RKBA – MILESFORTIS

Tennessee governor plans to sign bill that would let teachers carry guns in schools
Lee alluded to the pushback from Democrats, saying, “There are folks across the state who disagree on the way forward.”

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee said Thursday that he planned to sign a bill state legislators sent to his desk this week that would allow school staff members to carry concealed handguns on school grounds.

“What’s important to me is that we give districts tools and the option to use a tool that will keep their children safe in their schools,” Lee said at a news conference Thursday after he shared his plans to sign the legislation.

Under state law, Lee, a Republican, has the option to sign the bill, veto it or allow it to become law without his signature.

The Republican-controlled state House passed the measure Tuesday largely along party lines roughly a year after a shooter opened fire and killed six people at The Covenant School in Nashville. The state Senate, which is also controlled by the GOP, passed the measure this month.

Lee on Thursday highlighted the legislation’s requirements that faculty and staff members wishing to carry concealed handguns on school grounds complete a minimum of 40 hours of approved training specific to school policing every year. They also must obtain written authorization from law enforcement, he noted.

“There are folks across the state who disagree on the way forward,” Lee said Thursday, adding that he thought the legislation would allow school districts the opportunity to decide “at the local level what is best for the schools and the children in that district.”

But the measure drew criticism from Democrats like state Rep. Bo Mitchell, who referred to the Covenant shooting in remarks on the House floor.

“This is what we’re going to do. This is our reaction to teachers and children being murdered in a school. Our reaction is to throw more guns at it. What’s wrong with us?” Mitchell said.

Tennessee isn’t the only state to have approved legislation allowing teachers to carry guns. At least 26 states have laws permitting teachers or other school employees to possess guns on school grounds, with some exceptions, according to the Giffords Law Center, a gun violence prevention group.

NSSF PRAISES GEORGIA GOV. BRIAN KEMP FOR SIGNING SECOND AMENDMENT PRIVACY ACT

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF^®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, praises Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp for signing into law HB 1018, the Second Amendment Privacy Act. This NSSF-supported law protects the privacy and sensitive financial information of people purchasing firearms and ammunition in The Peach State. With Georgia, there are now 14 states with laws that protect the Second Amendment financial privacy of their citizens.

The law prohibits financial institutions from requiring the use of a firearm code, also known as a Merchant Category Code (MCC), from being assigned to firearm and ammunition purchases at retail when using a credit card. The law also forbids discriminating against a firearm retailer as a result of the assigned or non-assignment of a firearm code and disclosing the protected financial information. Additionally, the law prohibits keeping or causing to be kept any list, record or registry of private firearm ownership.

“Governor Brian Kemp’s signature on the Second Amendment Privacy Act is yet another example of his firm commitment to protecting the Second Amendment rights of all Georgians. Citizens in Georgia won’t worry that ‘woke’ Wall Street banks, credit card companies and payment processors will collude with government entities to spy on their private finances to illegally place them on gun control watchlists,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President & General Counsel. “NSSF is grateful House Speaker Jon Burns, Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones, Representative Jason Ridley and state Senator Carden Summers for bringing this crucial legislation to become law. No American should fear being placed on a government watchlist simply for exercising their Constitutionally-protected rights to keep and bear arms.”

NSSF worked closely with Georgia legislators to protect private and legal firearm and ammunition purchases from political exploitation. The Second Amendment Privacy Act is designed to protect the privacy of lawful and private firearm and ammunition purchases from being abused for political purposes by corporate financial service providers and unlawful government search and seizure of legal and private financial transactions.

The U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) admitted to U.S. Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) in a letter that it violated the Fourth Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens that protect against illegal search and seizure when it collected the credit card purchase history from banks and credit card companies of individuals who purchased firearms and ammunition in the days surrounding Jan. 6, 2020. Treasury’s FinCEN had no cause, and sought the information without a warrant, to place these law-abiding citizens on a government watchlist only because they exercised their Second Amendment rights to lawfully purchase firearms and ammunition.

The idea of a firearm-retailer specific MCC was borne from antigun New York Times’ columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin and Amalgamated Bank, which has been called “The Left’s Private Banker” and bankrolls the Democratic National Committee and several antigun politicians. Amalgamated Bank lobbied the Swiss-based International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for the code’s creation. NSSF has called on Congress to investigate Amalgamated Bank’s role in manipulating the ISO standard setting process.

Sorkin admitted creating a firearm-retailer specific MCC would be a first step to creating a national firearm registry, which is forbidden by federal law.

Georgia joins a growing list of states that are standing against the invasion of financial privacy when exercising Second Amendment rights, including Tennessee, Iowa, Kentucky, Wyoming, Indiana, Utah, Florida, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Texas and West Virginia. These states passed laws protecting citizens’ Second Amendment privacy. Other states are considering similar legislation. U.S. Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) introduced S. 4075, the NSSF-supported Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act in the Senate. U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 7450, with the same title in the U.S. House of Representatives. California’s Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law requiring the use of a firearm-retailer specific MCC and Colorado passed similar legislation that is awaiting Gov. Jared Polis’ consideration.

