armedamericannews - Tumblr blog

[armedamericannews]

<strong>Want to thank a veteran? Hire them.</strong>

We should celebrate veterans every single day – not just once a year – because our country would not exist as we know it without their incredible sacrifices. Thousands of men and woman have willingly given their lives or left chunks of their bodies in foreign countries, which many Americans cannot even find on a map, all to preserve our sacred freedoms.  

Did you vote Tuesday? Thank a veteran.

Did you worship Saturday or Sunday? Thank a veteran

Have you gone to the range recently? Thank a veteran.

Did you grow up speaking English instead of German, Japanese or Russian? Thank a veteran.

And what’s the best way to thank a veteran? Hire them.

It’s pretty simple, really.

There are far too many myths and misconceptions out there about veterans, which were created and promulgated by the mainstream media solely to increase their ratings.

Here are the facts: Veterans aren’t fragile. The issue of PTSD has been vastly overblown. You’re not doing a vet a favor by putting them on the payroll. They will quickly become the best employees you have ever hired.

Veterans have training and skills you’ll never find in a civilian job candidate. They’re disciplined, highly motivated and can handle stress far better than anyone who has only pissed civilian water.  

Even a young sergeant knows more about real leadership than any of your senior managers, because you don’t “manage” troops in combat. They need to be led. All they need is a chance to prove it. Veterans will seek out leadership roles and additional responsibility. They don’t shy away from it. They are born leaders.

Nowadays, we make it easy to help veterans. You can donate a handful of dollars every month to one good cause or another. But if you really want to help a veteran, put them on the payroll. The return on your investment will be immediate. You’ll quickly realize you did yourself a favor.

[armedamericannews]

CCRKBA: Seattle scapegoating guns for failed policies and leadership

BELLEVUE, WA – In the aftermath of Tuesday’s murder at a Seattle high school, city officials were quick to declare Seattle has a “gun problem,” but the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms says the real problem is leadership and its failed policies.

“Two years ago,” recalled CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “school resource officers were removed from Seattle schools. Then came the council’s defunding of the police, and the loss of hundreds of officers. Even Chief Adrian Diaz acknowledged during a Tuesday press conference the department suffers from reduced manpower.

Councilwoman Lisa Herbold issued a statement in which she declared the city “has a gun problem,” and Mayor Bruce Harrell resurrected his animosity toward the state’s long-standing preemption law, that prevents local governments from adopting gun control ordinances that would likely conflict with state law. There is no evidence to suggest any local policy would have prevented Tuesday’s horrific incident that left a student dead in what may have been a “targeted attack.”

“Remember,” Gottlieb noted, “this terrible incident happened in the same city that adopted a gun and ammunition tax that was supposed to fund programs to prevent such crimes. Obviously, that failed. Seattle is headquarters to a billionaire-supported gun prohibition lobbying group whose initiatives were passed on promises of reduced gun-related crime. Those restrictive laws have also miserably failed. The number of murders in Seattle and the entire state have gone up, not down, and the gun control crowd refuses to admit their strategies have accomplished nothing, while providing false hopes to the public.

“Keep in mind,” he continued, “the suspect in the Ingraham High School shooting could not legally carry a gun. He violated existing state and federal laws by bringing a gun into the school. He fatally shot someone. How many laws does someone have to violate before Harrell, Herbold and Diaz figure out that the problem isn’t guns, it’s people who commit crimes, and it is leadership that defunds law enforcement, pursues soft-on-crime social policies and then tries to shift the blame to guns because they can’t, or won’t, punish the perpetrators?

“We commend the quick response by Seattle police officers,” Gottlieb said, “and the speedy apprehension of the suspect by Harbor Patrol officers and sheriff’s deputies, and we mourn for the student who was killed, and a family that will never be the same. But we cannot abide this blame-the-gun philosophy that distracts from actually holding people to account for crimes they commit and instead penalizes gun owners for things they didn’t do.”

About the CCRKBA

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

[armedamericannews]

<strong>VIDEO: Florida deputy arrests blind man after mistaking his white cane for a pistol</strong>

James Hodges, who is legally blind and cannot drive, was walking home from jury duty in Lake City, Florida one week ago when he was stopped by Columbia County Sheriff’s Deputy Jayme Gohdy, because she mistook his collapsible white cane for a pistol.

A video of their encounter was captured by Deputy Gohdy’s body camera. Hodges later posted a copy of the video on his YouTube page.

[Click here to watch the bodycam video of Hodges’ arrest.]

“What’s this in your back pocket?” Deputy Gohdy can be heard asking on the video. 

“It’s a navigational aid,” Hodges said. “What’s the problem? Are you a tyrant?”

“Yeah, I am actually,” Deputy Gohdy said. “What’s your name and date of birth.”

“I don’t have to give that …” Hodges started to say.  

“Do you want me to put you in handcuffs right now?” Deputy Gohdy said. “It looks like you’re carrying a gun in your back pocket. I’m stopping you to make sure you’re carrying it properly.”

“Have you ensured that it’s not a firearm?” Hodges asked. 

“No, you keep turning so I can’t see it. You don’t have to be a dick to me,” the deputy said.

“Well, you’re being one to me,” Hodges said. He pulled out a collapsible white cane from his back pocket and showed it to the deputy. 

“Am I detained?” Hodges asked.

“Yeah, you are,” Deputy Gohdy said. “What’s your name and date of birth.”

Her sergeant arrived, whom the Sheriff’s Office later identified as Sgt. Randy Harrison. Hodges walked over to talk to the man.

“Her suspicion was that you were armed and she’s asking for your ID,” Sgt. Harrison said.

“I verified that I am not armed so there is no crime,” Hodges said. He refused to produce his ID so the deputies handcuffed him behind his back. Hodges did not resist. The sergeant pulled Hodges’ ID out of his left-front pants pocket.

“You are not allowed to search me,” Hodges said.

Deputy Gohdy ran a records check on Hodges with her radio.

