Category: RKBA

California’s under-21 semiautomatic gun law tossed back to lower court for review

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — The Ninth Circuit has sent a lawsuit challenging California’s regulation of types of firearms that can be sold to young adults back to the lower court for review in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent bolstering of gun rights.

In a 4-page order Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit panel vacated its opinion reversing a lower court judge’s refusal to preliminarily block a California law barring young adults from buying semiautomatic rifles, which it also vacated.

The panel remanded the case in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which upheld the right to bear arms as protected under the U.S. Constitution.

This past May, the panel had split on the issue of whether California’s prohibition on semiautomatic rifle sales to young people unduly burdens the Second Amendment, based on U.S. District Judge M. James Lorenz’s ruling.

U.S. Circuit Judges Ryan Nelson and Kenneth Lee, both Donald Trump appointees, had ruled Lorenz should have blocked California’s ban on the sale of semiautomatic rifles to those between the ages of 18 and 21 except for some law enforcement officers and active-duty members of the military.

Nelson and Lee found Lorenz should have applied the most rigorous level of constitutional scrutiny. Nelson said the semiautomatic rifle rule’s slight exceptions amount to a blanket ban for most young people, finding it is unfair for young adults to have to be police or military officers to obtain certain firearms.

Nelson found the law unfairly lumps all young people together, and relied on statistics that show they are disproportionately more likely to commit violent crimes, especially gun crimes. His opinion touted colonial militias and English law and custom in determining the extent of the Second Amendment’s reach, as at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification Congress had passed the Militia Act of 1792 mandating militia duty and firearm possession for young adults.

But the panel also found California’s separate ban on the sale of long guns to anyone under 21 without a hunting license was a reasonable fit for public safety purposes.

Dissent came from U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein, a Bill Clinton appointee, who said neither of the laws are categorical bans and both are consistent with the custom of restricting certain groups from accessing firearms for public safety reasons.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs and California Attorney General Rob Bonta did not respond to requests for comment by press time.

Gregory Magarian, a professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis School of Law, said in an interview that he thinks the Ninth Circuit may have made this turnaround decision because the new Supreme Court ruling offered “a chance to wipe the slate clean.”

“Now the district judge will be compelled to come out the other way, because of what the Supreme Court has said,” Magarian said. Still, he said it’s possible the point is to reassert the force of the majority’s opinion.

“It’s a way of saying, ‘We dare you to come out the way you did the first time, and if you come out the way you did the first time, we’ll slap you down again — but this time we’ll slap you down harder,’” Magarian said.

State lawmakers have been bracing for the effects of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen for months. At a press conference after the ruling came down earlier this summer, Bonta — flanked by several Assembly members and state senators — said he supported Senate Bill 918, which addresses issues flagged in Bruen.

“Your right to live without fear of gun violence should not be trumped by a person’s right to carry a gun,” Bonta said.

To comply with the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, Bonta said California would ax its own “good cause” requirement for applicants for concealed-carry weapons permits. But he pointed out the Supreme Court did affirm states’ rights to use “nonsubjective” criteria for issuing concealed weapons permits — prior arrests, convictions, restraining orders, background checks, fingerprinting, firearms training and mental health evaluations.

However, SB 918 and other gun control bills have either been heavily amended or killed outright in the recent legislative session. The former faced opposition from Assembly and Senate Republicans and failed to pass despite reconsideration.

Magarian said because both California and New York tend to have liberal state governments with a strong preference for more gun regulation compared to other states, they could try to test different regulations through the courts.

“There’s a pretty strong potential for tension here,” Magarian said. As was the case with more conservative states passing restrictive abortion regulations before Roe v. Wade was struck down, he added, “I think it’s possible California especially, and maybe New York as well, will sort of cast themselves as the activist states trying to push back on where the Supreme Court is going on gun rights.”

However, Magarian said this remand will depend on how much energy pro-gun regulation lawmakers and judges want to use on defending regulations on firearm sales to people under 21.

“The Ninth Circuit historically has been willing to put itself on the line, even if it thinks the Supreme Court might be coming down,” he said. But he also said there is a possibility that the courts and lawmakers will decide “in the cosmic scheme of things, maybe this isn’t the hill we want to die on.”

5 questions about New York’s new social media requirements for gun applicants

New gun laws in New York for those seeking a concealed carry license, including a review of social media accounts by law enforcement, was cleared to go into effect by a federal judge last week, but questions about how the state will enforce it and future legal challenges remain.

