Blast from the Past: Kamala Harris Threatened Searches of Gun Owners’ Homes

Kamala Harris threatened police searches of gun owners’ homes in San Francisco back when she was district attorney, to make sure they were storing their guns “safely.”

A stunning video from 2007 featuring then San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris threatening to enter the locked homes of gun owners to determine whether their firearms were “safely” stored is facing heavy criticism from gun rights advocates.

Harris, flanked by then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, told reporters during a press conference about gun control, “Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs.”

The 15-second video resurfaced on the “Trump War Room” site at “X” (formerly Twitter), and was quickly reported by the Daily Mail. Trump War Room called Harris an “anti-gun RADICAL.”

Kamala: “Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible.”

She’s an anti-gun RADICAL. pic.twitter.com/CTcyGgrJEf

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) September 18, 2024

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms issued a scathing statement, “Taken at face value, this remark underscores our contention that she has been an anti-gun extremist throughout her political career.”

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said the remarks revealed Harris’ disdain for the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures “if it stands in the way of her gun prohibition agenda.”

As noted by the Daily Mail, “Harris voiced her threat to check on gun owners even after Newsom argued earlier in the press conference that the legislation would not allow law enforcement to knock on everyone’s doors to make sure they were following the law.”

Her comments reinforce the notion that Harris has been a gun control fanatic since her early career. She quickly rose to become a state lawmaker, then California Attorney General, and eventually a U.S. Senator representing the Golden State after the departure of former Senator Barbara Boxer. In 2019-20, she conducted a short-lived campaign for president, bowing out before the primaries, but was picked to be Joe Biden’s running mate.

While she was attorney general, Harris was named in at least two gun rights lawsuits involving the Second Amendment Foundation.

During her brief run for the presidency in 2019, Harris suggested mandatory buybacks of so-called “assault weapons,” which many grassroots activists immediately translated to “compensated confiscation.” Although her campaign has been trying to walk back that position, Harris—much like her current boss—is letting her own words get in her way.

Earlier this summer, Harris sat down with a panel at a meeting of the National Association of Black Journalists, stating, “Yes, I am a gun owner and Tim Walz is a gun owner, and we’re not trying to take anyone’s guns away from them,” immediately adding, “But we do need an assault weapons ban.” This remark comes at about the 33-minute mark of the interview, which may be viewed on YouTube.

Even the National Shooting Sports Foundation took her to task for her remarks about gun prohibition, noting that modern semiautomatic rifles are the most popular rifle platform in America today.

The resurfaced video only adds to a growing list of criticisms against the vice president from CCRKBA in recent weeks. Following a school shooting in Georgia during which armed school resource officers confronted and arrested the teen killer, Gottlieb recalled how Harris in 2019 had opposed the use of SROs, claiming she wanted to “demilitarize” school campuses.

“Kamala Harris was wrong about removing armed school resource officers,” he stated earlier this month. “It’s time for the media to end its love fest with the vice president and start looking at what else she’s been wrong about.”

In July, CCRKBA came out swinging when Biden bowed out of the race—most conservative pundits said he was pushed out by high-ranking Capitol Hill Democrats afraid for their own jobs and fearful of losing party power—and Harris stepped in, having never won a primary during her presidential runs.

Declaring Harris to be even “more radical than Joe on guns,” Gottlieb said at the time, “For the past several months, she’s been over-seeing the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, which is a thinly-disguised, first-of-its-kind mini-bureaucracy established by this administration to generate restrictive gun control policies which are pushed in states controlled by Democrat administrations.”

He described Harris as “an anti-gun-rights extremist whose ultimate goal is to reduce the fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment to nothing more than a government-regulated privilege.”

A new Rasmussen poll released Thursday shows Harris has more troubles with voters than just her zeal for gun prohibition. In the wake of the highly-criticized debate between Harris and Donald Trump, Rasmussen pollsters found that 49 percent of likely voters would vote for the former president, while 47 percent favor Harris.

Breaking things down, Rasmussen is reporting, “Trump benefits from greater intensity among Republican voters, while Harris appears to have gained ground among independents…Eighty-five percent (85%) of Republicans choose Trump and 80% of Democrats pick Harris. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, Trump gets 49% to Harris’s 45%. In last week’s survey, Trump led by 12 points among unaffiliated voters.”

Rasmussen also says, “The “gender gap” continues to be a significant factor in the presidential contest, as Trump leads by nine points among men, 52% to 43%, while Harris has a five-point lead with women voters, 50% to 45%.”

---

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

from https://ift.tt/QSK3Y2o
via IFTTT

Judge Allows Gun Ban at Texas State Fair to Stand

Guns have not been banned at the Texas State Fair in the past. This year, they are banned due to an incident at last year’s fair where a gun was discharged. IMG iStock-884200682

A Dallas County District Court Judge ruled that the State Fair of Texas could ban firearms during this month’s event.

When it was announced that the Texas State Fair would be “gun-free,” it shocked the citizens of the state. The Lone Star State is a gun-friendly state, so when the decision was announced, Texas State Attorney Ken Paxton stepped in and demanded the ban be rescinded. The City of Dallas and the State Fair of Texas refused to accept the AG’s demands.

That refusal caused Paxton to sue the City of Dallas and the Texas State Fair. He claimed that the city was breaking state law by banning guns. Under the law, no place that the state owns or rents can ban firearms unless it is in one of a very few locations, such as a school or courthouse.

Guns have not been banned at the Texas State Fair in the past. This year, they are banned due to an incident at last year’s fair where a gun was discharged. Alex Dubeau, an administrative law investigator with the attorney general’s office, said that after reviewing the lease, he determined that the State Fair could not ban guns because of last year’s fair incident.

“They had allowed firearms previously, and I see that all of a sudden they’re not because of an incident that happened from an unlicensed gun holder,” he said. “So, the unlicensed gun holder committed a crime last year, and now this year, they punish license holders by not allowing them to defend themselves.”

The City of Dallas, which owns the Fair Park, claims it had nothing to do with banning firearms at the fair. The city blamed the private non-profit business that runs the fair. Currently, there is a 25-year lease to run the fair awarded to the private non-profit company.

“The City was not involved in the State Fair of Texas’ announcement of its enhanced weapons policy,” a Dallas spokesperson said in a statement. “The State Fair of Texas is a private event operated and controlled by a private, non-profit entity and not the City.”

Dallas said that since a private non-business runs the fair, it could ban firearms. They argued that it didn’t matter if the city owned the Fair Park. The lawyers said the Texas State Fair could set any rule it wanted. The AG believed that since the government owned the land, an outside entity’s wishes didn’t override the Texas State Law.

