Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

MASSIVE 2A VICTORY JUST NOW: CALIFORNIA'S "SENSITIVE PLACE" LAWS KNOCKED OUT BY NINTH CIRCUIT ORDER. US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has allowed the preliminary injunction entered by US District Court Judge Cormac Carney to go into effect. Thus, a long list of…

— Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar (@fourboxesdiner) January 7, 2024

🚨 FPC WIN 🚨

The 9th Circuit has dissolved the administrative stay in our Carralero v. Bonta California Public Carry Bans Lawsuit and DENIED CA’s Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal.

This means all public carry bans blocked by our District Court injunction are blocked again. pic.twitter.com/NJDokAdPmP

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) January 6, 2024

Source.

A federal judge is allowing a challenge to New York’s assault weapons ban to proceed after he denied a motion to dismiss the lawsuit Thursday.

Two people supported by gun rights advocacy groups sued New York officials in December 2022 over the state’s ban on assault weapons, saying the law was “infringing the right of law-abiding, peaceable citizens to keep and bear commonly possessed firearms for defense of self and family and for other lawful purposes.” U.S. District Judge Kenneth Karas sided with the individuals bringing the lawsuit in a ruling released Thursday, denying state officials’ motion to dismiss the case.

Attorneys for New York officials filed a motion in the Southern District of New York to dismiss the complaint in May, arguing that the court does not have the jurisdiction to address the plaintiffs’ claims. The state officials’ legal team said the individuals “fail to establish that any injury-in-fact is traceable to the assault weapons ban” because they do not say they hold a license required to buy a semiautomatic rifle.

Karas dismissed the defendants’ arguments in the ruling.

“While there may be serious questions about Plaintiffs’ exemption argument, the Court need not address that question here because Plaintiffs adequately allege standing under Defendants’ interpretation of the statute,” Karas wrote.

“Put simply, Defendants have failed to explain how invalidating the Assault Weapons Ban would have no effect on the ability to obtain licenses for those same weapons,” Karas added later in the ruling.

These are the games that awful men like these lawyers play. The plaintiffs lack standing because they aren’t in prison for owning an AR-15 in New York. They need to buy an AR-15, and in order to do that they need a permit from us. But we aren’t granting permits to own or buy an AR-15. So there. Stuff it.

Fortunately this judge dismissed such gaming of the system.

The administration hates Americans (or at least, the ones who are currently Americans). The elitists in New York hates its people. The most recent school shooting has as its motive the same one as the Nashville shooting.

But they still claim it’s mental illness. How about this? It’s due to wickedness.

The moms in Nashville still want the elitists in Tennessee to infringe on the 2A. I was wondering if these moms, who are part of a school funded by the PCA, also attend or are members of that same PCA church. If so, I’d know who to blame for thinking that a piece of metal can cause the heart of man to be wicked. The pastor should have done a better job of teaching.

But I won’t ask them. Because.

Those poor folks just take in on the chin, yes? I’ve exchanged email with the president of the Hawaii rifle and pistol club. Nice guy. I’m sorry for this, but after all, it is a communist state superintended by a communist Ninth Circuit.

Note the horns of a dilemma they impale the supposedly free men on: You can’t have our permission without an approved instructor, and we don’t approve any instructors.

A friend responds, would be great if someone enforced the laws on the books, huh?

18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy against rights)

18 U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law)

Source.

A federal judge in Massachusetts shut down an attempt to block the state’s assault weapons ban Friday, arguing that the law does not break with recent Supreme Court precedent that has severely shaken gun control legislation.

District Judge Dennis Saylor said the state ban keeps with “historical tradition” of gun control regulation, after the high court ruled last year in the landmark New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision that all gun control legislation must keep with that tradition.

“The relevant history affirms the principle that in 1791, as now, there was a tradition of regulating ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons – specifically, those that are not reasonably necessary for self-defense,” Saylor wrote.

The judge added that the assault weapons in question are “not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes, and pose substantial dangers far beyond those inherent in the design of ordinary firearms.”

And that, dear folks, is all it takes to prove yourself an idiot.

Not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes.  Substantial dangers far beyond those inherent in the design of ordinary firearms. Now, try to reconcile those two passages.

No, you can’t. Because that 30-06 or 700 Rem Mag sitting in your gun safe will do far more damage than a 5.56mm round. And there were no precedents in 1791 regulating weapons, and there is nothing unusual about AR-15s when so many tens of millions of people own them.

And you know what I see after Heller, McDonald, Caetano and Bruen? I see the supreme court running away from this issue like cowards, especially Barrett. I don’t care whether the court wants to see a full stack of prior decisions on this issue. There is nothing more necessary to make this decision. All the facts are in and have been for decades.  It could be a single paragraph long. Or even shorter.

“AR-15’s are not unusual weapons in America. Therefore, they cannot be banned.”

There, I did it for them.  No muss, no fuss. It wasn’t hard. But it must be hard for them.

