Category: RKBA

2A says ‘right to keep and bear arms’
That’s anything to do with weaponry

Analysis: Pistol Brace Ruling Implies Second Amendment Protects AR-15s, Ammo Mags, and Silencers

“[T]he Court finds that braced pistols regulated under the Final Rule are commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”

That may be the most influential finding in Judge Reed O’Connor’s decision enjoining the ATF’s pistol brace rule. It strikes at a key part of the fight over gun and accessory bans across the country. And how Judge O’Connor reached his conclusion provides new insight into the threshold other courts may employ to determine whether the Second Amendment protects a banned item.

Working off of Supreme Court precedent in 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller, 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago, and 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, Judge O’Connor established the test for whether the Constitution protects an arm is whether it’s in lawful common use or not. And he said the Court had already determined modern handguns fit the bill.

“A weapon is in ‘common use’ rather than ‘dangerous and unusual’ if it is ‘commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes today,’” he wrote. “The relevant inquiry under this standard is the current total number of a particular weapon that is in lawful possession, ownership, and circulation throughout the United States. As a per se matter, semiautomatic pistols are commonly used weapons for lawful self-defense purposes across the United States today.”

From there, he found adding a brace to a pistol “does not somehow alter that status and effectively strip these pistols of their Second Amendment protection.” Then he argued the ATF’s own estimate for how many braced pistols have been legally purchased over the years directly undercut its argument they could be banned or significantly restricted.

Continue reading “”

CARJACKED CONGRESSMAN HIGHLIGHTS REASONS FOR INCREASING LAWFUL GUN OWNERSHIP

In a popular up-and-coming area of Washinton, D.C. – just a few blocks from the nation’s Capitol building – a U.S. Congressman was carjacked at gunpoint. U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) was parking his car just outside an apartment building where he and several other Members of Congress reside. The congressman was unharmed during the attack.

“As Congressman Cuellar was parking his car this evening, 3 armed assailants approached the Congressman and stole his vehicle. Luckily, he was not harmed and is working with local law enforcement,” Rep. Cuellar’s Chief of Staff stated in a press release.

Washington, D.C., police are still searching for the suspects. It can be assumed the firearms used in the crime were illegally obtained or stolen. If the criminals are ever caught and prosecuted, more questions will be answered.

However, there are plenty of reasons why other would-be criminals in the D.C.-Maryland-Virginia area might rethink their plans for committing crimes. More Americans are arming themselves to protect against criminals such as these.

‘Support Law Enforcement’

 The Texas congressman may caucus with the political party in Washington, D.C., that pushes an extreme gun control agenda, but his own record shows areas of support for gun rights. Last year, in the 117th Congress that had a Democratic-controlled House, Rep. Cuellar bucked his own party and voted with House Republicans against U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler’s (D-N.Y.) strict gun control bill. That legislation would have raised the legal age for U.S. adults to lawfully purchase America’s most popular-selling centerfire rifles, Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs). It also would have banned the purchase and possession of standard capacity magazines and required unconstitutional mandatory gun storage in the home.

Also that year, Rep. Cuellar voted against the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022, that barely passed the House. The legislation failed to even receive a vote in the U.S. Senate.

Following the incident, Rep. Cuellar struck a different tone than several of his Democratic congressional colleagues have in the past.

“You got to support law enforcement. And I’ve been doing that for a long time. I have three brothers who are peace officers,” Rep. Cuellar told Fox News. “I do want to thank the Capitol Police and I certainly want to thank the Metro Police. I’m a big law enforcement person. I got three boys in law enforcement. So I certainly appreciate the good work that the police did.”

This isn’t the first attack on a Member of Congress this year in Washington, D.C. Earlier this year, Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) was assaulted in her apartment building and suffered bruises while escaping more serious injuries.

‘They Target Us’

Surging crime in the District of Columbia is a growing concern and has been for several years. Washington, D.C., recently recorded its 200th homicide and it marked the first time in two decades that the federal city has had at least 200 murders for three years in a row. It was the earliest the grim marker has been surpassed. The Metro Police Department recently announced the average murder suspect in the city has eleven prior arrests.

How are would-be victims in Washington, D.C., responding? They aren’t sitting around and waiting to be victimized, especially women in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area – and most specifically African Americans.

“A lot of times men look at women and they think we are defenseless. They target us, first because they think we don’t carry. We can defend ourselves as women, we are not as weak as you think we are.” That’s what Kennette Brown told ABC 7 News in Washington, D.C., about why she obtained her concealed carry permit, purchased her first gun and takes the time to go to training courses.

Calvin Wellington is a firearms instructor for Nova Armory in Arlington, Va., and told media his firearm training courses are now mostly filled with women who are buying and training with firearms.

“The average woman that I get in my class is brand new to this,” Wellington said. “I have had women call me and thank me because when they walk out of their building to their car at night they are no longer scared.”

“With all the things going on in the world, you just want to be able to protect yourself,” added Nicole Washington. She takes classes to be a more confident and accurate gun owner. “I’m a pretty good shot.”

Nothing New

The trend of more women purchasing firearms for the first time isn’t a new phenomenon. It’s a trend that’s been happening for several years – and is welcomed.

