Category: RKBA

“No one wants to take your guns”………….

Incrementalism in Action: Anti-Gun Governor Targets Lawfully Registered Firearms for Seizure

There are two absolutes in gun control strategy, and both were on display recently when Gov. Ned Lamont (D-CT) proposed to renege on a promise twice made to the state’s law-abiding gun owners: that they could keep their newly-banned firearms if they registered them with the state.

Connecticut has passed two bans on so-called “assault weapons,” one in 1993 and then an expanded version in 2013.

Each time, the law affected common and popular semi-automatic firearms already owned by law-abiding residents of the state. And each time, the state assured those gun owners that their lawfully-acquired guns would be “grandfathered” under the law if the state were apprised of who owned them and where they were kept.

This led to the sad and ominous spectacle of gun owners who were under no individual suspicion of wrongdoing queing up to report their own identity and constitutionally-protected property to police. As a news report noted, “The application requires information such as the individual’s name, address, telephone number, motor vehicle operator’s license, sex, height, weight and thumbprint, as well as information about the weapon, including the serial number, model and any unique markings.” It was eerily similar, in fact, to the information used when booking someone for a crime.

Meanwhile, some well-meaning but naïve gun owners thought they were simply doing their civic duty by complying with the mandate. “If they were trying to make them illegal, I’d have a real issue, but if they want to just know where they are, that’s fine with me,” one registrant told a local news station.

Readers of this website and other NRA publications knew better, however, as the Association has warned for years of the aforementioned absolutes: that gun control advances incrementally and that firearm registration leads to firearm confiscation.

Following a gubernatorial debate in November, Lamont told reporters: “I think those assault-style weapons that are grandfathered should not be grandfathered.” He continued, “They should not be allowed in the state of Connecticut. I think they’re killers.”

Pressed for specifics on how he would go about enforcing his proposal or recovering the 81,849 “assault weapons” registered with the state, Lamont did not provide details. “Start by making them illegal,” he said. “I think that would be a big difference. That is what you start with.”

In other words, without any explanation of how his plan would work or promote public safety, Lamont is proposing to make tens of thousands of state citizens who complied in good faith with the registration requirements into criminals, with their guns summarily declared contraband and subject to seizure. To make matters worse, the authorities would already know who and where those citizens are.

Lamont ludicrously claimed that the grandfathered guns themselves are “killers,” but he provided no evidence that their owners are. He did not cite statistics, or even examples, of lawfully registered “assault weapons” that were later used in crime. Meanwhile, registered or not, semiautomatic long guns of the types banned in Connecticut are rarely used in homicide, as we have noted time and again, including here, here, and here.

Despite these facts, Lamont seems intent on executing his plan to reclassify peaceable Connecticut residents lawfully exercising their constitutional rights as felons. His example illustrates very clearly what the reassurances of gun control advocates are worth and how anyone who thinks its safe to rely on such reassurances will be in for a rude awakening.

Indeed, the month after Lamont announced his intentions, an editorial in the Connecticut Mirror argued that constitutional assurances the right to keep and bear arms will be protected should themselves be repealed. “It is time to talk about repealing the Second Amendment,” the author insisted. But he made it clear that his plan wasn’t necessarily an alternative to incrementalism but a potential aid to it. “[T]he very existence of a loud argument about the larger issue of repeal will make those incremental proposals seem more moderate, and therefore ultimately more achievable,” the editorialist wrote.

Second Amendment advocates are often faulted for opposing supposedly moderate, “common sense gun safety laws” that fall well short of a comprehensive ban on all types of firearms. But the savvy ones know that punishing law-abiding people for exercising their constitutional rights does not stop criminals, and today’s accommodation for the good guys with guns is tomorrow’s “loophole” that will eventually close around their necks. This is even more so when the authorities already know who owns guns and where those guns are kept.

It’s simple: The object of gun control is the outlawing and seizure of firearms from law-abiding citizens.

But don’t just take our word for it.

Ask Gov. Ned Lamont.

Judge Blocks California Fee-Shifting Statute That Targets Gun Lawsuit Plaintiffs (and Lawyers)

From Miller v. Bonta, decided today by Judge Roger Benitez (S.D. Cal.):

“It is cynical.” “It is an abomination.” “It is outrageous and objectionable.” “There is no dispute that it raises serious constitutional questions.” “It is an unprecedented attempt to thwart judicial review.” Such are the Intervenor-Defendant Governor’s expressed views regarding the fee-shifting provisions of a Texas law (S.B. 8) and, at least by implication, of California’s § 1021.11. It is “blatantly unconstitutional,” says Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta. {To his credit, given the obvious, the Attorney General has refused to defend § 1021.11.} For the reasons that follow, as they may apply to S.B. 8, but apply clearly to § 1021.11, § 1021.11 is declared unconstitutional. Therefore, Defendants are permanently enjoined throughout the state from enforcing or taking any action to seek attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to § 1021.11.