But little do they know we do too in a different way.  The quicker the NRA can move out of the way, the better off we’ll be with GOA, FPC and others leading the charge. The NRA scoring no longer means anything for pols, and probably never did. The NRA has negotiated rights away since they’ve been in existence.

No one who knows anything at GOA or FPC believes they will ever compromise on anything. If you think so, read their web sites, and read the FPC Twitter feed (which reads like a declaration of war).

I also listened to an interview with the head of the NAGR recently and he sounded essentially the same as the GOA and FPC.

So what? It won’t matter one whit. Scary, scary, scary … Pretty Boy Floyd, Al Capone, etc., scary, scary, scary, even more scary than the mass shooting at Waco and assassination at Ruby Ridge by Lon Horiuchi, or anything else the FedGov has perpetrated.

But that’s okay, because FedGov. It’s okay when they do it.

My prediction doesn’t change. The two “conservative” women on the court, Roberts and Barrett, side with the communists on this matter and overturn the Fifth Circuit. Barrett has been a huge, huge, huge disappointment, and you can blame Trump for her, as with so many other hundreds of things. In literally a once in a lifetime opportunity, we could have had Don Willett or James Ho. Instead, we got her. Thanks, Trump. And if Barrett is the sort of judge the Federalist Society is putting up and recommending, then what good are they? Stop listening to them.

She failed to enjoin the Illinois AWB, and for the record (I didn’t know this until a few days ago), she opposed taking the Dobbs case. I guess she would have been fine leaving Roe in place.

It’s an interesting question – whether the AR pistol market can survive a ruling against the people.  He makes a good case that it can’t, and includes 300 BO in his assessment.  Leave comments below.

Presumably, killing the market is the goal of the ATF, nefarious outfit that they are.

Source.

FRANKFORT, Ky. (WKYT) -A proposal to remove guns from people in certain high-risk or crisis situations was heard in a state legislative committee Friday.

The CARR (Crisis Aversion and Rights Retention) Act is similar to many red flag laws that allow for the confiscation or temporary removal of firearms from a person who is in crisis mode or is determined to be at risk.

People flocked to Frankfort to hear about the proposal, and it was so crowded in the legislative committee room they spilled out into the hallways and filled up two “overflow” rooms to watch on video screens.

“On that day, I faced something that I can only describe as hell on earth,” said Whitney Austin, who survived being shot 12 times while being trapped in a revolving door during a shooting in Cincinnati. She supports the CARR Act, which backers say protects the Second Amendment while temporarily transferring guns from those determined to be at risk.

“In researching mass shooters over the last three decades, we know 80% of the time they signal their intentions,” said Austin.

The debate drew an emotional response from Senator Karen Berg of Louisville. She said her son killed himself a year ago Friday.

“And if we could do one thing in this state to prevent one parent from having to go through that, it is worth it,” said Berg.

The debate drew a lot of emotion and opinions on both sides of the political aisle. Republican Whitney Westerfield supports the CARR Act, but others in the GOP have a lot of questions.

“I am still trying to figure out how we can stop someone from hurting themself or others in real-time,” said Rep. Patrick Flannery, R-Olive Hill.

“To me, our common ground is the constitution. We have all sworn to uphold it,” said Rep. Savannah Maddox, R-Dry Ridge.

Maddox has long stood her ground in support of firearms issues and vehemently opposes any laws that restrict them. She also said, “94% of mass casualties occur in so-called “gun-free zones,” and places where people are stripped of their constitutional rights.

That isn’t what this law would be used for – threats are already illegal. The law will be used by angry wives, pissed off neighbors, anti-gun nuts and all manner of others for the purposes of disarmament.

It’s all the rage now, apparently even in Kentucky.  Stop it before it grows into a cancer. Excise it.

Source.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) published two pieces of model legislation on Wednesday for states to consider to help address gun violence affecting communities nationwide.

According to a DOJ news release, the model legislation is drawn from commonsense gun safety statutes already on the books in many states.

Could there be any clearer indication that the DOJ has lost its way and become part of the fourth branch of government in America when it publishes “Model Legislation?”

Fire them all.  Send them home at Christmas with pink slips.  They are unnecessary and even worse, infringe on rights and impede justice.

You’ve heard the news.  Here and here (note that there were no dissents).  I guess the lack of dissents means that there weren’t enough votes and everyone knew it.

Listen to Washington Gun Law where he puts the best spin on bad news.

Then listen to Langley Outdoors Academy where I agree with him.

Here’s my problem with the SCOTUS. They’ll get involved at the flip of a hat to stay a Fifth Circuit knockdown of the ATF, but completely ignore infringement of rights.

Frankly, I just don’t buy the notion that they all want to see a complete record of the case.  It just doesn’t fit the facts.  They get involved all the time where constitutional rights are being infringed.  I guess the second amendment is still a second class right regardless of what the Bruen decision says.