GOA File Lawsuit for Plaintiff’s Seeking NY Concealed Carry Permits. IMG iStock-884181314
Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) filed a federal lawsuit in the Northern District of New York, challenging the state’s blanket ban on out-of-state residents being able to obtain a concealed carry permit or to have New York honor out-of-state permits.
GOA and GOF are representing several individual plaintiffs who reside in neighboring states and hold their own state’s license to carry concealed weapons. TV Host and Second Amendment Advocate Carl Higbie is one of the individual plaintiffs.
Under current New York law, only New York residents may apply for and obtain permits to carry concealed weapons, and the state does not grant any form of reciprocity for individuals who hold a similar permit from another state.
As a result, those who hold out-of-state driver’s licenses may drive in New York, but the exercising of one’s constitutional right to bear arms in New York State is wholly inaccessible to the 94% of Americans who are not state residents. New York is the only known state where nonresidents are not allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.
Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:
“The State of New York and its cadre of anti-gun politicians have done everything in their power to weaken and outright ban the Second Amendment within their borders. The Supreme Court has made clear that the right to bear arms extends to the public square, and this right is for all Americans, not just those who are residents of individual states.”
Sam Paredes, on behalf of the board for GOF, added:
“This is the only example nationwide that we can find where an out-of-state resident is completely barred from exercising their right to keep and bear arms, and there’s no doubt the anti-gun legislature in Albany purposely designed it this way. We’ve warned these politicians before and we’ll do it again, fall in line on the Second Amendment, or we will make you.”
GOA spokesmen are available for interviews. Gun Owners of America is a nonprofit, grassroots lobbying organization dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. GOA represents over two million members and activists. For more information, visit GOA’s Press Center.
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.
This is a message the establishment media fails to recognize, at its own peril. iStock-637619186
As the establishment media has delighted in reporting the ongoing civil litigation against the National Rifle Association and its now-former executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, there has been no slowing down of efforts to portray gun control groups and efforts as “gun safety” organizations and advocacy.
While one can read in the Courthouse News about how Virginia Democrats are pushing “gun safety measures” with assistance from March For Our Lives co-founder David Hogg, it is also possible to see LaPierre attacked at the Daily Kos, by a writer observing, “You’d think a guy who’s dedicated his whole being to making random public shootings far more frequent, deadly, and traumatizing would be completely beyond reproach. Or at least be satisfied with L.L. Bean. But no.”
Check the Everytown for Gun Safety website, where this myth is perpetuated: “In recent years, the gun lobby has worked to allow anyone to carry guns anywhere in public, anytime, with no questions asked.”
This is how so-called “constitutional carry” efforts are described, essentially to portray gun rights activists as being in favor of arming criminals. It’s a lie, and they know it.
The mudslinging gets even better at Business Insider, where coverage of the NRA trial and LaPierre’s own testimony about alleged lavish spending includes this paragraph: “Gun control and gun safety advocates say they’re not sorry to see LaPierre go. A few took the opportunity to unload, so to speak, to Business Insider on what they described as LaPierre’s bullet-riddled legacy.”
But, say many in the firearms community, when will the establishment media start challenging these so-called “gun safety” organizations to, at the very least, provide a schedule of where they teach firearms safety? Who in the so-called “mainstream press” has ever inquired of outfits including Everytown, or its subsidiary Moms Demand Action, or the Alliance for Gun Responsibility, about how many certified instructors they have around the country?
And when will anyone in any newsroom in the U.S. explain what “gun reform” is? What does it mean, actually, other than more restrictions on the constitutionally-enumerated rights of honest citizens to keep and bear arms?
For genuine firearms safety advice, perhaps one might direct the newsroom gun reporters to consult the NRA Gun Safety Rules.
Maybe those whose tender sensibilities do not allow them to even remotely associate with anything bearing the NRA logo might opt for a visit to the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Firearm Safety – 10 Rules of Safe Gun Handling.
It was rather grimly amusing to read in the Courthouse News report that Virginia “Democrats also seek to ban firearms on public college campuses. In 2007, 23-year-old student Seung-Hui Cho committed one of the deadliest mass shootings in American history, killing 32 people and wounding 17 others at Virginia Tech.”