“Sir, are you legally blind?” Sgt. Harrison asked.

“Yes, I am,” Hodges said. “I had to walk up here in the dark for jury duty, which was cancelled.”

“Why ain’t you using your stick,” the sergeant asked, as the warrant check came back clear.

“Alright, Mr. Hodges, was that that hard?” Deputy Gohdy asked.

“It’s gonna be,” Hodges said. “I want your name and badge numbers.”

“Put him in jail for resisting,” Sgt. Harrison said.

“Okay,” Deputy Gohdy said.

Hodges was placed in the back seat of the deputy’s squad car and taken to jail. At no point in Deputy Gohdy’s bodycam video did Hodges ever physically resist arrest. He was charged with resisting arrest without violence, a First-Degree misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail, a $1,000 fine and 12 months of probation.

False arrest

Hodges’ video has received more than a million views. The Sheriff’s Office’s social media accounts were deluged by posts calling for an investigation, and more.

Columbia County Sheriff Mark A. Hunter did not return calls or emails seeking his comments for this story, but his public information officer, Sgt. Steven Khachigan released the following statement announcing that the department was launching an internal investigation of Hodges’ arrest:

We are aware of the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office body camera video involving the arrest of Mr. James Hodges on October 31, 2022. Sheriff Hunter is troubled by what he has seen in the video and the matter is being addressed. An administrative investigation was initiated on November 3, 2022 when the incident was brought to our attention. If policy violations are sustained at the conclusion of that investigation, appropriate action will be taken. While we understand the frustration and concern associated with this event, please know we are working to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.

Sgt. Khachigan also provided a copy of Deputy Gohdy’s arrest report.

She indicated in her report she first saw Hodges in a crosswalk and “observed what appeared to be a silver (chrome) pistol with a white grip in his back right pocket.”

She wrote that Hodges “was found to be in violation of FL Statute 843.02, by obstructing the ongoing investigation when he repeatedly refused to allow identification of the object in his pocket as well as by refusing to identify himself. James (Hodges) was placed under arrest for Resisting without Violence and transported to the Columbia County Detention Facility without incident.

Deputy Gohdy never mentioned in her report that Hodges removed his cane and showed it to her and her supervisor. Instead, she wrote that she discovered it was a cane only after Hodges was handcuffed, which is incorrect.

Florida considers police reports to be official documents. False statements or intentionally omitting certain facts can be considered crimes.

In an interview, Sgt. Khachigan said Deputy Gohdy hadn’t been at the department very long, maybe a year at the most. He was not aware of any recent discipline.

Sgt. Khachigan acknowledged that while Hodges was charged by the Sheriff’s Office, the Columbia County State Attorney’s Office ultimately decides whether to file formal charges or drop the matter entirely.

Asked whether this was the type of law enforcement the public could expect in Columbia County, Sgt. Khachigan would speak only in general terms.

“If you look at our social media, do we have instances where our deputies have made mistakes? That is certainly the case. Anywhere is going to have that. I think you’ll find that the majority of the times most of our community members say they appreciate the job we do. Does that mean we’re without fault? No, it doesn’t. In those times we have to follow procedures that are set in place. In general, you can find times when we’ve sent out press releases before where we’ve shared good stories. Sometimes, there were some things not in a positive light. We’ve owned those things as well,” he said.

Open Carry

Florida only allows the open carry of arms while hunting, camping or fishing. Absent those exceptions, open carry is illegal.

In 2015, when the legislature was considering making open carry legal, Sheriff Hunter spoke out against the bill.

In a letter to his constituents, Sheriff Hunter denounced the open carry bill.

“My highest priority is the safety of the citizens of Columbia County,” the Sheriff wrote. “I do not support the bill in its current form because I do not believe it will make us safer.”

Sgt. Khachigan acknowledged that legal open carry could have prevented Hodges’ arrest.

“If we had open carry in Florida and there was believed to be a weapon, I could see your point,” he said. “It’s hard to speculate on hypotheticals. You know as well as I do that when they create laws, we don’t know what kind of language will be in there, but I see your point and where you’re going with that question. It’s hard to say whether it would have completely resolved this, but I do see your point.”

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.

[armedamericannews]

SAF wins injunction in challenge of New York church gun ban

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has won a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a New York State ban on firearms in places of worship, with U.S. District Court Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr., declaring, “Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights are being violated…”

“We are gratified with the speed shown by the court in this matter,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It shows the court is taking this case very seriously.”

The case is known as Jimmie Hardaway, Jr. et.al. v. Steven A. Nigrelli, et.al. SAF and its fellow plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Nicolas J. Rotsko at Phillips Lytle LLP in Buffalo, NY, and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and John W. Tienken at Cooper & Kirk, PLLC in Washington, D.C. Joining SAF in this case are the Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens, Larry A. Boyd and Jimmie Hardaway, Jr.

In his 44-page ruling, Judge Sinatra noted New York’s new place of worship restriction is unconstitutional. The state has not demonstrated that the prohibition, under its newly enacted gun law, adopted in reaction to the Supreme Court ruling in the Bruen case, that the ban is “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations.”

“The State’s exclusion is, instead, inconsistent with the Nation’s historical traditions, impermissibly infringing on the right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense,” Judge Sinatra wrote.

“Clearly,” Gottlieb observed, “the court is not allowing New York to dance around the intent or the spirit of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Bruen case, which is exactly what the state was trying to do with its new gun control law. “

About the Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

[armedamericannews]

SAF seeks to join lawsuit challenging government’s definition of a firearm

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit challenging the federal government’s new regulatory definition of a firearm, including the frame or receiver.

The case is known as VanDerStok, et.al. v. Garland, et.al. and was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division. A company known as Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, Inc., d/b/a/ 80 Percent Arms, has already been allowed to intervene as a plaintiff.

Joining SAF is Defense Distributed, a Texas-based company.

