Category: RKBA

Comment O’ The Day

“If rights are this absolute, however, then we cannot afford to recognize very many if government is to function.”

Now, that’s hardly true, or rather, it depends on the nature of the rights, and what you mean by government “functioning”.

For instance, for most of the nation’s history we got by with essentially zero in the way of regulation of what sorts of guns one could own. They were still selling anti-material rifles mail order when I was a child! People brought guns on airliners, and I mean in their carry on bags. You could send your minor children to buy ammo at the corner hardware store. And yet, we somehow had a government. That’s how much of a right to keep and bear arms still permitted a government to function.

We also survived having basically nothing in the way of drug laws for most of our history. Coca Cola had cocaine in it! And yet, we somehow had a government. You could have a right to ingest anything you damned well pleased, and still have a functioning government.

When you get down to it, for most of the nation’s history we had Grover Norquist’s ideal government: Small enough you could have drowned it in a bathtub. I think people generally don’t understand that: The amount of government we had for most of our history would be dismissed as anarchy today, and things worked.

Barnett has internalized the legitimacy of a degree of government intrusion on our lives that would have completely horrified Americans for the majority of our history.

Preliminary Thoughts on NYSRPA v. Bruen
A minor impact on gun laws but a potentially momentous shift in constitutional method

My contribution to a symposium on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen is now up on SCOTUSBlog. It is pithily entitled: A minor impact on gun laws but a potentially momentous shift in constitutional method. In it, I describe the extensive “shall issue” process I underwent to obtain my concealed carry license in DC for the many who have no idea what this process entails.

I had to pay an application fee of $75. I had to submit my application in person at the Metropolitan Police Department headquarters and be photographed and fingerprinted at an additional cost of $35. I had to pass a federal background check. I had to enroll in and pay for an approved firearms training course, which included 16 hours of classroom study of D.C. gun laws as well as the law governing the use of deadly force, plus another two hours of range instruction. In 2018, the course cost $250 plus $20 for the range fee. The monetary cost of the license amounted to $380. This was in addition to the $125 tax I paid to D.C. on the purchase of my handgun, which brought the total regulatory cost to $505. Since the course took 18 hours to complete, I took it on a Saturday and a Sunday so as not to lose two days of work.

There being no gun ranges in the District of Columbia, my course was taught in Virginia. The instructor was African American, and most of the other students in the course were members of underrepresented groups, which is unsurprising given the demographics of D.C. Since it is doubtful that any other Georgetown professor has a concealed-carry license, I suppose I too was a member of an underrepresented group.

Every two years, I must renew the license. If I miss renewing within the 30-day window before my permit expires, I have to start all over. So, two years later, I had to pay another $75 fee and complete a recertification class consisting of four hours of training, and two hours of range training from an MPD-certified firearms training instructor, which cost $160. I can afford all this, of course, though I cannot say the same for all other citizens of D.C.

This is the type of regulatory regime that, in Bruen, the court said it was not questioning: “[N]othing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ ‘shall-issue’ licensing regimes.”

I then discuss my effort to understand Justice Thomas’s “text and history” alternative to the “tiers of scrutiny” doctrine that has dominated constitutional law since the 1950s. I explain why am still not sure I completely understand how it is supposed to work. The essay is long and I cannot truly summarize it my uncertainties and reservations, so you may wish to click through to read it here. Here is a taste:

There is, however, an even more fundamental question raised by Thomas’ text-and-history approach. It seems to assume that, once we use history to identify the “outer contours” of a constitutional right, then any such right bars not only prohibitions on its exercise but also trumps any statutory regulation of it. Prior to the New Deal, however, rights were not viewed as trumps on the regulatory power of government. Instead, the existence of a right barred the complete deprivation of it — that is, a prohibition — and statutes were “strictly” or “equitably” construed to avoid this result. And the existence of a right also required that a regulation be within the power of a legislature to enact. At the federal level, this meant a power delegated to Congress by the Constitution. At the state  level, this meant what is called the state’s “police power.” While broad, the state police power was not unlimited….

Thomas seems to want to limit the original scope of a constitutional right by his historical inquiry. And then the right, so limited, may not be restricted in any way. If rights are this absolute, however, then we cannot afford to recognize very many if government is to function. This would explain Thomas’ apparent movement toward an “enumerated rights only” view of constitutional rights (though he has not yet committed himself to this view). But viewing rights as absolute in this way is quite modern and ahistorical, and its invocation in a purportedly originalist opinion is therefore surprising.

I do conclude with a tentatively proposed alternative:

Perhaps a better approach would have been to distinguish between prohibiting and regulating the exercise of a right. Any prohibition of the exercise of a constitutional right is per se unconstitutional. In contrast, a regulation of how a right may be exercised is permissible, provided the ends of such a regulation are within the legislative power of Congress or a state.

Under this distinction, because the “special need for self-protection” that was required by the New York system was “distinguishable from that of the general community,” the law amounted to a prohibition on ordinary citizens exercising their constitutional right to bear arms outside the home. Not only was this the scheme’s effect; it was also its intention.

By contrast, D.C.’s “shall issue” regime provides a means by which every “law-abiding” (per the background check) citizen of D.C. can obtain a permit, so it is not a prohibition of the exercise of a constitutional right. Unlike the New York law, it is a “regulation” because it proscribes the manner of exercising the right.

