Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

Readers know I have been closely following this issue.  Here’s an update on the Florida constitutional carry effort this session.

People who carry concealed weapons in Florida must complete a gun safety course, but that could change under a bill that has the backing of the state’s Republican leaders.

“Central to the idea of freedom is the right that we can defend ourselves against physical attack, as well as defend those that we love,” said State House Speaker Paul Renner last week after unveiling a proposed measure to allow “constitutional carry,” which would eliminate the requirement of a permit to carry a concealed firearm.

“All aspects of that permit would go away.”

The bill — HB 543 — would eliminate permitting requirements to carry a concealed weapon. Those include completion of a gun safety course and an attestation that the concealed carry permit is desired for lawful self defense.

If enacted, it would take effect on July 1.

At a press conference announcing the legislation, Renner expressed confidence that the measure wouldn’t pose a serious threat to public safety. “Anybody that’s a gun owner and uses guns knows that safety comes first.”

So this discusses the permitting scheme.  What about open carry?

The bill reads as follows.

… specifying it is not a violation for persons authorized to carry a concealed weapon or concealed firearm without a license to briefly and openly display a firearm under specified circumstances.

Oh, so they’re throwing bones to the dogs who want to openly carry to make them happy, but “the only ones” are the only ones who are permitted to openly carry their weapons.  “Briefly and openly.”  Your shirt or coat tail can accidentally go above your firearm and when the only ones come to arrest you because of that Karen-call down at the grocery store, you can plead for leniency because you really didn’t mean it, and they can take the statement of Karen versus yours and see what a prosecutor will do with it.  You can discuss it with the judge in court.

So they’ve queued up an abject failure as far as I’m concerned.  Open carry is an essential part of constitutional carry.  It isn’t constitutional carry if the state tells you how you must carry your weapons.  The job isn’t complete.  The job has been left undone.

As far as I’m concerned, they failed.  This is a cheap trick to persuade the citizens of Florida that they respect their God-given rights concerning weapons.

I’m not impressed.  I’m disgusted.  Pffft …

I don’t usually link to NRA articles anymore, mainly just their firearms news.  However, this was interesting and informative.

First, at the Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade Show, ATF confirmed that braces that are removed from firearms do not necessarily have to be destroyed or altered in a way that prevents them from being reattached to a firearm. While the rule claims that destruction or alteration is required for owners who choose the option of simply removing the brace from their firearm, that requirement would be contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co.

Under Thompson/Center, possession of a firearm and parts that can only be assembled into an NFA “firearm” constitutes possession of an NFA firearm. But, if the parts can be assembled into multiple lawful configurations, then the parts are not considered an NFA firearm (unless an unlawful configuration is actually assembled).

This should mean that a person who possesses an AR-15 pistol with a stabilizing brace and also possesses a 16-inch barreled upper receiver and/or a registered NFA lower should be able to keep the brace without destroying it or altering it. But, a person who only possesses a pistol with a stabilizing brace may have to dispose of or alter the brace to avoid creating an NFA firearm (in ATF’s view).

Other than making remarks to its own readership, I don’t know what – if anything – the NRA is doing about all of this except buying Wayne new suits.

In what may be one of the earliest in many complaints filed, Firearms Policy Coalition legal action in the pistol brace rulemaking.

It can be found here: Mock v. Garland.

The Milwaukee-based Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty also filed a federal lawsuit in Texas.

Perhaps some enterprising reader/contributor would locate this PDF for us and drop it in the comments.

Source:

The source also has information about how to comply with the new rule.

Also, see: Rep. Andrew Clyde to Use Congressional Review Act to Override ATF Stabilizer Brace Rule.

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) announced Monday he will use the Congressional Review Act against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF’s) pistol/stabilizer brace rule.

Breitbart News reported that the ATF’s pistol/stabilizer brace rule was finalized January 13, 2023, and that the agency is giving owners of pistols with said braces 120 days to register the firearms, once the rule appears in the Federal Registry.

On January 14, 2023, Breitbart News noted that the Congressional Review Act offered an avenue by which Congress could block the ATF’s rule.

Rep. Clyde and his colleagues are ready to use the Congressional Review Act and other means to stop the rule from turning millions of law-abiding gun owners into criminals.

Clyde spoke on the House floor Monday, saying:

Next week, I will reintroduce the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today Act, or the SHORT Act, to repeal elements of the National Firearms Act, thereby prohibiting the ATF from registering and banning pistols with stabilizing braces. Additionally, as soon as the ATF’s unlawful rule is published to the Federal Register, I will introduce a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, to override the Biden administration’s unlawful overreach.

