Category: RKBA

Opponents prep lawsuit over Oregon gun control measures

Measure 114, the sweeping ballot initiative that will impose a ban on “large capacity” magazines and establish a “permit-to-purchase” system that includes mandatory training, a waiting period, extensive background investigations, and a database of all prospective gun owners, is likely to be officially certified on December 15th, which will start the clock on the 30-day window before the new measures officially take effect.

Already, however, we’re seeing signs that might not be enough time for backers of Measure 114 to draft all of the associated policies and technical language needed to enforce the provisions within the anti-gun laws… and opponents are gearing up for a lawsuit as well. In fact, the speculation in Oregon now isn’t whether Measure 114 will pass, but whether it will ever actually be enforced.

We’re very humbled by this, but it wasn’t a victory over anybody. It was a victory for our children that we can all celebrate,” said one of the chief petitioners, the Rev. Mark Knutson from Portland’s Augustana Lutheran Church.

Lawyers advising the Oregon Firearms Federation, the Second Amendment Foundation and other gun rights advocates disagree.

They’re preparing to ask a judge for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent the measure from taking effect until a judge can weigh whether it meets constitutional muster.

“The first draft of our complaint has been written. We’re still adding plaintiffs to the suit, and we’ll be ready to pounce,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, based in Bellevue…

While the passage of Measure 114 shows the strength of the gun safety movement right now, it’s too early to tell whether the law will survive constitutional scrutiny in the wake of the major U.S. Supreme Court ruling in late June overturning a New York gun safety law, said Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA School of Law.

“There’s no doubt the U.S. Supreme Court has declared war on gun safety legislation,” Winkler said. “We don’t know which exact laws will be upheld.”

He suspects part of Measure 114 may withstand review, such as the move to require completed background checks before a gun sale, but others may not, such as the ban of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

“It’s going to be awhile,” Winkler said, “before this law goes into effect, if it ever does.”

If the passage of Measure 114 shows the current strength of the gun control movement, then it’s not particularly strong. Measure 114 will likely receive the approval of about 52% of voters this cycle; far below the 80-90% support that gun control advocates claim to have for their infringements on the Second Amendment rights of the people. And as Oregonians get a first-hand look at how the new laws will be implemented, I suspect that support is going to decline even further.

Continue reading “”

Michigan Supreme Court kicks campus carry ban case back to lower court

A challenge to the University of Michigan’s ban on firearms on campus is still underway after the state’s Supreme Court sent the case back to the Court of Appeals with instructions to re-consider its ruling in light of the Bruen decision.

At first glance, this looks like a relatively easy case. The Supreme Court said that “schools” were among those few “sensitive places” where there’s a historical tradition of banning firearms, so that must mean that the university’s gun ban is in-line with the Constitution, right? As Michigan Supreme Court Justice David Viviano wrote in a concurrence to the order sending Wade v. University of Michigan back to the court of appeals, it’s not nearly as cut and dried an issue.

To support its threshold analysis, the Court of Appeals relied on the statement in Dist of Columbia v Heller, 554 US 570, 626-627 (2008), that the Second Amendment did not disturb “longstanding prohibitions on . . . laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings . . . .” In the present case, the Court of Appeals’ entire “historical analysis” was to examine one dictionary from 1828 to determine whether universities were considered “school[s]” in 1868.

Even if one concludes that the Court of Appeals reached the correct result, this paltry review of the main question is inadequate. Moreover, it is not at all apparent that Heller’s brief discussion of sensitive places was intended to establish a rule that all entities historically known as “schools” could permissibly ban firearms, meaning the only question that would remain for future cases is whether the entity at issue was considered a “school.” Nor is it even clear that the Court meant to include universities and colleges in its reference to “schools,” let alone to say that such locations can completely ban firearms. See Note, Guns on Campus: Continuing Controversy, 38 J C & U L 663, 667-668 (2012) (noting that Heller did not address guns on university campuses or define “schools” to include higher education).

Viviano went on to describe two different areas of historical analysis that he’d like to see from the appellate court. First, whether there were any similar regulations dealing with bearing arms on university and college campuses at the time the Second and Fourteenth Amendments were ratified. Viviano notes that in his own initial analysis he’s found some laws that contain “partial restrictions”, but none that come close to the complete ban in effect on the University of Michigan campus.

The second line of historical analysis suggested by Viviano is whether or not traditional college campuses are even a good historical analogue for “large modern campuses like the University of Michigan’s.” Viviano wonders whether modern campuses are “so dispersed and multifaceted that a total campus ban would now cover areas that historically would not have had any restrictions?”

The University of Michigan itself occupies nearly one-tenth of Ann Arbor. Many areas on campus, such as roadways, open areas, shopping districts, or restaurants, might not fit the “sensitive place” model suggested by Heller—they may instead be more historically analogous to other locations that did not have gun restrictions. And because the campus is so entwined with the surrounding community, the ban might also burden carrying rights on locations outside campus, as many individuals will regularly go from campus to off-campus environments, even in a single trip; because they cannot bring a gun on campus, they will not feasibly be able to bring the gun to the off-campus locations either.

It’s an excellent point, and one that strikes at the heart of several of the post-Bruen restrictions on the right to carry that we’ve seen implemented or introduced in blue states over the past four months. Bans on concealed carry in public transportation, for example, not only prevent those who rely on it from being able to bear arms while on a city bus or subway, but throughout the course of their daily routine as well.

With the case going back to the court of appeals it will likely be several months before we get a decision, and Justice Viviano’s concurrence suggests that upholding the U of M gun ban won’t be as easy as gun control activists are hoping for. We’ll keep an eye on this case for any future developments, but in the meantime Michigan gun owners should be aware that the ban remains in effect for the time being.

I say use a chainsaw, like Marcel Ledbetter did. 

