U.S. Concealed Carry
“Armed American Report”
Visit Here for Membership Information!
Dear Friend,
Hello, and welcome to another week of the USCCA’s Free Weekly Publication, “The Armed American Report’!
I’m glad you’re reading, because it means that there’s another conscious American awake to the very real threats that exist to our personal safety and freedom!
I love it!
I know a lot of you forward this newsletter to your friends- and I think that’s great. Well in case you hadn’t heard, if a friend of yours signs up to receive his or her own copy, and they enter your email address as the person who referred them, you get automatically entered into a contest for new pistols, ammo, and holsters.
Just email them a link to this page:
http://www.uscca.us/i_am_an_armed_american.html
…and have them enter your email address in the “Friend’s Email” box when they sign up. Piece of cake! If you want to get involved, hurry though, because this contest ends on April 7th.
Okay, let’s get on with this week’s edition of the “Armed American Report”!
USCCA Laugh of the Week
D.C. v. Heller; Eyewitness - RIGHT TO LIFE
Postgame Highlights #1
by Alan Korwin
found at www.gunlaws.com
The bottom line is, I think we’re going to be OK.
When Justice Kennedy flat out said he believes in an individual right under the Second Amendment, there were no gasps in the hush of the High Court, but you could tell the greatest stellar array of gun-rights experts ever assembled, all there in that one room, breathed a sigh of relief. We had five votes to affirm the human and civil right to arms.
The transcript will be a key for analysis going forward until June, when the decision is expected, and I’m working without the benefit of that at the moment. Digesting the fleeting and immensely complex speech that took place for one hour and thirty-eight minutes a few hours ago, it’s hard to see how any line of thought could be strung together to support the idea that the D.C. total ban on operable firearms at home can be seen as reasonable regulation, even though Mr. Dellinger, the city’s attorney, tried to suggest it was. He was shot down on this repeatedly, found no quarter from any of the Justices, though several found room to move on what amounts to reasonable restrictions.
And it is easy to see, from the non-stop rapid-fire comments and questions of eight of the Justices (Thomas asked nothing, extending his legendary running silence), how even the most permissive standard of review imaginable for gun-ban laws, could tolerate the District’s level of intolerance toward some sort of right to keep and bear arms. That would give the pro-rights side what it so sorely wants - an unambiguous admission that the Second Amendment protects something for “the people,” and the rest of that pie can be baked later.
Dellinger tried to suggest that rifles, shotguns and handguns had different usefulness, actually implying rifles are better for self defense in an urban home, because handguns were so inherently bad or dangerous that cities had a legitimate interest in banning them, but the Court wasn’t buying it, and noting that D.C.’s ban banned everything.
Packed into that short rabidly intense section, the Justices examined:
- * Original intent, and actions and writings of the colonies at the time of adoption;
* The meanings of the words, though not to the extent some people had anticipated;
* Separability of the terms keep and bear, whether they represented one right or two, how one could exist without the other, if they had civilian meanings or military ones, if you are “bearing” arms to go hunting and more;
* The scope of the right covered, and whether personal or military protections stood alone, dependent or had preference over each other;
* The “operative” and preamble clause, and their relationship, meaningfulness, and interactivity with each other;
* The types of weapons that might be covered by the term “arms,” accepting the idea that some weapons fall outside a sense of militia arms, like “plastic guns” (that’s what they were called) that could escape airport metal detection, or “rocket launchers” (actually a commonly used modern militia arm in some countries experiencing insurgencies, a point that did not come up), and especially machine guns, a repeated point which the Justices did not resolve, especially since it has become the standard issue firearm for our modern armed forces and confused the Miller doctrine of “commonly used arms”;
* The rise and meaning of “strict scrutiny”, a doctrine that evolved around the First Amendment and had no actual root in the Constitution, and whose actual definition was fluid and with little consensus.
Scalia asked if permissible limits could restrict you to one gun, or only a few guns, or if a collector couldn’t complete a set like a stamp collector because of a quantity restriction - and then launched into a demonstration of his familiarity with firearms by suggesting a need to have a turkey gun, and a duck gun, and a thirty-ought-six, and a .270. This sent Thomas into a fit of off-mic laughter that other observers missed because they were focused on Scalia;
Noting that Massachusetts in colonial times regulated the storage of gunpowder (it had to be kept upstairs as a fire precaution), Breyer asked if there isn’t a lineage to permissible restrictions, and the Court generally agreed. The point of contention, and it would not go away, was where that line was drawn, and again and again the D.C. absolute ban was found violative in its absoluteness. The decision to test the protection of 2A against this law in particular was a brilliant stratagem.
