Category: RKBA

[Florida AG] Ashley Moody Releases Legal Opinion, Insists ATF Infringed on Gun Rights

This week, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody released a legal opinion regarding the use of stabilizing braces for handguns in Florida.

Moody issued the opinion in response to a request from state Rep. Shane Abbott, R-DeFuniak Springs, to provide clarity on Florida law following a recently released Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) interpretation of a federal law. The ATF interpretation subjects handguns with stabilizing braces to National Firearms Act controls. Moody issued an opinion on a similarly worded provision of Florida law concluding that stabilizing braces are not short-barreled rifles.

“The Second Amendment is alive and well in Florida and our state laws protect the gun rights of law-abiding citizens. We issued this important legal opinion to provide clarity about our state law as the federal government continues to overreach in an effort to over-regulate certain firearm accessories,” said Moody.

The opinion deals solely with Florida state law and has no bearing on the ATF’s action. The opinion states: “Unless and until judicially or legislatively clarified, I conclude that the definition of ‘short-barreled rifle,’ which the Legislature enacted in 1969, does not include a handgun, such as a pistol, to which a person attaches a stabilizing brace, because the use of such an optional accessory does not change the fundamental characteristics of the handgun.” Separately, the state of Florida is challenging the ATF interpretation.

GOV. NEWSOM SENDS GUN CONTROL RUBBER STAMP TO U.S. SENATE

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is ensuring that his gun control agenda is in safe hands with the appointment of Laphonza Butler to serve in the U.S. Senate following the passing of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Sen. Butler was sworn in this week, a Democrat who until the announcement was residing in Silver Springs, Md., and has spoken little on gun control issues. However, her progressive track record and history of working for liberal causes assures that she will pick up the gun control mantle.

Sen. Feinstein was the longest-serving female senator at the time of her death on Sept. 29. She was also the matriarch of the Senate’s gun control agenda. She helped author the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. That law lasted 10 years and was not reauthorized in 2004. Since then, Sen. Feinstein introduced legislation in every Congress to revive the ban on America’s most-popular selling centerfire rifle. In fact, if she had it her way, gun control would have gone much further.

Sen. Feinstein told 60 Minutes in a 1995 interview, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in,” she said. “I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”

Sen. Bulter’s selection to fill the remainder of Sen. Feinstein’s term promises that not much will change. Sen. Butler is deeply tied to gun control politicians and causes that will surely seek to expand efforts to deprive law-abiding Americans of their Second Amendment rights.

Who is Laphonza Butler?

Gov. Newsom heaped praise on Sen. Butler for shattering glass ceilings in the Senate. He noted that she is the first openly LGBTQ person to represent California in the Senate, first Black lesbian to openly serve in Congress and third Black woman to represent California in the Senate following Vice President Kamala Harris.

He also noted that Butler will pick up where Sen. Feinstein left off with gun control.

“As we mourn the enormous loss of Senator Feinstein, the very freedoms she fought for — reproductive freedom, equal protection, and safety from gun violence — have never been under greater assault,” Gov. Newsom said in a statement. “Laphonza will carry the baton left by Senator Feinstein, continue to break glass ceilings, and fight for all Californians in Washington D.C.”

Sen. Butler grew up in Magnolia, Miss., and attended Jackson State University. Her father died when she was just 16. She worked in the labor movement for 20 years and at 30, was elected president of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 2015. She was also SEIU international vice president and president of SEIU California’s state council.

Sen. Butler also ran political campaigns and was part of Vice President Harris’ campaign for the vice presidency. She was previously a senior advisor to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. She has been president of Emily’s List, a national political action committee dedicated to electing abortion rights-supportive women candidates to office.

Political Pals

While little in her personal or professional career points to gun control, the list of supporters lining up to congratulate her is telling.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered her endorsement, saying, “A great choice for California and the Senate. Congratulations Laphonza Butler!”

That was echoed by twice-failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, as well as former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile, the Democratic National Committee, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), and California Democratic U.S. Reps. Ted Lieu, Jimmy Gomez, Ami Berra, Ro Khanna, Sara Jacobs, Mark Takano, Brad Sherman, Gloria Johnson, Nanette Barragán and California Attorney General Rob Bonta. All are ardent gun control supporters.

Even Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) offered congratulations, despite the fact that he’s thrown his hat into the ring for the seat she’s filling until 2024. He’s facing a crowded Democratic field including California Democratic Reps. Barbara Lee and Katie Porter – and Sen. Butler if she decides to compete for election.

Gleeful Gun Control

It’s not just gun control politicians that are gleeful at Gov. Newsom’s appointment of Sen. Butler to fill the Senate seat. It’s also gun control groups too.

President of Everytown for Gun Safety’s (and its mouthpiece The Trace) John Feinblatt, the gun control group bankrolled by antigun billionaire Michael Bloomberg, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, “Laphonza Butler is an advocate’s advocate and we’re thrilled with her history-making appointment to the Senate. We look forward to working alongside her to keep communities safe from gun violence.”

The Everytown-affiliated Moms Demand Action got in on the action too. Executive Director Angela Ferrell-Zabala wrote on X, “Laphonza Butler is an incredible leader and a fierce advocate for women and girls. I’m thrilled to watch her make history as the first Black lesbian senator to openly serve in Congress. Moms Demand can’t wait to work with her to continue California’s leadership on gun safety!”

Gov. Newsom’s appointment of Sen. Butler is a calculated move to ensure his gun control agenda – including his maligned 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – is preserved. This is his attempt to export California gun control to the rest of the country and potentially pave the way for his own White House bid.

Mr Morse hit the electorate population replacement conspiracy theory nail on the head.

The White House Office of Democrat Decline

Let me connect two distant events. A sandwich shop in Philadelphia hired armed guards, and Joe Biden announced the White House “Office of Gun Violence Prevention.” The connection is both obvious and fascinating.

