4 weeks, 1 day ago
One can only hope the supreme court does the right thing. This is a very big deal for firearms manufacturers.
Additionally, if this goes forward in the states, you know who pays the cost? Firearms owners. They will have to pass the cost on or not survive. So, it affects all of us who own firearms. I’m certain that’s part of the strategy. Legal costs are exorbitant.
1 month, 4 weeks ago
A Republican bill filed on Capitol Hill last week would deregulate suppressors as firearms under both the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act.
The Silencers Helping Us Save Hearing, or SHUSH, Act was introduced on Jan. 30 by U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, and has four co-sponsors, all from the GOP. The language of the five-page bill deletes all federal regulations– including taxes, fees, and registration requirements– of suppressors. Those who paid a transfer tax for such safety accessories in the two years before the bill’s enactment would get a refund.
“Despite what Hollywood may lead you to believe, silencers aren’t silent, and they aren’t just for secret agents,” said Lee in a statement. “They are a vital tool for hearing protection for countless marksmen and gun enthusiasts across America, and making them prohibitively difficult to obtain is an assault on the 2nd Amendment. The SHUSH Act eliminates federal regulation of silencers and treats them as the non-lethal accessory that they are.”
U.S. Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) will spearhead the bill in the House, where it will join a stack of suppressor reform legislation that includes the Hearing Protection Act.
“Suppressors are a vital tool for responsible gun owners that protect hearing, enhance safety, and reduce firearm noise—but thanks to Hollywood and federal overreach, they’ve been unfairly vilified,” said Cloud. “Law-abiding Americans shouldn’t have to endure months of red tape and pay an additional tax just to access a safety accessory. The SHUSH Act puts an end to this unnecessary bureaucratic red tape, eliminates the federal tax, and prevents state overreach by treating suppressors like any other firearm accessory.”
More than 4 million suppressors are in circulation, a figure that has more than quadrupled in less than a decade.
According to a joint release from Cloud and Lee, the measure has the support of the National Association for Gun Rights, Gun Owners of America, the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
The SHUSH Act in the Senate is filed as S.345 and has been referred to the Committee on Finance.
If I don’t get anything else out of this administration, I want suppressors removed from the NFA.
There is no excuse for not doing this bill and pushing it through quickly. There is no excuse for suppressors to have ever been in the NFA to begin with. This is about hearing protection, something OSHA claims to care about.
In fact, there is no excuse for the NFA.
2 months, 1 week ago
Then, in December, a 26-year-old allegedly used a 3D-printed ghost gun to fatally shoot UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson on a Manhattan street.
The assassination jolted the public. While it didn’t necessarily indicate that untraceable weapons were becoming more prevalent, it did raise questions about the state of the ghost guns market. Was Polymer80’s closure a sign that the market was shriveling up — or was it, hydralike, sprouting new heads?
Law enforcement officials, small arms researchers, and ghost gun manufacturers who recently spoke to The Trace described the law enforcement gains against ghost guns as tenuous at best, especially in light of the Trump administration’s aversion to new regulations. Ghost gun technology, they warned, is only getting more sophisticated — and as a result, the weapons are becoming more appealing to criminals.
In the vast majority of the country, it is perfectly legal to own ghost guns, but not to sell them. Companies like Polymer80 have sidestepped this prohibition by selling kits containing all the components necessary to build an unserialized firearm: barrels, triggers, unfinished frames also known as “80 percent” receivers, and all the requisite pins and screws. Since the kits were initially not considered firearms, customers could buy them without a background check, and then assemble their ghost guns at home.
Between 2017 and 2023, police recovered more than 92,000 ghost guns — the vast majority of which were built from kits, according to data released in January by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Children bought the kits and then shot themselves by accident. Mass shooters used them to kill office workers and classmates.
The violence prompted the Biden administration to crack down. In 2022, the ATF issued a rule effectively reinterpreting the federal legal definition of the word “firearm” to include most ghost gun kits. To sell the kits, retailers would need to apply for a federal firearms license, serialize the products, and conduct background checks for every sale. The ATF’s data shows that in 2023, the number of ghost guns recovered annually by police increased by less than 1 percent, the smallest jump over that seven-year span.