“We are intervening because our members have already suffered massive irreparable harms from this new regulatory move,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “because it contradicts the statute it is supposed to be administering. When Congress passed the Gun Control Act of 1968, it defined a firearm to include the finished frame or receiver. But the new rule expands that definition and criminalizes unfinished frames and receivers, and ‘parts kits’ that include those components.

“Furthermore,” he added, “the new rule violates the Administrative Procedures Act by failing to comply with mandates in the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling in June, and because it is essentially an exercise of legislative power it doesn’t have, because Congress could not constitutionally grant such authority to a federal agency.”

Gottlieb said the new regulatory definition of a firearm is unprecedented. It is a glaring example of agency overreach under the Biden administration, which has been pursuing an anti-gun agenda since Joe Biden was sworn into office in January 2021.

“President Biden and his administration are supposed to protect and defend the Constitution, including the Second Amendment,” Gottlieb observed,” but since taking office, he’s been overseeing efforts to gut the right to keep and bear arms, and discourage citizens from exercising that right.”

About the Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

[armedamericannews]

<strong>New landmark medical report proves more guns do not cause more crime</strong>

A recently published study by a team of physicians and medical researchers found no link between increased legal gun sales and increased violent crime rates. Moreover, the study concluded “it is unclear if efforts to limit lawful firearm sales would have any effect on rates of crime, homicide, or injuries from violence committed with firearms.”

Dr. Mark E. Hamill, a trauma surgeon at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, is one of the lead authors of the report, which was published in the Journal of Surgical Research, titled: “Legal Firearm Sales at State Level and Rates of Violent Crime, Property Crime, and Homicides.”

Hamill is not your typical academic. He spent seven years as a police officer in New York City, and three years as a parttime police officer upstate while attending medical school. He served in the Emergency Medical System from the late 1980s to 2002 as both an EMT and a paramedic. He is also a member of the Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership – the only DRGO member on the 10-man research team.

Methodology

The researchers compared state and national crime rate data from 1999-2015 – obtained from the U.S. Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – to National Instant Criminal Background Check System or NICS checks, which were used to show gun sales even though they do not include private sales.

“Nationally, all crime rates except the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–designated firearm homicides decreased as firearm sales increased over the study period,” the report states. “Using a naive national model, increases in firearm sales were associated with significant decreases in multiple crime categories. However, a more robust analysis using generalized estimating equation estimates on state-level data demonstrated increases in firearms sales were not associated with changes in any crime variables examined.”

Conclusions

Their findings completely debunked the theory that more guns cause more crime.

“Robust analysis does not identify an association between increased lawful firearm sales and rates of crime or homicide. Based on this, it is unclear if efforts to limit lawful firearm sales would have any effect on rates of crime, homicide, or injuries from violence committed with firearms,” the study states.

Their team’s data is incontrovertible:

Source: Journal of Surgical Research Volume 281, January 2023, Pages 143-154: “Legal Firearm Sales at State Level and Rates of Violent Crime, Property Crime, and Homicides.”

Source: Journal of Surgical Research Volume 281, January 2023, Pages 143-154: “Legal Firearm Sales at State Level and Rates of Violent Crime, Property Crime, and Homicides.”

Discussion

This was not an easy study to publish. One medical publication peer reviewed the team’s findings and completed one round of edits but chose not to publish the work, because guns.

“Getting this published was a tour de force,” Hamill said. “There is so much bias in medical literature against guns.”

Hamill took his team’s findings one step further. Not only do anti-gun laws targeting law-abiding citizens do nothing to reduce crime, he said, they may actually lead to more crime, because such laws reduce the deterrent affect that an armed citizenry poses to criminals by making it more difficult for the good guys to get guns.

“Vilifying legal gun owners for the actions of people who use guns illegally is probably the wrong tact to take. The firearms I own haven’t gone out and committed violent crime,” he said. “That’s the point. Addressing people who want to legally own firearms is not the answer.”

In addition to Dr. Hamill, the authors include: Matthew C. Hernandez MD, Division of Trauma, Critical Care, and General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Kent R. Bailey PhD, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Caleb L. Cutherell MD, Department of Surgery, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, Virginia; Martin D. Zielinski MD, Division of Trauma, Critical Care, and General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Donald H. Jenkins MD, Department of Surgery, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas; Douglas F. Naylor MD, University Hospitals of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio; Miguel A. Matos DO, Department of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska; Bryan R. Collier DO, Department of Surgery, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, Virginia and Henry J. Schiller MD, Division of Trauma, Critical Care, and General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.

[armedamericannews]

Netflix’s ‘Unsolved Mysteries’ examines 2013 Florida murder police claim was suicide

Pat Mullins near headless body was found partially submerged in the Gulf of Mexico, tied tightly to a 25-pound boat anchor. He had been shot in the side of the head with a shotgun. The fatal wound was fired from a short distance, and forensic experts couldn’t rule out that he hadn’t been shot multiple times. Mullins was in good health, was financially secure, had a loving family and never even owned a shotgun. But despite all of this and even more evidence of murder, Manatee County Sheriff’s Detective Darryl Davis somehow concluded Mullins killed himself. It was the rookie detective’s first solo death investigation.

Since his 2013 death, Mullins’ widow, two sons and hundreds of friends have never accepted that the popular 52-year-old high school librarian killed himself – far from it. He was just months away from celebrating his retirement and his 30th wedding anniversary and had everything to live for.

Now, his family has enlisted Netflix’s “Unsolved Mysteries” to help them prove Pat was murdered and that anyone who believes he killed himself was terribly wrong. The Season 3 episode is titled “Body in the Bay,” and is available at Netflix.com.

Shoddy investigation

Throughout 2013, I wrote a series of investigative stories trying to prompt the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office to reopen the case, which is why I couldn’t agree fast enough when “Unsolved Mysteries” producers asked me last year to help with their examination of the killing.

