What can you do if someone is breaking into your vehicle while you’re at your house? Well, first of all, in case you were wondering what this crime is called, it’s burglary of a motor vehicle. Now, that’s what makes this discussion interesting, because as you may already know, you can have the right to respond with deadly force when someone is committing a burglary against your property. The problem here is that the statute only reads burglary, and there are multiple different kinds of burglary in the state of Texas.
Do you think the gun control issue is dead? Do you believe the last presidential election secured your gun rights? What if a court openly admitted it was trampling your constitutional rights, but gave you an unthinkable ultimatum of giving up your Second Amendment rights or losing custody of your grandchild? Don’t think that could ever happen? Then, you have never heard of William and Jill Johnson.
Controversial Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Milton Hirsch, intensely dislikes the “Stand Your Ground” concept. He ruled the legislature does not have to power to regulate the “Stand Your Ground” law.
The Hearing Protection Act has been attached to the SHARE Act, a sportsman’s omnibus bill with a lot of pro-gun features.
California’s Proposition 63 requires individuals who wish to purchase ammunition to first obtain a permit. The measure then mandates dealers to check this permit before selling ammunition, and will halt the mail-order sale of ammunition to California residents. What does this mean for California gun owners? Do you have a plan to stock up before Prop 63 goes into effect?
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is often in the news, but seldom on the side of the Second Amendment as gun owners see it. The Shooter’s Log has followed this closely as the court has ruled for and against Californians’ in their quest to defend themselves under the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court announced today it would not grant review in the Peruta v. California case.
Peruta v. California – Applicants for California concealed carry licenses must demonstrate “good cause” to obtain concealed weapons license in California. However, in San Diego, the sheriff sought a “particularized” need for self-defense. A three-judge panel found the San Diego County Sheriff’s policy unconstitutional, but was reversed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Since the Supreme Court did not take the case, the 9th Circuit’s ruling prevails.
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch were the lone dissenters. Justice Thomas wrote the refusal to hear the case “reflects a distressing trend: their treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.” He concluded, “For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense.”
It is a shame the full Court will not hear the case or be swayed by the wisdom of Justice Thomas. The lesson for all of us that the fight continues, and although we have a friend in the White House, citizens are still having their Second Amendment rights stripped at the local and state level.
Here is a list of articles chronicling The Shooter’s Log‘s coverage of Peruta v. California over the past few years.
How do you think this the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the Peruta case will affect future gun legislation in other states? Will national reciprocity be the answer? Join the conversation with your opinions in the comment section.
Growing up in Pennsylvanias game-rich Allegany region, Dave Dolbee was introduced to whitetail hunting at a young age. At age 19 he bought his first bow while serving in the U.S. Navy, and began bowhunting after returning from Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Dave was a sponsored Pro Staff Shooter for several top archery companies during the 1990s and an Olympic hopeful holding up to 16 archery records at one point. During Daves writing career, he has written for several smaller publications as well as many major content providers such as Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, Outdoor Life, Petersens Hunting, Rifle Shooter, Petersens Bowhunting, Bowhunter, Game & Fish magazines, Handguns, F.O.P Fraternal Order of Police, Archery Business, SHOT Business, OutdoorRoadmap.com, TheGearExpert.com and others. Dave is currently a staff writer for Cheaper Than Dirt!
The 85th Texas Legislature adjourned on May 29, and in the session, legislators passed several bills that enhance gun-owners’ rights in the state. Following are descriptions of several bills that have passed the Legislature and have either been signed or are awaiting Gov. Abbott’s signature:
After a high profile shooting, many fear the legislation or proposed legislation that may result. In fact, a news report just played stating lawmakers need the right to be armed to defend themselves. Since when did—simply by being elected to congress—mean their life or safety is more important yours or mine? Anyone can be a victim and has a right to self defense under the Second Amendment. Those sentiments in the previous statement are not based on my beliefs, but rather those by Congressman Thomas Massie, Chairman of the Congressional Second Amendment Caucus.
There’s nothing quite like Texas Hog Hunting! It’s some of the most exciting hunting you can do anywhere. If you prefer hunting from a blind or stand, you can hog hunt. Prefer baiting your quarry to show up at the feeder? Texas hog hunting is for you! Hate the idea of hunting over bait but love spot and stalk hunting? Well, Texas hog hunting is for you, too! Too hot in Texas? Not at night! So, while spotlighting deer is illegal, spotlighting hogs is certainly a legal option.
