Category: RKBA

I called it ‘America’s Rifle’ years ago.

America’s Rifle
The AR-15 is protected by the Second Amendment.

Stephen Halbrok

Thanks to Eugene for inviting me to post about some of the developments in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Bruen held that New York’s limitation of the issuance of permits to carry a handgun to those who officials decide have a special need violates the Second Amendment, which protects from infringement “the right of the people to … bear arms.” The government may not limit that right to a privileged class.

One of the hot-button issues that is being relitigated after Bruen is whether banning semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15 violates the Second Amendment. I argue that it does in my new book America’s Rifle: The Case for the AR-15. It covers text and precedent, English and colonial history, the Founding, and how the constitutional right to arms kept pace with the development of firearms. The expired federal ban of 1994 was a true aberration from a Congress that has almost never actually banned a type of firearm.

In most of the 20th century, the antigun movement focused on banning handguns. Rifles and shotguns were said to be good, pistols and revolvers bad. The Colt AR-15 Sporter rifle hit the civilian market in 1964, the same year that Colt made its first deliveries of the M-16 to the Air Force. The AR-15 is semiautomatic, requiring a separate function of the trigger for each shot, while the M-16 is automatic, meaning it fires continuously as long as the trigger is pulled back. Despite that basic difference, they looked similar on the outside, causing the Violence Policy Center see the potential for confusion in the public. The idea of labeling the AR-15 and like rifles “assault weapons” and banning them was born.

In 1989, California became the first state to ban “assault weapons,” which it defined to include a list of makes and models such as the AR-15. We challenged that law in Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club v. Van de Kamp (1992), but the Ninth Circuit held that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the states. The Supreme Court has since ruled that it does, in McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court held that, as a textual matter, “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms.” Turning to history, the Supreme Court determined that historical limitations on carrying “dangerous and unusual weapons” provided a bound on the scope of the right. Thus, while dangerous and unusual weapons can be banned, “arms in common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense” cannot.

The common-use test was plain, so when the District banned “assault weapons” (aka semiauto rifles), we mounted a challenge . The D.C. Circuit, in Heller v. D.C. (2011) (“Heller II“), conceded that the banned rifles “are indeed in ‘common use,'” but balanced the right away under intermediate scrutiny. Then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh dissented on the basis that semiautomatic rifles have been in lawful use for over a century and pass Heller‘s common-use test.

With intermediate scrutiny to the rescue, other circuits copied Heller II and upheld the bans in several states. Those decisions create a distorted image, since most states don’t have bans, and so other circuits have not opined on the issue.

And now comes Bruen, collapsing the house of cards. Conduct within the “plain text” of the Second Amendment is presumptively protected, and a restriction may be valid only if the government shows it to be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition.” Text-history is in, means-ends scrutiny is out. And the history (or analogues thereof) that matters is 1791 and the initial decades that followed, as long as consistent with the text and early history.

Under the Heller test, as elaborated upon by Bruen, AR-15s and similar semiautomatic firearms may not be prohibited. Indeed, Heller and Bruen together establish the test for any ban on firearms, and that test makes clear that all firearms in common use for lawful purposes are protected and cannot be banned.

AR-15s and other similar firearms come within the “plain text,” because they are bearable arms. Heller and Bruen both establish that the Second Amendment extends presumptively to all bearable arms. Second, banning such firearms is not consistent with this Nation’s history. Indeed, the Supreme Court established that such a ban is inconsistent with this Nation’s history nearly thirty years ago by holding that AR-15 rifles “traditionally have been widely accepted as lawful possessions,” Staples v. U.S. (1994).

What is more, the historical boundaries of protected arms have already been established in Heller and Bruen. Those cases make clear that the only arms that are not protected are “dangerous and unusual weapons,” which necessarily entails that citizens have a right to possess and use arms that are “in common use today.” For this reason, historical analogues have no place here; the Supreme Court has done the historical analysis and set forth the “common use” test.