It may not always be easy to distinguish a prohibition of a right from a mere regulation of its exercise. For example, is a ban on a particular class of firearms a prohibition or merely a regulation of the manner by which the right to keep and bear arms may be exercised? However, at the extremes it can be quite obvious, as I think it is with New York’s law and the D.C. and Chicago gun bans the court held to be unconstitutional in Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. (Even after Heller, D.C. still regulates the types of firearms that can be kept in the home or carried concealed outside.)

Rather than use modern tiers of scrutiny, when considering the appropriate regulation of constitutional rights, we should look instead to the type of eyes-open arbitrariness or rationality review that preceded the adoption of modern tiers of scrutiny. This is not, I should stress, the same as the modern eyes-closed rational basis scrutiny, which the court today considers its default approach under its tiers-of-scrutiny doctrine. (See Dobbs. “A law regulating abortion, like other health and welfare laws, … must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests.”)

I put the sentence above in bold because I realize how prohibitions can be characterized as regulations and vice versa. But at the extremes there is surely a difference between telling someone they cannot do something and telling them how they must do it.

Such are my preliminary thoughts on the reasoning of Bruen, whose outcome I applaud. I look forward to benefiting from the thoughts of others about the text and history approach before reaching any final verdict on its merits.

NYC gun owners celebrate Supreme Court ruling on concealed-carry

The phone has been ringing nonstop at John Deloca’s shooting range since the moment the Supreme Court ruling was announced.

Deloca, who owns the Seneca Sporting Range in Ridgewood, Queens, teaches classes that help people get New York City gun licenses and permits. The ruling may mean that New York concealed-carry permits – until now granted only to those who could prove they needed one for self defense – will now be more broadly available.

Suddenly, everyone seemed to want one.

“I go, ‘Don’t even apply. You can’t apply right now,’” Deloca said, noting that city and state leaders will likely need to work out many legal questions before the NYPD starts issuing revised concealed carry permits. “They don’t even know what’s going on.”

Guns on display at the Seneca Sporting Range in Ridgewood Queens.
Guns on display at the Seneca Sporting Range in Ridgewood Queens.

CS MUNCY / GOTHAMIST

Across the city, many gun owners celebrated the Supreme Court order, which offers broad new protections to New Yorkers and their Second Amendment rights. But their enthusiasm was tempered with caution — both around a proliferation of guns as well as lawmakers’ attempts to limit the effects of the ruling.

Continue reading “”

 

Sununu Signs Controversial Firearms Bill Into Law

In the press release Gov. Chris Sununu sent out Friday about 36 bills he signed, he added a statement explaining why he signed HB 1178 prohibiting the state from enforcing any federal statute, regulation, or Presidential Executive Order that restricts or regulates the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 “New Hampshire has a proud tradition of responsible firearms stewardship, and I’ve long said that I’m not looking to make any changes to our laws,” Sununu said. “This bill will ensure that New Hampshire’s law enforcement efforts will be on our own State firearms laws – and that’s where I believe their focus should be.”

Continue reading “”

NSSF STATEMENT ON THE BIPARTISAN SAFER COMMUNITIES ACT

NEWTOWN, Conn.— NSSF®, the firearm industry trade association, has carefully examined the proposed Bipartisan Safer Communities Act legislation. NSSF appreciates the good faith effort by U.S. Senate negotiators to arrive at a proposal that would meaningfully address criminal violence all too frequently occurring in our communities. NSSF is encouraged by portions of the proposal, but we have important concerns about other aspects of the bill that impact our industry and the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.

We are thankful the Senate proposal provides significant resources for mental health treatment and services. Most of the horrendous tragedies that have befallen our communities have involved unaddressed mental health issues. We are also heartened the proposal provides necessary resources to help enhance school security to help protect the most vulnerable.

NSSF supports the effort to strengthen federal criminal law to address straw purchasing and firearms trafficking. We have led the effort to stop the illegal straw purchasing firearms and trafficking. For over two decades, NSSF has partnered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in the Don’t Lie for the Other GuyTM campaign that helps educate retailers on how to detect and prevent such transactions and to educate the public that it is a serious crime.

Through our #FixNICS® initiative and support for the Cornyn-Murphy bipartisan FixNICS Act named after our program, NSSF has been the leading voice working to ensure our background check system provides timely and accurate information to retailers to ensure they do not sell firearms to prohibited persons. We strongly encourage all states to provide disqualifying juvenile records into the system so that it works as intended.

We support requiring those who are in the business of selling firearms for profit be licensed under federal law. However, the proposed legislation fails to provide clear and needed guidance to our industry – particularly those who would be newly licensed – as to what conduct constitutes a willful violation warranting a revocation of their license. This is especially important given the Department of Justice’s “zero tolerance” policy and the over 500 percent increase in license revocation proceedings that have occurred under this administration.

While NSSF understands the need for law enforcement to intervene in circumstances when someone is an imminent threat to themselves or others, we have steadfastly maintained that if that intervention involves removing a person’s firearms there must be strong Due Process protections in place. Current “extreme risk protective orders” that exist in 19 states do not come close to providing adequate due process protections when the government deprives someone of their fundamental Constitutional rights. We cannot support the use of taxpayer funds to implement more such unconstitutional laws without specific and iron clad assurances Due Process rights will be protected.

