Category: Courts

(Introducing:) The Big Money Donors Behind the Attacks on Conservative Supreme Court Justices.

The coordinated and sophisticated attacks on conservative Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are no accident. This is a deliberate campaign to tarnish the reputation of justices and delegitimize their decisions in the eyes of citizens.

These attacks are long on rhetoric and short on substance. But that’s how the game is being played. Lacking actual proof of wrongdoing, the left has taken to insinuating ethics violations.

The smears are being published on the left-wing website ProPublica.

“ProPublica isn’t a news organization; it’s a front group for liberal billionaires wanting to ensure that the court rubber stamps their political agenda,” Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino told the Washington Examiner.

ProPublica is a non-profit news site funded primarily by the Sandler Foundation, “which has given nearly $40 million to the organization since 2010,” according to the Examiner. The Sandlers have been plagued by ethics problems themselves. They helped initiate the Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s by being the first to offer “Adjustable Rate Mortgages” (ARM) that led to dozens of S&Ls going under. Then the Sandlers were also partly to blame for the housing crash in 2008, according to Time Magazine.

“The same Sandler Foundation that ‘made ProPublica possible’ with an astounding $40 million also gave $500,000 to Demand Justice, a ‘dark money’ court packing group that spearheaded smear campaigns against Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett,” Parker Thayer, an investigative researcher at Capital Research Center, told the Washington Examiner.

“ProPublica has been in the business of launching partisan attacks on conservative Supreme Court justices for months now, and it shouldn’t surprise anyone given their funding from left-wing groups,” Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article III Project, told the Washington Examiner, adding that the “entire project is revenge for overturning Roe v. Wade.”

The Sandler Foundation also gave $7.5 million to the Campaign Legal Center since 2015, a group whose senior director, Kedric Payne, testified before Congress as a Democratic witness arguing that the legislative branch should write ethics rules for the judicial branch. CLC wrote an April letter calling for a Department of Justice investigation into Thomas “for potential criminal and civil penalties.”

“The corrupt corporate media has been working with these liberal activists for decades, so of course Soros-type donors would be behind this,” a spokesperson for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told the Washington Examiner. “The fact is, Justices Thomas and Alito have complied totally with the Supreme Court’s ethics rules.”

If the tactics of the left in attacking Supreme Court Justices seem vaguely familiar to you, you’re correct.

“This is a textbook example of one of the Left’s favorite tactics: the pop-up pressure campaign,” Thayer explained. The left, through their media outlets and social media presence, creates the appearance of a political groundswell coming from the bottom up when actually, it’s a top-down effort all the way.

“It’s easy to spot once you know the secret,” he said. “First, one or two donors pay a legion of different organizations to get involved in a certain policy debate. Then, all at once, these groups start making noise about an issue nobody cared about five minutes ago.”

ProPublica claims that “40,000 people actively fund our investigative, nonpartisan journalism. Our newsroom operates with fierce independence. No donor or board member is even aware of the subjects of our stories before they are published.”

That’s no doubt true. But it’s also true that a huge portion of their funding comes from a few Democratic billionaire donors who give to ProPublica because they can be relied on to smear the conservative opposition and support the far-left agenda of their benefactors.

Demoncraps hate this one thing

The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.
— SOUTH CAROLINA v. US, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

Conservative Supreme Court justice hit pieces: We are being lectured on ethics by scoundrels.

“Wait till the next empty shoe drops.”

That’s how law professor Josh Blackman concludes a discussion of The New York Times’ open-mouthed discovery that law schools have summer study-abroad programs and sometimes they recruit celebrity professors, even Supreme Court justices, to teach them.

The Times believes it has found a scandal because George Mason’s Scalia Law School has one of these programs and seeks Supreme Court justices to teach in the summer.

My law school has one of these too. So does Blackman’s.

He comments: “Shocker! A DC law school works hard to connect its students with the leaders of the profession. My own law school has organized similar programs in the past with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Ginsburg. (My students described it as a once-in-a-lifetime experience.)”

But, you see, the law school and the justices involved here are conservative, so the Times thinks — or, more accurately, wants its readers to think — there must be something nefarious going on, perhaps “collusion.”

Why, George Mason’s legal clinic sometimes files friend-of-the-court briefs in the Supreme Court, which the paper would like you to believe is some sort of conflict of interest.

Never mind that schools like Harvard and Yale were — until recently, anyway — much closer to many justices on the court than this.

(Note that every member of the court except Amy Coney Barrett is an alumnus of Harvard or Yale.)

There’s nothing there, but the Times doesn’t care.

The Supreme Court has ruled against the left on guns and abortion and is expected to strike down affirmative action any day now.

Thus it must be delegitimized in any way possible.