We reviewed the websites of 12 online retailers known for offering ghost gun kits and found that at least four were continuing to sell them. The Trace showed the listings to Rick Vasquez, a former ATF firearms expert. He said that while these four retailers were likely violating the new rule, selling the kits is something of a legal gray area while the regulation is being considered by the Supreme Court.
“Something of a gray area.” I’d say it’s completely illegal for the ATF to do this because it infringes on the 2A. There’s nothing gray about it, but Rick Vasquez will say anything.
TCJ has a long history with Jennifer, and she’s just being as hysterical as she always is. So let’s review what actually happened and the only possible result from it all.
In order to pull something like this assassination off and get away with it, he would had to have used cash for everything, that cash having been gotten some place other than his own home town. He would have had to procure burner phones for use only once, those phones purchased with cash in some place other than his own home town. He would have had to be wearing professional grade disguises when he did that. Then he would have had to travel only by train or bus, with the tickets purchased with cash. He would have had to travel with professional level disguises all the way from his home town and back. A hoodie doesn’t count. He would have had to jettison his clothing at frequent stops so as not to leave traces of fibers. He would have had to wear a hair net so as not to leave hair samples. He would had to have used gloves at every step of the way so as not to leave finger prints.
Folks, as best as I know, there are only two entities on earth who can pull off this sort of thing: the CIA, and Mossad. He was always going to be caught. I say it again. He was always going to be caught.
So given that, what difference does it make where he got his firearm or what type he used? He could purchase firearms legally anyway – so what difference does it make if he had used an unserialized firearm?
Here is your answer: none. It makes no difference at all. He was always going to be caught. So the type of fiream he chose or how he got it had absolutely nothing to do with perpetrating the crime.
But communicating that to her readers wouldn’t let Jennifer use scary phrases like “Ghost Guns” to frighten soccer moms into believing that the more America builds unserialized firearms, the more assassinations there will be.
That’s the non sequitur she is trafficking in with this commentary. As I said, she’s just being hysterical. But that’s what she does.
2 months, 2 weeks ago
A court vacating the final rule means nothing to the tyrants and controllers. They’re at it again.
Then again, if they are keeping a searchable database of gun owners in violation of federal law — and I believe they are — why wouldn’t they continue to violate the law including judicial orders? No one has stopped them yet. No one has fired them yet. No one has defunded them yet.
There have been absolutely no consequences to their illegalities.
3 months, 1 week ago
Can be found here.
Occasionally, the courts get one right. In this case, it’s nice to see the court affirm the notion that the FedGov can’t just make up stuff to disarm peaceable men.
3 months, 2 weeks ago
First up, Mark Smith assesses the recent delay of the Snopes case.
Second, Mark assesses the potential picks to head the ATF. Personally, I would prefer to see the ATF completely eradicated. Its mere existence of prima facie unconstitutional. The existence of federal gun laws is prima facie unconstitutional. But if all we get out of this is an eradication of the “secret” gun registry and a prohibition on enforcement of laws by the ATF, then it’s very important who runs the FBI.
I would also suggest that it makes sense to send 90% of the employees of the FBI and ATF to the border to enforce border laws. As for those still trying to come across, send the Marine Corps to shoot them. If that sounds harsh, think of this as an invasion. What do you think Russi and China would do in such a case? They care about their borders, and we don’t. To most of the American elite, America is an idea, not a sovereign nation with borders.
This whole problem with the border could be solved in an instant. Stop traffic. All traffic, including trade. Allow no one to cross the border, not even for work. But you see, home builders, yard workers and house cleaners are needed for the elite, so that’s not going to happen. As is stands, they get the middle class to pay for medical care via socialized medicine while they get to pay lower wages than they otherwise would, and we bear the brunt of the deal.
Finally, Mark further assesses the inside baseball maneuvers in the SCOTUS on 2A cases.
4 months, 2 weeks ago
Via David Codrea.