“There are several provisions of this legislative package that NSSF could support including providing more resources for mental health services and school security. However, the ambiguity over state records, the lack of clear definitions, and unaddressed due process concerns prevent us from supporting this legislative package as presented,” said Joseph Bartozzi, NSSF President and Chief Executive Officer.

NSSF encourages the Senate to continue its negotiations to arrive at a package that will provide real solutions to make our communities safer.

Well, the Senate passed it with 15 Republican stunnedtaters voting for it.

Senate easily passes bipartisan gun control bill, sending it to the House

The US Senate approved a historic bipartisan gun control bill Thursday night following two recent horrific mass shootings, marking the most comprehensive piece of gun reform legislation passed by federal lawmakers in nearly three decades.

The $13 billion measure was approved 65-33 and received enough Republican support to avoid a filibuster, a compromise that seemed far-fetched before a pair of 18-year-old gunmen used assault weapons to commit mass shootings at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas and a Buffalo grocery store last month.

The rampages spurred weeks of closed door negotiations between a group of Democrats and Republicans, and 15 GOP senators ultimately crossed party lines to support the bill.

The measure toughens background checks for gun buyers under 21 and provides financial incentives for states to create mental health programs and implement “red flag” laws that would keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

It also cracks down on straw purchases of weapons, and closes the “boyfriend loophole” by banning people convicted of domestic abuse from owning a gun. The current law does not apply to abusers who are no longer married or living with their partner.

The bill was the strongest piece of gun legislation since the 1994 assault weapons ban, which expired ten years later. There were five active shooter situations in the US in 2004 compared to 61 last year, according to the FBI.

Democrats had sought much stricter restrictions, including an outright ban on assault rifles and requiring people to be 21 before they can buy semi-automatic weapons, however the once unthinkable bipartisan compromise was hailed by lawmakers in both parties as a clear message to the American people.

“This is not a cure-all for the all the ways gun violence affects our nation,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. “But it is a long overdue step in the right direction. Passing this gun safety bill is truly significant, and it’s going to save lives,” the New York Democrat said.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged the Second Amendment rights prioritized by much of his base while touting the bill.

The bill is the most comprehensive piece of gun reform legislation passed by federal lawmakers in nearly three decades.

“The American people want their constitutional rights protected and their kids to be safe in school,” the Kentucky Republican said. “They want both of those things at once, and that is just what the bill before the Senate will have accomplished.”

Texas Republican John Cornyn and Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy were among four lawmakers instrumental in hashing out the bill.

“I don’t believe in doing nothing in the face of what we saw in Uvalde,” Cornyn said.

Murphy referenced the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, which failed to prompt meaningful legislation in Washington.

He said Thursday’s bill would save thousands of lives and “prove to a weary American public that democracy is not so broken that it is unable to rise to the moment.”

The legislation is likely to face stronger Republican opposition in the House, where Republican Whip Steve Scalise called the bill “an effort to slowly chip away at law-abiding citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, said her legislative body would move quickly to advance the measure.

“First thing tomorrow morning, the Rules Committee will meet to advance this life-saving legislation to the Floor,” she said.

If passed, the bill would be sent to the White House.

“Our kids in schools and our communities will be safer because of this legislation. I call on Congress to finish the job and get this bill to my desk,” President Joe Biden said.

The National Rifle Association, a powerful gun lobby, had said the bill “falls short on every level.”

“This legislation can be abused to restrict lawful gun purchases, infringe upon the rights of law-abiding Americans and use federal dollars to fund gun control measures being adopted by state and local politicians,” it said in a statement Tuesday.

The measure passed in the Senate on the same day the Supreme Court struck down restrictions on the carrying of concealed firearms as unconstitutional.

Did Feinstein Just Sabotage The New Gun Bill?

I don’t know whether to condemn Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) or praise her. She has filed a bill as an amendment to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that would raise the age to purchase many semi-auto rifles, pistols, or shotguns to 21. The impact of this amendment could cause the carefully crafted “compromise” (sic) to fall apart.

From her press release:

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today filed the Age 21 Act as an amendment to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the gun violence prevention bill pending before the Senate. The amendment would raise the minimum age to purchase assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines from 18 to 21.

Senator Feinstein reintroduced the Age 21 Act on May 19, five days after the massacre at a Buffalo supermarket and five days before the school shooting in Uvalde, each of which involved an 18-year-old who legally purchased an assault rifle.

 “The Senate gun safety bill is a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t address the major problem of teenagers owning weapons of war,” said Senator Feinstein. “It makes no sense that it’s illegal for someone under 21 to buy a handgun or even a beer, yet can legally buy an assault weapon.  My amendment is a commonsense fix with broad public support that should receive bipartisan backing and I hope that it’s allowed a vote.”

Reading through the amendment, something as innocuous as a semi-auto shotgun such as the Mossberg 940 Pro Waterfowl Snow Goose edition would be forbidden to anyone under 21. The reasoning, according to the amendment, is that it has a tubular magazine that holds more than 5 rounds. Likewise, a turkey shotgun that had a pistol grip would be forbidden. On pistols, if you wanted to have a threaded barrel for a suppressor to protect your hearing, sorry but young ears need to be damaged is the message this amendment sends.

