Thursday, June 30, 2022

Following NYSRPA Victory, Other Gun Laws in Jeopardy?

Why I Am Suing The Governor of Virginia, iStock-1055138108
Arguably one of the most egregiously restrictive states is New Jersey, where—according to the New Jersey Second Amendment Society—people must obtain a “firearms purchaser identification card” or “a permit to purchase a handgun.” IMG iStock-1055138108

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)-  When Justice Clarence Thomas observed in the final lines of his landmark majority opinion striking down New York State’s unconstitutional “just cause” requirement for obtaining a concealed carry permit that the right to bear arms is not a “second class right,” how many other state and local laws placing restrictions on gun owners could ultimately be affected?

Thomas’ words, say Second Amendment activists, should be carved in stone:

“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’ We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”

How far can that go? With a 6-3 conservative majority now on the high court, it is possible the country’s gun owners are on the verge of finding out.

Possibly one of the first targets for reform is the requirement in Illinois to have a Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card. “To legally possess firearms or ammunition, Illinois residents must have a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card, which is issued by the Illinois State Police to any qualified applicant,” the state police say.

Arguably one of the most egregiously restrictive states is New Jersey, where—according to the New Jersey Second Amendment Society—people must obtain a “firearms purchaser identification card” or “a permit to purchase a handgun.” Applicants waive their right to confidentiality, the local police conduct a background check, consent to a mental health records search and then wait, possibly for a long time.

That’s why Carol Bowne was fatally stabbed by an ex-boyfriend in June 2015. Her application gathered dust on the desk of the Berlin Township police chief. Bowne’s case has become a textbook example of what can happen when bureaucracies hold sway over a civil right.

In North Carolina, “To purchase a handgun or pistol…either a non-expired North Carolina Pistol Purchase Permit or a copy of a non-expired North Carolina Concealed Carry Permit is required,” according to the Triangle Shooting Academy.

In Minnesota, according to the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office, a permit is required for handgun transfers  (possession of a valid Minnesota permit to carry constitutes a permit to purchase). If someone doesn’t have a carry permit, they must fill out a Minnesota Uniform Firearm Application/Receipt Permit to Purchase/Transfer. “Submit the application to your local police chief, or if your municipality does not have a police department, to your county’s sheriff. The law enforcement agency will conduct a series of background-related checks to assure you meet eligibility requirements established in state law.”

Nebraska “requires a prospective purchaser to first apply for and receive a handgun purchase certificate from the local chief of police or sheriff,” according to American Conceal and Carry.

“With some exceptions, individuals cannot purchase, lease, rent, or receive a transfer of a handgun in Nebraska without this certificate,” the group says.

Citizens in Hawaii are burdened with a complicated process, as explained by Hawaii Police.

“If you wish to acquire a handgun or wish to acquire a shotgun or rifle for the first time,” the department says, “you must be at least 21 years old and a United States citizen. You must apply for a permit to acquire a firearm. You must make an appointment at any police station island-wide in order to apply for a permit to acquire a firearm. See the list of police stations and phone numbers below. If you were not born in the United States, you would need to provide proof of U.S. citizenship.

Michigan is another state requiring citizens to take steps in order to exercise a constitutional right. In this state, according to Usgunclasses.com, “a person ‘shall not purchase, carry, or transport a pistol in this state without first having obtained a license for the pistol,’ as prescribed in MCL 28.422. These licenses shall be obtained by the local police agency. If the city, township, or village does not have an organized police agency, the license shall be obtained by the county sheriff’s department.” The exception is for people with concealed carry licenses. They have to obtain a “Pistol Sales Record… any time he or she purchases or otherwise acquires a pistol, pursuant to MCL 28.422a.”

Maryland is another state with Draconian restrictions that could be ripe for challenge. As noted on the Heritage Training Center website, “In order to purchase a handgun in Maryland as of October 1, 2013, the buyer must possess a valid Handgun Qualification License (HQL), unless otherwise exempt.”

We consult with the Giffords Law Center for the lowdown on Connecticut. The Giffords website notes, “In Connecticut, a person may not purchase or receive a handgun unless he or she holds a valid permit to carry a handgun, a valid permit to sell a handgun, or a valid handgun eligibility certificate.”

Neighboring Massachusetts, according to the state government website, is also restrictive. “Massachusetts residents 15 years and older who wish to possess, carry, and transport firearms, ammunition, and feeding devices are required to have a firearms license. Firearms licenses are issued by municipal police departments.”

And in tiny Rhode Island, according to gunlaws101.com, “purchasing a long gun requires a ‘Purchase of a Shotgun or Rifle Application Form’, and has a 7-day waiting period for the firearm. Handguns also require a ‘Purchase of a Shotgun or Rifle Application Form’, but they also require a training course. The applicant needs to complete either a hunter safety course, a pistol safety course (given by the Department of Environmental Management (DEM)) and pass the DEM test, or they must pass the DEM’s handgun safety test.”

There are, by some estimates, 20,000 to 22,000 gun laws in this country. Whether the Thomas ruling is signaling it is time for local activists to start challenging those laws remains to be seen. But the Thomas opinion could put at least some of them in jeopardy, especially when they place burdens in the way of exercising Second Amendment rights.

Thomas did something else with his 63-page opinion. He signaled the possible outcome of future litigation regarding whether so-called “assault weapons” are protected. Quoting the 2008 Heller ruling, Thomas noted, “We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to ‘arms’ does not apply ‘only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.’ 554 U. S., at 582. ‘Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (citations omitted). Thus, even though the Second Amendment’s definition of ‘arms’ is fixed according to its historical understanding, that general definition covers modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense. Cf. Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. 411, 411–412 (2016) (per curiam) (stun guns).”

