LEGAL ALERT: A judge has denied the motion for preliminary injunction in our lawsuit challenging Washington's "assault weapon ban," saying that the banned firearms "allow a shooter to fire as fast as they can pull the trigger, unlike previous guns." https://t.co/pE8vgg2puP
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) June 6, 2023
Category: RKBA
Gun control advocates are letting the mask slip
There will always be debate over gun control, no matter what the courts rule going forward. After all, the Bruen decision doesn’t seem to have slowed any anti-gun lawmakers down one bit. They’re just hoping the laws can go into effect for a few years before they get bounced by the Supreme Court.
Yet through it all, we’re routinely told that no one wants to ban guns, that it’s all about “common sense gun control” initiatives, but that no one wants to take away your right.
Except, that’s not remotely true, as John Lott notes in the Washington Times:
Gun control advocates keep claiming they just want “reasonable” gun control, but self-defense advocates are understandably skeptical.
New York and New Jersey cover their states with gun-free zones to the point of making concealed carry impractical. Hawaii’s Legislature is now proposing to charge permit holders $1,000 in fees. None of that is reasonable. Nor is it reasonable when President Biden keeps talking about banning all semi-automatic guns, which account for about 85% of handguns sold.
ABC News reported in 2013 that former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, who are gun control activists, “just want what they call reasonable gun control.”
(In 2011, Ms. Giffords was shot in the head at point-blank range in a supermarket parking lot. Eighteen other people were also shot, six of them fatally, including federal District Chief Judge John Roll and a 9-year-old girl.)
But at the end of an interview with Time magazine in April, the Democratic former lawmaker from Arizona made her wishes clear: “‘No more guns,’ she said. Peter Ambler, her aide and adviser, tried to clarify that she means no more gun violence, but Ms. Giffords was clear about what she was saying. “No, no, no,’ she said. “Lord, no.” She paused. “Guns, guns, guns. No more guns. Gone.’”
Lott goes on to illustrate just how wrong many of the gun control arguments actually are, and you should most definitely read what he has to say because he’s right.
However, there are other instances we’re seeing of the “no more guns” vibe gaining ground.
For example, we have Sen. John Fetterman’s aide suggesting the senator would support overturning the Second Amendment, which the senator’s office has yet to deny.
We also have the smaller-than-desired gaggle of women outside the state capitol of Colorado demanding not gun control, but an executive order banning guns in the state and a mandatory buyback of all firearms. This isn’t about restrictions but a totally unconstitutional gun ban decreed by executive fiat.
The truth of the matter is that gun control supporters have maintained a mask for years. They’ve routinely claimed that they aren’t interested in gun bans and anyone who says they are is just some kind of conspiracy theorist.
Yet what we’re seeing is that a lot of people are letting the mask slip. They’re not hiding it so much anymore. They’re trusting the media to cover them–which is what’s happening, to be sure–so they don’t have to pretend as much as they have in the past.
More and more are saying the quiet part out loud, which is refreshing.
The downside is that they’re not thinking this through because a majority of Americans may want some kind of gun control, but a buttload fewer are willing to accept a ban on guns
En banc! U.S. 3rd Circuit Court (The Bruen decision strikes again)
TLDR:
Range pleaded guilty in 1995 to committing welfare fraud, a misdemeanor punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. As we know, GCA’ 68 bans people convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year and a day in prison – which are usually felonies – from buying guns.
Range sued the government in 2020 saying the ban violated his 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
The appeals court – en banc – ruled that since there were no text, history or tradition of restrictions like this when the 2nd and the 14th amendments were ratified, the restriction was unconstitutional.
Another scene in the opening act of the end of gun control the goobermint has foisted on us
No Loss of Second Amendment Rights for Welfare Fraud
Range_v_Garland_En_Banc_OpinionGun Banners Want to Raise Legal Age for Gun Ownership, But their Logic is Flawed
During an intriguing video discussion between John Lott, founder and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, and Frank Miniter, editor-in-chief of NRA’s America’s 1st Freedom Magazine, both men dissected the pipe dream by gun banners to raise the legal age for gun ownership to 21. They questioned the basis of the arguments for the increase and noted the implications for the Second Amendment.
