Having A Second Amendment Right To Carry Doesn't Mean You Should

Recently, while en route to Gallup, New Mexico for our weekly Saturday morning group breakfast, two friends and I got to talking about the Alex Pretti killing by ICE in Minneapolis.

We all agreed that while we may have the right to bear arms, even at protests, under the Second Amendment, it is not a good idea to do so. This is especially so if law enforcement will be present. 

The San Luis Obispo Tribune came to that same conclusion in an opinion piece they posted.

They start it with:

In recent weeks, the conversation around protests and immigration enforcement has taken a sharp turn.

Some voices on the left are no longer just criticizing ICE or calling for policy changes. They are openly asking why “Second Amendment people” aren’t showing up at protests and, by implication, why they aren’t armed. That framing turns a constitutional right into a political challenge and ignores how these situations actually play out in the real world.

I believe in the Second Amendment, and I will defend it without hesitation. The right to keep and bear arms isn’t a slogan you pull out when it’s convenient. It’s a serious constitutional protection that comes with responsibility and judgment. Having the right doesn’t mean you should use it in every situation. Defending that right doesn’t mean pretending every use of it makes sense or leads to a good outcome.

Read more at: https://www.sanluisobispo.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article314692906.html#storylink=cpy

SCOTUS To Take Up Hawaii Gun Ban

Above, up to now, Hawaii is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to be a gun owner there. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

The state of Hawaii, like California, has a state government that is dominated by the Democrat Party. You know, the anti-Second Amendment party. 

The U.S. Supreme Court announced that they will take up Hawaii's concealed carry gun ban.

According to Gun Owners of America:

The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will take up a case challenging a Hawaii law that bans concealed carry almost everywhere.

In 2022, when it handed down its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court settled one of the most important constitutional questions of our time: The right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense is protected under the Second Amendment.

That should have been the end of the matter. In Hawaii, however, lawmakers responded with defiance instead of compliance with their so-called carry law (Act 52). Even if you don’t live in Hawaii, be aware that it is doing what anti-gunners in your state would love to do.

Under this law, permit holders — people who have undergone mandatory training, passed background checks and followed every rule — are effectively barred from carrying a firearm almost anywhere. Parks, sidewalks, beaches, government property, banks and even most private property are all off-limits. A carry permit in Hawaii may as well be used to discard chewed-up gum.

To read more, go here.

Dogs and Carry Permits

This is why they're called "man's best friend".

 

California’s Gun Ban In Most Public Places Is Blocked Again

A new California law (a part of Senate Bill 2) banning weapons from certain places has again been blocked.

This time, it was federal appellate panel who did the blocking.

The San Diego Union-Tribune reported:

SAN DIEGO —  The new year was supposed to usher in a controversial new California law tightly narrowing where people can carry firearms — including those licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

But instead it’s been whiplash, as courts grapple with a host of legal challenges by gun owners and advocacy groups.

A federal district court judge had blocked the law in December, calling it “sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.” The state appealed his ruling, and a federal appeals court said on Dec. 30 the law could go into effect. It referred the case to a special 9th Circuit merit panel.

On Saturday, a federal appellate panel again blocked the law from going into effect. Arguments before the merit panel are slated for April.

The new law, part of Senate Bill 2, bars people from bringing guns to more than two dozen specific “sensitive places,” including parks, playgrounds, museums, any sort of medical office or facility, and places of worship — churches, mosques, synagogues and such.

To read the full article, go here. 

Lawsuit Filed Against L.A. County Sheriff On Concealed Carry Permits

The Los Angeles County Sheriff has apparently been dragging its feet in issuing concealed carry permits in violation of the Supreme Court's Bruen decision.

In response, a lawsuit has been filed against the Sheriff Department.

Breitbart reported:

The California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) filed suit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department claiming the department is not issuing concealed carry permits in compliance with Bruen (2022).

On June 23, 2022, Breitbart News reported that the Supreme Court of the United States issued the Bruen decision in which the court ruled against New York’s proper cause requirement for concealed carry permit issuance.

In addition to striking the proper cause requirement, Bruen made clear that the Second Amendment protects a right to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense. It also required that in cases involving challenges to gun control, courts are to weigh the controls by looking for historical precedents in American history and tradition rather than in claims that the controls serve a specific purpose.

The suit was filed December 4, 2023. Other plaintiffs joined with CRPA, including the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, and Gun Owners of California.

The plaintiffs contend that the LA County Sheriff’s Department maintains “carry permit issuance policies and laws that make it extremely difficult, if not outright impossible or impermissibly time consuming [to obtain a permit].”

To read more, go here. 

Appendix Carry IWB Holsters

When I saw the above ads in Guns & Ammo and in other gun magazines, my immediate thought that these kinds of holsters can "geld" the wearer in an instant. I, personally, would not use these Inside The Waistband (IWB) holsters if I had a concealed carry permit. This is called "appendix carry".

Naturally, these types of holsters are more appropriate for women, for obvious reasons. (Some could crudely say, "there's nothing to shoot off".)

An article also mention IWB holster dangers in Bravo Concealment:

The biggest risk of appendix carry is the impact that a negligent discharge could have on the gun owner. Negligent discharges can happen in any carry position, but when they occur from appendix carry, they could impact a critical area of the body that includes the groin and the femoral artery. A negligent discharge from this position could easily be life threatening. 

A secondary, but related, concern is where the gun points when holstered on in the waistband: Toward the groin area. This positioning would seem to violate one of the central rules of gun handling: Never point a gun at something you do not want to destroy. 

For individuals who want to use appendix carry, the risk of injury during negligent discharge and the direction the gun points are often deterring factors. But, should it be? There are some reasons to think that appendix carry is really not that dangerous, particularly for responsible gun owners who take the time to mitigate the risk. 

All gun handling carries risk. 

 To read more, go here.

NY Trying To Invoke Racist Gun Laws On Native Americans

Native Americans tend to vote for Democrats. I don't know why, because much of the misery that they suffer (such as poor or no utilities in reservations) have from the hands of Democrats who don't seem to want to solve problems.

A story from the Daily Caller should wake up Native Americans on how racist the Democrats are when applying racist gun laws. This one comes from New York state.

The story begins with:

New York is invoking colonial-era bans on selling guns to Native Americans to defend the constitutionality of its “good moral character” standard for obtaining a concealed carry license.

This requirement, part of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) that Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed in July, is set to take effect in September. The Supreme Court struck down a provision of the bill in June that required concealed carry permit applicants to demonstrate a need for self-protection.

Gun Owners of America (GOA), a gun rights lobbying group, sued New York State Police Superintendent Kevin P. Bruen in August, seeking to block the legislation. In response to the lawsuit, Bruen’s lawyers argued in a court filing that the CCIA’s “good moral character” standard is deeply rooted in Anglo-American legal tradition and should therefore be upheld by the court.

“From the early days of English settlement in America, the colonies sought to prevent Native American tribes from acquiring firearms, passing laws forbidding the sale and trading of arms to Indigenous people,” the filing reads.

To read more, go here.