Mediaboss Marketing

RAMSEY, N.J. Amidst threat of a lawsuit from the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, the Ramsey Borough Council Wednesday held off on adopting an ordinance that would prohibit firearms from being discharged at shooting ranges within the borough.

The council voted to table the ordinance until the next council meeting on Feb. 22.

We are in the process of obtaining a national law firm to represent the borough pro-bono in the event of litigation since the New Jersey Second Amendment Society has threatened the borough with costly and protracted litigation if we move forward with the amendment, Ramsey Mayor Deirdre Dillon told a packed meeting room.

The borough attorney advised the mayor and council to table to the ordinance until that law firm is retained, Dillon said.

The ordinance at issue, introduced last month, revises one currently on the books that prohibits the firing of any pistol, shotgun, rifle or other type of firearms anywhere in the borough, but exempts indoor and outdoor firing ranges.

The revisions to ban the use of firearms at shooting ranges as well were introduced after the borough received an application to create a 60,000-square-foot indoor firing range at the former Liberty Travel building on Spring Street. An application for the facility dubbed the Screaming Eagle Club is pending with the Ramsey Planning Board.

RELATED: With Firing Range Pending, Ramsey To Consider Tightening Gun Law

New Jersey Second Amendment Society President Alexander Roubian sent a letter to the mayor and council on Feb. 1, stating: Our legal team is currently preparing the necessary Complaint to file with the N.J. District Court in the event the Ordinance is passed; however we ask that the proposed ordinance be pulled from the agenda so we can work together on an amicable solution without the need for costly litigation.

Roubian, a graduate of Ramsey High School, addressed the mayor and council in person Wednesday. We are very confident that we have a very, very good case here, he said, warning prevailing parties will be recovering their legal fees.

It is a chance we are willing to take, Dillon responded.

A string of additional speakers took to the mic to voice their concerns about both safety and Second Amendment issues.

RELATED: Ramsey Residents Say 'No' To Proposed Indoor Shooting Range

We like the town the way it is, a bucolic beautiful town that is safe for our children, said Ramsey resident Ellen OKeefe.

Andrew Stravitz, of Allendale, pointed out that the Waldwick Pistol & Rifle Club has been a few miles away from Ramsey for about 50 years. In 50 years, zero injuries in the shooting range over there, he said.

Barbara Puccia, of Ramsey, said It only takes one, and one person only, that has bad intentions that can cause a tragedy in this town.

Read the rest here:
Second Amendment Group Threatens Lawsuit, Ramsey Tables Gun ... - Hackensack Daily Voice

A bill introduced in Tennessee on Wednesday would make it cheaper to buy a gun for one weekend of the year in that state, with a special tax-free event.

Surprisingly - a county Democratic official opposes the idea.

WJHL reports, State Rep. Dennis Powers, introduced House Bill 744 or Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday. The measure would remove the sales tax on guns and ammunition during the first weekend of September. The proposal is similar to the tax-free back-to-school holiday weekend Tennessee holds at the end of the summer.

Were ecstatic about it, it would be great for our business, Tri-Cities Gun Depot Co-Owner, Tommy Isaacs told WJHL.

Isaacs even said his shop would reduce prices for what hes calling back to school for hunters.

Nancy Fischman, Chair of the Washington County Democratic Party would like to see lawmakers focus on other issues.

Why doesnt he propose a sales tax holiday for groceries? You have to eat but you dont have to buy a gun, Fischman tells WJHL.

If the Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday, were passed - it would take effect this September, joining similar Second Amendment Sales Tax Holidays in Louisiana and Mississippi.

Thank you for supporting MRCTV! As a tax-deductible, charitable organization, we rely on the support of our readers to keep us running!Keep MRCTV going with your gift here!

Continued here:
Tenn. Considers 'Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday' - MRCTV (blog)

Several of the legislators at a forum last week at the Daniel Boone Regional Library recited their support of Second Amendment gun rights.

Among them were state Rep. Chuck Basye, R-Rocheport, who described himself as a "huge Second Amendment supporter," and state Rep. Kip Kendrick, D-Columbia, who said both he and his wife hunt.

Another was state Rep. Cheri Toalson Reisch, R-Hallsville.

"I do support the Second Amendment," Reisch said at the forum, which was sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Columbia-Boone County and The Daniel Boone Regional Library.

Susan Fields, who was in the audience, said she did not know Reisch was a lawmaker before Reisch sat down at the table with the other legislators. However, she said that earlier in the evening she had overheard Reisch requesting a police presence over her cellphone as she walked toward the library. Fields said she also heard Reisch saying she feared for her safety and that she had a gun in her purse.