Jimmy’s Cheesesteaks in Philadelphia did more than hire a guard. They hired uniformed and armored guards openly carrying rifles across their chests. They guard the shop inside and out several days a week. If you go to the article and look at the picture, note that most of the windows at Jimmy’s are already boarded up. The widows with glass are covered with steel bars. The gas station on the corner has armed guards too because they wanted to be open after dark. This is the same city that had nightly looting this week.

Now consider why Biden announced an office of “gun violence.” First, I’m going to give you a few hints-

Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, Detroit,
New York, Trenton, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington DC, New Orleans

Each of them has a Democrat mayor and city council. Each has rising crime and falling populations. They are bleeding people and turning into abandoned shells where no one can have a business and no one wants to live. Biden threw open the borders so these failing cities wouldn’t hollow out and lose democrat congressional seats.

As I mentioned, we’ve seen nightly riots and looting in Chicago and Philadelphia. Chicago’s Magnificent Mile, a street that was once filled with expensive shops and restaurants, now has 26% vacancy rate in spring of 2023. San Francisco is worse with huge name-brand hotels being handed back to the banks. People refuse to go to San Fran for conventions or tourism. Look on Youtube and you can see blocks and blocks of abandoned businesses on the main streets of San Francisco, of Oakland, and of Berkeley.

There are abandoned homes and entire subdivisions where no one lives, where no one can live because of the laws that democrats put in place. It is almost as if they set out to repeat the lessons they didn’t learn from Detroit. Remember when New York Governor Kathy Hochul said there is no place in New York State for conservatives? She got her wish, and the state of Florida welcomed them with open arms.

Democrats need to blame the gun. They have to blame the gun. Their cities have abandoned city blocks, abandoned malls, and empty skyscrapers. Money isn’t enough to fix this problem, but Democrats will throw taxpayers money at their failed cities.

They revitalized the waterfront in Baltimore, but nobody came. Businesses were afraid of being looted and customers were afraid of being robbed. Property on the water used to be one of the gems of the city, but democrats fixed that.

Right behind choosing to wear a Covid mask, guns are one of the clearest indicators of political affiliation. Democrats have to blame the gun and funnel money into their failing cities. Democrat politicians can’t afford the blame for what they’ve already done. What are they going to campaign on, “Vote for me and I’ll turn your city into Detroit?’

Is Austin far behind? The mayor of Dallas just switched political parties and became a republican because he says his city works and he wants it to stay that way.

First They Came for the Gun Owners: The Campaign to Disarm You and Take Your Freedoms

First They Came for the Gun Owners: The Campaign to Disarm You and Take Your Freedoms

Gun control isn’t just about guns.

Best-selling author and attorney Mark W. Smith exposes the all-encompassing nature of the anti-gun lobby’s attack on the right to keep and bear arms—and how it serves as a proxy to empower government to control other important aspects of our lives. Smith notes that it’s no accident that the people who oppose the Second Amendment also argue for bigger government in other areas—as well as favoring sharp limits on free speech and property rights. Taken together, it is an all-encompassing attack on individual liberties by those who consider themselves intellectually and morally superior to average Americans.

Smith makes a compelling and urgent case that protecting and preserving our right to bear arms is an imperative for all who value freedom, whether you own a gun or not.

Judge halts Maryland’s ban on carrying guns in places selling alcohol and near demonstrations

A federal judge on Friday blocked several restrictions Maryland lawmakers tried to impose on the ability to carry a firearm, while leaving other gun control measures in place.

Judge George L. Russell III, an Obama appointee, issued a preliminary injunction halting Maryland’s new restrictions banning the carrying of a gun in places selling alcohol, in private buildings or property without owner’s consent and within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration.

He reasoned there was no historical basis to leave those rules in place in light of the Second Amendment challenge brought by a group of plaintiffs and gun rights groups. It was filed against Maryland’s Gun Safety Act of 2023 that is set to take effect Sunday.

Judge Russell analyzed the restrictions following the Supreme Court’s ruling last year that upended New York’s license-to-carry measure, in which the state required people to show a proper need to carry a gun. The majority of the high court said any gun control measure must be consistent with the nation’s tradition and history back to its founding.

Using that precedent as a guide, Judge Russell upheld state bans against the carrying of a gun in museums, health care facilities, state parks, mass transit, school grounds, government buildings, casinos, racetracks, amusement parks and stadiums. He said there were traditions showing regulation of guns in those places.

Maryland lawmakers passed the law after the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which held tat carrying a pistol in public is a constitutional right. The high court’s decision has led to many gun control measures being upended across the country as lower courts try to find historical analogs when weighing a gun control measure against a Second Amendment challenge.

And SloJoe (more probably some staff member) says he’ll sign it? What’s going on here? Was all this merely some ploy to give him a way to make like he’s a friend of hunters?

SENATE JOINS HOUSE TO STOP BIDEN CUTS OF SCHOOL PROGRAMS

BELLEVUE, WA – Only hours after the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms blasted the Biden administration’s attempt to eliminate funding for school hunter education and archery programs, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed bipartisan legislation to prevent the cuts, and now the White House has confirmed President Biden will sign the Protecting Hunting Heritage and Education Act.

The bill passed the House 424-1 Tuesday. It was championed by members of both parties who recognized the administration had deliberately misinterpreted tenets of the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to cut funding for hunter safety, archery and other student programs.

“Joe Biden may be incapable of reading the writing on the wall,” said a jubilant CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “but there is no question the House and Senate members who almost unanimously passed this legislation do not suffer from the same foggy vision.”

Gottlieb offered kudos to lawmakers who acted swiftly this week to “nip this nonsense in the bud.” He called the administration’s attempt to cut this important funding “one more example of the Biden administration’s extremist sentiments toward any program even remotely connected to activities that may involve the lawful use of firearms. Only one vote was cast against the House version of the bill, by a Texas Democrat.

“This overwhelming action on Capitol Hill sends a clear message to the Biden White House that the administration’s anti-gun fanaticism has crossed the line when it threatens school programs that teach genuine safety and valuable conservation to our children,” Gottlieb said. “CCRKBA is proud to have played a part in this clear victory of common sense over crass extremism.”

