Category: Goobermint

The demoncrap goal is to criminalize all political opposition

Northwest Body Counts Suggest Time for Change on Gun Control Is Here

It is familiar political ground in the Pacific Northwest, with rising homicide numbers providing strong evidence that gun controls in Washington have been an abject failure.

Seattle has recorded its 52nd homicide, and with two full months remaining in the year, there is no doubt the number will eventually exceed the 53 recorded two years ago. The city, as previously reported, is headquarters to the billionaire-backed gun prohibition lobbying group Alliance for Gun Responsibility. The organization has bankrolled two restrictive gun control initiatives since 2014, making it difficult for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights while demonstrably not accomplishing the promise of reduced gun-related violence and murder.

Down the road 175 miles, Portland is the tarnished gem of Oregon, with more than 80 slayings so far this year and an outlook for hitting a new record. It is against this backdrop Beaver State anti-gunners hope to pass next week a restrictive gun control measure—Ballot Measure 114—that will require a permit to purchase a firearm and add more restrictions including a training requirement.

At least one county sheriff—Brad Lohrey of Sherman County—told Fox News, “It is impossible for us to do what they’re asking us to do.”

In decades past, Seattle and Portland were known as laid-back growing metropolises, with far left politics and lots of tourist attractions. Nowadays, both cities are experiencing drug and gang epidemics, and crime is spiking because police manpower is down.

There may be change coming, in both states. Oregon appears on track to elect the first Republican governor in a generation. In Washington, there could be changes in the legislature and some changes in congressional representation as well. With changes in people, there will be changes in policy, but it all depends upon a strong turnout of gun owners and conservative voters across both states.

Gun politics is playing out in other regions. The Des Moines Register is editorializing against a proposed state constitutional amendment affirming the right to keep and bear arms. Iowa is one of a handful of states without such an amendment, and gun owners are seeking to change that.

But the newspaper is dead set against protecting the right at the state level, continuing a trend where the media uses the First Amendment to throttle the Second. It excoriates the June Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen for opening the door to both legal challenges and court corrections of infringements on the right to be armed. This suggests anti-gunners still haven’t accepted the explanation in Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion that the Second Amendment must be treated like all other rights.

For decades, gun control proponents have had it their way, with incremental imposition of restrictions on gun owners. Violent crime is increasing, not decreasing. Election Day could change that pattern, with a new Congress and power shifts at the state level, rejection of Oregon’s ballot measure and adoption of Iowa’s proposed amendment. At least, that is the perspective of Second Amendment activists who are hoping for a strong turnout of “gun voters” Nov. 8.

Editorial calling for magazine ban misses tons of points

The day I see a pro-gun editorial from the Chicago Sun-Times will likely be the day that sites like this aren’t needed anymore. It’ll mean that we’ve so completely and totally won the gun war that gun control will be relegated to the dustbin of history; a museum-piece idea dead and gone, sitting on a shelf like eugenics and phrenology.

But that’s not likely to happen anytime soon. Today, they’re pushing for state-wide gun control. In particular, they want a magazine ban restricting people to just 10 rounds.

A new gun threat is painting a larger target on everyone’s backs. Lawmakers should figure out how to curb it.

As Frank Main, Tom Schuba and Stephanie Zimmermann of the Sun-Times and Chip Mitchell of WBEZ reported in Sunday’s Sun-Times, extended-capacity magazines — which hold 10 or more bullets and can be used with handguns as well as rifles — have become more common despite bans in some places.

Moreover, a surging number of guns with illegal attachments called “switches” on the street, which convert guns from semi-automatic to automatic weapons, are being seized by the police department, according to the investigation.

A shooter with a semi-automatic gun needs to squeeze the trigger every time a shot is fired. A shooter with an automatic gun needs only to squeeze and hold the trigger, and the gun will continue to fire, causing far more damage.

When weapons with high-capacity magazines are converted to automatic and are easily obtainable, young people who carry guns will want them. But we can’t afford to have these murderous weapons even further embedded into the gun culture.

When combined with illegal devices that convert guns into fully automatic firearms, the large magazines can spread almost unimaginable devastation and death in a matter of moments.

Twelve states ban high-capacity magazines. Illinois should join them.

