Category: RKBA

The Paranoid Style in Gun Control Politics
Bloomberg’s “The Trace” fabricates a conspiracy about amicus brief writers who adhere to Supreme Court Rules

If you’re looking for a website like QAnon, but catering to gun control advocates, you will enjoy some articles from The Trace, a gun control website founded and funded by Michael Bloomberg. In August, The Trace presented a conspiracy about the amicus briefs filed in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The article was reprinted by Politico. Will Van Sant, The NRA’s Shadowy Supreme Court Lobbying Campaign, Politico, Aug. 5, 2022.

The 12-brief conspiracy

The Politico reprint of the Trace article opens with snazzy graphics. Forty-nine amicus brief were submitted in the Bruen case: “12 of those briefs were filed by people or institutions who had received millions of dollars from the NRA, a Trace and Politico Magazine investigation found. Only 1 brief disclosed the financial connection.” According to Van Sant, “neither the justices nor the public were told that 11 of these ostensibly independent voices owed their livelihoods in part to the NRA.” Let’s look at some of his examples.

In 1991, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) was created by San Jose police officer Leroy Pyle. The then-police chief of San Jose, Joseph McNamara, was one of the leading gun control spokesmen in America. McNamara attempted to fire Pyle for Pyle’s Second Amendment advocacy. Pyle ended up winning his case, thanks in part to the excellent work of his attorney, who happened to be the daughter of California Senator Dianne Feinstein. Later, Jim Fotis succeeded Pyle as head of LEAA, and LEAA received substantial donations from NRA. Although LEAA is apparently now defunct, in its day it advocated for the viewpoint of most rank and file law enforcement officers: skepticism about gun control and support for strict punishment of violent criminals.

In Bruen, an amicus brief was filed by The League for Sportsmen, Law Enforcement and Defense, which is based in Virginia. Van Sant’s article reports:

“Those of us involved with the League have been involved in 2nd Amendment advocacy for decades,” attorney Christopher Day, counsel of record on the brief, said by email in response to a request for comment. “The League is not affiliated with the NRA, nor received any financial support from them.” The League is led by James Fotis, who for many years oversaw an NRA-supported effort to elect judges and state attorneys general who opposed firearms restrictions.

According to Van Sant, it was “shadowy” for the League’s 2021 brief not to disclose in that brief that the League’s president had, years before, headed an organization that received NRA grants.

That is not what the Supreme Court Rules say, nor should they. Consider some career attorneys at the U.S. Department of Justice. During their employment, they “owed their livelihoods” (Van Sant’s phrase) to the DOJ. Later, they left the DOJ for private practice, and still later they wrote an amicus brief supporting a DOJ position in a Supreme Court case. Per Van Sant’s theory, the former DOJ lawyers must disclose their past DOJ employment in their amicus brief.

Continue reading “”

WNY Baptist ministers filing federal lawsuit over NYS ban on guns in place of worship

BUFFALO, N.Y. (WKBW) — On Thursday, two Western New York congregation leaders alongside Firearms Police Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit against New York State.

The plaintiffs are challenging the state’s law and regulation banning guns in places of worship or places of religious observation.

The two WNY congregational leaders, Pastor Jimmie Hardaway with Trinity Baptist Church and Bishop Larry Boyd with Open Praise Full Gospel Baptist are filing this against Kevin Bruen, who recently resigned as Superintendent of the New York State Police, Niagara County District Attorney, Brian Seaman, and Erie County District Attorney, John Flynn.

According to the 49-page lawsuit, the ban denies the plaintiffs and “other typical law-abiding individuals” from carrying loaded handguns “in case of confrontation for immediate self-defense in a place of worship that would otherwise permit them to carry.”

The complaint notes that both Hardaway would typically carry a concealed firearm at Trinity Baptist, particularly on Sundays and during services.

“Reverend Hardaway has carried both for self-defense and because he feels a unique obligation to his congregants as Pastor to be prepared in case of confrontation. Trinity Baptist is in a neighborhood that has struggled with violent incidents,” the complaint argues.

It is also noted Boyd would carry a concealed firearm at Open Praise’s on Sundays and during services. “Open Praise is in a neighborhood that has struggled with crime, violence, and gang-related issues,” the complaint argues.

The plaintiffs also argue that because of tragic shootings in churches across the country, specifically in Charleston in 2015, Boyd has even more of a desire to carry for self-defense.

Boyd and Hardaway, the complaint argues, are both law-abiding, responsible gun owners.

7 News did reach out to Boyd and Hardaway for comment, but was directed to their attorneys, Nicolas Rotsko and Pete Patterson. 7 News reached out to them, but have not heard back.

7 News also reached out to the defendants. A spokesperson for the Erie County’s District Attorney’s office said Flynn would not comment on pending litigation.