Can the government possibly show that AR-15 rifles are dangerous and unusual? Not at all, as they are among the most popular firearms in the Nation. Recent data indicates that Americans own at least 24 million AR-15s and similar rifles, that they constitute 20% of all firearms sold in recent years, and that they are used for lawful purposes such as self-defense, training, and hunting. It follows that Americans have a Second Amendment right to own and use them.

And readers do not simply need to take my word for it. This is supported by the analyses of three Supreme Court justices—Justice Thomas (the author of Bruen) in his dissent from denial of cert in Friedman v. Highland Park (2015), Justice Kavanaugh in his dissent in Heller II, and Justice Alito in his concurrence in Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016).

When the Supreme Court decided Bruen, it issued a GVR (grant cert., vacate, and remand) to the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Bianchi v. Frosh, for further consideration in light of Bruen. That’s a polite way of saying get it right next time. That case summarily affirmed that circuit’s prior decision in Kolbe v. Hogan (4th Cir. 2017) (en banc), which upheld Maryland’s “assault weapon” ban. As the first post-Bruen circuit to reconsider such a ban, the oral argument on December 6 is worth listening to. Some takeaways from the argument:

Kolbe rejected the common-use test and held that AR-15s are not protected because they are “most useful in military service.” (Never mind that no military in the world issues mere semiautomatics.) That was the wrong test.

Maryland also rewrites the “common use” test to say instead that the only arms protected are those in “common use for self-defense.” That is not the test. Heller tells us that arms commonly used for lawful purposes—not just self-defense—are protected under the Second Amendment. Maryland does not concede that the AR-15 is in common use and seeks a remand for further “discovery.” Seriously? Bruen was decided as a matter of law based on the pleadings and rejected any need for a remand for further factual development.

Maryland argues that AR-15s are not in common use for self-defense because shots are rarely fired. But Heller required no showing of how often handguns are actually fired in self-defense to prove common use, which means possession for that purpose.

As a fallback, Maryland wants to show that at least some of the rifles in the list are not in common use and that the law is severable. Plaintiffs respond that they are all of the same general type and that no further facts need to be developed.

Heller was fiercely resisted by the lower courts. Keep your fingers crossed for what the Fourth Circuit ultimately rules.

Tomorrow, I will address how Bruen‘s “plain text” concept is being treated by the lower courts.

Who In the US Is Objectively Racist? The Left. As the Data Show Definitively.

Joe Biden and the Democrats keep gunning for your guns. Research like this is a major part of their argument. What it shows–definitively–is that it isn’t guns. It’s a particular social pathology enabled by a social psychosis that reached epidemic proportions in 2020. The data are irrefutable.

One graphic tells the tale:

The increase in gun homicides documented in the Emory University study is attributable almost exclusively to one factor: a nearly 60 percent increase in homicide fatalities among black men. Not over a period of many years–but in a little over one year.

And what year was that? 2020. And what happened in 2020? The death of George Floyd, and the subsequent revelation that black lives especially matter.

Yes, but not in the way intended. Not by a long shot. That death and revelation brought in its train myriad consequences. Defund the police. The war on cash bail and the release of numerous criminals. The demoralization of police, who were instructed explicitly and implicitly that arresting black male offenders was a career risk, and the subsequent surrender of the streets to the thugs. And on and on. (The release of many from jail because of COVID didn’t help either.)

This is as close to a natural experiment as can exist in social science. An exogenous shock–the death of one man–leads to a tectonic shift in law enforcement, especially with regards to a particular demographic. The result?: a hyperbolic increase in homicide rates in that demographic. (I note that the previous uptick observable in the chart in 2014 corresponds to the proto-Floyd event, the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, which was the catalyst for Black Lives Matter.)

This is as close to a definitive proof of causation as is possible in observational social science.

This is not complicated. We sowed. We reaped. There is no other plausible explanation for the data.

It is sickly ironic–and mainly sick–that so many black lives have been sacrificed on the altar of Black Lives Matter.

But it gave an opportunity for Nancy Pelosi and the like to demonstrate their superiority over us plebs by taking a knee wearing kente cloth, so it was all for the best, right?