Continue reading “”

Honolulu, state of Hawaii coughs up six figures to sailor forced to give up his guns over mental health counseling

To be honest, I’ve got mixed feelings about this. While I’m glad that the city of Honolulu and the state of Hawaii are being forced to cut a check to Michael Santucci, the roughly $130,000 he’ll receive after his Second Amendment rights were violated doesn’t seem nearly enough to make up for the harm that was done to him.

Santucci was an active duty member of the Navy in 2021 when he sought a permit to possess a firearm in the home. After acknowledging that he had recently received mental health counseling, his application was rejected by the Honolulu PD on the grounds that he’d allegedly admitted to a significant mental health disorder. Not only was his permit denied, but the firearms he had previously lawfully purchased were seized by the Honolulu police.

In truth, Santucci was homesick, and simply wanted to talk to a counselor at Tripler Army Medical Center. Santucci ended up suing after his permit was rejected, and last year a federal judge ruled in his favor, declaring that Santucci had not demonstrated any sort of significant mental health disorder that would disqualify him under the Hawaii law while leaving the statute itself untouched.

After the judge’s ruling, the city and state settled with Santucci. The state of Hawaii agreed to fork over some $28,000 for Santucci’s trouble, while the city of Honolulu agreed to a $102,000 figure. Santucci still hasn’t received a check from the city, but it looks like one will soon be cut.

A Honolulu City Council committee Tuesday approved the city’s portion of the settlement — $102,500 — which goes to the full council next month.

The lawsuit by Michael Santucci alleged that the HPD seized his guns and that it held up his permit application in 2021 because he wrote down on his firearms questionnaire that he had recently received mental health counseling.

His lawyer said police had violated Santucci’s constitutional rights.

“Mr. Santucci’s case sort of demonstrates the attitude that HPD has toward people owning firearms. I think they view it really more as a privilege rather than a constitutional right,” said Santucci’s lawyer Alan Beck.

I’d say that’s an understatement on Beck’s part, and it’s not just limited to the city of Honolulu or its police department. As we reported earlier this week, local departments like the Honolulu PD are denying permits to anyone who possesses a medical marijuana card, and Gov. Josh Brown recently signed a carry-killer bill that prohibits lawful concealed carry in the vast majority of publicly accessible spaces, including all businesses by default.

The Democrats in charge of Hawaii’s government are doing everything they can to keep the islands gun-free and have displayed no concern or consternation about treading over a fundamental constitutional right in the process.

Because of Santucci’s legal actions the city of Honolulu has changed its questions on the firearms permit application, which will hopefully prevent this particular infringement from happening in the future. When it comes to getting the state to actually start treating the right to keep and bear arms as the fundamental right that it is, however, attorneys like Alan Beck and organizations like the Hawaii Firearms Coalition and the Hawaii Rifle Association still have their work cut out for them.

Silencers/Suppressors are in Common Use for Lawful Purposes

U.S.A. — The number of legal suppressors or silencers in the United States shows they are in common use for lawful purposes.  As of January of 2023, the ATF shows there were over 3.1 million silencers or suppressors legally owned in the United States for lawful purposes. In January of 2020, there were 1.8 million. Over the last three years, the number of legal suppressors has increased by an average of 450,000 suppressors per year. By the end of 2023, it is reasonably expected there will be over 3.6 million suppressors in the United States of America. To own these suppressors, the owners have gone through a complicated and lengthy process, often taking a year or more to process their applications for tax stamps. The federal government requires tax stamps to purchase a silencer legally.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects “arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense” and arms that are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Such arms are “chosen by American society,” not the government.

Silencers/Suppressors are in Common Use for Lawful Purposes
Silencers/Suppressors are in Common Use for Lawful Purposes

American society chooses what arms are in common use. The government does not make the choices. By choosing to possess arms, the people choose what is in common use. It is the possession of the arms which determines whether they are in common use or not.  Possession of arms is a use of the arms. In Heller, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled:

The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

In the Caetano decision, the Heller pronouncement was emphasized and magnified. When an arm was invented has nothing to do with whether it is protected under the Second Amendment. What matters is if the arm is in common use for lawful purposes. This was particularly emphasized by Justice Alito and Justice Thomas. From Caetano, concurrence by Justice Alito, joined with Justice Thomas:

The more relevant statistic is that “[h]undreds of thousands of Tasers and stun guns have been sold to private citizens,” who it appears may lawfully possess them in 45 States. People v. Yanna, 297 Mich. App. 137, 144, 824 N. W. 2d 241, 245 (2012) (holding Michigan stun gun ban unconstitutional); see Volokh, Nonlethal Self-Defense, (Almost Entirely) Nonlethal Weapons, and the Rights To Keep and Bear Arms and Defend Life, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 199, 244 (2009) (citing stun gun bans in seven States); Wis. Stat. §941.295 (Supp. 2015) (amended Wisconsin law permitting stun gun possession); see also Brief in Opposition 11 (acknowledging that “approximately 200,000 civilians owned stun guns” as of 2009). While less popular than handguns, stun guns are widely owned and accepted as a legitimate means of self-defense across the country. Massachusetts’ categorical ban of such weapons therefore violates the Second Amendment.

