Category: RKBA

I don’t use marijuana or even CBD products. I advise people not to indulge. But keeping mj as a schedule 1 narcotic is one of the more authoritarian ways the goobermint uses to ban ‘legal’ gun possession

The DOJ Says Marijuana Use, Which Biden Thinks Should Not Be a Crime, Nullifies the Second Amendment
Even as the president bemoans the injustice of pot prohibition, his administration insists that cannabis consumers have no right to arms.

President Joe Biden thinks it is unfair that people convicted of simple marijuana possession face lingering consequences for doing something that he says should not be treated as a crime. Biden cited those burdens last October, when he announced a mass pardon of low-level federal marijuana offenders, which he said would help “thousands of people who were previously convicted of simple possession” and “who may be denied employment, housing, or educational opportunities as a result.” Yet the Biden administration, which recently began accepting applications for pardon certificates aimed at ameliorating those consequences after dragging its feet for five months, is actively defending another blatantly unjust disability associated with cannabis consumption: the loss of Second Amendment rights.

Under federal law, it is a felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, for an “unlawful user” of a “controlled substance” to possess firearms. The ban applies to all cannabis consumers, even if they live in one of the 37 states that have legalized medical or recreational use. That disability, a federal judge in Oklahoma ruled last month, is not “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”—the constitutional test established by the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Justice Department recently filed a notice indicating that it intends to appeal the decision against the gun ban for marijuana users.

The Biden administration’s defense of the ban relies on empirically and historically dubious assertions about the sort of people who deserve to exercise the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Among other things, the Justice Department argues that “the people” covered by the Second Amendment do not include Americans who break the law, no matter how trivial the offense. It also argues that marijuana users are ipso facto untrustworthy and unvirtuous, which it says makes them ineligible for gun rights.

Continue reading “”

“Live fire” tests for gun owners violates Second Amendment, says…
Harvard Law Review?

My buddy Jim Wallace of the Gun Owners Action League likes to refer to Massachusetts as a “Second Amendment battleground state”, and he’s not wrong. Beleaguered gun owners in the Bay State are subjected to a host of unreasonable restrictions on their right to keep and bear arms, and if anything the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen has only made anti-gun activists and politicians more eager to slap more laws on the books.

Under the pre-Bruen standard, local licensing authorities had broad discretion in approving or denying applicants for a License to Carry, and Wallace has previously told us that many jurisdictions are trying to get around the Supreme Court’s decision. State lawmakers are even pushing to require applicants to demonstrate their proficiency with a firearm by requiring live fire training and passing a test, something GOAL says is completely unnecessary.

Now a new article in the Harvard Law Review says those mandates aren’t just unneeded, they’re unconstitutional. The article focuses on the licensing process in Boston, where police already require applicants to pass a “shooting qualification test” at the local police range within two weeks of submitting an application. All would-be pistol owners (a LTC is required to own, purchase, and carry a handgun) must demonstrate “safe handling of, and familiarity with, a .38 caliber, 4-inch barrel revolver” as well as completing a scored live-fire test; requirements that have no analogues in history, according to the author.

The City of Boston could presumptively argue that its Qualification Test, which requires an LTC application to obtain a quantifiable point tally on a scored target, is the type of objective test that Justice Thomas deemed constitutional.

But that contention misconstrues Bruen. First, the Bruen majority did not hold that all objective licensing requirements are constitutional, for even an objective test must not “deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.” And a shall-issue permitting scheme “can be put toward abusive ends.”

Because the Qualification Test requires applicants to fire a heavy, unpopular handgun accurately, which not everyone can do, it impedes law-abiding citizens from exercising their armed self-defense right — the right to public carry is reserved only for those who shoot well with a heavy handgun. Second, Justice Thomas stated that background checks and firearms safety courses are constitutional, but a shooting qualification test is not a firearms safety course.

Thus, Bruen does not support the proposition that scored live-fire tests survive judicial scrutiny. The Qualification Test’s quantitative characteristics may mitigate its constitutional deficiencies but do not cure them.

In addition to accuracy, the Qualification Test demands that applicants show “safe handling of, and familiarity with, a .38 caliber, 4-inch barrel revolver.” The City of Boston does not provide any concrete guidelines, like a scoring rubric, for the safe-handling requirement, and licensing officials may have differing opinions on the matter. Such requirements do not resemble the “narrow, objective, and definite standards” that Justice Thomas referenced as per se constitutional.

