The 2nd Amendment

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

See video: http://www.infowars.com/obama-to-deliver-gun-grabbing-speech-soon/

also see White House to Push Gun Control: http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/27/white-house-to-push-gun-control.html

Obama to Deliver Gun-grabbing Speech Soon

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 27, 2011

Prior to his SOTU, it was reported Obama would mention gun control. He didn’t, although he did preface his speech with a tribute to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the wounded Arizona representative who has become a poster child for professional gun-grabbers.

Earlier this week, legendary gun-grabber New York mayor Michael Bloomberg called for a strict national background check system and additional restrictions on gun shows.

“President Obama tonight failed to challenge old assumptions on the need for, and political possibilities of, reducing the gun violence – which he suggested should be done two weeks ago in Tucson,” complained Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation’s largest anti-Second Amendment group.

Now administration officials say Obama will address the issue soon. In the next two weeks, Newsweek reports, the White House will unveil a brand spanking new gun control effort designed to strengthen previous anti-Second Amendment laws on the books.

The Obama White House will use the mentally deranged accused Giffords shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, to push for background checks, although in order to avoid the impression that Obama is exploiting the Arizona shooting for political gain the White House will dedicate a separate speech to the issue.

Obama’s handlers expect increased activity on the issue of background checks soon. “It’s a very important issue, and one I know there’s going to be debate about on the Hill,” Obama adviser David Plouffe told NBC News.

The NRA has remained suspiciously silent on Obama’s plan to move on the Second Amendment in the coming weeks.

In the past, the NRA has teamed up with Democrats to pass gun control legislation. For instance, in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, the NRA worked with notorious gun-grabber Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. to pass a background check bill.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

Last year, McCarthy introduced The No Fly, No Buy Act (H.R. 2401), a bill that will merge the TSA’s no-fly list with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), a point-of-sale system for determining eligibility to purchase a firearm in the United States, Guam, and Puerto Rico. It was created in November of 1993 when the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (Brady Act), Public Law 103-159, was signed into law. Permanent provisions of the Brady Act went into effect on November 30, 1998, and required the U.S. Attorney General to establish NICS.

Sources:

White House to Push Gun Control, Daniel Stone, Newsweek, January 27, 2011.

NRA, Democrats Team Up To Pass Gun Bill, Scott Conroy, CBS News, June 13, 2007.

Gun-grabber Rep. Carolyn McCarthy Introduces “No Fly, No Buy Act,” Kurt Nimmo, Infowars.com, May 17, 2009.

Update on AB 962! Great news!
As of January 18, 2011

AB 962, the ammunition restriction bill, is invalidated by Fresno Superior Court

Chuck Michel, the NRA's primary legal counsel in California , announced today that the NRA/CRPA funded lawsuit he brought against the state of California was successful, and AB 962 was declared unconstitutional.

Following below is his announcement of this morning's ruling.

Please note that this battle is not over.  The state is certain to appeal the ruling, and California's legislature will also try to implement one or more new laws designed to better meet constitutional scrutiny while curtailing our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Paul Nelson

VP, NRA MC of Alameda County

COURT GRANTS NRA / CRPA FOUNDATION MOTION, INVALIDATES UNCONSTITUTIONAL AMMUNITION REGULATION STATUTE THAT WOULD HAVE BANNED MAIL ORDER AMMO SALES & REQUIRED AMMO SALES REGISTRATION

In a dramatic ruling giving gun owners a win in an National Rifle Association (NRA) / California Rifle and Pistol (CRPA) Foundation lawsuit, this morning Fresno Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton ruled that AB 962, the hotly contested statute that would have banned mail order ammunition sales and required all purchases of so called “handgun ammunition” to be registered, was unconstitutionally vague on its face.  The Court enjoined enforcement of the statute, so mail order ammunition sales to California can continue unabated, and ammunition sales need not be registered under the law.