Fields said Reisch was speaking loudly enough to easily be heard.

"It was unsettling, and I was kind of rattled," Fields said. Inside the crowded room, she said, Reisch was mingling when Fields told a man standing next to her: "That woman has a gun in her purse."

"Reisch turned around and said to me, 'That's the Second Amendment, honey,'" Fields said. "She called me 'honey,' and that pissed me off."

Fields said she supports the Second Amendment and has guns in her home in southern Boone County. But she said it was reckless of Reisch to bring a gun to a crowded forum at a public library.

The library is posted with signs prohibiting firearms, and library policy says guns and other weapons are prohibited, unless authorized by law. Punishment can include losing library privileges or access to library buildings. Columbia city ordinance prohibits guns in all city-owned buildings, but city spokesman Steve Sapp said that law does not apply to Daniel Boone Regional Library because it is its own political subdivision.

"We have asked our attorney to take another look at this because we know the law is not really clear," said Daniel Boone Regional Library Associate Director Elinor Barrett.

Maj. Tom Redden of the Boone County Sheriff's Department oversees permitting of concealed guns in the county. He referred to the list of locations in state law where concealed guns are prohibited, including schools, airports, courthouses, polling places on election day, at government meetings and in jails and prisons. Libraries, except law libraries in courthouses, are not on the list.

New state laws that took effect Jan. 1 allow adults to carry concealed weapons without a permit. The law expands the state's "castle doctrine" permitting homeowners and their guests to use deadly force against intruders. It also creates a "stand your ground" right, which allows people to shoot without retreating to protect themselves. A defendant in a recent Columbia shooting told police he thought the law allowed him to shoot a man who allegedly stole his cellphone.

Missouri law now prohibits concealed firearms on university and college campuses, as do University of Missouri System regulations. Bills designed to reverse the law were introduced in the 2016 legislative session, but none passed.

"Of all the people in the room, she was the most threatening," Fields said. "She was armed."

Another audience member who had a conversation with Reisch after the formal question-and-answer session said Reisch told her she had a gun in her purse at the meeting because she was fearful.

"I don't think that's anybody's business" if I had a gun, Reisch said when a Tribune reporter asked about the conversation.

MacKenzie Everett-Kennedy, a Hickman High School teacher who helped encourage people to attend the forum to question lawmakers, was in the audience packed into the library's Friends Room. The legislators stayed after the formal question-and-answer session to talk individually with audience members.

Everett-Kennedy said she approached Reisch to talk with her about school safety and keeping guns out of schools. Everett-Kennedy said Reisch steered the conversation toward gun rights and mentioned she had a gun in her home to protect herself.

Everett-Kennedy said Reisch appeared nervous. She said Reisch told her that as she was walking toward the library and realized there was a large crowd inside, she walked back to her car to get her purse. Then Reisch proclaimed she had a gun in her purse, Everett-Kennedy said.

"She felt like it was a hostile crowd," Everett-Kennedy said. At one point in the meeting, a man shouted "liar" at Reisch and continued shouting as he left the room, but the man never approached her.

"I did feel very uncomfortable," Reisch said in an interview. "It was a very unruly crowd. I felt very unsafe. The crowd was very hostile."

Everett-Kennedy said she did not agree with Reisch's characterization of the crowd. She described the people in the room as impassioned and sometimes emotional, but not in any way threatening.

Carol Schreiber, secretary of the local League of Women Voters, said she didn't think anyone was in any danger at the meeting. She said she rose to usher out a man who made an outburst but that otherwise the audience was respectful of the legislators. She said there was some grumbling from the audience, but the moderator kept things under control.

"There was a little more reaction than there would be if there were 50 or 60 people in the audience," she said.

Reisch said she had no comment when a Tribune reporter asked whether people entering the library should obey postings there prohibiting firearms.

"Maybe I should have let your call go to voice mail. I'm at work, and I have three jobs," Reisch said. She did not respond to a phone message seeking a follow-up interview.

Read the rest here:
Signs posted, but law not clear on guns in libraries - Columbia Daily Tribune

In Connecticut, Governor Malloy is moving to increase the cost of a firearms permit. The New Haven Register reports:

Gun owners will see huge increases in permit fees that would raise millions of dollars to help the state combat its two-year, $3.6 billion deficit.

As part of his budget, Malloy is proposing to increase the state portion of the pistol permit fee from $70 to $300. He also is proposing the cost of the initial 5-year pistol permit fee from $140 to $370.

