Category: RKBA

GUN CONTROL ELITE POLITICIANS REBRAND ‘BITTER CLINGERS’ FAUX PAS AS ‘POOR SOULS’

Today’s gun control politicians are making it clear. It’s not just guns they despise. There are two other primary obstacles to civil disarmament that they loathe.

One is the Second Amendment itself. The other, well, it’s you – the gun owner.

It wasn’t that long ago when President Barack Obama lambasted gun owners who refused to roll over to his gun control agenda. Stumping for his first election to The White House, he told fundraisers at a San Francisco event of smalltown Pennsylvania voters that were left behind, especially by the political elites.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” President Obama said in 2008. Interestingly, it was former U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), later Secretary of State, who rebuked him.

“I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks Senator Obama made about people in small-town America,” she said. “His remarks are elitist and out of touch.”

Of course, that was before she labeled half of America “a basket of deplorables” in 2016 when she was making her second run for the Oval Office.

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” former Secretary Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic – you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

Those were also a whole lot of gun owners who couldn’t buy into her gun control agenda – which included banning the Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR), the most popular-selling centerfire rifle in America.

Continue reading “”

Barr for NRA President Would Prove Association Has Learned Nothing

“Insiders Reveal the Rot Within the NRA,” John Crump reported Wednesday. “AmmoLand News has been speaking to several insiders on the condition of anonymity at the National Rifle Association (NRA) and NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) about the state of the historic gun rights organization since former Executive Vice President Wayner LaPierre and the NRA was found liable in a civil corruption case out of New York State.”

Revelations show the Herculean task facing the four recently elected “reform candidates” to bring about real changes in the way the association operates. That assumes they can recruit support from other Board members, and exert sufficient influence on senior management and staff to rein in excesses/reverse the corrupt practices instilled in decades of the Wayne LaPierre administration.

It’s been known for some time that powerhouse NRA Counsel William Brewer has long-donated to gun-grabbers, and while separating itself from his disastrous representation will be necessary for the association’s future credibility with no-compromise gun owners, one revelation in Crump’s report seems more immediately pressing and correctable:

“AmmoLand News has also been told that former Congressman Bob Barr will be the next President of the NRA. Mr. Barr is currently on the Board of Directors and is the only one that AmmoLand News knows of who has had a negligent discharge of a firearm. According to our sources at the NRA, Mr. Barr is a Brewer loyalist.”

That was anticipated when then-candidate Jeff Knox told AmmoLand  readers:

“Then in a surprise move, the board elected Bob Barr to replace Willes Lee as First Vice President. Without the Bylaw change, Lee would have been expected to be elected President at that meeting.”

My reaction to reading that: “Who better than a Lautenberg Amendment fanboy?”

That’s a lifetime ban on possessing firearms for anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. And that could plunge people into “horrors stories” over “offenses” including “a wife tear[ing] her husband’s pocket during an argument [or] a daughter throw[ing] keys at her mom – and miss[ing]” — or simply pleading down to the misdemeanor charge to avoid expensive prosecution and the threat of more severe incarceration penalties.

From Gun Owners of America:

In early March, Rep. Bob Barr endorsed the concept of the Lautenberg gun ban, calling it “important and worthwhile legislation.” Barr’s comments appeared as an editorial in the March 6, 1997 issue of USA Today, where he called for only a limited repeal of the Lautenberg ban. While he opposed the retroactive part of the ban, Rep. Barr endorsed the underlying principle behind the Lautenberg gun ban, stating that, “This is important and worthwhile legislation, and we cannot allow its effectiveness to be reduced.”

Read the entire GOA article because there’s plenty more.

And then listen to Barr’s own words when he was running for president as the Libertarian Party candidate and see if you heard any repudiation or apology:

Telling the audience how he improved a bad bill hardly addressed his assertion that Lautenberg “is strong protection for women and children,” or his claim that his amending language kept it from being “declared unconstitutional.” He then goes on to support the concept of “prohibited persons.” So, the answer is, no, he wouldn’t repudiate his past support and spearhead the effort to repeal it. Instead, he preferred you to be caught in the trap and then go through a Catch-22 appeals process.