According to the author of the law review article, Boston’s requirement is already ripe for a court challenge, and any move by the state to impose similar live-fire mandates on all LTC applicants would face stiff legal headwinds.

Based on the City of Boston’s facially unconstitutional licensing regime, any Boston resident can seek declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for the City’s infringing the constitutional right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

This Note does not purport to discuss all the mechanics of either standing or § 1983 liability. As a general matter, however, it bears mentioning that an aggrieved applicant could assert a plausible claim for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against City of Boston licensing officials, the colonel of the Massachusetts State Police, and certain state firearms officials, subject to any affirmative defenses raised by the government.

It’s refreshing (to say the least) to see an article casting doubt on the constitutionality of a Massachusetts gun control law in the pages of the Harvard Law Review, and I hope this is the start of a trend. Far too many academic institutions have seemingly adopted a post-Bruen position of supporting any and all gun control laws, or at least criticizing those court decisions that have ruled a particular law unconstitutional.

Some, like the University of Minnesota, have even enshrined anti-gun activism into the curriculum in the wake of Bruen. I’m sure that the prevailing attitude at Harvard Law is still anti-2A, but at least the Harvard Law Journal is willing to print and publish pieces that take both Bruen and the right to keep and bear arms seriously.

The Buckeye Institute Urges Court to Overturn New York’s Unconstitutional Gun Law
Mar 14, 2023
Columbus, OH – On Monday, The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Christian v. Nigrelli with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on behalf of Project 21, a national network of black political, civic, and business leaders. In its brief, The Buckeye Institute argues that New York’s Conceal Carry Improvement Act violates the right of the citizens of New York, particularly black New Yorkers, to keep and bear arms, which the U.S. Constitution guarantees.

“For decades, African Americans and other racial minorities were the targets of firearms regulations that prevented them from exercising their right to bear arms, regulations that were often enacted with racial animus,” said David C. Tryon, director of litigation at The Buckeye Institute. “But as The Buckeye Institute argues on behalf of its client, ‘Historical regulations designed to oppress racial minorities or show distrust or animus towards “disfavored” groups, cannot be the basis for infringing on the right to bear arms.’”

In New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court clearly told New York that it was unconstitutional to deny people their Second Amendment rights by forcing citizens to prove they have a “special need” before they could obtain a license to carry a firearm. In its brief, The Buckeye Institute shows that New York has simply substituted “special need” with “moral character” to deny members of disfavored groups—such as minorities and the urban poor—their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

None of this makes any sense, but then SloJoe never did make any sense.

Biden to sign executive order to require background checks on more gun sales
The executive order will increase background checks and prevent firearms dealers without licenses from selling guns

President Biden is expected to announce an executive order on Tuesday that would expand background checks to more firearm sales by expanding the statutory definition of a firearms dealer, the White House said.

Biden is set to sign the order during a trip to Monterey Park, California, where he will meet with families and the community impacted by the mass shooting that killed 11 and injured nine others in January. The White House said the executive order will bring the U.S. “as close to universal background checks as possible” without additional legislation.

Under the executive order, Biden is also directing Attorney General Merrick Garland to develop and implement a plan to prevent former federally licensed firearms dealers, whose licenses have been revoked or surrendered, from continuing to engage in the business of dealing in firearms.

Continue reading “”

Here’s how progressive lawyers are using public nuisance lawsuits to outlaw guns
O.H. Skinner says public nuisance lawsuits are the next ‘Trojan horse’ for the progressive agenda

EXCLUSIVE – A consumer protection group is warning Republican governors against attempts by left-leaning lawyers to use public nuisance lawsuits as a backdoor way to outlaw guns.

The Alliance For Consumers (AFC), a nonprofit organization aimed at “ensuring consumer protection efforts, class action lawsuits, and attorney general enforcement actions benefit consumers,” sent a letter to all GOP governors Friday saying that since the many state legislatures have recently flipped to a Republican majority, they should be on the lookout for progressive activists attacking gun rights through these legal actions.

“With victories through the legislative process becoming harder to achieve, the progressive left is increasingly looking to an alliance of activists, officials, and trial lawyers to weaponize the judicial system against conservatives and impose key policy priorities by way of public nuisance lawsuits,” AFC president O.H. Skinner wrote.

“Under the guise of compensation for injuries to the overall public interest, these lawsuits open the door to courts imposing sweeping policy solutions outside the traditional governmental processes or otherwise reshaping the economy through massive money transfers,” Skinner added.

Public nuisance laws vary from state to state. Historically, they have been used to protect consumers and the public against things like polluted waterways or hazardous public spaces.