The new rules, part of the state’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act, followed a Supreme Court ruling in June that prohibits states from requiring residents seeking a gun license to prove a special need to carry a handgun outside the home.

The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, challenged a provision of New York’s 109-year-old concealed carry law that required applicants to have “proper cause” for the permit — a special need for self-defense. Five other states had similar laws.

New York responded with a number of changes, including requiring concealed carry applicants to share “a list of former and current social media accounts” from the past three years to assess the applicant’s “character and conduct.” The rule comes in the aftermath of mass shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas, where the gunmen reportedly posted warnings about their violence online.

The new state laws, which also require more classroom and in-person training for concealed carry licenses and the creation of “sensitive places” where guns are not permitted, have already been met with lawsuits. Judge Glenn Suddaby declined to put the law on hold a day before it took effect, saying the New York resident and three gun rights organizations who filed lawsuits didn’t have standing to bring the legal action. But he indicated he believed some parts of the laws were unconstitutional, and legal experts expect other challenges in the future.

While written testimonies are common for gun permits across the country, requiring social media records is an added layer that has not been implemented in other places for the purposes of gun permitting.

“I refuse to surrender my right as Governor to protect New Yorkers from gun violence or any other form of harm. In New York State, we will continue leading the way forward and implementing common sense gun safety legislation,” Gov. Kathy Hochul said of the conceal carry changes in a statement last week.

The social media requirement has raised questions about privacy and what states can request in the permitting process.

Max Markham, vice president of policy and community engagement at the Center for Policing Equity, said he believes the laws as a whole are a “strong legislative package” when it comes to curbing gun violence. But he said the social media requirement is unclear in its scope and implementation, and will need to be better defined in the near future. He added that he expects conservative groups, in particular, will fight the law on constitutional grounds.

Markham said the law includes a process to appeal if a person’s application for a concealed carry permit is rejected, which he believes can help increase accountability and provide space “for individuals who may feel like they’ve been judged incorrectly.”

“I think seeing how it is enforced and ensuring that there is some degree of equity will be really key,” he said.

What is the scope of the law?

The wording of the requirement suggests applicants only need to share their public content with officials, and that the purpose of the search is to corroborate written testimony from character witnesses, according to David Greene, civil liberties director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Greene believes the social media rules are intended to look for stated intent to commit crimes with a gun. But Greene said there’s a host of information unrelated to a search for criminality that can be gleaned from accessing someone’s social media history.

“[It] can say a lot about someone’s political affiliations, about the community organizations they belong to, about religious groups they’re active in … and their familial relationships,” he said.

Greene said that context – which is hard to gather from a quick social media scan – is relevant to what people share on the platforms, and it can be difficult to get that from a profile alone .

While New York’s new gun law includes welcome changes, such as requiring more firearm training, the social media requirements are a “poor” part and have “serious” privacy concerns, said Adam Scott Wandt, an associate professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

“I question whether or not that part of the law will subject the state to lawsuits that will eventually find the law unconstitutional. And I also have serious privacy concerns with the state requiring somebody to submit social media accounts for review based upon unclear criteria as to what constitutes ‘good character’ and moral and what doesn’t. It’s messy,” Wandt said.

The New York City Bar Association Committee on Technology, Privacy and Cyber, which Wandt co-chairs, did not have time to offer input or feedback on the laws, either, he said..

Hochul’s office did not answer a question from the PBS NewsHour about outside expert review on the new set of laws.

Is social media monitoring for licenses used elsewhere in government?

Social media monitoring to get an official government license is a rare official policy but at least one other agency has adopted the practice.

Greene said visa applicants have been required to share their social media accounts since 2019. The requirements, originally created under the Trump administration, have been continued by Joe Biden. Users are required to provide social media accounts used in the last five years from a list of 20 platforms. Applicants do have the option to select “none” if they have not used any of the social media sites.

According to the State Department, the collection and review of social media information is intended to “enhance the screening and vetting of applications for visas and other immigraiton benefits, so as to increase the safety and security of the American people.”

Wandt said that he is also concerned about social media reporting requirements being expanded to other professional licensing administered by the government, potentially forcing some people seeking these licenses to sacrifice privacy for their work, he said.

Wandt said there were also questions about how he social media information gleaned from firearm applications will be used or stored by law enforcement.

