Amicus Briefs Filed to Defend Serial Number Gun Ban in Fourth Circuit

best Ar15 Trigger triggers iStock-FabrikaCr-949369336

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– In a previous article on AmmoLand, the West Virginia case was described where the federal ban on possession of a firearm with the serial number removed, was found to be unconstitutional. The case is USA v Randy Price.

Serial numbers were never designed as a means of confiscating firearms. They have been subverted for that purpose.

Demanding that firearms have serial numbers and that those numbers are not removed so that firearms can be linked to particular individuals is key to setting up a system for gun confiscation. Those who wish for an unarmed population understand this. They have marshaled vast resources to keep the federal ban on possessing firearms that have had the serial number removed.

The Biden administration has appealed the district court ruling to the Fourth Circuit. The defendant is represented by an attorney appointed by the court. It is unclear what defense of the district court ruling will be heard by the Fourth Circuit.

Amicus briefs have been filed to reverse the district court ruling by:

• Everytown for Gun Safety
• Brady and March For Our Lives
• The District of Columbia was joined by 20 state attorney generals.

The amicus briefs may be viewed on the PACER system.

In the District Court opinion, no attention was paid to the direct and clear threat requiring firearms to have serial numbers and the prohibition on possessing firearms where the serial number has been removed to maintain an armed population.

A ban on firearms with serial numbers removed is a direct seizure of power over the ownership of arms, which the Second Amendment is designed to protect against.

The federal law makes the confiscation of guns from the population much easier. The serial number law makes gun registration possible. Gun registration is gun confiscation. House-to-house searches are unnecessary when a particular firearm can be linked to a particular person. This is the reason those who want a disarmed population are pulling out the stops to keep this law, although it is a clear infringement of the Right to Keep arms, protected by the Second Amendment.

Several European countries require serial numbers on all major gun parts, such as barrels, slides, and frames.

A court appointed attorney has relatively limited resources. No amicus briefs have been filed, as of the December 22, 2022, by any of the organizations which are dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

The foremost argument by those fighting to keep the ban is the claim that firearms with serial numbers removed are not in common use for legitimate purposes.

This is the sophistry of the first order. The removal of a serial number does not change the function of a firearm at all. A .38 revolver with or without a serial number is still a .38 revolver. Revolvers are a type of firearm in common use.  It is a change in legal nomenclature, which was required by the federal government in the first place.  The argument is circular. It states firearms may be banned if the federal government defines them as contraband.

The argument could as easily be made that pink guns are not in common use; therefore, they can be banned.  The banning of colored guns has been proposed.

California uses its handgun roster to ban guns based on non-functional criteria. If a model is offered in a different color, it has to be tested in that color, an expensive and time-consuming process. The California handgun roster is being challenged in court.

There is no historical precedent for a ban on firearms that have had the serial number removed. It is recent law enacted in 1990. It has almost no effect on crime.

The secondary argument in the amicus brief is the claim that tracing guns is an effective crime fighting tool. It is not and never has been.  Showing numbers of people who have been prosecuted for possessing a firearm with the serial number removed does not show any ability to stop a crime; it only shows prosecutions of victimless crimes.

Firearms tracing is a failed system designed to move to a universal firearms registration system. Showing the ban on possession of firearms with the serial number removed to be unconstitutional renders the decades-long project to enact universal firearms registration futile.

Organizations supporting rights protected by the Second Amendment may not wish to invest scarce resources in a case with a less-than-stellar defendant. It may be worth the effort to get the argument on the record that the ability of the government to ban the possession of firearms that have had a serial number removed is an infringement on Second Amendment rights.