The Senate version was introduced earlier this month by Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas), Krysten Sinema (I-Arizona) and Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina). A separate measure had been introduced by Montana Democrat Jon Tester. Congressman Mark Green (R-Tennessee) introduced the House version last month.

 

Magazines are as much a part of a gun as ammo and other accoutrements, and are just as protected from goobermint restriction. The 2nd amendment is not an ‘allowance’, or ‘permission’ to keep and bear arms.
It restricts goobermint, not the people.
Judges, legislators and bureaucraps who think otherwise are nothing but clear domestic enemies of the Constitution, which the Bill of Rights is part.

BLUF
Nevertheless, it has become abundantly clear that whether or not a judge is sympathetic to the idea that magazines are “arms” is the most relevant dividing line in this hotly contested slice of Second Amendment jurisprudence. It will undoubtedly be the hinge point in many future rulings as these bans continue to be litigated.

Analysis: Judges Diverge on Whether Second Amendment Protects Ammo Magazines

Are ammunition magazines constitutionally protected arms? Or are they simply accessories incidental to the weapons covered under the Second Amendment?

Different judges have reached wildly different conclusions since the Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen last June, particularly regarding the so-called large capacity magazines often banned in blue states. It is no surprise then that the outcomes of the various legal challenges taking aim at those prohibitions have primarily been settled depending on which side a particular judge falls on this very question. Two major decisions handed down in the last week demonstrate this.

Last Friday, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez struck down California’s ban on ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.

“This case is about a California state law that makes it a crime to keep and bear common firearm magazines typically possessed for lawful purposes,” Judge Benitez wrote in Duncan v. Bonta. “Based on the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, this law is clearly unconstitutional.”

Just three days later, U.S. District Judge Mary Dimke upheld Washington state’s nearly identical magazine ban.

“At present, the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish that Plaintiffs are likely to prove that large capacity magazines fall within the Second Amendment right,” Judge Dimke wrote in Brumback v. Ferguson.

Continue reading “”

Teachers With Guns: District by District, a Push to Arm Educators Is Growing
Seconds matter during a school shooting. A rural superintendent wondered, what if staff members could intervene before police arrived?

An act of mass violence hasn’t yet touched the Benjamin Logan Local School District.

Superintendent John Scheu is thankful for that.

But for years, every time news broke about yet another school shooting, Scheu faced a handful of “what if?” questions.

What if a school in this small, rural district about an hour northwest of Columbus, Ohio—where the closest police outpost is 10 miles away—was the next target of a shooting? What if Benjamin Logan students were the next to have to huddle in closets sending “I love you” texts to friends and family? What if Scheu’s community was the next to have to mourn the loss of beloved students and staff members?

“If it can happen in all of these other places, it could happen here,” he said.

So, Scheu and his district invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in security. They hired school resource officers who are stationed at each of the district’s three schools. Security cameras send live feeds to the local sheriff’s office. Staff are reminded often that exterior doors are not to be propped open or left unlocked for any reason.

There’s a new mental health clinic at one of the schools, staffed with counselors trained to help the district’s roughly 1,600 students and 225 staff members.

District leaders felt confident they’d done all they could to keep outside threats from entering their buildings.

But what if the threat came from someone already inside?

Students and teachers have lockdown drills, and, as has become commonplace in American schools, they know to pull down the shades and lock the classroom doors before hiding quietly from a threat. But, beyond that, there isn’t much they would be able to do but “wait and hope that help would come,” Scheu said.

Except, Scheu asked himself, what if there were staff members trained to intervene? What if a handful of teachers, aides, and others could quickly reach for a firearm if an active shooter were targeting students?

“When you’re talking about putting out an active shooter threat, it’s a matter of seconds, not a matter of minutes,” said Scheu, who has served as superintendent in the district since July 2020. “And it’s a matter of life and death.”

After a year of planning, the district’s first “Armed Response Team” was in place to start the 2023-24 school year, part of a growing trend in Ohio and elsewhere in which schools tap teachers and other employees to act as the first line of armed defense against an active shooter.

Continue reading “”

Whamm, Zwap, Bam! Lawsuits Already Filed Over California’s Newest Gun Control Laws
GOA, GOF join Gun Owners of California in suit challenging California’s brand new anti-concealed carry law

Senate Bill 2 by Senator Anthony Portantino’s (D–Burbank), which is California’sresponse bill to New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, was signed into law Tuesday. SB 2 enacts numerous “sensitive locations” where guns are banned, and changes requirements to obtain a concealed carry license. SB 2 was also sponsored by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, and simply put illegally imposes restrictions on those seeking a California Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permit.

Notably, Newsom, Bonta and Portantino know they are imposing restrictions to those applying for CCWs, when virtually no crimes are committed by CCW holders, who are required to pass background checks by County Sheriffs, and take gun safety courses.

Remarkably, CCW permit holders don’t commit mass shootings, they stop them. We’ve never had a comment or even a reaction from Gov. Newsom, AG Bonta or Sen. Portantino on this fact. Instead they obsess on legal gun owners, seeking ways to limit Second Amendment protections.

Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation just announced:

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) teamed up with Gun Owners of California (GOC) to promptly serve California AG Rob Bonta in a lawsuit challenging portions of SB 2, a bill that anti-gun Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Tuesday. This unconstitutional legislation was passed in response to the Bruen decision (which ended the state’s draconian “may-issue” policy), and among other provisions would:

    • Enact highly restrictive “sensitive locations” where concealed carrying would be prohibited, including all private property unless expressly permitted by the owner;
    • Require 16 hours of training;
    • And significantly increase the costs associated with securing a permit.

This suit specifically goes after the “sensitive locations” provision of the law.

So that is strike one.

This is strike two.

Continue reading “”

Will Gov. Newsom ever realize California’s gun laws must follow the Second Amendment?