I really think these sorts of amendments could cause the whole thing to fall apart and force the Republicans to walk away. It is one thing to say you want to do careful background checks taking into account juvenile records for those under 21 and a whole another thing to ban a whole category of firearms to them. I don’t think a Manchin or Sinema could get by with voting for such a bill that included that along with the other stuff.

I do notice that Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) is not one of the co-sponsors of her original bill nor is Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

Armed Citizens Defend Their Families at Home and on the Street

You probably didn’t see these stories covered by the mainstream news media, but again last week, responsible gun owners defended themselves and the people they love. Self-defense instructor Heather Reeves joins the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast to look at four new examples. Were these gun owners lucky, or did they have a plan?

First story- Do you have a firearm nearby at night?

You are at home at night. You’re taking a shower and you hear your girlfriend scream. You leave the shower and go see what is happening. You are attacked by your girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend who has entered your home. You fight him off. He grabs your girlfriend and forces her outside, dragging her by her arm and her hair. You grab your handgun and shoot your attacker. He lets go of your girlfriend. You and your girlfriend go back inside to call 911. You put your gun down as the police arrive. You pull on some clothes and give the police a statement. Your girlfriend also makes a statement to the police. Emergency medical services take you and your attacker to the hospital.

Your girlfriend stays at your home and watches over the two children inside. Later, you find out that your attacker died of his gunshot wounds. He was 20 years old.

You are not charged with a crime.

Second Story- Are you armed as you drive?

You met someone online. Now you’re going to meet at her apartment. You step out of your car and look around for your date. That is when a stranger runs up to you. He threatens you with a knife. You step back and your attacker steps forward. You have your concealed carry permit and you’re armed tonight. You shoot your armed attacker until he drops his knife. You back away again and call 911 for help.

You stay at the scene and holster your gun. You give the police a statement. Emergency medical services transport your attacker to the hospital where he dies of gunshot wounds to the head and chest. He was 18 years old.

Police identify your attacker as your date’s brother. Texts on your attacker’s phone show that she set you up to be robbed. She is charged with second degree murder.

You are not charged with a crime.

Third story- Do you have a firearm nearby at night?

You are sleeping in your bed. You wake up when you hear someone banging on your apartment and then you hear the sound of glass breaking. You get out of bed and grab your gun. You walk into the middle of your home and see an intruder in your home. You shoot him several times. He stops and falls to the floor. You step back and call 911 to get help. It is 4:30 in the morning.

Police arrive and you put your gun away. Emergency medical services transport your intruder to a local hospital. Police report a stolen car that was found on the highway nearby.

You are not charged with a crime.

Fourth story- Do you have a firearm nearby at night?

You and your girlfriend are asleep in bed. It is 4 in the morning on a weekday when you hear someone beating on your door and shouting from outside your house. You grab your gun and go downstairs to see what is happening. The man outside is an acquaintance of your girlfriend. He says she owes him money and he is going to kill you. He throws something through your upstairs window and fires his gun demanding that you come out. You call 911. You go outside to tell him that you’ll settle the debts. He wants to come inside, but you won’t let him in. Your attacker points his gun at you. You shoot him until he drops his gun. You back away and wait for the police.

You give a statement to the police when they arrive. So does your girlfriend. You show the police the broken window on your home. You think your attacker had been drinking. The police interview your girlfriend and your neighbors.

You are not charged with a crime. You are 64 years old.

A discussion of each story is at the Self Defense Gun Stories podcast webpage.

The reason behind the ‘Right to Bear Arms’

So, you think so called assault weapons and high capacity magazines should be outlawed?

Any person who thinks so, should first re-read and remember the Supreme Court’s opinion in District of Columbia et al., v. Dick Anthony Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783. Then look at the news about the Ukraine/Russia war. Putin is a tyrant just like King George was when the Second Amendment was written into the Constitution, only worse. The 2008 Supreme Court of the United States’ opinion holds that “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm/or traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense…” 

The Second Amendment is not just about protecting ones self, home, or family against a bad guy who breaks in or threatens harm. The important points of the opinion centers around the Court’s language stating the reason for the holding of the case was the historical right citizens have to resist tyranny. The Court reviewed the history of old England where Stuart Kings disarmed their opponents of their right to keep arms, to suppress them. Following that example, King George III took the same measures in the colonies against opponents of the King’s rule.

“…[H}istory showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the peoples arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights. 

“{It} was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary lo oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.” 

One does not need to be a history buff to know that in colonial days, the average British soldier carried a muzzle loading flintlock gun. A colonist could be as well armed if needed, in order to fulfill the purpose of the Second Amendment as it was understood at the time. The Heller case affirms the same right in this United States of America under the Second Amendment.

If this purpose of the Second Amendment is understood in the “gun control” debate going on now, it is reasonable to conclude that the average American citizen may need to be about as well armed as the average military man if a tyrant is intent on oppression or conquering against us citizens or our country. What docs the average military man carry today? An assault weapon with a large magazine. Should not the average American citizen have the same right to carry an assault weapon with a large magazine in order to fairly confront an oppressive tyrant under the citizen’s constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment?