FPC VICTORY: Judge Issues Injunction Against California Gun Owner Data-Sharing Law

SAN DIEGO, CA (October 14, 2022) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that San Diego Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal has issued a preliminary injunction in its lawsuit challenging California Assembly Bill 173, which requires the state’s Department of Justice to share the personal identifying information of millions of gun and ammunition owners with other parties for non-law-enforcement purposes. The ruling in Barba v. Bonta, which was affirmed by the judge in full, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Defendant responds plaintiffs cannot establish irreparable harm because the personal identifying information has already been shared with researchers as recently as November of 2021. Yet this does not account for the potential ongoing and future harms that could occur by continuous use of the information,” wrote Judge Bacal in her ruling. “Additionally. . .this does not necessarily mean that future requests for data would not occur in the interim . . .and while this motion has been pending, a massive data breach reportedly occurred that leaked personal identifying information from the firearm databases for concealed carry applicants in or about June of 2022. Accordingly, plaintiffs have shown that the balance of harms weighs in favor of issuing the injunction.”

“The California government has proven time and time again that it can’t be trusted with the private personal information of its residents,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Today’s ruling reinforces what FPC has been arguing all along; that you needn’t be forced to open your front door to immoral government intrusion in order to exercise your fundamental rights.”

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Orange County Gun Owners PAC, and Inland Empire Gun Owners PAC.

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.

Another look at that serial number court ruling

Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge

Oct 13 (Reuters) – A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal ban on possessing a gun with its serial number removed is unconstitutional, the first such ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded gun rights in June.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston on Wednesday found that the law was not consistent with the United States’ “historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the new standard laid out by the Supreme Court in its landmark ruling.

The decision came in a criminal case charging a man, Randy Price, with illegally possessing a gun with the serial number removed that was found in his car. The judge dismissed that charge, though Price is still charged with illegally possessing the gun after being convicted of previous felonies.

Price’s lawyer, Lex Coleman, called the decision “thoughtful, measured and accurate.” A spokesperson for the office of U.S. Attorney William Thompson in Charleston, which is prosecuting the case, said the office was “reviewing the ruling and assessing options.”

The federal law in question prohibits anyone from transporting a gun with the serial number removed across state lines, or from possessing such a gun if it has ever been transported across state lines.

Serial numbers, first required by the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, are intended to prevent illegal gun sales and make it easier to solve crimes by allowing individual guns to be traced.

Price argued that the law is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s June 24 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc v. Bruen. That ruling held that under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the government cannot restrict the right to possess firearms unless the restriction is consistent with historical tradition.

Bruen said serial numbers were not required when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, and were not widely used until 1968, putting them outside that tradition.

Even in Los Angeles………

U.S. Supreme Court aids gun rights yet again

The United States Supreme Court has no troops to enforce its rulings, but the justices are doing what they can to enforce their decision earlier this year in a major Second Amendment case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc., v. Bruen.

Last week the court took a dim view of a Massachusetts law that bars people convicted of gun-related misdemeanors from ever being allowed to buy a handgun again.

In Morin v. Lyver, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Massachusetts law using a two-step balancing test that the Supreme Court forcefully threw out in its New York State Rifle & Pistol decision. The Supreme Court has now vacated the First Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back down to be heard again under the high court’s new standard, which is based not on subjective judicial balancing tests, but on history.

This time Massachusetts will have to prove that its law barring some people from buying guns is similar to restrictions that have traditionally been viewed as consistent with the right to keep and bear arms.

Dr. Alfred Morin was arrested for carrying a gun without a permit while on a trip to Washington, D.C., in 2004. Morin was licensed to carry in Massachusetts and didn’t realize his permit was not valid in D.C. due to the city’s total ban on carrying a gun (later declared unconstitutional). He was arrested after he complied with a no-gun sign at a museum and tried to check his gun with security. He pleaded guilty to carrying a gun without a license and was sentenced to jail time, but never required to serve it.

That misdemeanor conviction now bars Morin from ever again obtaining a permit to buy a handgun. He sued the state, but the U.S. District Court found that the law was constitutional because Morin was not a “law-abiding citizen,” having been convicted of a gun-related misdemeanor warranting imprisonment. The Court of Appeals agreed with that reasoning.

However, under the Supreme Court’s new standard, it’s no longer enough for courts to find that the states have “an interest in preventing crime” and then determine if the law is “reasonably tailored” to meet those needs. The presumption now is that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. States must prove that any laws restricting that right have traditionally been consistent with Second Amendment rights going all the way back to the early days of the Republic.

Morin v. Lyver is the fifth case the Supreme Court has vacated and sent back down for reconsideration under the new standard. One is a California case, a challenge to the state’s 10-round magazine limit. In addition, a Ninth Circuit en banc panel vacated a decision in McDougall v. Ventura County, involving a challenge to the closure of gun shops early in the COVID-19 pandemic. The case has been sent back to the trial court to be reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the New York case.

This is an important course correction. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not a privilege that governments may arbitrarily withhold or revoke. A written constitution is the consent of the governed, and it places limits on government power. Enforcing those limits is the job of the Supreme Court. Freedom depends on it.