That’s right. Illinois needs a magazine ban because an illegal device that cannot be possessed lawfully anywhere in the nation is a thing.

Yet what tickles me the most is how little they’ve thought this through.

Sure, such magazines are restricted in many areas of Illinois, but the argument is that criminals just go to where they’re legal and buy them, so by restricting them statewide, that can’t happen.

Really?

This is the same city notorious for blaming Indiana for the guns in criminal hands, and they think somehow these folks who get guns from another state won’t be able to get magazines?

Hell, they’ll get them easier.

In Indiana, there are still federal requirements for the sale of firearms from a licensed dealer. Yet criminals commit a crime in order to obtain these guns so they can sell them to Chicago criminals.

Magazines have no such checks or requirements. Anyone can stroll into a gun store and buy a higher-capacity magazine in any state without even having to show an ID.

If federal regulations and Illinois state law can’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals, how does the Chicago Sun-Times think a magazine ban in the state will? Especially when all the rules on the planet aren’t keeping these people from getting full-auto switches.

And yes, magazines can be 3D printed, which makes a ban even more pointless.

But do you want to know who will get hosed over by a magazine ban? The law-abiding citizens who might well need more ammo capacity to combat the heavily armed criminals who will still get these magazines, switches, guns, and literally anything else they want.

Newspaper editorials are often used to advocate for various laws. However, this is a prime example of how those who sit on those editorial boards often don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.

“Watch me,” President Joe Biden told MSNBC’s Jonathan Capehart this week during one of the most awkward interviews in the history of American politics.

So we did. It was similar to watching John Fetterman, the stroke victim and Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania, bumble his way through a debate after his campaign allies in the media insisted he was fine.

“Am I don’t have the same pace?” the president asked Capehart during a discussion about his fitness for office. “Everything physically about me is still functioning well, so you know, and mentally too.” The evidence suggests otherwise.

Biden wandered around like a sluggish toddler chasing a butterfly, told a group of transgender activists about the Democratic Party’s plan to “overrule Dob,” meaning the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson, which struck down Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that Biden couldn’t remember. He expressed concern that the American “pleople” are “vuedejegguli,” and pledged to encourage economic “innervation.”

The commander in chief, who turns 80 next month, insisted (without evidence) that Vice President Kamala Harris was doing a “great” job. (Just 38 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Harris.) A Washington Free Beacon analysis determined that Biden, Harris, and Fetterman would combine to form a single human being of average competence and speaking ability.

Have a great weekend!

I seem to remember this thing called the 1st amendment…..

Lawmakers Call on Biden to Make it More Difficult for People to Download Gun Blueprints

Lawmakers in , led by Congressman Mike Thompson, penned a letter asking the  administration to hold manufacturers responsible for homemade ghost guns.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

Currently, it is relatively easy to buy gun parts, or make them at home with a 3D printer, and create an untraceable firearm. Ghost guns allow people to circumvent the background check requirement to own a gun.

“It is far too easy for anyone to download from the internet the computer code to 3D-print unserialized, untraceable, plastic ‘ghost guns,’” the letter said. “These 3D-printed weapons circumvent our system of gun safety rules and regulations, and pose a serious threat to public safety and national security.”

The question of banning the distribution of blueprints for 3D printed guns has been debated over the years, with much speculation that banning the sharing of blueprints is a  violation.

“President Biden can undo the Trump-era rule that has made the instructions for the 3D-printing of untraceable and deadly ‘ghost’ guns widely available online,” said Senator Markey. “The online distribution of these ghost gun blueprints only increases the risk of these weapons proliferating and poses a serious threat to public safety and national security. President Biden should fulfil his campaign promise and reverse the Trump administration’s weakening of these gun safety regulations.”

“They’re making firearms and they’re shooting and they’re killing people,” Thompson said.

“If you are a danger to yourself or to others, if you’re dangerously mentally ill, if you’re a criminal, you should not be able to get your mitts on a gun,” he added.

CBS13 asked Thompson about gun advocacy groups pushing back against manufacturers being held liable yet they did not commit the actual crimes.

“I have one word for these groups and that’s, ‘tough.’ We need these rules,” he responded.

Thompson is urging the Biden administration to tighten federal enforcement on these guns because he does not believe that such legislation would pass through Congress.

