Court Blocks California’s Crazy Ammunition Purchase Restrictions ~ Rhode v. Bonta

iStock

California gun owners got great news today when Judge Roger Benitez announced he is upholding CRPA’s challenges in Rhode v. Bonta.

This case seeks to overturn the state’s restrictions on ammunition purchases. Prop 63 was passed eight years ago and places restrictions on law-abiding citizens purchasing ammunition, such as: background checks for purchases, paying for an ammo purchasing permit, only transferring ammunition through a licensed dealer, no purchasing ammunition online for direct shipment to the buyer, and DOJ creating a centralized list of all persons permitted to purchase ammunition.

Rhode v. Bonta has worked its way up and down the court system for eight years.

Along with Duncan v. Bonta, these cases were both at the Ninth Circuit level last year, awaiting the much anticipated Bruen decision by the Supreme Court. Once that decision came down, Rhode and Duncan were both remanded back to the lower courts for supplemental briefing. Our friends at Ammunition Depot, Able Ammo, and Sam’s Shooters Emporium joined with CRPA and other individual and company plaintiffs to support this case through all of the legal twists and turns.

The Court did not hold back in their analysis stating that “the state’s ammunition background check regime turns…constitutional presumptions the wrong way around. It treats all citizens as if they do not enjoy a right to buy ammunition. It forces Americans to entreat and supplicate the state for permission. This is not the language of a right; this is the language of a government license or grant of a privilege.”

The court rightly, and for the second time, enjoined the law.

Named plaintiff and Olympic champion Kim Rhode celebrated the announcement: “Like I initially stated to Gavin Newsom, “always happy to teach you about the guns and ammo you don’t trust me to own.” I’m happy that the courts agreed with me. Many generations of hunters, outdoorsmen and Olympians will be able to train and pass on the shooting heritage for many generations. I will never stop fighting for the 2nd Amendment and what I believe to be right and the court’s ruling supports that.”

Both cases were intensely watched by Second Amendment advocates buoyed by the announcement of the Bruen decision last summer.  Today’s ruling, while the state will most certainly appeal them, represent continued progress in rolling back decades of attacks on the rights of lawful gun owners.

Today’s ruling represents continued affirmation that the Bruen decision, and Heller before that, represent a sea change in the way courts must look at these absurdly restrictive laws. The state will appeal, but the clock is ticking on laws that violate the Constitution.

Lead attorney for the Rhode case, Sean Brady of Michel & Associates, noted, “this particular background check system, instituted by California law, was so egregious and over the top that Judge Benitez never faltered in his determinations from his earlier rulings which gave gun owners a win. Today’s ruling reiterates that California’s restrictions on ammunition purchasing are unconstitutional under yet another ruling in our favor and one that is in line with the Supreme Court opinion in Bruen.”

CRPA is proud to stand side by side with plaintiffs like Ammunition Depot, Sam’s Shooter’s Emporium, and Able Ammo in this major challenge to unconstitutional laws in California. It takes this type of collaboration to bring about big wins for gun owners.

Stay tuned to CRPA News, emails, and social feeds for continued updates as our legal team breaks down the rulings and provides a roadmap for what lies ahead. We will also have more information as Judge Benitez’s decision is analyzed, and we can determine what happens next for these cases and your rights as gun owners.

In the meantime, you can give to cases like these, DONATE, to help us keep the wins coming!  We are NOT DONE YET!

Rhode v. Bonta Decision

---

About C.D. “Chuck” Michel

C.D. “Chuck” Michel is Senior Counsel and owner of Michel & Associates, P.C. a law firm located in Long Beach, California. (www.michellawyers.com). The firm focuses on civil rights advocacy, primarily involving the Second Amendment. Other civil and criminal practice areas include business litigation, land use, environmental, and employment law.

Chuck is also the volunteer president and general counsel for the California Rifle & Pistol Association (crpa.org) and the Second Amendment Law Center (2ALC.org).

He is the author of California Gun Laws: A Guide to State and Federal Firearm Regulations (www.calgunlawsbook.com).

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

Washington Democrats Push Liability Insurance Requirement for Gun Owners

Washington Democrats are pushing a bill to require gun owners to have liability insurance. (iStock-884168778)

Washington State Senate Democrats are pushing a controversial bill that would require gun owners to obtain liability insurance, and during a hearing before the Senate Law & Justice Committee earlier this week, more than 1,100 people signed up to oppose the measure.

But for some unknown reason, the bill was apparently pulled from the Executive Session schedule for Tuesday, according to an update from activists watching this legislation closely.

According to the Daily Olympian, another 776 people signed up in support of Senate Bill 5963, sponsored by Sen. Patty Kuderer. She is joined by fellow Democrat Sens. Javier Valdez, Sam Hunt, Liz Lovelett, T’wina Nobles, Jamie Pedersen, Derek Stanford, Yasmin Trudeau, Lisa Wellman, and Claire Wilson.

In remarks to the committee, Kuderer asserted there is “Ample historic precedent including the Second Amendment text itself” which “supports the argument that gun owner liability insurance does not implicate the Second Amendment right. The text of the Second Amendment addresses the right to ‘keep and bear arms’ which in effect means keeping a gun in your home or on your person. The act of insuring that gun against unintentional negligent firing is an entirely different kind of activity.”

The Second Amendment text reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Nothing in there about insurance, but there is something about infringements.

During her remarks, Kuderer asserted that firearms-related deaths and injuries cost Washington taxpayers at least $169 million annually. She said the legislation would reduce the cost, and “reallocate” costs of such injuries “without compromising any Second Amendment rights.”

Aiobheann Cline, representing the National Rifle Association, told the committee the bill “is another unconstitutional attempt to regulate the Second Amendment out of existence” by making housing unobtainable due to the additional cost of such insurance.

Dan Mitchell, owner of the Sporting Systems gun store in Vancouver, Washington, reminded the committee that when gun owner liability insurance programs were previously offered in the state, the Insurance Commissioner ruled them illegal. Now, lawmakers want to make such insurance mandatory. He also asserted the insurance requirement would be unconstitutional.

