• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to secondary sidebar
  • Home
  • News
    • 2A
    • Industry
    • Political
    • Press Releases
    • Self Defense
  • Reviews
    • Ammo
    • Gear
    • NFA
    • Optics
    • Pistols
    • Rifles
    • Shotguns
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Submit a Post
  • Contact Us
  • Login/Register
  • Advertise With Us

The Gun Point

Promoting the 2nd Amendment using the 1st Amendment

  • Subscribe to The Gun Point Newsletter
  • Get Social with TGP

Gun Watch

WI: Militant Leftists Attempt to Intimidate Judge in Rittenhouse Case

February 26, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

Screenshot from WISN, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- On Friday evening, 12 February, a group of about a dozen far-left protestors, allied with the DA’s office in Kenosha, called for the removal of Judge Bruce Schroeder, because the Judge followed the rule of law and refused to facilitate the political persecution of Kyle Rittenhouse.

Rittenhouse is being tried for the self-defense shooting of three men who attacked him as he fled from mobs during the Kenosha riots. Judge Schroeder required the DA to follow the rule of law.

Far Left activist Erica Ness, who is white, made these incendiary claims:  From kenoshanews.com:

“Yesterday’s (Thursday) hearing sent a clear message to violent white supremacists: come to Kenosha to kill protestors, and you’ll be supported by the police and the court system,” said Erica Ness, an organizer with Leaders of Kenosha. “Meanwhile, Black and brown folks are having their doors kicked in and are dragged back to jail for the smallest infractions against their bond. This is a gross display of bias, and we’re calling on Judge Schroeder to resign and for Kyle Rittenhouse to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”

Rittenhouse has never been shown to have any associations with white supremacists. The Far Left has defined the common use of the “OK” hand gesture as a symbol of white supremacists. By this standard, anyone who uses the OK gesture is a white supremacist. If it were not taken so seriously by the media, it would be laughable.  Every person who Rittenhouse shot, was white.
Judge Schroeder, in the bond hearing, repeatedly corrected the prosecution on the facts, the law, and bond procedure. The hearing can be seen in its entirety online.   The prosecutor was well aware there was no restriction on where Kyle could reside, in the bond order. The prosecution could have requested such a restriction in the initial hearing but did not do so.
If you wish to understand the protest, watch the hearing for the full 52 minutes.
Ness does not want the rule of law followed. She does not want due process. She wants Kyle Rittenhouse to be punished before any trial, because, apparently, he dared to defend himself against a violent mob that attacked him as he fled. Ness is quoted here.  From WISN.com:

“The judge has said, ‘OK sure, you broke that condition, you didn’t tell us your address, you lied, you don’t have to give people your address anymore.’ That is unprecedented,” Ness said. “This is someone who killed two people in our community and this is someone who continues to galivant around and flash white supremacist symbols and embolden more of this violence.”

At the hearing, Judge Schroeder repeatedly showed these claims (also made by the prosecutor) were false. People routinely forget to file the change of address for the postal delivery, which is the only thing that was missed by Kyle Rittenhouse’s legal team. People who do so are never arrested and jailed for this error, especially when they always appear at court as required.
[embedded content]
Ness appears to believe that because her political prosecutor allies have claimed a person has violated the law, that person no longer has any rights. She wishes the Constitution to be ignored when she wants someone she hates to be punished.
Judge Schroeder refused to be intimidated by the mob.  From radio.com:

Though Schroeder ordered Rittenhouse to give the court his address, which would be kept under seal but refused to increase his bail and have him jailed. The judge also acknowledged Friday’s protesters.
“This case is not going to be decided by demonstrators of one type or another. And, frankly, it’s not going to affect anything that I do,” Schroeder said.

Ness and her allies on the far left are showing how much they detest the rule of law and due process. The only rule of law and due process they are interested in is that which gives them the outcome they desire, on a case by case basis. Instead of due process and the rule of law, they support mob rule, such as was attempted during the Kenosha riots.

The left does not accept the rule of law and due process are how Western civilization has achieved the enormous progress it has made in the last 250 years.
The abandonment of the rule of law and due process leads, inevitably, to Venezuela, Cambodia, and the old Soviet Union.
Judge Schroeder ordered Kyle’s physical location be kept secret from the District Attorney’s  Office, so as to prevent physical violence against Kyle and his family.  The District Attorney Binger was told necessary contact with Kyle can be made through the Court, or by the Sheriff’s department.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Filed Under: 2A, Ammo, Ammunition News, Dean Weingarten, Firearm News, Gun Rights News, Gun Watch, Industry, Kenosha, Kyle Rittenhouse, News, Pistols, RSS Import Tagged With: 2nd amendment rights, 2ndamendment, Ammoland, ammunition, Dean Weingarten, Gun Rights News, Gun Watch, gunrights, Kenosha, Kyle Rittenhouse, professional, RSS Import

Kenosha WI: Huber Gives Judge the Middle Finger at Rittenhouse Hearing

February 22, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

Screenshot from Youtube video of hearing, cropped, scaled and yellow text added by Dean Weingarten.
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- On 11 February 2021, there was a bond hearing for Kyle Rittenhouse, conducted on Zoom, over the Internet, by Judge Bruce E. Schroeder.

[embedded content]

The hearing was requested by the District Attorney Office, represented by DA Thomas Binger.

Those opposing Kyle Rittenhouse had characterized Kyle as dangerous and a white supremacist. There has not been any evidence presented to support this claim, other than claiming the OK hand sign is used by white supremacists. DA Binger appeared to be echoing those claims.
The hearing did not go well for DA Binger. Judge Schroeder corrected DA Binger on using the prejudicial word “victim” inappropriately, misinterpreting the law, misrepresenting fact, and misrepresenting bond procedures.
DA Binger, presumably, had invited one of the men who had attacked Kyle, Gaige Grosskruetz, to the hearing. Also invited (presumably by Binger) was the attorney representing Grosskruetz, Kimberly Motley; the attorney representing the two men who had attacked Kyle and who had been killed,  Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber; and Huber’s Father, John Huber (in the yellow shirt).
Kyle Rittenhouse has always claimed his use of deadly force during the Kenosha riots was justified self-defense.
Rittenhouse can be seen fleeing the mob before the shooting and being attacked in a coordinated manner by three men, two of which had weapons (a pistol and a skateboard).  It is all documented on video from numerous angles.

By the end of the hearing, Judge Schroeder had assured those present he was committed to the rule of law, a fair trial, due process, and respect for Constitutional rights. He stated he would treat everyone in his courthouse without regard to skin color.
Judge Schroeder reiterated his long-standing policy that the word “victim” would not be used in his courtroom because calling some parties involved “victims” prejudges the case.

