Category: RKBA

Analysis: What Biden’s Afghanistan Disaster Means for Gun Policy

When it comes to gun policy, there are two big takeaways I see from the debacle of the past week in Afghanistan.

The first is one that we really didn’t need this disaster in order to learn. It’s one that’s been demonstrated countless times throughout human history. But it’s also one that President Joe Biden has yet to learn: Military superiority doesn’t guarantee victory.

In June, as he’d done before, the president insisted that resisting a modern military’s overwhelming force is effectively impossible.

“Those who say the blood of… ‘the blood of patriots,’ you know, and all the stuff about how we’re going to have to move against the government,” Biden said in a speech. “Well, the tree of liberty is not watered with the blood of patriots. What’s happened is that there have never been—if you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”

Of course, the Taliban have recaptured the whole of Afghanistan without the use of F-15s or nuclear weapons. They did it without ever being capable of taking on the American military in open combat or creating soldiers anywhere near the quality of our own.

And they are far from the first to do so. The lesson has been taught repeatedly throughout the years. Whether by the Viet Cong or our own Founding Fathers. Many didn’t need a new teacher, let alone one composed of terrorist barbarians already imposing their own civilian gun-confiscation scheme, to learn this lesson. And I’m not sure President Biden will learn it this time either.

The second takeaway is a bit more subtle but also more directly applicable to the immediate political situation around guns in America.

The president’s stubborn refusal to change course or even admit any failure in the face of calamity provides further evidence for how he’ll handle the rest of his agenda. Or, at the very least, the parts of his agenda he is particularly invested in personally.

Continue reading “”

Zoning, Outliers, and the Second Amendment

Earlier this week, in Drummond v. Robinson Township, the Third Circuit concluded that a Pennsylvania township’s zoning changes plausibly violated the Second Amendment. At issue in the case were two changes that Robinson Township made to the rules governing property on which a shooting range had previously existed and on which a new owner wanted to resurrect one: (1) barring the use of center-fire rifle practice on that particular type of property, and (2) requiring gun ranges on that type of property to have non-profit ownership. The court remarked that its task in the case was “to apply Heller’s familiar approach in an unfamiliar setting” as “[u]ntil now, neither the Supreme Court nor our Court has confronted a Second Amendment claim challenging a restriction on firearms purchase or practice.”

The district court had dismissed the case on the pleadings without taking any evidence. In reviewing the decision, the court of appeals applied the customary two-part framework. At step one, which asks whether the challenged regulation burdens conducted protected by the Second Amendment, the court described Heller as guiding the search in a parallel manner to free speech doctrine.

In First Amendment cases, the Supreme Court defines categorical exceptions—for “obscenity,” “defamation,” and “fraud,” for example—by looking to “historical evidence” and “long-settled tradition[s].” United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 468–69 (2010). In Second Amendment cases, likewise, we trace the right’s reach by studying the historical record.

Even though the Township took no position on step one, the court decided to make the historical inquiry necessary to understanding the scope of the right. In doing so the court noted that it should not look for historical analogues at too narrow a level, and so deprive officials of the ability to regulate in new settings, but also not look at too general a level and so under-protect the right. “Instead, each challenged rule triggers an inquiry into a distinct type of regulation.” Looking to history, the court could find no analogue to a bar on training with common weapons or to categorically restricting commercial gun sales or training opportunities.

Continue reading “”

You beat me to it, Paul. ‘Constitutionally protected‘.

Just to point out, the phrase ‘constitutional right’ isn’t accurate, as we know the Constitution doesn’t give us rights, we already have them. 

BLUF:
When you see the pictures of young Afghan women shot to death for not wearing a burqa, or girls forced to marry terrorists four times their age, or former Afghan soldiers hanging from street lights, you should thank God we have the right to defend ourselves and our families, and you should consider why any politician would want to rob us of that God-given, constitutional right.

The Taliban and Joe Biden Agree – Civilians Don’t Need to Own Firearms

On Monday throughout Kabul, teams of Taliban terrorists started going door-to-door searching for our former allies, young girls and, of course, personally owned firearms.

Our allies were disappeared. Their fate was sealed. Some have been shot, hung and beaten to death. Their bodies usually turn up on a dusty road several days after they were taken for their families to bury.

The girls — including many under 12 — are forced to marry Taliban terrorists. That’s rape. Today, the streets are completely devoid of females of any age.

All personal weapons the terrorists find are confiscated. Anyone who balks receives the Taliban’s usual response to its critics: 7.62x39mm.

The Taliban justified their weapon confiscation policy by claiming people no longer need firearms for personal protection, an Taliban official said.