The non-profit was set up to run the Texas State Fair. It doesn’t do anything else but the event. Whether that makes the Texas State Fair a private event is up for debate, but after two hours of arguments, Judge Emily Tobolowsky decided firearms could be banned.

State Fair president Mitchell Glieber celebrated the legal victory.

“We’re just ready to turn our attention to the State Fair of Texas – eight days away from opening, we’re ready to go and hoping that we can keep our folks as safe as humanly possible, that’s the goal,” Glieber said.

It is unclear if the Attorney General’s office will appeal the court’s decision. Paxton will only have days to decide and file the appeal. The Texas State Fair kicks off on Friday, September 27.

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

from https://ift.tt/W0p2ZUo
via IFTTT

Private Buyers in Attendance at Ohio Gun Buy Back

Two private buyers at the Columbus, Ohio gun “buyback” in 2024

At the Columbus, Ohio, gun turn-in/”buyback” event on Saturday, September 14, 2024, at least two private buyers were seen looking for deals. In the event’s coverage, this correspondent did not find any mention of the private buyers. The cameraman could not resist their compelling image. The image of private buyers destroys the “guns are bad, turn them in” message. In an event where city officials are deliberately paying “more than market value” in gift cards, it is difficult to find bargains. Once the gift cards run out, the dynamic reverses. Cash in hand is better than no gift cards. From cwcolumbus.com:

The Columbus Office of Violence Prevention says they ran out of gift cards early, and they are thanking everyone for coming out and participating.

Most programs have highlighted the guns collected with pictures of them on tables. This correspondent was unable to find images showing the guns in the coverage of the 2024 event. Numbers have been released. From myfox28columbus.com:

Authorities said 234 firearms were collected in total at the event on Saturday, including:

• 96 AR weapons
• 44 pistols
• 38 rifles
• 33 shotguns
• 23 revolvers

This comes to $453 per firearm, on average, which is more than the 2023 average, which was $397 per firearm.  If all the “AR” firearms received $750, the rest would average $246 per firearm.

In 2023, the numbers were: 201 pistols, 75 shotguns, 68 rifles. In 2023, they collected 344 firearms. Of the 344, myfox28columbus.com reported 25 were “assault weapons,” which included 9 sawed-off shotguns. At least a couple of people took advantage of the “above market” prices. From columbusfreepress.com in 2023:

“It took me about three hours to get to where the police were,” said a source who did want to offer his name for publication. He lives outside Columbus and walked away $2,000 richer. “I went right to the gun store and bought some more guns.”

In 2021, there was a “buyback”, but the money being paid was much less. From 2021 10tv.com:

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A total of 102 guns were taken off the streets of Columbus on Saturday during the gun buyback event held by Columbus Police.

The Public Safety office told us they received 74 handguns, 15 shotguns, and 13 rifles.

Whoever brought in a gun walked away with a gift card of varying value and their identity was kept anonymous.

In 2024, a private purchaser can purchase a good-looking AR15-style rifle by purchasing a lower receiver (through a dealer) for less than $100 and an upper receiver for less than $200. This results in an “assault weapon” $300. If they put the two together, which might take a minute, they could then turn them in at Columbus for $750, thereby more than doubling their money. If they wish to buy a completely new AR-15-style rifle, they have been on sale for $350. Turning the rifle in at Columbus would probably have doubled their money.

No interviews with private buyers have been found. Such entrepreneurs may eventually come forward.

If you reduce one source of supply, demand shifts to other sources. If you reduce the supply of old guns, you increase the demand for new guns. The people who benefit the most are gun manufacturers.

---

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

from https://ift.tt/vhExq02
via IFTTT

Federal Judge Raises Historic Race Riots During Illinois Gun Ban Trial: What if Black Victims Had Weapons?

Hat tip to Greg Bishop of Bishop On Air for his excellent real-time coverage of these proceedings.

iStock-wildpixel-840658718

East St. Louis, IL — The federal trial challenging Illinois’ gun and magazine ban took a poignant turn as U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn reflected on the tragic history of racial violence, questioning how events like the 1917 East St. Louis race riots and the 1921 Tulsa massacre might have unfolded differently if Black victims had access to the types of firearms now banned under the state’s Protect Illinois Communities Act.

The law, enacted in January 2023, prohibits the sale and possession of over 170 types of semi-automatic firearms and high-capacity magazines. Plaintiffs argue that the law is unconstitutional and violates the Second Amendment, while the state maintains that these weapons are “dangerous and unusual” and not suited for civilian use. Thursday marked the fourth and final day of the bench trial in the Southern District of Illinois federal courtroom.

During closing statements, Judge McGlynn invoked the 1917 East St. Louis race riots, where more than 30 Black individuals were killed, and numerous homes and structures were burned. He urged the courtroom to visit the “sacred sites” in the city, reminding everyone that this location holds a deep connection to America’s history of racial violence. McGlynn shared a photo showing the current courthouse surrounded by charred ruins from the 1917 riots and posed a compelling question: “How would that have been different if the Black victims had such firearms?”

Gun ban judge: What if Black victims of historic race riots had such weapons https://t.co/2W1SScp5bm via @thecentersquare

— Bishop On Air (@BishopOnAir) September 19, 2024

The judge’s reflections extended beyond East St. Louis, touching on the 1921 Tulsa race massacre, where a prosperous Black neighborhood was decimated by white mobs. McGlynn pondered whether access to firearms, like the ones currently banned, could have changed the outcome for those facing violent mobs. He also referenced a recent video showing an international gang in Aurora, Colorado, armed with high-powered rifles, asking, “What if those victims were on their own, hiding, without the ability to defend themselves?”

Plaintiffs’ attorney David Sigale echoed the judge’s sentiments, stating that such historical reflections are a core reason he is passionate about Second Amendment issues. “There’s countless stories of people victimized, whether it’s for race or their gender,” Sigale said outside the courthouse after the proceedings.

The defense closed its case by calling retired Lt. Col. Jason Dempsey as a witness. Dempsey acknowledged that semi-automatic fire is often favored in the military but emphasized that he prefers training and accountability over outright bans on such weapons. Despite his military background, Dempsey admitted he was unfamiliar with the specific technical differences between civilian and military firearms, such as materials and treatments.

Sigale was quick to note that Dempsey’s personal views on training over bans were unlikely to sway Illinois lawmakers, stating, “It was certainly an interesting comment, and I’m sure Judge McGlynn will consider it in the mix.”

