Category: RKBA

Analysis: Illinois Sheriffs’ Resistance to AR-15 Ban Latest Frontier for Second Amendment Sanctuary Movement

In the state often credited with kicking off the nationwide movement, so-called Second Amendment Sanctuaries are being put to their most significant test yet.

Shortly after Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker (D.) signed a bill banning “assault weapons” and certain ammunition magazines into law last week. Illinois gun owners have 300 days to register or otherwise dispose of the thousands of different models of guns affected by the ban. If they don’t, they could face serious criminal charges.

However, the actions of local officials across the state are calling that possibility into question. Many have begun to mobilize in opposition to enforcing the law. Sheriffs and State’s Attorneys of more than 80 Illinois counties have released statements decrying the law as “unconstitutional.” Most have publicly declared that they refuse to enforce it against otherwise law-abiding citizens.

“Until further direction from our courts, the Effingham County Sheriff’s Office will not expend the resources of Effingham County to ensure law-abiding gun owners are registering their firearms with the State, or arresting, otherwise law-abiding individuals, solely for their non-compliance with HB5471,” Effingham County Sheriff Paul Kuhns said in a public release.

“My office will exercise strict prosecutorial discretion in circumstances relating to enforcement of House Bill 5471, ensuring that the clearly-defined Second Amendment rights of our citizens remain undiminished,” Effingham County State’s Attorney Aaron Jones added. “While my office remains committed to protecting the citizens of Effingham County by prosecuting violent crimes, I have no intention of turning otherwise law-abiding citizens into convicted felons solely due to non-compliance with House Bill 5471.”

The sentiment was echoed in jurisdictions around the state with model language provided by the Illinois Sheriffs Association. Nine in 10 of the state’s sheriffs have now publicly declared their intention to disregard the law, according to the Associated Press

The sheer number of prosecutors and sheriffs who have come out against enforcing the new ban represents a new high water mark for the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement. That’s fitting for a trend that has its roots in none other than Effingham County, Illinois.

Resistance to gun control from higher up in the government has existed in some form for decades. The successful challenge of the Brady Act’s initial requirement that local law enforcement use their resources to conduct background checks on gun buyers in 1997’s Printz v. U.S. is one early success in the power struggle. Beginning in the mid-2000s and through the early 2010s, a handful of deep red states and localities around the country even passed resolutions suggesting that they wouldn’t obey gun laws they viewed as unconstitutional–though they were often primarily symbolic measures that have never been put to a significant test.

Those earlier efforts began to crystalize into the modern sanctuary movement starting with Pritzker’s 2018 election. Effingham County officials, alarmed by his win and the possibility of an assault weapons ban, passed the first resolution credited with coining the term “sanctuary” as applied to the Second Amendment. The resolution, which quickly spread to 70 additional counties across Illinois and later other states like Virginia, was a simple declaration that local officials would view any of the gun-control laws then under consideration by the legislature as unconstitutional.

“We’re just stealing the language that sanctuary cities use,” Bryan Kibler, former Effingham County State’s Attorney, told the Associated Press in reference to the immigration “sanctuary” movement at the time.

“We wanted to get across that our Second Amendment rights are slowly being stripped away.”

Now, faced with a new set of gun-control measures, a similar dynamic is at play.

But unlike those previous resolutions, which predominately surfaced ad hoc wherever new gun-control measures were a possibility, the current crop of non-compliance declarations are being announced in response to a law that has passed. That creates a new paradigm testing the mettle of officials on both sides. Without local law enforcement support and few options to force their hand, backers of the ban are left without many options. The state’s gun owners could very well decide to disregard the registration requirement, and local law enforcement may well follow through on their promise not to bother them.

That has happened before.

Following the 2013 passage of the SAFE Act in New York, the refusal of some sheriffs to enforce its ban on certain guns and magazines coincided with widespread non-compliance. The most recent data suggests only about four percent of the guns required to be registered under the SAFE Act have actually been registered.

“It’s not that they aren’t aware of the law,” Paloma Capanna, a firearms lawyer who obtained the registration data,

told Hudson Valley One in 2019. “The lack of registration is a massive act of civil disobedience by gun owners statewide.”

Since ninety percent of Illinois’ sheriffs are vowing to look the other way on this latest ban, it’s hard to see how the results don’t end up looking similar in the Land of Lincoln.

