bemoaning being thrust into the debate, defended its long-standing policy of complying with state open-carry weapons laws, in part by stating that its baristas, or “partners,” could be harmed if the stores were to ban guns. The chain said that in the 43 states where open carry is legal, it has about 4,970 company-operated stores.

The company added: “The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores.”

In 29 states, it’s legal to openly carry a loaded handgun, without any form of government permission. Another 13 allow an unconcealed loaded handgun with a carry permit, according to opencarry.org, which is a loosely organized Web forum for the movement.

In California, where it’s legal to carry a gun openly without a license in most places as long as it’s unloaded, growing numbers of armed people have been turning up at Starbucks, restaurants, and retailers, with handguns holstered to their belts to protest what they contend are unfair limits on permits to carry a concealed weapon.

View Full Image

Associated PressAn “open carry” gun advocate watches a gun-control protest Wednesday in Seattle, Starbucks’ home turf.

The open-carry movement began spreading in 2004 after some pro-gun advocates in Virginia began researching state laws and discovered that many states don’t have laws to prevent unconcealed carry of handguns.

“The concealed carry movement has been successful but open carry is coming up,” in popularity, said Mike Stollenwerk, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and co-founder of the opencarry.org site.

“I feel other people have the right to carry firearms into a business if it’s okay with the business,” said William Moore, a carpenter from Lynwood, Wash., and an open-carry advocate who says he doesn’t carry firearms into Starbucks coffee shops.

Supporters are spreading in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and other areas. Some are making lists of “OC-friendly” locales, and encouraging boycotts of businesses with no-weapons signs. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Home Depot Inc., Best Buy Co. and Barnes & Noble Inc., are designated as “open-carry” friendly in some online forums or say they abide by existing laws. “Our practice is to comply with local and state laws,” said Best Buy spokeswoman Sue Busch Nehring.

Open-carry proponents are also taking advantage of some momentum in state legislatures to expand gun rights, although most new and pending measures don’t specifically address unconcealed handguns.

Should people be allowed to carry guns into places like Starbucks? The company says it’ll abide by local laws, but customers in San Francisco tell Rex Crum they really don’t relish handguns with their lattes.

Open carry hasn’t been part of the official focus of the pro-gun lobbying group, the National Rifle Association, which has 4 million members.

In the past 20 years, the NRA has focused on expanding the ability of U.S. gun owners to carry a handgun in a concealed manner.

Today, 38 states have a “shall issue” permit process. Two states don’t require a license to conceal carry. Eight states have “may issue” concealed carry laws, meaning permits will be given with the discretion of a local politician or police officer.

“We support the self-defense rights of law-abiding Americans in accordance with local, state and federal laws,” says Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman, who declined further comment on open-carry activity.

Some chains have banned guns from their restaurants, even in open-carry states, because of the impact it could have on non-gun-carrying customers.

“We are concerned that the open display of firearms would be particularly disturbing to children and their parents,” said a spokesperson for the California Pizza Kitchen restaurant chain.

A Peet’s Coffee & Tea spokesperson said that while the firm “respects and values all individuals’ rights…our policy is not to allow customers carrying firearms in our stores or on our outdoor seating premises unless they are uniformed or identified law enforcement officers.”

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which partnered with Credo Action, an activist group that uses mobile phones to effect social change, says it has collected more than 28,000 signatures on a petition to get Starbucks to change its policy.

Pro-gun advocates have taken to openly carrying guns to Starbucks as a way of testing corporations’s stances on state weapons laws, William Spain reports.

Journal Community

• discuss

“ Carrying a gun is an extreme response to a problem that, for the vast majority of Americans, doesn’t exist and never will. ”

—Scott McIntyre

Allowing customers who are armed with unconcealed guns on the premises “can’t be good for business—it galvanizes people, and some of them won’t patronize Starbucks after this,” said Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, a gun-control organization in Washington, D.C.

Indeed, not all baristas agree that the Starbucks policy protects them. “I think the policy shows complete disregard for the safety and sentiments of their workers. The only thing worse than a yuppie upset with how their frappuccino turned out is a yuppie with a gun who’s unhappy with how their frappuccino turned out,” says Erik Forman, a Starbucks barista and union member in Minneapolis.

The IWW Starbucks Workers Union on Wednesday issued a statement, saying “We appreciate the vigorous debate taking place by principled individuals on both sides of this issue. However, to date we are not aware of any efforts by Starbucks to widely engage its workers who are directly affected by open-carry gun laws. We believe an appropriate solution cannot be reached without doing so.”

—Nick Wingfield and Jess Bravin contributed to this articleWrite to Vanessa O’Connell at vanessa.o’connell@wsj.com and Julie Jargon at julie.jargon@wsj.com

Share/Save

Just got back from oral argument. Short form: I think we have five votes. MIGHT do better than five, but five seem secure. Roberts, Scalia and Kennedy seemed VERY strongly against Chicago’s position, Alito seemed against it, Thomas asked no questions but is thorough pro-2a and 14thA, so it looks like the Heller majority holds. Conversely, Breyer attacked Heller and kept arguing against incorporation. Majority did not like privileges or immunities, but due process seemed solid.

