Category: RKBA

#2A INFRINGEMENT AND ANCILLARY RIGHTS.

This is correct. And this is a good moment for a quick teaching point. If you look at the Founding era dictionaries SCOTUS in Heller used to define the 2A terms, and then you look at the definition of “to infringe” in those same dictionaries… the phrase means “to hinder or destroy.”

Given that definition of “to infringe” from Samuel Johnson/Noah Webster (both founding era lexicographers, i.e., dictionary makers), ask yourself this….. does restricting or banning the ability to acquire an “arm” constitute something that would “hinder” the “right to keep and bear arms”?

Obviously yes because any restrictions on the ability to ACQUIRE AN ARM necessarily HINDERS our ability to keep and bear arms. Thus, restrictions, bans or limitations on the right to acquire arms (ghost gun rules, home-made gun rules, waiting periods, etc.), are an hindrance and thus constitute an INFRINGEMENT.

CRPA Files Suit Against LA Sheriff’s Department To Enforce CCW Policies

Moments ago, CRPA filed suit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s office challenging the “constitutionality of (its) carry permit issuance policies and laws that make it extremely difficult, if not outright impossible or impermissibly time consuming” for such a permit to be obtained.

Ever since the announcement of the Bruen decision, CRPA has fought to bring CCW application and issuance processes in line with the new standard.  Still, certain jurisdictions drag their feet and continue to create unnecessary delays, add onerous fees, and implement other bureaucratic hurdles to stall CCW issuance (as evidenced by the responses to our poll late last week).

Today’s filing is the next step in this ongoing effort. Joining us in this lawsuit are our strategic partners at Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, and Gun Owners of California. You can read the filing in its entirety by clicking here.

“CRPA has let it be known that across all of California’s 58 counties, we will be vigilant and relentless in our efforts to ensure that post-Bruen CCW policies and procedures are in place and followed,” stated CRPA President & General Counsel Chuck Michel. “This is all a part of the CRPA’s CCW Reckoning project.  Today’s lawsuit could easily have been avoided if the Constitution was observed and the Bruen decision was followed.”

ATF Violates Agreed Upon Timeline By Filing For An Appeal In Pistol Brace Case

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has filed a notice of appeal in a case challenging its rule against pistol braces (FINAL RULE 2021R-08F). Gun Owners of America (GOA) filed a motion for summary judgment a day later.

The case, Texas v. ATF, is a joint effort between GOA, Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), and the state of Texas to take down the ATF’s pistol brace rule.

Just a day before the ATF rule was due to go into effect, Federal District Court Judge Drew Tipton for the Southern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction (PI) for all GOA members, barring the ATF from taking enforcement actions against them. This ruling came on the heels of the Mock v. Garland Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that blocked enforcement of the rule on Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) members. Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) also got a preliminary injunction against the rule before the rule’s effective date.

“For these reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (Dkt. No. 16). Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing the Final Rule against the private Plaintiffs in this case, including its current members and their resident family members, and individuals employed directly by the State of Texas or its agencies. The preliminary injunction will remain in effect pending resolution of the expedited appeal in Mock v. Garland,” the order reads.

Since then, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has expanded the injunction to cover everyone in the nation, effectively killing the ATF’s rule. Before that happened, according to GOA, all parties agreed to the timeline in the Texas v. ATF case.

It is unlikely that the Fifth Circuit of Appeals would overturn Judge Tipton’s decision. The Fifth Circuit is openly hostile to the ATF’s use of the rule-making process.

Continue reading “”

FED. JUDGE STRIKES HANDGUN SALES BAN FOR 18-20 YR. OLDS IN W.VA CASE

BELLEVUE, WA – A federal district court judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal law prohibiting handgun sales to 18-20-year-olds is “facially unconstitutional,” and granted a summary judgment in a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation.

In a 40-page decision, U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas S. Kleeh with the Northern District of West Virginia wrote, “(B)ecause Plaintiffs’ conduct – the purchase of handguns – ‘fall[s] [within] the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command’ and the challenged statutes and regulations are not ‘consistent with the Nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation,’ the Court FINDS 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) facially unconstitutional and as applied to Plaintiffs.”

