Category: RKBA

Litigation Highlight: Legal Challenges to ATF Rule on Stabilizing Braces

In January of this year, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) published Final Rule 2021R-08F, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces.’” The new rule changes the operative definition of “rifle” in the Code of Federal Regulations such that most pistols with attached stabilizing braces (often called “pistol braces”) will now be subject to heightened federal regulation under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). Citizens, state attorneys general, and gun policy groups have already filed several lawsuits in federal district courts challenging the legality of ATF’s rule.

In this post, I’ll first introduce the pistol brace and the tale of historical (non)regulation, beginning with a brief table-setting history of the NFA and GCA. Second, I’ll survey the main legal arguments presented in the ongoing lawsuits, with a focus on Second Amendment challenges.

The NFA, GCA, and the “Short-Barreled Rifle” Category

The NFA, passed in 1934 in response to widely-publicized incidences of gang violence, imposed burdensome taxes, regulatory requirements, and criminal non-compliance penalties on the ownership and transfer of weapons associated with criminal use. In 1968, the GCA modified the definitions of certain weapons already regulated by the NFA and instituted a system of federal licensing for firearms distributors. Together, these two acts regulate machine guns (fully-automatic rifles like the “Tommy Gun,” infamously associated with Prohibition-era criminals); short-barreled rifles and shotguns; suppressors; destructive devices (like grenades and other explosives); and an amorphous category of “any other weapon” (now referred to as ‘AOWs,’ and understood to include ‘disguised’ firearms and firearms that don’t fit neatly into another category). Collectively, these weapons are known as “NFA items.”

More specifically, this regulatory scheme limits who may import, build, or purchase NFA items, and under what circumstances they may do so. The most onerous restriction at the time of the NFA’s passage was the $200 tax it imposed on possession of NFA items (equivalent to ~$4,500 in today’s dollars). Since the amount of this tax has not changed over the years, the tax itself is no longer the NFA’s most restrictive element. Instead, that honor now belongs to ATF’s ‘approval’ requirements, which involve extensive background checks and fingerprinting, as well as the registration of the individual NFA item with ATF. The average wait-time for an individual seeking to buy an NFA item, such as a short-barreled rifle (SBR), is estimated to be  270 days.

The NFA as originally written also regulated handguns, but a concerted lobbying effort on the part of the National Rifle Association caused lawmakers to drop handguns from the final bill. So, today, the NFA regulates neither handguns (defined in relevant part as “a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand”) nor full-length rifles (defined in relevant part as “weapon[s] designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” and having a barrel longer than 16 inches). Since neither handguns nor full-length rifles are subject to NFA regulations, these two types of firearms are substantially easier to access than SBRs, which differ from full-length rifles only in their barrel length.

Continue reading “”

Second Amendment Myths and Misinformation

False Claim #1: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Has Always Been Heavily Regulated.

FACT: Restrictive gun control laws are a distinctly modern phenomenon in the United States. For the first century of American history, serious state-level regulation of individual gun ownership or usage was almost non-existent for law-abiding citizens. For example, despite oft-repeated claims to the contrary, nothing prohibited private citizens from owning cannons. In fact, private cannon ownership was apparently so common that one of the first types of arms restrictions imposed by some towns were ordinances restricting the times and locations where people could fire off those cannons inside town limits.30

Similarly, because gunpowder at the time was very unstable and prone to easy ignition, a number of states and cities limited the amount of gunpowder that could be stored in private residences, hoping to reduce the risk of accidental explosions or fires in urban areas.31 But beyond these sorts of “time, place, and manner” regulations, the right to keep and bear arms was virtually unrestricted in most states until the end of the 19th century.

Restrictive gun control measures are an even more recent phenomenon at the federal level. The first major federal law regulating firearms was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was relatively tame by today’s standards.32 It merely required that machine guns and certain types of “short-barreled” long guns be subjected to a special tax and be registered with the Secretary of the Treasury. The federal government did not even prohibit certain categories of individuals (such as felons) from possessing firearms until the Gun Control Act of 1968, and did not require licensed gun sellers to conduct background checks until the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.33

2022_08_0304_TheEssentialSecondAmmendment_Booklet_MicositeGraphics_v38.jpg

False Claim #2: Armed Civilians Stand No Chance Against Modern Militaries Equipped With Fighter Jets and Tanks, so the Second Amendment No Longer Serves a Purpose.

