We enter 2020 secure in the knowledge that the Texas Legislature has our back on gun rights. If you want proof, look no further than the 10 bills that went into effect last year.
The law now gives you a defense of “mistake.” Everyone knows that it is fairly easy to miss a posted sign that states handguns are prohibited on a premises. Under the old law, the lawful handgun carrier could be prosecuted for such a mistake. Now, the handgun carrier has a defense if he or she promptly leaves after being told that handguns are forbidden on the premises.
Has your landlord been giving you trouble about your lawfully possessed firearm?
That is a remnant of the past. Landlords and condominium regimes can no longer prohibit tenants, owners and their guests from possessing lawful firearms and ammunition in apartments, condominiums and manufactured houses, nor can they prohibit transporting the firearms and ammo between their unit and their vehicles.
Some schools still have a lot to learn. Handgun license holders have always been allowed to store firearms and ammo out of sight in a locked vehicle in a school parking lot, but some schools were putting additional rules in place. Those rules are no longer permitted.Is there anything more irritating than having to leave your handguns behind during a mandatory evacuation just because you do not have a permit to carry? Apparently not. As long as you are not prohibited by law from carrying a handgun, you can now carry it while evacuating or reentering an area within 168 hours after the area was declared a state of disaster.
A few misguided government agencies were not wild about the idea of legal handgun carry in their buildings, so they put up the premises notices.
Your legislators were not amused. They passed a law providing for a 15-day notice to remove the signs.
Foster parents now have the right to possess and store lawfully permitted firearms and ammunition in the foster home. Some restrictions apply.
What are we to do with local governments who think they know better than the great State of Texas? Sigh. The law now clarifies that municipalities cannot adopt regulations that attempt to modify state law regarding firearms, knives, ammunition and the like.
It is now law that a business cannot be sued because it fails to prohibit legal handgun carry on its premises.
Any law that places a restriction on property owners’ associations is a good law. The legislature tossed their right to restrict you from lawful possession, storage or transport of a firearm or ammunition.
And for the grand finale – this was recently in the news and deserves special mention. A place of worship is now treated the same as any other private property for purposes of deciding whether a license holder may carry on premises.
This week, several anti-gun bills received floor votes and passed out of their respective chambers. Additionally, two bills have now been pulled from the House Rules Committee and are eligible for a vote at any time. Please contact your Representative and ask them to oppose House Bills 2240 and 2623!
The following two bills have been pulled from Rules Committee and are awaiting a floor vote:
House Bill 2240 bans the manufacture, possession, sale, transfer, etc. of magazines that hold more than fifteen rounds of ammunition. This bill is strongly supported by the Governor and the Attorney General. These so called “high capacity” magazines are in fact standard equipment for commonly-owned firearms that many Americans legally and effectively use for an entire range of legitimate purposes, such as self-defense or competition. Those who own non-compliant magazines prior to the ban are only allowed to possess them on their own property and in other limited instances such as at licensed shooting ranges or while hunting. Restricted magazines have to be transported unloaded and locked separately from firearms and stored at home locked, making them unavailable for self-defense. Anti-gun legislators are attempting to bring HB 2240 up for a floor vote on Sunday.
House Bill 2623 prohibits an individual from possessing firearms if they are convicted of the misdemeanor crime of unlawful aiming or discharge of a firearm. This poorly conceived legislation even applies to airguns and slingshots and has no exception for an individual aiming or discharging a firearm for self-defense purposes in a location that would have otherwise not been authorized.
The following bills received a floor vote and passed out of their respective chambers:
Senate Bill 5434 passed by a 27-20 vote. It increases prohibited areas where law-abiding citizens cannot possess firearms, including CPL holders carrying for self-defense. The bill extended “gun-free zones” to public parks, libraries, and child care centers before being amended to only apply to child care centers. In addition to leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless against criminals who ignore arbitrary boundaries, the bill requires child care centers to publicly indicate they are “gun-free zones” by posting signs outside the facilities.
House Bill 2622 passed by a 56-42 vote. It modifies Washington’s existing firearm surrender provisions for individuals subject to a court order. This bill compels a respondent to appear and provide proof on how and to what extent they complied with the surrender order. This is a serious encroachment on the right against compelled self-incrimination in any criminal, civil, or other government proceedings. Failure to appear results in the individual being in contempt of court, thereby putting the individual in a no-win situation.
House Bill 2305 passed by a 55-42 vote. It imposes a mandatory firearm prohibition for respondents of a Vulnerable Adult Protective Order. This order, which removes someone’s Second Amendment rights for up to 5 years, requires no criminal convictions or even charges. Due process limits restrictions on constitutional rights to only serious convictions and adjudications that provide procedural protections to the accused, which results in more reliable proceedings. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms should not be treated as a second-class right and should only be restricted when sufficient protections are in place.
Additionally, the House voted to pass House Bill 2467 by a vote of 66-32. HB 2467 directs Washington State Patrol to create a centralized state system for all firearm transfers to allow firearm dealers to submit information electronically and receive feedback instantaneously. This bill was introduced by a bipartisan group of legislators who have recognized that background checks in Washington have imposed excessive delays on gun owners. Background checks for handgun transfers are done in an archaic manner by mail to local law enforcement, who are tasked with manually checking databases. CPL holders previously were able to avoid the archaic check for handguns and instead were allowed to go through the federal NICS as a courtesy, which provided instant feedback. That exemption ceased in July, 2019. The enactment of I-1639 also added transfers of semi-automatic rifles to this system, with the addition of an $18 fee. Though this archaic background check has a ten day waiting period to allow for completion, these factors, along with I-594 requiring background checks on all transfers, has resulted in ever increasing strain on this system, creating delays that drag out up to 30 days. Unfortunately, there will be a fee attached to the background check, which has been capped at $18 per transaction.