He enjoined the defendants—in this case the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF Director Steven Dettelbach and Attorney General Merrick Garland—from enforcing the provisions “against Plaintiffs and otherwise-qualified 18-to-20-year-olds.”

“This is a huge victory for Second Amendment rights, especially for young adults,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The Biden Justice Department argued that people in this age group were not adults, which was patently ludicrous. The government simply could not defend the constitutionality of the handgun prohibition, and Judge Kleeh’s ruling makes that clear.”

“There was never any historical evidence supporting this arbitrary ban on the purchase and ownership of handguns by young adults,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “As we maintained all along, history goes in the opposite direction. At that age historically, young adults were considered mature enough to serve in the militia, the military and take on other responsibilities. We’re delighted with the judge’s ruling.”

The case was filed in September 2022. Joining SAF were the West Virginia Citizens Defense League and individual citizens Steven Robert Brown and Benjamin Weekly. They were represented by attorneys John H. Bryan of Union, W.Va., and SAF’s Kraut, who is a practicing attorney based in Westtown, Pa.

Personal Defense And The Law
Knowledge of self-defense involves more than knowing how to draw your firearm or marksmanship.

Not long ago, I heard about an incident I want to bring to your attention. A motorist, traveling outside his state of residence, was the victim of a minor traffic accident. However, during the investigation, an officer found two handguns in his car. The motorist was arrested for carrying without a permit, a felony in that particular state.

The problem was that the motorist had a concealed-carry permit alright—but only in his home state. This man was not a criminal. He had no prior-arrest record. He simply was in a state that refused to recognize another state’s license. What that oversight meant for this gentleman was a trip to jail, very expensive legal fees and possible time in prison—and loss of his Second Amendment rights.

We spend a lot of time talking about guns and gear and even some time talking about tactics. But, I’m not sure we spend enough time discussing the various laws concerning personal defense. It is possible to be otherwise justified in defending oneself, yet still be charged with a crime for some violation of legal procedure.

Continue reading “”

You don’t say

Explosion of concealed handguns means someone nearby is carrying

The tripling of people with concealed gun permits combined with the majority of states that no longer license owners who want to carry means that someone near you right now is likely packing heat.

“It is very likely that any place that allows people to carry a concealed handgun will have someone carrying their gun,” said a new report shared with Secrets from John R. Lott’s Crime Prevention Research Center.

WHY GOOGLE IS KILLING OFF MILLIONS OF ACCOUNTS STARTING THIS WEEK

Lott has long followed the explosion in government-issued concealed carry permits. His 74-page report said that the percentage of people carrying guns rose from 5.4% in 2017 to 15.6% today.

Overall, he said, there are 21.8 million permits issued. That’s a decrease of 0.5% from last year.

But that’s not bad news for proponents of the Second Amendment and concealed carry laws.

Lott explained that the leveling off of permits is likely due to the surge in states that now allow citizens to carry their handguns without a permit. The growth of so-called constitutional carry states has reached 27 and is the biggest story in the gun world.

“In other words, people in those 27 states are allowed to carry concealed handguns without permits, representing 65% of the land in the country and 44% of the population in 2022,” his report said. “It is clear that more people are legally carrying.”

“What does this mean in practice? It means that in most places where people are allowed to carry a concealed handgun, there will be someone carrying a concealed handgun. If the probability that any one person has a concealed handgun permit is 5.4%, in a room with 10 people, the probability that at least one person will have a permitted concealed handgun is 43%. In a room with 20 people, that probability goes up to 67%. With 40, that probability rises to 89%,” the report said.

The growth follows the surge in violent crime and increase in gun ownership in America, where for the first time a majority say that they live in gun-owning homes. The state permitting data his team reviewed found that black permitting is up 223%, Asian 163%, and women 23%.

He also said that in states where there is a high number of concealed carriers, crime is down.

Good guys with guns save lives. Don’t believe the hype.