A new bipartisan bill, introduced by over 20 Republicans and one Democrat seeks to make gun owners a protected class of citizens. This would be similar to the federal anti-discrimination law, where a protected class is a group of people with a common characteristic who are legally protected from discrimination on the basis of that characteristic.
A recent op-ed in The Hill newspaper points out that while professors seem to be very concerned about allowing permitted concealed handguns on college campuses, their actions don’t match their rhetoric. While a professor’s resignation at the University of Kansas gets national news attention, for example, only one out of 2,600 faculty members has left his or her post at the school.
Judicial Watch, the Washington, DC-based watchdog group, has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) seeking records of communications inside the agency when it was considering reclassifying certain types of AR-15 ammunition as armor-piercing—and effectively banning it from civilian use.
A Texas House committee has approved legislation that would allow handguns to be carried—concealed or in a holster—without a state-issued license. Also, the Texas Senate has passed SB 1408, a bill to allow first responders to carry concealed.
They say that money makes the world go round. While that may be hard to prove, the fact of simply having a mass fortune and a political agenda can yield results or be a political threat. The politics of where you stand on the issue determines which side of the fence you’ll sit. For supporters of the Second Amendment, it is guaranteed that we will be on the opposite side of the fence as Michael Bloomberg.
However, there are lessons to be learned by Bloomberg’s words. In this article, Frank Minter, writing for the NRA, shows how Bloomberg admits to using deception to attain his political objectives. Points such as these are lessons we can all use When debating and educating others about our Second Amendment rights. Read the full analysis.
Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City, the eighth-richest person in the United States, and the billionaire behind the rabidly anti-gun group Everytown for Gun Safety, was asked on CBS’ “60 Minutes” why he didn’t run for president of the United States. His answer was revealing.
By Frank Miniter
“If I thought we could win, or had a reasonable chance, I would have [run for president],” he said. “It would be totally unlikely, very unlikely that an independent could win. And in my case, I was mayor for a long time. People know where I stand. I couldn’t pretend to be something I’m not.”
So Bloomberg realized that his efforts to ban things like “Big Gulp” sodas, coal mining and, effectively, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights made it impossible for him to fool a majority of Americans into voting for him. He “couldn’t pretend to be something” else than what he is, so he opted not to run.
That’s honest—at least to himself. Everytown consistently uses “gun death” statistics that include suicides to make it seem as if there are many more homicides than there are.
Officially, Everytown is a private group that doesn’t disclose its donors. Bloomberg is, of course, the founder of Everytown. He funds the anti-gun group and, we must presume, the group does what he desires. So it is interesting that he realizes his anti-freedom, paternalistic views are too well known to the American people for him to win the presidency, but that he nevertheless thinks his group Everytown for Gun Safety is far enough removed from his views to be taken as nothing but a “gun safety” group by Americans.
After all, even if journalists, given their own political leanings, are unwilling to use the old journalist’s mantra “following the money” to report Everytown’s real mission, Everytown has itself lied so much and so blatantly that it also can no longer hide its real agenda. (Tellingly, this is likely the reason Bloomberg morphed “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” [MAIG] into Everytown, as MAIG had so dirtied its name it needed a new one.)
Everytown consistently uses “gun death” statistics that include suicides to make it seem as if there are many more homicides than there are. They have included terrorist acts in their mass shooting statistics and inflated the numbers of mass shootings. There are too many lies and deceptions to report in one article, but here is a quick analysis of their two biggest campaigns at present—both riddled with lies.
Universal Background Checks
The misinformation and outright deceit from Everytown on so-called “universal” background check laws (universal is in quotes because criminals by definition won’t abide by such laws, so such a law can’t be truly universal) is hard to sum up—there is just too much of it. Here are a few highlights.
Everytown says on its website that “under current federal law, background checks are only required on gun sales at licensed dealers. This loophole in the system make [sic] it easy for millions of guns to change hands each year with no background check, and no questions asked.” But the study Everytown sources for this claim is a small survey of gun owners that has to do with stolen guns. This study estimated that “about 380,000 guns [are] stolen” each year, not millions. Everytown doesn’t explain how “universal” background check laws would stop criminals who steal guns from selling the stolen goods to other criminals. The organization also don’t explain how such laws would stop criminals from illegally selling guns to prohibited persons.