And Amanda McKinney, a Yakima County commissioner, told the committee, “There is currently no major insurance carrier — regional, national or otherwise — who offers this insurance coverage for gun liability specifically.”

McKinney said something else which she said reflected a “common theme” among some lawmakers who support the gun control measure.

“If you don’t have a behavior that we agree with, then we’ll fine you, put a tax on you, and charge you until that behavior meets the one that we expect,” she said, observing that this puts a cost on the exercise of a right.

Another organization, the Conservative Ladies of Washington, also opposes the measure and put out an alert to its members on Monday.

A provision in the bill which has raised alarms is the requirement that surplus line brokers and insurance producers licensed to do business in Washington will be required to ask whether any of the “named insureds” own a firearm, and whether the gun or guns are “securely stored.” Kuderer insisted during testimony that this would not result in gun registration.

SB 5963 is one of several gun control measures being considered by the Democrat-controlled Legislature. Another which is raising alarms is House Bill 2238, a short bill, running just over two pages, but it provides more evidence that Washington’s far-left Democrats have decided that gun rights can actually be regulated like privileges. The measure is sponsored by a familiar group of House Democrats. They are Reps. Liz Berry, Jessica Bateman, Lauren Davis, Beth Doglio, Davina Duerr, Mary Fosse, Roger Goodman, Shelley Kloba, Nicole Macri, Gerry Pollet, Alex Ramel, Julia Reed, Kristine Reeves, Sharon Tomiko Santos, and My-Linh Thai. These names show up on several gun control measures now under consideration in the House.

---

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/DX23HjP
via IFTTT

White House Wants Schools to Gaslight Parents About Guns

White House Wants Schools to Gaslight Parents About Guns, iStock-1043643234

The White House wants to enlist school officials to help hoodwink parents about its gun control plans, according to a statement issued last week.

The reason is simple: They want to take advantage of the officials’ credibility, which the White House lacks, especially when it comes to guns.

Teachers and administrators, the White House said in the statement, “can be trusted, credible messengers when it comes to providing guidance on gun violence prevention and safe firearm storage options.”

The new program, which is one of three executive orders Joe Biden issued last week, will be spearheaded by Jill Biden, White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention Director Stefanie Feldman and Education Secretary Miguel Cardona.

“This issue matters to the President. It weighs on his heart every day. And he’s not going to stop fighting until we’ve solved it,” Jill Biden said last week while touting the plan at a “Gun Violence Prevention Event,” which was held in the Indian Treaty Room of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

From a civil rights perspective, the most worrisome portion of the White House plan is a customizable “communications template,” which school officials “can use to engage with parents and families about the importance of safe firearm storage and encourage more people to take preventive action by safely storing firearms.”

The template is designed so school officials can insert the name of the school and their letterhead to make it appear as though the document came from the school and not the White House. In fact, neither the White House nor the Biden-Harris administration are even mentioned in the document.

Dear [INSERT NAME OF SCHOOL OR SCHOOL DISTRICT] Families, Guardians, and Caregivers:

and

Sincerely, [INSERT NAME OF SCHOOL OR SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR]

The template was accompanied by a letter from DOE Secretary Cardona, which urges school officials to comply with the new White House mandate.

“We encourage all school leaders to consider taking steps to build awareness in your school community about safe firearm storage, such as:

• Share information about safe firearm storage with parents and families in your school communities. You can use the enclosed letter as a resource for parents, families, guardians, and caregivers—as well as teachers and school staff—to help build awareness around safe firearm storage, including what people can do to safely store firearms in their homes and spaces that children may occupy. You can also customize the letter to better meet your community’s needs.
• Partner with other municipal and community leaders to help improve understanding of safe firearm storage and broader gun violence prevention efforts.
• Engage other organizations and partners within your community, such as parent organizations, out-of-school time program leaders, nonprofit agencies, and other community-based youth-serving entities who routinely interact with children, teens, families, guardians, and caregivers, to inform them about the importance of safe firearm storage.
• Integrate information about safe firearm storage into your communications with families, guardians, and caregivers about overall emergency preparedness and school safety.”

Propaganda

There is a lot going on here, and none of it is good.

The White House’s template is classic propaganda, in which a target audience is unaware they are being influenced and unaware of the true source of the message.

It is a psychological operation, or psyop, which targets unsuspecting Americans. Before the Bidens moved into the White House, that wasn’t supposed to happen. Nowadays, it’s become commonplace.

That the White House and its gun control office would publicly propose such a plan proves they do not fear exposure from the legacy media. This, too, is telling. They know who their friends are and don’t worry about repercussions.

School officials will have little choice but to participate in this scam. Secretary Cardona’s letter will see to that.

Joe Biden, or more likely his handlers and puppeteers, have rewritten the rules to further their war on our guns. Now, anything goes, including psyops and other forms of gaslighting and deception.

The White House statement also mentions that faith leaders and law enforcement have credibility in their communities.

There’s little doubt the Biden-Harris administration will make a run at the nation’s clergy next.

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

---

About Lee Williams

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

from https://ift.tt/7psPyMN
via IFTTT

Virginia Democrats in General Assembly Continue Rampage to Destroy Gun Rights

Opinion
VCDL Legislative Update 1/30/24.

Democrats’ War on Guns burns bring in VA.

Virginia Democrats in the General Assembly continue their rampage against Virginia’s gun owners, and Republicans continue to fight for us. Votes in committee and subcommittee were all along party lines.

When I point out in committee that a gun-control bill they are voting on is unconstitutional, the Democrats look at me like, “What? We have a Constitution?! No way!”

I’m beginning to wonder why the Democrats bother taking their oath of office. You know, where they swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? At least that way they wouldn’t waste everybody’s time with something they have no intention of doing.

