Category: RKBA

BLUF
Immergut said she expected to rule on Monday or Tuesday as to whether to issue a temporary restraining order. Regardless of what she decides, a more involved hearing is still expected on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction to block the law from being implemented until a final ruling on the law’s constitutionality.

Judge says she’ll decide next week whether to delay new Oregon gun law

The new law requiring a permit to purchase a gun and banning high-capacity magazines was approved by voters in November, but faces multiple legal challenges

A federal judge Friday said she will decide early next week whether or not she would block a voter-approved gun law days before it is set to take effect.

“This is a very complicated area of law,” U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut said, explaining she wanted to review the two sides’ arguments and the cases they referenced before making her decision, particularly given a recent Supreme Court ruling dramatically changing the standards that must be applied to gun laws. “It’s a new landscape.”

Immergut said issuing a temporary restraining order to block Oregon’s Measure 114 from going into effect as scheduled on Dec. 8 would be an extraordinary remedy. Though, that is exactly what the people who have brought the lawsuit want.

The law would require anyone purchasing a firearm to get a permit first and ban magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

The new provisions were narrowly approved by voters in the Nov. 8 election, carried largely by broad support in the state’s more liberal, populous counties. In some rural counties, voters opposed the measure by as much as a three to one margin.

The lawsuit, one of three filed seeking to block the law from taking effect, was brought by the gun rights group the Oregon Firearms Federation, gun store owners in Marion and Umatilla Counties and three sheriffs: Sherman County Sheriff Brad Lohrey, Union County Sheriff Cody Bowen and Malheur County Sheriff Brian Wolfe.

Continue reading “”

Another Lawsuit Filed Against Oregon for Most Restrictive Gun Law in the Country

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), Oregon State Shooting Association (OSSA), and Mazama Sporting Goods filed a lawsuit against the state’s recently passed Ballot Measure 114, which is considered one of the strictest gun control laws in the country. 

The lawsuit claims that the measure infringes upon the right of Oregon residents to buy and own firearms, imposing “severe and unprecedented burdens on individuals seeking to exercise perhaps the most basic right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

This is the third lawsuit filed since November 8, which was filed by the Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF), Sherman County Sheriff’s Department, Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC).

“The deficiencies in this ballot measure cannot go unaddressed. Forget that it is scheduled to go into effect before Oregon even certifies the election, but it requires potential gun owners to take a class that has yet to be created, at a cost yet to be determined, so that they can obtain a permit that doesn’t permit them to purchase a firearm,” NRA Oregon state director Aoibheann Cline said in a statement to the Daily Caller.

The strict measure will require residents to get background checks, firearm training (which does not currently exist), fingerprint collection, and a permit to purchase any firearm.

The lawsuit also alleges that the measure creates a “Kafkaesque regime” which they claim is not supported by history, tradition, or modern regulation.

“Oregon’s Measure 114 is blatantly unconstitutional,” NSSF’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane said, adding “the right to keep and bear arms begins with the ability of law-abiding citizens to be able to obtain a firearm through a lawful purchase at a firearm retailer.”

He also said that it threatens the most constitutional right… “Oregon has created an impossible-to-navigate labyrinth that will achieve nothing except to deny Second Amendment rights to its citizens. The measure is an affront to civil liberties which belong to People, not to the state to grant on impossible and subjective criteria,” Keane added.

The state has rushed to pass the measure, meaning no one will be able to buy a firearm beginning on December 8.

“Saint Benitez” delivers another win to gun owners (and legal smackdown to California AG)

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, affectionately known as “Saint Benitez” among Second Amendment activists for his string of decisions striking down California gun control laws (decisions that have, unfortunately, largely been stymied by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges), has unleashed his latest opinion on California Attorney General Rob Bonta in two cases that deal with a weaselly attempt by Gov. Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers to make it financially risky to challenge the state’s gun laws in court.

Shortly after the state of Texas passed their anti-abortion law allowing abortion providers to be sued by private citizens and the Supreme Court declined to block it from taking effect, Newsom declared his intent to fire a responding shot in the culture war; this one aimed at the Second Amendment.

Not long after the Supreme Court issued the Bruen decision, Newsom and his legislative allies approved SB 1327, which not only allows California residents to bring their own lawsuits against companies that violate California gun control laws, but imposed a new fee shifting standard on plaintiffs who challenge any of the state’s gun control measures: unless the plaintiffs are successful on each and every complaint they allege, they’re responsible for paying 100% of the state’s attorneys fees. If, on the other hand, the plaintiffs do manage to meet that impossibly high bar, the state is not obligated to pay a dime of their costs.

Two lawsuits were immediately filed in the wake of SB 1327’s enactment; Miller v. Bonta, brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition, and South Bay Rod & Gun v. Bonta from a coalition including the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (where, in full disclosure, I serve as an unpaid board member), Gun Owners of California, Second Amendment Law Center, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association.

On November 28th, Judge Benitez held a hearing on a request for an injunction in the cases. The arguments from the plaintiffs were quite simple; in fact, they were able to throw Bonta’s own words back in his face, since the California AG had previously filed an amicus brief in the challenge to the Texas abortion law on constitutional grounds. Bonta is now forced to defend the very practice he declared unconstitutional just a few months ago, and his chief argument was a weak one: his claim that he won’t enforce the law unless or until the Supreme Court has officially ruled on the constitutionality of the Texas abortion statute. That stance, he argued, should be enough to moot both of these cases, but in today’s ruling Judge Benitez rejected Bonta’s defense in no uncertain terms.

