Category: RKBA

New Mexico House narrowly passes firearm storage bill

SANTA FE — Bennie Hargrove’s twin sisters started middle school afraid to get out of the car.

Their older brother, then 13, was shot and killed 1 1/2 years ago by a Washington Middle School classmate, police say, who’d taken a handgun from home.

The family’s story was among those shared Thursday as New Mexico lawmakers passed a bill that would make it a crime, in some circumstances, to store a firearm in a way that allows a child to get it.

The House endorsed the legislation on a 37-32 vote, sending it to the Senate. Some Democrats crossed party lines to join Republicans against the bill.

“This bill is about keeping children safe,” Rep. Pamelya Herndon, D-Albuquerque, said, alluding to Bennie’s death. “We had two minors. One had access to a gun and one is dead.”

The measure triggered a combative three-hour debate in the House as Republican legislators contended the bill inappropriately targeted law-abiding gun owners. They also expressed frustration as Herndon wouldn’t offer a “yes” or “no” answer to some questions.

Rep. Stefani Lord, R-Sandia Park, said the language in the bill was too vague to give gun owners an understanding of what conduct would be illegal. She added that it could endanger someone who needs quick access to a firearm for protection.

“It’s not fair to the survivors of domestic violence who fear for their life,” Lord said.

Rep. Bill Rehm, an Albuquerque Republican and retired law enforcement officer, said the bill is particularly problematic for police officers. He said he “didn’t put up my gun” after coming home from work but that his children knew never to touch it.

“For us to legislate how the rest of the responsible citizens of the city must act because of an irresponsible person is not good policy,” Rehm said.

The proposal, House Bill 9, would make it a crime to store a firearm in a way that negligently disregards the ability of a minor to access it.

Criminal charges could be brought only if the minor later brandishes or displays the firearm in a threatening way or uses it to kill or injure someone.

It includes some exceptions to intended to protect good-faith efforts to safely store a firearm.

Adult gun owners, for example, couldn’t be charged if they’d stored the firearm in a secure container or other place a reasonable person would believe is secure; the firearm was locked and inoperable; the minor broke into the home; or the gun was used in self-defense.

Continue reading “”

MARYLAND LAWMAKERS WANT SCI-FI TECHNOLOGY TO TRACK YOUR GUNS IN REAL TIME

By Larry Keane

Someone needs to figure out what in the wide world of dystopian Buck Rogers in the 25th Century sci-fi fantasy world is going on in Maryland’s legislature. Antigun lawmakers there are advancing legislation that would require firearm manufacturers to attach RFID trackers to each and every firearm so government officials could track their whereabouts at all times.

Not only is this a clear invasion of privacy rights and Constitutional protections against illegal search-and-seizure, this is an idea that’s not even technologically possible. This is the stuff of Hollywood – and antigun politicians that don’t understand the first thing about firearms or manufacturing processes.

Maryland’s Delegate Pam Queen introduced HB 704, a bill titled, “Firearms – Tracking Technology.” The bill’s description reads:

Prohibiting a person from engaging in a certain bulk firearm transfer unless each firearm that is part of the transfer contains a certain embedded tracker; requiring a seller or other transferor who engages in a bulk firearm transfer to transmit to the Secretary of State Police certain information; providing that a violation of the Act is a civil offense and subject to a fine of up to $2500; and requiring the Secretary to establish a certain database to store information about each bulk firearm transfer in the State.

The “embedded tracker” would be required to be fixed to the firearm frame or receiver, emit unique tracking information and not be readily capable of being removed, disabled or destroyed without rendering the firearm inoperable or destroying the frame or receiver. To be clear, Delegate Queen would require that embedded tracker to emit this unique information to Maryland’s State Police for permanent storage in a state-run database. Anyone not complying with this is subject to $2,500 in fines.

Big Brother Would Watch

What this bill does would be nothing short of state authorities peering into an individual’s gun safe. The state would also know when and where a firearm would be moved – whether that’s for hunting, a day at the range target shooting or when and where an individual is legally carrying a firearm for licensed concealed carry. This bill would require firearm manufacturers to create and include these trackers on firearms. Those exercising their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms would be required to forfeit their Fourth Amendment Constitutional right to privacy and their right protecting them from illegal search-and-seizure, since the state would automatically collect and store this information in real time. This legislation would also call into question Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment protections of Due Process, since it requires the government to collect information on Americans simply exercising their Second Amendment rights. And this legislation would have a chilling effect on the exercise of Second Amendment rights as Marylanders would be less likely to lawfully purchase a firearm to avoid the invasion of privacy.

That’s not even taking into consideration the technological hurdles that would be required to meet this requirement. Makers of so-called “smart guns,” or authorized-user technology that is supposed to allow owners to fire guns through the use of RFID emitters, fingerprint recognition or passcodes or other technology, haven’t been able to produce a safe and reliable model. The Obama administration made this a priority and the Department of Justice (DOJ) couldn’t identify a working prototype that was capable of testing.