In ordinary circumstances, this would be applauded and hoped for.
One of the functions of a trial is to determine who was the victim, especially in a self-defense case, where the person being tried claims they were attacked and defended themselves. The people Rittenhouse shot were white.
These are not ordinary circumstances.
Kyle Rittenhouse did not simply defend himself against multiple attackers, two of whom were violent felons (Rosenbaum and Huber). The people Rittenhouse shot were considered to be allies of the violent left.
The philosophy of the violent left holds the system itself as illegitimate, therefore, the rule of law is illegitimate.
The attitude is seen in John Huber’s response.  Huber, without evidence, read a prepared statement smearing Rittenhouse and claiming the people supporting Rittenhouse were “hate groups” and “militia”. Huber holds the laws to be illegitimate:

“Whatever the statutes are, they must be wrong.”

Huber holds the statutes must be wrong because they do not give him the result he wants.
John Huber appeared to make a veiled threat.  John Huber said:

“You’re not going to be free as F.  Justice is going to be served to you. “

Judge Schroeder was gentile with him, probably because he is expected to be a grieving father.
Judge Schroeder carefully explained the law, bail bond procedure, and the facts to the DA. Then he made his ruling.
John Huber’s response was the middle finger salute. A less disciplined and gentle judge than Judge Schroeder might have taken offense, if not for himself, then for the dignity of the court.
Perhaps John Huber has anger issues.
Judge Schroeder let it pass.
It seems unlikely such conduct will be allowed during the trial.
Analysis:

Those on the left have repeatedly shown they do not believe in the rule of law or of due process. They believe the system needs to be destroyed so they can replace it. They desire the rule of man.
Consequently, they show no respect for the rule of law or due process. Some prosecutors seem to have been recruited and have been elected on the premise the rule of law and due process are illegitimate.

About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Filed Under: 2A, Ammo, Ammunition News, Dean Weingarten, Firearm News, Gun Rights News, Gun Watch, Industry, Kenosha, Kyle Rittenhouse, News, Pistols, RSS Import Tagged With: 2nd amendment rights, 2ndamendment, Ammoland, ammunition, Dean Weingarten, Gun Rights News, Gun Watch, gunrights, Kenosha, Kyle Rittenhouse, professional, RSS Import

The Trayvon Hoax, Unmasking the Witness Fraud 2019 – VIDEO

February 21, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

Opinon

[embedded content]

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Joel Gilbert has produced a superb work of investigative journalism. If the old media were not complicit in the hoax, this would be front-page news across the nation. A travesty of justice was perpetrated against George Zimmerman. The two-hour documentary shows how and why it was done.

Full disclosure: This correspondent has written extensively on the Trayvon Martin – George Zimmerman case. I was one of the first to defend George Zimmerman, to declare the case was being used for political purposes. AmmoLand News has also reported in depth on the event with in-person interviews.

Joel Gilbert’s documentary and investigative work are convincing evidence of how the fraud on the court was created, propagated, and promoted for political and financial gain.
Gilbert started his investigation with a desire to document how a far-left, radical mayor, with significant corruption problems, came within a squeak of being elected as the Governor of Florida in 2018. As he looked into the politics of the election, it became clear candidate Andrew Gillum used false perceptions about the Trayvon Martin – George Zimmerman case, fostered and promoted by the Media, to promote his candidacy. Gillum, who has since been involved in more scandals, came shockingly close to winning.
Joel Gilbert decided he needed to know more about the Trayvon Martin – George Zimmerman case. He was able to meet with and interview George Zimmerman. He obtained the entire phone log for Trayvon Martin.
Joel Gilbert does a brilliant job. If you have done investigative work, his competence stands out. He illustrates that 99% of genius is hard work.
The investigative work, clarity of the evidence, and thoroughness of the multiple lines of investigation pursued are superb. This is what serious, well done investigative journalism is and should be.
There is evidence. Well documented, explained and verified. The case put forward by Gilbert is compelling, understandable, and damning.
The star witness in the case was not who she was portrayed to be. It was a deliberate fraud on the court. The evidence Gilbert uncovered is bound to figure prominently in the current lawsuit George Zimmerman has filed against those who defamed him for political and financial gain.
Gilbert does not spend much time on a side plot revealed by his investigation, which may give a glimmer of understanding as to why Trayvon Martin chose to attack George Zimmerman.

Trayvon Martin was 17. He was head over heels in love with Diamond Eugene, a 16-year-old young woman. Their relationship was intense and overtly sexual. Trayvon was spending hours a day on the telephone with Diamond. He did not know she was also in a relationship with another young man. Diamond expected and demanded a lot of time and attention. Just before Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman, Diamond seems to have dumped him. It is in the text messages, as Gilbert illustrates:

Trayvon: u sayd ima waste of yo time
Diamond: it wat it is
Trayvon: u really hurt a n**** feelns
Diamond: it whatever
Trayvon: u done wit m??
Diamond: n**** go fuck a hoe

Could this be why Trayvon felt compelled to attack George Zimmerman? Male humans are often at their most dangerous when they have been rejected by a significant love interest.
Joel Gilbert does not say that was Trayvon’s motive. He does not dwell on this aspect of his investigation.
Most of the investigation is about finding the real Diamond Eugene and linking her to Trayvon Martin, Sabrina Martin, the false witness (Rachel Eugene), Benjamin Crump, and Matt Gutman with irrefutable evidence.
Joel Gilbert uses his fine-tuned skills to develop:
Phone evidence
Handwriting evidence
DNA evidence
Video evidence
It is no small thing to substitute a fake witness in a murder trial for the real witness.
I give The Trayvon Hoax documentary five stars. If you have been interested in the Trayvon Martin – George Zimmerman case, watch this documentary. It reveals how much the nation has been played by those who benefit from racial strife.
Joel Gilbert deserves high praise for doing the work none of the power elite wanted to be done.
The two hours spent watching this documentary is two hours well spent.
The Trayvon Hoax Unmasking The Witness Fraud That Divided America #ad
If you prefer to read the book, it is available at this site.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Filed Under: 2A, Ammo, Ammunition News, Dean Weingarten, Firearm News, George Zimmerman, Gun Rights News, Gun Watch, Industry, News, Pistols, RSS Import, Shooting Industry News, Trayvon Martin Tagged With: 2nd amendment rights, 2ndamendment, Ammoland, ammunition, Dean Weingarten, George Zimmerman, Gun Rights News, Gun Watch, gunrights, professional, RSS Import, Shooting Industry News, Trayvon Martin

Montana Governor Gianforte signs Permitless (Constitutional) Carry

February 19, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

Screen shot from Montana Public Access video, cropped scaled and text added by Dean Weingarten
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- On 18 February 2021, Governor Greg Gianforte signed Montana HB102 into law. The bill is the largest, most comprehensive reform of Montana gun laws in the history of the state. A previous AmmoLand article discussed the details of the law.

Many of the reforms in the law have been sought for decades, but have been thwarted by Montana Governors. Democrat Governors vetoed Constitutional Carry bills three times in the last 15 years.

