Category: RKBA

Laws Requiring Permission to Obtain Guns Look Vulnerable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answer is that there is no difference.

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

Exactly.

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

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

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

But we shouldn’t rest exclusively on those.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

PRESIDENT BIDEN’S REELECTION CAMPAIGN TARGETS GUN CONTROL

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

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

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

‘Finish the Job’

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

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

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

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

Weaponizing ATF

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

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

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

Scaring Voters

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

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

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

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

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

Incremental Strategy to Reform & Repeal the National Firearms Act

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

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

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

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

Educate Gun Culture & The General Public

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redefining Adulthood to Deny Second Amendment Rights

Continue reading “”

Illinois Gun Owners Not Rushing to Register Their Guns Under New Law

Illinois passed a draconian gun control measure last year that, after surviving various legal challenges, has become law.

One of the law’s requirements is that owners of certain kinds of rifles must register them with the state police or risk being arrested. The deadline for registering the guns is January 1, 2024 and let’s just say there’s not a rush to register the firearms.

As of November 21, just 3,439 owners had registered nearly 6,600 guns they owned before those firearms became illegal to possess or sell in Illinois. How many firearms are affected in the state? We know that the registered weapons through November 21 represent less than 0.1% of the 2.4 million firearms in the state.

“We’ll just see how the process continues to work and we’ll share the data as we continue on a daily basis to do so,” Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly said during an unrelated event in Springfield.

“I can tell you, at least for me, that I think all of us take our time sometimes when we know the deadline is 2 ½ months (away), that we’ll find the time eventually to go online, which is what they need to do and to register as they’re required to do,” Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker said. That’s true, except there aren’t 2 ½ months before the deadline for registration. There are a little more than five weeks until the deadline.

Chicago Tribune:

People who owned those guns before Jan. 10 but don’t register them with the Illinois State Police by Jan. 1, can be charged with a misdemeanor for a first offense and felonies for subsequent violations.

But earlier this year, some law enforcement officials declared they had no intention of going after those who violate the law. After Pritzker signed the gun ban into law, an estimated 90 of Illinois’ 102 county sheriffs issued letters stating they “believe that (the new gun law) is a clear violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” and that they wouldn’t enforce it.

That’s an amazing stand by the sheriffs, many of whom sent an identical letter to state politicians which states “as the custodian of the jail and chief law enforcement officer” of their county, they will not “be arresting or housing law-abiding individuals that have been arrested solely with noncompliance” with the state’s new ban on some military-style weapons and magazines.”

Many of these sheriffs stood their ground against the unconstitutional COVID restrictions as well. Whether the legal theory they are basing their decision on will stand a Supreme Court remains to be seen.

No one needs an AR-15 for protection

Dear Editor: At the front and center of the debate on firearm possession and use is the AR-15 style weapon, where a line of demarcation has been drawn.

One side wants to own and use those guns publicly. The other side wants them banned publicly and for protection purposes. The AR-15 style weapon is essentially a weapon for war. There is no war in our country. No one needs to have those guns for protection.

I ask myself why proponents for owning a weapon of war deride a ban of those weapons. Is there an invisible war? And I seriously doubt they really believe a second ban of the AR-15 style would just be the beginning of a new assault on the Second Amendment. Nor that 77,000 newly hired IRS agents will be coming to take their guns.

This leaves me to think they just do not want anyone telling them what guns they can have, how they use them or the qualifications for possession.

Public safety and gun laws play second fiddle to unfettered want of individual liberty. I don’t know about you, but it sure seems to me the anarchy movement is alive and well in our country.

Bill Walters
Fitchburg

A Reversal in Rahimi Will Be Tougher to Write Than Critics Admit
Courts are “not insensitive to domestic violence” but are “sensitive to the constitutional rights of the accused.

The conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court will certainly reverse the Fifth Circuit in Rahimi. Indeed I’ve voiced that position myself several times, especially in light of a potential grant in Range. (The New York Times picked up Justice Barrett’s question). But let me challenge that conventional wisdom: an opinion reversing Rahimi will be tougher to write than most critics will admit.

