Cannabis users have gun rights, US judges rule

Two U.S. federal District Court judges have ruled that the national ban on gun possession by cannabis users violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

Another Federal Judge Rejects the DOJ's Argument That Cannabis Consumers Have No Second Amendment Rights | Reason = Jacpb Sullm:

April 11, 2023 - "A federal judge in Texas recently agreed with a federal judge in Oklahoma that the national ban on gun possession by cannabis consumers violates the Second Amendment. Kathleen Cardone, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, also concluded that the federal ban on transferring firearms to an 'unlawful user' of a 'controlled substance,' first imposed by the Gun Control Act of 1968, is unconstitutional. The case involves Paola Connelly, who was charged with illegal possession of firearms under 18 USC 922(g)(3) after El Paso police found marijuana and guns in her home while responding to a domestic disturbance in December 2021.... Both gun offenses are punishable by up to 15 years in prison....

"Cardone held that Connelly's Second Amendment claims were not precluded by prior decisions in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which includes Texas, upheld Section 922(g)(3). Those decisions, she noted, preceded the Supreme Court's June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.... Last February in United States v. Rahimi, the 5th Circuit concluded that Bruen required it to reconsider decisions upholding the federal ban on gun possession by people subject to domestic violence restraining orders. By the same logic, Cardone says in an order published last week, the 5th Circuit's precedents regarding Section 922(g)(3) are no longer binding.

"[T]he Biden administration argued that the gun ban for marijuana users meets the Bruen test because it is 'relevantly similar' to colonial and state laws forbidding people to publicly use or carry guns while intoxicated. Like U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick, who deemed that ban unconstitutional in an Oklahoma case last February [see video], Cardone was unpersuaded by that analogy.... A 1655 Virginia law, for example, prohibited 'shoot[ing] any gunns at drinkeing (marriages and ffuneralls onely excepted)'... State laws enacted in the 19th century likewise were aimed at people who publicly carried or fired guns when they were drunk. By contrast, Section 922(g)(3) covers all cannabis consumers, including those who live in states that have legalized marijuana, even when they are not intoxicated, and it applies to private as well as public possession.... 

"The government also argued that Section 922(g)(3) is consistent with a purported tradition of disarming 'unvirtuous' people.... Cardone ... notes colonial-era jurist William Blackstone's distinction between 'public and private vices': While the former are subject to the 'punishments of human tribunals,' he said, the latter are subject only to 'eternal justice.' Blackstone explicitly applied that distinction to drunkenness. 'Connelly's alleged drug use more resembles private drinking than public drunkenness, casting doubt on the idea that history supports criminalizing or disarming her for this behavior,' Cardone writes....

"Cardone was equally unimpressed by the government's argument that Connelly was disqualified from owning guns because she was not 'law-abiding'.... [M]arijuana use ... is a nonviolent misdemeanor, and 'no one even today reads [Second Amendment history] to support the disarmament of literally all criminals, even nonviolent misdemeanants'....  Cardone is quoting a 2019 dissent that Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Barrett argued that the federal ban on gun possession by people with nonviolent felony records sweeps too broadly. In making that case, she took it for granted that a nonviolent misdemeanor is not nough to justify depriving someone of his Second Amendment rights....

"Cardone also notes that Section 922(g)(3), unlike restrictions that hinge on a conviction or a judicial order, deprives people of their Second Amendment rights 'without a hearing or any preliminary showing from the Government.' They 'must choose to either stop their marijuana use, forgo possession of a firearm, or ... face up to fifteen years in federal prison'....

"[C]ases challenging the constitutionality of Section 922(g)(3) will soon be considered by three federal appeals courts: the 5th Circuit, the 10th Circuit, and the 11th Circuit. Assuming they reach different conclusions, the Supreme Court is apt to intervene, decisively settling the question of whether the right to keep and bear arms includes an exception for people who dare to consume a psychoactive substance that legislators deemed intolerable more than two centuries after the Second Amendment was ratified."

Read more: https://reason.com/2023/04/11/another-federal-judge-rejects-the-dojs-argument-that-cannabis-consumers-have-no-second-amendment-rights/ 

New Gun Law Allows Marijuana Users to Legally Own Guns | USCCA, February 7, 2023:

Five 2nd amendment sanctuary counties in AZ

Arizona’s Most Populous County Becomes Second Amendment Sanctuary | American Greatness - Catherine Smith:

February 27, 2020 - "Arizona’s most populous county on Wednesday joined a growing movement in which areas are declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries and protecting their rights to keep and bear arms.... The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in Phoenix voted 4-1 to adopt a resolution that declares one of the nation’s fastest-growing counties a “Second Amendment Preservation County.” The move follows recent trends across the southern and western United States for municipalities to reaffirm their support for gun rights and stave off gun-control policies that could be seen as unconstitutional.  Arizona’s Apache, La Paz, Yavapai, and Mohave counties  have all adopted similar symbolic resolutions.

The resolution in Maricopa County, which has about 4.4 million residents ... introduced by Chairman Clint Hickman essentially shows Maricopa County’s support for constitutional Second Amendment rights, the right to own guns.

"Supervisor Steve Gallardo, a Democrat who cast the only 'no' vote, denounced the politically charged resolution.... 'A resolution should not be divisive,' he said. 'It should not be partisan'.... Chairman Hickman countered that multiple constituents had expressed support for the sanctuary designation that was first used in 2018 in Illinois and quickly spread to California, Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, Virginia and other states....