“We understand people kept weapons for personal safety. They can now feel safe. We are not here to harm innocent civilians,” the official told Reuters.

The Taliban are not the first gun-grabbers to cite need as a reason for firearm confiscation. Joe Biden has been citing it nearly every time he mentions guns:

  • “No one needs an AR-15 – period. We have to get these weapons of war out of our communities,” Biden tweeted in February last year.
  • “There’s no reason someone needs a weapon of war with 100 rounds, 100 bullets that can be fired from that weapon. Nobody needs that. Nobody needs that,” Biden said April 8, during a speech in the Rose Garden.
  • “No one needs to have a weapon that can fire over 30, 40, 50, even up to 100 rounds, unless you think the deer are wearing Kevlar vests or something,” Biden said June 23.
  • “Those who say the blood of Patriots, you know, and all the stuff about how we’re gonna have to move against the government. If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons,” Biden said June 23.

Throughout history, one of the first acts every oppressive regime makes after seizing power is to ban personal firearm ownership. It’s a standard tactic that prevents an outraged populace from fighting back and deposing their authoritarian overlords.

Continue reading “”

Not surprisingly, it’s a demoncrap that supports this relic from the Jim Crow era.

Repeal of NC pistol permit law heads to governor’s desk

RALEIGH, N.C. — State senators voted Wednesday to repeal the state’s pistol purchase permit requirement.

Current state law requires people who want to buy a handgun to get a permit from their county sheriff’s office. The sheriff performs a background check on the applicant.

Gun rights supporters have advocated for the repeal for years, saying it’s duplicative because there’s now a national background check system, NICS.

Sen. Chuck Edwards , R-Henderson, said the additional permit requirement infringes on gun owners’ rights.

“It’s been brought to my attention that purchase permits are used to obstruct gun purchases by sheriffs who just simply do not want to allow citizens their Second Amendment rights,” said Edwards. “This, it’s become obvious to me, is tired law that’s ready to go away.”

However, NICS is required only for federally licensed gun dealers. Many people buy guns online, from individuals or at a gun show, purchases that don’t require a federal background check.

Sen. Natasha Marcus , D-Mecklenburg, said the pistol permit is “the only background check” in those cases, and eliminating it would create a huge and dangerous loophole.

“It would suddenly become completely legal for anyone to purchase a handgun, without any background check required, so long as they buy it from an individual or at a gun show, or via the Internet with an in-person handoff,” Marcus said. “Instead of creating these dangerous loopholes, we should be strengthening gun safety.”

Marcus also pointed out that the federal system includes only criminal convictions. It doesn’t include recent arrests, pending charges or charges that were dropped. The local check, she said, catches all those.

In the past fiscal year, she said, over 2,300 permit applicants in Mecklenburg County alone passed their NICS check but failed the local background check.

“It is irresponsible, in my opinion, to allow someone who’s awaiting a hearing on a domestic abuse charge, for example, to purchase a handgun. The permit was in place to stop that, and we should not repeal it,” Marcus said.

She noted that several sheriffs don’t support the repeal. But Sen. Ralph Hise , R-Mitchell, countered that the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association does.

“This has only been a process that is effective for making sure that sheriffs in large urban areas are able to slow down the process,” Hise said.

The bill passed the Senate 27-20, with no Democratic support. The measure passed the House earlier this year. It now goes to the desk of Gov. Roy Cooper, who has so far vetoed any attempts to relax state gun laws.

Department of Justice seeks to block Missouri’s ‘Second Amendment Preservation Act’
A Missouri law prohibiting state and local police from enforcing certain federal gun laws has already undermined drug and weapons investigations, the U.S. Department of Justice argued in documents filed Wednesday in Cole County Circuit Court.

A Missouri law prohibiting state and local police from enforcing certain federal gun laws has already undermined drug and weapons investigations, the U.S. Department of Justice argued in documents filed Wednesday in Cole County Circuit Court.

As part of an ongoing lawsuit set for a hearing this afternoon, the Justice Department is asking Cole County Judge Daniel Green to block the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” a law approved by the state legislature in May and signed by Gov. Mike Parson.

Among its provisions, the law says law enforcement agencies will face $50,000 fines if they “infringe” on Missourians’ Second Amendment rights.

Some of those laws would include imposing certain taxes on firearms, requiring gun owners to register their weapons and laws prohibiting “law-abiding” residents from possessing or transferring their guns.

Brian M. Boynton, the acting head of the Justice Department’s civil division, wrote the law violates the U.S. Constitution and “has caused, and will continue to cause, significant harms to law enforcement within the State of Missouri.”