Firearms Policy Coalition

Yesterday, a Texas federal judge struck down 922(g)(8)

Before Bruen, the Second Amendment looked like an abandoned cabin in the woods.
A knot of vines, weeds, and roots, left unkempt for decades, crawling up the cabin’s sides as if pulling it under the earth. Firearm regulations are that overgrowth. Starting with the Federal Firearms Act in 1938, laws were passed with little—if any—consideration given to their constitutionality.
That is, until the Supreme Court intervened in Bruen.

No longer can lower courts account for public policy interests, historical analysis being the only tool. But after growing unchecked for almost 100 years, today’s tangle of gun laws has left lower courts with a gordian knot.
And after engaging with this Nation’s tradition of firearm regulations several times already, the Court’s unanswered question is whether Bruen demands lower courts manicure the Second Amendment’s landscape by scalpel or chainsaw.

…this Court’s opinion says nothing about whether a state court could remove someone’s guns through conditions of release or a restraining order.

“But if the Second Amendment can be read separate from the First as the Government argues, the history of disarming someone because of political allegiance oaths could be used to justify disarming political dissidents today.

Another problem is that § 922(g)(8) prohibits possession of a gun even if the state court order doesn’t. Indeed, § 922(g)(8) does not require that the court order prohibit possessing a gun.

More Oregon sheriffs vow not to enforce high capacity gun magazine ban if Measure 114 passes

PORTLAND Ore. (KPTV) – At least two more Oregon sheriffs have said they do not intend to enforce Measure 114 if it passes and becomes law.

Michelle Duncan, the sheriff of Linn County, announced on the organization’s Facebook page on November 9, the day following Election Day, that she would not enforce the magazine capacity limit.

“Unfortunately, we are seeing the passage of Ballot Measure 114, which creates a required permitting system in order to purchase firearms AND bans gun magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. This is a terrible law for gunowners, crime victims, and public safety,” wrote Sheriff Duncan on Wednesday. “I want to send a clear message to Linn County residents that the Linn County Sheriff’s Office is NOT going to be enforcing magazine capacity limits.”

FOX 12 visited Linn County on Thursday and talked to a pawn shop owner who said people had been coming in regularly to buy magazines and guns, anxious about what comes next.

A spokesperson for the city of Albany, which is in Linn County, told FOX 12 it will follow the law but understand the measure will likely be challenged in court.

Later the same day on Nov. 9, Union County Sheriff Cody Bowen posted to Facebook to agree with Sheriff Duncan.
“I agree 100% with Sheriff Duncan! This is an infringement on our constitutional rights and will not be enforced by my office! This is an infringement on our constitutional rights and will not be enforced by my office. This measure will only harm law abiding gun owners and result in wasted time with additional redundant background checks.”

Other news outlets have reported that Malheur County Sheriff Brian Wolfe also intends not to enforce the ban. But FOX 12 has not been able to independently verify that.

As of Friday afternoon, Ballot Measure 114 was learning slightly toward passing with 32,089 more yes votes than no votes. The Associated Press estimates 85% of the ballots in Oregon have been counted.

Oregon sheriff says she won’t enforce magazine ban

While the outcome of Oregon Measure 114 is still technically up in the air, it looks like the gun control ballot measure will pass by a narrow margin.  With about three-quarters of the estimated vote already counted the magazine ban and permit-to-purchase laws are ahead 50.8-49.2, but most of the remaining ballots are expected to come from Multnomah and Washington counties, where support for Measure 114 is running high.

Once the election results are certified, which will likely be next week, the measure has 30 days before it takes effect. Linn County Sheriff Michelle Duncan, however, says she has no plans to enforce the ban on magazines that can accept more than ten rounds of ammunition.

“Unfortunately, we are seeing the passage of Ballot Measure 114,” Duncan said in the release on social media, “which creates a required permitting system in order to purchase firearms AND bans gun magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. This is a terrible law for gunowners, crime victims, and public safety.”

The Sheriff continued, “I want to send a clear message to Linn County residents that the Linn County Sheriff’s Office is NOT going to be enforcing magazine capacity limits.”

Duncan stated the measure is “poorly written” and that Linn County Sheriff’s Office will work to find “the best course of action to take on permitting.”

“I want to ensure anything we do or don’t do will not hinder gunowners’ rights to purchase firearms, intentionally or unintentionally.”

Duncan went on to tell residents that she’s hopeful a lawsuit will be filed immediately following the certification of the results; a hope that other sheriffs have expressed as well. Otherwise, as Klamath County Sheriff Chris Kraber warns, gun sales in the state could soon stop completely.

Many questions have arisen as to what will happen to the rights of gun owners in Oregon if it passes. Myself, and other Sheriffs, often rely on the analysis of our legal advisor(s) through our Oregon State Sheriffs Association. Having reviewed the BM 114 and the legal analysis received, the following opinion is my understanding of the likely next steps in the unfortunate event it passes. For the record, I believe BM 114 to be an unconstitutional restriction on the right to possess firearms.

  • If passed it will take effect “30 days after passing.”
  • Firearms dealers will have “180 days” to dispose of large capacity magazines.
  • Firearms dealers will not be able to sell a firearm to anyone without a permit; since the permit system does not exist, all legal firearms sales in the State of Oregon will stop until a permit system is established. Because of this, there is a strong likelihood a federal judge will “stay” the measure until a permit process is established or the constitutionality of the measure is decided in what will likely be a court challenge.
  • Court challenges often take years. One such challenge is underway on a California magazine ban that was sent back to the 9th Circuit Court by the US Supreme Court for reconsideration due to a recent Supreme Court decision in the NY Rifle v. Bruen case.
  • If a court challenge occurs and BM 114 is determined to be unconstitutional it will then likely be reviewed by the 9th Circuit Court.
  • If you currently own magazines capable of holding more than “10” rounds, you should document that you have them in your possession before this measure can take place due proving they weren’t purchased after the ballot measure passed. (i.e. a dated picture)

None of these possible outcomes effects our current Concealed Handgun Licensing program provided by the Sheriff’s office. Many questions will likely come up in the next few weeks and I will keep you apprised of them.