"In Arizona, gun owners are already free to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. They can also bypass background checks if they buy their firearms at a gun show. However, federal background checks are required for other purchases."

Read more: https://amgreatness.com/2020/02/27/arizonas-most-populous-county-becomes-second-amendment-sanctuary/

MN counties adopting 2A sanctuary resolutions

Second Amendment ‘sanctuary’ movement gets some traction in rural Minnesota | Minnesota Public Radio - Kirsti Marohn:

March 2, 2020 - "Five northwestern Minnesota county boards — Clearwater, Marshall, Red Lake, Roseau and Wadena — have voted to declare their county as a Second Amendment 'sanctuary,' or otherwise dedicated to defending gun rights. Similar efforts have surfaced in at least two dozen other counties, with some expected to vote in coming weeks. The resolutions are similar, with language saying local resources will not be used to enforce laws believed to infringe on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms....

"Second Amendment resolutions began in Illinois in response to proposed gun measures, then spread rapidly in other states including Virginia and Colorado. More than 400 communities nationally have now adopted them.

"It’s 'a pushback to the metro-centric vision for creating additional barriers, additional hurdles for gun owners to jump through in order to exercise their rights without actually having any effect on public safety,' said Rob Doar, political director for the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus.

"Those proposals include expanded background checks and red flag laws that let family members or law enforcement petition a judge to temporarily remove guns from someone deemed a risk to themselves or others. The DFL-led Minnesota House passed both measures last week, although they are all but certain to fail in the Republican-controlled Senate. Polls show most Americans support red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders. But they spark fierce opposition from advocates of gun rights who see them as government overreach.

"Michael Starry of Ironton, who is helping organize an effort to declare Crow Wing a Second Amendment 'dedicated' county, sees red flag laws as an attack on constitutional rights. 'They come and take your personal property, and then you have to spend thousands of dollars and countless man hours proving your innocence for a charge filed by somebody you never get to know,' Starry said.

"In Mille Lacs County, Josh Bretzman, who grew up with family traditions of hunting and sport shooting, launched a Facebook group to press county leaders for a Second Amendment sanctuary designation. It quickly grew to more than 1,700 members. 'They want to stop criminals, and I’m OK with that,” said Bretzman.... 'But criminals acquire these firearms illegally. It’s not stopping them. It’s hindering us, the people who are stand-up citizens in the community.'

"The idea for the resolutions was inspired by so-called sanctuary cities that have limited their cooperation with federal enforcement of certain immigration laws..... The Minnesota County Attorneys Association is expected in the next few weeks to take a position on the Second Amendment resolutions. Regardless of how that group sees them, some advocates say the measures send an important message to St. Paul that Minnesotans outside the Twin Cities metro area are fed up with efforts to restrict guns."

Read more: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/03/02/second-amendment-sanctuary-movement-gets-some-traction-in-rural-minnesota

2nd Amendment sanctuary movement spreading

The Second Amendment sanctuary movement: Why now? | Press of Atlantic City - Michelle Brunetti Post:

February 24,2020 - "All over New Jersey and the nation, gun rights groups are asking local and county officials to designate the land within their borders 'Second Amendment sanctuaries.' The designation is strictly symbolic, they acknowledge, with no legal ability to change state or federal law. But it sends a message to lawmakers, supporters say, to stop infringing on the rights of lawful gun owners. The resolutions vary from one jurisdiction to the next, but most declare the intention of local officials to oppose any 'unconstitutional restrictions' on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

"'This idea has kicked around since about 2013 — especially in more rural areas,' said John Froonjian, executive director of the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University. Froonjian said the movement was energized last year after Democrats took control in Virginia and proposed gun reform.

"'In my mind it’s really different (than other grassroots movements) because ... when people organize for change it’s usually to create reform. This is actually to prevent reform,' Froonjian said. 'This is more akin to the sanctuary cities on immigration. The cities said basically, "We are not going to help the federal government enforce its immigration laws."'

"In just the past two months, the issue has gained traction in South Jersey, with Cape May and Salem county freeholders passing resolutions in favor of gun rights, and Atlantic County freeholders working on a similar resolution....

"Sandy Hickerson, of Absecon, who is organizing the Atlantic County 2A group ... said a couple of people concerned about gun rights in New Jersey started asking on Facebook for volunteers to organize the movement in December. 'Within two weeks, we had a representative in every county in the state of New Jersey,' she said..... So far in the state, three counties and 24 municipalities have passed supportive resolutions, Hickerson said....

"Mark Cheeseman, 55, of Gloucester County, was one of the two men who got the movement started in New Jersey. 'The first town in New Jersey to actually do this was West Milford in Sussex County,' said Cheeseman, who said he grew up around guns and started shooting at age 7. 'Nobody knew about it. Nobody saw it coming.... We’d go to establishments like gun ranges, breweries, diners, anybody that would have us.' They’d talk about gun rights in New Jersey and ask people to take the resolution to their municipal and county legislators, then follow up in person at meetings....

"Cheeseman ... cited the 2018 law that made 15-round magazines illegal, legislating 10 as the largest capacity allowed. 'I am now a felon and looking at a $13,000 fine and three years in jail for every one I have. Yet I purchased them back in 2008 when it was OK.” Cheeseman said. 'Now they are talking about going down to five bullets'....

"But the 'red-flag law' may have caused the most concern for gun owners.... 'Family members, friends, neighbors can turn you in if they feel threatened by you,'  Cheeseman said. 'Granted in a number of cases of domestic violence or abuse, police do need to intervene. But the law is way too broad. It leaves way, way too much room for mistakes — room for innocent people to get caught up. People [can] have firearms taken away just on hearsay.'"