Dellinger either deliberately misled the Court, or didn’t understand the D.C. ban law (as hard to believe as that is, and it could come back to bite him), because, in trying to make it appear less odious than it was, he:
- * Suggested D.C. would carve out an exception for an operable gun if it were used in self defense — which the law flatly does not abide. This point was thoroughly undercut by Heller’s attorney Alan Gura, who pointed out the District had such an opportunity twice and did not do so, and in fact did the opposite;
* For use in self defense, a gun could be easily and quickly unlocked and brought to bear - a point undercut by Chief Justice Roberts who had to fight to get an admission that the gun had to be reloaded as well, since the D.C. law banned loaded and unlocked arms;
* That lead to a wonderful exchange in which Dellinger said a gun can be simply unlocked quickly - he actually said he could do it in three seconds - after demonstrating a poor understanding of how a lock (available at a “hardware store” nearby) fits on a gun with or without “bullets” in it;
* That lead to Scalia asking about turning a dial to find “3″ and then turning it the other way to find the next number;
* To which Roberts noted that, don’t you first have to turn on the light having heard the sound of breaking glass, and then find your reading glasses — which got the biggest audience laugh of the day (there were only a few other soft chuckles during the proceedings);.
OK, I recognize that this is a bit disjointed, and I’m working on an unfamiliar machine, at the end of a grueling endurance test that involved outrageous hours, little sleep, lousy diet, dire cold, miles of up and downhill walking, and I’m getting pretty hungry. I’ll do a better job over time, but I wanted to share some inside scoop you might not otherwise get. Let me, before pausing for some chow (which we’ll have to go out and find), convey some ambiance.
Guests of the Court were ushered into the ground floor early on, milling around. (Line-waiters including my friend Bob were prepped on the white marble steps outside). It was a who’s who inside and non-stop on-your-toes meet and greet. John Snyder, lobbyist for CCRKBA/SAF, had read my blog entry from last night, and introduced me to the companion on his lobby bench. Dick Heller, of the Heller case.
A nice mild mannered guy, “I just want to be able to keep my guns.” He said when they started this in 1994, they had no idea what they were getting into, and in 1997 they began entertaining the idea that it could go all the way and started raising funds. Now it had taken on a life of its own and barely involved him. At 9:30 last night, he walked the wait-to-get-in line and passed out cough drops. No one knew who he was. He sat just behind me in the Courtroom. I lucked into the second row.
Directly in front of me was. Mayor Fenty, and I sat in the bright reflected light of his pate. He turned, and in typical smiling politician fashion extended his hand, shook mine, and said warmly, “It’s nice to see you” as if we knew each other. Well at least, I knew him. One seat to my right was Ann Dellinger, the city’s lawyer’s wife, who turned out to be fascinating and a wealth of information. In a few moments, the mayor relinquished his seat to the D.C. Chief of Police, but she didn’t turn and say hi. Heady stuff! Everybody was a somebody.
Familiar faces were strewn about - there’s David Hardy on the other side of the aisle, and Bob Dowlut had a front row seat. Stephen Halbrook, one of my co-authors on Supreme Court Gun Cases had an early spot on the Supreme Court bar-members line, and my other co-author, Dave Kopel, who previously told me he would not be attending, turned out to be a last-minute addition to the Respondent’s table at the head of the Courtroom. People who I think were on a better “tier” than I, like Joe Olson, Clayton Cramer and others, didn’t luck into a seat and listened to disembodied voices from the lawyers lounge outside the Courtroom.
Three calls for “sshhh” from a clerk at the front instantly dropped the growing anticipatory cacophony to silence which then ramped up gently until the next hiss for quiet. Three minutes to go and a call for silence left everyone with their own thoughts until a tone sounded, the aides signaled us to rise, God Bless This Court was spoken, and we were underway.
By a stroke of luck, Justice Thomas was assigned the reading of a decision of a prior case, and we got to hear his baritone voice, which often remains mute throughout. New members of the Supreme Court bar were sworn in, and Justice Roberts asked Mr. Dellinger to begin, which he did promptly.
More later.
Alan Korwin, Co-Author
Supreme Court Gun Cases
Bloomfield Press
Scottsdale, Arizona
602-996-4020
alan@gunlaws.com
http://www.gunlaws.com
MichiganCPL Target One
USCCA GEAR REVIEW
Do you guys ever notice how the world of targets never really changes?