Funny how the group behind Measure 114 never explained to voters exactly what would happen if their gun laws actually passed. Their well-funded campaign promised “safe schools and communities” if Measure 114 was approved, but Lift Every Voice Oregon didn’t say anything about Oregonians being unable to purchase a gun at all while the state writes the particulars of the permit-to-purchase system. Based on the tight election results, Measure 114 isn’t a particularly popular measure, and I suspect that the chaotic rollout to come is going to leave many voters with buyers remorse.

Continue reading “”

More Reasons Anti-Gun Policymakers Are Wrong About Armed Self-Defense

Despite the June U.S. Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which clearly affirmed the right of lawful Americans to carry a firearm for self-defense outside the home, many state and local politicians continue to try to pass more-restrictive laws on firearms carry.

As this was being written, the New Jersey legislature was pushing for a ban on guns in so-called “sensitive places,” while in Longmont, Colo., city councilors were considering similar restrictions.

Unfortunately for the citizens in those jurisdictions, these policymakers ignore the fact that guns are used in self-defense well over a million times each year; in fact, four separate instances of armed self-defense in the last week of October show just how wrong-thinking these gun-ban advocates are.

On Halloween night in Spring, Texas, a woman was moving her car into her driveway when two men—one with a handgun, the other with a rifle—allegedly approached her from behind, then forced her back into her home at gunpoint.

According to a report from local media, the woman’s roommate, who was inside the home, heard her screaming and emerged, armed with a handgun to confront the intruders. During the confrontation, he appears to have shot one of the alleged criminals in the abdomen.

Fortunately, neither the woman nor her roommate were hurt. At last report, police were still looking for both of the suspects that entered the home, as well as another suspect that drove them away.

Just two days earlier, an Alabama woman proved that a loaded firearm is much more effective protection than filing a protective order. In the 1:15 a.m. break-in in Hatchechubbee, Ala., the victim shot her estranged husband once in the abdomen.

According to reports, the woman had previously filed an order of protection against the intruder, but it had expired the week before. She was in the process of having the order reinstated when the break-in occurred.

That same day, in Ferguson, Mo., a man who was attacked by alleged carjackers shot one of the three men, who he said was holding a gun, and who he claimed had reached for his car door handle.

Later that morning, a man in a nearby neighborhood looked out of the window of his home and saw what he thought was a body in his backyard, according to a report. Police believe the dead man—who was dressed in a black hoodie, black sweatpants and black tennis shoes—was likely one of the attempted carjackers.

Lastly, in Edinburg, Texas, on Oct. 25, a woman likely feared for her life when someone broke into her house through the garage and tried to get into her bedroom. According to media reports, the woman warned the man that she had called the police and that she was armed.

The man apparently didn’t believe her and, unwisely, continued his attempt to break into the bedroom. That’s when the woman shot him through the bedroom door, ending the attack.

Investigators later found the suspect in a nearby open field with a gunshot wound to the arm. He was arrested and was being held at the Hidalgo County Jail with a $750,000 bond. The woman was shaken up, but unharmed.

The next time a cynical anti-gun politician tells you normal citizens never successfully use firearms for self-defense, just tell them to read the NRA’s Armed Citizen column.

How midterm elections could impact the firearms industry — or not

As midterm election results continue to roll in, Americans are still waiting to find out which party will control the House or the Senate and whether they might be impacted by how the chips fall.

But firearms industry insiders and Second Amendment advocates say the results of the federal elections will have little to no impact on them at all, regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans win either chamber.

Gary Ramey, CEO of Liberty Ammunition, says the House and Senate outcomes will not significantly impact the sale of ammunition or firearms.

“Ammo and firearms are purchased by consumers with personal safety concerns,” Ramey told FOX Business. “Rhetoric from the left won’t affect that.”

Delta Defense director of government affairs Katie Pointer-Baney agrees, noting that the millions of new gun owners include folks of all political stripes.

“The firearm industry as a whole has seen tremendous growth over the past few years because of this crime wave that has gripped the country — and, of course, as people feel more unsafe,” Pointer-Baney says. “The defunding of law enforcement, all this kind of confluence of issues (mean) more people are taking on the responsibility of protecting themselves and their loved ones, and using a firearm is a most efficient tool to do so.”

Amid crime wave, gun shop owner Ross Osias ‘constantly’ sees first-time buyers

“Honestly, I don’t think that’s changing, even if Republicans take control,” she added. “I think it’s sort of like we’re not going back.”

The NRA says it is committed to its mission no matter what, too.

“The NRA remains steadfast in its efforts to protect and promote the Second Amendment regardless of which party is in power,” spokesperson Amy Hunter said in a statement. “The 2022 midterm elections are no different. While the nation awaits the full results, we will continue to work tirelessly to defend the rights of law-abiding Americans as anti-gun politicians have proven time and time again they will stop at nothing to advance their gun control agenda.”

Regardless of how federal control plays out, the results of state and local races might affect business.

Ramey says there will be an increase in ammunition sales in states that elect so-called “soft-on-crime candidates” and that he has already seen an increase in business in those states that he expects to continue.

He noted that while Second Amendment fears exist, states have moved toward supporting constitutional carry — and the industry tends to see growth on personal safety fears and state actions.

“Our biggest business cheerleader is President Biden,” Ramey said. “Every time the President or a Democrat makes outlandish comments, our business picks up.”

“Especially when he talks about bullet speed or taking out a lung,” Ramey added of Biden. “That’s what self-defense ammo is supposed to have and do. We appreciate his support.”