By The Editorial Board | opinion@scng.com |
How many times will it take for Gov. Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta and others to realize California’s gun laws must follow the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America?

On Sept. 22, their attempt to limit rifle and pistol magazines to 10 bullets again was shot down by Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of the U.S. District Court, part of the Ninth Circuit. The ban derived from Proposition 63 in 2016.

The case is Miller v. Bonta. On June 5, 2021 Benitez originally ruled the ban unconstitutional. Sixteen days later a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit stayed the ruling, leaving the law in place. Matters changed after the U.S. Supreme Court strongly affirmed Second Amendment protections in its June 23, 2022 decision, NYSRPA v. Bruen. The top court also ordered the Miller case heard again by Benitez.

In his new Miller case decision, Benitez held, “Based on the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, this law is clearly unconstitutional … There is no American tradition of limiting ammunition capacity and the 10-round limit has no historical pedigree and it is arbitrary and capricious. It is extreme.”

He noted there is no federal ban on such magazines. And state bans are not uniform and “arbitrary.”

He cited several cases of self-defense where small magazines were inadequate in fighting off criminals. In Kentucky, an intruder came in blasting at a family. One daughter was killed and the father wounded three times as he returned fire with 11 rounds from one gun and eight from a second, failing to hit the assailant, who later was arrested.

Benitez also noted 81 million Americans own up to 456 million firearms. And that criminals don’t follow gun laws.

Benitez performed a “masterful job at the molecular level” of picking apart “every argument put forth by the state of California” and other states to limit the Second Amendment, Sam Paredes told us; he’s the executive director of Gun Owners of California, which filed an amicus brief in the case.

Bonta, who we endorsed for re-election last year, filed an appeal. He said, “We will continue to fight for our authority to keep Californians safe from weapon enhancements designed to cause mass casualties.” Newsom said, “It’s time to wake up. Unless we enshrine a Right to Safety in the Constitution, we are at the mercy of ideologues like Judge Benitez.”

That was a reference to Newsom’s proposed 28th Amendment that, among other things, would ban so-called “assault weapons,” which really are just cosmetically mean-looking rifles.

Ironically, that’s a tacit admission the restrictions he favors currently are unconstitutional.

Earlier this month Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico tried banning open carry of legal guns. She was rebuffed in court and even by such liberal Democrats as Rep. Ted Lieu of Los Angeles, who reminded her, ““No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution. There is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.”

Gun rights are here to stay. Newsom and Bonta need to end their assaults on Californians’ right to defend themselves.

CRPA, SAF, GOA and Others Jointly File Federal Lawsuit Challenging California’s Carry Restriction Law.

Multiple gun owner’s rights advocacy groups and individuals have joined together and filed a Second Amendment challenge to Senate Bill (SB2) in the United States District Court. The lawsuit is known as May v. Bonta and you can see the filings so far here. We are already in contact with the state’s lawyers, are working out a briefing schedule, and have a tentative hearing date on a motion for preliminary injunction on December 4, 2023.

SB2 designates much of the state as a “sensitive place” and thereby eliminates those places where law-abiding gun owners who have qualified for and been issued a permit to carry a firearm by law enforcement can carry their approved firearms. So, SB2 effectively makes a permit useless. SB2 also makes it much more time-consuming and costly to obtain a concealed carry permit.

SB2 is a vindictive legislative response designed to get around the Supreme Court’s historic Bruen decision from 2022. Bruen held that a permit to carry a firearm in public to defend yourself and your family is a right, not a privilege. As a result, California and other states that previously limited access to these permits had to start issuing them, and the number of permit holders in California has greatly increased.

The Bruen decision also clarifies that governments cannot limit the usefulness of these permits by over-designating places as “sensitive,” where carrying a firearm, even with a permit, would be prohibited. Governor Newsom and the anti-gun-owner legislators who voted for this law are trying to do exactly that. They know this bill will only affect lawful gun owners because they are the only ones who pass the qualification process to get a permit.

SB2 does nothing to stop gun violence by criminals. And in fact, data from several states demonstrates that Americans with concealed carry permits commit crimes at extraordinarily low rates, as the lawsuit explains. Recently, a Hawaii district court relied in part on this same data, which was presented to it by some of the same associations now challenging SB2, to conclude that Hawaii’s similar law could be enjoined.

Designating so many places as gun-free zones is a retaliatory tactic coordinated by well-financed national gun control advocacy that is being used in states hostile to gun ownership to make the right to defend yourself in public useless. California follows in the footsteps of Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Hawaii.

Federal courts in those other jurisdictions have already enjoined laws like SB2. These rulings include, but are not limited to: Antonyuk v. Hochul, No. 1:22-CV-0986 (GTS/CFH), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201944 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2022); Koons v. Platkin, No. CV 22-7463 (RMB/AMD), 2023 WL 3478604 (D.N.J. May 16, 2023); and Wolford v. Lopez, No. CV 23-00265 LEK-WRP, 2023 WL 5043805, at *1 (D. Haw. Aug. 8, 2023).

It is an open secret in the hallways of the Capital that Newsom hopes to pass so many gun control laws that Second Amendment advocacy groups cannot keep up. But those groups have responded by forming an unprecedented strategic partnership and coordinating their efforts to fight back.

We now have a strong coalition of gun rights groups fighting against these laws. And when we win, the state will be forced to pay our legal bill.

Pro-Second Amendment groups joining in a lawsuit against Newsom and SB2 are well known in the state, and many have been fighting against unconstitutional gun bans for decades. The coalition includes the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and Second Amendment Foundation.

Each organization brings resources, members, donors, and expertise to this challenge. Newsom has unlimited tax dollars to battle for his unconstitutional laws in court and thinks that he can bankrupt us. But we have millions of gun owners who donate to support these challenges. When our elected officials refuse to uphold the law of the land and our Constitution, we are proud to hold that line for the people of California.”

