Category: RKBA

West Milford NJ Declares Itself A ‘2nd Amendment Sanctuary’

WEST MILFORD, NJ – West Milford has become one of the first towns in New Jersey to declare itself a “sanctuary” for law-abiding gun owners.

A non-binding resolution, which was approved unanimously on Dec. 4 by the township council, designates the Passaic County community a “Second Amendment/lawful gun owner sanctuary township.”

Click here to read the full resolution.

According to the resolution, the township opposes gun control, “gun safety” legislation, and “red flag laws,” whether state, federal or local. It also “opposes further interference with, or abridging of, the rights of lawful gun owners.”

West Milford, the resolution says, “supports the rights of lawful gun owners to lawfully use firearms; to defend themselves, their loved ones and other innocents; to lawfully hunt to provide sustenance for their families; and to lawfully participate in shooting sports up to and including Olympic sports.”

It also criticizes “red flag laws” that have been adopted by more than a dozen states, including New Jersey.

“Gun control laws, including a plethora of current proposed legislation, are not evidence-based legislation called “gun safety” legislation or ‘Red Flag Laws,’ factually have nothing to do with teaching or promoting the safe and lawful use of firearms,” the resolution said.

Get Ready For War: FL Sheriff Warns Citizens To Arm Themselves
Most law enforcement officers suggest running, hiding, and calling 911 when violent criminals strike – not Sheriff Wayne Ivey.

What is our nation coming to? Impeaching the president when no actual crime has been committed. Taking away our Second Amendment rights. It’s so surreal. We have state governments fighting against federal agencies trying to protect us from the surge of illegal immigrants and human and drug trafficking. Politicians want to force us to give up our guns while mass shootings are becoming more frequent, and violent organizations like Antifa are gaining more power. On top of all that, you know things are critical when law enforcement tells citizens to arm themselves and be prepared for war.

Sheriff Wayne Ivey of Brevard County, Florida, has a strong message to impart in what he calls a strategy for survival. In a video, he warned citizens, “This is war, and you’d better be prepared to wage war to protect you, your family, and those around you.” The police usually recommend calling 911 in an emergency rather than fighting. But not Ivey. He suggests people be prepared; anyone with a concealed carry permit, he says, should be armed at all times.

First Line Of Defense?
“Folks, now more than ever is the time for our citizens to be prepared to serve as the first line of defense,” the sheriff warned.

Ivey’s message is strong – and a bit scary – but is he right? Some might consider his call to arms speech a tactic to alarm people unnecessarily, but when one takes into account all that is happening in the country today, he might just be right on target. We had two shootings on military bases a couple of days apart: Pearl Harbor, HI, and Pensacola, FL. If safety cannot be reasonably guaranteed at a military facility, why would anyone feel protected at a mall, a concert, or in their own home?

The 2A Resistance
The Florida sheriff isn’t the only one pulling back the reins on anti-gun policies. Local law enforcement agencies across the nation have vowed to uphold the Second Amendment, despite what state or federal officials may try to enforce. Virginia is a prime example of this resistance with 90% of the state’s counties turning into Second Amendment sanctuaries. And if that weren’t enough, Tazewell County has gone even further by approving a resolution to create a militia for the protection of county citizens and law enforcement from unfair firearm restrictions. This new policy came just days after Governor Ralph Northam, a Democrat, threatened “consequences” for refusing to enforce state gun control laws, which, according to one lawmaker from the Democratic Party, might include deploying the National Guard!

The American people have finally reached their limit, and all the aggressive pushing by the liberal left and demanding Democrats is only sending us that much faster into the next civil war.

St. Germain may soon follow Florence County as only Second Amendment Sanctuaries in Wisconsin

ST. GERMAIN – Gun store owner Jason Hyrczyk’s phone ringtone of gunfire says it all.

“It’s part of our American heritage,” said Hyrczyk, owner of Blacked Out Arms in St. Germain. “That’s why we’re different than any other country. It guarantees our freedoms.”

Hyrczyk strongly supports the second amendment, and agrees with the town board members who proposed a resolution to make St. Germain a second amendment sanctuary.

“We want to have a voice up here as well,” said St. Germain Town Supervisor Jim Swenson.

With talk about restricting gun access in the state capitol, Swenson said he and others feel left out of the political process.

“We’ll keep going forward with what the constitution states and what our belief is,” said Swenson.

Resolution SG19-12-1 was proposed by town supervisor Brian Cooper at the Dec. 9 meeting.

It states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms is guaranteed as an individual right under the second amendment.”