Translation: People who insist the Second Amendment only applies to muskets are delusional.

There is a case challenging the Maryland ban on so-called “assault weapons” now awaiting a high court decision on whether to review that case. Twenty-five state attorneys general have submitted an amicus brief supporting the case, filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

As officials in New York and California are demonstrating with their machinations to get around the New York right-to-carry decision, this victory hasn’t closed doors on anti-gunners. They are a determined lot, and their efforts virtually assure the fight over Second Amendment rights is far from over.


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.

Dave Workman



from https://ift.tt/YgLAiz8
via IFTTT

Four More Second Amendment Court Decisions Vacated by Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court Image NRA-ILA
U.S. Supreme Court Image NRA-ILA

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)-– On June 29, 2022, the Supreme Court held a clean-up conference for the cases yet to be dealt with in the current term, which ends on June 30, 2022.

Four of those cases have been waiting on the decision in the NYSR&P Association v Bruen case. Bruen was decided with a strong opinion upholding the Second Amendment individual right to keep and bear arms outside the home.

All four cases have been granted certiorari, vacated by the Supreme Court, and remanded to the appropriate circuits to be heard in light of the Bruen decision.

The Bruen decision eviscerates the “two step” process and the three levels of scrutiny created in the circuits to evaluate cases. As far as enumerated rights go, “rational basis” “intermediate scrutiny” and “strict scrutiny” are dead.

It is now the burden of the state to prove any law restricting the right to keep and bear arms must have a history and tradition greater than the Sullivan law in New York. If the state cannot prove such a history and tradition exists; the law is unconstitutional under the Bruen decision.

The four cases, which have been languishing in the courts for years, are these:

All four cases have been sent back to three different circuit courts of appeal, to be re-evaluated under the clear-cut rules of the Bruen decision.  This is what is expected when the Supreme Court invalidates the previous system used by the various circuits over the last decade and more.

The Supreme Court has told the offending circuits: You did it wrong when you considered these laws under your convoluted two part system with a three part level of scrutiny. Evaluate them again, using the process laid out in Bruen. How long this will take is unclear.

New Jersey and California have already made policy decisions saying the “good reason” requirement in their carry permit law is now unconstitutional.

New York seems inclined to find ways to attempt to thwart the direction of the Supreme Court.

The Hawaii government appears to remain silent on the issuing of permits at the moment.

Analysis:

The Supreme Court has sent a message to the lower circuit courts. It appears to be: bans on items protected by the Second Amendment are out of bounds. Bans on the carry of firearms outside the home are out of bounds.  Use the process outlined in Bruen to determine if a law has been around long enough, and has been common enough, that it was an acceptable restriction on the right to keep and bear arms in most states for the history of when the Second Amendment was ratified; and particularly when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.

It is hard to see how bans on magazines of more than 10 rounds (very recent) or on Semi-automatic firearms (very recent) meet these criteria.


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.

Dean Weingarten



from https://ift.tt/Gb5Ef1Q
via IFTTT

Nigerian Governor: ‘Shoot Motorcyclists on Sight’

Nigeria issued 10,000 gun permits for defense. IMG iStock-477811724

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Zamfara State in northern Nigeria is suffering from a long-term conflict between mostly Muslim Fulani nomadic herders and mostly Christian Hausa farmers. Zamfara has a population of about ten million, of which about 20% are Fulani and other tribal herders.

Disputes between herders and farmers have been accelerated by increasing populations, the ability of herders to breed and treat cattle for  “tsetse fly” related diseases, and poor and disputed land titles.

While numbers are difficult to validate, hundreds, possibly thousands, have been killed and hundreds of thousands have been displaced from their lands and homes.  Armed camps in forested areas, kidnapping, and murder are on the rise.

In response, the Zamfara State Government has reacted by allowing more gun permits to defend against “bandits”, which is the preferred term for the mostly Muslim Fulani herdsmen, who have used smuggled guns and motorcycles to facilitate their raids. This has led to retaliation and a lack of security throughout much of Zamfara and other provinces. The Nigerian government is seen by many as favoring Muslims over Christians.

Some view the Obama administration as favoring a Muslim government in Nigeria over a Christian or mixed government.

The government announcement has been published in several outlets, including Premium Times.com. Parts of the announcement are shown below:

Anti-Banditry: Zamfara Govt Authorises Guns for Residents, Bans Motorcycles

Following increase in the activities of bandits in various parts of the state and the government commitment to ensure adequate security and protection of lives and property of the citizenry in the state,
particularly during this rainy season, government has resolved to take further measures to deal with the recent escalating attacks, kidnapping and the criminal levies being enforced on our innocent communities.

This act of terrorism has been a source of worry and concern to the people and government of the state. Therefore, in order to deal decisively with the situation in our respective communities, government
has no option than to take the following measures:

A. Government has henceforth, directed individuals to prepare and obtain guns to defend themselves against the bandits, as government has directed the state commissioner of police to issue license to all those who qualify and are wishing to obtain such guns to defend themselves.

Government is ready to facilitate people, especially our farmers to secure basic weapons for defending themselves. Government has already concluded arrangement to distribute 500 forms to each of the 19 Emirates in the state for those willing to obtain guns to defend themselves.

B. People must apply from the Commissioner of Police, license to own guns and such other basic weapons to be used in defending themselves.

The government announced the formation of centers for intelligence gathering, and the closing of markets, gasoline stations, and a ban on the use of motorcycles. In some districts, anyone riding a motorcycle can be shot on sight.

