The state of North Carolina crushed the Second Amendment putting law abiding citizens in danger during times of need. The unconstitutional “Emergency Powers Gun law” prohibits individuals from carrying firearms and blocks the sale of guns and ammunitions when the state chooses to declare an “emergency.” Firearms are our only means of self-defense in times of chaos, crime and the endangerment of our families. SAF is suing the state of North Carolina for destroying our Second Amendment rights and putting our lives and our families lives in danger.

During an emergency is when citizens need the Second Amendment most. We all saw what happened during hurricane Katrina. The government confiscated guns from law abiding Americans who only wanted to defend their homes and loved ones. Rampant crime and chaos erupted. Innocent people were murdered, raped and left for dead. Criminals grabbed guns, looted homes and terrorized families. Without guns regular Americans were left defenseless on the bayou. Ironically, our government told the residents of New Orleans they would be safer without guns. That is like telling them to carry a knife to a gun fight.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the case brought by The Second Amendment Foundation known as McDonald vs. Chicago and determined that citizens have a right to bear arms and defend themselves. In a historic ruling, the court affirmed that the Second Amendment could be incorporated into states. The Second Amendment not only gives citizens the ability to defend themselves, it also protects Americans from OVERREACHING governments that think they can adequately protect their citizens. Like any other task the government thinks it can handle, its outcome is always a GIGANTIC failure. Historically, the government has done a disastrous job at ensuring the safety of Americans. You should NOT trust the government to protect you.

Our recent victory in the Supreme Court was a hard won battle. Obama and his leftie loons stooped to the lowest of lows using Chicago-style politics to try and crush the Second Amendment. They resorted to fear mongering to scare citizens into taking action against the case. Liberals rallied the media claiming gun ownership would result in nationwide gun violence. The only thing violent about guns is the criminals that illegally use them. Thanks to your help, SAF was able to derail Obama’s gun control agenda and overturn Chicago’s gun ban at the Supreme Court. But our fight is far from over. We need YOU to help us fund our legal battle against the North Carolina legislature to make sure the Liberal gun grabbers don’t succeed in disarming America.

If the “Emergency Powers Gun Law” is not overturned, every other state will find ways to create their own version of the “Emergency Powers Gun Law.” This will annihilate all the hard work and grassroots activism that we used to ensure our Second Amendment Rights are protected. Pretty soon the floodgates will open to overturn the recent Supreme Court ruling and eventually we will see a nationwide gun ban.

The “Emergency Powers Gun Law” is ILLEGAL. The Supreme Court just ruled that the Second Amendment MUST BE APPLIED AND UPHELD BY ALL STATES. “The Emergency Powers Gun Law” does not uphold the recent Supreme Court ruling; it has destroyed a hard earned victory for gun owners across America. “Through this lawsuit in North Carolina,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb,” we intend to show that state emergency powers statutes that allow government officials to suspend fundamental civil rights, including the right to bear arms, are unconstitutional and therefore should be nullified. Citizens do not surrender their civil rights just because of a natural or man-made disaster.”

We WON but protecting our gun rights is expensive and it’s impossible to put a price tag on. This time freedom will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend your Second Amendment rights in this challenge by North Carolina’s “Emergency Powers Gun Ban.” SAF stands firmly committed to defend these rights and we are asking you to stand with us and we need your help to stop the anti-freedom extremists now!

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 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

For our projects to be successful, we must count on the voluntary financial support from individuals like you who care.

We need your financial support today to ensure we have the resources to beat back anti-gunners who will stop at nothing to take away our right and ability to defend ourselves and our families.

Please give your most generous contribution today. Help me defend your individual right to bear arms in this important Supreme Court case, today!

Your donation for just $10 will help so much. If you can afford to send $50 or $100 or more it would truly be a godsend.

Remember, protecting our freedom is not inexpensive.

But then, it’s impossible to put a price tag on freedom.

Together, we can preserve the Constitutional rights our Founding Fathers intended our people to have forever.

For more information about SAF go to http://www.saf.org

Thank you. I know I can count on you.

Sincerely yours,

Alan M. Gottlieb, Founder
Second Amendment Foundation

The U.S. Supreme Court heard the case to decide whether the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment protects Americans from overreaching state and local governments.

The Supreme Court case is of paramount importance to American citizens, to see that their constitutional rights are respected not only by the Congress, but by state and local governments.

Death Toll Mounts in Chicago

Fifty-two people shot, eight of them fatally in a single Chicago weekend, yet Mayor Richard Daley appears poised to go down screaming in his opposition to the Second Amendment Foundation’s lawsuit to overturn his city’s handgun ban.

