Castle Doctrine laws allow a person to defend their home and property with deadly force during a violent attack or intrusion which could lead to a violent attack. The Pennsylvania House will have a public hearing on November the 19th, 2009 for House Bill 40, which will amend Pennsylvania law pertaining to Crimes and Offenses and Judiciary and Judicial Procedures in general principles of justification, for definitions, for use of force in self-protection, for use of force for the protection of other persons and for licenses to carry firearms; providing civil immunity for use of force; and further providing for sentences for offenses committed with firearms.

The amendments to these laws will help law-abiding people to protect themselves, their families and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others. The Castle Doctrine is a common law doctrine of ancient origins which declares that a home is a person’s castle. The constitution of Pennsylvania declares that the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned.

With these new laws, no person will have to surrender his or her personal safety to a criminal, nor have to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion.

States that have Castle Doctrine laws are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming. States that are considering Castle Doctrine laws other than Pennsylvania are: Montana, New Hampshire, and Washington.

Download Pennsylvania House Bill 40 in full

The handgun ban has been in place in Chicago since 1982, but came under fire recently after DC v. Heller overturned the handgun ban in the capitol.

The case is sponsored by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association on behalf of some residents of Chicago.

Judge Frank Easterbrook, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, had stated that these types of laws were to be cherished as they promote local differences.

The main points that McDonald will challenge are

• Banning the registration of handguns, thus effecting a broad handgun ban
• Requiring that guns be registered prior to their acquisition by Chicago residents, which is not always feasible
• Mandating that guns be re-registered on an annual basis, including the payment of what amounts to an annual tax on the exercise of Second Amendment rights
• Rendering any gun permanently non-registerable if its registration lapses

California Anti Gun Bills SB 585 and AB 962 will add new firearms laws in California.

Senate Bill 585, passed on September 10th, is heading to the desk of Arnold Schwarzenegger, where he will veto or pass the bill. The bill amends Food and Agriculture Code so that no firearms or ammunition can be sold on the Cow Palace property in San Mateo County. The bill would put an end to the gun shows that take place on this property, and could be used as a basis for banning all gun shows that are held on public property in the future.

Another anti-gun bill in the works in California is Assembly Bill 962. This bill would:

• provide that no retail seller of ammunition shall sell, offer for sale, or display for sale, any handgun ammunition in a manner that allows that ammunition to be accessible to a purchaser without the assistance of the retailer or employee thereof.
• further provide that handgun ammunition may only be purchased in a face-to-face transaction and only if certain conditions exist. This restriction would eliminate mail-order and Internet sales of ammunition.
• require certain ammunition vendors to obtain a thumbprint and other information from ammunition purchasers, and would require submission of that information to the Department of Justice.

If AB 962 is passed, it will effectively end the ability of California residents to order their ammunition online or from catalogs, making rare calibers or target ammunition even harder to obtain. It also makes the life of gun store owners even more difficult by forcing them to obtain fingerprints and personal information from ammunition purchasers, which could also raise the price on the ammunition that they sell. The detailed personal information collected includes: name, residential address, date of birth, phone number, drivers license number, signature and thumb print of ammunition purchasers.

Since it is likely that ammunition purchasers own firearms, many opponents of AB 962 are afraid that unauthorized access to those records could result in home invasions. California residents can contact their governor at Phone 916.445.2841; Fax 916.558.3160; or http://www.gov.ca.gov/interact#email

Concealed Carry permit holders living in Utah will no longer be able to carry their concealed weapon in the state of Nevada.

Nevada has created new requirements for those seeking a Concealed Carry permit in their state. You must fire and qualify with the weapon you are going to carry in Nevada, but this is not true in Utah, so reciprocity between the states is no longer valid.

Many permit holders are angry at the inconvenience this will cause them when traveling through Nevada, which neighbors their state to the west, because they will have to remove their weapons and leave them in the car if they travel across the border.