Federal Judge Says Pennsylvania is Violating 2A Rights of Young Adults

While you have to be 21 years old to obtain a concealed carry license in Pennsylvania, adults under the age of 21 still have the ability to open carry at least on paper. But for several years that’s been an impossibility thanks to a quirk in state law that bars open carry during a state of emergency. Believe it or not, Pennsylvania has operated continuously under various declared states of emergencies since 2018, so the only option for those who want to carry a firearm is to acquire a concealed carry license; an impossibility for 18-,19-, and 20-year-olds.

The Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition, along with several young adults, challenged the status quo in federal court, and won their case at the district court level. The state of Pennsylvania appealed to the Third Circuit seeking a re-hearing, but the appellate court turned away their request last month. Now U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman, a Trump appointee, has enjoined the challenged statutes from being enforced.

In his order, Stickman not only informed the state that it can no longer prosecute young adults for openly carrying, even during a declared state of emergency, but local jurisdictions must begin accepting and processing concealed carry applications from adults under the age of 21; a resounding win for the 2A groups and gun owners throughout the state.

“Judge Stickman’s injunction has conferred the same Second Amendment rights upon 18-20-year-olds that those over 21 have had,” said Adam Kraut, SAF’s Executive Director. “Now 18-20-year-olds in Pennsylvania may apply for License to Carry Firearms and the state’s draconian transportation laws have been enjoined from enforcement. This is a victory for Second Amendment rights in PA.”

This victory comes on the heels of a decision last month by the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to deny a petition by the state for a rehearing in the case. The court had ruled that young adults could carry firearms openly during states of emergency, and now Judge Stickman has expanded that to include their ability to apply for carry licenses.

“This is a major win for gun rights in the Keystone State,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We’re encouraged the courts are finally looking at this issue in terms of the constitutional rights of young adults.”

Absolutely, and that goes for the Third Circuit too, not just Judge Stickman’s excellent decision in favor of the plaintiffs. I’ve actually been pleasantly surprised to see some of the decisions that have come out of the appellate court since Bruen. In addition to denying the state a rehearing in Lara v. Evanchik, the appeals court also ruled in Range v. Garland that Bryan Range should not have been permanently disqualified from possessing a firearm simply because he pled guilty to a crime punishable by more than a year in prison several decades ago.

The DOJ has appealed Range’s case to the Supreme Court, but it remains to be seen whether Pennsylvania AG Michelle Henry will ask the nine justices to overturn the edict Stickman issued today. It’s a stinker of an issue, given the lack of a national tradition preventing young adults from accessing their Second Amendment rights, and at this point, the gun control lobby may want to keep this case away from SCOTUS rather than risk a nationwide precedent allowing young adults in all 50 states to keep and bear arms.

We saw that same strategy deployed against the right to carry when Illinois’s ban was struck down by the Seventh Circuit in 2012. Instead of appealing to the Supreme Court, Illinois Democrats instead chose to craft a “shall issue” carry bill; not because they suddenly saw the light, but because anti-gun activists convinced them to take one for the team instead of giving the Court the opportunity to definitely state that we the people have the right to bear arms as well as keep them. It took a full decade for the Court to finally get ahold of a carry case, but in the 2022 Bruen decision gun control activists saw their worst fears confirmed when a 6-3 majority ruled New York’s “may issue” laws unconstitutional.

We’re now arguing over the scope of the right to carry, but the gun control groups still have a vested interest in stalling SCOTUS from hearing cases where the law in question is so clearly contrary to the “history, text, and tradition” test laid out in Bruen. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see Henry quietly stop defending the under-21 carry ban, but sooner or later this issue will get to the High Court… and I’m confident that once again anti-gun activists are going to be bitterly disappointed by what the majority has to say.

Judge Cites Second Amendment While Dismissing Gun Charge Against Former School Superintendent

A former Kentucky school superintendent who was charged with possessing a firearm on public school property had his case thrown out by a judge this week, who said prosecutors hadn’t been able to show a national tradition of prohibiting firearms on all property owned by a school district.

John Gunn, the former school superintendent in McCreary County, had just resigned his position in February, 2023 when he went to the board of education office around 6 a.m. to gather his personal belongings from his office. Gunn was allegedly wearing a .45 caliber pistol when he showed up at the building, but he left because his access card had been deactivated and he couldn’t get inside. When he returned during normal business hours he no longer had his gun with him, but he was still arrested by a school resource officer when he tried once more to collect his things.

Gunn’s attorney, David S. Hoskins, argued that the law was an unconstitutional infringement on Gunn’s right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

Hoskins cited a 2022 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court set out a new standard for deciding the legality of gun restrictions, commonly called the Bruen case.

The high court said that gun laws must be assessed on whether they are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Hoskins argued there was no historical analogue regarding regulating carrying guns on school property — as opposed to schools themselves — and as a result Kentucky’s prohibition on carrying guns as it was applied to Gunn was unconstitutional.

The prosecutor, Commonwealth’s Attorney Ronnie Bowling, argued in response that the Supreme Court decision would still allow barring possession of guns in sensitive places such as schools.

Gunn’s act of carrying a gun at the school-board office “is not a traditional, historical recognized right” at the time the Second Amendment was ratified, Bowling said.

Bowling got it backward. Unless he could show a longstanding, national tradition of treating school administrative offices as “sensitive places”, Gunn presumably had the right to have his firearm with him that morning, and Judge Dan Ballou cited the Supreme Court’s “history, text, and tradition” test in dismissing the felony charge against the former superintendent.