In 2021, Governor Gianforte said he was looking forward to signing  HB102 on February 4th, in an interview on KGVO.com:

“There are a number of pieces of legislation moving through the Montana legislature,” said Gianforte. “I’m looking forward to getting them on my desk. One of those bills is HB 102, which would provide for constitutional carry here in the state. I’m looking forward to signing that bill, and if there are attempts to infringe on our state’s rights as it relates to our constitutional rights, know that I will work side by side with our Attorney General to oppose any of those efforts.”

HB102 passed the legislature on the 9th of February and was sent to Governor Gianforte on 11 February. A week later, on 18 February, the bill was signed in a video-recorded ceremony.

When a governor publicly signs a right to keep and bear arms bill, it indicates they actually support it, rather than are ashamed of it.
Montana becomes the 18th State to restore Constitutional Carry. Constitutional Carry is a reasonable approximation of a return to the state of law when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. At that time, no permits were required to carry arms either openly or concealed.
The carry of arms was essentially unregulated in the first thirty years of the new republic. Early gun laws were designed to prevent slaves from carrying arms without their owners’ permission.
The regulation of concealed carry by states gained ground after the Supreme Court ruled the bill of rights did not apply to the States in 1833.
Vermont has always had Constitutional Carry. Alaska restored Constitutional Carry in 2003, Arizona in 2010. An additional 15 states followed, including Utah and Montana this year. The other 13 states in order of passage, are:
Wyoming, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Idaho, Missouri, West Virginia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Kentucky.

A study published in the Journal of American College of Surgeons showed no effect on violent crime rates over the 30 years previous to 2019, as nearly all states removed significant restrictions on the legal carry of firearms. From the abstract:

Results
During the study period, all states moved to adopt some form of concealed-carry legislation, with a trend toward less restrictive legislation. After adjusting for state and year, there was no significant association between shifts from restrictive to nonrestrictive carry legislation on violent crime and public health indicators. Adjusting further for poverty and unemployment did not significantly influence the results.
Conclusions
This study demonstrated no statistically significant association between the liberalization of state level firearm carry legislation over the last 30 years and the rates of homicides or other violent crime. Policy efforts aimed at injury prevention and the reduction of firearm-related violence should likely investigate other targets for potential intervention.

The principal reason to restore Constitutional Carry is to restore the rule of law and of limited government. The fact that no have is caused is a good thing. The enormous benefits of the rule of law and the limited government could not be measured by such a study.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Filed Under: 2A, Ammo, Ammunition News, Constitutional Carry, Dean Weingarten, Firearm News, Gun Rights News, Gun Watch, Industry, Montana, News, Pistols, RSS Import Tagged With: 2nd amendment rights, 2ndamendment, Ammoland, ammunition, Constitutional Carry, Dean Weingarten, Gun Rights News, Gun Watch, gunrights, Montana, professional, RSS Import

Detroit AR15 Owner Stops Porch Pirate, Sight of Rifle is Sufficient

February 17, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

Image Screenshot from twitter, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- In the viral video published on Twitter, the armed resident sees a porch pirate taking a package off of the porch. The resident grabs an AR15 type rifle, and confronts the porch pirate.

Link to video on boxden.com

The pirate returns the package, the pirate’s accomplice drives off, and the pirate runs off. It is a “happy ending”. Much could have gone wrong.

This almost certainly occurred in Detroit. It is supposed to have happened on 15 February.  There was plenty of snow on the ground on 15 February in Detroit, so the weather fits.

A commenter on Freerepublic identified the location as Detroit. MotorCityBuck wrote it was likely suburban Detroit, Redford Township:

Looks like Suburban Detroit. Redford Township would be my guess.

This correspondent suspects the pirate is right-handed because he uses the right hand to stabilize whatever is in the front hoodie pocket as he comes up the drive and later when he runs away. A cell phone appears to be in his back right pocket as well. It would be unusual to put a cell phone in an off-hand pocket.
The homeowner allowed the pirate to get too close.  He was only holding the rifle with one hand. A disarm might well have been attempted, and very likely would have been successful. With only one hand on the rifle, the ability to use either the muzzle or the butt as an impact weapon is neutralized.
The video does not make clear what is in the hoodie front pocket. It is heavy enough the pirate feels the need to stabilize it as he walks up, and again as he runs off. This correspondent was unable to determine what it was.
A retired officer I know watched the video and opined it was probably a pistol in the pocket in front, because of the weight and the need to stabilize it. He said pistols do not print well through heavy hoodie material. The outline in the right back pocket looks very like a phone.
Screenshot, scaled, cropped, text and arrow by Dean Weingarten
When armed, and confronting a criminal, don’t let them get within six feet of you. Make sure you have control of your weapon. If it is a long gun, you should have two hands on it.
While Detroit has had poor police response times, they have improved quite a bit. The homeowner likely has the local pulse of what is happening in his local criminal justice system.
He may have believed calling the police was not worth the hassle. In addition, having the perp runoff is a much cleaner and faster solution than attempting to hold a porch pirate on a snowy driveway, at rifle point, when no other weapon has been seen.

Each situation is unique and may require a slightly different response. The porch pirate never threatened the rifleman. The pirate complied fairly quickly. This demonstrates the ability of a well-known firearm to act as a serious deterrent.
The rifleman never had to point the AR15 at anyone, or verbally threaten the porch pirate.
The desired compliance happened because the porch pirate was caught in the act. He knew it, and feared possible retribution.
In a rational society, such an egregious, immoral act as porch piracy would be investigated and prosecuted vigorously.
Phone records could be checked against usage within a hundred yards of the house. That could lead to the vehicle, which could lead to the identity of the perps.
When the system in Detroit is having a hard time seriously investigating homicides, porch piracy is very low on the priority list.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Filed Under: 2A, Ammo, Ammunition News, AR15, Dean Weingarten, Detroit, Firearm News, Gun Rights News, Gun Watch, Industry, News, Pistols, Porch Pirate, RSS Import Tagged With: 2nd amendment rights, 2ndamendment, Ammoland, ammunition, AR15, Dean Weingarten, Detroit, Gun Rights News, Gun Watch, gunrights, Porch Pirate, professional, RSS Import

Kyle Rittenhouse Bond Hearing Held, DA Smears, Judge Corrects

February 15, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

Screen shot from the hearing, cropped scaled and text added by Dean Weingarten
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- On 11 February 2021, there was a hearing requested by the Kenosha District Attorney’s office in the self-defense case involving Kyle Rittenhouse. The shooting occurred during the riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on 25 August 2020. Judge Schroeder of Kenosha presided over the virtual hearing, which was done on Zoom. The hearing was contentious. Judge Schroeder schooled DA Thomas Binger on the law, bond procedure, and the facts several times during the hearing. In the end, the judge denied Binger’s requests and forbade the DA’s office from accessing the location of Kyle Rittenhouse’s abode.

