Judge Rules Second Amendment Rights May Not be Removed for All Violent Felonies, iStock-602335156
U.S.A. — On June 28, 2023, Judge Carlton W. Reeves, District Judge in the Southern District of Mississippi and Chair of the United States Sentencing Commission, issued an order dismissing the case against Jessie Bullock for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. Mr. Bullock was convicted of aggravated assault and manslaughter in 1992. He served about 15 years in prison. In 2015 Mr. Bullock was convicted of fleeing law enforcement and attempted aggravated assault of a police officer. He served five years of probation. Bullock was charged with knowingly possessing a firearm in May of 2018, although for various reasons, the charge was not arraigned until October 2019. In June of 2022, the Supreme Court issued the Bruen decision, upholding its rulings in Heller, McDonald, and Caetano. Mr. Bullock argued the Bruen decision rendered the ban on felons in possession invalid in his case.
Judge Reeves spends pages showing how and why he disagrees with the Supreme Court. He presents several straw man arguments. Many courts have upheld the federal ban on the possession of firearms by felons in the last 85 years. The Supreme Court used historical records to determine what the Second Amendment means, not the desire of legislatures or of judges. Judge Reeves does not like this approach, but he recognized it as required by the Supreme Court. Judge Reeves suggested he appoint a historian to research the historical record.
Both parties in the case refused the suggestion. In Bruen, the burden is clear. Because of the text and history of the Second Amendment, it is the burden of the government to show a particular restriction on the rights protected by the Second Amendment was accepted and widely practiced at the time the Second Amendment was ratified.
Judge Reeves gives brief summaries of the opinions in the Miller case (1939), Heller, McDonald, and Bruen. He does some serious reasoning in determining felons are part of the people of the United States, as mentioned in the Bill of Rights. From order by Judge Reeves:
This case asks the same question. If America’s historical tradition permitted a felon to repurchase firearms after completing their sentence, why can’t Mr. Bullock today?
Judge Reeves waxes on about problems with the use of history to determine what is or is not a felony at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. He takes considerable space to claim it is very difficult to determine anything with clarity from the historical record. Then he delves into the specifics of Mr. Bullock’s case.
He categorically states the action of Mr. Bullock (possessing a firearm in his home) is covered by the Second Amendment. Then he considers the problems of prohibiting felons from exercising rights protected by the Second Amendment. From the order:
Second, as Range explained, the phrase “law-abiding, responsible citizens” is “hopelessly vague. 69 F.4th at 102. It cannot “mean that every American who gets a traffic ticket” loses her Second Amendment rights.”31 Id. But limiting it to quote “real crimes” like felonies also misses the mark, because some modern felonies “seem minor” and “some misdemeanors seem serious.” Id. The modifier “responsible,” meanwhile, is impossible to apply. “In our Republic of over 330 million people, Americans have widely divergent ideas about what is required for one to be considered a ‘responsible’ citizen. Id.
Judge Reeves finds the government does not meet its burden of showing a well-established tradition of laws near the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
Judge Reeves finds, in this particular case, the government has not met its burden and dismisses the case of felon in possession as applied to Mr. Bullock.
Judge Reeves goes on to throw doubt on the usefulness of originalism as a way to interpret the Constitution. He waxes eloquent in various versions of the “that was then, this is now argument.” His arguments essentially claim things have changed, so judges should be able to alter the Constitution to what they desire now. Times have changed. Morals have changed. People have changed. From the next to last paragraph in the order:
Change is unstoppable. And to the extent Bruen and decisions like it try to stop that change, they will not last long. The only question is how long the People will let them remain.
This is pure Progressive ideology. Woodrow Wilson might have written it. Judge Reeves refuses to admit words have consistent meanings. He refuses to admit to such a thing as human nature. Most of the examples he cites as different interpretations of the Constitution over time were not thrust on the government by the people. They were thrust on the people by courts who wished to impose their own policy decisions without being elected.
Judge Reeves correctly applies the guidance put forward in the Bruen decision. The difficulty he appears to have in doing so is he does not like the Supreme Court decision and thinks he could do much better. He never considers the work of Judges to decide what the balance of interests are in a particular case is easily as difficult as the interpretations of historical attitudes about the Constitution. Moreover, to place such power in the hands of the judicial branch is far more than the Constitution allows.
Judge Reeves notes there are other rights protected in the Bill of Rights which have not been protected, as well as Second Amendment rights are with the Bruen decision. He mentions the right to a speedy trial and the right to Habeas Corpus. He includes the right to vote, although such is not in the Bill of Rights. All of the cases he mentions are relatively recent, which is to say, they are from courts dominated by Progressive ideology.
The case is one of several in the lower courts. The constitutionality of felon-in-possession laws will eventually be clarified at the Supreme Court level. Judge Reeve’s hostility to the Bruen decision lends credence to the theory he may be following the decision as far as he can, in an attempt to discredit it. This writer hopes such is not the case.
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.
Maine Dodges Bullet, Senate Votes Down Ban on Private Sales, iStock-884203988
U.S.A. — On January 13, 2023, LD 168 was introduced into the Maine Legislature by Speaker Talbot Ross of Portland, cosponsored by Representative Salisbury of Westbrook.
LD 168 was designed to eliminate most private sales of modern firearms by requiring the sale to be conducted through a federally licensed dealer and recorded in the dealer’s records. The bill specifically targeted gun shows, online distributors, or printed publications advertising firearms for sale. Law enforcement was exempted. The fine for the first offense was set at $1000. From LD 168:
2. Requirement. If neither the seller nor buyer of a firearm is a federally licensed firearms dealer, the transaction must be facilitated by such a dealer. The dealer shall perform a criminal background check using the Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Instant Criminal Background Check System of the buyer in the same manner as if the dealer were the seller of the firearm that is the subject of the transaction. If the criminal background check reveals that the buyer is prohibited from purchasing a firearm, the dealer shall notify the seller of that fact. The dealer may charge a reasonable fee for serving as the facilitator.
On June 26, the bill passed the Maine House of Representatives with a vote of 70 to 65, with 16 absent. Six Democrats voted against the bill, along with 59 Republicans. LD 168 was sent to the Maine Senate. On June 27, 2023, in the Maine State Senate, the bill was defeated 21 to 13, with one senator absent. Nine Democrats and twelve Republican senators voted to defeat the bill.
