11th Circuit Will Review En Banc Whether Second Amendment Protects 18-to-20-Year-Olds
Yesterday, the Eleventh Circuit granted en banc rehearing on this issue in NRA v. Bondi. For more on the underlying legal issue, see Stephen Halbrook’s April post, which mentions the panel opinion (which has now been vacated) as well as some other cases.
Federal Appeals Judge Speaks to The Four Boxes Diner about the 2nd Amendment, Justice Thomas & Originalism
Federal court rules Measure 114 constitutional despite criticism
The ruling (hold onto your hat for the legal acrobatics the judge used)
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – Oregon’s Measure 114 is constitutional, according to a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
The federal court ruled in Oregon’s favor in a lawsuit against the gun control measure approved by voters by a slim margin in 2022. The ruling means the state may ensure Oregonians get a permit before obtaining firearms, require a state police-maintained permit/firearm database and prohibit “large capacity” ammunition magazines.
There is an exception for military and law enforcement.
The measure describes “large capacity” magazines as “fixed/detachable magazines (or functional equivalent) that can accept ‘more than 10 rounds of ammunition and allows a shooter to keep firing without having to pause to reload.’” The measure also includes exceptions for “’lever-action’ firearms and permanently altered fixed magazines, 10 rounds or fewer.”
The plaintiff’s attorney made the case that magazines are critical for the gun, so they should be considered arms, but attorneys defending Measure 114 argued that detachable magazines are accessories – not firearms – and don’t affect the operability of the gun itself.
In response to the measure’s ruling, Jess Marks, the executive director of the Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety, issued the following statement:
“We know Measure 114 is an effective and life-saving policy, and now a federal judge has ruled it is also in line with the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has articulated that Second Amendment rights are not unchecked — they come with responsibilities — and the U.S. District Court affirmed this in our case. This victory belongs to those who have lost loved ones to gun violence and to every Oregonian who demanded change.”
“Our team looks forward to ultimately prevailing in the state courts as well,” she said. “Measure 114’s provisions – passed by Oregon voters – are common sense safety measures that will save lives.”
The insane arguments for gun control…if you can call them that
SAF FILES AMICUS BRIEF SUPPORTING CHALLENGE OF HAWAII GUN LAW
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a 29-page amicus brief supporting a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in a challenge of Hawaii’s restrictive concealed carry law, in a case known as Wolford v. Lopez.
The brief was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii.
As explained in the court document, Hawaii “has followed New York, New Jersey, and Maryland in taking deliberate action to undermine the Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen ruling and the fundamental general right to carry an effective mechanism of self-defense it affirmed. Hawaii’s SB 1230 and similar laws specifically, and unfairly target those who have taken their rights most seriously in attempting to exercise them, even submitting to Defendants’ background check and training requirements.”
Following the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Hawaii passed SB 1230, a sweeping law designed to severely limit the places where licensed, law-abiding citizens can legally carry firearms for personal protection. So restrictive in its nature, the new legislation was colloquially dubbed the “Bruen response bill.”
“As we contend in our brief,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “Hawaii’s new law is written to make citizens afraid to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms, to the point they’re even afraid to enter a coffee shop without first being invited. We cannot have law-abiding citizens afraid to exercise a right for fear of being prosecuted and made into criminals. That is not how constitution works, and specifically, it is why the Second Amendment includes the phrase ‘shall not be infringed.’ SB 1230 constitutes a serious infringement.”
“There are no historical analogues supporting the extreme nature of Hawaii’s gun law,” added SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “To the contrary, as we explain to the court, history shows lawmakers respected Second Amendment rights as part of everyday life, to the point of encouraging people to bring their guns to public meetings and even church. Hawaii, on the other hand, is trying to make have a gun outside of one’s home or private vehicle a crime.”
Experts See Uncertainty in New Supreme Court Gun Case
The nation’s highest court is set to decide a new Second Amendment case, but how the justices might come down is murky at best.
A collection of experts from across the ideological spectrum who have spent decades studying the Second Amendment and American gun laws told The Reload United States v. Rahimi presents a unique challenge for the Court that will likely flush out its new test for gun cases. But they were less confident about the direction the justices might take or the conclusion they might arrive at.
“It is still too early to tell what the Supreme Court will do in Rahimi,” George Mason University professor Robert Leider, who writes about the Second Amendment and teaches at the Antonin Scalia Law School, said.