However, Skinner said “activists have found a way to use the court system as a weapon to force companies and consumers to comply with a progressive worldview without legislative oversight or public scrutiny.”

“If you hear someone say, ‘We should bring a nuisance case,’ that is a Trojan horse to accomplish something that you probably don’t agree with.” Skinner said in an interview with Fox News Digital.

Skinner claims that “the true goal of most nuisance suits over things like plastics, fossil fuels or firearms is seemingly to remove products and services from in the market that do not align with the progressive agenda.”

Skinner said that progressive trial lawyers will try to make the case that just as fossil fuels and plastics are bad for the environment that is shared by the public, guns can also cause public harm, and therefore, courts should curb their use because of this “public nuisance.”

Once example of this already taking place, Skinner noted, is a case from 2022 brought by a leading personal injury law firm – Napoli Shkolnik— that filed public nuisance suits on behalf of New York cities Buffalo and Rochester.

According to Skinner, that suit claimed that major American firearms manufacturers’ work to design, produce, market and sell has “created, contributed to, and maintained the public nuisance of unlawful possession, transportation and disposition of firearms, and the utilization of guns in the commission of an offense.”

“Activists have largely been able to hide the ideological aspects of public nuisance litigation,” Skinner said. “But make no mistake: public nuisance claims are about liberal control, not just about money, and certainly not about helping consumers.”

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen told Fox News Digital that while public nuisance laws “have their place” and are a “tool that needs to exist,” governors and state legislators should consider making changes to such laws so they are not abused.

New York lawmaker admits proposed ammo tax is meant as “disincentive” to gun ownership

Thank you very much to New York Assembly member Pat Fahy for saying the quiet part out loud when talking about her proposed tax on ammunition. The Albany Democrat wants to see anywhere from a 2-to-5-cent tax on each round of ammunition sold in the state (basically, the bigger the bullet the higher the tax), with the money going towards community-based violence intervention groups. We’ve seen similar schemes enacted to great fanfare (and little effect) in cities like Seattle, and lawmakers have even proposed this idea in New York before now, but rarely are lawmakers so explicit in their intention to tax people out of a right.

“So, if you buy 50 rounds, it’ll be just a couple of extra dollars,” said Fahy. “So, it’s not a huge tax, but another disincentive to arming up.”

If New York Democrats do end up adopting Fahy’s bill and turning into law, that statement is going to come in very handy during the inevitable court challenge that will ensue. The Supreme Court doesn’t look kindly on taxing the exercise of a constitutionally-protected right, especially when it is designed to chill the exercise of that right.

The Court took up this issue back in the 1940s, in a case called Murdock v. Pennsylvania. At issue was an ordinance imposed by the town of Jeannette, Pennsylvania that required “all persons canvassing for or soliciting within said Borough, orders for goods, paintings, pictures, wares, or merchandise of any kind” to obtain a license from town officials in addition to paying a fee for the privilege of doing so. When a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses were fined under the ordinance for selling religious tracts without acquiring the mandated license, they sued, and eventually the Supreme Court found in their favor.

In its decision, the Court declared:

“the First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .” It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.…

A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. Thus, it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce although it may tax the property used in, or the income derived from, that commerce, so long as those taxes are not discriminatory.

Fahy’s proposed ammo tax isn’t a flat licensing tax like the ordinance in Jeannette, Pennsylvania, but thanks to her comment to the press there should be no doubt that the tax on every round of ammunition is designed to be discriminatory in nature against any and all New Yorkers who dare seek to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. When she talks about disincentivizing arming up, she’s really saying the bill disincentivizes the exercise of a constitutionally-protected right, and that’s a no-go according to SCOTUS.

An ammo tax is also a terrible idea from a policy perspective. Seattle, Washington imposed a tax on the sale of both firearms and ammunition back in 2015, and it’s brought in far less money for violence prevention programs than supporters had predicted. They were boasting of $500,000 in tax revenue every year, but in 2019 about $85,000 was collected from the handful of remaining gun stores inside the city limits. Many FFLs chose to simply relocate beyond Seattle’s borders, and many Seattle residents have chosen to buy their guns outside the city limits as well.

Seattle’s violent crime, meanwhile, has gotten exponentially worse. There were 24 murders in Seattle in 2015; far fewer than the  55 homicides reported in the city last year. Seattle’s gun and ammo tax hasn’t made the city a safer place, and Fahy’s proposal would be just as ineffective in New York. But as Fahy herself has made clear, her tax isn’t about preventing crime. It’s about preventing responsible New Yorkers from keeping and bearing arms for self-defense.