“Do these things go into a database when the NYPD pulls me over? Is there a database now that they’ll be able to look at and see my social media because I applied for a handgun? I think there are more questions than answers at this point,” he said.

Hochul’s office did not respond to a question from the NewsHour about what happens to the records of an applicant’s social media account after a permit is processed.

Which law enforcement agencies will conduct these searches?

Who will grant gun licenses in New York under the new law is dependent on the jurisdiction. In New York City, the NY Police Department issues gun licenses and will check social media accounts. Across the state, there may be some sheriff’s departments who conduct the checks, but in many cases, a county authority, such as a judge, issues the license. However, in those cases, responsibility for ensuring requirements for a gun license are met will still fall to the sheriffs.

“Troopers remain committed to this mission, and we are dedicated to stopping the criminals who traffic illegal guns and endanger our communities,” State Police Superintendent Kevin P. Bruen said in a statement.

NY Sheriff’s Association Executive Director Peter Kehoe said there is worry by sheriffs that the task of searching through social media accounts would be too difficult. He said there is a risk that law enforcement will miss something in the social media account of someone issued with a gun license who then goes on to commit a crime, putting that responsibility and accountability on the sheriffs.

READ MORE: Gun applicants in NY will have to hand over social media accounts

“It falls on the sheriff because he missed something when he was given an impossible task,” he said.

Kehoe adds that the definition of “character and conduct” under the new statute is too vague.

“The statute says that they have to give us social media accounts and we have to use those to determine whether or not the individual has the right temperament and judgment to be entrusted with a weapon,” Kehoe said.

“What we think shows good judgment might not be the next guy’s estimate of good judgment and it’s all gonna be based on the eyes and ears of the person who’s reviewing it,” Kehoe said.

However, Kehoe denied that political biases would play a role in vetting.

“They’re going to be looking at these accounts. And if they see something concerning, they’re gonna put that in their background report to the judge then it’s gonna be up to the judge to decide, I guess, whether or not that particular concern is disqualifying for the person to have a license.”

In a statement to the NewsHour, Hochul’s office said the law doesn’t change the nature of licensing, it simply adds a new requirement for applicants.

“Local law enforcement and licensing officials have always been responsible for evaluating information provided by prospective applicants to determine whether a permit should be issued. The law doesn’t change that,” the statement said.

“It simply requires them to consider social media activity and other new information as part of their review process for concealed carry applications.”

Is there any training being provided for those doing this vetting?

The section of the law that requires applicants to disclose their social media accounts does not detail what training is required for those doing the vetting. Kehoe said law enforcement has not been given additional funding to do training for law enforcement, or to conduct checks of social media accounts. Kehoe expects “millions” of applicants under New York’s new gun licensing rules, many of whom will have more than one social media account.

“Just on a very practical level, we don’t think we can do this.”

Applicants will only be required to provide social media accounts used in the past three years, however, Kehoe said law enforcement may be required to look farther back into those accounts.

“The statute didn’t provide any resources for us to do this and it’s just not going to be possible to get it done without additional manpower,” Kehoe said.

Markham hopes the state will provide bias training for officials combing through social media, reflecting a wider push for law enforcement agencies to minimize possible unequal treatment of minority communities.

Hochul’s office did not respond to a question about whether additional training or resources would be provided to law enforcement in support of the new requirements.

Can monitoring social media work?

The social media search may catch some people who shouldn’t have access to firearms but many more, including those who might be most dangerous and inhabit the darkest parts of the internet, will slip through the cracks, Wandt said.

“Putting all the constitutional and moral issues aside, I stand by my experience and research that shows me that the truly dangerous, disturbed people have multiple social media accounts, usually not under their real name, and I highly doubt that they will be reported on a application for a carry permit,” Wandt said.

Greene said asking whether it will work is the wrong question, since he believes such policies can be inherently harmful, especially if other government institutions, such as general law enforcement, adopt similar policies.

“I do think there’s something dangerous about institutionalizing and normalizing having people provide their social media accounts to the government,” he said.

Gun-Rights Group Files Five New Lawsuits Against ‘Assault Weapon,’ Magazine Bans

The floodgates have opened up for new “assault weapon” and magazine ban legal challenges.

The litigation arm of the Colorado-based National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) filed five separate lawsuits in multiple federal district courts on Wednesday. The suits all take aim at ‘assault weapon’ bans and ammunition magazine size limits passed at both the state and local levels spanning the country from Hawaii to Massachusetts.