Gun control advocates keep claiming that good guys with guns are not effective at stopping mass shootings. But it looks that way only if we rely on the news media and the government for crime data.

Records of media reports that I have compiled since the beginning of 2021 show police have noted in 33 cases in which a concealed handgun permit holder stopped what appeared to be a mass murder in the making. But few of these heroic cases have gotten national news attention.

Police are very important in stopping crime, but they have a limited ability to stop attacks.

“A deputy in uniform has an extremely difficult job in stopping these attacks,” noted Kurt Hoffman, a Sarasota County, Fla sheriff. He said that mass shooters can “wait for a deputy to leave the area or pick an undefended location” as an advantage over police. Even with a visible police or security presence, he said, “Those in uniform who can be readily identified as guards may as well be holding up neon signs saying, ‘Shoot me first.’”

There’s a good reason that air marshals don’t wear uniforms on planes. By being inconspicuous, they prevent attackers from having a tactical advantage.

My research also revealed that recent cases such as the Lewiston, Maine, and the  Nashville Covenant School attacks occurred in gun-free zones where patrons are either discouraged from carrying guns or face fines and imprisonment for having them. Very few in the media have covered that fact.

The Nashville police chief, who got a look at the murderer’s entire manifesto, noted that the murderer originally targeted another location but decided against that “because of a threat assessment by the suspect of too much security.” The Buffalo mass murderer last year wrote in his manifesto that “areas where [concealed carry weapons] are outlawed or prohibited may be good areas of attack.”

My research shows it’s hard to ignore the enormous amount of mass public shootings that occur in places where guns are banned.

Continue reading “”

The Trace Accidentally Shows How Little Brady Bill Did

It’s been 30 years since the Brady Bill passed. This was the bill that mandated all licensed gun dealers had to conduct background checks on anyone trying to buy a firearm.

It was heralded as a huge step forward. After all, before the law went into effect, felons could walk into gun stores and buy a firearm. They weren’t supposed to–it was illegal for them to do so–but they could just lie and say they weren’t a felon. In most states, that was enough.

So then the law changed. The Brady Bill went into effect and after 30 years, The Trace has decided to look at some numbers as to just how effective it’s been.

Let’s take a look at a few.

2,266,746

The number of federal background checks that resulted in a denial

These denials occurred because an FBI search of the NICS indices turned up a record that legally disqualified the person from owning firearms. This total does not include denials in states where state or local law enforcement handles the background checks. In 2023, the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that federal and state agencies combined had denied a total of 4.4 million firearm background check applications since 1994. [FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics]

3 in 20 (or 1.5 percent)

The proportion of firearm background checks that result in a denial

This estimate from the Bureau of Justice Statistics encompasses denials issued at both the state and federal levels. Between 1998 and 2020, state and federal background checks blocked an average of 509 prohibited gun purchases and permits each day. However, when BJS looked solely at 2019 and 2020 — a period that overlaps with the pandemic gun-buying surge — the average number of denials jumped to 878 per day. [Bureau of Justice Statistics]

1 in 2 (or 51 percent)

The proportion of denials that are the result of felony convictions

Federal law prohibits people from owning firearms if they have been convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanors. Since the national background checks system went into place, this prohibitor has been the most common reason applications are denied. Compared to the FBI, state and local agencies deny for felony reasons at a lower rate, but one that still accounts for the largest proportion of denials. State and local agencies deny applications for state prohibitions and mental health reasons at a higher rate than the FBI. [FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics]

Now, more than 2.26 million denials sounds like a lot, but what The Trace isn’t including in their numbers are false denials. They might be denied and counted as someone with a felony, only the person in question isn’t a felon. NICS gets it wrong a fair bit because, well, they’re people. That’s going to happen.

So the number of felons being denied guns is actually lower.

Further, this is over 30 years. When you consider just how many guns are bought and sold annually in the US, the just over 75,000 denials we see on average per year doesn’t sound particularly staggering.

And The Trace notes that only half of them are for felonies.

See, while they’re celebrating how effective the Brady Bill is, what I’m seeing here is that criminals are getting plenty of guns and they’re not getting them from gun stores. They’re not even trying to get them from gun stores.