Humor: the room was packed, hundreds of people, every seat taken. After McDonald, the Court remained in place to hear the next case. As I left I heard the chief justice say “Well, counsel, WE’re still here.” I looked back and saw what he meant — there were perhaps 20 people staying for the next case, as hundreds left.

I’ve been posting about this quite a bit the past couple of days.  I’m quite interested in seeing how this one turns out.

Share/Save

I would recommend reading the article linked here, it’s quite interesting.

Share/Save

Obviously, people say this will open the door to gun suits across the nation…which is what we thought would happen from the D.C. ruling.  There have been a couple of suites, but nothing huge.  I suppose every one that is successful will spawn more and more.  I came across an article online that makes an interesting point:

But before such claims go forward, the Supreme Court must decide whether the 2nd Amendment reaches beyond federal laws. Though the answer may seem obvious today, the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, has historically been as limiting only laws from Washington.

The 1st Amendment begins, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Until the early part of the 20th century, it shielded Americans only from federal restrictions on free expression.

The 2nd Amendment says, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Throughout the 19th century, and until quite recently, the high court maintained that this clause was intended to give states the power to control armed militias.

But in recent decades, most Americans have come to believe the 2nd Amendment protects their right to have a gun, regardless of whether they serve in a militia.

I guess I’ve never really interpreted 2A as meaning you had to be in a militia to have the right to own a gun, but that’s probably because of my upbringing.  Even reading it now and trying to look with an objective eye, I don’t get that meaning from the phrasing.  To me, it says the people need to have firearms to be proficient with them in case a militia is needed.

There is so much bullshit surrounding this issue and it could all be cleared up very easily with a couple of simple rulings from the high court.  Either declare the states sovereign in their application of amendments or provide federal guidelines that must be followed across the board.

link

Reporting from Washington – When the Supreme Court takes up a challenge this week to Chicago’s strict ban on handguns, it will hear two contrasting visions of how to make the city safer and to protect its residents from gun violence.

On one side are the law-abiding city dwellers who say they need guns to protect themselves from armed thugs. Among them is Otis McDonald, who says he is worried about the armed drug dealers on the streets in his Morgan Park neighborhood.

“I only want a handgun in my home for my protection,” said McDonald, 76.

On the other side are prosecutors and police who say the city’s ban on handguns gives them a legal basis for confronting gang members and drug dealers.

“If an officer sees a bulge in a pocket, he can stop and frisk that person,” said Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez.

In Chicago, New York and elsewhere, police say these stop-and-frisk searches make the streets safer by disarming thugs. “If this [ban] is overturned, we think there would be an increase in violence,” Alvarez said.

Regardless of who prevails, the case of McDonald vs. Chicago figures to be a landmark in the history of the 2nd Amendment and its “right to keep and bear arms.” It will decide whether the 2nd Amendment applies only to federal gun laws or if it can be used across the nation to strike down state and local gun restrictions.

A ruling overturning the Chicago ordinance would open the door to gun rights suits nationwide. “You will see a wave of lawsuits against state and local gun laws. This is just the first shot in a broad-based gun rights offensive,” said Dennis Henigan, a lawyer for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington.

The city’s lawyers say firearms have been regulated throughout American history — and without interference from federal judges. In the 1770s, Boston, Philadelphia and New York prohibited discharging a gun within the city. Even in the Wild West, cattle towns like Dodge City, Kan., required cowboys to turn in their guns.

But defenders of the 2nd Amendment say their goal is to restore the “right to keep and bear arms” to its proper place as a constitutional right.

In the end, the Supreme Court could decide that the right to have a gun applies only at home. If so, Chicago and other cities could adopt strict limits on public possession of a handgun even if the current ordinance is struck down.

But gun rights advocates say the 2nd Amendment applies more broadly and protects a right to have a gun for self-defense. In Washington, they filed a suit seeking a right to have a gun on the streets. In California, lawyers for the National Rifle Assn. say they plan to challenge the policy in Los Angeles County and elsewhere of refusing to issue “concealed carry” permits to most gun owners who want to carry a weapon in public.

But before such claims go forward, the Supreme Court must decide whether the 2nd Amendment reaches beyond federal laws. Though the answer may seem obvious today, the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, has historically been as limiting only laws from Washington.

The 1st Amendment begins, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Until the early part of the 20th century, it shielded Americans only from federal restrictions on free expression.

The 2nd Amendment says, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Throughout the 19th century, and until quite recently, the high court maintained that this clause was intended to give states the power to control armed militias.

But in recent decades, most Americans have come to believe the 2nd Amendment protects their right to have a gun, regardless of whether they serve in a militia.

Two years ago, the high court agreed. By a 5-4 vote, the justices struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and said the 2nd Amendment gives individuals a right to have a gun for self-defense. However, since the district is a federal enclave, the justices did not rule on whether state and local ordinances could be challenged under the 2nd Amendment.

Gun rights advocates say the justices should declare that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, like free speech, and is protected from infringement by local, state or federal laws.

Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley countered that bringing more guns into the city would make matters worse. “Does anyone really believe that the founders of our nation envisioned that guns and illegal weapons would flood our streets and be used to kill our children and average citizens?” he asked at a news conference in Washington.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case on Tuesday and issue a ruling by late June.

Share/Save