Ballou ruled the prosecution had not shown “that the Nation’s historical tradition of regulating the possession of firearms extends to an individual carrying a firearm on property not utilized as a school, during a time when neither students nor school employees were present, and with no other alleged criminal acts being committed, regardless of the ownership of the property at issue.”

Honestly, this case never should have been filed to begin with. There were never any allegations that Gunn intended to do harm to anyone in the building. In fact, he went to the board of education building early in the morning so he could collect his things and be gone before anyone else had shown up for work. This was simply about possessing a firearm, and I can’t help but wonder if there was any underlying animosity from the school board that led to his arrest, when the easiest thing would have been to drop the matter once he’d cleared out his office.

Hopefully the Commonwealth Attorney will take the loss and let this be the end of Gunn’s ordeal instead of appealing Ballou’s ruling and continuing on with the prosecution. The judge made the right call in dismissing the case on Second Amendment grounds, and the interests of the public aren’t going to be served by trying to turn Gunn into a felon for merely possessing a gun outside of the school board’s building early one morning.

NY Judge: The Second Amendment Doesn’t Exist Here

There’s been a case in New York that I should have been following more closely. Dexter Taylor was a hobby gunsmith. He liked the nature of putting together guns from lawfully purchased parts.

However, the state of New York disapproved of this pastime. They arrested Taylor and, on Monday, he was convicted.

My friend Jeff Charles over at our sister site RedState has been covering this case pretty much from the jump, and in his story from Monday about the sentencing, there was something we had to talk about.

You see, the judge in the case has decided that a certain right of interest to Bearing Arms readers doesn’t actually exist in her state.

From the beginning of Taylor’s trial, it was evident that the court would be biased against the defendant, according to [Taylor’s attorney, Vinoo] Varghese, who explained that two judges presided over his case before the current official, Judge Abena Darkeh, took over.

The judge disrupted Varghese’s opening statement multiple times as he tried to set the stage for Taylor’s defense. Even further, she admonished the defense to refrain from mentioning the Second Amendment during the trial. Varghese told RedState:

She told us, ‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.’

Varghese said he had filed the appropriate paperwork to “preserve these arguments for appeal” but that the judge “rejected these arguments, and she went out of her way to limit me.”

The Second Amendment doesn’t exist there? Excuse the hell out of me?

“This is New York?”

This just smacks of “the Aloha spirit” nonsense where some parties seem to think that the Constitution doesn’t actually apply because they really, really don’t like it.

Is the judge in this case, Judge Abena Darkeh, suggesting that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply anywhere she doesn’t approve? What other rights don’t exist in New York under Judge Darkeh’s paradigm? Do defendants not have the right to representation? Is free speech non-existent?

Oh, one might make the case that I’m being ridiculous, but I don’t think I am. Not based on Darkeh’s other actions.

Varghese also tries to take a jury nullification approach. Jury nullification basically means you convince the jury that while a crime might have occurred, the law in question is the real problem. It’s rare, but it’s still a thing. Judges aren’t supposed to encourage it, but they’re not supposed to stop it.

Yet Judge Darkeh did just that. She reportedly warned jurors in such a way as to suggest they could face consequences if they didn’t vote to convict.

So, basically, it feels like Taylor got railroaded and that Darkeh doesn’t actually think people have rights unless she, personally, approves of them.

Yet that’s not how rights work. They exist even if they’re inconvenient. They exist even if you don’t approve of how they’re used.

Varghese says he tried to preserve Darkeh’s comments for appeal and was stymied. However, her comments should still be on the record somewhere. If not, her attitude should be clear from the transcripts.

But either way, Darkeh makes it clear that at least some jurists in New York really don’t think the Second Amendment applies in either their courtroom or the state as a whole.

It’s time they’re disabused of that notion by higher courts.

VIRGINIA VETO SESSION HIGHLIGHTS NEED FOR GOVERNORS WHO RESPECT THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Virginia’s General Assembly gathered in Richmond for the Reconvened Regular Session (or Veto Session). This is the one-day session when bills the governor either vetoed or sent back to the legislature with amendments can be taken back up. This veto session is more significant than usual for the firearm industry because Democrats, who currently control both the Senate and House of Delegates, passed dozens of antigun bills. They were on a mission to pass bills to strip away the Second Amendment rights of Virginians and punish the firearm industry. With much appreciation, Gov. Glenn Youngkin responded by vetoing all legislation that would have negatively impacted firearm and ammunition businesses.

Here’s a look at some of the defeated bills Democrats passed and were sent back to the General Assembly by Gov. Youngkin. The General Assembly was unable to override any of the governor’s vetoes.

SB 2 & HB 2 would ban the sale of many semiautomatic firearms classified as so-called “assault firearms.” The legislation would also ban standard capacity magazines, or those having a capacity of more than 10 rounds. NSSF’s recently-released research report conservatively estimates over 717 million such magazines produced since 1990, establishing beyond question they are commonly owned by law-abiding Americans.

SB 273 & HB 1195 would create an arbitrary and unconstitutional five-day waiting period for the purchase and transfer of firearms.

SB 327 would remove the right of young adults (18 to 20 years of age) to purchase certain semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. NSSF refers to this as an unconstitutional age-based gun ban.