Sure, ’shoot n see’ targets were a great innovation, but for the most part, as our guns and gun accessories grow with technology, our targets pretty much are the same human silhouettes…
Well, I got kind of bored with shooting at the same old thing over and over, so I did some google searches on the matter. Though I turned up many unique kinds of targets, this one is certainly the handiest one:
A guy from Grand Rapids, Michigan makes these things, and his site is ‘http://michigancpl.net/‘.He’s designed a pretty good training regiment to go along with these targets too. You can find more information about these targets and his training regiment at the target’s page on his site: http://michigancpl.net/targets.htm.
The thing that impressed me most about these targets is that they are big (23×35) and they are made out of heavy duty paper. I usually wind up shooting out doors, and it’s windy, more often than not. There’s nothing more frustrating than to have your target ripped off the thumb tacks because the paper it’s made out of is too thin!!
Definitely worth a look!
USCCA Members-Only Forum Highlights
Every Member has complete access to the USCCA forum, which is constantly being accessed by members sharing information, knowledge, insight, and fun. With well over thirty-five-thousand posts and growing by the hour, this is one heck of a valuable resource!
Practice w/ BB gun / air gun?
In between range trips, is it of any benefit to practice in the basement with a BB gun or air gun? And if so, do you have any recommendations on model, type, etc? I’m particularly interested in improving on-target accuracy, but I don’t want to screw up something else if practicing with this type of gun will instill bad habits.
Thanks,
Ginny
Carry Ammo For 10mm?
Just bought a Glock 20 in 10mm, the shop where I purchased it has a limited choice of ammunition. I was able to get Hornady 180gn XTP and Federal Hydrashock 180gn. Anyone ever tried the DoubleTap Gold Dot ammo?
The scenarios got me to thinking (another scenario)…
…has the issue of disparate force been discussed?Scenario:
You are in your typical CCW posture and getting gas at a well-lit service station in a pretty good neighborhood in your town/city. While filling up, you notice a man 30 yards away approaching you with “a crazed look in his eyes” and his eyes are locked on you.
Physically he is taller, more muscled and quite a bit younger than you…at 10 yards you notice his hands are balled into fists and he adopts a very aggressive posture while walking towards you. You do not see a weapon.
You initiate verbal commands and blade yourself/weapon while moving off the x at an oblique angle to his direction of travel. he does not respond to your commands and changes directions to intercept you.
What next…?
Dire Straits…
“Brothers in Arms”
USCCA VIDEO OF THE WEEK
Note: Because some email programs don’t display the newsletter very well when the Video of the Week is included, I’ve decided only display the video on the website itself. This change will make the newsletter load a lot faster for you, so I think you’ll like the change! To go to our newsletter site to watch it, visit the following link:
“Tim-spiration” of the Week
USCCA PHOTO OF THE WEEK
- One of the great members-only areas of our site is the photo gallery. Every week, I give you a taste of the kinds of photos that are posted there!
USCCA QUOTE OF THE WEEK
- Sometimes a good quote will inspire or motivate you. Sometimes, they’ll just put a smile on your face! Here is the quote for this week…
“The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.”
-Douglas MacArthur
Self Defense Story OF THE WEEK
- Every day, thousands of Armed Americans use their firearms to preserve human life. Let this section of my newsletter serve as a record of this fact!
- Clerk, robbery suspect exchange gunfire
found at:www.news-journal.com/A woman store clerk and a would-be robber exchanged gunfire late Saturday night but police report no one was injured.
The female clerk at EZ Food Mart, 1006 North Fourth St., told police she bent down behind the counter to get some cigarettes for a customer. When she stood up, a man was standing next to the customer pointing a handgun at her.
The woman told police she ducked behind the counter as the suspect fired. She grabbed a gun that was behind the counter and as the suspect was running out of the door, she fired one shot toward him but missed.
Neither the clerk nor the suspect were injured.
Police said the suspect was wearing a red bandanna over his face.
Closing Thoughts
Okay everyone, that’s it for this edition of ‘The Armed American Report’! I hope you have enjoyed this edition, as I have tried to roughly center it on the ‘Second Amendment’. I know, I know… the only ‘Second Amendment’ related things were the commentary on the D.C. Gun ban case, and the ‘No Guns? No Money!‘ business cards, but I’ll bet they at least got you thinking!!
Have a good weekend, and oh- don’t forget to check out the Armed American Report Challenge:
Be Safe,
Tim Schmidt
Founder - U.S. Concealed Carry
http://www.usconcealedcarry.com