Rahimi will be the first gun case the Supreme Court takes up since it handed down a new Second Amendment test in last year’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. It is an appeal of a Fifth Circuit panel’s ruling that found the federal ban on those subject to domestic violence restraining orders possessing guns was unconstitutional under the Bruen test. It stems from a case against a Texas man who pled guilty to violating a restraining order his child’s mother had against him over accusations he assaulted her when police found he had guns in his home. The police were able to search his home and find the guns because he is also accused of carrying out multiple shootings unrelated to the situation with his ex-girlfriend.
“Doubtless, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) embodies salutary policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in our society,” Judge Cory T. Wilson wrote for the panel. “Weighing those policy goals’ merits through the sort of means-end scrutiny our prior precedent indulged, we previously concluded that the societal benefits of § 922(g)(8) outweighed its burden on Rahimi’s Second Amendment rights. But Bruen forecloses any such analysis in favor of a historical analogical inquiry into the scope of the allowable burden on the Second Amendment right. Through that lens, we conclude that § 922(g)(8) ‘s ban on possession of firearms is an ‘outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted.’ Therefore, the statute is unconstitutional, and Rahimi’s conviction under that statute must be vacated.”
The Department of Justice (DOJ) decided to skip appealing to the full Fifth Circuit and head straight to the Supreme Court, which agreed to take up the case late last month. All of the experts who spoke with The Reload agreed that move was a potentially-smart piece of strategic litigating by Attorney General Merrick Garland (D.) and the DOJ.
Kamala Harris anti-gun comments a warning
Vice President Kamala Harris has never been a fan of the right to keep and bear arms. We’ve long known this and no one will be surprised to hear this.
Yet as vice president, she hasn’t been all that outspoken about guns, all things considered. Why would she need to be? Her boss is making plenty of anti-gun waves as it is.
Harris isn’t going to stay out of the debate, though. She’s ready to push the anti-gun agenda as well.
Kamala Harris Takes Aim at NRA and Guns: The National Rifle Association’s convention in Indianapolis was in Vice President Kamala Harris’ crosshairs during a speech before the non-profit civil-rights group the National Action Network back in April.
The speech, at the time, could be seen as a start to the 2024 campaign season on the Democratic side…
Her speech marked a clear departure from the rambling and incoherent statements she made that landed her in hot water with Democrats and Republicans alike.
It was clear and focused, and filled the vice presidential attack dog role.
Kamala Harris ridiculed the convention slogan about freedom asking “freedom for who?”? She noted that it was not freedom for gun-violence victims or their families.
“This is not for the parents who pray their children will come home from school safe,” Harris said.…
Whether Harris can stay on message remains to be seen, but she appears to have found a message that Democrats think can be effective.
Yes, this isn’t exactly breaking news. I get it.
But the point is that it’s clear that gun control is going to be a big issue in 2024 and both Biden and Harris are doing battlespace prep for that fight.
What’s more, it seems that Harris is ready to make this a racial issue, but only by telling one side of the story.
“Gun violence is now the number one cause of death of children in our nation,” she said. “And while all this violence impacts all communities in devastating ways, we know it does not do so equally. Black people are only 13% of America’s population but more than 60% of homicide victims from gun violence.”
FBI statistics also show that the number of black offenders in homicides is significantly higher. In 2019, the last year for which national statistics are available shows that 55.9% offenders in gun crimes were black compared with 41.1% who were white.
Honestly, this isn’t surprising.
The White House isn’t interested in having a discussion. They’re not interested in a debate. When Harris said this, it made it clear that they want to paint this as a racial issue and that if you’re not for gun control it’s because you want black people to die.
But the problem is that it’s black people doing damn near just as much of the killing.
What’s more, though, they’re disproportionately represented among those convicted of firearm possession crimes. If we’re going to play that game, how is gun control not racist?
This is what we’re in for in 2024, folks, so buckle up.
And it’s what we need the various gun rights organizations combatting as we go forward. We need the spokespeople out in front on this one.
Unfortunately, far too many of them have been silent. That’s not a heartwarming fact if you ask me.
The upside, however, is that while they think this is an issue they can win on, this is also the administration that thinks the economy is doing great and seems to want to tout that as a winning issue, too, so there might not be too much to worry about.