As an aside, since the LP platform on immigration is one of “come one/come all,” perhaps would-be future NRA president Barr can explain how the “pathway to citizenship” Democrats are paving into a superhighway won’t end up with leftist supermajorities and court appointments that will end up reversing Bruen and giving the gun-grabbers the keys to the kingdom.

See further related posts over at the original The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.

If you agree this guy doesn’t belong anywhere near the presidency, tell the NRA to “Say ‘NO’ to Lautenberg Bob.”

 

Taking guns away from lawful owners isn’t practical

RALEIGH — When officers from the U.S. Marshal Service, the N.C. Department of Adult Correction, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, and other agencies approached a home in eastern Charlotte on April 29, their purpose was to serve warrants on a fugitive named Terry Clark Hughes Jr.

The fugitive fought back, costing four men their lives: Adult Correction officers Alden Elliot and Samuel Paloche, Deputy U.S. Marshal Thomas Weeks, and CMPD’s Joshua Ayer.

Hughes was a habitual felon. In 2011, he was convicted in Person County of breaking and entering. In 2012, he was convicted in Alamance County of speeding to elude arrest — having fled a checkpoint at more than 100 miles an hour — and possessing a firearm, which as a felon he lacked the right to do.

So, when the task force arrived at the Galway Drive house on April 29, among the charges Hughes faced was the illegal possession of guns. Alas, he still had guns. He used them to murder four men before his outrageous conduct cost him his own life.

The officers were there, in other words, to enforce a gun-control law with nearly universal acceptance. And yet, in the aftermath of this horrific incident, progressive politicians couldn’t help themselves. Rather than tailor their reactions to the facts of the case, they engaged in a robotic plug-and-play.

In his April 29 statement, for example, Joe Biden called the officers “fallen heroes.” Yes, they are.

But the president also said this: “We must do more to protect our law enforcement officers. That means funding them — so they have the resources they need to do their jobs and keep us safe. And it means taking additional action to combat the scourge of gun violence. Now. Leaders in Congress need to step up so that we ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, require safe storage of guns, and pass universal background checks and a national red flag law. Enough is enough.”

Several days later, after President Biden met with family members of the fallen heroes as well as others wounded in the firefight, he insisted lawmakers needed to “keep the weapons of war” out of the wrong hands.

The hands of habitual felon Terry Clark Hughes certainly had no business holding firearms of any kind. But it was already illegal for him to do so. That was one of the main reasons the officers were there to arrest him in the first place.

As for the funding of state and federal law enforcement, I see no evidence it played any role here. Safe storage of guns? While the North Carolina General Assembly has already legislated on this matter, it also had no relevance to the case. Nor did the absence of red flag laws (since any report to authorities by family members that he possessed a gun would already have triggered yet another warrant for his arrest) or broader background checks (since he already knew he was precluded from owning a gun and wouldn’t have tried buying firearms from anyone required to use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System).

That leaves only Biden’s stated desire to ban all assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Assuming he means semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15 — automatic weapons are already illegal for the vast majority of Americans to own — there are tens of millions of such rifles currently in private hands across our country. Most have magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

To put the matter bluntly, there is no practical way of confiscating these weapons from their lawful owners. Let’s focus on actual criminals like Terry Clark Hughes.

John Hood is a John Locke Foundation board member. His latest books, Mountain Folk and Forest Folk, combine epic fantasy with early American history (FolkloreCycle.com).

Judge Fast-Tracks Review of ATF’s Universal Background Check Rule Amid Legal Challenge by GOA, Texas

A federal judge has expedited the legal proceedings against a new rule by the ATF that mandates universal background checks on private firearm sales. U.S. District Court Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk’s decision on Friday sets the stage for a rapid review of the contentious rule, which has faced strong opposition from gun rights advocates and several states.