Debate arose at the Dec. 9 town board meeting about a how a potential future law could be at odds with the second amendment.

The resolution states “the town supports the sheriff of Vilas County to exercise sound discretion not to enforce against any citizen an unconstitutional firearms law.”

This could put law enforcement in a difficult position – should they follow their interpretation of the constitution or state law?

But Vilas County Sheriff Joe Fath has no problem with this.

“It wouldn’t have any effect on our department,” said Fath.

Fath, a resident of St. Germain, doesn’t believe Wisconsin will pass any of what he calls ‘unconstitutional second amendment laws’.

Everytown Submits FOIA Request Over Flood of Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolutions

May they stroke out, vapor lock & go into a permanent vegetative state.

iStock crazy woman Liberal Left Angry
Before the Second Amendment sanctuary movement took off in VA, there were around 265 2A sanctuary municipalities nationwide. Since the November election Virginia has added over 100 new ones. file IMG iStock

Warrenton, VA –-(Ammoland.com)- Everytown For Gun Safety Support Fund has submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Fauquier County Board of Supervisors in rural Virginia.

Kristine Chapman of the Bloomberg funded anti-gun group sent the request to Fauquier County Administrator Paul S. McCulla. Chapman asked McCulla to provide her with all written and electronic documents pertaining to the Board’s consideration for a resolution that protects its citizen’s right to bear arms under the US Constitution and Virginia Constitution. The Board of Supervisors considered the resolution at its December 12th, 2019 meeting.

Chapman, a resident of the ultra-liberal DC suburb of Arlington, wants all emails and other correspondence that the Supervisors received from the public about their Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution. They also want the communications that the Supervisors sent to each other and the general public dealing with the resolution.

Everytown For Gun Safety also wants all drafts of the resolutions, preparatory memos, and summaries of all meetings dealing with the counties’ Second Amendment sanctuary movement. The December 12th meeting went late into the night as speaker after speaker voiced their support the resolution. Over 2000 gun-rights supporters turned up to the meeting.

The Second Amendment Sanctuary movement has taken off in Virginia after Democrats, on the back of Bloomberg’s money, took control over both houses of the Virginia legislature. Almost immediately, the new leftist regime started proposing California-style Draconian gun laws. Most of the state is still pro-gun and began to resist what a lot of Virginia residents saw as the beginning of tyranny.

Before the Second Amendment sanctuary movement took off in Virginia, there were around 265 Second Amendment sanctuary municipalities nationwide. Since the November election Virginia has added over 100 new ones to the list. The movement has caught the eye of both sides of the gun debate.

The anti-gun group has also requested all written and electronic communications dealing with Fauquier County’s enforcement of gun laws. It seems that Everytown is trying to figure the county’s plan to or not to enforce new gun laws. Many counties in the Commonwealth have taken a stand against enforcing new gun laws.

Chapman also wants the county to turn over all information on written, electronic, in-person, and telephone conversations between employees and representatives of Fauquier County and different pro-gun groups. These groups include the National Rifle Association, VCDL, the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, the Virginia Constitutional Conservatives, III% United Patriots of Virginia, and Virginia Oath Keepers. All these groups are pushing counties within the Commonwealth to become Second Amendment sanctuaries.

These groups look at being included in Everytown’s FOIA request as a signed that they are getting the job done in Virginia. Matt Ballard of III% United Patriots, who runs their Second Amendment sanctuary efforts, thinks the request is a sign that the pro-gun side is winning the fight.

“Everytown is grasping at straws and using fear tactics,” Ballard told AmmoLand. “Ill% United Patriots of Virginia will not back down from applying pressure to socialist ideologies. III% United Patriot of Virginia would like to remind you; we are the grassroots community. Our members have been in the majority of council and board meetings asking for 2A sanctuaries against your unconstitutional, fearmongering and misinformation attempts in our great state of Virginia. We are comprised of many different ethnicities and professions. We are using the system that our founding fathers have put in place to combat unconstitutional and unjust laws. We will not stand for the ideological hatred that Everytown has put towards the common, every day American. We will not compromise. We have nothing to hide. We support anyone who wants to use FOIA, as it’s the people’s right to keep tabs on the government.”

Fauquier County will vote on the resolution on December 23rd. The public is encouraged to contact the board members and let their stance be known.

Kristine Chapman and Everytown For Gun Safety did not respond to AmmoLand’s request for comment.

Rachel Alexander: Liberals Want Sanctuary Cities? We’ll Have Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities.

