Category: RKBA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Always with the ‘but’………
Makes you wonder what he thinks about rights protected by the 4th and 5th amendments.

Tulsa police chief suggests nation transform response to gun violence

As mass shootings plague the country, Tulsa’s police chief is comparing the violence to 9/11 and urging a more comprehensive response. KWGS’ Max Bryan sat down with Chief Wendell Franklin for StateImpact. Please note, both the audio and transcript have been edited for length and clarity.

MAX BRYAN: So to begin, after the Saint Francis shooting, you said you would leave gun laws up to the state legislature, but by the end of that month, you had told media outlets that permitless carry was causing problems in Tulsa, and you reiterated that point after the mass shooting at Allen Outlet Mall in Texas last month. So my first question is what led you to decide to speak out?

WENDELL FRANKLIN: Well, because I don’t think that we’re moving the needle on anything. If you compare what we’re faced with 9/11, 9/11 occurred and it totally transformed America, totally transformed how you travel on airlines. No longer can you go to the terminal and see a loved one off or see someone come back. All of that is a sterile area. The federal government took over all airline security and there was this more robust effort to deal with and address some of the terrorist activities that were taking place. Fast forward to even structures, how structures were built, no longer are you building structures that have parking garages that you can access underneath a building. You can’t do that anymore. Today, all of that’s controlled. And any future buildings, those are not even a part of the actual building structure. They move those off to the side now, and here we are today, where we’ve recognized that we have some issues that need to be addressed, and we are operating as though everything is normal, and I don’t think everything is normal.

MB: So you’ve also criticized a lack of regulation of untraceable ghost guns and straw purchasing. Recently you indicated you would support regulating the purchasing of high-powered weapons like AR-15s. Is there anything you can add to that list today?

WF: Ultimately, I’m a Second Amendment guy. I own guns of course. But I’m okay giving up some of that freedom, right? We had to give up some of that freedom after 9/11. I’m okay with waiting three days, five days, or whatever to get my firearm if I go out and purchase another firearm. So I’m okay with a pause to allow for weapons to be purchased and allow the government and the gun companies to look at the background and do a thorough check before that gun goes to someone.

MB: Have you spoken to any members of the legislature about our state’s gun laws?

WF: In passing, I have. It’s a topic that’s not really brought up a whole lot and it’s something that gets glossed over quite a bit.

MB: How have those conversations gone?

WF: It’s an immediate pivot to some other topic. No one really wants to talk about it.

MB: Okay. So in December, you told me the second amendment was tricky. How do you balance challenges, or excuse me, changes that you believe will prevent crime with enforcing laws made by lawmakers who believe the second amendment means expanding firearm access?

WF: Ultimately, law enforcement, we are the experts. We’re the subject matter experts at protecting America, right? Protecting our cities. We should be utilized in that manner. I am charged with protecting this community. And if there are better ways of protecting it, I think we should be looking at those better ways to protect it. Anything that we do, ultimately, we give up something to have that protection. You know, we put seatbelt laws in place, I’m not exactly sure when, probably the 1980s, I think. And we mandated that everyone starts wearing a seatbelt, and it took some time for people to grab hold of that. But if you look today it is an automatic thing that people put on their seatbelt when they get into a vehicle. You feel uncomfortable not wearing that seatbelt. I think again, we give something up to get safety for, for something safe. I think that’s where we are today. We are going to have to give up some things. And I think there are some things that we can give up for a safer community.

 

Silencers/Suppressors are in Common Use for Lawful Purposes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But even the politicians on our side of the equation don’t seem to get it.
The 2nd amendment gives the people nothing.
The people already possess the right to keep and bear arms.
The people have had this right even before the U.S. was the U.S.!
The amendment restricts government power.

Bump stock ban heads to SCOTUS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

PRESIDENT BIDEN’S FANTASY GUN CONTROL AGENDA

Where the Answers are Made Up and the Second Amendment Doesn’t Matter

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, we have a problem. The President is on the loose again, uttering nonsense about the Second Amendment.

President Joe Biden spoke to a collection of political donors as he’s gearing up his 2024 re-election campaign and used his gun control grindstone to churn out well-worn and discredited Second Amendment tropes. The problem is – it’s all malarky. No kidding, man.

President Joe Biden might just be the lying dog-face pony soldier he accuses others of being.

F-16s and AR-15s
The president belittled Americans who agree that the Second Amendment exists to prevent a tyrannical government from usurping power from the people.

“You know, I love these guys who say the Second Amendment is — you know, the tree of liberty is water with the blood of patriots. Well, if [you] want to do that, you want to work against the government, you need an F-16. You need something else than just an AR-15,” said President Biden according to Fox News.

