Canada’s de Facto Handgun Confiscation Lawsuit ~ Overiew

istock

Canada – -(AmmoLand.com)- Canadian Shooting Sports Association’s multi-pronged lawsuit against the federal government for its de facto handgun confiscation scheme sparked a flurry of speculation.

It appears that a lack of comprehension caused some to make erroneous declarations of what the Canadian Shooting Sports Association’s lawsuit is about on some online forums – without ever reading the press release in detail, or reading the actual filed court document.

We urge everyone who is interested in learning more about this court action to download and read a copy of our Notice of Application pursuant to sections 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act.

The following excerpt, taken from our Notice of Application, will, we hope, help to clear up any misunderstandings about the steps CSSA is taking to protect and defend the property and the Charter rights of its members and those of the entire Canadian firearms community.

The Application

• 1. On May 30, 2022, the federal government tabled and placed before the House of Commons a proposed Regulation, 8560-491-492-01, that had as its object to freeze the transfer of ownership of registered handguns except in limited circumstances. This was to be accomplished by limiting the authority of the Chief Firearms Officer to issue authorization to transfer handguns. This is called version one.
• 2. On October 21, 2022, the federal government registered a Regulation, SOR/2022-219, that had its objective to freeze the transfer of ownership of handguns except in certain circumstances and contained an important significant additional provision to allow for the completion of transfers of handguns that had been duly initiated before October 21, 2022. This change affected hundreds of thousands of handgun transfers.
• 3. On August 19, 2022, the government made a change under the Export and Imports Permits Act to require an additional import permit for the import of restricted handguns into Canada. This was a ministerial discretion of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The additional import certificate needed to match the purposes stated in the proposed handgun freeze regulation.

The Applicants make application for:

• 4. A declaration that SOR/2022-219 is ultra vires or vague and is therefore of no force and effect; and
• 5. A declaration that SOR/2020-219 violates Sections 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is therefore of no force and effect; and
• 6. A declaration that SOR/2022-219 violates the Constitution Acts, 1867-1982 consolidated and is of no force and effect.
• 7. A declaration that SOR/2022-219 violates the Firearms Act SC and is of no force and effect.
• 8. A declaration that SOR/2022-219 violates the laws of succession and vesting of property upon death to a beneficiary and therefore void and of no force and effect.
• 9. A declaration that sections 28 and 30 of the Firearms Act are paramount and that particular sections of the Regulation are ultra vires and void and of no force and effect.

The Notice of Application goes into great detail about these issues, and many more, that we look forward to bringing before an impartial federal court judge.

We encourage you to take the time to read the document in its entirety as there are multiple facts of law at issue in this Application not included in the brief excerpt above.

Help us protect the rights and property of Canadians.

Donate to the CSSA’s Lawsuit against the Federal Government.

To Donate from CSSA’s web store, click here:

To donate via e-Transfer, please send to e-transfer@cssa-cila.org

See the filed court document for details here.

---

About Canadian Shooting Sports Association:

The CSSA is the voice of the sport shooter and firearms enthusiast in Canada. Our national membership supports and promotes Canada’s firearms heritage, traditional target shooting competition, modern action shooting sports, hunting, and archery. We support and sponsor competitions and youth programs that promote these Canadian heritage activities. Website www.cdnshootingsports.org

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

Second Amendment Supporters Must Think Beyond Politics And Law

Second Amendment Activist Protest Activism Take Action

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Second Amendment supporters have long fought political, legislative, and legal battles to protect our freedoms. However, the cultural and financial/economic arenas are new battlegrounds where our rights are being targeted, and Second Amendment supporters are playing a great deal of catch-up in these areas.

Let’s talk culture – particularly entertainment and pop culture. The fact is, we are in a society where celebrity and media has a lot of influence. We’re used to the anti-Second Amendment bias from the news media, but healthy doses have been in pop culture going back decades – in 1949, the radio drama of “Dragnet” did an episode centered on a .22 rifle given as a Christmas gift, with the then-LAPD chief called giving firearms as a gift “folly” after the NRA protested the episode. A Batman comics storyline was used to push the first iteration of Virginia’s gun rationing scheme in the late 1980s.

It’s not just the shows – many of the stars take a hard line against our Second Amendment rights, and they have vast followings on social media. It also gets delivered from daytime talk (Rosie O’Donnell’s 1999 ambush of Tom Selleck, for instance) and even in something seemingly far from being turned into propaganda like a game show (Kim Kardashian used a “Celebrity Family Feud” appearance to donate to Bloomberg’s Everytown).

What do Second Amendment supporters have with comparable clout? We’re not going to find a lot right now, and that has been a major failing of pro-Second Amendment organizations and to a lesser extent, us. We dared Hollywood to make money without us, and they found that way, largely through China. Now, we’re going to need to find a way to get on the field and take on Hollywood.

However, do get on the field, whatever pro-Second Amendment pop culture or entertainment will need to get funding, as well as access to financial services. These days, that may not be certain – just look at Operation Chokepoint and calls for corporate gun control. But that could go for other ventures.

Pro-Second Amendment groups cannot make their case if their bank closes their account and cites “reputational risk” as the reason for doing so. Similarly, if a bank can shut down the account of someone who publishes a pro-Second Amendment comic, or the novelist who opposes a ban on modern multi-purpose semiautomatic long guns, then we are at their mercy with regards to our rights.

That situation cannot be allowed to continue, and it will likely take political and legislative action to address it. If states with pro-Second Amendment trifectas (both houses of the state legislature and a governor) move and pass laws to prohibit financial deplatforming on the basis of political opinions, we will face serious trouble. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, to its credit, is pursuing this, but the NRA and GOA need to make this a high priority at the state level.

