second amendment

The United States House of Representatives passed HR 822 yesterday. That's the NRA-backed bill to force the states to recognize concealed weapons permits from other states.

While Congress claims authority under the Commerce Clause, the Commerce Clause offers no such authority. Like the push for Second Amendment incorporation through Due Process rather than more responsible means, this is another way for the NRA to ensure their need to exist for Second Amendment litigation purposes.

Every Congressman who chose to vote for the bill also chose to ignore the rest of the Constitution. That includes Oklahoma Congressmen Dan Boren (D), Tom Cole (R), James Lankford (R), Frank Lucas (R), and John Sullivan (R).

The NRA-ILA sent an email yesterday urging NRA members to call their Congressmen and Senators and ask them to support HR 822. That bill would force the states to recognize concealed carry permits from other states.

The NRA wrongly leads members to believe that this bill would be just like driver's license reciprocity. In fact, driver's license reciprocity is conducted in a completely different way with zero federal involvement. While HR 822 would force the states into reciprocity, states currently choose to join into a compact between themselves to recognize other licenses and, in some cases, report infractions to the license holder's state. With concealed carry, the states choose whose permits to recognize, generally based on similarities between training courses.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has released their scorecard. Oklahoma's position? Tied in 43rd place beside Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Montana with TWO (2) POINTS. There is a three-way tie for last between Alaska, Arizona, and Utah.

So where did those two points come from? Well, in Oklahoma, you're not allowed to carry a firearm on a college campus.

Friends, tell your legislators they can do better! Let's shoot for a score of ZERO POINTS! (Don't worry, we'll go for a negative score after we reach that goal.)

The seemingly endless Nordyke v. King may be a possible Second Amendment victory. The Ninth Circuit ruled 2-1 that a "substantial burden" test should be applied to determine if a law undermines the right to keep and bear arms for self defense. The Ninth Circuit cited DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) for the test and acknowledged that Heller did not specifically set the standard.

Now, you probably noticed that I italicized "possible". There's a good reason for that.

In addition to OK2A's support of HB1647 as a so-called open carry bill (without the Virgin amendment), the Oklahoma Rifle Association has come out against SB129. Here's part of the letter sent by the ORA to your representatives:

According to Politico, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) plans to introduce new gun control legislation ASAP, possibly as soon as today. Apparently, she believes the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and 19 others on Saturday provides an excellent opportunity to pander to emotions running high.

However, look at the contrast of the reaction to this shooting and the reaction to the Fort Hood Massacre. After Fort Hood, we were told not to pass judgment even though Hasan had thrown up many red flags prior to his rampage. After this shooting, we are told that it is Sarah Palin and the Tea Party's fault even though the shooter's political leanings seem to be in the opposite direction. Anyone who subscribes to such a conflict is a bona fide idiot.

The case is Magnus v. U.S.

Magnus argued that "his guilty pleas were invalid because he was misinformed of what the government would have to prove in order to convict him, constitutionally, of the charged crimes."

Magnus was able to withdraw his guilty plea 14 years later under coram nobis. The reason for this ability was stated quite well by the Court:

If, as in Bousley, the defendant is under the mistaken impression that non-criminal conduct is criminal because "neither he, nor his counsel, nor the court correctly understood the essential elements of the crime with which he was charged" – as those elements are clarified by later judicial decisions – then the defendant's guilty plea is unintelligent and "constitutionally invalid."

And here's my favorite tidbit from the opinion:

Peruta v. County of San Diego might be a pretty interesting case to watch with relation to concealed carry in California.

When it comes to concealed carry, California is what is known as a "May Issue" state, meaning that it is up to the discretion of the Sheriff whether or not you can have a permit to carry a concealed handgun. The part that is up to the Sheriff is whether or not your reason for a concealed handgun is considered "good cause". Generally, self-defense is not regarded as good cause.

On Friday, the Third Circuit issued a ruling that the federal law barring the possession of unmarked firearms passes Constitutional muster. The case is United States v. Marzzarella.

Here's a interesting passage from the opinion:

"...because § 922(k) is designed to regulate the commercial sale of firearms and to prevent possession by a class of presumptively dangerous individuals, it is analogous to several longstanding limitations on the right to bear arms identified as presumptively valid in Heller."

In United States v. Skoien, the 7th Circuit upheld the prohibition of possession of firearms for citizens charged with a misdemeanor of domestic violence.  The majority opinion cited Heller and McDonald.

On page 4 of the majority opinion, the Court offered the following interpretation of Heller:

“...the Second Amendment creates individual rights, one of which is keeping operable hand-guns at home for self-defense. What other entitlements the Second Amendment creates, and what regulations legislatures may establish, were left open. The opinion is not a comprehensive code; it is just an explanation for the Court’s disposition.”