The American court system and its forum for peacefully resolving disputes is the envy of the world. One might question the wisdom of a state law that dissuades gun owners from using the courts to peacefully resolve disagreements over the constitutionality of state laws.

The law at issue here is novel. As four concurring Justices recently said in a Texas case with similarities, “where the mere ‘commencement of a suit,’ and in fact just the threat of it, is the ‘actionable injury to another,’ the principles underlying [Ex parte] Young authorize relief against the court officials who play an essential role in that scheme. Any novelty in this remedy is a direct result of the novelty of Texas’s scheme.” Whole Woman’s Health, 142 S. Ct., at 544-45 (citations omitted). The same principles authorize relief against the state officials here.…

If Defendant Attorney General committed to not enforcing § 1021.11 and entered into a consent judgment binding himself, his office, his successors and district attorneys, county counsel, and city attorneys, it might be a closer question. Again, this does not prevent future Attorneys General or other state statutes from being enacted and enforced. But that is not this case. In this case, the commitment of non-enforcement is conditional. The Defendant Attorney General says that his cessation of enforcement in a seeming case of tit-for-tat will end if, and when, a purportedly similar one-sided fee-shifting Texas statute is adjudged to be constitutional. Certainly, that condition may or may not occur. In the meantime, the statute remains on California’s books. And the actual chilling effect on these Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights remains. Therefore, the case is not moot.

Bonta’s attempt to avoid having to defend the indefensible has failed, and both Miller and South Bay Rod & Gun will now move forward. In response to Benitez’s decision, Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb declared that “California cannot be permitted to use the law to suppress constitutional challenges to its increasingly radical gun control schemes”, and today’s decision is a key step towards a broader decision consigning SB 1327 to the dustbin of history.

DON’T BELIEVE GIVING UP RIGHTS PROVIDES SECURITY

New York Time columnist David Brooks is reminding America why they shouldn’t put faith in opinion writers pontificating from their metropolitan ivory towers.

Brooks recently said America would be a much safer country if Americans would simply give up their freedoms and become more like Europe. If America wouldn’t hold onto the individual right to keep and bear arms spelled out in the Second Amendment, and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, he argues it would be a much safer place.

In his estimation, giving up the ability for self-defense and defense of loved ones would make crime just go away.

“That would take a gigantic culture shift in this country. A revamping of the way we think about privacy, a revamping of the way we think about the role government plays in protecting the common good,” Brooks said during a segment on PBS’ “Newshour.” “I think it would be something. I think it would be good not only to head off shootings, but good to live in a society where we cared more intimately about each other. And I would be willing to give up certain privacies for that to happen.”

That’s certainly out of the mainstream of how the rest of America views lawful firearm ownership. There were over 21 million background checks for the sale of a firearm in 2020, the most ever in a single year. Last year, Americans submitted to 18.5 million background checks. In 2022, background check figures are headed for the third strongest year on record. During the week up to and including Black Friday, the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) tallied over 711,000 background checks, with over 192,000 on Black Friday alone. That was the third busiest day for FBI’s NICS ever.

The Plan: Give Up

Just how would America achieve this utopia that Brooks imagines? Just give up, he said. Give up your rights. Give up your freedoms. Submit to an Orwellian state that provides you with all your needs. He admits this wouldn’t be easy.

“But for many Americans that would just be a massive cultural shift to regard our community and regard our common good in more frankly a European style,” Brooks explained.  “I think it would benefit our society in a whole range of areas, but it’s hard to see that kind of culture change to a society that’s been pretty individualistic for a long, long time.”

America broke away from European-style rule for a reason. The Founding Fathers rejected the British crown’s demands to give up guns then. Based on background checks for gun sales, America continues to reject calls for strict gun control. A recent Gallup poll found that support for more gun control dropped nine points from 66 percent to 57 percent in an October survey.

Failed Disarmament

The argument that individuals should surrender their gun rights has been tried elsewhere with predictable results. Gun owners that complied with gun seizures find themselves unable to protect themselves while criminals that ignore the law are empowered. A recent report from ABC News in Australia showed that criminals find it easier now to obtain illicit firearms than before the multiple amnesty periods when government officials collected firearms from Australians. New Zealand instituted their own gun confiscation program and crime spiked. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern ushered in Draconian gun control, including confiscation, and the country and crime hit new peaks.

The only ones left with guns were the criminals. That’s a lesson that Canada’s grappling with now as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is eyeing his own gun confiscation scheme and banning the transfer of any handguns. Some Canadian provinces are rejecting the heavy-handed measures. Sadly, history is replete with examples of regimes that took away its citizens firearms only to become tyrannical and turn their citizens into defenseless subjects. Those that fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence expressed their fear of a tyrannical government and enshrined our right to keep and bear arms for self defense in the Bill of Rights for a reason.

Brooks is wrong to think that ridding ourselves of rights and lawful gun ownership would reduce crime. The answer to rampant crime is more law enforcement. The changes needed to safeguard America’s communities don’t begin with turning our backs on freedoms. It starts with holding elected officials in The White House, Congress, state capitols and district attorneys responsible for not enforcing the law and failing to hold criminals accountable.