Second Amendment supporters need to understand that the battle for our rights has become a full-spectrum conflict that doesn’t just involve political campaigns, legal action, and legislative battles – our culture and the financial industry have become battlegrounds as well. Second Amendment supporters must win across the board in order to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremism.

---

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.

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

How the Orwellian Term “Gun Violence” is used to Push Citizen Disarmament

How the Orwellian Term “Gun Violence” is used to Push Citizen Disarmament

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- The term “gun violence” has been deliberately inculcated into the public debate over the last 20 years. It is common in news articles. It has been used in numerous court briefs. It appears in court decisions at the appellate level and in amicus briefs to the Supreme Court.

George Orwell, in the novel 1984, explained how language can be structured to eliminate and curtail thought.

“Gun violence” is an Orwellian term designed to structure and limit debate to pre-determined solutions. It is designed to hamper the ability to think about reality in certain ways. The purpose of Orwellian structuring of language is to make it difficult or impossible to think certain thoughts or entertain certain concepts. This is the purpose of the term “gun violence”. The term “gun violence” frames the problem as guns.  It frames all violence committed with guns as illegitimate.

Guns can be used or misused. Violence can be legitimate or illegitimate.

Guns can be used for legitimate purposes such as defense, hunting, recreation, and multiple target sports. Guns can be used for illegitimate purposes, primarily for a crime. Guns can be used for suicide. The legitimacy of suicide is a hotly debated topic.

Violence is like gravity. It is neutral. Violence can be used for legitimate purposes and illegitimate purposes. Defending yourself and your country is a legitimate use of violence. Killing animals or plants for food is a legitimate use of violence. We celebrate those who save themselves and others.

Discourage criminal violence. Encourage legitimate violence.

The two sides of the debate on guns are primarily about responsibility and free will vs lack of responsibility and lack of free will. Those who want a disarmed population transfer volition and responsibility to events outside the individual, particularly to inanimate objects. Thus, they remove responsibility and free will from any discussion of how to solve problems. Accepting and using the term “gun violence” as a problem restricts what solutions are allowed and what can be discussed. The term eliminates discussion of legitimate uses of guns, and of legitimate purposes for violence.

Much of the nomenclature about the debate over an armed population has been deliberately created to move people’s thoughts into the channels desired by those seeking to disarm the public.

The National Council to Control Handguns was formed in 1974. It became Handgun Control Inc. in 1980. Handgun Control Inc., later created a related entity, The Center to Control Handgun Violence. In 2001, the name was changed to: “Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence”

Before 2000, what was sold to the public was violent crime reduction. As the number of guns and handguns increased in society, the number of people legally able to carry handguns for protection increased, and violent crime decreased significantly.  This phenomenon was clear by 2000. This created a problem for those who wanted to disarm society.

There was, and is, no obvious causal link between violent crime and gun ownership.

Those who wanted to disarm the public changed the publicly stated purpose of what they wanted to do. First, it was to reduce violent crime, which is overwhelmingly committed with handguns. It was changed from reducing violent crime to reducing the Orwellian term “gun violence”. Gun violence was defined to include suicides as well as all homicides with guns and the tiny number of fatal gun accidents. The per capita rate of gun ownership was increasing.

Suicide rates were rising, even as the percentage of suicides with guns was falling.

The new term allowed those who wanted the population disarmed to say “gun violence” is increasing.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics had a similar term, firearms violence. Firearms violence statistics never included suicides, for good reason. The causes and dynamics of violent crime and suicide are very different.  The Bureau of Justice Statistics was still using “firearms violence” in 2018.

There is a problem with Orwellian terms. They contradict reality. Legal changes in firearms status has no significant effect on homicides or suicides.

“Gun violence” is a term used to channel concern with criminal violence and suicides into a policy discussion on how to restrict gun ownership and gun use.

What can be done? Do not use the term “gun violence”. Substitute the term “criminal violence”.

When the term “gun violence” is used, point out the Orwellian purpose. Explain the term “gun violence” limits what is allowed in a debate. If you think “Orwellian” is too strong a term, say it is a loaded term. Point out terms such as these are used to shape public opinion. Their purpose is to reduce what thoughts are allowed.

Gun laws do not reduce homicides or suicides. Those bent on homicide or suicide substitute other methods. The purpose of the term “gun violence” is to channel thought toward restricting gun ownership and use.

Guns have been useful for 500 years. They continue to be useful. Safety from accidents is not the same as safety from attack. Fatal gun accidents are rare.  Fatal attacks are much more common.

Those who want to disarm you do not have your best interests in mind.

---

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/rSbqXeY
via IFTTT

Federal Judge Blocks New York’s Default Private Property Handgun Carry Ban

Federal Judge Blocks New York’s Default Private Property Handgun Carry Ban, iStock-697763642

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that United States District Judge John Sinatra, Jr. has issued a preliminary injunction against New York’s law banning guns on all private property without express consent. The order in Christian v. Nigrelli can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“These are places that people, exercising their rights, frequent every day when they move around outside their homes,” wrote Judge Sinatra in his opinion. “The exclusion here makes all of these places presumptively off limits, backed up by the threat of prison. The Nation’s historical traditions have not countenanced such an incursion into the right to keep and bear arms across all varieties of private property spread across the land. The right to self-defense is no less important and no less recognized on private property.”

In addition, Judge Sinatra added that “[n]othing in this decision purports to impact the traditional property right to exclude others, so long as the property owner (not the State) is the one actually exercising that right.”

“We are thrilled that the court has once again reminded New York lawmakers that they are not immune from the demands of the constitution,” said Bill Sack, FPC’s Director of Legal Operations. “The fight continues to rein in a New York political machine sent recklessly flailing in the aftermath of the Bruen decision.”