A “compromise” from the gun prohibitionists – you can’t own one, but maybe you can borrow one
Earlier today we reported on the first few hours of the supposed-to-be massive protest outside the Colorado state capitol in Denver, where the group Here 4 The Kids is holding a sit-in to pressure Gov. Jared Polis into signing an executive order banning gun sales and possession in the state. While organizer Saira Rao predicted 25,000 or more would be on hand early Monday morning, the Colorado Sun reports the number was closer to 250 people, and though a few folks have trickled onto the capitol grounds since then there’s nowhere near 25,000 in attendance.
The Sun did manage to speak with a few supporters of the flagrantly unconstitutional executive order proposed by Rao, and it’s fascinating to see how deep the delusion runs with some of these folks, starting with Rao herself.
“Yes, it is in violation of the Second Amendment, and what we are saying is, as a decent human being, at some point, you have to decide that the right to life and our children’s’ right to life must trump anybody’s right to bear arms,” Here 4 The Kids co-founder Saira Rao said Friday.
“The people who have been elected to office have to choose if they will choose children’s lives over guns,” said Rao, a former lawyer who unsuccessfully challenged U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette in the 2018 Democratic primary and then moved to Virginia. “That’s the fundamental choice. And if he’s saying he will not, he is making a choice that will put him on the wrong side of history.”
Change doesn’t happen without major shifts, she said. Americans had to amend the Constitution to abolish slavery, which was considered radical and unthinkable to many in 1865, at a time when slavery was the foundation of the American economy, she said.
“Imagine if people were just like, ‘We can’t do it.’ Indeed, they can, and they did, and now we have the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery,” Rao said.
Rao’s not trying to amend the Constitution. She’s trying to get Polis and other Democrat governors to ignore it, which isn’t going to go well. As we’ve seen from states like New York and California, anti-gun Democrats would prefer to pay lip service to the Second Amendment while violating the fundamental right to keep and bear arms rather than explicitly rejecting the right altogether, which would cause even courts that have been traditionally hostile to our Second Amendment rights to step in put a halt to their attempt at prohibition.
Oregon Measure 114 gun law faces federal court test Monday
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal trial over Oregon’s voter-approved gun control measure opened Monday in Portland, marking a critical next step for one of the toughest gun control laws in the nation after months of being tied up in the courts.
The trial, which is being held before a judge and not a jury, will determine whether the law violates the U.S. Constitution.
It comes after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment that has upended gun laws across the country, dividing judges and sowing confusion over what firearm restrictions can remain on the books. It changed the test that lower courts had long used for evaluating challenges to firearm restrictions, telling judges that gun laws must be consistent with the “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The Oregon measure’s fate is being carefully watched as one of the first new gun restrictions passed since the Supreme Court ruling last June.
The legal battle over in Oregon could well last beyond the trial. Whatever the judge decides, the ruling is likely to be appealed, potentially moving all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Frightened Politicians Leave Students at Risk
How good is good enough when it comes to protecting our children in school? One extreme view says that Superman who stops bullets with his bare hands is barely qualified to protect our children. The opposite extreme says that anyone who isn’t in jail should be qualified to act as an armed guard for our kids. One argument asks for quality while the other asks for quantity. While we are busy debating, mass-murderers are still stalking our children at school. We can stop mass-murderers if we’re willing to face a few truths.
Gun Controllers’ Real Goal Revealed
Though gun controllers often hide behind the ever-shifting goalposts of what they claim are “common-sense solutions,” sometimes their true goals slip right out into the open.
Such a case occurred when former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), in a recent interview with Time, made the true goal of the gun-control group Giffords clear when she said, “No more guns.”
An aide tried to clarify that the former congresswoman means “no more gun violence. But Giffords interjects with, “No, no, no. Lord, no,” pauses for half a minute, then continues with, “Guns, guns, guns. No more guns. Gone.”
An aide then tries to clarify that Giffords was referring to Australia, “where gun sales were outlawed,,,and existing weapons were purchased by the government.” But even that is not even remotely accurate, While the civilian possession of semi-automatic firearms in Australia was largely banned in 1996, the country did not ban all firearms. Furthermore, the bans that were enacted have had trouble being enforced and, beyond that, they have also had little to no effect on violent crime.
