Category: RKBA

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

Academic says quiet part out loud on gun control

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

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

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

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

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

(Emphasis added)

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

Reduce the supply of firearms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reducing the legality of firearms

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

Again, that whole gun confiscation thing.

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, they’re coming for our guns.

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

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

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

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

VERDICT: False.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sharpton’s claim is false.

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

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

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

C. The Invention of the 2.2 Shot Average

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third, the selected timeframes look arbitrary.

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

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

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

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

Well, he’s bizarre, so……

Biden’s comments on gun violence truly bizarre

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, buddy. That happened.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet even if there were, so what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support
About
Terms
Privacy

More of that quality New York gun control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can There be Good News About Public Violence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I told you there was good news.

 

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

The opinion is here.

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

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

As he wrote . . .

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

Oh, and this . . .

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

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

It doesn’t get any clearer than that.

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

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

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

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

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

FPC Files Amended Complaint in Lawsuit Challenging Massachusetts Handgun Roster

BOSTON, MA (September 21, 2023) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an amended complaint in its Granata v. Campbell lawsuit, which challenges Massachusetts’ ban on constitutionally protected, modern handguns commonly possessed and used for lawful purposes throughout the United States. The filing comes after the First Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to be reheard in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen. The complaint can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

In addition to state laws requiring that gun owners obtain a Firearms Identification Card or License to Carry Firearms, Massachusetts also prohibits the commercial sale of handguns that are not on its “Approved Handgun Roster” nor prohibited by Attorney General Maura Healey’s “Handgun Sales Regulations.” As a result, Massachusetts residents are prevented from purchasing a large number of popular makes and models of constitutionally protected handguns.

“The analysis is straightforward: (a) Plaintiffs are not prohibited from exercising their right to keep and bear arms; (b) because Plaintiffs’ proposed conduct is covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, the government must justify the Handgun Ban as being consistent with this Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation; and (c), as Heller and Bruen establish, there is no historical basis for banning arms in common use for lawful purposes,” argues the complaint. “Therefore, the Handgun Ban must be declared unconstitutional and enjoined.”

“Massachusetts’ law preventing residents from acquiring some of the most commonly possessed arms in the Nation is blatantly unconstitutional,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC Action Foundation’s General Counsel and Vice President of Legal, and FPC’s counsel. “Massachusetts residents have the constitutionally protected right to acquire and possess these arms, and we’re looking forward to proving as much in court.”

Harney County judge calls police, sheriffs’ testimony on number of rounds they carry ‘highly relevant’ for Measure 114 trial

Although police are exempt from Measure 114′s gun control restrictions, Harney County Circuit Judge Robert S. Raschio ruled Wednesday that testimony from law enforcement about the number of rounds they use for self defense is relevant for his judgment on whether Oregon’s gun control Measure 114 violates the state constitution.

Raschio said he was partly swayed by a “friend of the court” brief that the National Police Association had filed with the Oregon Supreme Court in late January in support of the Harney County gun owners’ challenge to the Oregon gun control measure.

The judge read a passage from the association’s 50-page brief, to explain his ruling:

“It reads, ‘Because police officers are defending themselves against the same criminals as citizens, their experience is highly relevant to the appropriate scope of self- defense. Over the years, police departments across the nation have abandoned service revolvers in favor of modern semi-automatic weapons with larger magazines. This is true even though police are often working together as a group, with even less need for higher capacity magazines than individual citizens attempting to defend themselves.’”

Raschio said that he agrees that what police use for self defense is “highly relevant,” and will allow the testimony from Oregon State Police Supt. Casey Codding and two sheriffs from Union and Harney counties, who took the witness stand a day earlier, to be considered.

The issue before Raschio is whether the measure’s regulations are lawful under Article 1, Sec. 27 of the Oregon Constitution, which establishes a right to bear arms.

Continue reading “”

An Assault on Bill of Rights

The people of New Mexico — and, we fear, the people of the United States — owe Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina a real debt of gratitude.

