Mediaboss Marketing

Gun owners were justifiably disappointed June 26, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Peruta v. California. The denial was a setback in NRAs efforts to secure judicial recognition that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms outside the home. For now, misguided state and local governments will continue to deny their residents Right-to-Carry.

The Peruta case began back in October 2009, when plaintiff Edward Peruta filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California arguing that San Diego County Sheriff William Gore violated his Second Amendment rights. Under Californias permitting law, Gore had wide discretion to deny carry permits to applicants unless they demonstrated good cause for obtaining it. A desire to exercise the Second Amendment right to self-defense did not meet the sheriffs definition of good cause.

At the outset, a key argument for the defense held that San Diegos interpretation of Californias permit law did not extinguish Perutas Second Amendment right, as California did not prohibit individuals from openly carrying an unloaded handgun outside the home. However, in 2011, California enacted a law prohibiting the open carry of handguns.

In 2014, in a tremendously well-reasoned opinion, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that San Diegos enforcement of Californias discretionary permitting scheme violated the Second Amendment. In 2016, however, a larger panel of Ninth Circuit judges came to the opposite conclusion. The Ninth Circuit refused to take Californias prohibition on open carry into account, ruling only that the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms.

However unfortunate, the current cloud over our Second Amendment rights does have a silver lining. Perutas fate confirmed that the newest member of the Supreme Court has a firm commitment to an individuals right to keep and bear arms.

Coinciding with the Courts decision to reject Peruta, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a blistering dissent from the courts denial. He was joined by the newest member of the Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Thomas admonished the Ninth Circuits failure to address Californias entire carry scheme as indefensible. Joined by Gorsuch, he went on to explain that the Supreme Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion.

Moreover, Thomas addressed the Courts recent substandard treatment of the Second Amendment, calling this development a distressing trend and inexcusable.

Gorsuchs actions represent a major victory for gun owners and reminder of how important elections truly are. Following the unexpected death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016, gun owners faced the prospect of a Court that would pervert the Second Amendment to eliminate its protections for our individual right to keep and bear arms. But gun owners rose to the challenge, putting pressure on their Senators to reject Barack Obamas anti-gun nominee, Merrick Garland. Illustrating the importance gun rights supporters played in this battle, the New York Times editorial page whined, The Senate Defers to the N.R.A.

Gun rights supporters went on to make the Court a pivotal issue in the 2016 presidential campaign, one that helped put Donald Trump in the White House. And when several senators threatened to block any Trump Court pick, NRA stood by the presidents nominee.

Gorsuchs participation in Thomass forceful dissent is tangible evidence that he respects the Second Amendment and the individual right it guarantees.

Moreover, Peruta was not the last chance gun owners will have to vindicate our Right-to-Carry before the Court. A response to the Ninth Circuits ruling in Peruta Flanagan v. Becerra challenges Californias open carry prohibition. And Grace v. District of Columbia is yet another case that may have a critical bearing on our Right-to-Carry in public by challenging the Districts highly restrictive permit regime. In addition to those current cases, more lawsuits are on the way.

Gun owners, just as Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, are right to be disappointed in the Courts recent treatment of the Second Amendment. What we should not do is become discouraged. Gun rights supporters would do well to recall the decades of scholarship, activism, and litigation that led to our victories in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. As long as Second Amendment supporters are resolute in our purpose and work to ensure the appointment of judges and justices that respect our rights, the Second Amendment will once again win at the highest court.

Read the rest here:
US Supreme Court Disappoints on Right-to-Carry, but Justice Gorsuch Shines - NRA ILA

Guy Relford practices gun law in Carmel and is the host of The Gun Guy radio show on WIBC. (Submitted photo)

Carmel attorney Guy Relford has truly earned his nickname, The Gun Guy.

Relforc teaches firearms safety classes and hosts a radio show on WIBC called The Gun Guy. His law firm focuses on gun law cases. He literally wrote the book on gun safety. Hes the author of Gun Safety and Cleaning for Dummies.