“Well, I’d like to see congress have the intestinal fortitude to pass legislation that would prohibit this nonsense from taking place. But as you know, as long as they have this 60-vote rule in the Senate, we’re never going to get a bill like that passed,” said Thompson.

Thompson wants the President to direct the ATF and DOJ to pass stricter rules that would hold manufacturers liable for ghost guns.

Missouri 7th Congressional District Representative, Billy Long:

2 + 2 = 3 In New COVID Math

On Monday, the National Assessment of Educational Progress was released, and it’s not good. Known as the nation’s report card, this is considered the authoritative exam on how America’s schools are performing in specific subjects. Based on the results of this exam, math and reading scores are down significantly since the pre-COVID days. This is a concerning development for our students and shows that the lessons of COVID policy are still being learned.

Let’s start with math. All but one state saw declines in math scores since 2019. And this isn’t a small decrease either. For eighth graders, only 26% are considered proficient at math, down from 34% in 2019. Fourth graders did slightly better, with 36% being proficient in math compared to 41% in 2019. These numbers are concerning because of America’s current standing in the world. How are we supposed to compete against China and remain a world superpower if only 26% of eighth graders and 36% of fourth graders are proficient at math? We can all agree that competing against China will be a major issue in the years to come, and to do so our students must be proficient in math, it’s that simple. When it comes to reading scores, the results aren’t much better. More than half of the states saw declines in reading, with only 33% of fourth graders and 31% of eighth graders reading at grade level.

It’s not hard to find the cause of these drops. Schools were closed for months, or in some cases more than a year, due to COVID, and we’re clearly seeing the impacts of this decision. The pandemic has drastically hurt our students’ performance and that poses a serious problem for the future. President Biden and the Democrats want you to forget who did this to our students. They want you to forget that it was their idea to close schools for so long, and it was the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under the Biden Administration that took direction from teacher’s unions on when to reopen schools. They put the interests of unions above the interests of our students, and now they want you to forget that it ever happened.

Closing schools was obviously a terrible decision, one that will have long lasting impacts far beyond our education system. We need our students to be leading the world in math and science if we are going to compete in the 21st century. Failing to compete here would give a serious advantage to China, and that should concern all of us. If we are going to compete against China, we have got to make sure our schools never close again. There is simply too much on the line.

BLUF
Those who spoke against lockdowns and mandates in early 2020 showed that they were willing to stand up for the freedoms and Enlightenment principles for which our forebears fought so tirelessly, even when doing so was lonely, thankless, and hard. For that reason, anyone who did so has reason to feel extremely proud, and the future would be brighter if they were in positions of leadership. That fact is now becoming increasingly clear—unfortunately, even to those who did the opposite. One more reason to keep all the receipts.

Lockdowns: The Great Gaslighting
The lockdowns of 2020 were very real. And few opposed them

More than two years since the lockdowns of 2020, the political mainstream, particularly on the left, is just beginning to realize that the response to Covid was an unprecedented catastrophe.

But that realization hasn’t taken the form of a mea culpa. Far from it. On the contrary, in order to see that reality is starting to dawn on the mainstream left, one must read between the lines of how their narrative on the response to Covid has evolved over the past two years.

The narrative now goes something like this: Lockdowns never really happened, because governments never actually locked people in their homes; but if there were lockdowns, then they saved millions of lives and would have saved even more if only they’d been stricter; but if there were any collateral damage, then that damage was an inevitable consequence of the fear from the virus independent of the lockdowns; and even when things were shut down, the rules weren’t very strict; but even when the rules were strict, we didn’t really support them.

Put simply, the prevailing narrative of the mainstream left is that any upside from the response to Covid is attributable to the state-ordered closures and mandates that they supported, while any downside was an inevitable consequence of the virus independent of any state-ordered closures and mandates which never happened and which anyway they never supported. Got it? Good.

This perplexing narrative was perfectly encapsulated in a recent viral tweet by a history professor who griped about the difficulty of convincing his students that government mandates had nothing to do with the fact that they couldn’t leave their homes in 2020.

Continue reading “”

Massachusetts Gun Control Scheme an Abject Failure

Gun Related Homicides Increased 111% Since 1998 Gun Control Act

2020 Massachusetts Department of Public Health Report on Deaths Still Reflects the Commonwealth’s Gun Laws are an Unmitigated Disaster!