---

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/ndfBb9Q
via IFTTT

OR Wants M114 Background Check Now; Judge Says Wait

The latest round in Oregon’s fight over Measure 114 resulted in Judge Robert Raschio telling court combatants they will have to wait for a ruling on whether the waiting period portion of the measure will be blocked. iStock-884203732.jpg

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- The State of Oregon wants the “completed criminal background check” tenet of Measure 114 to take effect now. Harney County Circuit Judge Robert Raschio put the brakes on again, saying he would decide by Jan. 3 whether to continue blocking that part of the measure, according to KGW News.

The requirement that a gun may not be sold or transferred until a background check is completed replaces the long-standing federal time frame of three days. A sale may be completed if a check is not completed within that 72-hour window. But according to KEZI News, ‘That’s how the gunman in a Charleston, South Carolina, mass shooting in 2015 bought his gun and killed nine people at a church.”

But Kevin Starrett, writing at the Oregon Firearms Federation’s website, sees it much differently. In a post hearing update, he wrote:

“The state requested that the Judge ignore the thousands of people waiting to take possession of the firearms they have already paid for and eliminate the one safeguard they have to obtain them…The Oregon Department of Justice wants to end this safeguard so they can prevent thousands of people from legally acquiring the firearms they have already purchased.”

He said the three-day provision is considered a “loophole” by proponents of the measure.

“Apparently,” Starrett wrote, “any policy that actually allows law-abiding Oregonians to legally obtain firearms is a ‘loophole.’”

According to Oregon Live, attorney Tony Aiello, Jr.—representing Gun Owners of America, which brought the lawsuit now in Raschio’s court—contended the three-day rule is a “relief valve” inserted in the federal gun law “to make sure a gun buyer isn’t waiting indefinitely for their background check to be completed.”

Special Assistant Attorney General Harry B. Wilson argued for the background check mandate to take effect.

Aiello countered, “This is infringement because … they have the ability to slow-walk background checks or to not do them whatsoever,” KGW noted.

Measure 114 is being challenged not only in state court, but by four federal lawsuits which have brought virtually every major gun rights organization onto the playing field. The Second Amendment Foundation filed two of those lawsuits, one challenging the magazine ban portion of the measure and the other targeting the requirement for training and obtaining a permit-to-purchase before an Oregon citizen can legally buy a firearm.

Then came the National Shooting Sports Foundation with a lawsuit, partnering with the Oregon Sport Shooting Association, a state affiliate of the National Rifle Association.

OFF filed the first federal action in November and a federal judge in Portland decided against issuing any kind of injunction or restraining order.

Starrett, who founded OFF some 30 years ago, said the effort to create an open-ended background check is “a potential bar on the purchase of a gun.”

“As many thousands of Oregonians have learned in recent months, the State Police simply cannot fulfill the duties assigned to them by Oregon law,” he said in the OFF update.

Adding to the drama, Oregon.live noted the Oregon State Police currently have “about 37,000 background checks waiting to be reviewed” so staff has been reassigned to assist with the backlog. The report said, “through Dec. 20, the state police have received about 43,000 requests for background checks.”

Starrett posited that putting background checks on delay, and ultimately denying citizens to buy firearms, has been the “ultimate goal” of Measure 114 backers, who call themselves “Lift Every Voice Orgon (LEVO).” He said there have been cases of qualified buyers “sitting in limbo waiting for the state to do its job and complete the ‘instant’ background check” for, in some cases, years.

Aiello contended some Oregon residents, if Measure 114 takes effect, “will have no guarantee that their background checks will be processed in a timely manner.”

Starrett predicted the fight over whether Measure 1145 is constitutional is going to take a while, and in the meantime, “Some of the people who are being prevented from getting the guns they are legally entitled to, and have paid for, are at great risk because LEVO and the State of Oregon have prevented them from having the means to protect themselves.  Any harm these people suffer is on the hands of…LEVO and the state.”

He asserted LEVO has no legal bills to pay because the state is defending the new law.

Judge Raschio said he would decide by Jan. 3, which could mean he will rule earlier, perhaps sometime during the next week.