Of course, it remains to be seen how resolved the Illinois sheriffs are in refusing to enforce the gun ban and corresponding registry requirement. The rapid groundswell of opposition has already provoked a backlash from many of the state’s top Democratic lawmakers, including Governor Pritzker.

He has repeatedly suggested that the defiant sheriffs are “violating their oaths of office” and has threatened to fire  those that refuse to enforce the ban. However, it does not appear that he has the power to remove duly-elected sheriffs from office under Illinois law.

Even if he can’t directly remove the local officials, Pritzker may hope to sway or replace them by other means. Or bypass them altogether.

“It’s our state police and law enforcement across the state that will, in fact, enforce this law, and these outlier sheriffs will comply or, frankly, they’ll have to answer to the voters,” Pritzker told NBC 5.

It’s possible the political pressure could wear some sheriffs down and cause them to reverse course. Or some might have misread what their constituents want and get an earful from residents clamoring to see a gun ban enforced. Pritzer could also prioritize using state police resources to try and enforce the ban on their own, though that would be a very tall order without local support.

If not, the rapid and organized adoption of non-enforcement policies across broad swaths of Illinois in response to a gun ban and registry requirement may become the biggest success story of the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement to date.

This Challenge To Illinois’ Gun Law Tees Up SCOTUS To Finally Nuke ‘Assault Weapons’ Bans

Illinois’ recently enacted ban on most semi-automatic rifles and so-called “high-capacity” magazines violates the Second Amendment, according to a lawsuit filed on Tuesday in a federal district court. The case, Harrel v. Raoul, represents one of the first challenges to so-called “assault-weapons” bans since the 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle v. Bruen made clear that the right to bear arms is not “a second-class right.”

Here’s what you need to know about the case and current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

On Jan. 10, 2023, Illinois enacted a ban on the manufacturing, delivery, sale, purchase, or possession of so-called “assault weapons,” which is defined by statute to include any semi-automatic rifle “with the capacity to accept a magazine holding more than ten rounds of ammunition,” if the rifle possesses any one of several features, such as “a pistol grip or thumbhole stock,” a “folding, telescoping, thumbhole, or detachable stock,” or a “flash suppressor.” The Illinois statute also identifies dozens of rifles expressly banned as “assault weapons,” including all AK-type rifles, all AR-type rifles, several Barrett and Bushmaster rifles, along with a catalog of other guns.

Illinois’ recently enacted statute also makes it a crime to “manufacture, deliver, sell, purchase,” or “possess” magazines branded by the state as “large capacity ammunition” devices and referred to colloquially as “large-capacity magazines.” The statute categorizes magazines as “large capacity” if they can hold more than “10 rounds of ammunition for long guns and more than 15 rounds of ammunition for handguns.”

A group of individuals, gun businesses, and private organizations, including the Second Amendment Foundation, the Illinois State Rifle Association, and the Firearms Policy Coalition, filed suit on Tuesday against the Illinois attorney general, as well as several state prosecutors and law enforcement agents, arguing the statute violates the Second Amendment. On Wednesday, the case was assigned to federal Judge Stephen P. McGlynn, a Donald Trump appointee.

The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, David G. Sigale, told The Federalist he anticipates seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction “very soon,” noting that the statute has been in force since the governor signed the law on Jan. 10.

In seeking a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs will need to establish they have “a likelihood of success on the merits,” meaning they will likely prevail on their claim that the Illinois law violates the Second Amendment.

Continue reading “”

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Unconstitutional Illinois Gun Ban

BELLEVUE, WA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the recently-signed Illinois gun ban legislation, alleging it to be unconstitutional and asserting the state has criminalized “a common and important means of self-defense.” The case is known as Harrel v. Raoul.

Joining SAF in this legal action are the Illinois State Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, C4 Gun Store LLC, Marengo Guns, Inc. and a private citizen, Dane Harrel. Named as defendants are Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Illinois State Police Director Brendan F. Kelly, and other officials in their official capacities. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

“Illinois has banned the future sale, importation, purchase, delivery and manufacture of the most popular rifle in the United States, along with their standard capacity magazines,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “People who already own such firearms must now register their guns with the State Police. This ban violates the constitutional rights of Illinois gun owners, and we intend to prove it in court.

“Once again,” he continued, “Illinois lawmakers are scapegoating firearms and people who own them in a transparent attempt to convince people they are doing something about the horrible violence the state has suffered in recent years, especially in Chicago. In reality, it’s an effort to distract the public from the fact that these same lawmakers have been unable or unwilling to crack down on criminals responsible for violent crime.”