Brooks’ notion is a devil’s bargain. Americans know it. Surrendering freedom has never resulted in anything less than creating a society of victims.

Tennessee Court Says YES! Tenants of Public Housing Have Right to Possess Guns

Tennessee – -(AmmoLand.com)- On October 13, 2022, the Tennessee Court of Appeals released a decision that addresses whether tenants in a public housing project can be forced by government landlords to “waive” their 2nd Amendment rights. The decision came in the matter of Columbia Housing & Redevelopment Corp. v. Kinsley Braden, M2021-00329-COA-R3-CV.

The litigation arouse in Maury County, Tennessee, when the landlord, Columbia Housing & Redevelopment Corporation, filed a civil action to evict Kinsley Braden, a tenant, “for possessing a firearm in his apartment in contravention of the lease agreement.” Columbia Housing is a corporation that provides subsidized housing for the City of Columbia pursuant to Tennessee’s Housing Authorities Law. It operated a multi-family, low-income public housing complex in Columbia, Tennessee.

The tenant voluntarily signed a lease that contained a provision prohibiting firearms on the property. When Columbia Housing learned that he had a firearm in his apartment, it moved forward to evict him. The tenant opposed the eviction by claiming that the lease agreement, which was with a government agent, violated his rights under the Second Amendment. The trial court rejected the defense and ruled in favor of the landlord.

The Court of Appeals found it significant and undisputed that the landlord was a governmental entity. As such, the Court concluded that it was bound to act subject to the restrictions on government action imposed by the constitution. It also found that “the unconstitutional conditions doctrine ‘prevent[s] the government from coercing people into giving up’ their constitutional rights.”

Columbia Housing had argued that low-income housing was not protected because it was a “sensitive place” under the Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and New York State Rifle and Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen. The Court of Appeals rejected that argument based in part on the analysis set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bruen regarding the issue of “sensitive places” and the national tradition dating to the time of the Second Amendment, which defines what those places are. The Court of Appeals also noted that unlike some categories of sensitive places that the Supreme Court has referenced, this case involved an individual’s private home, not a public venue.

This may be the first reported decision by an appellate court in Tennessee that examines the decision in Bruen, and that also looks at the evolving and unsettled sensitive places doctrine. The discussion of the doctrine by the Court of Appeals is only enough to resolve the case before it, but it is significant because it clearly shows adherence by the Court of Appeals to what the U.S. Supreme Court has held.

Continue reading “”

Confiscating guns is not the answer

Now that the midterm elections are over, and Democrats are in some positions previously occupied by Republicans, here are some thoughts for your consideration:

No politician has ever explained how inconveniencing law-abiding citizens removes guns from the hands of criminals.

No politician has ever explained why habitual lawbreakers would surrender their guns to some kind of “buy back” program.

Confiscating guns in this country, as some have suggested, would not only be unconstitutional, but would entail searching every enclosed space in every structure, and you still would not get all the guns in criminal hands nor prevent them from acquiring new ones.

Does something cause you to think they wouldn’t enter by the same routes as smuggled drugs?

Both the United States Constitution, in article one, section nine, clause three, and the Pennsylvania constitution, in article one, clause 17, prohibit ex-post facto laws.

Ex-post facto, “having retroactive effect or force,” means you cannot outlaw that which is legally possessed today.

The Declaration of Independence in paragraph two lists life and liberty as unalienable rights which by their nature imply a requirement of self-defense.

Self-defense requires weapons and the Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, specifies that the individual has the right to possess arms in order to defend himself.

This amendment is the second in a list of eight codified individual rights.

The Bill of Rights exists because some states were refusing to ratify the constitution because it had no explicit protection for individual rights.

In the congressional debate of the amendment, on Sept. 9, 1789, the Senate voted in the negative to insert the words “for the common defense” next to the words “bear arms,” meaning not to.

Timothy Toroian

Altoona

BARR: ‘Run, Hide, and Fight’ Makes As Much Sense As Duct Tape To Stop Terrorism

Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the anthrax scare shortly thereafter, the federal government urged Americans to prepare for possible future attacks by, among other things, sealing the windows of their homes with plastic sheeting and duct tape.

More recently, in the aftermath of violent incidents involving armed criminals targeting “soft” targets such as students in schools, shoppers in malls, or worshipers in churches, Uncle Sam has pressed two similarly unhelpful strategies: “run, hide, fight” and gun control.

Neither of these strategies, which Washington has repeatedly promoted, has prevented or even minimized deaths or injuries caused by criminals targeting students, shoppers, co-workers, or church goers. Still, as Sonny and Cher declared in their 1967 hit, “the beat goes on.”

As with other advice proffered by federal agencies — whether about what car to drive or foods to eat — the pointers about responding to active shooter incidents is not only unhelpful, but counterproductive. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in cases where individuals chose to confront armed perpetrators rather than run away from them, and in so doing saved lives.

Whether it was the armed and trained church security parishioner at the West Freeway Church in White Settlement, Texas in December 2019, the armed and trained young man at the Greenwood Park Mall in Greenwood, Indiana last July, or the individual at the Club Q in Colorado Springs, Colorado earlier this month, taking action against armed criminals bent on murdering innocent victims is a strategy far superior to one that advocates running and hiding.