[A.] Texas S.B. 8 (§ 30.022) and California S.B. 1327 (§ 1021.11)

Continue reading “”

Kostas Moros
Associate Attorney at Michel & Associates Los Angeles
Represents California Rifle & Pistol Association

Yes, “assault rifle” has an actual meaning while “assault weapon” was more of a political invention (though there is some history of the gun community using the term before that).

But getting hung up on terminology is an unconvincing exercise. It’s also why I stopped caring

about correcting “clip” when someone means “magazine” (except when that person earnestly wants to learn) because it is beside the point.

Instead, our position should be that all semiautomatic* small arms should be legal to own, regardless of what grips or attachments or  magazines come with them and regardless of what term, political or otherwise, is used to describe them. I don’t care if you call them a “weapon of war”. Good. The Second Amendment was indisputably meant to protect such small arms most of all, as the historical record proves.

I have to admit I roll my eyes when I hear “modern sporting rifle”.

Just say semiautomatic rifle. It’s useful for sport yes, but also personal defense, hunting, and of course, the core purpose of 2A – opposing tyranny. Own it. They are going to hate us either way. 

*the logic applies equally to full auto small arms, but that’s a future battle. I don’t think this Supreme Court is striking Hughes down quite yet, hope I’m wrong. 
19th century texts show us that access to “weapons of war” was seen as the core purpose of the 2A, even towards the end of the century when revolvers and lever-action rifles proliferated, which were orders of magnitude more capable than their predecessors.ImageImage
Even those of the era that thought small weapons could be restricted nevertheless saw the 2A as protecting access to the arms of modern warfare.Image

This is a great intellectually honest video about the AR15.

And for what I mean by the use of the term “assault weapon” among the gun community, there are a few examples. This is from 1986.Image

MAYORS ON GUN CONTROL LETTER HAVE ONE BIG THING IN COMMON

Dozens of mayors from America’s biggest cities are demanding the U.S. Senate pass more gun control.

“We write to urge the Senate to pass during the lame duck session gun safety legislation that has passed the House…,” the mayors’ letter states.

An answer to the crime problem plaguing these cities might not be found in Congress. Rather the mayors should look closer to home for solutions. Or better yet, take a good long look in the mirror.

The First Demand
The letter was sent by The United States Conference of Mayors and was signed by 74 mayors. They made two demands of U.S. Sens. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). First, they want the Senate to pass S. 736, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022, which would ban an entire class of firearms – Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) — that are commonly-owned and commonly-used. Industry data estimates there are more than 24.4 million in circulation since 1990, with ownership exploding in recent years.

Enacting the ban on MSRs, or the semiautomatic centerfire rifles the mayors misleadingly deem “assault weapons,” would not “in any way infringe on Second Amendment rights,” the mayors suggest. They claim two-thirds of Americans support banning MSRs but The Reload reported that’s flat false – revealing less than 50 percent of Americans support such a ban. That’s likely because more law-abiding Americans than ever before – including women and minorities – have purchased MSRs to use for self-defense, recreational shooting and hunting. In any event, Constitutional rights are not decided by a popularity contest.

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows more murders were committed by individuals using knives, fists and clubs than by those using any rifle – not just MSRs like AR-15s. The Senate bill would likely not even receive 50 votes, let alone the 60 votes required, as Sens. John Tester (D-Mont.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) have repeatedly voiced opposition.

The Second Demand
The letter’s second demand is for the Senate to pass a bill enacting a universal background check system to track all firearm transfers, including private ones. The mayors say this is “closing loopholes” and stopping buyers from “circumventing the law.” Those two phrases are oxymorons as the law is the law as written – it’s not loopholes or circumvention.

The legislation, S. 529, The Background Check Expansion Act, has severe legal problems as its implementation requires a national firearm registry. That’s specifically prohibited under the 1986 Gun Control Act and the 1993 Brady Act. It is unlawful because history teaches us that registration is a necessary precursor to confiscation by the government.

The legislation would also, “aid law enforcement’s ability to trace crime guns.” They want to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment which restricts public access to sensitive, law enforcement-only firearm tracing data. This restriction is supported by Congress, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and law enforcement groups such as the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) because it secures sensitive tracing information which would jeopardize ongoing criminal investigations and put the lives of law enforcement officers, cooperating retailers and witnesses at risk. They also fail to mention that their own law enforcement agencies have access to trace data for their cities, that they can share data with other agencies and that ATF has joint task forces and regularly shares intelligence with state and local law enforcement often derived from examining trace data.

Who Signed?
The signers are a who’s who of gun control supporters, with one glaring similarity. Democrats make up 92 percent, or 68 of the 74 letter co-signers. The mayors of several of the Top 10 cities which had the most Americans fleeing them in recent years signed, including San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Seattle, Chicago and Detroit. Surging crime and soft-on-criminal policies have been a significant issue in those cities.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams signed. He ran his campaign on getting tough on criminals but has instead deflected action and pushed for national gun control.