The purpose of moving legitimate sales of firearms into a system where the sales are approved by a government agency and recorded is an attempt to move to a universal system of firearms registration.
Such a system was gradually put into place in England and Wales and is in place in most of the world. Sales are not private sales if they must be approved by government agents and recorded in digital or paper records available to the government.
Universal registration systems have not been successful in reducing crime, either overall or with firearms, as first noted by Constable Colin Greenwood in his work at Cambridge University. The number of illegally owned firearms often increases after the requirement for registration is passed. While those pushing for restrictions on the ownership of firearms use the generic “guns are bad” argument, the underlying push, as found by Greenwood, Academic Joyce Lee Malcomb, and others, appears to be reducing the power of the population to oppose those holding the reins of power.
The requirement for universal registration of handguns, in place for over 60 years in Canada, did not solve one violent crime. The resources wasted in these efforts were immense. There is no question that if the resources (all resources are limited) were used for more police, far more crimes could have been solved or possibly prevented.
The claim of this sort of legislation is it will keep people who should not have guns from obtaining guns. The reality is the legislation does not do what is claimed. The seldom mentioned part is the cost of the legislation is real and harmful.
With the number of guns and gun owners in the United States of America rising steeply, the cost to politicians of such flagrantly failed schemes is also likely to rise.
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.
It’s not only the fastest-growing, it’s the safest. (Minnesota State High School Clay Target League/Facebook)
U.S.A. — “Minnesota helped launch a nationwide boom in youth trap shooting,” the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports. “And the NRA is funding.”
Adding that last bit was deliberate, as we shall see in a moment. In the meantime, we are told “USA Clay Target League is the largest youth clay-target shooting organization in the country, with more than 46,000 members in grades 6-12,” and “In just two decades, clay target has become one of the country’s fastest-growing high-school sports.”
“Students say they develop skills and friendships through the sport,” the report notes. “But they aren’t the only ones benefiting from the league’s explosive growth.”
Here it comes.
“Retailers sell more firearms and ammunition,” the report observes. “More controversially, the National Rifle Association stands to bolster its ranks with youth trap shooters by donating millions to the sport, unnerving advocates of gun-violence prevention.”
That’s followed by the ominous section heading: “Targeting youth.” That means it’s time to befoul the punch bowl, and who better to do it than a career prohibitionist?
“The NRA’s influence concerns Kris Brown, president of Brady, the national gun-violence prevention group. “I look at anything funded by the National Rifle Association with a jaundiced eye, because about 30 years ago they stopped talking publicly about any risks associated with firearms,” she said. “In this country, suicide with a firearm is at a 40-year high, and that is particularly true with teenagers.”
The article admits “USA Clay Target doesn’t promote Second Amendment rights,” and NRA’s role is strictly one of encouraging the sport. That’s too bad, really, and if the schools were doing their jobs, they’d be the ones educating tomorrow’s voters about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Likewise, if teen suicides were a problem amongst adolescent clay shooters, you can bet Brady would be first in line dancing in the blood and crowing over the numbers. That they don’t have any tragedies to gloat over shows it’s not, but Brown had to bring it up anyway just to play on ignorance in order to gin up fear.
Time for another section heading: “Inherent risks.”
The truth is that shooting sports don’t even make the list of the most dangerous or even common high school sports resulting in injuries.
“Clay Target League Remains Safest High School Sport,” the Minnesota State High School Clay Target League reports.
“According to the latest statistics from the Center for Injury Research & Policy, boys’ football tops the list of most dangerous high-school sports with over 3 million injuries estimated nationwide each year. Football is followed by both girls’ and boys’ soccer, with about an estimated million injuries for each,” the League notes. “What about injuries in Clay Target shooting? None. Since the High School Clay Target League’s inception in 2008, there have been no recorded injuries to athletes, coaches, or spectators. Ever.”
The other thing young people involved in shooting sports aren’t doing: Getting into running gun battles with gang rivals. Doing drive-bys. Knocking over bodegas or executing fast food workers.
In fact, no less a source than the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention had this to say about boys who lawfully own guns with the approval of responsible parents:
“Boys who own legal firearms, however, have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than nonowners of guns.”
There goes the narrative. It’s funny what raising kids right will produce.
But thanks to naked, ignorant prejudice, we read about one young competitor and learn, “His teammates say they feel some stigma (‘We’re kind of the oddballs,’ one says; ‘People are a little weirded out,’ another adds).
They can thank career prohibitionists like Kris Brown, opportunistic and treasonous politicians, and narrative-parroting media dolts for creating that impression. These young people should be proud of who they are, that is, real pride based on what’s relevant and worthy, character and achievement. Those who want them to think they’re the weird ones are projecting.
And speaking of weird, there’s one other “observation” in the story that merits a facepalm:
“Moving the sport into virtual reality would eliminate its equipment’s inherent risk.”
If it’s “safety” these people want, moving the useful idiots to North Korea where they could live in gun-free Nirvana and leave the rest of us the hell alone would seem the surer bet.
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.
On Tuesday, the Maine Senate held a floor vote on LD 168, legislation that would institute a Universal Background Check law in Maine. Thanks to the strong support of NRA members and Second Amendment supporters, the bill was defeated. NRA-ILA would like to thank all lawmakers who defended the Second Amendment for law-abiding citizens in the Pine Tree State.
LD 168 would have required background checks for all private sales of firearms, including those at gun shows or resulting from advertising, with very limited exceptions. It also would have required background checks on all private sales between two parties – including friends, neighbors, and co-workers, regardless of where the sale took place. All such transfers – even if the seller knew the recipient was not a prohibited person – would have to be conducted through a federal firearm licensed dealer (FFL), with extensive federal paperwork, payment of an undetermined fee, and approval from the U.S. government.
Again, thank you to NRA Members and Second Amendment supporters who contacted their lawmakers in strong opposition to this anti-gun bill.
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
Opinion by Gary Mauser, Alan J. Chwick, & Joanne D. Eisen
iStock-1050228748
Unless you are a gun owner who is hiding his uncle’s war souvenir in the back of your closet because you are afraid to touch it and get rid of it, virtually all gun owners have something in common.
Gun owners know that their guns are a benefit in their lives. But just how much benefit is there in a machine that can be lethal? We shall show how very beneficial firearms are to average civilians who possess them, and we will also explain that even folks who do not own firearms benefit from the possession and use of gun owner defenders.