If anyone on the Courthouse News staff—or any other general circulation publication—honestly believes that a campus gun ban would have prevented Virginia Tech, it suggests a naivete so profound as to require at least remedial counseling on the subject of “Thinking Like an Adult.”
The prohibition on guns at Hogg’s Parkland, Fla., high school didn’t prevent killer Nikolas Cruz from murdering 17 people and wounding as many others.
Across the landscape, groups and individuals clamoring for “safe storage” requirements that all guns be locked up all the time apparently failed to read, or didn’t understand when they read the passage on Page 58 of the Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which can be interpreted to make such mandatory lock-and-key storage unconstitutional.
Writing for the majority, the late Justice Antonin Scalia observed, “We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”
While CNN and other news outlets can enjoy LaPierre’s courtroom testimony in which he reportedly acknowledged trying to appear to be a hunter when meeting with sportsmen’s groups, but that network, nor any other major media outlet ever calls out any gun prohibition lobbying organization for their self-proclaimed “gun safety” group label.
It is a classic example of the double standard, which begets often justifiable complaints about “fake news” from gun owners, conservative politicians and even former President Donald Trump.
The establishment media may not like it, but so long as editors and reporters allow anti-gunners to get away with it, and even support their gun prohibition efforts in logically-challenged editorials, the firearms community—made up of real hunters, genuine firearms safety instructors, handloaders, home gunsmiths and honest-to-goodness firearms experts—will always have the high ground in the gun rights debate, especially as they approach the media with well-deserved skepticism.
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.
A federal judge in New York has granted a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a challenge of a public housing authority gun ban in Cortland, N.Y. The case is known as Hunter v. Cortland Housing Authority.
U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby handed down the 29-page decision, which enjoins the defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys “from, taking any action to enforce, or otherwise require any person or entity to comply with the firearms ban as set forth in the ‘Tenant’s Obligations’” in the standard lease agreement pending final resolution of the case.
SAF is joined by three public housing residents, Elmer Irwin, Doug Merrin and Robert Hunter, the latter for whom them case is named.
“This is not the first time SAF has litigated a public housing case,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “which have all been about the same thing, a Second Amendment violation. We have won cases in Illinois and Tennessee, and by now, it would seem that public housing authorities should have gotten the message that constitutional rights do not end at the front door. We will continue pursuing such cases as they come to our attention because people do not give up their rights simply because they live in subsidized housing.”
“No public housing authority should be allowed to simply block tenants from exercising their right to keep and bear arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The Bill of Rights is an all-or-nothing proposition, not a buffet from which a bureaucracy should be able to pick and choose which rights they find acceptable. We’re delighted with Judge Suddaby’s decision, which is a victory for constitutional rights everywhere.”
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation have filed an appeal brief with the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in their challenge of the ban on so-called “assault weapons” by the State of Connecticut. The case is known as Grant v. Lamont.
“Connecticut has enacted one of the strictest gun control laws in the country, which criminalizes the mere possession of an AR-15 type firearm,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We filed our lawsuit in September 2022, and the District Court, ignoring the guidelines established in the June 2022 Supreme Court’s Bruen decision requiring historical relevancy, held the state ban to be constitutional. As we note in our brief, we cannot allow the District Court’s ruling to go unchallenged, because it essentially is based on subjective considerations the Bruen ruling forbids.”
“Our detailed brief provides ample historical facts regarding multi-shot rifles which existed at the time of the Founding and went along on the Lewis and Clark Expedition that would be banned under Connecticut’s existing law,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “We state clearly how the long historical pedigree of rapid firing repeating firearms, and the complete absence of any historical ban on their possession and use precludes the state’s current ban and makes it unconstitutional.”
In its appeal brief, SAF contends the District Court erred when it denied the motion for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Connecticut’s original and newly expanded ban on so-called “assault weapons.”
As noted in the brief, “The Appellees – after undoubtedly engaging in much research and retaining two history experts – failed to produce a single law until well into the 20th Century demonstrating any sort of ban on a semi-automatic firearm because of its capacity.”
