Category: RKBA

Comment O’ The Day:
It’s a good way to start something they can’t win.

‘Nationwide gun emergency’ discussed by U.S. House Democrats at roundtable meeting

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Democrats held a Monday roundtable forum on changing U.S. gun laws following a recent mass shooting in Maine, where 18 people were killed. 

The top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, invited witnesses to discuss gun violence solutions, and said that the gun industry lobby, the National Rifle Association and Republicans push back against gun reform.

“We’re going to examine the nationwide gun emergency that’s taking place, the endless rounds of gun violence and massacres that are plaguing our society,” Raskin said.

Some of those witnesses included gun safety advocates, educators, survivors of gun violence and people who seek to intervene in community violence.

“There is a light at the end of the tunnel with this issue,” Democratic Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost of Florida said. “The gun lobby is more afraid, now more than ever, as they see a multiracial, multigenerational army of Americans who are not willing to relent from the demand for common sense gun reform.”

Democrats on the committee who participated in the forum included Reps. Greg Casar of Texas, Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia and Dan Goldman of New York.

Democrats said they opted to organize the roundtable after being turned down in their request for a formal hearing to Republicans who control the chamber. “We could not convince the majority to have a hearing about the state of the nation with respect to gun violence,” Raskin said.

Continue reading “”

Rolling Stone Blames Gun Industry For Mass Shootings – Reveals Greater Fear Of Patriot Rebellion

It’s the old leftist anti-gun standby:  Pretend as if the 2nd Amendment was drafted only to protect hunting and self defense against criminals.  Ignore the fact that the Founding Fathers explicitly created gun rights for the purpose of repelling and overthrowing a corrupt government.  Pretend as if Americans are not supposed to have access to military grade weapons when that is exactly what the 2nd Amendment was enshrined to protect.

Under the Constitution, the American militia was intended to act as the defense force for the nation.  And, the militia was made up of every able bodied male citizen.  The militia was the military (in a sense), and the militia had access to all the weapons needed to fulfill their role.  This included repeating rifles (automatic rifles), cannons, explosives and even naval ships in private hands.  The Founders never intended for a standing military to exist, nor did they ever intend for a standing military to act as a proxy in place of an armed citizenry.

As James Madison noted:

“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 enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”    
– James Madison, January 29, 1788, Federalist No. 46     

And, as George Mason asserted:

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
– George Mason, June 4, 1788, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention

It should be treated as a revealing condition that the establishment and corporate media consistently attack the civilian ownership of guns which they argue are “made for war.”  These guns which they refer to as “assault rifles” (because it sounds scary) are used in less than 3% of all gun crimes in the US.  They are also a small percentage of overall mass shootings in the US, yet they garner almost 100% of the anti-gun lobby’s attention.

Continue reading “”

Next Gun Control Fight Likely to Target Ammo

Over the weekend the New York Times ran a lengthy story on the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant and its role in producing ammunition for the civilian market in addition to the U.S. military. The Times report explicitly tied ammo produced at Lake City to mass shootings, with the paper reporting that Lake City ammunition has been “bought by murderers, antigovernment groups, and others.”

Not just to complain about, but potentially to legislate or regulate as well. I’ve been covering 2A issues long enough to recognize the pattern here; a major media outlet “uncovers” something it portrays as a problem, and then anti-gun politicians and gun control groups start demanding action be taken. The New York Times report itself doesn’t contain too many comments from anti-2A activists, but it doesn’t need to. That’s what follow up stories are for. Instead, the purpose of the initial report is to establish some reason to be concerned; in this case, the presence of Lake City-produced ammunition turning up at crime scenes.

Continue reading “”

‘Like A Machine Gun’ Isn’t A Machine Gun

Ever since Las Vegas, bump stocks have been horrifically demonized. Granted, the Las Vegas shooting was horrific enough that it shouldn’t surprise us that it did.

Soon after, the ATF reversed their decision that they weren’t machine guns.

That reversal came at the direction of then President Donald Trump. He did that, at least in part, to cut the legs out of an effort in Congress that would have gone a lot further than bump stocks and binary triggers. It could have screwed up any trigger modifications for any reason.

Regardless of the reason, though, the ATF actually overstepped their authority, so it’s not surprising that it triggered a lawsuit.

Now, it’s headed to the Supreme Court and Elie Mystal at The Nation has thoughts.

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear another gun case. That alone should make people hide under their desks at school, because at this point in our bloody republic, every time the Supreme Court decides to entertain the gun lobby, more children are likely to die.

The case involves a challenge to the federal ban on “bump stocks.” Bump stocks are a modification that can be attached to semiautomatic rifles to make them perform as fully automatic weapons. A shooter pulls the trigger to fire the weapon, and the bump stock uses the recoil from that action to pull the trigger again and again, resulting in a near continuous rate of fire, just like a machine gun.

The issue is “like a machine gun” and “machine gun” isn’t the same thing in the least. Especially not in the eyes of the law.

The ATF doesn’t have broad authority to just create law. It has the power to interpret laws passed by Congress, but it can’t just make up law as it goes.

Otherwise, ATF Director Steve Dettelbach could just mandate the assault weapon ban he’s said he wanted.

He can’t do that because there’s nothing in the law that allows for that.

What the ATF did with bump stocks, though, is not much different from a mandated assault weapon ban because the justification used doesn’t actually fit with bump stocks.

Continue reading “”

Louisiana to Enact Constitutional Carry in 2024?

Louisiana is likely to pass a Constitutional Carry bill and enact it into law in 2024. The particulars of the bill are unknown. The 56th Governor of Louisiana is John Bel Edwards. Edwards vetoed a constitutional carry bill in June of 2021.

The next governor of Louisiana was elected on October 14, 2023. Louisiana has an unusual primary election, where all candidates are on the ballot. If one candidate obtains more than 50% of the vote in the primary, they are elected governor. On October 14, Jeff Landry (R) won the primary with 51.6% of the vote. Landry is expected to take office on January 8, 2024.

A constitutional or permitless carry bill was passed overwhelmingly in 2021. The vote was 72 to 28 in the House. A similar bill in the Senate passed 27 to 11. There were enough votes to override a veto, but the Louisiana Governor is very powerful. Governor John Bel Edwards had enough clout to veto the bill and make it stick.

Governor-elect Jeff Landry said, before the October election, he would see constitutional carry passed while he is in office.

Representative Danny McCormick has made Constitutional Carry his signature issue. In his 2023 race, he raffled off a Sig P365 9mm pistol as part of his campaign. From shreveporttimes.com:

His said his bill would “restore Second Amendment rights in Louisiana.”

“There’s nothing more unjust than to make citizens pay for a right they already have,” McCormick repeated this week.

McCormick said he has raffled off guns in the past, each time raising thousands of dollars.

The tickets are $10 for a $699.99 Sig P365 Macro pistol that is advertised as “what a concealed carry pistol should be.”

Supporters of McCormick’s legislation refer to it as “constitutional carry” because they believe the Second Amendment already grants that right.

“With your help we will make Constitutional Carry the Law in 2024,” McCormick said in his email to supporters.

Continue reading “”

California-Style Gun Control: Does Not Work as Advertised

California has a well-earned reputation as one of the most anti-gun jurisdictions in the United States, with its state and local codes crammed with virtually every cockamamie scheme to suppress firearm ownership conceived within the last 50 years. The state’s current governor, Gavin Newsom, is not only determined to cement this reputation statewide, he’s trying to bring California-style gun control to the country at large by promoting an ill-conceived amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would impose draconian gun control coast to coast. But actual data shows California holds another dubious distinction that puts a lie to the efficacy of its highly-touted “gun safety laws”:

…it is the state with the highest number of mass murders committed with firearms.

Yet highly-publicized mass shootings play an outsized role in influencing gun control policy in the U.S. because they create the (grossly distorted and exaggerated) impression that ordinary, law-abiding people are at a high risk of being killed with a firearm at the places where they learn, work, and play. They also receive breathless media coverage that seeks to exploit the public’s grief, fear, and outrage over these events to give impetus to hastily-pushed gun control, before details inevitably emerge that show these measures would have been useless in stopping the crime. Where this manipulation prevails, however, it results in overreaching policies that intrude on Second Amendment rights with virtually no effect on either “mass shootings” or the more anonymous forms of firearm-related deaths.

California is a case in point, as revealed by data compiled on the website Statista.com.

The Statista survey looked at data between 1982 and October 2023 concerning episodes of a single attack with a firearm in a public place that resulted in four or more fatalities between 1982 and 2012 or in three fatalities from 2013 onward (definitions that track a database compiled by MotherJones.com).

Those figures show that California had by far the most such incidents during the survey period, at 26.

This is as much as the combined amount of the next two states with the highest totals, Florida and Texas. It is also more than the combined total of the 20 states with the lowest frequency of such events (excluding states with no such incidents at all).

It is true that California is the most populous (38.9 million) of the U.S. states, so it is not necessarily the deadliest state for mass shootings per capita. But the strongly pro-gun states of Florida (22.6 million) and Texas (30+ million) have a combined population that exceeds that of California by some 13.7 million people. Thus, whatever California thinks it is doing with regard to countering mass public murder committed with firearms, it is working no better at a population level than what is occurring in two of the most gun-friendly states of the Union.

None of this is to diminish the fact that any firearm-related murder is a terrible event, no matter where or how it is committed.

But along with gun control, Gavin Newsom also likes to promote what he insists is a “science-based” approach to “public health.” In that vein, any honest assessment of California’s notoriously strict gun control regime has to acknowledge that the numbers don’t add up to success when it comes to preventing “mass shootings.”

I think Mr Lowy has merely found a new higher paying grift with no higher management to take a cut.

Gun Control Activists Claim Second Amendment Violates Human Rights

The parents of a student killed in the shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida have teamed up with Brady’s former chief litigator to file a “first-of-its-kind” complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, alleging that “US gun policy violates basic human rights law” and deprived the Joaquin Oliver of his right to life.

Jonathan Lowy, who left Brady to start the group Global Action on Gun Violence, is spearheading the lawsuit with help from the head of George Washington University Law School’s Civil and Human Rights Clinic, and unlike most litigation involving Second Amendment issues, this one was launched with a slickly-produced ad campaign crafted by Zulu Alpha Kilo.

Lowy, you might recall, is also heading up the Mexican government’s lawsuit against most major U.S. gun manufacturers. While a U.S. District Court judge tossed out the case, the First Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments over the summer about whether or not to reinstate the suit.

In this case, Lowy and plaintiffs Manuel and Patricia Oliver, who founded the anti-gun group Change the Ref after their son was murdered, aren’t asking a U.S. court to rule that the Second Amendment is a violation of human rights. Instead, they’re taking their argument to an international body that has no real jurisdiction over the United States.

The fact that this lawsuit was launched with its own public relations campaign is telling, because the whole thing looks to be one big PR stunt. The complaint itself is a laundry list of strident anti-gun talking points, including the oft-repeated claim that there is no real right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was understood for over two centuries to only concern the “well-regulated militia” which the Framers intended to protect and therefore mentioned in the text, not private gun ownership.

But in 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States created a new right to handguns for self-defense which was not mentioned by the Second Amendment’s Framers or in the text, and then the Court vastly expanded that right in 2022, requiring historical precedent for gun laws and making public safety considerations of little relevance in determining the constitutionality of gun laws.

These rulings have led courts to strike down numerous gun laws, and may constrain future regulations. The United States appears to be the only nation in the world that has chosen to put gun industry profits over public safety and gun rights over human rights.

See what I mean?

The historical evidence for an individual right to keep and bear arms is overwhelming, as the Heller opinion and a cursory knowledge of U.S. history makes clear. Lowy’s contention that the U.S. has put “gun rights over human rights” may make for a good bumper sticker slogan for gun prohibitionists, it’s another patently absurd claim. Guns don’t have rights (and honestly, I’ve never been a big fan of that phrase for that reason) but people absolutely do, including the human right of self-defense, as my colleague Tom Knighton discussed yesterday. It’s become a standard talking point on the Left that a lack of gun control is a violation of human rights, but strangely these same folks never want to talk about the slaughter of civilians in nations that have very restrictive gun control regimes, or the 20th century death toll in totalitarian nations that disarmed its citizenry.

The petition claims there are several supposed “major flaws in U.S. gun law”, including (but certainly not limited to) a lack of an  “assault weapons” ban, no “investigation or vetting of purchasers” beyond background checks; no “universal” background checks for sales by private citizens; no federal “licensing, registration or vetting for firearm purchases”, “no limits whatsoever on how many guns a civilian may purchase, either in one transaction or in any period of time”, and the protections from civil liability found in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Continue reading “”

Gun rights groups to seek Supreme Court ruling on assault weapons

Gun rights advocacy groups say they intend to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the state’s assault weapons ban after a federal appeals court on Friday refused to block enforcement of the law.

In a statement Saturday, the Illinois State Rifle Association said it was not surprised by the 7th Circuit panel’s 2-1 decision, which said plaintiffs in the consolidated cases had not met their burden to show they were likely to win in a constitutional challenge to the law.

“It has always been and is our intent to take our case to the U.S. Supreme Court where we believe we can get a favorable ruling for law-abiding gun owners in Illinois,” the organization said. “We will continue to stand up for the Second amendment and Illinois law-abiding gun owners and against our anti-gun Governor Pritzker and General Assembly.”

In addition, the National Foundation for Gun Rights – which provided attorneys involved in the consolidated case – said it will appeal as well.

“Semi-auto bans like Illinois’ strike right at the heart of the Second Amendment and are completely inconsistent with multiple Supreme Court precedents,” the organization said in a statement. “We will keep fighting and are preparing to appeal this outrageous ruling.”

The 7th Circuit’s decision on Friday left in place the state’s assault weapons ban as well as local bans enacted by Cook County and the cities of Chicago and Naperville.

The state of Illinois and the city of Naperville both enacted their bans in response to a mass shooting last year at an Independence Day parade in Highland Park that left seven people dead and dozens more injured or traumatized.

Authorities say the alleged shooter in that incident used a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 semiautomatic rifle and carried three 30-round magazines. That type of gun and magazine are now banned under the state’s assault weapons law.

The majority opinion from the 7th Circuit focused on whether that type of weapon, or others like it, were protected under the Second Amendment.

That opinion, written by Judge Diane Wood and cosigned by Judge Frank Easterbrook, drew a distinction between the types of “bearable” arms commonly used for self-defense and the type of weapons typically reserved only for military uses.

Continue reading “”

While this is pretty much nothing more than the 7th poking their finger in the eye of SCOTUS, the sooner this gets to there, so we know what the words of the 2nd amendment mean to the courts, and thus to law, the better.

Seventh Circuit Overturns Injunction Against Illinois “Assault Weapons Ban”, Says AR-15s Aren’t Protected Arms

On the face of it, Friday’s decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn an injunction against enforcement of Illinois’ recently enacted ban on “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines doesn’t change circumstances on the ground. The three-judge panel that issued today’s decision had previously stayed U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn’s injunction while the state appealed, so the law has been in effect throughout litigation.

Still, the 2-1 decision does matter, both because it provides an opportunity for some or all of the plaintiffs to appeal on an emergency basis to the Supreme Court and because it will undoubtedly be cited by other anti-gun judges around the country, including those on the Ninth Circuit panel hearing the appeal of Judge Roger Benitez’s decision striking down California’s ban on “assault weapons.”

I won’t have a chance to do a deep dive into the opinion until this weekend, but one thing immediately stuck out to me as I was giving a quick look-over. The three-judge panel concluded that AR-15s (and presumably semi-automatic rifles in general) are not protected by the Second Amendment because they’re too close to machine guns:

Coming directly to the question whether the weapons and feeding devices covered by the challenged legislation enjoy Second Amendment protection, at the first step of the Bruen analysis, we conclude that the answer is no.

We come to this conclusion because these assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are much more like machineguns and military grade weaponry than they are like the many different types of firearms that are used for individual self-defense (or so the legislature was entitled to conclude). Indeed, the AR-15 is almost the same gun as the M16 machinegun. The only meaningful distinction, as we already have noted, is that the AR-15 has only semiautomatic capability (unless the user takes advantage of some simple modifications that essentially make it fully automatic), while the M16 operates both ways. 

Both weapons share the same core design, and both rely on the same patented operating system.

If the distinction between semi-automatic and select fire is enough to render modern sporting rifles outside the scope of the Second Amendment, according to the Seventh Circuit, then what does that mean for semi-automatic handguns? Are they too close to machine guns to be protected as well? Note this passage from the majority opinion:

The similarity between the AR-15 and the M16 only increases when we take into account how easy it is to modify the AR-15 by adding a “bump stock” (as the shooter in the 2017 Las Vegas event had done) or auto-sear to it, thereby making it, in essence, a fully automatic weapon.

You can (illegally) attach an auto-sear or a switch to many semi-automatic handguns as well. Is the Seventh Circuit suggesting that the most popular make of handguns, undoubtedly in common use for lawful purposes, is also beyond the Second Amendment’s protection?

It sure sounds like it to me, though the panel didn’t have to address that issue since the state hasn’t attempted to ban the majority of semi-automatic pistols, only a subset it deems to be “assault weapons”. This is actually something that gun control activists have been arguing for a couple of years now, both in civil litigation and in lobbying the Biden administration to reclassify many semi-automatic firearms as machine guns under the National Firearms Act.

If the Seventh Circuit’s twisted logic is adopted or allowed to stand by the Supreme Court, not only would the most popular style of rifle be implicated, but the vast majority of handguns that are in the hands of lawful gun owners across the country as well. The 2-1 decision is bad enough, but the long term implications will be even worse unless and until SCOTUS makes it clear that the Seventh Circuit got it wrong.

An America Without Gun Rights Would Look Like Mexico, Not Australia

Every mass shooting inevitably leads those on the left to call for a ban on “assault weapons,” and this time is no different. Thus begins the barrage of calls for “sensible gun laws” on social media, from network pundits, and via Vice President Kamala Harris herself, using Australia or New Zealand as the models. These unarmed countries, they tell us, prove you can strip citizens of their ability to own firearms and live in a nonviolent utopia. Is that the likely outcome of such a ban in America?

Thought experiment, leaving aside the issue of a right enshrined in the Constitution: If Americans allow their firearms to be outlawed and then confiscated, would we in fact, become like Australia or New Zealand?

If we gave up AR-15s and then a mass shooting took place where a semi-automatic handgun was used, opponents of gun rights would take those too — the same with a shooter with a hunting rifle, then a shooter with a shotgun, and on and on. We know where this leads. It can’t end with “military style” firearms. A confiscation of AR-15s would eventually lead to a complete ban on almost every gun. How long would that take? Five years, 10 years? It wouldn’t take very long once the ball is rolling and mass shooters move to handguns and shotguns, which would quickly be banned as the public’s demand for “safety” would be too much for politicians to stand against.

Cut to a Republican senator being interviewed on CNN the day after a mass shooting where a 9mm handgun was used: Senator, just a few months ago you voted to ban AR-15s because scores of children were killed in a school shooting. Today, with more dead children, you won’t support the banning of semi-automatic handguns? How can you tell those parents why the shooter was able to legally obtain a Glock 19 that, like the AR-15s that you voted to ban, allowed the shooter to fire many rounds and reload in a matter of seconds? What’s the difference, senator? Do those dead children think it was better to be shot by a handgun rather than a long gun? Senator?

That lawmaker would crumble, and so would others. What would we be left with? A technical right to keep and bear arms that practically renders that right meaningless.

How do we know this? We know this because we have seen this before in Mexico.

Continue reading “”

Supreme Court Roundup: Not all History is Created Equal

In a previous post, I wrote about the attempt by Merrick Garland’s Justice Department in United States v. Rahimi, set to be argued before the Supreme Court on November 7, to sidestep the controlling “text and history” interpretative methodology described in District of Columbia v. Heller and in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. Rahimi is the case challenging the facial constitutionality of 18 U.S.C § 922(g)(8), a federal statute that disarms any individual subject to a state domestic violence restraining order (DVRO). In that post, I explained how the Government is contending, contrary to Bruen, that the established rule is that “Congress may disarm persons who are not ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens.'” That statement is not just incorrect, but a serious distortion of what Heller actually said.

As it turns out, the Government’s recently filed reply brief contains several other important errors about the fundamental principles to be applied when assessing historical analogue laws, which are central to Bruen‘s methodology.  Let’s start with an easy one.  The Government takes Rahimi to task for allegedly asserting that Bruen limits courts to historical evidence from “near the time of ratification.” Here’s what Rahimi’s brief actually said, after discussing attempts by some courts to boost some dicta in Heller to the level of substantive constitutional law:

[T]he original meaning of the Second Amendment must be determined exclusively using the text and the historical tradition of firearm regulations adopted near the time of ratification—not with assumptions or dicta. 

That statement by Rahimi was contrasting the use of actual historical traditions to determine the meaning of the Second Amendment, as opposed to twenty-first century dicta, or assumptions by lower courts regarding what those dicta meant. It was not an attempt to fine tune the period of time with precision.