The truth about Michael Bloomberg’s militia fetish

If you don’t control your mind, someone else will. Jim Morrison said that, and it’s as true today as it was when The Doors front man first uttered those prophetic words. When it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, there is no one who wants to control minds more than former New York City mayor and multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg.

Bloomberg, 80, funds a vast array of anti-gun propagandists who operate across multiple digital and print platforms. Some, such as Bloomberg News, are accepted by the mainstream media as a legitimate news source. Others, such as The Trace, masquerade as journalists but are nothing more than well-paid anti-gun activists with access to unlimited print and pixels.

Bloomberg turned to his loyal staffers at Bloomberg News to launch his latest assault on our gun rights, by trying to change how we define a militia.

The former mayor wants the public to believe that the National Guard is the “well regulated militia” mentioned in the Second Amendment, which is “necessary to the security of a free state.” Therefore, if the public accepts that it’s the National Guardsmen whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, our individual gun rights can be eliminated, Bloomberg hopes.

This misinterpretation of the Second Amendment, while laughable, is nothing new. We are the true militia the framers had in mind – everyday Americans who possess modern firearms, ammunition and the skills to use them proficiently.

Here are some recent examples of Bloomberg’s attempts to redefine militia:

  • A Bloomberg News story published July 1 states that the New York Governor signed a law extending property tax relief to veterans who served at least 10 years “in the U.S. Armed Forces or in the organized militia of the State of New York.”
  • A Bloomberg News story published June 29 examined a labor dispute involving active-duty Ohio National Guardsmen – those serving an Active Guard and Reserve, or AGR, tour. “The US Supreme Court accepted the Ohio National Guard’s request to consider whether the agency that oversees federal-sector labor relations also has jurisdiction over state militias,” the reporter wrote.
  • A Bloomberg News story published Aug. 17 profiled an Ohio National Guard unit comprised of high-tech computer specialists including several civilians. It was headlined: “Modern-Day Militia Ready for Fight Against US Election Hacking.”

Telegraphing an attack

These confusing headlines and word-salads were not accidental. They were carefully designed, and they betray the propagandists’ true intent: Change the public’s mindset because another attack on our gun rights is coming.

Fortunately, we have case law and several strong Supreme Court decisions that protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, in my humble opinion, Bloomberg’s attack will not be a legal one – at least not yet.

This is propaganda, which is designed to alter public opinion and perception, and Bloomberg’s propagandists have always played the long game. They seek to change minds first, which will make it easier to change laws later.

Keep in mind what we’re dealing with: “I don’t know why people carry guns. Guns kill people,” Bloomberg once said, while surrounded by a heavily armed personal security detail, probably.

His attitude and his billions make him our most formidable anti-rights opponent. At least this time we know something is coming

NJ proposal would require insurance for carry permits

Following the Bruen decision, a lot of states suddenly found their gun control laws null and void. Since these were anti-gun states, it’s unsurprising that many are trying to find new rules that they believe will conform to the ruling.

But New Jersey’s latest proposal has serious issues. Why? An insurance requirement, that’s why.

New Jersey residents hoping to carry guns in public would first be required to buy insurance and complete gun-safety training under a measure to be introduced by legislative leaders on Thursday — steps that, if enacted, would represent some of the strictest gun rules in the country.…
William J. Castner, an adviser to Gov. Philip D. Murphy on firearms issues, said the legal challenges that the New York law is facing will be instructive as New Jersey finalizes its legislation.

“New Jersey at least now has the benefit of crafting this law with an eye toward defending new requirements on training, mandatory insurance, disqualifying offenses and sensitive places where guns will not be allowed at all,” Mr. Castner said.

One novel element in the proposed legislation is the statewide requirement that gun owners applying for permits to carry weapons in public also purchase liability insurance. In January, San Jose, Calif., will begin requiring all gun owners to carry liability insurance, but no state has mandated insurance as a condition of gun ownership.

Except there are issues with the comparison to San Jose.

For one thing, it turns out San Jose’s requirement is basically just homeowner’s insurance. It doesn’t require a specially-crafted policy.

However, mandating liability insurance for people who want a concealed carry permit actually does. There’s no such insurance on the market and, with New Jersey’s population, it’s not likely to create enough of a demand for anyone to actually develop it.

While I have no problem imagining New Jersey officials deciding to do something like this before even looking to see if such a policy exists, I also suspect they already know.

For them, it’s a feature, not a bug.

They can’t be accused of denying people permits if the problem is that no one can meet the requirements, now can they?

Too bad for them that yes, we can.

That’s because it’s one thing if someone is just unable to meet the requirements but quite another if it’s physically impossible for anyone to meet the requirements.

And one like this isn’t likely to survive a legal challenge anyways.

Let’s say, for example, such an insurance policy was created to meet this new demand. If that were the case, then this new requirement would amount to a poll tax. Those have long been declared unconstitutional as you cannot be charged such a fee in order to exercise a basic right.

