Category: Rights

FPC Files for Injunction Against PA Carry Ban for People with Restored Civil Rights

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a motion for summary judgment in its Suarez v. Evanchick lawsuit, which challenges Pennsylvania’s prohibition on carry by individuals who have had their civil rights restored following prohibiting convictions. The motion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

Plaintiffs in this action include Julio Suarez and Daniel Binderup, whom the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, has already held to be persons who retain their Second Amendment rights in a landmark plurality decision in Binderup v. United States Attorney General. Another individual plaintiff, Daniel Miller, previously challenged 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s prohibition as applied to him for a 1998 conviction for the use of an altered PennDOT window tint exemption certificate, for which he was granted relief by a federal trial court.

“Nothing in the Constitution’s text nor the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation supports the categorical ban that the prior and continuing enforcement of Defendant’s regulations impose on Plaintiffs,” argues the motion. “Defendant’s regulations thus unconstitutionally prohibit and criminalize lawful, constitutionally protected conduct that Plaintiffs seek to engage in, including, but not limited to, carrying and transporting firearms for self-defense, including during declarations of emergency, and merely being able to stop for a bathroom break, grab a cup of coffee or bite to eat, or pick up a friend on the way to or from a firearm shooting range.”

“Despite Plaintiffs being peaceable citizens with no history of violent behavior and eligible to exercise the right to keep arms, Pennsylvania law unconstitutionally prohibits them from bearing and transporting firearms,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Today’s Motion is an important step towards the full restoration of these individuals’ rights.”

Individuals who would like to Join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

DOJ Subpoenas Targeting Trump Associates Contain Disturbing Demands

News of dozens of subpoenas being sent by the DOJ to Trump supporters broke on Friday and was finally confirmed on Monday. The subpoenas, which were ostensibly tied to investigations surrounding January 6th, targeted over 40 people. Two more phones were seized from Trump associates as well, including his in-house counsel.

It marked another move in what appears to be a highly politicized investigation targeting the political enemies of Joe Biden for nothing more than wrong-speak. RedState obtained and published the subpoena Friday, and Monday night Tucker Carlson, who also obtained some of the subpoenas, highlighted some of the disturbing demands within them.

 

In the clip, Carlson provides an excerpt from the subpoena that purports to define what the current investigation is about. Here’s how that reads.

Any claim that the Vice President and/or the President of the Senate had the authority reject or choose not to count presidential electors.

To put it frankly, it is chilling to think that the DOJ could base an investigation on something that is clearly under the bounds of free speech. And to be clear, it is completely irrelevant whether Mike Pence had the above-mentioned authority or not. Americans are allowed to hold opinions, and they are allowed to discuss those opinions, even if they don’t hold up to factual scrutiny.

It is a violation of the First Amendment for the government to criminally target individuals based simply on what they said unless it is a direct incitement to violence or a threat. Nothing about that passage is either of those things. In other words, the DOJ is firmly in the territory of trying to prosecute thought crimes.

There’s also the issue of precedent here. Carlson brings up the fact that the DOJ did not seek to go after leading Democrats in 2016 that sought to stop the counting of electors for Donald Trump. He’s correct, and it’s a blind spot in all this that is simply being ignored because it’s convenient to ignore. That January 6th occurred at the hands of protesters does not suddenly wipe out the free speech rights of others.

The Fox News host then lists some of the names these subpoenas are targeting, including Stephen Miller and Jenna Ellis, but the most shocking is Boris Epshteyn. That is Trump’s current lawyer. Yet, the DOJ is demanding his communications, many of which are privileged, with a wink and a nod promise to sort through everything. That’s banana republic stuff.

Read the entire subpoena here:

Redacted Subpoena by Jennifer Van Laar on Scribd

I’ll end with something Carlson mentions near the beginning of the clip, which is that there is no accountability or transparency being demanded in the face of all this. Instead, the American press, with few exceptions, is spending its time either ignoring these overreaches or outright supporting them. That’s terrifying because it feels like we’ve reached a place where anything goes as long as seeks to harm Donald Trump, and it won’t stop there. These precedents being set are going to be abused by left-wing officials long into the future. It’s another reason why Republicans must retake the White House in 2024 and that there must be a will to gut these out-of-control agencies.

5 questions about New York’s new social media requirements for gun applicants

New gun laws in New York for those seeking a concealed carry license, including a review of social media accounts by law enforcement, was cleared to go into effect by a federal judge last week, but questions about how the state will enforce it and future legal challenges remain.

The new rules, part of the state’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act, followed a Supreme Court ruling in June that prohibits states from requiring residents seeking a gun license to prove a special need to carry a handgun outside the home.

The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, challenged a provision of New York’s 109-year-old concealed carry law that required applicants to have “proper cause” for the permit — a special need for self-defense. Five other states had similar laws.

New York responded with a number of changes, including requiring concealed carry applicants to share “a list of former and current social media accounts” from the past three years to assess the applicant’s “character and conduct.” The rule comes in the aftermath of mass shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas, where the gunmen reportedly posted warnings about their violence online.

