As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.  In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless.   Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

 When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.  "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.  "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.  "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.  Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.  Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them.  Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.  But the next day's headline says it all:"Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."  The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.

As the days wear on, the story takes wings.  The national media picks it up, then the international media.  The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.  Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

 The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.  The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.  

A few months later, you go to trial.  The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.   When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you.  Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.  It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.  The judge sentences you to life in prison.

 This case really happened.  On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a  second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

 How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire?  It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.  This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.  When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

 The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions.  (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

 Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.  For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable or worse, criminals.  Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.

Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.  The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

 During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

 Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."  All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.  

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.  Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.  Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed, kind of like cars. Sound familiar? WAKE UP AMERICA; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

  "...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds..."

  --Samuel Adams

If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.  You had better wake up, because Obama is doing this very same thing, over here, if he can get it done. And there are stupid people in congress and on the street that will go right along with him.

by NRA-ILA on MARCH 14, 2012 in NATIONAL FIREARM NEWS, NEWS

Today, March 13, U.S. Senators Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) introduced S. 2188, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012.” The bill is the Senate companion to H. R. 822,which was approved by the U. S. House last November by a vote of 272-154.

S. 2188, like H.R. 822, would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed handgun in any other state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes. A state’s laws governing where concealed handguns may be carried would apply within its borders.

Today 49 states either issue carry permits or otherwise authorize law-abiding people to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense. 41 states have fair “shall issue” permit systems that allow any law-abiding person to get a permit.

In contrast to dire predictions from anti-gun groups, Right-to-Carry laws have been enormously successful. Interstate reciprocity will serve as a fundamental protection of the right to self-defense by providing people with the ability to protect themselves not only in their home states, but anywhere they travel where carry concealed carry is legal.

Contrary to the false claims of some, these bills would not create federal gun registration or gun owner licensing, nor would they allow any federal agency to establish a federal standard for a carry permit or impose gun control restrictions of any kind.

These bills would have no effect on permitless carry laws, currently on the books in Arizona, Alaska, Wyoming and Vermont, that allow concealed carry without a permit. In addition, Vermont residents would be able to take advantage of S. 2188 and H.R. 822 by obtaining a permit from one of the many states that offer non-resident permits.

Please contact your U.S. Senators today and urge them to cosponsor S. 2188. You can call your U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121 or send them an email by clicking here.

About NRA-ILA
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is committed to preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Reuters
Students and employees may carry guns on University of Colorado campuses, according to a new ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court. The court's decision overrides a 1994 university policy put in place by the Board of Regents.

The governing body had banned concealed handguns on campus even when individuals had obtained the proper state permits. But in 2003, the state legislature passed the Concealed Carry Act, which the court found trumps the university's policy.

The Concealed Carry Act allows persons with concealed weapons permits to carry "in all areas of the state." Exclusions are narrow, according to the court, and only ban concealed weapons from K-12 schools, federal property, buildings with security checkpoints and courthouses. Local governments are also prohibited from enforcing ordinances that conflict with the law.

The CU Board of Regents, despite claiming otherwise, also does not have the authority to ban guns from University of Colorado property. When it passed the Concealed Carry Act, "the General Assembly intended to divest the Board of Regents of its authority to regulate concealed handgun on campus."

This language has effectively ended the issue of concealed handguns on state college campuses in Colorado. Unless the General Assembly chooses to revisit the issue, that is. And it may.

Last year, at least 14 states considered bills that would allow concealed weapons on college campus. At least 2 proposed bills that would instead ban the practice. The bills have been introduced by gun-rights advocates, who are bolstered by recent shootings on college campuses and U.S. Supreme Court rulings favoring gun owners.

So if there was ever a time for a law allowing guns on University of Colorado campuses, it may be right now.

BALTIMORE –  Maryland residents do not have to provide a "good and substantial reason" to legally own a handgun, a federal judge ruled Monday, striking down as unconstitutional the state's requirements for getting a permit.

U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg wrote that states are allowed some leeway in deciding the way residents exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms, but Maryland's objective was to limit the number of firearms that individuals could carry, effectively creating a rationing system that rewarded those who provided the right answer for wanting  to own a gun.

"A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights," Legg wrote. "The right's existence is all the reason he needs."

But state Assistant Attorney General Matthew Fader vowed to appeal the ruling.

“We disagree with this ruling," Fader said in a written statement that noted the "very important implications of the ruling for public safety."

Plaintiff Raymond Woollard obtained a handgun permit after fighting with an intruder in his Hampstead home in 2002, but was denied a renewal in 2009 because he could not show he had been subject to "threats occurring beyond his residence."