Even when a passive response plan appears to make sense, as when a murderous gunman barged into the elementary school in Uvalde, Texas this past summer and began murdering children, things can go tragically awry (in that case, police themselves hid and failed to fight).

Notwithstanding the many actual incidents in which individuals’ actions confronting shooters saved lives, government publications continue to downplay taking the initiative to confront an active shooter. The Department of Homeland Security’s publication, “Active Shooter, How to Respond” admonishes readers that any “attempt to take the shooter down” should be considered only “as a last resort.” In other words, wait until everything else fails before confronting the shooter. Common sense alone suggests that such a point comes only after precious time and lives have been lost.

Clearly, confronting an “active shooter” carries risk. Riley Howell was mortally wounded when, in May 2019, he rushed a perpetrator who had entered his classroom at the University of North Carolina and started firing a pistol at students. By all accounts, Howell’s heroic sacrifice saved numerous lives.

Do the potential benefits of confronting a criminal shooter outweigh the risks? Ask the 240 parishioners at the West Freeway Church of Christ who were saved as a result of the quick, defensive response by church security members to an active shooter armed with a shotgun. Pose that question to the many dozens of people attending the Club Q on November 19th who did not become victims, thanks to the two club patrons who chose not to run and hide, but quickly tackled the shooter and subdued him with his own firearm.

The Biden administration’s knee-jerk response to any active shooter criminal act, regardless of circumstances, is “GUN CONTROL!” Sometimes, that refrain becomes almost comical in its detachment from the real world.

For example, following the Club Q murders and another by a disgruntled Walmart employee in a company breakroom in Chesapeake, Virginia the same week, President Biden demanded a ban on all “semiautomatic firearms.” Such an absurdly broad strategy would mean outlawing every Glock or Colt Model 1911 handgun, along with hundreds of other models of semiautomatic handguns and rifles owned lawfully by millions of citizens, and that are sold every business day in the United States.

Biden’s statement illustrates the degree to which his administration and its supporters remain ignorant of firearms, firearms owners, and the value of a citizenry that has lawful access to firearms for defensive purposes.

The gun-control shibboleth urged by the Left as the solution to every mass shooting incident, coupled with the government’s “run, hide, and fight” strategy for dealing with an active shooter, make as much sense as advocating duct tape and plastic sheeting as a way to thwart acts of terrorism.

The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government & an Armed Populace 1787-1792

Book on the origin of the second amendment. 1787-1792 second edition edited by David E. Young

This is a tour de force in revealing the intentions of the founders as they struggled to come up with a Bill of Rights. It dispels many of the knee jerk notions of anti 2nd Amendment writers as the founders clearly knew the dangers of an oppressive government and took measures to allow the people some resources in the event that history repeated itself. An outstanding work that should be in the library of every Constitutionalist.

FPC Files Lawsuit Challenging Oregon “Large Capacity” Magazine Ban as Unconstitutional

PORTLAND, OR (November 30, 2022) – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a new Second Amendment lawsuit challenging Oregon Measure 114’s ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds and requested a temporary restraining order to prevent the ban from being enforced while the case continues. The complaint and motion in Fitz v. Rosenblum can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The State of Oregon has criminalized one of the most common and important means by which its citizens can exercise their fundamental right of self-defense,” argues the complaint. “By banning the manufacture, importation, possession, use, purchase, sale, or transfer of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds (‘standard capacity magazines’), the State has barred law-abiding residents from legally acquiring or possessing common ammunition magazines and deprived them of an effective means of self-defense.”

“Today’s filings are proof yet again that when statist idealogues attempt to unilaterally restrict the rights of peaceable people, FPC will step up and fight back,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “And the good people of Oregon should keep their eyes peeled for additional FPC responses to the incredibly flawed Ballot Measure 114.”

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation.

Individuals who would like to Join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutional rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. FPC’s efforts are focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and adjacent issues including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC team are next-generation advocates working to achieve the Organization’s strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs.

FPC Law (FPCLaw.org) is the nation’s first and largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the leader in the Second Amendment litigation and research space.

GOP senators behind bipartisan gun control say they’re done

Following Uvalde, a small group of Republican senators broke with the rest of the party and negotiated a bipartisan gun control deal. It wasn’t the broad, sweeping anti-gun measures that many wanted, but it was gun control.

Now, following a series of mass shootings, there’s a renewed push for anti-gun legislation, this time in the form of an assault weapon ban.

Unfortunately for those pushing it, the Republicans behind the last bill aren’t interested in a repeat performance.

Republican senators who, in the past, have worked with Democrats on gun control told the Daily Caller News Foundation they will not support new attempts to pass a more far-reaching firearm ban in the lame-duck session of the 117th Congress, following a mass shooting in Colorado Springs on Nov. 20.

In June, 15 GOP senators voted with Democrats to pass the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, following the killing of 19 children and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, which added “domestic violence abusers” to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and enhanced the review process for gun purchasers under 21 years of age.

However, none of these lawmakers who responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation indicated they would support a bill that encompasses the AR-15, a popular rifle among American gun owners.

“Senator [Pat] Toomey [of Pennsylvania]…does not support a ban on assault weapons because it would prohibit law-abiding citizens from owning what are some of the most popular firearms in the United States,” a spokesperson for Toomey told the DCNF.