Gun owners are increasingly female and also seeing greater minority gun ownership too, including African Americans, Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans. Last year, NBC News reported on the growing diversity within the gun-owning community with a report titled, “Why more Black people are looking for safety in gun ownership.” The report highlighted NSSF industry data showing 90 percent of gun retailers reported a “general increase” of Black customers, including an 87 percent increase among Black women.

A headline from The Cut read, “The New Face of American Gun Ownership – Black women are pushing against the (white, rural, and male) stereotype.” “In recent years, story after story has furthered the narrative that Black women are the fastest-growing group of gun owners in the country,” The Cut’s report said, adding Black women now make up a majority of the 40,000 members of the National African American Gun Association (NAAGA).

Fortunately, Congressman Cuellar’s vehicle and possessions were recovered within only a couple of hours.

“A society without law and order is not a society,” Rep. Cuellar told Fox’s Jesse Waters. When criminals are allowed to run rampant with no risk of prosecution for their crimes, innocent people suffer. Thankfully, Congress overturned the Washington, D.C., City Council’s attempts to enact laughably soft-on-crime policies earlier this year.

Even such, criminals thinking about committing crimes against residents have more reason to think again. They’re law-abiding residents like Kennette Brown and Nicole Washington and they have numerous friends taking a stand and exercising their Second Amendment rights for self-defense too.

A Flawed Case Against Black Self-Defense
In the face of state failure, neglect, and overt hostility, black Americans need the right to bear arms.

book2 | Bloomsbury Publishing
(Bloomsbury Publishing)

The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America, by Carol Anderson, Bloomsbury Publishing, 258 pages, $28

Carol Anderson claims the Second Amendment is rooted in the goal of suppressing slave insurrections and therefore is irredeemably racist.

This is part of a new historical revisionism that tries to paint the 2nd Amendment as some slave patrol scheme. However this nonsense is disproven by the very evidence used to try and prove it. Like the aptly named Dr. Bogus whose revisionist history “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment” includes Section 1, part K literally titled: “The Absence of Direct Evidence”.

Advocates of such false history also try to misconstrue the statements of Patrick Henry before the Ratifying Convention in Virginia from June 5th, 1788.

You can read the full speech here.

You’ll see none of what suggest regarding the 2nd Amendment being for slavery is present there.

Meanwhile gun control’s history is firmly based in racism with the specific aim of keeping people of color and non whites disarmed.

Slave Codes, Black Codes, Economic-Based Gun Bans Used To Prevent The Arming Of African Americans, 1640-1995

Diversity has been increasing in gun ownership for awhile now.

“Diversity in gun ownership nothing new to firearms industry”

“Gun ownership among Black Americans is soaring”

And it’s not gun owners that are offended by this, but gun control advocates like the VPC.

Continue reading “”

A Restraining Order Didn’t Stop This Assailant, a Woman’s Gun Did

On September 28, a woman found herself in a domestic violence situation and was forced to take drastic measures to defend her life. The incident, which occurred at her apartment in Wilmington, North Carolina, further illustrates how important it is for women to be armed – especially when it comes to situations involving domestic violence.

Anthony Parker, the woman’s estranged husband, physically assaulted her, but lost his life when she used her gun to stop him.

Wilmington police continue to investigate a suspected domestic violence-related shooting that claimed the life of Anthony Parker on the night of Sept. 28.

Parker was killed after what police say began as a domestic dispute at around 9:26 p.m. at 34 North Apartments.

A WPD representative said on Monday, Oct. 2, that a woman suspected of involvement in the shooting was granted a temporary restraining order against Parker on the day of the shooting.

In the 911 call obtained by WECT, the woman says that she has a restraining order against a man, but that he came to her house. The WPD representative said Monday that Parker took her phone likely the day before the shooting, and that she tracked her phone and met with police at the location she tracked the phone to. They said that he wouldn’t come to the door, so she was advised to take out warrants.

She told the dispatcher that she fired on shot from a weapon registered to her and that he ran.

The woman was attempting to bathe her child when Parker confronted her. When the situation escalated, the woman shot Parker before he fled the scene. “I shot one shot, and he ran,” she told reporters. He was later found dead in a parking lot.

This incident highlights multiple important issues. For domestic violence victims, it is even more important to be armed. In this case, the woman had already placed a restraining order on her assailant. We can see how much protection that piece of paper afforded her. When faced with immediate violence, her only line of defense was her quick thinking and her firearm. There is no telling how this incident would have turned out if she had not been armed.

This is one of the biggest problems with the anti-gunner lobby. They insist that making it harder for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms makes the nation less dangerous. In reality, it helps people protect themselves from those who hold no regard for the gun control laws the left claims will keep people safe. It is why I’m such a big proponent of women becoming gun owners. Firearms are an effective equalizer, when you’re faced with someone who is physically stronger and faster.

There are several cases in which women have used guns to protect themselves from domestic abusers. Unfortunately, there are too many who become victims because they did not possess the means by which they could defend themselves from their attackers. It’s a heartbreaking tragedy.

While society works to find additional solutions for domestic violence, the firearm, for many, remains a crucial ally, especially when law enforcement is unable to arrive quickly enough to diffuse the situation. The bottom line is that a restraining order cannot protect against an attacker like a firearm can.