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler signed the letter. His city descended into chaos and saw a federal courthouse set on fire by rioters. Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell signed too. Criminals in Seattle under previous mayor Jenny Durkan set up a “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone,” or CHAZ, where law enforcement was prohibited. That’s where “Raz the Warlord” was captured on video handing out AR-15s from his Tesla’s trunk, violating several of Seattle’s existing gun laws.

Chicago’s Lori Lightfoot has been too busy making dance music videos to address the surging crime problem plaguing the Windy City and San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo already passed gun ownership restrictions on residents even though he admitted to CNN his plans won’t address the crime problem. “Skeptics will say that criminals won’t comply. They’re right,” he said.

Several of the mayors who signed the gun control letter come from Red states where voters have approved Constitutional carry laws in the past years and expanded the ability of law-abiding Americans to purchase legal firearms, including MSRs, for self-defense.

What the mayors refuse to accept is that criminals don’t follow their laws. They should focus their efforts closer to home and hold criminals accountable instead of running to Washington, D.C., and passing the buck.

Judge Benitez’s Latest Order in Miller v. Bonta Sets the Stage for Taking Down California’s Assault Weapons Ban

Federal Judge Roger Benitez (a/k/a “Saint Benitez” to the 2A faithful) has just entered an interesting order in Miller v. Bonta, the challenge to California’s “assault weapons” ban. It’s not a decision on the merits, but I read it as a pretty clear indication of where he is going and the fact that he intends to try and make his decision appeal-proof.

Recall that after a trial to the bench, Judge Benitez ruled that California had failed to establish that its AWB satisfied either the “text, history, tradition” standard, or the “intermediate scrutiny” test then being used by the Ninth Circuit in Second Amendment cases. He thus invalidated the California “assault weapons” ban.

An appeal was taken, and the Ninth Circuit stayed the case pending resolution of another Ninth Circuit case (Rupp v. Bonta).  While that stay was in place, SCOTUS handed down Bruen, which adopted “text, history, tradition” as the sole test in Second Amendment cases.

That led the Ninth Circuit to punt the Miller v. Bonta appeal back to Judge Benitez “for further proceedings consistent with” the Bruen decision. To me, this was a dodge/delaying tactic, as Benitez’s decision already held that California lost under the “text, history, tradition” test that Bruen adopted, and thus the Court should have simply proceeded with the appeal.

On remand, California essentially asked for a “do-over” where it could take discovery, introduce new evidence, etc. That generally isn’t allowed unless the court (or the court of appeals) has ordered a new trial. Remember, there has already been a trial and a decision in the case. Benitez thus denied the state’s various motions and merely requested additional briefing, which has now been filed.

After a status conference earlier this week, the following minute entry just dropped (h/t Cody Wisniewski of the Firearms Policy Coalition for notifying me) . . .

2022-12-12: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Roger T. Benitez:
Status Conference held on 12/12/2022.

The state defendants shall create, and the plaintiffs shall meet and confer regarding, a survey or spreadsheet of relevant statutes, laws, or regulations in chronological order. The listing shall begin at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment and continue through twenty years after the Fourteenth Amendment. For each cited statute/law/regulation, the survey shall provide:
(a) the date of enactment;
(b) the enacting state, territory, or locality;
(c) a description of what was restricted (e.g., dirks, daggers, metal knuckles, storage of gunpowder or cartridges, or use regulations);
(d) what it was that the law or regulation restricted;
(e) what type of weapon was being restricted (e.g., knife, Bowie Knife, stiletto, metal knuckles, pistols, rifles);
(f) if and when the law was repealed and whether it was replaced;
(g) whether the regulation was reviewed by a court and the outcome of the courts review (with case citation). Defendants may create a second survey covering a time period following that of the first list. If opposing parties cannot agree on the inclusion of a particular entry on the survey, the disagreement shall be indicated and described on a separate list.

The survey list shall be filed within 30 days. Parties may file a brief up to 25 pages within 30 days thereafter focusing on relevant analogs. Parties may file a responsive brief within 10 days thereafter. Parties shall agree within 20 days on deposing Mr. Roth and Mr. Cramer at an agreed place and time.

What this means:

  • The Court is laser-focused on the state of the law in 1791, but will also at least listen to arguments about what the state of the law was between then and shortly after 1868 (when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified). But while he’ll also let California file whatever they want regarding subsequent developments in the law, it’s pretty clear that Judge Benitez isn’t interested in that. For a very good analysis of why the only relevant consideration is what the law was in 1791, see this essay by Second Amendment guru Stephen Halbrook, as well as Justice Barrett’s concurrence in Bruen (pp.82-83 of the opinion).
  • Benitez is making the parties present it as a joint report. To me, that’s clearly directed to minimizing the possibility of evidentiary objections on appeal.
  • The stuff he’s asking for has been exhaustively documented already (see the Bruen opinion on this). I think Benitez knows it’s not going to contain much if anything that hasn’t been covered already.
  • I’m assuming that Roth and Cramer are California’s proposed new “expert witnesses,” and he’s allowing their depositions to perpetuate their testimony. In light of his earlier rulings, I suspect he’ll stick to his guns that California doesn’t get a “do-over,” but by doing this he can probably make some additional findings (e.g., “I’ve already ruled the state doesn’t get a do-over, but even if I reopened evidence and considered this proffered new evidence, it wouldn’t change my previous findings”). Again, I see it as Benitez thinking three moves ahead to make his decision bulletproof.

