Category: RKBA

NSSF WELCOMES U.S. SEN. GRAHAM’S FFL PROTECTION ACT

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, welcomes the introduction of the Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) Protection Act, introduced by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), along with 22 co-sponsors. The bill would strengthen and enhance criminal penalties for thefts of firearms from federally licensed firearm retailers. This legislation sends a strong message to those violent criminals engaging in these illicit activities and helps provide for safer communities, assists law enforcement and protects the livelihoods of firearm retailers.

“This is what true gun safety legislation looks like. Senator Graham’s FFL Protection Act sends an unequivocal message to criminals intent on burglarizing and robbing firearm retailers that the safety of America’s communities is nonnegotiable,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “This legislation sends a strong message to violent criminals engaging in these illicit activities that there will be accountability and consequences for their crimes. This legislation assigns the responsibility for the crime where it belongs – with the criminal. Senator Graham has been a staunch advocate of holding criminals accountable and protecting firearm retailers. This legislation does both. This legislation is a real solution that will make our communities safer.”

The Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) Protection Act builds on the efforts NSSF has taken to address robbery and burglary of firearms through the partnership with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) on Operation Secure Store®, one of several Real Solutions. Safer Communities.® firearm industry safety initiatives. As part of Operation Secure Store, NSSF matches ATF reward offers for information regarding these crimes that leads to the arrest and conviction of the criminals responsible and the recovery of the stolen firearms. Additionally, NSSF helps raise awareness among firearm retailers to educate them on steps they can take to reduce the chance guns will be stolen from them during a burglary or robbery. In cooperation with ATF, NSSF conducts retailer store security seminars, assists retailers with store security audits of their premises and endorses and promotes the use of security products like smash resistant display cases.

ATF Director Dettelbach testified before Congress on the Operation Secure Store partnership with NSSF. ATF data has shown Operation Secure Store is working. Firearm retailer burglaries in 2021 were 277, compared to 577 in 2017 and 2,936 firearms were stolen in 2021 from firearm retailers, a 65 percent drop from the 7,841 firearms stolen from retailers in 2017.

Congressmen John Rutherford (R-Fla.) and Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) introduced the U.S. House of Representative’s FFL Protection Act as H.R. 2620.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

Federal Trial Rolls On.

06.08.2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

By proposing to ban “assault weapons” as a Constitutional amendment, Newsom is admitting that the only way to ban them is via a Constitutional amendment. Ergo, any attempt to do so currently is unconstitutional if a Constitutional amendment is needed to do so. Talk about self inflicted wound.

 

Biden Pushes Supreme Court to Ban More People From Owning Firearms

The Biden administration wants to grant federal courts the power to ban practically anyone from owning a firearm.

After Zackey Rahimi was convicted in a federal district court of unlawful firearm possession while under a restraining order, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prohibiting a person from gun ownership while under a civil protective order was unconstitutional. So Joe Biden’s Justice Department stepped in on March 17 to petition the Supreme Court to overturn the appellate court’s decision.

Second Amendment: From the time the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 until the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, the United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to mean that the federal government had no jurisdiction over state firearm laws. But after the 14th Amendment passed, the federal government declared certain state laws invalid. This enabled President Lyndon Johnson to sign the Gun Control Act of 1968, which made it illegal for felons to own firearms.

Most Americans don’t have a problem with denying guns to felons, but now the Biden administration is trying to take things a step further by denying guns to those under a civil protective order.

Although Zackey Rahimi is indeed a violent and dangerous person, granting federal district courts the power to ban those under a restraining order from owning firearms makes the Second Amendment meaningless. It is far easier to put a restraining order on someone than to convict him of an actual felony, so liberal judges sympathetic to the Biden administration could suspend someone’s Second Amendment rights on a whim.