I am sure many will scream “that will never happen!” “Americans don’t need assault weapons with large magazines for such a purpose!” So did the Ukrainian government so think, before Putin attacked! I understand that for many many generations in Ukraine personal firearms were outlawed. People did not even know how to hold or use firearms as a result. When attack by Putin was close the Ukrainian government apparently made wooden replica guns to teach people how to handle guns before handing out military weapons so they could help defend themselves and country. Ukraine citizens lined up for blocks to get a weapon to defend themselves, their families, property and country. And citizens did stand up to and are standing up to Putin. They did so just like the framers of the Second Amendment to our Constitution intended for us to be able to do if necessary.

You think Putin won’t attack the U.S.? Take away the Second Amendment or severely hamper it and you will soon find out. Yes, the mass shootings in our country are horrible beyond belief, especially against little children, and I agree everything that can be done to stop shootings should be done short of eliminating or severally hampering the Second Amendment more than it already is. But if you think nothing can be worse, go over and live in Ukraine for a while and I think you will see that it can be. Do you want to take a chance? I don’t.

He is right, just not in the way this gun grabbing communist is thinking though. People who want to be free to enslave you, want to take away your right to keep and bear arms.

Professor Ibram Kendi links ‘freedom to enslave’ with gun rights.

There are some who fight for ‘freedom to exploit, freedom to have guns,’ Kendi said

There is a link between the “freedom to enslave” and the “freedom to have guns,” according to Boston University Professor Ibram Kendi.

Kendi told host Margaret Brennan that “throughout the nation’s history, there’s been two perspectives on freedom, really two fights for freedom.”

“Enslaved people were fighting for freedom from slavery, and enslavers were fighting for the freedom to enslave, and in many ways, that sort of contrast still exists today,” Kendi said.

“There are people who are fighting for freedom from assault rifles, freedom from poverty, freedom from exploitation, and there are others who are fighting for freedom to exploit, freedom to have guns, freedom to maintain inequality,” Kendi said.

Kendi did not further elaborate or explain the connection between white supremacy or “the freedom to enslave” and gun ownership.
[He can’t ‘further elaborate‘, because there is no connection. He just thinks you’re so stupid you’ll simply accept his BS ]

Continue reading “”

Meet the 14 GOP Senators Who Voted to Advance ‘Gun Safety’ Bill.

On Tuesday night, the Senate voted to advance a “gun safety” bill in response to shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, N.Y. (the media has conveniently forgotten the shooting at a church in Laguna Woods, Calif., that took place between the other two shootings but didn’t fit The Narrative™ for the gun-control crowd).

The Hill framed the vote as the moment when the Senate “broke through nearly 30 years of stalemate on gun control legislation.”

I won’t rehash the bill here; instead, I’ll refer to my colleague Stephen Kruiser, who pointed out the worst features of the 80-page legislation:

There are two HUGE problems with this legislation, especially for conservatives: it legitimizes both federal intervention in state matters and “red flag” laws. The latter is particularly problematic because implementation is rife with gray areas, no matter how many stipulations are in place. As I have been fond of saying, once red-flag laws are on the books, we’re on the most slippery of slippery slopes. One day people are raising legitimate concerns, the next we have people reporting the neighbor who just rubs them the wrong way.

Those facts didn’t stop the measure from passing by a vote of 64-34. Every single one of the Democrats voted in favor of advancing the bill, which means that 14 Republicans went along with it. Here they are:

Some of those names are the usual suspects, the ones who are going to “go rogue” and vote with the Dems on other issues too.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the guy whose constituents booed him over his support for compromise legislation, ran point on the negotiations with Democrats at the behest of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

The Hill reports the negotiations in a way that makes them sound just as sinister as compromising with Democrats to violate the Second Amendment should: “McConnell tapped Cornyn to lead the negotiations for Republicans shortly after a bipartisan group of senators met in Murphy’s basement to begin talks in hopes of finding a way to respond to the Buffalo and Uvalde shootings.”

One of the most remarkable things about this list is that, while the usual squishes (Collins, Murkowski, Romney) appear on it, none of them have a low rating with the National Rifle Association. In fact, Collins rates a B with the NRA, while the rest have an A (Portman, Romney, Blunt, Cassidy, Graham, Tillis, Capito, Ernst, Murkowski) or an A+ (Cornyn, McConnell, Burr, Young) rating from the NRA.

Of the “GOP Gun Control 14,” as Off the Press calls them, only Murkowski and Young are facing re-election in 2022. Blunt, Burr, and Portman aren’t running for another term, so the vast majority of these senators have nothing to lose this election cycle.

Gun rights groups aren’t happy, needless to say.

“Once again, so-called ‘conservative’ Senators are making clear they believe that the rights of American citizens can be compromised away,” Erich Pratt of Gun Owners of America said in a statement. “Let me be clear, they have NO AUTHORITY to compromise with our rights, and we will not tolerate legislators who are willing to turn gun owners into second-class citizens.”

“We will oppose this gun control legislation because it falls short at every level,” read a statement from the NRA. “It does little to truly address violent crime while opening the door to unnecessary burdens on the exercise of Second Amendment freedom by law-abiding gun owners. This bill leaves too much discretion in the hands of government officials and also contains undefined and overbroad provisions – inviting interference with our constitutional freedoms.”