[Florida AG] Ashley Moody Releases Legal Opinion, Insists ATF Infringed on Gun Rights

This week, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody released a legal opinion regarding the use of stabilizing braces for handguns in Florida.

Moody issued the opinion in response to a request from state Rep. Shane Abbott, R-DeFuniak Springs, to provide clarity on Florida law following a recently released Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) interpretation of a federal law. The ATF interpretation subjects handguns with stabilizing braces to National Firearms Act controls. Moody issued an opinion on a similarly worded provision of Florida law concluding that stabilizing braces are not short-barreled rifles.

“The Second Amendment is alive and well in Florida and our state laws protect the gun rights of law-abiding citizens. We issued this important legal opinion to provide clarity about our state law as the federal government continues to overreach in an effort to over-regulate certain firearm accessories,” said Moody.

The opinion deals solely with Florida state law and has no bearing on the ATF’s action. The opinion states: “Unless and until judicially or legislatively clarified, I conclude that the definition of ‘short-barreled rifle,’ which the Legislature enacted in 1969, does not include a handgun, such as a pistol, to which a person attaches a stabilizing brace, because the use of such an optional accessory does not change the fundamental characteristics of the handgun.” Separately, the state of Florida is challenging the ATF interpretation.

GOV. NEWSOM SENDS GUN CONTROL RUBBER STAMP TO U.S. SENATE

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is ensuring that his gun control agenda is in safe hands with the appointment of Laphonza Butler to serve in the U.S. Senate following the passing of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Sen. Butler was sworn in this week, a Democrat who until the announcement was residing in Silver Springs, Md., and has spoken little on gun control issues. However, her progressive track record and history of working for liberal causes assures that she will pick up the gun control mantle.

Sen. Feinstein was the longest-serving female senator at the time of her death on Sept. 29. She was also the matriarch of the Senate’s gun control agenda. She helped author the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. That law lasted 10 years and was not reauthorized in 2004. Since then, Sen. Feinstein introduced legislation in every Congress to revive the ban on America’s most-popular selling centerfire rifle. In fact, if she had it her way, gun control would have gone much further.

Sen. Feinstein told 60 Minutes in a 1995 interview, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in,” she said. “I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”

Sen. Bulter’s selection to fill the remainder of Sen. Feinstein’s term promises that not much will change. Sen. Butler is deeply tied to gun control politicians and causes that will surely seek to expand efforts to deprive law-abiding Americans of their Second Amendment rights.

Who is Laphonza Butler?

Gov. Newsom heaped praise on Sen. Butler for shattering glass ceilings in the Senate. He noted that she is the first openly LGBTQ person to represent California in the Senate, first Black lesbian to openly serve in Congress and third Black woman to represent California in the Senate following Vice President Kamala Harris.

He also noted that Butler will pick up where Sen. Feinstein left off with gun control.

“As we mourn the enormous loss of Senator Feinstein, the very freedoms she fought for — reproductive freedom, equal protection, and safety from gun violence — have never been under greater assault,” Gov. Newsom said in a statement. “Laphonza will carry the baton left by Senator Feinstein, continue to break glass ceilings, and fight for all Californians in Washington D.C.”

Sen. Butler grew up in Magnolia, Miss., and attended Jackson State University. Her father died when she was just 16. She worked in the labor movement for 20 years and at 30, was elected president of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 2015. She was also SEIU international vice president and president of SEIU California’s state council.

Sen. Butler also ran political campaigns and was part of Vice President Harris’ campaign for the vice presidency. She was previously a senior advisor to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. She has been president of Emily’s List, a national political action committee dedicated to electing abortion rights-supportive women candidates to office.

Political Pals

While little in her personal or professional career points to gun control, the list of supporters lining up to congratulate her is telling.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered her endorsement, saying, “A great choice for California and the Senate. Congratulations Laphonza Butler!”

That was echoed by twice-failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, as well as former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile, the Democratic National Committee, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), and California Democratic U.S. Reps. Ted Lieu, Jimmy Gomez, Ami Berra, Ro Khanna, Sara Jacobs, Mark Takano, Brad Sherman, Gloria Johnson, Nanette Barragán and California Attorney General Rob Bonta. All are ardent gun control supporters.

Even Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) offered congratulations, despite the fact that he’s thrown his hat into the ring for the seat she’s filling until 2024. He’s facing a crowded Democratic field including California Democratic Reps. Barbara Lee and Katie Porter – and Sen. Butler if she decides to compete for election.

Gleeful Gun Control

It’s not just gun control politicians that are gleeful at Gov. Newsom’s appointment of Sen. Butler to fill the Senate seat. It’s also gun control groups too.

President of Everytown for Gun Safety’s (and its mouthpiece The Trace) John Feinblatt, the gun control group bankrolled by antigun billionaire Michael Bloomberg, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, “Laphonza Butler is an advocate’s advocate and we’re thrilled with her history-making appointment to the Senate. We look forward to working alongside her to keep communities safe from gun violence.”

The Everytown-affiliated Moms Demand Action got in on the action too. Executive Director Angela Ferrell-Zabala wrote on X, “Laphonza Butler is an incredible leader and a fierce advocate for women and girls. I’m thrilled to watch her make history as the first Black lesbian senator to openly serve in Congress. Moms Demand can’t wait to work with her to continue California’s leadership on gun safety!”