When I point out that a particular bill is only going to hurt concealed handgun permit holders and will do nothing to deter criminals, the Democrats’ eyes glaze over. They aren’t even impressed with the fact that in 2023, only 1/10 of 1 percent of CHP holders had their permits revoked for ANY reason. That is an incredibly great number. But the Democrats effectively put their fingers in their ears and say “LA LA LA LA LA” whenever I provide those numbers.

NOTE: On Floor votes in the House (see last section of this alert), Republicans Coyner, Ennis, Tata, and Green VOTED FOR GUN CONTROL! That makes those bills “bipartisan,” which is not good. The Democrats are surely not voting bipartisan on any Republican gun-rights bills! I’m disgusted by those bad votes. There is no excuse. If you live in their district, you might want to give them a phone call to politely express your thoughts on their voting against your right to self-defense, the Constitution, and their party platform. Coyner (804-698-1075), Ennis (804-698-1089), Tata (804-698-1099), and Green (804-698-1069).

Here are the gun-bill votes since the last Legislative Update. Remember that you can see the status of all gun bills on Virginia Citizens Defense League’s Legislative Tracker any time: www.vcdl-lis.org.

House Public Safety Firearms Subcommittee 1/25/24

On Thursday, January 25, the House Public Safety Firearms subcommittee considered the following bills. All gun-control bills passed on a party-line vote and all pro-gun bills were defeated on a party-line vote. The Democrats voted for gun control and against gun-rights. The Republicans voted against gun control and for gun-rights.

Gun-control bills that reported out of subcommittee:

• HB 12, Jones, locking device and warning sticker on firearms being sold was rolled into HB158, McClure.
• HB 158, McClure, locking device and warning sticker on firearms being sold.
• HB 183, Simon, requires firearms to be locked up when a minor is present in the home.
• HB 351, Clark, requires a locking device be sold with any firearm going into a home that has a minor living there.
• HB 585, Mundon King, prohibits home-based gun dealers within 1.5 miles of a school.
• HB 791, Henson, makes carry of pneumatic guns on school property a Class 6 FELONY.
• HB 1174, Sickles, makes it illegal for someone under 21 to purchase an “assault firearm.”

Gun-rights bills that were defeated in subcommittee:

• HB 289, Wiley, parking lots open to the public cannot ban storage of firearms in the vehicle.
• HB 756, Walker, allows carry at rest stops.
• HB 872, Earley, allows state employees, visitors, and contractors to store their guns in a state-owned parking lot open to the public.
• HB 1141, Cordoza, requires the State Police to issue a non-resident CHP within 90 days.
• House Public Safety full committee 1/26/24

On Friday, January 26, the House Public Safety full committee considered the following bills. All gun-control bills passed on a party-line vote and all pro-gun bills were defeated on a party-line vote. The Democrats voted for gun control and against gun-rights. The Republicans voted against gun control and for gun-rights.

Gun-control bills that reported out of full committee:

• HB 12, Jones, locking device and warning sticker on firearms being sold was rolled into HB158, McClure.
• HB 158, McClure, locking device and warning sticker on firearms being sold.
• HB 183, Simon, requires firearms to be locked up when a minor is present in the home.
• HB 351, Clark, requires a locking device be sold with any firearm going into a home that has a minor living there.
• HB 585, Mundon King, prohibits home-based gun dealers within 1.5 miles of a school.
• HB 791, Henson, makes carry of pneumatic guns on school property a Class 6 FELONY.
• HB 1174, Sickles, makes it illegal for someone under 21 to purchase an “assault firearm.”

Gun-rights bills that were defeated in full committee:

• HB 389, Griffin, Constitutional carry.
• HB 1030, Freitas, Constitutional carry.

Senate Courts of Justice committee 1/29/24

On Monday, January 29, the Senate Courts of Justice committee considered the following bills. All gun-control bills passed on a party-line vote and all pro-gun bills were defeated on a party-line vote. The Democrats voted for gun control and against gun-rights. The Republicans voted against gun control and for gun-rights.

Gun-control bills that reported out of committee:

• SB 368, Boysko, requires a locking device be sold with any firearm going into a home that has a minor living there.
• SB 383, Deeds, makes it illegal to carry in a higher education building.
• SB 491, Carroll Foy, allows for dealers and manufacturers of firearms-related products to be sued for things they have no control over.

Gun-rights bills that were defeated in committee:

• SB 583, Diggs, allows carry in rest areas.

Gun-Control Bills That Have Passed The Senate

These bills now head over to the House and will be heard after February 11:

• SB 47, Favola, person holding a firearm for a prohibited person must be at least 21 years old and live at a different address.
• SB 447, Marsden, $500 civil penalty and towing for leaving a handgun visible in a parked, unoccupied vehicle.

GUN-CONTROL BILLS THAT HAVE PASSED THE HOUSE

These bills now head over to the Senate and will be heard after February 11:

• HB 46, Bennett-Parker, person holding a firearm for a prohibited person must be at least 21 years old and live at a different address. Republicans Coyner and Green voted for this gun-control bill.
• HB 498, Cohen, requires schools to send text to parents, within 30 days of school starting, about securing their firearms. Republicans Coyner and Tata voted for this gun-control bill.
• HB 466, Helmer, does severe damage to reciprocity and the ability of Virginians to travel in many states while armed. Republican Ennis voted for this gun-control bill.

More gun bills will be heard this Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.

---

About Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL):

Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.

For more information, visit: www.vcdl.org.

from https://ift.tt/341uZ20
via IFTTT

Bump-Stocks are Not ‘Machine Guns,’ Argues FPC in New Supreme Court Brief

Bump-Stocks are Not ‘Machine Guns,’ Argues FPC in New Supreme Court Brief

Lawyers for Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed an important brief with the United States Supreme Court in the case of Garland v. Cargill, which challenges the federal ban on bump-stock devices. The brief can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“FPC and our members have fiercely fought this unconstitutional and lawless executive abuse from the very beginning,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “As our brief explains, bump-stock devices are not, and have never been, machine guns. The Supreme Court must affirm the decision below and make clear that not even the United States President can rewrite the laws Congress enacts.”