However, some already think there’s a rebuttal for that:

“Every car on the road is required to have insurance,” said Nicholas Scutari, the Democratic president of the Senate, who is sponsoring the legislation. “We’re going to allow people to have weapons and carry them around with them without insuring them? They’re taking on a lot of responsibility.”

First, driving is categorized as a privilege, not a right.

Second, the roads are basically government property and so the government can create rules for using those roads. If I’ve got private property with sufficient area for me to drive on, I don’t need insurance, a license, or a tag to drive there. No one will say or do anything so long as I stay off public roads.

Then we get into the fact that car insurance is for accidents, not criminal acts. No insurance covers an individual acting criminally. While accidents can happen with guns, they’re a tiny fraction of the issue and are extremely rare when you consider how many guns there are in this country.

What this is, though, has nothing to do with public safety.

New Jersey wants to punish anyone who wants to carry a gun. They want to make it as hard as possible and as expensive as possible to get a concealed carry permit.

Which is what New York was basically doing before Bruen.

This will go about as well for New Jersey as Bruen went for New York.

Anti-gun advocates were formerly able to foist this off on the people because accessing a lot of the original writings had to be done by reading the actual hard copy. “But, thanks to the digitization of old texts on Google Books and Google Scholar, access to second-generation American viewpoints is easier now than ever before.” The internet and its search engines have finally been able to put the lie to this ‘collective right’ BS.

BLUF
The common assertion that the individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment is a gun-lobby myth invented in the latter half of the 20th century is, to repurpose Justice Brennan’s famous quote, “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have seen in my lifetime.” The historical record shows that 19th-century Americans, whatever other disputes they had about the provision, widely viewed the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right.

Analysis: Historical Texts Show Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms Isn’t an NRA Invention

For anyone who frequently discusses the Second Amendment, there is no avoiding the debate over whether it protects an individual or collective right. The prevailing view accepted by the Supreme Court in 2008 is that the amendment protects every individual’s right to keep and bear arms. But many detractors, especially gun-control advocates, still argue it only covers a collective or militia right.

When the individual right view started to gain ground (or, rather, regain ground) in the late 20th century, a common line of attack was that the pro-gun side was essentially making it all up. And it’s one that’s been repeated even at the highest levels of the legal profession.

“The gun lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have seen in my lifetime,” Former Chief Justice Warren Burger said in a 1991 PBS interview.

Gun-control advocates still use this argument, with The Intercept asserting in a June 2022 article that “no law review article from 1888 (when they were first indexed) through 1959 ever concluded the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to a gun.”

There are three ways to test the claim that the NRA and other gun-rights advocates created the individual-right view in the last several decades: What did the founders say? What did older case law say? And what did prominent second-generation American legal scholars and elected officials say?

The courts and the public writ large have already deeply examined the first two options.

Continue reading “”

New York’s new concealed carry law can remain in effect for now, court rules

A federal appeals court has agreed to let New York’s concealed gun law remain in effect until a three-judge panel weighs in on a court ruling that blocked parts of the restrictive gun measure.

In a two-sentence ruling, 2nd Circuit Court Judge Eunice Lee referred New York state’s request for a stay of the temporary restraining order to a three-judge panel while the state appeals the merits of a ruling blocking the enforcement of part of the law.

The court also granted the state’s request to pause the temporary restraining order from going into effect pending the result of the panel review.

Last Thursday, a federal court issued a temporary restraining order which would have prevented enforcement of parts of the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act.” The law was enacted in the wake of the Supreme Court decision this summer striking down a New York gun law that placed restrictions on carrying a concealed handgun outside the home.

The measure enacts a strict permitting process for concealed-carry licenses and it requires background checks for ammunition sales. It also restricts the concealed carry of firearms in locations such as government buildings.

But the plaintiffs in the case at hand, including at least one individual who wants to carry his firearm in church, argue the state is violating their Second and 14th Amendment rights by denying them the right to self-defense.

Nationwide, in the three months since the 6-3 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, scores of new lawsuits have been filed against gun restrictions at the federal, state and local levels.

Though the Supreme Court case concerned a type of gun permitting regime embraced by just a handful of states, the conservative majority used the Bruen decision to provide new instructions for how courts are to assess the constitutionality of gun laws nationwide.

The decision was the first major Supreme Court guns ruling in more than a decade, and it came after Justice Clarence Thomas — who authored the majority opinion — had previously complained that the high court had allowed the Second Amendment to be treated as “a disfavored right.”

3 Months After Bruen Ruling, Antis Still Trying to Dance Around Constitution

More than three months after the landmark Supreme Court ruling that struck down New York’s unconstitutional, and century-old gun permit “good cause” scheme, anti-gunners continue trying to get around the Second Amendment, while the media seem content to help the whining.