Chicago has become a slaughterhouse where defenseless victims are terrorized by armed thugs who have taken full advantage of an unarmed populace. Daley and his predecessors who perpetuated this ban are wading knee-deep in the blood of hundreds of crime victims who should have had the means to defend themselves.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago’s handgun ban, so the city will likely do what Washington, D.C., did when its own ban was overturned two years ago: Put in place all sorts of restrictions to make it tougher to buy guns and easier for police to know who has them.

Prospective gun owners in D.C. now are required to take expensive training courses that include spending one hour on a firing range (there isn’t one in D.C.) and several hours in a classroom learning about so called gun safety. They also must pass a 20 question test based on D.C.’s highly restrictive firearm laws.

They also have to be fingerprinted, pay huge fees and jump many other hurdles.

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley says he’s encouraged by what he sees in D.C. and vows not go down without a fight.

Year after year the statistics have piled up yet Mayor Daley has stubbornly defended the city’s ban. While he has luxuriated at his vacation home with the safety of armed bodyguards, the bodies of Chicago crime victims have stacked up like cordwood.

Monday we should have a ruling from the Supreme Court that puts an end to this insanity, and gives the citizens of Chicago back their right to defend themselves. Daley thinks his constituents should be content to call 911 and wait for help to arrive while they’re being shot, stabbed, raped, robbed or beaten. Those crimes happen fast, and when seconds count, Chicago police are minutes away.

We took Daley to court because we trust his citizens more than he does with their self-defense rights. Chicago residents have endured the terror of public disarmament for almost three decades, and all they have to show for it is a body count. Mayor Daley should be ashamed.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) was delighted to bring this case in cooperation with the Illinois State Rifle Association and the four local plaintiffs. We are in this fight because a gun ban is no less onerous to civil rights in Chicago than it was in the District of Columbia. Such a law cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged.

We WON but protecting our gun rights is expensive and it’s impossible to put a price tag on. This time freedom will cost $250,000 to defend your Second Amendment rights in this challenge by Chicago to ban guns. SAF stands firmly committed to defend these rights and we are asking you to stand with us and we need your help to stop the anti-freedom extremists now!

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 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

For our projects to be successful, we must count on the voluntary financial support from individuals like you who care.

We need your financial support today to ensure we have the resources to beat back anti-gunners who will stop at nothing to take away our right and ability to defend ourselves and our families.

Please give your most generous contribution today. Help me defend your individual right to bear arms in this important Supreme Court case, today!

Your donation for just $10 will help so much. If you can afford to send $50 or $100 or more it would truly be a godsend.

Remember, protecting our freedom is not inexpensive. But then, it’s impossible to put a price tag on freedom.

Together, we can preserve the Constitutional rights our Founding Fathers intended our people to have forever.

Sincerely yours,

Alan M. Gottlieb
Founder
Second Amendment Foundation

However, AB 1934 has been recommended to bypass the Appropriations Committee and proceed directly to the floor of the Senate for an up or down vote. This recommendation is based upon the fact that the bill is reported to have a fiscal impact of less than $50,000.

You and I both know this is incorrect because in a post McDonald environment, unloaded open carry (though far from perfect) is the only self-defense option available to millions of Californians who are not sufficiently politically connected to receive one of the arbitrarily issued concealed carry permits. Therefore, passage of AB 1934 would subject the taxpayers of California to hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees defending Second Amendment challenges.

And should AB 1934 make it past the Appropriations Committee, either via a bypass or by passage, a final floor vote is expected in early August.

This means that we have less than a month to ensure that Senators are aware of the fiscal, legal and public policy ramifications of voting for this misguided anti-civil-rights bill.

At OpenCarry.org, we have been trying to spread the word via radio ads. Listen to one of our ads at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgJmg1lVQ7M . To date, we have spent $2,480 on ads but have only raised $1,205 in donations. While Mike and I are glad to spend money out of our own pockets for these campaigns, we simply cannot afford to run the ads that are necessary to combat this bill without your support.

If you are able, please go to our donation page at http://www.opencarry.org/goldenstate.html and give as generously as you can! EVERY PENNY GIVEN GOES DIRECTLY TO THE RADIO ADS!

And even if you cannot support the effort financially, if you are a California voter, please contact your Senator and let them know that you expect them to vote against AB 1934! Go to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html and enter your zip code to find contact information for your Senator.