SB 491 & HB 318 would create new civil liabilities for firearm industry members, specifically those engaged in the sale, manufacturing, distribution, importation or marketing of firearm-related products. These bills would also create a civil cause of action for the attorney general or local county or city attorney to enforce the provisions of the legislation. Such claims are preempted by the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

HB 351 would prohibit the transfer of a firearm from a licensed dealer unless the transferee purchases a locking device for the firearm if they reside in the same household as a child or complete a certification statement that they do not reside in the same household as a child. This bill disregards the fact that free locking devices are included in the package with every firearm shipped from a manufacturer and federal law already requires licensed dealers have such devices available for sale and must provide one when transferring a handgun.

HB 585 would implement statewide zoning restrictions that ban home-based licensed dealers from operating within 1.5 miles of an elementary or middle school. This bill would put many licensed dealers out of business.

HB 1174 would expand the definition of “assault firearms” while also unconstitutionally banning the sale of many Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) and those that would have been newly-designated as “assault firearm” to those under 21 years of age. The bill would have also codified into state law the minimum age to purchase a handgun as 21. That has come under scrutiny after a federal judge in Virginia ruled adults under 21 cannot be prohibited from purchasing a handgun.

To summarize, Democrats attempted to ban commonly-owned firearms and magazines, create new civil liabilities that would be weaponized against manufacturers and dealers, strip young adults of their rights, create unnecessary red tape to purchase a firearm and close responsible home-based businesses simply because they happen to be within an arbitrary distance of a school.

Democrats did not have the votes to override any of the governor’s industry-supported vetoes. NSSF thanks Gov. Youngkin and those legislators that stood up for the thousands of Virginians in the firearm industry and the millions of gun-owning Virginians it serves. NSSF will continue to actively engage here in Richmond. That doesn’t mean the work is done. Undoubtedly, many of these same bills, and some new ones, will be introduced next year.

Police Website Reveals CDC Suppressing Defensive Gun Use Data

According to a report from Law Enforcement Today, recent revelations have exposed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for allegedly suppressing data on defensive gun use (DGU). This action has ignited debates over the transparency and potential politicization of the agency’s research on gun policy and public health.

The CDC, which studies various factors contributing to injury and mortality including firearm incidents, has been criticized for omitting defensive gun use statistics from its public communications. Despite commissioning a study from The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, which recognized DGUs as a “common occurrence,” the CDC chose to exclude these statistics following pressure from gun-control advocates.

Documents obtained via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests revealed that individuals such as Mark Bryant of the Gun Violence Archive, Devin Hughes of GVPedia, and Po Murray engaged with top CDC officials. They were introduced by the White House and Senator Dick Durbin’s office and pressed the CDC to downplay DGU frequencies, which range from estimates of 60,000 to 2.5 million annually in the U.S.

Mark Bryant was particularly outspoken, vehemently opposing the highest estimates of DGU. He was quoted in correspondence saying, “that statistic needs to be killed, buried, dug up, killed again and buried again. It is highly misleading, used out of context, and holds zero value even as an outlier in honest discussions surrounding DGUs.”

Despite initial reluctance, the CDC ultimately removed references to DGUs from its publications, a move that has been perceived as aligning the agency more with gun-control advocacy groups than with unbiased scientific inquiry. This has raised concerns about the CDC’s commitment to providing comprehensive and unbiased data.

Gary Kleck, professor emeritus at Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice and a long-time researcher of DGUs, criticized the CDC’s actions, suggesting they indicate the agency is a tool of gun-control advocates rather than a neutral body. Kleck, whose research supports at least 760,000 DGUs annually, emphasized the importance of rigorous methodology and empirical evidence in academic research.

This situation highlights the ongoing tension between scientific research and political influence, particularly in the contentious arena of gun policy. Critics argue that the CDC’s actions compromise its credibility as an evidence-based institution and call for greater transparency and accountability in its research practices.

“CDC is just aligning itself with the gun-control advocacy groups. It’s just saying: ‘we are their tool, and we will do their bidding.’ And that’s not what a government agency should do,” Kleck told Eddie Killian, the author of the Law Enforcement Today article.

What’s Old Is New Again, and Militias Are the New Black

Thanks to a successful leftist smear campaign, most Americans now see militia members as being nothing more than drooling, wacko, camo-clad, right-wingers sipping Black Rifle coffee in their backyard pillbox, stupidly unaware the FBI has a drone watching them from above.

Militias date back to the origins of the United States and earlier. They were created for the same reasons we are seeing a resurgence in militias today: to stand up against a government that can’t be trusted.

From MilitaryHistoryNow.com:

Perhaps the strongest cultural tradition to transfer from England to its colonies was the distrust of a standing army that could enforce the crown’s will and circumvent parliament. England’s strength lay in its navy, which was out of sight – and often out of mind – and could not project power inland. The army was not considered a gentleman’s occupation and soldiers were looked upon as mere pawns.

Founding Father James Madison understood the need for militias better than most.

“Because since inception, militias have been tasked with stopping those who hold public office from exceeding their authority or those seeking to enact legislation outside of their operating charter,” Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, which is “a crucial check against incremental encroachment by the state.”