FACT: This claim misunderstands the importance of the protective role of federalism, in which each state already has well-trained and well-equipped organized militias of their own that can be mobilized and used in tandem with armed civilians. These National and State Guards are better equipped than the entire national militaries of many countries, with their own fighter jets, tanks, heavy artillery batteries, and special forces units. A handful of states even have their own naval militias. It is highly likely that, should a tyrannical federal government attempt to impose its will with the might of the American military, these state-level military entities—acting under the direction of liberty-loving state governments—could be deployed as a meaningful countermeasure, just like the colonial governments mobilized existing militias against the British army during the American Revolution.

Likewise, in the case of sudden foreign invasion, armed civilians would not be expected to act on their own in some ad hoc or unorganized fashion. Just like the colonial militias worked together with the professional soldiers of the Continental Army, armed civilians and their private weapons would, during any modern invasion, be integrated into the nation’s existing military structure and mobilized according to a coherent national or state defense strategy.

Beyond this, the right to keep and bear arms continues, of course, to protect countless Americans in their everyday lives against far more common threats to life and liberty.

2022_08_0304_TheEssentialSecondAmmendment_Booklet_MicositeGraphics_v310.jpg

False Claim #3: The Founders Had Little Understanding of How Firearm Technology Would Develop and Would Be Horrified to See Modern “Assault Weapons” in Civilian Hands.

FACT: This common assertion assumes that modern guns have a fundamentally different nature than weapons that were available in 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified and 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. In reality, small arms have changed very little, especially when compared to other advances in technology. The Founders would likely be far more dumbfounded by the internet or smart phones—and their implications for the First and Fourth Amendments—than they would by guns that merely fire projectiles at a faster rate without having to reload them as often. Indeed, by 1791, the idea of rapidly firing dozens of bullets in quick succession or even at the same time was already well developed. By the time the Second Amendment was ratified, repeating rifles capable of firing more than 10 rounds in rapid succession had been around for centuries. By the time of the Fourteenth Amendment, their possession and use by ordinary Americans was very common.34 If anything, modern firearms are much “safer” than 18th and 19th century firearms because they are far less prone to accidental discharges or misfires that injure the shooter.

But, most importantly, this is simply not how we understand constitutional rights. Just like the Constitution protects the broad concept of “speech” instead of particular modes of speech, it protects “arms” as a general concept of weaponry. The idea was not to protect a specific type of weapon, like a musket, any more than the idea of the First Amendment was to protect a specific mode of speech, like a quill pen or printing press. That is in large part because the Framers of our Constitution and the people who ratified it knew that while technology and circumstances would undoubtedly change in unanticipated ways, these broader concepts of self-defense and free speech would remain vital to a free society.

Continue reading “”

The Essential Second Amendment
Helping Americans understand and defend the Second Amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, enshrined in the Constitution’s Second Amendment, is centered not on hunting or sport shooting but on the natural right of self-defense. It gives “teeth” to the promises of liberty, ensuring that attempts to reduce our natural rights to mere dead letters may be met with meaningful resistance.
Download the eBook here.

Permitless carry passes Florida House, Nebraska Senate could vote on similar measure Monday

Next week could be a very big week for gun owners and Second Amendment advocates. There’s a very good chance we’ll see one more more favorable rulings coming out of U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s southern California courtroom, while Colorado and Michigan lawmakers could send gun control bills to Democratic governors for their signature.

The biggest news of all is likely to come from Florida and Nebraska, which are poised to give final approval for permitless carry bills early next week. On Friday afternoon, the Florida House of Representatives signed off on HB 543 by a vote of 76-32, with several lawmakers absent. The Florida Senate has its own permitless carry bill on the floor, and lawmakers are expected to start moving it towards a final vote as early as Monday.

On Tuesday Nebraska lawmakers are set for another round of debate and votes on LB 77. The permitless carry legislation passed its first reading in early March, but had been absent from the legislative calendar ever since. As of Friday afternoon, however, LB 77 was on the legislative agenda when lawmakers return from their four-day weekend break.

I’d say that Florida’s in a better position to become the 26th permitless carry state at this point, primarily because the GOP’s majorities in Tallahassee are so large Democrats can’t put up a lengthy fight. In Nebraska the Democratic minority has been filibustering virtually every bill introduced in the unicameral legislature, led by Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh. Legislative progress has almost ground to a halt as Cavanaugh and others have delayed votes by offering up numerous amendments and subjecting as many provisions as possible to as long a debate as the rules allow. As the Daily Mail reported a couple of weeks ago:

Clerk of the Legislature Brandon Metzler said a delay like this has happened only a couple of times in the past 10 years.