Read more: https://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/local/the-second-amendment-sanctuary-movement-why-now/article_3c75005a-e6ba-5fae-8875-89bf56fd0d1d.html

20,000 rally for gun rights in Richmond, Virginia

Richmond, Virginia gun rally: Protest draws militias - Ryan W. Miller & John Bacon, USA Today:

January 20, 2020 - "Thousands of gun owners and gun rights supporters gathered Monday at Virginia's Capitol for a 'peaceful day to address our Legislature' that appeared to generate none of the violence feared by some state leaders. Many demonstrators, opposed to proposed gun restrictions, openly displayed military-style semiautomatic rifles. Other[s] wore orange 'Guns save lives' stickers as the crowd chanted “USA” and sang the national anthem. Signs read 'Come and take it' and 'Second Amendment Sanctuary.'

"But despite warnings from Gov. Ralph Northam and law enforcement that out-of-state hate groups and militias may incite violence, the protest did not grow heated. Police estimated the size of the crowd at 22,000 – including 6,000 people inside Capitol Square – and only one arrest was reported ... [on] one felony count of wearing a mask in public.... Earlier, a heavy police presence greeted rally goers calmly lining up to enter the state Capitol, where they had to pass through a security checkpoint.

"Northam declared a state of emergency Friday through Tuesday, banning all weapons, including firearms, in the square around the Capitol building. He said law enforcement received 'credible' threats of violence from out-of-state hate groups and militias.....On Monday, law enforcement helicopters buzzed overhead as state, city and Capitol police kept a wary eye on the crowds. Barricades lined the streets and many shops were closed....

"The day was planned as a 'lobby day' by the Virginia Citizens Defense League, which has organized similar events to advocate for gun rights for years. A mass movement grew out of the scheduled protest this year, however....

"Driving the momentum behind the Richmond rally was a host of new gun-control measures backed by Northam and Democrats, who flipped both houses of the General Assembly and have full control of state government for the first time since 1993. Democrats proposed limiting handgun purchases to one a month, universal background checks on gun sales, allowing localities to ban guns in some public areas and a 'red flag' bill that would allow authorities to temporarily take guns away from anyone deemed to be dangerous to themselves or others. Other proposals include rules around reporting lost or stolen firearms and a ban on 'assault firearms,' though some moderate Democrats have expressed concerns over that bill."

Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/01/20/virginia-gun-rally-protest-draws-national-militias-fear-violence/4519076002/
'via Blog this'

NYC rewrites gun regs to avoid SCOTUS review

Can Senseless Gun Regulations Be Constitutional? – Reason.com- Jacob Sullum:

December 4, 2019 - "New York's uniquely onerous restrictions on transporting guns were so hard to justify that the city stopped trying. Instead it rewrote the rules after the Supreme Court agreed to consider a constitutional challenge to them, and now it argues that the case is moot.

"Despite the obvious vulnerability of New York's regulations, the city successfully defended them for five years, obtaining favorable rulings from a federal judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. That track record highlights a glaring problem the Supreme Court could address if it rejects the city's mootness claim: More than a decade after the justices recognized that the Second Amendment imposes limits on gun control, lower courts routinely treat the right to keep and bear arms as a minor hindrance that can be overcome by the slightest excuse.

"Under New York's rules, licensed pistol and revolver owners were not allowed to leave home with their handguns, even if they were unloaded and stored in a locked container separate from the ammunition, unless they were traveling to or from one of seven gun ranges in the city. If a New Yorker wanted to practice at a range, participate in a competition, or defend himself at a second home outside the five boroughs, the only legal option was to buy (or rent) additional handguns.

"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ... noted during oral arguments on Monday. 'What public safety or any other reasonable end is served by saying you have to have two guns instead of one ... and one of those guns has to be maintained in a place that is often unoccupied and that therefore [is] more vulnerable to theft?' Richard Dearing, the attorney representing New York City, was stumped....

"Justice Samuel Alito asked Dearing if New Yorkers are 'less safe' now that the city has loosened its restrictions. 'No, I don't think so,' Dearing replied. 'We made a judgment, expressed by our police commissioner, that it was consistent with public safety to repeal the prior rule.' In that case, Alito wondered, 'what possible justification could there have been for the old rule, which you have abandoned?'...

"Restrictions on fundamental rights usually pass muster only if they are narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest..... But ... In the appeals court's view, the city's assertion that the transport ban was necessary to protect public safety — a claim it has now disavowed — outweighed the plaintiffs' 'trivial' interest in using their guns for self-defense outside the city or in honing the skills required for that constitutionally protected purpose.

"Such casual disregard for the right to keep and bear arms is plainly inconsistent with what the Supreme Court has said about the Second Amendment. That's why the city is so desperate to prevent the justices from considering an argument that was good enough until now."

Read more: https://reason.com/2019/12/04/can-senseless-gun-regulations-be-constitutional/
'via Blog this'

Sheriffs won’t enforce new Washington gun law

Sheriffs Say They Won’t Enforce New Washington Law Raising Gun Purchase Age to 21 – Reason.com - Ben McDonald:

July 5, 2019 - "Washington state has raised its minimum age for purchasing a semi-automatic rifle to 21, along with other new rules governing gun ownership. The age restriction went into effect in January, with the other changes taking effect July 1. But some in state law enforcement have vowed not to enforce the measure, arguing that it violates the Second Amendment.