The defense argued that semi-automatic rifles, including the now-banned AR-15, are comparable to military firearms and that their regulation is justified. The plaintiffs, however, contend that these firearms are commonly used by civilians for lawful purposes like self-defense and should not be restricted.

Judge McGlynn’s decision is highly anticipated, with both parties given 30 days to submit additional briefs. A ruling, potentially including a permanent injunction, could follow shortly thereafter. This case not only holds significance for Illinois gun laws but could also set a precedent for similar legislation across the country.

As the trial concludes, the courtroom and broader Illinois community are left to reflect on the complex intersection of history, racial violence, and modern-day gun control laws. The judge’s invocation of the 1917 race riots provides a sobering reminder of the historical contexts in which these debates unfold, adding another layer of complexity to the ongoing battle over the Second Amendment and public safety.

Background: Illinois’ Protect Illinois Communities Act

The gun and magazine ban at the center of this trial was enacted following a series of high-profile mass shootings in Illinois and nationwide. The law prohibits the sale and possession of more than 170 types of semi-automatic firearms, as well as magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds for rifles and 15 rounds for handguns. Proponents argue that these measures are necessary to reduce gun violence, while opponents claim the law infringes on constitutional rights.

The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals initially sided with the state, allowing the law to remain in effect while the case proceeds. Litigants on both sides now await Judge McGlynn’s final ruling, which could have far-reaching consequences.

from https://ift.tt/AVwZ0ue
via IFTTT

Massachusetts Supreme Court Moves Forward With Cross Border Carry Case

Despite promises to the contrary, extra gun control legislation in Massachusetts didn’t lower crime at all. IMG Stock-884183940

On September 9, 2024, the Massachusetts Supreme Court held oral arguments in the cases of Commonwealth v Donnell. Another similar case in which a New Hampshire citizen worked in Massachusetts, Marquis, was consolidated with the Donnell case. Both cases involve New Hampshire citizens who had firearms in their automobiles in Massachusetts

The case concerns whether Massachusetts can impose undue burdens on people from out of state who can legally carry weapons in their home state. It appears the court has received all the arguments in this case and will now consider them and file an opinion and order. It is not known what the process will take. In the case of Commonwealth v Canjura, the Massachusetts Supreme Court heard oral arguments on December 4, 2023, and issued their decision on August 27, 2024, a period of nine months. If the same time is used for the Donnell case, we may see an opinion issued in June of 2025. The decision would straddle the presidential election.

Commonwealth v Canjura was decided by a unanimous Massachusetts Supreme Court, which did a good job following the guidance issued by the US Supreme Court in the Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Bruen decisions.  All of the Massachusetts Supreme Court Justices who sat on the Canjura case are sitting on the Donnell case. One more Supreme Court Justice has been added to the Donnell case, Justice Gabriella Wolohojian, appointed by Governor Healy in April of 2024.

As considered in a previous AmmoLand article, a number of high-powered amicus briefs have been filed in this case. From August 19 to September 9, the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the CATO Institute, the Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire, and the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition filed additional amicus briefs.

The oral arguments last an hour and six minutes. They were originally scheduled for 15 minutes for each side. In this correspondent’s opinion, all the attorneys did well with what they had. The questions asked by the Supreme Court justices were skilled and of high caliber. Here are a few of the issues considered:

• Does state power to make criminal laws override the fundamental right to keep and bear arms?
• Can a state require time to vet people to see if they are dangerous, thus temporarily disarming them?
• Can a state treat non-residents substantially differently from residents regarding fundamental constitutional rights?
• Will upholding the lower court decision to invalidate the non-resident part of Massachusetts law inevitably lead to nationwide reciprocity of carry permits, at the minimum, and perhaps, Constitutional Carry for all states?
• Can states ban “assault weapons,” or are they protected under the Second Amendment?

Forecasting what a court will do based on oral arguments is risky business. This correspondent observed that the Justices were a bit tougher on the attorney representing the state than on those representing Donnell and Marquis. This may be because the State arguments were significantly weaker.

Justice Wolohojian, appointed by Governor Healy, gave a good account of herself with well-thought-out questions.

Expect to see more discussion of the Supreme Court’s ban on “means-ends” arguments regarding the Second Amendment. The justices repeatedly mentioned that the Second Amendment is a fundamental constitutionally protected right. The entire question of reciprocity appears to be a “means-ends” argument.

A decision will unlikely be published on this case until long after the November presidential election.

---

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

from https://ift.tt/BUmbAoR
via IFTTT

New Anti-Gun Group Focused on State Legislatures

(Screenshot courtesy Legislators for Safer Communities).

Five of the country’s top anti-gun groups are celebrating the launch of a new organization comprised of state lawmakers, which will focus on changing state gun laws.

Legislators for Safer Communities consists of 171 state lawmakers from 43 states, and will serve as a “hub for collaboration, partnership, shared resources, strategy, research, and peer networking,” according to an Everytown for Gun Safety press release.

“The coalition will work in partnership with Brady, Community Justice, Everytown, GIFFORDS, and March For Our Lives,” the release states. All five groups issued statements heralding the new organization.

Everytown, Giffords and others say the new group will circumvent the “congressional stalemate” on gun-control legislation at the national level and will focus on changing state laws, where they have seen recent successes.

“When Congress is gridlocked, we have watched state legislators across the country who understand that gun violence is preventable, work relentlessly in their statehouses to keep their communities safe from gun violence,” Tanya Schardt, Brady’s senior counsel and senior policy director, said in a press release. “Now, with the formation of this new coalition, their efforts have been united as they pursue their shared goals: to save lives through common sense and evidence-based policies. Brady applauds these champions and supports their efforts.”

While the Legislators for Safer Communities claims to be independent and nonpartisan, all of the lawmakers named on its scant one-page website are Democrats. The site offers no information about the group’s funding, but suggests it has “partnered” with the five national anti-gun groups.

The group’s website has no phone number, only a digital contact form. The group did not return emails submitted through the contact portal seeking additional information about its funding and comments for this story. It is not listed on GuideStar or other charity navigators.

Legislators of Safer Communities parrots most of the talking points used by its five national partners. The group claims “gun violence is a public health issue with complex roots in systemic inequalities.” Its solutions, the website states, will focus on “equity and justice.”

Experienced gun controllers

Delaware Senate Majority Whip Tizzy Lockman is one of the six co-chairs and like her co-chairs is notoriously anti-gun.

Lockman introduced a permit-to-purchase bill, which was signed into law four months ago. Her bill requires Delawareans seeking to purchase a handgun to pass a state-approved training course, submit fingerprints and undergo a background check. It bars private sales to anyone without the state-issued permit.