‘But what is really uncommon is the lack of bills that have advanced,’ Metzler said. ‘Usually, we’re a lot further along the line than we’re seeing now.’

Only 26 bills have advanced from the first of three rounds of debate required to pass a bill in Nebraska. There would normally be two to three times that number by mid-March, Metzler said.

‘I have nothing, nothing but time,’ she declared at one point. ‘And I am going to use all of it.

‘If people think that they are going to wear me down, if yesterday didn’t show you that you cannot wear me down – you cannot wear me down.

‘I literally left the floor yesterday, went up to my office, and laid down on the floor.

‘I laid down on the floor, a hard floor, and took a 20 minute nap before going to committee hearings. You cannot stop me. I will not be stopped.’

Cavanaugh’s stated reason for the filibuster is SB 574, a bill that, as amended, would ban sex-reassignment surgery from being performed in the state on anyone under the age of 19. After weeks of filibustering, the legislation finally received its first vote on Thursday, but Democrats are likely going to keep the slowdown in place throughout the remainder of the session.

That doesn’t mean that constitutional carry is done for this year. Far from it, as a matter of fact. If LB 77 clears second reading next Tuesday, as expected, only one more vote will need to happen before the bill goes to Gov. Jim Pillen for his signature. Ron DeSantis is probably going to get to put pen to paper first, but I think Pillen is still going to get the opportunity to enshrine constitutional carry into law before this year’s session is over.

Speaking of ‘When is Enough, Enough?”
While the whole hearing is interesting. Skipping to the 2:58 hour mark cuts though a lot of the normal BS.

Yes. It took 14 years, Justice Kennedy dying and Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett being seated to get the job nearly done.

Report: Far More Gun Laws Struck Down in Wake of Bruen Than Heller

The Supreme Court’s latest Second Amendment ruling has delivered more immediate effects than its previous landmark decision.

A revised analysis from Jake Charles, an associate professor at Pepperdine University’s Caruso School of Law, shows dozens of gun-rights claims have already succeeded in federal court since New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen was decided in June 2022. The new count, posted on Tuesday, puts post-Breun decisions far ahead of the pace of 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller, which saw gun-rights advocates achieve relatively little in its immediate aftermath.

“There wasn’t a single successful Second Amendment challenge in the 6 months after Heller,” Charles said in a social media post. “In my research, I found *31* successful claims in the 8 months since Bruen.”

The disparity demonstrates that lower courts may be taking a different message from Bruen than Heller. While Heller established the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, it didn’t produce an explicit test for deciding future Second Amendment cases and struck down a total handgun ban that was already an outlier. Bruen struck down a concealed-carry permitting regime that was still used by eight states before the case, set down a specific test for deciding gun cases, and chastised lower courts for the test they had been using to decide cases after Heller.

One complicating factor in comparing the results of either ruling is that Heller wasn’t incorporated and applied to the states until 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago. Still, comparing the Charles count to one in a 2018 paper by Duke Law Professor Joseph Blocher and Southern Methodist University associate professor Eric Ruben, it took until 2012 for gun-rights advocates to top 30 wins after Heller. The success rate for Second Amendment claims has also been significantly higher post-Bruen than it was in the first several years after Heller, with Charles finding 14.6 percent of post-Bruen claims succeeding while Blocher and Ruben found fewer than ten percent succeeded in the four years after Heller.

There has been a significant difference in success rates for civil claims compared to criminal claims, which won far less often. Charles also broke out challenges by topic and saw a stark difference in how lower courts have handled different issues. Claims involving carry licensing or defaulting private property to be off limits for gun carry have won every time thus far. Claims over age restrictions, “ghost gun” regulations, and sensitive place bans have succeeded about half the time. In contrast, challenges to commercial regulations, the National Firearms Act, unlawful gun use, sentence enhancements, and bail conditions have failed every time.

Charles, who ran the Duke University Center for Firearms Law before joining Pepperdine, has been critical of the Court’s decision in Bruen. Most of his newly-published analysis focuses on claims the standard it adopted is unworkable and asserts “the Supreme Court may desire to sit as a super-legislature over nationwide gun policy” while imploring ” lower courts, legislators, and citizens” to resist that possibility. He critiques the use of a history-based standard for deciding cases about current firearms regulations and notes areas where lower courts have been at odds on how to implement it in practice.

He cites the increase in victories for plaintiffs making Second Amendment claims as evidence the Bruen standard is degrading gun restrictions across the country.