This probably pushes any decision in this case 90 days or so. While the wheels of justice do grind slowly, in this case I foresee them crushing the state of California’s gun control ambitions. Watch this space.

SloJoe, his handlers and the rest of the demoncraps were never interested in stopping crime.

DEMOCRATS’ GUN CONTROL DUPLICITY LAID BARE

It is time for President Joe Biden to drop the gun control charade. He – and his Capitol Hill gun control supporters – were never interested in curbing criminal misuse of guns. They are only interested in controlling you.

President Biden’s prisoner swap with Russia of a convicted international arms trafficker for a WNBA star proved that his administration doesn’t care about keeping guns out of the hands of those who should never have them. His only interest when it comes to guns is keeping them out of the hands of those who obey the law. His podium admonitions are betrayed by his actions.

‘Merchant of Death’

President Biden announced last week the trade with Russia of Viktor Bout for Brittney Griner. Bout is a notorious international arms smuggler who earned the moniker “Merchant of Death.” He is a former Soviet-era military officer who was arrested in 2008 in Thailand by U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents in a sting for proposing a sale of tens of millions of dollars to the Colombian narco-terrorist group Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. The illicit sale was for $20 million worth of “a breathtaking arsenal of weapons — including hundreds of surface-to-air missiles, machine guns and sniper rifles — 10 million rounds of ammunition and five tons of plastic explosives.”

Bout’s history runs much deeper. He was identified as an illicit arms dealer by the United Nations in 2000. He was moving arms to African warlords, Middle East dictators and Central American narco-terrorist groups. His attempt to arm the FARC was what ultimately put him in prison for charges of conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals, U.S. officers and employees, conspiracy to acquire missiles to destroy aircraft and conspiracy to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.

Bout was traded for Griner, a basketball player arrested by Russia in February on drug possession charges.

Security Threat

The swap has been lampooned by critics for how lopsided it is. Russia continues to hold former Marine Paul Whelan, arrested on dubious espionage charges. Former National Security Advisor and Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton told CBS News, “This is not a deal. This is not a swap. This is a surrender.”

Fox News reported that former DEA Special Operation Director Derek Maltz, who was involved in Bout’s capture, slammed the White House for their “ironic” prisoner swap, arguing that it’s “disgusting” for the Biden administration to sell gun control while celebrating the release of an international arms trafficker.

Even the Pentagon is wary. “I think there is a concern that he would return to doing the same kind of work that he’s done in the past,” a senior defense official told reporters.

The exchange exposed how unserious this administration truly is when it comes to ending the criminal misuse of firearms. Less than one day before the swap was announced, President Biden renewed his pledge to ban Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) in America. That pronouncement came just days after he told media, “The idea we still allow semi-automatic weapons to be purchased is sick. Just sick. It has no socially redeeming value. Zero. None. Not a single solitary rationale for it except profit for the gun manufacturers.”

Continue reading “”

More women buying guns to defend themselves: “The world is changing”

Calera, Alabama — At a gun range in the heart of Alabama, Gracie Barhill is getting acquainted with her month-old Smith & Wesson 9 millimeter.

“I’m young. I’m a girl,” she said. “I never know when a threat is going to come.”

The 19-year-old is taking a self-defense firearms course, “Girls, Guns and Gear,” that’s designed for women who are wary of threats.

“It’s absolutely undeniable, the world is changing and they want to be ahead of it,” said Scott Recchio, a firearms instructor at the range.

Last year, one-third of all first-time gun buyers in the U.S. were women, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The trade association said there’s been a 77% rise in female gun ownership from 2005 to 2020.

Emma Boutwell, who is also taking the women-only class, said she had never handled a gun until recently.

“I need to know how to defend myself as well,” Boutwell said.

Gun instructor Beverly Alldredge teaches the women marksmanship, gun safety and situational awareness.

Alldredge said that instructing women is different than men because “women listen better than men do.”

“Women are just quicker just to hear and take in what they are being told and applying that,” she said.

Among Black women, the firearm homicide rate has more than tripled since 2010, according to one study. Today, nearly 30% of new women gun owners are Black, according to the 2021 National Firearms Survey.

Nikkita Gordon, who owns the women’s clothing line Cute and Cocky, which is designed to hide a gun fashionably, said she has self-defense plans for both indoor and outdoor scenarios.

“I think most women, specifically women of color, should have these plans,” she said.

DEMOCRATS’ GUN CONTROL DUPLICITY LAID BARE

It is time for President Joe Biden to drop the gun control charade. He – and his Capitol Hill gun control supporters – were never interested in curbing criminal misuse of guns. They are only interested in controlling you.