The whole ugly spectacle makes me literally nauseous. (And yes, I literally know what it means to say “literally.”) Hell is not hot enough to torture properly all those preening better-thans who have cost more black lives in a couple of years than the KKK did in its entire, horrid, sordid history (which dates to 1866).

But you are the problem you see. You and your icky guns.

No, the real problem is the social psychosis that is modern American leftism, which obsesses over race, and in the name of helping one race is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of that race.

So tell me: who are objectively the racists here? (See Orwell on “objectively pro-Fascist” if you don’t catch my point.)

If this does not make you incandescent with anger, some serious self-reflection is definitely in order. Unless you are a leftist, in which case that is something of which you are constitutionally incapable.

Always of interest are the gun laws of New Mexico, and possible effects on the Shootists Holiday

Gun safety bills could spark debate at Roundhouse amid rise in firearm deaths

SANTA FE – Over the last three years, New Mexico lawmakers have passed bills expanding background check requirements for firearm purchases and allowing guns to be seized from individuals deemed to pose a threat to themselves or others.

Now, with the reelection of Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, more gun safety proposals are expected to be brought forward during the 60-day session that starts next month, amid a recent spike in New Mexico firearm-related deaths and after several high-profile school shootings around the nation.

The measures likely to be considered include raising the minimum age for purchasing certain assault rifles from 18 to 21, making the failure to safely store firearms out of children’s reach a crime and creating a new office of gun violence prevention within the state Department of Health.

Continue reading “”

Just to clarify.
This requirement isn’t for concealed carry. It’s to simply BUY a firearm.
I think this monstrosity isn’t going to make it through the court system, but it does illuminate just how mindless a lot of people are, which isn’t a new thing, as the Framers recognized the malady even back then when they demanded a Bill of Rights.

Measure 114’s live fire training component leaves trainers in limbo

While Oregon’s new voter-approved gun control measure is getting worked out in the courts, there remains uncertainty among local gun shops and firearms instructors in Central Oregon.

Sharon Preston, owner of Ladies of Lead in Redmond — and an instructor who specializes in self-defense training for women — says there are a lot of questions that still have not been answered about the implementation of Measure 114.

Preston says business has been through the roof. But she says she’s had to stop firearm sales, not knowing what is next with the measure. But she says selling guns is only part of what she does.

“Selling guns is a very small portion of my business. I do it as an added value to my clients, so it’s educational based gun sales. But my main focus is always going to be in training,” said Preston.
She’s been forced to find alternatives as 114 is in limbo.

“I’ve heard too many stories in this store from women, locally. The brutality and violence they have been through, survived through. They want a tool that will allow them to live their lives large again, and they’re not going to be able to get on. That’s why I’m switching to crossbows, pepper ball guns, tasers, knives,” Preston said.

Preston’s biggest concern with the measure lies in the required live fire training — meant to prove shooting proficiency. As of now, she says no guidelines have been spelled out as to how the state will facilitate the training courses. And no one knows who will be authorized by the state to lead those courses.

And there are other unanswered questions.

“They don’t know how many rounds we have to shoot, at what distance we have to shoot, at what target we have to shoot. They don’t know what firearm we can use. So there’s so many questions out there,” said Preston.

The next hearing on Measure 114 will be held Tuesday at Circuit Court in Harney County. Those who support the measure will be able to argue against the temporary hold set in place by Judge Robert Raschio.

Key House Republican says gun rights bills will be on 2023 to-do list

Key backers of the gun rights amendment Iowa voters have just added to Iowa’s Constitution say they’ll introduce a series of gun-related proposals in the 2023 Iowa Legislature. House Republican Leader Matt Windschitl of Missouri Valley has been involved in gun-related issues since he was elected to the House in 2006.

“There are multiple different things we’ve been trying to get done to restore freedoms in Iowa and we’ve not been able to get across the finish line on some of those things,” Windschitl said this afternoon. “I’m not at a point right now where I’m going to discuss publicly what all of those items are, but you can expect us, after this victory, and restore freedoms to Iowans that never should have been taken away.”

Windschitl and others gathered in the statehouse this  afternoon for a ceremony to mark passage of the amendment.