You don’t need to be a certified crime scene investigator – if it matters, I got my CSI certification from the Kansas City Police Department Crime Lab in the mid-1990s – to recognize how badly the case was bungled and then covered up. All you need is a modicum of common sense, which Davis and his chain-of-command apparently still lack.

Davis simply made a bad call, which certainly can happen in death investigations. But rather than admitting he screwed up, Davis and his department have been covering up his mistake and ignoring the obvious for nearly 10 years, while Mullins’ family have been pleading for a fair and impartial investigation.

To be clear, Davis and the Sheriff’s Office never officially classified Mullins’ death as a suicide. Right now, it is “undetermined.” They just told the family they believed Pat killed himself, and then used it as an excuse for their lack of follow-up investigations. Over the past nearly 10 years, the case bounced from one detective to another, and has been classified as both “active” and “inactive.”

At one point Davis even told Pat’s widow Jill Mullins she had to be “reasonable,” and accept that Pat killed himself. Davis denies saying this, but he did offer to pray with Jill to help her accept her husband’s suicide, and he sent her several religious-themed emails, which seemed less designed to ease her suffering than they were to stop her from asking embarrassing questions. Things got so bad Jill had to retain a private attorney, because the Sheriff’s Office ignored her pleas and pressured her to keep quiet and not complain publicly about her husband’s death.

Overwhelming evidence

Pat Mullins loved to refurbish old boat motors. It was the perfect hobby, since there was a creek behind his home that flows into the Braden River where he could test his mechanical skills.

On Sunday, Jan. 27, 2013, Mullins set out in his 16-foot Stumpknocker to test one of his newly reconditioned boat motors. He never went far from home during these tests, certainly not into the Gulf of Mexico. He never returned from the test run. His boat was found two days later in the Gulf – in neutral and out of gas. Mullins was nowhere to be seen. There was no sign of foul play in the Stumpknocker: no blood, no skin, no bits of skull, hair or brain matter was found inside the vessel.

Suicide by shotgun is an incredibly violent and explosive act. If Mullins, as law enforcement still insists, shot himself in the head with a shotgun, his boat would have been covered with biological evidence. No amount of rain could have washed it clean. Instead, there was none. Also, no shotgun was ever found.

Mullins’ body was found by a fisherman in four feet of water seven days later. Medical examiners noted Mullins was shot below and behind his right ear, with a slightly upward trajectory that they had never seen before in a suicide. They saw no stippling near the gunshot wound. Stippling looks somewhat like tattooing and is caused when particles of burning and unburned gun powder become embedded in the skin. It almost always indicates a contact wound – a gun barrel pressed against flesh, or close to it – so the lack of stippling indicated Mullins was shot from a distance, which would have been difficult for him to do, especially while tied to a boat anchor.

Never owned a shotgun

Investigators also focused on the weapon, since Mullins never owned a shotgun. A forensic audit revealed he had not withdrawn enough cash to buy a shotgun in the days before he was killed. They also questioned every vendor who attended a nearby gun show that was held the weekend of Mullins’ death. None of the vendors sold him a firearm of any kind.

Mullins left no suicide note, nor did he display any type of suicidal behavior. Earlier on the day he was killed, he purchased parts for a small air-conditioner he was fixing, as well as a pair of welding goggles that were on sale – not exactly the type of behavior you’d expect from someone contemplating self-harm. Also, his doctor said Mullins was not suffering from any serious illness and was in good health.

Financially, Mullins was in great shape. As a member of Florida’s Deferred Retirement Option Program, or DROP, he would have received $150,000 when he retired, more than enough to launch a boat motor repair shop, which he and his brother often discussed.

Therefore, in order to accept Detective Davis’s suicide theory, you have to believe Mullins somehow tied himself tightly to a boat anchor, threw the anchor overboard and then somehow got up onto the gunnel while waiting for a strong breeze, so no biological evidence would land in his boat, before shooting himself in the side of the head by pulling a trigger he never could have reached, on a shotgun he never owned, for a reason no one could ever discover.

A real theory

Mullins’ family described him as a very courteous and helpful boater. If he saw a boat in distress, he would always stop to offer assistance. They believe he stopped to help someone on the river and saw something he shouldn’t have seen, most likely drugs. They hope the Netflix episode will prompt someone to come forward with a lead that will reopen the case.

In the meantime, Jill Mullins is putting up small flyers and posters urging people to watch the episode. She had tried to rent a large billboard.

“I am extremely hopeful the show will help,” she said Monday. “The viewership is significant, and we need people to know Pat’s case remains unsolved. It was not a suicide.”

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.

[armedamericannews]

SAF warns California city to not use zoning to ban gun shops

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has cautioned the mayor of Redwood City, Calif., against continuing a moratorium on allowing firearms retail sales within its jurisdiction, which could result in litigation against the city on Second Amendment grounds.

The city has adopted an “Urgency Ordinance” which placed a moratorium on firearms dealers from opening businesses within the city. Extensions on the moratorium, if voted for, may last for up to two years.

In a letter to Redwood City Mayor Giselle Hale, SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut notes, “By indefinitely preventing any firearms or ammunition retailers from opening within the city, Redwood City has directly impeded its residents from acquiring the means to protect themselves and their families, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

While Kraut acknowledges there are examples of permissible regulations “that may be imposed on firearm and ammunition retailers that would comport with the Constitution,” he also had words of warning to Mayor Hale and the city.

History of litigation

“SAF has a storied history of suing municipalities, states, and the federal government for Second Amendment violations,” Kraut wrote. “Should Redwood City continue to deprive its residents of the ability to acquire arms and ammunition through an indeterminate moratorium on firearms and ammunition retailers from opening a business, SAF will examine all legal remedies available to it, its members, and those who may be affected by the City’s flagrant disregard of its citizens’ constitutional rights. It is my hope that Redwood’s City Council will promptly take action to remedy this situation to avoid unnecessary litigation.”