In addition to issuing the preliminary injunction, Judge Sinatra also requested supplemental briefing regarding the two other carry bans challenged in the lawsuit (public parks and public transportation), which is due on December 2nd.

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation.

Individuals who would like to Join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

---

About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutionally protected rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. FPC’s efforts are focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and adjacent issues including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC team are next-generation advocates working to achieve the Organization’s strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs.

FPC Law (FPCLaw.org) is the nation’s first and largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the leader in the Second Amendment litigation and research space.

from https://ift.tt/vmq1oH5
via IFTTT

Oregon Gun Rights Fight Heads to Court Dec. 2

The first court hearing in the first of what could be multiple federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Oregon’s Measure 114 is scheduled this Friday, Dec. 2 in Portland. iStock-884203732

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Oral arguments in the first of what is expected to be several lawsuits challenging Oregon’s restrictive gun control Measure 114 are scheduled this Friday, Dec. 2 in U.S. District Court in Portland before District Judge Karin J. Immergut, according to Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB).

In reaction, the Oregon Firearms Federation is predicting “a long battle ahead” with the first hurdle being able to secure an injunction to prevent the measure from taking effect Dec. 8.

“While this greatly reduces the time our legal team has for preparation,” OFF said on its website, “we are hoping it means the court has recognized the need to act quickly. But only time will tell.”

Other legal actions are reportedly waiting to be filed. The Second Amendment Foundation also plans to sue in federal court, Public Broadcasting said. SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb told OPB, “(The) Net effect is they’re going to shut down all gun stores and basically no one is going to be able to buy a firearm, which is totally in violation of Second Amendment rights,” if Measure 114 takes effect as scheduled.

Also, the National Shooting Sports Foundation announced last week it also plans to challenge the Oregon measure.

By no small coincidence, a Kentucky congressman made an observation during Sunday’s “Meet the Press” program on NBC that essentially describes the reality and false expectations of the gun control movement, which too many Beaver State voters do not apparently understand.

Speaking to host Chuck Todd, Republican Rep. James Comer observed, “Well Chuck, you talk about this a lot on Meet the Press, but when you look at cities that have the most strict gun laws, like Washington DC, Chicago, these are the cities with the highest rates of crimes committed with guns. So you know, just simply passing more bills isn’t going to solve the problem.”

Under Oregon’s initiative, prospective gun buyers would first have to take a safety course—including a live fire exercise—from a law enforcement agency, then get a permit to purchase and only then be allowed to buy a firearm. The measure also bans so-called “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than ten cartridges, but it allows current owners of such magazines to keep them.

OFF said the measure will “crush small businesses across the state and send a message to the most vulnerable Oregonians that their safety and privacy are meaningless.”

Sponsors of the measure apparently believe it will make things safer, but according to the Twitter account “Portland Homicides,” the Rose City had already suffered 87 murders as of Nov. 24. But according to the Portland Oregonian, the situation is even worse, with 93 slayings so far.

2022 YTD Total: 87
2022 Fatal Police Shootings: 5
2021 Total: 88
2021 Fatal Police Shootings: 4
10 Year Average: 33.4
Record High: 88 in 2021

— Portland Homicide (@pdxhomicide) November 24, 2022

In a new development, Leupold has officially denounced Measure 114. See the related story.

While Oregon’s gun rights battle is quickly heating up, on the other side of the Columbia River in neighboring Washington, the issue of violent crime is also on the front burner, thanks to a post on Twitter from Washington State Homicide (a non-law enforcement entity) which includes a state map purporting to show the number of homicides committed so far this year. The county-by-county breakdown shows the most murders so far have occurred in King County (108), followed by neighboring Pierce (70) and Yakima (34), the latter being in Eastern Washington. Snohomish County apparently has logged 30 slayings, according to the map, and Spokane County has posted 21. There is no small irony in the fact that King County is the home of the billionaire-backed Alliance for Gun Responsibility, the Northwest’s leading gun prohibition group.

BY THE NUMBERS: Here is a look at homicide totals in every Washington State county as of today. The counties with no numbers have zero. #homicides #wastatehomicide #killings #murder #murdermap pic.twitter.com/V8GuzBbA3N

— Washington State Homicide (@WAStateHomicide) November 27, 2022

Ammoland reached out to the WAStateHomicide Twitter account for further details, but there was no timely response.

However, Republican State Rep. Jim Walsh from Washington’s 19^th District posted this observation on Facebook: “The current Governor’s soft-on-crime policies aren’t just driving up property crimes. They’re also driving up violent crimes. Specifically, homicides.”

The homicide statistics may have some validity since another Twitter account—Seattle Homicides—is reporting 54 slayings so far this year in just the Jet City. With just over a month remaining, the body count is likely to go up, even with the onset of the holiday season.

Public concern in King County has intensified since the shooting death of a man in the Southcenter Westfield Mall parking garage Nov. 18. The victim, Chris Wesolowicz was killed and his wife, Mary was wounded when they apparently interrupted a car prowler or thief.

Over the past several years, gun control politics has gained a foothold in the Pacific Northwest, with Portland and Seattle serving as hubs of anti-gun activism. However, thanks to this year’s key Supreme Court ruling in the Bruen case, federal courts are now giving far less leeway to gun control laws than in the past.

---

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/NP4OvRB
via IFTTT

Restraining Order Ban on Second Amendment, Decision Appealed to Fifth Circuit

Restraining Order Ban on Second Amendment, Decision Appealed to Fifth Circuit

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- On November 15, 2022, the United States Attorney in the Western District of Texas, Ashley C. Hoff, filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States District Court fro the Western District of Texas, Pecos Division in the case of USA v. Perez-Gallan.