“The Court’s historical test has the potential to significantly expand the Second Amendment’s scope,” Charles wrote in the analysis. “No matter how compelling the state’s interest, no matter how narrowly tailored its regulation, Bruen’s new method appears to dictate that a modern gun law cannot stand without adequate grounding in the distant past.”

Naturally, gun-rights activists took an opposing viewpoint. The Truth About Guns, a pro-gun publication, echoed language from the Bruen majority to explain the difference in how lower courts have reacted to each ruling.

“It’s no longer a second-class right,” the publication tweeted.

Kostas Moros, a lawyer for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said the deluge of pro-gun decisions was akin to the release of pent-up demand. He argued Bruen itself was the result of how little effect Heller had on the way lower courts viewed the Second Amendment.

“We are just making up for lost time,” he posted. “If courts had applied Heller in good faith and we had a sort of ‘win some, lose some’ scenario, Bruen probably never would have happened (or would have been limited to just being about carry).”

Dianna Muller And The D.C. Project
Women of the D.C. Project meet with lawmakers to bring Second Amendment message.

Last September, the all-women D.C. Project had another successful trip to Washington, D.C., bringing its Second Amendment message that resonated with legislators on Capitol Hill. On a mission to share its credo that gun rights are human rights, the D.C. Project’s visit culminated in a successful rally at the Supreme Court Building.

The D.C. Project is a nationwide organization of women committed to safeguarding the Second Amendment. Started in 2016 by pro shooter and former NRA World Shooting Lady Champion, Dianna Muller, she had one goal—bringing this rapidly-growing demographic of gun owners in direct connection with legislators. Women can provide another perspective on the Second Amendment to lawmakers, including their involvement in competitive shooting.

Dianna Muller

Dianna Muller started the D.C. Project in 2016 to bring women firearm owners in connection with lawmakers. She is pictured on the right testifying last month before the Florida House Constitutional Rights, Rule of Law and Government Operations subcommittee about the Permitless Carry Bill.

Continue reading “”

I remember the sign at Christ Chapel that invited those carrying to volunteer that information so we could include them in our security plan so they could be seated accordingly for better coverage.

Missouri legislation seeks to allow guns in places of worship

Missouri Republicans are making a push to allow firearms to be carried inside religious establishments and lessen restrictions on access to firearms.

House Bill 485, heard in the House Emerging Issues Committee Wednesday evening, would override existing Missouri law that restricts the possession of a concealed carry firearm in places of worship without consent or knowledge of persons in charge.

Rep. Ben Baker, R-Neosho, is sponsoring the bill, which he said the purpose of the bill is to ensure Missourians “constitutional right” to carry firearms when attending places of worship.

Private property rights would still stand, and if religious organizations want to not allow firearms in their spaces they may still choose to do so by posting signage outside, under the bill. Opponents questioned if that would put them at further risk.

William Bland spoke in support of the bill, stating that mass shootings in churches are real and would allow other concealed carry permit holders to strengthen the force against them.

“By granting permission, the church is exposed to liability in the event of a CCW permit holder is involved in an unfortunate event involving the firearm even if that action is justified,” Bland said. He said that removing the restriction of firearms would keep the church from being liable.

Continue reading “”

This decision by the entire 5th Circuit is precedence setting, and law, for these states: Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

ICYMI 5 Circuit: Ban on 2A Rights by Civil Restraining Order is Unconstitutional

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-— In the Fifth Circuit, the entire Court has ruled, en banc, that mere civil restraining orders may not infringe rights protected by the Second Amendment. The unconstitutional infringement was placed into law by the infamous Lautenberg Amendment in 1996. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been turned upside down and ruined by this infamous and unjust law.

Continue reading “”

Legislators considering Constitution before passing laws? THE HORROR

When laws are challenged, they’re challenged on constitutional grounds. Is this law in keeping with the Constitution or is this a case of legislative overreach?

In fact, lawmakers are supposed to at least consider such things before passing laws. After all, they swear to support and defend the Constitution, which one would imagine requires them to consider it at a minimum before passing some bill.

But it seems that the folks at the Huffington Post are upset that lawmakers are considering court rulings before passing gun control. They made this pretty clear recently.

In fact, they’re so upset, they said it all over again.

Left In The Legislative Lurch

Eight more states have laws similar to California’s assault weapons ban that could be affected if the Supreme Court ultimately weighs in.

The expectation that these laws may be doomed is already complicating the politics of passing new ones like them.

In New Mexico, Democratic Gov. Michelle Luján Grisham has repeatedly urged the legislature to send her an assault weapons ban to sign this session, but lawmakers tabled the effort — partly over concerns that it wouldn’t withstand scrutiny in federal court.