Stephen Gutowski reports at The Reload:

“Since the shooting, my office has received tens of thousands of calls, letters, and emails with a singular message: Do something,” Senator John Cornyn (R., Texas), a negotiator from the Republican side, said in a floor speech. “Not do nothing. But do something. I think we’ve found some areas where there is some space for compromise”

“Today, we finalized bipartisan, commonsense legislation to protect America’s children, keep our schools safe, and reduce the threat of violence across our country,” Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D., Ariz.), a key coalition member from the Democratic side, said in a statement. “Our legislation will save lives and will not infringe on any law-abiding American’s Second Amendment rights.”

Gutowski also points out that the vote to advance the bill suggests that the votes are there to pass the bill before Congress goes on its Independence Day break.

a synopsis of the new federal gun control law

Section 12001

The bill amends all of the prohibited categories (18 USC 922(d)(1 through 9)) to include actions taken against such person while they were a juvenile (that is, you got convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year’s incarceration as a juvenile, you would be barred from gun ownership).

The bill modifies the above by saying the adjudication as mentally defective or involuntary treatment under section (d)(4) had to be when the person was 16 years old or older.

This would be “retroactive” that is if you were convicted of a juvenile offense in 1992, but you are now 45 years old, you would become ineligible to possess firearms when this bill is enacted, and would have to dispose of any firearms you have, or your possession would be illegal as of the effective date of this law. The bill does not limit it to only applying to juvenile offenses or adjudications that happen after this bill is enacted.

This section also says that firearm transfers to persons under 21 years of age by a dealer may not be made after three days of no response from NICS, the way that current law works. Instead, as to persons under 21 years of age, NICS can extend the “pending” or non responsive response time to ten business days.

In addition to consulting the three Federal databases that NICS currently checks for a firearm background check, if the buyer is under 21, the bill says NICS is to contact the state, or local, repository of juvenile records, to see if the person has any juvenile adjudications that would disqualify the person.  These requirements for NICS to ask the state or local repositories sunset as of 9/30/2032.

The section also asks every State and every Federal agency reporting information to NICS to submit a report on records removed from the database and the reason why the records were removed.

Section 12002

This section rewrites the definition of being engaged in the business of dealing in firearms. Federal law requires persons “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms have a license. The new definition says that a person is engaged in the business if their purpose is “to predominantly earn a profit.” Formerly, profit had to be the “principal objective” of the seller.

Section 12003

This section allows grants made for criminal justice purposes to states, to also be used for red flag law enforcement. The bill says that such red flag laws have to meet whatever due process requirements the courts have found to be necessary.
The bill says that such programs need not provide indigent persons with counsel at government expense.

Section 12004

This section makes it unlawful to buy a firearm for another person knowing the other person is disqualified from buying a firearm under 18 USC 922(d), or that the other person is going to employ the firearm in connection to a felony crime, a drug trafficking crime or a terrorism crime, or that the other person is going to provide the firearm to a third person who will employ it as described.
The bill defines drug trafficking and terrorism.
The bill provides for a more enhanced penalty for drug trafficking and terrorism, up to 15 years incarceration if the person is buying for someone disqualified under 18 USC 922(d), and up to 25 years if buying for someone who the person knows will employ it for committing a felony, drug trafficking or terrorism.

This section also makes interstate sale of a firearm a crime if the seller knows the buyer intends to use the firearm for crime. It also makes receipt of such a firearm a crime. There is an enhanced penalty, up to 15 years, as compared to regular interstate sale of firearms by unlicensed persons, which is illegal under current law.

The section also has enhanced penalties for unlicensed or unpermitted import or export of firearms or ammunition to or from the U.S.

The section also says that the NICS system may be used for a FFL to conduct a background check on a current or prospective employee. Notice must be provided to the employee, and they have to consent to it.

The section requires the FBI to provide access to FFL holders to the database of stolen firearms maintained in the NCIC database, so they can see if a firearm in inventory is stolen. Checking would be voluntary. Not checking would not create civil liability.

Section 12005

This section creates a new firearm disability for persons convicted of a misdemeanor where the victim is someone the person was ‘dating’. It does not require any prior sexual, or even ‘cohabiting’ relations between the offender and the victim for the relationship to be a ‘dating relationship’.

The section says that in order for the disability to apply, the conviction must have occurred after this bill became law. It will not apply to convictions that happened before this bill became law.

The section says that if a person only has one such conviction as to a dating partner, and five years have elapsed with no other convictions for any crimes involving use or attempted use physical force or the threat of use of a deadly weapon (whether against a domestic partner or dating partner or not), then the dating partner conviction is no longer disqualifying for possession of firearms purposes.

However, convictions related to a domestic partner as a victim (as under existing law) are disqualifying forever, as under current law. And a dating partner conviction, and then a second misdemeanor crime where the victim is anyone, that involves physical force or a deadly weapon (as outlined above) is disqualifying forever.

The powers states have to expunge records and pardon offenders that remove firearm possession prohibitions are not affected

If Gun Control Saves Lives, Then Why are California and New York State so Dangerous?

A few disturbed young men want to become famous by killing innocent people. Each time they try, we are told that we need to take guns away from honest citizens. That proposal isn’t new. Gun-prohibitionists passed severe gun-control laws decades ago in a few Democrat controlled states. Let’s see if that made us safer. Based on recent evidence from New York State and California, it did not.

You don’t have to take my word for it when I say that California and New York have strict gun-control laws. Take the opinion of the Giffords gun-control group funded by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg. Giffords gives California an A rating and New York an A-.