President Biden’s prisoner swap with Russia of a convicted international arms trafficker for a WNBA star proved that his administration doesn’t care about keeping guns out of the hands of those who should never have them. His only interest when it comes to guns is keeping them out of the hands of those who obey the law. His podium admonitions are betrayed by his actions.

‘Merchant of Death’

President Biden announced last week the trade with Russia of Viktor Bout for Brittney Griner. Bout is a notorious international arms smuggler who earned the moniker “Merchant of Death.” He is a former Soviet-era military officer who was arrested in 2008 in Thailand by U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents in a sting for proposing a sale of tens of millions of dollars to the Colombian narco-terrorist group Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. The illicit sale was for $20 million worth of “a breathtaking arsenal of weapons — including hundreds of surface-to-air missiles, machine guns and sniper rifles — 10 million rounds of ammunition and five tons of plastic explosives.”

Bout’s history runs much deeper. He was identified as an illicit arms dealer by the United Nations in 2000. He was moving arms to African warlords, Middle East dictators and Central American narco-terrorist groups. His attempt to arm the FARC was what ultimately put him in prison for charges of conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals, U.S. officers and employees, conspiracy to acquire missiles to destroy aircraft and conspiracy to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.

Bout was traded for Griner, a basketball player arrested by Russia in February on drug possession charges.

Security Threat

The swap has been lampooned by critics for how lopsided it is. Russia continues to hold former Marine Paul Whelan, arrested on dubious espionage charges. Former National Security Advisor and Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton told CBS News, “This is not a deal. This is not a swap. This is a surrender.”

Fox News reported that former DEA Special Operation Director Derek Maltz, who was involved in Bout’s capture, slammed the White House for their “ironic” prisoner swap, arguing that it’s “disgusting” for the Biden administration to sell gun control while celebrating the release of an international arms trafficker.

Even the Pentagon is wary. “I think there is a concern that he would return to doing the same kind of work that he’s done in the past,” a senior defense official told reporters.

The exchange exposed how unserious this administration truly is when it comes to ending the criminal misuse of firearms. Less than one day before the swap was announced, President Biden renewed his pledge to ban Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) in America. That pronouncement came just days after he told media, “The idea we still allow semi-automatic weapons to be purchased is sick. Just sick. It has no socially redeeming value. Zero. None. Not a single solitary rationale for it except profit for the gun manufacturers.”

The White House is mum on Bout’s Russian return. It hasn’t gone unnoticed that within days of returning to Russia, Bout joined the pro-Kremlin Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR), an ultranationalist right-wing political group. That political party supports Russia’s Ukraine invasion and demands Russia “reconquer” previously-held territories. He’s reportedly considering a run for Russia’s parliament, but is being coy with answers for now.

This is a pattern for President Biden. The White House left $7 billion in weapons and equipment in the wake of the ill-fated Afghanistan withdrawal. That consisted of 600,000 weapons – including 350,000 M-4 and M-16 rifles, 60,000 machine guns and 25,000 grenade launchers. That’s on top of the 23,825 Humvees in Afghanistan, including armored gun truck variants, and nearly 900 combat vehicles, all of which are in the hands of the Taliban, a terror organization that is the avowed enemy of the United States.

Move Along, Nothing to See

The White House ordered U.S. agencies to scrub any reference to those reports. It is doing similar clean-up with the lopsided prisoner swap, calling in support from gun control allies on Capitol Hill. U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) downplayed the significance of an international arms trafficker being released, despite the Pentagon’s concerns. Congresswoman Jackson Lee claimed Bout wasn’t directly responsible for American deaths, so the release of an arms trafficker isn’t a concern to her.

“Let me say this, no one knows the story of Paul — of the weapons dealer, if you will,” she said on MSNBC’s The ReidOut, according to Breitbart. “And — as the facts would tell them, he was sentenced to 25 years, he served 11 to 16 years, I don’t know the — I can’t remember the exact number. But in actuality, his weapons might have been used to kill Americans. He has not killed Americans.”

President Biden’s gun control agenda has never been targeted at stopping criminals. It’s always been about stopping law-abiding Americans from exercising their God-given rights.

Another disingenuous Federal judge.

Federal Judge Denies Injunction Request Against Rhode Island Magazine Confiscation Law

Banning and confiscating commonly-owned ammunition magazines does not run afoul of the Second Amendment.

At least according to U.S. District Judge John McConnell’s reading of the amendment.

On Wednesday, McConnell denied a motion for a preliminary injunction against Rhode Island’s recently passed law banning the sale and possession of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. He said that so-called Large-Capacity Magazines (LCMs) did not count as “arms” protected by the U.S. Constitution.

“The plaintiffs have failed in their burden to demonstrate that LCMs are ‘Arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment’s text,” Judge McConnell, an Obama appointee, wrote in his order. “Moreover, even were they ‘arms,’ the plaintiffs have failed to prove that LCMs are weapons relating to self-defense. There is no Second Amendment violation from the LCM Ban because of those two shortfalls of persuasion.”