Billionaire media mogul Michael Bloomberg’s presidential run helped gun-rights groups light a fire under owners of firearms who grew somewhat complacent in the era of President Trump.
Gun groups ranging from the National Rifle Association to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership are whipping up their members with dire warnings about a potential President Bloomberg.
A former mayor of New York City who leapfrogged to the top-tier in the Democratic presidential race, Mr. Bloomberg has a long record of challenging the Second Amendment from his get-tough policies as mayor to bankrolling a massive gun control advocacy organization.
The National Association for Gun Rights alerted its members on social media to Mr. Bloomberg’s $300 million campaign to “DESTROY the Second Amendment,” calling on them to unite and stop “his anti-gun agenda.”
“Our members are motivated by Mike Bloomberg and have been for a while,” said Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights. “He is a billionaire and one of his main focuses has been spending his own personal money to destroy the Second Amendment. And he has been relatively successful. All of the groups on the left rely on his money.”
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s sweeping gun, magazine, and suppressor ban was defeated in the state senate’s Judiciary Committee Monday morning in front of a crowd of gun owners and Second Amendment supporters. Four Democrats joined every Republican on the committee in rejecting HB961, which had narrowly advanced out of the House of Delegates just before a legislative deadline last week.
Committee chairman John Edwards joined fellow Democrats Chap Petersen, Creigh Deeds, Scott Surovell, and every Republican on the committee to send the bill to the Virginia Crime Commission for further study, which kills the bill’s chances for this legislative session.
The gun ban bill was the first on the docket for the Judiciary Committee, and GOP members grilled bill sponsor Del. Mark Levine over his definition of an “assault weapon,” the arbitrary ban on ammunition magazines that can hold more than twelve rounds, and other aspects of the legislation.
“This weapons restriction is clearly constitutional,” claimed Levine, noting that in a challenge to a similar ban in Maryland, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that so-called assault weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment. What Levine didn’t say is that the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t taken up a case dealing with semi-automatic long guns.
Gov. Northam’s director of public safety, Brian Moran, also claimed the bill would pass constitutional muster by citing the Kolbe case as well, calling the guns that would be banned under HB961 “weapons of war.” According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the guns that would have been banned under the bill are the most commonly manufactured rifles in the United States today, and the U.S. Supreme Court has said that arms that are in common use for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment.
Levine also claimed that HB961 didn’t “infringe on anyone’s rights,” though it absolutely would have infringed on the rights of those Virginians who would seek to purchase one of these firearms, magazines, or suppressors after the ban went into effect. Additionally, any owner of a magazine defined as “high capacity” would have been guilty of a misdemeanor if they continued to possess the magazines they currently own.
While the gun, magazine, and suppressor bill is dead for this legislative session, it will almost surely be back again next year, and in the meantime Gov. Northam will likely get a chance to sign several gun control bills, including measures that would roll back the state’s firearm preemption law, change training requirements for concealed carry licensees, and more.
Voicing refusal to comply with new gun laws has historical precedent
The utterly American history of ‘We will not comply’
On Jan. 20, as Americans remembered civil rights hero Martin Luther King Jr., an estimated 10,000 people peacefully rallied in Richmond, Virginia, to protest the recent introduction of highly contentious gun control bills into the state Legislature.
Motivated in part by the “Second Amendment Sanctuary” movement that has seen more than 100 Virginia counties and cities pass measures denouncing—and in some cases, preemptively refusing to enforce—constitutionally suspect gun laws, some Virginians at the rally began chants of “We will not comply.”
Many gun control advocates have denounced these chants (and the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement itself) as undemocratic and anti-American. While this reaction was predictable, voicing a collective refusal to comply with laws perceived as unconstitutional or unjust is a fundamental part of American democratic discourse.
In fact, the mantra “We will not comply” helped set the stage for America as it exists today.
In 1765, the British Parliament passed the Stamp Act, which imposed a tax on nearly every piece of paper used by the American colonists. The colonists considered this a direct tax on them without the approval of the colonial legislatures—a flagrant violation of longstanding legal precedent and an affront to their rights as Englishmen.
Threats of noncompliance and public protests so troubled Parliament that the act was repealed before ever being put into effect.
Thus began nearly two decades of actual and threatened colonial noncompliance with British laws that increasingly threatened the rights and liberties of the colonists. This included widespread noncompliance with laws that severely curtailed the ability of colonists to keep and bear arms.
Americans routinely circumvented or ignored bans on the importation of firearms and powder, and eventually resorted to armed defensive action against British attempts to confiscate guns and powder stores from colonial communities.
Noncompliance with federal laws mandating the return of escaped slaves was rampant throughout northern states prior to the Civil War. In 1850, the Vermont Legislature went so far as to pass a law effectively requiring state judicial and law enforcement officers to act in direct opposition to the federal Fugitive Slave Law.
Even in jurisdictions that did not act officially act to condone noncompliance, individual noncompliance with federal slave laws was nonetheless widespread. Moreover, a generally lax approach to local enforcement in the North raised the ire of Southern states, where calls abounded for the federal government to send in military units to ensure adequate enforcement.
Importantly, many abolitionists refused to keep their intentions quiet—they, too, were vocal about their refusal to comply with laws they considered both unconstitutional and morally unjust.
“We will not comply” was very much a general refrain of the now-beloved abolitionist movement.
Noncompliance permeated democratic discourse throughout the 20th century, as well. Some of the most revered figures of the civil rights era were actually brought to the national spotlight by acts of noncompliance.
Rosa Parks refused to comply with a city ordinance mandating segregated buses that would force her to the back of the bus. Hundreds refused to comply with state laws by engaging in sit-ins. King spent periods in jail for his repeated refusals to comply with court orders.
Of course, America’s history with noncompliance and civil disobedience has also been complicated. Not all acts of noncompliance are later held to be meritorious. Many times, one side’s appeal to a higher law is another side’s accusation that the rule of law has been betrayed.
