Dedicated to Protecting You and Your Weapons

Protecting guns from rust

FirearmProtector.com can help you eliminate the first threat by offering our own Steelgard® — an easy-to-use, industrial grade, three-in-one firearm protection product — developed to clean, protect and improve the reliability and smooth operation of all weapons.

As far as that second threat to your weapons is concerned, we can’t eliminate it for you — but we can help keep you informed. Knowledge is power. Our blog is designed to share information important to freedom-loving, weapon-owning individuals.

Our goal is to help you protect the weapons that protect you.

 

Some states that allow Concealed Deadly Weapon permits also require permit holders to inform police officers of their weapon and CDW license when stopped.

This sounds like common sense, but as the video below illustrates (quite graphically), that it is not always easy. Warning: This video is not intended for children or those easily offended by strong language.

This video was discovered on CCWbyState.com and illustrates the shortcomings of the language of the law covering this requirement in Ohio, and the practical shortcomings of being able to inform if the situation does not easily permit a driver to do so.

If you live or plan to travel through a must inform state, please become familiar with the letter of the law in that state.

Share

On June 2, with a 47-29 vote, the California Assembly passed AB 809 which eliminates the exceptions for tracking guns that are not handguns. Now, all guns will be tracked with the same vigor as handguns are tracked in the state. Never mind such silly issues as privacy and personal rights. If you have it, they want to know — so they voted themselves that legal right.

According to the text of the bill (last amended on 5/27/2011):

This bill would conform those provisions so that the transfers and information reporting and retention requirements for handguns and firearms other than handguns are the same.

This provision will become effective January 1, 2013 and will require, “Every secondhand dealer described in Section 21626 shall, in a format prescribed by the department, and on the day of the transaction, electronically report to the department each firearm purchased, taken in trade, taken in pawn, accepted for sale on consignment, or accepted for auctioning.”

What information must be reported?

According to the text, “The name, address, identification of, place of birth (state or country), complete telephone number, occupation, sex, description, and all legal names and aliases ever used by the owner or person being loaned the particular firearm as listed on the information provided to the department on the Dealers’ Record of Sale, the Law Enforcement Firearms Transfer (LEFT), as defined in former Section 12084, or reports made to the department pursuant to any provision listed in subdivision (a) of Section 16585 or any other law.”

You can read the full text of the bill for yourself.

Open Carry Legislation

The California Assembly also ban the carrying of unloaded guns in public in May (AB 144) in a 45-29 vote. This bans individuals from carrying a unloaded, visible gun in any public place, on a street or in a vehicle. (Some unincorporated areas are exempt according to a report by CBS news, Los Angeles.)

A Crowning Glory Moment

On June 6, 2011, the California State Senate voted 28-8 to exempt themselves from the gun laws they were imposing on all the other residents of their state. Isn’t that interesting? They are also exempt from getting tickets, being prosecuted for not paying tolls and a slew of other little gems.

What happened to representation for the people by the people?

Share

Police against second amendment rightsA recent case involving Mark Fiorino, who recorded his experience with the Philadelphia police, has garnered a great deal of interest in the treatment of law-abiding citizens who have the right and the permit to carry weapons openly or concealed. But this is not an isolated event for the Philadelphia, Pa’s finest.

An article by Stephanie Farr of PhilyNews.com, dated August 31, 2010 offers several other examples of this type of ignorance of the law by law enforcement officials. The article tells the story of nine men, all of whom were arrested and had their guns confiscated (and never returned), despite the fact that they had the legal right to carry.

These cases are going to civil court now and at least one has settled out of court, according to the article. Most of the men involved refused the “settlements” offered – ranging from $3500 to $7500 dollars. Two were held for over 18 hours and two were hospitalized due to diabetic issues stemming from not being given their medications while detained, according to the article.

The charges against the men have been dropped, but their weapons have not been returned. Some have not had their concealed-carry permits returned either.

The Fiorino case is still to be determined, but the audio tape certainly does not flatter the officials involved in this case. According to a report by Fox News, “Lt. Raymond Evers, a spokesman for the city police, told FoxNews.com that gun owners who open carry, which is legal in the city, may be asked to lay on the ground until officers feel safe while they check permits.”

Once the recording was uploaded to YouTube, Fiorino was charged with disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment, says the Fox article. But, listening to the tape leaves little doubt which party was reckless and disorderly – not to mention foul-mouthed.

This is the third time Fiorino has been stopped for openly carrying, and says that is the reason he carries a recorder. Spokesman Evans said Fiorino was looking for trouble because he was using a recorder.

It will be interesting to see how this case unfolds.

 

Share

Your castle is probably THIS safe.Last week, the Supreme Court of Indiana ruled that an individual may NOT prevent unlawful entry into their home by a police officer. They also ruled earlier in the week, that police do not have to knock before entering if they actually DO have warrant.

In the case Barnes vs. State of Indiana, the court stated, “We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”

Despite the historic cases, which upheld personal rights and were quoted in this case, the court determined, “We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence” (emphasis added).

Background

The right to be safe in one’s home dates back as early as the Magna Carta in the 13th century and has been consistently supported through English Law via Semayne’s case which stated, “The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose.”

This case also stated, “In all cases when the King is party, the sheriff may break the party’s house, either to arrest him, or to do other execution of the K[ing]’s process, if otherwise he cannot enter. But before he breaks it, he ought to signify the cause of his coming, and to make request to open doors…”

This was the basis for our own Fourth Amendment which guarantees, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Although this was originally intended to prevent federal trampling of individual rights, it was upheld to apply across all the states with Mapp vs. Ohio in 1961.

In one week, Indiana courts dismissed both of these rights on behalf of their own citizens.