The new state laws, which also require more classroom and in-person training for concealed carry licenses and the creation of “sensitive places” where guns are not permitted, have already been met with lawsuits. Judge Glenn Suddaby declined to put the law on hold a day before it took effect, saying the New York resident and three gun rights organizations who filed lawsuits didn’t have standing to bring the legal action. But he indicated he believed some parts of the laws were unconstitutional, and legal experts expect other challenges in the future.

While written testimonies are common for gun permits across the country, requiring social media records is an added layer that has not been implemented in other places for the purposes of gun permitting.

“I refuse to surrender my right as Governor to protect New Yorkers from gun violence or any other form of harm. In New York State, we will continue leading the way forward and implementing common sense gun safety legislation,” Gov. Kathy Hochul said of the conceal carry changes in a statement last week.

The social media requirement has raised questions about privacy and what states can request in the permitting process.

Max Markham, vice president of policy and community engagement at the Center for Policing Equity, said he believes the laws as a whole are a “strong legislative package” when it comes to curbing gun violence. But he said the social media requirement is unclear in its scope and implementation, and will need to be better defined in the near future. He added that he expects conservative groups, in particular, will fight the law on constitutional grounds.

Markham said the law includes a process to appeal if a person’s application for a concealed carry permit is rejected, which he believes can help increase accountability and provide space “for individuals who may feel like they’ve been judged incorrectly.”

“I think seeing how it is enforced and ensuring that there is some degree of equity will be really key,” he said.

What is the scope of the law?

The wording of the requirement suggests applicants only need to share their public content with officials, and that the purpose of the search is to corroborate written testimony from character witnesses, according to David Greene, civil liberties director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Greene believes the social media rules are intended to look for stated intent to commit crimes with a gun. But Greene said there’s a host of information unrelated to a search for criminality that can be gleaned from accessing someone’s social media history.

“[It] can say a lot about someone’s political affiliations, about the community organizations they belong to, about religious groups they’re active in … and their familial relationships,” he said.

Greene said that context – which is hard to gather from a quick social media scan – is relevant to what people share on the platforms, and it can be difficult to get that from a profile alone .

While New York’s new gun law includes welcome changes, such as requiring more firearm training, the social media requirements are a “poor” part and have “serious” privacy concerns, said Adam Scott Wandt, an associate professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

“I question whether or not that part of the law will subject the state to lawsuits that will eventually find the law unconstitutional. And I also have serious privacy concerns with the state requiring somebody to submit social media accounts for review based upon unclear criteria as to what constitutes ‘good character’ and moral and what doesn’t. It’s messy,” Wandt said.

The New York City Bar Association Committee on Technology, Privacy and Cyber, which Wandt co-chairs, did not have time to offer input or feedback on the laws, either, he said..

Hochul’s office did not answer a question from the PBS NewsHour about outside expert review on the new set of laws.

Is social media monitoring for licenses used elsewhere in government?

Social media monitoring to get an official government license is a rare official policy but at least one other agency has adopted the practice.

Greene said visa applicants have been required to share their social media accounts since 2019. The requirements, originally created under the Trump administration, have been continued by Joe Biden. Users are required to provide social media accounts used in the last five years from a list of 20 platforms. Applicants do have the option to select “none” if they have not used any of the social media sites.

According to the State Department, the collection and review of social media information is intended to “enhance the screening and vetting of applications for visas and other immigraiton benefits, so as to increase the safety and security of the American people.”

Wandt said that he is also concerned about social media reporting requirements being expanded to other professional licensing administered by the government, potentially forcing some people seeking these licenses to sacrifice privacy for their work, he said.

Wandt said there were also questions about how he social media information gleaned from firearm applications will be used or stored by law enforcement.

“Do these things go into a database when the NYPD pulls me over? Is there a database now that they’ll be able to look at and see my social media because I applied for a handgun? I think there are more questions than answers at this point,” he said.

Hochul’s office did not respond to a question from the NewsHour about what happens to the records of an applicant’s social media account after a permit is processed.

Which law enforcement agencies will conduct these searches?

Who will grant gun licenses in New York under the new law is dependent on the jurisdiction. In New York City, the NY Police Department issues gun licenses and will check social media accounts. Across the state, there may be some sheriff’s departments who conduct the checks, but in many cases, a county authority, such as a judge, issues the license. However, in those cases, responsibility for ensuring requirements for a gun license are met will still fall to the sheriffs.

“Troopers remain committed to this mission, and we are dedicated to stopping the criminals who traffic illegal guns and endanger our communities,” State Police Superintendent Kevin P. Bruen said in a statement.

NY Sheriff’s Association Executive Director Peter Kehoe said there is worry by sheriffs that the task of searching through social media accounts would be too difficult. He said there is a risk that law enforcement will miss something in the social media account of someone issued with a gun license who then goes on to commit a crime, putting that responsibility and accountability on the sheriffs.

READ MORE: Gun applicants in NY will have to hand over social media accounts

“It falls on the sheriff because he missed something when he was given an impossible task,” he said.

Kehoe adds that the definition of “character and conduct” under the new statute is too vague.

“The statute says that they have to give us social media accounts and we have to use those to determine whether or not the individual has the right temperament and judgment to be entrusted with a weapon,” Kehoe said.

“What we think shows good judgment might not be the next guy’s estimate of good judgment and it’s all gonna be based on the eyes and ears of the person who’s reviewing it,” Kehoe said.

