2nd amendment history
So often heard is “Why would Founding Fathers want people to have arms? The 2A is obviously about state militias!”
Well, here is correspondence from the Revolution which shows why.
The Continental Army couldn’t arm recruits, and recruits showed up unarmed.
Four guns for 100 men!
It’s a constant refrain. Arms needed. Cartridges and lead needed.
Unfortunate, the SCOTUS will eventually have to step in on this, but Ds are counting on it possibly taking 6 years or so to get to SCOTUS. They hope to replace Thomas and/or Alito, who will be 80 & 78 in 6 yrs
Illinois assault weapons ban back in effecthttps://t.co/1zGsmm1FsL
— John R Lott Jr. (@JohnRLottJr) May 5, 2023
On April 28, a judge in the Southern District of Illinois, in the case of Barnet v. Raoul, issued a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the recently-passed Protect Illinois Communities Act which banned “assault weapons” and standard capacity magazines. At the beginning of that case, the court made the following statement: “… no state may enact a law that denies its citizens rights that the Constitution guarantees them. Even legislation that may enjoy the support of a majority of its citizens must fail if it violates the constitutional rights of fellow citizens.”
Simply put, the Second Amendment — the only Amendment to have the phrase “shall not be infringed” applied to it — guarantees citizens have a right to self-defense.
Across the Heller, McDonald and Bruen decisions, the Supreme Court of the United States has been crystal clear on two things: That the crux of the Second Amendment guarantees the right to self-defense, and that the Second Amendment is no longer a second-class right that is subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.
There can be, or should be, no question that any law that effectively prohibits the ability of an honest and law-abiding citizen to immediately purchase the best means of self-defense is an “infringement” to the right of self-defense. It is illogical to argue otherwise, given the wording of our Constitution.
We can speculate that a waiting period may save lives for those who are intent on immediately killing themselves; that maybe, perhaps, putting time between a purchase and taking possession will give people in crisis the time to reconsider.
On the other hand, we see, every day, violence is targeting completely innocent people. Law-abiding citizens who are under a threat of violence have a right to defend themselves, and to quote Martin Luther King: “A right delayed is a right denied.”
From my research, I have found only one court challenge to a waiting period so far, and that occurred in 2014 in California in the case of Silvester v. Harris. The case was heard in the U.S. District Court of California, which ruled the law was unconstitutional. In making that ruling, the court stated: “Defendant has identified no laws in existence at or near 1791 (founding) or 1868 (14th Amendment ratified) that imposed a waiting period of any duration between time of purchase and the time of possession of a firearm.” It further ruled: “The Court has found that the 10-day waiting periods (of Penal Code § 26815(a) and § 27540(a)) violate the Second Amendment.”
That decision was then appealed by California to the 9th Circuit, who overruled it by using a two-step means-end test and by applying intermediate scrutiny — both of which have been invalidated by Bruen when considering the Second Amendment.
In considering the constitutionality of H.230, it is exceptionally telling that Legislative Counsel remained almost completely mute. Yes, they certainly did advise both Judiciary committees that the Bruen decision was a major one, one that was raising all sorts of legal challenges across the country; yet, they completely withheld any concrete statement of constitutionality.
When the Attorney General’s office gave testimony, they opined that everything was fine. When the Defender General’s office gave testimony, they stated virtually every section of the bill had severe constitutional issues. On the one hand, we have the Attorney General indicating all is kosher. On the other, we have the Defender General’s office saying almost nothing in H.230 will pass constitutional muster. Finally, we have the Legislative Counsel whose guidance appears to be “we just don’t know.”
Three very different legal opinions, with one of them being wrong. Given that, how could this bill proceed as it did, unless the majority of the Legislature was willing to consciously ignore constitutional implications? It’s a gray area; let the courts decide; to heck with the thought something may be unconstitutional?
In creating H.230, you will note one very odd section, Section 8, Severability. Per 1 VSA § 215: “The provisions of any act are severable,” meaning if one provision of a passed bill is found invalid, the other provisions remain in effect. When 1 VSA § 215 is implied with every bill enacted, why was it felt this bill warranted that specific statute reference, the first bill I have ever seen with this section in there? There can only be one explanation: The creators of this bill were clearly not sure it was all constitutional. In fact, we know of some in the majority who believe at least some of it is not constitutional but voted for it anyway.