There exists an extensive video of the riots and the shootings, online from several perspectives. The video shows Kyle Rittenhouse running from the mob and shooting armed attackers in self-defense.

The prosecution of Rittenhouse appears to be political in nature, including at least one charge which appears to be contradicted by statute.

DA Thomas Binger from Kenosha started off the hearing, characterizing Rittenhouse as dangerous, irresponsible, and violating the terms of his bond.
[embedded content]
DA Thomas Binger was brought up short by Judge Bruce E. Schroeder, who showed the DA was aware of the issue of where Rittenhouse was staying on the original bond, had the opportunity to request limitations on where Rittenhouse would stay, had not asked for limitations, and no limitations were imposed by the judge. Judge Schroeder explained to DA Binger the difference between a place of abode and an address for receiving notification of court hearings.
Judge Schroeder made clear his policy that people involved in incidents before the court would not be referred to as “victims” before the case was adjudicated.  Calling some parties “victims” is, in effect, pre-judging the case, particularly when self-defense is claimed.
DA Thomas Binger said he filed a motion for a gag order in this case.
The effect of a gag order would be to only allow the prosecution version of the case to appear in the court of public opinion, thus tainting and biasing the jury pool, as well as promoting the DA’s political narrative.
Throughout the hearing, the DA and others DA Binger had invited to the hearing, attempted to smear Rittenhouse with the accusations of white supremacy and to invoke racism.
Judge Schroeder stated he would not involve race in his courtroom and he would not allow anyone to be judged by the color of his skin.
DA Binger and Gaige Grosskruetz’s lawyer, Kimberly Motley, repeatedly made the claim that not knowing a person’s abode was “highly unusual” and “required for all criminal defendants”. Judge Schroeder repeatedly showed this to be false.
The judge pointed out that Rittenhouse has shown up for every hearing, on time. He noted that the court had the cash for the bond.

Judge Schroeder: “I want to have a fair trial in this case. This case is not going to be decided by demonstrators. I do not want to hear about a demonstration.”

DA Thomas Binger admitted he does not have clear and convincing evidence to revoke the bond as required by law.
John Huber is the father of Anthony Huber. Anthony was recorded on video attacking Kyle Rittenhouse with a skateboard and struggling to take Rittenhouse’ rifle before Anthony was shot. Anthony’s father was allowed to make a statement. Huber became confrontational with the judge, about taking off a mask he was wearing. The judge was gentle with him, but Huber took off the mask.
Huber then appears to read a prepared statement characterizing the people supporting Kyle Rittenhouse as “hate groups” and “militia”. The statement seemed to call for punishment now, trial later.  He further smeared Kyle as linked to “White supremacist groups” and appeared to make a veiled threat.
Grosskruetz’s lawyer, Kimberly Motley,  used the word “victims” and called for much greater bond, and the giving of Rittenhouse’s address, asks for electronic monitoring and for movement to be confined. She claims Rittenhouse was “wearing inappropriate attire”, “chugging” three beers over a 90 minute time period. None of the actions she describes, except the mailing address change, were forbidden in the original bond.
Judge Schroeder warned her about using the “victims” term.
When the lawyer for Kyle Rittenhouse, Mark Richards, was allowed to speak. He schooled the DA.  His comments show:
DA Thomas Binger knew from the beginning that Rittenhouse was not living at the Antioch address.
The defense attempted to provide the DA with addresses under seal; the DA refused the restriction.
Kyle has appeared for every court appearance.
Rittenhouse’ Lawyer, Mark Richards, ends with this statement:

“My client will appear. He looks forward to litigating these offenses in your honor’s courtroom. We have nothing to fear, the truth will set my client free.”

Then Grosskruetz’s lawyer, Kimberly Motley, brings up the race card, referring to a separate case in Kenosha.
Judge Schroeder gives a historical explanation. He sums it up with:

 “I am not going to decide anything in this case or in any other, on the basis of the color of someone’s skin.”

The last eleven minutes of the hearing sum up everything. Judge Schroeder explains the law, facts, and procedure. DA Binger make the same arguments he made before. The judge then denies everything to the DA. Here is a transcript of the last 11 minutes of the hearing: It starts with Judge Schroeder, speaking of Kyle Rittenhouse:

Judge Schroeder:

“He was not put under a condition of living at a specific address. That could have been done. The District Attorney apparently was aware of what he now refers to as “flying the coop, was aware of that situation back then, and he didn’t ask for a condition for place of abode, and judge Keating didn’t order it,  so there is no change of circumstances there. I do not believe  it would be  proper to issue a warrant. I do not think that it would be lawful. No matter what feelings anyone has, I took an oath to follow the constitution and uphold the laws, and that is what I am going to do.
It is sad this is getting at the level that it is. I can’t help that. I will tell you that the violation.., well, most of the people who are out on bond, we don’t know where they are.  There are people who are out on bond, who are, they are business people. I have had cases where people are,  they do international business. They fly all over the world while they are out on bond, and there is nothing prohibiting them in that bond. This is a border county. A significant portion of the people who are out on bond are living in Chicago or one of the other collar counties and are in and out available every day.  We don’t have these restrictions on travel except when the judge, following the statute, puts an abode condition on. That was not done in this case. So he didn’t violate anything like that.
I don’t have the authority to issue the warrant the District Attorney is talking about.
I don’t agree with his analysis of what the circumstances, or I should say the procedure, for getting the bond changed.  I get people in here and I do change their bond. Then I tell them to post it by a certain time, or they have to report to the jail. 
If they don’t report, that’s when the warrant is issued. But to issue a warrant now, for a defendant who has appeared at every hearing, I would be breaking the law, and I am not going to do it. 
I disagree with your statement that bail is a privilege. Bail is a right. In the Constitution.