However, Kehoe denied that political biases would play a role in vetting.

“They’re going to be looking at these accounts. And if they see something concerning, they’re gonna put that in their background report to the judge then it’s gonna be up to the judge to decide, I guess, whether or not that particular concern is disqualifying for the person to have a license.”

In a statement to the NewsHour, Hochul’s office said the law doesn’t change the nature of licensing, it simply adds a new requirement for applicants.

“Local law enforcement and licensing officials have always been responsible for evaluating information provided by prospective applicants to determine whether a permit should be issued. The law doesn’t change that,” the statement said.

“It simply requires them to consider social media activity and other new information as part of their review process for concealed carry applications.”

Is there any training being provided for those doing this vetting?

The section of the law that requires applicants to disclose their social media accounts does not detail what training is required for those doing the vetting. Kehoe said law enforcement has not been given additional funding to do training for law enforcement, or to conduct checks of social media accounts. Kehoe expects “millions” of applicants under New York’s new gun licensing rules, many of whom will have more than one social media account.

“Just on a very practical level, we don’t think we can do this.”

Applicants will only be required to provide social media accounts used in the past three years, however, Kehoe said law enforcement may be required to look farther back into those accounts.

“The statute didn’t provide any resources for us to do this and it’s just not going to be possible to get it done without additional manpower,” Kehoe said.

Markham hopes the state will provide bias training for officials combing through social media, reflecting a wider push for law enforcement agencies to minimize possible unequal treatment of minority communities.

Hochul’s office did not respond to a question about whether additional training or resources would be provided to law enforcement in support of the new requirements.

Can monitoring social media work?

The social media search may catch some people who shouldn’t have access to firearms but many more, including those who might be most dangerous and inhabit the darkest parts of the internet, will slip through the cracks, Wandt said.

“Putting all the constitutional and moral issues aside, I stand by my experience and research that shows me that the truly dangerous, disturbed people have multiple social media accounts, usually not under their real name, and I highly doubt that they will be reported on a application for a carry permit,” Wandt said.

Greene said asking whether it will work is the wrong question, since he believes such policies can be inherently harmful, especially if other government institutions, such as general law enforcement, adopt similar policies.

“I do think there’s something dangerous about institutionalizing and normalizing having people provide their social media accounts to the government,” he said.

FBI secretly forced some to give up their gun rights

The FBI hasn’t been an organization that garners a great deal of respect from anyone who isn’t on the left in a while. Even many on that side of things look at what the bureau has done recently with suspicion as well.

Sure, the ATF is acting shady as hell of late, and we expect them to try and infringe on our gun rights.

However, it seems that the FBI is trying to get in on that action, apparently.

The FBI secretly pressured Americans into signing forms that relinquish their rights to own, purchase or even use firearms, according to a trove of internal documents and communications obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The forms were presented by the FBI to people at their homes and in other undisclosed locations, according to bureau documents unearthed through the Freedom of Information Act by the firearm rights group Gun Owners of America (GOA) and shared with the DCNF. At least 15 people between 2016 and 2019 signed the secret forms, which ask signatories to declare themselves as either a “danger” to themselves or others or lacking “mental capacity adequately to contract or manage” their lives.

GOA and attorneys who specialize in Second Amendment law told the DCNF the existence of the forms raise serious legal questions.

“We’re into a pre-crime, Minority Report type of world where the FBI believes it can take constitutional rights away from anyone it thinks possibly might pose a threat in the future,” said Robert Olson, GOA’s outside counsel who specializes in firearms law. “Which certainly is not something you expect in the United States.”

OK, but who are these people? Are they legitimately people who are a danger to themselves or others? Are they really lacking in “mental capacity adequately to contract or manage” their lives? If so, how can they be responsible enough for their affairs to sign away their rights?

Well, it seems these are people who talked a lot of crap in the wrong venue, among other things.

Many signatories allegedly made violent threats in online chat rooms, in person and on social media platforms, FBI notes show. The 15 signed forms obtained by the DCNF show FBI agents in Massachusetts, Michigan and Maine presented them to Americans — whose names were redacted by the bureau.

While the existence of the FBI form itself was first revealed in 2019 by the firearms blog Ammoland, the outlet did not provide evidence of it being used at the time. GOA obtained the signed forms as part of its lawsuit initiated in January 2020 against the bureau to compel disclosure of records related to the forms.

A spokesperson for the FBI told the DCNF the form was “discontinued” in December 2019, but they did not say why that decision was made.

“The NICS Indices Self-Submission form was created to provide an avenue for individuals to self-report to the NICS Section when individuals felt they were a danger to themselves or others,” the FBI spokesperson said.

Except when FBI agents show up to your home and accuse you of a crime, talking about the potential penalties for that crime, then say, “Here. Sign this and all of this goes away,” it’s not really people who think they’re a danger to themselves or others.

It’s people who think prison will be a danger to them.

When law enforcement of any kind shows up, there’s a certain degree of intimidation involved. Especially if you actually did what you’re accused of. Making violent threats isn’t a good thing by any means, of course, and it’s an actual crime–making terroristic threats.

If there was a crime committed, then that’s one thing, but why simply put a form in front of those accused of making such threats rather than prosecuting them for a federal crime? My guess is that the FBI likely knew that they couldn’t get a conviction because it was someone just talking smack, rather than being actually dangerous.