You’ve heard of sanctuary cities. Sounds great, doesn’t it? Cities that protect people. But who do they protect? Illegal immigrants from deportation or prosecution. They ignore federal immigration law. These cities undermine the federal effort to protect our country by guarding our borders.

But here’s a twist. Now cities and counties declare themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries. Conservatives have taken a page out of the progressive playbook. Localities pass resolutions vowing not to enforce gun control laws that violate the Second Amendment. They believe that many laws violate the Constitution’s clear language.

And increasing numbers pass these. It’s become a serious movement. Over 80 counties and cities across Virginia have adopted them. Because you now what? If the lawless progressives can do it, so can Constitution-loving conservatives.

 

Danger and Opportunity in 2020

The year 2020 is going to rank as a very important one for Second Amendment supporters. The 2020 elections are going to be very high stakes. Then, there is that Supreme Court case heard earlier this month. That means that 2020 poses the potential for great danger and yet, there could also be great opportunities with regards to our rights.

The elections have obvious dangers and opportunities. The election, of course, risks seeing pro-Second Amendment lawmakers voted out. On the flip side, they can also be the chance to replace anti-Second Amendment lawmakers. If Second Amendment supporters are successful in the latter, then changes to bring things closer to the ideal become much more achievable.

The biggest prize in the 2020 election is, of course, the presidency. Donald Trump has largely been a supporter of the Second Amendment and has appointed pro-Second Amendment judges to the appellate courts. Take a good look at the front-runners to replace him. Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Michael Bloombergare all hostile to our Second Amendment rights – and all plan to push an anti-Second Amendment agenda.

But the danger doesn’t just come from the usual laws we hear about. Several of these contenders have expressed support for a national popular vote to replace the Electoral College, including Warren and Buttigieg. All would appoint anti-Second Amendment judges. Some of these contenders have promised worse.

In the case of Elizabeth Warren, it is the weaponization of the IRS against pro-Second Amendment organizations. Oh, she says it is just the National Rifle Association, but when she has argued that the failure of gun control to pass is due to “corruption,” then could other pro-Second Amendment groups be far behind? This would be in addition to very onerous “reform” of campaign finance laws – and you can bet they would be rigging the rules to the detriment of Second Amendment supporters.

Buttigieg is no better, even as he tries to take a more moderate tone. He was an early supporter of packing the Supreme Court with as many as six new justices. How do you think those justices would rule on anti-gun legislation? Or, for that matter, on campaign finance reform? It would not be good for either the First or Second Amendments.

Yet with these dangers come opportunities. The extreme agendas that some of these candidates are pushing will make many Americans recoil. We are already seeing this in Virginia, as the initial steps of effective civil disobedience are in full swing. Already, anti-Second Amendment extremists are backing off a total ban on modern multi-purpose semiautomatic firearms.

In addition, the election will bring opportunities as well – a chance to return pro-Second Amendment leadership to the House of Representatives, a chance to add to a pro-Second Amendment majority in the Senate, a chance to get more pro-Second Amendment state lawmakers, a chance for pro-Second Amendment governors, and most importantly, returning President Trump to the White House for four more years.

With Trump coming back, and a pro-Second Amendment Senate, the continued confirmation of pro-Second Amendment federal judges would continue to reshape the courts.

These are dangerous times for our First and Second Amendment rights. However, these times are also a great chance to change the political landscape in a manner that will advance the cause of freedom. Whether 2020 will be remembered for danger or opportunity is up to us.

Guns Are The Great Equalizers

“Be not afraid of any man;
No matter what his size;
When danger threatens, call on me—
And I will equalize!”
—Anonymous, on the virtues of the Colt revolver, c. 1875

The anti-gun movement is compelling. How could you not be when your entire argument is based on saving human life? Their objective is noble; however, their reasoning has flaws. Guns don’t simply exist to allow crazed murderers to take innocent life – they are the great equalizers for a civil and law-abiding society.

Studies have shown that there is a large range in how many times weapons are used for self-defense in America every year. Estimates range from 500,000 to 3 million defensive uses per year, affirmed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The rate of defensive uses is higher than one would likely suspect, the firearm is usually dispatched for defensive use by someone completely ordinary, and the majority of these occurrences receive little media attention.