What’s left standing after judge guts NY carry laws?

As my colleague Tom Knighton reported this morning, U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby has halted enforcement of many aspects of New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act, from the “good moral character” requirement to the state’s designation of a host of publicly-accessible places as “sensitive” locations off-limits to concealed carry holders.

The 184 page order is mostly great news for gun owners, but Suddaby is still allowing several components of the CCIA to remain in place, like the requirement that concealed carry applicants provide a list of four character references, take part in an in-person meeting with law enforcement, and provide proof of 18 hours of training (16 hours of classroom training and 2 hours of range time) before concealed carry licenses “shall” be granted.

In upholding those provisions of the CCIA, Suddaby pointed to several statutes in place near the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791 and the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. For the character references, Suddaby noted that at least five colonies “had gun laws based on a reputation-based perception of an individual (Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia and New York).” Suddaby also found “three historical statutes (one from a state and two from cities) requiring an applicant to provide character references to be permitted to carry a gun,” and determined that “together, these eight laws (five of which came from states in 1777, including Virginia) were sufficiently established and representative to constitute a historical tradition of firearm regulation based on reputation (for example, by a reasonable number of character references).” Though the judge did note in an aside that “it seems overreactive (and a bit offensive) to literally analogize the need to regulate concealed-carry applicants to the need to regulate ‘groups deemed dangerous’, that’s pretty much what he ended up doing.

In upholding the state’s expansive training standards, Suddaby said the financial burden on applicants is “troubling,” but ruled that the provisions can remain in place for now because of “the analogousness of a historical requirement that those persons without familiarity of firearms must become familiar with them if those persons are to exercise their right use firearms to defend themselves in public,” adding that [i”]n addition, as the Court stated in its Decision and Temporary Restraining Order of October 6, 2022, it has been persuaded by Defendants that historically Americans’ familiarity with firearms was far more common than it is today.” The problem with that line of reasoning is that most of the statutes that Suddaby points to in upholding the training mandate are directly related to militia service; something that is not required in order to exercise your right to keep and bear arms.

Moreover, it’s incredibly difficult for would-be carry holders in some parts of the state to find access to the state-mandated training. There are few ranges located in and around New York City, for example, and applicants are forced to travel for some distance, perhaps even staying in another location overnight and incurring additional costs, in order to meet the state’s requirement.

Interestingly, Suddaby suggested that he’d be amenable to halting enforcement of the in-person meeting requirement for concealed carry applicants, and even laid out a better argument than the one used by plaintiffs.

Granted, again, it seems a stretch to analogize the modern need to regulate concealed carry applicants to the historical need regulate “groups deemed dangerous.” And the need to personally see that the members of one’s military are competent to handle firearms during a time of war seems greater than the need to look all concealed carry applicants in the eye (and maybe exchanged a few words with them) after they have provided four character references and completed 18 hours of firearms training. However, Plaintiff Sloane has not yet adduced evidence of the inconvenience he would incur as a result of such an in-person meeting. (See generally Dkt. No. 1, Attach. 4 [Sloane Decl.].)

Conceivable examples of such evidence might include (1) the need to take time away from work or family to appear before a licensing officer, or (2) any delay experienced in having an appointment scheduled due to the CCIA’s imposition of this requirement on every applicant. Instead, Plaintiff Sloane has relied only on a possible infringement of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. (Id. at ¶ ¶ 5, 17-19.)

The problem with this sole reliance is that, even setting aside the argument that an applicant is not “in custody” during such an in-person meeting, Plaintiff Sloane’s Fifth Amendment injury stemming from an “interrogation” appears too speculative at this point in the litigation. Simply stated, without more evidence, the Court must find that the burdensomeness of this modern regulation appears proportionate to the burdensomeness of its historical analogues.

In this regard, based on better briefing by the State Defendants (and in the absence of testimony at the Preliminary Injunction Hearing), the Court reconsiders its prior ruling on this issue (in its Decision and Temporary Restraining Order of October 6, 2022), and denies Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction with regard to this regulation.

Suddaby’s decision also allows the prohibition on concealed carry in playgrounds (but not parks), daycare centers, libraries and nursery schools; finding that those places are close enough to historical prohibitions on carrying firearms on school grounds to withstand constitutional scrutiny.

While the judge’s decision isn’t perfectly in line with what plaintiffs were asking for, it’s still a big win for Second Amendment advocates. Now the question is what will the Second Circuit do with Suddaby’s opinion? The state’s appeal will likely come quickly, and then the appeals court will have to decide whether to let the injunction stand as it is or reverse some or all of the district court decision. In the meantime, life will be a little easier for those who already possess a permit to carry in New York, but those hoping to exercise their right to bear arms for the first time are still going to deal with some unreasonable (and I’d argue unconstitutional) demands.

Latest New York Gun-Carry Law Ruled Unconstitutional Too

A federal judge has found the bulk of the gun-carry law New York instituted in response to the Supreme Court striking down its previous law also violates the Second Amendment.

On Monday, Judge Glenn Suddaby of the Northern District of New York issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law’s most controversial provisions. He also refused to issue a stay on his decision to enjoin what he described as a “patently unconstitutional” law, which means the state will not be able to enforce the impacted rules unless and until a higher court intervenes.

“[A]lthough the Court in no way suggests that America lacks a historical tradition of firearm-licensing schemes, it finds (based on the current briefing of the parties) that America lacks a historical tradition of firearm-licensing schemes conferring open-ended discretion on licensing officers,” Judge Suddaby wrote.