Natural Rights: The English Bill of Rights of 1689 protected the right of Protestant subjects to bear arms for self-defense. And the U.S. Bill of Rights took things further by removing the religious requirement. English philosopher John Locke and Founding Father Thomas Jefferson argued that individuals have a God-given right to protect their lives, liberty and property.

Locke and Jefferson knew a lot about human nature, but you do not have to know as much to realize why Biden’s gun control proposals are dangerous. Nazi Germany, Communist Cuba, the Soviet Union and many other dictatorships all relied on the most proven form of suppression to control people. And the radical left in America shows the same tendency to force its will on the public.

Prophecy says: In his article “Saving America From the Radical Left—Temporarily,” Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry highlighted how gun control is part of an organized attack on America:

The mindset behind the radical Democrats is exposed when you look at their handling of another issue: gun control. Every time there is a school shooting, even before any facts about the situation come out, they immediately begin pushing for gun bans.

After the most recent shooting, they funded student groups and encouraged students to revolt against authorities. They don’t just want to raise the buying age or to restrict the sale of a few types of guns; they want to eliminate all guns. They hate the Second Amendment and want to destroy the Constitution. They want a revolution!

This attack is foretold in 2 Kings 14:26-28, which discuss end-time America’s and Britain’s “bitter affliction.” To learn about the lawless mindset behind gun control, illegal immigration and numerous other issues, read America Under Attack, by Gerald Flurry.

Grandstanding:
(from the notion of performing to crowds in the grandstands)
the action of behaving in a showy or ostentatious manner in an attempt to attract favorable attention from spectators or the media:

Political posturing:
also known as “kabuki theatre”
the use of speech or actions to gain political support through emotional or affective appeals, especially to describe politicians suspected of acting insincerely to please their supporters.

Yeah, I think he’s seriously considering running for President if SloJoe goes into vapor lock, or falls, misses his head and breaks something vital.
He knows this is going nowhere, but it’s good political fodder for the demoncrap base in case the opportunity arises.

Newsom proposes constitutional amendment to restrict gun rights
Newsom says a constitutional amendment is needed to enact commonsense gun safety laws supported by the American people

California Democratic Govern. Gavin Newsom wants to change the Constitution to curb gun rights.

Fed up with inaction on gun control, Newsom unveiled a proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution on Thursday that would implement “commonsense” gun safety measures he claims have widespread bipartisan support.

“Our ability to make a more perfect union is literally written into the Constitution,” Newsom said Thursday. “So today, I’m proposing the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to do just that. The 28th Amendment will enshrine in the Constitution commonsense gun safety measures that Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and gun owners overwhelmingly support – while leaving the Second Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition.”

Newsom’s proposal comes after federal courts have delivered a series of victories for gun rights activists, led by the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last year striking down a century-old New York law that made it difficult to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun.

The Democratic governor’s proposed 28th Amendment would not abolish the Second Amendment, which establishes a right to bear firearms for personal self-defense. However, it would raise the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21; mandate universal background checks to purchase firearms; institute a waiting period for all gun purchases; and ban “assault weapons.”

Newsom’s proposed amendment would also affirm that Congress, states and local governments can enact additional gun control measures.

The Constitution can be amended by either Congress or a convention of states under Article V.

Congress can pass a proposed amendment with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, sending it to the states for ratification. With Republicans in control of the House and a 51-49 Democratic majority in the Senate, there is virtually no chance that a constitutional amendment restricting gun rights will have enough support to pass through Congress.

Instead, Newsom is calling for an Article V convention of states to convene and draft his proposed amendment. Two-thirds of the state legislatures must pass a resolution calling for such a convention before it can convene to consider an amendment to the Constitution. If such a convention adopts a proposed amendment, it then heads back to the state legislatures for ratification.

Three-fourths of the states must ratify a proposed amendment for it to be added to the Constitution – a rare and difficult feat that has only been accomplished 27 times in the nation’s history.

Newsom said he will campaign to build grassroots support and lobby other state legislatures to move forward with an Article V convention. A news release from his office included supporting statements from California lawmakers in the state Assembly and Senate.