I fully acknowledge there is the possibility that a waiting period might, maybe, possibly force someone who is intent on killing themselves to reconsider as they wait to take possession of a firearm. The Legislature, however, must acknowledge that, while they are laser-focused on attempting to save the lives of people who are intent on killing themselves, they are, at the same time, putting other citizens in jeopardy by denying them the ability to purchase the means of self-defense in a timely manner.
It’s really that simple. Any vote for H.230 is a vote that ignores constitutional implications, it puts citizens who wish to defend themselves at risk, and it will cost the state (i.e., Vermonters) money to defend laws that will not pass constitutional muster when they are eventually challenged.
It currently appears Vermonters will have to temporarily live under the dictates of the majority in the Legislature, who wish to do nothing less than ignore the constitutional right of self-defense. For those legislators voting for H.230 and everyone else who supports it, sooner or later, they will have to live under the majority of SCOTUS, as simple logic tells us waiting periods will not pass constitutional muster.
Chris Bradley is president/executive director of Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, lobbyist for that organization and for Vermont State Rifle & Pistol Association.
Lawsuit challenges California’s 10-day waiting period law for gun purchases
SAN DIEGO (CNS) – Firearms advocates filed a lawsuit in San Diego federal court this week challenging California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases.
The lawsuit filed Monday joins a number of others filed in San Diego in recent years challenging the state’s laws governing firearm and ammunition purchases and possession.
It alleges the state’s waiting period law “prevents law-abiding people from taking possession of lawfully acquired firearms for immediate self- defense and other lawful purposes.” The complaint alleges the law is unconstitutional as it prevents law-abiding people from receiving firearms they purchased after they pass background checks confirming they are not prohibited from doing so.
The suit was filed on behalf of several San Diego County residents who are gun owners, as well as firearms advocacy groups such as San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, California Gun Rights Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
In a statement, Firearms Policy Coalition director of legal operations Bill Sack said, “Arbitrarily delaying access of life-saving and constitutionally protected tools to peaceable people is immoral and unsupported by the text, history and tradition of the second amendment in this country. This law must be struck down.”
A representative from California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office said Monday that the lawsuit was being reviewed.
17 gun restriction bills flounder at Georgia Capitol
ATLANTA — This year, the Georgia legislature mostly ignored 17 gun restriction bills – including bills that would have limited access to guns for folks with mental health issues.
The 17 gun restriction bills were introduced by Democrats. The capitol is run by Republicans, who have expanded, not restricted, gun rights.
When police converged on the Northside Medical building in Midtown Atlanta Wednesday in an attempt to take down a mass shooter – and ordered people nearby to shelter in place – one of them was state Sen. Josh McLaurin (D-Atlanta), who was having lunch.
McLaurin said after taking stock of the mass shooting, the injuries and death, and the danger inherent in the ongoing manhunt, he took stock of the Georgia politics that he says enables gun violence.
“Frustration is the right word,” McLaurin told 11Alive Thursday. “This is a policy decision. We are choosing to live like this. There are common-sense gun safety, sensible regulations legislation that we could pass.”
In 2023, Democrats introduced bills ranging from requiring background checks and waiting periods to safe storage of firearms, to red flag laws limiting firearms for people who may have mental health issues.
Republicans didn’t allow a vote for any of them, even in committee.
Vernon Lee, a longtime capitol lobbyist and gun rights backer, said the problem isn’t an absence of gun restrictions – it’s an absence of stiff law enforcement.
“There should be swifter, stricter punishment [for gun crimes],” Lee said. “There are laws on the books (that say) these are the ramifications if you do that. Some of those ramifications have not been enforced enough to curtail gun violence.”
McLaurin said he’s heard that far too much.
“The public that want commonsense gun reform are being blocked by, again, a tiny minority of people who are characterizing any reasonable attempt at sensible legislation as repealing the second amendment. And it’s BS,” McLaurin said.
All those gun bills are still technically in play during next year’s legislative session. But by all but ignoring them this year, Republicans spoke volumes about their interest in advancing them next year.