The rule, slated to be enforced starting May 20, 2024, would significantly expand the scope of background checks, requiring them even in private transactions that have traditionally been exempt. This includes sales by individuals not classified as being “engaged in the business” of selling firearms. According to reporting by Breitbart News, this change blurs the lines between private sellers and licensed dealers, potentially impacting millions of gun owners across the country who wish to buy or sell a firearm to or from a private seller.

Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Gun Owners Foundation and the State of Texas, along with other states (Louisiana, Mississippi and Utah) and advocacy groups (including the Tennessee Firearms Association and the Virginia Citizens Defense League), have filed a lawsuit arguing that the rule not only exceeds the regulatory powers of the ATF but also infringes on constitutional rights. The plaintiffs claim the rule would unfairly classify ordinary citizens who sell firearms as dealers, subjecting them to rigorous licensing and background checks.

Judge Kacsmaryk has ordered the ATF to respond to the motion for preliminary relief by 5 p.m. tomorrow, May 14, 2024, with the plaintiffs’ reply due by the following day by 5 p.m. as well.

Continue reading “”

Representative Massie finally posts his correcting the domestic enemy Nadler, who should one day be prosecuted under 18 US Code § 241.

Breyer’s ‘Pragmatic’ Approach to Destroying the Second Amendment

Former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer may no longer be in a position to decide cases that come before the Court, but he’s still trying to shape the judiciary in a way that would allow for judges to uphold virtually every gun control law the anti’s could dream up.

Breyer’s new book Reading the Constitution; Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism outlines his approach to interpreting the Constitution. I’m actually surprised he managed to fill several hundred pages with material, given that his view is basically that judges should have the power to ignore what the text of the Constitution has to say if they don’t like it.

Breyer highlights the need for considering the broader context in which laws are passed and the “practical consequences” of different interpretations. He refers to the majority judgment in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), in which he dissented. The Court held, 6–3, that New York’s law requiring a citizen to have a license to carry a gun outside his home violated the right to carry arms under the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Breyer expresses his disagreement with the ruling by emphasizing his preference to prioritize the practical implications. Considering the alarming patterns of gun violence in the US, Breyer believes the Court should have limited the access to firearms.

Does Breyer not know his history, or is he just choosing to ignore it? The Second Amendment was ratified shortly after a civil war that not only brought the United States its independence but led to small-scale reprisals between patriots and loyalists throughout the course of the war. As the Bill of Rights was being drafted and debated, the memory of Shay’s Rebellion was fresh in the mind of the Framers, while the Whiskey Rebellion broke out along the western frontier the same year the Second Amendment was ratified. The Founders knew all about “gun violence”. They just didn’t believe that disarming the American people was the answer.

Breyer’s criticism of textualism is based on his adherence to pragmatism. He contends that judges should endeavour to interpret the Constitution in a manner that is pragmatic and adaptable to the requirements of modern society. According to him, this approach is better aligned with the intentions of the Constitution’s framers, who intended for the constitution to be “workable” and responsive to evolving circumstances.

The Constitution is responsive to “evolving circumstances”, but the proper way to do that is through an amendment, not a panel of nine justices deciding that is language can be discarded because they think it’s right thing to do in our modern age.

Breyer’s not the first to adopt a “pragmatic” approach to the Constitution, of course. I’d argue that Roger Taney’s decision in Dred Scott is actually a pretty good example of the pragmatic philosophy that Breyer espouses. Taney twisted the Constitution’s text beyond recognition in order to reach his conclusion that black Americans could never be entitled to citizenship and that Congress had no power to regulate slavery in the territories. He did so in the belief that the practical implications of his ruling would make the country a more peaceful place by removing the issue of slavery and abolition (which Taney considered an act of “Northern aggression” from the national debate.