SAF FILES REPLY BRIEF IN CHALLENGE OF MARYLAND CCW LAW
BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its allies in a federal challenge of Maryland’s restrictive concealed carry statute today filed their reply to the state’s arguments against an earlier motion for a preliminary injunction in the case known as Novotny v. Moore.
The response brief was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
SAF is joined in the case by Maryland Shall Issue, the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, all of whom possess “wear and carry permits,” including Susan Burke of Reisterstown, Esther Rossberg of Baltimore, and Katherine Novotny of Aberdeen, for whom the lawsuit is named. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson and Peter A. Patterson at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C., Mark W. Pennak at Maryland Shall Issue in Baltimore, and Matthew Larosiere from Lake Worth, Fla.
The lawsuit focuses on SB1, a bill signed by Gov. Wesley Moore, which has added new restrictions on where legally-licensed citizens may carry firearms for personal protection. Maryland is attempting to wildly expand so-called “sensitive places” in an attempt to virtually prohibit lawful, licensed concealed carry in almost every venue in the state outside of someone’s home or business.
“As we maintained in our initial lawsuit, the State of Maryland is desperately trying to justify its extremist policy by offering alleged historical analogues that don’t really exist,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “As we noted earlier, instead of trying to comply with the new guidelines set down in the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling last year, Maryland lawmakers responded by adopting gun laws more restrictive than they were before. This is tantrum-level stubbornness usually confined to elementary school playgrounds, and it doesn’t belong in state legislatures or governors’ offices.”
“Today’s brief further underscores the fact that Maryland’s recently enacted restrictions on carry are incompatible with this nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “In defense of its law, Maryland grasps at straws and reasoning well removed from a logical pathway to justify its new existence. Our brief systemically refutes the positions put forth by the government and demonstrates that the challenged restrictions are constitutionally impermissible.”
Connecticut state parks gun ban challenge dismissed
Connecticut’s ban on guns in state parks has survived a challenge.
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit where a man had argued the policy violated his Second Amendment rights.
For folks enjoying the outdoors, there are mixed feelings about the current ban on guns in state parks and forests without authorization.
“There’s no need for a gun in a park with families,” said Connie DeMonte of Middletown.
“I believe people have the right to defend themselves no matter where they are,” said Scott Taffaro of Manchester.
On Wednesday, a federal judge threw out a challenge to the rule.
“This is an important decision, but it doesn’t really get to the heart of the matter. The judge dismissed the case on standing grounds, which is lawyer talk for, you don’t actually have the right to file this lawsuit,” said Mike Lawlor, University of New Haven criminal justice associate professor.
This rule has actually been around for more than 100 years and apparently there’s no record of it ever being enforced. That’s part of why the judge tossed out the case, though the fight is potentially not over.
In the lawsuit filed against the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection commissioner, David Nastri argued the ban prevented him from carrying a gun for self defense.
His lawyer says they will appeal and wrote in part:
“We are profoundly disappointed in the district court’s ruling, which we believe is significantly at odds with U.S. Supreme Court precedent and is based on an unprecedented legal fiction.”
The state attorney general applauded the dismissal, writing in part:
“Connecticut’s commonsense gun laws are life-saving and constitutional– they strike the right balance between respecting Second Amendment rights while also protecting public safety.”
Among those we talked with at the parks just happened to be the father of Lieutenant Dustin DeMonte – the Bristol Police officer shot and killed in the line of duty.
Philip DeMonte is against guns in the parks.
“I don’t need to have to worry or even want to have to worry about that. Because, I mean, there’s a lot of craziness out there already,” DeMonte said.
Lawlor said he believes if a case does move forward, judges would back governments having the right to regulate access to parks.
He points out there are rules about other things you can’t bring in like alcohol in some parks.
Foreigners frequently voice their dissatisfaction with America due to the value placed on the Second Amendment by Americans. While foreign opinions on the rights held by Americans are irrelevant, I still wish to address this matter.
Foreign perceptions of the Second Amendment and American gun culture are largely influenced by both American national media and their respective country’s media. These individuals are fed a narrative-driven propaganda that shapes their perspective. The notion that gun owners prioritize the right to bear arms over the safety of children is an absurd viewpoint.
Both gun owners and non-gun owners share a common goal of prioritizing the safety of our children. However, our approaches to securing schools differ. I support the implementation of armed security measures, secured buildings with metal detectors, automatic timed locked doors, and one-way exit and entrance systems. The measures I propose do not have to resemble a prison, despite being a common objection raised by supporters of gun control and many individuals from foreign countries. It is worth noting that various locations, including certain schools, have already implemented similar security measures.