Furthermore, in view of the deteriorating security situation in Mada, Wonaka, and Ruwan Bore Districts of Gusau local government, as well as Yandoto emirate in Tsafe local government, His Excellency, Governor Mohammed Matawalle MON, Barden Hausa and Shattiman Sokoto, has approved the immediate closure of all markets and Kara in these districts and Yandoto emirate indefinitely.

In addition this, government has equally banned riding of motorbikes and selling of petroleum products in Mada, Wonaka and Ruwan Bore districts, as well as Yandoto emirate.

Henceforth, all filling stations on the affected areas are hereby closed with immediate effect. Anybody found riding motorbike within the areas is considered as bandits and security agencies are thereby
directed to shoot such persons at sight.

Farmers have been severely hampered in their defensive actions by their inability to obtain legal firearms. Nomadic groups are more difficult to police and appear to have better access to smuggled weapons.

Analysis:

The addition of less than 10,000 firearm permits does little to adequately arm eight million farmers beset by two million nomadic tribesmen. As military groups, the farmers need to be able to move, shoot and communicate. The nomads already have significant advantages in the ability to move and shoot. Their communication is likely to be more effective as well. The government previously shut down communications to disrupt the raiders; it had little effect.

The 500 permits in each of the 19 districts will be highly sought. The potential for corruption and bribery to obtain the permits will be great.

The practical effect is likely to be small. Many farmers have procured locally produced craft-made shotguns and muzzleloaders, illegally.

Localized militia groups can do much to defend against the type of raids organized in Nigeria. In several other countries, organized militias, supported by the government, such as the Rhondas in Peru, were able to significantly reduce the ability of outside groups to raid.


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.

Dean Weingarten



from https://ift.tt/lksC4zI
via IFTTT

Recent 2nd Amendment Ruling is Changing Everything for Gun Rights

Dan Wos, Author of – Good Gun Bad Guy
Host of The Loaded Mic

Supreme Court 2nd Second Amendment iStock-Morrison1977 491952898
iStock-Morrison1977

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- It seems, the gun-grabbing state legislators and Governors had no idea what they were in for with the New York State Rifle and Pistol v. Bruen case.

They poked the 2nd Amendment bear one too many times and it seems to have backfired on them. Because of Justice Thomas’ carefully and strategically written decision, current and future gun laws will likely be scrutinized and required to meet “historical precedent.”

At a certain point during the anticipation of the Supreme Court NYSRPA v. Bruen decision, it started to become clear that the case would be decided in favor of gun rights. What was unclear was the way the decision would be written. State legislatures had a lot of leeway after the Heller and McDonald cases and they used every bit of leverage they had to continue violating the rights of American gun owners despite those two favorable rulings. All that has changed because Justice Clarence Thomas had some very interesting wording in his Bruen decision. Besides the text that referred to the right to carry a gun not depending on service in the militia and the portion that stated, “We conclude that respondents have failed to meet their burden to identify an American tradition justifying New York’s proper cause requirement,” the decision was written in a way that now requires all gun laws to meet a level of historic balance.

It appears that anti-gun lawmakers will now have a much more difficult time restricting the rights of the people they represent.

The provision to meet historical precedent reads as follows:

“In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

According to wusa9.com Attorney and Rhode Island Democratic State Rep. Robert Craven, said he would study the New York case to determine whether Rhode Island’s requirements could be challenged, and whether that can be remedied by legislation. He questioned whether the high court will now employ a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment — that the right to bear arms is absolute — and apply it to other laws, such as those banning military-style weapons.

“I see the court headed in that direction,” Craven said.

On June 27th, 2022 it was reported that Attorney Chuck Michel, who heads up the California Rifle & Pistol Association said the standard will affect three prominent California laws in particular. These cases are pending before a federal appellate court.

• Legal challenges to the state’s limits on assault weapons
• Requirement for background checks for buying ammunition
• Ban on online ammunition sales

“All of these laws should be struck down under this new Supreme Court standard,” Michel said.

On June 28th, 2022, According to Reason.com The district court’s judgment on California’s “assault weapons” ban had been vacated, and the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the new Bruen decision.

Ammoland News correspondent Rob Morse, of The SlowFacts Blog and Self-Defense Gun Stories Podcast had this to say:

“Carry permit regulations are only the tip of the Bruen iceberg. The court also clarified how 2nd Amendment cases should be considered. This will change everything from red-flag laws, assault weapon bans, to gun free zones and more. Send forth the horde of lawyers. The 2A lawsuits have just begun.”

Despite the narrative by which they are sold to the public, California gun laws have been notorious for restricting the rights of law-abiding Californians while doing nothing to reduce violent crime. This new SCOTUS decision has put California gun laws in question, caused New Jersey Governor to reverse course on his draconian gun measures, and has worked New York Democrats into a lather as they desperately search for new ways to control the rights of New Yorkers. We are in a very important time, and it looks like there is a good opportunity to drag the Democrats back to civics class and force them to reread the Constitution, with a special focus on Amendment number 2.

Shall Not Be Infringed!

The 2nd Amendment is not a privilege. It’s your right.
Dan Wos
Author – Good Gun Bad Guy
Host – The Loaded Mic


About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information contact PR HERE

Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on the Sean Hannity Show, NRATV, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.

Dan Wos
Dan Wos


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

NRA Endorses Derek Schmidt in Kansas Primary

The NRA has officially endorsed Derek Schmidt for Governor of Kansas. IMG NRA

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) is proud to announce its endorsement of Derek Schmidt for governor in the 2022 Kansas primary election.