On Thursday, October 27, 2022, Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) released a report reflecting a nearly two-fold increase in gun related homicides in Massachusetts. The report included data taken directly from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health’s Injury Surveillance Program (ISP). The report breaks down gun deaths in the Commonwealth into three categories: Homicides, Suicides, and Accidental deaths.

“What just jumps off the page is the more than doubling of gun related homicides since the passage of the 1998 Gun Control Act,” said Jim Wallace, Executive Director of GOAL. “For more than two decades we have constantly heard that Massachusetts is leading the nation in ‘common sense’ gun control laws. Using the State’s own data, we are proving that is simply a false and dangerous narrative.”

Using the State’s own data, the report reflects an 111% increase in gun related homicides since 1998. Gun related suicides are down a few points, but that marginal success is outweighed by a huge increase in suicide by hanging/suffocation. Virtually no gains have been made in accidental gun deaths as those numbers were so minuscule already.

It is GOAL’s hope that the legislature will finally see what this so-called, gun control effort for what it really is. An affront to our Second Amendment civil rights. There is absolutely no way to justify what has been done to the Second Amendment Community in the name of “safety”. One of the first things the legislature needs to address in the next legislative session is a complete revamp of the State’s gun laws in a manner that respects our community’s civil rights. Further, the political leadership needs to start addressing the human criminal element head on and the growing mental health crisis.

Crap For Brains Quote O’ the Day
Sen. Nia Gill (D- Essex) pushed back on some of Durr’s claims about the bill violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s June ruling……
“This is an exercise in legislation that we must do in order for the court to determine the legislative constitutionality of it,” Gill said.

Fast-tracked bill to limit concealed carry stumbles as constitutional concerns mount

A fast-tracked bill to limit concealed carry in New Jersey hit a snag Thursday when Assembly leaders yanked it from a scheduled vote, conceding its broad restrictions could fold under constitutional scrutiny.

The canceled vote came the same day a Senate panel approved the bill along party lines — and with about 15 amendments that appear to be aimed at appeasing critics who have vowed to fight any new law in court. The bill, introduced two weeks ago, has already been approved along party lines by three Assembly committees.

Assemblyman Louis Greenwald (D-Camden), one of the bill’s sponsors and the majority leader in the Assembly, said legislators plan to revise language in the bill to ensure “it’s directly in line with our legislative intent.”

“That may help constitutional arguments at the end of the day,” Greenwald said. “There’s a focus on making sure that it’s not too broad, not too vague, and that it withstands a challenge.”

Greenwald said lawmakers still aim to pass the bill by the end of November.

“Obviously, the day that the governor signs it, there’s going to be legal challenges — those against it have already made that clear,” said Assemblyman John McKeon (D-Essex), another bill sponsor. “So we’re just doing everything we need to do to cross our t’s and dot our i’s. There’s no lack of resolve. If anything, we’re even more determined to get something to the governor’s desk.”

Legislators say they drafted the bill to counter the uptick in gun usage they anticipate after about 300,000 gun owners applied for concealed carry permits in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that affirmed a constitutional right to carry. In that ruling, the nation’s highest court struck down a New York law requiring gun owners to prove a reason why they need to carry a concealed gun, prompting New Jersey to remove its similar “justifiable need” requirement.

New Jersey’s bill would create new hurdles for gun owners seeking carry permits and carve out 25 categories of sensitive places where guns are prohibited, which range from beaches to bars to parks.

But gun rights advocates have singled out various provisions of the bill they find problematic — and grounds for a court challenge. A federal judge in New York last week temporarily halted a similar ban there on guns in sensitive places, citing constitutional concerns.

Some of the amendments made to New Jersey’s bill since its introduction have addressed critics’ concerns. After gun supporters complained about one provision that would allow the state’s 565 municipalities to define their own sensitive places where guns would be banned, lawmakers amended the bill to remove it.

Scott Bach, president of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, on Wednesday sounded the alarm about other language in the bill referring to “weapons.” Such vague wording could refer to any everyday tool, including mops, kitchen cutlery, and knitting needles, the association warned in an alert to members.