Medina has stated unequivocally that his department will not enforce an unconstitutional “emergency order” by Michelle Lujan Grisham, the governor of New Mexico, to suspend the right of her constituents to lawfully carry firearms.

The governor’s order is in response to a spate of shootings in New Mexico’s largest city.

“A child is murdered, the perpetrator is still on the loose, and what does the governor do? She … targets law-abiding citizens with an unconstitutional gun order,” state Sen. Greg Baca, the ranking Republican in New Mexico’s state Senate, told the Associated Press.

“I don’t know what her thought process was that she suddenly thought she could trample the Second Amendment,” state Rep. Stefani Lord told KOAT Channel 7 of Albuquerque at a protest against the governor’s order.

The move by Grisham is excessive. It violates the Bill of Rights and it is exactly the sort of escalation that Americans who defend the Second Amendment fear and warn their friends, neighbors and family about when other measures to curtail gun owners’ rights are debated.

Even proponents of gun control, including activist David Hogg and U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., recognizes that Grisham’s order tramples Constitutional rights.

“I support gun safety laws,” Lieu said on social media, according to a Fox News report. “However, this order from the Governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution. No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution.”

We appreciate the congressman speaking out against this violation of the Second Amendment just as we appreciate the police chief’s recognition that his department has no authority to join the governor in violating the Constitution. We hope the rebukes and reprimands are swift and severe enough that this infringement does not spread from the Land of Enchantment to our other 49 states.

Plaintiffs rest in state trial challenging Oregon’s new gun laws

Lawyers for two Harney County residents who are suing the state to block Oregon’s new gun laws wrapped up their arguments Wednesday. They presented two and a half days of expert testimony from firearms experts, law enforcement officers and other people who regularly use firearms in the course of their day-to-day lives.

Measure 114 requires a permit to purchase a firearm and a completed background check and bans magazines holding over 10 rounds of ammunition. It also bans magazines “that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.” The provisions were blocked in December by Harney County Circuit Court Judge Robert Raschio pending this week’s trial.

On the opening day of the trial, the plaintiffs called Derek LeBlanc, a firearms instructor, and Ashley Hlebinsky, a former curator at the Cody Firearms Museum in Wyoming.

LeBlanc testified that, for self-defense, he recommends people get a firearm capable of holding as many rounds as possible. Questioned by Oregon Department of Justice attorneys defending Measure 114, LeBlanc conceded that he doesn’t carry the largest magazines possible, such as 60 or 100 round magazines.

Hlebinsky testified that there have been points in history when people carried more advanced firearms than the military. The Oregon Court of Appeals has in the past said firearms that evolved from military ordnance are not protected under the state constitution.

Hlebinsky also testified that there were many early firearms capable of firing multiple rounds without needing to be reloaded, and several makes and models that held over 10 rounds or used magazine-style feeding devices. During cross-examination, Hlebinsky said many of the earlier rifles she mentioned in her testimony were only available in Europe or, if they were in the United States, they were only in very limited numbers.

Hlebinsky’s husband works in the firearms industry and owns over $1 million in stock in an ammunition company. Her ties to the firearms industry and lack of formal training as a historian led a federal judge to question her credibility in a federal trial testing Measure 114′s legality under the U.S. Constitution.

“Ms. Hlebinsky lacks background and training as a historian,” U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut wrote in her July ruling, which found Measure 114 federally constitutional. “More troubling to this Court, Ms. Hlebinsky has both professional and personal ties to pro-gun groups and the firearms industry, which this Court finds limit her ability to serve as a neutral expert in this case.”

Scott Springer, who manufactures firearms parts and accessories, went over several different handgun, rifle, and shotgun magazines, and showed how the most common 10-round magazines can be altered to accept more than 10 rounds. The modifications require a drill, belt sander or additional parts.