“Several reports from the early 2000s estimate that only 20% or so of the banned firearms had been confiscated,” Amy Swearer wrote of Australia’s gun-control efforts for America’s 1st Freedom. “Moreover, while firearm suicides dropped in Australia after the confiscation effort, there was little meaningful effect on the overall suicide rate. Another evaluation found no effect on homicides or accidental deaths, despite claims to the contrary.
Despite the overwhelming evidence of its ineffectiveness, Australia’s gun-control efforts are still often praised by anti-Second Amendment advocates. This is not to mention that such bans would certainly be unconstitutional stateside.
In response to Giffords’ remarks, John Lott, president and CEO of the Crime Prevention Research Center, wrote, “Gun control advocates usually don’t call for banning all guns even though that has been obvious to everyone else, but at least they aren’t hiding what they want anymore.”
“The fact that they are pointing to Australia as an example where guns have been banned is depressing because they really believe that a gun ban reduces crime when all gun and handgun bans are associated with increased murder rates and Australia never banned all guns,” added Lott.
Lott also recently sat down with America’s 1st Freedom Editor in Chief Frank Miniter for a pair of videos that can be viewed here and here.
NJ is Playing a Game of Chicken with Supreme Court & 2nd Amendment
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a legal challenge of New Jersey’s “sensitive places” concealed carry statute have filed a response to the state’s motion for a stay in the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The case is now known as Koons v. Platkin.
Second Amendment Foundation is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, New Jersey Second Amendment Society, and four private citizens.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bumb granted a preliminary injunction, and the state filed a motion to stay the order pending appeal.
Second Amendment Foundation opposes the stay, arguing the state “did not meet its burden before the district court, and it cannot meet it in this Court. Thus a stay pending appeal should be denied.”
“The state is struggling with all its might,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “in a stubborn effort to retain a literal stranglehold on the rights of New Jersey citizens.
We’re challenging the ban on legal carry in parks, on beaches, and at recreation facilities, publicly owned museums and libraries, bars and restaurants where alcohol is served, entertainment facilities, airports (before TSA security), public transportation hubs, and the presumptive ban on private property.
“There is no established historical tradition that could justify the restrictions included in the new law. New Jersey simply cannot criminalize licensed concealed carry virtually everywhere in the state by designating everything as a ‘sensitive area,’ nor should it be allowed to continue enforcing these restrictions pending appeal.”
SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said the state is playing a game of chicken with the Supreme Court and the Second Amendment.
“The state is burdened with showing the carry restrictions are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation, and we don’t see how that is possible,” Kraut said.
“The state has not provided any evidence of Founding era restrictions like it wants to enforce today, and is essentially trying to stall the inevitable for as long as possible.”
California Wants Gun Mag BAN Case to Go Away, Not So Fast Freedom Haters
BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a long-running legal challenge of California’s magazine ban statute have filed a memorandum in support of their motion for summary judgment and opposition to the state’s counter-motion for a summary judgment. The case is known as Wiese v. Bonta, originally filed in 2017.
SAF is joined by the Calguns Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, and several private citizens. They are represented by attorneys George M. Lee at Seiler Epstein LLP in San Francisco and Raymond M. DiGuiseppe at DiGuiseppe Law Firm in Southport, N.C. The case is in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
“California has been stubbornly defending what amounts to a confiscatory effort to deprive state residents of magazines which are commonly owned by millions of citizens across the country,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Following the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling last year, the state has doubled down with its gun control efforts, and defending this indefensible magazine ban is a major component of what amounts to a campaign of resistance which the courts should not allow.”
“We’ve been in this fight for six years,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The state has now resorted to absurd arguments that concede an inherent operating part of a firearm is an ‘arm’ only so long as it holds an arbitrarily determined number of rounds, but suddenly becomes something else if it holds more. As we explain in the text of our memorandum, nothing in the Second Amendment supports the state’s position on drawing these random lines to determine whether something is an ‘arm’ or not.
“Last summer’s Supreme Court ruling in the Bruen case established a new directive for handling Second Amendment cases, which now require that challenged gun laws must be supported by historical traditions, and the state cannot do that in this case,” he added.
The 28-page memorandum also notes;
“Therefore, the common use of an arm overrides any decrees or policy judgments of the State as to what its citizens ‘really need’ for purposes of exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear protected arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes. And it is beyond any reasonable dispute that the magazines at issue are commonly owned, both here in California and throughout the United States.”