To this end, we will use rational choice theory, but first, we must deal with the substantial reputational harm to guns and gun owners from the fake “scientific” papers that surround us every day. We have spent our lives reading through this fake science and have never seen a public health antigun research paper without serious methodological errors. This may seem to be a shocking statement.
Never… is not a word usually used by people who consider themselves to be scientifically honest. Yet, after careful deliberation, we make that statement. Apparently, anti-gun folks need to fabricate lies in order to push their agenda.
Those methodological errors, piled upon Americans one after another, can negatively change society’s attitude about guns. Public health relies on fake science to discredit the culture of civilian weapons ownership by pushing a one-sided monologue about guns and gun owners; no benefits of guns are permitted to be mentioned. Even though it is good manners for authors to present all sides, we are going to mostly avoid giving additional publicity to these pseudo-scientific papers.
It’s now well past time to explore the facts and change the global dialogue away from the negatives of guns in aggressive hands and onto the positives of guns in the hands of citizen defenders.
The Rationality Of Human Behavior
The rational economic way of looking at weapons possession is a good place to begin to acknowledge how beneficial firearms are to civilians. Rational Theory, or microeconomics, is usually used to explain criminal behavior and the effects of deterrence and punishment on criminal behavior.
Each of us rationally, consciously, or unconsciously calculates the advantages and disadvantages of various actions to get what we need and want. Each of our decisions affects the social fabric. Economists presume that we are mostly rational, so we expect that our actions will mostly bring positive outcomes. For example, many factors prevent most of us from acting in a violent criminal manner, even though we possess deadly weapons.
And one of those factors is that we fully understand our responsibility when we possess weapons.
Gary Becker, a leading economist from the University of Chicago, wrote Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach, which is the classic paper underlying the academic crime literature in economics. In that article, he acknowledges that rational theory does not assume ‘perfect knowledge’ by the individual or ‘lightning-fast calculation’ to make the correct decision.
Clearly, we should include love, loyalty, and other values in the list of factors required to best understand why people do what they do. Although one may define rational behavior to be based on reason and logic, as Becker says, human beings make decisions based on their values.
Becker also applied the rational theory of behavior to non-criminal aspects of life. In his A Treatise on the Family, Becker suggests that the economic approach is applicable to marriage and even to animals. For example, one can often observe dogs assume a submissive position in order to avoid a fight with a more dominant animal or obey his owner’s command in order to get a treat. Even dogs can make rational decisions.
Children demonstrate their innate rationality by learning how to assess their surroundings and the people around them for danger and for benefit. As any parent can attest, toddlers know how to exploit the people around them. One can see cartoon-watching toddlers who exhibit an inherent understanding of the usefulness of sticks and stones as tools and weapons. That young children quickly recognize that the proper use of tools can improve their chances for success explains why tool use was so important in the survival of our species.
Becker’s extension of rational theory from criminal behavior to other aspects of human behavior shows how to apply rational theory to understanding the utility of civilian weapons possession.
Many people intuitively understand the huge benefits of gun ownership, but they have difficulty justifying it because decades of propaganda have obscured the reasons behind that logic. We believe that this success of civilian arms expected and foretold by our Founding Fathers will become clearer from an examination of Becker’s economic point of view.
The Black Market & The Balance Of Power
How is it that firearms are so common and so numerous, given the costs involved in owning a firearm? Media bias against guns is pervasive. John Lott Jr. describes, “It is exceedingly rare to see an entertainment television show with a civilian successfully using a gun defensively. Something always seems to go wrong.” After breaking through the negativity of media bias, prospective gun owners need to be able to afford the cost of firearms and ammunition and then learn safe gun handling and storage before he or she commits enough time to practice. And all of this requires sufficient knowledge about local government restrictions.
Still, the benefits are worth the trouble. According to Gary Kleck, “the belief that guns provide effective self-protection for at least some people some of the time is nearly universal.” A recent Gallup Poll finds that 88% of gun owners keep their guns for protection. And a Pew Poll found that number was above 90%.
Are gun owners correct? In an equation that balances the costs and benefits of gun possession, the saving of life and limb weighs heavily on the benefit side. Fear of guns is a poor counterbalance. We understand the dangers. That’s exactly the point. That’s what explains the economic rationality of weapons possession and the existence of the black market in weapons.
If people believe that guns are effective protection, then some will consider it worth breaking the law to acquire one. The black market in firearms shows that laws designed to reduce the number of guns in society do not work as promised; how can criminals be ignored? As for disarming criminals, the late and prolific Don Kates wrote “The Hopelessness of Trying to Disarm the Kinds of People Who Murder” and stated very simply, “It is impossible (emphasis added).”
Those who strongly believe firearms are more beneficial than harmful might be more willing to break the law to acquire them, despite the legal consequences. For example, a mere 82 years after the passage of the Sullivan Law in New York State, the NYC Police Department estimated there were a shocking 2 million illegal weapons in a city of roughly 8 million people. How many of these were possessed by responsible homeowners who wanted to protect their families? Such a large number implies that violent criminals are not the only ones who possess these black-market weapons. Apparently, anyone who wanted a gun managed to get one. Bodega owners wouldn’t remain in business very long without the local street thugs knowing that owners had a gun.
Are the people correct?
People naturally understand the benefits of using weapons for the deterrent effects and to maximize their power. These benefits are so obvious that the decision to keep weapons remains easy to make, despite the constant anti-gun messaging, laws, and punishments for illegal gun possession. Yes, there are costs, but one does not make a decision based only on costs. For example, fatal accidents occur but are rare and are “largely confined to a small, unusually reckless segment of the population.”
Indeed, it’s virtually impossible to find a restrictive gun law that works. But what would happen if we could ban guns? Seventeen years ago, using multinational data, Don Kates and Gary Mauser asked “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?”
The answer, in a word, is “NO!”
Individual civilian gun owners do not need to become familiar with academic research in order to be able to know that possessing a gun makes them more powerful and that it evens the odds in their favor, even against a powerful government. Let us, for a moment, jump into that topic of government oppression and quote David Kopel, who observes in the paper Fewer Guns, More Genocide, that “Murder is most frequent when governments have arms and victims do not.” Genocides are more likely when citizens have been disarmed.
The takeaway is that the deterrent effect of gun possession works whether we discuss individual criminals or well-armed governments. David Kopel concludes, “There is a certainty that every mass-murdering tyrant fears armed victims and tries assiduously to disarm those whom he intends later to subjugate and murder.”