“With the decision handed down in Bruen, laws like these will now need to find their justification in the history, text, and tradition of the Second Amendment,” the group noted on its website. “These laws and ordinances ban firearms that are in common use throughout the United States in violation of the rule set forth in Heller.”

The wave of new suits arrives at a time when gun-rights supporters are looking to stymie the resurgence of political will behind the measures. Public support for the bans ticked up in a recent poll after declining in other post-Uvalde surveys, and the House of Representatives was able to pass the first federal ban in nearly three decades. At the same time, other court battles have called into question the long-term viability of assault weapon bans, which ban popular guns such as the AR-15, following the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

In the aftermath of that decision, the Court ordered the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider a decision that upheld Maryland’s ban. States like California have struggled to mount a cogent legal defense of their “assault weapon” ban using the required Bruen test. NAGR’s Colorado state affiliate has also been successful in getting temporary restraining orders against two separate local “assault weapon” bans over the last two months.

The latest lawsuits take aim at statewide AR bans in Massachusetts and Connecticut, a similar ban in the state of Hawaii on “assault pistols” and magazines holding more than ten rounds, and two local “assault weapon” bans in the Illinois towns of Naperville and Highland Park. By casting such a wide geographical net, the group intends to set precedents in multiple federal court circuits to have the widest effect possible. The group hopes that the effort will eventually lead to a nationwide rollback of such bans.

“On September 7, 2022, the National Foundation for Gun Rights filed five new lawsuits in four federal court circuits to eliminate unconstitutional magazine and gun bans everywhere!” the group said. “Combined with our lawsuits in Colorado these represent nearly half of the country. This nationwide legal blitz aims to take out every single ban on semi-automatic weapons and standard capacity magazines for good.”

The group asked for an injunction against each of the respective bans.

The Reload reached out to each of the named defendants in the latest NAGR suits for comment but has not received any.

The cases are NAGR v. Naperville (IL), NAGR v. Highland Park (IL), NAGR v. Shikada (HI), NAGR v. Healey (MA), and NAGR v. Lamont (CT).

FBI secretly forced some to give up their gun rights

The FBI hasn’t been an organization that garners a great deal of respect from anyone who isn’t on the left in a while. Even many on that side of things look at what the bureau has done recently with suspicion as well.

Sure, the ATF is acting shady as hell of late, and we expect them to try and infringe on our gun rights.

However, it seems that the FBI is trying to get in on that action, apparently.

The FBI secretly pressured Americans into signing forms that relinquish their rights to own, purchase or even use firearms, according to a trove of internal documents and communications obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The forms were presented by the FBI to people at their homes and in other undisclosed locations, according to bureau documents unearthed through the Freedom of Information Act by the firearm rights group Gun Owners of America (GOA) and shared with the DCNF. At least 15 people between 2016 and 2019 signed the secret forms, which ask signatories to declare themselves as either a “danger” to themselves or others or lacking “mental capacity adequately to contract or manage” their lives.

GOA and attorneys who specialize in Second Amendment law told the DCNF the existence of the forms raise serious legal questions.

“We’re into a pre-crime, Minority Report type of world where the FBI believes it can take constitutional rights away from anyone it thinks possibly might pose a threat in the future,” said Robert Olson, GOA’s outside counsel who specializes in firearms law. “Which certainly is not something you expect in the United States.”

OK, but who are these people? Are they legitimately people who are a danger to themselves or others? Are they really lacking in “mental capacity adequately to contract or manage” their lives? If so, how can they be responsible enough for their affairs to sign away their rights?

Well, it seems these are people who talked a lot of crap in the wrong venue, among other things.

Many signatories allegedly made violent threats in online chat rooms, in person and on social media platforms, FBI notes show. The 15 signed forms obtained by the DCNF show FBI agents in Massachusetts, Michigan and Maine presented them to Americans — whose names were redacted by the bureau.

While the existence of the FBI form itself was first revealed in 2019 by the firearms blog Ammoland, the outlet did not provide evidence of it being used at the time. GOA obtained the signed forms as part of its lawsuit initiated in January 2020 against the bureau to compel disclosure of records related to the forms.

A spokesperson for the FBI told the DCNF the form was “discontinued” in December 2019, but they did not say why that decision was made.

“The NICS Indices Self-Submission form was created to provide an avenue for individuals to self-report to the NICS Section when individuals felt they were a danger to themselves or others,” the FBI spokesperson said.