Madison was on a roll:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprizes of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

The Founding Fathers knew something few seem to realize today: power corrupts horrible people. Thus, they wrote the need for a militia into the 2nd Amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Leftists like to pretend there are differing interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, but it seems incontestable to me. Armed militias are a necessary segment of our freedom. Easy peasy, unless you’re a demented communist.

Continue reading “”

Emmer Introduces Legislation to Protect Ammunition Supply Chain

Washington, D.C. – Today, in an effort to bolster America’s national security, Congressman Tom Emmer (MN-06) introduced the Ammunition Supply Chain Act. The legislation aims to ensure the resilience and efficiency of our nation’s ammunition manufacturing supply chain. Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) introduced companion legislation in the United States Senate.

The Ammunition Supply Chain Act requires the Secretary of the Army to provide a comprehensive report to Congress on the supply chain of ammunition manufacturing. The report will include information on sourcing raw materials used in ammunition production, examining weaknesses in the existing supply chain and the global demand for ammunition, and providing strategies for fostering public-private partnerships.

“As threats to our nation’s security evolve, it is more important than ever to take proactive measures to secure our ammunition supply chain. This is not only about enhancing our military readiness but also supporting American manufacturing and ensuring law-abiding Minnesotans and Americans can exercise their Second Amendment rights,” Congressman Emmer said.

“This administration creates as many ridiculous hurdles as possible to restrict law-abiding gun owners’ access to affordable guns and ammunition,” said Senator Risch. “The Ammunition Supply Chain Act forces transparency from the Biden administration about the status of our domestic ammunition supply chain. This is vital to protect our right to bear arms and to ensure our military has the ammunition it needs to protect our country.”

Background

Due to a rise in the use of ammunition and artillery in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, countries around the world are battling shortages of key materials needed for ammunition production, resulting in domestic ammunition prices skyrocketing, limiting millions of Americans’ ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Congressman Emmer has consistently championed and defended American’s Second Amendment rights. He recently introduced legislation to provide recourse for law-abiding Americans who were improperly denied the ability to legally purchase a firearm. Furthermore, Emmer staunchly opposed the Biden Administration’s crackdowns on stabilizing braces in 2023.

The Ammunition Supply Chain Act is cosponsored by Representatives Pete Stauber, Brad Finstad, Michelle Fischbach, Rick Crawford and Bruce Westerman.

The legislation is supported by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and Vista Outdoor.

Full text of the bill is available here.

Louisiana Preemption Bill Passes Senate, 28-11, on to House

The Louisiana legislature is in the process of strengthening the current state preemption law regarding weapons and the right to keep and bear arms. Local governments seeking to push gun control have been clever about finding ways to restrict people’s right to keep and bear arms in ways not foreseen by previous preemption laws. For example, in Iowa, the Dubuque City Council voted to create a zoning ordinance to prohibit otherwise legitimate gun sales. In Montana, the city government of Missoula, dominated by the University of Montana, voted to require government approval of all firearm sales in the city. In response, state legislatures are strengthening preemption bills to prevent such abuses.

Several changes are being proposed in the preemption statute for the State of Louisiana. The differences between the present law and the proposed bill are shown on the Louisiana Legislature website.

Present law limits a political subdivision’s authority to enact certain ordinances or regulations involving firearms. In this regard, present law prohibits a governing authority of a political subdivision from enacting any ordinance or regulation that is more restrictive than state law concerning the sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transfer, transportation,license, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or components of firearms or ammunition.

Proposed law prohibits a governing authority from enforcing any ordinance, order, regulation, policy, procedure, rule or any other form of executive or legislative action more restrictive than state law concerning in any way the manufacture, sale, purchase, possession,carrying, storage, ownership, taxation, transfer, transportation, license, or registration of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms or ammunition, firearms accessories, knives,edged weapons, or any combination thereof.

The differences are significant. Present law limits a political subdivision’s authority to enact ordinances or regulations. The proposed bill prohibits all governmental authorities (except the state legislature) from enforcing a wider range of items, expanded beyond ordinances or regulations involving firearms to any ordinance, order, regulation, policy, procedure, rule or any other form of executive or legislative action.

Continue reading “”

Any politician who tells you that a badly written law won’t be used in the worst way possible by some goobermint stooge, is lying to you.

MO Senate votes to protect homeschool access to guns to ease K-12 tax credit expansion

The Missouri Senate voted Wednesday night to ensure homeschool families are allowed to own firearms.

On a 27-4 vote, lawmakers approved legislation that originally was focused on cleaning up issues with Missouri’s virtual school program.

Sen. Andrew Koenig, R-Manchester, answers questions about his bill that would expand MOScholars during a committee meeting Wednesday Jan. 10, 2024.

But over the course of a five-hour recess in the Senate Wednesday, Republicans turned that legislation into a catch-all measure aimed at ensuring the House approves an even larger education bill approved by the Senate last month.

The bill approved Wednesday night was crafted to ease House concerns about a 153-page bill that passed the Senate to expand Missouri’s private school tax credit program and allowed charter schools in Boone County, along with other provisions aimed at bolstering public schools.

That bill’s sponsor, Republican state Sen. Andrew Koenig of Manchester, told The Independent he would prefer the House pass the Senate’s education bill without changes and send it to the governor’s desk. Any changes in the House would bring it back to the Senate for debate, putting its changes at risk.