William English of Georgetown University determined that “31.1% of gun owners, or approximately 25.3 million American adults, have used a gun in self-defense.
One cannot discuss the economic value of guns without understanding the relationship between civilian weapons and deterrence. Criminologist Franklin Zimring defined deterrence as “A function of the declaration of some harm, loss, deprivation, or pain that will follow non-compliance with commands. The central concept is that of threat.” Criminologists understand that the existence of a threat alone is often insufficient to deter criminal behavior. Criminals not only know about the threat, but they must know that the punishment is severe, definite, and will be carried out quickly.
Deterrence concerns rational criminals, and almost nothing brings a higher cost than the error of choosing an armed victim. Criminal contact with armed civilians brings a stronger cost than contact with the criminal justice system, and it tends to stop criminals from completing their intended aggression.
One cannot discuss the value of civilian firearms threat to criminals without knowing the accurate yearly number of DGUs. Every successful DGU increases the negative cost to criminals of armed victims and the positive value of civilian weapons possession to citizens.
So how many DGUs are there?
A recent report by William English of Georgetown University found 1,670,000 million DGUs per year, a figure in line with almost all previous research estimates. Further, the gun was rarely fired, and just “displaying or threatening” the gun use avoided further aggression.
If almost one-third of gun owners have used a gun defensively, then it’s understandable that so many gun owners know other gun owners who relate their stories of DGUs. It also explains the research of Wright and Rossi that 34% of criminals surveyed suffered just such an incident, 69% knew of acquaintances who had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, captured or killed” by an armed defender, and an armed victim was of more concern than an armed policeman. In short, “The strong majority agreed that it is wise to find out in advance if one’s potential victims are armed and to avoid them if they are.” This research from the 1980s may be dated, but given the huge increase in Americans carrying concealed handguns, the book probably underestimates the criminals’ respect for armed civilians.
This respect changes criminal actions towards their victims. John Lott Jr. captures the rationality of criminals in his well-known statement, “Most gunmen are smart enough to know that they can kill more people if they attack places where victims can’t defend themselves. That’s one reason why 98% of mass shootings since 1950 have occurred in places where citizens are banned from having guns.” And David Kopel described several studies which compared residential burglaries in locations with different laws and found that countries with restrictive laws had a greater rate of burglaries at occupied homes.
The equations for successful criminal acts do not balance when would-be victims are armed. Successful DGUs are a positive for would-be victims and a negative for criminals. It would follow that higher numbers of DGUs increase the public safety, and that, therefore, the more civilians who own and carry weapons, the greater benefit to society.
Kleck and Gertz discuss the policy implications of victim resistance. “Any form of gun control that disarms large numbers of prospective victims…will carry significant social costs in terms of lost opportunities for self-protection.” The findings of Kleck and Gertz bolster rational choice theory by showing that criminal deterrence, even displacement of crime, is beneficial.
So it becomes easy to understand why pro-gun-control advocates would prefer to see low DGU numbers and be willing to risk their careers with doubtful claims about their low estimates. In 1998, criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig disputed the high numbers of DGUs other researchers saw. They note that “data…appear to suffer from a large positive bias and greatly overstate the prevalence of DGU…Hence these estimates contribute little to evaluating the benefits of widespread gun ownership and carrying.” And the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) they prefer to cite shows only 80,000 to 82,000 DGUs per year.
Fake science, folks! The NCVS never asks a single question about self-defense with a gun. Kleck and Gertz comment, “The gross inconsistency of the NCVS-based estimates with all other known estimates…would be sufficient to persuade any serious scholar that the NCVS estimates are unreliable.” Then, in 2018, author Dave Hardy presented another scandal to the firearms community with Why Did the CDC Bury Data ON Self-Defense Gun Usage? Hardy concluded, “Some might posit that the CDC hid the data and discontinued the questions because the findings were not helpful to the gun control cause.”
Guns, Freedom, And The United Nations
The problem for gun owners is that the daily messages of antigun sentiment from the legacy media, the major institutions of our country, our government, the folks at the United Nations, and all global governments agree that civilian weapons need to be banned, or at least, put under the control of government.
Module 6, National Regulations on Firearms, a resource for teachers from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), states, “The access to firearms and ammunition by civilians, their ownership and use, is subject to government controls in all countries of the world. The main reason for this is the fact that firearms can cause injuries and death.”
Yes, firearms can cause injuries and death, but that’s just an excuse. The main reason governments desire to control them is that governments, like criminals, fear armed civilians. They prefer the equation that includes civilian disarmament. If the balance of power changes in favor of governments, it becomes easier for governments to control their citizens. In economic terms, costs, and benefits, both to civilians and to their government, would change.
As a closing note, it is important to say WE ARE WINNING. During the late 1980s and 1990s, about half of our nation switched from “may issue” laws to “shall issue” laws and, more recently, to Constitutional Carry. As of today, 25 states have Constitutional or Permitless Carry, and the remaining half appears to have been sinking deeper into the wokeness of firearm and firearm-owner hate.
Gary Mauser is a professor emeritus at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada. Check out his blog at JusticeForGunowners.ca for more information.
Alan J Chwick has been involved with firearms much of his life and is the Retired Managing Coach of the Freeport NY Junior Marksmanship Club. He has escaped New York State to South Carolina and is an SC FFL (Everything22andMore.com). AJChwick@iNCNF.org | TWITTER: @iNCNF
Joanne D Eisen, DDS (Ret.) practiced dentistry on Long Island, NY. She has collaborated and written on firearm politics for the past 40+ years. She, too, escaped New York State, but to Virginia. JoanneDEisen@cs.com
Just in case anyone needed further evidence that gun control laws are about exercising political control and suppressing constitutional rights rather than protecting the public from criminals, Joe Biden’s Department of Justice has provided them with unmistakable proof. On June 20, the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) for the District of Delaware submitted paperwork outlining a plea deal for the president’s son, Hunter Biden. Under the terms of the agreement, Hunter would avoid a conviction for possessing a firearm while being an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” if he completes a pretrial diversion program.
The USAO document only made mention of one charge of Hunter violating 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), which concerns prohibited persons in possession of a firearm. This crime is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment. Yet there were at least two other felony charges potentially implicated by the situation.