---

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/omn9Y4K
via IFTTT

New Jersey State Rifle Club Sues To Overturn Handgun Carry-Killer Law!

AdobeStock_128873236

New Jersey – -(AmmoLand.com)- At the exact moment NJ Governor Phill Murphy was signing illegal carry-killer legislation into law earlier today, the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) was filing an epic federal lawsuit seeking to swiftly and decisively block the blatantly unconstitutional new measure.

The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs is also seeking a restraining order to immediately halt the implementation of the new law while the case proceeds.

Embedded below, you can see a copy of the complaint filed in the case and monitor ongoing new case filings as they happen. ANJRPC legal counsel Dan Schmutter is spearheading the lawsuit.

The new law flagrantly and intentionally disrupts both the Second Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen decision upholding the right of honest citizens to carry firearms for personal protection. Now that New Jersey can no longer block the issuance of carry permits, the state is trying to change what it means to have a carry permit in the first place. The new law bans carry in most common public places, mandates non-existent liability insurance, and significantly increases permit fees to prevent lower-income citizens from exercising their rights.

“By signing this legislation, Gov. Murphy has effectively ended any chance of ever being elected to higher office outside of New Jersey, and has confirmed that the Constitution is indeed ‘above his pay grade,'” said ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach. “Not only will this legislation go down in flames, but the Murphy administration will end up paying the very substantial legal costs of gun owners to bring it down.”

A restraining order is being sought imminently, seeking to halt the implementation of the new law while the case proceeds. Please stay tuned for further updates and alerts. If you are not already subscribed to these email alerts, you can sign up at no cost at the links below.

Gun owners can join the fight! Donate to this historic lawsuit and help fight for your RKBA.

Association Of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc., Plaintiffs, V. Matthew Platkin

---

About the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs: 

The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. is the official NRA State Association in New Jersey. Our mission is to implement all of the programs and activities at the state level that the NRA does at the national level. This mission includes the following: To support and defend the constitutional rights of the people to keep and bear arms. To take immediate action against any legislation at the local, state, and federal levels that would infringe upon these rights. Visit: www.anjrpc.org

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

New York Governor Hochul’s Tirade Unleashed On Gun Owners ~ VIDEO

Opinion

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- New York’s Concealed Handgun Improvement Act (CCIA) operates perversely to create further restrictions on an already restrictive Gun Law.

To give Hochul’s blatant refusal to abide by the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in NYSRPA vs. Bruen a leg to stand on, she attempts to give the public a sense that she cares deeply about the safety concerns of New Yorkers that her amendments to the State’s Gun Law are designed to effectuate that end.

What she delivers to the public, though, is nothing more than an elaborate promo, an infomercial proffered to sell a product. The product she is selling is simply a more tortuous and torturous version of the Sullivan Act that was enacted over one hundred years ago. And, like all promos and infomercials, it is meant to make a profit off a person’s gullibility.

In the instant case, the Sullivan Act is a noose around the necks of free citizens. The Act endangers the life of New Yorkers under the guise of securing life. It is all a charade.

The Daily Caller recites Hochul’s tirade against the High Court and against gun owners of New York, in its article titled, “NY Gov. Hochul Says Law-Abiding Gun Owners Make People Feel Very Unsafe”:

“Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said Friday morning law abiding gun owners make people feel ‘unsafe’ just one day after the Supreme Court overturned a more than century old gun law.

Speaking on CBS This Morning, Hochul said the right to carry outside the home makes individuals feel ‘unsafe’ and seemed to insinuate it should not be allowed.

‘Everybody in America recognizes that there is a problem with gun violence and the people who cheer this, what they say, what they see is, ‘Look there is a problem with gun violence and I, as a law-abiding citizen, want to be able to hold a gun on my person so that I feel safer.’ What do you say to that individual?” the host asked Hochul.

