Category: RKBA

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.

Fifth Circuit Upholds ‘Enhanced’ Gun Background Checks for Young Adults

Placing additional background check requirements and delays on 18-20-year-old gun buyers does not run afoul of the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

A three-judge panel for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled against challengers who took issue with the “enhanced” background check provisions of the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA). The panel found that the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their constitutional claims and declined to issue an injunction against the law.

“The [Second Amendment’s] plain text covers plaintiffs’ right ‘to keep and bear arms,’” Judge Jerry E. Smith wrote 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.”

The decision brings positive news for the Biden administration and the staying power of its signature legislative gun-control achievement. It will allow the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to continue conducting less-than-instant background checks, which can take several days to complete, for adults under 21. It also suggests gun-rights advocates could have a difficult time challenging various background check and waiting period measures moving forward.

Signed into law in June 2022, the BSCA became the first new federal gun control law in decades. While it consisted of a mixture of new restrictions and funding programs, one of its most substantive provisions overhauled how young adults can legally purchase firearms from licensed dealers.

Continue reading “”

Survey Finds Second Amendment Viewed More Favorably Than Capitalism

Good news for our civil rights, but bad news for free markets. A survey of more than 2,000 adults taken earlier this year found the words “Second Amendment” to be one of the most polarizing phrases in American politics, with almost 90% of Republicans holding a favorable view compared to just under half of Democrats.

Some phrases, like “national parks”, “honesty”, “freedom”, and “responsibility” are favored by large majorities of both self-identified Republicans and Democrats, but “Second Amendment” is one where there’s a notable gap in favorability between the left and the right. Still, more Democrats and Republicans have a favorable view of the Second Amendment than “capitalism” and “billionaires”, according to the Ipsos poll.

While about 48% of Democrats have a favorable view of the Second Amendment, just 25% view billionaires favorably, and “capitalism” was viewed favorably by about 43% of self-identified Democrats. Republican support for the Second Amendment topped out around 85%, higher than GOP favorability for “billionaires” (around 53%), and “capitalism” (72%).

So what does this mean for the 2024 election cycle? Well, given that a plurality of Democrats and the vast majority of Republicans view the Second Amendment favorably, I expect that most candidates will be playing up their support for the right to keep and bear arms… though we’re going to hear an awful lot of “I support the Second Amendment, but…” statements from Democrats.

Using words that divide people can help win some races when turning out the base is the key, said Cliff Young, Ipsos’ president of polling and societal trends.

  • But Young said, “You can’t govern effectively through polarization. What we’re really talking about is, how do you govern afterwards. How do you build a coalition, consensus, achieve governance?”

How it works: Ipsos tested the favorability of dozens of phrases, names and concepts earlier this year for a survey for With Honor. The cross-partisan group aims to reduce polarization and supports veterans seeking office who take an integrity and civility pledge and agree to collaborate across the aisle.

  • The survey of more than 2,000 U.S. adults was conducted in two waves, in January and February, measuring the favorability of names, words and phrases.

What they’re saying: “Understanding what words and concepts unite us is super relevant,” said Rye Barcott, With Honor’s co-founder and CEO.

  • “We’re talking to Americans across the spectrum. So we are always trying to think through what does actually connect — not just for members that are speaking to their constituents but for us and any nonprofit or advocacy organizations trying to pass something into law. You have to be talking to Americans from both sides.”

I have no issue with talking to folks from across the political spectrum, so long as candidates are being honest with them. That’s the problem when it comes to most Democrats and the Second Amendment; no matter what gun control bill they’re promoting, they promise that it doesn’t violate the Second Amendment. Bans on so-called “assault weapons”? Oh, well those guns aren’t protected by the Second Amendment in the first place? Declaring most publicly accessible places off-limits to concealed carry? Those are “sensitive”, you see, so it’s okay to ban guns there.

The gun control lobby understands that it can’t openly proclaim the Second Amendment doesn’t exist and that every privately owned firearm in the U.S. should be confiscated without hurting Democratic candidates. Heck, they don’t even want to use the phrase “gun control” because many voters have a negative connotation of that phrase (though oddly, Ipsos didn’t include it in their most recent survey). Instead, they prefer “gun safety”… neglecting to mention, of course, that their definition is “don’t own one.”

Yes, we’ll continue to see Democrats in deep-blue districts express their outright hostility towards our right to keep and bear arms, but I suspect that this cycle we’re also going to see a lot of candidates like Ryan Busse try to hide their desire for gun control behind buzzwords like “responsibility”, “common sense”, “reasonable”, and yes, even “I support the Second Amendment, but…” Don’t be fooled by what they say, especially when what they want is so contrary to what comes out of their mouths.

Biden Defense Official Says ‘Take All the Guns’, Use National Guard

Confiscate guns

In a recent undercover video released by James O’Keefe, a Department of Defense (DoD) employee, Jason Beck, was recorded discussing the potential use of the National Guard for gun confiscation.

Beck’s assertion that the National Guard would follow orders to confiscate guns prompts questions about the military’s obligation to uphold the Constitution. The tension between obeying lawful orders and respecting individual rights underscores the complexities of military service in a democratic society.

Newsom’s gun control constitutional amendment gets nowhere, to the surprise of no one

Gov. Gavin Newsom made headlines last summer for proposing a 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution enshrining a handful of gun control measures into the supreme law of the land.

There was some ginned up fanfare, with state Sen. Aisha Wahab praising Newsom as “a man of action” in the press release announcing the amendment.

It was all a bit much for what everyone understood at the time to be Newsom’s latest attempt at positioning himself for the White House.

Alas, the California Legislature, dominated by the Democratic Party, approved a resolution calling for a constitutional convention on gun safety. Thirty-three states must make similar calls for such a convention to happen, but even then there’s an asterisk (more on that later).

Almost a year later, reports Bay Area News Group’s John Woolfolk, no other blue state has taken up Newsom on his proposal.

As Woolfolk notes, there are 18 other states with state legislatures controlled by the Democrats. But none have shown signs of following suit.

This is certainly not a surprise. Most states in the country have little interest in the sort of gun control measures pitched by Newsom.

Constitutional attorney Cody J. Wisniewski explained in these pages back in June: “Given only 10 states and Washington D.C. have any form of ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ or any form of waiting period, while 27 states have enacted some iteration of free/constitutional/permitless carry, it is clear that there isn’t currently much appetite for Newsom’s particular brand of gun control across the country.”

Then there’s the problem with the fact that the California Legislature called for a constitutional convention limited to matters of gun safety.
“But constitutional scholars say it’s unclear that’s legally possible,” Woolfolk reports. If a constitutional convention did indeed get assembled, states could use the circumstance to propose whatever they want.

Oregon Sen. Floyd Prozanski told Woolfolk that’s among the reasons his state doesn’t seem likely to go down the path pitched by Newsom. “The last thing I’d want is to open up something where we can’t put the lid back on the can,” he said.

And so that’s where Newsom’s much-touted constitutional amendment and foray into national politics and national influence-peddling stands: nowhere.

Needless to say, this isn’t any surprise to this editorial board. On June 13, 2023, we said of the proposal: “This editorial board isn’t impressed by Newsom’s proposal and we’re confident most of the rest of the country won’t be, either.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NY Judge: The Second Amendment Doesn’t Exist Here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“This is New York?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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