Americans Have Something to Say That Biden Won’t Like to Hear
President Joe Biden and his gun control advisors won’t like this news.
The poll was released just days after the president once again called for a national ban on Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs).
It’s a Trend
“In 1994, I led the fight to successfully ban assault weapons… We know the solution. Congressional Republicans need to show some courage,” President Joe Biden tweeted last month.
The American public, though, is saying not-so-fast. The Monmouth poll reveals Americans don’t want a ban. It’s a trend and the new data represents a nine-point drop in support for a federal ban on America’s most popular-selling centerfire semiautomatic rifle in almost a year. The new polling also represents a seven-point increase in opposition to a ban.
The Quinnipiac poll even showed a majority of Americans – 51 percent – opposed a ban. “While President Joe Biden is calling on Congress to renew the long-expired ban on assault weapons, the public now is divided on the question…,” that report stated.
Detroit City Council to consider gun-free zones as advocates push back
Advocates Scotty Boman, Rick Ector and Ryan Brennan are urging Detroit City Council to vote against a resolution that would create gun-free zones in Detroit.© Dana Afana
Detroit City Council members on Tuesday postponed a vote on a resolution to establish gun-free zones in certain high-traffic parts of the city.
Councilmember Mary Waters pushed the resolution back to committee where members can further discuss proposed changes. The resolution calls for urging the Michigan Legislature to repeal the Firearm and Ammunition Act 319 of 1990 since Detroit is not allowed to establish the zones under current state gun laws. At a meeting in April, Waters proposed gun-free zones in areas that include the Detroit riverfront, Greektown, Hart Plaza, Spirit of Detroit Plaza and Campus Martius. Shootings have occurred in the downtown area in recent weekends as the weather warms toward summer and more people head outside.
In pushing for the change, Waters said parents need to ensure their children conduct themselves responsibly, urging guns in a household with children “should be locked up and stored so children cannot gain access.”
But Scotty Boman, founder of Detroit Residents Advancing Civilian Oversight, said despite council members being well-intentioned, such a move would have adverse effects.
“I don’t believe the correct response to the violence that we have had in our city is to deny basic liberties to the residents, and specifically the idea of making Greektown into a gun-free zone is not going to help make anyone safer and it is an infringement of people’s basic rights,” said Boman, who gathered on Monday in Greektown with other gun rights supporters. “The fact of the matter is that criminals don’t care about the law. If we set up checkpoints on public streets, that’s yet another thing, now we’re talking about search and seizure rights. … I think it’s best to have responsible gun owners who can actually respond and help protect and help stop active shooters.”
Boman, alongside National Rifle Association member Rick Ector and Wayne County Libertarian Party member Ryan Brennan, said it punishes individuals without ensuring safety.
‘Assault Weapon’ Bans Look More Legally Vulnerable Than Ever
A preliminary injunction in Illinois may signal the demise of a long-running public policy fraud.
Three days after Washington became the 10th state to enact an “assault weapon” ban, a federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of a similar law in Illinois. That decision, which was published last Friday, may signal the demise of a long-running public policy fraud that falsely depicts an arbitrarily defined category of semi-automatic rifles as good for nothing but mass murder.
“Assault weapon” bans, which typically cover specific models along with features such as adjustable stocks, pistol grips, flash suppressors, and barrel shrouds, have always been logically dubious. And under the constitutional test that the Supreme Court recently established, they look more legally vulnerable than ever.
These laws never made much sense. With or without the features that states such as Washington and Illinois have deemed intolerable, a rifle fires the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity.
Even President Joe Biden, who wants Congress to revive the federal “assault weapon” ban that expired in 2004, has conceded that the law left would-be killers with plenty of alternatives that were “just as deadly.” And contrary to the claim that the rifles targeted by this sort of legislation are the “weapon of choice” in mass shootings, handguns account for more than three-quarters of the firearms used in such crimes and an even larger share of the firearms used in gun homicides generally.
The Supreme Court’s precedents suggest that “assault weapon” bans are unconstitutional as well as illogical. The Court has said the Second Amendment applies to firearms that are commonly used for lawful purposes, and last June it explicitly rejected the sort of “interest-balancing” test that lower courts had previously used to uphold “assault weapon” bans.