Frederic Winston, special agent in charge of the Kansas City Field Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), said in an affidavit submitted to the court that a dozen state and local officers have withdrawn from participating in ATF task forces at least in part because of the law.

That includes members of the Missouri Highway Patrol, Columbia Police Department, Johnson County Sheriff’s Office, O’Fallon Police Department and Sedalia Police Department.

Additionally, Winston wrote, the Missouri Highway Patrol’s information analysis center informed ATF it would no longer provide any investigative support, including background information on investigative targets.

Missouri’s law, he wrote, “will cause a strain on law enforcement relationships due to the inability to communicate as effectively and to efficiently share information and investigative resources. This, in turn, will prevent law enforcement at all levels from effectively serving and protecting the citizens of Missouri and other states.”

Winston noted that in 2020, the Highway Patrol reported more than 13,800 firearms offenses in Missouri. That number, he said, is more than 8,000 in 2021.

The city and county of St. Louis filed a joint lawsuit in June seeking to block the law from going into effect. The suit argues the law violates the Constitution’s supremacy clause and will hinder law enforcement’s ability to deter crime.

When he signed the bill earlier this year, Parson said it was intended to push back against any effort by the federal government to tighten gun laws, saying he will “oppose government overreach and any unlawful efforts to limit our access to firearms.”

Parson and Attorney General Eric Schmitt have publicly vowed to defend the law.

Honolulu Immediately Folds in Face of Gun-Rights Lawsuit

A Honolulu practice of denying gun rights to residents over non-criminal disorderly conduct violations was quickly felled on Monday.

A mere ten days after a lawsuit was filed, the city and county of Honolulu capitulated and signed an agreement with the plaintiffs. They agreed to no longer deny gun-purchase permits to people with mere violations instead of crimes. Plaintiffs said the case was simple and the localities knew they were on the wrong side of the law.

“The City and County of Honolulu were acting outside of what state law allows them to do,” Alan Beck, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, told The Reload. “I am glad that once we filed this lawsuit, the City was willing to accept that and agreed to enter into this judicially-enforceable stipulation with us.”

The agreement was entered into the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. It came as Beck and another group of plaintiffs secured a second win in the state. A federal judge struck down two aspects of the state’s handgun purchase law……………..

 

Attention Gun Control Groups: This is What Safety Really Means

When the establishment media talks about “gun safety advocates,” it is typically about some gun control activist group pushing a political point, so when a real gun safety effort could be spotlighted, the press could get an eyeful.

That’s an opportunity looming in Detroit this coming weekend in Detroit, when veteran firearms instructor and Second Amendment activist Rick Ector, founder of Legally Armed in Detroit, hopes to greet a legion of women to a genuine firearms safety and training course.

Ector has been offering this training opportunity for a decade, according to WWMT. In his first effort, 50 women showed up. Last year, more than 1,900 attended, the story noted. Ector confirmed that in a telephone chat Monday afternoon. He accomplished that feat by utilizing two ranges, one hosting some 1,200 people and the other more than 700. This year, he will also run the operation on two ranges simultaneously.

A past speaker and participant in the annual Gun Rights Policy Conference, co-sponsored by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Second Amendment Foundation, Ector is dedicated to making his city safer by acquainting women with firearms and erasing fears rather than promoting them.

According to his post on Facebook, this year’s participants have a full agenda and his goal is to train 4,000 women this weekend. They will enjoy free gun rentals, free ammunition, free hearing and eye protection and free shooting lessons, but they better sign up fast because space will be limited.

The importance of genuine firearms safety and education cannot be overstated for anyone living in a large city, especially considering the murder rates. Detroit is experiencing a bad year, but so far its body count is only approaching half of that already posted in Chicago to the west about 285 miles.

Over the weekend, according to Fox News, nine people were killed and 52 others injured in shootings across the city. One of the victims was a 7-year-old girl, and her younger sister was wounded in the city’s Belmont Central neighborhood.

According to the popular website “Heyjackass.com,” as of Monday there have been 46 murders in the city so far in August, and another 235 people have been wounded by criminal gunfire. Another homicide was posted but did not involve a firearm. For the year so far, the website says, there have been 486 murders involving guns out of the 512 slayings so far posted.

So far this year, the website said, Chicago has racked up 486 murders, and that would include the slaying of Chicago Police Officer Ella French, killed in the line of duty. Two brothers have been arrested in that murder.

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT VICTORY FOR SAF IN PENNSYLVANIA GUN RANGE CASE

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation is celebrating a victory in Pennsylvania involving a long-existing gun club in the Pittsburgh area, as a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has unanimously remanded the case back to the lower court for a second time. The case is known as Drummond v. Robinson Township.