This was the first time SCOTUS put a number on what is “common use.”  Some may consider two hundred thousand items in the United States of America high, but this applies to many items. When legal suppressors were nearly banned by taxes of ten times the price of the item ($20 would buy most suppressors; the tax was/is $200), there were far fewer of them. In 2006, there were 150 thousand legally owned silencers in the USA.  Sometime between 2006 and 2011, the 200 thousand mark was passed. ATF records do not seem to be available from 2006 to 2010. In 2011, there were 285 thousand legal silencers.

The ATF and Biden administration’s strategy is to claim silencers are not “arms” but are only an accessory. It is difficult to see how they can claim silencers are not “arms” but are very dangerous.

The Texas case, Paxton v. Richardson, appears to be the most likely case to resolve this issue at this time.  In the case, Texas Attorney General Paxton has argued the common use, Second Amendment case, as well as persuasive arguments against the use of taxation to attack rights protected by the Second Amendment.

Judge Mark Pitmann heard the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment in the case on June 15, 2023.

Bump stock ban heads to SCOTUS

The U.S. Supreme Court is getting a chance to weigh in on the ATF’s ban on bump stocks imposed after the Las Vegas shooting in 2018, with the Firearms Policy Coalition filing a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with SCOTUS on Thursday.

The case, known as Guedes v. BATFE, was last heard by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the ATF rule last year. In its opinion, the appellate court ruled that it was within the ATF’s purview to define bump stocks as machine guns, despite the fact that the devices have no moving parts nor allow for multiple rounds to be fired with a single pull of the trigger.

Other appellate courts, including the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, have disagreed; ruling that the administratively-imposed ban went beyond the agency’s authority.

A plain reading of the statutory language, paired with close consideration of the mechanics of a semi-automatic firearm, reveals that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of “machinegun” set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act.

But even if that conclusion were incorrect, the rule of lenity would still require us to interpret the statute against imposing criminal liability. A rich legal tradition supports the “well known rule” that “penal laws are to be construed strictly.” United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 76, 94–95 (1820). As Chief Justice Marshall explained long ago, the rule “is founded on the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals; and on the plain principle that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department. It is the legislature, not the Court, which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment.” Id. at 95.

The Government’s regulation violates these principles. As an initial matter, it purports to allow ATF—rather than Congress—to set forth the scope of criminal prohibitions. Indeed, the Government would outlaw bump stocks by administrative fiat even though the very same agency routinely interpreted the ban on machineguns as not applying to the type of bump stocks at issue here. Nor can we say that the statutory definition unambiguously supports the Government’s interpretation. As noted above, we conclude that it unambiguously does not. But even if we are wrong, the statute is at least ambiguous in this regard. And if the statute is ambiguous, Congress must cure that ambiguity, not the federal courts.

The definition of “machinegun” as set forth in the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act does not apply to bump stocks. And if there were any doubt as to this conclusion, we conclude that the statutory definition is ambiguous, at the very least. The rule of lenity therefore compels us to construe the statute in Cargill’s favor. Either way, we must REVERSE.

The Tenth Circuit has sided with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, while the Sixth Circuit found that the rule is unenforceable and setting up a genuine split among the appellate courts. That increases the odds of the Supreme Court accepting Guedes for review, and the division between the lower courts was noted in FPC’s request for the Court to step in.

Continue reading “”

FPC Completes Appellate Injunction Briefing in Lawsuit Challenging ATF Pistol Brace Rule

NEW ORLEANS, LA (June 21, 2023) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a reply brief with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Mock v. Garland, FPC and FPC Action Foundation’s challenge to ATF’s pistol brace rule. The brief was filed less than one month after the Court clarified that its injunction against the rule covers FPC’s members. The brief, which was the final filling in the case before oral argument, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Nothing in Appellees’ rehashed arguments alters the conclusion already reached by the motions panel,” argues the brief. “Appellants remain likely to win on the merits because a braced pistol is a constitutionally protected bearable arm, and the Agencies have not met their burden of showing that the right to keep and bear arms historically allowed NFA-like regulation of braced pistols or SBRs, however defined.”

Plaintiffs are requesting that the Fifth Circuit issue a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo while they argue their full case–functionally extending the injunction beyond just the length of the appeal. The case is set for argument before the Fifth Circuit on June 29th.