“When ATF first considered the legality of bump stocks over twenty years ago, it correctly concluded that they do not qualify as ‘machineguns,’” argues the brief. “Yet in 2018, in the face of acute political pressure, the agency reversed course and adopted a new definition of the term that encompasses the bump stocks at issue. Petitioners’ defense of that newfound interpretation either ignores the statute Congress enacted or seeks to rewrite it.”

Individuals who would like to join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs like these 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, X (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/TmF3tSI
via IFTTT

Anti-Gunners Capitalize on ‘Gun Free Zone’ Deaths – Shut Down Training

Anti-Gunners Capitalize on ‘Gun Free Zone’ Deaths – Shut Down Training

The deadly killing that took place on October 25, 2023, at Just In Time Recreation in Lewiston, Maine, shook the entire town. The killer took 18 lives that day. The question many have is, would the attack have taken place had the establishment not been a gun free zone? According to the Crime Prevention Research Center the establishment was likely a gun free zone and had a sign on the front door that read, “We kindly ask that you refrain from bringing firearms in this building and we would appreciate it if you left them in your vehicle. Please keep our atmosphere family-friendly.” It would appear that the owners have not been held liable for the tragic loss of life in the gun free zone and it has been reported that they plan to reopen the establishment in March or April of 2024 at a different location. No one shot back during the violent attack.

It would seem the anti-gun folks in Maine are using the tragedy to push for more gun control and restrictions. Recently, a handful of these outraged anti-gun zealots encouraged the state to shut down a rifle cleaning class conducted by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. They used the Just In Time Recreation killings as justification for the banning of the instructional course that teaches people how to be safer with their firearms.

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has successfully held these classes for over three years. The focus of the class is to teach proper maintenance and the safe use of different types of guns used in hunting. Apparently, the anti-gun agitators would prefer that courses designed to teach safe firearm handling not take place at all.

Mark Latti, Director of Communications for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, said, “After reflecting upon these concerns, the department ultimately agreed that a class focused exclusively on AR 15s was insensitive in the wake of the violence our state has recently experienced. Therefore, we decided to cancel it Friday morning.” According to the Portland Press Harold, the newsletter for the course was sent to nearly 411,000 people, but the course was shut down because of 12 complaints.

David Farmer, a spokesperson for the Maine Gun Safety Coalition, said, “We don’t believe that individuals should have access to weapons of war.” But even Farmer agreed that education is important when he said, “but while they are legal, we support educating owners to operate them safely and responsibly.”

Senator Peggy Rotundo, D-Lewiston said she was never contacted by anyone with concerns about the class.

The demonization of the AR-15 perpetuated by left-wing politicians and the anti-gun lobby is having a negative effect, as intended. When people who don’t know any better are convinced that a specific type of firearm is responsible for death, the irrational public outcry can be harmful to the rights of American Citizens. When others who do know better capitulate to the irrational fears of the anti-gun crowd, they further perpetuate the disintegration of our 2nd Amendment.

Apparently, Mr. Latti and his department were concerned with being insensitive, so they were willing to accommodate the anti-gun instigators and cancel the safety course even though the course had nothing to do with the killing that happened several months prior. Holding the course, despite the complaints from a small number of people, may have been the perfect opportunity to support firearm safety and remind the public that violence doesn’t come from a gun. Instead, those who could have supported our 2nd Amendment chose to accommodate others with misguided views and politically motivated intent.

People who claim they want to keep others safe through gun control often choose to support deadly gun free zones.

In this case, the anti-gunners decided to make irrational demands for the purpose of shutting down a firearm safety course. Do they really want to keep people safe or are they intent on creating deadly situations and keeping people uneducated on the topic of firearms? You must ask yourself, do the deaths from gun free zones and uneducated firearm use benefit them in their push for more gun control laws?

---

About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

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

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

Dan Wos

from https://ift.tt/jp32ZGg
via IFTTT

Constitutional Carry on the Move in South Carolina

Constitutional Carry on the Move in South Carolina, iStock-884217816

South Carolina is moving closer to joining the 27 states that have restored Constitutional (permitless) Carry. In all 27 states, the vast majority of adults can carry loaded handguns in most public places without asking the government for permission to do so.

Florida’s permitless carry law does not allow for general open carry. Some of the 27 states have some places where carry with a permit is allowed, and carry without a permit is not.

In Arizona, a person with a permit can carry in a place that serves alcohol, as long as they do not drink alcohol and keep their weapon concealed. People who open carry in Arizona are not allowed to open carry in a bar.  Other states have other minor restrictions.

South Carolina legislators have been working to restore Constitutional Carry for a decade. The current bill, H. 3594, passed the House in 2023, 90 -30. Senator Shane Martin has been pushing hard to restore Constitutional Carry.  Senator Martin was instrumental in getting the bill out of the Senate committee. It will be voted on in the South Carolina Senate in 2024. From live5news.com:

This effort, to make South Carolina the 28th state to enact “permitless carry” or “constitutional carry,” would allow adults to openly carry loaded weapons without needing any training or a permit.

Senators began debate on the bill this week.

“That’s what people want the right to do: They want the right to exercise their Second Amendment rights without the infringement on government,” Sen. Shane Martin, R-Spartanburg and a longtime proponent of the measure, said.

The South Carolina Senate has a filibuster. It takes 60% of the vote in the Senate to stop debate. On January 24, 2024, enough senators voted to stop the debate and start it again on January 30, 2024. It is not entirely clear if this indicates 27 senators would stop a filibuster. In an editorial in the Post and Courier, the writer, horrified by the bill, claimed the vote overcame one of the “highest hurdles” to the bill’s passage. From the Post and Courier, a far-left outlet:

And on Tuesday, the bill cleared one of its highest hurdles when senators voted 27-17 to leapfrog it over important legislation and launch right into debate.

Among those who voted against H. 3594 were three Republicans, all whom have opposed Constitutional Carry in the past. They were Shane A. Massie (R), District 25, president of the Senate; Luke Rankin (R), District 33, who has previously kept the bill bottled in his committee; and George Campsen (R), District 43.