Gun rights groups were quick to condemn Newsom’s proposal as an attack on the Second Amendment.

“We’ve always warned those who cherish their God-given liberties that the ultimate goal of anti-gunners was the abolishment of the Second Amendment,” said Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America (GOA).

“While they often try to hide behind legislative proposals and hush open talk of abolishing the Second Amendment, here we have a potential future presidential candidate now coming out and openly admitting what they’ve wanted to do all along,” Pratt said. “GOA will strongly oppose this proposal as we work to protect and restore the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.”

Gun control advocates are letting the mask slip

There will always be debate over gun control, no matter what the courts rule going forward. After all, the Bruen decision doesn’t seem to have slowed any anti-gun lawmakers down one bit. They’re just hoping the laws can go into effect for a few years before they get bounced by the Supreme Court.

Yet through it all, we’re routinely told that no one wants to ban guns, that it’s all about “common sense gun control” initiatives, but that no one wants to take away your right.

Except, that’s not remotely true, as John Lott notes in the Washington Times:

Gun control advocates keep claiming they just want “reasonable” gun control, but self-defense advocates are understandably skeptical.

New York and New Jersey cover their states with gun-free zones to the point of making concealed carry impractical. Hawaii’s Legislature is now proposing to charge permit holders $1,000 in fees. None of that is reasonable. Nor is it reasonable when President Biden keeps talking about banning all semi-automatic guns, which account for about 85% of handguns sold.

ABC News reported in 2013 that former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, who are gun control activists, “just want what they call reasonable gun control.”

(In 2011, Ms. Giffords was shot in the head at point-blank range in a supermarket parking lot. Eighteen other people were also shot, six of them fatally, including federal District Chief Judge John Roll and a 9-year-old girl.)

But at the end of an interview with Time magazine in April, the Democratic former lawmaker from Arizona made her wishes clear: “‘No more guns,’ she said. Peter Ambler, her aide and adviser, tried to clarify that she means no more gun violence, but Ms. Giffords was clear about what she was saying. “No, no, no,’ she said. “Lord, no.” She paused. “Guns, guns, guns. No more guns. Gone.’”

Lott goes on to illustrate just how wrong many of the gun control arguments actually are, and you should most definitely read what he has to say because he’s right.

However, there are other instances we’re seeing of the “no more guns” vibe gaining ground.

For example, we have Sen. John Fetterman’s aide suggesting the senator would support overturning the Second Amendment, which the senator’s office has yet to deny.

We also have the smaller-than-desired gaggle of women outside the state capitol of Colorado demanding not gun control, but an executive order banning guns in the state and a mandatory buyback of all firearms. This isn’t about restrictions but a totally unconstitutional gun ban decreed by executive fiat.

The truth of the matter is that gun control supporters have maintained a mask for years. They’ve routinely claimed that they aren’t interested in gun bans and anyone who says they are is just some kind of conspiracy theorist.

Yet what we’re seeing is that a lot of people are letting the mask slip. They’re not hiding it so much anymore. They’re trusting the media to cover them–which is what’s happening, to be sure–so they don’t have to pretend as much as they have in the past.

More and more are saying the quiet part out loud, which is refreshing.

The downside is that they’re not thinking this through because a majority of Americans may want some kind of gun control, but a buttload fewer are willing to accept a ban on guns

FPC Files Opening Brief in Lawsuit Challenging ATF Pistol Brace Rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Loss of Second Amendment Rights for Welfare Fraud

Range_v_Garland_En_Banc_Opinion

Gun Banners Want to Raise Legal Age for Gun Ownership, But their Logic is Flawed


During an intriguing video discussion between John Lott, founder and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, and Frank Miniter, editor-in-chief of NRA’s America’s 1st Freedom Magazine, both men dissected the pipe dream by gun banners to raise the legal age for gun ownership to 21. They questioned the basis of the arguments for the increase and noted the implications for the Second Amendment.

