Category: RKBA

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.”

The office of state Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is the named defendant in the case, did not respond to a request for comment. Bonta’s office has vigorously defended the state’s challenged gun laws and other weapons laws in the past.
The lawsuit alleges that the three plaintiffs live out of state and wish to carry firearms when they visit California but are legally barred from doing so. The suit claims that the main exception to the law — for certain people who live out of state but operate a business in California and spend significant time at the business — is so narrow that it’s irrelevant.

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 “”

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.”

Citing Constitutional Concerns, Yost Urges DOJ to Scrap ‘Red Flag’ Gun-Confiscation Program

(COLUMBUS, Ohio) — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost and 18 other state attorneys general are opposing a new federal program that promotes aggressive enforcement of “red flag” gun-confiscation laws.

Yost and his counterparts argue in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland that the National Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Resource Center, launched in March by the Department of Justice, undermines the Second Amendment and other fundamental rights in a flawed attempt to reduce gun violence.

“The solution to gun violence is not more bureaucracy, and it is certainly not parting otherwise law-abiding men and women from their right to self-defense,” Yost said.

The state attorneys general raise several concerns with the ERPO Resource Center, most notably how the program advocates for laws that allow government officials to “suspend fundamental rights under the Second Amendment with no genuine due process.”

So-called “red flag” laws permit authorities to seek court orders authorizing the confiscation of firearms from people thought to pose a danger. Twenty-one states have enacted such laws; Ohio is not among them.

Another issue is whether the DOJ had authority to create the program in the first place. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, cited by the department as the impetus for the ERPO Resource Center, makes no mention of such a program. In fact, the letter says, that funding from the 2022 federal law was supposed to go to states and local governments.

The attorneys general also question the DOJ’s decision to partner on the project with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions. The institution’s track record of advocating for strict gun-control measures raises concerns about its ability to remain objective, making it a poor fit for the program, the letter says.

Yost and his counterparts urge the DOJ to end the program, writing that “states don’t need ‘help’ of this sort from the federal government. We know exactly how to protect our citizens while appropriately respecting Second Amendment rights.”

Joining Yost in sending the letter are the attorneys general from Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

If it hasn’t become clear to you by now; This new ATF/DoJ rule isn’t to ‘tighten background check’ or somehow stop criminals from getting guns. They know those are futile dreams.

Neither the ATF nor the DOJ care one itty bit about getting more people to obtain FFLs. In fact they go out of their way to rescind FFLs for the piddliest of reasons.
This is merely another tactic to give them the power to prosecute whoever they have on their radar for “dealing without a license”.

Dystopian novels weren’t meant to be instruction manuals, but 1984 and Atlas Shrugged sure do seem to be.

Ayn Rand:
There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them.

One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed or enforced nor objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt.

Tennessee bill allowing teachers to carry concealed handguns heads to final votes

Only floor votes remain before a measure to allow Tennessee public school teachers and staff with certain training to carry concealed firearms inside their classrooms could head to Gov. Bill Lee’s desk.

Senate Bill 1325 would allow school teachers and staff to carry concealed handguns on school grounds if they obtain an enhanced handgun carry permit and complete annual training with law enforcement.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill Tuesday afternoon in a 7-1 party-line vote

“I do not think that it is the responsibility of teachers in our state, who have taken the oath to educate our children, to now become law enforcement officers,” said Sen. London Lamar, D-Memphis, who voted against the bill. “No doubt about it, we want our schools to be safe – and I will be the first to join you in any effort to keep our students safe. But this is not the way, putting that burden of responsibility on teachers.”

The bill, introduced in January 2023, was delayed after Committee Chair Todd Gardenhire, R-Chattanooga, punted all gun-related bills to 2024 after a shooter killed six people, including three 9-year-old children, at The Covenant School in Nashville in March 2023.

Companion legislation has passed all House committees, and is held on the House Clerk’s desk – ready to be taken up for a floor vote at any time.

Sponsors of the bill have cited the effort as a way to close the gap of 566 public schools in Tennessee that do not yet have school resource officers.

“This is just another tool that can be used by those K-12 schools in the event that they’re not capable of hiring an SRO,” Sen. Paul Bailey, R-Sparta. Bailey is also sponsoring legislation to allow retired law enforcement officers to return for a two-year period to serve as SROs.

Continue reading “”

Attack on Firearm Ownership Continues

Yesterday, the Colorado House Business Affairs & Labor Committee passed the bill requiring gun owners to purchase firearm liability insurance. The bill will now be sent to the House Committee of the Whole.