All 27 senators who voted for the bill were Republicans.  All 46 Senate seats are up for election in 2024. All Democrats and Independents voted against the bill. In 2023, Governor McMaster said he would sign H 3594 if it passed:

If the bill passes the Senate and gets to his desk, McMaster said he intends to sign it.

“I know there’s a concern about it, but I don’t share those concerns,” he said. “I don’t think everybody’s going to run out and buy a pistol to carry it around. I think the people who will are the law-abiding citizens who know how to handle firearms, and I think the Constitution, the Second Amendment, says you have a right, and I think the legislation is right on point.”

If South Carolina passes Constitutional Carry (permitless), the next state most likely to pass the reform is Louisiana.

---

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/PUBTaF4
via IFTTT

Second Amendment Law Center & Allies File Amicus Brief in SCOTUS’ Garland v. Cargill

By C.D. “Chuck” Michel, President & Senior Legal Counsel, Second Amendment Law Center

Second Amendment Law Center & Allies File Amicus Brief in SCOTUS’ Garland v. Cargill

The Second Amendment Law Center joined several other pro-2A organizations in filing an “amicus” legal brief in Garland v. Cargill, a case is set for argument before the Supreme Court in late February.

At issue in the Cargill case is a proposed re-classification of a bump stock device to fall under the definition of “machinegun” as spelled out in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b).  As argued by the government, a bump stock is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun i.e., into a weapon that fires “automatically more than one shot … by a single function of the trigger.”

While the case focuses on the regulatory authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (ATF) and does not directly involve any Second Amendment claims, our amicus brief advises the Court about the significant risk to Second Amendment rights if it rules in ATF’s favor.

Unfortunately, this is not the first or only example of ATF attempting to redefine firearm parts to fit the narrative of the Biden Administration.  The agency previously sought the same treatment for incomplete lower receivers and pistol braces. As detailed in our brief, if a bump stock qualifies as a “machine gun,” it could render most or all semiautomatic rifles as illegal simply because they could be converted to fully automatic.

While that may sound like a tough leap to make, a recent Seventh Circuit ruling upholding Illinois’s “assault weapon” ban concluded that the semi-automatic AR-15 and the fully automatic M-16 were virtually indistinguishable and, as such, that semi-automatic rifles can be banned.

In keeping with the standard set in Bruen, our amicus brief explains the history of ownership of so-called “military” small arms, and argues that expanding the ATF’s authority could create millions of “accidental” criminals.

Joining 2ALC on this brief are the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Defense and Education Coalition, Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, and Guns Save Life. Other briefs in this case are expected as well.

The brief urges the Supreme Court to affirm the 5th Circuit’s ruling in favor of Mr. Cargill, and to reaffirm that commonly possessed semiautomatic rifles cannot be banned.  You can read the brief HERE.

Support Our Efforts!

---

About Second Amendment Law Center

Our mission at the Second Amendment Law Center is to protect and enforce the Second Amendment’s solemn command that our government never unduly restrict law-abiding individuals from responsibly possessing and carrying firearms and other arms for sport, hunting, self-defense, and other lawful purposes.

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

The Face of Gun Control In Florida – Kathleen

The Face of Gun Control In Florida – Kathleen

Once again, Florida Senate President Kathleen Passidomo has made it crystal clear that only she gets to decide which civil rights are allowed in Florida, and the Second Amendment isn’t one of them.

The Naples Republican is singlehandedly blocking legislation that would restore our right to Open Carry — a key component of the right to keep and bear arms, which is codified in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and Art.1 Sec. 8 of the Constitution of the State of Florida.

Open Carry refers to the act of carrying a firearm in plain sight. In Florida, you can only carry a loaded firearm openly while fishing, hunting or camping.

Passidomo claims she reached her nanny-like decision after talking to Florida sheriffs.

“The sheriffs who I deeply respect, who are in the business, who understand the issues, do not support open carry in the state of Florida, they support permitless carry,” Passidomo said last year.

While Republicans enjoy supermajorities in both the House and Senate, Floridians have little protection from anti-gun leaders like Passidomo when they infringe upon our civil rights.

Last year, Gov. Ron DeSantis promised he would sign a Constitutional Carry bill. Sadly, DeSantis broke his promise. CS/HB 543, which the governor signed last year, allows only the unlicensed carry of concealed firearms. There was no provision for Open Carry. To be clear, this is not the same Constitutional Carry enjoyed in 26 other states.

We call on Gov. DeSantis to keep his word and demand that the legislature immediately send him an Open Carry bill.

We also call on Senate President Passidomo to better educate herself on the U.S. Constitution — especially the Second Amendment. Perhaps she should talk to more Floridians, not just those with badges in their billfolds.

Our Second Amendment rights, which we’ve had since 1791, are not subject to the approval of local law enforcement. The Senate President should know that.

We do not intend to sit idly by while our members’ rights are violated yet again.

Consider this our warning.

---

About Florida Carry, Inc.:

Florida Carry is a Florida nonprofit, non-partisan, grassroots organization founded in 2010. Florida Carry is dedicated to advancing the fundamental civil right of all Floridians to keep and bear arms for self-defense as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Florida. In 2016 Florida Carry was named the Grassroots Organization of the Year by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Florida Carry, Inc. was organized in order to better coordinate activities, effectively lobby the state legislature, and to provide a legal entity capable of filing suit to demand compliance with state and federal law. Florida Carry stands to represent our members, millions of gun owners, and the countless knife and defensive weapon carriers of Florida. We are not beholden to any national organization’s agenda that may compromise that mission. Florida Carry is the state’s largest independent second amendment advocacy organization.

from https://ift.tt/SiBj3l6
via IFTTT

Baldwin Indictment is Karma for Gun Prohibitionist Who Made a Point of Being Obnoxious About It

If Alec Baldwin had spent more time listening to gun owners than attacking them, he wouldn’t be in this mess. (Santa Fe County Sheriff’s office)

“A grand jury has indicted Alec Baldwin on an involuntary manslaughter charge in the deadly shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the New Mexico set of ‘Rust,’” ABC News reported Friday. “The indictment charges Baldwin, 65, with involuntary manslaughter (negligent use of a firearm) or, in the alternative, involuntary manslaughter (without due caution or circumspection), both fourth-degree felonies.”