Impossible Technology

Continue reading “”

Tenney introduces legislation to exempt firearms from bankruptcy proceedings

Press Release, U.S. Rep. Claudia Tenney

WASHINGTON, DC – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-24) today introduced the Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act. This bill would exempt $3,000 worth of firearms from bankruptcy proceedings, allowing Americans to maintain their Second Amendment rights through tough financial times.

Current bankruptcy law allows debtors to maintain items to support a base quality of life, including a primary residency, car, clothing, household appliances, and even musical instruments.

But there is no current exemption for a firearm that can be used for self-defense, a constitutional right. This important piece of legislation ensures that Americans can keep their firearms to defend themselves, no matter their financial state.

“No American should ever have to sacrifice their constitutional rights because of their financial situation,” said Congresswoman Tenney. “The Second Amendment is a constitutional right for all Americans, even those experiencing financial hardship. I am honored to lead this important legislation that protects the rights of gun owners everywhere, no matter their financial situation.”

Additional co-sponsors include Rep. Paul Gosar (AZ-9), Rep. Randy Weber (TX-14), and Rep. Doug Lamborn (CO-5).

WHAT YOU DIDN’T HEAR IN THE STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH ABOUT CRATERING GUN CONTROL SUPPORT

Those tuning in to watch President Biden’s State of the Union address saw and heard a few things when he entered the U.S. House of Representatives to address Congress and the nation. There is a new Speaker of the House – Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). He was seated next to Vice President Kamala Harris, a visual reminder of the divided government. Military generals and U.S. Supreme Court justices were in attendance, along with Members of Congress and senators.

President Biden banged the usual drum demanding to renew the Assault Weapons Ban. That’s the law he along with U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) ushered in in 1994 and President Bill Clinton signed into law that banned the sale of Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs). That ban expired in 2004 and the semiautomatic rifle has since become the most-popular selling centerfire rifle in America – with over 24.4 million in circulation today.

President Biden scolded Congress for not sending him legislation to renew this unconstitutional ban on these commonly-owned commonly-used rifles. Never mind that the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in the Heller, McDonald and Bruen decisions that any such ban is unconstitutional.

What President Biden didn’t tell the American public – and won’t – is what the rest of America is saying about any proposed ban. Over half the country doesn’t want it, according to a recent poll by ABC News/Washington Post.

Continue reading “”

Democrat Conniptions Continue in Wake of SCOTUS Second Amendment Decision

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary I keep by my desk defines “conniption” as “a fit of rage or hysterics.” To illustrate more clearly what a “conniption” means in modern parlance, a picture of Gavin Newsom, the Democrat Governor of California, should accompany the definition. It is he and his anti-Second Amendment colleagues in other deep blue states who are having recurring conniptions over the June 2022 Supreme Court decision commonly known as Bruen.

That decision, which arose factually in New York but applies to the entire country, declared that the Second Amendment means what it says, and that it is to be interpreted according to the historical context in which it was written and ratified in the late 18th Century.

What exactly is it that sends these public officials, who regularly profess devotion to other civil liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, up the wall?

At its core, it’s all about control.

Under the century-old New York “Sullivan Act” law that the six-member Bruen majority struck down last June, local officials had enjoyed virtually absolute control to decide which citizens were deemed worthy to be permitted to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense. That power was deemed “arbitrary” by the High Court’s majority and therefore fatally defective as a limitation on an individual’s fundamental right to “keep and bear arms” expressly guaranteed by the Second Amendment against being thus “infringed.”

For decades California, New Jersey, Hawaii, and a handful of other firearms-averse states had permitted officials to exercise similar control over citizens within their jurisdiction.

Bruen swept away such noxious power and established – finally – what should have been obvious to public officials all along; namely, that playing word games, such as forcing a citizen to show “proper cause” and a “special need” before being allowed to exercise a fundamental right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, is not what our Founders intended and is not consistent with any reasoned and historically premised interpretation of the Second Amendment.

In clear defiance of the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, New York’s legislature quickly passed, and Governor Kathy Hochul signed legislation that did precisely what the Supreme Court just days before had ruled unconstitutional. This left virtually every New Yorker desiring to be able to carry a firearm for self-defense still unable to do so.

Even more irksome to the likes of Newsom and other anti-gun Democrat governors and legislators, is the fact that the language and reasoning in Bruen provide valid arguments with which to successfully challenge other restrictive gun control laws, such as bans on high-capacity magazines and so-called “assault rifles.” Myriad challenges to these gun control laws are pending in courts in California and across the country.