On March 25, 2021, in relation to Hunter’s alleged illegal acquisition of a firearm, Politico reported that the outlet had “obtained copies of the Firearms Transaction Record and a receipt for the gun dated Oct. 12, 2018” and that:
Hunter responded “no” to a question on the transaction record that asks, “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”
Lying on the form prospective purchasers fill out pursuant to purchasing a firearm from a gun dealer (ATF Form 4473) is two separate crimes. It is a crime when a person “knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter,” such as the 4473. A violation of this provision is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment. It is also a crime for a person to “make any false or fictitious oral or written statement” to a dealer “with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale.” A violation of this provision is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment. The Form 4473 from Hunter Biden’s handgun purchase would seem to provide damning proof of both violations.
Those on the conservative side of the political aisle have been quick to criticize the Biden DOJ’s lenient treatment of Hunter. The frustration is understandable. In a world where some on the political left have weaponized the federal government to pursue their political enemies, citizens are justified in wondering how a prominent conservative or libertarian might have been treated in similar circumstances.
Moreover, such leniency gets the president out of a political jam. Pardoning his son, had Hunter faced a felony conviction and prison time, could have caused Joe Biden a great deal of embarrassment, especially given the elder Biden’s professed “zero tolerance” for gun industry indiscretions. If Hunter had raised what a serious Second Amendment challenge to the prohibited person category under which he faced charges, as was floated by his attorneys is, it would have caused his dad even more political headaches. The Biden DOJ has adamantly defended the “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” firearm prohibition, going so far as having the ATF reiterate in May that those who use marijuana in conformity with state law still cannot possess firearms. Surely the Justice Department would (normally) defend its prerogatives under the prohibition even more strongly in the case of someone who, like Hunter Biden, was abusing crack cocaine while in possession of a firearm.
Indeed, if ever there was an exemplary case to justify the firearm prohibition as it pertains to unlawful drug users or addicts, it would seem to have been Hunter Biden. Mediareports indicate his own girlfriend (who also happened to be his brother’s widow) was so concerned about his volatile, erratic, and potentially dangerous behavior while on drugs, that she herself sought to rid him of his illegally possessed handgun.
Yet the prosecutorial indifference exhibited in the Hunter gun case is just a higher profile example of how the federal gun control regime works. An expanding web of statutes, regulations and enforcement policies make it harder and harder for conscientious, law-abiding Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights, while those who brazenly violate the law often go unpunished. In either case, those in authority hold all the cards, picking winners and losers under the regime as it suits them and their political agenda.
Economics has a concept called “revealed preference.” The gist is that a person’s observed actions reveal more about their preferences than what a person might profess to prefer. As applied to anti-gun politicians, despite all the noise they might make about “public safety,” their actions reveal that their policies are designed to attack the rights of their political opponents – even (and especially) the law-abiding – while shielding allies and supporters.
In 2018, the U.S. Government Accountability Office published a report titled, “Few Individuals Denied Firearms Purchases Are Prosecuted and ATF Should Assess Use of Warning Notices in Lieu of Prosecutions.” The document studied the lack of prosecutions of prohibited persons who attempted to obtain firearms but were denied by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) after filling out the required 4473.
The GAO report stated,
Federal NICS checks resulted in about 112,000 denied transactions in fiscal year 2017, of which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) referred about 12,700 to its field divisions for further investigation. U.S. Attorney’s Offices (USAO) had prosecuted 12 of these cases as of June 2018.
To be sure, the NICS isn’t perfect. Being denied by the NICS system does not automatically mean that an individual is in fact prohibited from possessing firearms, and there is a sizeable number of improper denials each year. Moreover, given the array of nonviolent crimes that could result in a firearms prohibition, it would not be wise to prosecute every single firearms denial.
Nevertheless, the magnitude of unprosecuted violations for lying on a 4473 goes well beyond sensible prosecutorial discretion. When, all else being equal, there is a 1 in 10,000 chance of being prosecuted for a crime in which the perpetrator necessarily offers himself up to the government and provides documentary proof of the offense, a deliberate choice is being made. And that choice proves the “public safety” rationale for gun control is not the decisive factor.
This policy choice in the Biden administration, moreover, comes straight from the top.
In 2013, NRA-ILA Director of Federal Affairs Jim Baker met with then-Vice President Joe Biden. Baker asked Biden about the lack of prosecutions for those who lie on 4473s. Biden replied, “And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on [sic] lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.” Biden’s position is clear: further burden law-abiding Americans with new gun control, while letting actual criminals who violate existing laws go free.
Firearm prohibitionists know that if they subject gun ownership to enough cost, bureaucracy, and legal peril, Americans determined to stay on the right side of the law might eventually just opt out of it. As for the unrepentant criminals who continue to commit gun crime? They play their part in the anti-gun agenda, too, by helping to justify civilian disarmament laws to a timid, ill-informed portion of the populace.
Hunter’s sordid tale just brings into better focus what astute gun rights supporters have long understood.
The purpose of America’s gun control regime is to diminish the rights of law-abiding gun owners and empower those who wield governmental authority, not to stop criminals.
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
When it comes to Joe Biden’s rambling, anti-gun speeches, sometimes he seems just confused, and sometimes he mistakenly reveals his true agenda of eradicating the Second Amendment and stripping virtually every law-abiding American of their right to arms and self-defense.
But at this point in his term at the White House, actual lies are becoming far more frequent and far more concerning.
On June 16, at the University of Hartford in West Hartford, Conn., Biden spoke to a group of “gun control” activists, delivering a speech that vacillated between confusing and borderline unintelligible (feel free to try to follow his train of thought with this official transcript).
What was clear in the speech, however, was Biden’s willingness to make things up, as it appears the legacy media is rarely willing to offer any sort of a “fact-check” when he talks about guns. And we’re not just talking about differences of opinion on firearm-related policy, subjective interpretations of certain events, or carefully manipulated statistics to support particular anti-gun views.
This speech had so much wrong with it that we may not be able to cover everything, but here are some of the lowlights.
First, he began talking about the passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), the anti-gun law he signed last year.
Biden praised the $230 million that the law allows being used to entice states into enacting “red flag” firearm confiscation schemes, then absurdly claimed his “son was the first to enforce (such laws) when he was attorney general (of Delaware).” But his son, Beau Biden, was Delaware’s attorney general from 2007-2015, and Delaware did not enact its “red flag” law until 2018.