At issue is an effort by officials in Robinson Township to write and enforce restrictive zoning laws against the 265-acre Greater Pittsburgh Gun Club, now operated by plaintiff William Drummond. SAF filed the legal action on his behalf. They are represented by veteran civil rights attorney Alan Gura, who argued both the Heller and the Second Amendment Foundation’s McDonald landmark U.S. Supreme Court case victories.

The Township has been at odds with the range since the early 1990s, and the range was even closed for about ten years until Drummond leased the property in 2017 with the intent to sell firearms and operate the shooting range. The Township amended its zoning rules and in 2018, Drummond and SAF filed suit. While the District court sided with the Township, the Appeals Court reversed and remanded. Drummond’s motion for a preliminary injunction did not receive a substantive ruling before the District Court dismissed his action, the so he appealed a second time.

“Assuming (Drummond’s) motion is renewed on remand,” wrote Circuit Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, “we trust the District Court will address it promptly.”

She was joined by Judges Kent A. Jordan and Luis Felipe Restrepo.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb is delighted that the Appeals Court “has ruled in our favor both times.” He is confident of a favorable ruling in the case on remand.

“By the time our victory in this case is finalized,” Gottlieb said, “it will add Second Amendment protection to gun clubs, gun stores and gun ranges because it provides for heightened levels of scrutiny for cases involving gun ranges.

“Anti-gunners have tried to push restrictive zoning on gun clubs, ranges and gun stores in an effort to use zoning laws to make sure gun ranges and stores cannot operate,” he observed. “It amounts to Second Amendment violations and business discrimination under color of law. That cannot be allowed.

“SAF will continue pursuing this and similar cases,” Gottlieb said, “because our mission is to win firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time.”

Another win for RKBA

Yukutake v. Connors challenged both the 10 day time a handgun purchase permit was valid and the requirement for in person inspection by the police.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Defendant’s Counter Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

HRS § 134-2(e)’s requirement that “[p]ermits issued to acquire any pistol or revolver shall be void unless used within ten days after the date of issue” is declared unconstitutional in violation of the Second Amendment. Defendant’s officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with Defendant are permanently enjoined from enforcing HRS 134-2(e)’s 10-day permit use requirement for handguns. To be clear, no other language in HRS § 134-2(e) is found unconstitutional.

HRS § 134-3(c)’s requirement that, with the exception of certain licensed dealers, “[a]ll other firearms and firearm receivers registered under [HRS § 134] shall be physically inspected by the respective county chief of police or the chief’s representative at the time of registration” is unconstitutional in violation of the Second Amendment. Defendant’s officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with Defendant are permanently enjoined from enforcing HRS § 134-3(c)’s in-person firearm inspection and registration requirement. To be clear, no other language in HRS § 134-3(c) is found unconstitutional.

I’m not a sanguine as the author, but I do agree that the Afghan disaster will drain most of SloJoe’s ‘political capital’ to get anything controversial passed.

Silver Lining: The Afghanistan Collapse Kills Biden’s Gun Control Agenda and the Chipman Nomination

t took Joe Biden just seven months to cripple this country’s economy, security and credibility.

On Sunday, Biden lost the moral authority he needs to govern, as well as the respect of voters, foreign leaders and the mainstream media, who have finally stopped asking about his daily dose of ice-cream and turned their attention to issues of real consequence.

The Atlantic published a story Sunday titled “Biden’s betrayal of Afghans will live in infamy.” MSNBC called the rout “Biden’s disastrous Afghanistan charade,” and even a news actor at CNN admitted that the Taliban’s blitzkrieg caught the Biden-Harris administration “flat-footed.”

Biden’s ineptness has turned this great nation into a laughingstock overseas, which the Chinese communists are already exploiting as a propaganda tool to stamp out dissent in Hong Kong. More of our enemies will likely follow, since a president’s foibles are always an enemy propagandist’s dream.

While Biden wants to ban American citizens from owning pistol braces and semi-autos, he has armed at least a division of bloodthirsty terrorists with real assault rifles, handguns, heavy and light machineguns, grenade launchers, precision rifles, artillery, tanks, armored vehicles of all types, both fixed and rotary-wing aircraft and sophisticated night vision, missiles and drones.

Continue reading “”

They finally released when the court will hear arguments.

Major Gun-Rights Case Gets Nov. 3 Hearing Before SCOTUS

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider a closely-watched Second Amendment dispute Nov. 3, the court announced Monday.

In the biggest gun case in a decade, the justices will hear argument about whether and how the right to keep and bear arms applies outside the home.