The increase in fees for gun owners will bring in another $9 million to the state annually, according to the governors budget estimates.

Additionally, Malloy is proposing to increase background check fees from its current $50 to $75.

If he is successful, that will set the cost of a first-time gun permit at $445, and the cost of renewal at $300.

Although I strongly disagree with it, I understand the intellectual case in favor of pistol permits per se especially in states such as Connecticut, where a permit acts as a one-time permission slip to do everything associated with guns (buy, own, carry, etc.). In the view of the gun-control movement, the permitting system serves to weed out those who are disqualified from ownership, as well as to ensure that the police know who is carrying and who is not. Because the system is open to abuse, leads to situations such as Carol Bownes, and seems to have no positive effect in comparison with similar states that dont issue permits (see Vermont and Maine), I strongly oppose it. But I can at least acknowledge the argument. Guns are dangerous weapons. Its not inherently unreasonable to want some regulation, nor, if a permitting system is to exist, to ask users to cover their costs.

I cannot, however, understand the argument in favor of high fees for pistol permits.If the case for permits is to distinguish between the law-abiding and the criminal, the case for high fees is to distinguish between the rich and the poor. In and of itself, that is disgusting. But applied to a constitutionally enumerated right that has been routinely recognized as such by the Supreme Court? Thats pitchfork time. And to come from the Democratic party, which views itself as being on the side of the poor, and which is institutionally opposed to voter identification laws on the grounds that one should not have to pay or be inconvenienced in order to vote? Thats just too much. (Why isnt this a poll tax or Jim Crow? And you cant answer, because I choose not to accept that the Second Amendment exists.)I understand that Governor Malloy doesnt like guns. But I also dont care. The law is the law. He doesnt get to edit the Bill of Rights.

The best case that can be made is that Malloy is trying to balance the budget on the backs of those whose behavior he dislikes. In a vacuum, this would be unpleasant. But when the behavior in question is legally protected, it is an outrage. Make no mistake: This isnt about covering user costs;its not about safety; and its not about Newtown. Its about astate government being willing to restrict a core individual rightbecause it happens to dislike its scope. I can only hope that the state Senate now split evenly between Democrats and Republicans puts the kibosh on the idea post haste.

Read the original:
Connecticut Moves to Restrict the Second Amendment to Rich People - National Review

Florida state law 790.33 articulates, in short, that only the Florida State Legislature can and will regulate statewide laws encompassing anything firearms and ammunition related. This law is in place to ensure the state of Florida in its entirety remains consistent withgoverning gun laws. This safeguardslaw-abiding citizens from beingprosecuted for crossing a county or municipality line and accidentally violatinga local firearm law. Add to that the fact that misinformation or accidental ignorance can become an issue, when these laws can become extraneous and too numerous for the well-intended citizen to keep track of.

While Florida state law renders alllocal firearms laws moot, unfortunately, somelocal laws are still alive in certain municipalities and have remained in place because of an effort to exert some level of local autonomy. These municipalities are aware that these ordinances are illegal in the big picture, but refuse to erase them from their books.

The Florida state legislature further regulatespenalties on anyone who chooses to obstruct the state laws by imposing their illegal ordinances.

Tallahassee Mayor, Andrew Gillum, found himself named as a defendant in a lawsuit brought against him by Florida Carry and the Second Amendment Foundation with support of the NRA. The Mayor defends his position, and refuses to remove a law still on the books. This law states that no guns shall be fired in parks located within the city limits of Tallahassee.

The judge in this case recently ruled in favor of the Mayor and all city officials named, finding there has been no wrong-doing on their part. The ruling is currently under appeal, based upon the constitutionality of this law.

Gillum feels he is within his right, as an elected official to enforce and uphold laws that are in his constituents best interests. He feels the state oversight is in direct opposition to what he was elected to do.The flip side to that is that picking and choosing what to uphold is counter-intuitive, andone of the fundamental elements tothis appeal.

What the Mayor is seemingly overlooking with State Law 790.33 is the bigger picture and how it affects all law-abiding gun owners and concealed carriers who reside within his governance and are some of the individuals who elected him into office.

With the appeal of the decision of the district court, its going to be up to Court of Appeals to consider the final outcome.

All law-abiding gun ownersof Florida should pay close attention the outcome of this case could have huge implications for them moving forward.

Author's Bio: Pamela Jablonski

Continue reading here:
Inconsistent Florida Firearm Laws Pose Potential New Threat to ... - Bearing Arms