Continue reading “”

As if she’s not going to still be pulling string behind the curtain

Pelosi Passes the Anti-Gun Torch

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.) has been in Congress since 1987. While she’s not retiring altogether, she is stepping down from her position of leadership. It is welcome news that such a staunch opponent of the Second Amendment is stepping down, but what of her successor?

The California congresswoman ascended to the position of leadership in 2003. She has also twice been Speaker of the House, having served under four different presidents.

Pelosi has been around long enough that she voted in favor of the improperly named Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994, saw it sunset a decade later, and recently tried to resurrect such a ban—something President Joe Biden (D) is also keen on doing.

Pelosi’s predecessor, Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), was not friendly toward your right to keep and bear arms, yet, somehow, Pelosi was worse. “Even though Gephardt has a very bad record when it comes to the Second Amendment, Pelosi’s is worse,” wrote the NRA Institute for Legislative Action at the time. She was even noted to be “one of the most rabidly anti-gun lawmakers,” too.

It is certainly good news that she is stepping down, given her decades-long animus toward the right to keep and bear arms, but following her is Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). Just as Pelosi was more extreme than her predecessor, time will tell if Jeffries is just like Pelosi or worse. Here are some things to know about the incoming minority leader.

At a spry 52 years old, Jeffries is actually one of the younger members of Congress. He has represented New York’s 8th district since 2013. Before that, he served at the state level and, throughout it all, he has espoused some very anti-Second Amendment views.

“In Congress, Hakeem has been a leader on gun violence prevention legislation, pushing for commonsense measures like universal background checks for firearm purchases and a ban on assault weapons,” reads his campaign website, which also touts his efforts to pass a gun-control bill earlier this year.

Jeffries has referred to firearms ownership as a public-health crisis—an “epidemic,” as he has repeatedly put it—and, as noted, sought to ban many commonly owned firearms.

In 2008, he said that he does not believe law-abiding Americans should be able to carry concealed. And, predictably, just as Pelosi went after the NRA, so has Jeffries, repeatedly. “Let’s. Be. Clear. The NRA is NOT WELCOME in Brooklyn. Keep it Moving,” tweeted the congressman in 2018.

While Rep. Pelosi has recently said she will “always have influence” over House Democrats, it remains to be seen how much. With that said, under Jeffries, it’s safe to expect more of the same, if not worse.

Appeals Court Stays Another Ruling Against New York Gun-Carry Law

New York will once more be able to enforce another section of its sweeping gun-carry restriction bill.

A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay against a district court’s decision blocking a ban on carrying a gun on private property that’s open to the public without express permission. The Monday ruling put a hold on the lower court’s injunction as the appeals court waits to hear the case. It is the third stay issued by the panel as lower court judges pick apart New York’s law, passed in response to the Supreme Court striking down the state’s previous strict gun-carry law.

The stay will allow New York to enforce the first-of-its-kind private property provision and arrest anyone who violates it until the appeals court issues its own ruling. Thanks to the intervention of the Second Circuit in two other cases, the same is true for a wide range of other restrictions–from bans on carrying in church or on the subway to a requirement applicants for permits prove they are of “good moral character” by turning over their social media activity to police. The stays represent a reprieve for New York officials and a setback for the gun-rights groups challenging the law.

Judge John Sinatra of the Western District of New York, a Trump appointee, issued a Temporary Restraining Order against New York’s private property provision late last month. He argued the state’s novel policy, which effectively made most of the state off-limits to legal gun-carry by default, violates the Second Amendment.

“Property owners indeed have the right to exclude,” he wrote. “But the state may not unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense outside of their own homes.”

Sinatra ruled the state defaulting private property that is open to the public, such as retail businesses or restaurants, as off-limits to licensed gun-carriers does not pass the historical test set down by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The state’s rule is the opposite of how every other state regulates gun-carry on private property. Sinatra said he could not identify any historical analogue for the regulation as required by the Bruen standard.

“The Nation’s historical traditions have not countenanced such an incursion into the right to keep and bear arms across all varieties of private property spread across the land,” he wrote.

He declined to issue a stay requested by New York Attorney General Letitia James (D.). He said a stay would only exacerbate the deprivation of New Yorkers’ rights.

“[L]egislative enactments may not eviscerate the Bill of Rights,” he wrote. “Every day they do is one too many.”

The Second Circuit disagreed. The court did not set a date for when arguments in the appeal would begin. However, it did order an expedited briefing schedule for the case.

Nebraska senator confident permitless carry bill will pass

One wouldn’t picture Nebraska as being anti-gun. Then again, it’s not really. It’s just not as pro-gun as some might imagine.

That’s because, like many places, a couple of urban areas have a lot more say in matters than they should. Just enough to block permitless carry from passing last year, as a matter of fact.