HORRIBLE MEMES image memes at relatably.com

Opponents, Anti-Gunners Horrified as Constitutional Carry Looks Inevitable in Florida.

Whether it’s called constitutional carry, permitless carry or unlicensed concealed carry — which is probably the most accurate — the fact that soon millions of Floridians will no longer need a permission slip from the government to defend themselves has critics frothing at the mouth.

It’s going to happen, and there’s nothing they can do about it – that’s the bottom line.

They’re powerless to stop the massive restoration of our civil rights, regardless of how hard they whine or how absurd their prognostications of impending doom become. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has promised to sign the bill, and leaders in the House and Senate – where Republicans enjoy super-majorities – have promised to put a bill on his desk.

No one is taking the news harder than Frank Cerabino, a columnist for The Palm Beach Post who has enjoyed ridiculing guns, gun owners and civil rights for more than 30 years. As the bill progressed through the legislature, this angry little toad of a man has become positively deranged.

He’s lost what little sanity he once had, and that was never much. Cerabino’s March 7 column, which was titled “The ‘constitutional carry’ lie and why gun advocates don’t love the latest Florida bill,” shows just how toxic his pent-up why-won’t-they-listen-to-me! anger has become.

In his column, Cerabino describes constitutional carry as “political fiction,” and then he completely loses his damn mind.

“‘Constitutional carry’ is like ‘legitimate rape.’ It doesn’t exist,” he actually wrote.

No, Frank, nothing is like rape – nothing – and you should know that. To compare rape to anything is repugnant, morally wrong and massively offensive. It trivializes the horrors sexual assault survivors struggle to live with every single day. It defies belief that this disrespectful and hurtful comparison was actually published by a daily newspaper.

In another tangled line, Cerabino showcases his ignorance of the law, rifles and ballistics.

“Open carry would also allow them to walk around in public with weapons too big to conceal, such as military-style mass casualty weapons like the AR-15, which fires projectiles capable of liquifying body organs and passing through metal,” he wrote.

First, neither the House bill nor the Senate bill allows for the open carry of arms. That’s the problem many of us have with this legislation, and the reason it’s not accurate to call it constitutional carry. Therefore, no one will be walking around with a “military-style mass casualty weapon like the AR-15” in Florida unless they’re hunting, fishing or camping.

As to the AR-15’s magic liquifying abilities – nope. Sorry, Frank, but that’s pure bunk. The 5.56x45mm round was nothing more than a mediocre varmint cartridge until Eugene Stoner put it in his AR. In fact, many states prohibit hunters from using the round to harvest deer because it is too small. Compare the 5.56x45mm round to the two previous military calibers – 7.62x51mm and .30-06 – and you’ll learn the error of your ways, Frank.

Cerabino claims that after Gov. DeSantis signs an unlicensed concealed carry bill, we will want another – and we most certainly will. But his final comparison insults everyone who holds their right to keep and bear arms dear.

“This is what happens when you negotiate with terrorists. You give them one imaginary constitutional right and they’ll demand another,” Cerabino wrote.

Terrorists? Really?

I know more than a few heroes who left chunks of their bodies in foreign countries while fighting actual terrorists, Frank. They’re strong Second Amendment supporters who wouldn’t appreciate being your terrorist label. Also, they never raised their hand and swore to protect and defend any “imaginary” constitutional rights. The only terrorists involved in this fight are those using the First Amendment to encourage further infringements upon the Second.

Friendly fire

Nearly every state that successfully passed constitutional carry experienced some pushback from a small minority of firearms instructors during the legislative process. Unfortunately, Florida isn’t immune from this nonsense. One gun shop here was passing out leaflets titled: “Constitutional Carry (Maybe not such a good idea?)”

“Constitutional Carry (if passed) will allow any Florida resident of legal age, the ability to carry a firearm without any license or training,” the leaflet states. “Unfortunately, a lot of people will look at it as not having to pay for a Florida Concealed Carry class and save money. This is NOT what is good for the public, nor a responsible person.”

It was written by the gun shop’s training division, and signed “because we care.” I’m not naming the shop nor the owner. To his credit, he didn’t post his opinion online, nor did he run to the local media. Though misguided and wrong, his position is not difficult to understand. He’s worried that the end of the state’s mandatory training requirement will lead to a loss of revenue for him and his trainers. However, history shows us this is not always the case.