So they drop the form in front of some schmuck who is terrified of becoming Bubba’s boyfriend and say, “Sign this, giving up your gun rights, and you’re free to go.” Since he doesn’t want to go to prison, well, a small price to pay, right?

Wrong.

He’s still being stripped of his rights without due process. His “compliance” isn’t voluntary, it’s being extorted, and the FBI agents who did this likely know precisely what they did.

What’s more, there’s no way this should have been acceptable in the first place.

However, it seems that the FBI shared this document with both the Secret Service and Social Security Administration. Neither has commented as to whether they’ve ever used it, but it’s still troubling.

Heads need to roll over this one.

Anti-Gun States Blatantly Ignore U.S. Supreme Court’s Recognition Of The Right To Bear Arms

Lawmakers debate legislation to consider new firearms regulations for concealed-carry permits during a special legislative session in the New York Assembly Chamber at the state Capitol Friday, July 1, 2022, in Albany, N.Y.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in the NRA-backed case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. It was a resounding victory for the Second Amendment and vindicated the principle (obvious to all but gun-control advocates) that Americans have an individual right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense.

The opinion also prescribed a standard of review that lower courts must apply in resolving Second Amendment cases. This demanding test requires respect for the original understanding of the right to keep and bear arms and prohibits infringements on this right unless a similar legal tradition existed when the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment were adopted.

Success in Bruen did not happen accidentally. It was the result of tireless advocacy, strategic litigation and electoral victories that culminated in former President Donald Trump’s appointment of three originalist justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yet, Bruen is only the first of many steps that will need to follow. Anti-gun states, including New York, remain in open rebellion against the right to keep and bear arms. They will not comply in good faith. The rebellion will have to be put down in the courts, the legislatures and with the weight of public opinion. Your NRA, as always, will be leading the way.

Anti-gun states, including New York, remain in open rebellion against the right to keep and bear arms.

Continue reading “”

Traditionalism Rising, Part I: Defining Traditionalism and Locating It in the Court’s 2021 Term

Eugene has graciously invited me to write a few posts about my new article, Traditionalism Rising (forthcoming in the Journal of Contemporary Legal Studies and part of a symposium this fall at the University of San Diego School of Law). The piece builds on and extends a larger project about constitutional traditionalism developed in earlier papers (here and here), as well as in a broader research program, The Tradition Project, that my colleague (and Volokh co-conspirator) Mark Movsesian and I have pursued over several years at our Center for Law and Religion. I’ve been a dedicated reader of the Volokh Conspiracy since I was a law prof pup, so it is a pleasure for me to contribute something.

My posts will: (1) define traditionalism and locate it in the Supreme Court’s work this past term; (2) compare traditionalism and originalism, particularly what the paper calls “liquidated originalism”; (3) address traditionalism’s “level of generality” problem, the problem how to select the operative tradition; (4) offer several justifications for traditionalism; (5) consider the problem of traditionalism’s politics. Most of the material is excerpted or summarized from the article, but I invite readers to look at the piece for the full-dress argument. I welcome reactions to the paper, which is still a draft.

Continue reading “”

New York prosecutor promises discretion in enforcing new “gun-free zones”

While New York’s new carry restrictions are now in effect, it looks like enforcement of the laws is going to vary wildly across the state. Gov. Kathy Hochul, for example, has proclaimed that anyone not issued a permit by September 1st is going to have to apply under the new laws, while at least one county clerk (and I suspect there are many more) say they’ll continue to process all permits received before the 1st under the old rules (minus the “good cause” requirement struck down by the Supreme Court a couple of months ago).

The same confusion reigns when it comes to the state’s nearly endless number of new “gun-free zones” mandated by recently enacted gun control measures. Under the statute signed by Hochul it’s a felony offense to carry in a “sensitive place”, and even accidentally setting foot inside a prohibited place while carrying could result in a four-year prison sentence.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams has already promised that the new laws will be strictly enforced, but the prosecutor and police chief in Syracuse say they have no plans on putting concealed carry holders behind bars, at least if their only “crime” is carrying where it’s not allowed.

Violators will have their weapons confiscated while prosecutors investigate any other criminal activity, District Attorney William Fitzpatrick said. Their cases will be referred to the judge who granted them concealed-carry licenses in the first place, possibly leading to the revocation of their carry privileges.

… The DA noted there’s bound to be widespread confusion over which places are off-limits. Technically, walking on the sidewalk in front of a school with a gun is considered a felony. So is walking through downtown Syracuse’s Clinton Square or Columbus Circle, both public parks where guns are always banned.

In addition, a Syracuse-based federal judge on Wednesday wrote an opinion suggesting that the state’s new law — including the long list of prohibited locations — was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. That ruling, however, was not binding and so the law is in effect as written.

Still, Fitzpatrick suggested, that ruling had an impact on how law enforcement will handle the new restrictions.

Law enforcement won’t be proactively enforcing the new law by trying to catch legal gun-owners in prohibited locations, Syracuse Police Chief Joseph Cecile said.

“It will be complaint-driven,” the chief said.