Why would they? Most know they can’t get one lawfully anyway–many of those who do try to get a gun don’t realize they can’t own a firearm anymore–so they look for alternate way to obtain one.

They bypass the Brady Bill framework entirely so they never show up in the denial numbers.

So hundreds of millions of people have bought guns over the last 30 years, undergoing background checks that make them feel like they’re the criminal, all while doing next to nothing to actually stop criminals from getting guns because the criminals just went a different direction.

Laws Requiring Permission to Obtain Guns Look Vulnerable

According to a landmark 2022 Supreme Court decision, the Second Amendment constrains the requirements that states may impose on residents who want to carry guns in public for self-defense. It stands to reason that the same is true of the steps that people must take to acquire guns in the first place.

That is essentially what the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit concluded last week, when it ruled that Maryland’s handgun licensing system is inconsistent with the right to keep and bear arms. The case exemplifies a new front in constitutional challenges to gun control laws under the Second Amendment test that the Supreme Court established last year.

To pass that test, a law must be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” But Maryland’s law, which requires would-be handgun owners to complete a process that can take up to 30 days, bears little resemblance to regulations enacted in the 18th or 19th century.

Maryland is one of 14 states that require background checks for all firearm purchases, whether or not the seller is a federally licensed dealer. Since 2013, Maryland has imposed an additional requirement on handgun buyers: They must first obtain a “handgun qualification license,” which entails completing at least four hours of firearm training and undergoing a seemingly redundant “investigation” aimed at screening out people who are legally disqualified from owning guns.

Maryland argued that its law fits a tradition of disarming “dangerous” individuals, such as people with felony records, illegal drug users and people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. But even assuming those categories of “prohibited persons” are validated by long-standing practice, 4th Circuit Judge Julius Richardson said, Maryland’s statute goes further by “preemptively disarming every person until they can each prove that they are not dangerous,” which “burdens a far broader swath of people.”

Writing in dissent, Judge Barbara Milano Keenan highlighted the Supreme Court’s distinction between “may issue” laws like New York’s, which required carry-permit applicants to demonstrate “proper cause,” and “shall issue” laws, which make permits available to all applicants who meet “objective criteria.” Maryland’s licensing system for handgun buyers falls into the latter category, Keenan said, which suggests the Court would be inclined to uphold it.

While the Supreme Court did indicate that “shall issue” laws could be consistent with the Second Amendment, it also noted that “any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends.” It therefore did not rule out “constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”

Continue reading “”

Well, I personally don’t hardly believe anything the goobermint says.

BLUF
“The manipulation of statistics to create a narrative ultimately scares people. Whether the goal is for ratings or more gun control, it pushes people, especially women and mothers, to fear guns,” said Miller. “And that just isn’t right.”

We Can’t Believe These Agencies
Too often, the U.S. government skews statistics on gun use to push false narratives.

While Americans are frequently confronted with stories centered on guns being used to take lives, few are aware that many more humans are likely saved by firearms every year. A key reason for this lack of understanding is unreliable federal crime data—data that has too often been skewed by anti-gun politics.

As currently defined by the FBI, active-shooter incidents involve individuals who kill or attempt to kill people in a populated, public place, even if only one shot is fired or the intended target is not struck. Shootings that are related to other criminal activities, such as robberies or drug-turf wars, are not included in the FBI’s “Active Shooter Incident” reports.

But, according to economist John Lott, there was an abundance of cases missing or misidentified by the FBI, and while the FBI acknowledged errors, the Bureau failed to update the reports for accuracy purposes. Lott is the president and founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), and also worked in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) up until January 2021 as senior advisor for research and statistics evalutating the FBI’s reports.

“The FBI continues to report that armed citizens stopped only 14 of the 302 active shooter incidents that it identified for the period 2014-2022. The correct rate is almost eight times higher. And if we limit the discussion to places where permit holders were allowed to carry, the rate is eleven times higher,” wrote Lott. He further noted, “[O]ut of 440 active shooter incidents from 2014 to 2022, an armed citizen stopped 157. We also found that the FBI had misidentified five cases, usually because the person who stopped the attack was incorrectly identified as a security guard.”