Pragmatism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. In Bruen, Breyer (joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan) argued that the majority opinion “refuses to consider the government interests that justify a challenged gun regulation, regardless of how compelling those interests may be,” adding “the Constitution contains no such limitation, and neither do our precedents.”

The text of the Second Amendment doesn’t include a clause after “shall not be infringed” that says “unless the government thinks there’s a good reason to do so”. The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to restrain the government from violating our individual rights, and the Fourteenth Amendment applies those protections to abuses from state and local governments as well. The only pragmatic way to change that while remaining faithful to the Constitution is to pass another amendment negating the right to keep and bear arms. That option has been available to the gun control lobby for decades, but as we’ve seen with Gavin Newsom’s proposed constitutional amendment, it’s not feasible because the support simply isn’t there.

Since repealing the right to keep and bear arms is off the table, Breyer (and others) are left to insist that the Constitution is essentially whatever they want it to be. That judicial arrogance is at the heart of some of the worst legal decisions in this country, including Dred Scott, but thankfully was consigned to the minority in Bruen. If Democrats are able to reshape the court in their image after the November elections, however, that “pragmatic” approach could very well become the majority view on the Court. Our right to keep and bear arms could disappear as quickly as Dred Scott’s right to live free did in 1857; not because the Constitution demands that result, but because the “pragmatic” enemies of individual liberty do.

Ninth Circuit Panel Rules Non-Violent Felons Can Own Guns

Another federal appeals court has determined the Second Amendment protects the gun rights of at least some convicted felons.

On Thursday, a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with defendant Steven Duarte and vacated his conviction. They found the federal ban on felons possessing firearms was unconstitutional as applied to Duarte because his underlying convictions didn’t involve violent crimes.

“Duarte is an American citizen, and thus one of ‘the people’ whom the Second Amendment protects,” Judge Carlos Bea wrote for a 2-1 court in US v. Duarte. “The Second Amendment’s plain text and historically understood meaning therefore presumptively guarantee his individual right to possess a firearm for self-defense. The Government failed to rebut that presumption by demonstrating that permanently depriving Duarte of this fundamental right is otherwise consistent with our Nation’s history.”

The ruling deepens the federal circuit split over the constitutionality of the law that bars anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than two years in prison from ever owning or handling firearms again. Felon-in-possession charges are the most common federal gun prosecutions in the nation. Continued disagreement over the constitutionality of the law underlying those charges may motivate the Supreme Court to address the issue itself directly, especially the question of whether people who aren’t violent present enough of a dangerous threat to be worthy of a lifetime gun ban.

The history and tradition test the Court set in 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen has opened up new challenges to all kinds of gun laws, and the Court has yet to hand down another Second Amendment ruling, though the case its current considering is likely to delve into the dangerousness question.

The Department of Justice, which defended the federal law, did not respond to a request for comment. However, it already requested that the Supreme Court review Garland v. Range, the other case in which a federal appeals court found the gun ban unconstitutional as applied to non-violent felons.

Continue reading “”

Just in case you never considered that congresscritterz™ could be domestic enemies of the people and the Constitution:

With ‘friends’ like this, we need no enemies.

Cornyn Engages in Damage Control on ATF New Rule

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act wouldn’t have passed without the help of one Sen. John Cornyn.

Cornyn championed the bill in the Senate, getting enough Republicans to sign on in order to get it out of that chamber and onto the House where there was never a chance at stopping it.

Which, honestly, might not have been too big of a deal were it not for this one bit that changed the definition of gun dealer, removing the requirement that someone attempt to make a livelihood out of selling firearms.

It seemed a small thing, but now it’s opening up things for the ATF where they can essentially push through universal background checks without going through Congress.

And Cornyn is now trying to do something about it.