The lawsuit was prompted in part by the many objections and questions raised by confused police, ammunition purchasers, and sellers about what ammunition is covered by the new laws created by AB 962.  In a highly unusual move that reflects growing law enforcement opposition to ineffective gun control laws, Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.  Other plaintiffs include the CRPA Foundation, Herb Bauer Sporting Goods, ammunition shipper Able’s Ammo, collectible ammunition shipper RTG Sporting Collectibles and individual Steven Stonecipher.  Mendocino Sheriff Tom Allman also supported the lawsuit.

The ruling comes just days before the portion of the law that bans mail order sales of so called “handgun ammunition” was set to take effect on February 1, 2011.  The lawsuit, Parker v. California, is funded exclusively by the NRA and the CRPA Foundation.  If it had gone into effect, AB 962 would have imposed burdensome and ill conceived restrictions on the sales of ammunition.  AB 962 required that “handgun ammunition” be stored out of the reach of customers, that ammunition vendors collect ammunition sales registration information and thumb-prints from purchasers, and conduct transactions face-to-face for all deliveries and transfers of “handgun ammunition.”  The lawsuit successfully sought the declaration from the Court that the statute was unconstitutional, and successfully sought the injunctive relief prohibiting law enforcement from enforcing the new laws.

The lawsuit alleged, and the Court agreed, that AB 962 is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it fails to provide sufficient legal notice of what ammunition cartridges are “principally for use in a handgun,” and thus is considered “handgun ammunition” that is regulated under AB 962.  It is practically impossible, both for those subject to the law and for those who must enforce it, to determine whether any of the thousands of different types of ammunition cartridges that can be used in handguns are actually “principally for use in” or used more often in, a handgun.  The proportional usage of any given cartridge is impossible to determine, and in any event changes with market demands.  In fact, the legislature itself is well aware of the vagueness problem with AB 962's definition of "handgun ammunition" and tried to redefine it via AB 2358 in 2010.  AB 2358 failed in the face of opposition from the NRA and CRPA based on the proposal’s many other nonsensical infringements on ammunition sales to law abiding citizens.

Constitutional vagueness challenges to state laws are extremely difficult to win, particularly in California firearms litigation so this success is particularly noteworthy.  Even so, an appeal by the State is likely, but the Court’s Order enjoining enforcement of the law is effective – February 1, 2011 – immediately regardless.

Despite this win for common sense over ill-conceived and counter productive gun laws, additional legislation on this and related subjects will no doubt be proposed in Sacramento this legislative session.  It is absolutely critical that those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms stay informed and make their voices heard in Sacramento .  When AB 962 passed there was loud outcry from law abiding gun owners impacted by the new law.  Those voices must be heard during the legislative session and before a proposed law passes, not after a law is signed.  To help, sign up for legislative alerts at www.nraila.com and www.calnra.com and respond when called upon.

Seventeen years ago the NRA and CRPA joined forces to fight local gun bans being written and pushed in California by the gun ban lobby.  Their coordinated efforts became the NRA/CRPA "Local Ordinance Project" (LOP) – a statewide campaign to fight ill conceived local efforts at gun control and educate politicians about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.  The NRA/CRPA LOP has had tremendous success in beating back most of these anti-self-defense proposals.

In addition to fighting local gun bans, for decades the NRA has been litigating dozens of cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the 2nd Amendment.  In the post Heller and McDonald legal environment, NRA and CRPA Foundation have formed the NRA/CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project (LAP), a joint venture to pro-actively strike down ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances and advance the rights of firearms owners, specifically in California .  Sometimes, success is more likely when LAP's litigation efforts are kept low profile, so the details of every lawsuit are not always released.  To see a partial list of the LAP’s recent accomplishments, or to contribute to the NRA or to the NRA / CRPAF LAP and support this and similar Second Amendment cases, visit www.nraila.com and www.crpafoundation.org.

C.D. Michel

Senior Counsel

Michel & Associates, P.C.

180 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 200

Long Beach, CA 90802

Direct:         (562) 216-4441

Main: (562) 216-4444

Fax:   (562) 216-4445

Email:         CMichel@michellawyers.com

Web: www.michellawyers.com