“There’s absolutely no point to passing new laws which federal courts will strike down and which are clearly going to be deemed unconstitutional,” state Sen. Joseph Cervantes, a Democrat, tweeted last month.

With those lawsuits still playing out, the future of gun policy remains in flux. But that legal panorama makes it hard to imagine clear lanes for reform in the near future.

“We’re in a very difficult spot with that Bruen ruling,” said Miranda Viscoli, co-president of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence. “Even though it was only about concealed carry, it’s just made everybody afraid who wants to pass common sense gun violence prevention legislation.”

Now, in fairness, this is only one part of a much longer piece lamenting the rulings and the impact they’re having on gun control.

Still, it’s interesting that they’re still complaining about states not passing gun control because they figure it’ll be tossed by the courts.

I’m sorry, that’s not a bug. It’s a feature.

Huffington Post can be big mad all they want, but the truth of the matter is that gun control isn’t constitutional. The author tries to get hung up on the militia clause at one point–a matter that has been thoroughly and completely debunked–and then laments the text and history test laid down in Bruen, but at no point can they actually make a legitimate case that gun control is within keeping behind the text or spirit of the Second Amendment.

That’s unsurprising, of course.

I’m glad to see legislatures hold up a bit before infringing on people’s rights. I’m upset that they’re only starting to do it just now, but this is a case of better late than never.

If they’re holding up, that’s great, but as the piece also notes, a lot of places aren’t. In truth, that is the real problem, not those exercising a bit of caution and, dare I say, common sense.

Then again, it’s Huffington Post. What can you really expect?

Republicans threaten to defund Biden gun rule that aims to reclassify pistols with braces as rifles

ORLANDO, Fla. — Republican lawmakers vowed Tuesday to defund any attempt by the Biden administration to enforce a new gun control rule that would reclassify pistols with stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles.

Under a new Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives rule — “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Stabilizing Braces” — gun owners who have a stabilizing brace attachment on their firearm must register the device by May 31 or face up to 10 years in prison and thousands of dollars in fines.

But Republican House lawmakers, gathered in Orlando this week for their annual GOP retreat, are lining up behind an effort to block the administration — and one said there will be no money in the budget produced by the Republican-controlled House to enforce the rule, which took effect Jan. 31.

Rep. Andrew Clyde is pushing a resolution checking the administration, introduced almost a week ago, and already has 182 Republican cosponsors. He told The Washington Times that federal agencies are engaged in a power grab.

Continue reading “”

Armed civilian who stopped Greenwood Mall shooter named Citizen of the Year

Elisjsha Dicken.jpg

GREENWOOD — The City of Greenwood took time this week to honor the man responsible for stopping the gunman inside the Greenwood Park Mall in July.

Greenwood Mayor Mark Myers chose Elisjsha Dicken as the 2022 recipient of the Citizen of the Year Award for the city.

In his nomination letter, Myers recounted what occurred on July 17 inside the mall and shared thanks for the fast action of Dicken.

“July 17th started off to be another beautiful day in Greenwood. Unfortunately, it became one of the darkest days in our history. A lone gunman entered the Food Court in the Greenwood Park Mall. As he emerged from the restroom he began firing a rifle, killing 3 people.

Hearing shots ring out, Elisjsha Dicken immediately identified the shooter, took cover behind a pillar, drew his weapon and fired at the shooter from 40 yards away. He was able to eliminate the threat. While doing this Elisjsha also was waving innocent civilians to safety. There were countless number of innocent lives saved that day due to his quick and selfless thinking. The City of Greenwood and the residents here owe a great debt of gratitude to Elisjsha.

Because of his heroic actions the City of Greenwood proudly honors Elisjsha Dicken as the 2022 Citizen of the Year.”

Following the mass shooting at the mall, Greenwood Police Chief said the following of Dicken.

“I will say his actions were nothing short of heroic. He engaged the gunman from quite a distance with a handgun,” Ison said. “(He) was very tactically sound as he moved to close in on the suspect, he was also motioning for people to exit behind him. He has no police training and no military background.”

MORE |‘No clear motive’: Greenwood police, FBI release new findings from July shooting at Greenwood Park Mall

Annually, the city recognizes a civilian, a firefighter, an officer and an EMT.

Biden Wants To Emulate California’s (Failed) Gun Laws

By John R. Lott Jr. for RealClearPolitics

President Biden traveled to Monterey Park, California, the site of a mass public shooting that left 11 dead in January, to announce new executive actions on gun control. He touts the proposals as necessary “to reduce gun violence and make our communities safer.” But California already has all the gun control laws that Biden put forward, and yet it has a higher per capita rate of mass public shootings than the rest of the country.