The ruling found the state could not force gun-carry permit applicants to turn over information on their family members or their social media accounts. It stops the state from subjectively denying applicants based on whether officials believe they have a “good moral character.” And it prevents them from banning anyone, including those with permits, from carrying a gun at restaurants that serve alcohol, theaters, protests, places of worship, banquet halls or conference centers, parks, areas at airports or clinics before security checkpoints, and public buses. Suddaby also ruled the state’s attempt to prohibit gun carry on all private property unless explicitly allowed by the owner, including private businesses open to the public, by default was unconstitutional.

The decision brings New York’s gun-carry restrictions closer in line with the rest of the country. It also represents the latest setback for New York’s new gun law and Governor Kathy Hochul (D.), who backed it as a rebuke to the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen. A second federal judge has already blocked the law’s church-carry prohibition in the Western District, and a group of armed Jewish worshipers is challenging it in the Southern District. The law’s constitutionality took center stage in the recent debate between Hochul and challenger Lee Zeldin (R.) as polls show a much tighter-than-expected contest.

Gun Owners of America, one of the plaintiffs in the case, celebrated the decision as a rebuke of Hochul and the law.

“Just like we warned politicians after the Bruen decision, fall in line, or we will force you to,” Erich Pratt, the group’s senior vice president, said in a statement. “We are excited to see Kathy Hochul finally served a plate of humble pie, and we are fully prepared to continue the fight should she again attempt to disarm the citizens of her state at a time when her party’s policies are only escalating the danger that everyday citizens face.”

The news from the decision wasn’t all bad for Hochul, though. Judge Suddaby removed her as a defendant in the case and allowed the subway ban to remain in effect because he found plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue her or the train ban. He also allowed the state’s strict training requirements to remain in place despite expressing concern about the potential cost of complying with it.

A spokesperson for the office of Attorney General Letitia James (D.), which is representing the state in the case, said “we are reviewing and considering our options.” The state previously appealed the judge’s decision to issue a temporary restraining order against the law that shared many of the same conclusions in his preliminary injunction.

Judge Suddaby’s lengthy ruling, clocking in at 184 pages, examines the historical evidence offered for each of New York’s regulations at length. Suddaby even describes how he performed his own research for potential historical matches for some of the provisions when the state failed to offer them. For instance, the judge said the state offered no comparison for its social media reporting requirement, and what his research found did not help their case.

“Rather, the Court has mostly found only instances in which this demand was (properly) made of convicted sex offenders while registering for a Sex Offender Registry,” he wrote. “Suffice it to say, the need to regulate convicted sex offenders has not been shown to be analogous to the need to regulate applicants for a concealed-carry license.”

Suddaby is also often unsubtle in his critique of the attempts to identify historical analogues the state did make.

“For the sake of brevity, the Court will not expound on why it finds that barring some people from openly carrying rifles on other people’s farms and lands in 19th century America is hardly analogous to barring all license holders from carrying concealed handguns in virtually every commercial building now,” he wrote. “Even if the way the historical and modern regulations burdened one’s Second Amendment right were the same, the State Defendants’ attempt to analogize these six laws to Section 5 of the CCIA would stumble over the second of the Supreme Court’s two ‘central’ metrics: ‘why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self defense.’”

He further argued the state’s attempt to ban is a  “thinly disguised version of the sort of impermissible ‘sensitive location’ regulation that the Supreme Court considered and rejected in NYSRPA.” He said the state’s provision banning licensed individuals from carrying at any public protest was doubly unconstitutional, creating a “paradox” implicating both the First and Second Amendments.

“[T]he Court finds itself in a paradox created by a regulation that prevents a license holder from possessing a handgun while gathering with individuals to collectively express their right to protest the regulation by possessing handguns,” he wrote. “Levity aside, the Court does not understand how barring Plaintiff Terrille from carrying concealed at a gun show at a Polish Community Center would further this regulation’s purpose of avoiding the ‘destr[uction] [of] the exercise of [someone else’s] constitutionally-protected rights.’ The Court could be wrong but it will hazard a guess that the Center probably does not lease space to opposing expressive groups at the same time.”

Ultimately, Suddaby ruled many of the provisions in New York’s law are “unreasonably disproportionate to the burdensomeness of [their] historical analogues” and is filed with “unprecedented constitutional violations.”

Op-Ed blows it on Second Amendment history

The Deep South is, for the most part, a safe haven for the Second Amendment. It’s not unique to here, mind you, but it’s definitely a big part of the culture down here and has been for ages.

And yet, for many, that’s indicative of…something. In particular, guns are about racism, and gun owners are, in essence, racist.

Yeah, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, either, but an op-ed in the LA Times is the latest to try and make that connection.

There are a lot of guns in America — this nation has collectively more civilian-owned guns than we have citizens. Unlike the rest of the developed world, firearms ownership in America is broadly held, with an estimated 40% of American households owning at least one gun; and unlike the rest of the world, gun-owning Americans tend to think of their weapons not as something dangerous, but as something that keeps them and their families safe.

Two-thirds of American gun owners say that they own their gun at least in part for protection — this despite data showing having a gun in the house doubles the likelihood that someone in the household will die by homicide, triples the likelihood that someone in the household will die by suicide, and provides little or no defense against assault or property loss.

Where does this unique set of beliefs about the protective power of a gun come from?

I don’t know. Facts, maybe?

Let’s remember that the data he links to has serious problems. For example, the study saying having a gun in the house doubles your chance of dying by homicide has been widely and repeatedly debunked. The other link uses information from the National Crime Victimization Survey, which also has problems that have been widely discussed.

But don’t worry. The author knows where our beliefs really come from.

Americans have not always felt this way: Historians suggest that for a large portion of this country’s existence, firearms were more often thought of as tools for hunting and pest control, with a purpose that was not primarily to keep a household safe. Guns, when advertised, were often displayed in the same pages as household goods such as farm implements, with similar language promoting both.

It is only relatively recently that Americans came to widely believe that guns keep a person safe and secure. My research with Jessica Mazen suggests that the crystallization and propagation of these beliefs happened largely in the former slave states in the aftermath of the Civil War.