The U.S. Justice Department rolled out a new policy last month requiring background checks for people who informally sell firearms at gun shows or on the internet. The rule, which is set to take effect on May 20, is based on a revised definition of gun dealers put forth in Cornyn’s so-called Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

Previously, gun dealers were defined under federal law as those who sell firearms with the “principal objective of livelihood and profit.” Under the revised definition, gun dealers are any people who “predominantly earn a profit” from selling firearms.

“Under this regulation, it will not matter if guns are sold on the internet, at a gun show, or at a brick-and-mortar store: if you sell guns predominantly to earn a profit, you must be licensed, and you must conduct background checks,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said last month. “This regulation is a historic step in the Justice Department’s fight against gun violence. It will save lives.”

Cornyn has vowed to file a congressional resolution of disapproval over the policy, and he said the Biden administration’s efforts to tie it to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act is “an outright lie.”

“This rule has long been on Democrats’ wish list, and for the Biden administration to say it’s a result of our school safety and mental health law is a shameless attempt to hide their real goal: to take away the firearms of every law-abiding American,” Cornyn said in a joint statement with North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis. “We will fight this unconstitutional rule tooth and nail, and look forward to overturning it in the Senate as soon as possible.”

I’m sorry, but Cornyn doesn’t get to play savior here.

He’s the reason we’re in this mess to begin with. Were it not for him crossing the lines for BSCA, the definitions wouldn’t have changed enough for the ATF to even begin to try this. He cajoled and pushed for the precise legislation that opened the door.

Now, he’s trying to engage in damage control, hoping he can keep his job by being aggressive in his rhetoric about the Biden administration’s efforts.

Did he not see this coming? Did he even read the bill?

To be fair, I don’t actually think Cornyn intended for this to happen. I think he just didn’t think through the ramifications of his actions.

Yet let’s also remember that we don’t give people a pass on the results of their actions. How many people are held culpable for the accidents they get into while driving drunk? They don’t intend to hit other cars or pedestrians, but they do, and we hold them accountable.

The Crumbleys didn’t intend for their child to carry out a mass shooting, but the lack of intention didn’t absolve them in the eyes of the court.

Hannah Guiterrez-Reed didn’t intend for a live round to end up in the gun that killed Halyna Hutchins, but she’s going to do time for it just the same.

We hold people accountable for the outcomes of their actions, and in this case, Cornyn’s actions directly led to the ATF’s proposed rule. While we can argue that even with the BSCA’s changes, it’s still overreach, it’s overreach that wouldn’t be remotely possible had Cornyn not bent the knee to Biden on it in the first place.

Analysis: Judges Show Limited Appetite for Upending Background Check Regimes

Following the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, Second Amendment jurisprudence is more unsettled than it has perhaps ever been. However, judges thus far appear skeptical of disrupting at least one realm of gun law: background check requirements.

Even in novel formats, background check requirements have largely escaped falling victim to the text, history, and tradition-based legal test so many other gun laws have been felled by in the courts. Most recently, the “enhanced” background check requirements for 18-20-year-old gun buyers in the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act were upheld as constitutional by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The [Second Amendment’s] plain text covers plaintiffs’ right ‘to keep and bear arms,’” Judge Jerry E. Smith, a Ronald Reagan appointee, wrote on behalf of a unanimous panel in McRorey v. Garland. “And on its face ‘keep and bear’ does not include purchase—let alone without background check. That is so in either the contemporary or the Founding-era context.”

As a result, there is now precedent in the country’s most conservative circuit blessing a background check scheme that effectively creates a ten day waiting period. And it’s difficult to see gun-rights challengers having better luck elsewhere.

In part, gun-rights litigants have a dicta problem. The language deployed by the Supreme Court to hedge its majority opinions in Heller and Bruen is repeatedly being used to uphold modern gun laws, even those that would seem to lack a historical analogue at first glance.

Continue reading “”

Americans Bought 15 Million Guns Last Year

With all the constant unrest throughout America and the ongoing movement to defund and prosecute police who do their jobs, it’s no surprise that Americans purchased over 15 million firearms last year.

