RKBA – Page 40 – MILESFORTIS

VIRGINIA VETO SESSION HIGHLIGHTS NEED FOR GOVERNORS WHO RESPECT THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Virginia’s General Assembly gathered in Richmond for the Reconvened Regular Session (or Veto Session). This is the one-day session when bills the governor either vetoed or sent back to the legislature with amendments can be taken back up. This veto session is more significant than usual for the firearm industry because Democrats, who currently control both the Senate and House of Delegates, passed dozens of antigun bills. They were on a mission to pass bills to strip away the Second Amendment rights of Virginians and punish the firearm industry. With much appreciation, Gov. Glenn Youngkin responded by vetoing all legislation that would have negatively impacted firearm and ammunition businesses.

Here’s a look at some of the defeated bills Democrats passed and were sent back to the General Assembly by Gov. Youngkin. The General Assembly was unable to override any of the governor’s vetoes.

SB 2 & HB 2 would ban the sale of many semiautomatic firearms classified as so-called “assault firearms.” The legislation would also ban standard capacity magazines, or those having a capacity of more than 10 rounds. NSSF’s recently-released research report conservatively estimates over 717 million such magazines produced since 1990, establishing beyond question they are commonly owned by law-abiding Americans.

SB 273 & HB 1195 would create an arbitrary and unconstitutional five-day waiting period for the purchase and transfer of firearms.

SB 327 would remove the right of young adults (18 to 20 years of age) to purchase certain semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. NSSF refers to this as an unconstitutional age-based gun ban.

SB 491 & HB 318 would create new civil liabilities for firearm industry members, specifically those engaged in the sale, manufacturing, distribution, importation or marketing of firearm-related products. These bills would also create a civil cause of action for the attorney general or local county or city attorney to enforce the provisions of the legislation. Such claims are preempted by the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

HB 351 would prohibit the transfer of a firearm from a licensed dealer unless the transferee purchases a locking device for the firearm if they reside in the same household as a child or complete a certification statement that they do not reside in the same household as a child. This bill disregards the fact that free locking devices are included in the package with every firearm shipped from a manufacturer and federal law already requires licensed dealers have such devices available for sale and must provide one when transferring a handgun.

HB 585 would implement statewide zoning restrictions that ban home-based licensed dealers from operating within 1.5 miles of an elementary or middle school. This bill would put many licensed dealers out of business.

HB 1174 would expand the definition of “assault firearms” while also unconstitutionally banning the sale of many Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) and those that would have been newly-designated as “assault firearm” to those under 21 years of age. The bill would have also codified into state law the minimum age to purchase a handgun as 21. That has come under scrutiny after a federal judge in Virginia ruled adults under 21 cannot be prohibited from purchasing a handgun.

To summarize, Democrats attempted to ban commonly-owned firearms and magazines, create new civil liabilities that would be weaponized against manufacturers and dealers, strip young adults of their rights, create unnecessary red tape to purchase a firearm and close responsible home-based businesses simply because they happen to be within an arbitrary distance of a school.

Democrats did not have the votes to override any of the governor’s industry-supported vetoes. NSSF thanks Gov. Youngkin and those legislators that stood up for the thousands of Virginians in the firearm industry and the millions of gun-owning Virginians it serves. NSSF will continue to actively engage here in Richmond. That doesn’t mean the work is done. Undoubtedly, many of these same bills, and some new ones, will be introduced next year.

Police Website Reveals CDC Suppressing Defensive Gun Use Data

According to a report from Law Enforcement Today, recent revelations have exposed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for allegedly suppressing data on defensive gun use (DGU). This action has ignited debates over the transparency and potential politicization of the agency’s research on gun policy and public health.

The CDC, which studies various factors contributing to injury and mortality including firearm incidents, has been criticized for omitting defensive gun use statistics from its public communications. Despite commissioning a study from The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, which recognized DGUs as a “common occurrence,” the CDC chose to exclude these statistics following pressure from gun-control advocates.

Documents obtained via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests revealed that individuals such as Mark Bryant of the Gun Violence Archive, Devin Hughes of GVPedia, and Po Murray engaged with top CDC officials. They were introduced by the White House and Senator Dick Durbin’s office and pressed the CDC to downplay DGU frequencies, which range from estimates of 60,000 to 2.5 million annually in the U.S.

Mark Bryant was particularly outspoken, vehemently opposing the highest estimates of DGU. He was quoted in correspondence saying, “that statistic needs to be killed, buried, dug up, killed again and buried again. It is highly misleading, used out of context, and holds zero value even as an outlier in honest discussions surrounding DGUs.”