Measures already in place include background checks on all transfers of firearms, “red flag” gun confiscation laws, and an assault weapon ban. Even if Biden’s ideal background check law had been in effect and perfectly enforced, it wouldn’t have stopped one mass public shooting this century.

Biden exaggerated the support for his background check proposals. The surveys he cites compress long, complicated proposals into one-sentence summaries. But when people are told that these laws would turn someone into a felon just for temporarily lending a handgun to a woman who is being threatened by a stalker, survey respondents answer that they oppose the regulation. 

One proposal would force people who sell or transfer only a few guns to obtain a federal firearms license. But even licensed dealers face an uphill regulatory battle. Biden’s zero-tolerance (zero tolerance for what?) policy drives licensed dealers out of business. The end effect is to stop gun sales.

But Biden has another goal. Despite federal law explicitly forbidding a national gun registry, the President has begun putting together a national database on gun ownership. By the beginning of last year, there were almost a billion entries.

Forcing gun transfers to go through licensed dealers will help create a more complete registry. And that’s about all it will do, since gun licensing and registration doesn’t solve any crime. The bottom line is to drive up the price of guns for law-abiding citizens and therefore stop gun sales altogether. In other countries, and even in parts of the United States, registration is consistently used to eventually take away people’s guns, and given Biden’s constant call to ban all semi-automatic weapons, which make up about 85% of all guns sold in the U.S., that is a real concern here.

Biden wants to “improve public awareness and increase” use of red flag laws (Extreme Risk Protection Orders). But this diverts focus from better laws already on the books in all 50 states. Involuntary commitment laws provide for evaluations by mental health experts, an emergency court hearing, and a lawyer. These laws give judges more options, such as mandatory outpatient mental health care, driver’s license suspensions, or taking away their guns.

By contrast, red flag laws only take away a person’s guns. If a person is truly suicidal – almost all the red flag cases involve concerns over suicide – there are so many other methods that are just as likely to be successful (hanging oneself, walking in front of a train, jumping from a height). Simply taking away someone’s legally owned guns isn’t a serious solution.

Gun control advocates claim that California’s 1990 assault weapon ban is responsible for its 55% drop in firearm mortality from 1993 to 2017. But California’s murder rate peaked in 1993 at 13.1 per 100,000 people, rising from 10.9 in 1989, the year before the state enacted its assault weapons ban. So why did the murder rate fall by 10%  in 1994 and not in 1990, and continue falling by 53% by 2000? California’s tough three-strikes criminal punishment law started on March 7, 1994.

Biden says we need national gun control laws to protect states like California, but that ignores the fact that the guns used in California’s mass public shootings were from California. Indeed, the firearms in all but two mass public shootings over the last 25 years were from the state where the attack occurred.

Gun control measures aren’t just ineffective against mass public shootings – they actually encourage attacks. The shootings keep occurring in places where people can’t have concealed handguns. In Los Angeles County, where two mass public shootings occurred in January, there is only one permit for every 5,660 adults. In San Mateo County, where another attack occurred, there is one permit per 24,630 adults. By comparison, there is one permit holder for every nine people in the 43 right-to-carry states.

Concealed handgun permit holders make a difference in those 43 states. Indeed, people legally carrying guns stopped at least 37 mass public shootings since 2020. And when Americans are allowed to legally carry concealed handguns, they stop about half of the active shooting attacks in the U.S.

Mass public shooters purposefully pick targets where they know their victims cannot protect themselves. The perpetrator of a mass shooting in Buffalo, N.Y., last year wrote in his manifesto: “Areas where CCW [carrying a concealed weapon] are outlawed or prohibited may be good areas of attack ... Areas with strict gun laws are also great places of attack.” Other mass murderers have made similar statements.

These killers may be crazy, but most aren’t stupid. Yet, states like California, New York, and New Jersey are moving to create more gun-free zones, where mass murderers won’t have to worry about victims protecting themselves.

Unfortunately, the gun control Biden pushes won’t stop mass public shootings and will only make problems worse. Gun control failures are used to call for more gun control laws. The solutions that would actually work aren’t being discussed.

Wyoming Governor Gordon restores gun rights to non-violent felons

WYOMING — On March 17, Governor Gordon signed a bill giving back gun rights to non-violent felons five years after they complete their sentencing.