Previously, on November 10, 2022, Judge David Counts had issued a Memorandum Opinion dismissing the indictment to Litsson Antonio Perez-Gallan as invalid because it was unconstitutional under the United States Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSR&PA) v. Bruen decision, which restored the Second Amendment as a full-fledged member of the Bill of Rights, not a second class right.

Judge Counts found the part of the controversial  Lautenberg Amendment, passed in 1996, which prohibits a person who is under a restraining order for domestic violence from possessing a firearm or ammunition, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8), to be unconstitutional.

The wording of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8) is this:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-

(8) who is subject to a court order that-

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; 

(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and 

(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury;

Not only did Judge Counts find 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8) to be unconstitutional, but he ordered Litsson Antonio Perez-Gallan to be released from confinement on November 15, 2022.  To the credit of the United States Attorney, they did not oppose the motion to release Perez-Gallan, because there were no longer any indictments against him.

The United States Attorney then appealed the case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. From the Notice of Appeal:

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731, the United States of America hereby gives notice that it appeals the district court’s November 10, 2022, Order granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment (Doc. No. 55) to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Respectfully submitted, ASHLEY C. HOFF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

Opinion:

The Biden Administration has been put in a bit of a quandary by the Constitution and Judge Counts.

The guidance on how to restore the protections of the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, written by Judge Clarence Thomas, in the Bruen decision, is clear.

If there is no historical record of widespread and sustained, culturally accepted, restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, primarily from the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791, and to a lesser extent, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, infringements on the right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional.

A ban on the right to possess firearms and ammunition is a direct infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There is no historical record of destroying the exercise of this right because of a mere restraining order, before any conviction.

If the Biden Administration chose not to appeal this decision to the Fifth Circuit, cases such as those of Litsson Antonio Perez-Gallan would be seen as losers.

There has been considerable pressure in the dominant leftist media to label the decision to restore fundamental constitutional rights as somehow being anti-woman. The dominant media has framed the narrative as an issue of the safety of domestic abuse victims.  From UPI:

The effort in Texas to expand protections for domestic abuse victims from gun violence has long faced obstacles. A small number of communities in the state have established programs to transfer firearms from people under a protective order to law enforcement, but these resource-intensive programs depend on federal and state laws that ban these individuals from possessing guns.

Note the use of the Orwellian term “gun violence” and the assumption that people under protective orders are domestic abusers. Such restraining orders are routinely abused by divorce lawyers to place pressure on opponents.

The Biden administration is under pressure from the dominant leftist media to “do something” about the decision.

Appealing the decision makes it likely the Fifth Circuit will uphold the decision of the lower court.

Then the Biden Administration would be pressured to appeal it to the Supreme Court, where they would likely lose again.

The Fifth Circuit, in 2020, upheld the § 922(g)(8) prohibition, but only under the now discredited “two-step” process and under discredited “intermediate scrutiny”.

The advantage of the appeal for the Biden Administration is it kicks the can down the road. The Biden administration may well be out of office before this case is decided at the Fifth Circuit, and very likely will be out of office by the time the case goes to the Supreme Court if it does.

This is a very simple case. It is a good test of the will of the Courts to restore Second Amendment rights under the Bruen decision.

---

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/k6njQ4o
via IFTTT

FPC Files Brief in Lawsuit Challenges Georgia’s Ban on Handgun Carry by Young Adults

Georgia House Passes Constitutional Carry, Governor Kemp Approves

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an opening brief with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Baughcum v. Jackson, which challenges Georgia’s ban on the right to bear arms as to young adults. The brief can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Georgia has singled out 18-to-20-year-olds for differential treatment from other adults, seemingly out of a concern that they are too young to be trusted with the right to carry a firearm,” argues the brief. “Yet the Founders knew all about 18-to-20-year-olds; they required them to possess firearms in good working order and to know how to use them so that they could be ready to serve as members of the militia if the need arose. They never enacted a single ‘distinctly similar’ ban on carriage by them.”

“Despite the Supreme Court’s insistence that the right to bear arms outside the home is fundamental, Georgia continues to insist that fundamental rights don’t apply to all legal adults,” said Bill Sack, FPC Director of Legal Operations. “This case, and others like it in FPC’s national litigation strategy, are about undoing the immoral and unlawful double standards states like Georgia have undertaken. Individuals with all of the responsibilities of adulthood are also afforded all of the fundamental rights. There is no titration of rights based on arbitrary ages made up by state lawmakers.”

In addition to Baughcum, other FPC cases seeking to restore young adults’ right to keep and bear arms include Lara v. Evanchick (vs. Pennsylvania, in the 3rd Circuit), Andrews v. McCraw (vs. Texas, in the 5th Circuit), Reese v. ATF (vs. the federal government, in the 5th Circuit), Beeler v. Long (vs. Tennessee, in the 6th Circuit), Meyer v. Raoul (vs. Illinois, in the 7th Circuit), Worth v. Harrington (vs. Minnesota, in the 8th Circuit), and Jones v. Bonta (vs. California, in the 9th Circuit).

Individuals who would like to Join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

---

About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutional rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. FPC’s efforts are focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and adjacent issues including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC team are next-generation advocates working to achieve the Organization’s strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs.

FPC Law (FPCLaw.org) is the nation’s first and largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the leader in the Second Amendment litigation and research space.

from https://ift.tt/6v0TbIk
via IFTTT

Leupold Denounces Oregon Ballot Measure 114

Leupold Logo Scope IMG Jim Grant

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Leupold & Stevens, Inc., provider of the world’s most rugged, lightweight, and clear sport optics, denounces recently passed Oregon Ballot Measure 114 and has announced full support for the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s (NSSF) upcoming legal challenge to the misguided measure.