FPC and FPCAF have specifically requested an injunction that will extend to all individuals, not just Plaintiffs and their members and customers: “The public has no interest in the unlawful enforcement of [ATF’s] rule and the irreparable harms that accompany it. This Court should thus reverse the district court and enter a nationwide preliminary injunction to prevent these harms.”

“All we’re asking is for the Fifth Circuit to ensure that peaceable people across the United States are protected from ATF’s enforcement of its unlawful and unconstitutional pistol brace rule for the length of the case,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPCAF’s Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation and FPC’s counsel in this case. “The firearms at issue here have been properly treated as pistols for a decade; we simply want to preserve that status quo while we make our full case to the Court.”

I wouldn’t say it’s a ‘victory’. A judge on the Appeals Court simply stayed enforcement of an injunction to stop the law from taking effect.

NJ scores victory in federal court over concealed carry gun legislation

A federal court issued an order in favor of the state on Tuesday as the latest development in the legal battle over gun reform legislation.

The order, a stay requested by the state last month, will make it so that enforcement of limits on where concealed weapons can be carried in New Jersey is not restricted.

The motion filed by the state’s Attorney General’s Office said that not allowing enforcement of the restrictions “threatens public safety by allowing loaded guns in crowded theaters, bars, protests, and Fourth of July celebrations in parks, as well as zoos and libraries where children gather — just to name a few.”

Continue reading “”

FOID card legal battle moves forward in Sangamon County

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WAND) — Attorneys presented oral arguments Tuesday morning in the Sangamon County court battle over the constitutionality of FOID cards in Illinois.

Guns Save Life founder John Boch believes it is unconstitutional for the state to require people to have a license before they can buy guns.

Boch’s lawsuit was originally filed in 2019 against Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly, former McLean County State’s Attorney Don Knapp, and former McLean County Sheriff Jon Sandage.

However, the case is now only between Guns Save Life Inc. and Kelly as the Illinois State Police are the organization responsible for the FOID card system.

Plaintiffs argued Tuesday that the FOID Act burdens actions protected under the Second Amendment. Attorney Christian Ambler said the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the 2022 Bruen case found laws similar to the FOID Act are unconstitutional.

Although, the Attorney General’s office said this is a straightforward case. Assistant Attorney General Isaac Freilich Jones noted that people apply for FOID cards and the Illinois State Police issue the identification cards if they are not found to be criminals. Jones said there is no difference between waiting for a FOID card and waiting for a background check before buying a gun.

Ambler later argued that there is no historical support for a law allowing states to require people to have a license before they can purchase guns. He said people did not face this type of burden when the Second Amendment was approved by Congress in 1789.

Yet, the Attorney General’s office stressed there is no way to prove that people living in the 18th century would disapprove of the FOID law. They also claimed that there is no world where $10 is an unreasonably high fee to pay for a FOID card. However, plaintiffs said there is no historical context for fees people would face before purchasing their firearms.

Judge Jennie Ascher was assigned to the case Tuesday morning and told counsel that she would take the matter under advisement. Both sides were also asked to provide their proposed orders for the case within 21 days.

 

‘Bad people’ – like Zachey Rahimi – have often been the central player in the Court’s decisions about expanding and protecting civil rights. If you’ll remember, Ernesto Miranda, namesake of the ‘Miranda Warning’ everyone knows by heart from all the police/crime TV shows, was a long time thief and robber who had his first conviction for rape and kidnapping overturned because his civil rights protected by the 5th amendment had been violated.

Is SCOTUS ready for another 2A case?

While the Supreme Court has sidestepped both New York’s post-Bruen carry restrictions and Illinois’ ban on so-called assault weapons and high capacity magazines in recent months, likely because both cases involved emergency appeals, justices are set to consider another case this Thursday that has made its way to the Court under more ordinary circumstances… but one that could have major implications for gun control laws going forward.

The case is known as U.S. v. Rahimi, and its centered around the domestic violence restraining order issued against Zachey Rahimi that prohibited from owning firearms. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year that the federal statute in question is unconstitutional under the Bruen test; not because the judges on the panel decided domestic violence is a minor concern, but because the Department of Justice’s assertion that only “law-abiding citizens” possess the right to keep and bear arms is so broad that its without any limiting principle. From the Fifth Circuit’s opinion:

Indeed, the upshot of the Government’s argument is that the Second Amendment right can be readily divested, such that “a person could be in one day and out the next: . . . his rights would be stripped as a self-executing consequence of his new status.” But this turns the typical way of conceptualizing constitutional rights on its head. And the Government’s argument reads the Supreme Court’s “law-abiding” gloss so expansively that it risks swallowing the text of the amendment.