Co-Chair Representative Bob Morgan, a Democrat from Illinois, chairs his state’s House Firearm Safety and Reform Working Group, which “recommends legislation to crack down on gun violence in Illinois.”

“Under Rep. Morgan’s leadership, the group will hear from gun violence experts and stakeholders, build consensus, and advance impactful reforms,” Morgan’s website states.

Co-chair Assembly Majority Floor Leader Sandra Jauregui of Nevada, introduced bills that banned guns at polling places, adopted ATF’s definition of frames and receivers and prohibited anyone under 21 from owning or possessing “certain assault weapons.”

his story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.

---

About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

from https://ift.tt/Fto1gEB
via IFTTT

Lawsuit Appeal Seeks to Defend Gun-Related Protected Speech in Public Schools

Come and Take It Hat C.S. v. McCrumb

CINCINNATI – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today announced that an opening brief was filed in an FPC-backed lawsuit challenging a Michigan public school’s ban on gun-related speech that prevented a third-grader from wearing a hat to the school’s “hat day” bearing the text “Come and Take It” and an image of an AR-15 rifle.

The brief, filed with the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/mccrumb.

“Public schools may not violate the First Amendment rights of their students because they don’t like the Second Amendment and protected weapons like America’s Rifle, the AR-15.”

“The Sixth Circuit should remind school administrators that the Constitution’s protections apply even to speech they disfavor about rights they dislike,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.

“[Plaintiff’s] speech, which expressed her views about constitutionally protected rights, is protected by the First Amendment: Elementary-school students have the right to speak in school unless their speech falls within one of the narrow exceptions to protection (which are not applicable here) or unless their speech can be reasonably forecast to cause substantial disruption,” argues the brief. “And on this record, no such forecast is possible.”

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Battle Arms Development Engraved Ejection Dust Cover - Come and Take it BA-LS-DC-Come and Take It	Optics Planet	$ 15.95 $ 15.89
	RUGER AR 556 TEXAS COME AND TAKE IT	Guns.com	$ 1001.99
	TekMat TEKR17CATIC Come And Take It Original Mat Black/Gray Rubber 17" Long 11" x 17" "Come And Take It" /Cannon Illustration	DEGuns	$ 8.59
	TekMat Handgun Cleaning Mat Come and Take It Cannon	GunMag Warehouse	$ 13.99 $ 8.99

---

Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit membership organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutional rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. We work to achieve our strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs. Our FPC Law program (FPCLaw.org) is the nation’s preeminent legal action initiative focused on restoring the right to keep and bear arms throughout the United States. Individuals who want to support FPC’s work to eliminate unconstitutional laws can join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org or make a donation at firearmspolicy.org/donate. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, X (Twitter), Facebook, and YouTube.

from https://ift.tt/8r45Voh
via IFTTT

Has Kamala Harris Clarified Her Stance on Gun Confiscation?

Opinion

Court-Packing Kamala Harris Existential Threat to US SCOTUS and 2A. IMG NRA-ILA

Now deep into her second national campaign, you would think we would have a clear message from Vice President Kamala Harris on where she stands on guns and the Second Amendment.

We certainly know where she stands, but that’s not necessarily what she is trying to sell to the public.

Harris, when she first ran for president, tried to distance herself from the field of candidates by trying to prove she was the most anti-gun choice. She didn’t just call for banning the future manufacture and sale of semi-automatic firearms, as all the others did. She took it a step further, and declared she would impose a confiscation scheme for those firearms already owned.

She tried to downplay the idea of government agents taking firearms from American citizens by calling her plan a “mandatory buy-back.” But as we all know, the government cannot buy back something it did not sell, and mandatory means, comply or face the threat of criminal charges.

In other words, confiscation.

Now, however, Harris seems to claim she no longer supports confiscation; just banning. As if banning semi-automatic firearms was not that big a deal, but a “mandatory buy-back” is going too far.

But if she has truly abandoned confiscating semi-automatics after banning them—something we do not believe—she should probably be clear about that, and maybe explain what changed. After all, the first time she ran for president, she was eager to promote confiscation, going so far as to pronounce she would achieve her ban-and-confiscate goal without Congress. She claimed she would do it through executive action.

During a 2019 debate with Joe Biden, when she was still a candidate running for the 2020 Election, Biden tried to explain her executive action plan was not constitutional. When asked to respond, Harris said, “I would just say, ‘hey, Joe, instead of saying no we can’t, let’s say, yes we can.’” She delivered the line with her trademark cackle.

We get that she may have dropped talking about her unconstitutional ban-and-confiscate scheme for the last four years. But that doesn’t mean she no longer holds those views. In fact, during a recent CNN interview, when Dana Bash asked about some of the issues on which she appeared to have flip-flopped, Harris made a point of saying several times that her “values have not changed.”

And, during a recent interview on Meet the Press with Sen. Bernie Sanders, Kristen Welker pointed out a number of policy flip-flops Harris has recently claimed to have made, then asked Sanders if this indicated an abandonment of “progressive ideals.”

Sanders responded, perhaps too honestly, “No, I don’t think she’s abandoning her ideals. I think she’s trying to be pragmatic and doing what she thinks is right in order to win the election.” This closely mirrors Harris’ own claim that her “values have not changed.”

During the same edition of Meet the Press where Bernie Sanders may have revealed a bit too much, fellow US Senator Raphael Warnock may have committed the same offense. Warnock is a leading voice among Harris campaign surrogates, and he often doesn’t just speak in favor of the current vice president, but seems to act as a proxy for her candidacy. And, when pressed about Harris’ support for gun confiscation, Warnock seemed to imply that it is still something that he (and Harris) support.

NBC: Should Kamala try to pass mandatory gun confiscation, which she has repeatedly said she supports?

Top Harris surrogate Raphael Warnock: “We’re not going to be able to get where we need to go without action.”

NBC: Yes or no?

Warnock: Yes pic.twitter.com/YqRSeaGyL1

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) September 8, 2024

With a long history of support for gun confiscation, and an unwillingness by Harris and her surrogates to disclaim pushing confiscation if they win the White House, it’s clear that Harris still supports gun confiscation and is a threat to the rights of all law-abiding gun owners.

---

About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

from https://ift.tt/N7usOtG
via IFTTT

ATF To Use 2nd Trump Assassination Attack To Justify New Gun Control ~ VIDEO

In a recent news story, a second attempt was made on former President Trump’s life, [they so..want him dead] and it’s making headlines for more than just the attempted assassination.