In fact, the rate of occurrence is so high and so under-reported that The Heritage Foundation has launched a project to share some of the stories of Americans who use their weapons in a defensive manner each month. While readers may follow the link to read the rest of the November stories they shared, I wanted to share one particularly compelling story verbatim:

“Nov. 5, Genesee County, New York: A 76-year-old man used his shotgun to fend off an armed home intruder, potentially saving both his life and the life of his wife. The man responded to a knock on his door during the night, only to have the intruder force his way inside at gunpoint and tell the couple to give him all their money or else he would kill them. The intruder then ordered the couple to go into the basement, where the man thought the intruder was going to kill them. Instead, the man was able to grab his loaded shotgun and shoot the intruder in the hip, then held him at gunpoint for 15 minutes until police could arrive.”

Any loss of human life is horrific, hands down, full stop. I completely agree with the anti-gun lobby there. However, I would count myself naive if I believed that adding barriers to obtaining weapons would actually reduce the amount of gun violence we see in this country, and not simply reduce the number of law-abiding gun owners who rely on their weapons for defensive use every year.

Guns are the great equalizers of our society, the things that deter crime and allow everyone to stand on equal ground.

They are there for the elderly couple who could by no means fight off an intruder who breaks into their home.

They are there for the college student living by herself in a cheap apartment in the city.

They are there for the young mom who wants to protect her family.

And, they are there for every community and ethnicity in America that has ever felt marginalized or discriminated against. They are there to remind them that they are equals under the law, and that includes their right to defend themselves.

As Cliff Maloney, president of Young Americans for Liberty, once said, “An armed society is a polite society.” If society is to be equal and to treat one another lawfully, that equalization must begin with the right to self-defense.

Supreme Court: Weapons allowed on Madison WI buses

Par for the course that the 2 proggie jurists would be anti-self defense.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) – Wisconsin‘s capital city must allow passengers to carry hidden weapons on buses, the state Supreme Court said Tuesday in siding with a gun rights group that local governments cannot trump the state‘s concealed-carry law.

The ruling from the high court‘s conservative majority could provide fodder for gun advocates to challenge local governments‘ weapon policies they feel are tougher than the state concealed-carry law. City of Madison attorney John Strange said the ruling puts passengers in danger.

“From a public safety perspective, the decision creates greater risk to passengers by allowing guns on moving and crowded buses,” he said.

Wisconsin Carry, a gun rights group, challenged Madison‘s Metro Transit in 2014 after it prohibited a passenger with a concealed-carry license from bringing a gun on a bus. The group argued Metro Transit‘s policy prohibiting weapons of any kind on buses cannot supersede the state‘s concealed-carry law. Metro Transit adopted its rule in 2005.

The state appeals court sided with the city in 2015, saying that Metro Transit‘s rule did not amount to an “ordinance” or “resolution” banning concealed weapons, which the concealed-carry law prohibits. In overturning that ruling, the Supreme Court concluded that passengers can bring firearms or other type weapons on buses, as long as they follow other applicable laws.

The Supreme Court concluded that the concealed-carry law‘s purpose is to allow the carrying of concealed weapons as broadly and uniformly as possible. Following that reasoning, Metro Transit‘s rule functions similarly to an ordinance or resolution passed by a municipality banning concealed weapons and therefore is superseded by the concealed-carry law.

Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel had filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Wisconsin Carry.

The court ruled 5-2, with liberal-leaning Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Shirley Abrahamson dissenting. Justice Daniel Kelly wrote the majority opinion.

In her dissent joined by Abrahamson, Bradley argued that the majority opinion expanded the law‘s intent to fit its purpose. She argued Metro Transit‘s policy does not amount to an ordinance or resolution.

Wisconsin Carry President Nik Clark said the people who rely on public transit should be able to carry concealed weapons just as people who drive their own cars.

Second Amendment Sanctuary Movement Spreads To Kentucky.

The Second Amendment Sanctuary movement isn’t just sweeping the state of Virginia, though it’s certainly getting the most attention thanks to the sheer number of counties, cities, and towns that have adopted resolutions in advance of Governor Ralph Northam’s anti-gun agenda seeing action in the state legislature next month.

Remember, this movement actually began in Illinois in 2018 before spreading west to Washington State, Oregon, Colorado, and New Mexico. In recent months we’ve seen more Second Amendment sanctuaries take root in Texas, Florida, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and even New Jersey. Now several counties in Kentucky are leading the charge in their state………..

Will other counties in Kentucky hop on the 2A Sanctuary bandwagon? Given the amount of support we’ve seen for the movement in Virginia and eastern Tennessee, I would be shocked if the movement didn’t take off in the Bluegrass State. Expect more counties to follow the lead of Harlan and Marshall counties over the next few months.