However, what was completely unexpected was Jackson County Wisconsin’s District Attorney, Gerald R. Fox, who, in a recent press release, held that the Second Amendment’s protections apply against current state regulation, specifically five Wisconsin state statutes, which he found to be unconstitutional:

“I hereby declare that this office will no longer accept law enforcement referrals for violations of the following statutes:

• Section 167.31, prohibiting uncased or loaded firearms in vehicles;
• Section 941.23, prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, including firearms;
• Section 941.235, prohibiting the possession of firearms in public buildings;
• Section 941.237, prohibiting the possession of firearms in establishments where alcohol may be sold or served; and,
• Section 941.24, prohibiting the possession of knives that open with a button, or by gravity, or thrust, or movement.”

District Attorney Fox told the examiner.com that the US Supreme Court was clear: the right to bear arms is “fundamental,” and therefore state governments can only restrict these rights by way of regulations which are “narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.” Additionally, he stated that ”in Jackson County, [people] don’t risk prosecution” for violating these 5 statutes.

In an afternoon press conference, Daley announced that the city would enact new ordinances making it as difficult as possible to purchase and own a gun in Chicago. During his rant, he promised to seek ways to attack the right to bear arms from the supply side, vowing to go after manufacturers and crack down on gun shops and gun shop owners. He also noted that only “responsible adults” would be allowed to purchase or possess guns and left open the extremely disturbing question of who gets to determine which citizens are responsible and therefore ’worthy‘ of civil rights.

The article eloquently concludes:

The problem in Chicago is not guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. It never was. The problem is crime … crime driven by poverty, and hopelessness, and drug abuse, and all the social ills that accompany them. And because Mayor Daley, in his 21 year tenure, has not been willing or able to address these very difficult problems, he seeks to blame gun owners.

This elitist defiance should not surprise those familiar with Chicago politics and the antics of the Daley administration but it should serve as a grim reminder to gun owners and civil libertarians that despite the victories in Heller and McDonald, the legislative and judicial battles are far from over.

This means that States, Counties, and Cities cannot have laws that prohibit the keeping or bearing of arms.

• http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
• http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m6d28-Substantive-victory-for-gun-owners?cid=exrss-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner

First off you’ll need to find out if it is legal to open-carry in your locale, and if so what the restrictions on doing so are. You might even want to find the applicable sections of Codified Law that apply and carry a copy with you, just in case you run into some of our friends in blue.

Second, once you’ve determined the legality of your carry, check where you plan on going to make sure you won’t come within any legal proximities to any school, church, bar, or other potentially prohibited place. You don’t want to be caught 946 feet away from a school while you’re finding a shady spot on the parade route or fireworks display. You might be exempt from such laws, but make doubly sure you are before you go open-carrying.

Third, pick a respectable looking firearm to carry with you. I’d suggest against that AR-15, Uzi, or AK-47. Go with a nice looking (recently cleaned) pistol or revolver.

Fourth, make sure you have a good holster. It should look nice and function even better. I would HIGHLY recommend a holster with some type of retention mechanism, such as the Blackhawk Serpa CQC that I recently reviewed. You don’t want your pistol coming loose at an inopportune time.

Fifth, pick out your clothing. You want to look NICE! Shirt and tie would be fabulous, but you may choose something less casual. Don’t look like a gangster (the old, Chicago mob-boss style, or the newer bejeweled kind either). If you can, you want to look like you could be an off-duty or plain-clothed cop. You are NOT trying to impersonate a law enforcement officer, but you do want to look every bit as neat and tidy as they do.

Sixth, be prepared for a confrontation, either with a civilian or a law enforcement officer. You’re now an ambassador of the open-carry movement and gun-owners in general. DON’T LET US DOWN!

Seventh, carry a camera and voice recorder. If you run into anyone that gives you a hard time, press record. Don’t do it “in your face” rather, do it quietly and secretly. You’ll behave better and keep a cooler head if you know you’re being recorded.

Eighth, and most importantly, be friendly, smile, be nice. These are your friends and neighbors that you’ll be mingling among. Make a good (and positive) impression.

Lastly, report back! Let me know how it went!

In another “they almost got it right” story, the Arizona Daily Star reports that the company which owns and operates the majority of Pizza Hut restaurants in Southern Arizona will no longer prohibit customers from legally carrying sidearms on their property.

According to the article:

Patrick McKinney, vice president of operations for Tucson-based Pizza Hut of Arizona, said he began reconsidering the company’s policy of prohibiting guns after reading a newspaper article about the state’s new concealed-carry law.

That law, which goes into effect July 29, allows people 21 or older (and not prohibited from having a firearm) to carry a concealed gun without a permit.

McKinney and his staff held a meeting about the issue and began to remove the restaurants’ signs banning firearms during the first week of June, he said in a written reply to questions.