According to CNN, since the June 23 smackdown of New York’s carry permit law in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, “scores of new lawsuits have been filed against gun restrictions at the federal, state and local levels.” The cable news network report also noted, “This shift in burden has put gun rights groups at a greater advantage in court. It has also changed the type of work that government defenders – and the outside gun safety groups that often support them in litigation – must do to advocate for their laws.”

Monday, anti-gun New York State Attorney General Letitia James announced she will fight a federal court ruling from last week that declared some tenets of the state’s new law—hastily adopted just days after the high court ruling—were unconstitutional. Speaking defiantly, James said her office had “filed a motion to keep the entire Concealed Carry Improvement Act in effect and continue to protect communities as the appeals process moves forward. This common-sense gun control legislation is critical in our state’s effort to reduce gun violence. We will continue to fight for the safety of everyday New Yorkers.”

In a prepared statement, James’ office said the new law “strengthens requirements for concealed carry permits, prohibits guns in sensitive places, requires individuals with concealed carry permits to request a property owner’s consent to carry on their premises, enhances safe storage requirements, requires social media review ahead of certain gun purchases, and requires background checks on all ammunition purchases.”

Critics complain the new statute is as bad, if not worse, than the original law.

The New York Times said ruling by District Judge Glenn Suddaby “dealt a sharp blow to New York, which had sought to provide a model for new gun legislation for the five other states whose laws were invalidated by the Supreme Court’s June ruling — in part by outlining how those ‘sensitive places,’ where the court said it was permissible for states to bar guns, can be defined.”

Ramping up the rhetoric, anti-gun New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced Tuesday he was designating Times Square as a “gun free zone.”

The Times story quoted Judge Suddaby, who called the “good moral character” requirement of the new law “fatally flawed.” He also said the demand for access to someone’s social media accounts for the previous three years would not pass muster.

“No such circumstances exist under which this provision would be valid,” the judge said.

Lawsuit Targets Glendale, CA Over Gun Ban On Public Property

California – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners today filed a federal lawsuit asking for declaratory and injunctive relief against the City of Glendale, Calif., its police chief and city clerk. The case is known as CRPA v. Glendale.

Joining SAF are the Gun Owners of California and the California Rifle & Pistol Association. They are represented by attorneys Chuck Michel, Joshua Robert Dale, Konstadinos T. Moros of Long Beach, and Donald Kilmer of Caldwell, Idaho. In addition to the City of Glendale, the defendants are Police Chief Carl Povilaitis and City Clerk Suzie Abajian in their official capacities. The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.

“The City of Glendale’s municipal code generally bans possession of firearms and ammunition on any city property, with no exception for citizens with concealed carry permits,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This ban applies not just to city property, but also publicly-controlled property or public-affiliated private property, with the only exceptions being streets, roads and sidewalks. Such restrictions relegate the right to keep and bear arms to the status of a strictly-regulated government privilege.

“Our lawsuit is blunt,” he continued. “The Glendale ordinance is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms for personal protection extends outside the home. As we note in our complaint, the burden is on the city to prove that all areas falling within the definition of ‘city property’ are so-called ‘sensitive places,’ and they cannot do it.”

As explained in the 24-page complaint, the city has 47 parks and recreation facilities (including four community centers, one golf course, three soccer fields, and sixteen ball fields), playgrounds, eight public libraries, three downtown parking structures and other city-owned or operated parking lots, the Glendale Civic Auditorium and civic center complex, a youth center, an emergency center, undefined “open spaces” and “plazas,” and an unknowable amount of properties in the possession of private companies under contract with the city.

“That broad definition essentially turns much if not most of the city into a gun-free zone where Second Amendment rights do not exist, and that simply doesn’t pass the smell test,” Gottlieb stated. “We are hopeful the court quickly recognizes this and grants our request.”

Gun rights in flux—the next steps

The main stream media is taking notice (the Wall Street Journal):

Judges Across U.S. Expand Gun Rights, Taking Cues From Supreme Court — Courts are placing more emphasis on historical traditions, presenting new challenges for defending gun regulations

The Supreme Court’s decision this year to strengthen Second Amendment protections for carrying concealed weapons is starting to ripple through lower courts, with several judges citing the ruling to strike down other gun regulations.

This is just the first step to cementing our gains. The gun culture needs to expanded into the new territory. Fortunately, the political left has cleared a lot of obstacles for us. The whole “defund the police” movement helped the BLM and Antifa riots open a lot of eyes and made gun ownership seem like “a good idea” to many and a near requirement others. We need to welcome them and enable them to safely and responsibly exercise their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. If we can do this with 60% or 70% of the population we will have a good chance of being able to breathe easy for a generation or two.

Man can argue he needed handgun because police did not protect him, N.J. court rules

A state appeals court has reversed a man’s handgun possession conviction after finding he should have been able to argue he needed it for protection from people trying to kill him for cooperating with police.

The court, in a Tuesday decision, found merit in the man’s arguments that the danger he faced was real, and that authorities had not sufficiently helped him – after he’d helped them by wearing a wire in an investigation.