Relford, a longtime Carmel resident and Carmel High School graduate, started his law firm in the Carmel Arts & Design District six years ago. He had worked for two decades doing global litigation for Dow Chemical but discovered changes at his job would require moving to Michigan. He loved Carmel and didnt want to move, so he took an early retirement and thought about his next move.

Relford has always been interested in guns. Hes been a certified firearms instructor for 25 years, so he decided to dedicate his career to helping others understand gun rights.

I was already self-educated on Second Amendment law, and so I thought Id dedicate my practice to that, he said.

Relford handles criminal and civil cases. In criminal cases, he often defenses clients accused of a gun crime but whom he believes was legally exercising Second Amendment rights. Cases range from firearm possession to self defense.

Guy Relford takes aim. He is a firearms instructor, attorney and radio show host. (Submitted photo)

If I think all they were doing is exercising their Constitutional right, then I defend them, he said.

Relford also handles civil cases, such as incidents where clients sue an employer or a municipal government. For example, an employer might place a ban on firearms legally locked out of sight in a vehicle, and Relford might defend a gun owner who works at that business. He said hes sued several city governments that have tried to pass laws that unconstitutionally restrict the Second Amendment.

But Relford said hes no extremist. Hes a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and said additional gun laws are largely unnecessary, but he doesnt defend all gun owners at all times. Gun safety is important to him, which is why he started his second business, Tactical Firearms Training.

I dont think people realize how serious most gun owners take safety, he said. Are there irresponsible gun owners? Sure, but there are irresponsible drivers on the road. In fact, I get as angry as anyone about irresponsible gun owners, especially since I wrote a book about gun safety.

Relford said some dangerous people simply shouldnt have guns, but he said there are already enough laws. Inevitably, he said some gun laws could make people less safe because only criminals would have guns.

I always say there are no gun-free zones, he said. There are areas where you can have a gun and there are areas where only criminals have guns because they arent following the gun-free zones law. Even in an airport or a courthouse where they have metal detectors, the air marshals and police officers still have guns. So there are no gun-free zones.

Relford said people often ask him about gun issues, such as if its OK to shoot a coyote if its in your yard. He said in most cases its not worth the risk of a charge of criminal recklessness with a deadly weapon, which could be a felony. People ask him about stories in the news, such as the Fishers convenience store clerk who pointed a gun at a shoplifter in July. In that case, Relford said its not smart to commit a felony in order to prevent someone from committing a misdemeanor crime.

Relford is a frequent guest on local talk shows, such as Chicks on the Right and Tony Katz on WIBC radio. After some successful appearances, he was given his own show that airs from 5 to 7 p.m. Saturdays on WIBC.

I cant give legal advice on the radio, but I can tell you what the law is, he said.

State Rep. Jerry Torr, R-Carmel, has been a guest on his radio show and said he really respects Relford.

The great thing Ive noticed is that he wont guess when it comes to the law, he said. He wont make something up on the fly. Hell look into it and report back later. But hes really knowledgeable and has a great sense of humor.

Tony Katz, a radio host on WIBC, said that Relford is a great resource for information.

Great gun knowledge, great legal knowledge, and a demeanor that begs good conversation and avoids the kind of vitriol that ends a conversation before it starts, Katz said. Its good have people like him around. Its also way safer.

Relford said hes never had to fire a gun in self defense, but hes been in scary situations where hes been glad to have a gun.

I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen, he said. I dont think my kitchen is going to catch on fire, but I still feel safer having it there.

The four rules

According to Guy Relford, there are Four Rules of safe gun handling.

1. Treat every gun as if it is loaded.

2. Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.

3. Always keep your finger (and anything else) away from the trigger until your sights are on the target and you are ready to shoot.

4. Always be sure of your target and anything aligned with your target (in front or in back) before you pull the trigger.

Gun storage

Always store every gun so that it is inaccessible to anyone who is not trained or authorized to handle your firearm. This doesnt mean hidden, or on a high shelf or the top of the armoire. It means locked up. There are quick-open gun safes that allow gun owners to access a firearm in a second or two but still keep the gun inaccessible to others, particularly young children.