Unfortunately, the new policy applies only to customers. Employees will still be left sitting ducks while working for the company (on premises, or as delivery drivers). The article continues:

The issue may be particularly poignant in the case of Tucson Pizza Huts. In 1999, three employees of a Pizza Hut near the corner of East Broadway and Pantano roads were shot to death in an attempted robbery by two teens.

“We will never forget the tragedy of those murders in 1999 and what happened may have shaped our feelings about guns forever,” McKinney wrote.

The new policy doesn’t apply to employees, who won’t be able to carry guns at work. “For safety reasons we have always had a ‘no weapon’ policy (while working) for all of us at Pizza Hut of Arizona,” McKinney wrote.

One has to wonder who the Pizza Hut Employee policy is trying to “protect”. It certainly didn’t “protect” the three Pizza Hut Employees who were disarmed by Pizza Hut’s Sitting Duck Policy and were unable to protect themselves back in 1999. The Pizza Hut policy did, however, protect the assailants in that case.

This bill is designed to take away the influence of Tea party and other conservative groups in the upcoming November election.

An exemption has been carved out for the Labor Unions and other leftist advocacy groups. The NRA was also exempted so they would not oppose it. Roll Call Magazine reports today that they have carved out even deeper exemptions in order to assure passage and we believe it clearly shows the intent of the bill is to diminish the effectiveness of Tea party groups and other newer conservative advocacy groups.

I called Congressman Bishop and was assured by his staff that the Congressman opposes the DISCLOSE Act, which was reassuring.

I also emailed Christopher Cox, Executive Director of the NRA with the following:

I am an NRA Life Member, I oppose the “Disclose Act”, and even though organizations such as yourself are exempted, as a paying member I ask that you represent my stance and OPPOSE the Disclose Act.

My eldest son is a NRA Junior Life Member, as a paying member I ask that you represent my stance on his behalf and OPPOSE the Disclose Act.

My eldest daughter is a NRA Junior Life Member, as a paying member I ask that you represent my stance on her behalf and OPPOSE the Disclose Act.

I have a wife, two more sons and one more daughter that are NOT YET Life Members. If you do not OPPOSE the Disclose Act I will pursue Life Memberships in OTHER pro-2nd Amendment organizations for them.

Your timely response is appreciated.

Cordially,

Joe Levi, NRA Life Member

Christopher Cox, Executive Director of the NRA replied with the following:

I received your email regarding the NRA`s position on H.R. 5175, the “DISCLOSE Act”. Regrettably, our position has been misstated by some and intentionally misrepresented by others. I hope you`ll allow me to provide the proper context.

The U.S. Supreme Court`s Citizens United decision was a significant victory for free speech and the Constitution. The NRA filed a strong brief in that case, which the Court specifically cited several times in its opinion. The DISCLOSE Act is an attempt to reverse that victory and that`s why we told Congress we oppose it.

The NRA has never supported–nor would we ever support — any version of this bill. Those who suggest otherwise are wrong.

The restrictions in this bill should not apply to anyone or to any organization. My job is to ensure they don`t apply to the NRA and our members. Without the NRA, the Second Amendment will be lost and I will do everything in my power to prevent that.

We believe that any restriction on political speech is repugnant. But some of our critics believe we should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle to protect other organizations. That`s easy to say–unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as I do.

The NRA is a single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to protecting the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. Nor do all groups fight all issues together. For example, we didn`t support the U.S. Chamber of Commerce when it backed amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens and we did not join the Chamber in its support of President Obama`s stimulus bill. And we`ve been in direct opposition when the Chamber has tried to restrict Second Amendment rights in publicly accessible parking lots.

Rather than focusing on opposing this bill, some have encouraged people to blame the NRA for this Congress`s unconstitutional attack on free speech. That`s a shame. If you oppose this bill, I hope you will contact your Member of Congress and Senators so they can hear from you.

To which I replied:

Thank you for your response.

While I acknowledge that you don’t “support H.R. 5175″, you don’t oppose it, either. And while I respect that your job is to make sure H.R. 5175 doesn’t apply to the NRA or its members, I must respectfully disagree with you.

Using the same logic, I’d like to quote Friedrich Niemöller:

“When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.

“When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.

“When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.

“When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn’t a Jew.

“When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.”

If the NRA were smaller, H.R. 5175 would apply to you, and your members. The only reason it does not is because of your size.

H.R. 5175 is going after other organizations who are very much like the NRA… and the NRA is remaining silent. When “they” come for the NRA, who will stand beside us?

Cordially,

Joe Levi, NRA Life Member

I am awaiting a response.