Woollard appealed, but his appeal was rejected by the review board, which found he hadn't demonstrated a "good and substantial reason" to carry a handgun as a reasonable precaution. The suit filed in 2010 claimed that Maryland didn't have a reason to deny the renewal and wrongly put the burden on Woollard to show why he still needed to carry a gun.

"People have the right to carry a gun for self-defense and don't have to prove that there's a special reason for them to seek the permit," said his attorney Alan Gura, who has challenged handgun bans in the District of Columbia and Chicago as an attorney with the Second Amendment Foundation. "We're not against the idea of a permit process, but the licensing system has to acknowledge that there's a right to bear arms."

In his ruling, Legg wrote that Second Amendment protections aren't limited to the household.

"In addition to self-defense, the (Second Amendment) right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment's protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and 'self-defense has to take place wherever (a) person happens to be,'" Legg wrote.

"Judge Legg's ruling takes a substantial step toward restoring the Second Amendment to its rightful place in the Bill of Rights and provides gun owners with another significant victory," said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "The federal district court has carefully spelled out the obvious, that the Second Amendment does not stop at one's doorstep, but protects us wherever we have a right to be."

The lawsuit names the state police superintendent and members of the Handgun Permit Review Board as defendants.

Many states require gun permits, but six states, including Maryland, issue permits on a discretionary basis, Gura said. In most of those states, these challenges have not succeeded in U.S. District Courts, but they are being appealed, he said.

"Most states that choose to regulate the right to bear arms have licensing systems that are objective and straightforward," Gura said. "That's all that we want for Maryland."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/05/federal-judge-rules-maryland-gun-permit-law-unconstitutional/#ixzz1oVuxRY64

In an unusual twist, optimism among California gun enthusiasts stems from recent legislation banning them from openly carrying even unloaded handguns.

"If 5% of the ducks could shoot back, you're not going to go duck hunting," said the Long Beach lawyer representing many Californians denied concealed weapons permits and, in his view, their constitutional right to self-defense.

For decades, that argument has fallen flat in the courtroom. Judges have routinely held that denying permits to carry loaded firearms in public does not infringe on gun owners' right to keep and bear arms.

But now, some gun owners hope that courts will soon reverse course and find that they have a right to secretly tote their weapons in public. Ironically, their optimism stems from a piece of gun control legislation that took effect last month and bans them from openly carrying even unloaded handguns.

Courts have upheld local law enforcement officials' authority to deny concealed weapons permits in part because "you had the opportunity to openly carry an unloaded weapon and in the event of an emergency you can quickly load and defend yourself," said Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor and author of "Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America." "Now that option has been taken off the table."

Open carrying of an unloaded weapon never satisfied gun rights advocates like Michel, who have been challenging — unsuccessfully — California's ever-tightening restrictions on who can buy guns; what guns are legal; and when, where, how and if weapons can be carried outside the home. The new law, Michel said, has given him the ammunition he needs to win in court.

Although gun owners can easily qualify for concealed permits in some remote and rural counties, it is all but impossible for residents of densely populated counties, where the majority of Californians live, unless the gun owner can prove an actual threat.

"California is a stand-alone where you can't carry an unconcealed and unloaded gun and you can't get a permit to carry one concealed," Michel said, arguing that the state is out of step with at least 40 others that issue concealed-carry permits to any applicant with a clean slate.

From his law office bedecked with guns, ammo and Old West memorabilia, Michel keeps a close eye on the U.S. Supreme Court and believes the justices are on the lookout for the appropriate right-to-carry case to find a constitutional right to carry loaded guns for self-protection.

The justices issued a watershed ruling in 2008 in the case of Heller vs. District of Columbia, recognizing for the first time since Civil War days a citizen's right to keep a weapon at home for self-protection. Gun rights groups had watched carefully for years to find the most sympathetic plaintiffs to make the point that residents of the crime-ridden national capital were being denied a means of self-defense by the district's ban on handguns, Winkler said. Two years later, in McDonald vs. Chicago, the high court extended that right to the states as well as federal territory.

Those seeking recognition of a right to carry guns have petitioned the Supreme Court to review several cases since Heller in which gun owners failed to convince ower courts that their rights were being denied. The justices have so far declined to address the right-to-carry question, probably because those cases involved plaintiffs appealing convictions for illegal firearms possession or denial of carry rights to applicants with stains on their records, Winkler said.

Those who support strict gun control say the court deliberately limited its Heller ruling to recognize only a right to keep a gun at home.

"I expect the Supreme Court to decide as courts around the country have decided in hundreds of cases that there is not a 2nd Amendment right to carry guns in public places," said Jonathan E. Lowy, legal action director for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, who sponsored the new ban on open carry, likewise brushed off the gun lobby's contention that gun control supporters have shot themselves in the foot.