He also tried to imply that the illegal trafficking of firearms was not illegal until the enactment of the BSCA. While the Act does explicitly define a federal standard, and penalties for “trafficking in firearms” as such, virtually every discrete act necessary to perpetrate an illegal firearm trafficking conspiracy has been criminalized since the 1968 Gun Control Act.
Biden further tried to claim that the BSCA made “straw purchases”—when one buys a firearm for someone else who is prohibited by law from doing so—illegal. Again, while “straw purchases” may not have been banned as such under federal law, the act of purchasing a firearm for someone else who is prohibited from purchasing one has been illegal for decades, as has misrepresenting who the “actual buyer” of the firearm is.
In essence, any time you make a material misstatement when you purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer—as the media is reporting the president’s son, Hunter, has recently admitted doing—you have violated federal law and can be subject to years in prison and substantial fines. While Hunter’s offense would appear to have a potential 10-year sentence, media reports indicate the Justice Department has offered him a plea deal that could result in dismissal of the gun charge. So much for his dad’s tough talk about illegal firearms.
In defending the need for the BSCA, Biden did what he regularly does, and made a ridiculous claim unsupported by any facts:
“And in most cities — down in Philadelphia and New York, areas I know well — like up here — you’d see a truck pull up, pull to the curb, and selling weapons — selling guns, selling AR-15. Selling weapons.
“Well, guess what? You do that now, you go to jail.”
Sadly, Biden’s understanding as to how criminals operate appears to come from movies rather than real life, as the type of situation he described could only be imagined by a Hollywood screenwriter. To date, no one has corroborated Biden’s account of trucks selling AR-15s curbside in America’s largest, most populated cities. Unlicensed firearms dealing was illegal before the BSCA, and it still is.
Of course, Biden wasn’t done underscoring his anti-Second Amendment agenda with his reference to the BSCA. He went on to rail against the long-standing American tradition of law-abiding citizens completing their own customized firearms at home, claiming he “made it illegal to manufacture so-called ‘ghost guns’” through an executive order. In fact, the order and subsequent rulemaking, although overreaching in their own rights, did not go this far.
He then went on to make arguably the most incoherent, nonsensical anti-gun argument he has ever made as he tried to highlight another action he took against handguns equipped with stabilizing braces:
“It made it harder for people to buy stabilized brief — braces. Put a pistol on a brace, and it ma- — turns into a gun. Makes them where you can have a higher-caliber weapon — a higher-caliber bullet coming out of that gun.”
First, one puts a brace on a pistol, not the other way around. But since the pistol is already a gun, is he saying attaching the brace somehow transforms the brace into a gun? Perhaps this is Biden’s own imaginative interpretation of the transitive property.
If A is a gun, but B is not a gun, but A+B is a gun, then B must be a gun once added to A, even if you later subtract it?
Then there’s the nonsense about “a higher-caliber bullet coming out of that gun.” Does Biden imagine that stabilizing braces have the magical ability to transform the chamber and barrel of any handgun to which they are attached? Because that is the only way that comment could possibly make sense. If you put a stabilizing brace on a handgun chambered for 9mm, that handgun can still only fire 9mm ammunition. The same goes for any caliber handgun on which you affix a stabilizing brace.
Then again, this is the same firearm “expert” who once proclaimed legislation he supports “says there can be no more than eight bullets in a round” and told supporters at a campaign rally, “I believe in the Second Amendment, but nobody says you can have a magazine with 100 clips in it.”
Again, we are not exaggerating when we say this was one of Biden’s most confusing, unintelligible speeches on firearms he has ever given, and we’ve left out quite a bit of the nonsense. Go read the transcript. Or, just go to his closing, where he blurts out, “God save the Queen, man.”
We have no theory to explain what he meant by that apparent reference to a deceased monarch. But it is emblematic of a man who is increasingly detached from reality, reason, accountability, and shame, and never more so than when is speaking about firearms.
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
U.S.A. — Two of Montana’s top elected officials—U.S. Sen. Steve Daines and Congressman Matt Rosendale—are demanding explanations from the Internal Revenue Service and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for a June 14 raid by heavily-armed IRS agents at a popular gun shop in Great Falls during which those agents seized boxes full of 4473 forms.
Firearms retailer Tom VanHoose, owner of Highwood Creek Outfitters, took his case to the airwaves by appearing on Fox News with Jesse Watters. VanHoose, who has operated the store for 13 years, said he arrived at work that morning and was immediately met by 20 heavily-armed IRS agents who shut his store down for the entire day. Knudsen called it a “gross over-reaction.”
AmmoLand News spoke with Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, who confirmed his office is looking into the case. So far, he is not getting any answers from the U.S. Attorney’s office.
AmmoLand attempted to contact ATF offices in Montana, but only heard recorded messages.
In an interview with Newsmax, Rosendale bluntly stated, “This is storm trooper type activity.”
Rosendale was even more direct in a letter he sent to ATF Director Steve Dettelbach and IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel two days after the raid.
“While we wait to hear more details and rational behind this raid,” Rosendale wrote, “given the positions of the Biden Administration this raid appears to be an attempt to intimidate firearms dealers and owners. This is particularly worrying given that it comes just weeks the ATF closed a gun store in Cobb County, Georgia without any advance warning. A pattern of intimidation and harassment seems to be emerging under Director Dettelbach’s leadership of the ATF. This pattern appears to be orchestrated directly from the White House as evident by the ‘fact sheet’ released by the Biden Administration, where they detail their plans to hassle mom-and-pop gun shops over minor record keeping and paperwork discrepancies.”
I met with Tom Vanhoose this morning after 20 armed IRS agents raided his store in Great Falls earlier this week.
Tom informed me that these agents confiscated all the 4473 forms, none of which contain any financial information; instead, the IRS now has access to these forms… pic.twitter.com/HPFEgZedKI
In a statement posted on his website, Rosendale had this to add:
“The raid that took place at Highwood Creek Outfitters is outrageous. Under Director Dettelbach’s leadership of the ATF, a pattern of intimidation and harassment against hardworking Americans has emerged – Montanans will not tolerate these political witch hunts. I remind both Director Dettelbach and Commissioner Werfel that Congress has the power of the purse, and I will ensure that funding for these agencies is not weaponized against the American people.”