Ballot Measure 114, which narrowly passed a general vote on Nov. 8, 2022, is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that will amend state statute. It mandates that a non-existent permit-for-purchase system be put in place in Oregon for every firearm sale. The permit system will require an application, photographs, fingerprints, FBI background check and a new undefined mandatory state firearms class. Measure 114 also requires a ban on magazines or firearms holding more than 10 rounds, which will include many hunting rifles and shotguns.

“Oregon leaders have failed to explain how Measure 114 will be implemented and what exactly passage means for law-abiding firearm retailers, ranges and manufacturers,” the NSSF said in an official announcement, “Your trade association will not abandon the fight now and has filed a lawsuit to invalidate this egregious Ballot Measure. We’re also evaluating legislative options to implore the Oregon Legislature to delay implementation of the law until it is rightfully struck down as unconstitutional by the courts.”

The ballot measure will go into effect at 12 a.m. on Dec. 8, 2022. With no framework or plans for implementation in place, the legal sale of firearms in Oregon will indefinitely cease at that time.

“Ballot Measure 114 is misguided and must be defeated,” said Larry Keane, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for the NSSF. “We have opposed it since its inception and will continue to fight it in the courts. We’re grateful to our partners at Leupold for both their leadership in the firearms industry and their relentless support in fighting Measure 114.”

Prior to election day, the NSSF helped to organize the primary opposition to the ballot measure through the creation of “Sportsmen Opposed to Gun Violence: Vote No on 114,” of which Leupold was a significant contributing member, and raised more than $100,000. The group’s new legal challenge hopes to delay implementation of Ballot Measure 114 until it can be defeated through the legal system.

“As the NSSF and others have shown, Ballot Measure 114 does nothing to curb violence and instead simply threatens the rights of law-abiding gun owners and hunters throughout Oregon,” said Bruce Pettet, President and Chief Executive Officer for Leupold & Stevens, Inc. “It is universally opposed by law enforcement agencies and conservation groups alike and is a violation of the Second Amendment rights that all hunters and gun owners hold dear. We stand with the NSSF and are ready to do everything we can to support the cause.”

For more information on Leupold products, please visit us at Leupold.com.

Join the discussion on Facebook at Facebook.com/LeupoldOptics, on Twitter at Twitter.com/LeupoldOptics, or on Instagram at Instagram.com/LeupoldOptics.
Founded in Oregon more than a century ago, Leupold & Stevens, Inc. is a fifth-generation, family-owned company that designs, machines, and assembles its riflescopes, mounting systems, tactical/Gold Ring spotting scopes, and performance eyewear in the USA. The product lines include rifle, handgun, and spotting scopes; binoculars; rangefinders; mounting systems; and optical tools, accessories, and pro gear.

---

About Leupold & Stevens, Inc.

Founded in Oregon more than a century ago, Leupold & Stevens, Inc. is a fifth-generation, family-owned company that designs, machines, and assembles its riflescopes, mounting systems, tactical/Gold Ring spotting scopes, and performance eyewear in the USA. The product lines include rifle, handgun, and spotting scopes; binoculars; rangefinders; mounting systems; and optical tools, accessories, and pro gear.

from https://ift.tt/eM1XHQP
via IFTTT

Support for Jeffries Signals Hard Left by Democrats after Midterms

Expect to see hostility to the right to keep and bear arms at the forefront of a Jeffries agenda. (C-SPAN/YouTube)

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “House Democrats quickly coalesced behind Brooklyn native Hakeem Jeffries as their next leader to succeed Speaker Nancy Pelosi,” Bloomberg News reports. It’s not a done deal as this is being written, but the ambitious congressman has thrown his hat in the ring and prominent names, including among the old guard, are looking for new blood for obvious reasons.

“He’s demonstrated the ability to listen, to lead, and to do so with effectiveness and empathy,” said Minnesota Representative Dean Phillips, who has [been] among the Democrats pushing for a new generation of leaders that better reflects the party’s young and diverse voting base.

That would be the “AOC” wing of the party, the in-your-face socialists who make no pretenses of embracing anything remotely traditionally American in values. And Jeffries fits the bill, particularly when it comes to citizen disarmament.

First and foremost, he’s featured by Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown as a “Gun Sense Voter” candidate, meaning he’s their guy for advancing their agenda. You’d think a Bloomberg News story would mention the connection, but then again, we’re talking about an endeavor that exists to do the billionaire’s will – kind of like that other “Bloomberg-seeded” project, The Trace, that represents itself as being about “investigative journalism” and independent of being influenced by his largesse. Honest. (What was it Hamlet’s mother said again…?)

To help achieve those citizen disarmament goals, Jeffries revealed something gun owners should find interesting.

“Democratic House Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries defended his party’s push for a universal background check bill Wednesday, claiming that any enforcement of the legislation — including federal firearm registration — will be left to the Department of Justice to decide,” the Daily Caller reported back in 2019.

That, of course, is consistent with the National Institute of Justice’s 2013 “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies,” which admitted:

“Universal background checks … Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration …”

And what is it that registration historically leads to? How else would Beto be able to carry out his “Hell yes” threat?

It’s also interesting that Jeffries had a “Freudian slip” of sorts, where he said the “Democrats’ federal elections takeover bill is ‘inspired by Hugo Chavez…Cesar Chavez.’” Considering that Jeffries “was appointed as the whip of the Congressional Black Caucus,” it’s hardly surprising that a Marxist tyrant would come to mind first.

Why?