Noncompliance with school integration orders resulted in sometimes-violent standoffs among local, state, and federal agencies, and history has not treated these acts of noncompliance kindly.
Noncompliance with alcohol laws during the Prohibition era helped foster the rise of gangster violence (though, interestingly enough, widespread noncompliance was one of the major underlying factors leading to Prohibition’s eventual repeal).
During the Vietnam War, an estimated tens of thousands of young draft-eligible men faced severe criticism and legal consequences for refusing to comply with what they perceived to be an unjust draft system that would send them to fight in an unjust war.
But the fact that history judges some acts of noncompliance more harshly than others does not negate the reality of history itself. It merely reminds us that threats of noncompliance should not be undertaken lightly. They should be based on well-reasoned and principled appeals that will withstand the judgment of our descendants.
Threatening noncompliance is not unique to modern gun owners, nor unique to modern American discourse.
“We will not comply” is neither an undemocratic threat nor an un-American resolve.
It is a long-standing part of democratic discourse, and an utterly American promise to strive for compliance with a higher law.
My first impression is ‘No’.
We often find ourselves arguing statistics with anti-gun people. Let’s put the conversation into perspective. I will give you some statistics and I’ll also expose the anti-gun left’s real motives for gun control. First of all, don’t you think that if someone really wanted to save lives, they would focus their attention on an area where the most lives are lost? If you’ll notice, Anti-Gunners miss that piece of logic and gravitate toward any justification for gun control laws regardless of its inability to save lives.
The gun grabbers like to use the number of 30,000 to 40,000 gun-related deaths per year but if we take out suicides, which are 60% of those deaths and we take out law enforcement-related deaths, we’re left with about 14,880 gun-related homicides. Let me add something here. After seeing the results of Australia’s gun ban, we know that suicides do not go down in the absence of guns. People find other means; just in case there are some Anti-Gunners out there still trying to blame suicides on guns.
Here’s where it gets interesting.
The majority of those gun-related homicides are gang-related. So, let’s say we didn’t have the gang problem we have in this country. If we take out gang/gun murders the number of gun-related homicides shrinks to 2,976 per year in America. here’s another interesting fact that the anti-gun left doesn’t want you to know. The majority of gang-related violence occurs in Democrat-run cities across this country, which by the way are highly gun restricted and often allow violent Illegals safe harbor. Which means, the good people living within those cities are denied their right to protect themselves against the human violence that Democrats encourage with their bad policies. Now let’s compare 2,976 gun-related homicides to some other things that the anti-gun left could be working on if they really wanted to save lives.
- 2,976 gun-related homicides, consisting of many different causes. None of which are caused by “the gun.”
- 11,000 lives lost per year in America to drunk driving accidents.
- 47,000 lives lost per year in America due to suicide, (bipolar disorder and schizophrenia being two of the leading causes of suicide.) Not guns. Remember, take away the guns and that number doesn’t change.
- 330,000 lives are taken per year in America by people committing abortion. One of the biggest causes of preventable deaths in America is abortion. Didn’t the gun-grabbers say they wanted to save lives?
Now let me give you a piece of information that the anti-self-defense crowd doesn’t want you to know. How many lives do you think are saved every year because of guns?
- 2,500,000 lives are potentially saved every year in America because of guns. These are called Defensive Gun Uses (DGU’s). Now, this doesn’t necessarily mean good guys killing bad guys. This most often means just the mere presence of a gun deters a bad guy. 46% of those lives saved are women. This is from a study that was done by Gary Kleck, a Florida criminologist and backed by data from the CDC.
*[Data collected from Pew Research Center, FBI Statistics, Armed Resistance to Crime Report (Kleck/Gertz), Center for Medical Progress, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.]
Why do you think the gun grabbers never share this information? Some would argue that they don’t really care about saving lives as much as they care about disarming their fellow citizens and preventing them from independently protecting themselves and their families.
Gun control is a top-down method that puts the government in charge of the lives and safety of people under the guise of “public safety.” It’s the first step in stealing the freedom our founders fought for. The anti-gun left has already decided that they are willing to give up their freedom to government.
The problem is, they can’t have their government-controlled Utopian society unless everyone gets on board. Real Americans are clearly not getting on board. In fact, just the opposite is true. People across the country are fighting back as the left-wing ideology tries desperately to embed itself into traditional America. Gun control is a way of forcing you into dependence whether you like it or not.
We’re never going to cure the evil in the hearts of killers but thanks to our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of firearms, we can stop them.
So, to the gun grabbers, do you really want to save lives? Then get to work on the real causes of human-violence and help us restore our gun rights so good people can protect themselves. Help us save lives, rather than ending them before they get a chance to take their first breath.
The 2nd Amendment is not a privilege. It’s your right.
The Oklahoma Senate passed a bill on Wednesday that could make it easier for Oklahoma teachers and school personnel to carry a firearm at school.
The bill by Republican Sen. David Bullard, R-Durant, and Rep. Sean Roberts, R-Hominy, would change requirements for teachers to be able to be armed at school.
Bullard said the rural school districts in his area want the legislation because it could take a significant amount of time for law enforcement to respond to a mass shooting on campus.
“We have students right now that are vulnerable if someone walks in with a gun,” he said. “It’s a manslaughter and there’s nothing they can do about it.”
Teachers would no longer be required to complete a 240-hour Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training certification course in order to be armed at school. Bullard said the requirement is cost prohibitive and time intensive to a point that it deters teachers from participating.
Instead, under House Bill 2336, school personnel who undergo the eight-hour concealed carry class or the 72 hours of armed security guard training would be eligible to carry on campus at K-12 schools. The personnel also would have to go through “campus-specific active shooter training” as stipulated by local law enforcement agencies.
The campus-specific training would vary based on a school’s size and layout and would be intended for law enforcement to work one-on-one with teachers or school staff who intend to be armed, Bullard said.