X reactions were unsurprisingly celebratory, with an assortment of sentiments expressed from “Karma,” to “It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy,” to what’s become something of a meme:

“I stand behind Alec Baldwin because I wouldn’t want to stand in front of him.”

While irreverence and dark humor is not unexpected for anyone charged with negligently taking a life, there’s a heightened sense of schadenfreude when the target of scorn is a Hollywood celebrity in general and Alec Baldwin in particular, especially among gun owners. And that’s no doubt because of the prevalent entitlement and hypocrisy of an industry that makes billions glorifying phony “action heroes” saving the damsel, the day or the world with guns that then turns around and uses its massive privilege and platform to propagandize for citizen disarmament and promote gun-grabbing Democrat politicians.

Baldwin, through word and deed, has made himself the poster boy for “the enginer Hoist with his own petard,” which as fittingly noted in the quote, “‘tis sport.” He’s earned the ridicule and contempt being sent his way through years of acting like an obnoxious hothead and being a doctrinaire Democrat stooge. Some examples, in no particular order, include:

He compared Joe Biden to “the Democratic Ronald Reagan” (which, in fairness, wasn’t totally off base).

“One storm after another,” he declared, joining other Hollywood elites to demand citizen disarmament in the post-Newtown celebrity blood dance. “#GunControlNow.”

He joined “A coalition of celebrities, activists and policy experts,” including  surprisingly famous unfunny comedienne Amy Schumer “to launch NoRA, an initiative hoping to curb the NRA’s influence.”

Noting his hostility to the means of self-defense, he threatened to assault a reporter (understandable enough) using “homophobic” slurs that would get a “conservative” actor canceled for life:

“[I’d] put my foot up your f—ing ass, George Stark, but I’m sure you’d dig it too much,” the actor tweeted shortly after the Daily Mail’s article was published. “I’m gonna find you George Stark, you toxic little queen, and I’m gonna f–k you … up.”

If a prominent Second Amendment advocate had tweeted that, he’d have been booted off the platform and reported to law enforcement.  As an aside, it’s interesting how people who seemingly can’t – or won’t – control themselves are so insistent on controlling everyone else.

He campaigned for anti-gun Democrats in Virginia.

He shared a post calling for UK-style gun bans.

“The Second Amendment is not a moral credit card that buys you all the guns you want,” he tweeted in 2018. “That law needs to be rethought.”

With a history of personal nastiness combined with repeated demands to lay claim to the rights of his countrymen, it’s natural that the targets of Baldwin’s obsession would see the humor in his becoming victim of his own hubris. The only ones who don’t appreciate the irony are his fellow gun-grabbers. That was best illustrated by the perennially subversive Los Angeles Times in a 2021 hissy fit by resident snark dispenser Robin Abcarian, who advised anyone witless enough to turn to her for opinions, “Don’t expect the gun-drunk conservatives mocking Alec Baldwin to feel shame. They have none.”

That’s “progressive” entitlement. They can call names and fixate on gun owner endowments, but the minute people they want to disarm (who know better than to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger) beat them at their own ridicule game, they howl with affected indignation and call it “slimy and predictable.”

People who don’t trust others with their rights always did project.

---

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/mbZiWXS
via IFTTT

Utah Lawmaker Introduces Bill for Gun Lockboxes in Classrooms

Utah State Rep. Tim Jimenez has introduced a bill to encourage teachers to keep a gun in the classroom.

While many state legislatures are looking at more restrictions on guns, one Utah lawmaker has introduced a bill to actually provide public school teachers an incentive to bring their guns to campus by offering a $500 reimbursement for purchasing a biometric gun safe for the classroom., according to the Salt Lake Tribune.

In a telephone interview with Ammoland News, State Rep. Tim Jimenez, a Republican from Tooele, explained his idea. He is sponsoring House Bill 119, which creates an “Educator-Protector Program.” He described the proposal as a way to make schools even safer by telegraphing a message to would-be mass shooters that they would not be entering a so-called “gun-free zone.”

Jimenez, a 2008 transplant from Washington State, where such an idea would be ridiculed and rejected by lawmakers in the state capital of Olympia, said guns are already allowed on school grounds.

“There are very few gun-free zones in Utah,” he said.

Biometric safes are designed to read fingerprints electronically in order for the locking mechanism to disengage, allowing quick access to a firearm inside. Jimenez said the legislation was still going through some last-minute tweaking but that teachers participating in the program would be required to take annual training to include “classroom response” and firearm safety.

As noted by KSL News, the training would cover these points:

• Hands-on training regarding the safe loading, unloading, storage and carrying of firearms in a school setting.
• Participation in a live-action practice plan in responding to active threats at the school with an emphasis on the classroom that the teacher is assigned.
• Familiarity with the building or buildings of the school, including where emergency supplies and security infrastructure are located.

Jimenez’s legislation would provide protections for teachers and schools from “civil damages or penalties” if they act in “good faith” and were not “grossly negligent,” according to the Tribune. Schools would also post signs notifying anyone entering that they are not “gun-free zones.”

The state legislator said he and his wife got carry permits when they moved to the Beehive State 15 years ago. He noted that gun laws are much more accommodating than they are now in Washington, where he grew up.

“I moved away from Washington,” he quipped, “and I didn’t bring Washington with me.”

Evergreen State gun owners have suffered because too many people from other states have moved there and, in theory, brought their liberal politics along. Lots of transplants from California and eastern states such as New York and New Jersey—which are notorious for their restrictive gun laws—have migrated to Washington because of a booming tech industry. Many native Washingtonians have moved out as a result, to places such as Utah, Arizona, Texas, Idaho and Montana, or even Florida; all states with far more reasonable gun laws, the way Washington used to be.

