American Partisan: Lawful Resistance

Bryce Sharper at American Partisan has written Case Studies in Lawful Resistance I in which he gives a brief synopsis of the doctrine of magistrates and its relation to lawful resistance, and also gives an example of lawful resistance from Illinois.

The state of Illinois is collapsing financially.  It owes its vendors in excess of $10 billion and has no money to pay its pension obligations.  Foolish state elected officials are floating every scheme under the sun to avoid the inevitable: declaring bankruptcy.  People are moving out in every direction.  The thing is, Illinois is a lot like California: there are a lot of decent, God-fearing people there.  Illinois is really the territory of the corrupt city-sanctuary-state of Chicago.  I have wondered for a long time why the rest of the state doesn’t secede or at least stop obeying Chicago.  I have to wonder no longer.  Second Amendment activists in the state have begun the basic process of resistance by creating sanctuary cities for gun owners.

Without gun sanctuary resolutions, these new state laws could take guns away from owners who need them: after all, people who believe in emergency preparedness and survival often purchase guns for protection. The sanctuary gun resolution is to protect homesteaders and those who believe in emergency preparedness from losing their second amendment rights.

It’s easy to understand how county officials feel the need to place the state on notice about restricting gun rights. These new Illinois laws could restrict someone who has a criminal record or history of violence, even if it was years and years ago, from owning a gun. They could have turned over a new leaf entirely and now want a gun simply for home protection or hunting, but the new laws would make that very difficult. It isn’t right to place a blanket ban on people because of some offense without looking at the circumstances surrounding the charge.

The article goes on to allude to the fact that these gun sanctuary city laws might not hold up to state law.  IT DOESN’T MATTER.  City leaders are perfectly justified in defying state law to allow their citizens to protect themselves.  The main duty of magistrates is to protect their citizens.  The state of Illinois sees its main duty as thievery and oppression…

For more about the doctrine of magistrates, you can read Theodore Beza’s De jure magistratuum
(On the Rights of Magistrates) at Constitution.org.

There is also a book by Matthew Trewhella titled The Doctrine of Lesser Magistrates. You can read a review of it here at The New American. The review covers the basics of the doctrine in more detail than Sharper’s brief summary, but in a more digestible format that Beza’s longer piece.

9th Circuit Three-Judge Panel Upholds Right to Open Carry Firearms

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals determined, in Young v. State of Hawaii, that the Second Amendment protects “the right to carry a firearm openly.”

Truth About Guns reports,

The right to carry a firearm for law-abiding citizens barely exists in Hawaii. A so-called may-issue state, the Pacific paradise hasn’t issued a permit to carry this century. As far as the fiftieth state is concerned, Americans only have a right to keep and bear arms in their own homes.

That violation of his Second Amendment rights (see District of Columbia v Heller) was the basis for George Young’s suit against the state. Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a two-to-one decision, agreed with Mr. Young.

A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment protects a right to openly carry a gun in public for self-defense, rejecting a claim by Hawaii officials that the right only applies to guns kept at home. …

Two of the three 9th Circuit judges voted to reverse a decision by the U.S. District Court in Hawaii that state officials did not infringe on the rights of George Young, the plaintiff, in twice denying him a permit to carry a gun outside.

“We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence,” Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote in Tuesday’s ruling. “But, for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”

You can read the full ruling here. The majority opinion wasn’t friendly to concealed carry, but here’s the main takeaway:

The panel acknowledged that while the concealed carry of firearms categorically falls outside Second Amendment protection, see Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 939 (2016) (en banc), it was satisfied that the Second Amendment encompasses a right to carry a firearm openly in public for self-defense. Analyzing the text of the Second Amendment and reviewing the relevant history, including founding-era treatises and nineteenth century case law, the panel stated that it was unpersuaded by the County’s and the State’s argument that the Second Amendment only has force within the home. The panel stated that once identified as an individual right focused on self-defense, the right to bear arms must guarantee some right to self-defense in public. The panel held that because Hawaii law restricted plaintiff in exercising the right to carry a firearm openly, it burdened conduct protected by the Second Amendment.