Everyday gun violence often stems from gang-related activities involving career criminals. The failure of our justice system to effectively keep these individuals incarcerated is often attributed to a lack of community cooperation, driven by fear of retaliation from the gangs in question. This perpetuates a harmful cycle of violence that gun laws cannot address. Shootings will simply be substituted by another manifestation of violence.
In conclusion, our right to bear arms is a fundamental cornerstone that has shaped the foundation of America. I understand that individuals from foreign countries who are not acquainted with the concept of gun ownership as a fundamental right may find it difficult to comprehend. However, it’s challenging for those who hold irrational perspectives to comprehend to see beyond their emotions.
-Carl
Judges Confused by Supreme Court’s Historical Test for Gun Laws
Confusion over the US Supreme Court’s last gun rights ruling is likely to persist even after the justices decide a new Second Amendment case next term.
Establishing a constitutional right to carry a handgun in public in a landmark 2022 decision forced lower courts to play historian and look to Colonial-era laws to justify the lawfulness of gun restrictions, a duty that has frustrated some judges.
“Judges are not historians,” Judge Carlton Reeves of the US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi said in dismissing a case after finding no history or tradition to support upholding the federal ban on convicted felons having guns. “We were not trained as historians. We practiced law, not history.”……………….
This is rank, ripe, stinking BS.
1, It’s from Bloomberg, so should a posteriori be suspect.
2, They’re not confused. They’re not stupid. They’re subversives.
If a federal judge is incapable of looking up and analyzing legal and legislative history, they shouldn’t have a job. As an appellate judge, it is literally a core part of their responsibilities, and a big part of why our tax dollars pay for them to have clerks.
3,“We were not trained as historians. We practiced law, not history as an excuse? Judges do history all of the time. Even worse, Bruen doesn’t ask them to be historians of the 18th century in general. It only asks them to research historical laws.
One of the experts the article quoted admitted this is hard because most gun laws are from the twentieth century. That isn’t so much an attack on the Text/History/Tradition test as it is a condemnation of the last century’s purposeful rejection of a constitutional standard.
4, Historical revisionism is at the core of the modern gun control movement. It’s why Biden repeats the lie about people not being able to buy cannons and why news organizations wring their hands about how judges having to understand history is an unprecedented attack on our legal system.
5, The end goal is to make the following the only publicly acceptable opinion to hold:
a, There is no such thing as a right to own firearms
b, The very idea that there could be such a thing was created by NRA lobbyists and far-right conspiracists in the 70’s.
This is the gun control ‘Big Lie’.
Biden’s anti-gun executive orders falling one by one
The purpose of an executive order is for the president to tell others in the executive branch precisely how they’re to carry out the laws passed by Congress. It was never intended as a way to create laws without the legislature.
However, President Joe Biden, like so many before him, does just that.
Take gun control, for example. Biden can’t pass it. Not like he wants. Congress just isn’t interested in banning things like so-called ghost guns.
So, Biden uses an executive order, directs the ATF to essentially declare them illegal, and calls it a day.
Only, that didn’t work out.
Numerous federal gun control policies enacted by the Biden administration via executive order have faced extensive scrutiny in federal courts with jurisdiction over matters arising in Texas, the latest being a rule implemented last year seeking to regulate home-build firearms kits.
Texas residents Jennifer VanDerStok and Michael Andren, along with the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), challenged the new rule expanding the definition of a “firearm receiver” to include kits that contain partially manufactured parts and are marketed to be completed into functioning firearms, which are also referred to as “ghost guns.”
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) issued a statement when the rule was published last year, explaining that it was prompted by a proliferation of untraceable guns without serial numbers from being used in crimes. The ATF claimed it would help prevent those prohibited by law from obtaining a gun, such as convicted felons, from easily obtaining one.
The ATF claimed there were 692 instances of ghost guns being used in homicides or attempted homicides.
Of course, from what we’ve seen, those 692 instances were spread out over a significant period of time, meaning that they’re a statistical drop in the bucket when looking at so-called gun deaths.
But this wasn’t the only example of Biden’s executive orders showing signs of trouble.
There’s trouble brewing for Biden’s other big-ticket executive order, the ban on pistol braces. There’s already some judicial skepticism and the membership of the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition are already exempt from it by court order.