‘I say that makes everyone else feel very unsafe. We don’t know if you’re provoked, you know, you’re in a bar and someone looks at your girlfriend or your boyfriend the wrong way. There are so many triggers. If someone wants to have a legal gun, licensed protection in their home, that is their domain, they can do that, we’ve always allowed that, or for hunting and other purposes,’ Hochul said.’”

‘But to think someone would be able to do this on a subway, in a crowded, tense situation during rush hour? No, we have a right to protect our citizens, not take away your right to own, that’s fine, but where you take it and the ability to conceal it, that’s just going to make things so much more complicated for law enforcement and others.’”

Civilians Do Not Carry Handguns Openly in New York

First, it bears mentioning, but, apparently, only to morons like Hochul, that a holder of concealed handgun carry license does not ever carry his or her handgun openly, in New York, for all the world to see. The Gun Law itself recites the lawful carrying of a handgun, “concealed,” i.e., not openly by those issued concealed handgun carry licenses.

No one in New York is permitted to carry a handgun openly apart from uniformed New York police officers, or other uniformed personnel who fall under specific provisions of the State’s Gun Law.

How, then, can any law-abiding member of the public honestly feel a sense of foreboding that another law-abiding member of the public who happens to possess a concealed handgun carry license is someone to be feared?

The only creature that could realistically understandably “feel unsafe” is a psychopathic criminal who would dare to threaten an innocent member of the public. More than a few criminals and lunatics have met their untimely demise by threatening harm to an undercover police officer or off-duty officer, or to a holder of a valid concealed handgun license.

In fact, for a career criminal, who isn’t otherwise a psychotic maniac, and who has some instinct for survival, would never know for certain who is lawfully carrying a handgun concealed and who isn’t, if many more members of the public were carrying, as is their natural law right. Hence, it is reasonable to infer that this would result in a precipitous drop in violent crimes of opportunity.

“Triggers” Anyone?

Second, The notion that a person would go off half-cocked is a “Fever Dream” of the Anti-Second Amendment crowd. The Government would like the public to believe this myth. They like to imagine all sorts of horrors to justify ending the fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense. But their wax museum of horrors coming to life is just entertainment. It isn’t grounded in truth. It’s merely a fabrication, it is propaganda; a fictional horror film designed like many such films to create a jump scare. Only the gullible and ignorant Americans would fall for it.

If New York holders of handgun carry licenses were really such a threat to public safety and order, how is it that we never hear Governor Hochul talking about instances of criminal acts of violence committed by these licensees?

She can’t talk about this because there is no instance of this that she can drum up. All such talk of an armed New York citizenry posing a threat to their notion of public safety and public order in their well-ordered society is sheer unadulterated speculation, bordering on delirium.

“If someone wants to have a legal gun, licensed protection in their home, that is their domain, they can do that, we’ve always allowed that.”

Third, Isn’t she nice. Hochul says, the Government has always allowed someone “a legal gun in their home.” But wait a minute? Is keeping and bearing arms a Government bestowed privilege or a God-Given Right?

And didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court rule that the right to armed self-defense extends beyond the domain of one’s house, consistent with the meaning of the fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense?

Does New York law take precedence over the Second Amendment and the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court? Hochul demonstrates incredible arrogance. How did she get elected to Office anyway?

---

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

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

Biden Administration, State Governments Carried Out Elaborate Hoax On Gun Owners

Opinion

The “why” of the attack on the armed citizenry is as pressing as the “how”—the strategies employed. IMG iStock/chuntise

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- The “why” of the attack on the armed citizenry is as pressing as the “how”—the strategies employed. It all goes back to Government’s lust for “power” and “control” over the common people. The Globalists and their puppets in Government treat people like random bits of energy that require a firm hand lest common people get “out of hand.” The fear of the Tyrant is always that the common people will revolt against his Tyranny.

Our Federal Government, though, was constructed to serve the people. Everything in our Constitution points to that fact. The people are sovereign, not Government. But, like all Governments, our Federal Government has succumbed to tyranny. That tyranny is mirrored and multiplied in the Governments of many States. New York is one of those States.

