Category: RKBA

California Is Attempting an Expedited End Run Around the 2A

California is trying to sneak in a ruling that will exclude almost everyone except law enforcement from teaching a concealed carry class.

The California Department of Justice sent out a notification on Monday about some proposed changes in California’s concealed carry instructor qualifications. The changes might mean more than half of the current qualified instructors could no longer teach a concealed carry class in California.

Some instructors have told me they didn’t even get the email, and the deadline to voice any concerns or disapproval is this Friday. The DOJ will make the final decision about the rule change, and they will need no vote from the state legislature to pass it. This is being rushed through and will go into effect on January 1st.

Continue reading “”

Law Enforcement Officers Are Part of “the People,” Not Above Them

Law enforcement amicus brief against Colorado magazine ban.

 

Two weeks ago, I filed an amicus brief in U.S. District Court in Colorado, in Gates v. Polis, a case challenging the Colorado legislature’s 2013 ban on magazines over 15 rounds. The brief was on behalf of Sheriffs and law enforcement training organizations: the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, the Colorado Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association, the Western States Sheriffs Association, 10 elected Colorado County Sheriffs, and the Independence Institute (where I work).

Some of the brief explains the practical mechanics of armed self-defense, and why bans on standard magazines do not impair mass shooters, but do endanger ordinary citizens, especially when attacked by multiple criminals. Another part of the brief shows that the key data created by some of the Colorado Attorney General’s expert witnesses is obviously false.

But in this post, I will focus on a more fundamental argument in the brief. The law enforcement amici reject the claim that arms universally recognized as appropriate for ordinary law enforcement officers should be banned for ordinary citizens. The claim is based on the pernicious idea that law enforcement officers are above the people, rather than part of the people. Here are some excerpts from the brief:

Continue reading “”

Hawaii Resident Challenging ‘Suitable Person’ Criterion for Carry Permits

It’s been awhile since I’ve had to say aloha to new litigation in Hawaii. In our post NYSRPA v. Bruen world, there’s been all kinds of shenanigans that jurisdictions have been playing that keeps permitting systems “may issue.” There are also pre-Bruen standards that need to be revisited, as is the case here. Any subjective standard in an application scheme is de facto “may issue” criteria, and goes against Heller and NYSRPA v. Bruen. Resident of the Aloha State, Blake Day, was denied a permit to carry for allegedly being “not of ‘good moral character’ and/or ‘suitable.’”

Drawing details from the complaint that was filed on the 6th of December, 2023, Mr. Day’s alleged lack of “good moral character” and suitability arises from what the Hawaii County Chief of Police stated was “due to ‘recent violent conduct.’” The so-called “violent conduct” is in reference to an incident where Mr. Day was forced to defend himself – with non-lethal force – while executing his duties as a contractor for a bank. The conflict resulted in no criminal charges.

In January of 2023, the job Day was tasked with was cleaning up and securing a vacant property. “Mr. Day was led to believe (by his contact at Five Brothers) that the property had been foreclosed upon by Home Street Bank, the mortgagee identified on the Work Order.” The complaint states. It was further noted that Mr. Day believed the property was vacant based on the information he received from Five Brothers.

While Mr. Day was at the property, the owner of the property, Darren Rodrigues, Jr., who had in fact previously vacated the property, was alerted by a Ring doorbell camera that someone had entered the property.

Mr. Rodrigues called the police and then drove to the home.

Mr. Rodrigues aggressively entered the driveway at a high rate of speed. Mr. Rodrigues came to an abrupt stop directly behind Mr. Day’s vehicle which had also been parked in the driveway. Mr. Rodrigues’ vehicle blocked Mr. Day’s exit and Mr. Day could not leave.

Mr. Rodrigues quickly exited his vehicle and stood by the driver’s side door of the vehicle yelling obscenities and “what are you doing at my house?”

Mr. Rodrigues appeared to have something in his right hand and Mr. Day believed it was a weapon. Mr. Day used lawful non-lethal force, i.e., a pepper spray air gun, firing it several times in self-defense.

Mr. Rodrigues threw the object that was in his right hand, which Mr. Day learned to be a Coca-Cola can shortly after it struck Mr. Day in the face.

The complaint details that the police responded and “upon completion of the investigation, neither Mr. Day nor Mr.Rodrigues were arrested or booked. No charges were ever brought.”

In May of 2023, Day filed for a permit to carry through the County of Hawaii Police Department. In June, Day received a denial letter stating that he did not meet the suitability requirements in order to be issued a permit to carry. According to the complaint, Mr. Day suffers from no statutory state or federal disabilities which would create disqualifiers for him to own or carry a firearm.