House Bill 24-1270 requires firearm owners to maintain a liability insurance policy that covers losses or damages to a person, other than the policyholder, who is injured on the insured property as a result of any accidental or unintentional discharge of the firearm.

Also yesterday, Senate Bill 24-066 was passed by for the day.  SB24-066 allows credit companies and payment processors to use merchant category codes (MCC) to track credit card purchases of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.

We will continue to monitor these bills and alert you when action is needed.

In the meantime, if you have not already, share this important alert with your family, friends, fellow sportsmen and gun owners, please do.  The Centennial State needs all its sportsmen and gun owners actively working together to ensure the survival of our hunting, fishing, and trapping heritage.

About the Sportsmen’s Alliance: The Sportsmen’s Alliance protects and defends America’s wildlife conservation programs and the pursuits – hunting, fishing and trapping – that generate the money to pay for them. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation is responsible for public education, legal defense and research. Its mission is accomplished through several distinct programs coordinated to provide the most complete defense capability possible. Stay connected to Sportsmen’s

Controversial Bill Targeting “Unauthorized Paramilitary Training” Passes Through Maine’s House

Maine’s House passed a controversial bill targeting “unauthorized paramilitary training” which has raised concerns with Second Amendment rights advocates, who believe that it could be used to target law-abiding gun owners and firearms instructors.

The bill passed by a single vote.

“The United States of America was founded on what this bill would define as a civil disorder. I find it very likely that King George III would have been very, very supportive of this legislation,” said Rep. Donald Ardell (R-Monticello).

During the House proceedings on Wednesday, numerous Republican representatives spoke against the bill, calling it a violation of constitutional rights.

“I have the right to determine how I want to practice, rehearse train, or drill. This bill is a violation of my constitutional rights,” said Rep. Mike Soboleski (R-Philips).

The bill was originally proposed by Rep. Laurie Osher (D-Orno) in response to a brief attempt by Neo-Nazi Chris Pohlhaus and former Democrat activist Fred Ramey to build a neo-Nazi compound for their “Blood Tribe” in Springfield, Maine.

The Maine Wire Editor-in-Chief Steve Robinson visited the site of the neo-Nazi camp earlier this year, and discovered nothing but an abandoned camper, and a single tent.

LD 2130 makes it a crime for anyone to instruct a person in the use of a firearm or explosive if the instructor knows or “reasonably should know” that the trainee intends to further “civil disorder”.

Multiple firearms instructors told The Maine Wire that they are very concerned with the burden placed on instructors to determine the motives of everyone who comes to them for training.

Following a contentious debate in the house, the bill passed in a 72-71 vote.

No House Republicans voted in favor of the bill, and two Independents and three Democrats voted in opposition.

Eight representatives were absent from the vote.

Second Amendment Roundup: A Double Shot of Oral Arguments.

“Large-capacity” magazines and semiautomatic rifles are “bearable arms” in common use, no different from the handguns in Heller, but will two en banc courts agree?

 | 

Once it decided N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), the Supreme Court acted on several Second Amendment cases it had been holding, granting petitions for writs of certiorari, vacating the judgments, and remanding the cases for reconsideration in light of Bruen. One was a challenge to California’s ban on magazines holding over ten rounds, and another was Maryland’s “assault weapon” ban.  With sparks aplenty flying, these cases were argued en banc on March 19 and 20 before the Ninth and Fourth Circuits respectively.

These cases should be decided in favor of a straightforward application of the constitutional test for addressing challenges to “arms ban” laws set forth in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Bruen simply made more explicit the “plain text first, and then historical analogue laws second” methodology adopted by Heller when it declared that the District of Columbia’s handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. Applying that methodology, Heller held that arms that are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes cannot be banned.

First, as a matter of plain text, Heller held that the Second Amendment extends, “prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms.” And Heller made clear that “arms” includes all “weapons.” If the instruments in question are bearable arms, the burden shifts to the government to provide a sufficient number of representative historical analogue laws (not the musings of anti-gun historians) from our early history to demonstrate that the challenged arms ban falls within the country’s tradition of firearms regulation.  In fact, the American tradition of firearms regulation is really a history of no or very limited prohibition of arms.

