Category: RKBA

This is legal stonewalling by a judge who purposefully flips what SCOTUS ruled in Heller, Caetano and Bruen in what she hopes will take years of legal wrangling in the off chance that either or both Justices Alito and Thomas pass on and a demoncrap administration can appoint anti-gun Justices and get all these case law restorals of the 2nd amendment protections on RKBA undone…because the unwashed masses really shouldn’t have the means to tell goobermint where to go, and make it stick.

Federal Court Ruling Upholding Oregon Gun Law Will be Appealed

U.S.A. — A federal district judge’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of Oregon’s restrictive gun control Measure 114 will definitely be appealed, the head of the Second Amendment Foundation assured via email with a terse one-word statement.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, responding to an email inquiry asking, “Certainly, there will be an appeal, right?” responded bluntly: “Right.”

The ruling was immediately blasted by the Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF), one of several plaintiffs challenging the law in a consolidation of four federal lawsuits, two of which involve SAF and several partners. In a scathing reaction, OFF declared Judge Immergut’s ruling “absurd” and further said her decision was “against gun owners, the Second Amendment and a basic understanding of the English language.”

Immergut’s ruling does appear oblivious to facts involving firearms and self-defense when, on Page 120, she states, “The Supreme Court has held that Second Amendment protects an individual right to self-defense inside and outside of the home. LCMs are not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.”

This seems to ignore the prevalence of modern semi-automatic pistols, which are commonly used for personal protection, and which come from the factory with magazines holding more than 10 cartridges.

According to The Hill, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum praised the ruling while acknowledging the law still cannot be enforced because it is still being challenged in state court. A judge in Harney County has scheduled a trial in September. By that time, Judge Immergut’s decision will likely have been appealed to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Rosenblum, a Democrat, was quoted by The Hill, stating, “Our team looks forward to ultimately prevailing in the state courts as well.”

Continue reading “”

A Modest Proposal for Increased Firearms Fees

We have 23-thousand firearms regulations on the books already. Gun-control lobbyists say this is only a first step and they need even more laws to protect us. While that is a fascinating story, real evidence calls it a lie. That is why I propose a different sort of fee and licensing structure for armed America. To make this more interesting, gun-control lobbyists say it would hardly cost a thing.

Gun-control lobbyists say we need “safe guns”, mandatory firearms training, and mandatory psychological evaluations of gun owners. They say we need more “gun free zones”, and higher taxes on gun and gun owners. Again, those are simply more “first steps” to make us safer and the last gun-control law is nowhere in sight.

The mainstream media plays along. Gun-control politicians say gun owners and gun manufacturers should be taxed to pay for the harm that firearms cause. In short, we’re told that a government employee is the only person who can really keep us safe and everyone else who has a gun is a danger to society. The mainstream media and gun-control lobbyists tell us that self-defense doesn’t happen, or if it happens at all it is vanishingly rare.

Since armed citizens need training in order to safely handle a firearm, I propose that ordinary citizens should be reimbursed by the state when they take a firearms training class. Those classes always talk about firearms safety, and the gun-control groups say we certainly need more of that. Let’s add another $200 dollars reimbursement per year towards bedside gun safes to safely store a firearm.

If firearms instruction and frequent practice make all of us safer, then let’s have the state and federal government reimburse the first $200 dollars spent on ammunition each year. To quote gun-control lobbyists, ‘This is only a first step, and it’s all worth it if it only saves one life.’

The news media and gun-control lobbyists tell us that we don’t need to protect ourselves or the people we love, and we’re simply supposed to call the police and let them take care of crime. Since armed defense “never happens”, I have another low-cost solution to make us even safer.

Since there are so many calls to “defund the police”, then let’s have the city and county pay $200 to each citizen who reports they used a personal firearm in self-defense. Also, let us wave all the state and federal taxes on the next firearm the defender buys. Likewise, both the firearm and the ammunition manufacturer should be paid $200 for each defensive use of a firearm.

Since gun-control advocates say it is the government’s job to keep us safe, then we should ask the state and county to pay for their mistakes when an honest citizen protects the public after the government failed to do its job of public safety.

According to the gun-control lobbyists, the state wouldn’t have to pay anything at all
since armed defense “never happens.”

It is odd that the mainstream media and the gun-control lobby deliberately ignore the 7,600 times a day that we use a firearm in self-defense. Just like the police, honest citizens touch their guns in armed defense far more often than they are forced to press the trigger and fire a shot.

In fact, the number of lives saved by ordinary citizens each year is amazing. The monetary benefits are enormous as honest citizens prevent injuries to innocent victims. The emotional costs are even larger.