The man, who was identified only by his initials, was beat up twice, shot at once and moved residences before finally arming himself in case his attackers accosted him again, the decision describes.

Before that occurred, a Lawrence police officer arrested him during a traffic stop in 2015, and found the Beretta pistol in his pants. He was 21 years old at the time.

After being unable to suppress the gun evidence and the trial judge in Mercer County ruling against his defense, the necessity defense, the man took a plea bargain. A judge sentenced him to eight years behind bars with four as a mandatory minimum.

The man’s appeal failed in one part. He argued that the Lawrence police officer overstepped during the traffic stop by asking the driver to roll down the rear, tinted windows, where he found the man as one of two backseat passengers.

The officer also smelled marijuana and eventually searched the car, with the driver’s consent, and the occupants – and only found the gun in the defendant’s pants. One bullet was in the chamber.

The appeals court found the officer’s actions lawful, as he was dealing with four people during a nighttime stop and the steps he took to protect himself were reasonable.

The court took issue with the barring of the necessity defense, which allows defendants to argue that their conduct, while normally illegal, was necessary or justified in a limited instance – in this case, carrying a gun.

The decision says the man described his situation to a police detective: he’d helped police and prosecutors in a prior case and now people were “after him.”

After the two assaults and being fired upon, and moving, he sought help from a detective and the prosecutor from the case, but received no assistance. He told police he wanted to move out of state, but could not due to being on probation.

He then admitted obtaining the gun a few days prior and knew it was loaded with the bullet.

He had a plan, he told the detective interviewing him, that if confronted a fourth time, he’d fire the gun and flee.

The Mercer prosecutor’s office argued against the necessity defense in the appeal, saying the man had not qualified for the defense, specifically that he had not been met with an “imminent and compelling” emergency.

The appeals court disagreed.

The man wore a wire for police. “By doing so, he assisted police in performing their duty to protect the public. Through no fault of his own, his cooperation with the police led to him being beaten up twice and fired upon in his own community,” the decision said.

“Defendant was acutely aware that other individuals in the community wanted to hurt or kill him. We find more than sufficient evidence … to conclude that the threat to defendant was ‘imminent and compelling,’ and raised a reasonable expectation in the defendant that he would suffer physical injury, if not death,” the decision went on.

The defendant’s, “plea to law enforcement for assistance went unanswered. He tried to move out of state to avoid the threat to his life, however he was unable to do so. Defendant also changed his local residence to avoid encounters with his attackers, which didn’t work, as he was attacked outside his new home.”

“Consequently,” it said, “he faced a crisis with no opportunity to avoid repeated assaults until he was severely injured or killed.”

A jury should hear those arguments and be the deciders, the decision says.

NY AG appeals judge’s decision halting enforcement of most new carry restrictions

New York Attorney General Letitia James is asking the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a federal judge’s decision to halt enforcement of many aspects of the state’s new Concealed Carry Improvement Act, arguing that there’s a “serious risk of irreparable harm to public safety and the possibility of regulatory chaos” if U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby’s decision to grant a temporary restraining order is allowed to take effect.

Suddaby’s ruling left intact, at least for now, the draconian training requirements imposed by the state in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, but barred enforcement of most of the state’s new “sensitive places” where guns are banned, as well as many of the other requirements mandated for those applying for a concealed carry permit; turning over social media accounts and informing authorities of all other family members living with the applicant among them.

In her request to the Second Circuit, James claims that if the appeals court allows the TRO to take effect, the result will be massive confusion over the status of the law, which might be true but pales in significance compared to the daily deprivation of the right to keep and bear arms that the CCIA has enabled.

Exposing eighteen million New Yorkers to a heightened risk of gunfire severely outweighs any prejudice to plaintiffs here from a stay.Five plaintiffs allegedly wish to carry guns into specific sensitive or restricted places, such as the Rosamond Gifford Zoo, the airport for a flight to Tennessee, the church where one plaintiff lives, or Catskills State Park, through which another plaintiff must drive.

Yet the district court restrained defendants from enforcing the challenged CCIA provisions on a statewide basis, as applied to anyone — a remedy far beyond what relates to the individual harms alleged.

Well, no. Virtually everyone who possesses a concealed carry permit and all those who wish to do so are being harmed by the state’s new restrictions. As for the potential for “regulatory chaos” if the new laws are halted, I have news for James and other anti-gun Democrats: the CCIA is already sowing confusion. In fact, in St. Lawrence County no concealed carry applications have been issued since the law took effect back on September 1st because no one is clear on what the law entails.

“We just haven’t been accepting applications since the new law has taken effect. Number one, the state has already changed the application that they originally came out with once. You know, to keep processing stuff that’s not even right to begin with. So at this point basically what it is is that we’re waiting for clarification from both the state and the judge,” said Santamoor.

As New York’s gun laws work their way through the courts, gun shop owner Matt Pinkerton is frustrated, believing the new laws were flawed from the start.