Defending such restrictive laws against these constitutional challenges perfectly reflects Newsom’s well-known disdain for judicial decisions not comporting with his liberal philosophy.

Thankfully, most federal judges have a sounder view of judicial precedent and understand that when the United States Supreme Court speaks – especially when, as in Bruen, it does so clearly and pointedly – political and personal views must take a backseat to the Court’s decisions. Interestingly, even some Democrats in the California legislature appear to understand this.

Last Fall, for example, Newsom and his cohorts in the state legislature attempted to pass legislation similar to New York’s defiant response to Bruen, that would continue to make it virtually impossible for Californians to obtain carry permits. In what must have been a shock to Newsom, a handful of “moderate” Democrat members joined with the GOP minority and defeated the legislation – forcing the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times to blast such turncoats and join the ongoing, anti-Bruen conniption sweeping across blue states.

There also are blue-city sheriffs, such as San Francisco’s Paul Miyamoto, who may not like the Bruen decision but understand their oaths of office require them to follow it, and now are approving carry permits that previously were routinely denied.

Since Bruen, law-abiding citizens, including those in Democrat-controlled states like Maryland, are eagerly lining up by the tens of thousands to obtain formerly unattainable carry permits. These Americans exhibit no conniption, simply a yearning to freely exercise a God-given and constitutionally guaranteed right to self-defense.

AR-15s are Mindbogglingly Safe
“Assault Weapon” homicides are so rare you need graphs to comprehend it.

It is taken as an obvious given by approximately half of the United States that we are in a massive epidemic of AR-15 homicides, and that something must be done about it. This given is not only completely false, the level of falseness of it is almost incomprehensible. Let’s try and understand exactly how false it is by using simple arithmetic.

Continue reading “”

AR-15 ban, waiting period advance at New Mexico Capitol

SANTA FE — A proposal to ban AR-15-style rifles in New Mexico began moving through the Roundhouse on Tuesday as Democratic legislators pursue aggressive new gun-control measures intended to address mass shootings and other crime.

On a series of party-line votes, members of a House committee advanced legislation to establish a two-week waiting period for firearm purchases and prohibit the sale and possession of certain semiautomatic rifles and handguns.

The ban would go into effect in March 2024, with some exemptions for people who already have the prohibited firearms.

Republican lawmakers and other opponents who crammed into a packed committee room to testify on the proposals said the restrictions would interfere with the rights of law-abiding citizens and do nothing to deter crime.

Supporters showed up in force, too, and a crowd filled the hallway as people waited for a seat.

Continue reading “”

GOP Senators Offer ‘SHORT’ Act to Stop Gun Owner ‘Harassment’

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Seventeen U.S. Senators recently introduced legislation aimed at removing the guts of the National Firearms Act—taxation, registration and regulatory requirements—and they are calling it the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act.

Sponsored by Sens. Roger Marshall (KS) John Kennedy (LA), John Barrasso (WY), John Boozman (AR), Ted Budd (NC), Mike Crapo (ID), Ted Cruz (TX), Steve Daines (MT), Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS), Mike Lee (UT), Cynthia Lummis (WY), Markwayne Mullin (OK), Rand Paul (KY), Mike Risch (ID), Mike Rounds (SD), Rick Scott (FL), John Thune (SD), and Tommy Tuberville (AL), the six-page measure may have a short life span—it probably will not get out of the Senate with Democrats in control—but it might raise a few eyebrows and some important political issues.

In a report from KIDO Radio in Boise, Crapo and Risch both took nasty swipes at the Biden administration.

“This Administration’s vendetta against lawful gun ownership is a gross violation of Constitutional rights. A federal gun registry has no place in America, yet this Administration is forcing millions of law-abiding Americans to either register these commonly owned firearms or become felons,” Risch said.

“As the Biden Administration continues to seek creative methods of advancing their anti-gun agenda, Congress must be resolute and oppose all efforts to undermine Second Amendment rights,” Crapo added. “Burdening law-abiding Americans with additional firearm restrictions is not the answer to safeguarding the public.”

Continue reading “”

“The Framers Weren’t Perfect, but They Weren’t Fools”: Biden Administration Loses Another Gun Rights Case

We recently discussed the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit striking down a ban on gun ownership by individuals accused of domestic abuse. Now, U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick in Oklahoma City dismissed an indictment against Jared Michael Harrison for violating a federal law that makes it illegal for “unlawful users or addicts of controlled substances” to possess firearms. It is only the latest such loss for the Justice Department as the Biden Administration pushes sweeping rationales for limiting Second Amendment rights in the wake of last year’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Harrison was arrested by police in Lawton, Oklahoma, in May 2022 after a traffic stop where police found a loaded revolver as well as marijuana.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), Congress prohibited the possession of firearms by users of substances made unlawful by the federal Controlled Substances Act. The court noted that this provision “is rarely used by prosecutors, as it accounts for only about 5% of prosecutions brought under § 922.”

