Editorial

Domino Theory: 21st century style

David A. Lombardo

There hasn't been much talk about a Domino Effect since the Vietnam War. That said, we're experiencing one right now, and the anti-personal protection cabal is beside itself watching the dominoes tumble. It goes like this. 

 In 2008 Dick Heller challenged the city of Washington, D.C., regarding his right to own and keep a firearm in his home. Washington had a strict gun ban at the time. Heller was an armed security guard, licensed to carry a firearm in federal buildings but couldn't be trusted to have one in his own home. The Supreme Court didn't think that made much sense and ruled in favor of Heller. It was a landmark decision that caused the pop of Champagne bottle corks to be heard around the country. Plop-the first domino bit the dust.  

 Chicago's Mayor Richard M. Daley, a Democrat who didn't believe in the Domino Theory the first time around, failed to recognize what was happening. He thumbed his nose at the Supremes, saying the decision only covered the District of Columbia which isn't even a state. It didn't sit well with a lot of Chicagoans, including Otis McDonald. 

 McDonald was a long-time resident of Chicago's Morgan Park. The area, which was under the protection of the Chicago Police Department, had disintegrated and become increasingly dangerous, prompting McDonald to want to have a handgun in his home for personal protection. The problem was that Chicago had had a handgun ban since 1982. McDonald sued the city, and the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in, saying the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment was covered under the 14th Amendment's "due process clause," and ruled in favor of McDonald. Though the breeze of that falling domino blew close to Richey Daley, Hizzoner quickly implemented a complex plan of gun registration including a mandatory certification program and Draconian regulations that severely restricted where a Chicagoan could have a firearm for personal protection. 

 That ticked off Rhonda Ezell who thought Hizzoner's de facto ban on gun stores in Chicago was a set-up, considering there was one hour of range time required in the five-hour certification course. She sued the City of Chicago and in 2011 won. A really big domino tumbled to the ground, causing the city to implement zoning ordinances that permitted gun stores in the city limits but were so limiting, they effectively prevented any gun store from opening in Chicago.

The next domino was Chicago resident Shawn Gowder. Gowder felt his rights were being violated when the City of Chicago denied him a permit to own a firearm because of a prior non-violent misdemeanor conviction. In June of 2012 a federal judge ruled that the City of Chicago's amended ordinance was unconstitutional. Kaboom, another really big domino bites the dust. 

In 2013 the 7th Circuit reversed the district court on Michael Moore and Mary Shepard v. Madigan, saying the right to self-protection does not end at the door and gave Illinois a date to set up concealed carry in Illinois. Hizzoner, now out of office, undoubtedly gagged when he heard that domino bite the dust, but Rahm Emanuel and the Cook County Democrats did their best damage control by getting restrictions included in the bill that effectively make concealed carry a daunting task in Cook County. There will no doubt be a plethora of lawsuits and more dominoes biting the dust, however there was yet another related domino that toppled when the Illinois legislature passed the concealed carry bill. Buried in the 40,000-plus words of the concealed carry bill that passed was wording that effectively prohibits cities from regulating the possession of handguns or handgun ammunition for people who have Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Licenses or FOID cards. 

The concealed carry domino quickly toppled the next in which U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang-an Obama appointee, no less-ruled in a suit brought by the Illinois Association of Firearm Retailers to honestly open up the city to gun stores. Chang thought it unconstitutional to prohibit licensed gun stores from operating in the city but has given a six month delay so the city has time to fight it. 

The next domino is pending. It's Matthew Wilson's suit against Cook County's Blair Holt Assault Weapon Ban. The law, originally enacted in 1993, then amended in 2006 when the Federal Assault Weapon Ban ended, forbids 60 "assault weapons" by name, including the very popular AR-15, in Cook County. It also makes illegal all magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, assault ammo (whatever that is) and any firearm that contains a feature on a published list including such things as muzzle brakes and pistol grips. 

Never before has the anti-personal protection crowd seen such a turn of the tide against its unconstitutional attack on the rights of gun owners. The response from the White House and the uber-liberal anti-gun crowd is enormous. They're pulling out all the stops, looking for ways to subvert the courts, legislators and the will of the people. 