The rifle used in the alleged crime had a partially or fully obliterated serial number. While the media is buzzing about how this affects law enforcement’s ability to trace the gun, Mark Smith from Four Boxes Diner connects a crucial dot that no one else seems to be talking about: how this event might be used by the ATF to push for more gun control.

The Bigger Picture: Serial Numbers & the Vanderstok Case

Mark Smith points out that this situation is likely to impact the Supreme Court case Garland v. Vanderstok, set for oral argument on October 8th, 2024. In this case, the ATF argues for more stringent regulations requiring serialization of more firearm parts.

Their faulty reasoning? It’s supposedly for public safety and solving crimes. But Smith calls this out as nonsense, saying the real reason is to build a national gun registry—an effort that’s been in the works for years.

Smith explains that tracing guns through serial numbers isn’t nearly as effective in solving crimes as the government claims. In fact, most criminals either obliterate the serial numbers themselves or buy guns with already scratched-off numbers. So, how is more serialization going to stop criminals? It won’t. Instead, it just forces more law-abiding gun owners to jump through hoops, filling out paperwork that doesn’t actually prevent crime.

Why This Matters

According to Smith, the real purpose of tracing isn’t about solving crimes; it’s about creating an excuse for more government control over firearms and gun owners. He argues that tracing rarely solves crimes. So why the push for serialization? It’s part of the anti-gun agenda. The more paperwork and regulations they create, the more complicated it is to buy guns or gun parts, and the more the government knows about who owns what guns—moving closer to a national gun registry.

This is something gun owners have been wary of for a long time.

The Serial Number “Argument” & What It Proves

The media is breathlessly running their mouths with the narrative that the scratched-off serial number on the Trump shooter’s gun made it harder for law enforcement to trace. But here’s the catch: they didn’t need the serial number to catch him. Eyewitnesses and other forms of identification led to his capture. Smith points out that this proves the argument against mandatory serialization. Even if a gun has a serial number, a determined criminal will find a way around it—like obliterating the number.

And for Liberals, err, I mean criminals, willing to commit heinous crimes, such as attempted assassination, scratching off a serial number is hardly a deterrent. Smith makes it clear that serial numbers aren’t stopping bad actors. They’re just being used to create a false sense of security and to justify more regulation on gun owners who aren’t the problem.

What’s Really at Stake?

In this upcoming Supreme Court case, the ATF will likely argue that they need more serialization to protect the public. But as Smith states, that’s just a cover. The real endgame is building a gun registry. The anti-gun movement has long used public safety as a pretext to chip away at Second Amendment rights. This is just the latest example.

As gun owners, it’s essential to see through this narrative and understand the broader agenda. The Trump attack may become another tool for anti-gun activists to push their cause, but it’s crucial to remember that more regulation doesn’t equal more safety. It just means more control over law-abiding Americans exercising their right to bear arms.

Stay informed and be ready to push back when these talking points inevitably make their way into the news cycle.

Make sure to follow Four Boxes Diner on YT for more insights on how the anti-gun agenda continues to evolve.

from https://ift.tt/SfLDeoJ
via IFTTT

New Media Group has Formed to Push the Anti-Gun Narrative

In this morning’s Weekly Brief: Get to know the new Association of Gun Violence Reporters. https://t.co/p5gOKQ6EkF pic.twitter.com/xLUB3sHGFm

— The Philadelphia Center for Gun Violence Reporting (@PCGVR) August 22, 2024

The Philadelphia Center for Gun Violence Reporting (PCGVR) is funding a new organization for anti-gun journalists to collaborate and share information.

The organization is called the Association of Gun Violence Reporters (AGVR). It is founded by Kaitlin Washburn of the Chicago Sun-Times, Philadelphia-based independent journalist Sammy Caiola, Jennifer Mascia of the Trace, and Abené Clayton of the Guardian. The project aims to cover guns as a “systemic problem” and shift public perception about firearms.

“Covering gun violence can be overwhelming and isolating,” Caiola said. “It’s a complex topic that touches on policy, social science, trauma, the criminal justice system and a hundred other things. We wanted to give reporters who work on this beat, even just occasionally, a place to ask questions, seek mentorship, and release stress. We’re excited to see who comes to us and how we can lift up their work.”

The program will offer training, resources, collaboration opportunities, and mentorships to journalists reporting on “gun violence.” This program is just one of the programs across the country looking to use media coverage to push for political change on guns by trying to change the minds of Americans.

One of the founders, Jennifer Mascia, is from The Trace, which is an Everytown-linked media organization whose goal is to push the propaganda of anti-gun organizations. The Trace is well-funded, and most of its reporters are from Ivy League schools. The reporting has targeted gun rights groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) and recently ran a hit piece on Gun Owners of America’s (GOA) G.O.A.L.S event.

Sammy Caiola is a journalist who used to work for WHYY, a public radio station serving Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. She covered “gun violence” for National Public Radio (NPR). Ms. Caiola has made a career out of attacking the gun world and demonizing the Second Amendment.

Abené Clayton works on The Guardian’s Guns and Lies in America project. The Guardian is a left-leaning UK-based news organization. Its Guns and Lies in America project is the UK-based newspaper’s take on guns in the United States. As one can imagine, the coverage is left-leaning and doesn’t cover topics such as the defensive usage of firearms.

Kaitlin Washburn has made a career of anti-gun reporting. She has written anti-gun articles for multiple papers across the country. Ms. Washburn also hosts webinars for other reporters to teach them how to report on firearms. Her goal is to broaden reporting on “gun violence” and to prove that the “rolling back” of gun laws makes us less safe. She believes that “firearm violence poses one of the greatest threats to the health and well-being of communities across the country.”

The Philadelphia Center for Gun Violence Reporting is the organization that is funding the program. A significant monetary contributor to the organization is the City of Philadelphia. This chain of money means that the funds that the City of Philadelphia gives to PCGVR could be redirected to AGVR to train journalists on how to shape the gun narrative in America.

The organization is recruiting reporters through a link to a Google document. They ask any journalist who wants to join to fill out the form. This requirement is mostly to vet those wishing to join the group to ensure they are not pro-liberty journalists.

Right now, the anti-gun side is outspending the pro-freedom side of the equation. More organizations are popping up funded by anti-gun billionaires such as Michael Bloomberg. It will take a Herculean task to push back against the narratives that will be pushed by groups such as the AGVR.