“I completely understand why the permit process would be slowed or halted at this point because the governor has put into place a system that is very logistically difficult to enact,” he said.

For New York lawmakers, the confusion isn’t a bug, but a feature of the new law meant to artificially depress the number of citizens exercising their right to carry a firearm in self-defense.

James offered no real historical analogues to the sweeping number of locations deemed “sensitive” and off-limits to concealed carry. Instead, she argues to the Second Circuit that it’s the plaintiffs themselves who had the burden of showing that the Second Amendment’s text and tradition “plausibly encom-passed any of these areas.” In a bit of circular logic, James claims that once a state has declared a location to be a “sensitive place”, it should automatically be presumed to be justified.

Carrying weapons in sensitive places has traditionally been “altogether prohibited.” These areas thus fall outside the “scope of the Second Amendment,” and are “an exception to the general right to bear arms” codified therein. 

The question, of course, is whether New York is violating the Second Amendment rights of its residents by declaring broad swathes of the state to be “gun-free zones.” Under James’s argument, once the state has deemed a particular location to be “sensitive”, it automatically falls outside of the Second Amendment’s protections; a nice trick, but one that flies in the face of what the Supreme Court actually said in Bruen.

James also takes issue with how Suddaby determined that many of the state’s “sensitive places” don’t have similar analogues in U.S. history.

Second, the court’s analogies were flawed—none more so than for barring weapons on mass transit, which the court held to be inconsistent with nineteenth-century laws authorizing carrying pistols when “‘on a journey.’” Old and new regulations may be “relevantly similar” in many ways.

Comparing hurtling through tunnels in electrically powered cars filled with thousands of people (including schoolchildren and the elderly) to journeying via horse through the countryside is like saying that “a green truck and a green hat are relevantly similar” because both are green.

It’s worth noting that “hurtling through tunnels in electrically powered cars” with a permitted concealed firearm was perfectly legal on New York City subways until just a few weeks ago. The ban on concealed carry on public transportation in the city and state wasn’t enacted until after the Bruen decision was handed down; before that those chosen few who were lucky or well-connected enough to receive a permit were perfectly fine carrying on the subway. Only after the average New Yorker was told she could do the same did the state reverse course and declare mass transit to be “sensitive places” where guns must be banned; again without any evidence that there were similar bans in place at the time of the ratification of either the Second or Fourteenth amendments.

All in all I found James’ initial filing to be less than impressive, but given the Second Circuit’s past hostility towards the right to keep and bear arms she might not need a strong argument to be successful at blocking Suddaby’s ruling from taking effect… at least immediately. No matter what the Second Circuit decides, expect this to be appealed up to the Supreme Court, and hopefully it won’t take long for the justices who struck down New York’s “may issue” laws to halt enforcement of the state’s latest infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.

SAF FILES MEMORANDUM FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation’s challenge of California’s new law that includes a one-way fee-shifting penalty to discourage lawsuits against restrictive gun laws have filed a memorandum of points and authorities in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction.

Attorneys Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen M. Duvernay of the Benbrook Law Group, PC, and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and Joseph O. Masterman of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC filed the memorandum, which asserts plaintiffs have already suffered harm due to the constitutional violations contained in the new law.

The lawsuit, and this new memorandum, allege the law (Section 1021.11 of the California Penal Code) is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause, and that it also violates the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The statute also discriminates against gun rights plaintiffs in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, according to the lawsuit.

SAF is joined by Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, PWGG, L.P., the San Diego County Gun Owners’ PAC, California Gun Rights Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Dillon Law Group, P.C., John Phillips, Ryan Peterson, George M. Lee, John W. Dillon and James Miller, for whom the lawsuit is named.

The new motion also says Section 1021.11 has “caused several Plaintiffs to dismiss or refrain from bringing additional lawsuits challenging other California firearms regulations that they believe are unconstitutional.”

“We are pulling out all the stops in fighting this new statute because of its egregious nature,” said SAF founder and executive vice president Alan M. Gottlieb, one of the plaintiffs in the case known as Miller v. Bonta. “Section 1021.11 is part of Senate Bill 1327, adopted earlier this year in reaction to a Texas law passed last year, which is about abortion. The California law was crafted as a political response to the Texas statute, which California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the chief defendant in our case, described as ‘blatantly unconstitutional.’

“Bonta is trying to have it both ways,” Gottlieb continued. “He simply cannot protest a law he considers unconstitutional by enforcing another law which is equally unconstitutional in what amounts to a childish political snit that began with California Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California legislature.”

 

Local Work By Anti-Gun Radicals Emphasizes Need For Preemption

We usually spend a great deal of time talking about the impact on the Second Amendment made at the federal and state level. But it is important to remember that attacks on our right to keep and bear arms are often made at the local level, and we don’t want these affronts to freedom to slip under anyone’s radar. Statewide preemption statutes that reserve the authority to enact gun-control laws to state legislatures are critical to diminishing these efforts. They help to avoid a patchwork of conflicting laws and regulations throughout a state.