"Obviously the pro-gun person is going to look for anything to spin a pro-gun agenda," said the La Cañada Flintridge Democrat. "This is a reasonable move to close a loophole, and we are confident it will stand up in court."

Portantino proposed the open-carry ban after gun owners began protesting in demand of carry rights by converging by the dozens on coffee shops with Berettas and Smith & Wessons riding on their hips.

As concealed-carry permits became more difficult to get, Eduard Peruta, a client of Michel's, took his protest to the courts.

Los Angeles Times

The House passed national concealed carry reciprocity legislation on Wednesday evening by a vote of 272-154.

The bill, H.R. 822, is intended to allow persons who hold a concealed carry permit from one state to also carry anywhere in the country, with the exception of Illinois and Washington, D.C.

Though the bill passed by a wide margin, it was not without controversy on the pro-gun side of the debate. In previous alerts, GOA has pointed out several flaws in the legislation:

•It forces Vermont residents (who do not need a permit to carry) to either obtain an out-of-state permit or to push their state to pass a more restrictive concealed carry law than it now enjoys;
•By requiring permits for reciprocity, the bill undermines efforts at the state level to pass constitutional carry (i.e., Vermont-style carry);
•In restrictive “may issue” states, the bill allows for non-residents to carry firearms in the state while most residents would still be prohibited, and;
•The bill is yet another example of Congress distorting of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.
Representative Justin Amash (R-MI), who voted against the bill, addressed this last point in a statement, calling H.R. 822 “an unconstitutional bill that improperly applies the Commerce Clause to concealed carry licensing.”

Another freshman Representative, Rob Woodall (R-GA), noted that the right to carry a concealed firearm is already protected by the Second Amendment.

“If the Second Amendment protects my rights to carry my concealed weapon from state to state to state, I don’t need another federal law,” Rep. Woodall said. He went on to remind his colleagues of the original intent of the right to keep and bear arms.

“I don’t believe the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights to allow me to shoot targets [or] hunt for deer and turkey. I think the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights so that I could defend my freedom against an overbearing federal government.”

Anti-gun Amendment Passes

One extremely troubling amendment to the bill was slipped in on a voice vote. Sponsored by Republican David Reichert (“C” rated by GOA), the amendment instructs the Government Accounting Office to:

“Conduct a study of the ability of State and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of licenses or permits, issued by other States, to carry a concealed firearm.”

Nowhere in the Constitution is there even a hint of authority for the federal government to “study” the exercising of a right. Even worse, you can be sure that anti-gunners will use any excuse, including this study, to push for some type of national carry license.

The bill now heads to the Senate, where GOA is already working with key Senators to address ALL of the problems with the bill. GOA is also working with Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) on legislation, H.R. 2900, that takes a constitutional approach to concealed carry recognition.

You can click here to send you own Representative a message urging him or her to become a cosponsor of H.R. 2900.

In the first of several planned Church Security Training
Sessions at the Bossier sheriff's gun range, the 20 trainees sat
through several classroom hours before taking their weapons to the
range.

The class follows a law that went into effect in July allowing
guns to be carried inside houses of worship across the state. Those
attending already held concealed-carry permits and have experience
with guns.

"Over the past several years, the violence has gotten worse and
worse" said Jim Middleton, a retired member of the Elm Grove
Baptist Church in south Bossier Parish. "I'd rather be proactive
than working after the fact. We're all in God's army, and you don't
see any army going to war unarmed."

Middleton said his church has discussed security, including
possibly adding a security detail to services. He said he wanted to
be ready to serve in that capacity if asked.

The class included lessons on physiological changes during
violent encounters, lessons on control tactics like pressure points
and takedowns and the justifications for a physical response to
dangerous situations. On the range, they practiced controlled
shooting, reload drills, drawing techniques and speed drills.

"Each and every one of you here are patriots because you care
to provide protection to the innocent," said state Rep. Henry
Burns, the author of the legislation. He visited the class to thank
them. "We should be able to worship our Lord without fear."

Burns called churches a "manageable area of concern" when it
comes to gun regulation and said an increased level of violence
against worshippers nationally made the new law necessary and
appropriate.

Middleton said those who oppose the bill aren't living in
reality.

Dawn Boyter, a member of the Southern Methodist Church in
Haughton, agreed and said her church asked her to take the class
because of her previous firearms experience.

"If I were a criminal and was trying to make a statement, I'd
pick a school or a church, somewhere that's a gun-free zone,"
Boyter said. "People are going to think twice if they know a
church is armed."

She said her church still is in the early stages of creating a
safety plan.
Sheriff's spokesman Lt. Ed Baswell, a pastor at the Clarion
Baptist Church in south Bossier Parish, said the new measures might
be appropriate for some churches and not for others. He said his
small church likely won't take part.