Let’s start with a premise: Rahimi was a faithful application of Bruen. Efforts to “clarify” Bruen are really an attempt to rewrite the precedent. I don’t think anyone seriously doubts this premise. Now the reason why the Court may “clarify” Bruen is because certain members of the Court don’t like the results that it yields: namely, that a dangerous person like Rahimi can possess a firearm. Again, the correctness of the Bruen precedent should be able to stand without regard to how it may be applied in future cases. But that’s where we are. Some members of the Court who profess to be originalists are still motivated by consequentialism. And these concerns came out loud and clear during oral argument.

Still, there is a long time between November and June. A majority opinion has to be written. And that opinion will have to navigate an issue that didn’t get much attention during oral argument: what other constitutional rights should dangerous people lose? Certainly this case can’t just be about guns.

One of my first published articles, The Constitutionality of Social Cost, was published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy in 2011. I had started thinking about the topic in 2009, before McDonald v. Chicago was decided. The basic premise of my article was that there are many dangerous rights, and the Second Amendment was not an outlier. Here is a snippet from the introduction:

Although the Second Amendment has been singled out from its brethren in the Bill of Rights as the most dangerous right, it is not the only dangerous right. The Supreme Court has developed over a century of jurisprudence to deal with forms of liberty that yield negative externalities.

The right to speak freely is balanced with the possible harm that can result from people preaching hate, violence, intolerance, and even fomenting revolution. The freedom of the press permits the media to report on matters that may harm national security. The freedom of association allows people to congregate to advocate for certain types of violence.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures enables the possession of the fruits and instrumentalities of crime with impunity. Inculpatory evidence seized in violation of this right is generally inadmissible during trial, permitting crimes to go unpunished.

Likewise, a violation of a person’s Miranda rights renders certain confessions—even an uncoerced inculpatory confession—inadmissible. Procedural rights during the criminal trial—including the right to grand jury indictment, the right against self‐incrimination, the right against double jeopardy, the right of compulsory process, the right of confrontation, the right of a speedy and public trial, and the right of trial by jury—all make the prosecution of culpable defendants significantly harder.

The Due Process Clause, which imposes limitations on all government actions, places the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the prosecution. The right to non‐excessive bail and reasonable fines make it easier for suspects to avoid prison during prosecutions and may allow them to abscond before trial.

The right against cruel and unusual punishments removes certain forms of retribution from the quiver of the state, thereby limiting the range of punishments for those found guilty of a crime. The right of habeas corpus ensures that a person—however dangerous—cannot be detained indefinitely without proper procedures.

Liberty’s harm to society takes many forms—not just from the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. These precedents show how the Court balances freedom and the harm that may result from its exercise. Although a “primary concern of every government [is] a concern for the safety and indeed the lives of its citizens,” this concern is not constitutionally sacrosanct.

Not much has changed since I wrote these words more than a decade ago. The Supreme Court, often with lopsided majorities, protects the constitutional rights of very dangerous people. Yet when it comes to the Second Amendment, it’s as if all of these precedents vanish.

Continue reading “”

Salon Says ‘Guns Are Winning.’ Why That’s a Good Thing

Guns have been part of the American way of life since before this nation was this nation. The American people have had guns for hunting and self-defense as well as defending this land from foreign aggression all that time.

But some people are less than thrilled about this fact.

Today, marks the 60th anniversary of the assassination of JFK. In the wake of that murder, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed, in part to prevent someone like Lee Harvey Oswald from being able to get a gun in the manner in which he obtained it.

Yet over at Salon, they have a piece titled, “60 years after the assassination of JFK: The guns are winning.”

Since JFK’s murder, more Americans have died from civilian gunfire than the well over one million American soldiers killed in all of our wars, according to a flyer circulated by the Virginia Center for Public Safety back in January of 2016. A PolitiFact review of the claim noted that the federal Centers of Disease Control and Prevention analysis “of yearly gunfire deaths in the U.S. from 1968 to 2014” all added up to 1.5 million gun-related deaths, greater than the 1.4 million lost to armed conflict since the creation of the nation.

