In case you’re not familiar with it, the NRA’s website contains a treasure trove of information on concealed carry and reciprocity among states. Here’s what the reciprocity map looks like for those holding Wyoming permits:
Here’s the same map for Utah:
The headline in the March 22, 2016, Washington Post article says it all: “Unanimous pro-Second-Amendment stun gun decision from the Supreme Court.” Unanimous as in every justice apparently agreed with the following sentiment expressed in the per curiam opinion by the nation’s highest court.
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).
The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.
The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’”). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.
Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624–625.
For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered. (emphasis added)
I bolded some key words in the opinion because they are so emphatic about the meaning of the Heller decision. Who knows what the future holds–now that Justice Scalia has died–but this opinion should be comforting to those concerned about their 2nd Amendment rights. (By the way, do read the linked-to WashPo article. Eugene Voloch is an important voice on the Constitution.)
So I sometimes forget that everybody’s smart, just on different subjects. For example, I don’t know much about physics. My teachers tried, but my head could only hold so much gravity and speed of light and such. Well, today I was online in an online forum where non-lawyers posed legal questions to attorneys. These were real life people experiencing real life problems that involved the law in some way or the other.
Now let me be crystal clear: I don’t think these people are dumb. To repeat: we are all “smart,” just on different things. I happen to know a lot about the law, but boy am I at a loss about some other subjects (heck, even about some legal subjects). With that, here are a few things I learned while answering questions:
Now where do I go to find out how fast the speed of light was back in the days of horse and buggy?
Wyoming Statutes Section 6-8-104 starts off on a serious note intended to get your attention–fast:
A person who wears or carries a concealed deadly weapon is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than seven hundred fifty dollars ($ 750.00), imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six (6) months, or both for a first offense, or a felony punishable by a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($ 2,000.00), imprisonment for not more than two (2) years, or both, for a second or subsequent offense, unless: (emphasis added)
Fine. Imprisonment. Fine again. More imprisonment. All for carrying “a concealed deadly weapon.”
But ahhhh. There’s the word “unless,” and suddenly the clouds disperse and all is right with the world, so long as you
That last one may come as a surprise to some. “You mean I don’t need a concealed carry permit to carry a concealed weapon in Wyoming?” they say.
Nope. That’s the magic of the bolded words “otherwise meet [certain] requirements.” Because of those words, and if you
you, my friend, can carry a concealed deadly weapon in Wyoming without a permit and consequently without fear of fine or imprisonment. That, and you save the $50.00 application fee.
But . . . But maybe you should consider going through the permit application process and paying the $50.00 fee anyway–plus the cost of a set of fingerprints. If you get stopped by the police for carrying, what would you rather do: Show them your permit and ID and be on your merry way or spend some uncomfortable time with them trying to prove that you meet the requirements I’ve outlined above? Fifty dollars seems a small price to pay to avoid that situation. Besides, try carrying out of state without a permit. Not a good idea. [Added this paragraph later same day.]
A note or two for those of you who do have a concealed carry permit: 1. If a police officer asks to see your permit, you “shall display both the permit and proper identification.” You should already know that, but an occasional reminder can’t hurt. 2. If you move or if you lose your permit or it’s destroyed, you must notify the division of criminal investigation of the Wyoming Attorney General’s office within 30 days or risk having your permit revoked.
There’s more in Wyoming’s concealed carry statute, but this should do for now.
Betty Hutton, as Annie, couldn’t get a man with a gun. Some are worried that they won’t be able to even use their guns if President Obama gets to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court now that Justice Antonin Scalia has died. 
I don’t know if that’s a worry worth worrying about, even if President Obama makes that appointment. Members of the court–left and right–are loathe to overrule themselves. Sure it can happen, and guns may be the issue that causes them to do so. But first, any Obama appointment has to get through the Senate and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell already says that ain’t gonna happen.
And so, I’ll just say that I’m going to miss Scalia. A lot. His humor. His writing. His intellect. No, he was not perfect as a man or as a justice, but he was good, very good on both counts. I was amazed at how the initial reports of his death stunned me.
So today, I choose not to get political. Instead, I want to praise the man. To that end and for your enjoyment and edification, I share this interview of him by Brian Lamb of C-SPAN:
So Attorney General Loretta Lynch put her pen to paper yesterday, and the ATF’s proposed rule 41P became its final rule 41F–with modifications. Here’s my first take: There’s best news, good news, and bad news.
The best news is two-fold: 1. the final rule does not become effective until 180 days after its publication in the Federal Register, and 2. the final rule eliminates the need for your local CLEO’s signature, though it does require notification of the CLEO.
The good news is that your existing NFA gun trust remains an effective tool for managing and sharing your NFA arms, especially for the next 180 days, but even after that–assuming it’s drafted properly. Given that the effective date is at least 180 days off, you should be able to purchase and handle your NFA firearms as you have in the past–assuming, of course, that you’ve done that legally–for at least the next six months.
The bad news is that the new rule, besides eliminating the CLEO signature requirement, also introduces a new definition– “responsible person” –into the mix. Persons in a trust and other legal entities (LLCs etc.) who meet the definition of a “responsible person” will need to undergo a background check, including providing fingerprints and photo, whenever they purchase or transfer an NFA item, much like individuals do now.
The term “responsible person” very clearly includes the Grantor/Trustee. It somewhat less clearly does not include many or most beneficiaries. Thus, if you’re the grantor and trustee of your NFA trust, you will clearly be a “responsible person” when the rule becomes effective; your beneficiaries will probably not.
As for persons you may appoint as co-trustees, for the moment, they occupy a grey area–again, when the rule becomes effective. The rule itself seems quite clear, but much of the ATF commentary that accompanies the rule muddies the water (the rule and commentary run 248 pages, only 10 of which are part of the actual rule). I want to study the document and resulting issues more thoroughly before I give my final answer on the “muddier” questions.
So consider this a heads up. I’ll keep you informed as things and my thinking develop. But to repeat: the effective date of the rule is at least 180 days out, so those with an existing NFA trust have plenty of time to adjust things if needed.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’s website in general and library in particular is a treasure trove of information on firearms laws and regulations, much of it downloadable in PDF format. I’ve found the publications on this page quite helpful, especially
the Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide,
the Federal Firearms Licensee Quick Reference and Best Practices Guide,
the Best Practices: Transfers of Firearms by Private Sellers, and
The first three are updated occasionally, so check the revision date. The first one is revised annually. The last link, to the AFT National Firearms Act Handbook, is not to a PDF but to webpage because it’s updated regularly. In any case, all of these and more on the AFT’s site a excellent. Enjoy.
The following has nothing to do with estate or business planning. I simply thought you’d enjoy these two videos. I used to show them to my legal writing class as an introduction to the Bill of Rights in general and the 4th and 5th Amendments in particular. They always enjoyed them. I think you will too. And you’ll learn something.
First, the attorney, a Mr. James Duane, professor of law at Regent Law School.
Now the police officer, George Bruch, responds: