Category: RKBA

Gun Carry Lawful Again in California as Ruling Against ‘Unconstitutional’ Restrictions Put Back into Effect

Californians with a gun-carry permit can lawfully carry a gun in most areas of the state once again.

A three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals removed a stay applied to a lower court ruling against California’s SB2, which created a near-total ban on gun carry in the state. The action reinstates the lower court ruling that found the law violated the Second Amendment rights of those with gun-carry permits.

“The administrative stay previously entered is dissolved,” the panel wrote in May v. Bonta. “The emergency motion under Circuit Rule 27-3 for a stay pending appeal and for an interim administrative stay is denied pending further order of the court.”

The administrative move, like the one that preceded it, has a huge practical effect. The stay allowed the state to implement dozens of expansive “gun-free” zones at the beginning of the year, including one on every piece of private property unless the owner explicitly authorizes gun carry. The cumulative effect of the new “sensitive places” restrictions added up to an effective ban on gun carry.

Undoing the stay practically undoes enforcement of those new zones as the case against them proceeds on appeal. California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D.) did not respond to a request for comment on the order. However, gun-rights advocates celebrated the stay being dissolved.

“The right to carry in California was unconstitutionally eliminated for almost a week,” Kostas Moros, a lawyer for plaintiffs California Pistol and Rifle Association, told The Reload. “We are relieved the status quo has been restored, and Californians with CCW permits, who are among the most law-abiding people there are, can resume carrying as they have for years.”

The panel’s actions reinstate the preliminary injunction issued against the law by U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney in December. Carney found SB2 “unconstitutionally deprive” permitholders “of their constitutional right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.” He further accused California of intentionally ignoring and undermining the Supreme Court’s decision in 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established carrying a gun for self-defense is protected by the Constitution.

“SB2’s coverage is sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court,” Carney, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote. “The law designates twenty-six categories of places, such as hospitals, public transportation, places that sell liquor for on-site consumption, playgrounds, parks, casinos, stadiums, libraries, amusement parks, zoos, places of worship, and banks, as ‘sensitive places’ where concealed carry permitholders cannot carry their handguns. SB2 turns nearly every public place in California into a ‘sensitive place,’ effectively abolishing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding and exceptionally qualified citizens to be armed and to defend themselves in public.”

The panel could still reconsider part of the stay before arguments in the case are actually heard. Those arguments are currently scheduled to occur in April.

For gun rights advocates, a ‘Bruen’ bonanza
Upholding weapons ban just one development

In a Dec. 22 press release, the Attorney General’s Office trumpeted the fact that it had successfully defended the state’s assault weapons ban in federal court.

But not only has the final chapter in that case, Capen and National Association for Gun Rights v. Campbell, not yet been written, there is no end in sight — here and across the country — to the battles spawned by the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

In Bruen, the Supreme Court refined the Second Amendment jurisprudence it had previously laid out in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, clarifying that it believed that appellate courts had gone astray in interpreting Heller.

Since Heller, the appeals courts had developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges, combining history with means-end scrutiny, which the Bruen court said was one step too many. The proper test should involve drawing analogies to the country’s history of firearm regulation alone, the Supreme Court ruled.

The court stressed that it was attempting to create “neither a regulatory straightjacket nor a regulatory blank check.” As courts were engaging in “analogical reasoning,” they need only find “a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the six-member majority in Bruen.

Since that ruling, courts in Massachusetts and elsewhere have begun fleshing out the standard, often prompted by cases filed by emboldened gun rights advocates. Recent weeks have not only seen U.S. District Court Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in Capen but a Superior Court judge similarly rejecting a post-Bruen challenge to Massachusetts’ ban on anyone under the age of 21 obtaining a license to carry a handgun outside their home.

Meanwhile, gun rights advocates are celebrating a Lowell District Court judge’s decision to dismiss a charge of carrying a firearm without a license that a New Hampshire man had been facing for bringing the weapon he was licensed to carry in his home state across state lines.

Bruen has also revived a challenge to the state’s “gun roster” in the federal case Granata, et al. v. Campbell, et al., and spawned a new lawsuit challenging gun license delays of six months or more in Boston in White, et al. v. Cox.

Continue reading “”

Local business teams with NRA to present self-defense class

Local business teams with NRA to present self-defense class

No more victims.

That is the motto of Faith Sample, whose new business, She Shoots Back, is teaming up with National Rifle Association to host an event entitled “Refuse To Be A Victim.”

The self-defense class, which will be held Saturday, Jan. 13, was borne out of a desire to equip everyone with basic safety methods.

“‘Refuse To Be A Victim’ teaches methods to avoid dangerous situations and prevent criminal confrontations,” said Sample. “Seminar participants will be presented with a variety of common-sense crime prevention and personal safety strategies and devices that may be integrated into their personal, home, automobile, telephone, technological and travel safety.”

“Refuse To Be A Victim,” which has been a mainstay of self-defense prevention since 1993, focuses on basic habits and steps that can be taken to reduce being the victim of a crime.

The class will not contain or train on firearms, instead focusing on preventing situations rather than confronting them.

The class is open to both men and women, and there are sections dedicated to people of all ages, as well as parents.

Sample said that she teaches many similar techniques through She Shoots Back, which was established in 2023. “There have been times in my own life, and in the life of loved ones when either ignorance or inability has led to devastating results,” Sample said. “I have since spent many hours in training and research to be able to teach others what they can do to either prevent or deal with a victimizing situation.”

Part of learning to deal with such situations is being armed, which Sample includes as one of her many classes. “I learned how to shoot and carry a firearm after these initial experiences and after ten years have finally decided that continuing training and becoming an instructor was something I could do to make a difference,” she saId.

Sample stated that her gun classes are catered toward women in an effort to foster a comfortable environment. Some of the women she teaches come from unstable or violent backgrounds, and need a safe space to learn to protect themselves.

“Domestic violence is more prevalent than you think,” she said. “It can be fostered through generations, and it takes strong people to seek help and break such cycles. What every woman needs on hand to protect herself is, in my opinion, a determination to succeed and a listening ear to the inner voice that lets you know when something isn’t right.”

Sample, who also works as a teacher and has children of her own, said she hopes She Shoots Back will be part of solution to end cycles of violence.

“I think the most important thing we should take from this is that we should never just look the other way or accept abuse.  We should always recognize the worth of every human soul and that includes our own.  No one deserves to be a victim.”

Refuse To Be a Victim will take place at the Gene Moss Building on Jan. 13 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Tickets are $40 and proceeds will be donated to the Saline County Safe Haven. Those who sign up by Wednesday, January 10 will receive a booklet with their training. For tickets and more information on She Shoots Back, please visit https://sheshootsback.com/nra-refuse-to-be-a-victim/.

Judge allows challenge to NY assault weapons ban to proceed

A federal judge is allowing a challenge to New York’s assault weapons ban to proceed after he denied a motion to dismiss the lawsuit Thursday.

Two people supported by gun rights advocacy groups sued New York officials in December 2022 over the state’s ban on assault weapons, saying the law was “infringing the right of law-abiding, peaceable citizens to keep and bear commonly possessed firearms for defense of self and family and for other lawful purposes.” U.S. District Judge Kenneth Karas sided with the individuals bringing the lawsuit in a ruling released Thursday, denying state officials’ motion to dismiss the case.

Attorneys for New York officials filed a motion in the Southern District of New York to dismiss the complaint in May, arguing that the court does not have the jurisdiction to address the plaintiffs’ claims. The state officials’ legal team said the individuals “fail to establish that any injury-in-fact is traceable to the assault weapons ban” because they do not say they hold a license required to buy a semiautomatic rifle.

Karas dismissed the defendants’ arguments in the ruling.

“While there may be serious questions about Plaintiffs’ exemption argument, the Court need not address that question here because Plaintiffs adequately allege standing under Defendants’ interpretation of the statute,” Karas wrote.

“Put simply, Defendants have failed to explain how invalidating the Assault Weapons Ban would have no effect on the ability to obtain licenses for those same weapons,” Karas added later in the ruling.

The attorneys for the state officials also contended that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the individuals have not proved that they have “suffered an injury-in-fact.” Karas also pushed back on the argument, saying that the individuals “have also demonstrated that they face a credible threat of enforcement if they follow through with attempting to acquire assault weapons.”

Ohio sees drop in gun crimes across major cities after permitless carry law, study shows

CLEVELAND, Ohio (WOIO) – Contrary to concerns from some local leaders, a new study shows a decrease in gun crimes across six of Ohio’s eight largest cities following the implementation of the state’s “constitutional carry” law.

The research, conducted by the Center for Justice Research (CJR) in partnership with Bowling Green State University, analyzed data from June 2021 to June 2023, covering a year before and after the law went into effect in June 2022.

It focused on crimes involving firearms, verified gunshot-detection alerts, and the number of officers struck by gunfire.

The findings revealed:

  • Overall Decline: Across all eight cities, the rate of gun crimes decreased.
  • Significant Drops: Parma experienced the most significant decline (22%), followed by Akron and Toledo (both 18%).
  • Mixed Trends: Dayton and Cincinnati saw increases in gun crime rates (6% and 5%, respectively).

“This is not to downplay the very real problem of gun violence in our cities,” noted Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, who commissioned the study. “But the key takeaway here is that we need to focus on criminals, not responsible gun owners.”

He acknowledged concerns expressed by several mayors before the study, stating, “I genuinely did not know what the study would find. I thought it would be useful either way.”

CJR Director Melissa Burek, a Doctor of Criminal Justice, led the research.

She emphasized the importance of examining the impact of policy changes: “This study helps us understand the complex picture of crime rates and policy implementation. It’s valuable data for informing future decisions.”

The findings add to the ongoing debate surrounding permitless carry laws, challenging concerns that such laws would lead to a surge in gun violence.

While proponents highlight responsible gun ownership and increased self-defense, critics argue it removes valuable safety measures like background checks and training.

Further research and analysis are needed to fully understand the long-term implications of Ohio’s permitless carry law and its impact on various factors influencing crime rates.

Hearing on Oregon’s Measure 114 Finds it Unconstitutional

When Oregon voters passed Measure 114, it was hailed as a victory for gun control. To be fair, they weren’t wrong. The egregious infringement on people’s rights was as clear as day.

What’s more, any attempt to point out the unconstitutionality of the law were met with claims that it was the will of the people–because segregation was perfectly acceptable because most people in the South supported it or something.

That sparked off the legal fight, one that many people were confident the law would survive. Why they thought that is beyond me, but I’m biased.

It seems, though, that my understanding of whether or not Measure 114 was constitutional or not comes a lot closer to what the most recent hearing on the matter found.

A state court ruling against Oregon’s gun control policy, Measure 114, is going to stand after an expected final hearing about the matter today in Harney County Circuit Court to consider more arguments against the Court’s original case finding.

Harney County Circuit Court Judge Robert Raschio today said he expects the court’s judgment in the case to reflect language he used in his opinion letter about the case, saying Measure 114 is unconstitutional by Oregon’s Constitution.

He had set a January 2, 2024, hearing about his pending ruling against Measure 114 after defendants made more arguments in filings with Harney County Circuit Court after Raschio issued his written legal opinion, ruling November 21, 2023, that Oregon’s gun control policy, passed November 2022 by referendum as Measure 114, violated the state’s constitution.…

Judge Raschio denied that motion, before stating the Court’s judgment language would reflect his Opinion Letter Granting a Permanent Injunction in the case.

He opened that letter with, “The Harney County Circuit Court is issuing a Permanent Injunction under Oregon Revised Statute 28.020 declaring 2022 Ballot Measure 114 unconstitutional thereby permanently enjoining its implementation.  

The court finds the plaintiffs have shown their rights to bear arms under Article l, § 27 of the Oregon Constitution would be unconstitutionally impaired if Ballot Measure 114 is allowed to be implemented. Dovle v. City of Medford, 356 Or. 336 (2014). Based upon a facial constitutional evaluation of Ballot Measure 114, the measure unduly burdens the plaintiffs’ right to bear arms. State v. Christian, 354 Or. 22 (2013).”

And, the truth of the matter is that Measure 114 does all that and more if you’re looking at the Second Amendment, but the court found that it violated the right as protected under Oregon’s constitution.

Frankly, the Oregon Constitution isn’t particularly vague on the matter.

 Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

Plain and simple, people have the right under Oregon’s constitution. There doesn’t seem to be anything expressly permitting gun control, though it lacks that whole “shall not be infringed” thing we see in the Second Amendment.

The measure requires things like universal background checks and magazine bans as well as a gun licensing requirement.

Interestingly, while “the will of the people” seemingly supported the law, it should be noted that only six of 36 Oregon counties actually voted in favor of it. These counties were also the most urban in the state. Shocking, I know.

The passage of Measure 114 is a prime example of the urban/rural divide on guns.

In this case, though, the urban counties thought they could foist this abomination onto the rural ones and have just found out that it’s not that simple. Constitutionality matters.

Looks Like There’s Massive Non-Compliance With Illinois Gun Registration

Continue reading “”

New Year, Same Old Ninth Circuit

My wife has watched way too many sappy Christmas rom-coms over the holiday break. It’s one of her guilty pleasures, even though she knows from the get-go how the story is going to play out. Girl meets guy under improbable circumstances, there’s immediate friction with an undercurrent of attraction, they get together, there’s a huge blowup, and yet they manage to reconcile and live happily ever after. The characters and the locations may change, but the story is basically always the same.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is like the Hallmark Channel of the judicial system, at least when it comes to gun control fans. No matter what law is being challenged or how egregiously it violates our Second Amendment rights, lawsuits in the Ninth Circuit seem to follow the same script: gun owners sue, a judge agrees that the law is likely to be unconstitutional and grants an injunction, only to have it stayed and eventually overturned. Sometimes we get a plot twist and a three-judge panel will uphold the injunction, but inevitably that decision is overruled by an en banc review. No matter how improbable or untenable the decision may be, anti-gunners are assured of a happy ending in the Ninth.

Not once in the fifteen years since the Heller decision was handed down has the Ninth Circuit ultimately concluded that a gun control law goes too far and abridges a fundamental right, and though it’s still fairly early the appellate court looks to be keeping that streak alive by allowing California’s new “gun-free zones” to take effect today after a rare Saturday ruling to grant an administrative stay of Judge Cormac Carney’s injunction halting enforcement of the new bans in supposedly sensitive places… including virtually every publicly accessible business that doesn’t specifically post signage welcoming concealed carry holders.

Continue reading “”

Honolulu Has Cut Off Gun Sales

Gun sales have been blocked for much of December in Hawaii’s largest city.

That’s what the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, a local gun-rights group, claimed in a statement on Wednesday. It said the Honolulu Police Department (HPD) has advised gun purchase or carry permit applicants they won’t process them without a currently-unattainable training certification. And it’s unclear when those permits might become available again.

“It has been brought to our attention from multiple sources that the Honolulu Police Department, under the guidance of Police Chief Logan, is no longer processing ANY firearms permit applications or concealed carry applications until after the new year, and he has the ability to verify or certify instructors,” the group posted on social media. “The department requires all applications submitted after December 18th to provide proof of instruction by a certified/verified instructor before processing their application.

“The problem?????? He hasn’t certified or verified any instructors.”

The Honolulu Police Department did not return multiple calls seeking comment on the situation.

Continue reading “”

Any questions why I call them bureaucraps?

ATF Takes MI Man’s Guns Despite His Expunged Record

No matter how much you hate the ATF, it’s probably not enough.

Besides the fact that a name like “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives” should be the name of a retail outlet, there’s the fact that they don’t just try to regulate the industry. They actively oppose your right to keep and bear arms.

We’ve seen numerous cases of the bureau trying to infringe on people’s rights, even violating the law in some cases in order to do so.

But their latest stunt is potentially even worse.

The way Jeramy Wilburn sees it, he only messed up once. The poor decision-making of a child shouldn’t determine one’s freedoms for the rest of their life, he argues.

The 34-year-old Allen Park resident was known for making YouTube videos about gun safety. He’s also a fan of sport shooting and until this past November was free to partake.

Then the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agency took away his firearms because of a past domestic violence conviction which happened years ago. This, despite having the conviction expunged in 2022.

Wilburn’s conviction was a misdemeanor in 2008. As punishment, the judge put him on probation and ordered him to take a domestic violence class – no jail time. And in February 2022, that one mistake was wiped from his record.

Wilburn’s record was expunged. Legally speaking, it was like his conviction never happened. It was wiped from his record.

Unfortunately for him, though, the ATF seems to feel otherwise.

But, in a federal lawsuit brought by Wilburn and Morris, the two argue that isn’t the case. They argue Wilburn should be allowed to possess a firearm. But the feds say Wilburn could still be convicted of domestic violence again.

“It’s unfair for them to say he should be forever barred, forever prohibited from carrying a firearm just because he potentially could get a second offense,” said Morris.

Honestly, this is a terrifying argument that, if allowed to stand, could eventually set a precedent for all kinds of other problems.

Could Wilburn be convicted of domestic violence again? Hypothetically, sure. The fact that he’s gone 15 years without doing so suggests what happened was isolated and he’s unlikely to do so again, but it’s also largely irrelevant.

We don’t punish people based on what they might do, only what they’ve done in the past.

Had the conviction not been expunged, that would be one thing, but it was. His record was wiped clean. This is essentially him getting his rights restored, only that probably wasn’t an option since he only had a misdemeanor charge.

Yet let’s understand that taking his guns because he might be convicted of domestic violence again isn’t all that different from deciding you or I can’t have guns because we might get convicted for domestic violence at some point in the future.

They don’t have the authority to do this, which is why Wilburn is taking the ATF to court. I’m glad he’s doing so and I pray that he doesn’t have to wait too long to get his guns back. They never should have been taken from him in the first place based on the facts we know.

So no, it’s probably not possible to hate the ATF enough.

Left-wing activists sue to change public policy where their candidates cannot win

EXCLUSIVE — Left-wing activist organizations are at the forefront of shaping public policy through lawsuits in places where their aligned political candidates are unlikely to win.

A new Alliance for Consumers report obtained by the Washington Examiner shows how groups such as the anti-gun Everytown for Gun Safety or climate change activist group EarthRights International sue companies to advance their policy preferences to circumvent the legislative process.

These organizations often represent local governments in “public nuisance” lawsuits, which are used to claim that the public is generally harmed by the existence of something, such as tobacco, in order to obtain favorable public policy outcomes and massive settlements.

“Public nuisance lawsuits have almost nothing to do with helping consumers, but a lot to do with pushing a left-wing agenda,” Alliance for Consumers executive director O.H. Skinner told the Washington Examiner. “There’s been growing attention to the political donations that these lawsuits help drive toward left-wing candidates.

“More attention needs to be paid to the public interest groups and shadowy nonprofit funding networks, like Arabella Advisors, who staff, finance, and promote these cases,” Skinner continued. “That is what we have done with this report, and we think it illustrates clearly what these lawsuits are really about and why they are a threat.”

The report, which Alliance for Consumers sent to every Republican governor in America on Wednesday, highlights several organizations involved with public nuisance claims that are aimed at altering or circumventing the policy decisions made by those elected to decide them.

Everytown for Gun Safety, a group founded by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg to limit gun rights, has been active in trying to change public policy on guns, including by using its Victory Fund to start a “Demand a Seat” initiative to get its trained activists to run for political office. This year, the group boasted that 17 of its candidates won elections in Virginia alone.

The group launched Everytown Law to focus on being “the largest and most experienced team of litigators in the country dedicated to advancing gun safety in the courts and through the civil and criminal justice systems.”

Everytown has been active in filing lawsuits against gun manufacturers for “contributing to the violent crime epidemic,” as it did when representing Kansas City, Missouri, in a public nuisance complaint in 2020 against the Nevada-based Jimenez Arms and other manufacturers and distributors.

It also represented the city of Chicago when it sued an Indiana gun store because its sales of firearms have “created, exacerbated, and sustained a public nuisance that causes harm to the health, safety, and well-being of Chicago residents.”

The legal wing of the activist organization also trains government lawyers on how to defend limitations to the Second Amendment, and it files direct challenges to laws protecting the right to own and use guns, such as Stand Your Ground laws, which offer some protection for the use of lethal force in self-defense.

Continue reading “”

Mark McCloskey, Pardoned for Brandishing Guns at Protesters, Can’t Get the Guns Back

From [the 26th’s] Missouri Court of Appeals decision in McCloskey v. State, written by Judge James M. Dowd and joined by Judges John P. Torbitzky and Michael S. Wright:

This appeal arises out of a petition for replevin in which appellant Mark McCloskey sought the return of two firearms that police had seized pursuant to search warrants in connection with a June 28, 2020, incident in which McCloskey and his spouse exhibited the firearms as a group of protesters passed by their home. They were charged with felony unlawful use of a weapon punishable by up to four years in prison. McCloskey and the State reached a plea agreement whereby McCloskey pleaded guilty to misdemeanor fourth-degree assault and forfeited ownership and possession in the two firearms in exchange for the State dismissing the felony charge….

Soon after, the governor pardoned McCloskey and he filed against the State, the Sheriff, and the Mayor (Respondents) his underlying petition for replevin of the weapons in which he claimed the governor’s pardon gave him the right to their immediate return….

While we agree that the pardon restored all of his rights forfeited by the conviction and removed any legal disqualification, disadvantage, or impediment, Missouri law is unequivocal that a gubernatorial pardon obliterates the fact of the conviction, not the fact of guilt. Thus, McCloskey’s guilty plea, for which he obtained the benefit of the State dismissing a felony charge punishable by jail time, survived the pardon and importantly, with respect to the issue at hand in this replevin action, triggered the guns’ forfeiture. Therefore, since McCloskey’s guilt remains, it follows that he is not entitled to the return of the weapons….

Continue reading “”

With One Week Remaining, 99.4% of Illinois Gun Owners Have Said ‘No Thanks’ To Gun Registration

The Democrats who run Illinois decided long ago to blame gun owners for the results of the woke, soft-on-crime policies that have led to proliferating crime in the state. Instead of targeting the relatively small number of violent gang members who make Chicago live up to its Murder City USA moniker, politicians have instead targeted law-abiding gun owners with gun bans and a new gun registration scheme.

The so-called Protect Illinois Communities Act demanded existing owners of particularly frightening firearms register their magazine-fed, semi-automatic rifles. These include guns best-suited to self-defense including America’s favorite rifle, the AR-15.  The law also bans many semi-auto shotguns and handguns. Then there are the accessories and .50 BMG ammunition that must be registered as well.

With a December 31 deadline fast approaching, the Illinois State Police released their Week 11 compliance update on Wednesday and it’s a doozy. While thousands of Illinois gun owners have dutifully complied, millions have not. Holders of 15,164 Firearms Owner ID cardholders have registered an average of about 3.5 covered items each.

Put another way, 2,400,317 FOID holders have registered…nothing. Running that through some public school math, that yields a 99.4% non-compliance rate.

Why are so few Illinois citizens complying? Aside from the fundamental 2A conflicts, there’s also the leak from the Governor’s inner circle to “close the existing owner loophole” as reported by Guns Save Life.

So what is next?  Following a mass-casualty incident, especially if it happens in the Land of Lincoln, the Governor will announce a plan to “close the existing owner loophole.” Their words, not ours.

Governor Pritzker will back legislation to call for those who have registered guns and accessories to surrender those registered items to the police after 90 days or so.  Failure to do so would result in felony charges.

By mandating the surrender of those registered items, they can determine who has complied and who has not. Those who have not can expect ISP-led “firearm compliance teams” to knock on their doors.

That should surprise no one. Firearm registration has always had only one real purpose…to facilitate confiscation when politicians finally get up the testicular fortitude to press their anti-gun antipathy to that extent. That’s always been clear and it’s why there’s a law prohibiting federal firearm registration.

While achieving a compliance rate of more than one percent might be seen as some kind of psychological milestone of “success” by Governor Pritzker, it’s actually a humiliating public repudiation of Pritzker’s radical left anti-gun politics.

The little people have made it perfectly clear that they have no intention of complying with Illinois politicians’ gun-grabbing schemes. Don’t expect their attitude toward “closing the existing owner loophole” to be any more enthusiastic.

Analysis: A New Twist on the ‘Dangerous and Unusual’ Standard for Gun Bans

A Massachusetts federal judge upheld the commonwealth’s ban on AR-15s and similar rifles this week. His rationale for doing so relied on an idiosyncratic understanding of the rifle’s purported lethality and defensive utility.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV denied a motion for preliminary injunction against Massachusetts’ ban on “assault weapons” and ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. He did so by putting a new twist on an old argument. He determined that modern laws banning AR-15s fit within the country’s historical tradition of regulating “dangerous and unusual” weapons.

“The banned weapons are ‘dangerous,’ because they are unreasonably dangerous for ordinary purposes of self-defense due to their extreme lethality and high potential for collateral harm,” Saylor, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in Capen v. Campbell, “and they are ‘unusual,’ because it would be unusual for an ordinary citizen to carry such a weapon on his person on the street for self-defense, or to use it in the home to confront invaders or to protect against personal violence.”