@GIFFORDS_org’s Litigation Director say that a stabilizing brace “gives” a pistol “more power and more velocity and therefore more lethality.” [Watch]
Especially if they have a shoulder thing that goes up!
We’ll have to call it the “high caliber stabilizing brace” for lack of a better phrase. I don’t know what it is, but I want one.
We can put this in the same category as the items below.
Prior:
4 months, 3 weeks ago
Well, it is Illinois, and the circuit court may ride roughshod over this decision like they did Judge McGlynn’s earlier decision. Here is the decision.
For all the good I think is in here, I still think he (and virtually all other judges and justices) miss the point about the second amendment existing for the amelioration of tyranny. Personal self defense is a cleaned up, sanitized version of the 2A meant to make the 2A more palatable for the inside-the-beltway types.
Self-defense must include defense against the tyranny of the state to be complete.
5 months, 1 week ago
Source (via WiscoDave).
Hunters take note: State attorneys are arguing your rifles are not “constitutionally” protected in Connecticut.
What does that mean? According to attorney Joshua Perry, who works for the Connecticut Attorney General’s office, this means hunting rifles are legal but not protected by the Constitution. He argues that the Constitution only guarantees citizens the right to guns commonly used in self-defense and that semi-automatic rifles used in hunting do not fall into that category.
This discussion came up on Wednesday in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Attorneys representing Gov. Ned Lamont and the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) made oral arguments in front of Judge Alison Nathan. This was a part of a lawsuit the NAGR filed against the state last year.
NAGR, and a co-plaintiff Toni Theresa Spera, are challenging “An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety.” The act, which was passed after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, bans the sale of firearms and accessories classified as “assault weapons.” NAGR and Spera believe this violates their Second Amendment rights.
Perry argued the state could restrict guns not commonly used for self-defense. Nathan asked if, by this logic, semi-automatic hunting rifles were protected. Perry said they are not.
“Connecticut restricts instrumentalities that are unusually dangerous, that are like M16 rifles, that have combat functional features, that allow users to hose down… a battlefield or tragically a school and cause a disproportionate number of casualties,” Perry said.
He referenced the bans of the M16. In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld a ban on the weapon in Columbia v. Heller.
Perry argues that the “plain text as historically understood” of the U.S. Constitution protects the right to self-defense, “not a right to possess any type of weapon for any sort of confrontation.”
Immediately after these arguments, another gun case was argued: Eddie Grant, Jr., v. James Rovella. Perry presented during these arguments as well.
“Connecticut has not banned hunting rifles. Whether or not they are constitutionally protected, they are certainly democratically protected,” Perry said. “As a rule, something that is popular doesn’t need constitutional protection, because it’s popular. Hunting rifles would certainly fall into that category.”
He went on to say, “As to whether Connecticut could restrict hunting rifles, I think we probably could not, because I think it could be shown that they are not unusually dangerous. They are not ill disproportionately suited in the way that… AR-15s are, and the record might well show that they were used and useful for self-defense. I’ll be honest, we have not done that analysis, but I have no reason to think that wouldn’t be true.”
Semi-automatic shotguns are used for hunting pheasants, waterfowl and partridge, according to Eugene Kisielewski, the treasurer of the Northwest Connecticut Rod and Gun Club, who spoke with Inside Investigator about hunting and gun ownership in Connecticut.
Kisielewski, who owns a semi-automatic shotgun to hunt pheasants, believes gun regulations in Connecticut are too strict, and expects them to get stricter in the immediate future.
“We do have a constitutional right to own and use firearms. When you’re talking [banning] about a particular type of firearm, then I think you’re really discriminating overall,” he said. “Unfortunately, I don’t see the difference in hunting with a semi-auto versus a bolt action or a pump action or a single shot. The projectile still comes out at the end of the barrel at a high rate of speed.”
Attorney Barry Arrington, who represented NAGR, says the AR-15 is not dangerous or unusual in the United States.