In fact, it’s so bad it’s not unreasonable to ask whether any of Biden’s executive orders will stand.
Oh, I’m sure a few will. Parts of this order are just about speeding up the process of collecting data the government already collects, which isn’t likely to be overturned.
But that same executive order also deals with the so-called rogue gun dealers who appear to just be FFL holders who make administrative errors, and that is likely to end up in court sooner or later. Based on what we’ve seen, that’s going to be bad news for the Biden administration.
At the end of the day, most of Biden’s executive orders will probably be overturned, but not without a lot of time and resources spent fighting this power grab.
And none of it should be happening. The truth is that the legislative branch is who should be passing laws, not the executive, but with Congress having basically turned a blind eye to the ATF’s repeated “reinterpretations” of gun control laws, we have the mess we’re currently in.
If only that would fall in court.
Gun groups appeal Delaware ‘assault weapons’ ban ruling
(The Center Square) — Gun rights groups are asking a federal appeals court to overturn a lower court ruling upholding Delaware’s “assault weapons” ban and other firearm restrictions.
In April, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Andrews rejected a request by the Delaware Sportsmen’s Association and other groups who sued the state for a preliminary injunction blocking the new regulations from being enforced as he considers the lawsuit.
But the groups have filed an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, urging the three-judge panel to overturn Andrews’ ruling that upheld Delaware’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines.
“The district court wrongly held that Delaware’s bans, which affect some of the most popular firearms and magazines in the country, could be justified by reference to a pattern of historical regulation targeting a variety of arms, from ‘slung shots’ to machine guns,” lawyers for the group wrote in the 64-page brief.
“But the state has not put forward, and the district court did not cite, a single law that banned possession or carriage of an arm that was in common use at the time like the Delaware bans do.”
Last year, Gov. John Carney signed a package of gun control measures that included a ban on the sale of so-called assault-style weapons, an increase in the age to purchase firearms from 18 to 21, strengthened background checks and limits on large-capacity magazines. It also banned the use of devices that convert handguns into fully automatic weapons.
The bills were pushed through the Democratic-controlled Legislature in the wake of several mass shootings, including the massacre of 21 at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
The sportsman association, a state-level affiliate of the National Rifle Association, filed the lawsuit shortly after Carney signed the bills arguing they violate Second Amendment rights and Delaware’s Constitution, which guarantees a right to own and carry firearms.
The plaintiffs argued the new law “criminalized” the purchase and ownership of common firearms used by labeling them as “deadly weapons” and making it a felony “for law-abiding citizens to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear such arms.”
The lawsuit is one of hundreds of legal challenges across the country filed in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the N.Y. State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen’s case, which struck down a New York law requiring applicants to show “proper cause” to get a permit to carry a firearm.
The ruling has prompted reviews of firearm licensing laws in Delaware and other Democrat-led states to tighten their gun laws to further restrict firearm carrying, spurring other legal challenges from Second Amendment groups.
“No matter what the State of Delaware thinks, the guns and magazines it banned are protected by the Second Amendment and thus cannot be prohibited,” Richard Thomson, a spokesman for the Firearms Policy Coalition, said in a statement. “We look forward to the Third Circuit getting right what the district court got wrong when it declined to preliminarily enjoin Delaware’s bans.”
Jewish camp leaders challenge carry law due to anti-semitism.
If you’re part of a group that may well be targeted by someone simply because you’re part of that group, it’s probably a good idea to take steps to protect yourself.
Anti-semitism, homophobia, racism, and so many other forms of hatred are, unfortunately, real and if you’re someone who is concerned about any of those, it makes sense to arm yourself and to carry a firearm everywhere you can.
In New York, though, the people who run a camp for Jewish kids are challenging the state’s carry laws because it makes it impossible for them to protect the kids.
The CEO of Kars4Kids, a Jewish charity with a catchy advertising jingle, is challenging New York state’s concealed carry law in court — claiming that it leaves children vulnerable to antisemitic attacks.
Eliohu Mintz, who heads Kars4Kids, is also the CEO of Oorah, a Jewish outreach nonprofit funded by Kars4Kids that runs a summer camp in upstate New York. In a federal lawsuit filed Friday, Mintz and a camp administrator, Eric Schwartz, say the law exposes the camp to antisemitic attack because it bans private citizens from carrying guns in places where religious activities are conducted.