“Iowans now have the best protections for their fundamental right to keep and bear arms of any state in the nation,” Windschitl said.

The amendment got a majority of votes in 97 of Iowa’s 99 counties.

“Iowans have made their voice loud and clear,” Windschitl said. “Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.”

That last sentence is the state motto, adopted in 1847, the year after Iowa was recognized as a state. Secretary of State Paul Pate said the gun rights amendment was added to the state constitution on December 1st when statewide election results were certified.

“On November 8, Iowans voted overwhelmingly to amend the Constitution, enshrining in it the right to bear arms,” Pate said. “In fact, 65% of Iowans supported the adoption. Congratulations to all of you for your hard work and the efforts to secure its passage.”

Richard Rogers of the Iowa Firearms Coalition lobbied for the amendment as well as recent state laws on the use of weapons and gun permits.

“However, each and every improvement in the law was subject to being reversed, or worse, by the next or any future legislature,” Rogers said during the ceremony. “Now, with the ratification of this freedom amendment, as we call it, such a course will be much more difficult.”

This is the 49th amendment added to Iowa’s Constitution. It goes beyond the wording of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and says Iowa courts must evaluate any lawsuits challenging Iowa gun laws by the toughest legal standard.

Oregon high court won’t let voter gun control measure begin

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Oregon’s tough, voter-approved gun control law remains temporarily blocked after the Oregon Supreme Court declined to overturn an earlier decision preventing the measure from taking effect Thursday.

Chief Justice Martha Walters late Wednesday denied the emergency motion to intervene, filed earlier in the day by state Attorney General Ellen Rosenbaum.

The measure includes a ban on the sale and transfer of high-capacity magazines. It also requires permits, criminal background checks, fingerprinting and hands-on training courses for new gun buyers.

Harney County Judge Robert Raschio blocked it Tuesday, just hours after a federal judge ruled in favor of the law. The Oregon Department of Justice argued in an urgent filing that Raschio got it wrong.

“Magazine capacity restrictions and permitting requirements have a proven track record: they save lives!” Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said in a statement. “We are confident the Oregon Constitution — like the Second Amendment of the U.S. constitution — allows these reasonable regulations.”

Several lawsuits have challenged the measure, which voters narrowly approved last month. The measure’s fate is being carefully watched as one of the first new gun restrictions after the U.S. Supreme Court in June struck down a New York law limiting the carrying of guns outside the home.

The Oregon measure bans the sale, transfer or import of magazines over 10 rounds unless they are owned by law enforcement or a military member or were owned before the measure’s passage. Those who already possess high-capacity magazines can have them only in their homes or use them at firing ranges, in shooting competitions, or for hunting, as allowed by state law after the measure takes effect.

It would also close a federal loophole that allows gun transfers to proceed if background checks cannot be completed quickly.

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut delivered an initial victory Tuesday to the measure’s proponents, ruling that the ban on the sale and transfer of high-capacity magazines could take effect Thursday. She also granted a 30-day delay before the law’s permit-to-purchase mandate takes effect, but she did not quash it entirely, as gun rights advocates had wanted.

Hours later, the Harney County judge put the law on hold. In that case, Gun Owners of America Inc., the Gun Owners Foundation and several individual owners alleged that the measure violates Oregon’s constitution and sought to have it blocked while that question was decided.

Gun sales and requests for background checks soared in the weeks since the election because of fears the new law would prevent or significantly delay the purchase of new firearms under the permitting system.

Gun rights groups, sheriffs and gun store owners have sued, saying the law violates Americans’ right to bear arms. All those lawsuits were filed in federal courts except for the one in Harney County, a gun rights group said late Tuesday.

A hearing on the Harney County judge’s order is set for Tuesday.

“We are, of course, deeply troubled by the ruling that came out of the Federal Court today. We are also grateful for the opposing ruling from the Harney County Judge this afternoon,” the Oregon Firearms Federation wrote. “But no matter what, there is a long way to go.”

The Supreme Court decision on the New York law signaled a shift in how the nation’s high court will evaluate Second Amendment infringement claims, with the conservative majority finding that judges should no longer consider whether a law serves public interests like enhancing public safety, and instead weigh only whether the law is “consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.”

