Category: RKBA

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.

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.