Most Gun Control Laws Render Us More Unsafe
Every time Democrats unveil a new gun control proposal, their message is the same: their bill, if enacted, will save lives. Actually the exact opposite is true.
States have recently rushed to pass new laws in response to a decision the U.S. Supreme Court made last year in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. Bruen.
It held that the Second Amendment prohibits government requiring applicants to prove a “special need” in order to be issued a concealed carry permit.
States that included this requirement are called “may issue” states; others, which comprise the majority, are called “shall issue” states.
Maryland was one of those “may issue” states, and concealed carry applications there soared in response to Bruen.
“The Maryland State Police has received 11 times the usual number of new permit applications since the court struck down state provisions requiring gun owners to demonstrate a special need for carrying a firearm for self-defense,” The Washington Post reported.
However, to paraphrase a verse in the Book of Job: “the government giveth, the government taketh away.”
Many “may issue” jurisdictions, including Maryland, scrambled to change their concealed carry laws to comply with Bruen, while still limiting the right to carry, despite the plain language of the Second Amendment that states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
So while newly-elected Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat, eased restrictions to obtain a permit, he simultaneously tightened them — by limiting the places where one may carry.
“Gun violence is tearing apart the fabric of our communities, not just through mass shootings but through shootings that are happening in each of our communities far too often,” Moore said at a bill-signing ceremony. “We will act, and that’s exactly what today represents.”
But by signing Maryland’s new law, he only made Baltimore’s “mean streets” even meaner.
New Oregon gun law, Measure 114, to face federal court test next week
Oregonians passed Measure 114 in November. It would ban the manufacture, purchase or sale of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. It would also require people to take a safety course and pass a background check to get a permit allowing them to purchase firearms. But before the law went into effect, it ran into a flurry of legal challenges at the state and federal levels.
The state case is expected to pick up again in September. And several bills meant to tighten Oregon’s gun laws are among the legislation sidelined by the Republican-led walkout in the Oregon Senate.
In the meantime, the federal bench trial — no jury — starts next week in Portland and will be heard by U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee. The federal trial, which is slated to run for five days, will result in a first ruling about whether the new law is legal under the U.S. Constitution. No matter what Immergut decides, the ruling will likely be appealed, possibly all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
A lawyer for one of the groups hoping to overturn the law declined an invitation to come on Think Out Loud this week, citing the pending case. But a lawyer for the state, Michael Kron, did agree to come on the show and spoke to host Dave Miller on Wednesday. Kron is special counsel to the State Attorney General and is part of the legal team defending the voter-passed law.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
No one NO ONE, who has attained this high status is this naïve. So, he’s a stooge, nothing more than a Godless communist in disguise who is pushing the disarmament agenda. So, the following applies:
BLUF:
“The voluntary self-restraint that I am calling for will not solve the problem of gun violence all by itself, but it can help us change our culture from one that is obsessively focused on individuals’ rights to a society dedicated to ensuring the common good,”
Newark cardinal asks Americans to voluntarily forgo right to guns
NEW YORK – Amid a mounting debate in America over the constitutionality of gun control, Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark has entered the fray with a different argument: That people should voluntarily forgo their Second Amendment rights for the betterment of society.
“I honestly believe it is the best thing we can do to change the culture of violence that threatens us today,” Tobin said.
“Let’s voluntarily set aside our rights in order to witness the truth that only peace and never violence, is the way to build a free society that is lived concretely in our homes, our neighborhoods, our communities, our nation and our world,” he said.
Tobin made the plea in a recent letter, “Pray for an end to all instances of violence,” where he calls on community leaders and Catholic bishops, himself included, to call for a “synodal effort” to actively resist gun violence. He proposed a threefold process that includes prayer and work, advocacy, and voluntary self-restraint from the Second Amendment.
The letter, published May 26, is the latest call to action amid a spate of mass shootings in recent months. May 30 marked the 150th day of 2023, over which time there have been 263 mass shootings – incidents with four or more people shot – that have led to 327 deaths.
Gun rights advocates ask judges to uphold ruling in fight over gun law
Attorneys for Second Amendment advocates fighting New Jersey’s new gun law are urging a federal appeals court to uphold a recent ruling blocking most of the law from taking effect.