Yet Rahimi is correct that the time around the adoption of the Bill of Rights must be the principal period to determine the original public meaning of its provisions.  Bruen quoted Heller to the effect that “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them,” before noting that “The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791….”

The Bruen opinion also quoted approvingly a dissent by then-Judge Kavanaugh: “post-ratification adoption or acceptance of laws that are inconsistent with the original meaning of the constitutional text obviously cannot overcome or alter that text.” The six-person Bruen majority also relied on a dissenting statement by Chief Justice Roberts, in Sprint Communications v. APCC Services (2008), that “The belated innovations of the mid- to late-19th-century courts come too late to provide insight into the meaning of [the Constitution in 1787].” The same is true of the Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791.

The Government claims in its brief that “the Court has consulted post-ratification evidence—extending ‘through the end of the 19th century’—’to determine the public understanding of’ the Amendment.” But as Bruen notes, another case made clear that this evidence was reviewed “only after surveying what [the Court] regarded as a wealth of authority for its reading—including the text of the Second Amendment and state constitutions.” Bruen continues, “In other words, this 19th-century evidence was ‘treated as mere confirmation of what the Court thought had already been established.'” See also Justice Barrett’s concurrence in Bruen, quoting Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue (2020) (a practice that “arose in the second half of the 19th century … cannot by itself establish an early American tradition” informing our understanding of the First Amendment); Mark W. Smith, Attention Originalists: The Second Amendment Was Adopted in 1791, not 1868, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Per Curiam (Fall 2022).

So Rahimi is right.  A court must look principally to the Founding era to determine the meaning of the Second Amendment.  It can look at later evidence only for confirmation, not to change the original understanding.

Continue reading “”

We Will Not Comply: Only .1% of Illinois Gun Owners Have Registered Their Newly Banned Guns So Far

According to Illinois State Police data, 2,415,481 gun owners call the Land o’ Lincoln home. Earlier this year, Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed the so-called Protect Illinois Communities Act into law which banned the most many of the most popular guns used for self-defense. Under the law, existing owners of these now verboten firearms must register their guns by January 1, 2024 or face felony charges.

Four weeks into the gun registration window, exactly 2430 of those FOID holders have registered their guns, accessories, or .50 caliber firearms. That works out to .1006%, or about one in a thousand.

What’s even more remarkable is the number of FOID holders choosing to comply has fallen with each passing week.

In other words, Illinois gun owners have declined to participate in the state’s gun ban.

Continue reading “”

The Gun Control Industry and the Media Want New Laws in Maine That Would Have Done Nothing to Stop the Lewiston Shooting.

Despite the failures that are being discovered that led to the Lewiston, Maine shooting, the Gun Control Industry is, as usual, pointing at the state’s allegedly lax regulation of guns. Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun agitprop outlet The Trace asked, Will Maine’s Permissive Gun Laws Change After the Lewiston Shooting?

It’s certainly possible. Democrats are in full control of state government, so the odds are in their favor in that regard. That doesn’t mean, however, that there would be any merit to changing Maine’s gun laws. Not given the laws they’re talking about.

It’s becoming clear that they see this as a “grab bag” opportunity to enact more gun control laws in the Pine Tree State. They aren’t just talking about laws that could plausibly have made a difference in this case, either. They want to crack down on gun rights in general.

Maine doesn’t have restrictions on AR-style rifles, like the one apparently used by the Lewiston gunman, nor does it regulate high-capacity magazines.

If the killer had used a Mini-14 with a ten-round magazine, would the death toll have been lower? That seems a tenuous claim, considering how fast reloads actually happen when someone knows what they are doing (as this veteran and firearm instructor did, sadly). And it was reported that the Parkland shooter used 10-round magazines on purpose because they fit better into his backpack. Yet he managed to kill and wound a similar number of people.

…a measure requiring the prompt reporting of lost or stolen firearms…

This is one of the rare gun laws I do support, so long as it provides a fair amount of time to comply, and conditioned on when you become aware of a lost or stolen gun. If you become aware you lost a gun or had one stolen, tell the police about it ASAP. But such a law, of course, wouldn’t have done anything to stop the Maine shooting if it had been on the books.

But [Bates College professor Michael] Rocque said the state’s “inconsistent” rules around guns — which require residents to take a safety course and exam to qualify for a hunting license but don’t require anything of concealed handgun carriers — are in dire need of an update.