“Derek Schmidt is a staunch supporter of our Second Amendment freedoms and he will continue to fight to protect our fundamental right to self-defense,” said Jason Ouimet, chairman, NRA-PVF. “Kansans can trust Derek Schmidt to protect their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

As attorney general, Schmidt signed “friend of the court” briefs on several landmark cases, including NYSRPA v. Bruen, in which the Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding Americans to carry a firearm outside of the home. Schmidt also supported legislation that ensured felons who carry firearms while committing crimes would be sentenced to prison, as well as legislation that protects law-abiding gun owners access to firearm accessories.

Schmidt has earned the highest attainable “A+” rating from the NRA. That rating is reserved for elected officials who have a demonstrated record of leadership in the fight to promote and defend the right to keep and bear arms.

“The NRA is proud to endorse Derek Schmidt and encourages all NRA members, gun owners, hunters and sportsmen to vote for Derek Schmidt in the upcoming Republican Primary election,” Ouimet concluded.


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

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)



from https://ift.tt/A9cnzFt
via IFTTT

Wednesday, June 29, 2022

California AG Suggests Unconstitutional Discrimination in Carry Permits

NRA-ILA California
NRA-ILA California

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)-– On June 24th, 2022, one day after the long-awaited Supreme Court decision in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen case, the Office of the Attorney General of California sent out a legal alert about how the case affects the issue of concealed carry permits in the state.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in Bruen, set out considerable guidance about how “shall-issue” regimes need to issue permits in order to be considered abiding by Second Amendment. From page 36, footnote 9:

Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes,which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.

The Attorney General of California appears to advise permit issuers in California to go considerably beyond those guidelines. The AG claims that only the “good cause” is affected by Bruen, other criteria such as “good moral character” are not affected.   From CA AG Legal Alert page 1:

Moreover, because the Court’s decision in does not affect the other statutory requirements governing public must still require proof that “the applicant is of good moral character,” (2) the applicant is a resident of the relevant county or city (or has their principal place of business or employment in that county or city), and (3) the applicant has completed a course of training. Id. §§ 26150(a), 26155(a). Issuing authorities may also still require psychological testing. Id. § 26190(f).

The AG continues to give examples of ways in which issuing authorities can find reasons to deny the issuance of carry permits.

Existing public-carry policies of local law enforcement agencies across the state provide helpful examples of how to apply the “good moral character” requirement. The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office, for example, identifies several potential reasons why a public license may be denied (or revoked), which include “[a]ny arrest in the last 5 years, regardless of the disposition” or “[a]ny conviction in the last 7 years.” It is reasonable to consider such factors in evaluating applicant’s proof of the requisite moral character to safely carry firearms in public. See, e.g., Bruen slip op. p. 63 (referencing “law-abiding citizens”). Other jurisdictions list the personal characteristics one reasonably expects of candidates for a public-carry license who do not pose a danger to themselves or others. The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department’s policy, for example, currently provides as follows: “Legal judgments of good moral character can include consideration of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability, profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law, and the absence of criminal conviction.” 

The AG appears to be suggesting actions blatantly contrary to the guidance in Bruen.

Judgements about “honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability,” seem precisely the opposite of “narrow, objective, and definite standards“.

It has been far too long for the right of the people to keep and bear arms to be restored in the United States. Denial of the right to carry in California will have legal challenges popping up like fireworks on the Fourth of July. New challenges to denials of Second Amendment rights will not be long in appearing before the courts.


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.

Dean Weingarten



from https://ift.tt/IVAgkv2
via IFTTT

We Have NYSRPA v. Bruen – Can We Keep It?

Constitution Glock iStock-697763612
We Have NYSRPA v. Bruen – Can We Keep It?, iStock-697763612

SCOTUS/United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Benjamin Franklin is said to have told someone who asked what the Constitutional Convention produced, “A republic – if you can keep it.” Well, in the wake of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, Second Amendment supporters now have a solid framework for taking down the vast majority anti-Second Amendment legislation. But can we keep it?

That is an open question. We’re already seeing some hints of defiance from New York and California. Kirkland and Ellis essentially forced the resignation of Paul Clement and Erin Murphy – who just won NYSRPA v. Bruen. Anti-Second Amendment extremists look ready to leverage a lot of levers outside the normal legislative process.

Corporate gun control and financial deplatforming will be perhaps the largest threat we will have to face in this regard. We need to use the legislative power we have at the state level today – and whatever power we get in the future – to head these threats off now. Between Heller, McDonald, Caetano v Massachusetts, Canigula v. Strom, and NYSRPA v. Bruen, we have made huge strides in securing the legal right to own and carry firearms.

The first step has to be making sure we do not get caught in a bubble. The Second Amendment may be in the Constitution, but so was the 18th at one point. Amendments can be repealed. Anti-Second Amendment extremists and others are already offering another solution: Packing the courts. Six more like Sotomayor, anyone?

How do amendments get repealed? How would people go for packing the court? They get convinced to hand power to those who say they will do that. One way is by ignoring what the reality is in favor for what we want the situation to be.

We have some real mental health issues in this country, exacerbated by the measures taken to stop the COVID-19 panic. Our schools are ridiculously easy targets for someone who seeks to do harm. Far too often, we ignore signs of danger. When someone hauls around a bag of dead cats, they are seriously messed up and probably should be involuntarily committed – if not charges with felony animal cruelty. And yes, we may need to look at some other adjustments to address those who show those signs of danger before the age of 18.

If Second Amendment supporters don’t have solutions to address these problems, the anti-Second Amendment extremists will eventually get the power they seek – they will destroy the gains we have fought for over the decades. Second Amendment supporters must defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local levels. But are they willing to do what it takes to inflict those defeats?