The office of Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, meanwhile, shared an article with the DCNF about Graham owning an AR-15, indicating his opposition to the ban.

A spokesman for Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who also voted for June’s legislation, said that he had been “consistently opposed” to an assault weapons ban and would not be supporting new legislation. This was echoed by an aide to Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who said that Sasse would not support the ban even though he is leaving the Senate at the end of the year.

Without those lawmakers, an assault weapon ban cannot happen.

Even as Democrats are set to have control of the Senate come January, they would still need many of those same senators. Just how many depends on the outcome of the run-off election in Georgia, but that’s only one potential seat that won’t change the math all that much on this regardless of the outcome.

And the only hope for the Biden administration to get gun control passed is to do it during the lame-duck session.

After the new Congress starts, Republicans will control the House and have enough votes in the Senate to block any legislation they want. Gun control becomes a non-starter at that point, regardless of what Biden and his fellow Democrats want.

Unless, of course, he can manage to get enough Republicans to cross the aisle on this issue.

However, since the handful who already showed some willingness to do so have said no, there’s just not a lot of chance of that happening.

So the president can call for assault weapon bans all he wants–and make no mistake, he will, even when it’s not remotely relevant–but that’s about all he’ll be able to do.

BLUF
Those who want to disarm you do not have your best interests in mind.

How the Orwellian Term “Gun Violence” is used to Push Citizen Disarmament

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- The term “gun violence” has been deliberately inculcated into the public debate over the last 20 years. It is common in news articles. It has been used in numerous court briefs. It appears in court decisions at the appellate level and in amicus briefs to the Supreme Court.

George Orwell, in the novel 1984, explained how language can be structured to eliminate and curtail thought.

“Gun violence” is an Orwellian term designed to structure and limit debate to pre-determined solutions. It is designed to hamper the ability to think about reality in certain ways. The purpose of Orwellian structuring of language is to make it difficult or impossible to think certain thoughts or entertain certain concepts. This is the purpose of the term “gun violence”. The term “gun violence” frames the problem as guns.  It frames all violence committed with guns as illegitimate.

Guns can be used or misused. Violence can be legitimate or illegitimate.

Guns can be used for legitimate purposes such as defense, hunting, recreation, and multiple target sports. Guns can be used for illegitimate purposes, primarily for a crime. Guns can be used for suicide. The legitimacy of suicide is a hotly debated topic.

Continue reading “”

We Don’t Need Biden’s Permission To Own A ‘Semi-Automatic’ Gun

“The idea we still allow semi-automatic weapons to be purchased is sick,” Joe Biden argued on Thanksgiving. “It has no socially redeeming value. Zero. None. Not a single solitary rationale for it except profit for the gun manufacturers.”

Need it really be pointed out that it is perfectly within our rights to purchase products devoid of all socially redemptive value? Certainly, it is not the state’s business to determine what we “need.” That said, semi-automatic weapons happen to have an obvious redeeming value and there is a strong rationale for owning them. Semi-auto weapons are easy to use, and their effectiveness and reliability bolster the ability of people to protect themselves, their families, their property, and their community from criminality and, should it descend into tyranny, the government. Gun bans are autocratic and unconstitutional, and, thankfully, also largely unfeasible.

It is difficult to pinpoint what percentage of the 400-plus million firearms in civilian hands today are semi-automatic. These weapons, which fire one cartridge with a single trigger squeeze while preparing the gun for the next shot, constitute a substantial percentage of new gun sales over the past few decades. Banning them would prevent homeowners and those who concealed-carry — not only some of the most law-abiding people in the country, but a growing contingent —without the weapon of choice. The actions of a small number of irrational criminal psychopaths should not corrode the rights of those citizens. Not to mention, corroding our rights would do nothing to stop the irrational criminal psychopaths.

Indeed, semi-autos meet every criterion of legality laid out in D.C. v. Heller, the decision that finally codified the clear historical and legal intention of the Second Amendment. Not only are semi-automatic weapons “in common use” by “law-abiding citizens,” they are not “unusual.” The first semi-automatic pistols hit the civilian marketplace in the 1890s.

Now, there is always the not-so-small chance that Biden has confused the real-world mechanical designation of “semi-automatic” with the political concoction of “assault weapons.” I’m skeptical. Anyone who’s involved in the gun debate knows that “semi-automatic” guns, often purposely conflated with the more dangerous “automatic” weapons, are the target of restrictionists. A few years back during that shameful post-Parkland CNN gun “town hall,” the crowd loudly cheered at the suggestion of banning all “semi-automatic” rifles. And, earlier this year, the president suggested that ordinary citizens should be banned from owning popular “high-caliber” 9mm handguns. “So the idea of these high-caliber weapons is of — there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of thinking about self-protection, hunting,” Biden said of the type of gun used by the Secret Service to protect him.

It is, as it always has been in the gun debate, incrementalism. From “no one wants to take your guns” to “we only want to take some of them” and so on. Of course, even if the president really intended to talk about a semi-automatic rifle ban, his goals would still be unconstitutional. Again, the gun meets every standard set by Heller for legality. And if the Senate somehow musters the 60 votes to push through the ban on certain semi-automatic guns recently passed by the House, states should challenge the federal government, and, if need be, ignore it.