Instead of weighing a law’s purported public safety benefits against the burdens it imposes, the justices said, courts should ask whether it is “consistent with this Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation.” In a federal lawsuit they filed immediately after Washington enacted its “assault weapon” ban last week, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) argue that the state cannot meet that test.
“The only historical tradition that can remove a firearm from the Second Amendment’s protective scope,” the complaint says, is “the tradition of banning dangerous and unusual weapons.” But that category does not include “arms that are in common use” for legal purposes, “as the firearms Washington has banned unquestionably are.”
The SAF and the FPC note that AR-15 style rifles covered by Washington’s law “are among the most popular firearms in the nation, and they are owned by millions of Americans.” They cite survey data indicating that “about 24.6 million Americans have owned AR-15 or similar modern semiautomatic rifles.”
The SAF and the FPC made the same argument in Illinois, and U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn found it persuasive. In granting a preliminary injunction against that state’s “assault weapon” ban, McGlynn concluded that the law was probably inconsistent with the right to keep and bear arms, adding that Illinois legislators seem to have ignored that likelihood and the Supreme Court decisions underlying it.
In the survey cited by the SAF and the FPC, two-thirds of the respondents who reported owning AR-15-style rifles said they used them for recreational target shooting, while half mentioned hunting and a third mentioned competitive shooting. Sixty-two percent said they used the rifles for home defense, and 35 percent cited defense outside the home.
Ascribing intent to inanimate objects reflects the magical thinking of politicians who argue that certain guns are inherently evil. That position is plainly at odds with a reality that courts may no longer be able to ignore.
Missouri: Committee to Hear Postponed Public Transit Self-Defense & Church Carry Bill
Tomorrow, Today at 8:30AM, the Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee will hear House Bill 282, to ensure law-abiding citizens may carry firearms for self-defense on public transit and to allow places of worship to make their own security decisions. This bill was previously scheduled for last week and got postponed. Please contact committee members and ask them to SUPPORT HB 282.
House Bill 282 repeals arbitrary “gun-free zones” that do nothing to hinder criminals, while leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless. It removes the prohibition on law-abiding citizens carrying firearms for self-defense on public transit property and in vehicles. This ensures that citizens with varying commutes throughout their day, and of various economic means, are able to exercise their Second Amendment rights and defend themselves.
The bill also repeals the prohibition in state law against carrying firearms for self-defense in places of worship. This empowers private property owners to make such decisions regarding security on their own, rather than the government mandating a one-size-fits-all solution.
Is SCOTUS ready to step in on an “assault weapons” ban?
Since the Bruen decision was delivered last June, the Supreme Court has been largely content to let lower courts wrestle with the opinion and what it means for the future of gun control laws like a ban on so-called assault weapons or even the new concealed carry restrictions put in place by the state of New York after its “may issue” regime was struck down by SCOTUS in Bruen. Now the Court is being asked to weigh in on an “assault weapons” ban imposed by the city of Naperville, Illinois, and Second Amendment advocates are hoping that at least four justices are ready and willing to take up the request for an injunction.
The National Association for Gun Rights is hoping the Supreme Court will do what the Seventh Circuit did not; put a halt to Naperville’s gun ban while the case plays out in court. On Monday afternoon, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett directed Naperville officials to respond to NAGR’s request no later than noon on May 8th. Coincidentally (or not), that’s the same day that U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn has told the plaintiffs in the challenge to the statewide ban on “assault weapons” to reply to Illinois’ request to stay his injunction against the “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazine ban, which was handed down last week.
The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), in conjunction with the National Foundation for Gun Rights (NFGR),says the law conflicts with the high court’s NYSRPA v. Bruen decision last year, which ruled gun laws must align with constitutional text and history.
Well, that’s not gonna happen. The bigger question is whether the Supreme Court will step in now or wait for another case involving a ban on so-called assault weapons to reach its doorstep.
Not a Second-Class Right – The Second Amendment
On July 25, 2022 the Second Amendment rightfully rejoiced about an historic decision from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). In this now famous case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, (now commonly referred to as Bruen) the court dropped the hammer on the bigotry the 2A Community has faced for far too long.