“An overwhelming number of members of the Congressional Black Caucus are also members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus,” Project 21, the National Center for Public Policy Research’s “national leadership network of black conservatives” reported in 2013. “This organization has deep leftist ties and shares a similar agenda to the Communist Party of the United States of America.  Communism is a tool used by radicals to impose socialist dictatorship.”

And consistent with the unspoken Democrat mantra of “Do as we say, not what we do,” per Legal Insurrection, Jeffries was “an election denier in 2016 and 2018. He also thinks Trump tried to steal the 2020 election.”  It’s curious how when Republicans raise questions about the Biden/Trump race, their concerns are dismissed as “baseless” and those raising them are smeared as threats to “our democracy” (and worse). Jeffries himself uses the (Nazi) term “big lie.”

With a radical like Jeffries on track to be the House Democratic Leader, look for even more outrageous efforts to subvert the right to keep and bear arms than even Nancy Pelosi (who at times tried to keep a lid on the next generation), was able to propose. Fortunately, a narrow Republican majority in the House means the GOP has a chance to block them, but only with a strong, i.e., non-“clown” leadership, which does not appear to be a foregone conclusion at this writing.

Unfortunately, as we’ve seen all too often, defecting “Vichycons” siding with Democrats on key issues have the maddening habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Gun owners are in for an interesting two years.

---

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

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

Is Biden Going Full Beto-Swalwell on Gun Control?

Take Action Time to Act

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Elections have consequences. Our failures have consequences. One consequence is that when you don’t make those who want to take your rights pay, they will feel emboldened to go further.

Take Joe Biden’s recent comments on semi-automatics. He seems to be revealing that deep down inside, he wants to go full Beto O’Rourke/Eric Swalwell with an Australian-style gun ban – or at least an Australia-lite ban.

We’ve discussed the inherent injustice just from a ban on modern multi-purpose semi-automatic rifles before. Biden wants to punish millions, possibly tens of millions of Americans for crimes and acts of madness they did not commit. Worse, this supposed unifier is all too happy to smear those who oppose the injustice of stripping rights away from people who have done nothing wrong.

When we are exercising our First Amendment rights to protect the Second Amendment, whether it’s donating to a pro-Second Amendment organization/candidate, speaking out online/at a meeting, writing to lawmakers/media outlets, or holding a peaceful event to protest/support legislation, we are not in the wrong. We have every right to oppose efforts to inflict injustice on us.

That injustice is heightened if we extend the “assault weapons” push to all semi-automatics, as Biden seems to be speaking (or misspeaking), which are increasingly popular in a variety of shooting sports and for personal protection. In 2014, it was estimated that there were over 300 million firearms in private ownership in the United States, and an increasing percentage of these are semi-automatics, whether it’s a Glock for concealed carry, a Browning Auto-5 for hunting, or an AR-15 for home defense.

Second Amendment supporters, though, will have a tall task ahead. The lessons of 2018, 2020, 2021, and 2022 elections need to be learned and applied. In addition, we will see Biden turn more towards the infamous “pen and phone” approach Obama used, as seen by his reported pick for the FDIC, who was involved with Operation Chokepoint.

Anti-Second Amendment extremists like Biden are getting more brazen and more innovative. They are looking to bypass the Supreme Court’s rulings in Heller, McDonald and NYSRPA v. Bruen by having banks and other financial institutions choke off gun ownership – and it will not stop with modern multi-purpose semiautomatic long guns.

This makes it imperative that in upcoming state legislative sessions, Second Amendment supporters need to be focused on addressing financial deplatforming and preserving our ability to make our case to the American people. Once those are secure, Second Amendment supporters will be able to do the work to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists via the ballot box at the federal, state, and local levels.

---

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.

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

Toxic Masculinity on Display in Colorado ~ VIDEO

Opinion

Tombstone, Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)- A popular Colorado Springs nightclub was the scene of another arrogant display of toxic masculinity this week, as a cisgender, straight, male Army veteran tackled, disarmed, and pistol-whipped a non-binary person half his age. When police arrived, they didn’t shoot the man, who was covered in blood, holding a gun, and sitting on the chest of his victim, instead, they tackled him, put him in handcuffs, and sequestered him in the back of a patrol car for over an hour as they sorted out the situation.

Then they just let him go!

Of course, the man I’m talking about is Richard Fierro who saved countless lives when he ran toward the gunfire and stopped a deranged attacker who had entered the club with a rifle and handgun, firing wildly, killing 5 and wounding some 19 others. Fierro is a former Army officer who served multiple tours in Afghanistan before leaving the service as a Major. He and his wife were enjoying a night out with their adult daughter and her boyfriend at the club, where a high-school friend of his daughter was performing in a drag show.

Even though there was no evidence to support it, the initial narrative being pushed by the legacy media and Democratic politicians who held that the attacker was a homophobic, transphobic, right-wing, ultra-MAGA Trump supporter, following through on all of the “hateful” rhetoric that they claim conservatives have been “spewing” about trans people and the LGBTQI+ community.

That narrative lasted for a couple of days until the alleged murderer’s lawyer announced that his client identifies as non-binary, with the pronouns “they, them” and the formal prefix of Mx., rather than Mr. or Ms. So the narrative quickly swung to the idea that the deeply disturbed assailant was bullied for their non-binary status, and was driven to shoot-up the nightclub by the relentless attacks on the LGBTQI+ community by heartless Republicans and right-wing fanatics, otherwise known as average Americans.