About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.Harold Hutchison



from https://ift.tt/cuV0Ueg
via IFTTT

Democrat Unveils Bill That Will Require Gun Shows Keep Copies of Patrons IDs

Canik iStock 1182677191
Democrat Unveils Bill That Will Require Gun Shows Keep Copies of Patrons IDs IMG iStock-1182677191

HARRISBURG, PA -(Ammoland.com)- On Monday, Pennsylvania State Representative Amen Brown circulated a memo to all House members announcing his plan to introduce a bill that would require gun shows to make and store a copy of the identifications of all show attendees.

Brown said he is introducing the bill to fight against the proliferation of privately made firearms (PMF). He claims that what he calls “ghost guns” “are favorite of criminals and, in turn, driving Pennsylvania’s gun violence epidemic.” He also points out that 571 guns seized in Philadelphia were un-serialized firearms. Over 30,000 firearms that were found at crime scenes were not PMFs. Brown doesn’t address those firearms at all in his memo.

Brown, who somehow has a B+ rating from Firearms Owners Against Crime (FOAC), wants gun show owners to keep these records for five years. His bill will also require the gun show owner to share these records with the Pennsylvania Attorney General whenever the AG request them, even without a warrant. This requirement would essentially turn the AG’s office into “Big Brother.”

Brown worked with FOAC President Kim Stolfer and State Attorney General Josh Shapiro to pressure the former owners of the largest gun show promoter in Pennsylvania, Eagle Shows, to ban JSD Supply from all its gun shows. Pennsylvania’s own JSD Supply is one of the country’s largest suppliers of Polymer80s and the JSD Supply MUP-1 kit, which is based on the Sig P320. Brown claimed that he and members of the AG’s “Ghost Gun Task Force” witnessed a person buying dozens of P80s from a gun show. A claim that task force members and JSD Supply would later dispute.

AG Shapiro would hold a press conference celebrating the victory alongside Brown. The two anti-gun politician’s celebrations would be short-lived. Jordan Vinroe, the President and owner of JSD Supply, purchased the gun show a few months later, and soon the 80% kits would return to the gun show floor. This business deal hampered Brown’s and the AG’s attempt to block the sale of unfinished frames and receivers at Eagle Shows events.

Shapiro would then work with NBC News to target JSD Supply and Eagle Shows in the hit piece on the national nightly news. NBC News reporter Vaughn Hillyard purchased two 80% kits at a gun show outside Philadelphia in the suburb of Oaks before executing an ambush interview with Vinroe in the show’s parking lot. Hillyard would then have the AG’s office build the two kits for the network.

When those actions didn’t shut down JSD Supply, the Philadelphia field office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued JSD Supply a cease-and-desist order served by the Pittsburgh field office. The order was trying to shut down the company. With the help of Gun Owners of America (GOA), Vinroe and the pro-gun company fought back through a federal lawsuit. The ATF eventually would rescind its cease-and-desist order. JSD Supply is now fully operational and is selling all parts through its website.

The bill is a “Hail Mary” attempt by Brown to restrict the sale of 80% kits in the Keystone State. With all else failing, this move seems like another attempt to hurt JSD Supply and gun shows in the Commonwealth in general. The bill might be pointless with the new ATF regulations surrounding PFMs around the corner.

Gun owners in Pennsylvania should contact their elected representatives and insist they oppose the future bill.


About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

John Crump



from https://ift.tt/h8nQcH1
via IFTTT

15 State AGs Send Letter to Senate Opposing Dettelbach Confirmation

ATF Police Raid IMG 2nd instagram.com/atfhq/
ATF Police Raid IMG 2nd instagram.com/atfhq/

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- Fifteen Republican state attorneys general have signed a letter to Capitol Hill opposing the confirmation of Steve Dettelbach to head the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the man who lead the effort—Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen—spoke exclusively to Ammoland to detail the issue.

“This is a guy who has publicly affiliated himself with (gun control groups),” Knudsen said in a telephone interview.

In Montana, Knudsen said all eyes are actually on Sen. Jon Tester, a Democrat, to see which way he will vote. Many observers are predicting a Dettelbach confirmation, but Knudsen and his fellow attorneys general are determined to have their voices heard.

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen spoke exclusively with Ammoland aboiut a letter he and 14 other attorneys general sent tothe Senate leadership opposing confirmation of Steve Dettelbach as head of the ATF. (Dave Workman photo)

In the four-page letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the top state law enforcement officials recall last year’s nomination of David Chipman, which turned into a debacle for the Biden White House.

“Rather than find a qualified individual with a law enforcement background,” Knudsen and his colleagues wrote, “the President returned to the same well and nominated Steven Dettelbach. As the Attorneys General of our respective states and on behalf of our constituents, we ask you to oppose his confirmation. Now more than ever, we should be prioritizing Americans’ safety over the pursuit of ideological hobbyhorses.”

Knudsen, who unabashedly describes himself as “a gun guy,” told Ammoland there has been silence from Capitol Hill since the letter was sent June 21.

“We didn’t get anything about Chipman, either,” he recalled from the last go-round of opposition to a Biden nominee. “I don’t expect to get anything from the administration.”

Knudsen, a Montana native who grew up on ranch near the Montana-North Dakota border, said the letter was drafted and sent around for his colleagues to study and offer suggested edits, but he cannot recall anyone offering any serious changes.

The second paragraph comes out swinging:

“President Biden has repeatedly displayed his own ignorance when it comes to firearms and Americans’ right to keep and bear them.”

This statement is immediately followed with another bristling remark,

“Misleading at best, even liberal ‘fact checkers’ have repeatedly called his statements false. This underscores the importance of an ATF director who will enforce existing laws in an unbiased manner and not merely rubber stamp the President’s partisan anti-gun platform.”