Oregon State Police Superintendent Casey Codding, Union County Sheriff Cody Bowen and Harney County Sheriff Dan Jenkins all testified that their troopers and deputies carry firearms with 17-round magazines plus one round in the chamber. They also carry an additional two extra magazines for a total of 52 rounds. Codding said many of his troopers in rural areas take their firearms home with them because they start and end their days at home.

Bowen and Jenkins said their jurisdictions cover large geographic areas where response times can be lengthy. Bowen said citizens have asked him what they are supposed to do while waiting for a potentially 30-minute response “while somebody is beating on the door saying they’re going to kill me.”

“My answer to them, you know, defend yourself,” Bowen testified. “As far as human life, you have every right to defend yourself. You do whatever it takes to stay alive and wait for us to get there.”

Both sheriffs said their deputies have often relied on armed civilians to provide cover for them during incidents. They also testified that residents and deputies use their firearms to protect themselves, their families and their livestock from predators including bears, wolves and coyotes.

Bowen said he recently had a run-in with a bear, although he said the bear “didn’t get his filthy paws on me, but it was way too close for my comfort.”

Lawyers defending Measure 114 objected to much of Codding’s, Bowen’s and Jenkins’ testimony because the law has carve-outs for law enforcement to own and carry high-capacity magazines. Special Assistant Attorney General Harry Wilson said that, unlike citizens, law enforcement has the authority and duty to protect the public.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that police do not have a constitutional duty to protect the public from harm.

Lawyers challenging the new law said law enforcement’s assessment of what is necessary for self-defense is relevant. Raschio agreed and allowed the testimony.

Cattle rancher Shane Otley testified that he carries a Glock 380 and an AR-15. In the Glock, he said he carries a five-round magazine, and in the AR-15, he said he uses between 10 and 30-round magazines. He said he carries the Glock for personal defense and the AR-15 for protecting his livestock.

Harney County gun store owner Ben Callaway testified about the various kinds of magazines and firearms he frequently orders and sells. He testified that several attempts to order 10-round magazines had been rejected by out-of-state companies citing Measure 114′s prohibition against magazines that can be modified to hold more than 10 rounds.

Republicans push ahead with attempt to impeach governor over Albuquerque gun ban

A pair of Republican lawmakers are pushing ahead with an effort to impeach Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham over a gun ban that has been called unconstitutional and thrust New Mexico into the national debate on gun violence.

The effort, however, faces an uphill battle in the state Legislature, where Democrats control both chambers.

Reps. John Block of Alamogordo and Stefani Lord of Sandia Park this week launched a certificate form for lawmakers to sign calling for an extraordinary session to impeach Lujan Grisham over an executive order prohibiting carrying open or concealed firearms in public in Albuquerque and across Bernalillo County.

The governor ordered the 30-day gun ban, part of an effort to stem gun violence in New Mexico’s most populous city, after the shooting death of an 11-year-old boy — another casualty in a city beset by crime. The ban also triggered widespread criticism of the governor, who said no constitutional right, in her view, is intended to be absolute.

“The U.S. Constitution is absolute and designed to protect the rights of the people against tyrannical decisions like Governor Lujan [Grisham] attempted to do,” Lord, a staunch gun rights advocate, said in a statement.

013123XGR_LS_2.JPG
Rep. John Block, R-Alamogordo, at the Capitol in January during the legislative session.

Continue reading “”

Opponents of Measure 114 gun laws say case is about “individual rights” in trial opening

In opening statements Monday, lawyers for two people suing over Oregon’s new gun laws said Ballot Measure 114′s provisions are the “most significant threat to [the right to bear arms] Oregonians have faced in nearly 165 years.”

“This case is not about public health, public safety or public concern,” plaintiffs’ attorney Tony Aiello told Judge Robert Rascio. “This is about individual rights. This is about the individual right to self defense and the right to bear arms to secure that right.”