The Justice Department argued that such a ban was “consistent with a longstanding historical tradition in America of disarming presumptively risky persons, namely, felons, the mentally ill, and the intoxicated.” It is similar to the broad rationale used unsuccessfully before the Fifth Circuit. Indeed, the Justice Department again tried to argue that such bans are allowed because Bruen’s described the plaintiffs in that case as “ordinary, law-abiding, and adult citizens.” It is clearly an argument that the Biden Administration wants to push in cases across the country despite the rather poor reception from the courts. I agree with these judges that the reference is being radically overblown by the Justice Department. Indeed, it cuts against the department’s credibility in arguing for Second Amendment limits.

This latest loss shows the Biden Administration pushing a post-Bruen claim that could find itself back before a skeptical Court majority. Notably, as discussed in the earlier post, a similar issue was addressed by Justice Amy Coney Barrett when she was sitting as an appellate judge. This court also relies on Barrett’s dissent in Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437, 451–53 (7th Cir. 2019) (Barrett, J., dissenting).

In September, U.S. District Judge David Counts in Midland, Texas also struck down a firearms law that banned individuals under felony indictment from buying guns.

The opinion by Judge Wyrick is very interesting in its comprehensive exploration of historical sources. It also dismantles the Justice Department’s suggestions that marijuana users are both law breakers and threats to society:

“under the United States’ own conception of the historical tradition, such restrictions would only apply to those who are both unvirtuous and dangerous. And as explained above, because the mere use of marijuana does not involve violent, forceful, or threatening conduct, a user of marijuana does not automatically fall within that group.”

I particularly liked this observation from the court about reading discretion into the amendment to bar those deemed untrustworthy by the government:

[I]t would be odd indeed for the Framers to have incorporated such a trojan horse into the Second Amendment. The purpose of enshrining a right into the Constitution is to limit the discretion of a legislature. But if the United States’ theory is correct and all a legislature must do to prohibit a group of persons from possessing arms is to declare that group “untrustworthy,” then the Second Amendment would provide virtually no limit on Congress’s discretion. The Framers weren’t perfect, but they also weren’t fools.

Here is the opinion: United States v. Harrison

Elitist snobs from New York always think the land between the coasts is populated by nothing but hicks and cows

As the Wyoming Legislature considers several bills that would make it easier to carry firearms in public spaces, there’s evidence that those practices make things worse, a gun control advocate said.

“We’ve seen things like guns routinely being left in bathrooms on campuses,” Andy Pelosi told Cowboy State Daily.

As executive director of The Campaign to Keep Guns off Campus, which is based in New York State, Pelosi was answering what he claims are flawed arguments from Wyoming concealed-carry advocates who have said that the loosening of concealed carry restrictions in other states hasn’t caused problems.

Causes More Problem Than It Solves?

Allowing firearms on college campuses has led to problems and even some tragedies, Pelosi said. That has included more suicides or perpetrators using firearms to force sexual assaults.

He cited some studies his group has compiled from reports of gun-related incidents on campuses, including Colorado State University. Concealed carry is allowed at CSU.

It generally isn’t allowed on the University of Wyoming Campus. Students or staff may carry at UW only if they’ve obtained a special permit from university police for some pressing reason, such as being stalked.

Some of the incidents in Colorado that Keep Guns off Campus cites include student gunshot suicides in 2008 and 2017 and an accidental shooting on the CU-Denver campus in 2012.

And in 2017 at Fort Collins Community College, “A 26-year-old female student pulled a loaded gun on her professor after he confronted her about cheating,” according to one of the studies cited.

Overall, allowing guns on campuses and other previously gun-free public spaces isn’t shown to diminish crime, but instead increases the number of incidents such as suicides, threats and accidental shootings, Pelosi said.

The Associated Students of the University of Wyoming opposes allowing concealed carry on campus, the group’s representative, Caitlin Heddins, told legislators during a recent discussion of one of the firearms-related bills.

Still A Good Idea, Some Say

However, advocates for the bills – House Bill 105 and Senate File 135 – argue that it violates the Second Amendment rights of Wyoming residents to not allow concealed carry into government buildings, government meetings and the like.

They contend that gun-free zones simply create “soft targets” for mass shooters or others with ill intent.

New ‘Capitol Carry’ Bills 

A pair of new bills introduced to the Wyoming Senate on Monday would help allow concealed carry in the Wyoming Capitol building, where civilians are now prohibited from having firearms.

Senate File 149 would create an “enhanced concealed carry permit.” The current Wyoming concealed permitting process does not require applicants to take any actual firearms handling or live-fire training. Instead, they take only classroom or online courses.

