Bill Widdle Takes On The Second Amendment.

Bill Whittle is one of the favorite authors and bloggers of some of the staff here at Raised on Hoecakes. Here, Widdle takes on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Tired of listening to Progressives tell you that the Second Amendment only allows people in militias to keep and bear arms? Or that the Founders would have never intended the Second Amendment to apply to modern weapons? In his latest FIREWALL Bill recounts a remarkable conversation about the precise wording of the Second Amendment, and sums up why the document says what it means and means what it says.

“War On Women” Smacks Dartmouth Student In Her Mouth.

Taylor Woolrich (Courtesy Facebook)

Taylor Woolrich
(Courtesy Facebook)

Taylor Woolrich is a 20 year old California resident who is attending Dartmouth. The Dartmouth junior has been the subject of a stalker since she was 16 years old.

Richard James Bennett and Woolrich met when she was working in a coffee shop in California. After serving the 67 year old Bennett, he began to return to the coffee shop just to watch her. He began stalking her. He attacked her boyfriend and showed up on the doorstep of her home.

In doing so, Bennett violated at least three restraining orders, the last violation has landed him in jail where bail has been set at $300,000.

Quite simply the guy won’t give up.

Even moving across the country to attend Dartmouth has not stopped Bennett from stalking Woolrich. Woolrich found her at Dartmouth and started sending her messages there, saying that he would be coming to visit her.

Understandably, Woolrich is worried about her safety and did what any person would do – she sought to protect herself.

Woolrich asked Dartmouth for permission to carry a handgun on campus.

Dartmouth declined basically saying they make no exceptions to their “no handgun policy” on campus. The fact that a student attending the school is in jeopardy makes no difference to the school.

Perhaps Dartmouth was worried about the danger of a handgun on campus. That would make sense except the facts don’t support their fears:

A Couple Of Updates!

Update-Keyboard-ROHA few days ago we posted how a court had struck down handgun laws in Washington, D.C. because they effectively banned weapons and therefore were contrary to the Second Amendment and previous Supreme Court rulings.

After the ruling, the City sought a 180 day stay of the decision which would allow them to craft new regulations on weapons in D.C. The lawyers for the opposing party agreed to a 90 day stay and eventually, that is what a judge agreed to as well.

So for now, the old, un-Constitutional rules are still in effect until the DC City Council can figure out what they can do next to try and deprive citizens of their rights.

As lawmakers get to work, D.C. police returned to past arrest practices. Ten minutes after the judge granted the reprieve at 1:20 p.m., Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier rescinded orders hurriedly issued Sunday night and told 4,000 officers that “all laws related to firearms regulations and crimes remain in effect.”

But the chief also reminded officers to handle firearms cases “with caution,” noting that the public may not be aware that the old gun laws are at least temporarily back in force.

Yesterday we posted how the Department of Justice was suing the Pennsylvania State Police over the physical testing standards used to applicants to the Police.

After a little more research, we found a website where the Pennsylvania State Police give the standards in more detail than the DOJ’s complaint.

Here are the standards for applicants:

Palmer v. D.C.

Washington-Handgun-ROH On Saturday, a District Court for Washington DC handed down its decision in a case called “Palmer v. D.C.

The opinion invalidated as unConstitutional laws having the effect of banning the carrying handguns in the District of Columbia.

From the decision:

D.C. Code § 7-2502.01(a) provides that “no persons or organization in the District shall possess or control

any firearm, unless the persons or organization holds a valid registration certificate for the firearm.”

D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) provides that individuals who are not retired police officers may only register a handgun “for use in self-defense within that person’s home.”


Defendants require gun registration applicants to submit “[p]roof of residency in the District of Columbia (e.g., a valid DC operator’s permit, DC vehicle registration card, lease agreement for a residence in the District, the deed to your home or other legal document showing DC residency.”

A first violation of the District of Columbia’s ban on the ownership or possession of unregistered handguns is punishable as a misdemeanor by a fine of up to $1,000, imprisonment of up to five years, or both. See D. C. Code § 7-2507.06. D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) provides that “[n]o person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed.” The first violation of this section by a non-felon is punishable by a fine up to $5,000
and imprisonment of up to five years.

“Attempted Possession Of Unlawful Ammunition?”

Washington-Map-Shells-Lamp-Cropped-ROH The story of Washington D.C. resident Mark Witaschek goes back to the summer of 2012. Emily Miller of the Washington Post gives a brief history:

Mr. Witaschek, a successful financial adviser with no criminal history, is the first known case of a citizen being prosecuted in D.C. for inoperable ammunition. Washington police and prosecutors have spent a year and a half trying to nail him for the possession of so-called unregistered ammunition.

A hunter and gun owner, Mr. Witaschek has always kept his firearms at his sister’s house in Virginia. If convicted, he

faces a year in jail and a $1,000 fine for having a single, inoperable shotgun shell in his home. The jury trial starts on Feb. 11.

The Metropolitan Police Department raided Mr. Witaschek’s rented Georgetown house twice in the summer of 2012 on the word of his angry ex-wife.

The first raid was done without a proper search warrant. The police found a box of rifle cartridges found in a closet but because the search was illegal, as evidence the box of cartridges was thrown out.

The police returned for a second search and this time, armed with a warrant, they found an antique Colt revolver (which is legal in the District of Columbia,) a holster (also legal), a shotgun shell that had misfired and was inoperable, and a box of muzzle loading sabots.