The idea here seems to be that if the concealed carry holder in question has a history of wandering into “gun-free zones” while carrying, or there are other criminal offenses that took place at the same time, charges might be warranted. An inadvertent incident or innocent mistake, on the other hand, wouldn’t be punished by prison time, though it could still lead to someone losing their ability to lawfully carry altogether. It’s unclear from the news story just how quickly someone will have their firearm returned to them once that investigation into other criminal activity has concluded, however, and that’s a big concern. I’m glad that Fitzpatrick says he won’t be charging accidental violations of the law, but if there are no charges then there should be no gun confiscation either.

The U.S. District Court judge in Syracuse who ended up allowing the new laws to take effect because he determined that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue acknowledged in his ruling that, if the plaintiffs did have standing, he would have ruled in their favor on many of the challenges they brought forward… including the “sensitive places” language.

Given that the judge maintains that the Supreme Court has “effectively barred” any location beyond schools, government buildings, legislative assemblies, and courthouses from being labeled a “sensitive place” off-limits to legal carry; it would have been nice if Fitzpatrick and Cecile had announced that those would be only locations where they would enforce the “sensitive places” statute, but we may see other District Attorneys around the state come to that conclusion on their own. New York’s latest gun control laws have not only created chaos and confusion, but I suspect some civic (and civil) disobedience as well.

Leaked memo states that in NYC anyone carrying a firearm, legally, is now presumed guilty until proven innocent

NEW YORK CITY, NY – Leaked documents from the New York Police Department (NYPD) indicate that anyone carrying a firearm is now presumed guilty until proven innocent.

The new guidance highlighted in the leaked memo proves that almost anywhere in New York City — public or private — is a gun-free zone.

It basically states that unless someone is a police officer or a former cop, no one can bring their legal firearm out of their house for protection, like on public transportation.

The memo, titled New York State Restrictions on Carrying Concealed Firearms, states very clearly in its “key points”:

“Anyone carrying a firearm is presumed to be carrying unlawfully until proven otherwise.”

The other “key points” are listed below:

Possessing a firearm in New York City requires a special license issued by the New York City Police Department;

Carrying a firearm in New York City requires a concealed carry license issued by the New York City Police Department;

License holders are required to carry their license when carrying a firearm and must provide their license to law enforcement upon request; and

Recent changes in law do not impact the way officers conduct investigative encounters. Officers may stop an individual when the officer has reasonable suspicion that an individual is carrying a firearm (Level 3) and may frisk that individual since the officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual is armed and dangerous.

The memo also describes what are to be considered “sensitive” and “restricted” locations throughout the city. According to the memo:

“Even though a person may be licensed to carry a firearm, they may not bring a firearm to a ‘sensitive’ location … All private property (residential and commercial) that is not on the sensitive location list is considered ‘restricted.’ People who are licensed to possess firearms may not bring firearms to a restricted location unless they get permission from the property owner.”

ATF Requests Funding for Pistol Brace Amnesty Registration Program

Washington, DC – -(AmmoLand.com)- AmmoLand News has uncovered information showing that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is planning to force gun owners to register firearms with pistol braces as a National Firearms Act (NFA) ATF Form 1 item.

The document (embedded below) was uncovered in a budget justification from the ATF to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This form confirms the leaked information AmmoLand News has heard for months from our inside sources at the ATF.

The document reads: Due to the upcoming Amnesty Registration of Pistol Brace weapons, photos of the weapon being registered will be required to prove the weapon does utilize a pistol brace in its configuration and would qualify for an amnesty registration.

Pistol Brace Amnesty/Registration

Our ATF inside sources have told AmmoLand News that the ATF was planning for an amnesty period where gun owners would be able to register their braced pistols as short-barreled rifles (SBR) and that it is expected they will receive a free tax stamp. The ATF charges $200 per SBR. Currently, there are at least four million braced pistols in the United States.

The ATF posted the proposed pistol brace rules to the Federal Register late last year for public comment. Over 250,000 comments were submitted, with most comments being against any new regulations. The gun community let their voices be heard, and the ATF ignored them.

ATF Funding Request for Pistol Brace Amnesty Screengrab
ATF Funding Request for Pistol Brace Amnesty

According to this document, owners of braced pistols would have to submit photos of their firearms to the ATF to prove that they qualify for “amnesty registration.”

The ATF has issued multiple letters stating that pistol stabilizing braces are legal to put on pistols, but this action would change agency’s course.

The White House ordered the ATF to redefine the definition of a firearm and change rules surrounding pistol stabilizing devices. The proposed rule covering frames and receivers was unveiled 30 days later, and the proposed rule for braced pistols was revealed 60 days later. The frames and receiver rule went into effect on August 24th after a 120-day grace period.

The final pistol stabilizing device rule has not been finalized. Based on this budget request and information from our sources, it seems to include a registry. The ATF recently implemented the eForms systems for some Form 1 NFA items. The new system automates a lot of the tedious work that ATF employees and the National Firearms Act (NFA) division used to do manually. It remains to be seen if the system can withstand millions of additional form submissions.

This influx of millions of new applications will also backlog any other forms submitted for processing. The ATF promised that the average time to process a Form 1 tax stamp application would be 90 days. The ATF is nowhere close to that number, with only 30% being processed in the promised time period. With millions of additional applications, the 90-day period seems to be a pipe dream.