Under the bill, those regular concealed carry permits would still be available. But for people wishing to take it to another level, enhanced concealed carry permit training would entail hands-on firearms safety courses, as well as live-fire training and qualification sessions.

Under Senate File 150, people who had obtained the enhanced concealed carry permits would be allowed to concealed carry their firearms in the Capitol.

Yet, he has no real solutions either

All-or-nothing approaches to firearm safety have gotten us nowhere

Data scientists seek to glean insights from data that can place issues of public concern into the appropriate perspective.

That being said, my recent op-ed in The Hill, “What the data actually say about assault weapons” fueled discussion that was more revealing about the state of semi-automatic rifles (or assault weapons, or tactical rifles or modern sporting rifles as they are known by some) than the data itself.

One group of respondents were concerned that I was against such weapon bans. These people cited horrible incidences associated with these weapons, and that the only way to stop such egregious acts would be through banning them completely. Some argued that these weapons had no place in society, that they were military weapons.

Another group expressed concern that these weapons were mislabeled and misrepresented by the media. They argued that such firearms are widely used by hunters and for self-defense. These also cited the right to own any firearms, based on their understanding of the Second Amendment.

Then there was a third group of people who simply appreciated anyone reporting data that shed some light on firearm deaths in society in general. They also offered that some sectors of the media are highly selective in what they report about such weapons, to achieve a particular objective.

The takeaway from all these responses is not whether these weapons should be banned, but rather, how contentious the issue is and how far apart the different stakeholders lie in their views.

Although there were a wide spectrum of perspectives, two diametrically opposed positions emerged: either ban or do not ban such weapons.

When comparing the issues cited within each position, it has become abundantly clear that the solution is not an on/off switch, but rather, a dial that moves between the two extremes.

What does such a dial look like?

It permits access to such weapons, while providing restrictions that reduce risk in certain environments and under certain circumstances. Therefore, the focus is not on bans but on limitations. This is how universal background checks can play a role, which focus on the people rather than the weapons.

The challenge with such a nuanced policy is that both positions will be unhappy.

By metaphor, when a person drinks and drives, killing innocent people, is the seller of the alcohol held liable? No, although alcohol is a controlled substance with restrictions, like minimum age to purchase.

Is the automobile manufacturer held liable? No, although automobiles are designed with federally mandated safety features.

The person who drank and drove is held liable, and laws are designed to penalize and deter the perpetrators’ behavior. However, no laws exist that will end deaths due to drunk driving.

The schisms between the two positions means that little common ground exists.

A risk and benefit analysis for any activity or item is revealing. When benefits exceed risks, we tolerate the activity or item and place safeguards to reduce risk. When risks exceed benefits, we either ban the activity or item, or place significant restrictions to reduce risk. That is how automobile travel, air travel, prescription drugs and numerous other activities and items are evaluated and managed.

With firearms of any type, both positions understand that there are risks. Where they most significantly differ is on the perceived benefits. The mismatch of what constitutes benefits with any firearms appears to be the stumbling block in the conflict.

Given this environment, the status quo with firearm deaths will continue, with suicides the single largest subset. Mass killings and mass shootings will continue to represent around 2 percent of all deaths, garnering the most attention, even though they account for a small fraction of firearm fatalities. Note that all such needless and avoidable deaths do not diminish their tragedy, particularly for those directly impacted. It just recognizes their relative number compared to all firearm deaths.

No one supports inappropriate and unsafe use of firearms that lead to avoidable deaths. Everyone can agree on that point. What cannot be agreed upon is how to achieve that.

If our society wishes to eliminate all automobile deaths, cars must be banned, an impractical solution given their benefit. Instead, we place restrictions on how automobiles are operated to reduce fatality risk down to levels commensurate with the benefits that they provide.

Can we use the same approach to set sensible firearm policies that are commensurate with their risk and more importantly, on some compromised recognition of their benefits? Such a dialogue can be a first step forward in reducing avoidable firearm deaths, an objective that everyone can agree upon.

Poll: Majority of Americans Oppose ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

Bans on AR-15s and similar firearms have continued to fall out of favor with the American public.

51 percent of Americans now oppose adopting a national “assault weapons” sales ban, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Monday. That’s a ten-point jump in opposition since the question was last asked in 2019. Only 47 percent said they support the policy. That represents the second-lowest level of support measured since the poll began in 1995.

Those who strongly opposed a nationwide ban also outpaced those who strongly supported it for the first time since 2015.

The results are just the latest to confirm a decreased appetite for the ban. At least three separate polls conducted in 2022 documented a decline in support for the policy, even in the immediate aftermath of the Uvalde school shooting.

The latest results arrive just one day before President Biden (D.) is slated to give his State of the Union Address, where he is likely to reiterate his support for an assault weapon ban. Biden has made an assault weapon ban one of his signature gun policy goals, and he routinely calls for Congress to pass a ban after every prominent shooting–a request his party delivered on in the House last year but not the Senate.