Well, the lawmaker behind that bill is back with it again, only this time, he thinks it will pass.

he new legislative session is just weeks away, and one state lawmaker believes that some controversial bills have a good chance at passing.

Sen. Tom Brewer said that includes his gun rights bill, which would bring permitless concealed carry to Nebraska.

The proposal fell just two votes short of the 33 needed to overcome a filibuster last legislative session.

Brewer said in a column last week that November’s election made the Nebraska Legislature slightly more conservative, so there are finally enough votes to advance several priorities.

After the last session, Brewer told Channel 8 in June that this bill would be his top priority going into the next session.

“The very first bill that I will drop in the next session will be constitutional carry,” he said. “What the decision today has done has helped us to better shine a light on why it’s important, and to take away some of the concerns folks had about legalities.”

Constitutional carry, permitless carry, they both amount to the same thing. They mean that law-abiding citizens don’t have to ask for government permission to carry a firearm.

And they should pass it.

Critics will claim that constitutional carry will benefit bad guys. Some have started trying to frame it as “criminal carry.” What they miss is that the bad guys are already carrying guns. It’s only the law-abiding being hamstrung by permit requirements, which in Nebraska includes mandatory training for a carry permit.

That creates still more delays, all while the bad guys are just ignoring the law.

So permitless carry doesn’t empower anyone but the law-abiding.

It’s my sincere hope that Nebraska passes his measure. No one should have to take a particular class in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right, and the Second Amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms.

Permitless carry is just a step in the right direction, to be sure.

But do they have the votes? That remains to be seen. I’m not as familiar with the politics of the state as I’d like to be before speculating on it, but falling just a couple of votes shy last year is a promising sign this year. If they can get those two votes, then permitless carry is a done deal in the state and the people of Nebraska will no longer be required to jump through hoops just to get a carry permit.

Especially since there’s little evidence that training requirements yield any actual benefits except to make anti-gunners feel better.

Then again, screw poor people who want to defend themselves, right?

Oregon judge signals more trouble ahead for Measure 114

Oregon’s ban on “large capacity” magazines and the state’s “permit-to-purchase” scheme remain on hold for now after a hearing in rural Harney County on Tuesday, with the judge who originally granted a restraining order against the anti-gun ballot measure telling both sides in a court challenge to the new restrictions that he’ll issue a formal ruling on a request for an injunction by this Friday.

Harney County Circuit Judge Robert S. Raschio did say during the hearing, however, that the permit-to-purchase portion of Measure 114 will not take effect, at least until the state can prove that the system is fully operational and won’t result in residents being unable to exercise their right to acquire a firearm for self-defense.

“Any complete bar on the ability to secure a firearm would be unconstitutional even under strict scrutiny,” said Harney County Judge Robert Raschio on Tuesday morning.

The order was also the precursor to several hours of oral arguments and witness testimonies about whether the judge should place a preliminary injunction against ballot Measure 114’s ban on high-capacity magazines. While Judge Raschio made no formal decision on that proposed injunction Tuesday, he said he would issue an opinion no later than Friday, Dec. 16 at noon.

Altogether, Tuesday’s court hearing marked an eventful day for gun advocates in Oregon, many of whom tuned-in to the district court’s live feed to witness the marathon hearing about why the judge should or should not issue a preliminary injunction against Oregon’s ballot Measure 114.…

It was a different story for the issue of magazine capacity, however, discussion of which occupied another six hours in court Tuesday.

Plaintiffs largely argued that by capping magazines to 10 rounds and including restrictions on the use of extenders and removable baseplates, the state has essentially made it impossible to purchase legal firearms in Oregon from gun manufacturers. To prove a point, attorney Tony Aiello called upon firearm dealer Ben Callaway as an expert witness, who said online vendors like MidwayUSA or Zanders Sporting Goods no longer ship firearms to Oregon if they can be modified to hold more than 10 rounds.

Yet, the real challenge for the groups was to prove that guns with a 10-round capacity or more were commonly used for self-defense in 1859, a requirement made by Oregon Supreme Court’s protection of the right to bear arms. But while expert witnesses from both sides of the injunction agreed that multi-shot firearms existed around that time, there was disagreement as to whether these weapons were of common use.

The availability of multi-shot firearms in 1859 shouldn’t be the determining factor in whether or not they’re protected by the Second Amendment. As the Supreme Court noted in the Caetano case, arms that are in common use today but weren’t around at the time of the Founding are still protected by the text of the Second Amendment.

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008) , and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010) . In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).

The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.

The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ ”). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624–625.

For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent.

What the court should actually be looking for are statutes in place at the time of Oregon’s founding that are historical analogues to the ammunition capacity restriction the state wants to put in place today, and I don’t think anything like that exists. I’m not aware of any state law or even a local ordinance in the state that barred the carrying or possession of revolvers or other multi-shot firearms at the time the state constitution was approved, and given that these types of bans are modern inventions of the anti-gun lobby, I suspect that finding a 19th century analogue is going to be difficult… at least without stretching the bounds of credulity as U.S. District Judge Karen Immergut did when she upheld the magazine ban in a federal lawsuit filed by the Oregon Firearms Federation and several county sheriffs.