The letter notes that Dettelbach “has a long history of activism to restrict Americans’ gun rights, going back to at least 2013 when he appeared alongside representatives from Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the predecessor organization to Everytown for Gun Safety.”

Back on June 16, the Senate voted 52-41 to bring the nomination up for a Senate vote. It appears the Senate will take up that issue when it returns from the July 4 recess.

Where Chipman was sometimes incendiary during his hearing last year before the Senate Judiciary Committee—leading to the withdrawal of his nomination by the White House—Dettelbach is not as vocal, Knudsen acknowledged. But his background is, to say the least, troubling to the 15 attorneys general who signed the letter.

In addition to Knudsen, those officials are Treg R. Taylor, Alaska; Leslie Rutledge, Arkansas; Mark Brnovich, Arizona; Christopher M. Carr, Georgia; Theodore E. Rokita, Indiana; Derek Schmidt, Kansas; Jeff Landry, Louisiana; Eric S. Schmitt, Missouri; John M. O’Connor, Oklahoma; Alan Wilson, South Carolina; Jason R. Ravnsborg, South Dakota; Ken Paxton, Texas; Sean D. Reyes, Utah, and Patrick Morrisey, West Virginia.

These people make it clear in the closing paragraphs of the letter they take their jobs seriously.

“The Second Amendment reaffirms our God-given rights to defend our lives, families, property, and freedoms. It has ‘justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic’…And it is the right upon which all others depend. As state Attorneys General, we have taken oaths to uphold all the rights guaranteed to our constituents by the Constitution of the United States. ATF’s director will operate under a similar oath, and that presents a unique challenge, because ATF regulates in an area that squarely implicates Second Amendment rights. Every official action should therefore be retrained and refined to ensure that those rights remain intact.

“Given that serious responsibility—and the current nominee’s track record—we ask you to reject Mr. Dettelbach to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,” the letter states. “As Americans continue to suffer from the crime wave, the ATF desperately needs a director who will crack down on violent criminals and organizations—not one who will pursue an anti-gun political agenda under the guise of law enforcement.”


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.

Dave Workman



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

Gun Group Demands Injunction Against NYC Gun Permit Regulations

Accepting Strategic Reality In New York City And Elsewhere, iStock-1169074379
iStock-1169074379

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- Based on the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down New York State’s unconstitutional “good cause” requirement for concealed carry permit applicants, the Second Amendment Foundation today filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the City of New York from further enforcement of its long-standing permit regulations.

Joining SAF in this legal action are the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. and five private citizens. The motion was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney David D. Jensen of Beacon, N.Y. In addition to the City of New York, Police Commissioner Dermot Shea is named as a defendant in his official capacity.

“In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling that New York State’s ‘good cause’ mandate is unconstitutional, we felt compelled to file this action because the city’s ‘proper cause’ requirement is just as bad if not worse,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Two of our plaintiffs previously held carry licenses in New York City for decades, but in 2020, both were denied renewal on the grounds they lacked ‘proper cause’.”

Gottlieb said the perpetuation of this requirement in the aftermath of the high court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen is an affront to the Constitution and an insult to the Court, not to mention….

The good citizens of New York City who should no longer need to demonstrate some special need in order to exercise a fundamental right.

“The City adopted this restrictive and completely arbitrary regulation more than a hundred years ago,” Gottlieb observed, “and we should not have to drag the city kicking and screaming into the 21st Century, and into compliance with the Second Amendment and the recent Supreme Court ruling.

“After all,” he noted, “within 24 hours of the high court ruling, both New Jersey and California, which have similar requirements to the New York ‘good cause’ restriction, issued directives to law enforcement to stop enforcing those provisions. If states can immediately comply with the Supreme Court, New York City has absolutely no excuse for ignoring the Bruen ruling. We promised to take action if we found local governments refusing to comply with the court’s decision. We meant it.”


The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing, and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 750,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Second Amendment Foundation



from https://ift.tt/nDWm91X
via IFTTT

California Leaks Personal Data of Carry Permit Holders

Business Woman Concealed Carry
On Monday June 27, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the launch of the California Department of Justice (DOJ)’s Firearms Dashboard Portal. IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- On Monday June 27, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the launch of the California Department of Justice (DOJ)’s Firearms Dashboard Portal. The data tool was designed to give granular firearm transaction and Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permit holder data to anyone visiting the DOJ’s website. However, astute users quickly realized that the dashboard could be used to access the personally identifying information of California CCW holders – including date of birth, full name, and address.

Initial reports of the leak appeared on social media and on firearm enthusiast internet forums. According to several social media users, individuals were able to download all of the leaked personal information from the DOJ website – meaning this information is likely now in the public in perpetuity.

As of Tuesday afternoon, the California DOJ had removed the Firearms Dashboard Portal from its website.

However, on Tuesday an attorney for a firm that works with the NRA California state affiliate, California Rifle & Pistol Association, made clear that he had been provided with video evidence of the breach.

Likewise, firearm news outlet The Reload reported Tuesday that “[a] video reviewed by The Reload shows the databases with detailed information were initially available for download via a button on the website’s mapping feature.” Explaining some of the extent of the breach, The Reload item explained,

The Reload reviewed a copy of the Lost Angeles County database and found 244 judge permits listed in the database. The files included the home addresses, full names, and dates of birth for all of them. The same was true for seven custodial officers, 63 people with a place of employment permit, and 420 reserve officers.

2,891 people in Los Angeles County with standard licenses also had their information compromised by the leak, though the database appears to include some duplicate entries as well.