Five More Texas Counties Pass ‘Second Amendment Sanctuary’ Resolutions

Something, something, rookie numbers, Texas

Update: The piece has been updated to reflect additional counties that were found to have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions since the time of publishing.

The commissioners’ courts in Navarro, Brown, Coleman, McCulloch, and Titus counties all unanimously voted in favor of a resolution to become Second Amendment “sanctuaries” on Monday.

“I’ve had a lot of citizens ask me about this,” said Eddie Moore, a Navarro county commissioner, “and there have been eleven counties prior to us to do this in the state of Texas. And this basically shows the commissioners’ court and the county’s support for the right to keep and bear arms, and that we will not allow county funds or county personnel to assist in the infringement of those rights.”

Moore told The Texan that he had been working on introducing and passing the resolution for about a month and a half, around the time when the movement in Texas started gaining traction.

According to Brownwood News, Brown County Judge Paul Lilly could not attend the meeting, but expressed his support for the resolution, saying, “The Second Amendment is, to a degree, the amendment that guarantees all the others. Firearms in the hands of responsible adults help assure our way of life. For this reason I am a staunch supporter of the second amendment and welcome Brown County becoming a Second Amendment sanctuary county. I couldn’t be more proud.”

While mostly in rural areas, over a tenth of all counties in Texas have passed the resolution that the local governments will not “authorize or appropriate government funds or resources” to enforce “unconstitutional” firearm restrictions.

A 2A Sanctuary State

Thanks to the work of the Virginia Citizens Defense League most everyone is now familiar with Second Amendment sanctuary cities and counties. As of yesterday, there are now 101 sanctuary cities and counties.

This is all good and well but what if you had an entire 2A sanctuary state.

It should be noted that cities and counties are creatures of the state. Under Dillon’s Rule, they only have the power to act when given an express grant by the state or if it could be implied from there. Thus, a state can take power away from local governments or even dissolve them but the converse isn’t true.

Rep. David Hardin (R-86), Assistant Majority Whip of the Oklahoma House of Representatives, has pre-filed a bill that would make Oklahoma a Second Amendment state. HB 2781 or Second Amendment Preservation Act would ban any Oklahoma state or local official from enforcing any Federal law, act, executive order, court order, etc. that would infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

According to the Tenth Amendment Center, the bill has a very detailed definition of infringement that includes:

  • taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition that would have a chilling effect on firearms ownership;
  • registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition that would have a chilling effect;
  • any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;
  • any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

The bill allows civil suits against any one who violates the law and knowingly violated a person’s right to keep and bear arms. Very interestingly, the bill would remove sovereign immunity as an affirmative defense in such suits. (Section 7.C.)

The bill also includes provisions that would apply to federal agents who knowingly enforce or attempt to enforce any of the infringing acts identified in the law, or who give material aid and support to such enforcement efforts.

Under the proposed law, they would “be permanently ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer or to supervise law enforcement officers for the state or any political subdivision of the state.” This would also apply to state or local law enforcement agents working with federal task forces or deputized by federal agencies.

In other words, Oklahoma law enforcement officers who cooperate with the feds in a violation of a person’s right to keep and bear arms would lose their jobs and never be able to work in Oklahoma law enforcement again, and federal agents could not work in Oklahoma law enforcement.

As the Supreme Court has ruled in Printz v. US, the Federal government cannot force state law enforcement officials to implement or enforce Federal laws. This is known as the doctrine of anti-commandeering.

While the Federal government cannot force state and local law enforcement to enforce Federal law, it can engage in partnerships with them to do so. A prime example of this would be requests from ICE to local law enforcement to hold illegal aliens who are arrested for other reasons until such time as they can be remanded to Federal custody. Likewise, for any Federal gun control law to be effective, it needs the help of state and local law enforcement.

I don’t know the likelihood of this bill passing the Oklahoma State Legislature. However, given the sponsor is part of the Republican leadership, this is more likely than if introduced by some freshman back bencher. I will keep you updated.

Government Funded ‘Gun Violence’ Research Is Really Political Propaganda

On Monday, House and Senate negotiators announced a deal where $25 million in taxpayer funds will be spent on gun violence research, $12.5 million is earmarked exclusively for public health researchers. If history is any guide, but of the rest will also end up going to public health researchers.

Headlines claimed: “Congress reaches deal to fund gun violence research for first time in decades.” The funding described as “a major win for Democrats.” While that may sound like a good idea at first glance, it wouldn’t do anything to reduce gun violence in our country.

It should go without saying that everyone opposes gun violence. But it’s important to take effective measures to deal with this problem and not simply take actions that sound appealing but won’t really save lives.