We spoke to the bail that was set. He is in violation of a condition of updating his address.
Lawyer for  Gaige Grosskruetz, Kimberly Motley: Are you talking to me? 
Judge Schroeder: I am talking to everybody.
Actually, if he would have left a forwarding address, that probably would have been full compliance, with the bond order.  We are interested where we can  send notices to the defendant to appear for a hearing or whatever the case may be. He apparently didn’t leave a forwarding address, at least that is the evidence that was returned to the clerk. So he is in violation.
I can tell you, and I talked to the clerk yesterday, to confirm what I thought. There are a very, very, very high percentage of people who are out on bond who, when, because she routinely asks, after a hearing is done; Are you still living at the same address?  
I would estimate the number of cases where the person says yes, is over 10%, maybe significantly more than that, where the people say, yes I have got a new address, and they haven’t notified the clerk. They are in violation. 
I have never jailed one of those people. I have never heard of any other judge jailing those people. I have never seen a bond, a bail jumping violation based on one of those things. 
I have never seen the District Attorney bring anything like that into the court. We amend their address on our record. And, they might get barked at a little bit for violating the court’s order. But that is the extent of what happens.  
And they don’t get a raise in their bond, of a 10% raise in their bond. I can’t recall that ever happening. I am not sure if it has.
He didn’t, he fully is in violation for not updating his address. And that has to be addressed going forward. 
The desire, that the bond, or the request for the defendent’s address be kept from public scrutiny is a legitimate one. What I am going to order is that the actual physical location of the defendant, and it will be his place of abode. If he is going to remove from there he will have to follow the bond conditions, and give us the exact physical location of the place of abode.
And that is to be given to the deputy clerk, working in this court, who will keep it privately, it will not to be part of the public record. It will be given to me, it will be held the same way. and it will to be given to whomever the sheriff designates as the commanding, the person who would be responsible for the full knowledge of the whereabouts of the defendant, and that is to be kept secret by the sheriff’s office. So, is that clear Mr. Richards, what is required.
Kyle Rittenhouse’ Attorney, Mark Richards: It is your honor and you and your clerk will have that by Five O’clock today, and I will have it to the sheriff’s department as soon as I am told who is designated to. 
Judge Schroeder: OK.
DA Thomas Binger: Your honor, is that information to be shared with the our offices too? 
Judge Schroeder: No. The District Attorney’s Office, and the answer is no.
DA: Why not? 
Judge Schroeder: That has nothing to do with you or your office, I think the Sheriff, would be your right arm or left arm, whichever is preferred, in discharging anything that needs to be done. And they are not to share it with you unless you offer good reason. And it is not that I don’t trust you. I think that, again, the less of this, the safer everybody is.  As I said.
You remember what went on six months ago here, I have two broken windows here, right here in this courtroom. The doors are still covered with plywood. A good share of the community is still boarded up after millions of dollars of property damage at this ghastly event occurred.  So, 
DA Thomas Binger: Because we would not be in any way contributing to that but our obligations to help monitor the defendant’s bonds conditions, without knowing were he is at, that becomes very difficult. If I am to file a charge of felony bail jumping, for example for the defendant violating his bond, and I don’t know where he is at that makes if pretty difficult…
Judge Schroeder:  call the court,  … call the court…
And if someone has criticized me for not doing so in the past, and I feel like I need to have this information, and certainly no on this zoom call needs to be reminded of the events of  six months ago. We have the loved ones of two deceased and a victim who was shot in the arm by the defendant that night.
Judge Schroeder: Please do not use the term victim.
DA Thomas Binger: Mr… Mr. Grosscruetz was shot in the arm
Rittenhouse’ Lawyer, Mark Richards: Your honor, if my client, if Mr. Binger wants to…
If my client, If Mr. Binger wants my client to appear on what he is going to do next, which is issue a felony bail jumping, send it to my office. He will be in court the next day. This posturing is not serving any purpose at this point. The Court has ruled. 
DA Thomas Binger: Your honor this is not posturing. This is standard procedure in all criminal cases. that everybody knows were the defendant is.  This is highly unusual for this to be withheld under seal. The court has ruled this can be sealed from the public. But we are not the public. We are the prosecuting agency, we are the prosecutors on this case. And we have a very important right to know this information as the prosecuting agency in Kenosha County. And I have never heard of a situation where this information has been withheld from our office. The sheriff department, you are right, is a law enforcement agency, but we work with them and to withhold them from giving to us, the court from giving to us, to cut us out of that information is not appropriate here.  We are, our office is headed up by the elected DA which is, the chief law enforcement officer in this community. This is murder case. And we are entitled to this information, your honor. We have never been denied this information in any case that I have ever heard of and I, if the court is aware of a case in this history where the you’ve  not shared this information with us,  I would appreciate you sharing that case with us, letting us know what case that was, because this is highly irregular. We have a right to know this.  I would argue the public has a right to know it as well, I can understand the court ruling concealing it from the public. But our office has a responsibility to enforce the laws, enforce the bond here, to file bond, ah, bail jumping charges if there is a violation of that, and we cannot do our job without this information.
Judge Schroeder: The sheriff can keep on top of this, as to whether there is a violation.  That’s where most of your information…  
When I was district attorney, and I know it has been a long time, but, I did not have any investigative staff, except for one investigator, which i won’t go into. But the sheriff department was in charge of reporting bond violations and the like to us. And I think the same situation is good now. 
The hearing is over. Thank you.
DA Thomas Binger: The defendant does not reside in Kenosha County, your honor! The sheriff can’t help …
Judge Schroeder: Thank you
Rittenhouse’ Lawyer, Mark Richards: Good afternoon. 
Judge Schroeder: Good afternoon.
End of hearing. 

If you want the best understanding of the case, the video contains many nuances that are not transmitted in a transcript. A transcript cannot catch facial expressions or inflections in the voices.
Analysis: This is part of a continuing attempt by the prosecution to make the trial into a Soviet-style political trial. There is no legitimate reason for the DA office to be aware of the actual location of Kyle Rittenhouse, given the extra-legal animosity shown to Rittenhouse by the DA office, their political allies, and their continuing attempts to smear him. The judge made it clear if an actual legal issue occurs, the DA need only call the court.
Having the actual location would be immensely valuable to a politically motivated DA. It could be leaked to their allies in Black Lives Matter and to Antifa. The “protestors” could apply extra-legal pressure to Rittenhouse, his family, and his attorneys, as tends to be done in totalitarian regimes. That would make the defense immensely more difficult. The press coverage of such events would play into the public smearing of Rittenhouse.
The “protestors” could stage violent demonstrations, in an attempt to make Rittenhouse’ trial into a repeat of the trial of the officers involved in the Rodney King incident, where some jurors later said, they believed the officers to be not guilty, but found them guilty to avoid another riot.
Judge Schroeder was having none of it. He stopped the political prosecution in this hearing and pointed out the falsehoods and political interpretation of law put forward by the DA.
Judge Schroeder was appointed by a Democrat governor in 1984. He graduated from law school in 1970.  He has been a judge in Kenosha for 34 years. He appears to be the man for the job.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Filed Under: 2A, Ammo, Ammunition News, Dean Weingarten, Firearm News, Gun Rights News, Gun Watch, Industry, Kenosha, Kyle Rittenhouse, News, Pistols, RSS Import Tagged With: 2nd amendment rights, 2ndamendment, Ammoland, ammunition, Dean Weingarten, Gun Rights News, Gun Watch, gunrights, Kenosha, Kyle Rittenhouse, professional, RSS Import

Missouri Removes Prohibition of Weapons on Public Transport for Permit Holders

February 12, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

Missouri Removes Prohibition of Weapons on Public Transport for Permit Holders, iStock-884171048
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- HB 52 in Missouri is written to remove some prohibitions existing in one of the gun free zones in Missouri. It allows people with concealed carry permits to carry their defensive firearms on public transportation. First, the current law.  From House Bill NO. 52, mo.gov:

Paragraph 3(11) of Section 70.441:

(11) Except as otherwise provided under section 571.107, no weapon or other instrument intended for use as a weapon may be carried in or on any facility or conveyance, except for law enforcement personnel. For the purposes hereof, a weapon shall include, but not be limited to, a firearm, switchblade knife, sword, or any instrument of any kind known as blackjack, billy club, club, sandbag, metal knuckles, leather bands studded with metal, wood impregnated with metal filings or razor blades; except that this subdivision shall not apply to a rifle or shotgun which is unloaded and carried in any enclosed case, box or other container which completely conceals the item from view and identification as a weapon;

The bill adds the below addition to 571.107, The addition exempts permit holders, while they are carrying a concealed firearm.