This is the same issue we’ve been dealing with which Bruen struck down – subjectivity. While many will concede that jurisdictions that have “suitability” requirements like the County of Hawaii and New Jersey, they have been issuing permits to carry – mostly without issue. However there are also a whole slew of situations where they haven’t been, and the old guard needs to surrender their grip on civil liberties. Mr. Day unfortunately is being weighed against the subjective opinion of a government employee and not measured to an objective statutory standard.

Continue reading “”

How Anti-Gunners Manipulate the Data

Yesterday, researchers from Johns Hopkins said gun-friendly states have the highest rates of gun deaths. The problem with this statement is that ten of the fifteen states with the lowest homicide rates are constitutional carry states.

In a constitutional carry state, you do not need any training or a permit to carry a firearm. The researchers claimed to have used “advanced statistical modeling” to support their claim.

The study looked at 34 states that made it easier to carry a gun between 1980 and 2019 and compared them to “predicted” crime rates using data from “may issue” states.

Professor Cassandra Crifasi said, “If you graph all of the states in the U.S. by their rate of gun death from the highest to the lowest, a very clear pattern emerges.”

Several factors make this study inaccurate, but let’s look at the one that jumped out first. If you sort the data differently, you will get a different result.

The researchers used “advanced statistical modeling,” but @AHistory pointed out on X that ten of the fifteen states with the lowest homicide rates are constitutional carry. These states have some of the least restrictive gun laws since they are constitutional carry states.

Here are fifteen of the safest states based on factual homicide data, not “predicted” crime rates.

constitutional carry safest states

The researchers used the same old talking points that don’t hold up under scrutiny. “When states made it easier for potentially untrained gun owners to carry their weapons in public, assaults with guns increased.”

Part of that can’t be backed up with reliable data because what do they consider assaults?

“While the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision is forcing some states to weaken their concealed carry permitting systems, this study shows that states can reduce the expected increase in gun assault rates by including training requirements.”

This video from @wethepewple tries to explain the confusion since the gun control groups seem to be using fussy math.

 

Gun rights group applauds after federal appeals court deals blow to NY concealed carry law
Gun Owners of America praised the Second Circuit decision but said the court should have thrown out all of the New York gun control law

Gun rights activists cheered Friday after a federal appeals court struck down parts of New York’s expansive concealed carry law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit blocked three provisions of New York’s “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (CCIA), a law Democrats passed last year in response to a Supreme Court ruling that declared the state’s previous concealed carry permitting requirements unconstitutional. In doing so, the appeals court allowed other parts of the law to go into effect.

In a 261-page ruling, the three-judge panel struck down a requirement that gun owners disclose their social media accounts for review when applying for a concealed carry permit. The court also blocked restrictions on carrying firearms on private property that is accessible to the public, as well as a restriction on concealed carry in houses of worship.

However, controversial parts of the law remain intact, including a requirement that applicants demonstrate good moral character and disclose household and family members on a permit application. New York will also be allowed to enforce bans on concealed carry in so-called “sensitive places,” including theaters, bars, public parks and other spaces.

Gun rights activists praised the court’s decision but said the judges failed to faithfully apply the Supreme Court’s precedent, arguing the entire law should be thrown out.

“Governor [Kathy] Hochul and her cabal in Albany never seem to get the message, and in turn, GOA is proud to have played a major role in rebuking her unconstitutional law,” Gun Owners of America (GOA) Senior Vice President Erich Pratt said in a statement.

“Nevertheless, this was not a total victory, and we will continue the fight until this entire law is sent to the bowels of history where it belongs,” Pratt added.

Friday’s decision is the first federal court ruling to consider potential limits on where licensed gun owners can carry concealed firearms since the Supreme Court expanded gun rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022). Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in that opinion for the court that “the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”

The consequences of the Supreme Court’s ruling have been far-reaching, upending gun regulations in several states.

The circuit court judges acknowledged their ruling won’t be the final word on New York’s gun control law as the case winds its way through lower courts.

READ THE SECOND CIRCUIT OPINION BELOW. APP USERS: CLICK HERE

Continue reading “”

It’s Not Just the Second Amendment Anti-Gunners Oppose

I’ve long argued that our gun rights were included in the Bill of Rights as an insurance policy, one meant to make absolutely certain we could fight back against tyranny if our free speech or freedom to worship as we choose were to be stripped from us.