The polling results suggest the public is increasingly turning a deaf ear to those calls.

Pollster David Langer said the decline in support for the gun ban was “broadly based across groups” but could only speculate as to what was driving the drop in support.

“It would take a study focused in more detail on the issue to assess its reasons, but other studies provide clues,” he said in a statement. “In a Pew Research Center poll last year, the public divided on whether or not making it harder to get guns would reduce mass shootings.”

Beyond public opinion souring on the bans, the court system has also started to cast doubt on their constitutionality after the Supreme Court’s decision in 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The High Court vacated a federal decision upholding Maryland’s assault weapons ban shortly after that ruling and sent it back down to the lower courts to be relitigated under the new standard it set. Since then, federal judges have blocked two local assault weapon bans in Colorado, and a state court blocked Illinois’ new ban.

However, that hasn’t stopped lawmakers in blue states from continuing to push for the bans. Illinois joined Delaware in passing the first statewide assault weapons bans in several decades when it adopted its version last year. Lawmakers are also considering new bans in Washington, Rhode Island, Colorado, and New Mexico this year.

Langer Research Associates conducted the ABC News/Washington Post poll by cell phone from January 27-February 1. It sampled 1,003 adults with a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

Yeah, that’d really cramp the style of the Holiday.

New Mexico: Radical Gun Restrictions on Deck in Committee Next Week: Magazine Limits, Waiting Periods, Semi-Auto, Suppressor & NFA Bans

On Monday, February 6, the New Mexico Senate Health & Public Affairs Committee will hold a public hearing on Senate Bill 171 by Sen. Bill Soules (D-Las Cruces), legislation that attempts to supersede federal law and make it a FELONY to manufacture, sell, transfer, or acquire a firearm sound suppressor and other National Firearms Act items, as well as certain semi-automatic pistols. Please contact members of the Senate Health & Public Affairs Committee and urge them to OPPOSE SB 171. Also, make plans to attend this hearing in-person, on Monday, at 1:30pm, in Room 311 of the State Capitol in Santa Fe, and testify against this misguided proposal. You may also participate in this hearing via Zoom or phone, but the best way to make sure your voice is heard (as the committee almost always decides to limit testimony) is to be present in the hearing room!

ZOOM WEBINAR: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/9124526531
or via telephone at 1 253 215 8782 Meeting ID: 912 452 653

On Tuesday, February 7, the New Mexico House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee will hold public hearings on three extreme gun control proposals:

House Bill 50 by Rep. Patricia Roybal Caballero (D-ABQ) makes it a FELONY to transfer or possess any standard capacity magazine capable of holding 10 or more rounds of ammunition. The 9-round limit would be the lowest in the nation and would effectively ban the use of some of the most popular pistols and rifles purchased and owned by law-abiding New Mexicans.

House Bill 100 by Rep. Andrea Romero (D-Santa Fe) expands New Mexico’s so-called “universal background check” law to include a mandatory 14-day waiting period on all firearm purchases. This criminal protection bill would delay your ability to exercise your Second Amendment right to defend yourself, your family and your property.

House Bill 101 by Rep. Andrea Romero (D-Santa Fe) bans the manufacture, possession, purchase, sale or transfer of countless commonly-owned semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns dubbed “assault weapons” under the act and standard capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Current owners would be required to move them out of state, sell them to a federal firearm licensed dealer or surrender them to a law enforcement agency prior to July 1, 2023 – or face FELONY charges.

Please contact members of the House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee and urge them to OPPOSE HB 50, HB 100 & HB 101. Also, make plans to attend this hearing in-person, on Tuesday, at 1:30pm, in Room 317 of the State Capitol in Santa Fe, and testify against this misguided proposal. You may also participate in this hearing via Zoom or phone, but the best way to make sure your voice is heard (as the committee almost always decides to limit testimony) is to be present in the hearing room!

Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89037370054 
Or One tap mobile: US: +13462487799,,89037370054# or +16694449171,,89037370054# 
Webinar ID: 890 3737 0054 

An in depth look at the 5th Circuit’s ruling today. Also this was not an en banc ruling, so expect it to go there next.

Fifth Circuit Holds People Can’t Be Disarmed Just Based on Civil Restraining Order

Judge James Ho concurs, adding “I write separately to point out that our Founders firmly believed in the fundamental role of government in protecting citizens against violence, as well as the individual right to keep and bear arms—and that these two principles are not inconsistent but entirely compatible with one another.”From U.S. v. Rahimi, decided today by the Fifth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Cory Wilson, joined by Judges Edith Jones and James Ho:
 

The question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal. The question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the light of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022), it is not.