Aside from the veiled threat to use actual weapons of war against the American people, President Biden’s swipe at Americans who value their rights was intended to target the lawful ownership of Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs). There are over 24.4 million MSRs in circulation today. They’re the most popular-selling centerfire rifle in America.

Second Amendment Second Thoughts
“We have to change,” President Biden said. “There’s a lot of things we can change, because the American people by and large agree you don’t need a weapon of war. I’m a Second Amendment guy. I taught it for four years, six years in law school. And guess what? It doesn’t say that you can own any weapon you want. It says there are certain weapons that you just can’t own. Even during when it was passed, you couldn’t own a cannon. You can’t own a machine gun.… No, I’m serious.”

First, he’s overselling his authority as a law professor. President Biden briefly served as Benjamin Franklin Presidential Professor of the Practice at the University of Pennsylvania for two years between his terms as vice president and his campaign for The White House, according to a fact check by the Austin American-Statesman. He was paid $900,000 and his duties “involved no regular classes and around a dozen public appearances on campus, mostly in big, ticketed events,” the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

His description as a “Second Amendment guy” might come as a surprise to other “Second Amendment guys.” That doesn’t normally include ideas like universal background checks that would require a national firearm owner registry, restrictions that would ban entire classes of firearms, repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to allow frivolous lawsuits against firearm manufacturers for the criminal misuse of lawfully sold firearms by remote third parties or – as the president points out here – a clear ignorance of the National Firearms Act.

Fox News reported, correctly, that the Second Amendment makes no mention of firearm restrictions. Gun control laws at the federal level didn’t start until 1934 when the National Firearms Act was signed by President Franklin Roosevelt. That’s 143 years later.

Americans can legally own machine guns, although it is extremely restricted. No automatic firearm produced after May 1986 is available for commercial sale but those produced before then can be – and are – legally owned. Owners have to pay a $200 tax stamp and register them with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

When it comes to cannons, well, President Biden blasted that one too. It was legal to own a cannon when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. It’s still legal to own one today.

President Biden made the same erroneous claim in April 2022 and in June of 2021, when The Washington Post fact checked him on that one. He earned “Four Pinocchios,” writing “Biden has already been fact-checked on this claim — and it’s been deemed false. We have no idea where he conjured up this notion about a ban on cannon ownership in the early days of the Republic, but he needs to stop making this claim.”

Rapid-Fire Falsehoods
None of this is new. President Biden, who claims to own two shotguns, is hardly the Second Amendment expert he presents himself to be. He once told his wife she should “fire two blasts” of a shotgun blindly into the air if she felt threatened. That’s terrible and dangerous legal advice. Among the four fundamental firearm safety rules is to know your target and what is beyond.

This advice was actually invoked in a court case, where the accused, Jeffrey Barton, was charged with aggravated assault. Prosecutors ended up dropping those charges and instead charged him with police obstruction, of which he was convicted.

President Biden once argued to ban 9 mm Glocks, claiming in an interview with Charlie Rose that he could kill more people with a .38-caliber revolver. He also oddly told police they should shoot “unarmed” attacking criminals wielding knives “in the leg.” Police ripped that suggestion. Fox News reported the Fraternal Order of Police said it was “completely ridiculous,” “unrealistic” and a “pandering talking point.”

President Biden didn’t stop there. He believes that 9 mm handguns are especially dangerous.

“A 9 mm bullet blows the lung out of the body,” President Biden said. “The idea of a high caliber weapon, there is simply no rational basis for it in terms of self-protection, hunting.”

The president’s 9 mm claim was debunked as “bullsh*t,” by a federal agent with 15 years of service. Another with 20 years said, “Not possible.” A 21-year veteran of the U.S. Marshal fugitive recovery task force told Breitbart that President Biden’s claim is, “… not even in the realm of possibility.”

That’s the problem with President Biden. He’s living in a fantasy world of utter nonsense.

Analysis: What the Pistol-Brace Ban Repeal Defeat Means

The Senate voted against undoing President Joe Biden’s pistol-brace ban. That probably won’t have a direct practical impact on the ban’s fate, but it will have a political and, potentially, even a legal one.

On Thursday, the Senate voted 50 to 49 against a resolution to repeal the ATF’s brace rule. The vote was entirely along party lines. Not a single Democrat or Republican crossed over in either direction.

Now, it might not seem like a Senate controlled by the party of the President that instituted the policy refusing to undo it isn’t that unexpected. But there are a couple of reasons this move was surprising.