Most recently Harvey Weinstein, a Hollywood producer who has gotten rich by making films that stress the utmost violence such as Kill Bill, Halloween and Rambo, is going to make a new film called The Senator's Wife. Weinstein makes no bones about it: the purpose of The Senator's Wife is to specifically smear and discredit the National Rifle Association. Weinstein has vowed to do his part to stop the dominoes from falling. I suggest that anyone who believes in the Second Amendment should do their best to be sure that Weinstein's significant investment in the film is crushed by yet another domino-that of public opinion. 

States economically benefit from target shooting

The National Shooting Sports Foundation has released a report documenting the importance of target-shooting activities to the U.S. economy. The report, Target Shooting in America: Millions of Shooters, Billions of Dollars, was released in conjunction with a press conference at the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show (SHOT Show) this week. The report provides a first-ever look at U.S. target shooting-related expenditures and includes state-by-state statistics for the number of target shooters, retail sales, taxes and jobs. The money target shooters spent in 2011 resulted in $23 billion being added to the nation's economy and supported more than 185,000 jobs nationally. "More people target shooting is good news for the industry, and it is equally good news for America's economy," said NSSF President and CEO Steve Sanetti. Retail sales related to target shooting account for nearly $10 billion, with rifle and handgun shooting being the leading contributors, followed shotgun and muzzleloader shooting. California and Texas are the top two states ranked by retail sales, each topping $800,000,000. Combining data from Target Shooting in America and Hunting in America shows that target shooters and hunters together poured more than $110 billion into the nation's economy, fueling more than 866,000 jobs. "Communities and businesses of all sizes benefit from these activities," said Sanetti. Target shooters ($8.2 billion) and hunters ($8.4 billion) spend near equal amounts on equipment common to both pursuits, such as firearms, ammunition and accessories. Hunters spend more overall than target shooters when factors such as fuel, food, lodging and transportation are included.

Army Corps of Engineers gun ban struck down

SAFER USA &

AURORA SPORTSMEN'S CLUB

COURSE SCHEDULE

(Private group classes available)  

All classes meet at the SAFER USA Classroom facility

190 W. Lincoln St; Waterman, IL 60556

In January, SAFER USA

will again be conducting the

NRA Basic Instructor Training  

&

NRA Instructor Pistol Course 

This certification qualifies you for 

Illinois Concealed Carry Instructor certification.

In February SAFER USA is offering the

 NRA Range Safety Officer Course  

Register for a SAFER USA class 

Discrete, private instruction available for VIP & High Profile Individuals  

Call 877-954-3030 

SAF asks Supremes

to weigh in on New Jersey concealed carry

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the appeal in the challenge to New Jersey's unconstitutional carry laws. According to SAF's Alan Gura, "the right to self-defense is sacrosanct yet has been disparaged and denied to all but an elite few in states like New Jersey. Individuals and families should not be deprived of the right to defend themselves and we intend to change that." The case is Drake v. Jerejian. Prepared by attorneys Alan Gura (who won Second Amendment victories in the groundbreaking Heller and McDonald cases) and David Jensen, this petition is the latest effort to bring a right-to-carry case before the high court and is the next step in the process of resolving the differing opinions of lower courts on the right to bear arms for personal protection outside the home. ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach said, "This case could resolve the right to carry issue not only for New Jersey, but for the entire nation. So far the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear the issue in other cases, but this case may be different due to the extreme nature of New Jersey's law, which effectively denies law-abiding citizens their fundamental right to self-defense outside the home." 

Federal Judge: California AG Harris

wrong on gun control laws

In a rejection of California Attorney General Kamala Harris' stance on the rights of law-abiding gun owners, Senior Federal District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii denied Harris' motion for summary judgment in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by The Calguns Foundation, indicating that California's 10-day "waiting period" gun laws are likely unconstitutional. "The fact that a federal judge saw these laws for what they are -- baseless restraints on the exercise of a fundamental civil right -- is monumental," explained Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation. "California's waiting period laws for those who own guns is not Constitutional and this order really underlines the point." In his order, Judge Ishii said that Harris has "not presented sufficient evidence to show that the [10-day waiting period laws] passes either intermediate or strict scrutiny." About the laws being challenged in the case, named plaintiff Jeff Silvester of Hanford, California, said, "I have a license to carry a loaded firearm across the State. It is ridiculous that I have to wait another 10 days to pick up a new firearm when I'm standing there in the gun store lawfully carrying one the whole time." Regardless of the final decision at the district court, the case is virtually certain to end up at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and possibly even the United States Supreme Court.