Many of the 25 states that passed constitutional carry experienced an increased demand for professional firearms training. Florida trainers will likely see the same uptick.

It’s about to become much easier to carry a defensive firearm in the Gunshine State. Gun owners will no longer need to beg permission from the state, pay a $97 fee, submit to background checks, mugshots and fingerprints like a common criminal in order to exercise a basic constitutional right. Most Floridians understand that carrying a defensive firearm is a heady responsibility, so of course they will seek out professional training, if they haven’t done so already.

Constitutional carry, unlicensed concealed carry or whatever else you want to call it will restore the constitutional rights of millions of Floridians. At the end of the day, that’s far more important than anyone’s financial concerns.

If there were, Bloomberg wouldn’t have to astroturf it

There Is No Firm, Sustained Support for Gun Control.

A frequent talking point in the gun control debate is that Americans overwhelmingly support “common sense” gun control measures, such as universal background checks and red flag laws. The Biden administration referenced these surveys last month, when it announced that $231 million will go to states that enact “red flag” laws and push gun control policies. These surveys are constantly invoked in legislative hearings and in the media. But surveys often compress complicated bills down to one-sentence summaries, and the results are often unreliable.

Gun control advocates claim that over 90% of Americans support universal background checks, which would require checks for privately exchanged firearms. Fact-checkers from Politifact and Snopes support these claims. When asked why Congress won’t pass a universal background check law, academics point to the lobbying power of the National Rifle Association.

But in 2016, despite billionaire Michael Bloomberg‘s overwhelming financial backing, ballot initiatives for universal background checks failed in Maine by 4% and won in Nevada by less than 1%. In both Maine and Nevada, the background check initiatives had far more financial support, and the media was overwhelmingly sympathetic to the cause.

If the surveys conducted by gun control advocates were accurate, these should have been easy wins. But surveys often ask very simple questions such as, “Do you support or oppose requiring background checks on all gun sales or transfers?” The actual laws in question, however, can run for dozens of pages and are far more complicated than one-sentence summaries imply.

Continue reading “”

Visa, Mastercard pause decision to track gun shop purchases

NEW YORK (AP) — Visa and Mastercard paused their decision to start categorizing purchases at gun shops, a significant win for conservative groups and Second Amendment advocates who felt that tracking gun shop purchases would inadvertently discriminate against legal firearms purchases.

FILE - Assault weapons and hand guns are seen for sale at Capitol City Arms Supply, Jan. 16, 2013, in Springfield, Ill. Visa is pausing their decision to start categorizing purchases at gun shops, a significant win for conservative groups and 2nd Amendment advocates who felt that tracking gun shop purchases would inadvertently discriminate against legal firearms purchases. (AP Photo/Seth Perlman, File)

FILE – Assault weapons and hand guns are seen for sale at Capitol City Arms Supply, Jan. 16, 2013, in Springfield, Ill. Visa is pausing their decision to start categorizing purchases at gun shops, a significant win for conservative groups and 2nd Amendment advocates who felt that tracking gun shop purchases would inadvertently discriminate against legal firearms purchases. (AP Photo/Seth Perlman, File)© Provided by The Associated Press

The decision is, at the same time, also a defeat for gun control groups. There had been hope that categorizing credit and debit card purchases would allow authorities to potentially see red flags — like significant ammunition purchases — before a mass shooting could happen.

After Visa and Mastercard announced their plans to implement a separate merchant category code for gun shop purchases, the payment networks got significant pushback from the gun lobby as well as conservative politicians. A group of 24 GOP state attorneys general wrote a letter to the payment networks threatening legal action against Visa and Mastercard if they moved forward with their plan.

Continue reading “”

Fourth Circuit panel appears skeptical of Maryland’s “handgun qualification license”

Back in 2013, as part of its Firearms Safety Act, the Maryland legislature created a Handgun Qualification License, which does not actually permit you to possess a handgun. Instead, it’s a permission slip to undergo a background check and go through the process of purchasing a firearm at retail. Not only does the law impose an additional and extraneous burden on would-be gun buyers, it adds to the cost of exercising your right to keep and bear arms by mandating a four-hour training class at a live-fire range as well as paying for your fingerprints to be taken and submitted to the state police.

The law is the subject of litigation filed by Maryland Shall Issue, and on Friday majority of a three-judge panel in Richmond seemed skeptical of Maryland’s argument that the law should be upheld despite the fact that the Attorney General’s office could find no analogue to the HQL in the historical record.