Despite initial reluctance, the CDC ultimately removed references to DGUs from its publications, a move that has been perceived as aligning the agency more with gun-control advocacy groups than with unbiased scientific inquiry. This has raised concerns about the CDC’s commitment to providing comprehensive and unbiased data.

Gary Kleck, professor emeritus at Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice and a long-time researcher of DGUs, criticized the CDC’s actions, suggesting they indicate the agency is a tool of gun-control advocates rather than a neutral body. Kleck, whose research supports at least 760,000 DGUs annually, emphasized the importance of rigorous methodology and empirical evidence in academic research.

This situation highlights the ongoing tension between scientific research and political influence, particularly in the contentious arena of gun policy. Critics argue that the CDC’s actions compromise its credibility as an evidence-based institution and call for greater transparency and accountability in its research practices.

“CDC is just aligning itself with the gun-control advocacy groups. It’s just saying: ‘we are their tool, and we will do their bidding.’ And that’s not what a government agency should do,” Kleck told Eddie Killian, the author of the Law Enforcement Today article.

What’s Old Is New Again, and Militias Are the New Black

Thanks to a successful leftist smear campaign, most Americans now see militia members as being nothing more than drooling, wacko, camo-clad, right-wingers sipping Black Rifle coffee in their backyard pillbox, stupidly unaware the FBI has a drone watching them from above.

Militias date back to the origins of the United States and earlier. They were created for the same reasons we are seeing a resurgence in militias today: to stand up against a government that can’t be trusted.

From MilitaryHistoryNow.com:

Perhaps the strongest cultural tradition to transfer from England to its colonies was the distrust of a standing army that could enforce the crown’s will and circumvent parliament. England’s strength lay in its navy, which was out of sight – and often out of mind – and could not project power inland. The army was not considered a gentleman’s occupation and soldiers were looked upon as mere pawns.

Founding Father James Madison understood the need for militias better than most.

“Because since inception, militias have been tasked with stopping those who hold public office from exceeding their authority or those seeking to enact legislation outside of their operating charter,” Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, which is “a crucial check against incremental encroachment by the state.”

Madison was on a roll:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprizes of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

The Founding Fathers knew something few seem to realize today: power corrupts horrible people. Thus, they wrote the need for a militia into the 2nd Amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Leftists like to pretend there are differing interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, but it seems incontestable to me. Armed militias are a necessary segment of our freedom. Easy peasy, unless you’re a demented communist.

Continue reading “”

Emmer Introduces Legislation to Protect Ammunition Supply Chain

Washington, D.C. – Today, in an effort to bolster America’s national security, Congressman Tom Emmer (MN-06) introduced the Ammunition Supply Chain Act. The legislation aims to ensure the resilience and efficiency of our nation’s ammunition manufacturing supply chain. Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) introduced companion legislation in the United States Senate.

The Ammunition Supply Chain Act requires the Secretary of the Army to provide a comprehensive report to Congress on the supply chain of ammunition manufacturing. The report will include information on sourcing raw materials used in ammunition production, examining weaknesses in the existing supply chain and the global demand for ammunition, and providing strategies for fostering public-private partnerships.

“As threats to our nation’s security evolve, it is more important than ever to take proactive measures to secure our ammunition supply chain. This is not only about enhancing our military readiness but also supporting American manufacturing and ensuring law-abiding Minnesotans and Americans can exercise their Second Amendment rights,” Congressman Emmer said.

“This administration creates as many ridiculous hurdles as possible to restrict law-abiding gun owners’ access to affordable guns and ammunition,” said Senator Risch. “The Ammunition Supply Chain Act forces transparency from the Biden administration about the status of our domestic ammunition supply chain. This is vital to protect our right to bear arms and to ensure our military has the ammunition it needs to protect our country.”

Background

Due to a rise in the use of ammunition and artillery in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, countries around the world are battling shortages of key materials needed for ammunition production, resulting in domestic ammunition prices skyrocketing, limiting millions of Americans’ ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Congressman Emmer has consistently championed and defended American’s Second Amendment rights. He recently introduced legislation to provide recourse for law-abiding Americans who were improperly denied the ability to legally purchase a firearm. Furthermore, Emmer staunchly opposed the Biden Administration’s crackdowns on stabilizing braces in 2023.

The Ammunition Supply Chain Act is cosponsored by Representatives Pete Stauber, Brad Finstad, Michelle Fischbach, Rick Crawford and Bruce Westerman.

The legislation is supported by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and Vista Outdoor.

Full text of the bill is available here.

Louisiana Preemption Bill Passes Senate, 28-11, on to House

The Louisiana legislature is in the process of strengthening the current state preemption law regarding weapons and the right to keep and bear arms. Local governments seeking to push gun control have been clever about finding ways to restrict people’s right to keep and bear arms in ways not foreseen by previous preemption laws. For example, in Iowa, the Dubuque City Council voted to create a zoning ordinance to prohibit otherwise legitimate gun sales. In Montana, the city government of Missoula, dominated by the University of Montana, voted to require government approval of all firearm sales in the city. In response, state legislatures are strengthening preemption bills to prevent such abuses.