Between 2015 and 2020, the United States had an additional 237,000 gun deaths. In 2021, the United States set a record with 48,830 gun-related deaths, with 54 percent flagged as suicides and 43 percent as murders. Overall, that reflected a 23 percent spike since 2019, according to the Pew Research Center.

It is sixty years after JFK’s murder and the guns are winning with the nation’s children and their families that are increasingly losing.

Maybe it’s just me, but if you’re going to look at total numbers since JFK’s assassination, particularly with regard to guns, then maybe we should look at trends from that time and not cherry pick things to look as scary as possible.

JFK was killed in 1963. The Gun Control Act followed five years later. Not an immediate reaction, to say the least, but looking at the provisions in that law makes it clear it was, in part, a response to the assassination.

And what happened immediately after JFK was killed and continued after the GCA was passed? The homicide rate increased.

That’s from the New York Times. What it shows is an increase in the homicide rate that spiked up in the aftermath of the Gun Control Act and continued to be sky high until the early 1990s and didn’t really get down to the early 1960s homicide rate until around 2010 or so.

During that time, we didn’t see a whole lot of gun control being passed. The Brady Bill was passed in 1993 and we had the now-sunset Assault Weapon Ban in 1994, but violent crime was already starting its downward trend, nearly 30 years after JFK’s assassination.

While the last few years have seen a spike in violent crime, that too is trending downward.

So what happened? Well, during that time period, we also saw the rise of concealed carry. States began empowering people to carry guns for their own protection and people started taking advantage of it. That likely contributed

The Assault Weapon Ban spurred a lot of people to buy AR-15s and similar weapons, creating a demand that still hasn’t been satiated. As these are good weapon for self-defense inside the home, this probably also contributed.

See, the issue with the Salon piece is that it’s blaming recent laws and recent actions from the last 30 years for violent crime that took place in the 30 years immediately after JFK’s death.

As guns have become more popular and people are carrying them more often, the homicide rate has trended downward. Even the spike of 2020 was nothing compared to the murder rates of the 1970s and ’80s.

So, in a way, the premise is right, even if not for the reason the author wants us to think. The guns really are winning. They’re making us safer.

The media might not make it seem that way, especially when you can see all the violence with a few keystrokes, but we’re much better off than we were shortly after JFK’s assassination, and I’m tired of pretending we’re not.

West Michigan town forms militia to protest red flag gun laws

Holton Township in Muskegon County last week voted to declare itself a “Second Amendment sanctuary,” and went one step further than the 50-plus Michigan communities and counties that have passed similar resolutions.

The township of about 2,500 residents also passed a resolution to create a militia and refuse to enforce any gun restriction law passed before 2021.

The resolution was passed days before Gov. Gretchen Whitmer on Monday signed legislation that prevents those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from owning firearms for eight years.

Holton Supervisor Alan Jager told Bridge Michigan the overwhelming majority of township residents support the move because they fear their rights are slipping away, especially after Michigan adopted a “red flag law” that allows judges to seize weapons of those deemed a danger to themselves or others.

“You just can’t come in and take our weapons away without giving us a fighting chance to stand up for ourselves because we may not be guilty of anything,” Jager said.

“We would just like to see local people stand up and say, ‘You just can’t do this and pass these laws’ because it may be good for the city but not good for rural communities.”

The township tried and failed to pass a similar resolution last year. The new resolution — which was approved unanimously — also creates a militia open to anyone 18, and older who primarily lives in Holton Township.

“ Holton Township will not acknowledge any new laws that are associated with red flag laws, or any other infringement of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Holton Township will not acknowledge any new regulation that prohibits open carry or concealed carry,” the resolution reads.

Michigan in May became the 21st state to adopt a red flag law, but the measure doesn’t take effect until Feb. 13. The law would allow relatives, current and ex-spouses, dating partners, police and mental health professionals to petition courts for an extreme risk protection order to take away guns from those with mental health issues.

A judge would have up to 24 hours to rule on the petition. If granted, police would notify the gun owner, who then has up to 24 hours to turn over their weapons before they are confiscated.