Except when FBI agents show up to your home and accuse you of a crime, talking about the potential penalties for that crime, then say, “Here. Sign this and all of this goes away,” it’s not really people who think they’re a danger to themselves or others.

It’s people who think prison will be a danger to them.

When law enforcement of any kind shows up, there’s a certain degree of intimidation involved. Especially if you actually did what you’re accused of. Making violent threats isn’t a good thing by any means, of course, and it’s an actual crime–making terroristic threats.

If there was a crime committed, then that’s one thing, but why simply put a form in front of those accused of making such threats rather than prosecuting them for a federal crime? My guess is that the FBI likely knew that they couldn’t get a conviction because it was someone just talking smack, rather than being actually dangerous.

So they drop the form in front of some schmuck who is terrified of becoming Bubba’s boyfriend and say, “Sign this, giving up your gun rights, and you’re free to go.” Since he doesn’t want to go to prison, well, a small price to pay, right?

Wrong.

He’s still being stripped of his rights without due process. His “compliance” isn’t voluntary, it’s being extorted, and the FBI agents who did this likely know precisely what they did.

What’s more, there’s no way this should have been acceptable in the first place.

However, it seems that the FBI shared this document with both the Secret Service and Social Security Administration. Neither has commented as to whether they’ve ever used it, but it’s still troubling.

Heads need to roll over this one.

DOJ Admits Only 692 ‘Ghost Gun’-Related Homicide Cases in Last 6 Years

Buried in President Biden’s Department of Justice’s (DOJ) explanation of the new “ghost gun” rule is an admission that only 692 “ghost guns” were involved in homicide cases during the past six years.

The DOJ noted:

As the final rule explains, from January 2016 to December 2021, ATF received approximately 45,240 reports of suspected privately made firearms recovered by law enforcement, including in 692 homicide or attempted homicide investigations. The chart below demonstrates the total annual numbers of suspected PMFs recovered by law enforcement over the past six years.

When one considers that there are on average 12,000 to 14,000 homicides in the United States annually–sometimes a little higher, sometimes a little lower–692 “ghost gun”-related homicide cases are a mere fraction of all firearm-related homicides.

Take, for instance, the higher number–14,000 firearm homicides annually for six years. That is 84,000 firearm-related homicides during that time frame, while during that same time frame there were fewer than 700 “ghost gun”-related homicide cases.

Breitbart News pointed out that the DOJ’s “ghost gun” rule change was announced August 24, 2022. The rule classifies parts in a gun parts kit as firearms that require a background check to purchase, like the one required for “traditional firearms.”

Anti-Gun States Blatantly Ignore U.S. Supreme Court’s Recognition Of The Right To Bear Arms

Lawmakers debate legislation to consider new firearms regulations for concealed-carry permits during a special legislative session in the New York Assembly Chamber at the state Capitol Friday, July 1, 2022, in Albany, N.Y.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in the NRA-backed case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. It was a resounding victory for the Second Amendment and vindicated the principle (obvious to all but gun-control advocates) that Americans have an individual right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense.

The opinion also prescribed a standard of review that lower courts must apply in resolving Second Amendment cases. This demanding test requires respect for the original understanding of the right to keep and bear arms and prohibits infringements on this right unless a similar legal tradition existed when the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment were adopted.

Success in Bruen did not happen accidentally. It was the result of tireless advocacy, strategic litigation and electoral victories that culminated in former President Donald Trump’s appointment of three originalist justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yet, Bruen is only the first of many steps that will need to follow. Anti-gun states, including New York, remain in open rebellion against the right to keep and bear arms. They will not comply in good faith. The rebellion will have to be put down in the courts, the legislatures and with the weight of public opinion. Your NRA, as always, will be leading the way.

Anti-gun states, including New York, remain in open rebellion against the right to keep and bear arms.

Continue reading “”

Incremental?

How Should The National Firearms Act Be Reformed?

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- How Second Amendment supporters address the potential threat posed by the National Firearms Act to our Second Amendment rights is something that has to be planned starting today, BEFORE the attacks in the wake of a successful court ruling come. Failing to plan is planning to fail, and failure should not be an option.

The first thing to understand is that outright repeal of the National Firearms Act is not happening any time soon. What can be done is to reform the process by which firearms (and certain accessories) covered under this act are transferred, as part of an incremental approach to securing our rights. Yes, this is the “incrementalism” approach – one that has been highly successful over the last three decades on concealed carry.