Continue reading here:
'The Gun Guy': Radio host Guy Relford defends 2nd amendment from Carmel office - Current in Carmel

A very strange thing has happened since last weekends dreadful violence in Charlottesville. White supremacists used virtually every form of weapon except guns, yet somehow the Second Amendment is now under fire. Even worse, those who lawfully exercise the right to keep and bear arms now have fewer defenders when they also choose to speak.

It started with Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe. In remarks that were oddly enough edited out of a New York Times article, McAuliffe claimed that 80 percent of the people here had semiautomatic weapons. He further asserted that militia members had better equipment than our state police. He also said that white supremacists had weapons stashed around the city.

The Virginia state police disputed the governors claims, stating that theyd specifically looked for weapons stashes and no weapons were located. Further, they assured the public that they were not outgunned by militias. A spokesperson said the police were equipped with more-than-adequate specialized tactical and protective gear for the purpose of fulfilling their duties to protect the people present at the protests.

No matter. Claims that gun-toting militia members had somehow chilled free speech rocketed around the Web. Yet who, exactly, was deterred from speaking last weekend? Not only were people speaking, they were shrieking, chanting, yelling, and arguing. Few were deterred even from brawling.

Then, yesterday, a more significant shoe dropped. The Wall Street Journal reported that the American Civil Liberties Union will no longer defend hate groups seeking to march with firearms. In other words, the groups anti-gun stance is now directly influencing its First Amendment advocacy. Its executive director, Anthony Romero, told the Journal that the decision was in keeping with a 2015 policy adopted by the ACLUs national board in support of reasonable firearm regulation.

For all its flaws and inconsistencies in other areas, the ACLU had been one of the last well-resourced national legal organizations that were truly non-partisan in defending First Amendment freedoms such as the right to march and speak in Charlottesville. Indeed, a local ACLU chapter had defended the alt-rights liberties at that very protest. But now the ACLUs message was clear: lawfully exercise Second Amendment rights, and well turn our backs on your First Amendment freedoms.

The law already prohibits true threats, and there are an array of legal restrictions on the place and manner of bearing arms depending on the jurisdiction and location. Under existing precedent, groups that engage in threats or violate local firearms laws face severe legal consequences. The ACLUs position, however, is that it will not represent a category of organizations that are completely compliant with the applicable laws.

The ACLU is a private organization, and it has complete discretion to choose its clients, but its action reveals the extent to which arguments about civil liberties are becoming dangerously partisan and short-sighted. The ACLU has enjoyed an enormous surge in membership and donations since itpositioned itself as the law firm of the #Resistance, but a number of these new members are completely ignorant of the organizations traditional First Amendment work and were furious when they found out the ACLUs role in protecting the alt-rights constitutional rights.

Thus, yet another negative result of last weekends deadly violence is that both the First and Second Amendments are under increasing cultural pressure. Rather than focus on the actual violence that caused so much pain and harm last weekend, activists are renewing calls for so-called hate-speech restrictions, and theyre increasing demands for restrictions on the right to bear arms. The ACLU is a key pressure point. Rights that dont enjoy a robust defense are not rights at all. The Constitution is not a self-executing document.

At this point, the gun-rights debate is almost beyond the reach of facts. A weekend that was notable mainly for an act of vehicular terror has become a pretext for discouraging the exercise of Second Amendment rights. Sadly, our First Amendment debates are racing in the same direction. All too many Americans seek the power to suppress and shame more than they cultivate the ability to rebut and persuade. Alt-right drivel isnt a threat to the constitutional experiment. A culture that values censorship over debate, however, is.

And lest we think these categories are easy, and that its possible to suppress the rights of the worst people without touching the civil liberties of the mainstream, consider this. I used to work at an organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center considers a hate group, the Alliance Defending Freedom. Its deemed a hate group in large part because it holds to an orthodox Christian view of sexual morality and gender identity. I hold those same views. Im also a concealed-carry permit holder. My wife and I carry a weapon virtually all the time because of threats, ironically enough, from the alt-right. Should the ACLU defend my right to speak?