There’s also been a whole lot of talk on leftist and Democratic media and blogs, denouncing the “right” for disparaging and failing to embrace Richard Fierro as a hero. They claim that “right-wingers” are ignoring Fierro’s heroic actions because they disapprove of Fierro being in the club in the first place. The only supporting evidence I’ve seen offered for this bizarre claim, was one, an out-of-context tweet from a conservative asking why Fierro was at a drag show with his family, and a whole lot of tweets and comments from deranged wokesters asking suggestive questions about how the “right-wingers” feel about Fierro’s presence in the club, and their imagined disappointment that Fierro didn’t have a gun. Meanwhile, I’ve seen nothing but praise for Fierro and his actions from conservative media commentators and the conservative side of social media. The only “off-color” comments I’ve seen suggested that it was a lucky thing there happened to be a “real man” in the club that night.

The atrocity was immediately politicized, and the political polarization has continued unabated, with the two main points being to lay blame at the feet of Republicans and conservatives, and calls for swift action to enact stricter gun control laws.

What’s been thoroughly neglected by the mass media, is the fact that the murderer was a deeply disturbed young man from a deeply troubled and dysfunctional family. The same media that reported that he’d been involved in a standoff with police over threats to blow up his mother has lamented the fact that he was able to acquire the guns he used while skipping over the fact that he passed background checks to get those guns. Had he been tried and convicted of the felony charges that seemed to disappear, or if he had been involuntarily committed to mental treatment – and if those convictions/commitments had been reported to the National Instant Check System, he would have been flagged as a Prohibited Person. The media question why Colorado’s “red flag” law wasn’t employed to take the guns away from him, but fails to mention that “red flag” laws only take away guns and ammunition, with no provision for any sort of assistance with mental health treatment.

This young man needed help but didn’t get it. He clearly had been struggling to find his place in the world, but rather than find ways to get help to people like him, woke media and politicians prefer to criticize people like me for calling him a young man and referring to him as “him,” which they say is “hate speech” on my part.

That’s just the sort of idiotic intersectional BS that prevents real solutions from being found and implemented. We’ve had enough of the blame games and distractions. The problem isn’t guns, nor is it conservatives’ refusal to celebrate people’s sexual deviance from the typical (i.e., norm), and feed their delusions with made-up pronouns. The problem is society’s failure to provide the type of assistance that’s really needed, and one group’s constant insistence that political disagreements are tantamount to violence, which somehow excuses violence in response.

Richard Fierro is Unequivocally a Hero!

Everything we’ve learned about him indicates that he is an all-around great guy who cares about his family and his community and doesn’t draw BS lines and distinctions based on people’s political views or sexual preferences. When gunfire erupted, he hit the floor, then ran toward the threat and neutralized it. He has been incredibly humble about his actions and has continued to be strong and supportive in the face of significant personal loss, including injuries to his wife and daughter, and the murder of his daughter’s long-time boyfriend, a young man who had been a part of their family since middle school.

I don’t know or care what Richard Fierro’s political views might be. He could come out tomorrow with a statement calling for a ban on “assault weapons,” and I would still hail him as a hero, and relish the opportunity to buy the man a beer – or maybe buy a beer from him, as his family owns a brewpub in Colorado Springs. If you’d like to buy him a beer or show your support, as many in Colorado Springs, and from around the country are doing, you can visit their website at Atrevida Beer Company.

I have no doubt that Mr. Fierro and his family will appreciate and share your support with the same humility and grace they have demonstrated throughout this tragedy.

---

About Jeff Knox:

Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.

The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona, and Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

from https://ift.tt/YJyHjP0
via IFTTT

Biden Promises Lame-Duck Session Gun Ban Campaign

Joe Biden told reporters he will use the lame-duck Congressional session to push for a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” since such a move will be DOA after Republicans take control of the U.S. House in January. (Screen snip, YouTube, CNN)

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- President Joe Biden is not backing away from his crusade to ban so-called “assault weapons” and told reporters during a Thanksgiving Day presser he will push the issue during Congress’ “lame duck” session between now and January, when Republicans take control of the U.S. House, according to Fox News.

Biden and his family were in Nantucket for Turkey Day. As reported by CBS News, Biden brought up both the Virginia Walmart shooting and the Club Q attack in Colorado as reasons to ban semi-auto rifles, although the Virginia killer—identified as a store employee—committed his attack with a pistol, according to Fox News.

A perennial anti-gunner since first coming to Washington, D.C. a half-century ago, Biden was quoted stating, “The idea we still allow semi-automatic weapons to be purchased is sick. It’s just sick. It has no, no social redeeming value. Zero. None. Not a single, solitary rationale for it except profit for the gun manufacturers.”

Biden famously was quoted during a July 2021 Townhall telecast stating he wants to ban not only semi-auto rifles, but 9mm pistols. The video snip of his remark has become the cornerstone of advertising by the Second Amendment Foundation.

A report in The Hill acknowledged it will be tough for Biden to pass any gun control package after Republicans take over in the House in January.

Apparently lost on Democrats is the fact that more talk about gun control and gun bans has invariably been followed by increased gun sales. Add to that the growing number of private citizens who are carrying defensive sidearms for their personal safety and it may translate to any gun control legislation being dead on arrival on Capitol Hill, even during the current “lame duck” session.

The Guardian on Friday reminded readers of a recent report that an estimated 6 million Americans were carrying guns daily back in 2019. Now, three years later, as reported recently by Ammoland, the number is much higher. This year, more than 22 million Americans are licensed to carry across the states, and thanks to “Constitutional Carry” laws adopted in 25 states, it is likely more citizens are carrying without permits.

Still, Biden and Democrats want to ban guns, perhaps as “trophy legislation,” according to many critics in the Second Amendment community.

Biden’s vow to “try to get rid of assault weapons” seems like a political bridge too far, however. It depends upon how far the House and Senate are willing to go while Democrats still run the show. Fox News reported, “At the moment, the odds appear long.”