Biden, who often imparts dreadful, sometimes illegal, advice on gun ownership, also has a long history of saying completely inane, insane, and historically illiterate things about firearms —whether cringingly noting that deer don’t wear “Kevlar” or claiming cannons were banned during the Revolutionary era as a way to argue that the Second Amendment “like all other rights, is not absolute.”

On the latter, Biden often (fittingly) cites one of the most egregious violations of the First Amendment, Schenck v. United States, which allowed the Woodrow Wilson administration to throw socialists into prison for speech crimes, to make his point. And perhaps that speaks to the crucial distinction at the heart of so many of our debates. Biden, and thus the contemporary left, seems to be under the impression that it’s the state that “allows” us to buy semi-automatic firearms or “allows” us to say certain things. But we don’t need their permission.

Bans on “Assault” Weapons Do Not Reduce Crime

Prominent Democrats, including President Joe Biden, have repeatedly expressed interest in reinstating a federal assault weapons ban. Biden himself included an assault weapon ban in his 1994 crime bill, which lasted ten years until its expiration in 2004. Biden has claimed that the ban did its job and reduced mass shootings: “When we passed the assault weapons ban, mass shootings went down. When the law expired, mass shootings tripled.”

But a detailed review of the data demonstrates that the ban had no real benefits whatsoever, and neither did it lessen the frequency of major shootings.

Continue reading “”

Democratic Senator’s Admission Dumps Cold Water on Joe Biden’s Gun Control Agenda–For Now

President Joe Biden has long been calling for a ban against so-called “assault weapons,” which he just doubled down on this holiday weekend, causing quite a concern with his language for those who care about the Second Amendment. Democratic senators, however, are a bit wiser on the likelihood of such sweeping legislation passing that chamber. During his Sunday appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) admitted to host Dana Bash that when it comes to whether they have currently the votes to pass such a ban, the answer is “probably not.”

“He wants to pass a so-called assault weapons ban in this lame-duck next month. You know the math on how difficult that is better than most people. You have been working on this for a long time. Is there any path to getting that done,” Bash  asked Murphy, referring to Biden and his priorities.

Murphy’s acknowledgment of “probably not” refers to whether or not the ban has those 60 votes in the Senate “right now.” That doesn’t mean he’s given up for good, though. “But let’s see if we can try to get that number as close to 60 as possible. If we don’t have the votes, then we will talk to Senator Schumer and maybe come back next year with maybe an additional senator and see if we can do better,” he offered.

Come next Congress, Democrats will still be in the majority, with at least 50 senators who are Democrats or caucus with the Democrats, in addition to Vice President Kamala Harris’ tiebreaking vote. It’s possible they’ll expand their majority, if Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) holds onto his seat against Republican opponent Herschel Walker, with the runoff election coming on December 6.

Bash also pressed Murphy as to if there’s “any action on guns that’s possible,” or whether they will keep pushing for this ban, to which Murphy reminded her that was the legislation that passed the House and is now before the Senate.

The senator claimed “we would see less mass shootings in this country” with such a ban, and also downplayed concerns with the legislation, offering “nobody’s talking about taking those weapons away from individuals, we’re just talking about stopping new sales. ”

When Bash to her credit did push Murphy on how criminals don’t follow laws, as the shooter at the Walmart in Chesapeake, Virginia, used an illegally-purchased handgun, Murphy was forced to admit that “if you pass an assault weapons ban, you’re not going to magically eliminate mass shootings in this country.”

He did tout the 1994 ban on such “assault weapons,” as Biden has done. As Mia covered in early September, after the president also made remarks on August 30 calling for such a ban, the ban was not as successful as he claims it had been.

Sen. Murphy was a big part of negotiations to pass gun control laws, laws which, as Bash pointed out, did not actually stop the recent shootings in Colorado and Virginia.

Murphy did begin his conversation with Bash by praising the president on the issue, including when it comes to that legislation. “Well, first, let me say, the president’s been heroic in standing up for victims of gun violence. We passed the first gun safety measure in 30 years this summer. It’s going to save thousands of lives. And that wouldn’t have happened if Joe Biden hadn’t led,” Murphy said. The senator also categorized Biden’s recent remarks as how “he stood up and spoke his mind, as he did this weekend.”

When speaking specifically about the law incentivizing states to pass red flag laws, with Bash pointing out that Colorado and Virginia already had them in place, Murphy offered “I think it’s important to know that the bill that we passed is being implemented as we speak. But it takes a little while for these big, complicated laws to be put into place.”

He went on to blame law enforcement in Colorado, referring to as a “so-called Second Amendment sanctuary state,” where gun control laws are not enforced. “That is a growing problem in this country,” Murphy warned, who went on to threaten further action.

“And I think we’re going to have to have a conversation about that in the United States Senate. Do we want to continue to supply funding to law enforcement in counties that refuse to implement state and federal gun laws? Red flag laws are wildly popular, right? You’re just temporarily taking guns away from people that,” he claimed.

When asked by Bash if that means Murphy “want[s] to withhold money for law enforcement,” the senator did not deny it. “I think we have to have a conversation about whether we can continue to fund law enforcement in states where they are refusing to implement these gun laws,” he said. “I will talk to my colleagues about what our approach should be this problem, but 60 percent of counties in this country are refusing to implement the nation’s gun laws. We have got to do something about that,” he again warned.