Sadly, there are many Americans who would say no. They hate my viewpoint too much. They hate guns too much. The allure of power and control is too strong. They see little value in dissent, especially on the most sensitive cultural issues, and they utterly reject the concept of an armed citizenry. Yet even terrible crimes shouldnt cause us to retreat from our commitments to liberty.

Our constitutional republic and our culture of free speech have endured and prospered in the worst of attacks, events far worse than even the dreadful crimes in Charlottesville. It suffers, however, in the face of cultural retreat and surrender. The alt-right is too pathetic to warrant the slightest compromise. Yet thats exactly what the ACLU did, and short-sighted Americans applauded.

The alt-right hates American traditions and American liberties. Why grant it the slightest influence over American life?

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

Go here to read the rest:
After Charlottesville, the First and Second Amendments Are Under Fire - National Review

Congressman Chris Collins, R-NY 27th District, with offices in Geneseo and Lancaster in Western New York, introduced a bill in Congress that would preserve Second Amendment rights by limiting the states authority to ban certain rifles and shotguns through state and local legislation.

If passed by both houses and signed by the President, the bill could void much of the SAFE Act.

In a statement released on July 31, Congressman Collins announced introduction of the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA). Congressman Collins, who originally hails from Schenectady, proposed new measures for protecting Second Amendment rights by introducing legislation to limit state authority when it comes to regulating rifles and shotguns, commonly used by sportsmen and sportswomen.

SAGA was crafted to stop states from enacting and enforcing regulations of rifles and shotguns that are more restrictive than what is required by federal law. Upon passage of this bill most of the language included in New York States Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act of 2013 signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo would be void.

According to a press release from Congressman Collins, Governor Cuomos SAFE Act violates federal regulation and the following provisions would be void under the proposed legislation:

Cuomos SAFE Act expanded rifle and shotgun bans to include semi-automatic guns with detachable magazines that possess certain features.

The Cuomo SAFE Act banned the capacity of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. It further limited magazines to seven rounds at any time.

This legislation would protect the Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers that were unjustly taken away by Andrew Cuomo, said Collins. I stand with the law-abiding citizens of this state that have been outraged by the SAFE Act and voice my commitment to roll back these regulations.

In the Collins bill, states or local governments would not be able to regulate, prohibit or require registration and licensing (that are any more restrictive under Federal law) for the sale, manufacturing, importation, transfer, possession or marketing of a rifle or shotgun. Additionally, rifle or shotgun includes any part of the weapon including any detachable magazine or ammunition feeding devise and any type of pistol grip or stock design.

Under this legislation, any current or future laws enacted by a state or political subdivision that exceeds federal law for rifles and shotguns would be void.

When Congressman Collins announced the legislation on July 31, he was accompanied by supporters of Second Amendment rights from the Hamburg Rod & Gun Club, Rochester Brooks Gun Club, representatives from SCOPE, Erie County Sheriff Tim Howard, NYS Senators Rich Funke and Rob Ortt, NYS Assemblyman Peter Lawrence and Erie County Government Officials.

I spoke with Sara Minkel, Communications Director for Congressman Collins, who provided an update; The bill just received two co-sponsors Congressman Tom Reed, R-NYs 23rd District and Congressman David Valadao, R-Hanford, Ca.

She advised the best way to support the SAGA Act, (H.R. 3576), is to contact your local congressman. For our area, Congressman John Faso, R-19 District can be reached at his Washington, DC Office at:

1616 Longworth HOB

Washington, DC 20515

Phone: (202) 225-5614

Fax: (202) 225-1168

While the prospects for passage of SAGA are challenging, those calling for repeal of SAFE through the state legislative mechanism face a much more daunting task.

While the NYS Senate might make some headway, the current make-up of the NYS Assembly will make full repeal highly unlikely. Even if the assembly passed repeal legislation, as long as Governor Cuomo is in office, all he needs do is simply veto the measure with no threat of an override.

Closer to home in Leeds last Saturday, the Columbia Greene Friends of NRA held their annual banquet at Anthonys Banquet Hall.