For starters, this resolution isn’t a standard piece of legislation. If it were, Senate Democrats could have kept it from getting a vote at all or added a bunch of amendments to it. But, since this was a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution, it was privileged and got an up or down vote instead.

CRA resolutions have been the primary way Republicans have scored political points against President Biden via legislation since they retook the House in 2022. They’ve managed to push five different resolutions through the House and garner enough Democratic support in the Senate to send them to Biden’s desk. The President has managed to kill all the resolutions by vetoing them, which would require a two-thirds vote of both houses to overcome.

Still, those previous five resolutions pitted Biden and his administration against at least a few Democrats in both houses. The same can’t be said of the pistol-brace ban resolution. While two Democrats in the House voted for it, every Democrat in the Senate rallied to the President’s side.

That may cause political pain for some members who are up for reelection in red or purple states. The rule change effectively bans millions of pistol-brace-equipped firearms, many of which were likely bought years ago, since the vast majority of affected guns have not been registered. So, getting vulnerable Democrats on record supporting it could have some electoral value.

But, as it stands now, the repeal failure is a clear political loss. Instead of making President Biden and Democrats appear divided, it does the exact opposite.

It’s also a potential setback for the legal case against the pistol-brace ban. At the very least, it’s the less ideal outcome because Congress’s opinion of the ATF’s rule is particularly relevant to the challenges.

The key questions at the center of most brace ban lawsuits are not about the Second Amendment. Instead, they’re about the ATF’s power to regulate braced guns and the public’s ability to understand the regulations they hand down. Had Congress been united in passing a resolution declaring the ATF is wrong in how it has reclassified braced guns, that it had overstepped the power granted to it by Congress, that would have provided more ammunition to the groups challenging the legality of the rule on those very grounds.

Instead, Congress is divided on that question. Plaintiffs in the case can point to that division as evidence the ATF doesn’t have clear authority to enact its rule, but the argument is weaker than it otherwise would have been.

Still, that doesn’t mean the pistol-brace ban is going to survive. The cases against it were going well before the repeal resolution passed the House, and the repeal effort losing a 50-49 vote in the Senate is unlikely to sink its legal prospects.

Four federal courts have already issued injections blocking the ATF from enforcing the rule against millions of Americans. A Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel got the ball rolling just before the ATF’s grace period for registering the affected guns ended at the beginning of the month by protecting Firearms Policy Coalition members from arrest and prosecution as it prepared to hear the case on the merits. A second court in the same circuit followed up by blocking enforcement against Second Amendment Foundation members. A third extended an injunction to all Gun Owners of America members. The National Rifle Association, which has a separate case in the Eighth Circuit, has asked for a Fifth Circuit judge to extend protections to its members.

The number of people protected under those injections has already grown since they were handed down. The affected gun-rights groups have seen their membership numbers rise, with the Second Amendment Foundation claiming 20,000 new members in the first week after it got its injunction.

A ruling on the merits of the case will probably still come soon. To issue a preliminary injunction against the rule, the Fifth Circuit panel had to conclude that the ban was likely unconstitutional. The Senate’s repeal rejection probably won’t force them to reconsider that conclusion as they begin to hear oral arguments on June 29th. And, as much as it doesn’t help things, the safe money is still on the panel striking the rule down.

Legal action still is, and always was, the most viable path for gun-rights advocates to bring down the brace ban. But the failure to get the repeal resolution through the Senate, even if it would have been doomed by a veto anyway, represents a notable setback nonetheless.

Press Release: Attorney General Bailey joins 23 states in opposing California’s defacto handgun ban

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced today that his office joined 23 other states in challenging California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act.” The amicus brief supports the California Rifle & Pistol Association’s challenge to the California law aimed at limiting the sale and use of guns in California and nationwide.“The Second Amendment guarantees freedom and security for all Americans. I will not stand idly by while rogue progressive activists in California attempt to eradicate the freedoms of law-abiding gun owners that are enshrined in our Constitution,” said Attorney General Bailey. “I am proud to stand in the gap with my fellow attorneys general to protect our God-given rights.”The State of California aims to use the “Unsafe Handgun Act” to chill firearm commerce. California law requires new semiautomatic handguns to have three components:

  1. A chamber load indicator,
  2. a magazine disconnect mechanism, and
  3. microstamping capability.

Currently, no new gun on the market meets all three of these requirements. California has effectively created hurdles to halt the purchase of all new firearms, a clear violation of the Second Amendment.Joining Missouri in filing the brief are the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Well, it’s SloJoe. We shouldn’t expect him to make sense

Biden’s Latest Anti-Gun Claims Aren’t Just False — They Don’t Even Make Sense

Biden’s most recent anti-gun claims during the National Safer Communities Summit are false, incomplete, and incoherent.