Gov. Newsom’s appointment of Sen. Butler is a calculated move to ensure his gun control agenda – including his maligned 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – is preserved. This is his attempt to export California gun control to the rest of the country and potentially pave the way for his own White House bid.

Mr Morse hit the electorate population replacement conspiracy theory nail on the head.

The White House Office of Democrat Decline

Let me connect two distant events. A sandwich shop in Philadelphia hired armed guards, and Joe Biden announced the White House “Office of Gun Violence Prevention.” The connection is both obvious and fascinating.

Jimmy’s Cheesesteaks in Philadelphia did more than hire a guard. They hired uniformed and armored guards openly carrying rifles across their chests. They guard the shop inside and out several days a week. If you go to the article and look at the picture, note that most of the windows at Jimmy’s are already boarded up. The widows with glass are covered with steel bars. The gas station on the corner has armed guards too because they wanted to be open after dark. This is the same city that had nightly looting this week.

Now consider why Biden announced an office of “gun violence.” First, I’m going to give you a few hints-

Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, Detroit,
New York, Trenton, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington DC, New Orleans

Each of them has a Democrat mayor and city council. Each has rising crime and falling populations. They are bleeding people and turning into abandoned shells where no one can have a business and no one wants to live. Biden threw open the borders so these failing cities wouldn’t hollow out and lose democrat congressional seats.

As I mentioned, we’ve seen nightly riots and looting in Chicago and Philadelphia. Chicago’s Magnificent Mile, a street that was once filled with expensive shops and restaurants, now has 26% vacancy rate in spring of 2023. San Francisco is worse with huge name-brand hotels being handed back to the banks. People refuse to go to San Fran for conventions or tourism. Look on Youtube and you can see blocks and blocks of abandoned businesses on the main streets of San Francisco, of Oakland, and of Berkeley.

There are abandoned homes and entire subdivisions where no one lives, where no one can live because of the laws that democrats put in place. It is almost as if they set out to repeat the lessons they didn’t learn from Detroit. Remember when New York Governor Kathy Hochul said there is no place in New York State for conservatives? She got her wish, and the state of Florida welcomed them with open arms.

Democrats need to blame the gun. They have to blame the gun. Their cities have abandoned city blocks, abandoned malls, and empty skyscrapers. Money isn’t enough to fix this problem, but Democrats will throw taxpayers money at their failed cities.

They revitalized the waterfront in Baltimore, but nobody came. Businesses were afraid of being looted and customers were afraid of being robbed. Property on the water used to be one of the gems of the city, but democrats fixed that.

Right behind choosing to wear a Covid mask, guns are one of the clearest indicators of political affiliation. Democrats have to blame the gun and funnel money into their failing cities. Democrat politicians can’t afford the blame for what they’ve already done. What are they going to campaign on, “Vote for me and I’ll turn your city into Detroit?’

Is Austin far behind? The mayor of Dallas just switched political parties and became a republican because he says his city works and he wants it to stay that way.

First They Came for the Gun Owners: The Campaign to Disarm You and Take Your Freedoms

First They Came for the Gun Owners: The Campaign to Disarm You and Take Your Freedoms

Gun control isn’t just about guns.

Best-selling author and attorney Mark W. Smith exposes the all-encompassing nature of the anti-gun lobby’s attack on the right to keep and bear arms—and how it serves as a proxy to empower government to control other important aspects of our lives. Smith notes that it’s no accident that the people who oppose the Second Amendment also argue for bigger government in other areas—as well as favoring sharp limits on free speech and property rights. Taken together, it is an all-encompassing attack on individual liberties by those who consider themselves intellectually and morally superior to average Americans.

Smith makes a compelling and urgent case that protecting and preserving our right to bear arms is an imperative for all who value freedom, whether you own a gun or not.

Judge halts Maryland’s ban on carrying guns in places selling alcohol and near demonstrations

A federal judge on Friday blocked several restrictions Maryland lawmakers tried to impose on the ability to carry a firearm, while leaving other gun control measures in place.

Judge George L. Russell III, an Obama appointee, issued a preliminary injunction halting Maryland’s new restrictions banning the carrying of a gun in places selling alcohol, in private buildings or property without owner’s consent and within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration.

He reasoned there was no historical basis to leave those rules in place in light of the Second Amendment challenge brought by a group of plaintiffs and gun rights groups. It was filed against Maryland’s Gun Safety Act of 2023 that is set to take effect Sunday.

Judge Russell analyzed the restrictions following the Supreme Court’s ruling last year that upended New York’s license-to-carry measure, in which the state required people to show a proper need to carry a gun. The majority of the high court said any gun control measure must be consistent with the nation’s tradition and history back to its founding.

Using that precedent as a guide, Judge Russell upheld state bans against the carrying of a gun in museums, health care facilities, state parks, mass transit, school grounds, government buildings, casinos, racetracks, amusement parks and stadiums. He said there were traditions showing regulation of guns in those places.

Maryland lawmakers passed the law after the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which held tat carrying a pistol in public is a constitutional right. The high court’s decision has led to many gun control measures being upended across the country as lower courts try to find historical analogs when weighing a gun control measure against a Second Amendment challenge.

And SloJoe (more probably some staff member) says he’ll sign it? What’s going on here? Was all this merely some ploy to give him a way to make like he’s a friend of hunters?