"Under the new law, someone buying a semi-automatic rifle has to be at least 21 years old, pass a stricter background check, take a safety training course, and complete a 10-day waiting period. The law does not impose a retroactive ban on people under 21 owning such guns, but it does increase the restrictions on where they can possess them. Washingtonians under 21 can only have a gun in their homes, in a fixed place of business, or on real property under their control.....

"And people of all ages are supposed to comply with strict new storage requirements. 'A person who stores or leaves a firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a prohibited person may gain access to the firearm' is now 'guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm' if 'a prohibited person' accesses the gun and uses it. This requirement has been met with heavy backlash, with critics pointing out the potentially dangerous consequences of making weapons more inaccessible in a life-threatening situation....

"Sheriffs across the state have denounced the law, saying it is harmful to the people they are sworn to protect by making it harder for them to defend themselves. Some go further, declaring that they will not enforce it.

"Bob Songer, a sheriff in Klickitat County, told KTTH: 'I understand there's an argument that a sheriff has to follow the rule of law [but] as an elected sheriff, I have the authority and right to protect the rights of the citizens of Klickitat county that I serve.'

"The Spokesman Review reports that Stevens County Sheriff Brad Manke and his deputies 'won't be issuing citations or making custodial arrests for most suspected violations'....  'When my 19-year-old daughter can't carry a .22 rifle off our property but we can send her off to war — I don't agree with that at all," Manke told the Chinook Observer.

"In February, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson stated that sheriffs who do not enforce the law will be held liable.... 'In the event a police chief or sheriff refuses to perform the background check required by Initiative 1639, they could be held liable if there is a sale or transfer of a firearm to a dangerous individual prohibited from possessing a firearm and that individual uses that firearm to do harm,' Ferguson said.

"In September of last year, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed similar legislation raising the minimum age for rifle and shotgun purchases to 21. The Second Amendment rights groups Calguns Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition are now suing California over that law. John Dillon, an attorney representing the groups, told the Los Angeles Times that when people turn 18 they are legally considered adults and should be able to benefit from the same rights other adults have. 'Law-abiding adults are entitled to fully exercise all of their fundamental rights, including their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes, not just hunting or sport,' Dillon said."

Read more: https://reason.com/2019/07/05/sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-new-washington-law-raising-gun-purchase-age-to-21/
'via Blog this'

Needles CA a '2nd Amendment sanctuary city'

Needles declared itself a “2nd Amendment Sanctuary” city; wants exemption to some state gun laws – San Bernardino Sun - Sandra Emerson:

June 24, 2019 - "One of San Bernardino County’s easternmost cities wants to be a sanctuary ... for gun owners. Needles this month declared itself a 'Second Amendment Sanctuary City' a message that city leaders say is partly about support for gun rights and partly a desire to get an exemption from state law so out-of-state gun owners can travel through town and for residents to purchase ammunition. The former railroad town of about about 5,000 is near the Colorado River, close to the Arizona state line, and city officials say that California’s gun laws are prompting Arizona residents to stay out of Needles, hurting business in the town....

"City Council, which made the declaration during a meeting on June 11, eventually could consider all or any of three possibilities — an exemption from the state’s gun laws for Needles and a 65-mile radius surrounding the town, a request [to] the state to allow the city to recognize concealed weapon permit holders from neighboring Arizona and Nevada, and a request to the county to allow sheriff’s deputies to not enforce weapons violations by California, Nevada and Arizona residents who are following their [own] state’s rules.

"California, which has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, does not recognize out of state concealed carry permits, nor does the state issue such permits to out-of-state residents. However, Arizona and 23 other states do recognize California permits....

"City officials may also request the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s department to direct its deputies to use discretion [so] that an out-of-state resident would be asked to take their gun back across state lines, or be allowed to unload the weapon and place it in the trunk or locked container, as is required in California, rather than face potential criminal charges....

"In addition to exemptions for licensed gun owners, [Mayor Jeff] Williams said they are looking to lessen restrictions on ammunition purchases for California residents in Needles. It is illegal [to] purchase ammunition out of state, then transport it back to California. Ammo must be purchased in person at a vendor licensed with the state’s Department of Justice. Online orders must be shipped to one of these vendors, not to a buyer’s home. For Needles gun owners this means driving more than 100 miles [to] purchase ammunition in person, or to pick up online orders, from a California-licensed vendor, even though there are ammunition stores just a few miles across the river....

"Steve Lindley, program manager with the Brady Campaign & Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Los Angeles, said ... [h]e believes Needles isn’t likely to be granted an exemption from state gun laws, in part because such a move could set off a flurry of requests from other border communities ... 'asking for those same exemptions'....

"Williams ... said his community plans to meet with the Sheriff’s Department, California Highway Patrol and state legislators to discuss their request. He added that they are talking with other border cities that might be interested in joining them."

Read more: https://www.sbsun.com/2019/06/24/needles-declared-itself-a-2nd-amendment-sanctuary-city-wants-exemption-to-some-state-gun-laws/

'via Blog this'

U.S. gun laws disarm cannabis users (I)

Guns or marijuana? Firearm-owning cannabis users facing a choice - Mark Scolforo, Associated Press:

January 15, 2018 - "As gun-loving Pennsylvania becomes the latest state to operate a medical marijuana program ... authorities are warning patients that federal law bars marijuana users from having guns or ammunition ... but the reality of how the policy might be enforced in Pennsylvania and other states is a little muddier. That includes the question of whether people who already own guns might have to surrender them, instead of just being prohibited from making new purchases....