Greenwald on Thursday conceded the weapons verbiage was one tweak legislators would make before rescheduling the bill for a full Assembly vote.

We’re just doing everything we need to do to cross our t’s and dot our i’s. There’s no lack of resolve. If anything, we’re even more determined to get something to the governor’s desk.
– Assemblyman John McKeon

Earlier in the day, during the Senate’s Law and Public Safety Committee, Sen. Linda Greenstein (D-Middlesex), the committee’s chair, agreed some unclear language in the bill needs further consideration.

The committee made 15 amendments to the bill. Two amendments would remove requirements that someone with a carry permit stopped by police produce the gun for inspection and show proof of liability insurance. Two more would allow active and retired law enforcement officers to carry a handgun in sensitive places where the public can’t take them.

Still, supporters and critics spent nearly three hours debating the bill Thursday, with some especially testy exchanges between the panel’s Democratic members and Sen. Ed Durr (R-Gloucester), whose political campaign centered on Second Amendment rights.

 Sen. Ed Durr (R-Gloucester) testifies against a bill that would limit concealed carry at the Senate Law and Public Safety Committee on Oct. 27, 2022. (Photo by Dana DiFilippo | New Jersey Monitor) 

“If I were to sit here and list all the problems with this bill, we’d be here until sometime next week,” Durr told the panel.

Durr especially objected to the increased fees proposed in the legislation, complaining they would “make it impossible for a person of modest means to protect him- or herself.”

He questioned the state’s ongoing effort to reduce its prison population while tightening gun control at the same time.

“You were making room (in prison) for all the responsible but unlucky gun owners who are going to unintentionally violate this bill,” he said.

Sen. Nia Gill (D- Essex) pushed back on some of Durr’s claims about the bill violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s June ruling.

“I’m a lawyer,” Gill told Durr.

He responded, “I’ve seen many lawyers get things wrong.”

Gill retorted: “I’ve seen legislators get them wrong too.”

After almost three hours of testimony, the panel advanced the bill.

“This is an exercise in legislation that we must do in order for the court to determine the legislative constitutionality of it,” Gill said.

Well, maybe because demoncraps like criminals?

NY Gov. Hochul Doesn’t Know Why Putting Criminals in Jail is ‘So Important’ to Challenger Lee Zeldin.

In the race for governor of New York, Republican Lee Zeldin has been hammering Democrat Kathy Hochul on crime and it has been working.

Last night, during their only debate, Zeldin kept up the pressure on this issue and it led to one of those definitive debate moments that people remember.

This is when Hochul lost the debate. The New York Post reports:

‘Don’t know why that’s so important’: Hochul baffled when Zeldin talks jailing criminals during NY gov debate

Gov. Kathy Hochul stunningly said she didn’t know why it’s “so important” to lock up criminals when confronted by Republican challenger Lee Zeldin over the state’s controversial bail reform law during their first and only debate Tuesday night.

Zeldin, who’s pledged to declare a crime emergency and suspend cashless bail if elected, brought up the issue midway through the televised face-off.

“My opponent thinks that right now there’s a polio emergency going on but there’s not a crime emergency — different priorities than I’m hearing from people right now,” the outgoing congressman from Long Island said.

“They’re not being represented from this governor — who still, to this moment…hasn’t talked about locking up anyone committing any crimes.”

Hochul responded by saying, “Anyone who commits a crime, under our laws, especially with the changes we made to bail, has consequences.

“I don’t know why that’s so important to you,” the incumbent Democrat added. “All I know is that we could do more.”

Here’s the video

Continue reading “”

BLUF
“The right to carry is here, and it’s here to stay, and everybody’s got to get used to that,” Bach told the outlet. “This angry fist-shaking by various states like New York and New Jersey is going to blow up in their faces. They can pretend that Bruen doesn’t say what it says, but it’s only going to come back to bite them.”

New York court rulings against gun law may signal trouble for similar New Jersey bill

A gun restriction bill backed by top Democrats in New Jersey is already facing legal threats after the Supreme Court affirmed a constitutional right to carry and sparked challenges to New York ‘s similar gun law.