After the Senate passed Koenig’s legislation last month, criticism began popping up on social media and in the Capitol about a myriad of issues — primarily that homeschooling families may face additional government oversight.

Despite assurances from gun-rights groups, one concern focused on the idea that homeschoolers’ inclusion in the private school scholarship program would result in home educators being subject to laws banning guns in schools.

The Missouri Firearms Coalition made a statement that it felt that gun-ownership was not threatened in the bill. And an attorney for Home School Legal Defense Association Scott Woodruff was adamant that he was not concerned about the provision.

“The idea (the bill)…. would make the criminal penalties of (state firearm code) apply to home schoolers with guns in their home is supported, at best, only by a long, thin string of assumptions and implications,” he wrote.

But House members were flooded with emails and social media messages expressing concerns, putting the bills’ chances of passing without being altered at risk.

Koenig said Wednesday that the ability to own a gun was not threatened by his bill.

“I don’t know that it was a problem, but this definitely makes it a lot stronger,” he said. “Anytime we can clarify something in statute, then we make sure that interpretation is stronger.”

The bill applies the existing homeschool statute to particular sections of state law — avoiding applying the definition of a “home school” to the state code that prohibits firearms on school grounds.

The legislation approved Wednesday night expanded beyond virtual schools to include changes such as connecting funding for K-12 tax-credit scholarships to state aid for public schools’ transportation. This is current state law, but Koenig’s bill separated the two.

The bill also exempts Warsaw School District from taking a vote to reauthorize the district’s current four-day school week. If Koenig’s bill passes, school districts that have switched to a four-day week in charter counties or cities with at least 30,000 residents will have to hold a vote to continue with an abbreviated week.

Similar provisions are included in amendments to Koenig’s bill filed by House members. Fifty-three amendments have already been filed on Koenig’s bill in the House.

House Majority Leader Jon Patterson, a Lee’s Summit Republican, told reporters on Monday that he would prefer to pass the Senate’s version of Koenig’s bill but there was not a guarantee to do so.

Two gun bills head to governor’s desk: one to prevent tracking of suspicious purchases, one to protect armed school staff from liability

Republicans in the Iowa Legislature have passed two bills dealing with guns this week. On Tuesday, the Iowa Senate gave final approval to a bill to prevent credit card companies from taking steps that would make it easier for law enforcement agencies to identify purchases of firearms and ammunition. A day earlier, the House voted 62-36 in favor of a bill creating legal immunity for teachers or other school staff designated to carry guns on school property and requiring the state’s 11 largest school districts to employ armed security in their high schools.

Both bills passed the House and Senate on a series of largely party-line votes. Gov. Kim Reynolds is expected to sign both into law.

Continue reading “”

VA halts taking away gun rights from veterans who require help managing their benefits — but only for 6 months

WASHINGTON — A new ban that has stopped the Department of Veterans Affairs from taking away the gun rights of veterans who are found to be incapable of managing their own financial affairs will expire in six months, VA officials said.

The VA in March ended its weekly practice of submitting the names of veterans appointed fiduciaries to handle their VA disability benefits to the FBI’s national background check database. The database contains information on people prohibited from buying or receiving firearms. Inclusion in the database legally disqualifies veterans from owning, possessing or buying firearms from licensed dealers.

The VA’s Veterans Benefits Administration, which disperses monthly benefit payments to veterans, has been required by federal law upon the VA’s appointment of a fiduciary to manage a veteran’s benefits to submit the veteran’s name to the FBI’s National Instant Background Check System, or NICS, as ineligible to own or possess firearms, according to the agency.

The new temporary provision does not overturn current law but essentially blocks VA from adding the names of veterans appointed fiduciaries to “the FBI-prohibited persons database in the NICS system,” said Aidan Johnston, director of federal affairs for the Gunowners of America, a nonprofit lobbying organization with two million members. Terrence Hayes, the VA press secretary, said the provision restricts VA from “using appropriated funds” to make reports to the NICS system without a court order or ruling.

The provision had bipartisan support, including from Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Jon Tester, D-Mont., who for several years sought to overturn the practice by the Veterans Benefits Administration to notify the NICS system of veterans appointed fiduciaries. Tester said he knew of veterans who refused to apply for or collect VA benefits because they were worried about losing their gun rights. He said the law has punished people who receive VA benefits but need help managing their money.

The new legislation does not amend the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which authorizes the VA to report the names of “incompetent beneficiaries” to the FBI database that gun dealers check before selling firearms. Passage of the Brady Act in 1993 led to the establishment of the national background check system for firearm licensees.

Since 1998, the VA has reported veterans appointed fiduciaries to the NICS database. But the new policy, while temporary, means only those veterans declared by a court or magistrate as mentally incompetent and an imminent danger to themselves or others will be reported to the NICS system and legally lose their right to buy, possess or own a firearm. Navy veteran Abraham Conrique, an 82-year-old, part-time cab driver in Maryland, said he understands there are situations when a veteran should not have access to a gun, given his own personal history of service-related mental health problems. “I never had a court hearing over my mental health. But I’m smart enough to know that I shouldn’t have firearms with my level of PTSD. Some veterans need those restrictions,” said Conrique, who referred to his own diagnoses in 2020 for post-traumatic stress disorder. But only a judge should have the power to make that decision, said Conrique, a petty officer second class during the Vietnam War, with deployments in Vietnam and Japan.