“The historical tradition is the substantive limitations that are furthered by the HQL law,” Assistant Attorney General Ryan Dietrich said. “Those are ensuring that dangerous, subversive, non-virtuous folks do not get deadly firearms.”

Dietrich argued that firearm competency is a tradition that was alive and well during the founding era. Dietrich cited a law from that time requiring citizens to pledge their loyalty to the United States or be disarmed as an example of the long tradition of limitations on the Second Amendment.

U.S. Circuit Judge Julius N. Richardson, a Donald Trump appointee, disagreed with the example, stating that the loyalty test has to do with taking away firearms while the Maryland law relates to preclearance.

Richardson used numerous hypothetical situations to try to get Dietrich to concede that the HQL requirement infringes on Second Amendment rights.

“Is your argument that that time period where he cannot buy a firearm to protect his family and his home is not an infringement?” the judge asked.

Dietrich responded that although the law affects law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights, it does not infringe upon them.

Richardson had fun with Dietrich’s bizarre claims, asking if anyone’s Fourth Amendment rights would be infringed upon if they and every other resident in their city were confined to jail for a month while police determined if any of them were bad actors. As Richardson pointed out, the Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable” searches and seizures, but the Second Amendment doesn’t talk about any “reasonable infringements.” Any and all infringements are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment’s language, and that would presumably include needless delays or extraneous licensing procedures.

Continue reading “”

Oklahoma House Republicans vote to expand a person’s right to self-defense with a firearm

House Republicans advanced a bill Thursday to extend the area where a person can defend themselves with a firearm, an expansion of the so-called “castle doctrine” that has been a top priority for pro-gun groups for years.

House Bill 2049 changed the definition of “dwelling” from a building or house to the edge of the property line, possibly justifying a person’s use of deadly force to protect themselves as long as they are on land they own or rent.

Also referred to as “stand your ground laws,” Oklahoma law does not require a person to leave a situation if they feel threatened. Instead, current law states someone has a right to stay and shoot a person who is threatening their safety, as long as they are in their home.

Rep. David Hardin, R-Stilwell, the bill’s author, said that the expectation of self-defense should include the entire property.

“This is a simple bill … on your property if you feel that your life is threatened you have a right to protect yourself,” Hardin said. “This bill was never intended where you could just walk out and shoot anybody on your property. But if that person confronts you with deadly force, then you would be allowed to use deadly force.”

The bill now heads to the state Senate for consideration.

Democrats, who voted against the bill, expressed concern that innocent encounters, possibly with trick-or-treaters or hikers mistakenly coming onto private property, could end in a shooting death.

Rep. Monroe Nichols, and other state House Democrats, gathered for a news conference on June 2, 2022, to call for gun control measures.
“Maybe I’ve been watching too much ‘Yellowstone,'” said Rep. Forrest Bennett, D-Oklahoma City, referring to the violent television show that centers on property rights disputes in Montana. “But can you understand that there is some concern that this definition really opens this up to the possibility of unsafe actions?”

Hardin disputed those claims, saying any shooting would still be investigated by law enforcement and a person would be held accountable if it were determined their life or safety was not at risk.

Pro-gun groups have lobbied for the bill, including the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association.

Bid to block Illinois’ new assault weapons ban now before federal appeals court

CHICAGO – The federal appeals court in Chicago has its first opportunity to weigh in on Illinois’ controversial assault weapons ban, as challenges to the law continue to advance.

Naperville gunshop owner Robert Bevis asked the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for an injunction against the law late Tuesday. He wants the order in place while he appeals a recent ruling from U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall who found the law to be “constitutionally sound.”

Bevis asked that the injunction, if granted, apply to everyone affected by the state law.

The case appears to be the first to challenge the ban in the federal appellate court. The 7th Circuit now has the opportunity to block the measure signed by Gov. JB Pritzker on Jan. 10 — which immediately banned the sale of military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines — or to side with Kendall.

The court could also resolve Bevis’ request on other grounds.

An appellate court has upheld a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against Illinois’ assault weapons ban, and expanded it to cover the entire state.

Kendall ruled last month that “because assault weapons are particularly dangerous weapons … their regulation accords with history and tradition.” But Bevis’ lawyers have accused Kendall of error. Under previous Supreme Court rulings, they said weapons must be found to be “dangerous and unusual” in order to be banned.

“An arm that is commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes is, by definition, not unusual,” they wrote in their court filing Tuesday. “Thus, such an arm cannot be both dangerous and unusual and therefore it cannot be subjected to a categorical ban.”