So much for Democrats trying to claim they don’t actually want to defund the police. It looks like Murphy may have dumped cold water on yet another Biden administration talking point, inadvertently or not.

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy questions law enforcement funding for ‘Second Amendment sanctuaries’

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said Sunday that there needs to be a “conversation” about whether to continue to fund law enforcement in a “Second Amendment sanctuary state” or counties that are “refusing to implement” gun laws that are on the books.

Murphy said “Second Amendment sanctuaries” are counties that have declared that they are “not going to enforce state and federal gun laws” and that there needs to be discussion in the Senate over whether they want to continue to fund law enforcement in these counties.

CNN’s Dana Bash followed up and asked if he wanted to withhold funding for law enforcement.

“I think we have to have a conversation about whether we can continue to fund law enforcement in states where they’re refusing to implement these gun laws,” Murphy said. “I’ll talk to my colleagues about what our approach should be to this problem. But 60% of counties in this country are refusing to implement the nation’s gun laws. We’ve got to do something about that.”

Murphy said the county where the Colorado shooting at Club Q happened is a “Second Amendment sanctuary state.”

Continue reading “”

SAF FILES BRIEF SUPPORTING MOTION FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST DELAWARE HB 450

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an opening brief in support of its motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction against the State of Delaware and enforcement of House Bill 450, which radically expands the state’s laws and bans so-called “assault weapons.”

SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., DJJAMS LLC, and two private citizens, William Taylor and Gabriel Gray, for whom the lawsuit is named. The lawsuit names Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings as the defendant. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Bradley P. Lehman at Gilbert Scali Busenkell & Brown LLC.

The case is in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

“We are hopeful that the Court will take swift action with today’s motion for preliminary injunction against Delaware’s ban on constitutionally protected arms that are in common use across the nation,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Each day this law is not enjoined, Delawareans suffer an impermissible deprivation of their constitutional rights. This cannot stand and we are hopeful that the Court will preliminarily enjoin the State from enforcing its ban while the case proceeds on the underlying merits.”

The brief notes that the U.S. Supreme Court’s June ruling in the Bruen case “rejected all interest balancing and the Third Circuit’s prior ‘two-step’ approach in the context of Second Amendment claims.” As a result, plaintiffs contend the Delaware General Assembly’s attempt to justify HB 450 by claiming it has “a compelling interest to ensure the safety of Delawareans” and that the banned arms, which are in common use, “have no place in civilian life,” are entitled to no deference.

“Banning an entire class of firearms may create the impression Delaware lawmakers are ‘doing something’ about violent crime,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “but in reality, it will not prevent criminals from misusing firearms, and only serves to penalize law-abiding gun owners.”

Handgun owners carrying daily in US doubled in 4 years; self-protection cited as main reason: study.

Twice the number of Americans were carrying handguns daily in 2019 compared to 2015, according to a new study published this month.

Around 6,000 gun owners carried handguns every day in 2019, up from 3,000 in 2015, according to a study from the American Journal of Public Health published on Nov. 16.

The number of respondents to the online survey who said they had carried a gun in the last month also nearly doubled from 9 million to 16 million in 2015.

The study focuses

solely on owners carrying a handgun on their person, not in their car.

Twice the number of Americans were carrying handguns daily in 2019 compared to 2015, according to a new study published this month.
The upward trend found in the study comes as states loosen restrictions for carrying a handgun and more gun owners cite protection as a top concern.

A U.S. Supreme Court case last June also overturned strict gun carrying laws in New York.

The authors wrote, “This ruling could further catalyze the loosening of firearm-carrying regulations in different parts of the country at a time when, as our study indicates, trends in handgun carrying already point to more US adults carrying loaded handguns in public places, including without a permit when a permit is required.”

The study authors said a June U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning restrictive gun-carrying laws in New York could “catalyze  the loosening of firearm-carrying regulations in different parts of the country.”

The study’s lead authors were Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, an epidemiology professor at the University of Washington; Amy Gallagher of the University of Washington; Deborah Azrael of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center; and Matthew Miller from Northeastern University, and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

The authors added, “Little is known about the frequency and features of firearm carrying among adult handgun owners in the United States. In fact, over the past 30 years, only a few peer-reviewed national surveys, conducted in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 2015, have provided even the most basic information about firearm carrying frequency.”

In 1994, the percentage of gun owners who said their main reason for having a firearm was protection was 46%, by 2015 it went up to 64% and spiked to 73% by 2019. In 2021, it was 83%.

Only one state allowed permit less handgun carry in 1990 but by 2021 it had increased to 21 states, according to the study.

It’s only bizarre until you remember the Chinese media is nothing more than the propaganda organ of the Chinese commie goobermint, just like Tass and Pravda for the commie Russians.

Chinese media makes bizarre claim about guns

The Chinese media has, in recent years, opined plenty about the right to keep and bear arms.
Well, they have and they haven’t.

You see, they talk about guns and gun control, but they don’t acknowledge the right to own guns. A prime example is this editorial from China Daily.

A shooting at a Walmart in Chesapeake, Virginia, in the United States late on Tuesday left at least six people dead and some injured, three days after a shooting at a Colorado nightclub left five people dead and 25 injured. The number of mass gun killings in the US has now exceeded 600 for the third year in a row.