"State laws allowing medical or, more recently, recreational use of pot have long been at odds with the federal prohibition on gun ownership by those using marijuana. But the government has traditionally taken a hands-off approach. Since 2014, Congress has forbidden the Department of Justice from spending money to prosecute people who grow, sell and use medical pot....

"The Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives [ATF] has left no doubt where it stands. Last year, the ATF spelled out the marijuana prohibition in boldface type on gun purchase forms.

“'Any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her state has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medical purposes … is prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition,' ATF spokeswoman Janice L. Kemp said in an email to The Associated Press....

"The gun-ownership ban has withstood at least one legal challenge. An appeals court in San Francisco, reject[ed] a challenge on Second Amendment grounds ... in 2016.... Meanwhile, some state and local officials, particularly in law enforcement, have sought to crack down.

"William Bryson, chairman of the Delaware Police Chiefs’ Council, told state lawmakers in December that people who use marijuana for medical or recreational purposes should be required to have a designation on their driver’s licenses. That would make it easier, he said, for police to enforce the ban.

"And last month, a police chief in Hawaii publicized and then quickly rescinded a directive that medical marijuana patients had to give up their handguns. [However, the department continues to deny new gun permits for cannabis cardholders.]...

"The issue has been largely theoretical, but there would be quick pushback if the federal government took a more aggressive stance, said Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

"Between 1998 and 2014, nearly 100,000 prospective gun purchasers went home empty-handed because they were flagged as using illegal drugs, according to the ATF. But the agency could not say how many of those used medical or recreational marijuana."

Read more: https://www.thecannabist.co/2018/01/15/marijuana-users-gun-ownership/96741/
'via Blog this'

See also: U.S. gun laws disarm cannabis users (II)

U.S. gun laws disarm cannabis users (II)

Pot Prohibition Makes Self-Defense Illegal - Reason.com - Jacob Sullum:

September 12, 2018 - "When a stranger forced his way into her apartment, tackled her, punched her repeatedly, and tried to cover her mouth with a cloth, Krissy Noble says, she did what she thought was necessary to protect herself and her unborn baby. She grabbed a handgun from the coffee table and shot the man three times, then ran to a neighbor's apartment and asked her to call the police.

"Although local prosecutors agreed that the shooting was justified, Noble faces charges that could put her behind bars for years, thanks to a marijuana conviction that made it illegal for her to possess firearms. Her case shows how drug prohibition and indiscriminate gun laws conspire to deprive people of the constitutional right to armed self-defense....

"'It is the opinion of this office that Krissy Lenae Noble was justified in her use of force and that this is a justifiable homicide, which does not merit the filing of criminal charges with regard to the homicidal event,' Sebastian County Prosecuting Attorney Daniel Shue said in a statement issued last month. Noble, who had pleaded guilty to possessing marijuana with intent to deliver in February 2017, was nevertheless arrested for violating a state [of Arizona] law that bars felons from possessing guns.

"That offense is a Class D felony, punishable by up to six years in prison. Noble, who is 21 and now the mother of a baby boy, may also have to serve time for the marijuana offense, since staying away from guns was a condition of the five-year suspended sentence she received....

"Most states have similar laws, and the federal government forbids gun possession by cannabis consumers as well as people convicted of marijuana felonies. Violating that ban is itself a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

"The upshot is that people who have never violated anyone's rights or demonstrated any violent tendencies can go to prison for exercising a fundamental human right guaranteed by the Constitution. That is true even of people who were convicted of doing things that are no longer crimes under state law, unless they manage to get their records downgraded or expunged.

"Ten years ago, when the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep guns for self-defense, it said 'nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons.' Yet if the right to protect oneself against aggressors is 'fundamental,' as the Court said it has long been considered ... it cannot be treated so lightly that proximity to a bag of dried vegetable matter leaves a young pregnant woman defenseless in her own home."

Read more: http://reason.com/blog/2018/08/31/arkansas-mom-justified-shooting-weed
'via Blog this'

See also: U.S. gun laws disarm cannabis users (I)

No 2nd amendment right to own assault weapon, U.S. judge rules

Second Amendment Does Not Apply to 'Assault Weapons,' Says U.S. District Judge - Hit & Run : Reason.com - Brian Doherty:

April 6, 2016 - "Relying on certain stated or implied limitations on the weapons to which the Second Amendment applied in Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion in D.C. v. Heller (2008), U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young this week granted summary judgment to Massachusetts in a lawsuit challenging a 1998 state law that emulated the federal government's 1994 ban on certain weapons it characterized as "assault weapons." The federal ban expired in 2004 but the Massachusetts version remained in effect....

"David Worman et al argued that a 1998 Massachusetts state law that banned certain types of semi-automatic rifles and certain sized magazines violated their Second Amendment rights (and that a later attempt to apply the ban to other weapons not specifically listed originally but now considered to be illegitimate "copies or duplicates" constituted a 14th Amendment violation of due process)

"In his decision in Worman v. Baker, Judge Young declared that 'assault weapons and LCMs [large capacity magazines] are not within the scope of the personal right to "bear arms" under the Second Amendment'....

"Scalia said in Heller that some weapons of primarily military use would not necessarily be covered by the Second Amendment.... Young believes that qualities of the weapons and magazines covered by the challenged law mark them as of primarily military use....

"Young grants that 'assault weapons' under the Massachusetts regulations certainly are commonly used in America; nonetheless, such 'present day popularity is not constitutionally material'.... [Yet] Scalia wrote elsewhere in Heller, while attempting to reconcile his opinion with the 1939 Miller precedent, that:

We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right.