Laws like this are why-

  • There are many models of firearms that ordinary citizens can’t own in New York and California.
  • Ordinary citizens must pass background checks when they purchase a handgun at a gun store or at a gun show. In California, there is also a mandatory background check before we may buy ammunition. New York proposed similar ammunition restrictions.
  • California has a mandatory ten-day waiting period after we submit our background check and before we may take possession of our firearm. There is also an additional one-gun-a-month restriction. New York also requires a license before we are allowed to own a handgun.
  • Both states have a magazine capacity limit that reduces the number of cartridges that a firearm magazine may hold.
  • Both states have “Red Flag laws” that allow family members, romantic partners, schoolteachers, doctors, and the police to request that we be disarmed. We are not present when a “Red Flag” hearing is held to confiscate our guns.
  • Both California and New York require statement of “demonstrated need” before honest citizens like us are granted a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public. In many cities, those permits are only given to judges, politicians, and to campaign donors. The rate of concealed carry is far lower in New York State and in California compared to the rest of the US.
  • Schools are “gun-free” zones and even school staff are disarmed.

We were told that gun-control would keep us safe. Last year, California had the most active-shooter incidents of any state in the nation. This year, we saw mass-murders and attempted mass-murders in New York state and even in New York City.

How could these gun control laws fail so badly? Here are a few of the many reasons that gun-control fails time after time-

Continue reading “”

Everytown Calls for Censorship on How to Work on Firearms

This correspondent has repeatedly written the First and Second Amendments of the US Constitution are intertwined and support each other. A power-craving government cannot effectively keep a population disarmed unless it censors information on how to make and use arms.

Billionaire Bloomberg supported Everytown for Gun Safety understands they cannot disarm the population, as long as people are free to transmit information on how to make, modify, and use firearms.

Their solution is clear. Forbid the knowledge of how to make, repair, and use firearms. From everytownsupportfund.org:

Based on our review of the writings by the shooter in the Buffalo mass shooting, it appears that he honed his knowledge of firearms and firearm modifications on YouTube. Just days before his attack, posts attributed to the shooter on Discord read, “I’ve just been sitting around watching youtube and **** for the last few days. I think this is the closest I’ll ever be to being ready. I literally can’t wait another week to do this.”

Technology platforms, such as YouTube, have a responsibility to users and the public-at-large to insure that posts do not incite violence or promote extremist content.

This correspondent, contrary to what Everytown posits, claims Technology platforms, such as YouTube, have a responsibility to users to protect and support their First Amendment rights of free expression.

Everytown admits they request that videos on how to modify guns be taken down. They say they have requested YouTube take down videos on how to make guns (which they call “ghost guns”).

YouTube has policies that censor some content on how to make or modify some guns and accessories.  From nbcnews.com:

YouTube’s firearms policy says users can’t post videos that show how to install certain gun accessories, including high-capacity magazines. In a statement on Friday, the company said the videos that the suspect allegedly used to modify his rifle don’t violate those policies.

It is more dangerous to people’s freedom to control the information they are allowed than to control their access to arms. Both are important. If the control over information is extensive enough, people will never attempt to use the arms they may have; they will consider themselves in the best of all possible situations, no matter how badly they are abused. This is the warning in George Orwell’s novel, 1984. It is even more difficult for the people to rise up if the abuse is carefully contrived and increasingly applied over generations, allowing the population to become accustomed to it.

Fortunately, the oligopoly of Big Tech’s control over information appears to be on the edge of collapse. Alternative platforms dedicated to free speech, such as Truth Social and Rumble, are becoming popular. Elon Musk may reform Twitter, from a means of directing cancel culture against its victims to a worldwide sanctuary for free speech.

In a famous case, the US government gave up attempts to restrict the publication of how to build a hydrogen bomb. The First Amendment clearly protects the publication of technology that is already in the public sphere.

What Everytown seeks to do is to convince the distributors of information to censor information it deems to be dangerous.

Everytown is unlikely to succeed.

In the Fifth Circuit, Defense Distributed’s lawsuit against New Jersey’s AG, Gurbir Grewal, was allowed to continue, on the grounds that Grewal violated Defense Distributed’s First Amendment rights when when he threatened to prosecute them for publishing computer code on how to print firearms parts.

It would be a short step for the newly proposed Bureau of Disinformation to censor information they deem “dangerous” to the public.

Unless the Progressive left succeeds in its Supreme Court-packing scheme, it is unlikely the Supreme Court would allow such an egregious violation of the First Amendment, when the inevitable court challenge is effectuated.

Everytown seems to agree with this quote, attributed to Stalin, but disputed:

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?

One of the most important effects of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, is the physical embodiment and clear demonstration the power of the government has limits. There are things it is not allowed to do, by law. An openly armed man, in public, is a clear and present demonstration of a Constitutional limit on government.

Progressives hate the idea of limits on government with a passion. It is part of Progressive DNA.

Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, had a view the opposite of Stalin’s supposed quote. In a private letter, shortly before becoming president, he wrote this:

 “for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”1

It is clear those who wish for a disarmed public are closer to Stalin’s philosophy than to Thomas Jefferson’s.

Author Stephen Hunter makes valid point about guns

Author Stephen Hunter is best known for his Bob Lee Swagger books. He was also a film critic for the Washington Post until he retired in 2008.