The policy was adopted as an amendment to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024, signed into law last month. But it has an expiration date of Sept. 30, which is the end of fiscal 2024, said Kathleen McCarthy, communications director for the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. “I will note that we are working on a permanent solution to this issue,” she said. “Anything that’s included in an appropriations bill is only authorized for that fiscal year, so next year the policy would need to be included in the appropriations bill for the following fiscal year and so on.”

The temporary provision is also limited in scope. It does not restore gun rights to veterans appointed fiduciaries prior to March 2024. The Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans and American Legion have expressed support for legislation to end permanently the VA practice of submitting the names of veterans to the FBI’s database.

Patrick Murray, the VFW’s national legislative director, said at a hearing last month of the Senate and House Veterans’ Affairs committees that a VA administrator “should not be the person who removes the constitutional right to gun ownership. That is for a judge or magistrate to decide.”

It does make you wonder if the demoncraps aren’t actually invested in gun manufacturers. I mean, they are a duplicitous lot.

Americans Stock Up on Firearms in Response to Biden’s Pushes for Gun Control

American citizens are stocking up on firearms as Democrat President Joe Biden ramps up pressure to strip them of their Second Amendment rights, according to a new report.

A bombshell study from a pro-gun group found that so-called “high-capacity magazines,” often defined by liberals as magazines with more than 10 rounds, are extremely common despite the efforts of Biden to demonize them.

In fact, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) discovered that Americans collectively own 700 million magazines with a greater capacity than 10 rounds, a new report shows.

Biden’s extreme anti-gun rhetoric, especially his comments about the futility of an American militia against a standing army, have not helped calm the nerves of millions of Americans who see gun ownership as the last defense against tyranny.

But Biden has a tall task indeed if he wants to get Americans to forfeit their firearms.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) found that 46 percent of detachable magazines owned by Americans are rifle magazines with a capacity of over 30 rounds.

The findings are a stinging rebuke of Biden’s alarmist gun rhetoric, which often paints “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines as dangerous and unusual “weapons of war.”

In a statement, NSSF Senior Vice President & General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane said:

“The data establishes that law-abiding gun owners overwhelmingly choose magazines that have the capacity to hold more than ten rounds for lawful purposes including self-defense, target shooting, and hunting.”

Continue reading “”

The Battle For National Park Carry Isn’t Over.

In 2009, President Barack Obama signed a law that ended the National Park Service’s ban on guns in parks, monuments, historic parks and every other kind of NPS property. Obama, of course, didn’t want to do it, but because Republicans managed to get national park carry inserted into a “must-pass” bill, Obama was left with little choice but to sign on the line.

This was, of course, a big victory for gun rights. Even if you aren’t visiting a national park, it’s entirely possible to drive through one on the way to somewhere else. For visitors, being able to protect themselves from everything from smugglers and ransom gangs in border parks to drug grow operations elsewhere meant a lot more peace of mind for the family.

Sadly, visitors still face a bit of a minefield. While you can lawfully carry in a national park according to the laws of the state the park is in, “federal facilities” within the parks are still off limits. This basically means any building in which NPS personnel work, so the visitor center, many bathrooms and showers, and even some hotels are off limits. Worse, the National Park Service has stretched the reasonable definition of “building” to include natural structures like the caves at Carlsbad Caverns.

Even worse, the NPS is still going to go after you if you have any reason to use the firearm. According to the NPS website:

Unless authorized, the use or discharge of a firearm within a park area is prohibited. 36 CFR 2.4(b) and 13.30(c). In parks where hunting is specifically mandated or authorized by federal statute, firearms may be used to hunt in accordance with NPS regulations and state laws. 36 CFR 2.2.

Visitors should not consider firearms as protection from wildlife.

So, expect the NPS to jerk you around in court and try to take your freedom away if you need to shoot at animals, whether on two or four legs.

Blatantly Unconstitutional

The good news is that after the 2022 NYSRPA v Bruen decision, the days of these remaining unconstitutional laws and policies are numbered. There’s really no widespread historic example of gun bans on public property from the time of constitutional ratification until the 14th Amendment was adopted. So, there’s no real way to say that visitor centers and caves are a place where guns can be banned. There may be some way to justify banning carry in the actual offices of the Park Service but bans on publicly accessible areas really can’t be justified.

As for the use of firearms in self-defense, parks are likely going to need to defer to state laws on use of force. Things like the reasonable person standard, necessity, and whether one instigated an attack need to come into play instead of a blanket policy that bans all firing of guns, no matter how compelling one’s need for that may be.

But, to make these things happen, the NPS will need to be taken to court. That, of course, is going to require money. So, on top of asking gun rights organizations to take this on, we must also chip in a few bucks to cover the costs. Personally, I’d recommend sending FPC a few bucks, and not only because I’m working with them on another case. But, if you have another organization you think might take it on, be sure to pitch in there, too!

Californians Arming Up for Self-Defense as Illegals Flood into Cities

Californians are arming up for self-defense as the U.S. Border Patrol carries out street drop-offs of illegal immigrants in and around cities like San Diego.

The New York Post reported that “roughly 125,000 migrants have been released onto the streets in the San Diego area since September,” and many area residents are reacting by purchasing firearms and ammunition for themselves and their families.