In determining the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply to section 134-9, the panel first held that the right to carry a firearm openly for self-defense falls within the core of the Second Amendment. The panel stated that restricting open carry to those whose job entails protecting life or property necessarily restricts open carry to a small and insulated subset of law-abiding citizens. The panel reasoned that the typical, law-abiding citizen in the State of Hawaii was entirely foreclosed from exercising the core Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense. The panel concluded that Hawaii’s limitation on the open carry of firearms to those “engaged in the protection of life and property” violated the core of the Second Amendment and was void under any level of scrutiny.

 

 

WA Gun Owners Action League Update, Mar. 9th, 2018

From the Washington Gun Owners Action League:

Legislative Update from Olympia 9 March 2018

SINE DIE

48 GUN BILLS FILED IN 2017-2018 BIENNIUM

GOV SIGNS BUMP STOCK BAN

2519, 5553 AND 6298 TO GOV

PHOTOS ON CPLS?

MISSED ONE – AMMO BAN

WHY ONLY FOUR BILLS PASSED

INITIATIVE

LAST GOAL POST OF 2018 — HOPEFULLY

It’s over!The fat lady has done her part and has waddled off the stage,
and our legislators are packing up and heading home from Olympia.At this
point there is no talk of the need for a special session, unlike the
three special sessions we had last year..

The 2017-2018 biennium set a record for the number of gun related bills
filed: 48, 25 anti-, 20 pro- and three neutral.But as foretold in the
Book of Matthew, “Many are called but few are chosen.”Only four of the
48 managed to make it to the governor’s desk:None of the pro-gun bills
made the cut in the Democrat-dominated legislature, surprise,
surprise.HB 2519 and SBs 5553, 5992 and 6248 were the chosen few.SB
6620, the last minute “assault weapon” bill, failed to get a vote on the
last day of the session (given the time allowed, it was unlikely to pass
the House anyway).

On Tuesday, 7 March, Governor Inslee signed SB 5992, the “bump stock”
ban.In its final version, it only applied specifically to bump stocks
and not to other “trigger devices,” and allows for a one-year buy-back
period to be set up by the Washington State Patrol.Your reward for
complying with the law is $150.(As far as I can tell, nothing prevents
you from shipping or selling them out of state, as long as the
transaction occurs out-of-state).

HB 2519and SBs 5553 and 6298 sit on the governor’s desk awaiting his
action.He has three options: sign the bill(s) as is, section veto
portions he doesn’t like allowing the remainder to become law, or let it
sit without his signature, at which point it will become law.Unlike the
president, Washington has no provision for a “pocket veto” (no
signature) to kill a bill.I expect the governor to sign all three bills,
as he did SB 5992.

As I reported earlier, HB 2519 was amended in the House to allow issue
of CPLs to current and former military members aged 18-20.That amendment
was pulled by the Senate Law & Justice committee.The conference
committee also amended the final version of the bill added language that
allows the issuing authority to require a photograph be submitted with
the application, and that photograph to be embossed on the license.This
was discussed by the Department of Licensing more than ten years ago but
never implemented.It is solely up to the issuing authority to require
it.Some states have photo CPLs, other do not.

It appears in my rush to head for Las Vegas in January for the annual
Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trades show, I missed an anti-gun bill
filed.HB 2805 (Rep. Pollet, D-46) would ban the sale of exposed lead
projectile ammunition to those 18-20 years old.Concerns about lead
poisoning among the young, according to the bill language.Maybe Chicago
should consider such a bill.

Given the fact that for the first time in several years Democrats
control both the House and Senate as well as the governor’s mansion, why
so few anti-gun bills passed?One or two pro-gun Democrats in each
chamber helped us, and 2018 is mid-term election year.Had they passed a
slew of anti-gun bills, they likely would have lost perhaps several
rural-area legislative seats in November.Expect them to come back in
January, 2019 with blood in their eyes for gun owners.