Further, the Government’s proffered interpretation of “law-abiding” admits to no true limiting principle. Under the Government’s reading, Congress could remove “unordinary” or “irresponsible” or “non-lawabiding” people—however expediently defined—from the scope of the Second Amendment. Could speeders be stripped of their right to keep and bear arms? Political nonconformists? People who do not recycle or drive an electric vehicle? One easily gets the point: Neither Heller nor Bruen countenances such a malleable scope of the Second Amendment’s protections; to the contrary, the Supreme Court has made clear that “the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans,” Heller, 554 U.S. at 581. Rahimi, while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless among “the people” entitled to the Second Amendment’s guarantees, all other things equal.

Rahimi is probably not a model citizen. In addition to the domestic violence restraining order, he’s accused of multiple shootings in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. But the state of Texas didn’t try to hold Rahimi without bond in those cases, which would have also kept him away from guns. Instead, they relied on a civil order of protection to deny him the ability to lawfully possess a firearm; a legal shortcut that might not be lawful after all.

Now the Supreme Court is set to consider Rahimi’s case in conference this Thursday, and with appellate courts starting to split on several other prohibited persons statute all eyes on are the justices to see if they’ll take up the case or allow the Fifth Circuit’s decision to stand. NBC News provided its own slanted coverage of the case, and while its report is just as biased as you’d expect, there was one passage that I think is largely correct.

The path to victory likely involves winning the votes of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Although both were part of the 6-3 conservative majority in Bruen, Kavanaugh wrote a separate concurring opinion joined by Roberts in which he outlined what he called “the limits of the court’s decision,” making it clear that the Second Amendment does allow for gun regulations.

Citing previous court rulings, Kavanaugh specifically highlighted the prohibition on the possession of firearms by felons and people with mental illnesses as an example of laws that were not under threat.

I suspect that Roberts and Kavanaugh are the most likely justices on the conservative wing of the Court to uphold Rahimi’s conviction, but I don’t think it’s a done deal by any means. The lack of limiting principle in the DOJ’s argument is a valid concern on the part of the judiciary, and under the Bruen test laid out by the Supreme Court last year the government strained to find any true historical analogue to a prohibition on gun ownership because of a civil order issued by a court.

The earliest we’ll learn whether SCOTUS has accepted the Rahimi case will be next Monday when the Court issues its orders from this week’s conference. I won’t be surprised if there are four justices who are ready to hear the DOJ’s appeal, but acceptance doesn’t guarantee that the Biden administration’s argument is going to carry the day if and when Rahimi is heard by the highest court in the land. If the Court follows its own test instead of just relying on the status quo I think there’s a very good chance that the Fifth Circuit’s verdict will stand… but first we have to see if SCOTUS will step in or stand by once again.

Hateful Gun Banner Sent to Prison for Threatening Congresswoman Boebert

U.S.A. — A 39-year-old South Florida man who is an ardent anti-gunner was sentenced last week to 15 months in federal prison and one year of probation for threatening U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colorado, in a series of social media posts that targeted the Congresswoman for her strong Second Amendment support.

In 2021, Matthew Lee Comiskey sent five threatening tweets to Boebert that mentioned firearms and encouraged readers to do her harm. Comiskey originally faced five counts of making an interstate threat but pleaded guilty last year to one count.

His tweets show that Comiskey is violently anti-gun:

  • “Someone needs to put Lauren down like a sick dog. She is a true waste of life! Someone exercise their second amendment right to her face! Since the CIA is a failure and FBI is incompetent at charging her for being a terrorist it’s time to do it ourselves! Pew pew Lauren,” Comiskey wrote in September 2021.
  • “Don’t come to Florida us libs have big guns here and we stand (our) ground. Take you down like Trayvon,” Comiskey wrote a month later.
  • “Don’t worry Lauren, someone is coming soon to show your face the 2nd amendment in practice with a copper jacket. Enjoy,” Comiskey wrote.

Boebert’s pro-gun credentials are well known.

Before the 36-year-old conservative was elected to Congress in 2020, she owned Shooter’s Grill, a Western-themed restaurant in her hometown of Rifle, Colorado, where staff openly carried firearms.

Boebert has earned A-ratings from Gun Owners of America, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and the National Rifle Association. In Congress, she is a member of the Freedom Caucus and the Second Amendment Caucus.

During his sentencing last week at the Paul G. Rogers federal courthouse in West Palm Beach, Florida, Comiskey told the court he let his “personal emotions get in the way of my common sense.”

His mother told the court that her son’s actions were “out of character.” Yeah right….
U.S. District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg rejected Comiskey’s requests for a shorter prison sentence or home confinement.