The crown jewel of Newsom’s anti-Second Amendment campaign is his ploy to get a 28th Amendment passed that would gut the Second Amendment, including a ban on semi-automatic firearms. But 38 states would have to agree to that amendment, and 24 states have already filed amicus briefs in courts that urged those courts to strike down laws banning semi-automatic firearms commonly possessed by tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners. So, his constitutional amendment gambit, which insiders already recognize is a ploy to raise money and give him a platform to run his shadow campaign for president, is dead on arrival.

BLUF
Yes, they’re coming for our guns. No, they can’t have them without a fight.

Academic says quiet part out loud on gun control

Anyone who engages in discussions on gun control has undoubtedly been told that no one is coming for our guns; that all anyone wants to do is to keep firearms from falling into the wrong hands. All those regulations they’re proposing? Those are just for criminals.

Now, we all know this is BS. Things like assault weapon bans, for example, result in taking people’s guns sooner or later. Just because that’s not what they’re saying no doesn’t mean that’s not where we’re eventually going to head.

Enter a discussion about President Joe Biden’s new Office of Gun Violence Prevention over at China Daily.

Yes, it’s China talking about US gun policy–a subject I think I’ve been pretty clear about my feelings on–but in there, we find someone who may have just said the part gun control fans are supposed to keep quiet.

Jeffrey Fagan, an expert on policing, crime and gun control and Professor of Law at Columbia Law School in New York, said: “Every little bit helps, including research, to slow the epidemic of gun violence. However, unless there are strong measures to reduce the supply of firearms, and also the legality of firearms, this will have little effect on the unacceptably high rates of both lethal and nonlethal firearm violence.”

(Emphasis added)

Now, let’s take a look at that bolded section for a moment. We’re going to take that in order–don’t worry, we’ll get to the “legality” thing in a moment.

Reduce the supply of firearms

There are an estimated 400 million firearms in private hands in the United States. The Second Amendment also protects our right to keep and bear arms.

Yet Fagan here has argued that we need to reduce the supply of firearms. Not the supply of black market guns or guns in criminal hands, but guns in general. That despite ample evidence that it’s those guns in particular that represent a problem with regard to violent crime.

As such, that means reducing guns for law-abiding citizens to some degree or another.

The easy thought is to assume Fagan simply means restricting the purchase of firearms in general in some manner, such as gun rationing or some similar policy.

The problem there is that with 400 million firearms already in circulation and the fact that firearms are generally durable, meaning they don’t necessarily wear out or anything if properly maintained, that number isn’t going to decrease on its own. Every gun purchase adds to the availability of firearms.

That means that, at some point, you’re going to have to remove firearms from circulation as a whole. The only way that can happen is via gun confiscation.

You can’t just make guns vanish otherwise. You can’t reduce the availability of guns without that.

Reducing the legality of firearms

Fagan makes reference to the legality of firearms, suggesting he wants to make them less legal to own in some manner. This likely includes things like assault weapon bans and other restrictions, particularly those lacking some kind of grandfather clause that would allow those who already have such weapons to keep them.

Again, that whole gun confiscation thing.

But we need to remember that the legality of firearms is preserved via the Second Amendment. You can’t just wish that away no matter how much you want to. So long as the Second Amendment stands, you’re not going to be able to really do much of anything about the legality of guns no matter how much you favor gun control.

This is one problem gun control is always going to have.

What’s more, following the Bruen decision, it’s clear that one will be hard-pressed to find gun control regulations existing at the time of the Second Amendment that would be an analog for any restriction you could pass today that would restrict the legality of guns in general.

Now, one can imagine gun control advocates dismissing Fagan’s comments as just the words of a single academic, that they’re not reflected in the gun control community as a whole. I disagree, especially since we saw Gabby Giffords, founder of one of the biggest anti-gun groups out there, argue for “no more guns.”

I’m sorry, but I can’t buy that this is just a fringe opinion.

Yes, they’re coming for our guns.

No, they can’t have them without a fight.

It’s easy to fact-check Al. All he does is lie.

Fact Check: Al Sharpton Says No Mass Killings Without ‘Mass Instruments’

CLAIM: During a Friday appearance on MSNBC, Al Sharpton bemoaned the inability to secure more gun control and claimed there would be no mass killings without “mass instruments.”

VERDICT: False.

Breitbart News reported Sharpton suggested gun control can be pursued under the banner of “civil rights.”

He went on to say that whether gun control is pursued as a civil right or “just on guns, people cannot do mass killings unless they have mass instruments.”

Sharpton focused on AR-15s and suggested he is shocked by people who say, “No, we’re not giving up our AR-15s.”

He did not mention the work done via a partnership between Northeastern University, the Associated Press, and USA Today, which traces “mass killings” back to 2006 and shows “semiautomatic handguns are far more common in mass killings than guns that are typically characterized as assault weapons, such as the AR-15.”

Graphs used by Northeastern/AP/USA Today show handguns are used in “mass killings” almost twice as much as “long guns,” the latter being a category which includes shotguns, rifles of every kind, etc.

During the MSNBC segment, Sharpton pointed to the August 26, 2023, Jacksonville, Florida, shooting in which a man with an AR-15 killed three people at a Dollar General store. He did not mention the April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech shooting, in which an attacker with two handguns killed 32 people.

Sharpton also omitted the November 21, 2021, incident in which Darrell Brooks Jr. drove over people during a Milwaukee parade, killing six.

He left out the July 14, 2016, attack in Nice, France, in which a terrorist used a truck to kill 86 people and failed to mention the September 11, 2001, attacks, in which airplanes were weaponized to kill nearly 3,000 people.

Sharpton’s claim is false.

Judge Benitez destroys the 2.2 rounds per DGU lie once and for all

Over two years ago, I read through some court filings in Duncan v. Bonta, the lawsuit against California’s “large capacity” magazine ban. I was left scratching my head at a claim from the State of California in support of their magazine ban, that the average Defensive Gun Use (DGU) incident involves discharging only 2.2 rounds. The more I looked into it, the more obvious it became that this was unsubstantiated.