With Rashcio pledging to deliver his ruling on the request for an injunction against Measure 114 by noon Pacific time on Friday, we won’t have too long to wait before we learn whether the magazine ban can take effect, though if Raschio does impose an injunction the state will appeal once again to the state Supreme Court. That body has already declined to overturn Raschio’s initial restraining order against Measure 114, however, and if Raschio keeps the status quo in place while the constitutionality of Measure 114 is being litigated there’s a very good chance the state’s highest court will do the same.

Observations:
“generalized estimating equation estimates”
Translation (even with the statistical word salad definition) it still comes to: There’s actually no way to figure this out, so I’ll make my SWAG look good on paper

John Lott (more guns/less crime) was right, but they couldn’t let that be confirmed, so they kept torturing the statistics hoping for something different, but the best they could come up with was that gun sales don’t have any effect on crime rates.

Legal Firearm Sales at State Level and Rates of Violent Crime, Property Crime, and Homicides

Journal of Surgical Research, Volume 281, January 2023, Pages 143-154

Abstract

Introduction

The effects of firearm sales and legislation on crime and violence are intensely debated, with multiple studies yielding differing results. We hypothesized that increased lawful firearm sales would not be associated with the rates of crime and homicide when studied using a robust statistical method.

Methods

National and state rates of crime and homicide during 1999-2015 were obtained from the United States Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Instant Criminal Background Check System background checks were used as a surrogate for lawful firearm sales. A general multiple linear regression model using log event rates was used to assess the effect of firearm sales on crime and homicide rates. Additional modeling was then performed on a state basis using an autoregressive correlation structure with generalized estimating equation estimates for standard errors to adjust for the interdependence of variables year to year within a particular state.

Results

Nationally, all crime rates except the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–designated firearm homicides decreased as firearm sales increased over the study period. Using a naive national model, increases in firearm sales were associated with significant decreases in multiple crime categories. However, a more robust analysis using generalized estimating equation estimates on state-level data demonstrated increases in firearms sales were not associated with changes in any crime variables examined.

Conclusions

Robust analysis does not identify an association between increased lawful firearm sales and rates of crime or homicide.

Based on this, it is unclear if efforts to limit lawful firearm sales would have any effect on rates of crime, homicide, or injuries from violence committed with firearms.

Continue reading “”

I’ve always said that if demoncraps didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all.

Democrats’ double standard on constitutional amendments

Ballot measures to impose new gun control laws? Democrats love ’em, even when the courts question their constitutionality. But when Republicans turn to voter referendums and constitutional amendments to strengthen the Second Amendment, as they’re doing in Montana, Democrats declare an “existential crisis” is at hand.

Thanks to the midterm elections, Republicans in the state now enjoy a supermajority in both legislative chambers as well as the governor’s office. That gives them the numbers (on paper, anyway) to start the ball rolling on amending the state’s constitution, and several lawmakers are already looking at one area they say is in desperate need of reform: the unfettered power given to the state’s Board of Regents in establishing rules and policies governing public colleges and universities in Montana.

Continue reading “”

“Plain Text”
When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers conduct, it is presumptively protected

STEPHEN HALBROOK

The Supreme Court’s decision invalidating New York’s law giving discretion to officials to deny licenses to carry handguns for insufficient “need” held that “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” A restriction may be found valid only if the government demonstrates that it “is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022).

Fortunately, the plain text analysis is not difficult because the Supreme Court has already defined the key terms of the guarantee that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Here are some of those definitions:

  • “The people” facially means “all Americans.” District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).
  • “Arms” facially means “all instruments that constitute bearable arms.”
  • “Keep Arms” facially means “have weapons.” Heller.
  • “Shall not be infringed” facially means that the right conferred by the Second Amendment is an “unqualified command.” Bruen.

The Supreme Court has long held that the constitutional text also encompasses necessarily-included matters that are required for the exercise of a right and thus includes rights “implicit in enumerated guarantees.” Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980).

The right to keep and bear arms thus presupposes the right to acquire a firearm, to obtain ammunition, to train, and to make a firearm operable. See Luis v. United States (2016) (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment); see also Heller (government cannot require firearms to be made inoperable).

Accordingly, lower courts are not free to interpret the terms of the Second Amendment de novo or to insist on a wooden literalism that would empty the Second Amendment of practical meaning.

Since Bruen, some courts have inappropriately considered subjects that are properly part of the historical analysis as part of the textual analysis. They have also taken a narrow view of the text that does not include related acts necessary to the exercise of the right. Three examples include reasoning that: 1) “the people” does not include Americans generally, but only law-abiding, responsible people; 2) to “keep arms” does not include the making and acquisition of arms; and 3) “arms” do not include magazines.

First: “the people.” Heller started textually “with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.” Any limitations on the scope of this right for certain Americans must come from history, and the government bears the burden.

Continue reading “”