To the Editor:

In the Wednesday, November 30, 2022 Brunswick Times-Gazette, page 4; Delegate Clinton Jenkins stated that “we must…pass good, safe policy regarding guns here in Virginia.” As Delegate Jenkins well knows, it is already illegal to murder a human; it is already illegal to possess firearms in the “Gun Free Zones” existing in schools, courts, some government buildings, etc.

Exactly what “good, safe policy regarding guns here in Virginia” would Delegate Jenkins suggest? I will guess that his intention is to create infringements on the lawful exercise of the Second Amendment by honest law-abiding citizens. Why would I guess that? Mr. Jenkins tips his hand with his use of good sounding, though unenlightening words, such as “good, safe policy”.

These words, like the near ubiquitous code-words “common-sense gun legislation”, serve only to lower the suspicion of the electorate to be on guard for unconstitutional infringements on Second Amendment rights of citizens. One of the most widely implemented “common-sense gun legislation” laws was the creation of “Gun-Free Zones” which, inadvertently (I hope), created large pools of unarmed “fish in a barrel” for deranged shooters.

As a Democrat, Delegate Jenkins likely never saw an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment that he didn’t like and wouldn’t support. Additionally, Mr. Jenkins is likely unaware that gun control in the United States began with the attempt to save lives (of the terrorists in the KKK, at that), by disarming newly freed slaves so that they could not defend themselves against the night riders who came to rape, beat, burn, and lynch their black neighbors.

Sir Winston Churchill once said, “However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.”

Perhaps Mr. Jenkins should research the efficacy of “Gun Free Zones”, which have had the practical effect of turning schools and government buildings into “Enhanced Victim Zones”; places where shooters are guaranteed greatly increased numbers of victims due to the implementation of these foolish policies. In the twenty-first century, gun control has the exact same effect that it did when it was first foisted upon innocent black citizens in the nineteenth century: it precludes intended victims from any meaningful defense against known evil intent on doing as much harm as possible in the shortest amount of time available without suffering meaningful retaliation.

Peter Agostnelli

Alberta, Virginia

BLUF
A Universal NICS law will give the Left another chance at creating a list of gun owners. Another chance? Yes, as they’ve already tried it before and almost got away with it. Stephen Halbrook, attorney and firearms policy author, was involved in the NRA’s attempt to prevent Janet Reno, the AG for President Clinton, from retaining the personal data of firearms purchasers who underwent the NICS background check. Halbrook’s article, The Truth About NICS tells the story of government officials who flagrantly broke the original NICS law, which did not permit the creation of a list of gun purchasers to suit their own purposes.

Halbrook concludes, “law-abiding gun owners must stay vigilant so the tool isn’t corrupted by anti-gun actors in the future…Gun registration means gun confiscation.”

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To Universal Gun Backgrounds Checks

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Everyone agrees that it is important to stop killing sprees from happening in schools or gay bars, or supermarkets.

The National Instant Check System (NICS) was supposed to stop such killers when it was implemented in 1998. Unfortunately, we are no closer to a peaceful society. After nearly thirty years, NICS is still not working as promised, despite “preventing” over 3.5 million firearms gun transactions since its inception. Few of the blocked sales turn out to be criminals; most rejections are false due to errors in the FBI data.

NICS may serve as “the fundamental cornerstone of our nation’s gun violence prevention laws,” but its proponents propose expanding NICS to create a “Universal” NICS that would eliminate supposed “loopholes.” American gun owners know this is a foolish dream. So-called loopholes will always exist for mentally disturbed people and criminals. Stricter laws cannot eliminate these loopholes because the problems aren’t legal but human. Nobody knows how to predict which mentally disturbed person will run amok in the future. Too many criminals have access to guns because their criminal records have not been entered into the NICS database. And there are many other ways of obtaining weapons without going through a NICS check.

Universal National Instant Check System (UNICS).