Sabots are plastic covers that make it easier to push the bullet into a muzzleloader gun. There is no propellent on the bullet or sabot — because the gunpowder is separated — so it is not clear that it can be categorized as ammunition and thus only registered gun owners can possess it.

The 12 gauge shotgun shell was a remnant of a hunt in which Witaschek had participated. At trial, Witaschek was put on the stand:

Defense attorney Howard X. McEachern asked his client to explain how he came to have a shotgun shell on his desk

at his home in Georgetown. Mr. Witaschek explained that he kept the shotgun shell as a “souvenir” from a hunting trip in southern Virginia with friends in 2006.

He said that as a deer approached, “I raised the shotgun, took aim, fired and nothing happened.” He looked up and saw the deer run straight into a tree.

9th Circuit Issues Stunning 2nd Amendment Ruling.

Ninth-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals-ROHWho would have thought this from the 9th Circuit?

The San Diego County has a law that does not allow either for open carry or concealed carry of a weapon. One may apply for a permit, but one cannot use the claim of wanting a permit on the basis of “general security” or “general self protection.” In other words, you must give a specific reason for the claim of self-protection (ie a stalker) and not just a “general security” reason such as “I want a weapon for self defense.”

In an appeal from a District Court, the 9th Circuit was “called upon to decide whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.

The result?

Held: That requirement is impermissible. The right of self-defense is enshrined in the Constitution. Citizens of sound moral character applying for a carry license to not have to document or even claim some particularized, outside-the-“mainstream” need for personal self-protection. They have that right generally.

San Diego’s policy of requiring a showing for special cause is stricken.

The decision goes on to say that San Diego may choose to ban open carry or concealed carry, but not both.

However, as our friend Walter Olsen at the CATO Institute notes:

California law forbids the carrying of firearms in public places without a license and provides that the issuance of such a license requires “good cause.” San Diego County, as part of its implementation of that law, has set a number of restrictive policies on what it will consider good cause, which must be exceptional circumstances (“distinguish[ed]… from the mainstream”), and it specifies that concern for “one’s personal safety alone is not considered good cause.”

That’s a policy in considerable tension with the language of the Second Amendment, which protects individuals’ right not only to “keep” arms, but also to “bear” them. What does the verb “bear” mean in this context? That has given rise to considerable dispute, and some federal courts, such as the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, appear to believe that it provides very little protection for individuals’ right to possess guns outside the home. In a case last year by the name of Drake v. Filko – now the subject of a certiorari petition to the Supreme Court, as Ilya explained yesterday – the Third Circuit upheld a regulatory regime under which “virtually nobody in New Jersey can use a handgun to defend themselves outside their home.”


Especially when set alongside rulings like the Third Circuit’s, today’s news makes it likely that the scope of the individual right to firearms will be teed up for further Supreme Court review sooner rather than later.

The decision can be seen here as well as below.

Gun Ordinance In Oregon.

Ah yes, the effective use of satire.

A resident of Ashland, Oregon has so perfectly mocked hastily written, knee jerk gun control laws that we just had to share this video.

In the video, a citizen of Ashland, who seems to be of English descent based on his accent, mocks knee jerk gun control laws to the point of absurdity. How he kept a straight face the entire time is beyond me.

The citizen was speaking in regards to proposed gun control laws being discussed by the city. Oregon does permit cities to pass their own gun control laws to a certain extent.

A citizen speaks to the City Council in opposition to a local “loaded carry” ban ordinance one of the Councilors has brought for consideration. No facts, figures, statistics, or other evidence of any existing problem has been presented by the sponsoring Councilor. She has however, made emotional pleas to “protect the children”, dropped the “Sandy Hook” tragedy as supporting gun regulation, and other such bullshit.

She actually said “I know there are statistics out there but I didn’t look them up”. WTF

Meanwhile, the Chief of Police has stated that the town has NEVER had an incident involving an open carrier. Hmmmmm no problem? Why an ordinance then? Oh yeah….to FEEL good.

This citizen uses satire to point out the idiocy of the proposed ordinance.

And then there is this video that appeared on FoxNews several years ago:

Appearance Over Reality.

Pistol-on-stump-ROHIn response to the Sandy Hook shooting last year, the state of Maryland decided to pass some of the most restrictive gun sale laws in the nation.

The state decided that purchases of scary looking weapons (which are often erroneously called “assault weapons”) and handguns needed to be subjected to more stringent standards than the Federal law requires.

In short, all purchases for such weapons would require the State Police to research the background of the purchaser. The law also requires the purchaser register the weapon and be fingerprinted. The background is different than the federal standard of requiring the firearms dealer to check the eligibility of the purchaser through the FBI database. The process of checking with the FBI takes a few minutes. The Maryland State Police check takes longer.

Much longer.

To compensate for the increase in waiting times, the law allows the release of the weapon to a buyer if the Maryland State Police have not completed their background check within seven days. After all, surely in this day and age one would expect that the Police could perform a check within a week.

One would be wrong.

Upon the implementation of the law, the Police began to fall farther and farther behind on the background checks as more people sought to purchase a weapon in light of what they felt was an assault on their Second Amendment rights. (A court challenge to the law was dismissed because a judge said the lawsuit was not filed in a timely manner.)

The Baltimore Sun reports the predicable results of this folly:

« Previous Entries Next Entries »