SAF has been involved in dozens of legal actions against municipal and state-level gun regulations, including its landmark challenge of Chicago’s ban on handguns which resulted in the Supreme Court’s June 2010 ruling that nullified the ban and incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment. The victory opened the doors to many subsequent and successful challenges of state and local gun control laws.

About the Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. 

[armedamericannews]

SAF challenges Illinois foster home/daycare gun ban

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a reply brief in its appeal of a lower court ruling upholding an Illinois ban on firearms for the purpose of immediate self-defense in the homes of law-abiding adults licensed to provide day or foster care.

SAF is joined in this action by the Illinois State Rifle Association, Illinois Carry and two private citizens, Darin E. and Jennifer J. Miller. They are represented by attorneys David G. Sigale of Wheaton, Ill., and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and John D. Ohlendorf of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, Washington, D.C.

The appeal is filed in the U.S. Court of appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The case is known as Miller v. Smith.

“Our case dates back to before the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Bruen decision in June of this year,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The Bruen ruling is fatal to the state’s position that rules allowing this gun ban are constitutional. The Bruen ruling did away with the ‘two-step’ approach to determining Second Amendment-based challenges.”

As noted in their brief, SAF and its partners remind the Seventh Circuit that “Modern firearm restrictions must be closely analogous to historical restrictions, and the inquiry into historical analogues does not give the State a regulatory blank check.”

“This is yet another case of Illinois government trying to perpetuate restrictions on law-abiding gun owners contrary to Supreme Court rulings,” Gottlieb observed. “We have lost count of the number of cases we’ve had to file in Illinois, but we are in this for the long haul. It is just one more example of our mission to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”

About the Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. 

[armedamericannews]

Florida lawmakers considering watered-down constitutional carry

Republican lawmakers in Tallahassee are now showing strong signs of support for the unlicensed carry of concealed handguns by law-abiding Floridians, according to sources familiar with the discussions. However, these same lawmakers strongly oppose the open carry of handguns or other weapons.

Gov. Ron DeSantis has promised he would sign a constitutional carry bill if the Republican-controlled state legislature can get one to his desk, and now it appears as though we are closer than we have ever been before.

While this is definitely a step in the right direction and might be seen by some as cause to celebrate – finally – it is not the “Gold Standard” of constitutional carry seen in other states, which allow their law-abiding citizens to carry firearms openly or concealed without a permit or license. In other words, these states allow their citizens to decide for themselves how to exercise their constitutional rights.

Will watered-down constitutional carry appeal to most Florida gun owners? Of course, it will. It would be a huge victory. The thought of not having to bend a knee and beg permission from the Crown to sell us back our God-given, constitutional rights is refreshing. Still, the thought of politicians regulating how we exercise our God-given, constitutional rights is not.

Open Carry

While some may choose not to openly carry arms, it is exactly what the Framers had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment, and it remains an important component of our right to keep and bear arms, which is not predicated upon what someone will or won’t choose to do.

Besides, politicians have no business regulating any constitutional right. After all, they don’t tell the clergy which scriptures to read during a sermon, or newspaper editors what headlines they should set into type. Neither should they attempt to regulate our Second Amendment rights.

It’s not difficult to understand why the pols are so dead-set against open carry. They clearly fear the open carry of arms could affect tourism, and tourism is Florida’s number-one cash crop. Personally, if someone from California or New York loses bladder control at the sight of a holstered pistol, so be it. It might stop a few of them from moving here.

Make ready

As we inch closer toward freedom, be prepared for a massive media onslaught bought and paid for by Gabby, Tiny Mike, Moms Demanding Attention and the rest of the gun-ban industry. The thought of a majority of the states passing constitutional carry in any form shakes them to their very core. Florida will become their Ground Zero. They’ll be looking for collaborators – Quislings and Fudds willing to say on camera that our gun rights are fine and don’t need to be expanded, all for a set fee of course.

The gun banners will trot out the same tired tactics that failed them in 25 states. They’ll interview law enforcement administrators – not real cops – who will scream like gut-shot apes about the menace to society constitutional carry will surely cause. They’ll interview criminologists who have never even touched a gun, and crime victims who have never even set foot in the Gunshine State. But mostly, they’ll talk about “blood in the streets.”

To be clear, constitutional carry has never caused an uptick in crime in any of the 25 states where it is now law. If the gun banners are looking for real murder and mayhem, all they need do is go to Baltimore, Philadelphia, Los Angeles or any of the other major metros historically controlled by Democrats, where gun rights are the most restrictive. Their streets are covered in real blood, chalk outlines and of course lots and lots of human poo.

Most will strongly support constitutional carry – even a watered-down version. But we should not stop advocating for the Gold Standard, which includes the ability to decide for ourselves how we choose to exercise our constitutional rights.

[armedamericannews]

Civilian gun club sues Fort Devens for violating statutory, constitutional rights

A small civilian rifle club located just 50 miles northwest of Boston is suing nearby Fort Devens for violating federal law granting them access to military rifle ranges at reasonable rates, as well as violating their members’ constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the law.

Ultimately, the club says the Biden-Harris administration is responsible.  

A little-known section of U.S. code requires the Army to make rifle and pistol ranges available for civilian use as long as it does not interfere with military training, and it prohibits officials from charging exorbitant fees for range access. Another federal statute requires the Army to provide logistical support to the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc., is an affiliate of both the Civilian Marksmanship Program and the National Rifle Association.

For decades prior to the 2020 election, club members had been using a wide array of rifle and pistol ranges at Fort Devens free of charge. Club members supplied their own targets, ammunition, Range Safety Officers and other supplies. They even policed their own brass. Most of the members are veterans, so they are intimately familiar with range safety protocols and other best practices. To be clear, in terms of taxpayer dollars, the club cost the Fort very little.

[Click here to watch a video of the club members at Fort Devens’ ranges.]

Just days after the 2020 election, the club was notified in writing that they would have to start paying a minimum of $250 per range, and that the fees would increase based upon the total number of shooters.