Since then, Duncan v. Bonta made a trip to the Supreme Court, got GVR’d after NYSRPA v. Bruen, and sent back down the judicial hierarchy to the US District Court for the Southern District of California. The district court published its decision last Friday, in which Judge Roger Benitez completely took apart the 2.2 rounds per DGU canard (PDF pages 26-33):

C. The Invention of the 2.2 Shot Average

…the State’s statistic is suspect. California relies entirely on the opinion of its statistician for the hypothesis that defenders fire an average of only 2.2 shots in cases of confrontation.

Where does the 2.2 shot average originate? There is no national or state government data report on shots fired in self-defense events. There is no public government database. One would expect to see investigatory police reports as the most likely source to accurately capture data on shots fired or number of shell casings found, although not every use of a gun in self-defense is reported to the police. As between the two sides, while in the better position to collect and produce such reports, the State’s Attorney General has not provided a single police report to the Court or to his own expert. 

Without investigatory reports, the State’s expert turns to anecdotal statements, often from bystanders, reported in news media, and selectively studied. She indicates she conducted two studies. Based on these two studies of newspaper stories, she opines that it is statistically rare for a person to fire more than 10 rounds in self-defense and that only 2.2 shots are fired on average. Unfortunately, her opinion lacks classic indicia of reliability and her two studies cannot be reproduced and are not peer-reviewed.

“Reliability and validity are two aspects of accuracy in measurement. In statistics, reliability refers to reproducibility of results.” Her studies cannot be tested because she has not disclosed her data. Her studies have not been replicated. In fact, the formula used to select 200 news stories for the Factiva study is incomprehensible. […]

For one study, Allen says she conducted a search of stories published in the NRA Institute for Legislative Action magazine (known as the Armed Citizen Database) between 2011 and 2017. There is no explanation for the choice to use 2011 for the beginning. After all, the collection of news stories goes back to 1958. Elsewhere in her declaration she studies mass shooting events but for that chooses a much longer time period reaching back to 1982. Likewise, there is no explanation for not updating the study after 2017.

[…] details are completely absent. Allen does not list the 736 stories. Nor does she reveal how she assigned the number of shots fired in self-defense when the news accounts use phrases like “the intruder was shot” but no number of shots was reported, or “there was an exchange of gunfire,” or “multiple rounds were fired.” She includes in her 2.2 average of defensive shots fired, incidents where no shots were fired. […] She does not reveal the imputed number substitute value that she used where the exact number of shots fired was not specified, so her result cannot be reproduced. […] For example, this Court randomly selected two pages from Allen’s mass shooting table: pages 10 and 14. From looking at these two pages (assuming that the sources for the reports were accurate and unbiased) the Court is able to make statistical observations, including the observation that the number of shots fired were unknown 69.04% of the time.

The foundation of the claim was not real data but “anecdata,” which don’t cover nearly as many incidents as actual police reports do. (Not every incident is reported, so even police data is incomplete.)

Second, the sampled news reports were randomly selected. It isn’t clear if there were any process safeguards to prevent cherry picking, and there is no transparency about the included incidents.

Third, the selected timeframes look arbitrary.

Fourth, as Judge Benitez points out, including zero-shot incidents will obviously bring the average down, so it’s questionable.

The most devastating critique is that the expert assigned an arbitrary number of shots fired when news stories didn’t include that crucial detail.

The Court is aware of its obligation to act as a gatekeeper to keep out junk science where it does not meet the reliability standard of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. […] while questionable expert testimony was admitted, it has now been weighed in light of all of the evidence.

Using interest-balancing, the en banc 9th Circuit shamelessly rubber-stamped California’s infringement using this pathetic junk science. It’s gratifying to see interest-balancing tossed into the garbage alongside this junk science under the new Bruen standard.

Well, he’s bizarre, so……

Biden’s comments on gun violence truly bizarre

After nearly three years in office, there are a lot of things I’ve come to expect out of the Biden administration. Coherent comments by the president aren’t among them.

Yet in announcing his new Office of Gun Violence Prevention, Biden had to open up and discuss so-called gun violence more broadly. He couldn’t just announce the office and leave it there, he had to explain to the press–the same guys who wanted this for years, mind you–why it was supposedly needed.

In discussing “gun violence,” however, Biden was his typical self, saying things that raised more than a few eyebrows.

On Friday, while touting his strict gun control laws, Biden continued his trend of lying when he claimed he has been to “every mass shooting.”

Biden furthered his support for restricting the Second Amendment, saying, “If you need 80 shots in a magazine, you shouldn’t own a gun.”

Yeah, buddy. That happened.

First, no, Biden hasn’t been to every mass shooting. Especially if you consider the definition of mass shooting that his party tends to prefer, which is the Gun Violence Archive definition that is just based on the number of people shot, not killed.

This definition inflates the number of mass shootings into a huge number, one that would make it impossible for Biden to visit every mass shooting.

Further, Biden offered no real qualifiers on those mass shootings, so even if we use the more traditional definitions that are based on the number of people killed, it’s unlikely he visited every mass shooting that ever happened in the US, much less the planet as a whole.

Because while people like Biden tend to pretend that mass shootings are uniquely American, they happen everywhere.

Then we get to the whole “if you need 80 shots in a magazine, you shouldn’t have a gun.”

First, there aren’t any 80-round magazines out there, though I suspect a company like Palmetto State Armory might be cooking up one right about now.

Yet even if there were, so what?

There is nothing in our Second Amendment that seems to support such a supposition. If we need X number of rounds, we shouldn’t have a firearm? Why is that? Under what criteria would we be allowed to have a gun? Is the limit 79 rounds? Five rounds? What exactly?

Now, generally speaking, people haven’t needed that many rounds for any lawful situation they might find themselves in. Many defensive gun uses take place with zero rounds being fired.

But many others take a lot more than some might think.

The truth is that no one who has survived a gunfight has ever said, “Gee, I wish I’d had less ammo.”