Biden’s gun control speech on Friday at the National Safer Communities Summit in Connecticut got attention because the president nonsensically concluded with “God save the Queen, man.” However, this was not his only incoherent claim.

In his speech, Biden stated: “Put a pistol on a brace, and it ma- — turns into a gun. Makes them where you can have a higher-caliber weapon — a higher-caliber bullet coming out of that gun. It’s essentially turning it into a short-barreled rifle, which has been a weapon of choice by a number of mass shooters.”

Of course, a “stabilizing brace” doesn’t turn a pistol into a gun. A pistol already is a gun.

What’s more, stabilizing braces have only been used in two mass public shootings (Dayton, Ohio, in 2019 and Boulder, Colorado, in 2021), but there is no evidence that the braces even made any difference in these attacks.

Even so, few realize that stabilizing braces were originally designed to allow veterans with hand disabilities to hold handguns, not for mass shooters to commit a crime more effectively. The braces are straps that allow the disabled person to keep hold of the gun when it recoils. Without a gun and a steady aim, disabled people are very vulnerable to criminals. But Biden will never mention that.

Even when pistol braces are used among law-abiding gun owners who are not disabled, their personal efforts to ensure steadier aim are not inherently negative or dangerous.

If Biden is worried about the dangerous potential of more powerful guns with less recoil, he should also address the various ways they can be obtained apart from stabilizing braces. For example, rifles are powerful weapons — 70 out of 82 bullets used in rifles are ranked as more powerful than a .223. If a criminal wants reduced recoil, he can simply use a rifle — heavier guns dampen the recoil, and rifles weigh more.

What’s more, in guns with short barrels, such as pistols, the bullet leaves the barrel before full pressure is developed and travels at a lower velocity. However, if an attacker wants a more powerful and more compact gun, there are alternatives to handguns. He can easily saw off part of the barrel of the rifle. After all, when facing multiple life sentences for murder, an additional penalty for sawing off the end of a rifle won’t make much difference.

But even Biden’s claim that short-barrel rifles are the weapon of choice for these mass murderers is also ridiculous. Again, only two of the roughly 100 mass public shooters over the last 25 years involved handguns with pistol braces. In 56.4 percent of mass shootings, only handguns were used (no braces), in 14.9 percent, rifles were used, and in 16 percent of attacks, rifles and another type of gun were used.

Finally, there is Biden’s screaming claim that “We are sending dangerous weapons, particularly assault weapons, to Mexico.” Mexico’s president does indeed blame America for his country’s high murder rate — in some recent years, it has been six times higher than the rate in the U.S.

According to data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), close to 70 percent of all criminally-owned guns in Mexico traced from 2009-2014 came from the U.S. A significant number of these were purchased legally in southwest states before being criminally smuggled over the border.

However, these figures are based only on the limited number of guns that Mexican authorities have seized, traced, and submitted to the agency for checking. For instance, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF in 2007-08, though it seized 29,000. Of those, they successfully traced 6,000, and 5,114 (or 85 percent) of those traceable weapons came from the U.S. Thus, only about 17.6 percent of the firearms that Mexico collected were traced back to the U.S. That’s a small subset.

More recent data from the ATF for 2016 to 2021 even shows that the 70 percent has declined to around 50 percent, but we don’t have the rest of the breakdown in the numbers for this later period. And a 2016 U.S. Government Accountability Office report complained of limited collaboration with Mexican authorities on tracing guns.

And what about the fully automatic guns and grenades used to commit murders in Mexico? You can’t just go into gun stores in the U.S. and buy these types of weapons. However, between 2005 and 2014, the Mexican government seized more than 13,000 grenades.

“These kinds of guns — the auto versions of these guns — they are not coming from El Paso,” Ed Head, an Arizona firearms instructor with over two decades of experience as a U.S. Border Patrol agent told Fox News. “They are coming from other sources. They are brought in from Guatemala. They are brought in from places like China. They are being diverted from the military. But you don’t get these guns from the U.S.”

Similarly, as an anonymous Tijuana-based police authority told Fox News, “Most cartels buy in bulk, and the weapons are coming from places like Nicaragua and other South American countries. Also Asia and some from the Middle East.”

Machine guns, grenades, and other weapons are also stolen from the Mexican military before being sold to these cartels.