The idea behind the research funding is to have medical professionals apply tools they developed to study cancer, heart disease and other diseases and use them to study crime, accidental death and suicide. But to state the obvious, gun violence and diseases are two very different things.

The National Rifle Association – regularly demonized in the media and by many Democrats – has been blamed for preventing academics from doing research on firearms. So supporters of the spending to research gun violence as a public health issue say their bill is needed to stop the NRA from blocking vital research that will save lives.

But there’s a big problem with the argument: it’s not true.

Opponents of the Second Amendment who are eager to impose as many restrictions as possible on firearms falsely claim that a measure enacted in 1996 called the Dickey Amendment – named after former Rep. Jay Dickey, (R-AR) – barred research on gun violence to be funded by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But in reality, here is what the reviled Dickey Amendment states: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to “advocate or promote gun control.”

The point of that plain language is to say CDC-funded research is fine. CDC advocacy is not. So despite what gun-control zealots say, objective research based on facts is allowed under the Dickey Amendment.

The amendment came in response to top CDC officials advocating various gun control laws, such as prohibiting people from carrying concealed handguns.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns falsely claimed in a 2013 report that as a result of the Dickey Amendment “academic publishing on firearm violence fell by 60 percent between 1996 and 2010.”

But the mayors’ group measured something different: firearms research in medical journals as a percentage of all medical research.

There was no decrease in either the total number of papers or pages devoted to firearms research. But with whole new fields of medicine being developed, there was an explosion of published medical studies in other areas.

In fact, between 2011 and 2016, firearms research in medical journals has increased more than five-fold and even more since then, as former New York City Mayor and multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg has poured untold tens of millions of dollars into the effort.

SIXTH CIRCUIT HEARS DEBATE OVER LEGALITY OF BUMP STOCKS

CINCINNATI (CN) – A gun rights lobbyist group argued before the Sixth Circuit on Wednesday that rapid-fire gun attachments known as bump stocks should not be included in the government’s definition of machine gun.

Gun Owners of America, called “the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington” by former Texas Congressman Ron Paul, sued Attorney General William Barr last year shortly after the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives updated the statutory definition of machine gun to include bump stocks.

The device, which gained notoriety following the 2017 shooting of concertgoers in Las Vegas, replaces the standard stock of a rifle and uses a semiautomatic weapon’s recoil to create a back-and-forth sequence that increases the rate of fire to one similar to a fully automatic weapon.

The ATF’s rule allowed owners of bump stocks to dispose of them by March 26, 2019, after which possession of one would become a felony offense.

U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney denied Gun Owners of America’s motion for a preliminary injunction shortly before the disposal deadline. The George W. Bush appointee found the group was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims for violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA.

The statutory definition of machine gun includes the phrase “shoots … automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger,” and the lower court ruling hinged on the word “automatically.”

The ATF’s interpretation of the word “automatically” included the action of a shooter putting forward pressure on a bump stock to increase the rate of fire, and Maloney found this a reasonable and permissible interpretation under the APA.

Gun Owners of America argued the ATF’s rule is arbitrary because rubber bands and belt loops can be used to accomplish the same increase in rate of fire, but Maloney was not convinced.

“ATF’s interpretations of the statute,” he wrote, “which extend to devices specifically designed and marketed for the purpose of increasing the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon will not pose a danger of prosecution to individuals who own a semiautomatic weapon and also happen to own pants or elastic office supplies.”

Attorney Rob Olson argued on behalf of Gun Owners of America at Wednesday’s hearing, and told the Sixth Circuit panel that bump stocks do not convert a semiautomatic weapon into a machine gun.

Olson laid out a hypothetical scenario in which a semiautomatic AR-15 with a bump stock and a fully automatic M-16 rifle were strapped to a table and had their triggers zip-tied. He said that while the M-16 would fire continuously, the AR-15 would fire just a single shot.

The attorney said the device creates a “human compression spring” that allows for an increased rate of fire, but that “the bump stock is simply along for the ride.”

U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Murphy, an appointee of President Donald Trump, asked Olson if his client is seeking a nationwide injunction to prevent enforcement of the rule.

The attorney answered that he is, and that such relief is allowed under the APA.

Attorney Brad Hinshelwood from the Department of Justice argued on behalf of the government, saying bump stocks fall under the definition of machine gun because the devices “set up a continuous cycle” of fire once the shooter pulls the trigger.