The court rejected the view that, under Heller and Bruen, legislatures can disarm anyone who isn’t a “law-abiding, responsible citizen[]”:

There is some debate on this issue. Compare Kanter v. Barr (7th Cir. 2019) (Barrett, J. dissenting), abrogated by Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, with Binderup v. Att’y Gen. (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc) (Hardiman, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgments). As summarized by now-Justice Barrett, “one [approach] uses history and tradition to identify the scope of the right, and the other uses that same body of evidence to identify the scope of the legislature’s power to take it away.” The Government’s argument that Rahimi falls outside the community covered by the Second Amendment rests on the first approach. But it runs headlong into Heller and Bruen, which we read to espouse the second one.

Unpacking the issue, the Government’s argument fails because (1) it is inconsistent with Heller, Bruen, and the text of the Second Amendment, (2) it inexplicably treats Second Amendment rights differently than other individually held rights, and (3) it has no limiting principles….

Continue reading “”

5th Circuit represent.

Fifth Circuit strikes down firearms prohibition under domestic violence restraining order.

The question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal.

The question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

In the light of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), it is not.

 

When they write articles like this, they merely indicate the title of their site is incorrect. They are not ‘good men’. And it begs the question: Which right will be the next one they decide the people should not have?

Uttering the Unutterable: Repeal the Second Amendment Now I uttered the unutterable, the ultimate taboo in U.S. political discourse.

I love life, and I love the people of my country far far far more than I value the “freedom” to bear arms. I don’t know if any “reforms” will really solve the problems of gun violence in the United States. In all actuality, I believe, therefore, that we must repeal the Second Amendment now!

There! I uttered the unutterable, the ultimate taboo in U.S. political discourse. But I am not running for public office or reelection. I am not expecting large payouts from the National Rifle Association or from the firearms manufacturers through their lobbyists.

As the horse once served as a primary means of transportation in earlier times, it now grazes and prances peacefully on rich pastures. Possibly during former moments in our history, we may have had reason to enact and enforce the Second Amendment of our great Constitution, but those bygone days have long since passed. Now we must put the Second Amendment out to pasture.

Continue reading “”

FACT CHECK: Gavin Newsom Says ‘Permitless Carry Does Not Make You Safer’

CLAIM: In the lead-up to his February 1 push for more gun control, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) claimed, “Permitless carry does not make you safer.”

VERDICT: Partly False.

On June 7, 2017, Breitbart News relayed FBI data published by the NRA that showed two of the earliest permitless carry states, hereafter called constitutional carry states, were Alaska and Arizona. And both states saw their handgun murders decline when their concealed carry permit requirements were abolished.

The date showed Alaska’s handgun murder rate “declined after the state enacted [constitutional carry] in 2003.” Moreover, in the 14 years between the abolition of the permit requirement and 2017 “handgun murders…declined as a percentage of the total number of murders.”

A drop in handgun murders also took place in Arizona after that state abolished its concealed carry permit requirement in 2010.

More recently, the Maine Wire noted that crime fell in Maine after the state abolished its concealed carry permit requirement in 2015.

FBI data shows violent crime beginning a decline in 2016 that continued through 2020.

There are currently 25 states with constitutional carry. When there were only 13–Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming–the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) showed that data from the 13 states showed overall murder numbers fell from 4.49 to 4.31 post-constitutional carry enactment, and that violent crime fell from 331.5 to 318.2.

But murder levels can vary for a variety of reasons, and CPRC’s John Lott explains some of the numerous factors that are often at play:

Firearm homicide is not a good measure of the effect of Constitutional Carry laws because murders can be committed with other weapons as well as by hands and fists. Also, gun homicide data include justifiable homicides, including homicides by police in the line of duty. Justifiable homicides are benefits, not costs, and they might understandably increase when more citizens are allowed to defend themselves with guns. The FBI murder rate has neither of these problems and is a better test of the effect of constitutional carry laws. Nevertheless, my analysis finds that Constitutional Carry laws do not increase firearm homicide.

It should also be noted that Lott points out that constitutional carry helps to make the poor safer, by making self-defense affordable.

Lott adds:

Constitutional Carry will make it easier for poor people, who are the most likely victims of violent crime, to be able to defend themselves and their families. Costs matter; just compare the numbers in neighboring states, Illinois and Indiana. In Illinois, the total cost of getting a five-year permit is $450; there is no license fee in Indiana. While only 4% of Illinoisans have a concealed handgun permit, 22% of adults in Indiana already have one, the second-highest number of permits per capita.

Newsom’s claim is partly false.

Anti-gun groups press Biden to issue executive action on “assault weapons”

We already know that Joe Biden is going to repeat his call for Congress to ban modern sporting rifles during next week’s State of the Union address. The real question is whether he’ll trot out his stale talking points about deer in Kevlar vests and the falsehood that you couldn’t own cannons when the Second Amendment was ratified.