Senate Democrats said the legislation could result in teachers having various levels of training depending on which district they teach.
Arizona Senate Panel OKs City Liability for Gun-Free Zones
An Arizona Senate panel has approved a measure that would make government entities that don’t allow guns on their property liable if someone is shot on their premises.
PHOENIX (AP) — An Arizona Senate panel on Thursday advanced a measure that would make government entities that don’t allow guns on their property liable if people are shot on their premises.
The proposal from Republican Sen. David Gowan would allow anyone to sue if they or loved ones are injured or killed after being barred from carrying weapons for self-defense on government property.
The measure is the latest in a years-long series of pro-gun measures that are routinely approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature.
Arizona is among the most gun-friendly states in the nation, allowing open or concealed carry of guns without a permit in most places. But efforts to allow weapons on property owned by schools, universities and government buildings have failed.
“It’s just a simple bill that says if a government creates gun-free zones which prohibit a law-abiding citizen from defending themselves, then if harm comes to them because of that policy that entity will be held liable for the damages,” Gowan told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “The point is, if you have a policy like this you protect them or allow them to protect themselves or there will be consequences.”
Missouri Senate bills seek to strengthen gun rights
A bill that would allow concealed carry permit holders to bring guns onto college campuses and other places drew opposition from public safety officials from Lincoln University and the University of Central Missouri in a hearing Thursday.
A bill that would allow concealed carry permit holders to bring guns onto college campuses and other places drew opposition from public safety officials from Lincoln University and the University of Central Missouri in a hearing Thursday.
The Senate Transportation and Public Safety Committee heard two bills Thursday morning that are intended to strengthen gun rights, both sponsored by Sen. Eric Burlison, R-Battlefield.
One was “anti-commandeering legislation” that bars any law enforcement officer in Missouri from enforcing federal gun laws that infringe on Second Amendment rights.
The other allows people with concealed carry permits to bring guns and other deadly weapons onto college campuses and other places they’re currently restricted. Allowing concealed carry on campus was the most controversial part of that bill, with leaders of campus police of two universities testifying against it.
Virginia’s Model for Both Sides of Gun Debate
As Democrats advance anti-Second Amendment measures, Patriots fight back.
Like all would-be tyrants, as soon as Virginia Democrats took power following the last election, they began an all-out assault on the right to keep and bear arms, unleashing a package of gun-control measures intended to strip Virginians of their right to defend themselves.
The newest proposed measures include a ban on “assault weapons” such as the AR-15 and AK-47 rifles, magazines holding more than 12 rounds, and sound suppressors (“silencers”). That bill passed the House of Delegates yesterday.
As a means of reducing mass shootings, such measures are worthless. According to the FBI, in 2018, just 297 of the 6,603 gun-related murders (4%) nationwide involved a rifle of any kind. In fact, knives (1,604) and fists/kicking (656) were used to kill far more often.
The “progressive” obsession with the AR-15 is rooted in abject ignorance of all things gun related. Though they refer to AR-15s as “assault weapons” and “weapons of war,” they are neither.
“AR” stands for “ArmaLite Rifle,” after the company that designed it. Furthermore, the Department of Defense defines an assault rifle as a “selective fire” rifle that can alternate between semi- (one shot fired per trigger pull) and full-auto (continuous fire). The AR-15 is semiautomatic, firing a .223 (or 5.56) round, which is smaller and less powerful than many hunting rifles. If we ban AR-15s, why not all hunting rifles and handguns? They are functionally equivalent.
Gun grabbers claim the AR-15 is especially “dangerous and unusual,” attempting to get around the Supreme Court ruling in DC v. Heller, which found the Second Amendment protects weapons “in common use by law-abiding citizens.” But the AR-15 is the very definition of “common use” — more than 15 million AR-style rifles are currently in the hands of American citizens, and more than a million more are sold each year. In fact, one in five new firearms sold in the U.S. is an AR-style rifle.
Yet far from America turning into the Wild West, as anti-gun hysterics claim, America has become more peaceful with the proliferation of firearms. Gun crimes fell to historic lows after the expiration of the 1994 ban on “assault weapons.”
In reality, full-auto weapons have been effectively banned for civilian use since the National Firearms Act of 1934, and there have been only two deaths by full-auto weapons in the last 40 years.
But in the grand scheme of things, this is all just semantics and details. The Constitution protects our right to keep and bear arms, period, regardless of arguments and statistics.
Yet Socialist Democrats reject the meaning of “shall not be infringed.” For decades, Democrats have sought to erode or eliminate this most fundamental of human and American rights. They couch their assaults in terms like “public safety” and “commonsense gun control,” insisting that no one needs certain types of weapons for hunting and sport shooting. Untrue, but irrelevant. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with providing a firm check against the rise of tyrannical government.
In 1787, Thomas Jefferson warned of the dangers of conspiring men and asked, “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. … The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Is it any surprise the state seal for Virginia is an image of a robed Virtus (Virtue) standing, spear in hand, over the body of Tyranny? The state motto is “sic semper tyrannis,” meaning “thus always to tyrants.”
Jefferson was a native of Virginia, and it seems many of his fellow Virginians still have the fire of Liberty, and resistance to tyranny, burning in their breasts, judging by the 22,000 gun owners protesting at the state capitol recently. Or the fact that 141 counties and cities have declared themselves “gun sanctuaries.”
After the announcement of the proposed gun-control laws, Virginia gun sales nearly doubled, with nearly 70,000 gun background checks in a single month. Gun owners continue to show up at rallies, chanting “We will not comply!”
Gun owners are by nature peaceful and law-abiding. They seek peace, but are prepared to defend themselves and their families, whether from armed intruders or a tyrannical government. That is a fact that Democrat Gov. Ralph Northam and the Democrats in the state legislature would do well to remember.