The proponents of Universal NICS typically avoid mentioning these problems, and American gun owners are not fooled by the so-called Universal National Instant Check System (UNICS). A NEW UNICS law could potentially, via the law, create a list of gun owners for the federal government, which would be the start of registration and confiscation. That frightens savvy gun owners and cancels any likelihood of cooperation with them for such laws.

If the flaws of UNICS are so obvious, what can we make of surveys that indicate most Americans support UNICS? The American Academy of Pediatrics, in 2022, stated that 88% of Americans, including 85% of gun owners, “favor universal background checks on sales of all weapons.”

Such survey claims should not be taken at face value. Surveys are complex, and too much can go wrong. In the right hands, they can be indicative of public opinion, but pollsters often make mistakes, and they can also use surveys deliberately to manipulate public opinion.

Continue reading “”

Observation O’ The Day

While magazines in general are necessary to the use of firearms for self-defense, Plaintiffs have not shown, at this stage, that magazines specifically capable of accepting more than ten rounds of ammunition are necessary to the use of firearms for self-defense.

Oh look, we’re making up our own test now to allow a gun law. “Necessary” is not the test dictated in Bruen.

 

Oregon 114 get the brakes applied

GUN CONTROL YELLS FOR MORE WHILE MORE AMERICANS KEEP SAYING NO

Historic numbers of law-abiding Americans joined the gun-owning community for the first time in recent years, including large numbers of women and minorities. National gun control groups at the same time continue to shout for stricter gun control laws.

As Americans take up their rights, shun those calls and personally navigate the process to legally buy a firearm, one thing’s becoming clearer. They reject stricter gun control.

Continue reading “”

Who Wants to Tell California AG Bonta that Access to ‘Weapons of War’ as a Check Against Tyranny is a Core Tenet of the Second Amendment?

I spent much of the last week assisting my brilliant colleagues in preparing their supplemental brief in Duncan v. Bonta. This is the magazine-capacity case that kicked off the now-famous “freedom week” in California in 2019. Our win in district court was affirmed on appeal by a 3-judge panel, but then was reversed by the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court acted on our appeal by vacating the en banc decision and remanding the case for further proceedings in light of Bruen.

Back in the district court, the Attorney General Rob Bonta submitted an overlong brief making all sorts of inane arguments, which our brief responds to quite well. However, one throwaway line from the Attorney General bugged me immensely . . .

In neither Heller nor Bruen did the Court find that the Second Amendment’s protections were grounded in the need to bear arms for militia service…or as a “check against tyranny”. In fact, Bruen repeatedly confirms that self-defense (and not militia or military service) is the “central component” of the right protected by the Second Amendment.

Personal self-defense is certainly a critical aspect of the Second Amendment, but both the founders as well as the generations immediately after them considered one other purpose paramount: a final defense against a tyrannical government that attempts to overthrow our constitutional order.

This idea, once accepted as common knowledge, has become controversial. It has been derided by modern day gun control advocates as the “insurrectionist theory” of the Second Amendment that was invented by the NRA in the 1970s.[1]

Yet it certainly wasn’t invented by the NRA, nor is it some tinfoil hat theory. It instead goes to the very core of what the Second Amendment was intended for, as the historical record is indisputable on this point.

Embarrassing as it may be to admit for some polite society academics of today, the Bill of Rights was written by people who just finished violently overthrowing their former government. Based on that experience, they were obviously very fearful of the new government they were forming becoming tyrannical, and so they included the Second Amendment, in part, as a failsafe.

You don’t need to take my word for it – the Founders said so themselves. James Madison tried to assuage fears of a tyrannical federal army running roughshod over the people in one of his many Federalist Papers:

Continue reading “”

Court Vacates, Remands Ban on Sale of Semi-Auto Rifles to Adults Under 21

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has vacated and remanded a lower court decision in the long-running challenge by the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association of provisions in gun control Initiative 1639, passed in November 2018, that prohibits the sale of semi-auto rifles to anyone under age 21, and also prevents sales of such rifles to residents of another state.

The announcement came Dec. 2. Joining SAF and NRA in the February 2019 lawsuit were firearms retailers Daniel Mitchell of Vancouver and Robin Ball of Spokane, and three private citizens in the prohibited age group. The case is known as Mitchell v. Atkins.