He also emphasized that while the FBI claims that just 4.6% of active murderers were halted by law-abiding citizens carrying guns, his research found that the figure was at least 35.7%. A false statistic—like this 4.6%—misleads people and can prevent good policies from being passed.

Indeed, without reliable crime data, it is impossible to have a fair “gun-control” debate, and yet the FBI continues to depend upon minimal data sets to reach conclusions meant to encapsulate the entire country.

Continue reading “”

Contra Costa County Sheriff Won’t Allow CCL Holders to Carry With Red Dots, Lasers, or Pistol Lights 

Months ago, the California Rifle & Pistol Association heard from a member that Contra Costa County Sheriff David Livingston has some rather unique restrictions on the guns that his office will qualify for carry by residents in the county.

If you’re unfamiliar with California’s byzantine carry laws, applicants for a license must qualify with each specific firearm they intend to carry. Each handgun’s serial number appears on your carry license. Most counties will allow up to three firearms, but some limit you to only one. Sheriffs have wide latitude in what they will and won’t qualify for carry.

We were told that Sheriff Livingston won’t qualify applicants if they attempt to qualify with a pistol that has a laser, red dot sight, or a pistol light attached (night sights are allowed), and found the page at the bottom of this post on the county’s web site. We wrote to ask the Sheriff for his rationale for these restrictions and this week we heard back from him.

Unfortunately, Sheriff Livingston won’t budge on this policy. He writes that he has a “Firearms Committee” he consults on these questions. He tells us the committee is made up of employees with a wide range of backgrounds, all of whom are firearms instructors. The committee recommended against changing the policy.

The reasons for excluding these accessories are (I summarize here, these aren’t quotes) . . .

Continue reading “”

If You Want Peace, Prepare For War: Why All Should Be Armed

A lot of people get armed for a lot of reasons. Those reasons generally don’t matter all that much because we don’t have to provide a reason why we want to exercise our Second Amendment rights, but those reasons exist and are varied.

People who live in high-crime areas tend to prefer not to become a victim. Some people recognize bad things can happen at any time and place. Still others figure they’ll never need it, but are armed simply because they have the God-given right to be armed.

Yet the flip side is that a lot of people refuse to carry a firearm. They believe the world should be better than it is and that there’s no reason for any of us to have a gun.

My friend Yehuda Remer, aka The Pew Pew Jew, had an interesting post over at his site that I think we should talk a bit about. It starts with a story from the Old Testament. Jacob and his family, with all their riches, are on the road to meet his brother, Eisav, who sanctioned his murder 20 years prior and who thinks Jacob is already dead.

To prepare for this meeting, Jacob does three things. The first is to send an offering to Eisav to hopefully make peace. The second was to pray. It’s the third thing that leads to why I’m writing this.

Lastly, and the real reason I am writing this blog, is that Jacob prepared for war. He split his family into two different camps to spare one if Eisav decided to attack. Of course, he would be willing to fight but still ensured some of his family would live.

Why is this important? Why is the preparation for war so integral to Jacob even though he had God’s ear? What can we learn?

I am a Jew who carries a firearm. I write about guns. I use firearms regularly. I train people on firearms and educate them on their Second Amendment rights. Unfortunately, Jews get a bad rap because so many of them are anti-gun and anti-2A, which is true. I know many Jews from all walks of life who hate firearms and believe that guns have no place in society. Well, my question to them is, if guns don’t have a place in society, how do we explain the fact that Jacob prepared for war? How is exercising my Second Amendment and carrying a firearm on my person to ensure my family is protected any different than what Jacob did?

The answer is that there is no difference.

“Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum.” If you want peace, prepare for war.

Exactly.

Look, I’d love to live in a world where there was absolutely zero chance I’d ever need my gun for anything but recreational shooting. We don’t live in that world, we live in this one.