However, some are upset by this revelation. They argue that 3D printing completely renders gun control efforts null and void, as if that’s an argument for, well…anything.
3D-printed guns are dangerous because they circumvent existing policies. They are considered “ghost guns,” a term used to describe firearms that do not have an identifying serial number that can be used to match gun purchases to their owner. By law, legal firearms sold in a gun store or by a manufacturer must have a serial number. Printed guns and their parts do not.
All firearms must contain enough metal in the weapon to be able to set off a metal detector. With a 3D-printed firearm, the person printing the weapon must add that metal themselves and there is no way to ensure they have done so. In a licensed gun store, background checks are required to see if the user should be allowed to own a rifle. But with 3D-printed guns, no background checks are done and anyone can buy the blueprints and use a 3D printer to create the weapon.
Yes, that’s kind of been my point. That’s why Cody Wilson worked so hard to develop a viable 3D printed firearm. The very point was to make gun control less than useless. After all, gun control has only ever applied to the law-abiding citizen anyway.
New York politicians said we would be safe. Democrats told us to register our guns so the criminals would be disarmed. New York Democrats said we needed to have fewer cartridges in our guns so the bad guys couldn’t hurt us. Last week, a convicted felon shot police officers in New York City. We were told this couldn’t happen because of New York’s strict gun laws. Clearly, the Democrats lied to us. If it could happen to the police, then it could happen to any of us. It isn’t the tool that does harm, it is the evil person who kills with any tool he wants to use. We were fools to believe the old lies, and we’d be bigger fools to believe the New York politicians now.
New York Democrats passed the SAFE act in 2013. This gun control legislation was passed in the middle of the night because it was “emergency legislation” that we needed desperately to insure public safety. The legislation outlawed many handguns and long guns. The law limited the number of cartridges honest gun owners could carry in their guns. It required a background check before law abiding individuals could transfer a gun or buy ammunition. Provisions in the SAFE act meant honest gun owners could be disarmed if someone questioned their mental health. Democrats said that would keep us safe.
It didn’t work at all. Disarming the good guys doesn’t stop the bad guys. Last week, a convicted felon got a gun. The felon attacked police officers several times. The criminal had a previous conviction in 2002 after he shot and tried to kill a man, carjacked a woman, and then shot at police. He was arrested again in 2018 for driving while intoxicated. The criminal was out on parole when he shot a police officer in the head, another officer in the arm, and then attacked a police station. Criminals don’t obey our laws and the police can’t keep us safe.
In New York City, criminals get guns in a few minutes on the street while honest gun owners need months or years to receive government permission to own a gun. It turns out that criminals don’t care about New York gun laws any more than they are stopped by laws against assault and murder. Criminals use any weapon they want and carry it anywhere they want.
Criminals don’t care who we are. If thugs would attack the cops, then we are not safe. That means we should protect ourselves, but New York’s gun-control laws makes that difficult if not impossible for law abiding citizens. Disarming the good guys puts all of us in greater danger rather than making us safer. That is the opposite of what we were promised.
Is that failure of gun-control an accident, or were these laws designed to fail? Was this failure part of a larger plan?
Democrats in New York condemned honest police officers and released repeat criminals. Democrat politicians made it harder for honest citizens to defend themselves in public. Now, the thugs shoot cops, and crime soars. In the face of this new violence, will Democrat politicians then demand complete gun confiscation from honest citizens to stop the ‘unprecedented levels of public violence’ they created? That is another prescription for failure.. for deadly failure.
That idea sounds crazy to me, but we let New York politicians lie to us before. New York Democrats might get away with their lies again.. if we let them. Our future, like our family’s safety, lie in our hands.
Tell your politicians to repeal these failed laws.
Magazines over 10 rounds were well-known to the Founders
Third Circuit case challenges NJ magazine confiscation statute
Did the Framers of the Second Amendment consider the possibility that Americans might own firearms with a capacity greater than 10 rounds? Certainly yes. Such arms had been invented two centuries before the Second Amendment, and by 1791, repeating arms, including those capable of firing more than 10 rounds, were well-known in the United States. The history is explained in a Third Circuit amicus brief I coauthored last week.
Case background: In 2018, the New Jersey legislature prohibited the possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds. The details of the statute are explained here by NJ firearms attorneys Scott Bach and Evan Nappen. The day the governor signed the legislation, the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs sued the New Jersey Attorney General, asking for a preliminary injunction. District Court filings are available here. District Judge Peter G. Sheridan denied the preliminary injunction in September 2018. 2018 WL 4688345 (Sept. 28, 2018).
On expedited appeal, a 2-1 panel of the Third Circuit upheld the denial of the preliminary injunction in December 2018. 910 F.3d 106. Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz wrote the opinion, joined by Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. (Both are Obama appointees. Judge Shwartz’s seat was previously held by President’s Trump’s sister Marion Trump Barry; Judge Greenaway replaced Samuel Alito.) Judge Stephanos Bibas (former U. Penn. prof., appointed 2017 by Trump) dissented, writing “the majority’s version of intermediate scrutiny is too lax. It cannot fairly be called intermediate scrutiny at all. Intermediate scrutiny requires more concrete and specific proof before the government may restrict any constitutional right, period.” 910 F.3d at 133–34.
After remand to the district court, the District Judge ruled that there was nothing more to do, since the Third Circuit majority had disposed of all issues. Plaintiffs disagreed, and the case has now returned to the Third Circuit for briefing.
Amici: The amici on the brief include seven professors who are experts in Second Amendment law: Royce Barondes (Missouri), Robert Cottrol (George Washington),
Nicholas Johnson (Fordham), Joyce Malcolm (George Mason), Joseph Olson (Mitchell Hamline), Glenn Reynolds (Tennessee), and Gregory Wallace (Campbell). Organization amici are the Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Madison Society Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, and Independence Institute (where I work). The lead attorney on the brief was Joseph Greenlee, joined by me and by Prof. George A. Mocsary (U. Wyo. law school). Some of the material in the brief is covered in more detail in my article The History of Firearms Magazines and of Magazine Prohibition, 78 Albany Law Review 849 (2015).