Local leaders of the state legislature and law enforcement attended to show their support of the Second Amendment and rejection of the NY SAFE Act. Assemblyman Peter Lopez and Stephanie Gardinier, of Senator Kathy Marchiones office, joined Columbia County Sheriff David Bartlett, Greene County Sheriff Greg Seeley, and Senior Colonie Town Justice, Peter Crummey at the event to raise funds for local organizations supporting the shooting sports.

Sheriff Bartlett is seeking re-election in November and Judge Crummey is running for NYS Supreme Court Judge. If you value your Second Amendment rights, you can be assured Sheriff Bartlett and Judge Crummey stand with you on this important issue.

The key organizer of the Columbia-Greene Friends of NRA banquet, Barbara Brandon, declared the event an unequivocal success. About 200 people attended including Columbia County Clerk Holly Tanner, Judge Ron Banks, ECO Lt. Liza Bobseine and local sportsmens representatives.

According to the NRA, Friends of NRA banquets boil down to one goal fund raising for the future of the shooting sports. Since its inception in 1992, Friends of NRA has held more than 17,000 events, reached more than 3 million attendees and raised more than $600 million for the NRA Foundation, a 501 (3) charitable organization.

The proceeds from this banquet were once again raised for the creation or enhancement of local shooting sports programs. Organizations that have received grants in the past include Boy Scout and 4H shooting programs, the Youth Hunter Education Program, Hunters Helping the Hungry, local high schools, sportsmens clubs and law enforcement.

The Kinderhook Sportsmens Club is hosting a Chicken BBQ on Saturday, Aug. 27.

Cost is $12 for adults and $8 for kids under 12.

NY Bowhunters is holding an introductory class at Field & Stream in Latham on Wednesday, Aug. 30, from 6-8 p.m. entitled, Archery 101. To register, call 518-785-3270 and ask to speak to an Archery Associate.

Happy Hunting, and Fishing, and be safe until next time.

You can also share any comments with our sports department at sports@registerstar.com

*If you have a fishing or hunting report, photo, or event you would like to be considered for publication, you can send it to: huntfishreport@gmail.com

View post:
Proposed federal legislation would nullify NY SAFE Act - Hudson Valley 360

Photo Members of a militia at Charlottesville, Va. Credit Joshua Roberts/Reuters

When militia members and white supremacists descended on Charlottesville, Va., last Saturday with Nazi flags and racist placards, many of them also carried firearms openly, including semiautomatic weapons. They came to intimidate and terrify protesters and the police. If you read reports of the physical attacks they abetted, apparently their plan worked.

They might try to rationalize their conduct as protected by the First and Second Amendments, but lets not be fooled. Those who came to Charlottesville openly carrying firearms were neither conveying a nonviolent political message, nor engaged in self-defense nor protecting hearth and home.

Plain and simple, public terror is not protected under the Constitution. That has been the case throughout history. And now is the time to look to that history and prohibit open carry, before the next Charlottesville.

Historically, lawmakers have deemed open carry a threat to public safety. Under English common law, a group of armed protesters constituted a riot, and some American colonies prohibited public carry specifically because it caused public terror. During Reconstruction, the military governments overseeing much of the South responded to racially motivated terror (including the murder of dozens of freedmen and Republicans at the 1866 Louisiana Constitutional Convention) by prohibiting public carry either generally or at political gatherings and polling places. Later, in 1886, a Supreme Court decision, Presser v. Illinois, upheld a law forbidding groups of men to parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized. For states, such a law was necessary to the public peace, safety and good order.

In other words, our political forebears would not have tolerated open carry as racially motivated terrorists practiced it in Charlottesville. They did not view open carry as protected speech. According to the framers, the First Amendment protected the right to peaceably not violently or threateningly assemble. The Second Amendment did not protect private paramilitary organizations or an individual menacingly carrying a loaded weapon. Open carry was antithetical to the public peace. Lawmakers were not about to let people take the law into their own hands, so they proactively and explicitly prohibited it.

Read the rest here:
Ban the Open Carry of Firearms - New York Times