The fact of the matter is that when we are taking on highly onerous legislation, taking it all out in one fell swoop only happens with a massive stroke of luck, or it provokes a massive backlash. Trusting luck is foolish enough – provoking a massive backlash is stupid, given the nature of our enemies. But as the recent signing of constitutional carry in Texas shows, incrementalism works.

So, what incremental steps can be taken when it comes to the National Firearms Act?

Much will depend on just what the legislative and political landscape will look like. As a given, the current anti-Second Amendment extremist regimes in the House, Senate, and White House be defeated at the ballot box before any reform can be taken. But once we have a pro-Second Amendment Congress and White House, what do we pursue?

First, Second Amendment supporters can modernize the NFA process. This is one example where the “lemon” of the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) can be turned into lemonade. Changing the process from one that depends on local law enforcement certification to an FBI background check would probably go over well with the American people. The tax stamps could then be paid as a surcharge to NICS. Such a bill would not create a perfect situation by any means, but it would represent a good “first step.”

If the situation permits, then Second Amendment supporters might be able to push for repeal of both the 1986 Hughes Amendment and the 1968 restrictions on imports. At the same time, nothing would prevent adding the Hearing Protection Act and the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act to the NFA reform measure. But the important point is to defang the NFA as a potential tool for harassing and obstructing efforts to exercise Second Amendment rights.

To do that, Second Amendment supporters need to work to oust the current anti-Second Amendment regimes in the House, Senate, and White House, and they need to support NRA-ILA and NRA-PVF.

Traditionalism Rising, Part I: Defining Traditionalism and Locating It in the Court’s 2021 Term

Eugene has graciously invited me to write a few posts about my new article, Traditionalism Rising (forthcoming in the Journal of Contemporary Legal Studies and part of a symposium this fall at the University of San Diego School of Law). The piece builds on and extends a larger project about constitutional traditionalism developed in earlier papers (here and here), as well as in a broader research program, The Tradition Project, that my colleague (and Volokh co-conspirator) Mark Movsesian and I have pursued over several years at our Center for Law and Religion. I’ve been a dedicated reader of the Volokh Conspiracy since I was a law prof pup, so it is a pleasure for me to contribute something.

My posts will: (1) define traditionalism and locate it in the Supreme Court’s work this past term; (2) compare traditionalism and originalism, particularly what the paper calls “liquidated originalism”; (3) address traditionalism’s “level of generality” problem, the problem how to select the operative tradition; (4) offer several justifications for traditionalism; (5) consider the problem of traditionalism’s politics. Most of the material is excerpted or summarized from the article, but I invite readers to look at the piece for the full-dress argument. I welcome reactions to the paper, which is still a draft.

Continue reading “”

Texas private school to allow staff to go about day armed

Armed staff may well be the best way to protect students in our schools. Yes, it’s a shame that we should even need to have this discussion–our schools should be safe from such monsters–and in a perfect world, we wouldn’t have to. Yet we don’t live in a perfect world, though. We live in this one.

As a result, bad things happen in schools, as we’ve seen all too recently. What’s more, armed staff actually can protect our kids.

For one private school in Texas, that fact stands and they’re not going to pretend it doesn’t.

Faith Academy is planning on implementing a program that will allow teachers and staff to carry weapons at school.

The private Victoria Christian school is joining several area school districts in taking advantage of a Texas law that gives school officials the authority to let private individuals have guns on school premises, which is otherwise illegal.

This provision is often called the “guardian plan” or “guardian program,” though that name is not official.

Unlike most of the public school districts that have implemented such a plan, Faith’s teachers and staff will have the guns on their person during the school day, according to Principal Larry Long.

These staff members will be trained and certified, but I’m mostly shocked at the idea that some of the armed staff in the public schools don’t carry the firearm on their persons.

What are they supposed to do, ask the mass shooter for a time-out so they could get their guns? “Excuse me, Mr. Killer? Can we press pause for a moment so I can get my gun, then we can do this all fair-and-square?”

Yeah, let me know how that goes.

Victoria Academy is clearly thinking straight on this. If the teachers have their guns on their person, they can respond in an instant, as opposed to potentially having to run to wherever they’re stored and gaining access under stress.

Look, schools are a favorite target of mass shooters. Part of the reason for that is because they know they’re unlikely to face much in the way of armed resistance. The idea that the supposedly armed staff don’t actually have ready access to their weapons isn’t likely to be much of a deterrent.