‘Smart Gun’ Inventor Explains Why He’s Trying to Get a California Gun-Control Law Struck Down

The man behind the first gun with an integrated biometric lock set to come to market is backing a suit against one of California’s most restrictive gun laws.

Kai Kloepfer, Biofire founder, told The Reload his company wrote an amicus letter supporting plaintiffs in a case against the state’s Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA) because it believes the law holds back firearms safety innovation. That law bans the sale of any handgun that isn’t on the state’s approved roster, which hasn’t seen a new handgun model added to it since 2013. Biofire wrote to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this month urging them to strike down the law in Boland v. Bonta.

“Our argument is the roster doesn’t serve the needs of Californians because it arbitrarily restricts the options that are available,” Kloepfer told The Reload. “California is to guns as Cuba is to cars. You can’t take advantage of all the advancements in technology, including in safety, that have been made since the guns the roster grandfathered in.”

The company’s involvement in the case is at least a public relations win for the California Rifle and Pistol Association and other plaintiffs in the case. It could also help sway the appeals panel reviewing the case that the law does more harm than good in its stated goal of protecting Californians from unsafe handguns. The move also indicates how Biofire plans to convince gun buyers, who have long been skeptical of “smart gun” technology, it is working in their interests.

Kloepfer said the company, like other gun manufacturers, isn’t planning to become directly involved in general gun-rights legal activism. However, he said they do plan to pursue legal action when a law impacts their business.

“What we do engage in are areas directly involved with smart guns. And, in particular, we have this very strong stance of being against mandates of this technology,” Kloepfer said. “It doesn’t make any sense for the market. It doesn’t make any sense for our customers. It doesn’t make any sense for us. So, areas like Boland as well as, obviously, the now-repealed New Jersey mandate for smart guns and things like that. We do get involved in direct smart gun topics or topics that impact our ability to serve our customers.”

California passed the UHA in 2001. Initially, it barred the sale of any new handgun models without a loaded chamber indicator or magazine disconnect safety. In 2013, the state mandated new pistol models must include so-called microstamping technology. In theory, microstamping imprints an identifiable mark on every spent casing with the goal of helping police solve crimes. But, as Kloepfer pointed out, there has never been a production gun anywhere in the world that incorporates the technology, and critics argue the technology is impossible to implement in a practical firearm.

“Our understanding is that the roster requires microstamping, which has never been implemented in any sort of commercially available firearm,” he said. “Biofire does not have microstamping in it. Similar to every other manufacturer, we have not seen a viable approach there.”

The real-world effect of adding the microstamping requirement, which New York is now considering implementing, was a complete ban on selling any handgun models created after 2013. Outside of law enforcement officers, who are not subject to the handgun roster’s restrictions despite unrostered guns’ status as “unsafe,” Californians have been mostly limited to buying pistols first introduced to the market more than 15 years ago.

Boland v. Bonta is already changing that, though. In March, Federal District Judge Cormac J. Carney issued a preliminary injunction against the UHA because he found it likely unconstitutional.

“These regulations are having a devastating impact on Californians’ ability to acquire and use new, state-of-the-art handguns,” Judge Carney wrote. “Since 2007, when the [loaded chamber indicator] and [magazine disconnect safety] requirements were introduced, very few new handguns have been introduced for sale in California with those features. Since 2013, when the microstamping requirement was introduced, not a single new semiautomatic handgun has been approved for sale in California.”

California filed to appeal the ruling. However, it only requested a stay on Judge Carney’s ruling in regard to the loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect safety requirements. The court agreed to that request. That means the microstamping requirement will remain enjoined as the appeal proceeds.

Kloepfer said Biofire has a version of its gun that includes a loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect safety. But he argued those features shouldn’t be required either, and the company would continue to support the case against the law.

Biofire has already brought in thousands of pre-orders for its first “smart gun” model and plans to ship the first batch of $1,500-$1,900 firearms by the end of the year.

“We’ve seen really tremendous demand so far,” Kloepfer said.

The gun is only available for direct purchase through Biofire’s website at this point, but Kloepfer said the company hopes to expand in the coming months.

“We just very simply don’t have the inventory capacity to stock at distributors or things like that,” he said. “So, as we get larger and start to sort of fulfill a lot of this backlog of demand, the goal is definitely to build positive relationships with distributors, especially ones that our customers are excited about.”

Oral arguments in the Boland v. Bonta appeal have been scheduled for August 23rd.

 

Ghost Guns Come Back to Haunt the Biden ATF

The ATF’s blunder on 80% frames misfires in court, then backfires as 0% pistols enter the game

In April of 2022, the Biden administration sought to ban the commercial sale of incomplete firearm frames or receivers (commonly referred to as 80% lowers) through ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F. Entirely disrupting the long-held American tradition of home gunsmithing, ATF’s activist reinterpretation of an existing law seeks to prohibit the sale of 80% receivers unless the vendor is a federally registered firearms dealer and each sale is approved by the FBI’s background check system and accompanied by a permanent record of the transaction.