NRA was independently contacted by a concerned California resident who provided the organization with an image containing some of the leaked information, including gun owners’ full names and dates of birth.

This breach of gun owner data comes as NRA is in litigation with California over gun owner privacy.

In September 2021, California enacted AB 173. This law allows for the disclosure of highly sensitive information, including a gun owner’s name, address, place of birth, phone number, occupation, driver’s license or ID number, race, sex, height, weight, hair color, eye color, and even their social security number and types of firearms that they own to universities and any “bona fide research institute.” In January, NRA filed suit in Doe v. Bonta to stop this attack on gun owner privacy.

During an April 5 hearing in the Doe v. Bonta case, the California DOJ acknowledged that there are civil remedies for the leak of the sensitive gun owner data at issue in the case, and even the potential for criminal prosecution. The representative for the DOJ stated,

We acknowledge that the information is confidential. AB 173, I think, is quite clear that the information can’t be shared publicly. It’s our position that, if there is a disclosure, that those whose information is disclosed would have various remedies including – there might be criminal implications for someone who disclosed the information knowingly. There is civil remedies under various state laws. And so the information is confidential…

The court then asked about the DOJ’s understanding regarding the standard of proof necessary for obtaining a civil remedy for a state agency’s breach of confidential information. Both the court and the DOJ appeared to acknowledge that mere negligence in disclosing confidential information would give rise to a civil remedy.

NRA is monitoring the unfolding situation in California and will keep gun owners apprised of any further developments.


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

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)



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

California’s DOJ Doxes The State’s Gun & Ammunition Owners

Personal Data Gun Registration Paperwork Privacy iStock-solarseven 1048264146.jpg
iStock-solarseven

SACRAMENTO, CA -(Ammoland.com)- Gun owners have long worried that firearms licensing schemes put their information at risk. On Monday, their fears came to fruition.

Earlier in the week, the California Department of Justice released the 2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal. According to the California AG Rob Bonta, the dashboard would;

“[i]mprove transparency and information sharing for firearms-related data and includes broad enhancements to the platform to help the public access data on firearms in California, including information about the issuance of Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permits and Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs).”

When gun owners examined the site, they found that a web user could download all personal information about California gun owners with a click of a button. This information included the gun owners’ names, addresses, and even Californian’s birth dates.

Even more shocking was the database tagged law enforcement members and judges.

Over the past year, law enforcement has been targeted by radical left-wing hate mobs fueled by the rhetoric of left-wing politicians looking to score points with their base. The database that was downloaded listed the law enforcement officer’s home addresses. With political violence on the rise, the database put the law enforcement officer’s life at risk and the lives of their family members as well.

The database can also aid criminals in knowing who to target for robbery. One of the databases leaked was the California Assault Weapon Registry. Now the owners of these firearms are a bigger target of criminals that will wait until the homeowners leave to break in and steal their guns.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office claims that the data was an unfortunate mistake, leading to more questions.

The biggest question is why a database of personally identifiable information (PPI) was stored on an Internet-facing data share.

It is best practice not to keep this information on a share where it could be accessed via the Internet without first authenticating.

Before getting into journalism, this writer spent over 20 years working in the information technology world for the federal government and private companies. I have worked to mitigate breaches throughout most of my former career. Most data breaches are misconfiguration of servers or network devices, allowing a hacker to use that misconfiguration to gain unauthorized access. Another common tactic used by hackers is what is known as social engineering. This method can include phishing emails or impersonating an employee to gain access to a computer system. Neither of these methods caused this data breach.

If the California AG is to be believed, then the system architects are grossly incompetent or massively unqualified to design the system. The issue should have been caught before the site went live, leading some to believe the leak was intentional. In contrast, others do not attribute to malice what can be attributed to gross incompetence.

The system should have been set up to require the user to authenticate with two-factor authentication to access the system. Once logged in, only then would the user be able to navigate to the share through an encrypted session. That would stop most data breaches.

California 2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal 404 6-2-2022
California 2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal 404 6-2-2022

The AG’s office is investigating the leak and stated that they take all data leaks seriously. As of this writing, the site is offline with no timeline for it to return.

AmmoLand News tried contacting AG Bonta via cell phone for comment, but our calls were not returned.


About John Crump

John is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

John Crump



from https://ift.tt/yrv937w
via IFTTT

New Jersey to Vote on Gov. Murphy’s Gun Bans TODAY!

New Jersey State House NRA-ILA
Anti-gun politicians in Trenton will have their opportunity this week to lash out against New Jersey gun owners who secured a major victory last week in the United States Supreme Court. IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Anti-gun politicians in Trenton will have their opportunity this week to lash out against New Jersey gun owners who secured a major victory last week in the United States Supreme Court.  Concealed carry, which for decades has been denied to Garden State gun owners, was reaffirmed as the “law of the land” last week.   The state must start issuing permits to qualified gun owners who satisfy objective standards, and the Attorney General was forced to issue an order last week to law enforcement compelling them to stop enforcing “justifiable need.”

CLICK HERE TAKE ACTION! 

Last week, your NRA-ILA also testified against a large package of gun bills in Trenton that included: microstamping, .50 Caliber BMG bans, new FID card requirements and mandatory training, regulation and registration of ammunition and firearms, raising the age to purchase long guns, and bans on body armor, among others.   None of these bills will do anything to enhance public safety.  In fact, your NRA testified last week in front of both committees in the Senate and Assembly and lamented that there were no school safety or mental health bills on the agenda.

Now, more than ever, it is important to make your voice heard!  Please contact your Assembly members and Senator immediately and tell them to vote NO on all of these bills.