Modern semiautomatic firearms banned under the new Illinois law have been deliberately mischaracterized as “assault weapons” and even “weapons of war,” Gottlieb explained. He called this patently dishonest and deceitful.

“Anti-gun politicians tout this sort of legislation,” Gottlieb observed, “while they know it really won’t accomplish anything beyond creating the false public impression they are making the community safer. No neighborhood, no city, and no state ever became safer by restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.”

 

Senile SloJoe can’t do anything but obsess on his past, thinking he’s going to get any new gun control laws even passed by congress. He also neglected to finish that sentence in the quote by Thomas Jefferson:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

I wonder why…..

Biden’s MLK Speech: ‘Ban the Number of Bullets That Go in a Magazine’

President Joe Biden spoke on the Martin Luther King Jr. Day and reiterated his belief that it is time to “ban the number of bullets that go in a magazine.”

Mediate.com published the portion of Biden’s MLK speech in which he pledges to ban firearms which Democrats label “assault weapons.”

Biden said, “I am going to get ‘assault weapons’ banned. I did it once and I’m going to do it again.”

He added, “And ban the number of bullets that go in a magazine.”

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

He said, “I’m serious, think about it. Think about the rationale for this. It’s about money. Money, money, money.”

On December 7, 2022, Breitbart News reported Biden’s push to “limit the number of bullets than can be in a cartridge.”

On October 24, 2022, Breitbart News pointed out Biden’s claim that is was time to limit gun owners to “eight bullets in a round.”

BLUF
“What’s new is that if the 2nd Circuit completely botches Bruen, the Supreme Court may intervene early. So I think there’s an incentive for the 2nd Circuit to take very carefully what’s in Bruen and not just sort of rely on old precedents,” Blackman added.

Supreme Court’s Alito and Thomas warn new gun control law raises ‘serious’ 2A questions

Two of the Supreme Court’s most conservative justices warned this week that New York’s concealed carry restrictions law raises “serious” constitutional questions ahead of arguments in four Second Amendment-related challenges at the federal appeals court level.

In a short unsigned order Wednesday, the high court deferred to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which in December eliminated a pause on several portions of the law after a federal district court judge struck down most of the law’s provisions on Nov. 7.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said in a letter attached to the order that the law “presents novel and serious questions under both the First and the Second Amendments.” The pair also made clear that the court’s denial was in no way “expressing any views on the merits” of the challenges brought by firearms proponents; instead, it was to “reflect respect for the 2nd Circuit’s procedures in managing its own docket.”

The 2nd Circuit, which holds a 7-6 Democratic-led majority, announced Friday it would hear arguments in four challenges against several provisions in New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act on March 20.

Continue reading “”

Well, just to put it bluntly:

No, Second Amendment does protect AR-15s

I get that there are some people who don’t like AR-15s. They see these guns that look an awful lot like what our troops use and they get uncomfortable. They see people traipsing around the woods or our communities with them, often espousing what they think are extremist points of view, and it makes them even more uncomfortable.

So, they want AR-15s banned. After all, then no one could get such weapons and the extremists wouldn’t be as much of a threat anymore.

And every so often, someone thinks they’re clever enough to find a loophole, that the Second Amendment actually allows banning such firearms.

Gun advocates insist that the AR-15 is protected by the Second Amendment. This is not true – yet.

Neither the law nor the Second Amendment prevents Congress from banning such weapons. The obstacle is not just public opinion — polls show that far more people support such a ban than oppose it — but failure of political will before a powerful gun lobby and donors, a polarized Congress and a divided and fearful nation in thrall to the Cult of the Second Amendment.

Justice Clarence Thomas does not mention the AR-15 in his June 23 majority Supreme Court opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. This most expansive interpretation yet of the Second Amendment strikes down restrictions on the ability to carry guns outside the home in New York and five other states. The AR-15 also goes unmentioned in the bipartisan bill signed into law June 25 – the first major gun legislation in nearly 30 years.…

Gun advocates commonly cite District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 case authored by Justice Antonin Scalia. That opinion, which Thomas mentions frequently in Bruen, struck down the District’s banning possession of all handguns by non-law enforcement officials. That law required that owners of firearms of other kinds keep them unloaded, disassembled or locked when not located at a business place or while being used for lawful recreational activities.…

However, the Heller opinion, far from protecting a weapon like the AR-15, made clear that such a weapon could not only be regulated but banned once again. Heller specifically affirmed the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, concluding that the Second Amendment does not protect “those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as short-barreled shotguns.”