Earliest repeating arms: A repeater is a firearm that can fire more than one shot without having to be reloaded. The first known repeating firearms date back to between 1490 and 1530, with guns that fired 10 consecutive rounds. A 1580 gun could fire 16 shots. Once the user pressed the trigger, these guns would continue to fire until the ammunition was exhausted.
Seventeenth century: By the 1640s, major improvements in repeating arms had been developed. Now, the user could fire just one shot by pressing the trigger, and then fire more shots by pressing the trigger repeatedly. Danish rifles invented by Peter Kalthoff had ammunition capacities ranging from 6 to 30 rounds. During the seventeenth century, Kalthoff repeaters were copied by gunsmiths from London to Moscow.
At about the same time, the Lorenzoni revolver was invented in Italy, with a typical capacity of 7 shots. Like semiautomatic firearms (invented 1885), the Lorenzoni could self-reload. To fire the next shot, the user did not have to move a lever, bolt, or pump; the Lorenzoni could fire as fast the user could press the trigger–similar to modern revolvers or semiautomatics. The Lorenzoni was manufactured far and wide–including in New England. Famed diarist Samuel Pepys was much impressed with a demonstration he saw in London in 1664.
Early America: The Kalthoffs and Lorenzonis were not the only repeaters made during the century. For example, in the mid-1600s, some American repeaters were manufactured with revolving cylinders to hold the ammunition. Unlike the revolvers perfected by Samuel Colt in the 1830s, these revolvers required the user to rotate the cylinder by hand after each shot.
The French in North America had their own repeaters. For example, in 1690 the Comte de Frontenac “astonished the Iroquois with his three and five shot repeaters.” 1 Charles Winthrop Sawyer, Firearms in American History 29 (1910).
Eighteenth century: Before the industrial revolution, firearms manufacture was artisanal, with guns being made one at a time by gunsmiths. Repeating arms have more parts than single-shot guns, and the parts must fit more closely than in a single-shot. Accordingly, the necessary expertise and labor time to manufacture repeaters meant that repeaters were only affordable for the wealthier minority of the population.
Growing prosperity in the eighteenth century enabled more Americans to buy repeaters. Lorenzoni variants were popular, particularly 9 or 10 shot versions made by London gunsmith John Cookson, and by a New England gunsmith of the same name. In 1722, Boston gunsmith John Pim impressed some local Indians with an 11-shot repeater that he manufactured and sold. “[L]oaded but once,” it “was discharged eleven times following, with bullets, in the space of two minutes, each which went through a double door at fifty yards’ distance.” Samuel Niles, A Summary Historical Narrative of the Wars in New England, in Mass. Hist. Soc. Collections, 4th ser., vol. 5, at 347 (1837).
During the Revolution, inventor Joseph Belton demonstrated a 16 shot long gun. Witnesses, including Gen. Horatio Gates and scientist David Rittenhouse, were impressed, and the Continental Congress negotiated with Belton for a large order, but Belton wanted more money than Congress could afford.
Also during the Revolution, the British introduced their six-shot Ferguson Rifle (which might have made a difference in the war, if the British had manufactured enough of them) and the Nock Valley Gun (which shot seven rounds at once).
Early Republic: By the time the Second Amendment was ratified, the state-of-the-art
repeater was the Girandoni air rifle, which could shoot 21 or 22 rounds in .46 or .49 caliber. Although powered by compressed air, the Girandoni was ballistically equal
to a powder gun, and powerful enough to take an elk with a single shot. Many air guns of the time were equally powerful.
Originally invented for Austrian army sharpshooters, the Girandoni was manufactured in Russia, Germany, Switzerland, England–and Pennsylvania. Meriwether Lewis bought a Pennsylvania model, and carried on the Lewis and Clark Expedition. The gun is mentioned 22 times in Clark’s journal–usually in the context of the expedition showing off the gun to Indians, making the implicit point that the expedition could defend itself against a larger group.
Early nineteenth century: The 1820s brought a new type of repeaters: Isaiah Jennings’ 15-20 shot models, which were copied by Reuben Ellis for a military contract later in the decade.
Double-barreled guns (like today’s double-barreled shotguns) had long been popular, but the first repeating arms that could fire several shots and that were broadly affordable to the middle class were the pepperbox handguns of the 1830s. They held the ammunition in rotating barrels, one round per barrel. The most common pepperboxes held 4 to 8 rounds, while some held up to 24. The 12-shot Bennett and Haviland Rifle used a similar system.
Colonel Samuel Colt improved everything with his revolvers. Colt’s handguns only needed one barrel, while the ammunition was stored in a revolving cylinder.
Since the War of 1812, the federal armories at Springfield, Massachusetts, and Harpers Ferry, Virginia, had been working hard at learning how to mass produce firearms with interchangeable parts. The Springfield Armory worked closely with private entrepreneurs, gaining their knowledge and broadly disseminating its own knowledge. The federal armories became the foundation of “the American system of manufacture”–a term that caught on globally when Samuel Colt displayed his revolvers at the Crystal Palace Exhibition in London in 1853-54.
The government-led advances in firearms manufacturing helped made firearms, including repeaters, increasingly affordable. The American system of manufacture first spread from firearms to sewing machines and eventually to grain reapers, typewriters, bicycles, and automobiles. The prosperity created by the American system created a virtuous cycle in which Americans got richer and spent more money on manufactured goods, and the growing sales of the manufacturers led to improvements that continually increased quality and reduced price.
Mid-nineteenth century: By the 1850s, all sorts of repeating arms were being sold in America, including 21-round pinfire revolvers, 12 shot/6 chamber revolvers, the 15-round Hall rifle, the 38 or 60 shot Porter Rifles, and the 42 shot Ferris Wheel pistol.