The NRA wants real solutions to these problems, such as prosecuting those who sell guns to criminals and encouraging gun owners to safely store firearms they are not currently using. But Everytown isn’t interested in practical solutions that respect American freedom. They want bans, harsh controls and to criminalize as many gun owners as they can.
As a caveat, Everytown claims that “[s]ince enacted [background checks at gun dealers] have blocked nearly 3 million sales to felons, domestic abusers, fugitives, and other people prohibited by law from having guns.” There have been nearly 3 million initial denials since the FBI began the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) in 1998, but many of these happen because someone has a similar name to someone who is prohibited or for another reason having nothing to do with felons, domestic abusers, fugitives and other criminal activity.
They want bans, harsh controls and to criminalize as many gun owners as they can.
Everytown says law enforcement “overwhelmingly opposes” the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,” but they don’t source any data for this “overwhelming” claim. They do site a 2013 press release from the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, a group that consistently opposes pro-gun legislation, including the “Hearing Protection Act of 2017,” for this claim, but that hardly constitutes an “overwhelming” majority.
Everytown also says, “Reciprocity would force states to let violent offenders and people with no firearm safety training carry hidden, loaded handguns—even if those people could not otherwise legally purchase a gun in the state.”
This is fear-mongering nonsense. Anyone who reads the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017” can clearly see that the bill recognizes the diversity of state concealed-carry laws by making each person subject to the concealed-carry laws of the state where they are present. This includes respecting the local laws that prohibit firearms.
Everytown also says that “a person denied a permit in his home state—e.g. after a criminal conviction—could simply get an out-of-state permit, and carry back at home.”
Actually, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act allows a person to carry concealed only if they are not federally prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm, are carrying a valid government-issued photo ID and are lawfully licensed or otherwise entitled to carry a concealed handgun. It is already illegal under federal law (18 U.S.C. 922(g)) for prohibited persons to possess a firearm.The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act would simply protect the freedom of law-abiding gun owners who live in the other 28 states.
Reciprocity is already a reality in the 22 states that recognize all other concealed-carry licenses or allow law-abiding nonresidents to carry a firearm without a license. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act would simply protect the freedom of law-abiding gun owners who live in the other 28 states.
All that said, just imagine if Bloomberg were an honest person. He could honestly splash around his $47 billion in ways that might really help. He could look at American freedom for what it is, instead of seeing it as the problem he pretends it is. He could then bolster our freedom while funding new approaches to bust criminals. It would be so much easier this way—working with Americans 100 million-plus gun owners instead of against them.
As Mark Twain said, “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.”
What lessons or points did you take from Miniter’s analysis? How can others use these points or others you know of, in future discussions/debates? Share your answers in the comment section.
Frank Miniter is the author of The New York Times bestseller The Ultimate Man’s Survival Guide—Recovering the Lost Art of Manhood. He is also the author of This Will Make a Man of You and The Future of the Gun. He is a contributor to Forbes and writes for many publications. His website is FrankMiniter.com.
The Second Amendment Foundation, joined by several other groups and individuals, has filed a lawsuit in federal district court in California, challenging that state’s law prohibiting the possession, use, or acquisition of so-called “large-capacity magazines,” calling the ban “hopelessly vague and ambiguous.” This case could have repercussions on a similar magazine ban in Colorado.
While certain threats to the Second Amendment have been lessened, we still need to remain vigilant and attack the previous egregious assaults to our rights. In furtherance of that effort, the Second Amendment Foundation and others have joined forces in a federal lawsuit challenging California’s law prohibiting the possession, use or acquisition of so-called “large capacity magazines,” by calling the ban “hopelessly vague and ambiguous.”
Independent Program Attorney Emily Taylor of Walker & Byington details the intricacies of Castle Doctrine and No Duty to Retreat laws and what they mean to gun owners in Texas. Click the video below to see more.
Check out these other great articles from U.S. Law Shield and click here to become a member:
In today’s environment, with multi-millionaires and billionaires throwing money at politically motivated causes they favor, social media is being used to create the appearance that more Americans support a cause or political view than the numbers really bear out. This is not only deceptive, it is dangerous. Here is the full scoop from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).