Aiello said plaintiffs in the state trial plan to show that Measure 114, approved by voters last year, effectively limits Oregonians to owning only antique firearms. He said Measure 114 regulates firearms that were plentiful prior to 1859, the year Article I, Section 27 of the Oregon constitution — the section protecting the right to bear arms — was ratified.

The new laws would ban high capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, require a completed background check to buy or transfer a firearm and require a person to take training and receive a permit to purchase a firearm. Raschio, an Oregon Circuit Court judge based in Harney County, blocked the new laws from taking effect in December pending this week’s trial.

In their opening statement, lawyers defending the new rules for the Oregon Department of Justice said the court must determine if large capacity magazines are considered “arms” under the state constitution, and thus protected, a question they said had already been resolved by the Oregon State Court of Appeals.

Continue reading “”

More evidence that the law only applies to law-abiding

Over and over again, we’re told we need more gun laws because of the actions of people who are anything but law-abiding.

We shouldn’t have so-called assault weapons because some people have misused them. Never mind that these same people would have used whatever they could get their hands on to kill just as many people. No, those who actually obey the law should be punished for the actions of evil people.

But the truth is that people who don’t care about obeying the rules will simply break whatever rules they want.

Take this example out of Rochester, NY.

Rochester Police say they found six loaded guns inside a building on North Clinton Avenue early Saturday morning. Officers say there was gunfire inside that building while it was operating an unlicensed bar.

RPD first responded to the property on North Clinton Avenue near Rauber Street around 11:30 p.m. on Friday after getting complaints about an after-hours party. Officers say they heard loud music and saw multiple illegally parked cars.…

Three hours later, RPD returned to the building after getting reports of shot fired. Officers saw people running and found multiple guns, along with a large quantity of narcotics, inside the building. No one was hit by the gunfire.

Among the firearms was an AR-style pistol and several other handguns.

Now, let’s look at this case for a moment. We’ve got everything from parking violations and loud music to an unlicensed bar to illegal guns and drugs.

I mean, if I didn’t know any better, I’d swear these weren’t law-abiding citizens here.

See, one of the problems with gun control is that it only impacts the law-abiding. It only controls those who are willing to accept that control.

Criminals, however, don’t.

For one thing, they don’t think they’ll get caught. The police showed up at this illegal bar earlier in the evening and were told that this was just a birthday party. When they left, the guy figured he was golden and probably felt pretty cocky.

He’d been breaking the law under the cops’ noses and got away with it.

I won’t say that people who break one or two laws will break any law. No, most people have a line somewhere that they won’t cross. It would be silly to say that someone who speeds will commit murder, after all.

But those who are willing to take a life aren’t necessarily going to quibble about speeding.

When it comes to gun control, those who are law-abiding are the only ones who will follow gun control laws, just like it’s the law-abiding who don’t run illegal bars out of their homes or tend to partake in illegal drugs as a general rule.

The biggest problem, though, is getting some other parties to understand it. They continue to push the idea that somehow you can control criminal behavior with just a few more laws despite ample evidence to the contrary.

The truth is that many simply choose to believe the laws will work because it makes them feel better about the laws they’re pushing for.

Can There be Good News About Public Violence?

Some of us are afraid of bad news. Most of us know someone who is afraid of going to the doctor because they don’t want to make hard decisions about their health. The great news is that most medical conditions can be treated. That emotional reaction is also common when we consider public violence. It is particularly accurate about how we feel about mass-murder.

Many of us feel both compelled to watch the news about public violence, while at the same time we want to turn away and pretend it doesn’t happen. Let me bring you good news. We learned how to stop mass-murder in several ways. We’ve done it, so we are talking about actual practice rather than mere theory. The first thing we have to do is get past the fantasy of Hollywood violence and talk about what really happens.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I told you there was good news.