SENATE JOINS HOUSE TO STOP BIDEN CUTS OF SCHOOL PROGRAMS

BELLEVUE, WA – Only hours after the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms blasted the Biden administration’s attempt to eliminate funding for school hunter education and archery programs, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed bipartisan legislation to prevent the cuts, and now the White House has confirmed President Biden will sign the Protecting Hunting Heritage and Education Act.

The bill passed the House 424-1 Tuesday. It was championed by members of both parties who recognized the administration had deliberately misinterpreted tenets of the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to cut funding for hunter safety, archery and other student programs.

“Joe Biden may be incapable of reading the writing on the wall,” said a jubilant CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “but there is no question the House and Senate members who almost unanimously passed this legislation do not suffer from the same foggy vision.”

Gottlieb offered kudos to lawmakers who acted swiftly this week to “nip this nonsense in the bud.” He called the administration’s attempt to cut this important funding “one more example of the Biden administration’s extremist sentiments toward any program even remotely connected to activities that may involve the lawful use of firearms. Only one vote was cast against the House version of the bill, by a Texas Democrat.

“This overwhelming action on Capitol Hill sends a clear message to the Biden White House that the administration’s anti-gun fanaticism has crossed the line when it threatens school programs that teach genuine safety and valuable conservation to our children,” Gottlieb said. “CCRKBA is proud to have played a part in this clear victory of common sense over crass extremism.”

The Senate version was introduced earlier this month by Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas), Krysten Sinema (I-Arizona) and Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina). A separate measure had been introduced by Montana Democrat Jon Tester. Congressman Mark Green (R-Tennessee) introduced the House version last month.

 

COURT SUPERMAJORITY WILL CLARIFY ITS CONSTITUTIONAL REVOLUTION

The first Monday in October, the traditional date for the beginning of the U.S. Supreme Court’s term, is almost here: On Oct. 2, 2023, the court will meet after the summer recess, with the biggest case of the term focused on the limits of individual gun rights.

The other core issue for the coming year is a broad reassessment of the power of the administrative state.

Both issues reflect a court that has announced revolutionary changes in doctrine and must now grapple with how far the new principles will reach.

Two years ago, the court began what many consider to be a constitutional revolution.

The new supermajority of six conservative justices rapidly introduced new doctrines across a range of controversies including abortion, guns, religion and race.

When the court announces a new principle – for example, a limit on the powers of a specific part of government – citizens and lawyers are not sure of the full ramifications of the new rule. How far will it go? What other areas of law will come under the same umbrella?

Continue reading “”

Magazines are as much a part of a gun as ammo and other accoutrements, and are just as protected from goobermint restriction. The 2nd amendment is not an ‘allowance’, or ‘permission’ to keep and bear arms.
It restricts goobermint, not the people.
Judges, legislators and bureaucraps who think otherwise are nothing but clear domestic enemies of the Constitution, which the Bill of Rights is part.

BLUF
Nevertheless, it has become abundantly clear that whether or not a judge is sympathetic to the idea that magazines are “arms” is the most relevant dividing line in this hotly contested slice of Second Amendment jurisprudence. It will undoubtedly be the hinge point in many future rulings as these bans continue to be litigated.

Analysis: Judges Diverge on Whether Second Amendment Protects Ammo Magazines

Are ammunition magazines constitutionally protected arms? Or are they simply accessories incidental to the weapons covered under the Second Amendment?

Different judges have reached wildly different conclusions since the Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen last June, particularly regarding the so-called large capacity magazines often banned in blue states. It is no surprise then that the outcomes of the various legal challenges taking aim at those prohibitions have primarily been settled depending on which side a particular judge falls on this very question. Two major decisions handed down in the last week demonstrate this.

Last Friday, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez struck down California’s ban on ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.

“This case is about a California state law that makes it a crime to keep and bear common firearm magazines typically possessed for lawful purposes,” Judge Benitez wrote in Duncan v. Bonta. “Based on the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, this law is clearly unconstitutional.”

Just three days later, U.S. District Judge Mary Dimke upheld Washington state’s nearly identical magazine ban.

“At present, the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish that Plaintiffs are likely to prove that large capacity magazines fall within the Second Amendment right,” Judge Dimke wrote in Brumback v. Ferguson.

Continue reading “”

Teachers With Guns: District by District, a Push to Arm Educators Is Growing
Seconds matter during a school shooting. A rural superintendent wondered, what if staff members could intervene before police arrived?

An act of mass violence hasn’t yet touched the Benjamin Logan Local School District.

Superintendent John Scheu is thankful for that.

But for years, every time news broke about yet another school shooting, Scheu faced a handful of “what if?” questions.

What if a school in this small, rural district about an hour northwest of Columbus, Ohio—where the closest police outpost is 10 miles away—was the next target of a shooting? What if Benjamin Logan students were the next to have to huddle in closets sending “I love you” texts to friends and family? What if Scheu’s community was the next to have to mourn the loss of beloved students and staff members?

“If it can happen in all of these other places, it could happen here,” he said.

So, Scheu and his district invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in security. They hired school resource officers who are stationed at each of the district’s three schools. Security cameras send live feeds to the local sheriff’s office. Staff are reminded often that exterior doors are not to be propped open or left unlocked for any reason.