While Saylor is certainly not the first to uphold a hardware ban since the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, his analytical framework for doing so stands out among the rest for its emphasis on the “dangerous and unusual” standard and his understanding of how AR-15s fit in.

Continue reading “”

Gun deaths rise along with gun control grade

Gun control advocates should have reason to celebrate. The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence upgraded Colorado’s grade on the “annual gun law scorecard” from a C+ in 2021, to a B in 2022 and an A- this year.

As reported in Gazette sister publication Colorado Politics, Colorado earned its A- for imposing waiting periods, banning “ghost” guns, enacting legislation on victims’ legal access, increasing the minimum age to purchase firearms and investing $1 million in community violence intervention.

The grade would deserve accolades — if it correlated with a decrease in gun violence. It does not. The year Colorado moved from a C to a B was the year Colorado’s rate of gun deaths reached a 40-year high. It is also the year Colorado set a record for the most people injured in mass shootings in a single year.

Since the Columbine High School massacre of 1999, Colorado has understandably pursued more gun regulation. The state enacted background checks at gun shows in 2000. It later passed a 15-round limit on bullet magazines. In 2013, Colorado required universal background checks.

From there, the state passed a red flag law in 2019. The next year, it enacted mandatory reporting for lost or stolen firearms and a safe firearm storage law.

Despite a 23-year gun-control effort, gun sales and gun crimes have risen.

Colorado’s gun sales in 2022 were 26% higher than in 2019. Early indicators suggest this year’s Colorado holiday gun sales will set a record.

An A- for gun control — after a significant rise in gun crimes — amounts to accolades for policies that don’t work.

It frustrates Colorado’s political leaders. Gov. Jared Polis and state’s Attorney Gen. Phil Weiser want to spend $600,000 to hire outside lawyers. They would lend the attorneys to the federal government to prosecute gun crimes.

If federal enforcement saves lives, this proposal could pay off. Properly written and enforced, gun regulations should allow guns in the hands of stable, sober, law-abiding adults.

It should keep guns from substance abusers, criminals, domestic abusers, severe mental illness patients, and others given due process and deemed likely to misuse them.

If Colorado subsidizes enforcement of federal gun laws, Polis and Weiser should take similar action regarding federal drug laws.

Colorado has undermined federal drug laws and enforcement for years, even as fentanyl became the number 1 killer of young adults. We legalized recreational pot in 2012. More recently, our state decriminalized fentanyl, heroin, crack cocaine and other deadly street drugs.

Likewise, Colorado has consistently undermined federal immigration laws. The combined chaos of immigration, rising crime, drug deaths, homelessness and needles in parks probably led to escalating gun ownership in Colorado and the rest of the country.

“There are many communities with sustained levels of crime that have not abated,” said National Shooting Sports Foundation spokesperson Mark Oliva, as quoted in Gazette sister publication The National Examiner.

“Those concerns, along with the punishing anti-gun measures by the Biden administration and threats of more gun control promised by the Biden-Harris reelection campaign, cannot be discounted as contributing factors (to rising gun sales).

“Americans have demonstrated month after month and year after year, (that) Second Amendment rights matter, and they are investing their hard-earned dollars to exercise their right to lawfully possess firearms before the right can be further infringed (upon).”

Reducing gun violence means more and better mental health care. It means restoring harsh penalties for crimes. It means controlling the border. It means enforcing drug laws and offering help for addiction. It means more looking out for those who suffer.

Sadly, it seems we don’t save lives by simply churning out gun laws — even if handed a medal for doing so.

The Gazette Editorial Board

No tax on bullets? Why one SC lawmaker wants to eliminate sales tax for some ammunition

If you’re a South Carolina gun owner, there’s a chance you could be able to buy ammunition without a sales tax in the future, if a new proposal becomes a law.

State Rep. Ashley Trantham, R-Greenville, filed a bill ahead of the legislative session that begins in January that would eliminate the sales tax on small arms ammunition. This would include ammunition for any “portable firearm,” which could include “rifles, shotguns, pistols and revolvers with no barrel greater than an internal diameter of .50 caliber or a shotgun of ten gauge or smaller,” the bill reads.