“This did not start until three days after Biden got into office. We found that very interesting,” said Jim Gettens, treasurer of the Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. “I don’t think they ever would have pulled this under President Trump’s administration. If we had contacted President Trump about this, I think it would have gone away ASAP.”

Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club members working the long-range rifle pits. (Video still courtesy of the Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club).

FOIA

The club attempted to perform some due diligence. Gettens, as club treasurer, sent a federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Lt. Col. Lindsey E. Halter, Fort Devens’ Installation Commander, seeking to confirm how much the club’s range usage actually cost the Fort.

Among the document requests sought in the FOIA were:

All records showing the itemized costs for materials and supplies incurred by U.S. Army Garrison Fort Devens, specifically attributable to the Ft. Devens Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc., to make the following rifle or pistol ranges available to that Club on the range dates it scheduled during calendar year 2020.

Records showing the total dollar amount collected during calendar year 2020 by U.S. Army Garrison Fort Devens, in charges or fees imposed on non-Department of Defense entities, including but not limited to, law enforcement agencies, other agencies, corporations, and other persons, for use of its rifle and pistol ranges during 2020.

Club members have seen numerous law enforcement agencies – local, state and federal – using Fort Devens’ range facilities. They suspect the Fort has created a lucrative cottage industry by charging law enforcement agencies – and ultimately taxpayers – for range access.

The FOIA was sent up the chain-of-command from Fort Devens to Fort Dix, New Jersey to Fort Sam Houston in Texas. Along the way, the club was told the FOIA would cost $1,056 to process, which Gettens paid by check.

“Almost six months later I called the FOIA officer, since our $1,056 check would go stale after six months,” Getten said Monday. “They quickly cashed it and then they stiffed us. We never got a single document back from our FOIA request. They just took our money.”

Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club members engaging computer-controlled popup targets with handguns at Fort Devens’ Bravo Range. (Video still courtesy of the Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club).

Litigation

In August, after all attempts to remediate the problem failed, Richard Chambers, one of the few Second Amendment attorneys in the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts, filed suit against Fort Devens in federal court on the club’s behalf.

“The Second Amendment is a fundamental right, and the military should not be dictating policy when it’s guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution as well as by an act of Congress,” Chambers said Monday.

The lawsuit, Ft. Devens Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. v. U.S. Army Garrison Fort Devens, points out that the rifle club began as an association in the early 1990s, and was incorporated in 1996.

Prior to 9/11, the club hosted many shooting events including Northeast High Power League Rifle matches and the annual Colt Cup Match.

After the terrorist attacks, the Fort began limiting the number of privately owned vehicles permitted on post, and refused to grant the club access on weekends, which killed the matches and severely reduced club membership. Today, club members are only allowed to shoot twice a month, usually Tuesday mornings – one day for rifles, one for pistols.

The four-count lawsuit accuses Fort Devens of violating 10 U.S.C § 7409 by attempting to charge unreasonable and exorbitant range fees; violating 36 U.S.C § 40727 by failing to provide logistical support to a certified affiliate of the Civilian Marksmanship Program; violating 5 U.S.C. § 552 by failing to provide documents sought in a FOIA request, as well as violating the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights of due process and equal protection and treatment under the law.

The lawsuit seeks a written declaration from the court that the club members’ statutory and constitutional rights were violated. It also seeks an order from the court directing the Fort to allow the club to use its ranges in accordance with past practices, as well as reasonable attorney fees and costs.

Jazika Levario, a civilian public affairs officer at Fort Devens, agreed to forward a copy of the club’s federal complaint to the Fort’s command group to see if anyone was willing to discuss the lawsuit. No one was.

“We are unable to make a comment at this time,” Levario said in a subsequent email.

The Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club has established a GiveSendGo account, which has raised $845 of its $50,000 goal.

“They need help with fundraising,” said Chambers, the club’s attorney. “This is something that could affect the entire country.”

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.

[armedamericannews]

Second Amendment Foundation names famed 2A litigator Adam Kraut as executive director

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation (“SAF”), a pioneer and national leader in defense of the right to keep and bear arms, today announced that attorney and experienced Second Amendment litigator Adam Kraut has been named as its Executive Director.

Kraut brings almost a decade of experience in the Second Amendment realm as a litigator and educator. Throughout his career, Kraut has represented individuals, companies, and institutional plaintiffs in state and federal litigation and regulatory matters.

In addition to his legal background, Kraut draws management experience from his time in the non-profit world, where he was responsible for overseeing the programmatic functions of a liberty-based non-profit, which concentrated on Second Amendment issues. He also managed a federal firearms licensee. Kraut comes with a variety of media experience, having written for publications such as Recoil magazine, Recoil Web, and other online publications, writing and hosting a YouTube series, hosting and appearing as guest on multiple podcasts, and appearing on television.

“We’re delighted to have Adam coming aboard at a time when our legal activities are greatly expanding,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “He brings a wealth of experience to the position, at a critical time when we are challenging an array of restrictive gun control laws that clearly have restrained peaceable, law-abiding citizens while accomplishing nothing in the effort to reduce violent crime.

“Adam has been a SAF Life Member since 2013,” Gottlieb added. “He has a keen understanding of our mission, our history and our effort to win firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time. We are proud to bring him aboard to fill an important role as we ramp up our fight to restore and expand the Second Amendment as the cornerstone of our Constitution.”

“I’m eager to continue SAF’s legacy of innovation and excellence in the legal, educational, and public arenas,” Kraut said. “For the better part of half a century Alan has built SAF into an organization which took a unique vision and made it reality. I look forward to working closely with him to shepherd the organization forward. We will continue to create the foundation for the next series of cases we hope to take to the Supreme Court to ensure the right to keep and bear arms is restored to its original meaning. At the same time, we will work to guarantee SAF’s longevity by bringing the next generation of gun owners into the fold.”