See, the problem with Biden’s myopic comment–and this is me trying to be charitable here–is that it doesn’t account for individual circumstances. There’s a difference between some guy pulling a gun on a mugger and someone who has angered an organized mob that wants their head.

Further, let’s remember that the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting or even muggers, specifically. Yes, the Tyranny of the Thug is a thing, but the amendment was essentially penned as an insurance policy on the rest of our rights. It was meant as a bulwark against tyranny as a whole.

Our Founding Fathers had just fought a war that started when the tyrannical government marched on a town to seize arms from them. It’s really unlikely that they intended to make it easier for a tyrannical leader to do the same again.

So no, there are no exceptions to the Second Amendment, no matter how many rounds you need in a magazine.

But since Biden clearly has never read the Second Amendment and definitely dismissed the Bruen decision, we’ve clearly got a long fight on our hands.

Support
About
Terms
Privacy

More of that quality New York gun control

New York has tripped over itself as a state to pass as much gun control as it can lately. After the Bruen decision gutted the requirement for people to show cause to carry a firearm, they’ve done what they could to make it untenable to do so.

But this isn’t new. The NY SAFE Act, for example, was a serious infringement on people’s Second Amendment rights and one that, in time, will likely be overturned.

Yet it’s the law here and now for people in the state. Law-abiding citizens don’t get to own things like the same AR-15s most of us can head to the store and buy right now.

It seems alleged criminals have no problems getting them, though.

On September 20th, 2023, Humboldt County Drug Task Force Agents, and Officers with the Fortuna Police Department (FoPD) served a multi-location search warrant at a residence located in the 1000 block of Ivy Lane, Fortuna, a residence located in the 1000 block of Shamrock Drive in Fortuna, and on the persons of Aaron Allen ROBERTSON (Age 30) and Heather Danielle SPECHT (Age 29). After a multi-week investigation, the HCDTF believed ROBERTSON and SPECHT were in possession of large quantities of cocaine and multiple firearms for the purpose of sales.…

After ROBERTSON and SPECHT were detained, Agents searched their vehicle and located approximately 8 grams of cocaine, a digital scale, and packaging materials.

Agents continued on to search the residence that ROBERTSON and SPECHT were observed to be exiting. Agents located a large safe in the garage. After gaining access to the safe, Agents located four firearms including a functional 9mm “Uzi” sub-machinegun. Agents also located a box containing multiple plastic baggies, including one large vacuum sealed bag that had been opened. All of the packaging was covered in cocaine residue and accompanied by large bowls and mixing utensils.

Agents responded to the additional property on Ivy Lane that was also under the control of ROBERTSON and SPECHT. Agents searched the Ivy Lane residence and located five additional firearms and ammunition.…

Upon arrival at the residence on Smith Lane, Agents located CERVANTES-CUELLAR, Johnathan Charles ROBERTS (age 26), and Taylor Franklyn MILLER (age 25) inside of the residence. All three subjects were detained without incident.

During a search of the residence Agents located 25 firearms including several assault weapons. Agents also located hundreds of rounds of ammunition, several high-capacity magazines, multiple vests equipped with body armor, packaging materials, and a digital scale with cocaine residue.

I mean, take a look at these guns for a second:

I’m sorry, but that’s kind of impressive when you consider how much of it is outright illegal in the state of New York. Gun control is clearly working out really well there, isn’t it?

Now, don’t get me wrong, I think absolutely none of this should be illegal. Yes, I include the actual submachine gun in this, too. The problem is that most lawmakers in the state disagree. They like gun control. They want more gun control.

Yet they don’t seem to grasp that the people who represent a problem, like these suspected drug dealers, aren’t inclined to follow gun laws any more than they’re inclined to obey drug laws.

“But if other states-” Just stop with that crap. You’re embarrassing yourself.

That’s a freaking Uzi and it was described by law enforcement as a functional submachine gun. Please name the state where you can just walk into a store, buy one of those, and walk out. You can’t because no such state exists. These are among the most tightly controlled firearms at the federal level and these alleged drug dealers managed to get their hands on one.

If they could get an Uzi, do you think they’d be unable to get anything else?

I mean, the apparently got their hands on at least some cocaine and that’s even more illegal than most of these guns.

The truth of the matter is that criminals aren’t inhibited by laws. If they’re inclined to break serious laws like dealing drugs then there’s no reason to believe they’ll be beholden to gun laws. New York keeps thinking otherwise, but this story and one earlier this week show just how stupid lawmakers are to believe such a thing.

Can There be Good News About Public Violence?

Some of us are afraid of bad news. Most of us know someone who is afraid of going to the doctor because they don’t want to make hard decisions about their health. The great news is that most medical conditions can be treated. That emotional reaction is also common when we consider public violence. It is particularly accurate about how we feel about mass-murder. Many of us feel both compelled to watch the news about public violence, while at the same time we want to turn away and pretend it doesn’t happen. Let me bring you good news. We learned how to stop mass-murder in several ways. We’ve done it, so we are talking about actual practice rather than mere theory. The first thing we have to do is get past the fantasy of Hollywood violence and talk about what really happens.

I’m going to go back to the medical model for a moment. I’ve had friends who oscillated between denial and helplessness. They feel that there can’t be a problem, or that the problem is intractable so why bother. They become hopeless and vulnerable to people who sell quack cures. I won’t do that to you. I’ve studied public violence for a decade, and there is real hope to stop mass-murderers. For a moment, let’s set aside both fantasy and our fears.

Part of us knows that what we see from Hollywood isn’t real. Yes, we might be caught up in the story. At the same time, part of our mind knows that hundreds of people don’t suddenly explode in a flash of flame and get thrown backwards when someone waves a gun around. The truth is that mass-murder is hard, and ordinary citizens stop mass-murderers most of the time. That is fairly obvious if we’re willing to look at it for a minute. Again, I promise it will only be a minute. It turns out that you have lived through the critical experiment many times.