But the most successful developments began with a collaboration of Daniel Wesson (later, of Smith & Wesson) and Oliver Winchester. They combined the recently-invented metallic cartridge (which holds the bullet, gunpowder, and primer in a metal cylinder) with the lever action (in which the user reloads the next round of ammunition by pulling a lever up and down). The lever action had been invented centuries before in England, but was not broadly affordable until the American system of manufacture.
The first Wesson and Winchester gun was the 30-shot Volcanic Rifle; introduced in 1859, it had reliability problems. The problems were solved in the successor model, the 16 shot Henry Rifle of 1861, which could fire its full capacity in 11 seconds. By 1862, Union solders were using Henrys in the Civil War.
Then as now, repeaters make self-defense possible for an individual who is attacked by a group. One of he most famous testimonials for the Henry came from Captain James M. Wilson of the 12th Kentucky Cavalry, who used a Henry Rifle to kill seven of his Confederate neighbors who broke into his home and ambushed his family. Wilson praised the rifle’s 16-round capacity: “When attacked alone by seven guerillas I found it to be particularly useful not only in regard to its fatal precision, but also in the number of shots held in reserve for immediate action in case of an overwhelming force.” H.W.S. Cleveland, Hints to Riflemen 181 (1864).
By the time the Fourteenth Amendment was before Congress, the Henry had been improved into the Winchester Model 1866 rifle, which could hold up to 18 rounds, depending on caliber. It was a major commercial success, especially in the West. The Model 1866 was succeeded by the Model 1873, with capacity from 6 to 25. Both Winchesters have deservedly been called “the gun that won the West.” The Model 1892 (15 rounds) was a favorite of Annie Oakley, and, later, of John Wayne.
As an alternative to the lever action, the pump action (the user pushes and pulls a slide underneath the barrel to load the next round) came on the market in the last quarter of the century, most famously with the 15-round Colt Lightning of 1884.
The next year brought the first functional semiautomatic firearm, the Mannlicher Model 1885. Before the end of the century, numerous models of semiautomatic pistols were on the market; some of them had magazines over 10 rounds, such as the Luger M1899, with an optional 32 round magazine.
As always, repeaters were essential for defense against group attacks. That is why anti-lynching crusader Ida B. Wells and other civil rights activists urged black people to buy repeating rifles for defense against lynch mobs. For the same reason, the Florida legislature in 1893 enacted the first American controls on particular types of firearms, after a repeating rifle was used to deter a lynch mob.
Magazine controls: In the 1920s and early 1930s, alcohol prohibition gave a tremendous boost to organized crime and intergang warfare. Starting in 1927, six states enacted laws regarding ammunition capacity: Rhode Island, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, California, and Virginia. None of these laws banned possession; some required a license or registration, or banned in-state sales, or simply forbade altering a firearm to change its original capacity (while allowing purchase of manufactured firearms with any capacity). A 1932 congressional statute for the District of Columbia banned semiautomatic firearms with a capacity of over 12.
All of the state laws were later repealed. The Heller case suggested that “longstanding” gun control laws have a better chance to be found constitutional than novel laws; to be “longstanding,” a law must be “long” and “standing,” and none of the repealed state laws qualify, since they are no longer standing. 1 Shorter O.E.D. 1625 (1993) (“adj. Of long standing; that has existed a long time, not recent.”). No magazine ban currently in force is older than the 15-round limit enacted by New Jersey in 1990. And three decades is hardly enough to be longstanding, considering that DC’s 1975 handgun had been in effect for 33 years until the 2008 Heller decision.
In sum, guns with ammunition capacity greater than 10 rounds have existed since the sixteenth century, were well-known to the Founders (including the Continental Congress), and were mass market consumer items by the time of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the Second Amendment’s protection is not limited only to the types of arms that existed in 1791, the Second Amendment does protect the types of arms that did exist in 1791, and those included arms with ammunition capacity greater than 10.
Not unexpected, but VA Secretary Moran is a moron.
Virginia’s House of Delegates has passed one of the most controversial bills of the 2020 legislative session.
On Tuesday – known as ‘Crossover Day’ in the General Assembly, the final day for a bill to be passed out of its originating chamber – the House voted 51-48 to pass HB 961, a bill which would would redefine ‘assault firearms’ in Virginia and ban future sales and possession of the weapons in Virginia.
House Bill 961 makes it a Class 6 felony to import, sell, transfer, manufacture, purchase, possess, or transport assault weapons or large-capacity firearm magazines, all defined in the bill.”
It specifically bans the possession of magazines that hold more than 12 rounds.
Under the proposed law, any person who already owns a weapon classified as an assault firearm under the new legal definition would be able to retain possession of the weapon, but future sales would be prohibited.
Three Democrat delegates joined their Republican colleagues in voting against the bill.
A similar bill died in committee before ever advancing to the full floor of the Senate, so it’s unclear whether HB 961 will have the votes to pass the Senate, which is more narrowly controlled by Democrats than the House of Delegates.
Moderate Democrats in the Senate have already indicated they are unlikely to support the measure……..
Virginia Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security Brian Moran said a ban on selling assault weapons and high-capacity magazines is needed to help prevent mass shootings, or at least limit the damage mass shooters can inflict. He cited the fact that the shooter in the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007 had a handgun with a high-capacity magazine.
“Assault weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are weapons of war,” Moran said.
When you think of heavily gun controlled states, names like New York, California and New Jersey immediately come to mind. But don’t sleep on Maryland. The Eat Crab or Die State has long been at the forefront of Second Amendment rights abrogation and a new bill entered in the state’s House would move the Old Line State way up on the #gunsense hit parade.