Yet this case? Yeah, I can see things going very differently if someone were to pick this school.

However, I also think that it isn’t going to happen. For one thing, mass shootings at a school are very rare, but also because now people know the teachers at Victoria Academy are armed and will have their weapons on them.

The two things combined provide a blanket of protection over this school like few others.

Anti-gun voices can scream about armed staff at schools if they want, but we’ve seen too many instances where a good guy with a gun made the difference. The last thing I want to ever write about again is innocent kids being killed in their classrooms.

Teachers and staff with guns can make sure I never do.

FAKE WOKENESS: Two New Junk Science ‘Studies’ Suggest Racism, Fears of Blacks Drive Opposition To Gun Control.

Remember the RAND study that found only 123 of 27,900 gun control studies actually used the scientific method to come to their conclusions? Well, gun control advocates have trotted out two fresh, steaming new “studies” and the flies are already swarming. The University of Wisconsin has promoted a new finding that whites own guns and oppose gun control because of racism and a fear of blacks.

And within days of squeezing out that specimen of woke clownishness, the American Psychological Association published their own “study” that — you guessed it — whites who support gun rights are racist.

Interestingly the same study showed that when whites support gun control they’re racist too! So you’re racist. I’m racist. We’re all racists! To the uber-woke racists at the APA, if you’re white, you must be a racist.

Meanwhile, here in the real world, gun owners and gun rights supporters — whatever their color — are some of the most open-minded, tolerant and welcoming people in our communities. Contrary to what the racial hucksters, the Grievance Industry and critical race theory practitioners are selling, most Americans aren’t racist. And frankly, most Americans oppose racist gun control laws, too.

Most normal people rightfully reject claims of inherent racism in whites (or anyone else), or any of the other woke, social justice nonsense peddled by the gun-hating left in America.

In fact, plenty of black gun owners would dismiss this Wisconsin Badger junk science (or the APA’s trash “science”) as nothing but poppycock.

The folks over at The Federalist have the deets on these new “studies” . . .

White people own guns — and oppose gun-control legislation — because they are racist and fear black people. Two new studies advance this dangerous narrative building among our academic elites. While such rhetoric is perhaps unsurprising among political pundits or celebrities, otherwise serious academics are now ascribing racist motives to gun ownership and opposition to gun control. These studies are not only based on a slew of bigoted assumptions, but also bad science.

The University of Wisconsin recently promoted a new study contending that in U.S. counties where black people were enslaved in 1860, gun ownership is higher today. In fact, gun ownership, they say, is correlated to the number of slaves formerly in each county. To support this more-slaves-means-more-guns theory, the authors construct a historical narrative that whites feared newly freed slaves, bought guns for self-defense, and then this fear somehow trickled down over 160 years.

But interestingly enough, just last month, National Public Radio ran a story on how black people are the fastest growing group of gun owners. If gun ownership is a product of white people being racist, then this is quite curious.

The University of Wisconsin study suffers from a series of flaws, even apart from its poisonous premise that white people believe or feel certain things because they are white. You’d never say the same about other races, and we shouldn’t give a pass to academics who traffic in the same type of racism…  

A few days after the release of the slavery-predicts-gun-ownership study, the American Psychological Association (APA) released another study contending that whites support gun rights because they are racist, and when whites oppose gun rights, that’s also racist.

Rest assured, gun control advocates will try to use these junk studies — like thousands that came before them — to paint patriotic, gun-loving Americans of all colors and persuasions as racists no matter their race, sex or religion.

And why not? Using pseudo-scientific hokum to support claims that gun control laws prevent criminal misuse of guns is actually less scientifically accurate than claiming drinking milk causes car accidents. But they have no fear of anyone in the media debunking the junk science on which they base their calls for civilian disarmament.

Plus most politicians and low-information types will probably believe it…so they keep pushing the politicized garbage to further their disarmament narrative. And so it goes.

New York prosecutor promises discretion in enforcing new “gun-free zones”

While New York’s new carry restrictions are now in effect, it looks like enforcement of the laws is going to vary wildly across the state. Gov. Kathy Hochul, for example, has proclaimed that anyone not issued a permit by September 1st is going to have to apply under the new laws, while at least one county clerk (and I suspect there are many more) say they’ll continue to process all permits received before the 1st under the old rules (minus the “good cause” requirement struck down by the Supreme Court a couple of months ago).

