Category: RKBA

Missouri House advances bill allowing guns on buses, inside churches and synagogues

Missourians would be allowed to carry guns on public buses and inside churches and other places of worship under a bill advanced by the Missouri House Thursday.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Adam Schnelting, a St. Charles Republican, would allow people with concealed carry permits to carry guns on public transit in the state.

“We all have the potential of running into situations where we have to utilize self defense to protect ourselves and those we love,” Schnelting said on the floor Thursday. “This legislation will discourage criminal activity on our public transportation systems, but most importantly, it will ensure that we maintain our constitutional right to self defense.”

An amendment successfully added by state Rep. Ben Baker, a Neosho Republican, would also strike down the current rule banning concealed guns in places of worship without the permission of the religious leader of the congregation.

The Missouri House gave the bill initial approval on a voice vote Thursday. It will need one more vote before it heads to the Missouri Senate, which could come next week.

Continue reading “”

Name fits

Second Amendment Roundup: To Preserve Liberty, Not Slavery
Carl Bogus invented the fiction that the purpose of the Second Amendment was slave control.

Back in 1998—a decade before Heller—Prof. Carl Bogus claimed to have discovered a “hidden history” showing that the Second Amendment was adopted to ensure that militias could enforce slave control.  Since that theory crops up now and then, in 2021 I posted a comprehensive historical refutation in SSRN, which was subsequently published in Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy.

Bogus has now rehashed his 1998 theory in Madison’s Militia: The Hidden History of the Second Amendment (Oxford University Press, 2023), which adds nothing new on point.  He states up front that he will not address how legal scholars or the courts have interpreted the Amendment, except to assert, without any support, that James Madison and his colleagues “would have been astonished” at the Supreme Court’s holding that the Amendment “grants individuals a right to have guns….” (“Grants?”  No, confirms.)

Bogus failed to address or even mention my paper, which is the only comprehensive critique of his 1998 article, even though it was first published a year-and-a-half before his book.  Oxford University’s readers who vetted his manuscript were either asleep at the wheel or biased in favor of his argument.  This is good example of why courts today, when searching for historical analogues under Bruen, should rely on original historical sources and not skewed declarations by “historians.”

Bogus calls his tome “a mystery book” about “why James Madison decided to write the Second Amendment,” because “there is no direct evidence about what the Founders intended.”  But his agenda is clear: instead of “the Minuteman at Lexington, with a musket in his hands … the more accurate image [of the Second Amendment] is that of the musket in the hands of the militiaman on slave patrol in the South.”

Denigrating America’s patriots in order to infect the Second Amendment with racism makes it easier today to criminalize the right to keep and bear arms, and is consistent with other contemporary efforts, such as the 1619 Project, to demonize America and its founders.  Not surprisingly, Bogus served on the board of directors of Handgun Control Inc., the anti-gun lobby which morphed into the Brady Center.

Continue reading “”

Iowa House votes to let Iowans have guns in parking lots of schools, public buildings

Iowans could keep guns in their locked cars in the parking lots of schools, city and county buildings, state universities and prisons, under a bill passed Wednesday by the Iowa House.

Lawmakers approved House File 654 on a vote of 62-37 after two hours of emotional debate. Most Republicans voted yes but two — Reps. Gary Mohr, R-Bettendorf, and Chad Ingels, R-Randalia — joined Democrats in voting no.

The bill must still pass the Iowa Senate before it can become law.

It’s the latest expansion of gun rights by the Republican-controlled Iowa Legislature, which has passed several laws loosening or repealing gun regulations in recent years, including a 2021 law eliminating the requirement for Iowans to have a permit to carry or possess handguns.

Continue reading “”

Charged debate on Oregon gun bills reflects national divide

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — An emotionally charged debate over Oregon’s gun-related legislation recently brought lawmakers on different sides of the issue near tears, reflecting a passionate divide over gun rights that is also playing out nationwide.

One of the most sweeping bills being proposed in the politically diverse state — the one that led to highly personal speeches from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers at a committee hearing last week — would increase the purchasing age to 21 for AR-15s and similar types of guns, impose penalties for possessing undetectable firearms and allow for more limited concealed-carry rights.

Republican lawmakers in Oregon said community safety depends on access to firearms, while Democrats conversely called for greater restrictions in the name of safety.

Continue reading “”

Tennessee gun lobby throws water on governor’s protective order plan

The Tennessee Firearms Association is trashing Gov. Bill Lee’s push for what it calls a “red flag law,” saying he wants to pass an unconstitutional measure as an emotional reaction to the Covenant School shooting.