ATF’s 2021R-05F rule tried to accomplish this by legally reclassifying 80% lowers — partially completed receivers that were not previously regulated as firearms — as firearms. If you aren’t familiar with 80% frames, you should understand that these are plastic or metal blocks that, at the time of their sale, cannot accept the parts, trigger components, or the other pieces necessary for a firearm to operate. They are not guns; they can’t be loaded, they can’t fire, they have no firing mechanism. And yet the ATF contends that because these could become guns, they should be sold and regulated as guns.

That’s because 80% frames are purchased by hobbyists who also buy parts kits, jigs, and tooling and will work at home to complete the rest of the machining and assembly process required to create a viable firearm. Building 80% guns is popular with gun enthusiasts who enjoy the satisfaction of building their own firearms and the personalization of customizing their firearms to their specifications.

The firearms created by these hobbyists are what the ATF calls “privately made firearms” and what the media calls “ghost guns.”

An “80%” AR-15 receiver. Note the lack of finish, trigger, or lower receiver parts. The bare metal must be machined away and holes drilled to accommodate the trigger, hammer/trigger pins, safety, and more…

In fairness, some ghost guns are also produced by the criminal element. And it’s also true that these firearms have become increasingly popular amongst prohibited possessors. But in a country that has largely traded any real concern for order, public safety, or property rights for legalized shoplifting, mass encampments of homeless drug addicts, and civil rights patronage schemes, one must remember that our government is simply acting in bad faith when it comes to gun laws like 05F.

If it were important to the government to stop gun crime, they would focus their efforts on St. Louis or Baltimore. But it’s not important to the government to stop these crimes, it’s important to the federal government to stop you from being able to defend yourself from them.

When 05F was added to the federal registrar, Polymer80, Gray Wolf Tactical, Tactical Machine LLC, Defense Distributed, and a number of other companies that specialize in the sale or manufacture of 80% frames, components, and tooling were all at risk of closing or being irreparably harmed by the ATF’s new interpretation of existing gun laws.

These conditions precipitated a lawsuit, and in March of this year, a federal judge granted an injunction in favor of, among others, Defense Distributed, the Texas-based maker of the Ghost Gunner machine.

Continue reading “”

Progressive Judge Says Commerce Clause Overrides the Bill of Rights

U.S.A. — At least one judge in the Third Circuit believes the Commerce Clause overrides the Bill of Rights. In a recent decision of The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in the case Range v Lombardo, on June 6, 2023, the en banc court ruled some felony convictions are not sufficient to restrict Second Amendment rights, based on the historical record. Eleven of 15 judges concurred with the majority opinion. Four judges dissented.

Judge Roth makes a strong case, based on Progressive philosophy, the Commerce Clause overrides the Bill of Rights. She gives the usual litany of Progressive “arguments”: Things have changed since the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The federal government has to have more power than the Bill of Rights allows. That was then. This is now. Here is part of the dissent from Judge Roth of the Third Circuit P. 96 of 107 :

In Bruen, the Supreme Court considered whether a regulation issued by a state government was a facially constitutional exercise of its traditional police power.

Range presents a distinguishable question: Whether a federal statute, which the Supreme Court has upheld as a valid exercise of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, 2 is constitutional as applied to him.

The parties and the Majority conflate these spheres of authority and fail to address binding precedents affirming Congress’s power to regulate the possession of firearms in interstate commerce. Because Range lacks standing under the applicable Commerce Clause jurisprudence, I respectfully dissent.

Judge Roth explicitly states the modern expansion of the commerce clause, to include virtually all activity that has any effect on commerce, overrides the Bill of Rights because the scope of modern commerce is far greater than commerce at the founding.

This case involves the Second Amendment. Roth’s logic as easily applies to the First Amendment and others. Virtually all First Amendment usage involves items that have a connection to interstate commerce – printing presses, telephones, computers, satellites, fiber optic cables, etc. Church pews are made of wood shipped across state lines, paid for by credit cards recognized by interstate banks. Nearly all homes affect interstate commerce. Under the expansive interpretation, the federal government could regulate all use and sale of homes and inspect them at any time, in spite of the Fourth Amendment. Under the expansive, Progressive interpretation, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are swallowed up. Virtually all of life is encompassed by the absurd extension of the Commerce Clause created by Progressive judges.

