Looking for feedback positive or negative. Please let me know what you think about this for a business card.
New GunTrust Business Card
How to Explain a Gun Trust to Family or Friends who are not Pro Firearms Rights
Recently my wife was in New York visiting some family when they attempted to convince her that I, her husband, was helping criminals avoid background checks and arming them with machine guns, assault weapons, and other “illegal” firearms. Additionally, the opined that my NFA Gun Trust Lawyer® website was a radical Gun Rights forum.
While I would not find this hard to believe coming from people who live in the Northeast, I did find it hard to believe from transplanted New Yorkers who live in Texas and been surrounded by individual gun owners and guns being a part of the culture. In trying to explain what I do to some family members including my wife, I found that there were some basic misunderstandings of the process, and the state of the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution as the Supreme Court interpreted it last year. I decided that this would be valuable for many of my clients who are often dealing with similar issues. Many people have family members or friends who are uneducated on the current status and interpretation of the Second Amendment. As a result many people feel that there is an interpretation issue surrounding what the Second Amendment means. While the Supreme court in a divided court found in favor of the individuals right to own a firearm, they unanimously found that the Second Amendment applied to an individuals right to keep and bear arms and not to that of a state. We are at a time in history, when many of our rights involved in gun ownership are at risk. Even though our current administration states that they support the Second Amendment, the do not support it as it has recently been interpreted and have an agenda posted on their website under urban plans to ban assault weapons. They are currently trying to define an assault weapon as any firearm that have a removable cartridge.
While some people are not “pro-firearms,” they still may believe in the ability for others to exercise their 2nd amendment right if they so choose. This is similar to people that are “pro-choice” on abortion issues, but do not impose their beliefs on others. In the United States, women have the right to choose (within limitations) and Americans have the right to own firearms (within limitations), without unnecessary burdens or restrictions from the State government. Whether or not you choose to possess the firearm is a decision that should be up to you just as other individual rights that are guaranteed to us in the US constitution.
Ohio’s Pro-Gun Attitude and Enactment of the Castle Doctrine
Recent amendments to the Ohio Concealed Carry laws exemplify an increasingly pro-gun sentiment in the state. In particular, the legislature enacted Senate Bill 184 as an amendment to Ohio’s Concealed Carry law, more commonly referred to as the Castle Doctrine, into law on June 10, 2008. By passing the bill through legislature with tremendous support (31-0 in the Senate and 73-23 in the House), Ohio follows states such as Texas, South Carolina, Florida, Kentucky, and 14 others, in protecting the right of gun owners to protect their “castle.”
A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one’s place of residence, or any place legally occupied, as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. Ohio R.C. § 2901.05(C)(2), (3). It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her “castle”), or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. Ohio R.C. §2901.05(B)(1), Ohio R.C §2901.09(B). The legal effect of the Castle Doctine is to protect the homeowner from criminal or civil suit resulting from the use of deadly force which actually results in death.
Continue reading
NYC Lawsuit Against America’s Firearms Manufacturers Denied By U.S. Supreme Court
On Monday, March 9, the U.S. Supreme Court denied consideration of New York City and Washington, D.C. lawsuits, New York v. Beretta and Lawson v. Beretta. The suits were trying to hold American gun manufacturers responsible for the acts of criminals. The Supreme Court ‘s order leaves standing a pair of decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and District of Columbia Court of Appeals, both of which found that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), enacted in 2005, prevents these types of lawsuits against lawful firearms manufacturers and dealers.
“Big city mayors conceived these lawsuits to try and litigate American gun manufacturers – who President Roosevelt referred to as “the arsenal of democracy” – out of business,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist.
In 2000, New York City, Washington, D.C. and several individual plaintiffs sued gun manufacturers, based on the idea that although they manufactured a legal product, forcing them to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees just to prove their innocence in court would drive them into bankruptcy. In addition to being based on a bogus legal theory, these lawsuits endangered American armed forces and law enforcement. During congressional debate over the PLCAA, the Department of Defense agreed with the NRA that bankrupting U.S. gun makers and making us dependent on foreign countries like France, Russia or China for small arms is a threat to America’s domestic and international security.
Gun Trust Lawyer® Blog Named on 50 Best Gun Enthusiast Blogs
A Criminal Justice information website has named NFA Gun Trust Lawyer® Blog one of the 50 Best Blogs for Gun Enthusiast. The list has us as number 18 and the first under Rights, Law, & Politics. They break down the list into the following categories:
- Celebrating Guns -These bloggers are just plain old gun lovers.