Continue reading “”

A “compromise” from the gun prohibitionists – you can’t own one, but maybe you can borrow one

Earlier today we reported on the first few hours of the supposed-to-be massive protest outside the Colorado state capitol in Denver, where the group Here 4 The Kids is holding a sit-in to pressure Gov. Jared Polis into signing an executive order banning gun sales and possession in the state. While organizer Saira Rao predicted 25,000 or more would be on hand early Monday morning, the Colorado Sun reports the number was closer to 250 people, and though a few folks have trickled onto the capitol grounds since then there’s nowhere near 25,000 in attendance.

The Sun did manage to speak with a few supporters of the flagrantly unconstitutional executive order proposed by Rao, and it’s fascinating to see how deep the delusion runs with some of these folks, starting with Rao herself.

“Yes, it is in violation of the Second Amendment, and what we are saying is, as a decent human being, at some point, you have to decide that the right to life and our children’s’ right to life must trump anybody’s right to bear arms,” Here 4 The Kids co-founder Saira Rao said Friday.

“The people who have been elected to office have to choose if they will choose children’s lives over guns,” said Rao, a former lawyer who unsuccessfully challenged U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette in the 2018 Democratic primary and then moved to Virginia. “That’s the fundamental choice. And if he’s saying he will not, he is making a choice that will put him on the wrong side of history.”

Change doesn’t happen without major shifts, she said. Americans had to amend the Constitution to abolish slavery, which was considered radical and unthinkable to many in 1865, at a time when slavery was the foundation of the American economy, she said.

“Imagine if people were just like, ‘We can’t do it.’ Indeed, they can, and they did, and now we have the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery,” Rao said.

Rao’s not trying to amend the Constitution. She’s trying to get Polis and other Democrat governors to ignore it, which isn’t going to go well. As we’ve seen from states like New York and California, anti-gun Democrats would prefer to pay lip service to the Second Amendment while violating the fundamental right to keep and bear arms rather than explicitly rejecting the right altogether, which would cause even courts that have been traditionally hostile to our Second Amendment rights to step in put a halt to their attempt at prohibition.

Continue reading “”

OVER 1 MILLION GUNS SOLD NATIONWIDE LAST MONTH, NOW 46 MONTHS RUNNING

Americans reached for their wallets in support of Second Amendment rights last month, with federal background check data for May 2023 suggesting sales passed the same benchmark almost four years running.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation released the findings of the 46-month streak after crunching last month’s figures from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

The unadjusted May 2023 FBI NICS total of 2,343,850 checks – a 3.2 percent jump from May 2022. After the data was analyzed by NSSF to remove checks and rechecks done for carry permits and other reasons to leave checks for likely gun sales, the figure remains at 1,174,142.

In the end, last month’s numbers continue the unbroken trend set in July 2019, with background checks for the over-the-counter sale of a firearm exceeding 1 million each calendar month.

NSSF experts point to the seven-figure benchmark as a temperature check on the public’s enduring view on the right to keep and bear arms.

“Sales of firearms at retail continue to remain robust, and this demonstrates that Americans continue to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms at a steady pace,” Mark Oliva, NSSF’s public affairs director, told Guns.com. “By any measure, Americans are telling their elected officials that this fundamental right is a cornerstone of freedom. By the millions, for over 46 months continuously, law-abiding citizens have taken ownership of their rights and responsibility for their safety even as some states and the Biden administration continue to work to diminish and eliminate the Constitutional right to lawfully own a firearm.”

Oregon Measure 114 gun law faces federal court test Monday

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal trial over Oregon’s voter-approved gun control measure opened Monday in Portland, marking a critical next step for one of the toughest gun control laws in the nation after months of being tied up in the courts.

The trial, which is being held before a judge and not a jury, will determine whether the law violates the U.S. Constitution.