There we go. The whole “racist” thing, right?

Well, not necessarily. I might be a bit worked up over this one.

Now, the author does go into the fact that those former states of the Confederacy were pretty lawless during Reconstruction and there was a widely held perception that the government in place had no interest in protecting former Rebel soldiers, thus precipitating people feeling the need to protect themselves.

However, even there, he’s missing a key aspect of gun ownership that predated the Civil War.

In particular, that guns had long been a part of self-defense measures, even if they weren’t necessarily marketed as such.

From the time of Jamestown and St. Augustine, the North American continent was a pretty rough place. Wild animals were an issue, but so were the Native American tribes that called this land home for eons prior. While many were friendly with the settlers and were willing to trade, others saw the Europeans as invaders.

This became even clearer after the settlements grew.

Indian attacks were a thing.

In fact, the earliest school shooting on American soil, if not in the world, took place in 1764, more than a century before Reconstruction. Four Lenape warriors slaughtered 11 people and wounded one other in the Enoch Brown school massacre, part of Pontiac’s Rebellion.

Such attacks were at least semi-common, particularly for those who lived outside of the protection of the town. Those who lived and farmed in these areas knew that their guns were key to their survival, not just for getting game during lean years, but also to fight back from these attacks.

The Founding Fathers were well aware of such attacks when they penned the Second Amendment.

“But advertisements…”

Honestly, I don’t want to hear a thing about advertisements. Advertisements are about what they think will sell a product but don’t represent the totality of how people view the product.

Even looking at the Founding Fathers’ words, it’s difficult to imagine that no one viewed guns as mere hunting tools rather than an item essential to self-defense and the defense of this nation.

Plus, if guns were for hunting, then why do we have flintlock pistols for private sale? Surely no one was using a pistol to hunt bears back in the day.

In fact, look at the wording of the Second Amendment itself for a moment. It begins with the controversial clause, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” before anything else. There’s no “hunting being important for putting food on the table” or anything of the sort. The militia clause clearly articulates that this is about defending our nation and, by extension, ourselves.

No amount of pretending otherwise is going to change it.

CT’s semi-automatic weapons ban at ‘very real risk’ of being lifted by lawsuit, Attorney General Tong says

HARTFORD — Attorney General William Tong warned Friday that Connecticut’s nearly three-decade-old ban on semi-automatic weapons is “at very real risk” of being lifted, at least temporarily, after one of several groups suing to overturn the law requested that the state be prevented from enforcing its ban while the case proceeds.

The motion for a preliminary injunction was filed Thursday by attorneys for the National Foundation for Gun Rights in a federal court in New Haven. The Colorado-based group is one of several plaintiffs that filed lawsuits against Connecticut’s semi-automatic weapons ban following a Supreme Court decision striking down New York’s gun-permit law, sparking a wave of litigation against other state bans.

“I don’t have to tell you how extraordinarily dangerous this is in this moment to see an immediate repeal of the semi-automatic weapons ban,” Tong said during a hastily assembled press conference on Friday, where he was joined by Gov. Ned Lamont. “We are going to fight tooth and nail, we’re going to throw everything we have at them to keep Connecticut families safe and to preserve our very strong gun laws.”

Tong’s office has yet to file its formal response to the group’s motion. He told reporters Friday that filing would be made “soon.”

In a statement Friday, NFGR President Dudley Brown defended the group’s lawsuit, saying “The day of reckoning for the State of Connecticut has come, and it’s time for them to answer to the Second Amendment for trampling the gun rights of their law-abiding citizens.”

“Our motion for preliminary injunction is simply saying that when rights are at stake, we cannot waste another day in allowing unconstitutional gun control to stand,” Brown said.

Continue reading “”

Columbus city claims that since it’s a ‘home rule’ city, that the Ohio legislature is blocked from passing certain laws affecting city goobermint.

Court Injunction Temporarily Blocking Expanded Self-Defense Ohio Gun Law

A court injunction is now temporarily blocking part of Ohio’s expanded self-defense gun law. A Franklin County judge has granted the preliminary action, limiting House Bill 228, which was originally passed in 2018.

The injunction stems from a lawsuit filed by the City of Columbus, blocking a section of the law that partially prohibits Ohio cities from passing local gun control ordinances.

Other portions of the law that eliminate some duties to retreat before legally using a firearm in self-defense are still in place

Another Church in New York files suit

New York Church Challenges State Ban on Firearms in Houses of Worship

New York Church Challenges State Ban on Firearms in Houses of Worship
First Liberty Institute, Clement & Murphy, and Ganguly Brothers challenge law adopted by NY legislature just days after Supreme Court struck down numerous state restrictions on firearms

Rochester, NY—First Liberty Institute and the law firms Clement & Murphy PLLC and Ganguly Brothers PLLC filed a federal lawsuit against the state of New York challenging the state’s prohibition on firearms at houses of worship.  The suit was filed on behalf of His Tabernacle Family Church, a nondenominational Christian church in Horseheads, New York, founded by Pastor Micheal Spencer.

You can read the complaint here.

Erin Murphy, Partner at Clement & Murphy said, “No American should be forced to sacrifice one constitutionally protected freedom to enjoy another.  Houses of worship have a constitutionally protected freedom to decide for themselves whether to allow otherwise legally possessed firearms into their facilities.”

“Singling out houses of worship for total disarmament demonstrates hostility toward religion, leaves them defenseless to rebuff violent attacks, and defies at least two recent Supreme Court rulings against New York.  Religious leaders are no less qualified than secular business owners to determine whether to allow carrying a firearm for self-defense, and New York should end its defiant assault on First and Second Amendment freedoms,” added Jordan Pratt, Senior Counsel at First Liberty Institute.