“Governor Lee called for the Legislature to react to the emotional response of some citizens after the Covenant murders and more particularly after the expulsion of two Democrat House members who demanded gun control,” Executive Director John Harris said in a Wednesday statement. “Nothing in Bruen authorized knee-jerk emotional responses to murders or the calls of progressive Democrats and their mobs to justify government infringement of a right protected by the Constitution.”

The association contends Lee’s plan would violate the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Justices found that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to “keep” firearms in their homes and to “bear arms” in public, including the ability of “ordinary, law-abiding citizens” to carry firearms “for self-defense outside the home,” without infringement from state and federal governments.

Continue reading “”

Federal judge appears skeptical of Illinois “assault weapons”, magazine ban

U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn had tough questions for both sides during Wednesday’s hearing on a request to halt enforcement of Illinois’ ban on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines, but appeared to be skeptical of the state’s argument that the new law doesn’t infringe on the rights of state residents.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Erin Murphy was first up in challenging the ban imposed by lawmakers in early January, and handled McGlynn’s probing questions well; including this exchange over the limits of the legislature’s authority.

Continue reading “”

Litigation Highlight: Eighth Circuit Rejects Challenge to Illegal-Alien Prohibition at Bruen Step One

On April 4, the Eighth Circuit issued a published decision in United States v. Sitladeen rejecting a post-Bruen challenge to the federal ban on “alien[s] . . .  illegally or unlawfully in the United States” possessing firearms.  The decision employed a different “step one” analysis than the Fifth Circuit panel in Rahimi, ultimately focusing on status rather than conduct to determine whether the Second Amendment is implicated.  The decision in Sitladeen also relied heavily on pre-Bruen cases, illustrating the continued relevance of decisions applying Heller and using a textual-historical analysis to determine the scope of the Second Amendment.

The plaintiff, a Canadian citizen and fugitive (subject to an outstanding Canadian arrest warrant for murder), was stopped in Minnesota with 67 guns and a number of high-capacity magazines and indicted for possessing firearms as an illegal alien in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5).  The district court initially denied Sitladeen’s motion to dismiss under the Second Amendment, relying on the Eighth Circuit’s 2011 one-paragraph per curiam decision in United States v. Flores.  Flores held that “the protections of the Second Amendment do not extend to aliens illegally present in this country.”  That decision favorably cited the Fifth Circuit’s 2011 opinion in United States v. Portillo-Munoz upholding 922(g)(5):

Whatever else the term means or includes, the phrase “the people” in the Second Amendment of the Constitution does not include aliens illegally in the United States such as Portillo, and we hold that section 922(g)(5) is constitutional under the Second Amendment.

After Sitladeen appealed to the Eighth Circuit, the Supreme Court decided Bruen.
The appellate panel requested supplemental briefing, in which Sitladeen argued that Bruen required the panel to overrule Flores.
The panel disagreed, holding that Flores’ step-one analysis was consistent with the first step of the Bruen test because the judges there “reached [their] conclusion by considering—consistent with what Bruen now requires—whether the conduct regulated by § 922(g)(5)(A) was protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment.”
The opinion observed that other courts have criticized this approach and argued in favor of “constru[ing] the phrase broadly at the outset of the analysis and then consider[ing] whether history and tradition support the government’s authority to impose the regulation.”
While the panel noted concern that a more probing inquiry into whether the defendant is within “the people” protected by the Second Amendment “might enable some courts to manipulate the Second Amendment’s ‘plain text’ to avoid ever reaching Bruen’s ‘historical tradition’ inquiry,” the judges ultimately read Bruen to essentially confirm the mode of inquiry in Flores.
Therefore, the panel found itself bound by Flores’ determination “that unlawful aliens are not part of ‘the people’ to whom the protections of the Second Amendment extend,” and rejected Sitladeen’s Second Amendment challenge.

Continue reading “”

They’re not stupid. They know what they want is useless for what they say it’s for, so what they really want is something else – disarm the populace because they know that what they really want to do will likely get them shot.

Democrat Congressman Pushes Gun Control Policy that Would Not Have Prevented Kentucky Bank Shooting

Kentucky House Rep. Morgan McGarvey (D) pushed for more background checks Tuesday, the day after a portfolio banker shot and killed five people with a gun he acquired via a background check at a local gun store in Louisville, Kentucky.