And, to be fair, we do see more restrictions of freedom of speech and things of that sort in countries that have already eliminated people’s ability to arm themselves effectively.

Here in the US, our anti-gun crowd says they respect our right to keep and bear arms, they just want some “common sense” gun control.

That’s hard to believe when it’s clear they don’t even respect freedom of speech.

Two gun control groups on Wednesday came out in favor of moderating “hate speech” on social media in a brief filed with the Supreme Court in a pending First Amendment case, alleging that it poses “a real-world threat to our democracy.”

Giffords Law Center and Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed an amicus brief in a challenge brought by NetChoice against Texas and Florida laws intended to prevent viewpoint censorship online. The groups didn’t speak to the constitutionality of the laws but wrote to warn the justices that social media companies “have a role to play” in protecting individuals from “hate-motivated gun violence.”

“Across social media platforms, hate speech has been tolerated, fostered, and even promoted,” they wrote. “In a time of increasing political strife, online hate speech presents a real-world threat to our democracy and to the lives of every human being in America.”

The brief notes Americans report “disturbingly high levels of online harassment and hate speech targeting their race, ethnicity, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.”

The brief later argues that hate speech can “chill” free speech.

“Social media companies have resisted regulation or content moderation on the theory that such efforts would stifle the marketplace of ideas and infringe the free-speech rights of their users,” they wrote. “And yet, by fostering and promoting hate speech across their platforms, social media companies have in fact often chilled free speech and other protected First Amendment activities, both online and in the real world.”

The problem with this, of course, is that these groups routinely pretend that opposition to their gun control schemes is racist, thus making it entirely possible to argue that opposition to gun control is, in fact, a type of hate speech.

Continue reading “”

Attorney General Knudsen Leads Opposition To Biden’s Latest Attack On Gun Rights

HELENA – Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen led a coalition of 26 attorneys general in opposition to the Biden administration’s shocking and unconstitutional attack on American’s right to keep and bear arms that could criminalize law-abiding citizens for selling a single firearm for profit unless the seller obtains a federal license. 

The attorneys general submitted a formal comment letter Thursday to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regarding its proposed rulemaking, “Definition of ‘Engaged in the Business’ as a Dealer in Firearms.” The proposed rule is unconstitutional, violating the Second Amendment by making any individual who sells a firearm without a federal license liable to civil, administrative, or even criminal penalties.  

“This proposed rule is a flagrant violation of every American’s rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, ignoring the very concerns our founders had when they ratified it,” Attorney General Knudsen said. “Rather than meaningfully addressing the rise in violent crime occurring around the country, the Biden administration is once again criminalizing law-abiding citizens. I will always fight federal overreach and attempts to erode Montanans’ gun rights.” 

The rule defines “dealer” as anyone who “sells or offers for sale firearms, and also represents to potential buyers or otherwise demonstrates a willingness and ability to purchase and sell additional firearms.” It also expands the definition of earning a profit to be determined by something other than money to include personal property, a service, another medium of exchange, or valuable consideration and would not even require a firearm to be sold, just an offer would engage in a transaction. 

The Biden administration made no attempt to comply with the Second Amendment in the rule. While longstanding regulations of large commercial enterprises that sell firearms might be consistent with the Second Amendment, that is not what this rule does as it seeks to require a license of every individual who sells a firearm for anything the ATF sees as a profit.  

The Supreme Court of the United States made it clear in their recent ruling on New York State Rifle & Pistole Ass’n Inc. v. Bruen that if the Second Amendment “covers an individual’s conduct,” any burden on that conduct is presumptively unconstitutional and only showing historical tradition, which the Biden administration cannot show in this case, can overcome that presumption. 

Additionally, many courts have held the ability to buy a firearm is encompassed in the right to keep a firearm, which is guaranteed to Americans in the Second Amendment. Therefore, the ability to sell a firearm, which also necessarily implicates the right to buy one, to someone else is also a protected by the Second Amendment. 

Not only is the rule unconstitutional, but it is also arbitrary and capricious and is unlawful under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). While the ATF claims the rule builds on the Gun Control Act of 1968, it violates the GCA’s “letter and spirit” as it “renders anyone that the Department identifies to be selling a firearm for profit a firearms dealer.” And while there are a few exceptions (like sales of firearms to family members), they can still lead to absurd implications. 

“In America, it should be legal for a family member to sell a firearm to another family member without risk of prosecution. But the exception is flawed,” the letter states. “Reading the exception, one can conclude that if a family member sells another family member a firearm for as little as one dollar more than the original purchase price, that seller could be open to civil, administrative, or criminal liability. That absurdity risks hurting innocent people and chilling law-abiding behavior.” 