Unfortunately, the news media and their “fact-checkers” are prone to ignore Biden’s false gun claims from misstating how guns work to the source of Mexico’s violent crime problem. Sure, once in a while they acknowledge how he lied about a U.S. cannon ban at the country’s founding. But they refuse to address his lies and how they are unjustly shaping today’s public opinion surrounding gun ownership.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meet the U.S. Senate’s Gun-Control Caucus

It is real American political theater to think of all the members of the U.S. Senate’s new gun-control caucus, which formally named itself the “Gun Violence Prevention Caucus,” sitting around a table in some hidden-away chamber in the Dirksen Senate Office Building plotting their many gun-control schemes—and, as you’ll see, they do have quite the list. This, after all, is how Hollywood has often treated the pro-freedom side.

Indeed, the members of this little gun-control cabal, as this was going to print, are a who’s who of senators who want to strip this civil right from we the people. They are Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.).

Closed-door meetings and quiet handshakes do take place as one senator promises to co-sponsor another’s bill if that senator will vote for their proposed legislation (or if they won’t oppose some measure). And there are legislative tactics congressional leadership can use to rush legislation with little debate or, in some cases, to temporarily conceal what is in a bill—such is why Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) once famously (as it was an honest disclosure) gaffed when she referred to Obamacare: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Also, with certain types of legislation, riders and earmarks can be attached at the last minute that might have nothing to do with what that legislation is supposed to do.

Still, this gun-control caucus will have a hard time secretly moving any of its agenda items forward, as the American process of writing, debating and passing major legislation through both chambers of Congress invites a lot of attention and discussion—and some of the people watching are your NRA-ILA lobbyists.

With all of that said, why did these anti-Second Amendment senators form a gun-control caucus?

Politics. Such a caucus allows them to gather for the cameras as they virtue-signal about their stated desire to “reduce gun violence,” as if guns are violent critters that need to be neutered or outright disposed of. These gun-control-caucus members know that much of the mainstream media will further their narratives without questioning the specifics. They also know they can use talking points related to such proposed legislation to fundraise and to make the claim to their voters that they’re trying to do something—and they can then add that the NRA, yes, your freedom-loving association, just won’t let them push it over on the American people.

Such is also why much of the proposed legislation on this gun-control caucus’ list have disingenuous titles. And it’s why all of these legislative ideas are worded with misleading explanations.

This caucus’ ideas include the Age 21 Act (legislation that would strip away the constitutional rights of law-abiding, legal adults), a new Assault Weapons Ban (an idea that blames guns instead of criminals for crimes), the Crime Gun Tracing Modernization Act (an act that would create a national gun-owner database), Ethan’s Law (legislation to empower federal agents to go into citizens’ homes to enforce gun-storage mandates), the Protecting Kids from Gun Marketing Act (legislation to empower the Federal Trade Commission to censor advertising from firearms companies and groups) and much more.

Also, as this was going to print, this gun-control caucus said they planned to introduce the 3D Printed Gun Safety Act, the Accountability for Online Firearms Marketplaces Act, the Background Check Completion Act, the Federal Firearm Licensing Act, the Gun Violence Prevention Through Financial Intelligence Act, the Keeping Gun Dealers Honest Act and much more. Explanations of what these bills would contain are thin, but, given the past positions of these caucus members, it isn’t hard to fill in the gun-control details.

Now, for a moment, imagine if a Second Amendment-supporting caucus in the U.S. Senate were to come up with its own list. They could have The Individual Freedom Act (a national reciprocity bill), the Civil-Rights Act for Self-Preservation (a bill to ensure the disenfranchised get their Second Amendment freedom, too), the Right to Stop Evildoers Act (an end to “gun-free” zones) … well okay, all of those ideas aren’t deceptive in the least; they are honest, so the comparison to the gun-control legislation really doesn’t hold up.

The point is, these senators have created a gun-control caucus to provide fuel for even more agenda-driven gun-control coverage from mainstream-news outlets. Instead of targeting the actual problem—the criminals who use guns to harm others—this gun-control caucus is yet another political tool designed to blame America’s 100-million-plus gun owners for the actions of criminals.

This, then, is not a “Gun Violence Prevention Caucus,” as they call themselves, as that would be a caucus focused on legislation that goes after violent criminals; this is, rather, a gun-control caucus focused solely on disempowering average Americans.

 

 

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

NJ scores victory in federal court over concealed carry gun legislation

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

“Even during when it was passed, you couldn’t own a cannon. You can’t own a machine gun.”

Can’t own a machinegun? Hmmm(Looking at the machineguns in my safe)
What a load of crap-for brains
And as for ‘taking on government? I’ll leave you to consider this from the late Mike Vanderboegh:
“Direct military operations” are precisely what the 4GW insurgent seeks to avoid. His target is the mind and the will of the political leadership of his enemy — to be specific, the few inches between their ears which are filled with brains to be influenced or, if not, popped like a grape with an unanswerable rifle shot from distance as an example to the others.”