Assemblyman Joe Danielsen, the New Jersey bill’s main sponsor, is pushing the legislation to prohibit licensed gun owners from bringing firearms into nearly 25 “sensitive places” while imposing stiff barriers for people seeking gun licenses. The bill made it out of committee via a party-line vote this week and has the backing of Gov. Phil Murphy , who has vowed to sign it into law.

If enacted, the legislation could be a tough road ahead in light of two federal court rulings in New York that held the Empire State’s new gun law fails the test established in the summer high court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen .

Just last week, a federal judge placed a temporary restraining order on a provision of a New York gun law that made it a felony for a person with a concealed carry gun license to bring a firearm into churches or other houses of worship. That ruling came just weeks after a separate lower court ruled that much of New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act , signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul , failed the Bruen test. Since then, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals court has restored much of the act while a three-judge panel decides on a motion to stay the lower court decision.

New Jersey’s Bill A4769 features many similar components that have been subject to judicial scrutiny in light of the 6-3 high court opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas .

Continue reading “”

Civilian gun club sues Fort Devens for violating statutory, constitutional rights
Lawsuit alleges the Fort violated federal law granting access to military ranges.

Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club members engaging popup targets with rifles on Fort Devens’ Hotel Range. (Photo courtesy of the Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club).

A small civilian rifle club located just 50 miles northwest of Boston is suing nearby Fort Devens for violating federal law granting them access to military rifle ranges at reasonable rates, as well as violating their members’ constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the law.

Ultimately, the club believes the Biden-Harris administration is responsible.

A little-known section of U.S. code requires the Army to make rifle and pistol ranges available for civilian use as long as it does not interfere with military training, and it prohibits officials from charging exorbitant fees for range access. Another federal statute requires the Army to provide logistical support to the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc., is an affiliate of both the Civilian Marksmanship Program and the National Rifle Association.

For decades prior to the 2020 election, club members had been using a wide array of rifle and pistol ranges at Fort Devens free of charge. Club members supplied their own targets, ammunition, Range Safety Officers and other supplies. They even policed their own brass. Most of the members are veterans, so they are intimately familiar with range safety protocols and other best practices. To be clear, in terms of taxpayer dollars, the club cost the Fort very little.

[Click here to watch a video of the club members at Fort Devens’ ranges.]

Just days after the 2020 election, the club was notified in writing that they would have to start paying a minimum of $250 per range, and that the fees would increase based upon the total number of shooters.

“This did not start until three days after Biden got into office. We found that very interesting,” said Jim Gettens, treasurer of the Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. “I don’t think they ever would have pulled this under President Trump’s administration. If we had contacted President Trump about this, I think it would have gone away ASAP.”

Continue reading “”

Analysis: The New York Gun-Carry Law’s Grim Start in Court

New York’s new gun law, meant to rebuff the Supreme Court, is already having a rough go of it in federal court.

Just two weeks after a federal judge ruled broad swaths of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) unconstitutional in an opinion granting a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), another federal judge did the same for the law’s felony prohibition on licensed gun carry in places of worship.

“The nation’s history does not countenance such an incursion into the right to keep and bear arms across all places of worship across the state,” Judge John Sinatra wrote in his opinion granting a TRO. “The right to self-defense is no less important and no less recognized at these places.”

Unlike the previous TRO granted against portions of the law, Judge Sinatra declined to add a temporary stay to his ruling. That means licensed gun carriers in the state are now free to carry a firearm for self-defense while attending church or any other religious institution without fear of committing a state felony. That’s a limited but key win for concealed-carry advocates.

Moreover, the decision adds to the growing body of case law examining modern gun-carry restrictions. Judge Sinatra conducted a robust evaluation of the place of worship provision utilizing the framework laid out by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

“In Bruen, the Court made the Second Amendment test crystal clear: regulation in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations,” Judge Sinatra wrote. “New York fails that test. The State’s exclusion is, instead, inconsistent with the Nation’s historical traditions, impermissibly infringing on the right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.”

New York attempted to justify its church ban by pointing to place of worship restrictions enacted in the states of Texas, Georgia, Missouri, and Virginia between 1870 and 1890. Judge Sinatra, however, was unpersuaded that such laws constituted a tradition pursuant to the Bruen test because they are “outlier” laws.