- Gear – Read up on the latest in gun gear on these blogs.
- Rights, Law & Politics – Learn about your rights, and how they are affected by law and politics from these blogs.
- Self-Defense – Find out how citizens are defending themselves through these blogs.
- Shooting Sports – Check out these blogs to learn about competitive shooting.
- Hunting – These blogs celebrate the thrill of the hunt.
Where can my NFA firearms be stored?
Under the NFA, there are no specifics on what type of storage device should be used to safeguard the NFA firearms. Most people tend to use gun safes that have key or combination lock. If necessary one can even use a separate lock inside of a safe to limit access to the firearms.
While it is permissible to use a locked drawer or closet to restrict access, one must realize that such a limited restriction on access will comply with the federal requirements but may create potential personal liability for damage done by the devices under a theory of negligence. If someone with a propensity to cause harm is able to easily circumvent the restricted access and you have knowledge of the risk, you can be held responsible under you state’s negligence laws for damages that result in your breach of duty by allowing them easy access to the items.
In other words while a gun safe is not a statutory requirement under federal law, it might be a good idea if someone who has access to your home might injure others through easily accessing the items.
South Carolina law relating to Title II firearms, Class 3 tax stamps, and the NFA
Under the South Carolina Code Section 16-23-220, it is unlawful to possess most Title II weapons. These weapons are listed in South Carolina Code Section 16-23-210, and include machine guns, sawed off shotguns, and sawed off rifles. However, a person may possess these Title II weapons if he or she falls under an exemption listed under Section 16-23-250 or Section 23-31-330. Most South Carolina gun owners will fall under Section 16-23-250 which permits persons to own such Title II weapons if they are authorized to do so by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). Therefore, if a person is approved by the AFT to own the Title II weapon, he or she may possess the weapon in accordance with South Carolina law.
At Law Office of David M. Goldman PLLC, we focus on creating NFA trusts across the nation, including South Carolina. Our South Carolina NFA trusts comply with Federal and South Carolina firearms laws and can benefit you in numerous ways. In addition to the many protections created for your family, a South Carolina NFA firearms trust can help you acquire Title II weapons without the need for fingerprints or Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) sign off on your Form 1 or Form 4 Application. To learn more about the advantages of creating a South Carolina NFA trust, contact a South Carolina Gun Law Lawyer.
Florida Can’t Keep Up With Concealed-Carry Requests
Florida is buried under a backlog of 95,000 applications for concealed-carry permits, and it needs to hire a lot more people to handle the paperwork, reports the Miami Herald. Floridians in record numbers want to carry concealed firearms, a trend linked to a surge in crime, economic anxiety and fears of stricter gun laws, says the paper, and a legislative panel has given the state’s agricultural commissioner permission to spend $3.9 million more to hire 61 temporary workers.
Wyoming changes who’s concealed firearms permits they will honor
The Wyoming Attorney General’s Office recently completed examination of the other 49 states statutes for the purpose of honoring concealed firearms permits issued by another state, or reciprocity. Pursuant to Wyo. Stat.
Ann. § 6-8-401(a)(iii), Wyoming will recognize a permit from another state that “has laws similar to the provisions of this section, as determined by the attorney general . . ..”
The Wyoming Attorney General has determined that with the exception of 8 states,
Zero Tolerance, Zero Common Sense
Here we go again. In yet another case of over reactive, one-size-fits-all, “zero-tolerance,” zero-common sense enforcement, Marie Morrow, an honors student and drill‑team commander in the Young Marines, was recently expelled from school. Her crime? She left three rifle shaped drill team props in the back of her car at Cherokee Trail High School in Aurora, Colo. Colorado law mandates expulsion for any student found with a “dangerous weapon” on school grounds, which includes “a firearm facsimile that could reasonably be mistaken for an actual firearm.”
The non-operative rifle props are used during drill routines, where the facsimiles are spun and tossed. The props are made of wood and plastic, are heavily duct‑taped and, of course, cannot function and were never intended to. Morrow had brought them to school because she was preparing for a competition at the Air Force Academy in April and planned to attend a practice right after school.
According to an article
in today’s Washington Times, Morrow hadn’t told anyone about the props,