In Michigan, at least 53 of 82 mostly rural counties have passed resolutions declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries. While some law enforcement have questioned how the red flag law would be enforced, the sanctuary resolutions are nonbinding, since county and township officials can’t direct sheriffs or police to flout the law.

“This is all political grandstanding for the far-right gun extremists,” said Ryan Bates, executive director of End Gun Violence Michigan, an organization dedicated to passing gun violence prevention laws.

“We’ve seen this in other states, where gun-sense majorities have passed laws like safe storage, like extreme risk protection orders, like protection for domestic violences survivors.”

In Illinois,68 of 102 counties are Second Amendment Sanctuaries, while over a dozen counties in Indiana have also passed similar resolutions.

“At the end of the day, most law enforcement officials understand that laws aren’t suggestions or guidelines, they are laws,” Bates said.

Harvard Poll: 6 in 10 Voters Say Owning a Gun is a Necessary Part of Self-Defense Against Crime

A Harvard/Harris poll conducted November 15-16, 2023, shows six in ten voters believe owning a gun is a necessary part of protecting themselves from criminals.

Poll researchers asked: “Do you think crime and safety in your community is getting better, worse, or staying about the same?”

Forty-two percent of voters said “worse,” versus 21 percent who said better. (Forty-nine percent of independents were among those who said crime is worsening.)

Researchers asked, “Do you think you need to have a gun today in case you are attacked by criminals, or do you think owning a gun is unnecessary?”

A majority of voters across the board–whether Democrat, Republican, or independent–answered in the affirmative.

Broken down by party affiliation, 54 percent of Democrats said owning a gun is necessary, 77 percent of Republicans, and 56 percent of independents.

Moreover, a majority of American voters believe “woke politicians” are a driving force behind crime in the United States.

Fifty-five percent of voters concurred that “Woke politicians are to blame for rising crime,” while 45 percent disagreed. An even larger majority of voters–67 percent–support “removing DA’s who are soft on crime.”

Nebraska has state preemption of gun control laws. This is simply virtue signaling and will result in a waste of taxpayers money

Omaha Mayor Signs Ban on ‘Bump Stocks,’ Gun Kits

Omaha, Nebraska, Mayor Jean Stothert signed two gun-control measures this month, one that bans “bump stocks” and the other that bans gun-building kits.

Nebraska’s elections are nonpartisan, but Stothert identified as Republican “in her filing for the 2017 election,” Ballotpedia reported.

The Nebraska Examiner noted that Stothert signed the ban on “bump stocks” Thursday, and she signed the ban on gun-building kits November 9.

The gun controls signed by Stothert appear to be leading to legal challenges against Omaha. Those readying the legal challenges point to legislation Gov. Jim Pillen (R) signed earlier this year removing the “local charter authority” Omaha had used to pass stricter controls than exist at the state level.

In the spring of 2023, Stothert issued an executive order prohibiting concealed carry in “every building owned or leased by the city,” according to WOWT. She did this in response to Nebraska’s shift to constitutional carry.

Huge: Fourth Circuit Declares Maryland’s ‘Handgun Qualification License’ Unconstitutional

A decade ago, Maryland lawmakers imposed a new burden on residents hoping to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear a handgun by creating a “Handgun Qualification License.” Before any would-be gun owner can take possession of a pistol, they must first jump through several state-mandated hoops, from submitting fingerprints as part of a background check investigation to taking a four-hour-long “firearms safety training course” that includes the firing of at least one live round of ammunition. After waiting 30 days or more for approval, the would-be gun owner then has to go through another background check and an arbitrary seven-day waiting period before they can take possession of their pistol, though they must run another bureaucratic gauntlet before they’re actually allowed to carry the sidearm in self-defense.

On Monday a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded what Second Amendment activists have been arguing for years; the Handgun Qualification License is an unconstitutional barrier to exercising a fundamental right. In a 2-1 decision, the majority declared that the “plaintiffs challenge must succeed”; reversing a district court opinion and delivering an important victory to the Firearms Policy Coalition, Maryland Shall Issue, the Independence Institute, Atlantic Guns, and several individual residents who’d sued over the permit requirement.