The new rule is expected to be announced by December of this year.

More on the case out of Pennsylvania

BLUF
This is a strong ruling restoring Second Amendment rights. As a Circuit Court ruling, it is a precedential ruling which applies to the entire Third Circuit. The Third Circuit includes Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the District of the Virgin Islands.

For New Jersey, Delaware, and the District of the Virgin Islands, this is a tsunami in firearms law, potentially washing away decades of Second Amendment infringements.

Ownership of Arms Protected by Takings Clause, 2nd and 14th Amendments

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– On August 30, 2022, a three-judge panel in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled the Pennsylvania government violated the Takings clause, the Second Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment when they refused to return a gun collection of the parents of a man who was convicted of murder.

The parents never committed a crime. The state never used the parents’ gun collection as evidence.  From a list of properties, I estimate 47 guns, accessories, computers, and other items valued at $40,000 or more were taken.

The State refused to return the parents’ property under the rule of force: we have them, and we won’t give them back.

After their son had lost his appeal, the parents asked for their property back. It had not been used as evidence in the case.  The state refused. The parents sued in federal district court under U.S. 42:1983, civil rights act. The case was filed on June 10, 2020.

The District Court ruled against the parents. The parents appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeals court ruling, written by Judge Bibas, appears to be unanimous (no dissent was seen) and very strongly written. The Bruen decision was important in this case. From the order of the three-judge panel:

Continue reading “”

A New Kind of Threat to 2nd Amendment & Free Speech Rights

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- In the wake of another Supreme Court ruling that strengthens and more clearly defines Second Amendment protections, anti-gun politicians have developed another way to threaten those rights, and rights protected by the First Amendment all in an effort to silence gun owners and penalize them for fighting back.

In California, where such strategies are typically developed and then spread across the map, this plan of attack is already in progress.

A federal court case known as Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. et.al. v. Bonta cuts to the heart of the problem. Several plaintiffs, including gun rights organizations, are challenging changes in state law created by the passage of Assembly Bill 2571, which makes it unlawful for any firearm industry members to advertise, market, or arrange for placement of an advertising or marketing communication concerning any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors. The plaintiffs are asking for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the law.

The second prong of this anti-gun strategy is legislation enacted to thwart such challenges by financially penalizing anyone, including an attorney or an entire law firm if they seek declaratory or injunctive relief from any firearms-related California state statute or local ordinance or even a rule or regulation by making them liable to pay attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party. Simply put, anybody seeking to enjoin a California gun restriction faces the prospect of liability for the state’s attorneys’ fees if the plaintiff does not win on all aspects of the case, even if their case prevails on the merits, settles a claim without a waiver or voluntarily dismisses any portion of the case for any reason.

In essence, California politicians are effectively silencing debate on issues directly affecting rights secured by the Second Amendment by legislating against those who would challenge their laws.

What began as an attack on one constitutional right has now become an attack on another right, yet civil libertarians are silent.

Democrats led by Gov. Gavin Newsom are saying, “You have freedom of speech only if you agree with us.” That is not how the Founders perceived this country, and it is why they included the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights.

If this were about any issue other than guns, the media would be going crazy. Where are the editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post? Why aren’t there reports about this in every newspaper? Are stories being spiked, or is the situation simply being ignored?

One might expect this sort of censorship in Putin’s Russia, but it is here, now in Joe Biden’s America. When anti-rights fanatics take their fight to this level, it’s really an attack on all Americans, not just 100 million gun owners.

Today, they’re coming after gun rights. Tomorrow, perhaps they’ll be coming after a right you cherish or your right to protest, publish or provide an alternate viewpoint.

That’s not the country where our parents and grandparents grew up, and it shouldn’t be the country our children and grandchildren are forced to accept.

Biden Is the Semi-Fascist He Is Looking For

JOE BIDEN IS THE FASCIST IN THE WHITE HOUSE

Biden and his administration are framing out an ideological war which puts Democrats in possession of the “soul of the nation,” and paints conservatives as fascists, bigots and any other insult they can come up with. The goal is to try to seize the moral high ground, only they are doing it on behalf of butchers disguised as doctors, groomers disguised as academics, and racists disguised as equity professionals.

When Biden spoke to Democrats last week and proclaimed that conservatives and Trump supporters are semi-fascist, his handlers knew exactly what they were doing. When Biden was asked what he meant with the comment, he said “you know exactly what I mean,” leaving explanations to flow from the podium in the White House briefing room.

“We have seen MAGA republicans take away our rights, make threats of violence, including this weekend,” Karine Jean-Pierre said when asked about Louisiana Senator Lindsey Graham’s caution against prosecuting former President Donald Trump, “and that is what the president was referring to when you all asked me last week about the ‘semi-fascism’ comment.”

Congress is held by Democrats, the White House has a Democrat in the Oval Office. The approval rating for the president and his administration is trash. Yet somehow, they continuously blame the opposition party for their own failures. Democrats could not, in 50 years, pass a bill federally legalizing abortion. In recent years, their efforts to obstruct states from enacting their own voting laws were met with realizations that Delaware, Biden’s home state, as well as bastion of liberal thought New York, each have voting laws more “restrictive” than Georgia and Texas.