(As noted by this correspondent during testimony before the Washington House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee, on House Bill 2054, which would limit firearm purchases to one per month, I told lawmakers that the bill is “one more example of an attempt to push gun control rather than crime control.”

“Since 2014, when Washington State started passing restrictive gun regulations, the number of homicides in Washington State has doubled. The number of homicides in Seattle has tripled. How long is it going to take to figure out that we are on the wrong track with this kind of legislation?”)

Utah, Jimenez noted, prohibits firearms in federal buildings and other “secure” locations such as jails, but overall, legally armed citizens have wide latitude where they may carry.

Jimenez also advocates for firearm safety training in the schools, a subject not included in his current legislation.

“I would like to have a program teaching kids firearm safety,” he said. “I tried last year for a bill to provide training, but it didn’t go through.”

That doesn’t mean he won’t try again. He believes “there should be” such programs in the school curriculum. It’s an idea shared by many gun rights activists, especially in the West, where firearms in the home are far more commonplace. Montana (65.0%) and neighboring Wyoming (60.7%) are the Top 2 states for per capita gun ownership, according to 24/7 WallStreet. Utah comes in at 39.7%, and is in  26^th place. Still, the state gets an “F” grade from the Giffords Law Center, a gun control group.

According to a recent report at U.S. News, school shootings in Utah are so rare as to be virtually non-existent, and Jimenez wants to keep it that way. Last September, a report at KUTV revealed Salt Lake City police have trained for rapid response to a school shooting.

In Jimenez’ opinion, the more people know they will meet armed resistance, the less likely they are to try creating mass mayhem.

Utah Lawmaker Introduces Bill for Gun Lockboxes in Classrooms by AmmoLand Shooting Sports News on Scribd

---

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/hpYTJDg
via IFTTT

Court Rules That Banning Those Under 21 From Carrying A Firearm Is Unconstitutional

Court Rules That Banning Those Under 21 From Carrying A Firearm Is Unconstitutional, iStock-697763642

A panel of three judges from the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled it is unconstitutional for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to ban young adults from openly carrying firearms.

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro (D) issued an emergency order along with two other statutes banning the open carrying of firearms by residents between the ages of 18 and 20. The order led to the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) suing the state over the order in Madison v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police. The Plaintiffs lost in District Court before appealing to the Third Circuit.

The Commonwealth tried to argue that people under 21 are not part of “the people” and, therefore, do not have Second Amendment protections. According to the defendants, Americans are not adults until age 21 and do not enjoy constitutional protections until that age. The court resoundingly rejected that argument. It highlighted that anywhere in the United States Constitution where the founding fathers wanted an age limit, they explicitly stated an age. For example, the founding document states an age for the President and to serve in Congress but doesn’t state one for the Second Amendment. The court highlighted other rights applying to all Americans, not just those 21 or older.

The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision in its reasoning. First, the court looked at the text of the Second Amendment and determined that the original text did not ban the carrying of firearms by those under 21. From there, the burden shifts to the state to provide historical analogues from the founding era that show similar laws. The state could not provide those. They tried to use laws from the Reconstruction period after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. The court rejected this often-used date because the Fourteenth Amendment did not change the meaning of the Second Amendment. It just confirmed that the restrictions placed on the federal government also apply to the states.

“Notwithstanding the legal status of 18-to-21-year-olds during that period, however, the Commissioner’s position is untenable for three reasons,” the order reads. “First, it supposes that the first step of a Bruen analysis requires excluding individuals from ‘the people’ if they were so excluded at the founding. That argument conflates Bruen’s two distinct analytical steps. Although the government is tasked with identifying a historical analogue at the second step of the Bruen analysis, we are not limited to looking through that same retrospective lens at the first step. If, at step one, we were rigidly limited by eighteenth century conceptual boundaries, ‘the people’ would consist of white, landed men, and that is obviously not the state of the law.10 Cf., Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2132 (noting that the Second Amendment’s “reference to ‘arms’ does not apply ‘only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century’”); Range, 69 F.4th at 104-05 (observing that founding-era gun restrictions based on ‘race and religion’ such as those on ‘Loyalists, Native Americans, Quakers, Catholics, and Blacks’ would now be ‘unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments’).”

The Commissioner of Pennsylvania State Police, Colonel Christopher Paris, also tried the novel approach of arguing that the plaintiffs were suing the wrong person. The defense claimed that since the state police do not issue concealed carry permits, the state police shouldn’t be the target of the lawsuit. The plaintiffs argued that the lawsuit is about open carry, which does not require a permit, and the State Police are in charge of enforcement of the ban, so they are the proper party to sue. The court agreed with the plaintiffs.

One Judge dissented from the majority opinion. She argued that “the people” are those 21 and over. The other two judges rejected her argument.

The court remanded the case back to the District Court to issue the proper relief for the plaintiffs. Pennsylvania is expected to ask for an en banc hearing, meaning the entire bench will hear the case if granted.

---

About John Crump

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

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

Civil Liberties Group Asks Supreme Court to Rule Against ATF’s Unilateral Bump-Stock Ban

The New Civil Liberties Alliance has filed a brief for the Respondent in Garland v. Cargill, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to determine that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ unilateral bump-stock ban conflicts with the federal statute defining “machineguns.”

ATF’s regulatory ban, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit shot down early last year, reversed the agency’s own long-standing recognition that bump-stock-equipped firearms are not illegal machine guns. NCLA eagerly anticipates presenting oral argument to the Justices in Garland v. Cargill on February 28, definitively vindicating our client Michael Cargill and hundreds of thousands of other Americans. Former Texas Solicitor-General Jonathan Mitchell led the brief’s drafting and will present argument on Mr. Cargill’s behalf next month.