Rather than focusing on its job to arrest, investigate, and aid in prosecuting violent criminals using firearms to terrorize communities across the nation, the ATF is using the proposed rule to criminalize law-abiding Americans.  

“If the Bureau was serious about combatting violent crime, it would focus on enforcing the laws that are already on the books to hold violent criminals accountable for their actions. That would be the type of work that could save lives.,” the attorneys general wrote. 

Attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming joined the letter led by Attorney General Knudsen, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, and Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird. Additionally, the Arizona legislature joined the letter. 

Click here to read the letter. 

###

Maryland attorney general wants new hearing in gun licensing case

BALTIMORE (AP) — After a federal appeals court struck down Maryland’s handgun licensing law last month, the state attorney general is requesting a new hearing where more judges would consider the case, which could have significant implications for gun rights across the country.

On Nov. 21, a three-judge panel on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond issued a 2-1 ruling that found it was unconstitutionally restrictive for Maryland to require people to obtain a license before purchasing a handgun. The process of obtaining a license can take up to 30 days.

In the majority opinion, the judges said they considered the case in light of a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that “effected a sea change in Second Amendment law.”

The underlying lawsuit was filed in 2016 as a challenge to a Maryland law requiring people to obtain a special license before purchasing a handgun. The law, which was passed in 2013 in the aftermath of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, laid out a series of necessary steps for would-be gun purchasers: completing four hours of safety training that includes firing one live round, submitting fingerprints and passing a background check, being 21 and residing in Maryland.

Several state leaders, including Democratic Gov. Wes Moore, expressed opposition to the recent appeals court ruling and have pledged to fight it.

Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown filed a petition Tuesday asking the full 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to hear the case, which would mean 15 judges instead of three.

“The Second Amendment does not prohibit states from enacting common-sense gun laws like Maryland’s handgun licensing law,” Brown said in a statement. “My office will continue to defend laws that are designed to protect Marylanders from gun violence.”

Polymer80’s Injunction Stayed for Supreme Court

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has stayed Polymer80’s injunction issued against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) frames and receiver rule (ATF final rule 2021R-05F) in Polymer80 v. Garland until the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) can decide whether to grant a writ of certiorari in VanDerStok v. Garland.

Polymer80 sued the ATF in a Texas federal court over the ATF rule against what the Biden administration calls “ghost guns” and the ATF refers to as privately manufactured firearms (PMF). The company is the country’s biggest seller of unserialized 80% frames and accounts for the vast majority of the market. After the injunction was issued, it returned to selling complete kits, including the frame, jigs, and drill bits.

The Fifth Circuit’s stay on the injunction was expected after SCOTUS stepped in and stayed injunctions for other companies, such as 80 Percent Arms and Defense Distributed in VanDerStok v. Garland. The stay allowed the ATF to enact the frames rule. The stay will last until a writ of cert is denied, or SCOTUS issues a judgment.

“IT IS ORDERED that Appellants’ opposed motion to stay the injunction pending appeal is GRANTED. In accordance with the stay granted by the Supreme Court in Garland v. VanDerStok, if a petition for a writ of certiorari is not timely sought in VanDerStok, this stay shall terminate automatically as of the date on which the petition was due; and if a petition for a writ of certiorari is timely sought in VanDerStok, this stay shall remain in effect until either (a) the date on which the Supreme Court denies certiorari, at which time the Supreme Court’s stay will terminate automatically, or (b) if the Supreme Court grants certiorari, the date on which the Supreme Court issues its judgment,” the order reads.

In the VanDerStok case, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the progressive members of the Supreme Court in issuing the stay until the government files a writ of certiorari with the court. The other Republican-appointed judges would have let the injunction stand until the final decision.

Continue reading “”

#2A INFRINGEMENT AND ANCILLARY RIGHTS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

You don’t say

Explosion of concealed handguns means someone nearby is carrying

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

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

WHY GOOGLE IS KILLING OFF MILLIONS OF ACCOUNTS STARTING THIS WEEK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

The Trace Accidentally Shows How Little Brady Bill Did

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

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

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

Let’s take a look at a few.

2,266,746

The number of federal background checks that resulted in a denial

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

3 in 20 (or 1.5 percent)

The proportion of firearm background checks that result in a denial

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

1 in 2 (or 51 percent)

The proportion of denials that are the result of felony convictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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