In late 2020, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, chiding New York for singling out religious groups and restricting how they worship in violation of the First Amendment.  And in June 2022, the Court issued its opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, invalidating New York’s unprecedented effort to limit individuals’ ability to carry a firearm outside the home.  Just days later, New York enacted expansive new laws restricting the carrying of firearms outside the home, including a total ban on carrying in houses of worship.  New York now imposes criminal liability on any person who carries a firearm into a place of worship regardless of whether that person possesses a license to carry a firearm under New York law, and regardless of whether the religious community would prefer to authorize congregants to carry a firearm.  Secular business owners, by contrast, are allowed to choose for themselves whether to allow firearms on their premises.

“Those decisions,” the complaint states, “should have taught New York to proceed with extreme caution where First or Second Amendment rights are at stake going forward.  Instead, the state recently doubled down on its rights-denying tendencies—by infringing two fundamental liberties at the same time.  New York now puts houses of worship and religious adherents to an impossible choice:  forfeit your First Amendment right to religious worship or forfeit your Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense.”  The complaint adds, “New York’s attempt to force houses of worship and their parishioners to choose between their First Amendment rights and their Second—an outlier policy shared by no other state in the Nation—stands as an act of defiance to the Supreme Court’s recent and emphatic holdings protecting both.”

BLUF
In my view, professors Miller and Tucker are incorrect in theory, because the TLI has no utility in assessing the relative dangers of modern firearms in a nonmilitary context. On the other hand, if Miller and Tucker are theoretically correct that TLI extrapolation is a useful guide to the dangers of modern firearms, the TLIs for AR rifles or for 9mm handguns are similar to or less than the TLI of the classic American early 20th century rifle. Thus, there is no need for gun controls beyond those that existed around the turn of the twentieth century. As for Professor Cornell’s assertions that AR semiautomatic rifles are “50 times” or “200 times” more lethal than flintlock rifles, there was never any basis in fact.

The Theoretical Lethality Index is useful for military history but not for gun control policy
Professors Miller and Tucker miss the mark, while Saul Cornell disdains accuracy

An article by Duke law professor Darrell A.H. Miller and Wesleyan history professor Jennifer Tucker argues that gun control laws should vary based on the dangerousness of the firearm. They claim that danger is easy to assess by using the Theoretical Lethality Index (TLI), a metric developed in the early 1960s by military history analyst Trevor Dupuy. In this post, I explain why the TLI is useless as a guideline for the risks posed by different types of firearms in a nonmilitary context.

On the other hand, if TLI is valid in the civilian context, then the TLIs of modern firearms are not much different from those of a good rifle from the early 20th century. Thus, the level of gun control necessary from modern arms would not appear to be greater than the level of gun control in the early 20th century.

This post proceeds as follows:

  • Part I of the post briefly summarizes the Miller and Tucker article for the U.C. Davis Law Review.
  • Part II describes how gun control enthusiast Saul Cornell misused a blog post by Miller to fabricate preposterous claims about the lethality of AR rifles.
  • Part III examines the Theoretical Lethality Index in depth and explains why its military-oriented metrics do not provide useful information in a nonmilitary context about the relative dangerousness of different types of firearms.
  • Part IV calculates TLIs for the common modern firearms mentioned by Miller and Tucker: the 9mm handgun, and the semiautomatic AR rifle. (“AR” means “ArmaLite Rifle.” The rifle was invented by ArmaLite in the 1950s.)
  • Part V addresses Miller and Tucker’s claim that the American Founders were unfamiliar with dramatic technological changes in firearms — a claim that is refuted by Dupuy’s data.

Continue reading “”

Northwest Body Counts Suggest Time for Change on Gun Control Is Here

It is familiar political ground in the Pacific Northwest, with rising homicide numbers providing strong evidence that gun controls in Washington have been an abject failure.

Seattle has recorded its 52nd homicide, and with two full months remaining in the year, there is no doubt the number will eventually exceed the 53 recorded two years ago. The city, as previously reported, is headquarters to the billionaire-backed gun prohibition lobbying group Alliance for Gun Responsibility. The organization has bankrolled two restrictive gun control initiatives since 2014, making it difficult for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights while demonstrably not accomplishing the promise of reduced gun-related violence and murder.

Down the road 175 miles, Portland is the tarnished gem of Oregon, with more than 80 slayings so far this year and an outlook for hitting a new record. It is against this backdrop Beaver State anti-gunners hope to pass next week a restrictive gun control measure—Ballot Measure 114—that will require a permit to purchase a firearm and add more restrictions including a training requirement.

At least one county sheriff—Brad Lohrey of Sherman County—told Fox News, “It is impossible for us to do what they’re asking us to do.”

In decades past, Seattle and Portland were known as laid-back growing metropolises, with far left politics and lots of tourist attractions. Nowadays, both cities are experiencing drug and gang epidemics, and crime is spiking because police manpower is down.

There may be change coming, in both states. Oregon appears on track to elect the first Republican governor in a generation. In Washington, there could be changes in the legislature and some changes in congressional representation as well. With changes in people, there will be changes in policy, but it all depends upon a strong turnout of gun owners and conservative voters across both states.

Gun politics is playing out in other regions. The Des Moines Register is editorializing against a proposed state constitutional amendment affirming the right to keep and bear arms. Iowa is one of a handful of states without such an amendment, and gun owners are seeking to change that.

But the newspaper is dead set against protecting the right at the state level, continuing a trend where the media uses the First Amendment to throttle the Second. It excoriates the June Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen for opening the door to both legal challenges and court corrections of infringements on the right to be armed. This suggests anti-gunners still haven’t accepted the explanation in Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion that the Second Amendment must be treated like all other rights.