"That statement — though no more 'the words of our constitution' than Scalia's aside about the ability to ban guns 'most useful in military service' — gives weight to the plaintiffs' belief that a weapon like the AR-15, for example, which is very much 'typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purpose' and is not in weapon terms especially 'dangerous and unusual' should be protected, despite Judge Young's interpretation."

Read more: https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/06/us-district-judge-in-massachusetts-belie
'via Blog this'

Dems use Vegas shooting to push gun agenda

A Massacre Is Not an Argument - Reason.com - Jacob Sullum:

October 4, 2017 - "The morning after a gunman murdered nearly 60 people in Las Vegas, Hillary Clinton tweeted that 'we can and must put politics aside, stand up to the NRA, and work together to try to stop this from happening again.' The former Democratic presidential nominee's commitment to putting politics aside disappeared in the middle of that sentence, and her implicit claim that she knows how to 'stop this from happening again' was equally empty.

"Gun controllers like Clinton habitually seize upon mass shootings as evidence in favor of the policies they have always supported.... Clinton, for example, argued that the Las Vegas attack demonstrated the folly of the NRA-backed Hearing Protection Act, which would loosen federal restrictions on suppressors, a.k.a. silencers. She suggested the death toll in Las Vegas could have been higher "if the shooter had a silencer'.... But as firearms experts immediately pointed out, so-called silencers do not actually eliminate the sound of gunfire.... Even with a suppressor, the hundreds of shots fired from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Resort and Casino would have been clearly audible....

"New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof had already published a column in which he listed eight gun control proposals, all supposedly aimed at 'preventing mass shootings like the Vegas Strip attack.' Most of them ... plainly had nothing to do with mass shootings like the Vegas Strip attack. Even the most plausible-sounding of Kristof's ideas, 'universal background checks,' would have made no difference in this case, since the Las Vegas shooter ... was repeatedly cleared by the FBI when he bought his guns. As is typical of mass shooters, Paddock did not have a disqualifying criminal or psychiatric record.

"After presenting his list of new gun controls ... Kristof conceded that 'it's too soon to know what, if anything, might have prevented the shooting in Las Vegas, and it may be that nothing could have prevented it'.... That's par for the course in the wake of mass shootings, which gun controllers use to create a sense of urgency they hope will translate into new restrictions....

"'It's time for Congress to get off its ass and do something,' Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) declared on Monday. 'There's no excuse for inaction,' tweeted former Vice President Joe Biden. As CNN observed, 'Democrats are desperate to do something — anything — on gun control'....

"Contrary to what Joe Biden seems to think, having no idea what you're doing or whether it makes sense is an excellent excuse for inaction."

Read more: http://reason.com/archives/2017/10/04/a-massacre-is-not-an-argument?utm_medium=email
'via Blog this'

Appeals court approves concealed-carry in DC

In Major Win for 2nd Amendment Advocates, Federal Court Blocks D.C. from Enforcing Conceal-Carry Restriction - Hit & Run : Reason.com - Damon Root:

July 25, 2017 - "Second Amendment advocates scored a significant legal victory today when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit blocked Washington, D.C., from enforcing a law that effectively bars most D.C. residents from lawfully carrying handguns in public. 'The Second Amendment,' the court declared, 'erects some absolute barriers that no gun law may breach.'

"At issue was a District of Columbia regulation that limited conceal-carry licenses only to those individuals who can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the chief of police, that they have a "good reason" to carry a handgun in public. According to the District, applicants for a conceal-carry license must show a 'special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks that demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life.' Living or working 'in a high crime area shall not by itself establish a good reason'....

"'At the Second Amendment's core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions,' the D.C. Circuit held.... 'The Amendment's core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizen's ability to carry common arms generally. The District's good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. That's enough to sink this law under' District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 case that struck down D.C.'s total ban on handguns.

"Today's decision by the D.C. Circuit widens an already gaping split among the federal courts on this issue. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, 'the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public.' By contrast, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit says that 'one doesn't need to be a historian to realize that a right to keep and bear arms in the eighteenth century could not rationally have been limited to the home.'

"In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule definitively on the scope of the Second Amendment outside the home. In the nine years since that landmark ruling was issued, the Court has declined several ripe opportunities to settle the matter once and for all."

Read more: http://reason.com/blog/2017/07/25/in-major-win-for-2nd-amendment-advocates
'via Blog this'

SCOTUS declines CA concealed-carry case

Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch Blast SCOTUS for Refusing to Hear Major Second Amendment Case - Hit & Run : Reason.com - Damon Root:

June 26, 2017 - "Today the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a major case out of California that asked whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms includes the right to carry firearms in public. By refusing to get involved, the Court left in place a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that denied constitutional recognition to the right to carry.

"Writing in dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, blasted the Court for its failure to act and for its 'distressing trend' of treating 'the Second Amendment as a disfavored right'....

"Thomas offered a sharply worded case for why the Court should have taken up the question. Federal circuits, he pointed out, have reached different conclusions and are therefore irrevocably split on this pressing constitutional matter. 'This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion' ... Thomas observed....

"Today's case, known as Peruta v. California, centered on a state law that says that conceal-carry permits will only be issued to those persons who have demonstrated to the satisfaction of their local county sheriff that they have a 'good cause' for carrying a concealed firearm in public.... In the words of one San Diego official, 'one's personal safety is not considered good cause' in and of itself.