Michelle Lujan Grisham tries to revive Democrats’ “Massive Resistance” to civil rights

Just off the main drag in Farmville, Virginia there’s an unassuming brick building next to a brightly painted tarpaper structure. The unobtrusive sign out front identifies the building at the Robert Russa Moton Museum; a largely unknown place that was the site of one of the most significant events in the civil rights movement. The museum was once R.R. Moton High School, the black public high school in Prince Edward County. In 1951, then 15-year-old Barbara Johns led her fellow students on a walkout in protest of the deplorable conditions of the building and the education they received.

After years of frustration with Prince Edward County school which she describes (later in a memoir) as having inadequacies such as poor facilities, shabby equipment and no science laboratories or separate gymnasium, Barbara took her concerns to a teacher who responded by asking, “Why don’t you do something about it?” Barbara describes feeling as though her teacher’s comments were dismissive, and as a result she was somewhat discouraged. However, after months of contemplation and imagination she began to formulate a plan. As Barbara describes it,

“the plan I felt was divinely inspired because I hadn’t been able to think of anything until then. The plan was to assemble together the student council members…. From this, we would formulate plans to go on strike. We would make signs and I would give a speech stating our dissatisfaction and we would march out [of] the school and people would hear us and see us and understand our difficulty and would sympathize with our plight and would grant us our new school building and our teachers would be proud and the students would learn more and it would be grand….”

Seizing the moment, on April 23, 1951, Barbara Johns, a 16 year-old high school girl in Prince Edward County, Virginia, led her classmates in a strike to protest the substandard conditions at Robert Russa Moton High School. Her idealism, planning, and persistence ultimately garnered the support of NAACP lawyers Spottswood Robinson and Oliver Hill to take up her cause and the cause of more equitable conditions for Moton High School.

After meeting with the students and the community, lawyers Spottswood Robinson and Oliver Hill filed suit at the federal courthouse in Richmond, Virginia. The case was called Davis v. Prince Edward. In 1954, the Farmville case became one of five cases that the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka when it declared segregation unconstitutional.

While Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954, public schools weren’t integrated in Prince Edward County for another decade. The school system dragged out any attempt to abide by the decision for years, and when that became untenable the county decided to shut down the public schools entirely rather than integrate. The “Massive Resistance” movement eventually resulted in several communities shuttering their schools, though none for as long as Prince Edward County. It took another Supreme Court decision in 1964 to re-open the schools, this time to both black and white students.

When I first moved to the Farmville area a decade ago I met a man who’d spent several years being taught in a church basement and in the living rooms of family and friends by parents and other adults who refused to let kids go unschooled. In fact, he was the one who told me about this shameful history in the first place.

Both Farmville and the nation at large have come a long way since 1951. Sadly, Massive Resistance to a Supreme Court decision is making a comeback among Democrats, and New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham seems intent on becoming the standard bearer for the movement.

Grisham made it clear when she first announced she was unilaterally suspending the right to carry in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County that she didn’t care what the Constitution says, much less the Supreme Court. Even after the police chief and sheriff said they wouldn’t enforce her order because of constitutional concerns she insisted that curbing violent crime required disarming lawful gun owners and rendering them defenseless in public.

During the court hearing that led to her original order being put on ice, the governor’s attorney repeatedly argued that there was no difference between a “good guy with a gun” and a bad guy, that every concealed carry holder was a murderer waiting to happen, and bemoaned the Bruen decision for it supposedly taking away the governor’s ability to “try” to effectively fight violent crime.

If Grisham truly thinks that the only way to do that is to prohibit the right to carry, then there’s no way she would have let her initial order expire after its 30-day period was up. She would have extended it for as long as she got away with it, just like Prince Edward County did with the public schools in the 1960s.

Unlike the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, the bigots engaged in Massive Resistance today aren’t doing so on the basis of race (though there’s a strong argument that racial minorities are still suffering a disproportionate amount of harm from gun control laws). Instead, it’s the mere exercise of a constitutional right that causes Grisham and others to view their friends, neighbors, and constituents as dangerous “others” who must be suppressed in the name of public safety. Black, white, gay, straight… it doesn’t matter. If you’re a gun owner, and certainly if you’re a gun owner who wants to carry your gun in public, you’re the problem. You must be “fixed”. You must be put in your proper place, and your right must be deemed a wrong.