Heller makes it clear that the Second Amendment, like most rights, is not unlimited and does not grant the right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner for whatever purpose.

But that right there is where the author screws up. See, he’s a lawyer, so he figures he knows the law. And I’m not, so he probably knows it far better than I do.

Where he makes his mistake, though, is in his lack of understanding about firearms in a far more general sense.

What he leaves out is that the Heller decision permitted the banning of guns not “in common use.” This is why machine guns could remain banned. I disagree with that interpretation by Justice Scalia and figure it was to make the ruling a bit more politically palatable, but my agreement or disagreement changes nothing.

Yet that phrase, “in common use,” matters with regard to the AR-15.

That gun is one of the most popular firearm models in the country. Millions of them are sold every year. An estimated 20 million of them are in circulation right now.

Maybe it’s just me, but that sure sounds like they’re in common use.

See, the author doesn’t like AR-15s, so he presents his interpretation. It misrepresents what Scalia actually wrote so badly that one can’t help but believe it’s intentional. Especially since the author is an attorney, someone who not just should understand what Scalia said but also knows how to twist things from a legal standpoint.

I’m sorry, but this is just a reinterpretation of the tired argument that, frankly, ignores a large part of the Second Amendment. You know, that whole “shall not be infringed” thing?

Sadly typical, unfortunately.

New Hampshire Bill Would Take on Federal Gun Control; Past, Present, and Future

CONCORD, N.H. (Jan. 15, 2023) – A bill introduced in the New Hampshire House would end state enforcement of a wide range of federal gun control measures; past, present and future. The passage of this bill would take an important step toward nullifying federal acts in practice and effect that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.

Rep. Tom Mannion (R) introduced House Bill 474 (HB474) on Jan. 11. Titled “Protection of Natural Right to Property and Self-defense,” the legislation would ban any entity or person, including any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any past, present or future federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

The bill is similar to the Missouri Second Amendment Protection Act (SAPA) enacted in 2021.

Mannion said he was building on the momentum created by a bill passed last year that took a small step toward banning state and local enforcement of federal control. Mannion called that bill a “foot-in-the-door” and said he was “adding teeth to this law.”

DETAILS OF THE LEGISLATION

The bill includes a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” including:

  • Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services.
  • Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition.
  • Any registration or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition.
  • Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, use, or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens.
  • Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

The proposed law defines a “law-abiding citizen” as “a person who is not otherwise precluded under state law from possessing a firearm.”

Continue reading “”

GOP lawmakers, NRA slam ATF rule to regulate pistol braces: ‘Unconstitutional overreach’

Republican lawmakers and gun rights groups blasted the Biden administration over a new rule that tightens regulations on pistol stabilizing braces.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco and Explosives (ATF) finalized a new regulation Friday that will treat guns with stabilizing accessories like short-barreled rifles, which require a federal license to own under the National Firearms Act.

The move is part of a comprehensive gun crime strategy President Biden announced in April 2021, in response to the massacre at a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado, where a gunman using a stabilizing brace killed 10 people. A stabilizing brace was also used in a shooting in Dayton, Ohio, that left nine people dead in 2019.

Announcing the rule, Attorney General Merrick Garland said that stabilizing brace accessories, which were designed to help disabled combat veterans enjoy recreational shooting, transform pistols into short-barreled rifles.

“Keeping our communities safe from gun violence is among the Department’s highest priorities,” Garland said. “Almost a century ago, Congress determined that short-barreled rifles must be subject to heightened requirements. Today’s rule makes clear that firearm manufacturers, dealers, and individuals cannot evade these important public safety protections simply by adding accessories to pistols that transform them into short-barreled rifles.”

“Certain so-called stabilizing braces are designed to just attach to pistols, essentially converting them into short-barreled rifles to be fired from the shoulder,” said ATF Director Steven Dettelbach. “Therefore, they must be treated in the same way under the statute.”

Second Amendment advocates were apoplectic over new requirements for gun owners to register existing pistols equipped with stabilizing braces with the government within 120 days, else they must remove the brace or surrender the firearm to ATF.

“The Biden administration chose to shred the Constitution today,” the National Rifle Association said.

“Joe Biden is an enemy of our Second Amendment,” the group added.

Gun Owners of America, which bills itself as the only “no-compromise” gun lobby in Washington, D.C., vowed to file a lawsuit challenging Biden’s new ATF regulation.