"What this means in practice, as one earlier court ruling observed, is that 'in California the only way that the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen can carry a weapon in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is with a concealed-carry permit. And, in San Diego County, that option has been taken off the table.'"

Read more: http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/26/clarence-thomas-neil-gorsuch-second-amen
'via Blog this'

Johnson opposes 'No fly, no buy' gun control

Gary Johnson Comes Out Against No Fly, No Gun Proposal | The Daily Caller - Alex Pfieffer:

June 15, 2016 - "Libertarian presidential nominee and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson has come out against proposals to deny Americans on the no-fly list from purchasing guns on the grounds of due process.

“Gov. Johnson believes Second Amendment rights are too fundamental to be denied without due process, and being put on a list arbitrarily by the government is certainly not due process,' Johnson campaign communications director Joe Hunter told The Daily Caller in a statement Wednesday."

"His campaign pointed TheDC to a recent blog post by the ACLU titled, "Until the No Fly List is Fixed, It Shouldn’t Be Used To Restrict People’s Freedoms." The ACLU is currently in a legal challenge against the no fly list. They say it is 'unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error.'

"President Obama and Hillary Clinton have come out in favor of barring people from the no fly list and terror watch list from purchasing weapons. Donald Trump said Wednesday that he is going to meet with the NRA to discuss these proposals."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/15/gary-johnson-comes-out-against-no-fly-no-gun-proposal/
'via Blog this'

Libertarians target mandatory 'gun-free' zones

Libertarian Party Calls for End of ‘Government-Mandated Gun-Free Zones’ in Wake of Orlando Attack | TheBlaze.com - Kaitlyn Schallhorn:

June 13, 2016 - "Nicholas Sarwark, chairman of the Libertarian National Committee, warned Monday that the U.S. is at risk of 'more mass shootings as he criticized both President Barack Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump for 'recycling their calls for more failed and deadly policies.'  Sarwark also asserted that the Libertarian Party is the only political party that is 'calling for sensible, serious policy change that would reduce the frequency of mass shootings as well as minimize the damage they do.'

"'Virtually all mass shootings happen in "gun-free" zones,' Sarwark said. 'Regardless of the ideology of the shooter or the type of weapons used, the common link is that the event occurs where responsible gun owners are prohibited from carrying arms for self-defense.

"'Self-defense is a fundamental human right,' he continued. 'Every person has a right to defend herself and her loved ones against someone who would do them harm. When government takes away the right of self-defense, it is violating a fundamental human right and endangering its citizens.'

"According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, only a little more than 1 percent of mass public shootings since 1950 have occurred in places that were not considered to be a gun-free zone. In fact, as Crime Prevention Research Center President John Lott Jr. noted in October 2015, only two mass shootings in the U.S. since 1950 have occurred in an area where citizens were not prohibited from carrying a gun.

"Pulse, the popular gay nightclub in Orlando where a 29-year-old terrorist fatally killed at least 49 people and wounded 53 early Sunday morning, was reportedly a gun-free zone.

"'In each of these mass killings, the government prohibited people from exercising their life-saving right to self-defense. Government-mandated "gun-free" zones disarm those who want to defend themselves and their loved ones,' Sarwark said. '"Gun-free" zones create killing fields for mass murders who, by definition, do not care what the law says.'"

Read more: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/06/13/libertarian-party-calls-for-end-of-government-mandated-gun-free-zones-in-wake-of-orlando-attack/
'via Blog this'

Johnson: Don't play politics with Orlando shooting

PressTV-'We must not politicize Orlando shooting':

June 13, 2016 - "US Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson has said people should not politicize the Orlando nightclub mass shooting that left at least 50 people dead and 53 others injured on Sunday.

"'Thoughts are with the #Orlando victims & a community who has been attacked,' Johnson said in a Twitter message on Sunday. 'It's a time to mourn, be strong & be what makes America great.'

"The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) said it is investigating both domestic and international connections to the mass shooting that was reportedly claimed by the Daesh terrorist group....

"Johnson called on Americans to allow the authorities continue their investigations and to extend their condolences to the victims of the deadly attack.

"'In this immediate aftermath of what is clearly a tragic and despicable attack, our thoughts must be with the victims,' Johnson said in a separate statement issued on Sunday afternoon.

"'Regardless of what the motivation is ultimately found to be, this violence against innocent people simply going about their lives is both cowardly and infuriating. We must allow the authorities to do their jobs, understand how this attack came about, and then respond accordingly. It is not a time to either politicize or jump to conclusions,' he stated.

"The remarks come after presumptive Republican presidential nominee used the attack to push ahead with his anti-Muslim rhetoric. Donald Trump said the shooting further proved his xenophobia campaign. 'Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic [sic] terrorism,' he said. 'I don't want congrats, I want toughness and vigilance. We must be smart!'

"Trump called for a 'total and complete shutdown of Muslims' entering the United States while campaigning in primary season.

"The New York real-estate mogul also called for a database to track Muslims across the United States, and he has also said that the US would have 'absolutely no choice' but to close down mosques."

Read more: http://presstv.ir/Detail/2016/06/13/470174/Orlando-shooting-Libertarian-nominee
'via Blog this'

West Virginia OKs permitless concealed carry

West Virginia legalizes concealed carry without a permit | Fox News - Stephen Gutowski:

March 8, 2016 - "The West Virginia legislature successfully overturned ... Democratic Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin’s veto on Saturday in a bipartisan effort to enact permitless gun carry in the state.