By failing to address the “assault weapon” issue, it opens the door for
an initiative later this year that is likely to go well beyond simple
registration and/or age limits.And as we’ve been hearing from Florida
over the past week, where the Republican-majority legislature just
raised the age to buy long guns to 21 AND imposed a three-day waiting
period because of the Parkland school shooting, there are far too many
gun owners out there who don’t like “black rifles.”Or as we call them,
Elmer Fudds, “As long as they don’t come after my wabbit gun, I don’t
care what they do about other guns.”

Continue reading “WA Gun Owners Action League Update, Mar. 9th, 2018”

MVT West: Upcoming Classes

Max Velocity Tactical West training, out of the Spokane area, has some firearms classes coming up soon.

Combat Rifle Skills – Aug. 12-13, 2017, Sep. 16-17, 2017

Combat Rifle Skills (CRS) is a two day flat range class for all skill levels, from beginner to advanced shooter. It will teach you to safely and competently operate your rifle. This class takes the student from running their rifle on the bench, to practical combat applications that will put both rifle and shooter through their paces. Max Velocity Tactical specializes in the teaching of proven, adapted, legitimate combat tactics, techniques and procedures; as such, this class is designed as part of the progression to Combat Team Tactics.

This class is primarily focused on increasing individual weapon handling / shooting skills and competence.

Night Firing a 5pm – 10pm class – Aug. 12. 2017 , Sep. 16, Oct. 21, Nov 18

This is an optional class that takes place after the training day. Available September thru April only. Class start time is confirmed at close of play of Friday’s training / depending on time of year. Note: this class is designed for you to bring your own equipment. ROUND COUNT: 400 rounds COST: $200 NIGHT OPTICAL DEVICE FIRING NODF is designed to introduce students to their night vision, weapon and aiming devices. Students will learn how to integrate different systems to allow them to effectively use their weapon at night. Students will also be shown combat proven TTPs for night time operations. Students will get the most out of this class if they come with quality night vision, a reliable weapon and some form of infrared aiming laser.

 

MVT: Tactical Preparedness vs. The Trump Slump

Max of Max Velocity Tactical writes this article about the importance of continuing your tactical preparations, even after a Trump victory.

It was reported to me that many businesses in the tactical and preparedness industry had bought in a ton of stock prior to the election, anticipating a Hillary win, and that they have been desperately trying to sell off that overstock due to the Trump win. It simply amazes me that people base a lot of their preparations on who occupies the White House, but it is a reality in ‘the business.’ A very odd way for people to make their knee-jerk ‘threat assessments.’ I took a different view, as a tactical training company – the election of Trump meant (to me) that I was not immediately expecting more anti-2A laws coming down the pike, which meant time to continue to build the business, and on a personal level, train and prepare. Because that is the key point – the election of Trump does not free us from the reality of ‘the collapse,’ it simply means that the current administration is not overtly hostile to gun owners and Liberty. A breathing space, nothing more. We still live in extremely uncertain times.

So what is it? Why did so many people appear to crawl back under the comforter following the Trump win? Those that had at least partially woken up to the need for tactical preparedness, in many cases, just went back to sleep. Amazing, and not rational. At MVT, we have a very active group of Alumni who return again and again for training; they have internalized the warrior ethos, and train to be prepared to defend their families. But we have noticed a distinct drying up of ‘new blood’ coming in to classes. It is definitely a phenomenon…

I know, I know: what we teach at MVT are true warrior skills, and not mere games at the range. I know that this fact in itself puts many people out of the demographic. But I am aware of that, and I know that most people are not warriors, they are not true protectors. They are fearful and weak. The people I am interested in are those with the courage to step up, identify the need, and make the commitment to get some real tactical training.

To read the full article, click here.