SAF is joined by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and three private citizens, including Eddie Grant, Jr., for whom the case is known. They are represented by Connecticut attorneys Cameron L. Atkinson of Harwinton, Craig Fishbein in Wallingford, and Doug Dubitsky of North Windham.
Second Amendment Foundation
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing, and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
South Carolina is close to passing permitless carry in 2024. IMG Jim Grant
The South Carolina Senate passed H. 3594 on February 1, 2024. The bill was passed in the South Carolina House in February of 2023 with a vote of 90 to 30. The Senate added a couple of changes in an amendment to the bill put forward by the president of the Senate, Shane A. Massie. Massie had previously been one of a few Republican South Carolina senators blocking the bill from passage. H. 3594, as amended, goes back to the House for a vote of concurrence with the amendment. The bill passed the Senate on a roll call vote, with 28 Republicans in favor, 1 Republican against (Senator Luke Rankin, district 33), and 1 Republican not voting, Senator George Campsen, district 43. One Democrat voted for the bill (Mike Fanning, district 17). Fourteen Democrats voted against the bill.
“I think today we ended up with a bill of what I wanted to accomplish– which is a law abiding citizen being able to exercise his or her constitutional rights under the Second Amendment without interference from government,” said Martin.
If the House agrees to the Senate’s changes, it will head to Gov. McMaster’s desk for approval.
It appears likely the amended bill will be passed by the South Carolina House. The amendments are reported to increase criminal penalties for the illegal carry of firearms. The bill will also offer free training in every county.
The law wouldn’t change much about how a gun is legally acquired, but it does change penalties for gun crimes. In particular, penalties would be lessened for people who partake in gun safety training. While encouraged under the Bill, it would not be required.
“They’re going to encourage you to do it by the penalties. There can be enhanced penalties if you didn’t have training before and you just start open carrying or concealed carrying and you didn’t have the training,” said Republican Senator Katrina Shealy.
The free training part of the bill must be offered twice a month in every county. It also lowers the age to obtain a permit to 18 from 21. If a person commits a crime involving a gun and does not avail themselves of obtaining a permit, they can face additional penalties.
A carrot-and-stick approach offered by Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey makes the eight-hour training class needed for a CWP free. The State Law Enforcement Division must provide the course at least twice a month in every county — more often if the demand is greater — in hopes of also making it more convenient. And it lowered the age eligibility for a CWP to 18, down from 21.
If gun owners without a CWP commit a crime involving a gun, they’d face a stiffer penalty than someone with a permit. A conviction would bring up to three additional years in prison.
This is not a perfect Constitutional Carry bill. It is a significant permitless carry bill.
Free training, which allows for a carry permit for no cost other than a person’s time and travel expenses, will allow people who desire a permit to obtain one with little effort. There are some other minor changes in the bill, which are incremental improvements. Requirements for reporting stolen or missing guns, if you have a permit, are loosened from “immediately” to 48 hours. Permits would be automatically renewed without application.
If South Carolina passes this bill, there will be 28 states with permitless/Constitutional Carry. Louisiana is likely to become number 29 in 2024.
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.
Washington, DC – Ten U.S. Senators, ten law professors, and multiple civil liberties groups, policy research organizations, and attorneys have filed 13 amicus curiae briefs supporting the New Civil Liberties Alliance’s position in the Garland v. Cargill case that bump stocks are not machine guns. Representing Texas gun shop owner and Army veteran Michael Cargill, NCLA challenges the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Bump Stock Final Rule and ATF’s expansion of the criminal scope of a statute by administrative fiat. The Final Rule reversed ATF’s long-standing recognition that bump-stock-equipped firearms are not illegal machine guns, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rightly shot down the Rule early last year.
NCLA has arranged for former Texas Solicitor-General Jonathan Mitchell to present oral argument to the Supreme Court on Mr. Cargill’s behalf on Feb. 28, urging the Justices to confirm the Fifth Circuit’s ruling. NCLA thanks the amicus parties for standing with Mr. Cargill and thousands of other legal purchasers of bump stocks.