Gun violence was a major issue during the recent midterm elections in the US. US President Joe Biden said that gun violence must be tackled, but repeated shootings indicate that the problem is only getting worse.

It is not surprising that deaths from gun violence in the US are far higher than in any other developed country, given that with just 4.2 percent of the world’s population, the country has 46 percent of the world’s civilian guns.

Now, from this, it could appear as if this were just any other editorial from any American city. Guns are bad and shootings are happening and gun control is the only answer, blah blah blah.

But it’s how this wraps up that is telling.

The long-standing gun violence in the US is rooted in its “gun culture”, which came after the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, adopted in 1791, was judged to protect the right of citizens to own arms.

Given that the right to life is the most important human right, whether the US can effectively curb gun violence should be an important yardstick for the international community to measure its human rights.

What we’re seeing here is the communist party there using the Chinese media to try and deflect from their many human rights abuses by claiming America is a human rights abuser.

The problem is that this misrepresents a great deal.

You see, if the United States government was killing people, then maybe China would have a point–and remember, there is no independent media there. It’s all government-run–but that’s not what’s happening. These are private individuals killing private individuals. The government is no more responsible for its actions than any other nation is for the individual actions of its citizens.

The Chinese media here is trying to present our violent crime issue as if it somehow should absolve others of their government-driven abuses.

I’m sorry, but I’m not interested in being lectured by a government that has literal concentration camps that they have herded a minority population into.

Yes, individual Americans are killing other individual Americans, but the Chinese media has no place to criticize anyone when they’re the mouthpiece for a nation that believes in the forced sterilization of so-called undesirables.

Our right to keep and bear arms is a right. It’s anything but a human rights abuse.

While we all agree that something needs to be done about mass shootings, we don’t need to take China’s advice or anything said by the Chinese media. Especially since even the authoritarian controls there can’t stop violent crime.

Instead of Asking How to Stop Mass Shootings, Left Targets Social Conservatives

This week, another evil mass shooter unleashed horror at a gay club in Colorado Springs, killing five and wounding another 25. The shooter—whose name I refuse to mention in order to disincentivize future shooters, who seek notoriety—was clearly mentally ill: Just last year, he reportedly threatened his mother with a bomb, resulting in his arrest.

Yet Colorado’s red flag law, which could have deprived the shooter of legal access to weaponry, was not invoked by either police or relatives. The Colorado Springs massacre, then, is yet another example of a perpetrator with more red flags than a bullfighting convention, and no one in authority willing to take action to do anything about him.

Yet the national conversation, as it so often does, now has been directed away from the question at hand—how to prevent mass shootings—and toward broader politics. Instead of seeking methodologies that might be effective in finding and stopping deranged individuals seeking murder without curbing rights and liberties for hundreds of millions of people, our political and media leaders have decided to blame Americans who oppose same-sex marriage, drag queen story hour, and “family friendly” drag shows. Disagreement with the radical leftist social agenda amounts to incitement to violence, they argue.

Thus, NBC News senior reporter Brandy Zadrozny said, “There is a pipeline. It starts from some smaller accounts online like Libs of Tiktok, it moves to the right-wing blogosphere, and then it ends up on Tucker Carlson or ends up out of a right-wing politician’s mouth, and it is a really dangerous cycle that does have real-world consequences.”

Michelle Goldberg of The New York Times wrote that “it seems hard to separate [these murders] from a nationwide campaign of anti-LGBTQ incitement. … They’ve been screaming that drag events … are part of a monstrous plot to prey on children. They don’t get to duck responsibility if a sick man with a gun took them seriously.”

Brian Broome wrote in The Washington Post that the shooting could not be “blamed on mental illness.” No, he stated, “It’s right-wing rhetoric that sparks these nightmares. … The bottomless list of homophobes and transphobes on the right don’t need to throw the rock and then hide their hands. Instead, they use someone else’s hands entirely.”

The Left’s attempt to lay responsibility for violence at the feet of anyone who opposes the transgressive social agenda doesn’t stop with blame—it extends to calls for full-scale censorship.

“We’re living in an environment that’s driven by two things,” averred Sarah Kate Ellis, CEO of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. “Politicians who are using us to bolster their careers by creating division and hate, and number two is social media platforms that are monetizing hate, and especially against marginalized communities. They’re—they’re choosing profits over hate, and it’s killing, literally killing our community.”

Social media, the logic goes, ought to shut down or demonetize any video disagreeing with the GLAAD agenda.

This is cynical politics at its worst. It’s also nothing new. The Left routinely cites violent incidents as reason to crack down on free speech with which they disagree.

As the inimitably imbecilic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-Instagram, tweeted: “After Trump elevated anti-immigrant & anti-Latino rhetoric, we had the deadliest anti-Latino shooting in modern history. After anti-Asian hate w/ COVID, Atlanta. Tree of Life. Emanuel AME. Buffalo. And now after an anti-LGBT+ campaign, Colorado Springs. Connect the dots, @GOP.”

Yes, according to AOC, virtually every major mass shooting of the past seven years is the result of her political opponents—none of whom has called for violence. But in the world of the Left, disagreement is violence merely waiting to be unleashed. Which is why censorship, they believe, is the only way to achieve a more peaceful world.