Breitbart News reported that Metropolitan Louisville Police Department Chief Jacquelyn Gwinn-Villaroel said the portfolio banker got his gun “legally” from a Louisville dealer on April 4, 2023. Passing a background check is a federal requirement for getting a gun from a dealer.

On Tuesday, Rep. McGarvey used his time during a press conference to push to expand background checks to also include sales not made by dealers:

McGarvey’s background check push would not have prevented the attack on Louisville’s Old National Bank, as the attacker already complied with all gun controls in acquiring his firearm.

Breitbart News also noted that Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg (D) used the press conference to make support for gun control a litmus test for supporting the police.

Well, when he’s lived his whole political life as one big continuous lie, this is not unusual.

PRESIDENT BIDEN GOES ALL OUT (FALSELY) ON GUN CONTROL AGAIN

President Joe Biden wasted little time calling for gun control following the tragic murders of six innocent Americans by a mentally unstable person who was known to be a threat. Similarly, White House Spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre demanded a litany of gun control in a press briefing following the tragedy in Louisville, Ky., before the basic facts of the incident were known.

Less than two weeks after a transgender student shot her way into The Covenant School in Nashville, Tenn., the president tweeted his gun control call.

“Congress must ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, require safe storage of firearms, eliminate gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability, and require background checks for all gun sales, and state officials must do the same,” President Biden said. The Tweet was accompanied by a graphic saying, “Ban Assault Weapons.”

He’s conceded there isn’t much more he can do on his own for gun control.

What’s The Truth?
The president’s desire to ban so-called “assault weapons” is never-ending, even though he runs into resistance from his own party, not to mention a majority of Americans. The data doesn’t support a ban on the more than 24.4 million legally-owned Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs). The president got pushback.

“First define what an ‘Assault Weapon’ is before you demand to ban it,” one Twitter user replied. That’s a good point. The administration has never defined what they mean by “assault weapon.” The president’s first and failed nominee to be director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) David Chipman, became flustered in his U.S. Senate nomination hearing when questioned before admitting, “Senator, there’s no way I could define an assault weapon.” Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives also flub firearm terminology when debating gun restrictions on law-abiding Americans. Similarly, the Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas was unable to define what an “assault weapon” is, even though he supports banning them.

Continue reading “”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
aaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
He’s wrongheaded about why – quite normal for a leftist bordering on full commie – but I don’t care as long as they give up and shut up.

The Grim Truth: The War on Guns Is Lost

…..That’s something that people who support gun control measures need to understand: The war is lost. There is no conceivable way for things to change for the better within the next 20 to 30 years, short of a national divorce. There is no way to change hearts and minds of Republicans or the courts. There is no way to change who is in office in most states. There is no way to replace who sits on the courts quickly or change conservative disdain for stare decisis……

 

Bruen, represent.

Assault weapon ban passes Washington Senate, will go back to House for concurrence
House Bill 1240 bans the sale, manufacture and import of assault weapons in Washington state.

WASHINGTON, USA — A bill that would ban the manufacture and sale of guns defined as assault weapons passed the state Senate Saturday.

The bill bans the sale, manufacture and import of assault weapons in our state. It does not ban the possession of an assault weapon and it allows for ownership by law enforcement and military service members and an exception in cases of inheritance.

House Bill 1240 passed 27-21. Senate Republicans pushed back against the bill with 20 amendments, but as the minority, only two passed.

A floor amendment allows for gun manufacturers to sell inventory already in stock prior to Jan. 1, 2023, and only to out-of-state clientele, for 90 days after the bill goes into effect.

“I wasn’t able to support today’s legislation, because I think that we took away from some of the important things that we need in everyday life, which is additional treatment facilities. We need more mental health available resources for everybody,” said Sen Jeff Wilson, (R ) 19th District, Longview.

Because the bill was amended in the Senate, it must return to the House for further consideration. The 2023 legislative session is scheduled to adjourn on Sunday, April 23.

“We are the only country in the world that grapples with the horror of mass shootings, and today we took a critical step forward — and took the weapon of choice away from those who would do innocent people harm,” said Sen. Patty Kuderer (D-Bellevue) sponsor of the Senate companion bill, SB 5265.

Emily Cantrell, a survivor of the Las Vegas mass shooting, the worst in U.S. modern history now dedicates her life to preventing gun violence and has been fighting for this in Washington State.