There is so much more we can do to make us safer. If licensing and regulation is important, then our gun-control laws should apply to police and politicians too. That can come later, but this is a good first step.😉

An Anti-Gunner’s Progress Or How I Finally Discovered the Truth About Guns.

By Amfivena

I like guns. I’ve always liked guns. I appreciate them for their history, their aesthetics and their engineering. I enjoy shooting guns, smelling the burnt powder, and cleaning them afterwards. I even enjoy just holding and looking at guns.

No doubt most readers share my sentiments. The problem is I grew up in an anti-gun family in an anti-gun state. So, for most of my life this interest in guns was a guilty pleasure. I kept the guns I owned hidden from friends and family, treated like a porn collection under the mattress.

I never really questioned why I felt guilty living in a safe, wealthy suburb and I never saw any practical and positive application for guns. The people around me didn’t hunt and weren’t victims of violent crime. Mainstream media told me guns were bad and the source of all sorts of problems and I believed them. I even wished we could be more like Britain or Australia. Without giving it any thought to the matter, I had accepted the mantra of gun control.

The Virginia Tech massacre was the first time I was forced to critically think about the fact I could be a victim. My time in Blacksburg was spent during the Clinton years. I was long gone by 2007, but the attack was still personal for me. It disturbed me in ways that reports of violence never had before.

Virginia Tech shooting
Injured students are removed from Norris Hall as police continue to hunt for the Virginia Tech gunman. (Alan Kim/The Roanoke Times/AP Photo)
I dated a woman in the dorm where the shooting started and had classes in the building where most of the carnage took place. I distinctly remember feeling uncomfortable with the calls for more gun control laws. At that point, I was still firmly in the ‘guns are bad’ camp, but for the first time, I finally began to think about the issue.

I taught American politics in Canada for a couple years after the VT shooting. When I teach I make a point of helping students form their own opinions about important issues. I do my best not to tell students what to think and my grading rewards forming and supporting strong opinions. I like controversial subjects because they tend to engage students the most.

A three-way discussion including me and two students who were destined for an A grade, while 17 others snooze doesn’t strike me as effective teaching. You need topics like drugs, guns, or sex to get the back row to wake up and participate.

I found most Canadian students viewed the Second Amendment in the same light as fugitive slave laws…outdated and barbaric. The overwhelming view of my students was that the USA is a violent place because of the Second Amendment. At first, I can’t say I completely disagreed.

In every class there were a few Canadians who held a minority view. I generally dismissed them as “gun nuts.” Yes, that was hypocritical given my own personal interests. My self-imposed duty to present both sides of a matter forced me to take them seriously though.

Over a few semesters I dug into the history of the Second Amendment looking for material to present both sides. I soon found myself making a case for the Second Amendment to the class and actually believing the words coming out of my mouth. I also found myself somewhat proud of the views as an American. It’s indicative of the bias prevalent inside the academic bubble that my new-found knowledge still stirred some guilty feelings.

I returned to the US a modest supporter of Second Amendment rights. I was generally in favor of civilian ownership of firearms, but still all too willing to randomly outlaw something in the interest of the greater good. It was an improvement for sure, but I was still more an enemy than a friend of the cause.

I continued to teach and always looked forward to discussing firearms. I developed stronger opinions on the importance of the Second Amendment with each passing semester. Despite this, my views on gun control remained soft. At that point I fully understood the geographic distribution of violence and crime, but I also cared about human life.

The daily body counts in our cities bothered me. I wanted to do something, even if the problem mostly occurred somewhere other than in my northern New England home. I remained willing to sacrifice some of my liberty if it might help others.

It took the Sandy Hook massacre for me to fully reconcile my conflicting views on guns. My daughter was the same age as most of the victims. So, like the Virginia Tech shooting, news of Sandy Hook was profoundly disconcerting despite the fact it had no direct impact on my life.

The inevitable calls for more gun control laws and more gun-free zones suddenly made no sense to me. Mainstream media shouted ‘we’ve got to do something!’ For the first time in my life I asked the question; How will punishing law-abiding Americans make any difference to people willing to kill?

Thankfully, the internet enabled me to see that others were asking the same question.

Continue reading “”

Women Are Arming Themselves at an Accelerated Rate

The face of gun ownership is changing. Over the last few decades, more and more women are arming themselves.

As of 2022, women are the fastest-growing group of gun owners in the United States.

In 2005, only 13 percent of gun owners were women. Now, one in five women reported owning a firearm. What’s even more staggering is that most gun purchases during the pandemic were made by women according to a Harvard survey.

Continue reading “”

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.”

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.

Continue reading “”

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.

Continue reading “”