The “sticky wicket” for the Globalists is the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

It serves, one, as evidence of the sovereignty of the American people over their Government, Federal, State, or local, and serves, two, as a mechanism to thwart the rise of tyranny. The Second Amendment, unlike the First or any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Has a tenacity that, when unleashed, a ferocity that scares the dickens of the proponents of a world empire and world domination, as well it should.

In this second half of the Biden Administration regime, we are seeing more and more emphasis placed on reining in the armed citizenry. And State Governments under Democrat Party leadership, like that of New York, are fully on board with this. Expect to see more of this, much more, in the weeks and months ahead.

The argument NY Governor Kathy Hochul makes in support of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) boils down to these two propositions:

• People are afraid of guns and of average law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners who keep and bear them.
• Average law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners pose an imminent threat to public safety and order.

Concerning the first, if some Americans happen to fear guns and those who exercise their fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense—indeed, if any American should happen to register such fears—those fears aren’t the product of something innate in a person, but, rather, are the product of an elaborate, concerted well-coordinated, and executed plan.

The question of why such psychologically damaging programs would be initiated by and ceaselessly and vigorously propagated by the Federal Government and many State Governments against the civilian population has nothing to do with a desire on the part of the Government to secure the life, health, safety, and well-being of Americans.

Rather, it has everything to do with carrying out a plot focused on the demise of a free Constitutional Republic, the only one like it in existence, the dissolution of our Constitution, and the subjugation of our people to the dictates of a new order of reality: the rise of a neo-feudalistic global empire.

The Hochul Government’s attack on the U.S. Supreme Court Bruen case is really a component part of a much larger mosaic, as evidenced by a concerted effort to undermine the Second Amendment. And so confident is she that she does this brazenly and contemptuously, attacking not just the Second Amendment but also the Justices of the Highest Court in the Land, whose sin, in her mind, is that they give a fundamental natural law right the respect it is due.

Thus, it isn’t that New Yorkers or any American has an innate fear of firearms or those who keep and bear them. It is, rather, that the Government in New York and the Governments of several other States, along with the Federal Government under the Biden Administration, have attempted to induce fear where none before existed, all in support of aims that are antithetical to our most sacred precepts and values, and antithetical to the common good.

Meanwhile, the law-abiding New York taxpayer daily faces rampant violent crime because of the abject failure of the New York Justice system to deal effectively with criminals and with raving, drug-addled lunatics that constantly prey on the public.

The police are prevented from engaging in effective policing activities that protect the community. In addition, the police are retiring or leaving New York in droves. Who will replace them?

Even if the Hochul Government provided the public with a modicum of community policing and a justice system that didn’t kowtow to lunatics and criminals, the fact remains that the New York police departments have no obligation to guarantee the life and safety of individual members of the public.

The police never had that obligation. And the New York public is under a misconception to think otherwise. Yet, the Government continues to keep the public in the dark about this, never troubling itself to inform the public that self-defense against threats of violence rests on each member of the public, not on the State

A well-trained, responsible, rational, law-abiding adult need not rely on the police and cannot legally place that burden on the police. The responsibility for preserving one’s life and well-being rests solely on the individual.

This was the salient point of Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.

Armed self-defense is ultimately the responsibility and prerogative of the individual.

The Hochul Government simply erroneously assumes that well-armed citizen threatens the community. This is a central theme pervasive in the New York Government, and it is a thread woven into the very fabric of New York’s draconian gun measures that go back over one hundred years from when the licensing of handguns was first enacted. Yet the Government takes this bald assumption as a self-evident truth.

It isn’t. But it serves the narrative, and the Government’s end goal is to disarm the public.