Biden mocks Second Amendment supporters, says you ‘need an F-16’ to take on government
Biden has repeatedly mocked the Second Amendment, claiming it ‘doesn’t say that you can own any weapon you want’

President Biden took another swipe at Second Amendment supporters Tuesday evening, reminding them that they would “need an F-16” to challenge the U.S. government.

Biden’s remarks at a fundraising event in a private residence in California came as he discussed gun violence in America and stressed the notion that Americans do not need AR-15s.

“We have to change,” Biden said. “There’s a lot of things we can change, because the American people by and large agree you don’t need a weapon of war. I’m a Second Amendment guy. I taught it for four years, six years in law school. And guess what? It doesn’t say that you can own any weapon you want. It says there are certain weapons that you just can’t own. Even during when it was passed, you couldn’t own a cannon. You can’t own a machine gun.… No, I’m serious.”

“You know, I love these guys who say the Second Amendment is — you know, the tree of liberty is water with the blood of patriots. Well, if [you] want to do that, you want to work against the government, you need an F-16. You need something else than just an AR-15,” he added.

Biden also suggested that the popularity of AR-15s among gun makers stems from its cheap production and high profit margins.

“You know one of the reasons why the AR-15 is so strongly supported by so many folks in that — in that industry? Number one, it’s the cheapest weapon to make and it’s the highest profit motive they have for any weapon that is made. It makes more money to sell an AR-15 than any other weapon you can buy,” he said.

The comments from Biden on Tuesday are similar to those he made earlier this year, when he told those gathered at the National Action Network’s annual Martin Luther King Jr. breakfast in Washington that those who support the use of AR-15s will need a much bigger arsenal to stand a chance against the government.

“I love my right-wing friends who talk about the tree of liberty is water of the blood of patriots,” Biden said in January. “If you need to work about taking on the federal government, you need some F-15s. You don’t need an AR-15.”

The quote Biden refers to dates back to Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in a letter: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.” Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and America’s third president.

Biden’s claims that there have always been limits on the Second Amendment have been analyzed and found to be false when he has made them repeatedly over the past few years.

The Second Amendment, as written, does not limit who can “keep and bear arms” or what kind of arms people can keep and bear. Federal gun regulation didn’t come until 1934, decades after the Second Amendment was introduced.

The Constitution does, however, give Congress the power to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal,” which were government licenses that allowed civilians to attack and detain vessels of countries at war with the U.S., The Washington Post pointed out in 2021.

“Individuals who were given these waivers and owned warships obviously also obtained cannons for use in battle,” the Post reported at the time.

Since taking office, Biden has urged Congress to pass gun control measures. In June 2022, after it was passed by both the Democrat-controlled House and Senate, Biden signed into law the most significant gun control bill in nearly 30 years.

FOID card legal battle moves forward in Sangamon County

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Is the international Counterterrorism Law Enforcement Forum a work-around of Americans’ rights?

The Second Annual Counterterrorism Law Enforcement Forum occurred on Tuesday June 6th, 2023, which the United States co-hosted. Last year was the inaugural event in Berlin, Germany and the 2023 forum took place in Oslo, Norway. The idea of multiple law enforcement agencies getting together to think tank their way around some of the world’s problems with terrorism, or any crime for that matter, is not that radical. Where things get concerning are when we read between the lines. The DOJ release masqueraded the forum as a meeting of the minds on combating acts of terror, however remarks from the U.S. Assistant Attorney General show a clear focus on “domestic” terrorism.

The Justice Department’s Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training (OPDAT) and the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Counterterrorism (State CT) co-hosted the second annual meeting of the Counterterrorism Law Enforcement Forum (CTLEF) with the Government of Norway in Oslo from June 6 to 7.

The CTLEF, which focuses on countering the global threat of racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism (REMVE), brought together law enforcement, prosecutors, and other criminal justice practitioners from Europe and North and South America, as well as specialists from INTERPOL, Europol, the International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law and other multilateral organizations to discuss how to effectively address and counter REMVE threats.

Drilling down on what REMVEs there are, our Assistant Attorney General, Matthew G. Olsen, did not hold back on discussing his ideas when he delivered the opening remarks for the forum.

Last May, we gathered in Berlin, for our inaugural meeting. I departed the forum daunted by the scale of the problem, but heartened to see the partnership of so many likeminded countries.

I returned to D.C. from Berlin on a Thursday. Two days later, on Saturday afternoon, I received the first alerts from the FBI that there was an active shooter in Buffalo, New York. What we would come to learn over the next hours and days was that an individual espousing white supremacist ideology took a semiautomatic weapon into a grocery store and murdered 10 people.