“It was surreal. It’s hard to believe that it finally happened and it’s just an overwhelming feeling of joy. Hopefully, it means that other people won’t have their own stories to tell this bill will save lives. It’s been proven and nine other states that have similar bans like this that it will save lives,” said Cantrell.

If the bill receives final passage, Washington will join nine other states and Washington, D.C., in banning assault weapons.

Some advocates against the proposed gun reforms want the Supreme Court of the United States to weigh in on the constitutionality of these bills that will soon become law. SCOTUS, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has signaled its willingness to expand gun rights. In 2022, the court ruled Americans have a right to carry a gun in public for self-defense. Legal challenges are likely if House Bills 1240 and 1143 become law.

House Bill 1240, which passed out the House earlier in March, marking the first time the bill passed off a chamber floor in the Washington Legislature.

A bill that would require a 10-day waiting period and gun safety training for anyone buying a firearm also passed off the Senate floor on Friday, April 7.

House Bill 1143 would prevent a gun dealer from transferring any firearm until the purchaser or transferee provides proof of completion of a safety training program, passes a background check and waits 10 days.

In 2018, Washington voters approved Initiative 1639. That set a requirement of a 10-day waiting period and safety training for people purchasing semi-automatic rifles. House Bill 1143 extends similar measures to all firearm purchases.

Counting the Uncountable Lives Saved by Good Guys with Guns

We know your armed neighbor protected himself when he scared away the robber in the night. What we don’t know, and often can’t know, is how many other people your neighbor saved that night. It is devilishly hard to measure the good that armed citizens do as they stop violent crime. Sure, we have a pretty good idea how many people own guns. We have a very good idea how many times these gun owners save lives every year. What we don’t know very well is how many violent attacks they prevented. Sure, we can come up with a number, but this is why that simple question of lives saved is so difficult to answer.

The good news is that we are far better at this than we used to be. To begin, there was a nationwide survey in early 2021 that asked tens of thousands of people if they owned guns. The researchers came up with a figure of about 81 million people over the age of 18 who own firearms in the USA. That certainly tells us some of what we want to know, but it isn’t nearly enough. In the same way that you might have a driver’s license and drive regularly but still not be a car owner yourself, we don’t know how many people routinely have access to a firearm for self-defense but are not themselves a gun owner today. Maybe they owned guns yesterday, but not now. We know that about four-in-ten of us live in a household that owns guns.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
It’s always problematic conducting polls about individual rights or personal freedoms. As a few of my colleagues pointed out, our gun rights are not subject to popular opinions, and popular rights do not need constitutional protections.

“The bottom line is this,” one said. “Had the residents of 1963 Alabama been polled regarding integration of Birmingham schools, the results would have shown overwhelming opposition. That’s why rights are independent of public opinion.”

Fake News: Debunking the media’s favorite constitutional-carry poll
Poll claims majority of Floridians oppose unlicensed concealed carry.

By Lee Williams

A few weeks before the Florida legislature began debating an unlicensed concealed-carry bill, which Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law earlier this week, the legacy media started pimping a new public opinion poll that made some incredibly bold claims on the topic.

The poll, which was conducted by the University of North Florida’s Public Opinion Research Lab, or PORL, alleged that a vast majority of Floridians rejected the very idea of unlicensed concealed carry. Only 22% of Floridians supported the legislation and 77% opposed the bill, PORL claimed.

“Not only is there bipartisan opposition to this ‘constitutional carry’ bill, but folks seem to feel passionately about it with the majority (67%) saying they strongly oppose the bill. Even among Republicans, most people are against carrying weapons without a permit,” Dr. Michael Binder, PORL faculty director and professor of political science, said in a March 9 press release announcing the poll.

As you can imagine, a feeding frenzy ensued. Armed with Binder’s poll numbers, the legacy media went absolutely nuts.

“As Floridians apparently know better than their elected officials, public health research overwhelmingly shows that relaxing firearm regulations contributes to increases in violent crime as well as firearm-related death and injury,” Caroline Light, who teached gender and ethnic studies at Harvard University, wrote in a column titled “Expect more violent crime if Florida passes permitless gun carry,” which was published by the Tampa Bay Times.

“Permitless carry bill closer to law despite new poll showing that it’s vastly unpopular in Florida,” wrote the Florida Phoenix.

The media onslaught didn’t stop even after Gov. DeSantis signed the bill into law.

Continue reading “”

This is about using illicit drugs vis-a-vis possessing guns.