While he writes thrillers, his career might make you think he’s anti-gun.

Well, he’s apparently not. In fact, he made a very good point about guns and massacres.

Possibly you’re old enough to remember the great massacre spree of 1964? Classrooms shot up, strip malls decimated, scout troops blown away, fast food restaurants turned into mortuaries.

And all because, in its infinite stupidity, the U.S. government dumped 240,000 high-capacity .30 caliber assault rifles into an otherwise innocent America.

The weapons clearly had a demon-spirit to them. Compared to anything else in the market, they had that murder-most-easy look. One glance at the sinister gleam of the walnut stock which caressed the military-gray receiver and barrel of the weapon, its magazine wickedly boasting of many cartridges ready and waiting, its photo- and Hollywood associations with war, and some went screwball. They had the overwhelming desire to use it as it was meant to be used. It was not powerful enough for deer and not accurate enough for vermin. It existed only to kill human beings.

Except there was no massacre spree of 1964, despite the fact that in 1963 the United States Army surplussed 240,000 M1 carbines via the NRA. They were available through the mail at $20. Not an NRA member? Eighty bucks, then, from any sporting goods store. Denver’s Dave Cook’s–“Guns Galore at Prices to Score”– had them by mail order, magazine and sling included, postage, $1.25.

The M1 carbine was a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine that could fire pretty much as fast as an AR-15 and used a much larger round, from a pure diameter standpoint.

It was a recipe for disaster by today’s standard and yet, nothing. Not a single mass shooting with such weapons.

Hunter goes on to point out that in the summer of 1964, there were tons of inexpensive semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifles on the open market that could be mailed right to you, but there weren’t people like the Buffalo or Uvalde shooters.

It’s a very valid point and a great example of how the problem isn’t the availability of firearms. They were easier to acquire in 1964 than they are today and they were just as deadly. They could be discharged at a high rate of fire, too.

These were actual weapons of war, even, not something that just looks like one.

And yet, as Hunter notes, no massacres. No school shootings. None of the things we’re told result from “easy” access to firearms.

That suggests strongly that the problem here is something else, something else entirely. We, as a society, would be better off if we could stop blaming guns for five minutes and start looking deeper into why this is happening and why this continues to be an issue.

Yet that’s apparently not allowed by some in our world. They’ve got a vested interest in blaming the guns rather than in solving the actual problem.

Part of that, of course, is also blaming others for not agreeing that guns are the problem despite clear evidence that they’re not.

Quick take
There are two problems with this. It legitimizes both federal intervention in state matters and “red flag” laws. The latter is problematic because it’s a gray area, no matter how many stipulations are in place. One day people are raising legitimate concerns, the next we have people reporting the neighbor who just rubs them the wrong way.

The Senate gun control bill is finished ….sorta? ‘Discussion Draft’?

bipartisan_safer_communities_act_text

EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Andy Biggs — Expect House Gun Controllers to ‘Go After Ammo and Ammo Manufacturers’

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) spoke with Breitbart News about the current push for gun control in the House and warned us to be ready to see gun controllers “go after ammunition and ammunition manufacturers.”

Biggs noted a number of gun controls have been passed by the Democrat-controlled House, and even though those controls have not passed the Senate he believes the House will pass even more.

He explained, “I expect some additional gun control legislation to come out of the House. I expect there will be an attempt to do an ‘assault weapons’ ban, I think they’re going to continue to try to eliminate liability protections on gun manufacturers, and I think they’re also going to go after ammunition and ammunition manufacturers.”

Biggs then talked about gun control in the Senate, where he said, “When gun control reared its head again, after Uvalde, I expected 20 members of Senate Republicans to cave and give things like red flag laws and whatever else that the House pushing. But I’m sure what, if anything, is going to get out now, because it has taken so long and they have no language.”

He added, “When you have no language to look at, they start working off what is called a framework, and that leads to infighting where some Senators want certain things but not other things, and that indicates a lack a consensus.”

And Biggs stressed the more time passes the less chance there is consensus will occur.

He also noted the way Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) was booed on Friday at the Texas GOP Convention, and said, “That response indicates that gun owners are not real pleased with the Republicans that are undermining the Second Amendment.”

Biggs emphasized the launch of a watchdog group, the Arizona Second Amendment Coalition, a coalition of people he has pulled together to stay on top of the fight for Second Amendment rights.

Members of the coalition include elected officials, student advocates, individuals who work in the firearm industry, and members of pro-2A groups like the DC Project, among others.

Biggs said, “We’re trying to make it a broad-based coalition where we talk about challenges to the exercise of Second Amendment rights. Whether that is an ATF challenge, something the Biden administration is doing, or what policies–local, state, and federal–that may either positively or negatively impact the Second Amendment.”

On January 3, 2022, Breitbart News reported Biggs stressing that carrying a gun for self-defense is part of being a “free American.”

Biggs said, “When you start talking about my wife or me or someone else, we’re talking about self-defense, and the first liberty is the right to life. So, if you can’t defense yourself against the bad guys you start looking like the 12 cities in America that have the highest homicide rate in their history.”

He then added, “You don’t want to look like that. You don’t want to look like Venezuela. You want to be a free American and the way to be free and reduce crime is to allow people to carry guns.”