“This admin continues to find ways to attack gun owners. We will continue to work with our industry partners to amplify the disapproving voices in the firearms industry and [Gun Owners Foundation], our sister legal arm, will be filing suit in the near future,” said Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America.

“Pres. Biden just initiated the largest federal gun registration scheme in our nation’s history w/o even the passage of a new law. GOA is actively working with Congress to pass a resolution blocking this rule under the Congressional Review Act,” added the organization’s director of federal affairs, Aidan Johnston.

Their cause was taken up by Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., who in June 2021 wrote a letter signed by 140 lawmakers expressing opposition to the proposed rule on stabilizing braces.

“This rule jeopardizes the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners and disabled combat veterans, which is why I led Members of Congress in opposition,” Hudson said. “I will continue to fight against the ATF’s unconstitutional overreach that could turn millions of citizens into felons.”

ATF, however, says that its new rule does not affect stabilizing braces intended for disabled persons.

Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo also condemned the ATF rule. “The ATF’s announced rule on pistol braces today is nothing short of a massive executive branch-imposed gun registration and confiscation scheme,” Crapo tweeted. “This is an unacceptable attack on the Second Amendment and law-abiding Americans.”

Gun control advocates praised the new regulation. Everytown for Gun Safety cheered the ATF’s move, saying gunmakers had exploited loopholes in the law to make firearms more deadly.

The rule will go into effect next week, at which point gun owners who own a pistol stabilizing brace will need to register the weapon with ATF or remove the accessory.

Officials estimated about 3 million stabilizing braces are currently in circulation in the U.S.

Backlash against weapons ban grows
Jersey County sheriff latest to balk at enforcement

JERSEYVILLE – Jersey County has joined a list of about 80 Illinois counties where sheriff’s and other law enforcement officials have said they will not enforce provisions of the state’s new weapons ban.

On Thursday afternoon newly-elected Jersey County Sheriff Nicholas Manns posted a letter on the department’s Facebook page detailing why he and Jersey County State’s Attorney Ben Goetten will not be participating in the enforcement of HB 5471.

The law bans the sale and possession of “assault weapons” and accessories such as large-capacity magazines, as well as .50 caliber rifles and ammunition. The banned weapons include some specifically names, and others by technical definitions.

However, it grandfathers in weapons that are registered with the Illinois State Police.

Mann said he would be using “lawful discretion” in enforcing the new law.

Continue reading “”

SAF Rips ATF’s Byzantine Pistol Brace Rule, Vows to Continue Its Lawsuit

From the Second Amendment Foundation . . .

The Second Amendment Foundation today accused the Biden administration of “once again trying to trample the rights of gun owners” by allowing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to adopt a “final rule” on arm braces for modern semiautomatic pistols.

While the definition of a rifle in federal law should be clear, noted attorney Chad Flores, who is representing SAF in a federal lawsuit filed two years ago that was stayed by the court in anticipation of this new rule, it is clear the Biden administration’s new definition of a rifle ignores tradition. SAF sued ATF and the U.S. Attorney General in 2021 in a case known as SAF et. al. v. BATFE, et. al.

SAF is joined in that case by Rainier Arms, LLC and two private citizens, Samuel Walley and William Green. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.

According to Flores’ analysis of the 291-page Final Rule, the definition of a “rifle” now turns on a bewildering six-factor test. This new definition can be controlled not by the firearm’s objective characteristics, but instead by what ATF agents in D.C. think of a manufacturer’s marketing materials or the firearm’s “likely use.”  The new rule itself is forced to admit its dramatic result: Under this new definitional regime, “a majority of the existing firearms equipped with a ‘stabilizing brace’ are likely to be classified as ‘rifles.’” 

“The Biden administration’s new rifle definition overrides the true wish of Congress, to upend the reasonable expectations of stabilizing brace users and makers nationwide,” Flores said.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb noted the foundation’s 2021 lawsuit raised critical points about what has now been adopted by ATF.

“When we started this process,” Gottlieb said, “we anticipated where the agency’s efforts would lead. With our co-plaintiffs, we will continue to challenge this new arm brace rule.”

Murphy Introduces Bill to Protect 2nd Amendment Rights for Military Families

January 13, 2023

Press Release

Washington, D.C. – Today, Rep. Greg Murphy, M.D. (NC-03) introduced legislation to protect military families’ constitutional rights. The Protect Our Military Families’ 2nd Amendment Rights Act (H.R. 341) guarantees Second Amendment rights to the spouse of a service member. This is the first piece of legislation introduced by Rep. Murphy in the 118th Congress.