As such, I can and should take all the steps one can think of to prevent myself from becoming a victim and, as a society, we should take all the steps we can to make it so crime disappears forever.

Those of us who are the praying sort should do that as well, pray that those who would become violent criminals and those who already have find another way forward with their lives.

But we shouldn’t rest exclusively on those.

We should want peace, but we should prepare for war. At least in a manner of speaking, anyway.

Violence can and will come for some of us. We can and should do everything we can to mitigate the risk of that, but some of us won’t be fortunate enough to escape that.

So, we should be prepared to meet that violence with the threat of force and a willingness to use violence in the defense of ourselves or others if need be.

Second Amendment Roundup: Concessions by the Government in the Rahimi Oral Argument
Misdemeanants don’t fall within the “not law-abiding” category.

In the November 7 oral argument in U.S. v. Rahimi, the government conceded the fundamental difference between felonies and misdemeanors, which criminal defense and pro-gun attorneys will find useful.  Also, direct references were made by some Justices to the issue of non-violent felons who are not dangerous.  And on the separate state-law issue of whether administrative officials may have discretion to deny the right to bear arms, the government conceded that they do not.

Recall that under N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, a person who is among “the people” has Second Amendment rights, and conduct covered by the plain text of that Amendment is presumptively protected unless the state can satisfy its burden (yes, it’s the government’s burden) to demonstrate that the current gun control regulation is similar to valid historical analogue laws. In Rahimi, the issue is whether any Founding-era analogue laws exist to justify the federal gun ban against persons under a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO).

To uphold the ban, the government relies on laws that punished affrays, including the brandishing of weapons to terrify others, and laws that required persons who did so to find sureties to keep the peace.  Such laws are not “historical twins” to today’s DVRO laws but are argued to be close enough.

A significant concession arising in the arguments would have jumped out at any member of the criminal defense bar, although it was not on the exact issue before the Court. The United States had argued in its briefs that persons who are not “law-abiding, responsible citizens” may be disarmed. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar began her argument by saying that not being “law-abiding” means having “committed serious crimes defined by the felony-level punishment that can attach to those crimes.”  Not being “responsible” “applies to those whose possession of firearms would pose an unusual danger.”

Continue reading “”

PRESIDENT BIDEN’S REELECTION CAMPAIGN TARGETS GUN CONTROL

President Joe Biden’s campaign is waking from its slumber and vowing he will “finish the job” on gun control as a central pillar of his pitch to stay in The White House for another four years.

The Biden-Harris reelection campaign is circulating memos and reaching out to friendly media to make the case that President Biden will use a second term to usher in gun control’s radical unconstitutional agenda. That includes banning America’s most popular-selling centerfire rifle, the Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR). That also means defying the will of Congress. White House officials are playing up bipartisan efforts but are making it clear that they are willing to strike out unilaterally if Congress doesn’t knuckle under to their demands.

“The president demonstrated that he can get things done, working across party lines when necessary, on our own where we can’t,” White House Deputy Chief of Staff Bruce Reed told The Messenger.

‘Finish the Job’

President Biden has already made clear he’s not listening to American citizens when it comes to guns. An NBC News national poll indicated that the majority of Americans live in a gun-owning household for the first time. The Biden-Harris reelection campaign, though, will lean on the political favors they’ve delivered for special interest gun control – specifically the deep-pocket donors who expect a return for their campaign donations.

President Biden continuously calls for Congress to re-enact the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported had no effect on reducing crime.

“Who the hell needs an assault weapon that can hold, in some cases, up to 100 rounds?” President Biden said just last month. This is the line of attack that he’s coupled with veiled threats of using U.S. military force against its own citizens.

“If you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons,” he said in 2021.

Weaponizing ATF

President Biden has made his attacks on the firearm industry central to his administration, starting with calling firearm manufacturers “the enemy” to most recently halting U.S. firearm exports without explanation. In between, he’s pushed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to punish the firearm industry through a “zero-tolerance” policy that has seen a sharp increase of federal firearms licenses revoked or surrendered for minor clerical errors.