We also know that a divided Congress is unlikely to implement a legislative gun ban, which is why a coalition of anti-gun groups is demanding that Biden direct the ATF to pursue a gun ban via regulation instead.

In a new letter to Biden, the groups say its time for the ATF to take a look at imported firearms to see if they pass the “sporting purposes” test created by the Gun Control Act of 1998; a move they hope will lead to the ban on the importation of many modern sporting rifles produced overseas.

And though the president doesn’t appear to have the votes for an assault weapons ban in Congress, the groups argue that Biden has tools at his disposal to further limit the proliferation of these guns in the U.S., including by fully enforcing the importation ban of foreign-made assault weapons that do not have a “sporting purpose.”

As Giffords notes in its memo, the ATF, which oversees the importation of guns in the U.S., “has not conducted a comprehensive review of semi-automatic assault rifles and handguns under the sporting purposes test” since the Clinton administration.

Giffords and the other gun control groups don’t want the ATF to merely conduct a review of currently imported firearms, but to “issue new criteria” to enforce the sporting purposes test. In doing so, however, they could be opening up a Pandora’s Box that leads to the demise of the “sporting purposes” test altogether.

In Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the fundamental purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is self-defense, not sport. Our ability to hunt, compete, or even recreate with a firearm is ancillary to our ability to use a gun to protect human life. Does the GCA’s “sporting purposes” test infringe on that right to keep and bear arms by prohibiting the importation of arms that are identical in nature to some of the most commonly-sold firearms in the United States, or does it merely impose a regulation on gun companies without directly impacting would-be gun owners?

Most of the litigation taking on the ATF’s rules banning bump stocks, re-labeling pistols with stabilizing braces “short-barreled rifles”, and declaring unfinished frames and receives to be “firearms” have avoided a direct challenge to the constitutionality of the Gun Control Act, primarily arguing instead that ATF’s rules violate the Administrative Procedures Act and create new law instead of merely interpreting existing regulations. However, if the Biden administration follows the demands of the gun control lobby and orders the ATF to review existing imports and establish new criteria for the “sporting purposes” test, that would provide a golden opportunity to challenge the legality of the test itself.

There are risks to that strategy for both sides, of course, and I’m not convinced that Biden will acquiesce to these demands. The gun control lobby has also been quietly advocating for the administration to re-classify large numbers of semi-automatic firearms (including many common handguns) as machine guns; an even broader proposal than what they’re publicly calling for in their demand letter to the White House. As I’ve said before, that would be the nuclear option for Biden, and could not only lead to the Supreme Court weighing in on bans on modern sporting rifles, but the underlying statutes being used to implement the unconstitutional actions.

For gun owners, the concern is that the Court might not be ready or willing to nuke the GCA, either in whole or in part, and could even end up upholding the gun grab on the flimsiest of legal theories.

It’s not up to Second Amendment advocates to chart Joe Biden’s course on gun control over the next two years, and frankly, given that the gun control lobby itself hasn’t had much luck convincing him on things like establishing a White House czar on “gun violence”, I don’t know that it’s up to groups like Everytown or Giffords either.

What I do know is that Biden’s anti-gun ideology isn’t just for show or a position he trots out for the press when circumstances dictate. He’s a true believer in banning our way to safety at the expense of fundamental civil rights, and as he sinks further into lame-duck status an administrative gun grab might start to look more attractive. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said last week that the administration will “continue to pursue executive actions” in the future, and though she declined to offer any specifics I think we know that there are several options on the table… including the nuclear one

Move to restrict minors with guns gains traction in Missouri House

The legislation is House Bill 301.

JEFFERSON CITY — The gun-friendly Missouri House appears to be settling on one new firearm limit: restricting minors from possessing guns in public without adult supervision.

The limit was included in wide-ranging crime legislation by Rep. Lane Roberts, R-Joplin, following a recommendation by a bipartisan working group appointed by House Speaker Dean Plocher, R-Des Peres.

“Our state is pretty fanatical in our defense of the Second Amendment, and I certainly don’t want to diminish that, but this kind of conduct is not what the Second Amendment was meant to protect,” Roberts told the House Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee on Thursday.

The working group, made up of three Republicans and three Democrats, unanimously recommended legislation to prevent minors from carrying guns in public, along with several other measures aimed at public safety.

Democrats on the panel included Reps. Marlon Anderson and Donna Baringer of St. Louis, and Robert Sauls of Independence. Republicans included Roberts, as well as Reps. Ron Copeland of Salem and John Black of Marshfield.

A recommendation allowing for a special prosecutor for high-crime areas such as St. Louis has generated the most attention.

But minors in possession of firearms became an issue following the state’s passage of “constitutional carry” legislation in 2016.

Continue reading “”