SF0120 allows “any person who has previously pleaded guilty to or been convicted of committing or attempting to commit a felony that is not a violent felony and has not been pardoned or has not had the person’s rights restored” to possess a firearm five years after completing their sentence, probation or parole.

According to the bill, violent felony includes murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery, strangulation of a household member, aircraft hijacking, aggravated burglary, aggravated assault and arson.

The bill also restores voting rights to those convicted of non-violent felonies. The law will go into effect on July 1.

Wyoming is one of the top two states dependent on the gun industry, along with Idaho, and has no laws preventing the open-carrying of firearms .

The History of Bans on Types of Arms Before 1900

Before 1900, was there a legal history in America of prohibiting particular types of arms? Yes, but it is very short. The far more common policy for controversial arms, such as Bowie knives or handguns, was forbidding concealed carry, limiting sales to minors, or imposing extra punishment for use in a crime.

My coauthor Joseph Greenlee and I explain it all in our 165 page article, The History of Bans on Types of Arms Before 1900, recently submitted to law reviews. Here is the abstract:

This Article examines all American state, territorial, and colonial laws that prohibited possession or sale of any type of arm. Also covered are English laws before 1776, and the Dutch and Swedish colonies in America.

Among the arms studied are handguns, repeating guns, Bowie knives, daggers, slungshots, blackjacks, brass knuckles, and cannons.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen directs lower courts to review modern gun control laws in part by analogy to historic laws before 1900. This Article provides the resources to do so, and offers its own analysis.

Besides describing prohibitory laws, the Article details other types of regulation, such as forbidding concealed carry, forbidding all carry, restricting sales to minors, licensing dealers, or taxing possession. It is the first comprehensive study of historic American laws about knives, swords, and blunt weapons.

It is also the first comprehensive study of the types of arms for which colonies and states required ownership by militiamen, by some men not in the militia, and by some women.

The arms regulation laws and cases of the 19th century are examined in the context of the century’s tremendous advances in firearms. The century that began with the single-shot muzzle-loading musket ended with modern semiautomatic handguns and magazines.

Synthesizing Supreme Court doctrine with historic statutes and cases, the Article concludes that prohibitions on semiautomatic rifles and magazines lack foundation in American legal history. In contrast, other regulations, such as restricting the purchase of certain arms by minors, have a stronger historic basis.

Continue reading “”

Poll claims younger Republicans support gun control

There is a serious effort to try and paint gun control as having broad support. The idea here is to make it appear as if pro-gun lawmakers are out of touch with the public in hopes that they’ll bow to pressure and pass restrictions.

Remember that everyone loves a legislator who holds firm to their principles right up until those principles are something the individual voter disagrees with. Then they should totally change and that’s not a violation of principles at all.

Funny, that.

Anyway, with this effort, there tend to be a ton of polls saying gun control has all this support. Kind of like this one that argues Gen Z, Millennial Republicans support it.

Despite widespread overall support for gun control and majority belief in gun rights among Republicans, 59% of Americans report that they’ve engaged in no political activities in the past 30 days in support or opposition to gun access. However, younger generations may be the catalyst for change regarding policy on guns.

The opinions of young Republicans, in particular, differ from those of their older counterparts. Gen Z and Millennial Republicans — adults born in 1982 or more recently — are more likely than older Republicans to believe that gun laws should be more restrictive (39% vs. 22%). Support for more restrictive gun laws has continued to trend upwards among young Republicans – to 47% in February 2023 from 41% in August 2022 – while members of the older generation of Republicans are more likely to believe gun laws are sufficient as they are today. Similarly, 32% of young Republicans think the Constitution protects access to guns only for militias – more than double the share of older Republicans (13%) who think so.

Except that’s only part of the story.

Yes, 39 percent favor gun control but another 39 percent think the laws are just fine and another 22 percent think the current laws are too restrictive.

Conversely, there is 32 percent of Gen Z and Millennial Democrats who think gun laws are either good where they are or too restrictive.

But it’s funny how that’s not the story here, only that 39 percent of younger Republican voters want more gun control. It’s almost as if they’re trying to push a particular narrative and somehow pressure GOP lawmakers into passing some particular bit of legislation.

Nah, I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that they framed it that way and pretty much glossed over the fact that 32 percent of Democrats don’t want more gun control.

And the poll doesn’t get into specifics, either, with regard to those younger Republicans. Arguably, support for a red flag law and literally nothing else constitutes wanting more restrictions than the status quo, but is well short of “ban ’em all.” That doesn’t show up on polls like this.

Then there’s the question of just how significant that support is–another subject they didn’t get into, I should note.

