Good news! The Texas legislature just sent Constitutional Carry to the Governor’s desk:
After passing different versions of House Bill (HB) 1927, a bill to allow Texans over the age of 21 who can legally possess a handgun to carry it in public without a government-issued permit, both the Texas House and Senate approved a final version of the legislation that will now be sent to Gov. Greg Abbott’s desk.
Abbott said earlier this year that he would sign the bill, known as “constitutional carry.”
“The House was very proud of the version of the bill that we sent over and the Senate was very proud of the amendments that they added,” Rep. Matt Schaefer (R-Tyler), the bill’s author, told The Texan.
“We felt like some of the protections for law-abiding citizens were diminished in the Senate version, and so we fought to get some of that back.”
After the Senate approved the bill with a number of amendments tailored to concerns voiced by law enforcement, the bill returned to the House where Schaefer decided to send the bill to what is known as a “conference committee.”
In the conference committee, five members from each chamber worked out the differences in the two versions to create a compromise known as the conference committee report.
The ultimate version of HB 1927 contained many of the variations of the amendments that were included in the version passed by the Senate rather than what the House first approved.
After being signed into law, Constitutional Carry will go into effect September 1.
The good news is the extension of protection for our constitutional rights, and may create a whole new cohort of legal gun owners in Texas. The bad news is that this might make it even harder to find ammo…
Good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun in Fort Smith, Arkansas:
Good thing Colion Noir is doing the reporting the national media refuses to do…
Only recently did I learn the word Chinesium, a much needed neologism describing the crappy, subpar metal that cut-rate Chinese manufacturers build their products out of.
So what happens when you build skyscrapers out of Chinesium? This happens:
Engineers were inspecting a skyscraper in southern China on Wednesday, a day after it triggered widespread panic when it suddenly began shaking, as people took to social media to ask if shoddy construction may have been to blame.
Shoddy construction? In China?
The 1,000-foot SEG Plaza in the southern city of Shenzhen near Hong Kong began swaying in the early afternoon on Tuesday, prompting people inside and those on the streets below to flee.
Emergency management officials quickly ruled out an earthquake as the cause of the wobble in the tech hub’s Futian district.
Officials said no further movement had been detected and experts found “no safety abnormalities in the main structure and surrounding environment of the building.”
The building had stopped shaking by the time people were evacuated, state media reported, and the plaza remained sealed off.
Building collapses are not rare in China, where lax construction standards and breakneck urbanization over recent decades has led to buildings being thrown up in haste.
You don’t say. It’s cut corners all the way down.
Poor construction standards are often linked to corruption among local officials, most recently after the collapse of a quarantine hotel in southern China last year.
As opposed to that corruption among national officials reporters aren’t supposed to mention.
Completed in 2000, the tower is home to a major electronics market as well as various offices in the central business district of Shenzhen, a sprawling metropolis of more than 13 million people.
The building is named after the semiconductor and electronics manufacturer Shenzhen Electronics Group, whose offices are based in the complex.
It is the 18th tallest tower in Shenzhen, according to the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat skyscraper database.
I’d never heard of Shenzhen Electronics Group, AKA Shenzhen Fine Made Electronics Group Company Ltd., which doesn’t necessarily mean anything. There are lots of fabless semiconductor manufacturers in various vertical markets I’ve never heard of. Bloomberg says they have 899 employees. So why do they have a website that would have looked ancient even in 2005?
Hopefully their semiconductors are better constructed than the building they work in.
Chinese authorities last year banned the construction of skyscrapers taller than 500 meters (1,640 feet), adding to height restrictions already enforced in some other cities such as Beijing.
Sounds like Chinesium may be a widespread problem in China…
Here’s some welcome news in the form of a rare 9-0 Supreme Court decision upholding Fourth Amendment rights against warrantless gun seizure:
In a unanimous opinion Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against police who seized a man’s guns without a warrant while he was in the hospital for a suicide evaluation.
Police cannot justify the warrantless search and seizure based on the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his opinion for the high court.
The Supreme Court had recognized the exception in a 1973 case, Cady v. Dombrowski, in which police searched the trunk of a car that had been towed after a crash.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday in a challenge by Edward Caniglia, who retrieved an unloaded gun during an argument with his wife, put it on the table and said, “Why don’t you just shoot me and get me out of my misery.”
Caniglia’s wife ended up spending the night at a motel. When she called her husband the next day, the wife was unable to reach him. She called police in Cranston, Rhode Island, for a wellness check.
Caniglia agreed to go to the hospital but only after police allegedly promised that they wouldn’t confiscate his firearms. Police entered Caniglia’s home and took two guns.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Boston had ruled against Caniglia, ruling that the community caretaking exception applies to homes and cars. The Supreme Court disagreed.
The 1st Circuit’s community caretaking rule “goes beyond anything this court has recognized,” Thomas wrote. “What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes. Cady acknowledged as much.”
The full text of the decision can be found here.
The First Circuit’s “community caretaking” rule, how-ever, goes beyond anything this Court has recognized. The decision below assumed that respondents lacked a warrantor consent, and it expressly disclaimed the possibility that they were reacting to a crime. The court also declined to consider whether any recognized exigent circumstances were present because respondents had forfeited the point.
Nor did it find that respondents’ actions were akin to what a private citizen might have had authority to do if petitioner’s wife had approached a neighbor for assistance in-stead of the police. Neither the holding nor logic of Cady justified that approach. True, Cady also involved a warrantless search for a firearm. But the location of that search was an impounded vehicle—not a home—“‘a constitutional difference’” that the opinion repeatedly stressed. 413 U. S., at 439; see also id., at 440–442. In fact, Cady expressly contrasted its treatment of a vehicle already under police control with a search of a car “parked adjacent to the dwelling place of the owner.” Id., at 446–448 (citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443 (1971)). Cady’s unmistakable distinction between vehicles and homes also places into proper context its reference to “community caretaking.” This quote comes from a portion of the opinion explaining that the “frequency with which . . . vehicle[s] can become disabled or involved in . . . accident[s] on public highways” often requires police to perform noncriminal “community caretaking functions,” such as providing aid to motorists. 413 U. S., at 441. But, this recognition that police officers perform many civic tasks in modern society was just that—a recognition that these tasks exist,and not an open-ended license to perform them anywhere.
* * *
What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes. Cady acknowledged as much, and this Court has repeatedly “declined to expand the scope of . . . exceptions to the warrant requirement to permit warrantless entry into the home.” Collins, 584 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8). We thus vacate the judgment below and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In some ways this was a very narrowly tailored opinion, in that the Second Amendment was not invoked at all, only the Fourth. And indeed, Justice Samuel Alito’s concurring opinion specifically states that “Our decision today does not address those issues” in relation to the constitutionality of red flag laws. However, the decision was a blow for individual rights against warrentless police seizures in the home. Also, by explicitly including guns as property that is equally protected from such warrentless seizures, the Supreme Court has properly supported Second Amendment rights against the state’s overreach.
Now if they could do something about civil asset forfeitures…
I am very far indeed from an expert on ATF regulations, and have never bought an 80% lower (i.e., a partially milled metal blank that can be machined at home to produce the receiver for an AR-15 pattern modern sporting rifle). Youtuber Brandon Herrera digs into new proposed ATF rules and finds a lot of really worrying ambiguous language:
He’s especially concerned that a new, broader definition of “frame or receiver” could now be interpreted to include mundane firearms parts kits.
He suggested those who are concerned about the new rules to leave comments on the proposed regulation.