Using the term “fascist” is a language game designed to paint the opposition as something they are not, and obfuscate the fact that it has been Democrats in power that have repeatedly and consistently limited the rights of Americans. Charlie Kirk rightfully noted that Joe Biden is a fascist.

Continue reading “”

Pennsylvania can’t keep guns in trooper ambush case, court rules

Pennsylvania may not keep a cache of weapons seized from the parents of a  gunman who killed one state trooper and permanently disabled another eight years ago, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The parents of Eric Frein sued after authorities refused to return 25 rifles, 10 pistols and two shotguns that were taken from their home in September 2014, days after Frein ambushed the troopers outside a state police barracks in the Pocono Mountains.

Eugene Michael Frein and Deborah Frein were not charged in their son’s crime — for which he was convicted and sentenced to death — and none of their weapons were used in his deadly late-night assault.

The Pike County district attorney, who was named as a defendant in the parents’ suit, had argued that authorities had the right to hold the seized weapons, saying they might be needed as evidence during Eric Frein’s state and federal appeals.

The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, saying in its ruling Tuesday that state authorities never used Michael and Deborah’s weapons as evidence at their son’s trial and violated the parents’ constitutional rights by holding on to the guns indefinitely.

Curt Parkins, the Freins’ attorney, called the seizure a “terrible case of government overreach.”

“It’s really the government being vindictive,” Parkins said in a telephone interview. The Freins, he said, were “punished for being the parents of Eric Frein.”

State police declined to comment on the ruling, which overturned a lower court decision to dismiss the parents’ lawsuit. A message was sent to the district attorney seeking comment.

The state seized the Freins’ property without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and hindered their ability to keep firearms in violation of the Second Amendment, the appeals court said.

“The police understandably seized the parents’ guns in 2014 while a killer was still at large. But he has long since been captured and convicted, and his conviction has been affirmed,” the panel wrote in its decision. “The judicial warrant does not authorize keeping the guns past this point.”

The state would have to get another warrant to justify keeping the parents’ property, which the district attorney’s office conceded was unlikely because of a lack of probable cause, the court said.

Prosecutors have said Eric Frein was hoping to start an uprising against the government when he opened fire with a rifle on the Blooming Grove barracks. Cpl. Bryon Dickson II, a Marine veteran and married father of two, was killed in the late-night ambush, and Trooper Alex Douglass was left with devastating injuries.

Frein was captured after a 48-day manhunt. He was convicted and sentenced to death, though Pennsylvania has a moratorium on executions.

A New Kind of Threat to 2nd Amendment & Free Speech Rights

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- In the wake of another Supreme Court ruling that strengthens and more clearly defines Second Amendment protections, anti-gun politicians have developed another way to threaten those rights, and rights protected by the First Amendment all in an effort to silence gun owners and penalize them for fighting back.

In California, where such strategies are typically developed and then spread across the map, this plan of attack is already in progress.

A federal court case known as Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. et.al. v. Bonta cuts to the heart of the problem. Several plaintiffs, including gun rights organizations, are challenging changes in state law created by the passage of Assembly Bill 2571, which makes it unlawful for any firearm industry members to advertise, market, or arrange for placement of an advertising or marketing communication concerning any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors. The plaintiffs are asking for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the law.

The second prong of this anti-gun strategy is legislation enacted to thwart such challenges by financially penalizing anyone, including an attorney or an entire law firm if they seek declaratory or injunctive relief from any firearms-related California state statute or local ordinance or even a rule or regulation by making them liable to pay attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party. Simply put, anybody seeking to enjoin a California gun restriction faces the prospect of liability for the state’s attorneys’ fees if the plaintiff does not win on all aspects of the case, even if their case prevails on the merits, settles a claim without a waiver or voluntarily dismisses any portion of the case for any reason.

In essence, California politicians are effectively silencing debate on issues directly affecting rights secured by the Second Amendment by legislating against those who would challenge their laws.

What began as an attack on one constitutional right has now become an attack on another right, yet civil libertarians are silent.

Democrats led by Gov. Gavin Newsom are saying, “You have freedom of speech only if you agree with us.” That is not how the Founders perceived this country, and it is why they included the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights.

If this were about any issue other than guns, the media would be going crazy. Where are the editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post? Why aren’t there reports about this in every newspaper? Are stories being spiked, or is the situation simply being ignored?

One might expect this sort of censorship in Putin’s Russia, but it is here, now in Joe Biden’s America. When anti-rights fanatics take their fight to this level, it’s really an attack on all Americans, not just 100 million gun owners.

Today, they’re coming after gun rights. Tomorrow, perhaps they’ll be coming after a right you cherish or your right to protest, publish or provide an alternate viewpoint.

That’s not the country where our parents and grandparents grew up, and it shouldn’t be the country our children and grandchildren are forced to accept.

ProPublica Horrified That a Lawful Business is Defending Itself in the Courts

After the 2021 ghost gun law passed in Nevada, Polymer80 hired the New York City law firm Greenspoon Marder to file the lawsuit in Yerington, an onion farming town that’s the seat of the county that’s home to Polymer80. One of the firm’s managing partners, James McGuire, traveled to Yerington to argue before Judge John Schlegelmilch that the law was written so vaguely it would be impossible to enforce and would be ripe for abuse.