In their response to the Government’s Motion for a stay of the Preliminary Injunction, pending appeal, the Plaintiffs said this apropos of public safety:

“Even if Appellants had demonstrated some actual public safety benefit, it would come at the cost of disarmament of law-abiding gun owners, an unacceptably high cost, as “[t]he right to keep and bear arms . . . is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 783 (2010). Such enumerated rights cannot be balanced away by legislators, or judges, because “the Second Amendment is . . . the very product of an interest balancing by the people . . . it [] elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense. . . .” D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008).

Plus, Appellants can not plausibly claim irreparable harm from temporarily halting enforcement of an unconstitutional law: ‘the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of [injunctive relief]’ are not just the vindication of constitutional rights but also the prevention of their egregious curtailment. Indeed, it is always in the public interest to enjoin an unconstitutional law. The government has no ‘interest in the enforcement of an unconstitutional law.’”

The New York Government places itself above the sovereign authority of the American people.

This notion, unfortunately, is reflected in several other jurisdictions across the Country, and it is also present in the thinking of the Biden Administration and in the thinking of Democrats in Congress and by more than a few Republicans.

Unfortunately, the recent December 7, 2022, Second Circuit order doesn’t give New York gun owners much reason for hope, much less jubilation.

If such is the case, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli is destined for resolution by the High Court.

Justices Thomas and Alito would see that the case is heard, as the CCIA is a direct affront to the Second Amendment and to the rulings of Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.

In the immortal words of that late, great comic, Arte Johnson (a.k.a. the “German Soldier” routine), the Antonyuk case, and a slew of other post-Bruen cases wending their way through the Courts in New York and elsewhere in the Country are becoming “Very Interesting.”

---

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

from https://ift.tt/ZN38HRV
via IFTTT

NSSF Profile Q&A: US Representative Ted Budd

Ted Budd Official Portrait. IMG Congress.gov

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Editor’s Note: We are pleased to post the latest of our occasional Q&A features with an elected official who supports hunting and shooting sports. NSSF thanks U.S. Rep. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) for agreeing to talk with us.

1) What was your first experience shooting, either recreationally or on a hunt?

When I was 8 or 9 years old, I remember my dad walking me through shooting a Belgian Browning SA-22. He taught me proper technique, the do’s and don’ts, and everything involved with firearm safety. A few years later, we would go to the Tar Heel Gun Club to shoot. When I was 10, I was blessed to get shooting lessons with the legendary Lucky McDaniel. He’d toss plates into the air for me to aim at, and eventually we got down to tossing quarters. Those experiences were among my fondest memories growing up.

2) What shooting sports or hunting activities are most common and important in North Carolina?

Hunters have a wide range of game to hunt, from waterfowl in Eastern North Carolina to deer in the Piedmont region and bear in the western mountains. In 2020, North Carolina’s nearly half a million hunters spent $950 million in retail sales and contributed $716 million to our state’s economy.

3) How do you and your family contribute to the hunting culture of North Carolina?

Under former Gov. Jim Martin, my father was appointed to the N.C. Wildlife Commission and later served as Chairman. My oldest brother Joe also served on the Commission.

In 2010, I was approached by a friend regarding the purchase of a bankrupt gun range in Rural Hall, N.C., for a local police department to conduct firearms training. When I took over the range, the police were my first and only customers. Later, the training officer told me, “Never underestimate the need of the public to have a safe place to shoot.” It was on his advice that we opened the range to the public. The store’s motto is: “Helping our community responsibly enjoy firearms.” We host hunter safety courses for free at the store as well.

My dad has a sign posted near some of his stuff that reads, “Put things back as you found them… or a little bit better.” That sign also reflects how I see our mission as conservationists: To put things back as we found them…or just a little bit better.

That is why in the last 6 years, I’ve been proud to help outdoorsmen and women across our state enjoy hunting and fishing and one of my proudest votes was in favor of the Great American Outdoors Act a couple years ago.

I also support legislation that blocks the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from implementing a ban on lead ammo or tackle on federal lands.