There’s a new mental health clinic at one of the schools, staffed with counselors trained to help the district’s roughly 1,600 students and 225 staff members.

District leaders felt confident they’d done all they could to keep outside threats from entering their buildings.

But what if the threat came from someone already inside?

Students and teachers have lockdown drills, and, as has become commonplace in American schools, they know to pull down the shades and lock the classroom doors before hiding quietly from a threat. But, beyond that, there isn’t much they would be able to do but “wait and hope that help would come,” Scheu said.

Except, Scheu asked himself, what if there were staff members trained to intervene? What if a handful of teachers, aides, and others could quickly reach for a firearm if an active shooter were targeting students?

“When you’re talking about putting out an active shooter threat, it’s a matter of seconds, not a matter of minutes,” said Scheu, who has served as superintendent in the district since July 2020. “And it’s a matter of life and death.”

After a year of planning, the district’s first “Armed Response Team” was in place to start the 2023-24 school year, part of a growing trend in Ohio and elsewhere in which schools tap teachers and other employees to act as the first line of armed defense against an active shooter.

Continue reading “”

Whamm, Zwap, Bam! Lawsuits Already Filed Over California’s Newest Gun Control Laws
GOA, GOF join Gun Owners of California in suit challenging California’s brand new anti-concealed carry law

Senate Bill 2 by Senator Anthony Portantino’s (D–Burbank), which is California’sresponse bill to New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, was signed into law Tuesday. SB 2 enacts numerous “sensitive locations” where guns are banned, and changes requirements to obtain a concealed carry license. SB 2 was also sponsored by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, and simply put illegally imposes restrictions on those seeking a California Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permit.

Notably, Newsom, Bonta and Portantino know they are imposing restrictions to those applying for CCWs, when virtually no crimes are committed by CCW holders, who are required to pass background checks by County Sheriffs, and take gun safety courses.

Remarkably, CCW permit holders don’t commit mass shootings, they stop them. We’ve never had a comment or even a reaction from Gov. Newsom, AG Bonta or Sen. Portantino on this fact. Instead they obsess on legal gun owners, seeking ways to limit Second Amendment protections.

Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation just announced:

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) teamed up with Gun Owners of California (GOC) to promptly serve California AG Rob Bonta in a lawsuit challenging portions of SB 2, a bill that anti-gun Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Tuesday. This unconstitutional legislation was passed in response to the Bruen decision (which ended the state’s draconian “may-issue” policy), and among other provisions would:

    • Enact highly restrictive “sensitive locations” where concealed carrying would be prohibited, including all private property unless expressly permitted by the owner;
    • Require 16 hours of training;
    • And significantly increase the costs associated with securing a permit.

This suit specifically goes after the “sensitive locations” provision of the law.

So that is strike one.

This is strike two.

Continue reading “”

Will Gov. Newsom ever realize California’s gun laws must follow the Second Amendment?

By The Editorial Board | opinion@scng.com |
How many times will it take for Gov. Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta and others to realize California’s gun laws must follow the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America?

On Sept. 22, their attempt to limit rifle and pistol magazines to 10 bullets again was shot down by Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of the U.S. District Court, part of the Ninth Circuit. The ban derived from Proposition 63 in 2016.

The case is Miller v. Bonta. On June 5, 2021 Benitez originally ruled the ban unconstitutional. Sixteen days later a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit stayed the ruling, leaving the law in place. Matters changed after the U.S. Supreme Court strongly affirmed Second Amendment protections in its June 23, 2022 decision, NYSRPA v. Bruen. The top court also ordered the Miller case heard again by Benitez.

In his new Miller case decision, Benitez held, “Based on the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, this law is clearly unconstitutional … There is no American tradition of limiting ammunition capacity and the 10-round limit has no historical pedigree and it is arbitrary and capricious. It is extreme.”

He noted there is no federal ban on such magazines. And state bans are not uniform and “arbitrary.”

He cited several cases of self-defense where small magazines were inadequate in fighting off criminals. In Kentucky, an intruder came in blasting at a family. One daughter was killed and the father wounded three times as he returned fire with 11 rounds from one gun and eight from a second, failing to hit the assailant, who later was arrested.

Benitez also noted 81 million Americans own up to 456 million firearms. And that criminals don’t follow gun laws.

Benitez performed a “masterful job at the molecular level” of picking apart “every argument put forth by the state of California” and other states to limit the Second Amendment, Sam Paredes told us; he’s the executive director of Gun Owners of California, which filed an amicus brief in the case.

Bonta, who we endorsed for re-election last year, filed an appeal. He said, “We will continue to fight for our authority to keep Californians safe from weapon enhancements designed to cause mass casualties.” Newsom said, “It’s time to wake up. Unless we enshrine a Right to Safety in the Constitution, we are at the mercy of ideologues like Judge Benitez.”

That was a reference to Newsom’s proposed 28th Amendment that, among other things, would ban so-called “assault weapons,” which really are just cosmetically mean-looking rifles.

Ironically, that’s a tacit admission the restrictions he favors currently are unconstitutional.

Earlier this month Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico tried banning open carry of legal guns. She was rebuffed in court and even by such liberal Democrats as Rep. Ted Lieu of Los Angeles, who reminded her, ““No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution. There is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.”