This tragedy in Buffalo – just over one year ago – is part of an alarming trend.

What’s the alarming trend that Olsen is really talking about? What were some of the threats that Olsen identified in his speech? “In particular, we face an increasing threat from racially and ethnically motivated violent extremist groups, including white supremacists and anti-government groups,” Olsen said. Who are classified as “anti-government groups”? Would people that are critical of the United States Government, in particular overreaching agencies, be considered anti-government?

Doubling down Olsen identified obstacles to being able to effectively police these groups of individuals.

The simple truth is that the ability of violent extremists to acquire military-grade weapons in our country contributes to their ability to kill and inflict harm on a massive scale. A recent article in The Washington Post noted that about a shocking number of Americans – one in 20 adults, or roughly 16 million people – own at least one AR-15 assault rifle.
…
It is important to be clear, the Department of Justice investigates violent extremists for their criminal acts and not for their beliefs or based on their associations, and regardless of ideology. In the United States, upholding our core values means respecting First Amendment rights and safeguarding the exercise of protected speech, peaceful protests, and political activity. We hold those rights sacred.

Olsen had no problem pairing the roughly 16 million law-abiding citizens with violent extremists, lumping them into the same category of hateful and murderous actors. The numbers should be staggering to Olsen that we do have 16+ million alleged owners of AR variant – not “assault” – rifles, and have such an incredibly small amount of issues with those arms.

The other obstacle naturally is the First Amendment. It’s grand that Olsen says that the DOJ et.al. respects and holds “those rights sacred,” but he really means that for only some people. It’s clear that if there’s an individual or group that does not align with the ideologies of the current swamp, they become an enemy of the state. When there’s “mostly peaceful” acts of extremism, that’s alright as long as it’s the correct flavor of extremism.

Whatever may stand in the way between the government and combating domestic terrorism, Olsen has the solution.

We have to be united in confronting domestic extremism within our countries. Collaboration and information sharing is essential to understanding and countering the threats that terrorist and violent extremist groups pose.

International partnerships are especially important where we observe transnational linkages in domestic violent extremism. We have seen some U.S.-based supporters of domestic terrorism attempt to establish links with likeminded foreign individuals and organizations. In some cases, U.S.-based domestic terrorists have traveled overseas to link up with counterparts who espouse the same beliefs.

These trends are one reason why international forums like this are so valuable. This is an opportunity to hear from foreign partners about the violent extremist groups and networks that are most concerning; where transnational linkages exist; how these actors are raising and moving funds; how groups are recruiting and training new members; how they are communicating and spreading their messages and propaganda; and the sources and drivers of radicalization to violence.

The Assistant Attorney General of the United States stated that in order to combat domestic extremism it’s important to “establish links with,” collaborate with, and find out how groups are “raising and moving funds; how groups are recruiting and training new members; how they are communicating and spreading their messages and propaganda,” from foreign governments. In short, Olsen wants foreign countries to do what our CIA can’t do; spy on Americans. There are no Fourth Amendment protections for American citizens when it’s a foreign entity doing the infringing.

Who all could this reference though? Bad guys, right? Those “anti-government” types. Olsen brought up the events that transpired on January 6th. Regardless of one’s view on what happened during January 6th, what occurred was not as bad as it’s been purported by mainstream media, nor were the actions completely benign.

Olsen spoke extensively about all the arrests and charges that sprung up in the wake of that day, “The January 6 investigation is the largest in the history of the Justice Department. We have arrested and charged more than 1,000 individuals who took part in the Capitol assault. Nearly 500 people have pled guilty or been convicted at trial.”

Olsen further observed concerning January 6th:

We have brought serious charges, including seditious conspiracy against numerous defendants – members of extremist groups who plotted to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power in our country.
…
We believe our success in this case serves as a stark warning to those who would seek to violently attack our government and our democracy. It makes clear our determination that the rule of law will prevail.

Not that we needed any confirmation that the DOJ would aggressively go after those that don’t help serve the bigger picture of what’s desired of the Biden-Harris administration, but this is the Assistant Attorney General saying as much in black and white. The “members of extremist groups who plotted to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power in our country” includes a whole lot of people that got arrested, charged and in some cases convicted, for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The issues involving anything January 6th are so multi-faceted, to even bring the date up is flirting with disaster. Do what we say or you’ll end up like them.

On a small scale, Olsen found it problematic that 16+ million people have access to semi-automatic rifles. He clearly pegged that as an obstacle to being able to do the proper police work needed to fight “extremism” or those who are “anti-government.” Olsen further opined that our civil liberties are an issue, as there’s nothing they can do about people expressing their opinions, which the government “respects.” But alas, they found their solution in the form of partnerships with other countries, id.est., having other nations do the spying on the American people.