That assessment might also apply to the Virginia Legislature, where Democrats in the House of Delegates are talking about more gun control legislation in January, according to WRIC News. Democrats announced Wednesday they will introduce bills to ban so-called ghost guns and add restrictions on magazine capacity. Their session begins Jan. 11, 2023.

At the same time, the restrictive gun control measure passed earlier this month in Oregon is already facing one federal lawsuit on constitutional grounds, and others are on the way. The measure will reportedly take effect early in December, and law enforcement agencies have indicated they will not be able to provide a training program required in the initiative in order for would-be gun buyers to get a permit just to allow them to purchase a firearm.

According to the Portland Oregonian and OregonLive, the number of people waiting for background checks in the Beaver State has doubled since passage of Measure 114. There is a backlog of applications, which will likely not be handled before the measure kicks in Dec. 8. Many in the firearms community—led by the Oregon Firearms Federation—are concerned small gun shops could face financial hardship due to the measure.

In the unlikely event Biden and Capitol Hill Democrats might push through gun ban legislation, it will almost certainly be met with multiple federal lawsuits from several groups. Such a ban could force federal courts to fast-track those legal actions.

At the state level, watch for anti-gunners to use the next few weeks to announced bills aimed at accomplishing what Democrats in Congress may be unable to. Gun rights activists in Washington state, for example, are bracing for a fight over semi-autos.

And there will be efforts to overturn state preemption laws, which prevent anti-gun municipal governments from enacting their own gun control ordinances.

This is a particularly prickly subject in Washington, where earlier this year, that state’s preemption statute was upheld unanimously by the liberal state Supreme Court to strike down a gun storage requirement in the City of Edmonds. A similar ordinance, adopted in Seattle, also is the subject of a lawsuit by SAF and the National Rifle Association, but the Edmonds ruling appears to have nullified that law as well. Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell has been on a crusade to repeal the state’s 35-year-old preemption statute since he took office in January.

RELATED:

• Millions Packing Iron, Adult Handgun Carry Doubled Between 2015-2019
• WA Firearms Preemption Win! ~ Lead Plaintiff Talks as Losers Double Down

---

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/OouItaF
via IFTTT

NY: Ban on Carrying Firearms in Private Property Declared Unconstitutional

NY: Ban on Carrying Firearms in Private Property Declared Unconstitutional iStock-1055138108

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- On September 13, 2022, Brett Christian, the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, and others filed suit against the “emergency” measure pushed through the New York State legislature by Governor Hochul, in defiance of the long-awaited decision in NYSR&PA v Bruen.

The Bruen decision clarified the Heller and McDonald decisions, partially restoring the right to bear arms. The right has been incrementally infringed on for more than a hundred years, primarily under the “Progressive” political philosophy, along with its ideological brethren, the “Jim Crow” laws and Black Codes.

The Christian v. Nigrelli case, as it came to be known, pointed out the Hochel “emergency” statute violated the protections of the Second Amendment when it made all private property into “sensitive places” except where the property owners made an effort to extract themselves. From the complaint:

The [Supreme] Court also explained what courts and States could not do. In Bruen, New York attempted to characterize its pre-Bruen ban of public carry as merely a “sensitive place” restriction. Id. at 2133–34. There, the State attempted to define “sensitive places” as “all places where people typically congregate and where law-enforcement and other public-safety professionals are presumptively available.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court rejected New York’s capacious designation of sensitive places. “[E]xpanding the category of ‘sensitive places’ simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of ‘sensitive places’ far too broadly.” Id. (emphasis added). Under Bruen, the designation of “sensitive places” cannot be used to “in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment” or “eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense.” Id. at 2134. Instead, the only permissible “sensitive places” are those with a “historical basis.” Id.

On November 22, 2022, eleven weeks after the case was filed, Judge John L. Sinata, Jr. posted a decision and order on the request for a preliminary injunction.

The decision struck down the private property ban on carry.

Preliminary injunctions are granted when the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits, irreparable harm would result without the injunction, and the public interest would be served.

Any time interval of infringing on fundamental, Constitutionally enumerated rights is considered to be irreparable harm.

The decision and order found the ban on carrying on private property, without the express consent of the property owner, was unconstitutional. From the decision:

Another one of New York’s new restrictions imposed in the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision is the private property exclusion. That new provision makes it a felony for a license holder to possess a firearm on all private property, unless the relevant property holders actually permit such possession with a sign or by express consent. 

The Supreme Court’s cases addressing the individual’s right to keep and bear arms—from Heller and McDonald to its June 2022 decision in Bruen—dictate that New York’s private property exclusion is equally unconstitutional. Regulation in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the current enactment is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations.

Property owners indeed have the right to exclude. But the state may not unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense outside of their own homes. Thus, the motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants’ enforcement of this private property exclusion is granted.

Judge Sinatra refused to grant a three-day stay on the decision, pending appeal.

The State of New York, in the person of the controversial Attorney General, Letitia James, is appealing the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Other courts in New York have been striking down the numerous unconstitutional infringements put forward by Governor Hochul’s “emergency” legislation.

The question appears to be: what will be left if anything after the courts are done striking down all the overreaching parts? We will not know, in detail, until an appeal reaches the Supreme Court is decided, and published.

Opinion:

Early indications are not much of substance will be left of Hochul’s Folly, if anything. Control of the House of Representatives has shifted to the Republicans in the mid-term elections.

It appears, for two years, the Democratic party’s scheme to pack the Supreme Court with Progressive (Leftist) justices will be thwarted. The Supreme Court, in Bruen, has rendered a clear decision and guidance on how courts are to restore Second Amendment rights. Those rights have been incrementally infringed on for over a hundred years. Several lower courts have shown a willingness to uphold the guidance of the Supreme Court in Bruen.

---

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/fnEX0Gx
via IFTTT