4) Which piece of pending legislation related to the firearm industry is particularly important to you and why?

I support several bills that narrow the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) discretion when it comes to interpreting firearm laws that Congress has enacted. This includes a resolution of disapproval for the ATF’s “Frame or Receiver rule.” Unclear enforcement of this rule has already led shippers like FedEx and UPS to impose additional burdens on FFLs. I also cosponsored the No REGISTRY Act (H.R. 6945) to reform the ATF’s out-of-business records collection and legislation (H.R. 1827) to prohibit federal funds from being used to support state gun owner registries. In addition, I am closely following the issue with ATF’s new interpretation of “willful violation” that is leading to a sharp increase in FFL revocations. ATF has refused to respond to the letter I sent in June on this topic. I will continue to hold ATF accountable in the U.S. Senate.

In addition to these bills, I have strongly opposed efforts to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). For the past 17 years this bipartisan law has been protecting innocent actors in the firearms industry against frivolous lawsuits. Democrats in the House of Representatives announced a vote on a bill to repeal the PLCAA in July, but thankfully it was pulled from the schedule before a vote.

At the end of the day, we don’t have a device problem; we have a people problem.

5) What are the challenges and opportunities for hunters and shooting sports enthusiasts?

We should work on expanding entry points for more people to get into it. That means raising awareness and familiarizing folks with firearms and gun safety, so we reduce fears. That means more mentoring from older sportsmen and women to take young people into God’s creation. Getting outdoors has many positive benefits societally, for mental health, and so much more.

---

About The National Shooting Sports Foundation

NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org

from https://ift.tt/yYg4Zmo
via IFTTT

Activists Sue New Jersey Over New Unconstitutional Concealed Carry Law

iStock-AlexLMX

BELLEVUE, WA – -(AmmoLand.com)-The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit against the State of New Jersey, challenging the state’s new gun control law prohibiting licensed concealed carry in an expanded list of so-called “sensitive places,” and further criminalizes carrying an operable handgun “while in a vehicle.”

Joining SAF are the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, and the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, along with three private citizens, Nicholas Gaudio, Jeffrey M. Muller, and Ronald Koons. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney David D. Jensen, David Jensen PLLC, of Beacon, N.Y.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case is known as Koons et al v. Reynolds et al.

Named as defendants are Atlantic County Prosecutor William Reynolds, Camden County Prosecutor Grace C. Macaulay, Sussex County Prosecutor Annemarie Taggart, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and State Police Supt. Patrick Callahan, in their official capacities.

Shortly after New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed the new legislation on Dec. 22, SAF and its partners quickly filed the lawsuit.

“We are asking for a declaratory judgment against certain tenets of the new legislation,” explained SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We are also seeking a preliminary and/or permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their officers, agents and other employees from enforcing the challenged segments of the law.

“The specific sections of law violate the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment,” he continued. “There is no established historical tradition that could be used to justify these restrictions. This new legislation literally criminalizes licensed concealed carry just about everywhere, making a mockery of the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment.”

“New Jersey’s Legislature and Governor have shown that they do not wish to heed the Supreme Court’s guidance as to the bounds of the right to bear arms in Bruen,” said SAF’s Executive Director Adam Kraut.

“Despite clear directives as to a citizens’ right to bear arms, New Jersey continues to thumb its nose at the constitutional rights of its citizens in the name of ‘safety’. Such disregard for the rights of New Jerseyans will not be tolerated. As such, we are seeking to vindicate the rights of our members and the public in an expeditious manner. It is a shame the elected officials of New Jersey have no respect for the enumerated rights of the People and continue to needlessly waste their state’s tax dollars passing unconstitutional laws which render the common person defenseless.”

Koons et al v. Reynolds et al. : Activists Sues New Jersey Over New Concealed Carry Law

---

About 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.

from https://ift.tt/9dfa1Vw
via IFTTT