A divided high court in 2008 said the Second Amendment protects individual firearm possession for self-defense in the home unconnected with militia service. The court left open the limits of that right.

The issue in this latest case is whether New York’s denial of concealed-carry license applications for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. v. Bruen, U.S., No. 20-843.

Detroit Firearm Instructors Launch FREE Firearm Training For Women – FREE Registration Required – August 21 – 22

Detroit Firearm Instructors Launch FREE Firearm Training For Women – FREE Registration Required – August 21 – 22

 

Metro Detroit Women Desiring FREE pistol training, can now sign up for a free range safety briefing and a free shooting lesson.
The free event takes place at local Detroit-area gun ranges in Taylor.
Everything is provided for the students: Free gun rental, Free ammo, Free safety equipment, Free range briefing, and free shooting lesson.
Rick Ector is a National Rifle Association (NRA) credentialed Firearms Trainer, who provides Michigan CPL/CCW Class training in metro-Detroit for students at his firearms school – Rick’s Firearm Academy of Detroit.

Gun Control Orgs Fume as the Chipman ATF Nomination Stalls.

President Joe Biden’s nominee to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), David Chipman, has become embroiled in yet another controversy. The Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is digging for answers. Chipman’s Democratic defenders, though, are suspiciously quiet. He’s a forgotten man hung out to dry like Sunday’s laundry.

If Chipman’s confirmation wasn’t already on rocky ground, new revelations did the gun control lobbyist no favors. It may be only a matter of time before Chipman’s nomination is withdrawn, as U.S. Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Angus King (I-Maine) have suggested.

One thing’s certain – the more time that passes with no movement from U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on Chipman’s confirmation floor vote, the less likely he’ll win confirmation. The clock’s ticking.

Continue reading “”

‘Fudd for Chipman’ Democrat Ploy to Manipulate Low-Information Gun Owners

“Guest view: David Chipman can unite us on Second Amendment issues,” an August 5 testimonial appearing in, among other outlets, the Montana Standard, declares. The author is Dave Stalling, a self-described “past president of the Montana Wildlife Federation, … gun owner, former Force Recon Marine and avid hunter who lives in Missoula.”

The only surprise is that such a piece hasn’t appeared earlier. Gun owners have long been subjected to sudden appearances of Democrat citizen disarmament enablers trying to pass themselves off as fellow “tribe” members when there is a political goal to be attained. In the last presidential election, two groups tried to make their mark, “Sportsmen and Sportswomen for Biden — a coalition of more than 50 prominent hunters and anglers from across the country, who have come together to endorse Joe Biden for President of the United States,” and the Giffords’-bankrolled Gun Owners for Safety.

Yeah, they’re Fudds for Biden. If you’re inclined to take offense at that word, hold on a second: It’s not a pejorative for all hunters and sport shooters – just the ones who throw their fellow gun owners under the bus and support citizen disarmament edicts that don’t impact their hobbies. But a Fudd is what Stalling proves himself to be, particularly when he accuses Donald Trump Jr. of lying when he says Montana Sen. Jon Tester is not “staunchly pro-Second Amendment.” He’s not.

Tester’s a prime example of a self-serving opportunist who recognized that he had to vote “pro-gun” in order to be elected in that state, and was allowed to get away with it by Democrat Party leadership because it served their purposes to have him advance the rest of the agenda. Revealingly, Tester showed his true nature when he voted to keep Post Offices “gun-free zones.” The last straw for NRA was Tester’s Supreme Court confirmation votes (for Kagan and Sotomayor, against Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) when they downgraded his one-time “A” to a “D.”

“As a gun owner, former ATF special agent, and internationally recognized gun safety expert, David Chipman is hardly ‘anti-Second Amendment,’” Stalling continues. “As a Montana citizen, gun owner, former Force Recon Marine, and hunter, I fully support Chipman’s nomination, and urge my fellow Montanans to do the same.”

“Hardly”? And “recognized” by who? As for being a gun owner, so is Dianne Feinstein – who was reported to have a concealed carry permit that you or I couldn’t get to save our lives –literally. What does that prove? With all the evidence of his personal penchant for infringements that’s been amassed to the contrary (just enter the search term “Chipman” in the AmmoLand search bar), you wonder what more the guy has to do.

Continue reading “”

Breaking Down the Initial Amicus Briefs in Bruen

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court will answer: Did New York’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violate the Second Amendment? New York bars open carry of handguns, and the state has a “may issue” licensing scheme to carry a concealed handgun. This means the applicant must meet certain statutory requirements, and the licensing official has discretion in the final decision of whether to issue a permit. (Alternatively, states with “shall issue” schemes offer little to no discretion, instead relying solely on statutory requirements.) In New York, discretion comes in the form of determining if the applicant showed “proper cause” for needing to carry a concealed handgun. The standard of “proper cause” is not statutorily defined but has been interpreted as a “special need” above that of the public or of applicant’s specific profession.