Murphy spoke at length throughout Hinshelwood’s argument and pressed the attorney about the government’s shifting position on the interpretation of the statutory language found in the National Firearms Act.

Murphy accused the ATF of making mistakes in its interpretation of the Act in the past 10 years, and asked why every AR-15 would not be illegal given that they could be modified to act as fully automatic weapons with bump stocks or other devices.

“The bump stock is the machine gun in terms of the statute,” Hinshelwood responded, pointing out that the government has never thought to include all semiautomatic weapons as machine guns just because they could be modified.

In his rebuttal, Olson urged the panel to issue a nationwide injunction, but said he realizes the relief his client wants won’t be the end of the debate.

“This is something that is going to continue to percolate in the American government,” he told the court.

Both attorneys declined to comment after the hearing.

Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Alice Batchelder, an appointee of George H.W. Bush, and U.S. Circuit Judge Helene White, an appointee of George W. Bush, also sat on the panel.

No timetable has been set for the court’s decision.

 

Everybody’s Polite at the Shooting Range

There’s a lot of talk about how civility has declined in America since Donald Trump took office.

They are right, of course.

I was driving in Los Angeles the other day, and people behaved like animals. The homeless people downtown looked quite sane compared with the lunatics in BMWs piloting their murderous machines like go-carts, driving with their knees while they text with one hand and sipped their frappa-latte with the other.

Ijits of the highest order were driving on the shoulder and using turn lanes to go to the front, then cut people off at the last second, flipping them the bird as they did so. I thought I was in Mexico City or New Delhi … except for the flipping-off part. It would have been funny, had it not been so dangerous.

It was so bad that–when a fleeing robber crossed into oncoming traffic and nearly hit me head-on bypassing stopped cars at an intersection–I wrote it off as just another LA psychopath trying to save ten seconds. Then five police cars came around the bend after him, and the helicopter with the spotlight.

Americans are wound up and stressed out, sure; but civility was cratering long before Donald Trump took office. Many people took his election as a cue to turn the a**hole up to 11. Our loss of civility is a feature, not a bug.

Speaking of a**holes: the riots after the UK election inspired me to go get some pistol practice this morning in anticipation of our own 2020 extravaganza coming up soon.

I went to the San Diego GlockStore for a spring, then The Gun Range for 30 minutes of practice. In both establishments, I noticed something:

Everybody … was … polite. Everybody. Super polite.

Patrons were courteous and patient with one another in the parking lot. Customers waited their turns and said “please,” “thank you,” and “sir/ma’am.” Nobody yelled at the (armed) employees to hurry up with their order. I felt as though I’d stepped into a time warp.

It’s not like people were walking around in terror of one another, worried about dissing someone and getting capped. On the contrary, everyone seemed relaxed, comfortable, and friendly.

All present seemed to understand one another, to know within those two micro-communities

Around here, Words and Actions have Consequences

Pro-gun message supplants pro-transgender slogan on U. Virginia bridge.

The University of Virginia’s Beta Bridge has played host to student messages for some 50 years. Most recently, the bridge featured the mural “PROTECT BLACK TRANS WOMEN,” but this was painted over during the weekend with a pro-Second Amendment slogan.

According to The Cavalier Daily, the terms “2A” and “GUNS” were painted, while “WOMEN” was crossed out. The original message, put up by the SABLE Society, was repainted, but was again modified with the pro-gun terms.

The report notes the gun message appears to reference various Virginia towns threatening to become Second Amendment “sanctuaries” if the newly Democrat-controlled state legislature follows through with (allegedly) unconstitutional firearm restrictions.

It is not yet known who is responsible for the pro-gun message.

UVA spokesman Brian Coy said that although the bridge “is a long recognized public forum that may on occasion cause controversy or disagreement,” the university acknowledges “that people, particularly black trans women, feel demeaned or threatened by this message and the way it appeared.”

Pennsylvania: Attorney General Issues Opinion on Partially-Finished Receivers in Extreme Deviation from Federal Law

Once again, anti-gun officials contort case law and statute to undermine our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Today, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro issued a tortured opinion defining partially-manufactured receivers as firearms.  This opinion flies in stark contrast to the current, and widely held, understanding that receivers that are unfinished and require additional work to operate as a functional frame or receiver are not considered firearms and therefore aren’t regulated as such.

Shapiro relies on two arguments to arrive at this absurd result.  One, that unfinished receivers are “designed” to expel a projectile by action of an explosive. It doesn’t take a law degree to figure out how backward this thinking is.   Partially-manufactured lowers are explicitly designed so that they are unable to expel a projectile by action of an explosive without further work.  In other words, by their very nature, they are not firearms.