The challenged law restricts the ability of law-abiding adult citizens to possess handguns, and the state has not presented a historical analogue that justifies its restriction; indeed, it has seemingly admitted that it couldn’t find one.

Under the Supreme Court’s new burden-shifting test for these claims, Maryland’s law thus fails, and we must enjoin its enforcement. So we reverse the district court’s contrary decision.

Applying the Supreme Court’s “history, text, and tradition” test to the Maryland statute, the Fourth Circuit panel determined that there are no historical analogues to the modern-day gun control law. Importantly, the panel ruled that while the HQL doesn’t directly deal with either keeping or bearing arms, but rather their acquisition, the gun control law still directly implicates and imposes on the Second Amendment rights of residents.

The answer is not complicated. If you do not already own a handgun, then the only way to “keep” or “bear” one is to get one, either through sale, rental, or gift. And the challenged law cuts off all three avenues—at least, for those who do not comply with its terms.

That brings us to the next wrinkle: The challenged law does not permanently prohibit Plaintiffs from acquiring or carrying handguns. Instead, it imposes certain requirements that they must meet before they can obtain a handgun. And those requirements rely on “objective” criteria, which Plaintiffs admit that they can satisfy. Once they do so, the law commands that the state “shall issue” them handgun-qualification licenses.

But even though Maryland’s law does not prohibit Plaintiffs from owning handguns at some time in the future, it still prohibits them from owning handguns now. In order to get a handgun, Plaintiffs still have to follow all of the law’s steps. And, although they will be able to complete each one, it is impossible to do so right away.

Plaintiffs can’t receive a license to legally acquire a handgun until the state reviews their applications, which can take up to thirty days. So, no matter what Plaintiffs do, there will be a period of up to thirty days where their ability to get a handgun is completely out of their control.

In other words, though it does not permanently bar Plaintiffs from owning handguns, the challenged law deprives them of that ability until their application is approved, no matter what they do.

As the panel reasoned, there’s nothing in the language of the text of the Second Amendment or the Bruen decision that suggests the amendment protects “only against laws that permanently deprive people of the ability to keep and bear arms.” A right delayed is a right denied, and the “temporary deprivation that Plaintiffs allege is a facially plausible Second Amendment violation.”

Continue reading “”

Anti Constitutional Carry Study Assumes Gun Laws Stop Criminals

A John Hopkins study critical of constitutional carry rests on the assumption that gun laws and/or regulations deter criminals from being armed in the commission of crimes.

The study was conducted by researchers at the John Hopkins/Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for Gun Violence Solutions.

Researchers began the presentation of their study by pointing to various means of concealed carry permit issuance, specifically “may issue” and “shall issue,” noting that a “may issue” scenario allows a local sheriff or other issuing authority the discretion to deny a concealed carry permit even if the applicant has no criminal record. On the other hand, in a “shall issue” state, the issuing authority must approve a concealed carry application if the applicant has no criminal or mental health history preventing issuance.

The researchers note certain requirements/regulations tied to “shall issue” that they view in a positive light:

Some states require applicants to undergo live firearm training, requiring a certain number of hours at a firing range and/or proficiency (e.g., applicants must hit a designated target with 70% of their shots). These provisions ensure all CCW permit holders have demonstrated that they can safely discharge a gun prior to carrying a loaded handgun in public. Other shall issue states prohibit those with violent misdemeanor convictions from obtaining a CCW permit.

The researchers then make the leap and, in the second paragraph of the study, reveal their belief that gun laws and/or regulations deter criminals from being armed: “In the absence of a state law prohibiting the purchase or possession of guns by violent misdemeanants, these provisions serve as the only legal means from keeping previously dangerous individuals from carrying a loaded handgun in public spaces.”

There are immediate problems with the researchers’ assumption. One such problem is that the state with the most stringent gun control–California–is also the state that had the most “active shooter incidents” in 2021. Moreover, it is the state in which over 17 percent of annual firearm deaths in the United States occur.

Additionally, CNN noted that California had four mass shootings during one week in January 2023.

The gun violence in California appears to counter John Hopkins researchers’ assumption that gun laws deter criminals from using guns.