Most of what Judge Roth writes about modern times applied to commerce at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

Continue reading “”

Gun Advocates Quick to Sue Over Connecticut’s New Gun Safety Law

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont on Tuesday signed the most wide-ranging state gun control bill since a 2013 law passed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, sparking an immediate lawsuit by gun rights supporters seeking to block a ban on open carrying and other parts of the new law.

It’s the latest legal fight over Connecticut’s gun laws, which are some of the strictest in the country, since the U.S. Supreme Court last year expanded gun rights and opened several states’ laws to challenges. The landmark 2013 gun law and others also are being contested in court.

“This bill that I just signed takes smart and strategic steps to strengthen the laws in Connecticut to prevent tragedy from happening,” the Democratic governor said in a statement. “The inaction of Congress on critical legislation to keep Americans safe requires each state to act individually.”

Idaho-based We the Patriots USA, a group that bills itself as a protector of gun and other rights, filed a lawsuit in federal court late Tuesday with other plaintiffs in an effort to block the law, the group’s lawyer said.

“Individuals have a right to bear arms under both the state and federal constitutions,” the lawyer, Norm Pattis, wrote in an email to The Associated Press on Tuesday. “The state constitution guarantees a right to protect oneself. No one sacrifices that right by walking out of their front door. In an era of defunding police, permissive bail reform and liberal clemency, folks depend on the right to self-defense more than ever.”

Continue reading “”

Federal Trial Rolls On.

06.08.2023

Before we share a report of the third day of OFF’s federal trial to stop the unconstitutional Measure 114, we want to take a moment to once again send our sincere thanks to the Republican Senators who have risked so much to protect our rights and basic common sense by refusing to participate in the Democrat’s war on sanity.

By protesting the Democrat’s outrageous agenda by denying quorum, the Senate Republicans, and two Independents, (Art Robinson and Brian Boquist) have put the brakes on SB 348.

SB 348, as you know, was Floyd Prozanski’s effort to make Measure 114 even worse than it was when passed by out of state millionaires.

The Democrat propaganda machine and their mouthpieces in the media have been working non-stop to demonize the peaceful protest of the Senators who denied quorum to protect the minority, even as they continue to pretend to want to protect the rights of minorities.

So please take a moment to send a word of thanks to Senate Republican Leader Tim Knopp and ask him to share your appreciation with his fellow Senators.

At the trial we face a number of challenges. As you may know the Judge has declared that she will not hear arguments about the constitutionality of Measure 114 as applied. Her position is that the issue is “not ripe” because no one has yet been harmed by the measure.  Of course, the only reason no one has been harmed yet is because a state judge in Harney County, in a separate decision, placed an injunction on the measure. So it cannot go into effect until after a full trial in State Court which we expect to happen in September.

Continue reading “”

FPC Files Opening Brief in Lawsuit Challenging ATF Pistol Brace Rule

NEW ORLEANS, LA (June 5, 2023) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an opening brief with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Mock v. Garland, FPC and FPC Action Foundation’s challenge to ATF’s pistol brace rule. Today’s brief was filed less than two weeks after the court clarified that its injunction against the rule covers FPC’s members. The brief can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The merits panel should extend the interim relief pending appeal into a preliminary injunction,” argues the brief. “The Final Rule violates the Second Amendment and is not authorized by the NFA. But even if the NFA is ambiguous enough to allow for the Final Rule, then the Final Rule is barred by lenity and reflects an unconstitutional delegation of authority to the Agencies. The Final Rule also violates the First Amendment by considering the speech of manufacturers and third parties, is hopelessly vague, and violates both the substantive and notice provisions of the APA. On each of these points, Appellants are likely to succeed on the merits.”

“Receiving the injunction pending appeal was just the first step to ensuring that the Plaintiffs, including Maxim Defense’s customers and FPC’s members, are properly protected from the federal government while we litigate our full case against ATF’s stabilizing brace rule,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC Action Foundation’s Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation and attorney for FPC in this case. “All we’re asking is for the Fifth Circuit to preserve the decade-long status quo, as it has already done, through a preliminary injunction to protect millions of peaceable people from this unconstitutional and illegal overreach.”

En banc! U.S. 3rd Circuit Court (The Bruen decision strikes again)

TLDR:
Range pleaded guilty in 1995 to committing welfare fraud, a misdemeanor punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. As we know, GCA’ 68 bans people convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year and a day in prison – which are usually felonies – from buying guns.
Range sued the government in 2020 saying the ban violated his 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
The appeals court – en banc – ruled that since there were no text, history or tradition of restrictions like this when the 2nd and the 14th amendments were ratified, the restriction was unconstitutional.

Another scene in the opening act of the end of gun control the goobermint has foisted on us

No Loss of Second Amendment Rights for Welfare Fraud

Range_v_Garland_En_Banc_Opinion