There are two dimensions of particular importance in the case. First, the Court’s treatment of New York’s “may issue”/“proper cause” scheme will undoubtedly impact the other six states with similar licensing requirements. Second, the Court must deal with the question of how to evaluate claims regarding Second Amendment laws. Many amici, some judges, and even a few Justices argue that courts should look only to text, history, and tradition. Under this test, a law with no historical analogue would apparently be unconstitutional. However, every federal court of appeals to come across the question has settled on a different approach: a two-part means-ends scrutiny framework. At the first step of this test, courts ask if the law burdens conduct the Second Amendment protects. If not, then the law is constitutional. If so, then courts use a heightened level of scrutiny to determine if the law sufficiently furthers an important or compelling government interest. Given this dramatic difference in methodology, the Court’s decision has the potential to disrupt a considerable amount of case law.

Considering the stakes at issue, it is no surprise that there are copious amicus briefs filed in Bruen. Briefs in support of petitioner and in support of neither side were due July 20th, 2021. There are 49 amicus briefs docketed on the Supreme Court’s website; and there will likely be a similarly large number in support of the state filed in September. All but two of the currently posted briefs are in support of petitioners. One of these, a brief of “Second Amendment Law Professors,” was written by Center Faculty Co-Directors Joseph Blocher and Darrell Miller, along with SMU Law Professor Eric Ruben. The professors argue the Court should “hold that the courts of appeals are using the proper doctrinal framework to adjudicate Second Amendment claims.” On another note, the brief of Patrick J. Charles provides a historian’s “contextualized understanding” of the history of modern laws concerning concealed carry and dangerous weapons.

This level of amicus support is consistent with a broader trend. Over the past ten years, the Supreme Court has seen a dramatic increase in the number of amicus briefs filed. From 1946-1955, there was an average of one brief filed per case. Then, 1986-1995 saw about five briefs per case. Most recently, the 2019-2020 term yielded an average sixteen briefs per case, for a total of 911 briefs. In the same term, eight cases had at least thirty briefs; Bostock v. Clayton County, a case contemplating Title VII protections for LGBTQ+ employees, had the most filed with 94 unique briefs. In Bruen, if there are as many briefs supporting the state as there are opposing it, the case will surpass the number in Bostock. Usually cases with controversial, social issues generate large numbers of amicus briefs. Interestingly, in 2008, District of Columbia v. Heller held the record for the most amicus briefs up to that time, with 68.

Source: “Amicus Curiae at the Supreme Court: Last Term and the Decade in Review,”

The National Law Journal, 11/18/2020

The Bruen amicus briefs cover a wide array of topics. Three briefs explicitly invoke corpus linguistics evidence. Twelve briefs discuss the Second Amendment’s treatment as a “second-class” or “disfavored” right. Eleven briefs note the racial/gender/outgroup impacts of laws. Of these, 2 discuss threats against women, 9 focus on racial divides, 3 note anti-immigrant discrimination; there are also single mentions of discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals, religious minorities, indigent people, and ethnic minorities.

The following table highlights the breakdown of amicus briefs arguing for certain positions or invoking certain arguments.

Briefs that used… Briefs that did not use… Percent that used…

(out of 49)
Text, History, Tradition 28 21 57%
Scrutiny Analysis 6 43 12%
Corpus Linguistics 3 46 6%
Discriminatory Outgroup Impact of Laws 11 38 22%
“Disfavored” right language 12 37 24%

The Center’s work also factored into the legal analysis of several amicus briefs. Four briefs cite posts on this blog. Additionally, there are 2 direct references to the Repository of Historical Gun Laws. (The Repository is a free, searchable database of gun laws. Laws are organized by subject-matter, with seventeen categories. It is also searchable by geographic area; laws are divisible by country – United States or English law – by all fifty states, or by one of twenty-two cities.) And 4 briefs cite scholarship from the Center directors.

 

Did Iowa’s new gun law kill background checks?
In a surprise to no one who’s paying attention, doomsayers in the Democratic Party were wrong

As Iowa lawmakers debated a gun rights bill this past legislative session, critics issued some dire warnings. Without requiring Iowans to get government permission to buy and carry firearms, they said, the state would devolve into lawlessness.

Under consideration was a proposal to modernize Iowa’s gun permit system, making permits to carry or acquire guns optional.