HB 1261, authored by House Speaker Adrienne Jones along with Reps. Vanessa Atterbeary and Eric Luedke, was introduced Friday and would ban a range of firearms after October 1. It would also require those already owning assaulty-looking guns to register them.
Registering with the Department of State Police before January 1, 2021 costs Marylanders nothing. But then complying with the law would require emptying your wallet.
Here’s the bill’s escalating
1. ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2021, AND BEFORE MAY 1, 2021, A REGISTRATION FEE NOT EXCEEDING $290 PER FIREARM;
2. ON OR AFTER MAY 1, 2021, AND BEFORE NOVEMBER 1, 2022, A REGISTRATION FEE NOT EXCEEDING $580 PER FIREARM; AND
3. ON OR AFTER NOVEMBER 1, 2022, AND BEFORE MAY 1, 2023, A REGISTRATION FEE NOT EXCEEDING $1,000 PER FIREARM.
What happens if you fail to register your gun at all before May 1, 2023? Prosecution, of course!
A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2020, AND WHO REGISTERS THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2021, AND BEFORE MAY 1, 2023, ONLY AFTER BEING DISCOVERED IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES IN § 4–306 OF THIS SUBTITLE.
A PERSON DESCRIBED IN SUBPARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS SUBPARAGRAPH IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND ON CONVICTION IS SUBJECT TO IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING 1 YEAR FOR EACH INCIDENT IN WHICH THE PERSON IS DISCOVERED WITH UNREGISTERED FIREARMS.
“Assault long guns” has already been defined in Maryland law here. HB 1261 lists a range of “assault pistols” that would be banned, guns like the TEC-9, the Czech Skorpion, Uzis and the like.
Oh, and “copycat weapons” under the bill means any gun that has one of those really disturbing features like thumbhole stocks, forward grips, barrel shrouds, yadda, yadda, and:
THE ABILITY TO DISCHARGE THROUGH FIRING ACTION ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ROUNDS:
A. .450 BUSHMASTER;
B. 5.56 MILLIMETER (INCLUDING THE 5.56X45 11 MILLIMETER NATO AND .223 REMINGTON);
C. 7.62 MILLIMETER (INCLUDING THE 7.62X39 13 MILLIMETER, .308 WINCHESTER, 7.62 NATO, 7.62X51 MILLIMETER NATO, .30 14 CARBINE, 7.62X33 MILLIMETER, OR 300 AAC BLACKOUT);
D. .50 BMG;
E. 5.7X28 MILLIMETER OR
F. ANY OTHER ROUND DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE TO BE CAPABLE OF PENETRATING THE STANDARD BODY ARMOR WORN BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHEN FIRED BY THE PISTOL;
No ambiguity there, huh?
There’s much more that’s equally egregious, but you get the idea. Again, you can read the bill here.
Will Maryland’s Governor Larry Hogan sign such a bill if it gets to his desk? Don’t bet against it.
February 7th marked the deadline for all policy bills to pass out of committee in their chamber of origin. Numerous gun control bills have passed out of committee and remain active, including two of the most egregious bills that are awaiting a floor vote in both chambers. Please contact your lawmakers and ask them to OPPOSE 2240/6077 and 1315/6294.
House Bill 2240 and Senate Bill 6077 ban the manufacture, possession, sale, transfer, etc. of magazines that hold more than fifteen and ten rounds of ammunition respectively. These limitations are strongly supported by the Governor and the Attorney General. These so called “high capacity” magazines are in fact standard equipment for commonly-owned firearms that many Americans legally and effectively use for an entire range of legitimate purposes, such as self-defense or competition. Those who own non-compliant magazines prior to the ban are only allowed to possess them on their own property and in other limited instances such as at licensed shooting ranges or while hunting. Restricted magazines have to be transported unloaded and locked separately from firearms and stored at home locked, making them unavailable for self-defense. HB 2240 has been pulled from the Rules Committee and is now eligible to receive a floor vote at any time!
House Bill 1315 and Senate Bill 6294 requires onerous government red tape and further training to obtain a Concealed Pistol License. Mandatory training requirements are yet another cost prohibitive measure intended to ensure that lower income Americans are barred from defending themselves.
Just as an aside. The interstate movement of a suppressor doesn’t need prior approval from the ATF like other NFA items do. So, there’s nothing to keep someone from taking any suppressors they own and storing them in a bank safety deposit box that just happens to be right across the border in another state. That is, if the Virginia Senate is as stupid as the House of Delegates is and also passes this crap-for-brains bill.
During a Monday morning phone conversation, the Virginia State Police public relations department did not rule out knocking doors to enforce a suppressor ban.
Breitbart News called the Virginia State Police and noted Democrats are passing legislation to ban various firearm accessories. We specifically mentioned the suppressor ban which is currently moving through the state legislature and asked if, “Virginia State Police will go door-to-door to get those.”
The public relations official did not respond with a direct answer “yes” or “no” on going door-to-door. Rather, she said, “[No laws] have gone into effect, no laws have been formalized or finalized.”
She said they do not, “do the speculation because nothing’s been passed into formal law,” but made clear that their job is to “enforce and comply with the laws” once they are on the books.
On February 9, 2020, Breitbart News reported the legislation banning suppressors was passed by Democrats in the House of Delegates Public Safety Committee. The Washington Examiner reported the ban is expected to pass in the full House, and from there it moves to the Virginia Senate.
The legislation which bans suppressors also bans “high capacity” magazines. Breitbart News did not ask the Virginia State Police about going door-to-door to collect magazines.
Personally I don’t think Buttboy believes he’s going to get the nomination.
I think he’s placing himself for the VP slot.
He’s still stupid
Joe Biden is so dain-bramaged that he thinks “The government will bomb your house if you get out of line” is an A+ argument against the 2A in the state whose motto—“Live Free or Die”—was coined by a militiaman who personally defeated the British Empire. https://t.co/j4t8f1wdBB
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) February 9, 2020