“When I was elected to Congress, I made a promise to protect my constituents’ constitutional rights and support our service members and their families. This legislation does both,” said Rep. Murphy. “Far too often, military families are forgotten when Congress addresses issues that impact our warfighters. The Protect Our Military Families’ 2nd Amendment Rights Act goes a long way in ensuring the spouses of our service members are afforded the same constitutional rights as those in uniform. I am proud to always support our outstanding military families and am hopeful this essential piece of legislation will finally see the light of day in a Republican majority.”

Summary of H.R. 341

Under current law, active-duty service members of the United States Armed Forces may purchase firearms at their assigned duty station with proper documentation. However, their spouses are not granted this same constitutional right.

This bill would amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to provide that a member of the Armed Forces and the spouse of that member shall have the same rights regarding the receipt of firearms at the location of any duty station of the member.

The Protect Our Military Families’ 2nd Amendment Rights Act was previously introduced in the 117th Congress by Congressman Murphy.

This bill is cosponsored by Reps. Dan Crenshaw, Mike Kelly, Byron Donalds, John Rutherford, Rick Crawford, Michael Cloud, Elise Stefanik, Paul Gosar, Dusty Johnson, Ashley Hinson, Scott Franklin, and Randy Weber.

Gun-rights group to appeal federal judge’s ruling upholding RI’s 10-round magazine limit

PROVIDENCE — A group of gun-rights advocates has filed notice they will appeal a federal judge’s decision here upholding Rhode Island’s new ban on gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Michael A. Kelly, a lawyer representing the group, told The Journal on Friday that they hope to argue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that a so-called high-capacity gun magazine is part of a firearm and therefore can’t be regulated as the law does.

Last month, U.S. District Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. refused to grant a request by a Chepachet gun store and several Rhode Island gun owners for a preliminary injunction blocking the law, which makes possession of gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds a felony.

McConnell found that the plaintiffs, Big Bear Hunting and Fishing Supply, along with three Rhode Island residents — Mary Brimer, James Grundy and Jonathan Hirons — and a Newport homeowner who lives in Florida, Jeffrey Goyette, had not shown that they would suffer irreparable harm if the law were allowed to take effect, and furthermore, that allowing its enforcement was in the public’s interest.

The Second Amendment protects the right of people to “keep and bear arms,” McConnell acknowledged. But the plaintiffs, he said, had not demonstrated that the magazines represented “arms” as described in the Second Amendment. They hadn’t presented credible evidence establishing such a magazine as a weapon of self-defense.

He called the ban “a small but measured attempt to mitigate the potential loss of life by regulating an instrument associated with mass slaughter.”

The group of gun owners filed their notice of appeal Friday in U.S. District Court.

Kelly said he plans to hire as an appellate lawyer Paul Clement, the former U.S. solicitor general. Clement successfully argued for gun-rights advocates in a case prompting the U.S. Supreme Court last year to strike down a New York handgun-licensing law that required those who want to carry a handgun in public to show a special need to defend themselves.

Delaware faces lawsuit over large capacity magazine ban

(The Center Square) — Delaware is facing a legal challenge over its ban on large capacity magazines from a group which claims it violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

A lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court by the Second Amendment Foundation on behalf of two gun owners, alleges the state’s new gun restrictions violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by preventing them from “exercising their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

The lawsuit asks a federal judge to grant preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing the state from enforcing the restrictions on large capacity magazines.

“Delaware arbitrarily labels standard capacity magazines capable of holding more than 17 rounds as “large capacity magazines” and bans them despite the fact that they, along with the firearms with which they are compatible, are in common use for lawful purposes,” lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote in a 25 page complaint. “There is no historical tradition of this sort of firearm regulation in the United States.”

Last June, Gov. John Carney signed a package of gun control measures that included a ban on the sale of assault-style weapons, an increase in the age to purchase most firearms from 18 to 21, strengthened background checks and limits on large capacity magazines. It also banned the use of devices that convert handguns into fully automatic weapons.

The proposals were pushed through the Democratic-controlled General Assembly in the wake of several mass shootings, including the massacre of 21 at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

“We have an obligation to do everything we can to prevent tragedies like we’ve seen around the country from happening here in Delaware,” Carney said in a statement at the time.