Several changes are being proposed in the preemption statute for the State of Louisiana. The differences between the present law and the proposed bill are shown on the Louisiana Legislature website.

Present law limits a political subdivision’s authority to enact certain ordinances or regulations involving firearms. In this regard, present law prohibits a governing authority of a political subdivision from enacting any ordinance or regulation that is more restrictive than state law concerning the sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transfer, transportation,license, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or components of firearms or ammunition.

Proposed law prohibits a governing authority from enforcing any ordinance, order, regulation, policy, procedure, rule or any other form of executive or legislative action more restrictive than state law concerning in any way the manufacture, sale, purchase, possession,carrying, storage, ownership, taxation, transfer, transportation, license, or registration of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms or ammunition, firearms accessories, knives,edged weapons, or any combination thereof.

The differences are significant. Present law limits a political subdivision’s authority to enact ordinances or regulations. The proposed bill prohibits all governmental authorities (except the state legislature) from enforcing a wider range of items, expanded beyond ordinances or regulations involving firearms to any ordinance, order, regulation, policy, procedure, rule or any other form of executive or legislative action.

Continue reading “”

Any politician who tells you that a badly written law won’t be used in the worst way possible by some goobermint stooge, is lying to you.

MO Senate votes to protect homeschool access to guns to ease K-12 tax credit expansion

The Missouri Senate voted Wednesday night to ensure homeschool families are allowed to own firearms.

On a 27-4 vote, lawmakers approved legislation that originally was focused on cleaning up issues with Missouri’s virtual school program.

Sen. Andrew Koenig, R-Manchester, answers questions about his bill that would expand MOScholars during a committee meeting Wednesday Jan. 10, 2024.

But over the course of a five-hour recess in the Senate Wednesday, Republicans turned that legislation into a catch-all measure aimed at ensuring the House approves an even larger education bill approved by the Senate last month.

The bill approved Wednesday night was crafted to ease House concerns about a 153-page bill that passed the Senate to expand Missouri’s private school tax credit program and allowed charter schools in Boone County, along with other provisions aimed at bolstering public schools.

That bill’s sponsor, Republican state Sen. Andrew Koenig of Manchester, told The Independent he would prefer the House pass the Senate’s education bill without changes and send it to the governor’s desk. Any changes in the House would bring it back to the Senate for debate, putting its changes at risk.

After the Senate passed Koenig’s legislation last month, criticism began popping up on social media and in the Capitol about a myriad of issues — primarily that homeschooling families may face additional government oversight.

Despite assurances from gun-rights groups, one concern focused on the idea that homeschoolers’ inclusion in the private school scholarship program would result in home educators being subject to laws banning guns in schools.

The Missouri Firearms Coalition made a statement that it felt that gun-ownership was not threatened in the bill. And an attorney for Home School Legal Defense Association Scott Woodruff was adamant that he was not concerned about the provision.

“The idea (the bill)…. would make the criminal penalties of (state firearm code) apply to home schoolers with guns in their home is supported, at best, only by a long, thin string of assumptions and implications,” he wrote.

But House members were flooded with emails and social media messages expressing concerns, putting the bills’ chances of passing without being altered at risk.

Koenig said Wednesday that the ability to own a gun was not threatened by his bill.

“I don’t know that it was a problem, but this definitely makes it a lot stronger,” he said. “Anytime we can clarify something in statute, then we make sure that interpretation is stronger.”

The bill applies the existing homeschool statute to particular sections of state law — avoiding applying the definition of a “home school” to the state code that prohibits firearms on school grounds.

The legislation approved Wednesday night expanded beyond virtual schools to include changes such as connecting funding for K-12 tax-credit scholarships to state aid for public schools’ transportation. This is current state law, but Koenig’s bill separated the two.

The bill also exempts Warsaw School District from taking a vote to reauthorize the district’s current four-day school week. If Koenig’s bill passes, school districts that have switched to a four-day week in charter counties or cities with at least 30,000 residents will have to hold a vote to continue with an abbreviated week.

Similar provisions are included in amendments to Koenig’s bill filed by House members. Fifty-three amendments have already been filed on Koenig’s bill in the House.

House Majority Leader Jon Patterson, a Lee’s Summit Republican, told reporters on Monday that he would prefer to pass the Senate’s version of Koenig’s bill but there was not a guarantee to do so.

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.”

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 “”

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

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

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

Category: RKBA

April 18, 2024

Blatantly Unconstitutional