State attorneys failed to prove anyone would be irreparably harmed by U.S. District Court Judge Renée Marie Bumb’s order earlier this month affirming people’s right to carry guns in many places state lawmakers banned them, the lawyers wrote in two briefs filed Tuesday in response to the state attorney general’s appeal of Bumb’s order.
Attorneys representing New Jersey gun owners Ronald Koons and Aaron Siegel filed separate challenges the day Gov. Phil Murphy signed the law in December. The cases were later consolidated.
In two briefs totaling almost 60 pages, the attorneys repeatedly refer to Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down restrictions on gun carry, as a reason why the state’s bid to halt Bumb’s preliminary injunction is “flawed from start to finish,” as Siegel’s attorneys put it.
“Governments may bar the carrying of firearms in only ‘exceptional circumstances,’” Koons’ attorneys noted, citing Bruen. “The exception cannot become the rule.”
In defending lawmakers’ decision to ban guns in about 25 “sensitive places,” the state failed to prove such prohibitions are “historically justified,” as Bruen requires, Koons’ attorneys added.
“The state is left with speculative public-safety and public-confusion arguments,” they wrote.
But any ruling further altering the status quo would just add to public confusion, they added.
Both briefs take aim at the new law’s “anti-carry default,” in which lawmakers banned guns on government and private property that is open to the public, such as stores, and guns loaded and within reach in vehicles. Private property owners have the right to forbid guns on their property, but the government can’t make that decision for them, the attorneys argue. Bumb had enjoined both the private property and vehicle restrictions.
“To the extent there is any ambiguity, it must be interpreted in favor of the Second Amendment,” Koons’ attorneys wrote.
A spokeswoman from the Attorney General’s Office declined to comment.
A national gun rights group has asked a federal judge to immediately halt the state’s longstanding ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines while the court decides whether the law should stand at all.
The National Association for Gun Rights, a Colorado-based Second Amendment advocacy group, on Tuesday was heard by First Circuit U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV in their attempt to overturn a 1998 assault weapons weapon ban made a permanent law in 2004 by then-Gov. Mitt Romney.
“Massachusetts has been directly violating the Second Amendment for decades,” NAGR President Dudley Brown said. “Under Bruen, there is no doubt in my mind the days of Romney’s Assault Weapons Ban are numbered. The National Association for Gun Rights will see to it that the rights of the people of Massachusetts are restored.”
The gun rights group says that their lawsuit comes following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which struck down certain licensing conditions in New York State and elsewhere, including Massachusetts.
Building Defenders for Our Schools and Churches
Ask someone if they can shoot a gun and you are sure to get memorable answers. You hear about their relatives or their family friends who taught them. Ask them if they passed any shooting qualification tests and you’ll find that most have not, at least not recently. Last week I watched a group of volunteer defenders in Arizona train and test to become the emergency first responders for their schools and churches. They learned to stop the threat and treat the injured victims until police and EMTs arrive. These volunteers are not your average Joe or your average Jane.
It is true that almost half of us live with a gun in our home. About 17 million of us go on to get a concealed carry permit and carry a personal firearm in public. Fewer of us learn armed defense and practice the required skills so our responses are subconscious. Said another way, few people drive their gun as automatically as they drive their car.
Like driving a car, we are describing both mental and physical skills. Frequent review lets you easily recognize a lethal threat when you see it. Making those physical skills feel routine lets you present your firearm without looking for your holster. Just like driving your car, everyone thinks they shoot well until we actually measure their performance.
The defenders in this class looked to refine every movement with their firearm. Rather than saying, “But that is the way I’ve always done it,” they had the humility and willingness to learn. They asked how to improve time after time. They showed an inspiring eagerness to change and grow.
It helps to know your limits. How accurately can you shoot if accuracy is all that matters? How fast can you go before you become erratic? It takes both speed and precision to be a good defender. They need both without sacrificing too much of either. These volunteer first responders learned better techniques in a day, but it takes patient practice to make those new refinements smooth, consistent, and routine.
Three Pro-Rights Bills Passed by Texas Lawmakers
Three pieces of legislation backed by the National Rifle Association were passed by the Texas Legislature over the weekend and sent to Gov. Greg Abbott, who has already signed one of the measures.