Gun rights are here to stay. Newsom and Bonta need to end their assaults on Californians’ right to defend themselves.

Abolish Gun-Free Zones

We need to get rid of gun-free zones. Yes, this particular issue has been quite contentious over the past few years, especially amid a rash of active shooter situations. But despite what proponents of gun-free zones will tell you, the numbers are in, and they show that prohibiting guns in certain areas is about as effective at protecting people as putting out a California wildfire with an eyedropper.

Data coming from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) have highlighted stark discrepancies in how the FBI reports incidents involving active shooters. The report, compiled by John Lott, CPRC’s president, shows that allowing responsible people to carry firearms in more places does far more to keep them safe than keeping them from being armed in these areas.

I wrote about Lott’s report previously:

In a conversation with the Washington Times, Lott pointed out that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has downplayed the percentage of shootings that end with a “good guy with a gun” using their firearm to save lives. The FBI has long held that only 4.4 percent of active shooting incidents are stopped by civilians using guns. However, Lott suggested the percentage is much higher: 34.4 percent.

The report delved further into how the FBI’s numbers have skewed the data:
The report also notes that in 2021, “the FBI listed 61 active-shooter incidents, with perhaps four that were stopped by armed citizens.” But Lott says he found 112 incidents, 55 of which were ended by an armed citizen using a firearm.

From 2014 to 2021, the FBI counted 252 active-shooter incidents and says 11 were ended by an armed citizen, which is where they get the 4.4 percent figure. On the other hand, Lott’s research counted 360 incidents, 124 of which were stopped by an armed citizen, which amounts to 34.4 percent.

“In 2021, the data he has the most confidence in, he says it was 49.1% of the time,” according to the Washington Times. “And looking only at incidents in places where carrying weapons isn’t heavily restricted, the rate is closer to 60%.”

So, there is a lot in that last paragraph, isn’t there? For starters, the FBI is clearly downplaying the number of incidents in which an armed civilian uses their firearm to stop active and mass shootings. This is similar to how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)  removed data displaying the frequency of defensive gun uses at the behest of anti-gunner groups. The government is deeply invested in making sure the public never finds out that gun owners are far more likely to use their guns to defend life and property than they are to victimize other people.

But the data related to the number of active shootings that are stopped by armed civilians is just as noteworthy, especially considering the fact that this is more likely to happen in places where guns are allowed than in gun-free zones. In fact, about 94 percent of active shootings occur in gun-free zones. Go figure.

In light of this, why the hell would anyone advocate for gun-free zones? Not only does the data show that they do not protect people, but common sense will also tell you that having decent people who are armed makes it less likely that an active shooter might be able to massacre a crowd of people. After all, when was the last time a sign saying “gun-free zone” stopped a violent criminal from carrying their firearm in a particular area? The very idea that this will help keep people safe is absurd.

The data shows the wisdom of allowing armed civilians to play a more active role in public safety. Indeed, the police are typically unable to show up in time to save lives when a mass shooting starts. All too often, they arrive too late to save lives. Yet, the people already on the scene are the best equipped to save lives if they are armed. Therefore, it clearly makes no sense to uphold gun-free zones. If we really want to protect life, we have to let responsible Americans carry firearms in as many places as possible.

CRPA, SAF, GOA and Others Jointly File Federal Lawsuit Challenging California’s Carry Restriction Law.

Multiple gun owner’s rights advocacy groups and individuals have joined together and filed a Second Amendment challenge to Senate Bill (SB2) in the United States District Court. The lawsuit is known as May v. Bonta and you can see the filings so far here. We are already in contact with the state’s lawyers, are working out a briefing schedule, and have a tentative hearing date on a motion for preliminary injunction on December 4, 2023.

SB2 designates much of the state as a “sensitive place” and thereby eliminates those places where law-abiding gun owners who have qualified for and been issued a permit to carry a firearm by law enforcement can carry their approved firearms. So, SB2 effectively makes a permit useless. SB2 also makes it much more time-consuming and costly to obtain a concealed carry permit.

SB2 is a vindictive legislative response designed to get around the Supreme Court’s historic Bruen decision from 2022. Bruen held that a permit to carry a firearm in public to defend yourself and your family is a right, not a privilege. As a result, California and other states that previously limited access to these permits had to start issuing them, and the number of permit holders in California has greatly increased.

The Bruen decision also clarifies that governments cannot limit the usefulness of these permits by over-designating places as “sensitive,” where carrying a firearm, even with a permit, would be prohibited. Governor Newsom and the anti-gun-owner legislators who voted for this law are trying to do exactly that. They know this bill will only affect lawful gun owners because they are the only ones who pass the qualification process to get a permit.

SB2 does nothing to stop gun violence by criminals. And in fact, data from several states demonstrates that Americans with concealed carry permits commit crimes at extraordinarily low rates, as the lawsuit explains. Recently, a Hawaii district court relied in part on this same data, which was presented to it by some of the same associations now challenging SB2, to conclude that Hawaii’s similar law could be enjoined.

Designating so many places as gun-free zones is a retaliatory tactic coordinated by well-financed national gun control advocacy that is being used in states hostile to gun ownership to make the right to defend yourself in public useless. California follows in the footsteps of Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Hawaii.