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

from https://ift.tt/mfw68pj
via IFTTT

Dangers of Misrepresenting History: Malcolm Gladwell, Sir John Knight, & the 2nd Amendment

Opinion

1686 trial of Sir John Knight

Historical accuracy plays a crucial role in shaping debates over significant issues like gun rights. When history is misrepresented or distorted, the consequences can be profound, especially when it concerns topics as contentious as the Second Amendment. Historical accuracy plays a crucial role in shaping debates over significant issues like gun rights. In an era of intense public scrutiny and pivotal court rulings on the Second Amendment, misrepresentations of history can fuel misguided policies with far-reaching consequences.

A recent example of this misrepresentation is found in Malcolm Gladwell’s Revisionist History podcast, where he explores the 1686 trial of Sir John Knight and its relevance to modern gun rights discussions. While Gladwell is an expert storyteller, his retelling of this case leaves room for confusion and, ultimately, misleads his audience about the real historical context that informs the Second Amendment.

In this article, we’ll explore how Gladwell’s retelling of Sir John Knight’s trial contributes to misunderstandings about gun rights, why historical accuracy is essential in these discussions, and how David Kopel’s fact-based critique of Gladwell’s narrative serves as a necessary corrective for anyone interested in defending the Second Amendment.

Gladwell’s Storytelling vs. Legal History

Malcolm Gladwell’s Revisionist History podcast is designed to present overlooked or misunderstood stories in a new light. However, in his episode “The Sudden Celebrity of Sir John Knight,” he takes liberties with the facts in a way that alters the historical significance of the 1686 trial. Sir John Knight was acquitted of violating England’s 1328 Statute of Northampton, which forbade the carrying of arms in public to terrorize others. According to Gladwell, this case was pivotal in shaping future debates over gun rights, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Gladwell suggests that the Knight case represents a “checkmate” against historical gun restrictions. However, his retelling overstates the significance of the case, painting Knight’s acquittal as a foundational moment for gun rights in English and American law.

In reality, the case played a much smaller role than Gladwell presents, particularly in how it has been used in discussions about American constitutional law.

Understanding the Statute of Northampton’s True Scope

Modern gun control advocates, including New York in the Bruen case, often cite the Statute of Northampton to argue for restrictions on public carry. However, as Stephen Halbrook notes, the statute was never intended to ban the peaceable carrying of arms—it only applied to situations where arms were carried with the intent to cause terror.

While Malcolm Gladwell leans on the Statute of Northampton to argue for historical restrictions on carrying arms, the true legal interpretation of this 14th-century statute offers a more nuanced view. The Statute forbade carrying arms in a manner that would terrify the public, specifically “in affray of the peace.” As Stephen Halbrook notes in his article, Does a Medieval English Statute Supersede the Second Amendment?, even in England, the Statute of Northampton was not a blanket prohibition on carrying arms.

The critical legal interpretation came from the 1686 trial of Sir John Knight, where the court emphasized that the statute applied only when arms were carried with “malo animo,” or malicious intent. The jury acquitted Knight because he did not go armed with the intent to terrify the public. This reinforces the principle that carrying arms for self-defense was lawful unless it was done to cause fear or harm.

Halbrook also points out that many early American laws, such as those drafted by Thomas Jefferson in Virginia in 1786, followed this principle. The Virginia law forbade carrying arms “in terror of the country,” but peaceful carrying of arms remained lawful. This is a critical distinction that undermines the broad reading of the Statute of Northampton used to justify restrictive gun laws in America today.

Misleading the Debate on Gun Rights

Gladwell’s version of the Knight case introduces several problems in the modern debate over gun rights. First, his exaggeration of the case’s significance risks convincing listeners that gun rights have a weaker historical foundation than they actually do. By focusing on a single, relatively obscure case, Gladwell ignores a wealth of more relevant historical examples that directly informed the Founders’ understanding of the right to bear arms, such as the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which declared that Protestants could “have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law.”

In his critique of Gladwell, David Kopel points out that the true significance of the Knight case lies in its legal context:

the Statute of Northampton had largely fallen into disuse by the time of Knight’s trial, and his acquittal was more about the specific circumstances of his case than any grand statement on the right to bear arms. The acquittal was based on the lack of intent to cause terror, which was a key factor under English law. Gladwell’s portrayal of Knight’s trial as a major moment in the history of gun rights, therefore, inflates its importance while ignoring the broader legal context.

The American Evolution of Gun Rights

In America, the right to bear arms evolved into something far more expansive than its English origins.

This divergence is crucial to understanding why the Second Amendment was framed without the qualifications that limited English rights. The Founders sought to enshrine an individual right that went beyond the restrictive English model, ensuring that American citizens could bear arms for self-defense without conditions based on their status or intent.

As Halbrook again notes, the Second Amendment was seen by the Founders as building on English law by explicitly protecting an individual’s right to keep and bear arms without the restrictions of “condition or degree” imposed in England. St. George Tucker, one of the earliest American commentators on the Constitution, emphasized that while English law allowed for some restrictions on the carrying of arms, the Second Amendment “was without any qualification” in its protection of gun rights.

Tucker’s interpretation illustrates the broader American view of gun rights, which went beyond England’s common law. Early American statutes continued to allow individuals to carry weapons so long as they did not do so in a way that would terrorize others.

This understanding highlights the divergence between America’s constitutional right to bear arms and the narrower restrictions in English law, further undermining the misrepresentations found in Gladwell’s narrative.

The Importance of Accurate History in the Gun Control Debate

Why does this matter? Because historical misrepresentations can fuel misguided policy decisions.

If supposedly influential figures like Gladwell portray the history of gun rights as weaker or more tenuous than it is, it opens the door for liberal policymakers to argue that modern restrictions on firearms have deeper roots in legal tradition than they actually do. This is dangerous for defenders of the Second Amendment, who rely on the robust historical foundation of gun rights to make their case against restrictive gun control laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen rested on a thorough examination of historical precedent, including colonial and early American laws, to affirm the individual right to bear arms for self-defense. The court’s focus was on the original public meaning of the Second Amendment when it was ratified in 1791, not on isolated cases from English law centuries earlier. By focusing on the Bruen decision and the historical context that informed it, defenders of gun rights can provide a much stronger case than the revisionist narrative that Gladwell offers.

Kopel’s Corrective and the Path Forward

David Kopel’s original article, Malcolm Gladwell’s Invented Facts Make Good Stories, provides an essential counterpoint to Gladwell’s retelling of the Knight case. Kopel meticulously breaks down Gladwell’s embellishments and false claims, offering readers a more accurate and fact-based understanding of the trial and its historical context. Importantly, Kopel reminds us that while Knight’s case may be interesting, it is not the cornerstone of the gun rights debate that Gladwell suggests.