President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris promised they would use the ATF as a blunt force instrument to hammer the firearm industry – simply because they don’t agree with Second Amendment rights. The ATF has published Final Rules – one to redefine frames and receivers and another to ban pistols with attached braces. Both have faced legal headwinds with various courts deciding that the ATF overreached its authority to write criminal law without Congressional input or approval. It is the responsibility of Congress to write law and for the Executive Branch to execute that law. Both Final Rules created criminal penalties without a vote in Congress.

Most recently, ATF Director Steven Dettelbach spoke to Harvard University where he doubled back on a pledge to U.S. Senators that he would “use the tools Congress gives” and instead advocated for increased gun control. He told the audience he agreed that the administration should pursue an MSR ban and also push for universal background checks. Both would be Constitutionally-specious. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Heller that the U.S. Government cannot ban an entire class of firearms and in order for universal background checks to work, it would necessitate a national firearm registry. That’s still forbidden by federal law.

Scaring Voters

President Biden isn’t just sharpening his attacks on the firearm industry. He’s scaremongering voters too. His reelection campaign circulated a memo titled, “Trump’s America in 2025: More Guns, More Shootings, More Deaths.”

“A Donald Trump presidency will mean more guns in schools and more guns in the hands of criminals, all because he thinks being pro-gun makes him look tough,” Biden campaign spokesperson Seth Schuster said in a statement, according to The Hill. “But his refusal to stand up to the gun lobby to protect our kids makes him weak and a coward.”

The Biden-Harris campaign counts it as a feather in their cap that they caved to gun control special-interest demands to create an Office of Gun Violence Prevention that’s stacked with gun control lobbyists. While they blame others challenging them for unsubstantiated claims that gun owners had carte-blanche access to the Oval Office, the Biden administration literally gave gun control lobbyists an office in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on The White House grounds.

Biden-Harris campaign staffers are scaring voters that the same protections they enjoy on those protected grounds would create chaos should similar protections be afforded to schools and private citizens. It just doesn’t make sense. Criminals – especially violent criminals – have shown time and again that posting “gun-free zone” signs doesn’t deter crime. Meanwhile, investigations have shown that violent criminals sought soft targets where they knew they wouldn’t be confronted by armed security or private citizens protecting themselves with firearms.

President Biden’s pledge to “finish the job” means the end of Constitutional rights. The presidential election is less than a year away and the primary means of preventing these efforts is through the ballot box.

Incremental Strategy to Reform & Repeal the National Firearms Act

Previously, this correspondent wrote an essay on Incrementalism v. “all or nothing”. It was well-received:

Roland T. Gunner ~ “Mr. Weingarten, I take my hat off to you. This article is the best thing I have read in modern memory. Now, tell me, how do we get incremental movement on repealing the NFA? And for all you naysayers, sit down, shut up, or help us get it done.”

Incremental movement is happening to dismantle the National Firearms Act (NFA), bit by bit. The ultimate goal is repeal.

Here is how it is being done, and what needs to be done in the future.

Educate Gun Culture & The General Public

When people understand the NFA is the result of a political compromise that did nothing to stop crime; but results in thousands of Americans being punished for peaceful acts, support for the NFA drops to politically irrelevant numbers. Support for the NFA is fairly wide, but very shallow, propped up by the dominant Media and their creation and proliferation of false narratives.

Continue reading “”

Police in This Blue State Will Continue Enforcing ‘Draconian’ Handgun Law Ruled Unconstitutional by Court

Maryland State Police will continue enforcing the state’s handgun law for now, despite a federal appeals court ruling that the licensing requirement is unconstitutional.

“At this time, the HQL law remains in effect and there are no immediate changes in the process to purchase a firearm in Maryland,” the department wrote in an agency-wide advisory after last week’s ruling.

Maryland’s Handgun Qualification License (HQL) requires applicants to submit fingerprints for a background check, take a four-hour firearm safety course with a live fire component, and wait up to 30 days for approval before purchasing a handgun, which then requires another application and seven-day waiting period.