Federal courts in those other jurisdictions have already enjoined laws like SB2. These rulings include, but are not limited to: Antonyuk v. Hochul, No. 1:22-CV-0986 (GTS/CFH), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201944 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2022); Koons v. Platkin, No. CV 22-7463 (RMB/AMD), 2023 WL 3478604 (D.N.J. May 16, 2023); and Wolford v. Lopez, No. CV 23-00265 LEK-WRP, 2023 WL 5043805, at *1 (D. Haw. Aug. 8, 2023).

It is an open secret in the hallways of the Capital that Newsom hopes to pass so many gun control laws that Second Amendment advocacy groups cannot keep up. But those groups have responded by forming an unprecedented strategic partnership and coordinating their efforts to fight back.

We now have a strong coalition of gun rights groups fighting against these laws. And when we win, the state will be forced to pay our legal bill.

Pro-Second Amendment groups joining in a lawsuit against Newsom and SB2 are well known in the state, and many have been fighting against unconstitutional gun bans for decades. The coalition includes the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and Second Amendment Foundation.

Each organization brings resources, members, donors, and expertise to this challenge. Newsom has unlimited tax dollars to battle for his unconstitutional laws in court and thinks that he can bankrupt us. But we have millions of gun owners who donate to support these challenges. When our elected officials refuse to uphold the law of the land and our Constitution, we are proud to hold that line for the people of California.”

The crown jewel of Newsom’s anti-Second Amendment campaign is his ploy to get a 28th Amendment passed that would gut the Second Amendment, including a ban on semi-automatic firearms. But 38 states would have to agree to that amendment, and 24 states have already filed amicus briefs in courts that urged those courts to strike down laws banning semi-automatic firearms commonly possessed by tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners. So, his constitutional amendment gambit, which insiders already recognize is a ploy to raise money and give him a platform to run his shadow campaign for president, is dead on arrival.

BLUF
Yes, they’re coming for our guns. No, they can’t have them without a fight.

Academic says quiet part out loud on gun control

Anyone who engages in discussions on gun control has undoubtedly been told that no one is coming for our guns; that all anyone wants to do is to keep firearms from falling into the wrong hands. All those regulations they’re proposing? Those are just for criminals.

Now, we all know this is BS. Things like assault weapon bans, for example, result in taking people’s guns sooner or later. Just because that’s not what they’re saying no doesn’t mean that’s not where we’re eventually going to head.

Enter a discussion about President Joe Biden’s new Office of Gun Violence Prevention over at China Daily.

Yes, it’s China talking about US gun policy–a subject I think I’ve been pretty clear about my feelings on–but in there, we find someone who may have just said the part gun control fans are supposed to keep quiet.

Jeffrey Fagan, an expert on policing, crime and gun control and Professor of Law at Columbia Law School in New York, said: “Every little bit helps, including research, to slow the epidemic of gun violence. However, unless there are strong measures to reduce the supply of firearms, and also the legality of firearms, this will have little effect on the unacceptably high rates of both lethal and nonlethal firearm violence.”

(Emphasis added)

Now, let’s take a look at that bolded section for a moment. We’re going to take that in order–don’t worry, we’ll get to the “legality” thing in a moment.

Reduce the supply of firearms

There are an estimated 400 million firearms in private hands in the United States. The Second Amendment also protects our right to keep and bear arms.

Yet Fagan here has argued that we need to reduce the supply of firearms. Not the supply of black market guns or guns in criminal hands, but guns in general. That despite ample evidence that it’s those guns in particular that represent a problem with regard to violent crime.

As such, that means reducing guns for law-abiding citizens to some degree or another.

The easy thought is to assume Fagan simply means restricting the purchase of firearms in general in some manner, such as gun rationing or some similar policy.

The problem there is that with 400 million firearms already in circulation and the fact that firearms are generally durable, meaning they don’t necessarily wear out or anything if properly maintained, that number isn’t going to decrease on its own. Every gun purchase adds to the availability of firearms.

That means that, at some point, you’re going to have to remove firearms from circulation as a whole. The only way that can happen is via gun confiscation.

You can’t just make guns vanish otherwise. You can’t reduce the availability of guns without that.

Reducing the legality of firearms

Fagan makes reference to the legality of firearms, suggesting he wants to make them less legal to own in some manner. This likely includes things like assault weapon bans and other restrictions, particularly those lacking some kind of grandfather clause that would allow those who already have such weapons to keep them.

Again, that whole gun confiscation thing.

But we need to remember that the legality of firearms is preserved via the Second Amendment. You can’t just wish that away no matter how much you want to. So long as the Second Amendment stands, you’re not going to be able to really do much of anything about the legality of guns no matter how much you favor gun control.

This is one problem gun control is always going to have.

What’s more, following the Bruen decision, it’s clear that one will be hard-pressed to find gun control regulations existing at the time of the Second Amendment that would be an analog for any restriction you could pass today that would restrict the legality of guns in general.

Now, one can imagine gun control advocates dismissing Fagan’s comments as just the words of a single academic, that they’re not reflected in the gun control community as a whole. I disagree, especially since we saw Gabby Giffords, founder of one of the biggest anti-gun groups out there, argue for “no more guns.”

I’m sorry, but I can’t buy that this is just a fringe opinion.

Yes, they’re coming for our guns.

No, they can’t have them without a fight.