“The violent attacks on Jewish people targeting places of worship and places where children are — the most vulnerable of the population — are random and provide the victims with no notice or advance warning,” Mintz said in a declaration attached to the lawsuit. “I cannot be left unprepared and unarmed in the event that an evildoer decides to attack one or both of the [camp’s] campuses nor can the other licensed staff members.”
Now, there’s a provision that amended the law in question that allows for armed security personnel at places of worship. The problem?
“The plaintiffs are staffers who have carried for personal protection and want to continue carrying,” Amy Bellatoni, the attorney for Mintz and Schwartz, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “They are not designated security personnel and, therefore, not part of the exemption.”
And therein lies the problem.
Obviously, I side with Mintz and Schwartz here. The carry law was written to include as much of the state of New York as possible and removes any possibility of a so-called sensitive location to decide for itself whether it allows firearms or not. New York decided and a lot of people are paying the price.
And anti-semitism is very real and isn’t likely to go away. Those who want to harm Jews aren’t going to be deterred by the idea that these places of worship are gun-free zones, either. I mean, if the laws against murder aren’t going to deter them, a Ghostbuster-like side with a gun in the center instead isn’t likely to do anything either.
So it’s my heartfelt desire to see this change. The people of New York deserve better than they’re getting from their so-called leadership. Concerns of racism or anti-semitism or anything else like that should be taken seriously and people should be empowered by the constitutionally protected rights granted them by being human beings to combat them, with words when appropriate and with bullets when their lives are threatened.
Well, they understand it. They just don’t like it.
What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do leftists not understand?
With nauseating predictability, the usual political hacks clamor to compromise our Second Amendment every time some ghastly crime involving a firearm occurs. Seldom if ever is attention paid to the workings of the twisted mind that actually caused the horrible event.
A combination of ignorance and the desire to deceive has led to the inherent misnomer of the term “assault weapon.” Recent nuance has added the suffix “style” to the word “assault” — supposedly to add a hint of honesty to the expression, although a recent nominee to head the BATF was still unable to define what an assault weapon is. I shall give it a try right here: a common military weapon, being a rifle that has selective fire options of single shot, bursts of three, and full-automatic. It may also have enhanced magazine capacity and heat displacement. Oh, and by the way, full-automatic weapons have not been legal for American civilians to possess for about a hundred years — except for people who have a Class Three federal firearms license.
[I’ll let this pass because the vast, vast majority of people have no real idea of how NFA ’34 and Title II of GCA’68 operate]
Assault-style weapons are nothing more than single-shot, semi-automatic rifles that only look like actual military weapons…usually because they have a second grip for the shooter’s other hand. There may also be a heat shield around the barrel…whoopie! So what’s the big deal about how they look? It’s because political demagogues, whose arguments hardly have any substance, have to rely on superficiality to get their points across.
St. Louis mayor trying to backtrack from gun control texts
St. Louis is, like a lot of larger cities, pretty anti-gun.
They can’t do as much about it as they’d like there, but that’s because Missouri has preemption, and that handcuffs city leaders a fair bit. Officials there are still willing to pass what gun control they can.
But, as we’ve pointed out more than once, gun control isn’t really the answer.
It seems the mayor of St. Louis agreed, though she’s backtracking now.
St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones’ office is in damage control mode after someone at City Hall released thousands of text messages from her personal cell phone, some of which raise questions about her views on gun laws.
The messages were released earlier this week under an open records request.
“Chicago has strict gun laws as well but that doesn’t deter gun violence,” Jones texted in a group chat to her father Virvus Jones and advisor Richard Callow on March 21. “It’s about investing in the people.”
On the surface, the mayor’s private remarks appear to contradict some of her public statements calling for stricter gun control laws in Missouri.…
The mayor’s office issued a statement through one of her spokesmen on Friday afternoon seeking to clarify her position.
“Gun laws are just one part of the solution,” Jones spokesman Nick Desideri said. “There’s a difference between deterring behavior and making it harder to get firearms and weaponry; for example, there’s no doubt that gun laws in the blue region around Newark help reduce violence as opposed to here.”
In her private text messages, the mayor also made a reference to prolonged community investment delivering a significant reduction in violence in Newark, New Jersey.
“Newark, NJ has the same size population, same size police force, and similar racial demographics, yet had 50 murders in 2022,” the mayor wrote. “I visited these programs first hand and I know that they work. We just need the will….”