According to the NRA, the three bills are:
House Bill 1760, which has already been signed into law, provides a solution to allegedly “roving gun-free” school zones, which apply to school events occurring away from the school campus. This legislation limits “gun-free” restrictions to facilities actually owned and controlled by schools, or where high school, collegiate and UIL activities described in the State Penal Code (Section 46.03) are held.
House Bill 2837, which is awaiting Abbott’s signature, is designed to protect the privacy rights of people who purchase firearms and ammunition by preventing financial institutions from requiring the use of a firearms-specific merchant category code (MCC) when such purchases are made. This bill thwarts efforts by gun control groups to essentially separate gun and ammunition purchases from other retail buying with a unique MCC as established by the International Organization for Standardization. The NRA contends anti-gunners were looking for a way to create a defacto registry of gun owners, since the federal government is prohibited by law from doing so.
House Bill 3137 prevents local governments (city and/or county) from requiring firearm owners to obtain liability insurance, under the state firearms preemption law.
The gun prohibition lobby portrays Texas as something of a no-man’s land, and the media focuses on mass shootings there, while essentially supporting states such as California, with its strict gun laws, but which also has mass shootings.
Anti-gunners were busy this session in Austin, where, according to NRA figures, there were a dozen bills aimed at so-called “universal background checks,” eight so-called “red flag” bills, nine bills proposing restrictions on magazine capacity, and a whopping 21 bills that would have placed restrictions on firearms or ammunition sales to young adults.
NSSF COMMENDS NORTH DAKOTA GOV. BURGUM FOR SIGNING SECOND AMENDMENT FINANCIAL PRIVACY ACT
WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, commends North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum for signing legislation to protect the financial privacy of purchases with credit cards at firearm retailers. Gov. Burgum signed the Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act to prohibit the use of a special Merchant Category Code (MCC) for credit card purchases and prevent personal financial information from being shared by financial institutions.
“Governor Burgum is putting gun control special interests in ‘woke’ Wall Street financial corporations on notice that their attempts at antigun policies end at North Dakota’s borders,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “North Dakotans legally purchasing firearms and ammunition should never be threatened by private financial service providers or government authorities by having their name and financial data being added to a government-accessible watchlist simply for exercising their Second Amendment rights. Governor Burgum is ensuring North Dakotans won’t be held captive by the radical ‘woke’ antigun agenda that seeks to weaponize credit cards in gun owners’ wallets against them. Gun owners should worry about what’s in their wallet, not who’s in their wallet.”
Gov. Burgum signed the Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act (HB 1487). The law prohibits financial institutions from requiring a firearm retailer-specific code that is different from that of other sporting goods or general merchandise retailers.
In late 2022, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) announced it would create a unique MCC, at the behest of Amalgamated Bank which has been described as the Left’s Private Banker, that would allow credit card companies to monitor transactions at firearm retailers. Credit card companies suspended plans to implement the use of unique firearm retailer MCCs after significant opposition by NSSF and several state governments.
North Dakota joins Florida, West Virginia, Mississippi and Idaho in enacting laws to protect firearm purchasers’ privacy when using credit cards at firearm retailers. Legislation similar to these state laws is pending in Congress.
Oregon’s magazine ban, pistol purchase permitting scheme set for trial
Oregon’s narrowly-approved Measure 114 has been on hold for the past several months thanks to a circuit court judge’s injunction, but a separate federal lawsuit is set to go to trial next week, and gun owners are hoping that the ballot initiative will be struck down entirely by the courts.
U.S. District Judge Karen Immergut declined to issue a temporary restraining order of her own shortly after the law was approved by less than 51% of voters last November, ruling that the magazine ban was presumptively constitutional on the theory that the magazines aren’t likely protected by the Second Amendment in the first place, but even if they are, banning them is okay because its meant to address “unprecedented societal concerns” about mass shootings. Now she’s set to preside over a five-day trial that will delve more deeply into the constitutional questions surrounding Measure 114’s ban on commonly-owned magazines, with the state of Oregon and Measure 114’s defenders arguing that the bans are a life-saving necessity and opponents maintaining that the ban is a violation of our fundamental right to armed self-defense.
Immergut last week denied each side’s motions to rule in their favor without a trial.
“The record contains genuine disputes of material fact, which would benefit from full development through trial,” she wrote.
She said she’ll consider whether large-capacity magazines “constitute a dramatic technological change from earlier firearms capable of firing more than 10 rounds.”