The reason seems to be clear: people across the country are realizing that they need to start becoming responsible for their own safety. A Rasmussen poll showed that some 67% of Americans thought self-defense was driving gun sales.

Kyle Harrison with Top Gun Range says, “It just doesn’t make sense to put your trust in someone else to protect you.” He says even with the police doing the best they can, they are understaffed and can’t be everywhere at once.

Harrison says people find out they need to protect themselves at different points in their life, and it could be triggered by a negative event or a positive life development such as having children or getting married, which brings the realization on that they want to protect their family.

Maine Gov. Mills Allows 3-Day Wait, Vetoes Bump Stock Ban

Maine Gov. Janet Mills will allow a bill mandating a three-day waiting period on gun purchases to become law without her signature, while she vetoed legislaton that would have banned “bump stocks” in what may have been an effort to give up something to those opposed to the gun control package.

According to News Center Maine, the waiting period bill “drew fierce opposition from Republicans” and in a state with a long tradition, and high rate of lawful gun ownership, penalizing honest gun owners for crimes they did not commit is not going over well.

It does not appear bump stocks have been a problem in Maine. The story only referenced the October 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas—2,500 miles away—in which the killer used rifles fitted with bump stocks.

The Associated Press is reporting that Mills, a Democrat, was allowing the waiting period bill to become law “with caveats and concerns.” She plans to “monitor” any challenges relating to waiting period laws in other states.

Mills had earlier inked legislation to strengthen Maine’s “yellow flag” law and expand background checks to be required for private gun sales. The Democrat-controlled Legislature did not vote on a “red flag” proposal, which have been criticized by Second Amendment advocates because of due process concerns.

This rush to restrict gun ownership in the Pine Tree State is the Democrats’ response to last October’s mass shooting at two different locations in Lewiston. The killer was an Army reservist who had been evaluated last summer at a hospital in New York state, where he was training. After murdering 18 people, he hid in a trailer and took his own life.

There is no indication that a waiting period would have prevented the tragedy, and also no report that a bump stock was involved with the crime.

Maine is one of the safest states in the country. According to the FBI Crime Data Explorer, in 2022—the most recent year for which data is available—the state logged only 29 homicide “incidents” and 30 “offenses.” Handguns were used in nine incidents, knives/cutting instruments accounted for seven more, unidentified firearms were used in three killings and a shotgun was involved in one slaying. Maine’s crime rate is well below the national average.

Ken Paxton Is Suing Biden Administration Over Ban On Private Firearms Sales

Another day, and another act of breaking the law by the Biden administration.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is leading a multistate coalition including Louisiana, Missouri, and Utah to sue the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) of the U.S. Department of Justice for unlawfully attempting to abridge Americans’ constitutional right to privately buy and sell firearms.

The ATF’s regulatory restrictions go beyond the authority granted to the agency by Congress. The new Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious and is a flagrant violation of the Second Amendment. Attorney General Paxton is seeking immediate injunctive relief to stop the ATF from enforcing its unlawful edict while the issue is considered fully by the courts.

In the past, Congress deliberately recognized the legality of private sales of firearms by non-dealers, going so far as to narrow the statutory definition of “dealer” to prevent the ATF from unlawfully suppressing the private transfer of firearms. Nevertheless, on April 19, 2024, the ATF published a new regulation that would subject hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners to presumptions of criminal guilt for engaging in the constitutionally protected private sale of firearms.

“Yet again, Joe Biden is weaponizing the federal bureaucracy to rip up the Constitution and destroy our citizens’ Second Amendment rights,” said Attorney General Paxton. “This is a dramatic escalation of his tyrannical abuse of authority. With today’s lawsuit, it is my great honor to defend our Constitutionally-protected freedoms from the out-of-control federal government.”