Theoretically, if HB 52 passes, permit holders could still be arrested for the concealed carry any of numerous other weapons, such as knives or clubs.
Here is the relevant new part of Section 571.107, exempting permit holders:

3. Not withstanding any provision of this chapter or chapter 70, 577, or 578 to the contrary, a person carrying a firearm concealed on or about his or her person who is lawfully in possession of a valid concealed carry permit or endorsement shall not be prohibited or impeded from accessing or using any publicly funded transportation system and shall not be harassed or detained for carrying a concealed firearm on the property, vehicles, or conveyances owned, contracted, or leased by such systems that are accessible to the public. For purposes of this subsection, “publicly funded transportation system” means the property, equipment, rights-of-way, or buildings, whether publicly or privately owned and operated, of an entity that receives public funds and holds itself out to the general public for the transportation of persons. This includes portions of a public transportation system provided through a contract with a private entity but excludes any corporation that provides inter city passenger train service on railroads throughout the United States or any private partnership in which the corporation engages.

Missouri passed Constitutional Carry in 2016, overriding Governor Nixon’s veto in that year.
No permit is required to carry concealed weapons in most of Missouri.  Why limit the carry of weapons on public transportation to hidden, unloaded rifles and shotguns for anyone; and hidden pistols for people with concealed carry permits?
The sensible thing would be to prohibit the carry on public transportation to legal weapons by people who may legally carry weapons.
Perhaps this incremental reform is the best which can be moved through the Missouri legislature at this time.
Improvements that seem plausible would be:

Replace “concealed firearm” with “legal weapon“

It makes no sense to allow concealed unloaded rifles and shotguns, and/or loaded handguns, and forbid all other legal weapons.
Alternately, replace:

“carrying a firearm concealed on or about his or her person who is lawfully in possession of a valid concealed carry permit or endorsement”

with

“carrying a legal weapon on or about his or her person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon.”

It makes no sense to trust people to carry all through the state and forbid their carry on public transportation.
It seems the law is designed to disarm poor people.
HB 52 is an incremental improvement. It is better than nothing.
Perhaps the legislature will see fit to improve HB 52 with appropriate amendments.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Filed Under: 2A, Ammo, Ammunition News, Dean Weingarten, Firearm News, Gun Free Zones, Gun Rights News, Gun Watch, Industry, Missouri, News, Pistols, RSS Import Tagged With: 2nd amendment rights, 2ndamendment, Ammoland, ammunition, Dean Weingarten, Gun Free Zones, Gun Rights News, Gun Watch, gunrights, Missouri, professional, RSS Import

South Carolina Has Chance to Pass Open Carry Law

February 11, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

Everytown for Gun Safety is now claiming the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a loophole that needs to be fixed. IMG NSSF.org
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- There are only five states which currently ban the open carry of handguns in most public areas, most of the time. They are: Illinois, New York, California, Florida, and South Carolina. New Jersey and Hawaii ban open carry in practice, but legally, anyone with a permit can open carry. It is just extremely difficult to obtain a permit.

South Carolina is moving toward restoring the right to openly carry handguns in public with House Bill 3094, labeled “Open Carry with Training”.

The bill is reasonably easy to read and understand. From scstatehouse.gov:

TO AMEND SECTION 23-31-210, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF CONCEALED WEAPON PERMITS, SO AS TO ENACT THE “OPEN CARRY WITH TRAINING ACT” BY REVISING THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM “CONCEALABLE WEAPON” TO ALLOW A PERMIT HOLDER TO CARRY A CONCEALABLE WEAPON OPENLY ON HIS PERSON; AND TO AMEND SECTION 16-23-20, RELATING TO THE CARRYING OF A HANDGUN, SO AS TO PROVIDE A PERSON WHO POSSESSES A CONCEALED WEAPON PERMIT MAY CARRY IT OPENLY ON OR ABOUT HIS PERSON IN A VEHICLE.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. This act may be cited as the “Open Carry With Training Act”.
SECTION 2. Section 23-31-210(5) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
“(5) ‘Concealable weapon’ means a firearm having a length of less than twelve inches measured along its greatest dimension that must may be carried openly on one’s person or in a manner that is hidden from public view in normal wear of clothing except when needed for self-defense, defense of others, and the protection of real or personal property.”
SECTION 3. Section 16-23-20(9) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
“(9) a person in a vehicle if the handgun is:
(a) secured in a closed glove compartment, closed console, closed trunk, or in a closed container secured by an integral fastener and transported in the luggage compartment of the vehicle; however, this item is not violated if the glove compartment, console, or trunk is opened in the presence of a law enforcement officer for the sole purpose of retrieving a driver’s license, registration, or proof of insurance. If the person has been issued a concealed weapon permit pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23, then the person also may secure his weapon under a seat in a vehicle, or in any open or closed storage compartment within the vehicle’s passenger compartment; or
(b) carried openly or concealed on or about his person, and he has a valid concealed weapons permit pursuant to the provisions of Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23;”
SECTION 4. This act takes effect sixty days after approval by the Governor.

On Wednesday, 10 February 2021, the South Carolina House Judiciary Committee General Laws Subcommittee passed the bill to the Judiciary Committee for debate. The open carry bill will almost certainly pass the House. From thestate3.com:

In a 3-1 vote down party lines, House members sent the bill to the full House Judiciary Committee, giving the bill its first step to becoming law despite concerns from some in law enforcement. Lawmakers spent two days taking testimony from groups and residents on the bill.

From Ballotpedia, of 124 members of the House, 81 are Republicans, and 43 are Democrats.
Sixty-eight members of the House have signed on as sponsors of the bill. The sponsors are already a majority in the House. They are listed below.

B. Cox, White, Lucas, Burns, Jones, Allison, Caskey, Chumley, Collins, Crawford, Daning, Davis, Elliott, Erickson, Felder, Forrest, Fry, Gagnon, Gatch, Gilliam, Haddon, Hardee, Hewitt, Hiott, Hixon, Huggins, Jordan, Kimmons, Ligon, Long, Magnuson, McCravy, Morgan, Murphy, B. Newton, W. Newton, Nutt, Oremus, Pope, Sandifer, Simrill, G.M. Smith, G.R. Smith, M.M. Smith, Stringer, Taylor, Thayer, Trantham, West, Whitmire, Willis, Wooten, Yow, Robinson, McGarry, Bryant, V.S. Moss, T. Moore, McCabe, Hosey, W. Cox, Bailey, Lowe, Atkinson, J.E. Johnson, Brittain, Bennett , and Hyde .