But Alan M. Gottlieb, the foundation’s executive vice president, said the large capacity magazine ban “literally criminalizes one of the most common and important means by which Delaware citizens can exercise their right of self-defense.” He said the restrictions “make self-defense a potential criminal act, and that must not be allowed to stand.”

The group cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the N.Y. State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen case, which struck down a New York law requiring applicants to show “proper cause” to obtain a permit to carry a firearm. The high court’s conservative majority affirmed the constitutional right to carry firearms in public places for self-defense.

Adam Kraut, the foundation’s executive director, said reduced police manpower in many communities means “there is no guarantee that emergency calls to law enforcement will bring anything resembling a swift response.”

“In the meantime, citizens must be able to rely on their fundamental rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, and those rights must be protected,” he said.

Well, they better

Second Amendment Groups Expect New House Majority to Stand and Fight For Gun Owners
Pro-gun advocates say Congress must defend Constitution

Newly elected House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) tried to make hay with Republicans by starting the 118th Congress with a move to defund 87,000 new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agents, but Second Amendment groups see the new Congress as a mixed blessing at best.

While McCarthy was touting efforts to rein in the IRS, Gun Owners of America (GOA) decried what it called a misguided effort to address illegal immigration and placate gun control proponents.

This does not align with the pro-gun agenda GOA and the National Rifle Association (NRA) hope will be pushed by the House majority.

According to a statement on the GOA website, a proposed law requiring the FBI to report anyone illegally in the country—based on information found in firearms purchase background checks—to Immigration and Customs Enforcement is “not a pro-gun bill.”

“This is why gun owners can’t blindly trust Congress to fight for our Second Amendment rights. We just ended Pelosi’s majority, but the new majority wants to use your gun rights as a bargaining chip in the border crisis,” the statement reads.

The GOA states that the National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS) is unreliable. It has prevented law-abiding citizens from making a legal gun purchase because an unqualified buyer shared the same last name, the GOA claimed.

The Act was initially introduced during the last session and is expected to be brought up again. However, one bill that has been reintroduced is getting a much warmer reception.

U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) sponsored HR 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (CCRA). The bill has 118 original cosponsors.

It would require a concealed firearm carry license from one state to be recognized in any other state as long as the license holder obeys the laws of that state. It also allows residents of constitutional carry states that don’t require a state-issued concealed carry license to carry a gun in other states as long as they obey those states’ laws.

Hudson first introduced CCRA in 2017. At that time, the bill passed the House on a vote of 231-198 but was not taken up by the Senate.

In a statement on his website, Hudson said constitutional rights should be recognized regardless of geography.

“HR 38 guarantees the Second Amendment does not disappear when crossing an invisible state line,” Hudson wrote in his online statement.

Representatives of pro-Second Amendment groups lauded the bill and called on other members of Congress to support it.

Continue reading “”

Florida Bill Would Prohibit Financial Institutions From Tracking Gun and Ammo Purchases

Florida lawmakers announced legislation this week that would prohibit financial institutions from tracking firearm and ammo purchases in the state.

State Sen. Danny Burgess and Rep. John Snyder, both Republicans, said they will introduce the “Florida Arms and Ammo Act” with the backing of Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson.

“The ‘Florida Arms and Ammo Act’ draws a line in the sand and tells multi-national progressive financial institutions, and their allies in Washington, that they cannot covertly create a backdoor firearm registry of Floridians – or else,” Simpson said in a statement.

Gun control advocates have argued that the separate merchant code for firearm and ammo purchases could help curb gun violence.

“When you buy an airline ticket or pay for your groceries, your credit card company has a special code for those retailers. It’s just common sense that we have the same policies in place for gun and ammunition stores,” New York City Democratic Mayor Eric Adams said last September when the new code was first announced.

A dozen Republican U.S. Senators sent a letter to the CEOs of Visa, Mastercard and American Express last year, arguing that the separate category is “the first step towards backdoor gun control on law abiding Americans.”

“Any change that seeks to impact a United States citizen’s ability to legally purchase a firearm belongs with Congress, not payment networks, international standard setting organizations, or the financial institutions that some of you serve,” the senators wrote in the letter.

WA State Preemption Law Under Attack from 15 Democrats demoncraps

Fifteen Washington State Democrat members of the state House of Representatives wasted no time launching an anticipated effort to repeal the Evergreen State’s nearly-40-year-old model preemption law, threatening a system of gun law uniformity that has been upheld in the state courts more than once.