Utah residents with a permit may only receive reciprocity in the following states now: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

Alaska and Vermont do not require a permit, so anyone that can legally carry a firearm can carry concealed in those states.

The sponsor of a bill that would have allowed people to carry concealed weapons without a permit says she is holding the bill until next year.

The bill also would have allowed people who do have permits to carry a concealed weapon to a school while dropping off or picking up a child.State Sen. Sylvia Allen said on Tuesday that she wanted more time to work out concerns from other lawmakers and Gov. Jan Brewer’s office.

From KPHO

The National Rifle Association did the heavy political lifting on a bill approved by a Senate committee Monday that would allow people with concealed weapons permits to bring their handguns into a restaurant that serves alcohol and probably into some bars that have kitchens as well.

Restaurant owners would have to post a sign barring guns if they didn’t want them, but if no sign was posted the gun owner would be within the law to take the gun inside.

And a person carrying a weapon into a restaurant would not be allowed to drink alcohol.

From Arizona Guardian

One of the most frequently requested changes to Ohio law by concealed handgun licensees is to remove the ban on self-defense while dining in a nice restaurant. Under current Ohio law, concealed handgun license (CHL) holders are prohibited from carrying their handgun into any restaurant which has a class D liquor permit and serves liquor regardless of whether or not that person is consuming alcohol. This means virtually all restaurants other than fast food places or diners are off limits. Ohio is one of the few states with such severe restrictions, as thirty-nine states, including every state surrounding Ohio, have a provision for self defense while dining and several more are considering an exception as well.

House Bill 203, sponsored by Danny Bupb and Jarrod Martin, was submitted today and will soon be assigned to a committee. This important fix would add restaurants to the current exemption that covers class D retail stores provided the licensee is not consuming alcohol.

This point was clearly illustrated in Tennessee in early April when Benjamin Felix Goeser was gunned down as he and his wife were leaving a sports bar. Nicole Goeser had a concealed handgun license, but her gun was locked in her car because, like Ohio, Tennessee prohibits licensees from carrying in a restaurant that serves alcohol even if you’re not drinking.

From Examiner

EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge.  Two municipalities in Illinois
ban the possession of most handguns. After the Supreme
Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783
(2008), that the second amendment entitles people to keep
handguns at home for self-protection, several suits were
filed against Chicago and Oak Park. All were dismissed on
the ground that Heller dealt with a law enacted under the
authority of the national government, while Chicago and
Oak Park are subordinate bodies of a state. The Supreme
Court has rebuffed requests to apply the second amend-
ment to the states. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S.

Chicago and Oak Park are poorly placed to make these
arguments. After all, Illinois has not abolished self-defense
and has not expressed a preference for long guns over
handguns. But the  municipalities  can, and do, stress
another of the themes in the debate over incorporation of
the Bill of Rights: That the Constitution establishes  a
federal republic where local differences are to be cherished
as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to
produce a single, nationally applicable rule.

The NRA is expected to appeal this case to the Supreme Court.

From USCourts.gov

Part of the permit application process is the electronic scanning of applicant’s fingerprints, which is performed by the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office for a fee of $42.25. In 2008, 5,199 people were fingerprinted for concealed weapons permits, and from January-April of 2009, 2,462 people have been fingerprinted. Sheriff John Rutherford wasn’t alarmed by the numbers and respects the rights of lawful gun owners.

“People who go about applying for a permit aren’t the ones we normally have problems with,” said Rutherford. “I’m glad to see good, law-abiding people carrying guns. Look at the times those people are able to stop a violent crime and save themselves.”

That bump may be too much for the Division of Licensing for the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to handle. It recently fended off an attempt by the Florida Legislature to pull $6 million from the Division of Licensing Trust Fund to help balance the State Budget. The fund includes fees from concealed weapons permits, which are bogging down the division due to the background checks required for each application.

The Division is required by law to issue a decision on a permit within 90 days of the receipt of a completed application, but applicants are waiting beyond that time frame.

From JaxDailyRecord