About the Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

[armedamericannews]

DeSantis creates illegal gun-free zone during Alachua fundraiser  

Legally armed Floridians had their Second Amendment rights trampled Thursday evening during a fundraising dinner in Alachua County where Gov. Ron DeSantis was the keynote speaker.

As a result, scores of Florida Concealed Weapon and Firearm License holders were illegally disarmed, and not one public official will own the decision.  

As we first revealed in a story published Tuesday, donors attending Thursday night’s “Ronald Reagan Black Tie and Blue Jeans BBQ” were warned in an email that legally carried firearms would not be allowed.

The $60-per-plate fundraiser was organized by the Alachua County Republican Executive Committee and held in the Legacy Park Multipurpose Center – a public building owned by the city of Alachua, which is taxpayer funded and supported.

Before they were allowed inside, private security officers with metal detectors searched every single attendee.

Alachua Police confirmed that firearms were prohibited inside the public-owned building. One APD officer said the barbecue was a “private event.”

Whose call?

According to Ann Stone, treasurer of the Alachua County Republican Executive Committee, she and other organizers were told by DeSantis’ reelection campaign and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement that the governor would not appear if firearms were allowed inside the building.

Stone said the no-guns rule was verbal and not included in any written document. In Florida, written documents can be retrieved through a Public Records Request. Regardless, we sent a Public Records Request to FDLE seeking copies of the rules they use when DeSantis appears at a public event.

If FDLE issued the no-guns directive, they would be regulating firearms, which violates Florida’s powerful preemption statute. The 35-year-old law allows only the state legislature to regulate guns and has severe penalties for any public official who violates the statute, including a $5,000 fine and removal from office. As of Thursday evening, FDLE has acknowledged it received the records request, but has not yet produced a response.

Lindsay Curnutte, DeSantis’ political communications director, would not say who issued the no-gun rule – the DeSantis campaign or FDLE.

“We do not disclose matters of the Governor’s security, and we refer you to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement,” Curnutte said in an email.

FDLE spokeswoman Dana Kelly did not return calls seeking comment for this story.

Deeds not words

DeSantis’ gun-free zone was not well received by the state’s gun-rights community.

“Clearly, Gov. DeSantis knows how to get action on his priorities, and while he has talked the talk for some time on issues such as constitutional carry, open carry and the right to keep and bear arms, his actions have spoken louder than his words – there have been no actions,” said Sean Caranna, founder and executive director of Florida Carry, Inc. “Today, his campaign has decided that our society is safer when fewer people have guns. This is not the Second Amendment values held by Floridians. We urge Gov. DeSantis to return to his Second Amendment roots.”

[armedamericannews]

SAF, Illinois State Rifle Association win victory in FOID case

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation confirmed today its federal lawsuit against the Illinois State Police that compelled the agency to hire additional personnel in order to clear a backlog of applications for Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) cards because the issue has been resolved, and dismissed. The case was known as Marszalek v. Kelly.

Joining SAF in the legal action, which was filed in July 2020, were the Illinois State Rifle Association and several individual plaintiffs. The lawsuit was also supported by the Goldwater Institute of Phoenix, Ariz. Plaintiffs were represented by attorneys David Sigale of Wheaton, Ill., Gregory Bedell of Chicago, Ill., and Timothy Sandedur with the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix.

“The issue was quite simple and we’re glad it is resolved,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “In 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, restrictions were put in place in Illinois that caused the Illinois State Police to completely fail in its statutory responsibility to process applications for FOID cards in 30 days. However, the state was taking up to six months, and sometimes more, to complete this process, and the result was Illinois citizens were being denied the exercise of their Second Amendment rights.”

At the time, the State Police said pandemic restrictions pre vented it from hiring additional staff to process applications while the agency updated its system. Thanks to pressure from SAF, ISRA and the court, the State Police cleared the application backlog and acknowledged its obligation to speed up the process and comply with the time frame.

“We’re satisfied with the outcome,” Gottlieb said, “and we’re especially pleased at the support from the Goldwater Institute.”

While this lawsuit is dismissed, there are other legal challenges in Illinois which are still pending.

About SAF

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. 

[armedamericannews]

Judge allows anti-gun group to join SAF’s mag ban case as a defendant

BELLEVUE, WA – A federal judge in Tacoma, Washington has allowed a Seattle-based gun prohibition lobbying group to intervene as a defendant in the Second Amendment Foundation’s challenge of an Evergreen State magazine ban which became effective July 1.

The billionaire-backed Alliance for Gun Responsibility requested intervention only days after the law took effect. Their motion was supported by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and State Patrol Chief John Batiste, who are defendants in the case. The Alliance supported the magazine ban as part of its gun prohibition political agenda, and Ferguson requested the legislation earlier this year.

“Apparently the Alliance is worried Ferguson isn’t capable of defending his own magazine ban in this lawsuit,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Obviously, after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision last June, the gun ban lobby fears the state may not be able to defend any of its gun laws, including a couple passed by initiative campaigns the Alliance financed.”

SAF is joined in the lawsuit by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Rainier Arms, LLC and two private citizens, Daniel Martin and Gabriela Sullivan. The case is known as Sullivan v. Ferguson.

“A few days after the high court handed down its ruling in Bruen,” Gottlieb recalled, “the Supreme Court granted certiorari to two other magazine ban challenges, in California and New Jersey. The court vacated lower court rulings in both cases and remanded the cases back to the respective appeals courts for further action in compliance with the language in Bruen.

“Based on the Supreme Court’s action in both magazine ban cases,” he added, “it is clear such restrictive laws might be in serious trouble, which explains why the Alliance is interested. Courts in California have already ruled that state’s magazine ban is unconstitutional, and that position may now stand when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has to reconsider the case under the new guidelines set down in the Bruen ruling.

“If the Alliance wants to hold hands with Ferguson,” Gottlieb said, “that’s their business. Maybe he needs the moral support.”