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

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)



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

Tuesday, June 28, 2022

California Attorney General’s Action Puts State CCW Permit Holders in Jeopardy

California Attorney General Rob Bonta
California Attorney General Rob Bonta

California – -(AmmoLand.com)-On Monday, California Attorney General Rob Bonta posted the names and addresses of concealed-carry permit holders on the California Department of Justice website.

In a press release, Bonta claimed the move was to “improve transparency and information sharing for firearms-related data and includes broad enhancements to the platform to help the public access data on firearms in California, including information about the issuance of Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permits and Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs).”

He also claimed it will help promote “gun violence” research, and foster “trust between law enforcement and the communities we serve.”

Make No Mistake, This Was 100% BS.

Bonta’s move was clearly retaliation for the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which affirmed the right to bear arms outside the home.

Bonta’s true intent was to put Californians on notice that if they want to exercise this right, they will pay a price, and the price will be their privacy, safety, and security.

You see, Bonta has created a handy reference guide for burglars, home invaders, and other criminals. Now, they’ve got a searchable database of firearm owners and homes where guns are kept. Guns have always been the third most sought-after item by burglars, after prescription meds and cash.

What’s not included in Bonta’s press release, tweets or media interviews is the chilling effect this will have on the Second Amendment in the Golden State. Anyone who wants to carry a defensive firearm must now risk a complete loss of their privacy and the increased likelihood they and their family will be targeted by criminals.

I’m sure California’s booming gun-ban industry, which likely played a significant role in developing this idea, has already made plans on how to use the database to its advantage. Look for massive doxing, which will include false red-flag complaints, cyber-crimes, and other online harassment.

At one time California led the nation in online data security….

The California Database Security Breach Notification Act (Cal. Civ. Code 1798.29), which became effective in 2003, requires “any person or company conducting business in California that owns, licenses, or stores certain types of computerized personal information to disclose any breach of the security of the system by notifying California residents whose information was or is reasonably believed to have been, accessed by an unauthorized person.”

I wonder if California Attorney General will notify the state’s CCW permit holders that their data has been breached.

I’m guessing he won’t.

Terrorism isn’t terrorism if the government does it. It’s law enforcement.

This 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.

Lee Williams



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

GOA Threatens to Sue Sheriff for Ignoring NYSPRA v. Bruen

Why I Am Suing The Governor of Virginia, iStock-1055138108
As the Supreme Court considers the case challenging New York’s extremist gun permit law, gun control proponents are predicting a downfall of civilization if the court affirms the right to bear arms. iStock-1055138108

JOHNSTOWN, NEW YORK -(Ammoland.com)- The Fulton County Sheriff’s Office in New York is defying the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the New York State Pistol Rifle Association v. Bruen, leading Gun Owners of America (GOA) to threaten to sue Fulton County, Sheriff Richard C. Giardino.

On Friday, June 24, the Sheriff’s Office made a Facebook post saying that the Supreme Court opinion isn’t in effect until the lower circuit court issues a decision based on the SCOTUS opinion or remands it back to the District Court to issue a ruling. The Sherriff said until that happens, nothing with the permitting system will change, meaning that they will use the “proper cause” provision of the now unconstitutional law.

The issue GOA has with the Office’s decision to keep enforcing the old Sullivan law is that SCOTUS found the law unconstitutional, meaning that it is struck down immediately. All courts and states are bound to follow the Supreme Court’s guidance. Law enforcement swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, which means not enforcing unconstitutional laws. The New York State law was found to be unconstitutional.

Even anti-gun states such as New Jersey and California have realized they have a duty not to enforce unconstitutional laws. Both states have dropped their “good cause” provision of their concealed carry laws. Fulton County is in upstate New York and is typically more gun-friendly than the area surrounding New York City, which makes the move by the Sheriff’s Office even more puzzling.

In the letter, GOA’s attorney, Stephen Stamboulieh, highlights that SCOTUS determined the “proper cause” requirement in a 6-3 decision to violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Mr. Stamboulieh highlights the error in the Office’s thinking. He emphasizes that the Office’s Facebook post says that the SCOTUS “[d]ecision can’t take effect until the Circuit Court rewrites their decision” is legally wrong.

Mr. Stamboulieh states that what the Sheriff said is not the law. He further states that “Supreme Court opinions bind all lower courts immediately, and there is no secondary requirement for the Second Circuit to ‘rewrite their decision.’” AmmoLand News followed up with another attorney that specializes in Constitutional law, and that lawyer agrees with Stamboulieh’s interpretation.

Mr. Stamboulieh warns Fulton County Sheriff Giardino that he can lose qualified immunity if sued over the issue. If a law enforcement officer violates a Constitutional right that is “clearly established,” that officer loses qualified immunity. The loss of qualified immunity opens that officer up to monetary damages if a judge rules against them. With the Bruen decision, the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense is “clearly established.”

After GOA faxed their demand letter, The Fulton County Sheriff’s Office made an updated Facebook post. In the post, the Sheriff’s Office told members of the community to go to the judge that issued their restricted permit and ask to have it amended to unrestricted carry, citing the SCOTUS decision. The poster also linked to a News Day article claiming a deal on concealed carry permits in New York is close. When AmmoLand News asked an attorney if that is enough to comply with the SCOTUS opinion, the answer was a resounding “no.” He does not think that will cause GOA to back off the threat of a Lawsuit. GOA has given the Sheriff five days to comply with the demand before the gun-rights group files suit.

AmmoLand News reached out to Sheriff Giardino for comment, but our calls were not returned. If your local issuing agency is not following the law, please let us know at bstips@protonmail.com.


About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

John Crump



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