This is where the push for more gun control after a tragedy really becomes something of a loot-fest, trying to take full advantage of the situation while it’s still in the news. Carry permit requirements are completely irrelevant to mass shooters. They obviously aren’t going to be concerned in the slightest about not having a carry permit when their intention is to commit mass murder.

It’s an utterly absurd argument that, again, would have had no impact at all on what Robert Card did.

Even outside of the mass shooting context, Professor Rocque’s implication is that the lack of a permit requirement is inherently unsafe. That’s an extraordinary claim, given that Maine has one of the lowest homicide rates in the nation. Maine’s homicide rate is so low that more people were killed in Lewiston in this one incident than are usually murdered in the state in an entire year.

The Trace article concludes that while other gun control pushes aren’t possible under the state’s rules until next year, they can still try to enact universal background checks in January.

Again, that would have had zero impact on the Lewiston shooter. The Lewiston killer bought his guns legally. When that happened or whether or not he lied about his history of mental illness at the time isn’t yet clear, but he did undergo a background check.

As is so frequently the case, the Gun Control Industry and politicians seem determined to punish the community of law-abiding gun owners for the inherent failures of the regulatory system they’ve built

As more details are learned about Robert Card, his mental history, and the failures of law enforcement in this situation, the more it becomes clear that Maine’s allegedly lax gun laws did nothing to make the Lewiston shooting possible. And the new laws The Trace and gun control advocates are calling for in response would do nothing to prevent another similar situation.

California Democrats Disarm Synagogues

Here’s a story I missed from September that takes on an even more sinister cast in retrospect.

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a new Second Amendment lawsuit challenging multiple parts of California SB2, which unilaterally declares numerous locations as “sensitive places” where California will now ban the carry of firearms by licensed, law-abiding Californians. The complaint in Carralero v. Bonta can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“SB2 restricts where persons with licenses to carry a concealed weapon may legally exercise their constitutional right to wear, carry, or transport firearms. And it does so in ways that are fundamentally inconsistent with the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen,” argues the complaint. “The Second Amendment does not tolerate these restrictions. This Court should enter judgment enjoining their enforcement and declaring them unconstitutional.”

“With Gov. Newsom’s signing of SB2 today, California continues to exhibit its disdain for the rights of Californians, the U.S. Constitution, and the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC Action Foundation’s General Counsel and Vice President of Legal, and FPC’s counsel. “Unfortunately for California, and contrary to Governor Newsom’s misguided statements, the state does not have the power to unilaterally overrule individual rights and constitutional protections. Fortunately, courts across the nation have already struck down laws just like SB2, and we expect the same result here.”

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by three individuals, Orange County Gun Owners, San Diego County Gun Owners, and California Gun Rights Foundation.

If Democrats actually revered the Supreme Court as much as they claim to, Bruen would have ended their attempts to pass Second Amendment infringing legislation. But the goal of disarming the civilian population is only slightly less sacred a Democratic Party cause than taxpayer-funded abortions. So they soldier on trying to thwart the Constitution.

Here is the relevant text of SB2.

This bill would remove those exemptions, except as specified. The bill would make it a crime to bring an unloaded firearm into, or upon the grounds of, any residence of the Governor, any other constitutional officer, or Member of the Legislature. The bill would also prohibit a licensee from carrying a firearm to specified locations, including, among other places, a building designated for a court proceeding and a place of worship, as defined, with specific exceptions. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Well, it’s not like any particular houses of worship are under particular threats from particular terrorist organizations, now is it?

Just four years ago on the last day of Passover, a man armed with a rifle burst into a synagogue in Poway, near San Diego, fatally shot one woman and injured three other congregants, including the synagogue’s rabbi.

A year before, an even more horrific attack on a Pittsburgh synagogue left 11 dead.

In the aftermath of the attack on Israel, many American Jews are arming themselves. But in California, not only will Jews and worshippers in other faiths be banned from protecting themselves in their houses of worship, but would-be killers will know that potential victims in “sensitive” areas will be unarmed.

Everywhere in the west, the radical left is protesting to support Hamas, despite (or perhaps because) of the latter’s calls to completely destroy the Jews. Meanwhile, Gavin Newsom and California Democrats are disarming law-abiding Jewish American citizens in their synagogues.

What are the odds?