There are people who have some vague notions of supporting a given policy but aren’t supportive enough to actually do much of anything about it. They might think a gun control law is a good idea, but they won’t base who they vote for on it.

Republicans, regardless of their age, aren’t about to jump ship and vote Democrat just because of gun control. That doesn’t show up in polls, either.

Governor says she’s going to keep pushing on crime, gun bills

As Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham started her post-session news conference Saturday, she already knew the score.

Of the roughly 40 public safety bills introduced this year, the governor said she championed 10.

“We have about a handful up, and out of 40, it’s 10 [that passed], and not all of those would really constitute what I think are strong public safety measures,” she said.

“I know that is an area that you want me to say I’m disappointed,” Lujan Grisham added. “I’m motivated. I am very motivated to find additional ways to make sure that we really do everything in our power that makes our communities and cities in our state safe.”

The Legislature passed a gun storage law named after a 13-year-old Albuquerque boy authorities say was shot and killed by a fellow student who took his father’s gun to an Albuquerque middle school. Lawmakers also passed a bill that cracks down on organized retail crime and made it a fourth-degree felony to buy a gun for another person who is prohibited from owning a firearm.

But some of the governor’s biggest priorities went nowhere, including a ban on assault weapons; a bill to raise the age to 21 to buy or possess semi-automatic firearms, including assault weapons; and a 14-day waiting period to buy guns.

Other gun-related legislation — prohibiting firearms within 100 feet of polling places and updating the Unfair Trade Practices Act to lift restrictions on the filing of lawsuits against manufacturers or distributors — passed the Senate but didn’t get a hearing in the House, where they were likely to meet stiff opposition.

The governor also pushed for establishing a “rebuttable presumption” to keep repeat violent offenders awaiting trial off the streets instead of letting them be released pretrial. The bill was tabled in committee amid concerns it was unconstitutional.

Miranda Viscoli, co-president of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence, said she was “extremely disappointed” the bill to impose a 14-day waiting period on gun sales didn’t get a hearing in either chamber. Of all the violence prevention bills proposed this year, that was the bill that would’ve made the biggest difference, she added.

“The studies we looked at say it’s a game-changer in terms of suicide and crimes of passion,” she said.

But Viscoli said she was grateful the Legislature passed House Bill 9, intended to keep guns out of the hands of children and teens. The governor signed it into law Tuesday.

“We’ve been working on getting that passed since 2017,” she said.

Rep. Pamelya Herndon, D-Albuquerque, who sponsored the legislation known as the Bennie Hargrove Act, called some of the other gun bills considered by the Legislature controversial, noting some are “going to take some time.”

Lujan Grisham, who was hammered over a crime wave plaguing New Mexico as she campaigned for a second term last year, vowed to keep “pushing the Legislature” to enact more measures, including funding to put an additional 1,000 police officers on the ground.

“The Legislature should expect me to look at that again because I know we need 1,000 officers,” she said.

Asked about her strategy to get her public safety priorities across the finish line, Lujan Grisham said she has to think about “creative solutions.”

“I’m going to keep trying,” she said.

“Just look at the stats. We’ve released some folks that should never have been released and have already reoffended in Albuquerque while we’ve all been in the legislative session,” she said, referring to efforts to pass a pretrial detention bill. “I find that to be intolerable. There are states who do it better, and I don’t know why we don’t just do exactly what those states are doing. I don’t need to recreate the wheel.”

The governor said she would continue to battle for modified pretrial detention, noting “everyone here knows I’m introducing that again. And again and again, and I might just try to change the Constitution so I can run again.”

Lujan Grisham said she was kidding but added she would continue to battle on crime legislation. And she made no apologies for her battle against guns, brushing off criticism she’s infringing on law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

“I have not talked to a single policymaker, not one legislator, who’s interested in preventing responsible gun owners from accessing firearms,” she said.

“What we’re trying to address is that we have a gun violence issue and that guns … get into the hands of people who should not have them,” she said. “That … takes a scalpel, like figuring out where we got a problem and taking care of that particular problem.”

Observation O’ The Day

Kostas Moros
@MorosKostas
I don’t understand what the point is supposed to be here. Yes, bullets are very lethal, and will cause serious injury even when not fatal. Nobody disputes that. That is the point of firearms, we didn’t think we were buying paintball guns or something.

Also, this is another post by Giffords that shows they ultimately want to ban all guns even though they won’t admit it. Because these same horrific wounds would result from non-“assault weapons”, guns limited to ten rounds, etc.