The same confusion reigns when it comes to the state’s nearly endless number of new “gun-free zones” mandated by recently enacted gun control measures. Under the statute signed by Hochul it’s a felony offense to carry in a “sensitive place”, and even accidentally setting foot inside a prohibited place while carrying could result in a four-year prison sentence.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams has already promised that the new laws will be strictly enforced, but the prosecutor and police chief in Syracuse say they have no plans on putting concealed carry holders behind bars, at least if their only “crime” is carrying where it’s not allowed.

Violators will have their weapons confiscated while prosecutors investigate any other criminal activity, District Attorney William Fitzpatrick said. Their cases will be referred to the judge who granted them concealed-carry licenses in the first place, possibly leading to the revocation of their carry privileges.

… The DA noted there’s bound to be widespread confusion over which places are off-limits. Technically, walking on the sidewalk in front of a school with a gun is considered a felony. So is walking through downtown Syracuse’s Clinton Square or Columbus Circle, both public parks where guns are always banned.

In addition, a Syracuse-based federal judge on Wednesday wrote an opinion suggesting that the state’s new law — including the long list of prohibited locations — was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. That ruling, however, was not binding and so the law is in effect as written.

Still, Fitzpatrick suggested, that ruling had an impact on how law enforcement will handle the new restrictions.

Law enforcement won’t be proactively enforcing the new law by trying to catch legal gun-owners in prohibited locations, Syracuse Police Chief Joseph Cecile said.

“It will be complaint-driven,” the chief said.

The idea here seems to be that if the concealed carry holder in question has a history of wandering into “gun-free zones” while carrying, or there are other criminal offenses that took place at the same time, charges might be warranted. An inadvertent incident or innocent mistake, on the other hand, wouldn’t be punished by prison time, though it could still lead to someone losing their ability to lawfully carry altogether. It’s unclear from the news story just how quickly someone will have their firearm returned to them once that investigation into other criminal activity has concluded, however, and that’s a big concern. I’m glad that Fitzpatrick says he won’t be charging accidental violations of the law, but if there are no charges then there should be no gun confiscation either.

The U.S. District Court judge in Syracuse who ended up allowing the new laws to take effect because he determined that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue acknowledged in his ruling that, if the plaintiffs did have standing, he would have ruled in their favor on many of the challenges they brought forward… including the “sensitive places” language.

Given that the judge maintains that the Supreme Court has “effectively barred” any location beyond schools, government buildings, legislative assemblies, and courthouses from being labeled a “sensitive place” off-limits to legal carry; it would have been nice if Fitzpatrick and Cecile had announced that those would be only locations where they would enforce the “sensitive places” statute, but we may see other District Attorneys around the state come to that conclusion on their own. New York’s latest gun control laws have not only created chaos and confusion, but I suspect some civic (and civil) disobedience as well.

Leaked memo states that in NYC anyone carrying a firearm, legally, is now presumed guilty until proven innocent

NEW YORK CITY, NY – Leaked documents from the New York Police Department (NYPD) indicate that anyone carrying a firearm is now presumed guilty until proven innocent.

The new guidance highlighted in the leaked memo proves that almost anywhere in New York City — public or private — is a gun-free zone.

It basically states that unless someone is a police officer or a former cop, no one can bring their legal firearm out of their house for protection, like on public transportation.

The memo, titled New York State Restrictions on Carrying Concealed Firearms, states very clearly in its “key points”:

“Anyone carrying a firearm is presumed to be carrying unlawfully until proven otherwise.”

The other “key points” are listed below:

Possessing a firearm in New York City requires a special license issued by the New York City Police Department;

Carrying a firearm in New York City requires a concealed carry license issued by the New York City Police Department;

License holders are required to carry their license when carrying a firearm and must provide their license to law enforcement upon request; and

Recent changes in law do not impact the way officers conduct investigative encounters. Officers may stop an individual when the officer has reasonable suspicion that an individual is carrying a firearm (Level 3) and may frisk that individual since the officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual is armed and dangerous.

The memo also describes what are to be considered “sensitive” and “restricted” locations throughout the city. According to the memo:

“Even though a person may be licensed to carry a firearm, they may not bring a firearm to a ‘sensitive’ location … All private property (residential and commercial) that is not on the sensitive location list is considered ‘restricted.’ People who are licensed to possess firearms may not bring firearms to a restricted location unless they get permission from the property owner.”