John R. Lott. Jr.
Crime Prevention Research Center
March 11, 2024
Debate on the Second Amendment at the University of Wisconsin, John Lott v Sanford Levinson
Category: RKBA
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.
MISSOURI Homeschoolers…ALERT
🚨🚨🚨 pic.twitter.com/CMRKXxmO6b— AnAmerican Homestead (@HomesteadAmeric) April 8, 2024
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.
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%.
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:
Kentucky House Bill 357, informally called the Second Amendment Privacy Act, passed into law. This NSSF-supported law protects the privacy and sensitive financial information of people purchasing firearms and ammunition in Kentucky.https://t.co/6PyWDOPnQn#MerchantCategoryCode
— NSSF—The Firearm Industry Trade Association (@NSSF) March 30, 2024
Advancing 2A Rights After Constitutional Carry
With Constitutional Carry now on the books in 29 states, there’s a real question about how to continue supporting and strengthening the right to keep and bear arms. Some pro-2A lawmakers in Tennessee decided to take aim at “gun-free zones” this session, but their bill failed to make it out of a Senate committee on Tuesday after objections from the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigations, and the state’s Department of Safety.
A bill that would have effectively let some people bring guns into places where guns are prohibited, as long as they had a concealed carry permit, failed in a Senate committee on March 26.
SB 2180 would have required those people, if asked to leave, to at least take their guns out of the building or else face a criminal trespassing charge. They also would not have faced penalties for violating postings that prohibit guns from the area.
During the meeting, the department said the bill may have effectively protected people who bring guns into areas like Department of Children’s Services offices, jails or driver’s license centers. The department also said it was concerned people at businesses that prohibit guns may need to confront armed people themselves.
If armed people didn’t leave the business, or take their guns outside, then the business would need to wait for law enforcement to arrive.
Republican lawmakers said they were worried making people leave guns in their cars may increase the chance they are stolen.
“I think most people who are concealed probably ignore the sign, and I think 100% of criminals ignore the sign,” said Sen. Kerry Roberts (R-Springfield). “What I’m really getting at is this, which is a bigger issue — someone to leave their gun in a car for it to be potentially stolen, or to bring it with them?”
Robert’s argument is a valid one, but the legislation still arguably intrudes on the rights of property owners. So what, if anything, can lawmakers to do keep strengthening our Second Amendment rights once they’ve put Constitutional Carry in place?
On today’s Bearing Arms Cam & Co, however, we have a few suggestions for legislators that stand a better chance of getting enacted into law; including one that might be even more effective at getting rid of “gun-free zones” on private property.
Gordon Signed Four Second Amendment Bills, Vetoed Another
Governor Mark Gordon signed four bills today that strengthen Wyoming’s status as a Second-Amendment friendly state. The Governor signed SF0073 – Concealed firearms-permit eligibility, SF0105 – Wyoming Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act, SF0109 – Prohibit Red Flag Gun Seizure Act., and SF0086 – School safety and security-funding.
SF0105 protects the privacy and sensitive financial information of people purchasing firearms, firearms parts, or ammunition in Wyoming by prohibiting credit card processors from using firearms or firearm-related merchant category codes. It also prohibits government or private entities from keeping any registry of privately-owned firearms or the owners of those firearms created or maintained through the use of a firearms code.
SF0109 prohibits red flag gun laws from being enforced or implemented in Wyoming, while SF0073 amends the concealed carry permit regulations to make those who have had their firearms rights restored, eligible. SF0086 creates an account to reimburse school districts for costs related to possession of firearms on school property by school district employees.
The Governor vetoed HB0125 – Repeal gun free zones and preemption amendments due to concerns that HB0125 exceeds the separation of powers embodied in Article 2 of our Wyoming Constitution. If the bill were enacted, any specific policy, further regulation, or clarification of the law could only be implemented by the Legislature.
“House Bill 125/Enrolled Act No. 49, erodes historic local control norms by giving sole authority to the Legislature to micromanage a constitutionally protected right,” Governor Gordon wrote in his veto letter. “Any further clarification of the law, if this bill were enacted, would augment the Legislature’s reach into local firearms regulation.”
The Governor noted the bill would require each state facility, such as the University of Wyoming, Wyoming State Hospital, or the Wyoming Boys School, to receive legislative approval to restrict carrying firearms, or even to set policies as practical as proper weapon storage. It would also repeal the statute that has allowed school districts to establish specific policies allowing concealed carry in their districts.
“Every piece of legislation must stand for critical review, particularly those affecting our constitutional rights,” the Governor wrote. “As delivered to my desk, this bill lacks sufficient review and debate. A bill covering such a sensitive topic does not lend itself to successive tweaks to correct flaws, and therefore I believe the Legislature should be open to debating and fully working this bill through its established processes.”
The Governor concluded he will direct the State Building Commission to begin a process to reconsider rules to allow concealed carry permit holders to exercise their rights within the Capitol and other appropriate state facilities. That process will involve significant public input.
The Governor’s veto letter may be found here.
How Should We Defend Our Rights?
Let’s keep this simple. The “rule of holes” says that the best way to get out of a hole you’ve created is to first stop digging. Our legal system doesn’t work. It has been turned against millions of honest citizens, and it is time to admit it is broken. What our legal system should do in theory is not what we see in practice, and this isn’t the first time we’ve had this problem.
.@WesleyHuntTX putting the famous talking point of the left, "weapon of war" to rest once & for all. pic.twitter.com/YKecsqyZeZ
— Kat™ The Hammer ⚒️ (@KatTheHammer1) March 23, 2024
BLUF
This new office is another way for the Biden administration to make it appear as if it is doing something about violent crime, when it is actually making it harder for lawful gun owners to keep and bear arms.
HOT TAKES: Social Media Slices and Dices Biden’s New Anti-Gun Red Flag Center
The Biden administration is stepping up its war against the right to keep and bear arms. On Saturday, Vice President Kamala Harris traveled to Parkland, Florida, to stand on the graves of the children who perished in a tragic school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglass High School six years ago.
The vice president spoke at the school, pushing for red flag laws and other restrictions on lawful gun ownership ostensibly to combat gun violence. During her visit, she touted a brand spanking new anti-gunner initiative: The National Extreme Risk Order Resource Center.
The new office is supposedly aimed at helping local and state law enforcement agencies enforce red flag laws to stop mass shootings and other forms of violence before they happen. Naturally, not everyone is on board with this anti-gun endeavor.
Gun Owners of America, a pro-gun rights organization, wrote a post on X, accusing the White House of weaponizing the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, while taking a shot at Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) who supported the legislation.
Joe Biden has weaponized the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act AGAIN to create this National Gun Confiscation Center. ⁰⁰You can thank @JohnCornyn for selling out your Second Amendment.🤬 https://t.co/YimKyHmjoG
— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) March 23, 2024
Former names include the Stasi, Gestapo and Santebal.
Here we go with the Federal goobermint getting involved in enforcing state laws.
Justice Department Launches the National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center
The Justice Department launched the National Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Resource Center (the Center) which will provide training and technical assistance to law enforcement officials, prosecutors, attorneys, judges, clinicians, victim service and social service providers, community organizations, and behavioral health professionals responsible for implementing laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of people who pose a threat to themselves or others.
“The launch of the National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center will provide our partners across the country with valuable resources to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “The establishment of the Center is the latest example of the Justice Department’s work to use every tool provided by the landmark Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to protect communities from gun violence.”