Remember one of the times you walked into a group of your friends and shouted hello. Your friends look at you. One of them points their finger at you and you point back at them and wave. You do that a number of times as more of your friends recognize you.

Then you see a friend of to the side that you missed. You wave and smile to see someone you didn’t notice at first. There is a feeling of an unexpected, pleasant surprise. We didn’t see them at first because we were concentrating on someone else in the group. We thought we saw everyone, but we really didn’t. A friend we didn’t see slaps us on the shoulder and asks how we’ve been. We were looking at the group so we never noticed our friend come up behind us.

Hold that experience in mind for a minute. I could ask you all kinds of questions about your friends and we’d find out that you didn’t really see them at all. How were they sitting? Who was talking to whom? How were they dressed, and what were they doing with their hands when you said hello? We are not a camera, and we imagine that we see more than we really do.

We don’t see everything. As soon as we look at one thing,
we become blind to the rest of the world around us.

(The hard part starts now, but it won’t be long.)

That common experience explains why we kill mass murderers time after time. To put it in simple terms, they don’t see us and we shoot them. Maybe they die right there, and maybe they are only wounded. Being shot at makes the attacker feel deeply vulnerable. Usually, they run away. This wasn’t the violence they had imagined and they usually take their own life.

(The gruesome part is over so you can breathe again.)

There are other perceptual and tactical factors at work, but I’m not trying to make better murderers. The fact is that mass-murderers are vulnerable.

Where ordinary citizens were allowed to be armed, we stopped attempted mass-murderers almost two-thirds of the time. That also had a drastic effect on the number of people who were injured or killed. Ordinary citizens like you saved over a thousand lives. Again, the reasons might not be obvious to everyone.

It is clear that stopping the murderer means that more innocent people aren’t getting shot. It also means we can move the people who were injured to safety and we can quickly start life-saving treatment by stopping the bleeding. EMTs get to the injured victims faster because the scene is safe. There are fewer victims to treat, so each victim gets more attention, and the victims are in better condition when EMTs first reach them.

That is what happens time after time. On average, we’ve done that about every 18 days for the last 8 years. None of that happens while we wait another 15 minutes for the police to arrive.

It turns out that the murderer wasn’t so deadly because he had some Hollywood super weapon. Mass-murderers hunt us in “gun-free” zones. The murderer was deadly because he could kill at will without someone to stop him.

Millions of us go armed every day, but we obeyed the rules and left our guns outside.
The mass-murderer didn’t.

I’m sure that some of you can see the answers already.

  • The personal solution is easy. Make sure that someone can shoot back.
  • The public solution is time tested. We’ve done it for the last decade, and we’ve never had a school attacked where they had a public program of armed school staff.
  • The legal solution is simple. Make property owners responsible when they disarm the people who obey the law. If you stop me from protecting my family, then you become responsible for their safety.
  • The media solution is easy as well. Most mass-murderers kill innocent people so the mass-media will show us their face, their name, and their manifesto. Stop giving mass-murderers a multi-million-dollar publicity campaign.
  • All that might sound simple, but the political solution is harder. We have to ignore quack cures that have failed in the past.

I told you there was good news.

 

BREAKING: California’s ‘High Capacity’ Magazine Ban Ruled Unconstitutional Under Bruen.

The opinion is here.

If you’ll remember, back in 2017, Judge Roger Benitez struck down California’s ban on standard capacity magazines the state had arbitrarily ruled to be “high capacity.” That ruling was, of course, overturned by an en banc Ninth Circuit ruling. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court where it sat until Bruen was decided.

After Bruen, the Supreme Court granted cert, vacated the ruling, and remanded it for reconsideration. Today, Judge Benitez has, as expected, struck down the ban as clearly unconstitutional.

As he wrote . . .

Removable firearm magazines of all sizes are necessary components of semiautomatic firearms. Therefore, magazines come within the text of the constitutional declaration that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Because millions of removable firearm magazines able to hold between 10 and 30 rounds are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, including self-defense, and because they are reasonably related to service in the militia, the magazines are presumptively within the protection of the Second Amendment.
There is no American history or tradition of regulating firearms based on the number of rounds they can shoot, or of regulating the amount of ammunition that can be kept and carried.
The best analogue that can be drawn from historical gun laws are the early militia equipment regulations that required all able-bodied citizens to equip themselves with a gun and a minimum amount of ammunition in excess of 10 rounds.

Oh, and this . . .

One government solution to a few mad men with guns is a law that makes into criminals responsible, law-abiding people wanting larger magazines simply to protect themselves. The history and tradition of the Second Amendment clearly supports state laws against the use or misuse of firearms with unlawful intent, but not the disarmament of the law-abiding citizen.

That kind of a solution is an infringement on the Constitutional right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The adoption of the Second Amendment was a freedom calculus decided long ago by our first citizens who cherished individual freedom with its risks more than the subservient security of a British ruler or the smothering safety of domestic lawmakers. The freedom they fought for was worth fighting for then, and that freedom is entitled to be preserved still.

It doesn’t get any clearer than that.

Benitez has issued an injunction blocking enforcement of the law, but stayed his order for 10 days to give Attorney General Rob Bonta time to cry in his beer, inform all of California’s relevant law enforcement authorities, and almost surely seek a stay of the order. Even in the Ninth Circuit, that’s less likely to happen now that Bruen is the law of the land.

As California Rifle & Pistol Association president Chuck Michel tells TTAG . . .

Today’s rulings represent continued affirmation that the Bruen decision, and Heller before that, represent a sea change in the way courts must look at these absurdly restrictive laws. Sure, the state will appeal, but the clock is ticking on laws that violate the Constitution

Judge Benitez used a thoughtful and in-depth approach to this ruling and we are pleased that he came to the conclusion, once again, that California’s magazine ban is not constitutional. CRPA was been fighting this magazine ban from day one and we are one step closer to a final victory for gun owners.

This is a very big win and will likely be the basis for many more to come, including the Golden State’s “assault weapons” ban.