They told the 7th Circuit the matter “is not a close case.”

McHenry County’s State’s Attorney Patrick Kenneally requested an emergency restraining order to block the law from taking effect in McHenry County.

It’s unclear how quickly the appeals court might rule. But Bevis’ lawyers insist his business has suffered since the assault weapons ban went into effect. They wrote that 85% of the firearms sold by his business, Law Weapons & Supply, are banned by the state law and a similar Naperville ordinance.

“Cash reserves have been depleted, and as a result, [Law Weapons & Supply] has had to lay off employees and ask Bevis’ family to work without pay,” Bevis’ lawyers wrote. “Bevis has extended his personal credit, missed personal payments like home and car payments, maxed his credit limits, and taken out loans to pay the monthly bills.”

They wrote that Law Weapons & Supply will not be able to abide by its property and equipment leases “if these bans remain in effect any longer.”

“In short, [Law Weapons & Supply] will be put out of business if these laws are enforced,” they wrote.

Bevis’ lawsuit is one of several challenges filed in state and federal courts since Pritzker signed the law. Four federal challenges have been consolidated in southern Illinois’ federal court, where state lawyers recently argued the weapons restricted by the new law aren’t commonly used for self-defense.

“By design and in practice, they exist for offensive infliction of mass casualties,” they argued in a recent brief.

Meanwhile, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed this week to give accelerated consideration to issues that have been raised in state court. The move was prompted by an order last week by a Macon County judge.

That judge followed the lead of earlier Illinois appellate court rulings and found that the assault weapons ban violates the state constitution’s equal protection and special legislation clauses.

Useless law that won’t stop anything.

Bill to help stop minors from accessing firearms heads to NM governor
The bill was named after Bennie Hargove, a middle school student whose classmate fatally shot him in 2021 using his father’s gun

Gun safety legislation is on its way to the governor’s desk for a signature.

Bennie’s Bill, which would make it a crime for allowing a firearm to be accessible to a minor, passed with concurrence through the House by a vote of 34-28 on Wednesday evening.

The bill was named after Bennie Hargove, a middle school student whose classmate fatally shot him in 2021 using his father’s gun.

This bill would make it a misdemeanor for anyone to negligently have a firearm be accessible to a minor, and a fourth-degree felony if the minor who uses the gun significantly harms another person or themself.

There’s a list of exceptions, including if the gun was kept in a locked container, securely stored or in an inaccessible location; if a firearm was used in self-defense; or in the case of an illegal entry on someone’s property.

A Senate amendment included in the bill that passed from Sen. Steven Neville (R-Aztec) last week added an exception that would allow a minor to use a firearm for hunting, recreationally or any other lawful purpose.

Rep. Stefani Lord (R-Sandia Park) asked repeated questions about the extent and technicalities of this clause.

Rep. Pamelya Herndon (D-Albuquerque), the bill’s sponsor, went back and forth with her colleague about the amendment before she said Neville could better explain the proposal.

However, Sen. Neville wasn’t present at the House floor meeting.

“I’m actually trying to get honest answers so when I go home and explain this, I want to make sure that none of our parents are committing a crime,” Lord said. “I don’t want that to happen.”

Lord asked if she should just wait for Neville to come to the House floor. In response, House Speaker Javier Martinez (D-Albuquerque) told someone to call Neville.

Martinez recommended that Lord continue with her questions and reminded the representatives that the bill still has to be signed by the governor and will take several months to even become law.

“We’ve got plenty of time to get a one-pager from the senator as to the technical aspects of this amendment,” Martinez said.

Bruen’s “chaos” is a much-needed correction

Ahead of four decisions on California gun laws that are expected to soon be released by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, the Los Angeles Times is advancing the narrative that the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision is sowing “chaos” in the courts. But as we discuss on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, upending the untenable status quo is a good thing, particular given how the judiciary has abused “interest balancing” tests to regularly uphold infringements on a fundamental right.

Reporter Kevin Rector’s coverage of how the courts have dealt with the Supreme Court’s edict that those interest balancing tests are inappropriate is clearly slanted; not only in the front-page story itself, but he promoted his piece on social media.

Yes, SCOTUS has rejected the interest-balancing tests that many lower courts adopted after the Heller decision in 2008, but as Justice Clarence Thomas made clear in Bruen, that was never the appropriate test when it comes to gun control laws”

Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.