It comes after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment that has upended gun laws across the country, dividing judges and sowing confusion over what firearm restrictions can remain on the books. It changed the test that lower courts had long used for evaluating challenges to firearm restrictions, telling judges that gun laws must be consistent with the “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The Oregon measure’s fate is being carefully watched as one of the first new gun restrictions passed since the Supreme Court ruling last June.

The legal battle over in Oregon could well last beyond the trial. Whatever the judge decides, the ruling is likely to be appealed, potentially moving all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Continue reading “”

Frightened Politicians Leave Students at Risk

How good is good enough when it comes to protecting our children in school? One extreme view says that Superman who stops bullets with his bare hands is barely qualified to protect our children. The opposite extreme says that anyone who isn’t in jail should be qualified to act as an armed guard for our kids. One argument asks for quality while the other asks for quantity. While we are busy debating, mass-murderers are still stalking our children at school. We can stop mass-murderers if we’re willing to face a few truths.

Continue reading “”

Gun Controllers’ Real Goal Revealed

Though gun controllers often hide behind the ever-shifting goalposts of what they claim are “common-sense solutions,” sometimes their true goals slip right out into the open.

Such a case occurred when former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), in a recent interview with Time, made the true goal of the gun-control group Giffords clear when she said, “No more guns.”

An aide tried to clarify that the former congresswoman means “no more gun violence. But Giffords interjects with, “No, no, no. Lord, no,” pauses for half a minute, then continues with, “Guns, guns, guns. No more guns. Gone.”

An aide then tries to clarify that Giffords was referring to Australia, “where gun sales were outlawed,,,and existing weapons were purchased by the government.” But even that is not even remotely accurate, While the civilian possession of semi-automatic firearms in Australia was largely banned in 1996, the country did not ban all firearms. Furthermore, the bans that were enacted have had trouble being enforced and, beyond that, they have also had little to no effect on violent crime.

“Several reports from the early 2000s estimate that only 20% or so of the banned firearms had been confiscated,” Amy Swearer wrote of Australia’s gun-control efforts for America’s 1st Freedom. “Moreover, while firearm suicides dropped in Australia after the confiscation effort, there was little meaningful effect on the overall suicide rate. Another evaluation found no effect on homicides or accidental deaths, despite claims to the contrary.

Despite the overwhelming evidence of its ineffectiveness, Australia’s gun-control efforts are still often praised by anti-Second Amendment advocates. This is not to mention that such bans would certainly be unconstitutional stateside.

In response to Giffords’ remarks, John Lott, president and CEO of the Crime Prevention Research Center, wrote, “Gun control advocates usually don’t call for banning all guns even though that has been obvious to everyone else, but at least they aren’t hiding what they want anymore.”

“The fact that they are pointing to Australia as an example where guns have been banned is depressing because they really believe that a gun ban reduces crime when all gun and handgun bans are associated with increased murder rates and Australia never banned all guns,” added Lott.

Lott also recently sat down with America’s 1st Freedom Editor in Chief Frank Miniter for a pair of videos that can be viewed here and here.

NJ is Playing a Game of Chicken with Supreme Court & 2nd Amendment

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a legal challenge of New Jersey’s “sensitive places” concealed carry statute have filed a response to the state’s motion for a stay in the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The case is now known as Koons v. Platkin.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bumb granted a preliminary injunction, and the state filed a motion to stay the order pending appeal.

Second Amendment Foundation opposes the stay, arguing the state “did not meet its burden before the district court, and it cannot meet it in this Court. Thus a stay pending appeal should be denied.”

“The state is struggling with all its might,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “in a stubborn effort to retain a literal stranglehold on the rights of New Jersey citizens.

We’re challenging the ban on legal carry in parks, on beaches, and at recreation facilities, publicly owned museums and libraries, bars and restaurants where alcohol is served, entertainment facilities, airports (before TSA security), public transportation hubs, and the presumptive ban on private property.