"Beginning June 5, anyone over age 21 who can legally possess a firearm will be allowed to carry it concealed on their person without having to obtain a permit. West Virginia has long allowed permitless open carry but, like most states, required a permit to carry a concealed firearm. With the new law the state will become the eighth in the nation to implement what gun rights activists call 'constitutional carry.'

"The law also creates a provisional permitting process for those between the ages of 18 and 20 who wish to carry a concealed firearm within the state. Individuals between the ages of 18 and 20 had previously been excluded from the permitting process altogether.

" West Virginia’s move to permitless carry marks the continuation of a national trend that began in 2003. Before then, only Vermont allowed law-abiding adults to carry concealed firearms without a permit. The pace accelerated over the last five years, with seven states adopting the policy.

"Concealed carry laws vary from state to state, but most adhere to one of three basic structures. The most popular, which is in effect in 34 states, is commonly referred to as a 'shall-issue' structure, where applicants must be issued a permit if they pass a background check along with whatever training and identification requirements are set by the state."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/08/west-virginia-legalizes-concealed-carry-without-permit.html
'via Blog this'

... but Democrats want to disarm more Americans

Sorry Democrats, But There Is No ‘Loophole’ That Allows Terrorists To Legally Buy Guns -Sean Davis, The Federalist:

November 23, 2015 - "Having overwhelmingly lost the public debate about whether the Obama administration’s Syrian refugee screening policy should be enhanced, Democrats have retreated to more comfortable rhetorical ground: demanding more gun control.

"Their new secret weapon? A bill that would ban anyone whose name appears on a terror watch list from buying or possessing a firearm. The idea sounds reasonable enough until you dig into the details and realize that the proposed Democratic legislation is a shocking assault on the constitutional right to due process. What makes the proposal even worse is that the Democrats’ assault on due process isn’t necessary to accomplish what they say is their only goal: preventing 'dangerous terrorists' from legally purchasing or possessing a firearm.

"The new bill, which Democrats have dubbed the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015, ... would allow the attorney general to deny a criminal background check clearance to any individual whose name appears on the national terror watch list. The huge problem with this expansive new power is that there are precisely zero statutory criteria for inclusion on this massive list.... If some faceless Beltway bureaucrat decides you might be a terrorist, then you’re a terrorist. End of story.

"It gets even worse, though. If your name erroneously appears on that watch list, which as of 2013 included nearly 900,000 names, the Democrats’ proposed legislation renders you virtually powerless to find out why your name is on there, let alone to have it removed.

"Under the Democrats’ proposal, the government doesn’t have to tell you why your name is on the list. The proposed law allows the government to keep that information secret. And if you decide to take the government to court over it, the Democrats’ bill creates a brand new legal standard that tilts the scales of justice against you.

"Unlike a standard criminal trial, in which a jury must decide beyond a reasonable doubt whether you have violated a criminal law, under this proposed law the government must only show a preponderance of evidence – evidence which will almost certainly be redacted....

"There may actually be an even bigger reason to reject [the bill]: it is completely unnecessary, because the U.S. attorney general already has the power to prevent 'dangerous terrorists' from legally buying guns, and that power can be exercised without unconstitutional deprivation of due process.... All the attorney general has to do to prevent 'dangerous terrorists' from legally purchasing firearms is to indict them....

"Engaging in terrorism is a federal crime. Providing material support for terrorism is a federal crime. Preparing to engage in terrorism is a federal crime. If there is sufficient evidence to show that these individuals are engaged in terrorism, the best way to make America safer is to indict these terrorists and arrest them."

Read more: http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/23/sorry-democrats-but-there-is-no-loophole-that-allows-terrorists-to-buy-guns/
'via Blog this'

NY Libertarians challenge state's Sullivan Law

Libertarians challenge New York’s pistol permit law - City & Region - Buffalo News - Phil Fairbanks:

August 17, 2015 - "When Edward Garrett moved here from South Dakota, he went about getting a pistol permit.

"Three years later, he’s suing New York State in Buffalo federal court....

"Garrett, a Town of Evans resident and the new chairman of the Erie County Libertarian Party ... is one of eight plaintiffs in a new civil suit challenging the constitutionality of New York’s pistol permit law, a gun control law dating to 1911 and the Tammany Hall days of New York City.

"The suit, filed on behalf of the local Libertarian Party, points to the time and cost involved in applying for a permit – they claim it can take up to a year – to suggest that the law is overly burdensome and therefore a violation of the Second Amendment.

"The plaintiffs also take issue with the various local governments charged with issuing permits and claim the decision-making on who gets them and who doesn’t can vary greatly from county to county.

"'The law is arbitrary in both its scope and authority,' said Richard Cooper, a Nassau County businessman and a former state chairman of the Libertarian Party. 'That’s inherently unfair'....

"The law, known to some as the Sullivan Act, named after the Tammany Hall politician who sponsored it, requires licenses for state residents who possess firearms small enough to be concealed.....

"The suit makes several references to government tyranny and the potential for what happened in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Pol Pot’s Cambodia to happen here. It also suggests that individuals have a right to self-defense and the defense of their families and that gun ownership is a fundamental part of that right.

"'Governments do abuse power,' said James Ostrowski, the Buffalo lawyer representing the plaintiffs. 'We’re not going to let the government deny us the right to bear arms.'

"Unlike previous legal challenges, Ostrowski thinks this lawsuit can be successful. He noted that the U.S. Supreme Court, in recent years, has struck down gun bans and recognized an individual’s right to bear arms in two landmark cases, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago."

Read more: http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/federal-court/libertarians-challenge-new-yorks-pistol-permit-law-20150817
'via Blog this'