“This bill bans or kills background checks in this state, there’s no doubt about it,” state Rep. Beth Wessel-Kroeschell, D-Ames, said on the Iowa House floor this spring.

The Legislature passed the bill — known as “constitutional carry” or “permitless carry” — along party lines and it took effect July 1. Iowans now may purchase and carry weapons without a permission slip from the state.

In a surprise to no one who’s paying attention, the doomsayers in the Democratic Party were wrong. Weeks after the law went into effect, it turns out the government still is running a lot of background checks on Iowa gun buyers.

Continue reading “”

The mass shooter in England used a shotgun.

We have been assured that if semiautomaticassaultweapons™ are banned/ registered/licensed that will end mass shootings

Clearly someone is lying.

Susan Rice is the secret puppet-master behind Biden’s war on guns

Joe Biden got lost in the bushes outside the White House Wednesday, after returning from a long weekend at his home in Wilmington, Delaware. Biden walked right past a Secret Service agent who was pointing the right way and stumbled into the bushes until he saw a side door, which he had to open himself. The President of the United States does not open his own doors at the White House.

Biden’s declining cognitive skills have become blatantly obvious – fodder for tweets and late-night comics. He cannot complete a simple sentence unless he’s reading from a teleprompter. His handlers have tried to offer the excuse that Biden suffers from a stutter, but what’s wrong with Joe is far more serious than a speech impediment. Biden drifts off mid-sentence and appears to lose touch with reality. It’s happening far too often for comfort.
The President of the United States has become a puppet, who has to be led – sometimes by the hand – to waiting news cameras, where he stumbles through speeches that someone else has obviously written. So, who is pulling Biden’s strings?

In my humble opinion, in the Biden-Harris Administration’s war against our guns, former Obama national security advisor and UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, who now serves as Biden’s domestic policy advisor, is clearly calling the shots. Rice has a staunch anti-gun pedigree, coupled with direct access to Biden – and Obama – and the means, ability and desire to orchestrate the war against our God-given, constitutional rights.

The evidence is everywhere.

The anti-gun forces love this woman. They were overjoyed when Biden appointed her as one of his closest advisors.

“Ambassador Susan Rice recognizes that gun violence is one of the most urgent threats facing our country, and through this appointment, President-elect Biden is continuing to build the strongest gun safety administration in history,” John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, said in a statement heralding her appointment. “As Ambassador Rice said in our Demanding Women conversation this summer, ‘the American people want common-sense gun laws’ — and we’re excited to work with her to make that happen.”

“Ambassador Rice is committed to ending our gun violence epidemic, and she understands that COVID-19 has dramatically exacerbated our gun violence crisis,” Shannon Watts, leader of Moms Demand Action, said in the same statement. “Her appointment is proof positive that this administration is wasting no time in addressing the gun violence that takes 100 lives every day and wounds hundreds more. I know Ambassador Rice will be instrumental in helping tackle these dual public health crises.”

Susan Rice

Extremist views

Rice’s anti-gun history is well documented.
In 2018, according to Everytown, then-Ambassador Rice signed a letter calling “gun violence” a national security threat. The letter called on officials to “ban assault weapons, mandate background checks and waiting periods, and raise the minimum age to purchase guns.”

Continue reading “”

Do We Still Have the Constitution?

The Constitution — when interpreted in accordance with the plain meaning of its words and informed by a fair reading of history — does not permit the government to infringe upon personal freedoms, no matter the emergency or pandemic. For those who agree with me, worry not. We will persevere. For those who trust the government, worry a lot. You are not in good hands.

As I write, it appears new orders of restraint on personal liberty are coming in the name of fighting a new pandemic. Yet, the purpose of the Constitution is both to establish the government and to limit it. Some of the limitations are written in the Constitution itself. Most of the limitations that pertain to personal freedoms are found in the Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments.

These amendments were ratified to restrain the federal government from infringing upon personal liberties. Since the enactment of the 14th Amendment in 1868, and subsequent litigation, the Bill of Rights, for the most part, restrains the states as well.

So, the rights to thought, speech, press, assembly, worship, self-defense, privacy, travel, property ownership, commercial activities and fair treatment from government are plainly articulated in or rationally inferred from the first eight amendments. The Ninth declares that the enumeration of rights in the first eight shall not mean that there are no other rights that are fundamental, and the government shall not disparage those other rights. The Tenth reflects that the states have reserved to themselves the powers that they did not delegate to the feds.

The Ninth was especially important to its author, James Madison, because of his view that natural or fundamental rights are integral to each person, and they are too numerous to list.