Unfortunately, not every state has a preemption statute, and even with them in place, anti-gun local authorities regularly work to challenge, undermine or circumvent them. Here are a few of the things extremists have tried to do, or actually have done, at the local level to undermine law-abiding gun owners that may not have caught the attention of national news coverage.

Boulder County Adopts Gun Control
In Colorado, the Boulder County Commissioners unanimously voted to pass a gun-control package consisting of five ordinances to infringe on your Second Amendment rights. Commissioner Matt Jones claims these ordinances are “common-sense gun violence laws designed to help keep people safe,” but, apparently, common sense isn’t common. These ordinances are restrictions that attack your constitutional right to bear arms and do nothing to promote public safety.

The gun-control package includes: banning the sale of firearms to anyone under the age of 21; requiring a waiting period of 10 days to sell or purchase a firearm; prohibiting the carrying of firearms in a number of public places; banning the sale of “assault rifles,” “large” magazines, and trigger activators; and regulating the possession of unfinished gun frames and guns without serial numbers, sometimes referred to as “ghost guns.”

The city council forced this gun-control package through at the beginning of July with no opportunity for public comment. The first public hearing was in early August, which is conveniently when the gun-control package went into effect. Cities in Colorado like Boulder have had the authority to pass a patchwork of confusing and conflicting local laws throughout the state since Colorado repealed its firearms preemption statutes last year. By doing this, Colorado became one of the few states to take away the state legislature’s sole authority to regulate firearms, and the various cities’ gun-control regulations have already begun to create inconsistency and uncertainty statewide.

Pima County Passes Resolution Calling for Repeal of State Preemption Statute
In Arizona, the Pima County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution in early August calling for a lawsuit to challenge the state’s preemption statutes, as well as urging the state legislature to repeal them. This resolution falls in line with efforts by both Pima County and Tucson to pass local gun-control ordinances. In 2017, the Arizona State Supreme Court ruled in the State’s favor, causing the City of Tucson to repeal an ordinance that was in violation of the state statute.

The Arizona Legislature enacted the state firearms preemption law in 2000, which has been modified and strengthened over the years, most recently in 2016.

Columbia to Consider More Gun Control
South Carolina’s capital city, Columbia, submitted a draft ordinance to Attorney General Alan Wilson’s office in July, asking if it violates the state’s preemption law. The draft ordinance victimizes gun owners who have suffered the loss or theft of their property if they fail to report a lost or stolen firearm within a certain period of time after discovering it missing. Nearby Virginia passed a similar law in 2020, which has not only been ineffective in hindering criminals, but also has been almost unenforceable, as there have been just three civil penalties in the two years it has been in effect.

Attorney General Wilson has previously stopped Columbia from violating the state’s preemption law, which prevents localities from passing their own gun control. Columbia’s newest effort is just another waste of time and taxpayer resources while doing nothing to hold criminals accountable for their actions, such as stealing firearms, and get them off the streets.

As we went to press for this issue, Attorney General Wilson had not yet responded to Columbia’s request for his opinion.

Woman Who Had Never Fired A Gun Before, Shoots And Wounds Burglar In Attempted Robbery

A North Carolina resident named Tarika McAllister fired a gun for the first time last week and it helped put a man who broke into her home behind bars.

According to WRAL-TV, McAllister, who lives in the city of Dunn, was home alone when she awaken by loud noises and her dog barking around 6 a.m last Tuesday. After hearing the sounds coming from the rear of her house, she went to check if everything was okay. McAllister was stunned to find a man attempting to steal some of her items —including her dog. It was at that moment that she took matters into her own hands.

The 29-year-old yelled for the intruder to get out, but he was unphased. Fortunately, within her reach was the gun she kept stored. And although she had never used it before, she put her nervousness aside and grabbed it.

“All I did was turn around and grab the gun,” McAllister told WRAL. “I was fumbling with it. It’s my first time using it.”

McAllister added that she lifted the safety and did what she had to do.

“I just lifted it up, and I started shooting at him, wherever he was moving to, I just shot him out of the house,” she said.

When the police arrived to the scene, they found the thief, who has been identified as 20-year-old Malihk Giles, only about 200 yards from McAllister’s home with two gunshot wounds, one on his right lower leg and the other on his right side. After his wounds were treated at a local hospital, he was taken into custody at Harnett County Detention Center where he is being held on charges of first-degree burglary and possession of stolen property with a $75,000 bond. McAllister and Giles had no connection to each before the incident but according to McAllister, she experienced a similar incident at her home just three weeks prior. Luckily, she was able to just scare the man away.

“I know a lot of women are scared of guns,” says McAllister. “I feel those are the best protectors for us because we can’t fight a man. We can’t fight an intruder off.”

Although she’s still shaken up and it’s difficult for her to be alone at the moment, McAllister feels “stronger” now and ready for any other attempt at a home invasion in the future.