Second, Heller looked at two historical traditions that spoke to the arms ban question. At the outset, the Heller Court acknowledged the history of Americans bringing their own privately-owned firearms and ammunition with them to militia musters. These protected weapons were “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes such as self-defense. The Court further found that the “in common use” test was “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”

Putting these two historical practices together, the Court held that arms that are “in common use,” and therefore not “dangerous and unusual,” cannot be banned. In other words, Heller already conducted the historical analysis for arms ban cases, and it concluded that once an arm is found to be “in common use” – and therefore by definition not “dangerous and unusual” – there is no more work to be done. That arm cannot be banned, period.

Because millions and millions of law-abiding Americans possess both the magazines banned by California and the rifles banned by Maryland, those bans are unconstitutional under a straightforward reading of Heller.

Unfortunately, the en banc Fourth and Ninth Circuits appear to be poised to defy Heller and hold that the California and Maryland laws are constitutional.

Continue reading “”

3rd Circuit Denies Rehearing In SAF Pennsylvania Gun Rights Victory.

The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for a rehearing in the Second Amendment Foundation’s victory in a case challenging Pennsylvania statutes that prohibit law-abiding young adults from carrying firearms for self-defense and prevents them from acquiring a state license to carry (LTCF) because of their age. The case is known as Lara v. Evanchick.

The petition for an en banc rehearing had been filed by attorneys representing the Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police. SAF is joined in the case by the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, including Madison M. Lara, for whom the case is named. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and John D. Ohlendorf at Cooper & Kirk, Washington, D.C.

Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Kent A. Jordan explained, “The petition for rehearing filed by appellant in the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the judges of the circuit in regular service not having voted for rehearing, the petition for rehearing by the panel and the Court en banc, is DENIED.”

“We’re satisfied with the court’s decision,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It’s an important win. The Third Circuit has affirmed that the Second Amendment applies to young adults, and that 1791 is the historical marker for understanding the right to keep and bear arms. Finally, the court has said 18-to-20-year-olds can open carry during a state of emergency in Pennsylvania.”

“We’ve been fighting this battle for more than three years,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, who is a Pennsylvania resident and practicing attorney in the state. “The court’s decision is an important step forward to getting this issue resolved.”

Americans Disapprove Of Biden On Guns—And Most Other Issues.

If you thought Americans strongly disapproved of the way President Joe Biden’s economy is working out, you ought to see what people think of the way he has handled the gun issue.

According to a recent survey by The Economist and YouGov, a full 52% of Americans disapprove of how Biden is handling economic issues. Breaking it down, 91% of Republicans, 55% of Independents and even 11% percent of Democrats aren’t too fond of the strangling consequences of “Bidenomics.” And by age, a majority of Americans over 30 disapprove of Biden’s economic performance.

But believe it or not, even more Americans disapprove of the job Biden has done concerning firearms, which 81% of respondents said was an important issue. In total, 54% of Americans disapprove of how the president is handling the gun issue, compared to 28% who approved. That includes a whopping 88% of Republicans and 52% of Independents who gave the president low marks. Disapproval was also very high by race and age: whites, 61% disapproved; Blacks, 35%, Hispanics, 46%; age 18-29, 43%; 30-44, 57%; 45-64, 57%; and 65-plus, 60%.

Continue reading “”

Hawaii Man Victorious in Case involving Suitable Persons’ and Carry Permits

So-called “suitable persons” provisions in permitting laws are verboten per several Supreme Court opinions. When an issuing authority makes a subjective decision through their own thought process rather than through objective and definable criterion, it’s unconstitutional. Back in December I wrote about a guy that was denied a carry permit in Hawaii for allegedly being “not of ‘good moral character’ and/or ‘suitable.’” They other day Mr. Blake Day’s case received a stipulation to dismiss his case with prejudice, since he was eventually issued a Hawaii license to carry.

Mr. Day was denied a license to carry in the County of Hawaii for being “not of ‘good moral character’ and/or ‘suitable.’”

Drawing details from the complaint that was filed on the 6th of December, 2023, Mr. Day’s alleged lack of “good moral character” and suitability arises from what the Hawaii County Chief of Police stated was “due to ‘recent violent conduct.’” The so-called “violent conduct” is in reference to an incident where Mr. Day was forced to defend himself – with non-lethal force – while executing his duties as a contractor for a bank. The conflict resulted in no criminal charges.

The non-lethal force Mr. Day used was “a pepper spray air gun, firing it several times in self-defense,” because he was aggressively approached by a resident of a property that was supposed to be vacant. The resident was “yelling obscenities and ‘what are you doing at my house?’” at Mr. Day. Day stated that the resident “appeared to have something in his right hand and [he] believed it was a weapon.”

The stipulation was filed on March 28, 2024 and is as follows:

Continue reading “”