For decades, gun control proponents have had it their way, with incremental imposition of restrictions on gun owners. Violent crime is increasing, not decreasing. Election Day could change that pattern, with a new Congress and power shifts at the state level, rejection of Oregon’s ballot measure and adoption of Iowa’s proposed amendment. At least, that is the perspective of Second Amendment activists who are hoping for a strong turnout of “gun voters” Nov. 8.

Editorial calling for magazine ban misses tons of points

The day I see a pro-gun editorial from the Chicago Sun-Times will likely be the day that sites like this aren’t needed anymore. It’ll mean that we’ve so completely and totally won the gun war that gun control will be relegated to the dustbin of history; a museum-piece idea dead and gone, sitting on a shelf like eugenics and phrenology.

But that’s not likely to happen anytime soon. Today, they’re pushing for state-wide gun control. In particular, they want a magazine ban restricting people to just 10 rounds.

A new gun threat is painting a larger target on everyone’s backs. Lawmakers should figure out how to curb it.

As Frank Main, Tom Schuba and Stephanie Zimmermann of the Sun-Times and Chip Mitchell of WBEZ reported in Sunday’s Sun-Times, extended-capacity magazines — which hold 10 or more bullets and can be used with handguns as well as rifles — have become more common despite bans in some places.

Moreover, a surging number of guns with illegal attachments called “switches” on the street, which convert guns from semi-automatic to automatic weapons, are being seized by the police department, according to the investigation.

A shooter with a semi-automatic gun needs to squeeze the trigger every time a shot is fired. A shooter with an automatic gun needs only to squeeze and hold the trigger, and the gun will continue to fire, causing far more damage.

When weapons with high-capacity magazines are converted to automatic and are easily obtainable, young people who carry guns will want them. But we can’t afford to have these murderous weapons even further embedded into the gun culture.

When combined with illegal devices that convert guns into fully automatic firearms, the large magazines can spread almost unimaginable devastation and death in a matter of moments.

Twelve states ban high-capacity magazines. Illinois should join them.

That’s right. Illinois needs a magazine ban because an illegal device that cannot be possessed lawfully anywhere in the nation is a thing.

Yet what tickles me the most is how little they’ve thought this through.

Sure, such magazines are restricted in many areas of Illinois, but the argument is that criminals just go to where they’re legal and buy them, so by restricting them statewide, that can’t happen.

Really?

This is the same city notorious for blaming Indiana for the guns in criminal hands, and they think somehow these folks who get guns from another state won’t be able to get magazines?

Hell, they’ll get them easier.

In Indiana, there are still federal requirements for the sale of firearms from a licensed dealer. Yet criminals commit a crime in order to obtain these guns so they can sell them to Chicago criminals.

Magazines have no such checks or requirements. Anyone can stroll into a gun store and buy a higher-capacity magazine in any state without even having to show an ID.

If federal regulations and Illinois state law can’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals, how does the Chicago Sun-Times think a magazine ban in the state will? Especially when all the rules on the planet aren’t keeping these people from getting full-auto switches.

And yes, magazines can be 3D printed, which makes a ban even more pointless.

But do you want to know who will get hosed over by a magazine ban? The law-abiding citizens who might well need more ammo capacity to combat the heavily armed criminals who will still get these magazines, switches, guns, and literally anything else they want.

Newspaper editorials are often used to advocate for various laws. However, this is a prime example of how those who sit on those editorial boards often don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.

Racism Against the AAPI Community and Gun Ownership

As a gunologist, not to mention an Asian-American gun owner, a recent episode of the Red, Blue & Brady podcast on racism against the AAPI community and gun ownership caught my attention.

The episode focused on a recently published study by a group of public health scholars who fielded a national survey of 916 Asian Americans asking about their experiences of racial discrimination and their firearm-related behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

There is a lot of anecdata floating around about how anti-Asian discrimination increased during the pandemic (think of people taking the “China virus” and “kung flu” language to the next outgroup level), and that this led to unprecedented gun buying among Asian Americans.

Of course, without historical data, we can’t really speak to “precedent,” but these scholars find that 6.0% of respondents said they purchased a gun during COVID and another 11.2% said they intended to purchase a gun. Of the 6% of COVID gun buyers, 54.6% were first-time gun buyers.

If the survey is accurate and representative, then 3.3% of Asian American adults in the United States became new gun owners during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some quick calculations (roughly 20 million Asian Americans, about 75% being over 18) suggests that about half a million Asian Americans became new gun owners.

Continue reading “”

The [NO] association between gun shows and firearm injuries: An analysis of 259 gun shows across 23 US cities

Abstract
Guns shows are estimated to account for 4–9% of firearm sales in the US. Increased regulation of firearm sales at gun shows has been proposed as one approach to reducing firearm injury rates. This study evaluated the association between gun shows and local firearm injury rates. Data regarding the date and location of gun shows from 2017 to 2019 were abstracted from the Big Show Journal. Firearm injury rates were estimated using discharges from trauma centers serving counties within a 25-mile radius of each gun show. Clinical data were derived from the National Trauma Databank (NTDB). We used Poisson regression modeling to adjust for potential confounders including seasonality. We evaluated injury rates before and after 259 gun shows in 23 US locations using firearm injury data from 36 trauma centers. There were 1513 hospitalizations for firearm injuries pre-gun show and 1526 post-gun show. The adjusted mean 2-week rate of all-cause firearm injury per 1,000,000 person-years was 1.79 (1.16–2.76) before and 1.82 (1.18–2.83) after a gun show, with an incident rate ratio of 1.02 (0.94, 1.08). The adjusted mean 2-week rate did not vary significantly by intent after a gun show, (p = 0.24).

Within two weeks after a gun show, rates of hospitalization for all-cause firearm injury do not increase significantly within the surrounding communities. The relatively small increase in available firearms after a show and the short time horizon evaluated may account for the absence of an association between gun show firearm sales and local firearm injury rates.