“There is no established historical tradition that could justify the restrictions included in the new law. New Jersey simply cannot criminalize licensed concealed carry virtually everywhere in the state by designating everything as a ‘sensitive area,’ nor should it be allowed to continue enforcing these restrictions pending appeal.”

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said the state is playing a game of chicken with the Supreme Court and the Second Amendment.

“The state is burdened with showing the carry restrictions are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation, and we don’t see how that is possible,” Kraut said.

“The state has not provided any evidence of Founding era restrictions like it wants to enforce today, and is essentially trying to stall the inevitable for as long as possible.”

California Wants Gun Mag BAN Case to Go Away, Not So Fast Freedom Haters

BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a long-running legal challenge of California’s magazine ban statute have filed a memorandum in support of their motion for summary judgment and opposition to the state’s counter-motion for a summary judgment. The case is known as Wiese v. Bonta, originally filed in 2017.

SAF is joined by the Calguns Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, and several private citizens. They are represented by attorneys George M. Lee at Seiler Epstein LLP in San Francisco and Raymond M. DiGuiseppe at DiGuiseppe Law Firm in Southport, N.C. The case is in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

“California has been stubbornly defending what amounts to a confiscatory effort to deprive state residents of magazines which are commonly owned by millions of citizens across the country,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Following the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling last year, the state has doubled down with its gun control efforts, and defending this indefensible magazine ban is a major component of what amounts to a campaign of resistance which the courts should not allow.”

“We’ve been in this fight for six years,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The state has now resorted to absurd arguments that concede an inherent operating part of a firearm is an ‘arm’ only so long as it holds an arbitrarily determined number of rounds, but suddenly becomes something else if it holds more. As we explain in the text of our memorandum, nothing in the Second Amendment supports the state’s position on drawing these random lines to determine whether something is an ‘arm’ or not.

“Last summer’s Supreme Court ruling in the Bruen case established a new directive for handling Second Amendment cases, which now require that challenged gun laws must be supported by historical traditions, and the state cannot do that in this case,” he added.

The 28-page memorandum also notes;

“Therefore, the common use of an arm overrides any decrees or policy judgments of the State as to what its citizens ‘really need’ for purposes of exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear protected arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes. And it is beyond any reasonable dispute that the magazines at issue are commonly owned, both here in California and throughout the United States.”

Most Gun Control Laws Render Us More Unsafe

Every time Democrats unveil a new gun control proposal, their message is the same: their bill, if enacted, will save lives. Actually the exact opposite is true.

States have recently rushed to pass new laws in response to a decision the U.S. Supreme Court made last year in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. Bruen.

It held that the Second Amendment prohibits government requiring applicants to prove a “special need” in order to be issued a concealed carry permit.

States that included this requirement are called “may issue” states; others, which comprise the majority, are called “shall issue” states.

Maryland was one of those “may issue” states, and concealed carry applications there soared in response to Bruen.

“The Maryland State Police has received 11 times the usual number of new permit applications since the court struck down state provisions requiring gun owners to demonstrate a special need for carrying a firearm for self-defense,” The Washington Post reported.

However, to paraphrase a verse in the Book of Job: “the government giveth, the government taketh away.”

Many “may issue” jurisdictions, including Maryland, scrambled to change their concealed carry laws to comply with Bruen, while still limiting the right to carry, despite the plain language of the Second Amendment that states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

So while newly-elected Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat, eased restrictions to obtain a permit, he simultaneously tightened them — by limiting the places where one may carry.

“Gun violence is tearing apart the fabric of our communities, not just through mass shootings but through shootings that are happening in each of our communities far too often,” Moore said at a bill-signing ceremony. “We will act, and that’s exactly what today represents.”

But by signing Maryland’s new law, he only made Baltimore’s “mean streets” even meaner.

Continue reading “”