Both House Majority Leader Gary Simrill and Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey say they support the bill, labeled as “Open Carry with Training”.
From postandcourier.com:

House Majority Leader Gary Simrill, R-Rock Hill, and Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, R-Edgefield, are both on board with the bill, giving it a good chance of passing through both Republican-dominated chambers and making it to Gov. Henry McMaster’s desk.
Simrill said it is a “near certitude” that the bill passes out of the House. Massey said he expects the main issue in the Senate will be fitting it onto a busy calendar, but he believes it is possible they will be able to get it through before the session ends in May.

There are 46 members of the Senate. 30 are Republicans and 16 are Democrats.
The critical question is whether the South Carolina Senate leadership will allow the bill to be scheduled for debate and votes.
Senate members’ biographies and links to emails and phone numbers are available here.

The open carry of handguns in public is one of the most obvious of Second Amendment rights. How is one to bear arms, if not to carry them in public?
The bearing of arms on private property is almost never in question, as the banning of arms on private property has always been up to the property owner.
The government would be stepping on private property owners’ rights to allow (or ban) the carry of arms on private property if it banned them on private property without the consent of the owner.
Logically, that would be forbidden to the government by the 10th Amendment and the Second Amendment.
The bearing of arms in public is not only protected by the Second Amendment.  As strong, symbolic, political speech, it is protected by the First Amendment.
Both rights are under attack by the current powers in the Federal government.
Early attacks on Second Amendment rights claimed concealed arms could be banned because only criminals would wish to conceal their weapons.
The Second Amendment does not differentiate between private property and public areas. Protection of the right to bear arms in public areas would reasonably be what was considered most protected by the original text and context of the Second Amendment.  The right to bear arms on private property is also protected by the Fourth, Sixth, and Tenth Amendments.
Many Second Amendment supporters in South Carolina would like to pass Constitutional Carry instead of Open Carry with Training.
Open Carry with Training is an incremental step toward Constitutional Carry if the votes are not available to pass Constitutional Carry.
The difficulty for Second Amendment supporters is to avoid allowing their opponents to use a loss on Constitutional Carry as a tool to prevent Open Carry with Training from passing, thus preventing any incremental gains in restoring Second Amendment rights.
There is a folk saying: Don’t allow perfect to be the enemy of the good.
The considerable benefit comes from reducing the number of states banning open carry from 5 to 4.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Filed Under: 2A, Ammo, Ammunition News, Dean Weingarten, Firearm News, Gun Rights News, Gun Watch, Industry, News, Open Carry, Pistols, RSS Import, Shooting Industry News, South Carolina Tagged With: 2nd amendment rights, 2ndamendment, Ammoland, ammunition, Dean Weingarten, Gun Rights News, Gun Watch, gunrights, Open Carry, professional, RSS Import, Shooting Industry News, South Carolina

Constitutional Carry and Gun Law Reform HB 102 Passes Montana Senate

February 10, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

Executive action is expected in Montana today concerning permitless carry. iStock-884194872
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- HB102  Passed the Montana Senate on 3 February, 2021, with a strong majority of 29 to 21 votes. The bill is scheduled for debate and a vote in the House on 4 February, 2021. This correspondent expects the bill to pass the House with the Senate amendments, and send the HB102 to Governor Greg Gianforte. Governor Gianforte has been reported as saying he wishes for this bill to be the first bill he signs as Montana’s new Governor.  The bill was extensively considered in a previous article.

Reform bills with similar provisions have been repeatedly vetoed by Democrat governors in Montana for 15 years.

The amendments added to HB102 in the Senate are expected to be acceptable to the House.  As this correspondent reads the bill they are:
– The effective date for changes to University policies has been changed from on passage to 1 June, 2021.

– A gun-free zone has been added to the university exceptions. It is:

(i) the possession of a firearm at an athletic or entertainment event open to the public with controlled access and armed security on site.

– The same training required for Montana concealed carry permits may be required to carry on campus, either openly or concealed, by university regulation. People must be allowed to carry if they meet the requirements.
– The prohibition on carry in places which serve alcohol has been removed.
Here are the various ways the training requirement may be met, under Montana law. From Statute 45-8-321(3) :

(3) An applicant for a permit under this section must, as a condition to issuance of the permit, be required by the sheriff to demonstrate familiarity with a firearm by:
(a) completion of a hunter education or safety course approved or conducted by the department of fish, wildlife, and parks or a similar agency of another state;
(b) completion of a firearms safety or training course approved or conducted by the department of fish, wildlife, and parks, a similar agency of another state, a national firearms association, a law enforcement agency, an institution of higher education, or an organization that uses instructors certified by a national firearms association;
(c) completion of a law enforcement firearms safety or training course offered to or required of public or private law enforcement personnel and conducted or approved by a law enforcement agency;
(d) possession of a license from another state to carry a firearm, concealed or otherwise, that is granted by that state upon completion of a course described in subsections (3)(a) through (3)(c); or
(e) evidence that the applicant, during military service, was found to be qualified to operate firearms, including handguns.
(4) A photocopy of a certificate of completion of a course described in subsection (3), an affidavit from the entity or instructor that conducted the course attesting to completion of the course, or a copy of any other document that attests to completion of the course and can be verified through contact with the entity or instructor that conducted the course creates a presumption that the applicant has completed a course described in subsection (3).
(5) If the sheriff and applicant agree, the requirement in subsection (3) of demonstrating familiarity with a firearm may be satisfied by the applicant’s passing, to the satisfaction of the sheriff or of any person or entity to which the sheriff delegates authority to give the test, a physical test in which the applicant demonstrates the applicant’s familiarity with a firearm.

As listed, there are several available avenues for those who wish to carry on campus to meet the training requirements, including demonstrating to a sheriff their familiarity with a firearm, if the sheriff agrees.
The bill includes numerous other reforms that Second Amendment supporters have been attempting to pass in Montana for years.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Filed Under: 2A, Ammo, Ammunition News, Constitutional Carry, Dean Weingarten, Firearm News, Gun Rights News, Gun Watch, Industry, Montana, News, Pistols, RSS Import Tagged With: 2nd amendment rights, 2ndamendment, Ammoland, ammunition, Constitutional Carry, Dean Weingarten, Gun Rights News, Gun Watch, gunrights, Montana, professional, RSS Import

Utah Amended Constitutional Carry Bill Passes Senate

February 9, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

Constitutional Carry Coming to Utah? The Outlook is Positive
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Utah is very close to passing HB60, a strong Constitutional Carry bill. HB60 passed the House, 54-19. It passed the Senate 22-6. In the Senate, the bill was amended to include the creation of an account to provide funds for suicide prevention.