“The fact of the matter is that this is political grandstanding by the Connecticut legislature, it has no effect on crime,” Arrington told Inside Investigator in an interview. “For obvious reasons, a criminal is not going to walk down the street with the AR-15. All the cases say that handguns are preferred by shooters, even in mass shootings.”
The AR-15 is the most common rifle in the United States.
According to a report from the National Institute of Justice, over 75% of mass shootings involved handguns, and 25% involved assault rifles.
However, only 3% of gun deaths involved rifles of any kinds, according to Pew Research Center.
“If the most popular rifle in America is not protected by the constitution, then [no rifle] is,” Arrington said in court.
This is almost too much to unpack in a single post, but let’s give it a try.
First of all, sniper rifles of all sorts are still predominately bolt action rifles. The shooters are just highly trained and very good at their craft. So are so-called DMs (designated marksmen), although a DM might also use a semi-automatic rifle (either in 5.56mm or 7.62mm).
But as for the danger any long gun presents, simply see the example of Charles Whitman, who managed to kill 17 people mostly with a Remington 700 and Remington 6mm rifle, both bolt guns.
This conversation above is way behind the times. Many deer hunters are taking game with semi-automatic AR-10s shooting 6.5mm Creedmoor or .308. Good guns are capable of ~ 1 MOA or better. There is simply no difference today except hunter’s choice.
The conversation above also shows the complete ignorance of the lawyers who argued the case. They hadn’t thought about these issues. Or maybe they had thought about it, they just didn’t have an answer because lawyers seldom attempt to make their case logical, preferring to submit arguments to win a case regardless of how inconsistent or irrational they are. Here’s a tip for reading legal briefs and “friend of the court” briefs. If you study an argument, and agree or disagree with it, you might go to the next argument in the brief and see one that completely contradicts all of the salient points made in the prior argument. That’s not a mistake. They usually make no attempt to be persuasive using a logical approach all the way through the brief. The singular goal is to win the case, and if the judges won’t accept one argument, they might accept the next one.
But for the deer hunters out there who prefer their bolt action rifles and look down on guys who use AR-10s (there is still a lot of folks like that) and therefore stay away from gun rights arguments and even neglect to vote, David Codrea has a message for you: “Your turn in the barrel, Fudds. Just because Polyphemus promised to eat you last didn’t mean he wasn’t going to.”
You see, they don’t care about being honest. It’s all just in the messaging. All they care about is confiscating your firearms. In Australia, my understanding is that they have even outlawed lever action long guns because they are “repeaters.”
Always remember their long game (TCJ, citing Daily Kos).
The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.
Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it. The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them.
If you think they are willing to stop at collecting machine guns, they will eventually go for your semi-automatic rifles. If you think they will stop at semi-automatic rifles, they’ll go for your bolt action and lever action rifles when you’re not looking.
They are the enemy. See them as such or you won’t have any firearms to take on your deer hunting trips no matter how nice that Remington 700 is and how many deer you’ve taken with it.
They hate you. They want you disarmed. Never forget that.
The second amendment is about the right of insurrection, not hunting, nor technically self defense, unless you fold self defense into the right of defense against tyranny (which I think is a perfectly fine and logically consistent thing to do). The point isn’t whether hunting rifles (here they mean bolt action rifles) are protected and whether they can be used for self defense. They are, and they have been, as have AR-15s.
Any weapon can be and has been used in warfare, from rocks to spears to arrows to revolvers to balls of fire to melted tar to bolt action and semi-automatic rifles and pistols and bombs.
All weapons are weapons of war. The issue here is that if they want to collect your guns, they intend to do something to you that would cause you to need your guns.
UPDATE: Kamala Harris once suggested that it would be great to ban all gun ownership (via Instapundit). But you knew that about her anyway.
5 months, 2 weeks ago
Of course, what he’s saying is a lie. He knows better when he says that the police will leave you your deer hunting rifles in a seizure of your firearms. The most unfortunate part isn’t that he’s a liar – everybody already knows that.
The most unfortunate part is that there are enough Fudds out there who focus on deer, turkey and upland bird hunting that if they can do that during season, that’s enough for them. As for red flag laws, implement away as far as they’re concerned.