First, there is doubt that the gun laws around Newark had any impact on the violent crime rate versus other interventions attempted there.
We can say this because, frankly, the rest of New Jersey has tons of gun control and still has plenty of high-crime areas. If gun control were even part of the solution, we wouldn’t be seeing that.
It seems that Jones really wants these community intervention programs but because of her party affiliation, she has to spout the gun control line. That’s a shame, too, because I happen to think these community interventions could do wonders for St. Louis.
Guns are not the problem and gun control is not the answer.
The problem has always been people, which is why even our non-gun homicide rate is higher than many other nations’ total murder rates.
The interventions would probably work and Jones really should stick with her instincts here and stop pushing for gun control.
Republicans are pointing out the hypocrisy here, and they’re right to do so. Jones knows gun control doesn’t work, but she’s pushing for it anyway.
A lot of pro-gun people have long figured Democrats knew this anyway and still wanted gun control despite this fact. This is just another data point showing those folks may have a point.
Fifth Circuit poised to strike down another prohibited persons statute?
Unless you’re Hunter Biden, the Department of Justice takes a very dim view of possessing firearms and using illicit drugs of any kind; even those that have been decriminalized or legalized at the state level. But is the federal prohibition on that activity constitutionally permissible? The Fifth Circuit is asking that question in a case called U.S. v. Daniels, and this week both the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition gave their answers in amicus briefs filed with the appellate court. The short version? Absolutely not.
Patrick Darnell Daniels, Jr. was indicted by a federal grand jury last year for allegedly violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), which forbids gun possession for “unlawful users of controlled substances”; a charge, incidentally, that the media insisted is rarely brought against defendants. Guess Mr. Daniels was just extra unlucky, because not only was he charged but he was convicted and sentenced to 46 months in federal prison for illegally possessing firearms while regularly consuming marijuana.
Daniels’ public defenders appealed that verdict to the Fifth Circuit, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is both unconstitutionally vague because it fails to adequately define “unlawful user” and a violation of Daniels’ Second Amendment rights. The Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments in the case back in early June, but as SAF’s founder Alan Gottlieb says, the three-judge panel took the somewhat unusual step of soliciting amicus briefs from interested parties who could flesh out the historical record on just how longstanding and widespread similar prohibitions may have been.
While SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut says the organization isn’t taking a position for or against certain laws, attorneys failed to turn up any evidence of “historical gun regulations that essentially strip someone of their Second Amendment rights for life, because they may have been under the influence of, or impaired by, an intoxicating substance.”
As the brief explains:
… there were less than a handful of laws enacted during the colonial/pre-Founding Era and zero known laws during the Founding Era itself relating to the possession of firearms by users of illicit or intoxicating drinks or substances, and few known such laws during the 19th century, whether before or after the Civil War.
None of these laws were distinctly similar or relevantly similar to § 922(g)(3) because (1) in contrast, “the restrictions imposed by each law only applied while an individual was actively intoxicated or using intoxicants,” (2) “none of the laws appear to have prohibited the mere possession of a firearm,” or (3) “appear to have applied to public places or activities” rather than “being a total prohibition applicable to all intoxicated persons in all places . . . .” Harrison, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18397, at *14. Whereas these laws “took a scalpel” to the right to bear arms, § 922(g)(3) “takes a sledgehammer to the right.”
The amicus brief notes that the DOJ itself has failed to come up with any Founding-era historical analogues to § 922(g)(3), which SAF’s attorneys say should be the fact that should carries the most weight, “given the Supreme Court’s command that the historical analysis required by Bruen must flow from 1791.”
Instead, the federal government cites three laws from the colonial/pre-Founding era; a 1655 law in Virginia that prohibited “shoot[ing] any guns at drinkeing (marriages and ffunerals [sic] onely [sic] excepted),” a New Jersey law from 1746 authorizing militia officials to disarm any soldier who “appear[ed] in Arms disguised in Liquor,” and a 1773 New York statute that prohibited the “fir[ing] or discharge [of] any Gun, Pistol, Rocket, Cracker, Squib or other fire Work [sic]” in certain areas between December 31 and January 2,” a restriction the SAF attorneys explain was meant to address “great Damages [] frequently done on . . . New Years Days, by persons going from House to House, with Guns and other Fire Arms and being often intoxicated with Liquor.”