In a letter sent specifically to Werfel, Sen. Daines said Highwood Creek customers “are rightfully concerned” about their private information “potentially collected by your agents.” He wants prompt answers to these questions:
What was the scope of the search warrant you used to gain access to the store?
Were ATF Form 4473’s seized as part of the investigation? If so, what do your agencies intend to do with the information they contain?
What communication, if any, did you have with local and state law enforcement prior to the events of June 14th?
Will you commit to sharing pertinent information and updates regarding your investigation, where appropriate, with local law enforcement and the community moving forward?
Cascade County Sheriff Jesse Slaughter, inundated with inquiries about the raid—about which he had no advance warning—posted a video on Facebook to provide his perspective.
VanHoose said the IRS agents took more than 20 boxes full of ATF Form 4473 documents, which are supposed to be only possessed by gun dealers and the ATF. Van Hoose said via telephone a local ATF agent was present and initially tried to prevent the documents from being taken, but he was apparently overruled.
VanHoose told Fox News’ Watters, “We’ve been under surveillance for two years and nobody seems to know why.”
He said local law enforcement “doesn’t have a clue” why his shop has been under this degree of surveillance, which seems to substantiate remarks by Sheriff Slaughter in his video. The gun retailer also told Watters—and AmmoLand News—he has been contacted by at least two other gun dealers who had faced the same kind of investigation and both said it cost them “a half-million dollars” in legal fees to fight back.
“If they can’t put me out of business because I didn’t do anything wrong,” VanHoose told Watters, “they’re sure as heck gonna bankrupt me.”
Looking over the horizon at a mountain of legal costs, VanHoose has scheduled a rally at his shop on Saturday, July 1, with the theme of “Stand Up or Bend Over.” He is having “SUBO” bumper stickers printed for handouts, and the rally could draw national attention. Already, one other gun dealer from Arizona is apparently planning to travel to Great Falls for the event.
JUST IN: 20 armed IRS agents raid Great Falls gun store — Took NO FINANCIAL RECORDS, accounting or tax statements just every 4473 BUYER’S INFORMATION form..
In addition, VanHoose has launched a fund-raising effort at GiveSendGo.com.
Questions have been raised in recent days about the IRS regarding its armament. As reported by TheGunMag.com, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) has introduced legislation to disarm the agency. Her proposal quickly garnered the support of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
In a prepared statement, CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb wondered, “Why has the IRS spent millions of dollars on weapons and ammunition since the start of the coronavirus pandemic three years ago? According to a published report, the agency spent $2.3 million on ammunition, another $1.2 million on ballistic shields, $243,000 on body armor, nearly $475,000 on Smith & Wesson rifles and $463,000 on Beretta tactical shotguns.”
AG Knudsen told AmmoLand that none of the IRS agents involved in the June 14 raid apparently came from Montana. VanHoose said they came from “three other states” at least.
But the question on a lot of minds in Montana right now is why they came at all. VanHoose said if the IRS or anyone else had questions about his business, they could have called, visited or sent a letter. Instead, the agency mounted a high-profile raid, causing VanHoose to observe, “The firepower…if it had gone upside down, the potential damage to civilians on the streets here.”
“It was just stupid,” he said.
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.
As NRA-ILA has often pointed out, as ignorance recedes, so does support for gun control. Recent polling in Tennessee conducted by co/efficient shows that when voters are confronted with the reality of “red flag” gun confiscation laws, they prefer vigorous enforcement of existing mental health laws and detainment for those proven to be dangerous over ineffective measures that only serve to undermine Second Amendment rights.
As enacted in a handful of states, “red flag” or “extreme risk protection order” laws grant the government the authority to seize a person’s guns and abrogate their right to possess firearms pursuant to a civil order. Such orders can typically be granted based on weak and nebulous standards of evidence.
Since 1968, federal law has prohibited firearm possession by anyone “who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution.” Therefore, those proven to be dangerously mentally ill are already prohibited from possessing firearms. Red flag laws are designed to circumvent the due process typically afforded individuals before they are adjudicated as mentally defective or involuntarily committed in order to more easily attack ordinary Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) suggests that “red flag” gun confiscation orders violate the Second Amendment. Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion made clear that in order for a firearm regulation to pass constitutional muster it must fit within the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment right. Specifically, the opinion noted,
[w]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”
That poses a problem for “red flag” law backers, who are eager to stress the “innovative” nature of the gun control measure.
Following Bruen, a February 2 decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit invalidated a federal firearms prohibition that is based on a mere civil order. The decision explained,
The distinction between a criminal and civil proceeding is important because criminal proceedings have afforded the accused substantial protections throughout our Nation’s history. In crafting the Bill of Rights, the Founders were plainly attuned to the preservation of these protections. See U.S. Const. amend. IV; U.S. Const. amend. V; U.S. Const. amend. VI; U.S. Const. amend. VIII. It is, therefore, significant that § 922(g)(8) works to eliminate the Second Amendment right of individuals subject merely to civil process.
By this logic, “red flag” gun confiscation schemes would be found similarly unconstitutional.
From May 30-June 1, co/efficient polled a sample of 1,770 likely general election voters in Tennessee on a series of questions, including how to address the dangerously mentally ill and “red flag” laws.
Respondents were presented with the following question, followed by a pair of options,
If a person is threatening to harm themselves or others, what do you think law enforcement should do to provide the most safety for the community?
Removing the individual threatening to harm others from the community so they cannot access firearms OR cause harm by any other means
Take away that person’s firearms, but leave threatening individuals in the community.
When presented with the reality of what “red flag” laws entail, an overwhelming 84 percent supported incapacitating the person threatening harm.
Later, respondents were asked the following question, followed by three options,
The State of Tennessee already has many laws on the books that allow for the arrest and immediate detention of someone who is threatening violence or deemed dangerous to themselves or others by a law enforcement officer or a licensed physician or psychologist. Is it a more effective solution to?
Enforce existing laws to remove individuals threatening to harm others from the community.
Enact new red flag laws to take firearms from individuals.
Makes no difference.
The likely voters preferred to enforce the existing laws over enacting new “red flag” laws by 38 points.
As NRA-ILA has noted, Tennessee already has broad civil commitment laws. T. C. A. § 33-6-402 provides for the immediate detention of dangerous individuals experiencing a mental health crisis by a law enforcement officer, physician, psychologist, or certain other designated professionals. This procedure can be utilized when,
(1) a person has a mental illness or serious emotional disturbance, AND
(2) the person poses an immediate substantial likelihood of serious harm… because of the mental illness or serious emotional disturbance,
A person detained in this manner is then evaluated to determine whether they meet the criteria for admission to a hospital or treatment resource.