The amici who filed in support of NCLA’s position include U.S. Senators, Professors of Second Amendment Law, and the Independence Institute; The Buckeye Institute; Pacific Legal Foundation; Manhattan Institute; FPC Action Foundation; Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc.; National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.; National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; National Rifle Association of America, Inc.; Second Amendment Law Center, Second Amendment Defense and Education Coalition, Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., and Guns Save Life; Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition and Palmetto State Armory, LLC; National Association for Gun Rights, Inc., the National Foundation for Gun Rights, Inc. and Rare Breed Triggers, LLC; Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, Heller Foundation, Tennessee Firearms Association, Tennessee Firearms Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, Grass Roots North Carolina, Rights Watch International, America’s Future, U.S. Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.
The 13 amicus briefs reinforce NCLA’s arguments and address a litany of other concerns, including the Rule of Lenity, preventing criminalization of innocent Americans, and Chevron deference. Excerpts follow:
“In the best tradition of our separation of powers jurisprudence, this Court should apply the criminal laws that Congress has written with unmistakable clarity. If there is reasonable doubt as to meaning, Congress can remove the doubt with new legislation.” ~ Sens. Cynthia Lummis, Mike Lee, Kevin Cramer, John Barrasso, Pete Ricketts, Steve Daines, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Mike Rounds, Markwayne Mullin, Professors of Second Amendment Law, Independence Institute
“The lately nascent view that Lenity should come to play only when such ambiguity … is ‘grievous’ threatens to nullify the saving power of the doctrine. The better view is to uphold the classic understanding … once a court determines there are two or more interpretations of the law, and there remains reasonable doubt as to which of those interpretations correctly applies …, a court should invoke the Rule of Lenity in favor of the defendant, find the least penal option, and await the correction and clarification of the law by the legislature.” ~ National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
“[C]riminalization through regulation at the whim of everchanging agency determinations ‘turn[s] the normal construction of criminal statutes upside-down, replacing the doctrine of lenity with a doctrine of severity.’” ~ The Buckeye Institute
“Lenity is a traditional interpretive tool that should apply before asking whether an agency interpretation is reasonable. And deferring to an agency under Chevron would be contrary to the Court’s non-deferential approach in other areas of criminal law; it would also undermine due process and the separation of powers.” ~ Pacific Legal Foundation
“[I]n abruptly reversing 11 years of its own findings that bump stocks are not machine guns, ATF’s actions were not based on an alleged statutory ambiguity or agency expertise. Instead, they were done solely as a political expediency to avoid the need for legislation.” ~ Manhattan Institute
“That kind of confiscatory, turn-in-your-lawfully-acquired-property-to-the-feds command is a rarity when it comes to the statute books, because Members of Congress like to be re-elected. But ATF has no such accountability and has shown no such restraint. … The Court should return ATF to the limited role Congress assigned it before the agency can subject the citizenry to yet another illicit turn of the regulatory vise.” ~ National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.
“[I]f this Court concludes that the statute is ambiguous, it should reject the Solicitor General’s argument that the rule of lenity applies only when a statute is ‘grievously ambiguous.’” ~ FAMM (in an amicus curiae brief filed in support of neither party)
NCLA released the following statements:
“The broad amicus support provided to NCLA’s challenge to ATF well illustrates the public’s disgust with that agency’s abuse of its administrative powers.” ~ Richard Samp, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA.
“NCLA greatly appreciates the support from the dozen-plus amici in this case. As we’ve said from the beginning, and as these amicus briefs underscore, this case is about unlawful administrative power, not gun rights.” ~ Mark Chenoweth, President and Chief Legal Officer, NCLA.
For more information visit the case page here or watch the case video above.
About New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA)
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.
If Democrats believe the most common weapon in the USA is an “assault weapon” [their words], then they should trip over themselves to declare fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction.
Classif Fentanyl as a Weapon of Mass Destruction
Today, Congresswoman Lauren Boebert reintroduced the Fentanyl is a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) Act to protect our children and communities by classifying the deadly drug fentanyl as a WMD.
Congresswoman Lauren Boebert (CO-03) said, “As a mom of four boys, I will not stand by and watch as fentanyl floods across our border and poisons our youth. It’s time to use the full force of the federal government to tackle this crisis. The Biden Border Invasion and this deadly drug are killing Americans. It is time to call fentanyl what it is: a weapon of mass destruction that is destroying our nation.”