The SAF brief found a few post-Civil War statutes that dealt with intoxicating liquors and guns, but none of them prohibited gun ownership for any regular consumer of alcohol or drugs (illicit or otherwise). Instead, these were mostly “time, manner, and place” restrictions; individuals may have been barred from carrying while actively intoxicated, but getting intoxicated wasn’t cause for them to be stripped of their Second Amendment rights.
The FPC brief treads similar ground, pointing out that firearms and alcohol were both ubiquitous in the colonial and Founding era, and yet prohibitions on gun ownership for users of intoxicating spirits is nowhere to be found in the historical record. Even when we get to the age of the temperance (and eventually teetotaler) movement, laws prohibiting gun ownership for drinkers are simply absent from the statutes.
Attorney Joseph Greenlee argues that the only historical justification for prohibiting gun ownership to someone is their “dangerousness”, but the “DOJ failed to make any serious effort to establish that connection” in relation to modern day drug use, illegal though it might be.
The DOJ’s fallback argument is that even if there aren’t any historical analogues to support the modern prohibition, the Second Amendment only protects “law abiding citizens,” so any illicit drug use is automatically cause to strip someone of their right to keep and bear arms. That argument is going to be tested by the Supreme Court in the Rahimi case this fall, and I suspect the Fifth Circuit will weigh in with their own views on the DOJ’s position as it applies to § 922(g)(3) before Rahimi‘s oral arguments take place.
The Fifth Circuit has already taken a dim view of several other gun control provisions, including the ATF’s ban on bump stocks and unfinished frames and receivers, as well as determining that those subject to a domestic violence restraining order like Zachey Rahimi still possess the right to keep and bear arms, and this should be a relatively easy call for the judges to make. The history, text, and tradition of the right to keep and bear arms is at odds with § 922(g)(3)’s lifetime prohibition on gun possession for “unlawful” users of drugs, and Hunter Biden shouldn’t be the only one to avoid federal prosecution for doing so.
Bruen might thwart Tennessee special session on gun control
Following the shooting at a Nashville school, the previously pro-gun governor decided what the state needed was some gun control. There wasn’t much chance of that happening, mind you, but he wanted to push it anyway.
In fact, he called a special session of the legislature just to address the issue.
However, it seems that in some circles, there’s concern that Bruen might prevent much of anything from happening.
Tennessee lawmakers hoping to take on gun control in an August special session could face hurdles from a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that is now causing turmoil in courts across the country.
The so-called Breun decision in June 2022 overturned a New York law limiting the right to carry guns in public and has since sparked hundreds of legal challenges to gun laws, with varying opinions from judges.
While gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association have lauded the ruling as a major win for the Second Amendment, others say it’s causing more legal questions than answers.
“There’s a lot of confusion and a lot of chaos right now,” said Janet Carter, senior director of issues and appeals at Everytown Law, a gun control nonprofit. “Supreme Court decisions are supposed to provide clarity and certainty, but instead what we see is decisions just going all over the palace.”…
Here in Tennessee, the ruling has already impacted the state’s permitless carry law and it could affect the governor’s push for an emergency protective order law in the wake of the Covenant School shooting, as a local gun rights group has said it plans to sue if the state passes new legislation.
Gun control advocates hope to see clarity from an upcoming Supreme Court case out of Texas that would be the first to test the ruling, but for now, states in some cases have been left scrambling to change their laws.
Now, to be fair, challenges for red flag laws have survived plenty and Gov. Bill Lee’s proposal has fewer due process concerns than most.
That said, I don’t think there have been any challenges to red flag laws post-Bruen, which might well change everything.
The truth is that most gun control laws were always unconstitutional. The Bruen decision’s text and history test is testimony to that. After all, efforts to defend gun control measures have come up short because no one can find historical gun control laws similar to those being challenged.
A red flag law isn’t likely to fare any better.
That, however, is ultimately a good thing. There are other ways to address potentially dangerous people besides just taking their guns and leaving them to go about their way, potentially finding other ways to kill people.
I get that Lee was impacted by the shooting in Nashville, having known a couple of the victims. I’m genuinely sympathetic. I mean, I’ve been there. In the wake of something like that, you want to do something. I was a newspaper publisher at the time. All I could do was talk about what happened. Lee is a governor and he can do a lot more.
The problem is, what he’s wanting to do is wrong.
So, if Bruen puts the kibosh on this, so much the better.