Tennessee could improve funding and access to emergency mental health services. A 2016 report from the Treatment Advocacy Center determined that the Volunteer State ranked 41 out of the 50 states and the District of Columbia in state hospital psychiatric beds per capita.
Further, co/efficient’s polling makes clear that Tennessee voters are willing to support measures that give law enforcement and others the resources they need to protect the public.
In May, Tennessee enacted school safety legislation that provided $230 million in funding to protect schools. This included $140 million to ensure at least one full-time armed school resource officer for every public school.
This legislation is overwhelmingly popular.
Co/efficient asked for their sample,
So you support the recent bill signed by Governor Lee to enhance safety at public and private schools by adding Police Officers and improving physical security at schools across the state?
Seventy-seven percent of respondents supported the measure, and a mere 14 percent opposed it.
Taken together, these results suggest Tennessee voters prefer allocating resources to give law enforcement and others the tools they need to enforce existing laws over enacting new laws designed to undermine constitutional rights.
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
The South Carolina 2023 legislative session has informally adjourned without a sine-die resolution and has no plans to return this calendar year. Despite the adjournment, both NRA-backed Constitutional Carry bills, S. 109 and H. 3594, are still alive and will be pending on the Senate floor when the legislature returns in January 2024.
As a reminder, H. 3594 received bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, as well as the backing of Governor McMaster. In the Senate, S. 109 was amended to adopt the NRA’s preferred language, resulting in two legislative opportunities to move forward in January. There is a strong chance that constitutional carry will be among the first bills considered when the legislative session resumes in January 2024.
Constitutional Carry legislation recognizes the fundamental right of law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment freedoms without unnecessary restrictions. Its passage would have South Carolina join 27 other states, which ensure that responsible individuals can protect themselves, their loved ones, and their property with peace of mind.
We urge you to stay vigilant and engaged while the session is adjourned. It is crucial to maintain momentum and continue advocating for Constitutional Carry. Reach out to your elected officials, voice your unwavering support for these bills, and let them know that you stand with Governor McMaster and the NRA in prioritizing the protection of our constitutional rights.
We will provide you with further updates and action alerts throughout the year. Your NRA-ILA will continue to keep you informed of opportunities to engage your elected officials and continue to put pressure on the Senate. Constitutional carry remains the legislative priority in the Palmetto State.
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
U.S.A. — On June 13th, 2023, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to overturn the proposed rule of the BATF, which is set to make the possession of pistols with a pistol brace installed a federal felony, punishable with up to a $10,000 fine and or ten years in prison. The vote was almost entirely on party lines, passing 218 to 210. Two Democrats voted for the resolution, and two Republicans voted against it.
On Thursday, June 22nd, 2023, the Senate voted against H.J. Resolution 44 by a razor-thin margin of 50 to 49. Three Senators, who were considered possible swing votes, voted against the resolution. Two more votes would have been necessary to pass the resolution. Vice President Harris would have almost certainly broken a tie vote against the measure. The three swing votes were Senators Tester from Montana, Manchin from West Virginia, and Sinema from Arizona. Senators Baldwin (D-WI), Brown (D-OH), and Casey (D-PA) were candidates to vote for the measure because they will be coming up for election in 2024. All voted against it.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives relating to “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilinzing Braces'” (ATF final rule 2021R-08F), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
The ATF rule reversed a decade of ATF policy where they assured purchasers and manufacturers of pistol braces such items were legal and not regulated by the NFA.
Wyoming Congresswoman Harriet Hageman voted for the resolution. From her office:
“This latest unconstitutional rule from the A.T.F. is a blatant attempt to take away our 2nd Amendment rights and strip away the ability to
defend ourselves”, said Hageman. “Should this rule be implemented, the A.T.F. would instantaneously transform millions of law-abiding citizens into potential criminals, threatening their freedom, property, and lives in the process.”
The rule proposed by the ATF extends the reach of the National Firearms Act to handguns that have barrels less than 16 inches and are equipped with a stabilizing brace.
When the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration wrote the original legislation in 1934, short-barreled rifles were not included. The principal targets of the legislation were handguns and short-barreled shotguns and such items when equipped with silencers. Because of the confused statements of Minnesota Congressman Harold Knutson, rifles were added to the list of handguns, revolvers, and shotguns which were to be taxed out of existence if their barrels were less than 16 inches. Knutson was a member of the Ways and Means committee. Knutson requested the barrel length be extended to 18 inches. From the hearing:
Mr. KNUTSON. General, would there be any objection, on page 1, line 4, after the word” shotgun” to add the words” or rifle” having a barrel less than 18 inches? The reason I ask that is I happen to come from a section of the State where deer hunting is a very popular pastime in the fall of the year and, of course, I would not like to pass any legislation to forbid or make it impossible for our people to keep arms that would permit them to hunt deer.
Attorney General CUMMINGS. Well, as long as it is not mentioned at all, it would not interfere at all.
Mr. KNUTSON. It seems to me that an 18 -inch barrel would make this provision stronger than 16 inches, knowing what I do about firearms.
Attorney General CUMMINGS. Well, there is no objection as far as we are concerned to including rifles after the word” shotguns” if you desire.
Sawed-off shotguns had been demonized by the media of the time. Short-barreled rifles were not considered a problem. Several manufacturers made rifles with less than 18-inch barrels. They were very popular as boy’s rifles.
The NRA and numerous sportsman’s groups made their objections known to Congress in 1934. Pistols were removed from the legislation. As a consolation prize, FDR passed legislation placing prohibitive taxes and administrative procedures on short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and machine guns.
The prohibition of short-barreled rifles and shotguns makes no sense when everyone agrees the Second Amendment protects handguns. When attached to a handgun, a pistol brace makes it harder to conceal. Handguns are preferred for crime because they are easier to conceal. Shoulder stocks had been accepted accessories for pistols since pistols became available. It wasn’t until 1961, decades after the passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934, that the ATF formally created a rule finding a pistol with a shoulder stock attached was held to be a short-barreled rifle. The ATF quickly removed Mauser and Luger pistols with shoulder stocks from consideration by classifying them outside the NFA as “curios and relics”.
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.