In that ruling, the court reiterated an earlier statement form SCOTUS regarding the Second Amendment in a case referred to as McDonald: “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780”
In Bruen, the court went even further declaring: “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”
These were very groundbreaking and profound statements from the highest court in the U.S. It should have meant the immediate end of modern gun control as we know it. Sadly, those of us who have been in the trenches for a long time knew it wouldn’t be. Like many other communities that have faced social bigotry in the past, we knew the anti-civil rights crowd would fight to create scorched earth policies for lawful citizens.
There is one piece of this that really hasn’t been talked about. The phrase: “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right…”
As simple as it sounds, is it really? What does that one statement mean to the rest of Bill of Rights? The 2A Community needs to be shouting loud and clear that the ruling clearly means that whatever government does to the Second, it must also apply to every civil right, period! Imagine the true breadth of this.
If government, as a nation or state, places restrictions on or precents you entirely from exercising your Second Amendment civil rights, then why should we trust you to vote intelligently and responsibly? How about sitting on a jury? If we are not supposed to trust you with a gun, why would we ever trust you to dispense justice fairly? If, for example, a single drunk driving conviction with no jail time permanently revokes your Second Amendment rights, why should it no revoke all the rest.
Imagine all those people who believe healthcare and higher education are civil rights. Now imagine the public outcry if they were to lose those rights because they were declared “unsuitable”? There would be riots in the streets and possibly a real insurrection.
What if anyone running for any public office had to meet the local standards and restrictions faced by the 2A community? After all, if someone is not eligible under local laws to exercise their 2A civil rights, then why should they have the ability to pass laws about it? How interesting would it be for the local police chief to have suitability authority over political candidates.
If all of this seems a little far-fetched it is only because the Second Amendment being treated as a true civil right is sadly a brand-new concept. If indeed the Second is not a “second class” civil right, which it is not, then there is going to have to be a profound awaking across the board with all civil rights. Moving forward, the message from the 2A community to government officials everywhere and the anti-civil rights crowd: “Whatever you do to us, you must do to everyone and every civil right, period. If what you propose is not acceptable for any other civil rights, then it is not acceptable for the Second!”
THEY WANT A FIGHT
SO LET’S GIVE IT TO ’EM!
It will have been one year on June 23 since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and ever since, anti-gun Democrats have been acting like the decision never happened.
A state House representative in Olympia, Wash. may have pegged the reason why during an interview with me back in January. His analysis was matter-of-fact, entirely sensible and a little scary.
The $10,000 Secret
The gun control crowd wants a fight. They are determined to wage a war of perpetual litigation if necessary to have their way — or at least make sure you don’t get your way — at the expense of taxpayers rather than acknowledge they’ve been wrong about the Second Amendment.
Rep. Jim Walsh, from the Evergreen State’s Grays Harbor area along the Pacific Coast has watched them.
“That’s the dangerous thing,” he said about the gun prohibition mindset. “They have a blind spot on this issue. The profound question is whether it’s an ideological position or a political calculation.”
Either way, gun owners cannot allow them to win.
Supreme Court Requests Brief in Case Against Illinois Town’s ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban
Naperville, Illinois, will have to defend its ban on the sale of AR-15s and similar firearms before the Supreme Court.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who oversees the circuit the case against the ban is happening in, asked the city to respond to an emergency request for an injunction against the ordinance on Monday. That means at least one justice wants to hear more about the case before the High Court decides whether or not to weigh in. The city has until May 8th to answer claims that the ban violates the Constitution.
“We’re thankful the Supreme Court is taking the Second Amendment rights of Illinoisans seriously,” Dudley Brown of the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), a plaintiff in the case, said in a statement.
The move may indicate the Court is getting closer to taking up a case against so-called assault weapons bans. After it handed down a new test for gun cases in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court ordered the Fourth Circuit to rehear a case upholding Maryland’s ban. Federal judges have been split on whether the bans violate the Second Amendment under the new test, opening the door for potential Supreme Court intervention and clarification.
Illinois enacted a statewide ban earlier this year, but it has since been blocked in state and federal court. It has also faced substantial backlash from Illinois sheriffs, a majority of which say they won’t enforce the ban because they consider it unconstitutional.