And that appears to be the problem, as the opening language of House Bill 1178 illustrates.

“For over 30 years,” the bill laments, “local towns, cities, and counties have been blocked from taking action on their own to prevent gun violence because of the statewide preemption of local regulations relating to firearms. The legislature intends to provide local jurisdictions the ability to build upon statewide standards and adopt responsible approaches to firearm regulations to help address the epidemic of firearm violence in their communities by restoring inherent local authority to adopt firearm regulations that are in addition to or more restrictive than the requirements of state law under the police power to protect public health, safety, and welfare.”

While the language suggests good intentions, the thrust of this measure is to roll back the calendar four decades to a time when Washington had a checkerboard of confusing and possibly conflicting local regulations. State preemption provided relief from that situation, say supporters.

Continue reading “”

IL Gov. Pritzker signs weapons assault ban bill

SPRINGFIELD, IL (WSIL) — Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed the weapons assault bill Tuesday night after legislatures recently passed the ban in both House and Senate.

“For the past four years, my administration and my colleagues in the State Capitol have been battling the powerful forces of the NRA to enshrine the strongest and most effective gun violence legislation that we possibly can,” said Gov. JB Pritzker. “I couldn’t be prouder to say that we got it done. And we will keep fighting — bill by bill, vote by vote, and protest by protest — to ensure that future generations only hear about massacres like Highland Park, Sandy Hook, and Uvalde in their textbooks.”

State Representative Dave Severin released the following statement upon Governor Pritzker’s signature.

“Democrats in Illinois have taken their quest to pass unconstitutional gun control legislation to the next level tonight, as Governor Pritzker has signed a bill that will make law-abiding citizens into felons for failing to comply with government managed gun registry.”

Severin continued, “The Illinois State Rifle Association has pledged to sue the State of Illinois for passing this bill to stop it from being implemented. I support their planned court challenge and will continue to advocate for the Second Amendment Rights of the people of the State of Illinois and the United States of America.”

State Representative Patrick Windhorst released the following statement upon Governor Pritzker’s signature.

“In light of tonight’s bill signing by Governor Pritzker, law-abiding gun owners will be impacted yet again by the loss of their Second Amendment rights. In the United States of America, we have inalienable rights that are enumerated in our founding documents. These include our Second Amendment rights. Our nation’s founding documents protect rights that are sometimes unpopular. We protect the freedom of speech because sometimes, speech is unpopular. We protect the freedom of religion because some religions are not popular. We protect the freedom of the press, because sometimes, the press is not popular.”

Windhorst continued, “The rights that we as Americans are promised in the Declaration of Independence and granted in the Constitution have been violated by the passage of this legislation and the signing of it by Governor Pritzker. The Illinois State Rifle Association has promised legal action aimed at stopping the implementation of this law. I support their effort and look forward to a favorable outcome for law-abiding gun owners.”

House legislatures approved the ban earlier Tuesday afternoon by a vote of 68-41.

 

The 3rd Circuit Considers Whether Nonviolent Crimes Justify the Loss of Second Amendment Rights
Because of a misdemeanor welfare fraud conviction, Bryan Range is no longer allowed to own guns.

Back in 1995, Bryan Range pleaded guilty to fraudulently obtaining $2,458 in food stamps by misrepresenting his income. He returned the money, paid a $100 fine and $288 in court costs, and served three years of probation.

Although Range did not realize it, that Pennsylvania misdemeanor conviction also came with a lifelong penalty: He lost his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. His case, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit will hear next month, poses the question of whether that policy, which prohibits gun ownership by millions of Americans with no history of violence, violates the Second Amendment.

Federal law generally makes it a felony to purchase or possess a gun if you have been convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year of incarceration. When a state classifies a crime as a misdemeanor, that disqualification applies if the maximum penalty exceeds two years.

Range’s crime was punishable by up to five years in prison, which meant he was no longer allowed to buy or own a firearm. When he tried to buy a deer-hunting rifle in 1998, he failed the background check.

Range figured that must have been a mistake. His wife bought him a rifle, then bought him another after the first one was destroyed in a house fire. Range later tried again to buy a gun but was again turned away, which prompted him to take a closer look at the federal prohibition, which is commonly described as applying to “felons.”

After discovering that he was a “prohibited person” even though he had not been convicted of a felony, Range sold his hunting rifle to a gun dealer. But for that law, he says, he would have kept the rifle and might also have bought a shotgun for home defense.

Continue reading “”