ATF issued a Final Rule in 2018 defining semi-automatic firearms equipped with bump stocks as “machineguns,” which federal law prohibits. The rule required Mr. Cargill, a Texas gun shop owner and Army veteran—and every other bump-stock owner nationwide—to either destroy or turn in their legally purchased devices. In January 2023, the en banc Fifth Circuit ruled in Cargill v. Garland that banning bump stocks requires an act of Congress, a major victory for NCLA. The ruling that bump stocks are not machine guns agrees with a subsequent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and an earlier one from the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, but it conflicts with Tenth Circuit and D.C. Circuit decisions rejecting challenges to ATF’s Final Rule.

The Constitution provides that only Congress may enact new criminal laws. Congress adopted a statute banning machineguns in 1986 that did not cover bump stocks. ATF is not authorized to draft regulations expanding the reach of criminal laws beyond the scope of what Congress prohibited, so NCLA urges the Supreme Court to resolve this issue and safeguard Americans’ rights against administrative agency power grabs. After it hears oral argument next month, NCLA is confident the Court will interpret the statute correctly and set aside ATF’s rule.

NCLA is a premier defender of Americans’ civil liberties against violations by the Administrative State. Just last week, oral arguments were presented to the Supreme Court in NCLA’s Relentless Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce case challenging the Chevron doctrine and an unconstitutional rule requiring fishermen to pay for at-sea government monitors on their fishing boats. This spring, the Court will hear oral arguments over the Fifth Circuit’s affirmance of a preliminary injunction in NCLA’s Murthy v. Missouri case that would bar federal agency officials from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech.

“This case is not about guns rights; it’s about the rule of law. Whether citizens should be permitted to own bump stocks is a decision for Congress, not an administrative agency” stated Richard Samp, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA.

“The government’s effort to convert legal bump stocks and their law-abiding owners into unlawful machine guns owned by felons is frightening. The Supreme Court should set aside this rule that misconstrues the 1986 law banning machine guns and reverses ATF’s 15-plus year position allowing non-mechanical bump stocks. If federal agencies can create new criminal liability by reinterpreting old statutes, then ordinary citizens are at grave risk” Mark Chenoweth, President and Chief Legal Officer, NCLA.

For more information, visit the case page here.

---

About New Civil Liberties Alliance

NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights. www.nclalegal.org

from https://ift.tt/X8ubdm6
via IFTTT

Louisiana Judge Finds Silencers are NOT Protected by Second Amendment

The AP5 P is an excellent suppressor host. IMG Jim Grant

On September 7, 2023, Brennan Comeaux was arrested for possessing unregistered silencers without serial numbers. He was appointed a federal defender in Louisiana in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Louisiana is in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On December 20, 2023, a motion to dismiss was filed by Comeaux’s attorney. From the Motion to Dismiss:

By indictment, the government accuses Brennan Comeaux of possessing unregistered firearms in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) (Count One) and receiving and possessing firearms unidentified by serial number in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(i). ECF 1. Specifically, the government alleges that Mr. Comeaux built his own firearm suppressors, five in total, and did not register them or identify them by serial number as required by federal law. Mr. Comeaux is not a prohibited person prevented from possessing firearms under federal or state law.

Mr. Comeaux alleges that these statutes violate the Second Amendment on their face and as applied to him as that right has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (June 23, 2022).

The argument put forward is simple: the requirement to register arms and the requirement for arms to have serial numbers is a latecomer to American jurisprudence, only occurring after 1911, far too late to be considered as a longstanding and accepted law within the right to keep and bear arms.

The Biden administration countered with three arguments.

1. Silencers are accessories, not “arms,” protected by the Second Amendment.
2. There is a history of regulating “dangerous and unusual” weapons. Silencers are “dangerously unusual.”
3. There is a historical tradition of regulation of commerce in firearms.  Therefore, silencers can be regulated with serial numbers and registration.

From the government brief:

In short, under Heller, even assuming that silencers are “arms,” within the meaning of the Second Amendment, they remain unusually dangerous and thus fall permissibly within this nation’s historical tradition of regulation.

On January 10, 2024, US District Judge David C. Joseph filed a memorandum that found for the Biden administration:

The government urges the Court to deny the Motion for two reasons. First, it argues that firearm silencers are not an “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment and therefore are not protected by it. [Doc. 27]. Second, the government argues that even if protected by the Second Amendment, the regulation of firearm silencers is “well in line with two historical traditions in this country: first, the historical tradition of regulating dangerous and unusual weapons and, second, the historical tradition of regulating commerce in firearms.” Id. at p. 4. Determining that firearm silencers qualify as “dangerous and unusual weapons” based on their historical use and function, the Court need not address the government’s other arguments.

Judge Joseph ignores Bruen when making his decision. He cites no evidence of a historical requirement for serial numbers or firearms registration before 1911. This is far too late to be applicable under Bruen. He cites various governmental entities and individuals as claiming machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, and silencers as being “not typically used for lawful purposes,” claiming the lack of serial numbers and registration is what makes them not typical. He ignores the lack of any historical statute requiring registration and serial numbers.

All weapons are “dangerous”. The government purposely seeks to confuse the issue by using three separate phrases interchangeably: “dangerous and unusual” (as used in Heller); “dangerous or unusual,” not used in the Supreme Court decisions; and “dangerously unusual,” not used in any Supreme Court decisions.

Neither the Biden administration nor the Judge attempted to explain a standard for what is in common use. The judge hides behind the requirement for registration and serialization without finding any historical evidence in the law to show these practices were commonly accepted at any time before 1911, long after the Second Amendment was ratified. The Fourteenth Amendment does not apply because this is a federal law, not a state law. To claim that there are over three million silencers in lawful use does not count because the federal government requires registration and serial numbers begs the question.

Stun guns, with perhaps a couple of hundred thousand in use in the United States, were found to be “in common use” in the Supreme Court decision in Caetano. This correspondent did not see the Caetano decision cited in this case.

If weapons can be regulated because the government says they are “dangerous and unusual,” there is no stopping point to prevent the government from regulating them out of existence.

Grounds for an appeal exist. It is unknown what type of plea deal may be offered to Mr. Comeaux.

---

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/qDWoElP
via IFTTT