He said the sheriff's office isn't advocating weapons in
churches, but wanted to provide proper training to congregations
that plan to take advantage of the law.

(Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)BOSSIER CITY, La. (AP) - Members of Bossier Parish churches
trained with sheriff's deputies Saturday to prepare themselves for
the unlikely event someone might threaten their congregations with
violence.

In the first of several planned Church Security Training
Sessions at the Bossier sheriff's gun range, the 20 trainees sat
through several classroom hours before taking their weapons to the
range.

The class follows a law that went into effect in July allowing
guns to be carried inside houses of worship across the state. Those
attending already held concealed-carry permits and have experience
with guns.

"Over the past several years, the violence has gotten worse and
worse" said Jim Middleton, a retired member of the Elm Grove
Baptist Church in south Bossier Parish. "I'd rather be proactive
than working after the fact. We're all in God's army, and you don't
see any army going to war unarmed."

Middleton said his church has discussed security, including
possibly adding a security detail to services. He said he wanted to
be ready to serve in that capacity if asked.

The class included lessons on physiological changes during
violent encounters, lessons on control tactics like pressure points
and takedowns and the justifications for a physical response to
dangerous situations. On the range, they practiced controlled
shooting, reload drills, drawing techniques and speed drills.

"Each and every one of you here are patriots because you care
to provide protection to the innocent," said state Rep. Henry
Burns, the author of the legislation. He visited the class to thank
them. "We should be able to worship our Lord without fear."

Burns called churches a "manageable area of concern" when it
comes to gun regulation and said an increased level of violence
against worshippers nationally made the new law necessary and
appropriate.

Middleton said those who oppose the bill aren't living in
reality.

Dawn Boyter, a member of the Southern Methodist Church in
Haughton, agreed and said her church asked her to take the class
because of her previous firearms experience.

"If I were a criminal and was trying to make a statement, I'd
pick a school or a church, somewhere that's a gun-free zone,"
Boyter said. "People are going to think twice if they know a
church is armed."

She said her church still is in the early stages of creating a
safety plan.
Sheriff's spokesman Lt. Ed Baswell, a pastor at the Clarion
Baptist Church in south Bossier Parish, said the new measures might
be appropriate for some churches and not for others. He said his
small church likely won't take part.

He said the sheriff's office isn't advocating weapons in
churches, but wanted to provide proper training to congregations
that plan to take advantage of the law.

(Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

The contributors will be interviewing vendors and reviewing products that may be of interst to our community.  Stay tuned as we get closer to the show which occurs from January 18 - 21.

Craig

Three weeks from today, December 6th, we should have a ruling in the case ofEd Peruta v County of San Diego et al. If Ed is successful then California will become a "Shall Issue" state which means that police authorities will no longer be able to decide who can and who cannot obtain a license to carry a loaded firearm in public. For most of us, this means a license for Concealed Carry for a couple of million lucky people it means a non-discretionary license to openly carry a loaded handgun as well.

We will have to wait for the exact wording of the judge but I am hopeful that her decision will reflectwhat she wrotein her denial of a motion to dismiss the case back on January 14th of this year.

If the judge adopts the extreme minimalist case then, at a minimum, a CCW license becomes non-discretionary, meaning if one has the money and can pass whatever training requirements the issuing authority decrees then one must be issued a license to carry a weapon concealed, or a license to openly carry a loaded weapon in counties with a population of fewer than 200,000 people.

It is my hope that Chief Federal Judge Irma Gonzalez will extend her decision to points of law she concluded in her denial of the motion to dismiss by San Diego County Sheriff Gore on January 14th of this year. In her denial, Chief Federal Judge Irma Gonzalez found the residency requirement to be unconstitutional. She concluded that it might be constitutional to deny a CCW to persons who are just passing through the state or merely within the state for a very short duration but anything beyond that is unconstitutional. The Plaintiff, Ed Peruta, is a citizen of Connecticut. Of course her most important conclusion was that we have a right to carry a loaded firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense. She came to this conclusion six months prior to the McDonald decision.

For those of us who are advocates of Loaded Open Carry we will just have to wait for her ruling. It has not escaped the attorney's for Ed Peruta that the same arguments made thus far on behalf of non-discretionary CCW also apply to the provision of the statute which limits the license for loaded open carry to persons who reside in the county as well as limiting it to the less populated counties.

Ed's case does not end with the ruling in three weeks. He will have his hands full with the jury trial next year. Once we review the Courts Opinion in three weeks, it may very well be the time for us to step up to the plate and build upon the foundation that Ed Peruta has given us by challenging the constitutionality of Loaded Open Carry being prohibited from those of us who live in the 28 counties with a population of 200,000 or more.