Indiana Supreme Court’s Rulings

Rather than refusing unlawful entry, the court says the individual should permit it and then seek civil action for the wrongdoing: “Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action.”

In essence, the court places the financial, legal and time burden of addressing official wrongdoing squarely on the backs of the individuals wronged.

So the homeowner, it would seem, is to trust the courts (who have removed their rights to say who can and cannot be welcome in their own home in the first place) to protect them IF they are able to invest in legal fees to fight the court-defined “unlawful entry.” Meanwhile, they should simply ignore the fact that they are no longer safe, by court order, in their own homes to refuse entry without cause or reason. Lovely. Where do I sign up for that in my own state?

The court states, “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest—as evident by the facts of this instant case.”

The official case document also states, “In sum, we hold that [in] Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.”

Change the Law And Apply it in Retrospect? WTH?

And, since this ruling was based on this case (which occurred BEFORE changing the law and ruling that unlawful entry could NOT be resisted) isn’t it interesting that the law was applied after the fact? Since the police officer that entered the individual’s home in this case was “shoved into a door” by the owner, the court ruled, “Because we decline to recognize the right of a homeowner to reasonably resist unlawful entry, Barnes is not entitled to batter Reed, irrespective as to the legality of Reed‘s entry” and the homeowner was charged with battery of a police officer.

From the court document, “Barnes does not dispute his struggle with the officers but contests that his conduct was a lawful response to the officers‘ allegedly unlawful entry into his apartment. Because Barnes is not entitled to resist the entry of the officers, his battery on Reed was sufficient grounds for his arrest, and the uncontroverted fact that he resisted the arrest was sufficient to sustain his conviction.”

Nevermind that AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT the homeowner was protected by law from illegal entry by police. Let’s just ignore that.

Let’s also ignore the fact that a “shove” resulted in the homeowner being tackled and tazered by the officers that had no legal right to be in the house at that time — an event that landed Barnes in the hospital.

The No-Knock Warrant

It’s not really that much of a jump to wonder if a police officer can enter without knocking (with a warrant) and cannot be blocked entry (even if entering without one), what will happen the first time a homeowner is caught off-guard and shoots what he can only reasonably assume is a burglar/trespasser in his home.

And isn’t it ironic that the basis for the No-Knock decision was based on a case wherein the inhabitants were allegedly felons in possession of firearms? In that particular case, perhaps leaving the option to enter the dwelling without knocking first is less criminal and civil law and more Darwinian “law” or probably will be.

To learn more about those cases, view:

Lacey vs. State of Indiana

Wilkins vs. State of Indiana

It will be interesting to see how this is handled when it is (hopefully) appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Update: As of an hour after posting this, the US Supreme court OVERTURNED a Kentucky Supreme Court ruling. The state’s court ruled that entry without a warrant was unconstitutional.

In an 8-1 ruling, the US Supreme Court determined that it was NOT unconstitutional for officers, claiming to have smelled marijuana, to enter a man’s house by force, without a warrant. Read Supreme Court Case Kentucky vs. King.

So much for faith in the highest court in the land…

 

Share

“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”

Second Amendment

Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, is bending to the whims of the media. She recently announced that she will require the release of previously private information from State Police on who is authorized to own a gun. According to Madigan, AP news needs to publish this information, invading the privacy of law-abiding citizens, to have “accountability” for the inner workings of the government. It is a matter of public interest, according to this sunshine loving politician. Never mind about silly issues like the individual’s right to privacy.

In a letter acquired from the Attorney General’s office, parallels are made between the sharing of information between government bodies (as non-invasive toward individual privacy) and the release of this information to the media for publication. This comparison is inane at best. Despite the Illinois State Police Department’s best attempts to show how this was not only an invasion of individual privacy, but an issue of individual and public safety, they were told to produce the information to the Associated Press. Kudos to the ISP, by the way! (Raspberries to the Attorney General.)

The official “letter” quotes as a precedent, a city’s (Chicago) request for information from the federal FOIA records from the ATF. Although in this case the ATF “partially denied the request and withheld the names and addresses of manufacturers, dealer, purchasers and possessors from the Trace Database and the Multiple Sales Database under Sections (b)(6), 7(a) and 7(c) of the Federal FOIA…[it was ruled that] Firearms manufacturers, dealers and purchasers are on notice that records of their transactions are not confidential and are subject to regulatory inspection.”

So, it would seem that the AP is now elevated to the level of a “regulatory” agency by the Attorney General’s office? Surely, a city trying to stop a problem with crime is not on the same “need to know” basis as delivering the information in a tidy little package so any criminal perusing the newspaper can determine their next victim with the same ease that they might decide which classified ad to answer. Although the letter is correct in stating that people purchasing weapons are notified that their information will be shared with law enforcement agencies — NONE of them were told that their names would also be printed in the paper. That comparison holds no water either.

It’s ironic that the Attorney General’s website features such topics as:

  • Defending your rights
  • Advocating for women
  • Safeguarding children
  • Keeping communities safe
  • Helping crime victims

…all the while trampling gun owner’s rights to privacy, putting communities at risk for home invasion, assisting in crimes against women, children and families by advertising who has guns to steal and who is unarmed and easier to make a victim. The Police have taken great trouble to keep the Firearm Owners Identification card information confidential and have resisted following this directive to change that policy.

If you want to support their attempts, The Campaign for Liberty has started an online petition to reverse this decision.

(NOTE: The New York Times recently acquired a similar list for New York residents as did a Roanoke, VA newspaper for Virginia residents. The latter was pulled soon after publication, due to pubic outcry — but that’s too little, too late… don’t you agree?)

 

Share