What Rector (and the vast majority of the sources he spoke to) object to is the fact that the Court’s explicit instructions to discard those interest-balancing tests in favor of a text, history, and tradition test puts laws like California’s ban on so-called assault weapons on shaky legal ground. No longer can the courts decide that even though a particular gun control law intrudes on the Second Amendment rights of citizens, it’s okay because the government has an interest in promoting public safety. Now those laws must be justified through the historical record; something that is going to be difficult given that the gun control movement is a fairly modern creation.

“This new ‘history and tradition’ test that the Supreme Court established last June is wreaking havoc on America’s gun laws,” said Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor who focuses on 2nd Amendment law. “Instead of having a reasonable debate over whether a ban on assault weapons is good policy or not, we have to debate whether a ban on assault weapons has historical antecedents.”

With all due respect to Winkler, the courts aren’t the right venue for a “reasonable debate” on the policy of a gun ban. Legislators can and will continue to debate banning “assault weapons”, but it’s up to the judiciary to determine if those laws are constitutionally sound. And as much as the law professor complains that Bruen is wreaking havoc on gun laws, I’d argue that when appellate courts like the Ninth Circuit refuse to ever find a gun control law unconstitutional the judiciary is wreaking havoc on a fundamental civil right.

The Bruen decision will not lead to every gun control law being overturned, as disappointing as that might be for Second Amendment advocates. Heck, the Court said that “shall issue” concealed carry regimes are presumptively constitutional, and the justices pointed to places like schools, legislative assemblies, and polling places as locations that could likely be labeled “sensitive places” without much legal trouble. But the Court’s opinion should also take an “assault weapons” ban and many other modern inventions of the gun control lobby off the table, at least if judges are willing to abide by what SCOTUS had to say.

As we’ve seen in places like Oregon, though, some judges are still finding new and creative ways to uphold gun control laws by stretching the boundaries of an historical analogue beyond credulity. Bruen may have put the lower courts on notice, but as valuable a course correction on Second Amendment jurisprudence as it might be, it can’t and won’t be the last word for the Court on our right to keep and bear arms.

New Mexico: Waiting Period and Firearms Industry Lawsuit Bills on Deck Again in Senate Committee on Wednesday!

House Bill 101 (Semi-Auto Ban & Magazine Limit Bill NOT on House Judiciary Committee Agenda for Wednesday)

On Wednesday, March 8, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold public hearings on two extreme measures that target law-abiding citizens and the firearms industry:

Senate Bill 427 by Sen. Joseph Cervantes (D-Las Cruces), imposes a 14-day waiting period on all firearm purchases, with an exception for concealed handgun licensees. Like House Bill 100, this measure will add nothing to the existing FBI background check process and will only delay your ability to exercise your Second Amendment right to defend yourself, your family and your property. This would make for the longest firearms purchase waiting period in the entire country!  For more information on this proposal, click here.

Senate Bill 428 by Sen. Joseph Cervantes (D-Las Cruces) creates a hostile climate for lawful firearm-related industries and transactions by facilitating an increasing amount of litigation and claims, with vastly increased liability exposure and civil penalties, for even minor suspected violations of the terms of an FFL or the law as the basis for Unfair Trade Practices Act proceedings. For more information on this bill, click here. This legislation was significantly amended in committee; we will report back to you on the impact these changes have on the bill and what action items need to be taken on the measure.

* Make plans to attend the committee hearing via zoom or in-person. The committee will meet at 1:30pm or upon adjournment of the Senate in Room 321 of the Roundhouse.  For public participation and to register for Zoom send an email to SJC.Zoom@nmlegis.gov. Include the bill number, that you’re an opponent and if you will be attending in person or via zoom. To attend meeting via Zoom click the following link:

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81502543362.
Meeting ID: 815 0254 3362
Zoom Call: 1-253-205-0468.

Kentucky: Campus Self-Defense Goes to House Floor

Today, the House Veterans, Military Affairs, and Public Protection voted 16-3 to pass House Bill 542 with a committee substitute, to ensure that law-abiding adults are not stripped of their right to self-defense when they cross an arbitrary boundary onto a college campus. It now goes to the House floor for further consideration. Please contact your state representative and ask them to SUPPORT HB 542.

House Bill 542 PHS 1 prohibits colleges, universities, and post-secondary education facilities from restricting Second Amendment rights. Current state law does not prohibit law-abiding adults from carrying defensive firearms on campus, but institution policy may lead to expulsion or termination of employment. Adults who are officially licensed to carry a firearm for self-defense should not be prevented from doing so just because they seek higher education.

Again, please contact your state representative and ask them to SUPPORT HB 542.