I don’t know if Michelle Lujan Grisham is smart enough to have realized this, but the Massive Resistance movement failed. In Farmville the worst fears of the segregationists have been realized. Black and white kids are going to school, becoming friends, getting married, having kids, and living their lives in a community that is much changed for the better.

Like her fellow civil rights suppressors in the 1950s and 60s, Grisham is ultimately lashing out because she’s losing. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and there’s a portion of the gun control movement that believes it’s time to start lobbing Hail Marys through executive orders and tossing verbal hand grenades at the Supreme Court over Bruen, while the more institutional wing seems intent on taking a more traditional incrementalist approach.

If Grisham thought she was acting in a position of strength in proclaiming a constitutional right suspended because of a self-proclaimed public health emergency (at a time when homicides are actually trending down in Albuquerque, by the way), the backlash from many of her fellow Democrats and the refusal to enforce her order by local and state officials should have disabused her of her delusions. I think she was well aware of the weakness of her position before she made her announcement. She just decided if she was going to “do something”, she might as well do something big.

Grisham has backed down slightly from her original order, a decision I suspect that is almost entirely based on the unwillingness of police and prosecutors to go along. Massive Resistance implies mass, after all, and in Grisham’s case she (so far, anyway) hasn’t had the institutional backing she needs to pull off her unconstitutional scheme. That may have even factored into her decision to revise her original order instead of bringing lawmakers back to Santa Fe for a special session to address this “emergency”; she knows that she doesn’t have the political capital at the moment to control the outcome and ensure that her desired gun control bills get passed.

Lately, it seems like the governor’s been more interested in burning bridges with her fellow Democrats than building them, but that could easily change over the next few months. The self-proclaimed “emergency” in Albuquerque was her first attempt at massive resistance to the Bruen decision but I doubt it will be the last, and if she (or her handlers) have an ounce of political acumen they’ll be looking for buy-in and political cover from the Democratic majority before she unveils her next terrible and tyrannical idea.

Oregon judge to decide in new trial whether voter-approved gun control law is constitutional

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — An Oregon judge is set to decide whether a gun control law approved by voters in November violates the state’s constitution in a trial scheduled to start Monday.

The law, one of the toughest in the nation, was among the first gun restrictions to be passed after a major U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year changed the guidance judges are expected to follow when considering Second Amendment cases.

Measure 114 has been tied up in federal and state court since it was narrowly passed by voters in November 2022, casting confusion over its fate.

Continue reading “”

Random Thoughts on Hunter Biden, Domestic Violence, and Disarming Those Who Haven’t Been Convicted of a Crime.

One of the most entertaining aspects of Hunter Biden being indicted on three gun-related charges due to his drug use is the reaction of those on the left side of the political spectrum. They’re screaming that given how few people are prosecuted for lying on 4473 forms, the only reason he’s been charged is his prominent father.

Note that the Venn diagram of the people who are making this argument and those who blew a blood vessel when a man whose conviction was overturned for gun possession while under a domestic violence restraining order is almost a perfect circle. Yet the legal principles are virtually the same.

In the domestic violence case, US v. Rahimi, the target is a certified scumbag who’d been involved in at least five prior crimes involving firearms and had beaten the hell out of his girlfriend. Zackey Rahimi was the subject of a domestic violence restraining order which prohibited him from possessing a firearm and had been convicted of violating that order.

When the Fifth Circuit circuit overturned his conviction based on the lack of a history or tradition in this country of voiding the gun rights of people who hadn’t been convicted of a crime, the reaction was as if they’d OK’d human sacrifice, dogs living with cats…you know mass hysteria.

Continue reading “”