Immergut also noted that she’ll take up the constitutionality of the gun permit requirement under Measure 114, but she likely won’t consider how it will be applied in reaching her opinion.
Measure challengers contend the permits will deprive law-abiding citizens of guns because state police haven’t yet hired sufficient staff to handle the anticipated increase in background checks required to obtain a permit.
“Evidence about future implementation is not ripe for determination in this trial,” Immergut said.
Based on Immergut’s previous ruling, it seems pretty clear that she’s looking for ways to justify the ban, and as Reason’s Jacob Sullum noted shortly after she declined to issue a TRO, she seems willing to twist the words of the Supreme Court in order to do so.
The FPC cites a couple of real-life cases that suggest magazine capacity can be crucial in fending off armed home invaders. More generally, it notes that shots fired in self-defense often miss their target, even when fired by trained police officers. Measure 114’s exemption for police officers recognizes that fact, the FPC says, and “the average Oregon citizen has just as much right as a police officer to defend herself with standard capacity magazines.”
For Immergut, however, the crucial point is that situations where Oregon’s magazine limit would impair self-defense are “exceedingly rare.” In effect, she is suggesting that arms are not covered by the Second Amendment unless the government agrees that they are “necessary”—and not for “lawful purposes” generally but for self-defense in particular.
Immergut even questions whether “large capacity magazines” are “in common use” for “lawful purposes,” which seems undeniable given how many law-abiding Americans own them. “Plaintiffs have not shown that magazines capable of accepting more than ten rounds of ammunition are firearms in ‘”common use” today for self-defense’ and thereby covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment,” she writes.
The Supreme Court has said that the central component of the Second Amendment is self-defense, but nothing in Heller, McDonald, or Bruen suggests that only arms that are in common use for self-defense are protected. If so, that would set up a bizarre standard that would allow for single shot bolt action hunting rifles to be banned, while protecting the handguns that were the primary target of gun control activists for decades.
While self-defense may be at the heart of the Second Amendment, the text plainly (and simply) refers to the right to keep and bear arms. Unless the state of Oregon can come up with longstanding historical analogues to banning commonly-owned arms (which they’ve so far been able to do), the state’s ban should be overturned by Immergut. I’m not all that confident the judge will apply the Bruen test appropriately and fairly, especially given her initial opinion, but unless she’s engaging in some anti-gun activism from the bench it shouldn’t be a close call to find in favor of the plaintiffs when the trial concludes next week.
Armed Women of America National Conference Opens Doors to Public
Names like Lena Miculek, Mike Seeklander, Miyo Strong of SmartDefense, Terry Vaughan, Nikki Burgett, Cheryl Todd of Gun Freedom Radio, Karen Butler of Shoot Like a Girl, Shelley Hill of The Complete Combatant, Vicki Farnam, and more are all bringing some of the best techniques and education to one spot this August.
2023 Armed Women of America National Conference
Covering topics like off-body carrying, staying calm in a crisis, safeguarding life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, self-defense, developing a personal response plan for an active threat, and so much more, the National Conference & Leadership Summit is personal protection education for women at its best.
Included in this action-packed weekend is hands-on shopping with industry brands like Ruger, Glock, Crossbreed Holsters, Gunsite Academy, Laser Ammo, ErgoGrips, Walkers, MantisX, Premier Body Armor, OTIS Smart Gun Care, CoolFire Trainers, Taurus USA, and many more. Topping it all off is plenty of social networking, add-on pre and post-conference workshops, and fun! Where else can you get this much content and connection in one place? Nowhere.
Previously reserved for chapter leadership, the Armed Women of America is opening its annual conference doors to all members, skill levels, and interests. Beyond that, in recognizing the incredible growth in women shooters, they are opening weekend EXPO to the general public. All of this offered for hundreds less than a single ticket to a Taylor Swift concert.
If you’ve not heard of the Armed Women of America (AWA), they are a non-profit organization with chapters across the country where women gather regularly to learn and grow in their abilities to handle firearms safely, responsibly, and competently. They offer a welcoming, non-intimidating place for women to learn more about topics including firearms safety, personal protection, concealed carry, mindset and so much more. The meetings offer classroom and range time, all under the guidance of certified women instructors who volunteer their time. Their vision is that women have the skills, mindset, and training to defend themselves and those in their care.