The Importance of Accurate Historical Analysis

Misrepresenting historical facts can have significant consequences for modern debates, particularly when it comes to defending fundamental rights like the Second Amendment. Malcolm Gladwell’s selective retelling of Sir John Knight’s case might be entertaining, but it risks distorting the robust historical foundation that underpins gun rights.

As both David Kopel and Stephen Halbrook demonstrate, accurate historical analysis is essential for anyone committed to preserving the Second Amendment. In a time when gun rights are frequently under attack, relying on factual, well-researched history is the only way to safeguard these freedoms.

Read Related:

• Malcolm Gladwell’s Invented Facts Make Good Stories
• Does a Medieval English Statute Supersede the Second Amendment?

from https://ift.tt/r1B5KqI
via IFTTT

Outrageous Seizure at the Center of ‘Rebel Ridge’ Resembles Real-Life Cash Grabs ~ VIDEO

Opinion

“I need to report a crime,” Terry Richmond, the protagonist of the currently popular Netflix movie “Rebel Ridge,” tells Jessica Sims, a police officer in a small Louisiana town. That crime was highway robbery: the theft of $36,000 in cash. But the perpetrators were two of Sims’ own colleagues, and the cash grab was perfectly legal.

While the details of writer-director Jeremy Saulnier’s screenplay are fictional, the broad outlines of Richmond’s predicament are sadly familiar.

The film vividly illustrates the unjust consequences of civil asset forfeiture, a system of legalized larceny that allows police to seize property that is allegedly tainted by crime.

The U.S. Supreme Court has facilitated that racket both by approving the general concept and by giving cops broad leeway to stop and search travelers.

In 1996, for example, the court ruled that the Fourth Amendment allows police to pull over a motorist whenever they have probable cause to believe the motorist has committed a traffic violation, even if that is not the real motivation for the stop.

Richmond is stopped while biking through town on his way to post bail for a cousin who was arrested for marijuana possession. While the exact nature of Richmond’s alleged traffic violation is unclear, the cops eventually say they are letting him go with a warning.

Before that happens, however, the officers search his backpack, ostensibly for weapons, and find a bag of money — the proceeds from Richmond’s sale of his interest in a Chinese restaurant, which he says the police can verify by contacting the restaurant’s owner. Some of the money is for his cousin’s bail, he explains, while the rest is earmarked for a pickup truck he plans to buy for a boat-hauling business.

The cops, nevertheless, keep the cash. “We’re going to hold on to this money,” one says. “We’ve concluded from our investigation that this is drug currency.”

Richmond, who has committed no crime, is astonished by this turn of events. But as a sympathetic courthouse employee explains to him, police can seize property without accusing the owner of a crime because a civil forfeiture is notionally an action against the asset itself.

Richmond also learns that challenging a forfeiture typically costs more than the property is worth and that police departments use seizures to supplement their own budgets. And he discovers that police may be willing to return a portion of property they seize if the owner lets them keep the rest, especially if they would have trouble justifying a forfeiture in court.

Real-life forfeiture abuses frequently resemble Richmond’s experience, featuring pretextual traffic stops, questionable searches and the discovery of money that police view as inherently suspicious. Cops bent on seizing cash tend to dismiss the owner’s explanation of its source, whether it’s poker winnings, the sale of a car, or a retiree’s life savings, and its intended use, whether it’s film production expenses, a down payment on a music studio, or — as in “Rebel Ridge” and several actual cases — a truck purchase.

Vague allegations, sometimes including cut-and-pasted boilerplate, are another common feature of forfeiture cases. So are extortionate demands, euphemistically known as “mitigation” offers, that owners surrender some of their property to avoid a costly, prolonged and iffy legal battle.

At the root of it all is the profit motive created by statutes that let law enforcement agencies keep a big share of the proceeds (in Louisiana, 80%) from forfeitures they pursue.

As “Rebel Ridge” suggests, the heads of those agencies sometimes use their loot for questionable purposes, spending it on booze, marijuana, prostitutes, concert tickets, and home security systems.

Even when police and prosecutors follow applicable spending guidelines, the system is inherently corrupting. It encourages them to focus on raising revenue instead of protecting public safety.

While Richmond’s forfeiture problem is realistic, his solution, which involves considerable extralegal self-help, is not. In the real world, the answer lies in abolishing laws that turn cops into robbers.

---

About Jacob Sullum

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine. Follow him on Twitter: @JacobSullum. During two decades in journalism, he has relentlessly skewered authoritarians of the left and the right, making the case for shrinking the realm of politics and expanding the realm of individual choice. Jacobs’ work appears here at AmmoLand News through a license with Creators Syndicate.

Jacob Sullum

from https://ift.tt/DikqgR9
via IFTTT

California AG Rob Bonta’s Nickel-&-Diming of 2nd Amendment Rights

Opinion
By Larry Keane

California Attorney General Rob Bonta

Make no mistake: California’s politicians are rabidly anti-Second Amendment. They will attempt any and every gun control policy on law-abiding Americans no matter how absurd or unconstitutional. California’s Gov. Gavin Newsom set the stages for a national political run at some point by launching a dead-end effort to adopt a new Constitutional Amendment to do away with the pre-existing common law rights enshrined within the Second one.

Now, despite the tidal wave of gun control laws coming every year from the supermajorities in Sacramento, California Attorney General Rob Bonta wants to nickel-and-dime the Californians who do follow the laws even more to suppress even further their ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Under a newly-announced policy, AG Bonta is increasing the fee charged to law-abiding Californians who follow all the laws to purchase ammunition, including undergoing a background check, from one dollar to five dollars. Sure, he says there’s an open public comment period for his office to receive feedback but we all know the writing’s on the wall.

The Background

Fortunately, in January of this year, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California struck down the gun control law in California that required law-abiding gun owners to submit to a background check verification and pay a $1 fee every time they wanted to purchase ammunition.

“The ammunition background checks laws have no historical pedigree and operate in such a way that they violate the Second Amendment right of citizens to keep and bear arms,” Judge Benitez wrote in his decision in Rhode v. Bonta.

It was welcome news. For recreational target shooters who want to spend time practicing at the range, or young shooters participating in the highly popular youth shooting leagues or just regular hunters who enjoy heading to the fields and woods to get out and enjoy America’s greatest outdoor pastime, that additional cost can add up quickly.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit followed up shortly after and granted a stay on the permanent injunction issued by Judge Benitez, meaning all ammunition purchases in California were again required to be performed with background checks administered by California’s Department of Justice (CalDOJ) and all ammunition must be obtained solely through a government-licensed firearm and/or ammunition retailer.