“The State relies on a few laws from the late-1800s to insist that a relevant tradition exists,” he said. “Bruen anticipates this argument. Rejecting the relevance of an outlier analogous law and state-court decisions, the Court stated that it would, ‘not give disproportionate weight to a single state statute and a pair of state-court decisions. As in Heller, we will not stake our interpretation of the Second Amendment upon a single law, in effect in a single [State], that contradicts the overwhelming weight of other evidence regarding the right to keep and bear arms for defense in public.’”

In a footnote, he explained that the laws in Georgia and Missouri, unlike New York’s current law, were ultimately interpreted to allow church leaders to decide for themselves whether to allow armed congregants. He also noted that New York failed to identify a single analogous law enacted between the time of the founding and 1870. In contrast, he documented the existence of certain colonial-era laws that actually mandated carrying firearms when attending a place of worship.

“The Constitution requires that individuals be permitted to use handguns for the core lawful purpose of self-defense,” Sinatra said. “And it protects that right outside the home and in public. Nothing in the Nation’s history or traditions presumptively closes the door on that right across every place of worship or religious observation.”

He argued that right, guaranteed by the Second Amendment, forecloses the ability of state governments to implement certain gen policies.

“New York’s exclusion violates ‘the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense,’” he wrote. “It, too, is one of the policy choices taken ‘off the table’ by the Second Amendment.”

Federal courts have now twice sternly rebuked New York over its failure to heed the direction set forth by the Supreme Court. Aside from amending or outright repealing the CCIA, the state’s options for continuing to resist current Second Amendment jurisprudence are limited.

New York, for its part, has already appealed the first TRO to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. It could do the same with the new order.

It has had some limited success on this front already. A Second Circuit judge threw the state a lifeline by placing an administrative stay on the first TRO issued against most of the law, allowing it to remain in full until a three-judge motions panel gets around to reviewing the validity of the TRO. That panel has yet to act so much of the law remains in force for the time being.

New York could choose to pursue the same strategy with regard to its church gun ban. But it seems likely that will only delay the inevitable. Both Judge Suddaby and Judge Sinatra have already demonstrated how the most controversial sections of the law fail under the Supreme Court’s Bruen standard. And, as Judge Suddaby pointed out in his TRO opinion, the criteria for granting a TRO and a preliminary injunction are virtually identical.

Therefore, even if New York can scuttle the TROs that continue to be issued against its law, the imminent injunction hearings seem likely to put them right back where they started.

That bodes well for gun-rights advocates, not only those directly impacted by New York’s restrictive law but for those in similarly situated states as well. California and New Jersey appear to be competing to see who can be the next former may-issue state to replicate New York’s gun restrictions. If and when those copycat bills pass, gun-rights advocates in those states will have a roadmap and caselaw for challenging those laws in court.

Since I don’t think the colonies had ‘colony parks’ back then, I guess we can – maybe – extrapolate town squares? So, did any of the colonies ban guns in town squares? If not……………

Federal lawsuit challenges restriction on firearms in Alabama state parks

A Mississippi resident has filed a federal lawsuit challenging an Alabama state parks regulation that requires written permission to carry a firearm into a state park.

William Lee Mitchum, 43, of Pascagoula filed the lawsuit on Monday, claiming the regulation is an unconstitutional infringement on the 2nd Amendment. His lawsuit asks the court to issue an injunction to block its enforcement.

Mitchum, who grew up in Robertsdale and said he is a frequent user of Alabama state parks, learned about the rule in July and exchanged emails and letters with the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and the Alabama Attorney General’s office before filing the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on Monday.

“The constitution is there to restrict the government from infringing on our rights,” Mitchum said. “It doesn’t give us rights. And I believe they have infringed on our rights by these rules.”

Mitchum visited Meaher State Park on Mobile Bay in July. He said the firearms rule was posted and he talked to the park manager, who told him he could not bring his firearm into the park.
Mitchum had previously learned about the rule and said he went to the park specifically to establish legal standing to challenge the rule. Mitchum said he also went to the pier at Gulf State Park, where a permit is required to carry a firearm.

Attorney General Marshall and the ADCNR declined comment on Mitchum’s lawsuit.