NAGR was denied a preliminary injunction against the Naperville ordinance in February, and the Seventh Circuit rejected the gun-rights group’s request to block enforcement of the law while its appeal is being processed. Now, the group is making the same request to the Supreme Court.
If the Court does issue an injunction against the ordinance, it will signal similar bans adopted by ten states are unconstitutional. That could upend the debate over gun control in America, which has largely centered around prohibitions on the AR-15 and similar guns. But, while Barrett’s request for a brief increases the odds the case will see action, most cases where briefs are requested do not get a full hearing.
NAGR said it is confident it will prevail in the case, though.
“Any ban on so-called ‘Assault Weapons’ is plainly unconstitutional, and now it is on the city of Naperville to explain the legal justification for their ban,” Brown said. “Of course, there isn’t any. The bans were ludicrous from the start, and if Illinois had any sense, they would wave the white flag now and save us all some time.”
Naperville did not respond to a request for comment.
INSLEE’S TRAINING REQUIREMENT FOR GUN BUYERS SAME AS LITERACY TEST FOR VOTERS
BELLEVUE, WA – Washington Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee this morning signed legislation requiring gun buyers to provide proof they have completed a firearms training course before being allowed to complete their transaction, but the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is calling this the equivalence of a “literacy test” that was used to discourage voting by minorities in the South.
“We’re talking about rights in both cases,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “For Jay Inslee or any other Democrat to contend ‘this is different’ suggests they’re either dishonest or delusional, and perhaps a little bit of both.”
House Bill 1143 explicitly states on Page 2 that the purchaser of a firearm provides proof of completion of a recognized firearm safety training program within the last five years that complies with the requirements set down in the second section of the bill. The legislation is part of the radical Democrat push to make Washington gun laws prohibitively restrictive when the Article 1, Section 24 of the state constitution explicitly states, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired.”
“This requirement, along with the 10-day waiting period, seem like impairments to us,” Gottlieb stated. “When the governor earlier this year compared this requirement to getting training before being issued a license to drive, he ignored one very important point, and he knows it. Driving is a privilege, but keeping and bearing arms is a right protected by both the state and federal constitutions, and there is nothing in either of those provisions about training, or waiting.
“Inslee and the Democrats can couch this any way they want,” he continued, “but it adds up to the same thing. These requirements are designed to discourage Evergreen State citizens from exercising their constitutionally-protected and enumerated rights.
“Democrats in the Legislature are not only at war with Washington gun owners,” Gottlieb concluded, “they have also declared war on the state and federal constitutions, and the built-in protections for law-abiding firearms owners. As we’ve said many times, this isn’t about guns, it’s about rights.”
This crap-for-brains is nothing more than petty politics. They’re against it simply because it’s something they see as opposite to their politics
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) reintroduced the Help Empower Americans to Respond (HEAR) Act, which would ban the importation, sale, manufacturing, transfer, and possession of gun silencers or suppressors.
Menendez, a founding member of the Senate Gun Violence Prevention Caucus, took to Twitter to tout this gun control effort and in the process proved that he knows very little about that which he seeks to regulate.
“Gun silencers are designed to suppress the sound of gunfire from unknowing victims and reduce the chances they can run, hide, and call the police,” the Democrat said in a statement. “I’m reintroducing the HEAR Act to prevent these deadly devices from making shootings even more dangerous.”
U.S. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) reintroduced the legislation in the House and she was no better informed.
“Silencers are not tools of self-defense, they are tools of murder. They have no legal application, which is why law enforcement officials around the country have called for their elimination,” Coleman said. “The HEAR Act will save lives and is part of the common sense approach to firearms legislation that has widespread support among voters on both sides of the aisle.”
Dana Loesch, a former NRA spokesperson, took to Twitter to call attention to their “level of ignorance.”
“Tell me that you have NO IDEA what silencers do without telling me you have no idea what silencers dSo. Holy wow, this level of ignorance is embarrassing,” she tweeted, before explaining, “They’re literally required for hunting [in] Britain to protect hearing. It merely reduces decibel levels to that of concert PA system. Moron.”
Delaware: Federal District Judge Finds Unusual Way to Ban Semi-Auto Guns & Magazines
On March 27, 2023, Judge Richard G. Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion that denied the request for a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the State of Delaware’s unconstitutional ban on some semi-automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines.