HB60 creates a restricted account in which the funds collected for concealed carry permits are segregated and used for the administration of the issuance of the permits.

The Senate amendment takes 50% of the funds left over at the end of the fiscal year, from the concealed carry account, and assigns them to a suicide prevention fund, where the focus is to be on firearm safety as related to suicide prevention. From the amended bill:

27 ▸ provides for the transfer of unused funds in the Concealed Weapons Account to the28 Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health for suicide prevention efforts; and29 ▸ creates the Suicide Prevention and Education Fund within the division for suicide30 prevention efforts.

Bureaucrats are very good at using funds they are told they will lose, if not used by the end of the fiscal year. Some may because it will only be 50% of the money left over.  It seems unlikely that very much money will be transferred to the suicide fund.
Because the bill was amended, it has been placed on the conference committee calendar. It is likely the Senate amendment will be accepted by the committee and sent to Governor Spencer Cox.  Governor Cox has said he is supportive of Constitutional Carry and is expected to sign HB60.
Update: HB60 has been approved by the House, signed by the Speaker, and sent for enrollment.
Utah is likely to be either the 17th or 18th state to pass Constitutional Carry. The Montana legislature has passed a significant reform of the state gun laws, with includes Constitutional (permitless) Carry.
Governor Greg Gianforte of Montana has been reported as saying he wishes the Montana Constitutional Carry bill, HB102, to be the first bill he signs into law.
The Utah bill is a stand-alone Constitutional Carry bill. It eliminates most restrictions on concealed carry of firearms by adding a section to existing law. From a previous AmmoLand article:

HB60 accomplishes this in a simple manner. It adds a section to the end of Statute 76-10-504 which says:

(5) Subsection 76-10-504(1) does not apply to a person 21 years old or older who may otherwise lawfully possess a firearm.

Both the Utah HB60 and Montana HB102 contain close approximations of the state of firearms carry law when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. At that time, there were no state or federal prohibitions on the open or concealed carry of weapons in the new United States of America.
Vermont has always had Constitutional Carry.
Fifteen States have restored a reasonable version of Constitutional Carry. The 15 states are, in order of restoration:
Alaska
Arizona
Wyoming
Arkansas
Kansas
Maine
Idaho
Missouri
West Virginia
Mississippi
New Hampshire
North Dakota
South Dakota
Oklahoma
Kentucky
Montana and Utah are likely to be added to the list by the middle of February 2021.  The states started enacting restrictions of the carry of weapons in the early 1800s, to restrict slaves. Most early gun restrictions were designed to keep slaves and minorities disarmed and subservient.

The right to bear arms is one of the last fundamental Constitutional rights to be restored to minorities in the United States. All of the Constitutional Carry reforms are color blind. As no permit is required, no discrimination can be applied in granting permits, as is still common in some states, such as California.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Filed Under: 2A, Ammo, Ammunition News, Constitutional Carry, Dean Weingarten, Firearm News, Gun Rights News, Gun Watch, Industry, News, Pistols, RSS Import, Utah Tagged With: 2nd amendment rights, 2ndamendment, Ammoland, ammunition, Constitutional Carry, Dean Weingarten, Gun Rights News, Gun Watch, gunrights, professional, RSS Import, Utah

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Stay Updated

Get Social With Us

Follow us on Instagram
Check us out on Facebook
Check us out on Facebook
fb-share-icon
Visit us on Twitter
Follow Me
Subscribe

Recent Posts

  • WI: Militant Leftists Attempt to Intimidate Judge in Rittenhouse Case February 26, 2021
  • SCI Foundation “First for Wildlife” Endowment Makes Historic First Grants February 26, 2021
  • Below The Radar – HR 1004 Require Liability Insurance Coverage to Purchase Firearms February 26, 2021
  • Taurus Introduces New Raging Hunter in .460 S&W February 26, 2021
  • Colorado: Multiple Anti-Gun Bills Heading for Committee Hearings Soon February 26, 2021

Posts by Author

  • Ace Luciano (3)
  • contrib1 (440)
  • gunpoint (4)
  • iHunt Esq. (17)
  • John Delmonico (3)
  • Justin Daniel (2)
  • Press Release (266)
  • Suzanne Wiley (1)
  • The Gun Point (4)
  • TJ Ramsey (14)
  • Categories

    Tags

    2a 2ndamendment 2nd amendment rights ak ammo Ammoland ammunition Ammunition News Competition Competitive Shooting News Dave Workman David Codrea Dean Weingarten Democrats War on Guns federal Firearm News Gear glock gunrights Gun Rights News guns gun safety Gun Watch Harold Hutchison hornady John Crump Knife Laws Knife Rights legal National Shooting Sports Foundation NSSF news NRA-ILA pistols press release professional reviews Rob Morse RSS Import ruger Second Amendment self defense gun stories Shooting Industry News Shooting Media News Sig Sauer tactical

    Archives

    https://youtu.be/sYV84qsWZDA

    Kalash Bash 2019

    https://youtu.be/doURnvMV8Yc
    https://youtu.be/iILbqshYyr8

    Secondary Sidebar

    This should end the shotgun, pistol and rifle home This should end the shotgun, pistol and rifle home defense debate
.
.
.
.
.
@the__last__roman
 #freedom #liberty #libertarian #libertarianmemes #2ndamendment #ancap ##gun #guns #gunsofinstagram #gunsdaily #gunsandgirls #pewpew #pewpewlife #firearms #firearmstraining #firearmsdaily #firearmsphotography #tactical #tacticalgear #tacticool
    Do you Elf on a Shelf? . . . #gunmemes #guns #2a # Do you Elf on a Shelf?
.
.
.
#gunmemes #guns #2a #elfontheshelf #secondamendment #2ndamendment #pistol #9mm
    Hmmmm...thoughts? . . #glock #gunmemes #pistol #9m Hmmmm...thoughts?
.
.
#glock #gunmemes #pistol #9mm #2a #2ndamendment #pewpew #gunlife #secondamendment
    Guilty - 🤦🏼‍♂️ . . Reposted • @bwan Guilty - 🤦🏼‍♂️
.
.  Reposted • @bwanaluciano #guilty #pewpew #2ndamendment #2a #gunmemes #gunlife #kalashlife #rifle #firearms #secondamendment
    Liberal Logic . . RePosted • @common_sense_liber Liberal Logic
.
.
RePosted • @common_sense_liberty 
#liberty #secondamendment #2a #politics #guns #2ndamendment #constitutionalcarry #merica #election2020
    Load More... Follow on Instagram
    Visit Fiercepatriots.com

    Copyright © 2021 — TheGunPoint.com • All rights reserved. • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • Sitemap

    dummy dummy dummy