Last Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the law is overly “burdensome” and cannot stand under the 2022 landmark Supreme Court decision that a firearm regulation is unconstitutional unless the government can prove it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition.

Continue reading “”

Where Did New Gun Owners Come From and Where are They Going?

Our society is changing. Those changes caused many of us to buy a firearm. We see that crime is rising around us. We notice that criminals are no longer routinely caught by police and prosecuted in the courts. We consider moving to a safer location. (examples from California and New York) We decided that we need a gun to be safe. That chain of events might sound like mere speculation but a number of recent surveys have confirmed it. Almost 14 million of us bought a gun for the first time in 2020 and 2021. The increase in gun ownership will not lead to a significant change in political affiliation.

Personal protection is the main reason we buy a gun today. By a two-to-one margin, more of us think crime is getting worse rather than getting better. The margin increases to three-to-one when we consider crime in our inner cities. Those opinions come from a Harvard-Harris poll conducted only a few weeks ago in mid-November of 2023. Democrats think the increase in crime is because of a worsening economy while republicans think it is because criminals are not prosecuted for their crimes. Most republicans think that the police are afraid to do their job while most democrats disagree. By a four-to-one margin, voters in both parties think that laws about minor crimes like shoplifting should be rigorously enforced. Except for democrats, a majority of us blame woke democrat politicians and district attorneys who won’t prosecute crimes. Most of us think that the US justice department is focused on politics rather than stopping gangs and crime syndicates.

A majority of voters from both parties now think that it is necessary to own a gun for personal protection. Including independent voters, 63-percent of us now believe it is necessary to own a gun to prevent criminal attacks.

We acted on those personal motivations and gun ownership has grown over time. We’ve seen record gun sales for the last 50 months. We also have mixed data on the number of new gun owners. A Pew research poll from August said that 41 percent of us live in a household with a firearm. That estimate may be on the low side since a Gallup poll put the number at 44 percent. A recent NBC poll put the number at 52% of us who live with a gun in our home. The variance between different polling organizations are significant, but the trend of increased gun ownership is consistent.

We have to be skeptical about these polling numbers. A recent research report said that many of us don’t tell the truth to strangers on the phone when the strangers ask if we own firearms. The research report estimated that as many as 60 percent of adults might own a gun as compared to 30 percent reported earlier.

That is another part of our changing society. It now makes sense that we are reluctant to tell strangers whether we do or do not own firearms. Gun owners don’t want to be targeted and have their guns taken. Households without a gun feel more vulnerable if they admit they are disarmed. All of us have become more concerned about having our personal information gathered and sold. In addition, the precise details of the polling question are critically important.

Let me give a practical example to prove my point. My first auto accident was a dented fender on my parent’s car. My worst auto accident was as a passenger. I wouldn’t mention either of those accidents if you asked me about accidents where I was driving my car. The same situation applies to gun owners as applied to drivers. Many older teenagers and younger adults depend on using someone else’s firearm for protection when they are at home. Likewise, a husband or wife might carry a gun that is actually owned by their spouse.

It is undeniably true that the face of gun ownership is changing. The stereotypical gun owner used to be an old, white, rural male. That face is now a young, urban female minority. In short, gun ownership now represents the population at large. The older stereotype of gun owners was that they were politically conservative. It does not follow that new gun owners will follow suit and vote republican.

Gun ownership is unlikely to change voting patterns. Party affiliation is a stronger predictor of attitude towards firearm regulation than is gun ownership. In general, republicans who don’t own a gun are slightly closer to democrats. Democrats who own a gun are slightly closer to republicans. That said, the difference between the political parties is larger than the difference between gun owners and non-gun owners within the parties.

Owning a firearm is only one of many cultural differences that separate liberal politics from conservative politics. Given the Democrat party’s recent adoption of firearms prohibition, most liberal gun owners ignore their party’s position on guns and vote for liberal candidates anyway.

As usual, change happens at the margin. A centrist democrat who recently bought a gun may now see the Democrat party’s gun prohibitions as the issue that changed his vote.

Redefining Adulthood to Deny Second Amendment Rights

Continue reading “”