Continue reading “”

That’s not a bug, but a feature, if you’ve read Ayn Rand

Collision over Gun Reform Bill: ‘You’re Making Criminals of Common Citizens’

Republicans on the Assembly Appropriations Committee took aim at Assemblyman Joe Danielsen’s (D-17) gun reform bill (A-4769), which establishes certain criteria for obtaining a permit to carry a handgun while codifying certain venues at which the right to carry firearms would be restricted due to security and safety concerns.

Danielsen wrote the bill in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.  His legislation targets the state’s firearm licensing laws and establishes a list of sensitive locations where guns may not be carried, including playgrounds, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, train stations, and polling places.

“Anything we can do to protect New Jerseyans, including police officers,” said Assemblywoman Lisa Swain (D-38).

Ultimately, the bill passed on the Democratic Party-controlled committee, over the 2nd Amendment-fueled protestations of the GOP.

“Do you agree we have a constitutional right to bear arms?” Assemblyman Brian Bergen (R-25) wanted to know.

“I do,” said Danielsen. “I have at many times been an advocate for gun owners. This is a safety first legislation. This bill says more about safety than it does about guns.”

Bergen took the bill apart.

“This bill discriminates against a woman’s right to carry,” said the Republican. “The bill is discriminatory. Will you commit to altering the bill to permit a woman to carry in anything she might be wearing? What’s the rationale for not permitting a woman to carry a gun in a purse? You said under your bill a woman could not carry a gun in a purse.”

Bergen also strenuously resisted another portion of the bill.

“It requires you to take your handgun and lock it to be concealed,” the GOP assemblyman griped. “There is a law against brandishing a weapon; if you show your weapon it’s against the law to do that. You are asking a person to brandish their weapon in public.”

Assemblyman Jay Webber (R-26) likewise voted no, citing a key problem.

“It gives the ability of municipalities to make up their own rules,” Webber said. “You’re talking about 565 jurisdictions. You’re going to trap people into committing third and fourth degree crimes. That is one of the worst parts of the bill. There are parts of the bill that make sense (including adjustments to the supreme Court decision on concealed carry).”

But not enough for him to cast a vote in favor.

Rob Nixon of the state PBA expressed concerns over the bills impact on retired officers.

“My understanding is there are amendments to address those issues but they don’t go far enough,” he said.

Bergen fulminated against the bill.

“The sponsor could not list one place where a person could carry a gun,” he said. “It’s insane. You’re making criminals of common citizens.”

Continue reading “”

Proposed “sensitive places” law scaled back after public outcry

When Hawaii County lawmakers held their first public hearing on an ordinance restricting where concealed carry holders can exercise their right to keep and bear arms, they heard from dozens of gun owners and residents who complained that the proposal was far too broad and infringed on their Second Amendment rights. Somewhat surprisingly, several county council members expressed reservations of their own, and the bill was tabled for a few weeks while tweaks were made.

Today, the public got its first look at the revised proposal, and while the measure still contains several “gun-free zones” that aren’t likely to stand up to court scrutiny, this is the first blue-state response to the Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen that I’ve seen that at least half-heartedly recognizes the right to bear arms for self-defense in public rather than attempting to regulate it out of existence.

The original list of “sensitive places” outlined in the county’s concealed carry ordinance bore a close resemblance to the expansive number of “gun-free zones” included in New York’s “Concealed Carry Improvement Act”, hospitals and healthcare facilities; schools (both K-12 and colleges and universities) and day care centers, playgrounds and parks, all houses of worship, public transit, private property “open to the public”, and all businesses that serve alcohol among them.

The newly revised proposal removes many of those “gun-free zones” outright, while modifying others.

[Council Vice Chairman Aaron] Chung’s amendment, which had input from the Hawai‘i Police Department, adds a clause saying guns would be prohibited except where permission is granted at schools, colleges, universities or places where people are assembled for educational purposes. It removes language that originally included where people are assembled for literary or scientific purposes as well. The same clause was added in reference to day care centers, but playgrounds, parks and/or other places where children gather remain in the proposed bill.

I don’t think the ban on parks and playgrounds is going to hold up in court, given that there’s no evidence the state of Hawaii or Hawaii County treats them as “sensitive” in any way. There are no metal detectors or fences surrounding all parks, and no dedicated police presence at all parks or playgrounds either.

As I said, the new bill isn’t perfect by any means, but it’s still a substantial improvement.

Continue reading “”