McGuire said in an email he no longer represents Polymer80 and referred questions to another lawyer at the firm, who didn’t respond to requests for comment.

In court, McGuire argued the law failed to define key terms such as “receiver” and “frame,” and used “murky and undefined terms” to explain what an “unfinished receiver” is. He also argued the law doesn’t specify when in the manufacturing process an unfinished receiver actually becomes a receiver.

During two hearings on the lawsuit, Schlegelmilch seemed to have little patience with the state’s argument that the law relies on industry-specific terms that are well understood by Polymer80. Instead the judge agreed with McGuire that the law didn’t adequately define an unfinished receiver. At one point he asked whether his 5-year-old’s rubber band gun could be considered an unfinished receiver simply because it looks like a gun

“What if I’m at home, and I’m machining a piece of wood. OK? And my 5-year-old wants a rubber band gun. OK? So, I take that piece of wood, I turn it, I make it into — you know, I take a band saw, and I cut out what looks like a firearm. And I put a couple of sticks on it so that you can put a rubber band on it when you push it up. You’ve seen a rubber band gun before, right? So, is that mostly completed?”

“I mean, a rubber band gun’s not a firearm,” responded the state’s attorney, Greg Zunino. “I don’t think you would ever be prosecuted under that scenario because you still have to have an intent to turn something into a firearm.”

Schlegelmilch ruled in favor of Polymer80 and enjoined the state from enforcing the section of the law that prohibited the possession and sale of unfinished frames and receivers. Schlegelmilch let stand the rest of the law, which Polymer80 didn’t challenge and prohibits the possession of a completed ghost gun

The state has appealed Schlegelmilch’s ruling to the Nevada Supreme Court.

Schlegelmilch declined an interview request because the appeal is pending.

[Polymer80 president Loran] Kelley declined to comment on the decision to file the lawsuit on his home turf in Lyon County.

Other courts have ruled differently.

A similar lawsuit filed in federal court in Reno the same month was quickly tossed by a judge who decided the law “is a valid exercise of the government’s police power.”

“What happened here, with the state court being more successful for them, indicates politics and ideology within the judiciary,” [Giffords deputy chief counsel David] Pucino said.

This month, a judge in Washington, D.C., found Polymer80 sold illegal firearms in the district and ordered it to pay $4 million in penalties.

The ATF is also seeking to impose a new rule that would require unfinished receivers and frames to include a serial number — one of the federal strategies that Pucino said would be more effective than a state-by-state approach. The new rule, seen as a way to close the ghost gun loophole, is set to take effect on Aug. 24, but it faces at least three lawsuits from the ghost gun industry seeking to block its implementation.

McGuire, the lawyer who represented Polymer80, authored a 27-page public comment submission on the new rule arguing, in part, that it’s impermissibly vague, the same argument that he used successfully to stop the Nevada law.

To some, there’s an easy solution: Polymer80 could stamp serial numbers on the unfinished frames and receivers they sell.

Kelley said putting a serial number on his products wouldn’t hurt his company. But using those numbers to require background checks is a “critical threat” to his business, which he said relies on a growing market of individuals who “value their Fourth Amendment rights” to privacy.

“There’s a problem when people’s right to privacy is infringed and a government agency is looking at what you bought whenever they want,” he said.

Fact Check: Are Armed Civilians to Blame For Mass Shootings?

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Our country has been buried in hoaxes, one after another. Lies have become part of American culture.

They are intended to change our thoughts and actions, even if those changes are not to our benefit. A familiar hoax is that guns and gun owners are dangerous. This hoax is almost invisible; it has become an assumption that politicians use to claim we need more laws to deal with gun violence.

The gun violence hoax is bolstered by pseudo-scientific articles published in medical journals, even in a few criminological journals. A proper scientific article is easily identified because the researcher is honestly searching for truth; unscientific ones use complex scientific language to dress up their biases to prove what they already believe. That’s pseudo-science.

Unfortunately, too many editors and reviewers share this bias against guns, so pseudo-science easily slips through the review process.

Any time journalists need an emotional article about guns, a pseudo-science piece is easily found. It is false but looks convincing. The gun violence hoax gets another boost.

In fact, many articles in scientific journals have been discovered to be fraudulent and unscientific. The problem is even worse in social science and medicine.

Journalists typically ignore complex scientific methodology, so they are easy to fool. Besides, most journalists share the same anti-gun biases.

Fortunately, there are honest, competent academics who can see through the pseudoscientific claptrap and are willing to point out the truth.

A recent dust-up between two researchers in Justice Quarterly is illustrative. For the sake of simplicity, we shall only cite 2 of those feisty articles. First, Emma Fridel, a Florida criminologist, wrote Comparing the Impact of Household Gun Ownership and Concealed Carry Legislation on the Frequency of Mass Shootings and Firearm Homicide. Attempting to clear up her errors, Professor Gary Kleck soon after published a stinging critique, The Continuing Vitality of Flawed Research on Guns and Violence: A Comment on Fridel.

The point to take away from this ‘battle of the boffins’ is that without any math at all, you will be able to understand Fridel’s flaws. It’s that obvious that Fridel fiddled with the books to find the answer she sought, not reality. That’s not science.

Continue reading “”