Study makes bizarre leap about guns and lethality of shootings

There’s always going to be some anti-gun study floating around. We’ve seen that time and time again, and the media will always be happy to report on that study with nary a word of criticism about, well, anything.

In fact, it’s almost amusing how little criticism these studies get.

The latest, in fact, doesn’t actually make a whole lot of sense. Why? Because it implies that guns have somehow become more lethal.

A new study has found that fatalities from gun violence in the U.S. have increased over time, with more victims dying at the scene of a shooting before they can be transferred to medical treatment facilities.

The research, which was published Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, examined gun violence incidents from 1999 to 2021, including firearm deaths due to assaults, unintentional injuries and unknown intent.

Using data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers discovered the proportion of deaths at the scene increased from about 52% in 1999, to almost 57% in 2021.

Nearly 49,000 people died from gun violence in the U.S. in 2021, according to the CDC.

The research letter summarizing the study said this increase in fatalities was likely due to several factors, including higher guns sales, social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a “lack of new federal firearm legislation.”

Now, the good news is that this study didn’t count suicides. That’s actually surprising because it’s a handy way to skew findings in an anti-gun direction. So it seems the numbers are pretty accurate.

Where I have a problem, though, is their findings. Higher gun sales and lack of regulation don’t make guns more lethal. In fact, during the time period the study looked at, there weren’t really any advancements in firearm technology that would account for any such thing.

We also know that so-called assault weapons started becoming popular prior to this time period as a result of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, so it’s unlikely that would play a role. The researchers do try to blame larger capacity magazines, which might play a role–if you can put more rounds on target, the chances of killing someone are increased–but I don’t see how they figure they made that case.

In fact, they seem to suggest they didn’t even really look at that sort of thing when they note, “Further investigation of the temporal and geospatial distributions of prehospital deaths, weapons used, patterns of injury, and variations by race and ethnicity and age is needed to guide effective interventions.”

So they reached a conclusion as to why this was a problem when they don’t know any of that other stuff?

I don’t know, seems a little sketchy, which is why I say this study kind of doesn’t make any sense.

Yet again, though, they seem to just know the problem is the lack of federal gun control laws while not comprehending literally anything else? Yeah, no wonder people are growing to distrust research more and more.

It’s only too bad no one in the media will look at these studies twice.

Arkansas House OKs bill allowing permitless concealed carry

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — A permit would not be required to carry a concealed handgun in Arkansas under a bill lawmakers sent Thursday to Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, which supporters say is meant to clear up a decade-old disagreement about the state’s gun laws.

Gov. Sanders’ office said she plans to sign the measure approved by the majority-Republican House on a 81-11 vote.

“The governor strongly supports the Second Amendment,” spokeswoman Alexa Henning said in a statement. “This bill further clarifies that Arkansas is a constitutional carry state.”

Both gun rights and gun control advocates already widely considered Arkansas to be one of more than two dozen states that don’t require a concealed carry permit. That followed a 2013 change to the state’s gun laws that prompted differing interpretations on how it’s affected the state’s concealed carry requirements.

The bill was approved Thursday with no debate in the House, but opponents have questioned the impact the legislation would have on a 2017 law that allows concealed handguns in certain locations, including the state Capitol. That law allows guns in previously-barred locations if someone undergoes additional training and gets an “enhanced” permit.

“This is going to cause huge amounts of confusion with respect to the enhanced concealed carry,” Democratic Rep. Nicole Clowney told members of the House Judiciary Committee earlier this week, referring to the 2017 law.

But supporters of the bill said it wouldn’t have any impact on that part of the law and the enhanced carry requirements would still exist.

“I believe we need this bill to pass to provide that clarification out there so we don’t have citizens basically being harassed because there’s a misunderstanding of what you can or cannot do,” Republican Rep. Marcus Richmond, the bill’s co-sponsor, told the House before Thursday’s vote.

There are more than 190,000 active concealed handgun licenses in Arkansas, and about 30,000 of them are enhanced licenses, according to the state’s Department of Public Safety.

The bill heads to Sanders’ desk as Republicans in other states have been loosening gun laws, despite mass shootings in recent years, including the fatal shooting of three children and three adults at a Nashville, Tennessee, Christian school last month.

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis this week signed a new law that will allow concealed handguns to be carried without a permit. That law takes effect in July.

When Sanders signs Arkansas’ legislation, it won’t take effect until 90 days after the Legislature adjourns its session, meaning the measure wouldn’t be enforced until this summer.