Two, Shapiro claims that these receivers “may be readily converted (to expel a projectile)” which he argues is analogous to the “may readily be restored” language of the federal National Firearms Act.

With this make-believe bridge, Shapiro then imports federal case law concerning the “may be readily restored” (to a machine gun) language to draw up extremely broad contours of what would be considered a firearm under state law. He uses extreme case law to lower the threshold for what constitutes a firearm to facilitate his anti-gun position and leanings.

Shapiro’s “theory” of treating non-functioning blocks of polymer, steel, or aluminum as “firearms” is the equivalent of calling a pile of aluminum tubes a bicycle or even considering a hickory or ash tree a baseball bat.

Make No Mistake — This opinion applies to much more than unfinished receiver kits!

Using the extremely vague description provided by AG Shapiro, almost any chunk of material (metal, polymer, etc.) could be considered a firearm and he and his anti-gun cronies can use this precedent to destroy our freedoms one step at a time.

Virginia’s Second Amendment Sanctuaries: An Update

Last week I wrote about the spread of Virginia’s “Second Amendment sanctuaries” — counties, towns, and cities that vow not to enforce state gun laws they deem unconstitutional, in the wake of the Democrats’ taking control of the state government. There are a few new developments worth noting.

For starters, the sanctuaries have spread dramatically. They’re up to 93 jurisdictions — covering roughly 40 percent of the population, by my quick spreadsheet tally. That’s huge, though the biggest victory, in Prince William County, is likely to be overturned when the county board flips to the Democrats, and some of these places have passed vague resolutions in support of the Constitution rather than the more aggressive language proposed by the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

As I noted in my previous piece, these resolutions have limited legal effect; local governments are basically subordinate to state governments. But defiance like this can put political pressure on moderate Democrats — and, failing that, can force the state government to either (A) take drastic action to stamp out resistance or (B) give up and let these places refuse to enforce new gun laws, possibly ramping up state-police activity there as a replacement.

On the politics, it’s worth noting that the state Democrats have already caved on confiscating “assault weapons,” modifying a bill so that it would still ban sales going forward but would require current owners to register their guns rather than turning them in.

It’s also worth comparing this map of sanctuaries:

. . . with this one of Virginia senate districts. (Click here to see the interactive version via the Virginia Public Access Project; I chose the senate because it’s much closer politically than the house.)

If an area is blue in both maps, it’s both a sanctuary and represented by a Democrat, suggesting a senator who might experience this movement as pressure from home. Such places do exist, though often the sanctuary jurisdictions make up only a minority of the Democratic district’s population. (See, e.g., districts 18, 21, and 25.) However, the senate is split 21–19, so it doesn’t take a lot of side-switching to stop a bill.

Finally, on how the Democrats will respond in the event they pass new gun laws and many local law-enforcement agencies refuse to enforce them, the governor has threatened “consequences,” and other Virginia Democrats have floated everything from prosecutions of local authorities, to cutting off state funds, to National Guard deployment.

Fun times.

Congress to fund CDC gun violence research for first time in decades

The CDC could always research ‘gun violence’. The Dickey amendment just kept them from promoting a political gun control agenda.

Congress is poised to approve $25 million in gun violence research as part of its year-end spending deal due Friday.

The sum is half what Democratic leaders requested, but it would be the first time in two decades that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would receive direct funding to look into the issue. The funding is part of the deal Congress must pass by Friday to avoid a government shutdown, with half of the money going to the CDC and the rest going to the National Institutes of Health, which provide grants to scientists.

Democrat Rosa DeLauro, who is chairwoman of the House appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, said the funding would allow the CDC to help Congress better understand the correlation between domestic violence and gun violence, how people can store their guns more safely, and how to prevent suicides, which account for two-thirds of gun deaths.

Despite the funding victory, Democrats were unable to convince the Senate to take up a bill that would require universal background checks, which was passed by the House but is opposed by President Trump.

The push for gun violence research is part of the reaction to the mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, seven years ago. Cries for change grew louder following mass shootings at an Orlando nightclub, a country music concert in Las Vegas, and a high school in Parkland, Florida.

Last year, Congress passed a change to the Dickey Amendment, which was enacted in 1996 and prohibits federal agencies from advocating or promoting gun control, to “clarify” that agencies could research gun violence. Opponents have pushed to have the prohibition repealed, saying it had a chilling effect on gun violence research. Even with the change in language, research languished because Congress hadn’t appropriated funding.