According to the tersely-worded order, the motion was unopposed.

“The district court’s judgment is vacated in its entirety, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen.”

The court action further underscores the far-reaching importance of the Bruen ruling, which did away with a “means-end scrutiny” strategy created by the federal courts following the McDonald ruling in 2010 that allowed states to essentially get around the Second Amendment by considering whether a challenged regulation promotes an important government interest.

Continue reading “”

New study by frustrated anti-gun researcher doesn’t tell the whole story

by Lee Williams

More than 1 million Americans were killed by firearms from 1990 to 2021, and firearm deaths increased markedly during the pandemic, according to a study published Tuesday by the Journal of the American Medical Association network titled: “Trends and Disparities in Firearm Fatalities in the United States, 1990-2021.”

Firearm deaths reached their lowest point in 2004, and then increased more than 45% by 2021 — a 28-year high — the study claims. Black males were most at risk for homicide, and white males over 70 had the highest suicide rates.

The authors analyzed data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and used “key statistics” from the anti-gun group Brady United.

Despite its flaws, such as a reliance on biased statistics and a lack of causal factors, the report has been embraced by the legacy media and has proliferated across the internet.

The authors’ conclusion was rather simple: “This study found marked disparities in firearm fatality rates by demographic group, which increased over the past decade. These findings suggest that public health approaches to reduce firearm violence should consider underlying demographic and geographic trends and differences by intent.”

The study’s lead author, Dr. Eric W. Fleegler of Harvard Medical School’s Department of Pediatrics, has written numerous anti-gun studies and editorials. Gun-rights experts were quick to point out there was a lot missing from his most recent work.

Continue reading “”

Oregon’s attorney general concedes state unable to put permit-to-purchase gun program in place by date Measure 114 becomes law

Two days after telling a federal judge that Oregonians will be able to apply for a permit to buy a gun by the end of this week, Oregon’s attorney general Sunday night acknowledged the state isn’t ready to have a permitting process in place as required by the voter-approved gun control Measure 114.

In a three-page letter to the court filed at 9:14 p.m. Sunday, Senior Assistant Attorney General Brian Simmonds Marshall conceded that local law enforcement agencies have made it clear that “necessary pieces of the permit to purchase system will not be in place” by this coming Thursday, the date the measure is set to take effect.

The attorney general’s concession echoes what gun rights advocates have argued for the past several weeks and have informed U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut in multiple legal briefs filed in pending lawsuits.

The attorney general has recommended the permit requirement be postponed until February while the measure’s other regulations are allowed to go into effect.

“The State’s position that Measure 114 is constitutional on its face remains the same,” Marshall’s letter said.

The voter-approved measure, which narrowly passed with 50.7% of the vote, will ban the sale, transfer and manufacture of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds; require a permit to purchase a gun; and not allow a gun sale or transfer to occur without a background check completed.

The attorney general’s office admitted in its letter to the court that the firearms safety courses that are required before someone can obtain a permit to buy a gun are not yet available.

Oregonians should be allowed to continue to buy guns without a permit during a ‘‘limited window,’’ until the state has a full permitting process in place, the attorney general’s letter recommends. Meanwhile, the state will continue to work to get a process up and running, Marshall wrote.

“The State’s proposed postponement would mean that, while the permitting system is brought online, Oregonians who lack a permit will be able to purchase and transfer firearms. Meanwhile, the State and local law enforcement would continue to work towards implementing Measure 114′s permit provisions. Moreover, Oregonians would be able to begin the application process. When the Court’s order expires, Measure 114′s permit requirement for purchases would go into effect,” Marshall wrote to the judge.

The attorney general’s office pointed to the court declaration by Jason Myers, a retired Marion County sheriff who is now executive director of the Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association. Myers estimated it will take at least another month to prepare an operational permit system.

In a press release, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum recommended the permit to buy a gun requirement be postponed until February.