These events and little get-togethers that American officials attend sure seem like they’re “for the better good.” Really, no one wants extremism or terrorism, domestic or otherwise. However, if we read between the lines, eh, I’m going to say that maybe these trips on the taxpayers’ dime are not in the best interest of the people. Could this be a misread? Sure. But they kind of make it clear that they’ve adopted a Conan approach; “crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.” But, clearly it’s the AR’s that are the problems…

No morals. No ethics. No self respect. No respect for others…
Standard Leftist LIEberal

Fact Check: White House Press Secretary Falsely Claims ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Lowered Gun Violence

CLAIM: White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the 1994-2004 federal “assault weapons” ban lowered gun violence while speaking from Air Force One on Monday.

VERDICT: False. The Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) issued a report, noting that any impact the ban had on crime was negligible.

Jean-Pierre said, “You’ve heard the President say this, and I’ll just repeat what he said. When he was able to get this done, in the 90s, to ban “assault weapons,” you saw it have an effect on lowering…violence in that first ten years.”

On February 19, 2018, Breitbart News referenced the NIJ study, which was written just as the federal “assault weapons” ban was ending.

In 2004, the Washington Times quoted University of Pennsylvania professor Christopher Koper, an author of the NIJ report, saying, “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

The authors of the NIJ report observed that “The ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

They further explained that the “assault weapons” ban was not impactful because “assault weapons” are not the firearms of choice for day-to-day criminals.

On October 10, 2022, Breitbart News reported FBI figures showing that over two times as many people were stabbed to death with knives and cutting instruments than were shot and killed with rifles of any kind. And on January 18, 2013, Breitbart News reported that “assault weapons” were “tied to less than .012 percent of [U.S] deaths in 2011.”

Jean-Pierre’s claim that the “assault weapons” ban lowered gun violence is false.

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

Is SCOTUS ready for another 2A case?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As we knew it would be.

Police Handwringing Over Ohio Permitless Gun Carry A Big Nothing Burger

“It has been one year since Ohio loosened its concealed carry weapon law, and community advocates, elected officials and law enforcement alike are reflecting on the changing gun landscape,” NBC4 Columbus reported Tuesday.

“A year ago on Tuesday, Gov. Mike DeWine signed into law Senate Bill 215, which eliminated a concealed carry permit requirement for adult Ohioans who are legally eligible to own and carry a firearm in the state.”

The usual suspects, starting with the Fraternal Order of Police that had unsuccessfully lobbied to kill the bill, are still bellyaching, “argu[ing] that Ohio’s streets are less safe – and so are its law enforcement.”

“When the delegates met at Philadelphia during the sweltering summer of 1787, the task before the Constitutional Convention was almost insurmountable. How, in the face of the revolution just fought, could a coalition of states unite and govern nationally when individual freedom and state sovereignty were paramount?” he asked. “Our founders got it right in 1787. Their model has stood the test of time and history. The Ohio Fraternal Order of Police strongly urges legislators to look to the founders’ model. Maximize individual freedom.”

Through “compromise”? And means testing against this cop union bureaucrat’s arbitrary definition of the proper “balance between public safety and individual freedom”? That’s what the Framers meant by “shall not be infringed”?

That’s some industrial-grade gaslighting right there, Mr. Wolske.

As for specific FOP objections;

“Michael Weinman, director of governmental affairs for the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police, told the House Government Oversight Committee … [I]t would make police jobs harder by removing the requirement to carry documentation, and prevent officers from holding and patting down someone for a firearm… [and] predicted it would lead to more police officers getting shot.”

That’s a version of the old and unfounded-in-reality “blood in the streets/Dodge City over fender benders” argument the gun prohibitionists used when railing against licensed concealed carry.  And note his concern was not for “public safety” but for officer safety.

So: Did his dire prediction come true? Have any of the FOP’s concerns?

Instead, because when you’ve got nothing but aren’t ready to admit you were wrong and have face to save, we’re offered this bit of meaningless blather:

“No conclusive research yet exists about the effects of permitless carry on gun crime in Ohio specifically, but a September 2022 study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found firearm assaults rose about 10% in states that relaxed restrictions on concealed carry weapons.”

That’s an old junk science trick, and it’s no coincidence we see the Bloomberg name attached to it: Present a correlation/causation fallacy under the auspices of a presumably authoritative name, and everybody, particularly NBC reporters, with a narrative to parrot, is sure to be impressed and not recognize it for the total unsubstantiated BS that it really is.

Crazy, huh?