Cory Gautereaux owns a gun store, Firearms Unlimited California, in northeast San Diego and he has seen business increase as more and more illegals are let loose on the streets.

Gautereaux said, “The problem for people that live around the gun store is the street dropoffs.”

He added, “That’s driven business to us.”

On October 11, 2023, the Daily Mail noted that the Border Patrol “[released] 13,000 migrants onto San Diego streets in a month due to overflowing shelters.”

The Post pointed out that gun shop customer Keith Carnevale echoed Gautereaux’s observations, “My wife and I have had home defense guns for many years. Recently, though, with all the stuff that’s happening south of the border and all the people coming over, my concerns have broadened.”

Carnevale indicated his whole family is now armed.

California has more gun controls than any state in the Union. Those controls include a ten-day waiting period for gun purchases; this means Californians who fear for their lives and go to a gun store to acquire a firearm for self-defense have to wait ten business days before taking possession of the gun.

San Diego federal lawsuit challenges law banning most non-California residents from carrying guns

A firearms advocacy group and three people who live in Pennsylvania, Idaho and New Mexico filed a lawsuit Thursday in San Diego federal court challenging a state law that mostly bans non-California residents from carrying guns in the state.

The lawsuit alleges that the regulation violates the Second Amendment and 14th Amendment and should be overturned. It claims the law is “unconstitutionally restrictive” and bars the plaintiffs from carrying guns in California even though each have been issued concealed-carry permits in their home states.

“Individuals like Plaintiffs do not lose protection of their rights under the First Amendment’s speech or religion clauses when they cross state lines. Nor do they lose their protections under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures,” the lawsuit alleges. “They likewise do not surrender their Second Amendment protected rights when they travel outside their home state.”

Included among the plaintiffs is Christopher Hoffman, a Pittsburgh resident who lived in San Diego County between 1990 and 2012. According to the lawsuit, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department previously issued Hoffman a concealed-carry weapon, or CCW, license on multiple occasions when he resided in the county.

“Hoffman … frequently returns to San Diego County to visit family and friends,” the lawsuit states. “Hoffman desires to carry a firearm in public for self-defense while he visits California and would do so if California law permitted him to.”

Continue reading “”

John R. Lott. Jr.
Crime Prevention Research Center
March 11, 2024
Debate on the Second Amendment at the University of Wisconsin, John Lott v Sanford Levinson

Oregon Court of Appeals denies motion on gun control law

PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — The Oregon Court of Appeals on Friday has declined a motion by the state to put a hold on a Harney County judge’s ruling, which found Measure 114, Oregon’s gun control law, unconstitutional.

The measure, which was narrowly passed by voters in 2022, requires people to undergo a background check and gun safety courses for a gun permit and bans magazines carrying over 10 rounds. The law has been unable to go into effect amid various federal and state legal challenges.

Bob Day permanently named Portland police chief by Mayor Wheeler
For one, in November, Harney County Judge Robert Raschio struck down the law after he found the permit-to-purchase scheme under Measure 114 is unconstitutional based on the law’s 30-day-minimum delay to buy a firearm, the measure’s use of language from concealed handgun statutes, and because the Federal Bureau of Investigation refuses to conduct criminal background checks.

The state then appealed the ruling in early February.

In a statement, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said, “Research indicates that mass shootings and gun violence have decreased in other states after adopting permit requirements and magazine restrictions. We are making a very reasonable request: Let Measure 114 take effect now so Oregonians’ lives can be saved—now!”

Lewis & Clark College faces class action lawsuit over 2023 data breach
Plaintiffs in the Harney County suit include Joseph Arnold, Cliff Asmussen, Gun Owners of America, Inc. and the Gun Owners Foundation, who argue the law violates the right to bear arms under the state constitution. They further argued the magazine limit prohibits self-defense.

This current ruling by the appeals court means the measure will not go into effect until the court makes a final decision.

Officials: “No increase in gun violence since ‘constitutional carry’ law

SPARTANBURG, S.C. (WSPA) – The Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office and the Spartanburg City Police said they have seen no uptick in gun violence since the controversial bill dubbed “Constitutional Carry” was signed into law on March 7.

The law directs millions of dollars into free gun safety programs, while making it legal for any adult to openly carry a handgun in public without a permit.

It still remains a rule that only an person 21 years of age or older can purchase a handgun.

Before the law was enacted, adults 21 and older were able to both purchase a handgun and carry it in public.

Last month, Spartanburg-based state Sen. Josh Kimbrell (R) said the law would not normalize gun violence.

“If you’re going to pull out a pistol in public and point it at someone because you are pissed off that they took your parking space, we’re not allowing that,” Kimbrell said.

Spartanburg-based gun store T&K Outdoors said they’ve seen an increase in customers.

“Firearms are a dangerous item. They’re not toys. You must be safe with them,” said Danny Ley, a T&K Salesperson.

A manager at the store said they emphasize gun safety and will never allow a customer to leave a store with a gun they purchased until they’ve educated the customer.

“When the customer leaves here they have a better understanding of how guns work [and] how they need to be safe with it,” said Kyle Marlow, a T&K outdoors manager. “And we are an open book, we don’t believe any question is too dumb.”

Category: RKBA

April 18, 2024

Blatantly Unconstitutional