Small arms ammunition is normally what gun owners keep in a purse, by their bedside or in their vehicle, Trantham said. These weapons are used for personal protection, she added, which is why she is pushing to eliminate the sales tax only for for small arms ammunition and not bigger guns used for hunting or other uses.

“We have open borders, and more than ever, we just don’t know who we’re going to come across,” Trantham said. “When we’re out shopping, when we’re even in our homes. I’m seeing cases where there’s home invasions, things like that happening, more rapid than I can remember in the past ever seeing it.”

Trantham said she filed the bill based on a request from a constituent. South Carolina, Trantham said, should “definitely” not pursue gun control laws that she said would make it harder for people to protect themselves.

“This was specifically just to make sure that people that obviously can legally own a firearm have access to it, and it can be a little bit more affordable,” Trantham said. “I honestly don’t believe that we should be taxing a constitutional right.”

The South Carolina state sales tax rate is 6%. Dozens of items are exempted from sales tax in the state, from hearing aids to erectile dysfunction medication to materials used to assemble missiles.

In the past year, another state sales tax exemption was proposed: feminine hygiene products, including menstrual pads and tampons. Advocates for that proposal argued that those items are medical necessities and should not be taxed in South Carolina. That bill passed the House and remains sitting in the hands of the Senate finance committee.

Trantham, who is a S.C. House Freedom Caucus member, said she believes eliminating the tax on small arms ammunition is a “no-brainer,” but it’s not yet clear whether the General Assembly will choose to make the bill a priority.

“I would think that it would be easy,” Trantham said. “But then again, when you have people in Columbia that campaign one way and then vote another, it’s hard to say what they’ll grab a hold on. If the people decide it’s priority, they have the power, which is beautiful. That’s that’s the way it’s supposed to be.”

The Wonderful Truth Behind Recent Concealed Carry Statistics

Across the United States, fewer US citizens applied for new concealed carry permits. That is what the numbers say, and it is true from a certain perspective. It is also true that more people are legally carrying concealed firearms than ever before. That may seem like a contradiction, but it is also very good news.

What the headline doesn’t say is that we’ve seen a considerable number of states recently adopt constitutional carry laws. Those laws typically state that you don’t need a license to carry a concealed firearm if as long as you would have qualified to get one. That means you don’t have a criminal record, so you don’t need to get a permission slip from the state to carry concealed in public. Even with Constitutional carry in your state, you’ll often want a carry permit if you often drive to another state and want to carry there.

Back to the report from John Lott, we now have a record number of people legally carrying a personal firearm, but fewer of them had to apply for and pay for a state license in order to do so. That might be good news, and in fact it is fantastic news.

People who don’t have a carry permit often worry that more people are carrying a gun but they don’t have the training that the state previously required. That sounds obvious, but let me show you one flaw in that thinking.

Continue reading “”

OhMyGosh a SNIPER RIFLE!™ Aauugghh!

Sen. Susan Collins Pushing Gun Control for U.S. Troops

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is putting together legislation to require the U.S. military to adhere to state-level red and yellow flag laws for troops.

A red flag law allows family, friends, and others, to seek a court order to have guns removed from someone they view as a danger to himself or others. A yellow flag law is more narrow, allowing law enforcement to seek the court order for firearm removal.

Collins bill comes in response to the October 25, 2023, Lewiston, Maine, attacks, which were carried out by a member of the U.S. Army Reserve.

The attacker used a sniper rifle which was legally purchased.

Maine has a yellow flag law, but although police were alerted that the Maine shooter could “snap and commit a mass shooting” in September, according to CNN, no yellow flag action was pursued.

Moreover, Breitbart News noted on October 26, 2023, police in New York took Card to a West Point hospital for an evaluation in mid-July 2023.

Card had caught the attention of military officials after “acting erratically in mid-July” while taking part in training at West Point, the Associated Press reported. Police in New York were called and Card was taken to West Point’s Keller Army Community Hospital.

New York has a red flag law and the involvement of police in the West Point incident raised questions as to why the law did not come into play.

On December 22, 2023, WMTW pointed out that Collins “is working on a bill that would require branches of the military to utilize state-level weapons restriction laws, when appropriate, if they believe a service member poses a threat of harm to themselves or others.”