AG Bonta celebrated the ruling, saying it meant California’s “life-saving ammunition laws will remain in effect as we continue to defend them in court.” There is no data that demonstrates charging law-abiding Californians a fee to run a background check on the purchase of ammunition has saved lives.

400% Fee Hike

With ammunition background check and fee scheme remaining in place even as Rhode v. Bonta works through the courts, AG Bonta hasn’t had his fill and isn’t letting his foot off the gun control gas pedal.

In an announcement posted on the CalDOJ’s website on Aug. 23, AG Bonta proposed jacking up the ammunition check fee cost from one dollar to five dollars – a 400 percent increase that all law-abiding Californians will bear each and every time they want to buy ammunition.

“As authorized by Penal Code section 30370, subdivision (e), the Department’s current regulations established a $1.00 fee for a Standard Ammunition Eligibility Check (SAEC) and $1.00 fee for a COE Verification check. This fee has not been sufficient to cover the Department’s operating costs for the ammunition authorization program,” CalDOJ website states. “The proposed regulation raises the fee for a SAEC and COE Verification check from $1.00 to $5.00.”

AG Bonta is holding a 45-day public comment period that ends on Oct. 8, 2024. This is obviously political theater. If you believe AG Bonta will actually take into consideration any comments from law-abiding Californians who oppose this blatant nickel-and-diming of their Second Amendment rights, well then I have a Golden Gate bridge to sell you. All of this while he does nothing to prosecute and get tough on the criminals who actually perpetuate criminal gun violence.

Not Stopping the Fence-Jumpers

All the myriad of gun control laws in California are already on the books and those still being pursued by Gov. Newsom and AG Bonta haven’t – and won’t – decrease crime in the Golden State. And they aren’t stopping law-abiding Californians from purchasing firearms, either. According to current NSSF-adjusted National Instant Criminals Background Check System (NICS) data, more than 650,000 Californians bought a gun in 2024 alone. Industry estimates reveal that could include as many as 190,000 first-time buyers who have had enough and decided to take responsibility for their personal safety.

August of 2024, marked the 61^st month in a row that more than 1 million background checks have been processed for the purchase of a firearm nationally and more than 22 million Americans have become first-time gun owners since 2020. That’s about the same as the population of Florida.

Even with the nickel-and-dime gun control coming from the likes of AG Bonta, Americans are exercising their God-given rights to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense. If they register to vote and get to the polls and #GUNVOTE® on Nov. 5, gun owners will make a difference in the election, even possibly in California.

---

About The National Shooting Sports Foundation

NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org

from https://ift.tt/BElo23v
via IFTTT

Trial Begins Next Week On Illinois’ Semi-Auto Guns & Magazine Bans

• National Impact of Illinois Semi-Auto Ban Challenge: This trial is part of several consolidated cases that could set nationwide precedents on Second Amendment rights.

• Supreme Court’s Potential Role: Justice Thomas hinted the Supreme Court may review the case after final judgment, despite declining to intervene now.

• Upcoming Trial Crucial for Second Amendment: Experts will argue why firearms like the AR-15 are essential for self-defense, with the trial potentially influencing future rulings.

Trial Begins This Week On Illinois’ Semi-Auto Guns & Magazine Bans

Second Amendment Law Center and the California Rifle & Pistol Association are happy to announce that the trial begins next week in the cases challenging Illinois’s ban on common semi-automatic firearms, magazines, and gun parts (Note that several cases have been consolidated into one appeal from Barnett v. Raoul, Harrel v. Raoul, Langley v. Kelly, and Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois v. Pritzker).

CRPA and 2ALC have been heavily involved in supporting these cases and the Plaintiffs from the beginning. Cases challenging semi-auto bans nationwide are moving through the courts and will have impacts nationally. It is vital that we participate wherever we can as courts set precedent for the future. Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners of California, FFL-Illinois, the Second Amendment Defense and Education Coalition, Guns Save Life, the Second Amendment Foundation, and several other groups have supported and litigated these cases since they were filed.

We initially won a preliminary injunction blocking the laws from Judge McGlynn on April 28, 2023. The State appealed, and on November 3, 2023, the Seventh Circuit incorrectly ruled that the law was constitutional and did not violate the Second Amendment.

The plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to review that misguided opinion, and earlier in the summer, on July 2, 2024, we were disappointed when the Supreme Court would not immediately review the Seventh Circuit’s terrible ruling in these cases. So, the incorrect ruling from the Seventh Circuit allowed Illinois’ ban on many commonly owned firearms to go into effect. However, the Supreme Court may very well accept the case later. A concurrence from Justice Thomas made clear that the reason the Court was denying review was procedural – the case was before SCOTUS at that time on a preliminary injunction appeal, and a final judgment had not happened yet in the lower court.

Significantly, SCOTUS did not decide that the cases challenging the Illinois law had no merit, and in fact, Justice Thomas concluded, “If the Seventh Circuit ultimately allows Illinois to ban America’s most common civilian rifle, we can—and should—review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment.”

This means we must litigate the case again in the trial court, which had previously agreed with our position and issued a preliminary injunction that the Seventh Circuit ultimately overturned. The litigation has been ongoing for months, leading up to the trial that is set to start next week.

Preparation for the trial has been going on since then. And it has been a lot of work. The plaintiffs began assembling evidence, obtaining expert opinions, and preparing exhibits and witnesses, all necessary to take the case to trial. Judge McGlynn set a trial date in September – a pace that is practically lightspeed in the federal court system. The attorneys will argue that while the Seventh Circuit’s ruling was incorrect, we can still win even under the Seventh Circuit’s erroneous and a-historical standard.

We expect experts will be called to argue why firearms like the AR-15 are great options for self-defense and to explain how they differ from their fully automatic counterparts that are used by the military. The State will have “experts” who will be cross-examined. After that, the court will prepare its judgment. This is a scorched earth fight for your Second Amendment rights, and we need your support to keep up the fight!

Once the district court issues a final judgment following the trial, the matter will move back to the Seventh Circuit and possibly then to the Supreme Court.

As we support the efforts in Barnett, our legal team made time to draft an amicus brief in support of the Supreme Court granting review in Snope v. Brown, a challenge to Maryland’s similar law. The Fourth Circuit recently upheld the final judgment after en banc review, meaning there is an excellent chance the Supreme Court will hear the case.

We want to thank all those groups who have joined in supporting these important cases and the continued fight ahead like Second Amendment Defense and Education Coalition (SADEC), Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois (FFL-IL), Gun Owners of California, Gun Owners of America, and Second Amendment Foundation.

For updates visit the Second Amendment Law Center.

from https://ift.tt/Z5BXlLv
via IFTTT