Gun Owners of America (“GOA”), Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Tennessee Firearms Association joined as co-plaintiffs. GOA Vice President Erich Pratt said: “Criminalizing untold numbers of Americans for simply selling a firearm in a private party transaction is wrong, unconstitutional, and must be halted by the courts. Anything less would further encourage this tyrannical administration to continue weaponizing vague statutes into policies that are meant to further harass and intimidate gun owners and dealers at every turn.”

Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes said: “Nearly 40 years ago, Congress condemned ATF for targeting innocent gun owners instead of focusing on felons, calling ATF’s actions ‘reprehensible.’ Congress even changed the law to limit ATF’s authority. But ATF is at it again, this time trying to require a citizen selling even a single firearm to obtain a license. Utah is proud to join the 26 states—in three separate lawsuits—protecting their citizens from this bureaucratic overreach.”

Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch said: “By seeking to treat every legal gunowner as a commercial gun dealer and every gun sale or trade into a commercial transaction, this rule unmasks the Biden Administration’s anti-gun agenda in ways many of its other actions have not. The Second Amendment could never have contemplated this kind of regulation and it will not withstand scrutiny in the courts. On behalf of Mississippi gunowners, we are proud to stand with the citizens who have come forward in this lawsuit.”

SCOTUS Distributes Five Gun, Magazine Ban Cases for May 16 Conference

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday distributed five potentially seismic gun rights cases involving challenges to gun and magazine bans in two different federal court circuits—the Fourth and Seventh—for conference May 16, and if these cases are granted certiorari, the outcome would impact pending cases in Washington, Oregon, California and bans in at least four or five other states where bans are in effect.

Bans are also in effect in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii and the District of Columbia.

If the high court ultimately takes these cases and delivers a Second Amendment victory, protecting so-called “semiautomatic assault weapons” and their original capacity magazines holding more than ten cartridges, it would be a crushing defeat for the gun prohibition movement and anti-gun Democrats across the map.

Two of the cases involve the Second Amendment Foundation. They are known as Harrel v. Raoul (Illinois) and Bianchi v. Frosh (Maryland). Also distributed were cases known as Gun Owners of America v. Raoul, Caleb Barnett v. Raoul and Javier Herrera v. Raoul, all three which come from Illinois. There has been some speculation about these cases possibly being consolidated if certiorari is granted.

“Today, the Supreme Court’s docket reflected that both of our cases challenging Illinois’ and Maryland’s ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ were distributed for conference,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut in a release to the media. “We are hopeful that the Court will discuss these cases during their next conference in mid-May and ultimately grant cert so that millions of Americans can enjoy the same Second Amendment rights their counterparts do throughout the country. It is time for the Supreme Court to confirm that these modern firearms are in fact protected by the Second Amendment.”

“We’re encouraged that these five cases, all essentially dealing with the same issue in two different federal court circuits, were distributed for Supreme Court conference at the same time,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb acknowledged. “This could be the signal for which we have been waiting, that the Supreme Court may be ready to consider cases challenging bans on the most popular firearm in America today and their magazines. These firearms are owned by millions of peaceable citizens, and because they are in common use, they certainly qualify for Second Amendment protection.”

The ramifications of a high court review of semi-auto and magazine bans would be staggering. Gun rights advocates contend such bans are unconstitutional because they are directed at the very types of firearms which should be protected by the Second Amendment. Their magazines are necessary to make such firearms function.

Upon learning of the Court’s distribution of the cases, SAF extended recognition and thanks to the various groups involved in the two cases, including SAF’s sister organization, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, a national grassroots activist group, now in its 51st year. In addition, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Field Traders LLC, are part of the Maryland case, while the Illinois State Rifle Association, C4 Gun Store, Marengo Guns and FPC are involved in the Illinois case. There are individual citizens involved in both cases as well.

According to Gottlieb, SAF has long been engaged in strategic litigation, working to get the right cases advanced through the court system, in an effort to fulfill its mission of winning firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.