About the Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

[armedamericannews]

Concealed carry illegally banned at upcoming DeSantis event

Donors attending the upcoming “Ronald Reagan Black Tie and Blue Jeans BBQ” will have to decide for themselves whether hearing Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speak is worth an infringement of their Second Amendment rights.

The $60-per-plate fundraiser will be held Thursday in the Legacy Park Multipurpose Center – a public building owned by the city of Alachua, Florida, which is taxpayer funded and supported.

The barbecue was organized by the Alachua County Republican Executive Committee. It’s their annual fundraiser.  

Once attendees purchased tickets online, they were warned in an email that their gun rights would be forfeit:

********** IMPORTANT NOTICE **********

Be aware that all guests will be required to pass through a security check-point at entry which will include scanning by METAL DETECTOR.

********** IMPORTANT NOTICE **********

The warning was signed by Ann Stone, treasurer of the Alachua County Republican Executive Committee.

A Florida Carry member who purchased four tickets for the event told Stone in an email that banning firearms from a public event on public property is illegal.

“Just a quick note, since the facility is city-owned on city property, concealed carry CANNOT be banned during the event. That’s the law. I hope everyone understands this,” the member wrote in the email to Stone.

Stone responded by warning the member DeSantis might pull out if he raised the issue.

“It might be the law but Ron DeSantis is NOT speaking unless there are no guns or other weapons.  I think you would be mobbed if you caused him to leave without speaking,” Stone said in her reply.

Delanie Bomar, press secretary for the Ron DeSantis for Governor campaign, did not respond to several requests seeking comment for this story.

Unwritten rules

Reached by phone Monday afternoon, Stone confirmed that it was the Alachua County REC that organized the event. However, she said the DeSantis campaign and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FLDE) gave them a list of very specific rules.

“All I know is that he will not appear if there are guns there,” Stone said. “It’s more his campaign. They’re not organizing the event, but they gave us the rules for having him on board, and that’s the rules they gave us.”

Stone said the Alachua County REC did not receive a written copy of these rules, adding that they were given “vocally.” She also said she possessed a valid Florida Concealed Weapon and Firearm License but was more than willing to be disarmed.

“I am a gun person, but what I see is that Ron DeSantis is an up-and-comer. He’s important and needs to be protected, so I have no problem going without my gun,” she said.

Stone claimed she does not see concealed-carry licensees as a threat but added that “people bought tickets to begin with, and who knows who they could be.”

“We didn’t make the rules,” she said. “But we have to live with them.”

Legal questions

While the concealed carry of firearms is perfectly legal in the governor’s office, it is unclear why it is not legal at a fundraiser held on public-owned property.

If FDLE issued the no-guns directive, they are regulating firearms, which violates Florida’s powerful preemption statute. Signed into law in 1987, the preemption statute only allows the state legislature to regulate guns, and it has severe penalties for any public official who violates the law, including a $5,000 fine and removal from office.  

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project sent a Florida Public Records Request to FDLE seeking copies of the rules they use when DeSantis speaks at a public event.

Stone claimed the concealed-carry ban was lawful because the barbecue was no longer a public event, at least not anymore.

“According to someone, they ran it past legal and legal said it was a ‘closed event,’ so it’s okay,” she said. “Members of the public could buy tickets but then we closed it. There aren’t any more tickets available.”

Eric Friday, general counsel for Florida Carry and one of the most experienced Second Amendment attorneys in the state, said local party leaders should look at their own platform, which supports gun rights.

“After 35 years of preemption in Florida, it’s disturbing that FDLE and some people still think they have the ability to limit citizens’ self-defense rights,” he said.

Takeaways

DeSantis is running for reelection against former governor Charlie Crist. While DeSantis has promised to sign a constitutional carry bill, Crist supports Joe Biden’s entire anti-gun agenda and more – including “assault weapon” and standard-capacity magazine bans, as well as repeal of Florida’s preemption statute. To be clear, DeSantis wants to expand our gun rights, while Crist wants even more infringements.

Since his campaign spokeswoman did not return calls, it is not known if DeSantis is even aware that he will be speaking to an audience that was illegally disarmed.

Legally armed Floridians are not a threat, especially to a governor whom so many admire. At the very least, this is incredibly bad staff work and terrible optics by members of his campaign.

Going forward, I hope the DeSantis campaign will factor in gun rights when it plans future events. There are more than a few of us who would not willingly disarm even if Ronald Reagan himself was speaking at the Ronald Reagan Black Tie and Blue Jeans BBQ.

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.

[armedamericannews]

SAF wins case against gun ban in Tennessee public housing authority

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation scored a victory in a ruling by a Tennessee Appeals Court panel striking down a gun ban by a public housing authority in the community of Columbia on the grounds it violates the Second Amendment, citing recent Supreme Court language in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

SAF supported Columbia resident Kinsley Braden in the case. He was represented by attorneys David G. Sigale of Wheaton, Ill., and Eugene R. Hallworth, of Columbia. The case is known as Columbia Housing & Redevelopment Corp. v. Kinsley Braden.

Writing for the three-judge panel, Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr., explained, “(I)n light of the Supreme Court’s most recent decision in Bruen and keeping in mind the presumptively unconstitutional status of Columbia Housing’s policy based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller, we conclude that a total ban on the ability of law-abiding residents—like Mr. Braden—to possess a handgun within their public housing unit for the purpose of self-defense is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.”

Judge Clement also noted, “Because Columbia Housing is a government entity acting as a landlord of property it owns, it must establish that its leasehold restrictions on firearms is ‘consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation’.” The lower court was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appeals court ruling.

Judge Clement was joined by Judges Andy D. Bennett and W. Neal McBrayer in the unanimous ruling.

“We’re delighted with the appeals court ruling,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This underscores the far-reaching effect of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen opinion. Mr. Braden was evicted from the public housing complex because he had a firearm. The court properly held that such a prohibition is a non-starter. Rulings like this make it clear the Second Amendment means what it says.

“This is another victory in our mission to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”

About the Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.