Judge Andrews dug deeply into his interpretive consideration to find a way to deny the request for a preliminary injunction.
With the clear guidance given by the Supreme Court in the Bruen decision to clarify the Heller decision on the Second Amendment, Judge Andrews performed some mental gymnastics.
The Bruen decision told lower courts to stop using the convoluted “two-step” framework to decide Second Amendment cases. The “two-step” frame was widely criticized as a way for the lower courts to treat the Second Amendment as a “second-class right” in the Bill of Rights.
What’s in the Washington State Gun Ban
Things went from bad to worse for Washington state gun owners on April 25, when anti-Second Amendment Gov. Jay Inslee (D) signed a punitive ban on many common semi-automatic firearms.
As he did so Gov. Inslee chided each and every owner of the more-than-24-million semi-automatic rifles currently owned and used for hunting, sport shooting, competition and self-defense in the United States, by saying, “No one needs an AR-15 to protect your family. You only need it to kill other families.”
Inslee later said, “We know we need to continue this effort on a national basis.”
H.B. 1240 is now the country’s most-comprehensive ban on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms and firearm parts, according to the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (ILA). “HB 1240 is the worst of such schemes in the country, exceeding what California imposes on its citizens,” reported NRA-ILA.
The new law bans the future manufacture, transfer and import of many semi-automatic firearms—including 62 enumerated firearm models and the “AR-15 in all forms”—on a list that includes shotguns, handguns and rifles. All semi-automatic rifles with an overall length of less than 30 inches are banned, as are any firearms with one or more of the features that exist on many modern designs. Semi-automatic pistols with threaded barrels, which are commonly used for self-defense, are included in the ban, as are semi-automatic shotguns with thumbhole stocks.
Additionally, the new law bans spare parts and what it calls “combination[s] of parts” that can be used to assemble banned firearms, but that are simply pieces of metal and plastic on their own. Because the bill included an emergency clause, the ban took effect immediately.
Proving that lawmakers recognize such firearms as being effective for defensive purposes, the law exempts, “The manufacture, importation, distribution, offer for sale or sale of an assault weapon by a licensed firearms manufacturer for the purposes of sale to any branch of the armed forces of the United States or the state of Washington, or to any law enforcement agency for use by that agency or its employees for law enforcement purposes.”
Of course, the NRA has already filed suit challenging the Washington ban.
“A state may not ‘prohibit an entire class of arms that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for a lawful purpose.’ Yet that is precisely what Washington State has just done,” the lawsuit says. “HB 1240 takes the radical step of banning nearly every modern semiautomatic rifle—the single most popular type of rifle in the country, possessed by Americans in the tens of millions. Indeed, Americans buy more of the most popular type of semiautomatic rifle (the AR-15) each year than the most popular type of automobile (the Ford F-150), and there are more AR-15-style rifles in private hands in America today than subscribers to all daily newspapers nationwide combined.” The lawsuit asks the court to declare HB 1240 unconstitutional and enjoin the state from enforcing it in the future.The other two measures signed into law by Gov. Inslee on April 25 were S.B. 5078 and H.B. 1143. S.B. 5078 undermines the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), and will subject licensed firearm manufacturers and sellers to frivolous lawsuits brought to recover damages for the criminal misuse of their products.
H.B. 1143 implements a 10-day waiting period, so purchasers will have to wait to take possession of their firearms. The law also denies law-abiding Washington citizens their Second Amendment right to acquire firearms unless they present proof of completion of official, sanctioned firearms training, paid for at their own expense, within the past five years.
The bill now goes to the Senate.
— Rob Romano (@2Aupdates) April 28, 2023
Happy Preliminary Injunction day, Illinois! Judge McGlynn slapped down the “assault weapon” ban HARD. https://t.co/jgrHaCn71N
The state cannot enforce the ban. Also, he makes it clear as to why the citizenry needs access to adequate weapons (the point of the 2A) pic.twitter.com/EaSo1sqOX5
— President Non_Fudd (@Non_Fudd) April 28, 2023
Statewide pic.twitter.com/CYPj2EWiVy
— President Non_Fudd (@Non_Fudd) April 28, 2023