“Postponing the permit requirement by approximately two months should give Oregon law enforcement time to have a fully functional permitting system in place. If Judge Immergut agrees to the postponement, then starting in February anyone who purchases a gun in Oregon will be required to have a permit,” Rosenblum said in the release.

Marshall wrote to the court that the state is “committed to working cooperatively with its partners in local law enforcement.”

For the measure to achieve its goal of enhancing public safety, “it is critical that local law enforcement has adequate time to effectively implement the Measure,” Marshall’s letter said.

Under the measure, anyone applying for a permit to buy a gun must complete a training course that includes instruction on state and federal laws related to purchase, ownership, transfer, use and transportation of guns; safe storage of guns including reporting of lost and stolen firearms; how to prevent the abuse or misuse of firearms, including the impact of homicide and suicide on families, communities and the country; and a demonstration that the applicant knows how to lock, load, unload, fire and store a firearm before an instructor certified by a law enforcement agency.

Myers had informed the judge in writing that the sheriffs’ association was unaware of any firearms safety course in Oregon that currently covers all the training requirements.

Immergut held a two-hour hearing Friday morning on the Oregon Firearms Federation’s motion for a temporary restraining order to block the regulations from going into effect as its lawsuit proceeds, contending the measure impinges on their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Most of the argument Friday, though, focused on the provision banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

When Immergut asked Marshall during the hearing if the regulations will be ready to take effect on Thursday, he pledged that Oregonians will be able to apply for a permit then. State police later in the day issued a news release, saying a permit application would be on the agency’s website on Thursday.

Other suits filed challenging the gun control measure included declarations from the sheriffs’ associations and the Oregon Association Chiefs of Police. They argued that their agencies are unprepared and not staffed or funded to support a permitting program for prospective buyers.

Immergut had said at the end of last week that she would rule by Tuesday on whether to grant a temporary restraining order that would put the voter-approved measure on hold.

The judge has given parties to the pending four federal lawsuits until noon Monday to submit any friend of court briefs in support or against the pending motions for a temporary restraining order.

The Rev. Mark Knutson, one of the chief petitioners behind Measure 114, said Sunday night that the Lift Every Voice Oregon interfaith group that obtained signatures to put the measure to voters “wants the most equitable and just process possible…We want this done right to save lives.”

Kevin Starrett, executive director of the Oregon Firearms Federation, said he’s concerned about the tens of thousands of prospective gun buyers currently waiting to have their background checks completed by state police. “They are not going to clear that backlog quickly,” he said by email.

Since Election Day, gun sales in the state have spiked. As of Friday, state police had 41,160 background checks pending for gun purchases or transfers, Capt. Kyle Kennedy said. On Black Friday, the state police received 6,055 new background check requests, the highest amount since Election Day, he said.

— Maxine Bernstein

Quote O’ The Day
The eight-point boost in favorability between now and then could be the result of people in those states recognizing that living under a shall-issue carry regime is not an apocalyptic scenario but, rather, business as usual as it had been in most of the country.

Analysis: The Popularity of the Bruen Decision Should Not Come as a Surprise

You wouldn’t know it from the reaction of political leaders in states affected by the decision, but the Supreme Court’s holding in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen is very popular among the American public. That’s because a decades-long cultural shift towards concealed carry had already succeeded well before the justices ever took up the case.

A Marquette University law school poll released this week found 64 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Supreme Court’s holding that the “Second Amendment protects the right to possess a gun outside the home.” By contrast, 35 percent say they oppose the decision, with only 16 percent saying they’re strongly opposed.

That such a substantial majority gave a warm reception to the concept of public concealed carry rights should not come as a shock. For nearly all of the country, the Court did little more than affirm the status quo.

When the decision was handed down, three-quarters of the population lived in a state where law-abiding adults faced only limited barriers to carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense. They could do so in 25 of those states without even needing to obtain a government-issued permit.

A tandem of shifting cultural practices and state legislation made that possible. Beginning in 1987 with Florida’s adoption of “shall-issue” concealed carry permitting, where state officials can’t subjectively deny permit applications, a revolution in liberalized gun carry laws began to sweep the country.

Right to Carry, timeline.gif

Continue reading “”