Congresswoman Beth Van Duyne (TX-24) said, “We are in a wartime scenario with more than 100,000 Americans, including more than 1,000 North Texans, dead from fentanyl poisoning. This deadly drug is smuggled into our country by Mexican drug cartels and supplied by the Chinese communists. In addition to working to secure the border and stop the flow of fentanyl into our communities, I’m supporting the Fentanyl is a Weapon of Mass Destruction Act because it will give our law enforcement officers much-needed tools to combat the lethal threat posed by fentanyl.”
Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna (FL-13) said, “I am proud to co-sponsor the Fentanyl is a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) Act. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost to fentanyl in this country, and it is high time we take this issue as seriously as it is. This deadly drug is the #1 killer of our young people in America and is readily capable of being weaponized against the American people to inflict mass murder. Classifying fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction would allow our law enforcement agencies, including DHS and Border Patrol, to better coordinate efforts to eliminate fentanyl from our streets and as a threat to national security.”
Congressman Bill Posey (FL-08) said, “Fentanyl pouring in our country through the southern border has become a massive epidemic and caused countless, pointless deaths. By asserting fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction, we can better coordinate and eliminate fentanyl in our country.”
Background:
The Fentanyl is a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) Act would require the Assistant Secretary for the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office of the Department of Homeland Security to treat illicit fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction. This would enable the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Department of Defense to coordinate their efforts and aggressively target criminals trafficking fentanyl in America, allocate additional resources, and take more aggressive measures to prevent the production and distribution of fentanyl.
18 U.S. Code § 2332a explicitly defines a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) as any tool designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxins, poisonous chemicals, or their precursors. This classification undoubtedly encompasses illegal fentanyl and its analogs, which have proven to be entirely capable of causing mass casualties and biological impairment.
In 2002, the Russian military reportedly deployed an aerosolized form of fentanyl to incapacitate terrorists holding hostages in a Moscow theater; the gas also killed more than 120 of the hostages.
In FY 2023, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), including Air and Marine Operations, seized 27,293 pounds of fentanyl coming across the southwest border—enough to kill more than 6 billion people.
The Fentanyl is a WMD Act follows a 2019 proposal from Trump’s Department of Homeland Security to use counter-WMD authorities to combat the fentanyl crisis. James F. McDonnell, then the DHS Assistant Secretary for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction under President Trump, stated, “Fentanyl’s high toxicity and increasing availability are attractive to threat actors seeking non-conventional materials for a chemical weapons attack.”
This designation would not impact legal pharmaceutical fentanyl made in regulated labs. It would only impact illicit fentanyl. For example, Botulinum toxin is a WMD, but its legal medical form (Botox) is incredibly accessible.
The Biden Regime’s open-border and soft-on-China policies have allowed drugs like fentanyl to flow across our borders and into our communities. Designating illicit fentanyl as a WMD will force the Democrats to prioritize this crisis with an all-of-government approach.
Fentanyl Crisis by the Numbers:
The opioid crisis, fueled by the widespread availability of fentanyl on the illicit market, has had a devastating impact on communities and strained public health resources:
In 2023, CBP seized 27,293 pounds of fentanyl, enough to kill 6 billion people.
Over 112,000 deaths resulted from lethal fentanyl overdoses in 2023, an increase of 38,346 from 2022.
In Colorado, there were over 1,800 deaths from lethal fentanyl overdoses in 2023, nearly double the record number set in 2022.
Fentanyl is the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 45, surpassing suicide, cancer, and car accidents.
Fentanyl is 100 times more potent than other opioids like morphine.
Cosponsors of this bill include: Rep. Andy Ogles (TN-05), Rep. Paul Gosar (AZ-09), Rep. Bill Posey (FL-08), Rep. Troy Nehls (TX-22), Rep. Matt Gaetz (FL-01), Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (FL-13), Rep. Tim Burchett (TN-02), Rep. Beth Van Duyne (TX-24), Rep. Barry Moore (AL-02), Rep. Byron Donalds (FL-19), Rep. Mary Miller (IL-15)
The full text of Congresswoman Lauren Boebert’s “Fentanyl is a WMD Act” is available here.