In the following century, the anti-slavery crusader Lysander Spooner would explain it thusly: “A man’s natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber … or by millions, calling themselves a government.”

Natural rights collectively constitute the moral ability and sovereign authority of every human being to make personal choices — free from government interference and without a government permission slip.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that government derives all its powers from the consent of the governed. And Madison understood the Ninth Amendment to declare that our personal choices are insulated from government interference so long as their exercise does not impair another’s rights.

From this it follows that if governments interfere with our personal choices — and we have not consented individually to their power to do so — the interference is invalid, unlawful and, because our personal choices are essentially protected from governmental interference by the Bill of Rights, unconstitutional.

Now, back to the coming restraints in the name of a new pandemic.

The former and future interferences with the exercise of rights protected by the Bill of Rights devolve around travel, assembly, commercial activities, the exercise of religious beliefs and your face. These infringements have all come from mayors and state governors who claim the power to do so, and they raise three profound constitutional issues.

First: Do mayors and governors have inherent power in an emergency to craft regulations that carry the force of law? The answer is no.
The Guarantee Clause of the Constitution mandates a republican (lowercase “r”) form of government in the states. That means the separation of powers into three branches, each with a distinct core function that cannot constitutionally be performed by either of the other two.

Since only a representative legislature can write laws that carry criminal penalties and incur the use of force, a mayor or a governor cannot constitutionally write such laws.

Second: Can state legislatures delegate away to governors their law-making powers? Again, the answer is no because the separation of powers prevents one branch of government from ceding to another branch its core powers. The separation was crafted not to preserve the integrity of each branch but to assure the preservation of personal liberty by preventing the accumulation of too much power in any one branch.

We are not talking about a state legislature delegating to a board of medical examiners in the executive branch the power to license physicians. We are talking about delegating away a core power — the authority to create crimes and craft punishments. Such a delegation would be an egregious violation of the Guarantee Clause.

Third: Can a state legislature enact laws that interfere with personal liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, prescribe punishments for violations of those laws and authorize governors to use force to compel compliance? Again, the answer is no because all government in America is subordinate to the natural rights articulated in the Bill of Rights and embraced in the Ninth Amendment.

We should encourage massive peaceful resistance to mayoral and gubernatorial ignorance and arrogance that disregards the Bill of Rights.

We need resistance to tyranny in order to stay free. Power unresisted continues to grow and to corrupt. History teaches that most people prefer the illusion of safety to the cacophony of liberty. The only reason we have civil liberties today is because generations of determined minorities — starting with the revolutionaries in the 1770s — have fought for them.

Today, we are governed by dangerous people who are again threatening to take away our ability to make personal choices, and to use force to compel compliance. In doing that, they will not only have violated their oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights; they also will have committed the criminal acts of nullifying our rights.

We must remind them that by using the powers of state governments to do this, they will make themselves candidates for federal criminal prosecutions when saner days return.

They schools have been educating indoctrinating snowflake students for many years.

College Op-Ed Claims “Right To Safety” Trumps Second Amendment

I’ve heard a lot of bad arguments regarding a lot of things in my life. One is this idea that there’s a right to safety. In other words, the government exists in part to provide safety for each individual and anything that someone thinks makes them unsafe is something the government should outlaw.

Yeah, it sounds ridiculous.

However, it gets worse when people use that to try and justify anti-Second Amendment positions, like an op-ed in The Daily Cougar, the student newspaper at the University of Houston, does.

Gov. Greg Abbott’s new permitless carry  law should not happen due to the recent increase in mass shootings.…

This law will put so many of us in danger, considering it is already extremely easy to get a gun in this state.

We take the mentality that guns bring us freedom and that they are part of our identity to the extreme. With a society that prioritizes guns so much already, making unlicensed carry legal is unnecessary and poses a big safety risk.…

Humanity needs to become a bigger priority in this state. This means that stricter gun control is necessary. Our government should listen to its people and make them feel safe, rather than allowing a law as dangerous as permitless carry.

This is in an op-ed entitled, “Permitless carry infringes on the right to safety.”

The thing is, no such right exists. You can get hurt doing anything. You could walk down the street, step wrong, and sprain your ankle. Is that a violation of your civil rights? I had a nasty ankle sprain while hunting at a state wildlife management area. Did the state of Georgia violate my civil right to safety because they didn’t level out the woods?

Of course not.

The thing is, this “right to safety,” whether it’s espoused as such or not, is really just about one group of people getting to feel safer, as noted in the last quoted paragraph.

The problem, however, is these people are putting their own feelings of safety above those of others. They want to feel safe. They don’t care if you feel safe or not.

Continue reading “”