That’s a typically lame move for Republicans, knowing it’ll go nowhere.

Source.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said in the new assessment that other government reports that millions of gun owners will be impacted are wrong by huge margins.

What’s more, the agency said in a 95-page impact analysis of its 293-page rule regulating AR-style pistols that most owners will give in and register their guns despite online campaigns calling for a mass boycott of the new rules and threats from Congress and Second Amendment groups to immediately file suits to stop implementation of the changes.

[ … ]

Opponents, citing industry data and even the bipartisan Congressional Research Service, have claimed that the rule will impact millions of gun owners and up to 40 million firearms.

But in the impact statement, ATF said those figures are inflated. It estimated that just three million people might be impacted.

It estimated that of those with the firearms, 826,000 will decide to register their 1.6 million weapons with the rest turning them into ATF or destroying or altering them.

Oh my.  The only really bad thing about this report is that it’s out there for public consumption.

I think that information is way, way off.  It doesn’t account for the numbers of ARs with < 16″ barrels that have been sold, the number that have been built, and the number of existing ARs that have been modified by replacing a 16″ barrel with a 12.5″ barrel (by a simple order and shipment from a machine shop).

Moreover, the notion that half of them will register their guns while the other half turns them in to the ATF or destroys them is simply ridiculous.

But I don’t really think the ATF believes this analysis, do you?

Source.

Florida is set to become the 26th state to allow citizens to carry firearms without a permit under legislation outlined Monday by Republican House Speaker Paul Renner.

[ … ]

Renner spearheaded the press conference, a signal it’s a clear top priority for the speaker, but the bill is being sponsored by state Rep.Chuck Brannan (R-Lake City) and state Sen. Jay Collins (R-Tampa). Lawmakers did not formally file a bill at the time of the news conference but are expected to by Monday afternoon.

[ … ]

The proposal does not address whether people will be allowed to openly carry firearms in public. Under current Florida law, gun owners are not allowed to carry guns in the open.

In 2021, Texas approved a similar “open carry” law that allows most gun owners 21 and over to carry a handgun in a holster without a permit. The Texas law allows citizens to carry the gun in the open or concealed.

Well, they may as well go back to the drawing board if “the only ones” are the only ones who can carry openly.  This is a huge touchstone for me.

Do you want to hear why this whole effort is likely to fail?  Via David Codrea.

But word in the halls of the Capitol in Tallahassee is that Republican lawmakers don’t want to advance Constitutional Carry to the Governor. They’d rather advance a watered-down bill that would keep the permit requirements in place. Why? Because a number of these so-called Republicans are anti-gun, or to more bluntly put it, they’re anti-civil rights. Very recently, Gun Owners of America worked hard with the chairman of a county level Republican Executive Committee in the panhandle of Florida to advance a Constitutional Carry resolution. The resolution passed with one vote. The Republican members of that REC who voted against it did so because they were against the idea of “criminals” carrying firearms. And by “criminals,” they meant people of color.

Criminals will always carry firearms if they want to, moron.

Yes, you read that right, there are Republicans who voted against advancing a resolution that supports Constitutional Carry because they don’t want people of color to be able to exercise their inalienable rights. They defended the Jim Crow era gun control and specifically brought up the killing of an ex-confederate town marshal as a reason why gun control needs to be kept in place. Yes, they used the example of a former confederate being killed over a century ago as a reason why we need to have restrictions on the carrying of arms.

They didn’t want Constitutional Carry nor Open Carry to pass because the idea of their minority neighbors being armed scared them. They claimed that the laws on the books, the very laws that bar people from carrying without a permit, keeps criminals from being criminals. Yet one of those who voted against it is a retired judge who proudly stated to the room that he currently carries without a permit and openly violates state law. But, he is against Constitutional Carry. This is the fight that Gun Owners of America and Florida’s gun owners are facing across Florida. Republicans who campaign on being pro-gun, are anti-gun; and they’re anti-gun because they’re anti-liberty. This was the fight that Gun Owners of America and Florida’s gun owners faced back in June 2022 to get the Republican Party of Florida to pass the following resolution to support Constitutional Carry.

It was a hard fight to get that resolution passed. But pass it did. And now, you have Republican lawmakers wanting to make the Governor look bad by scuttling the passage of true Constitutional Carry. Gov. DeSantis pledged that he would enact Constitutional Carry in Florida before he leaves office—whether that means 2024 or 2026. The Governor pledged to Floridians that he would make sure our rights would be properly restored and that the stain of Jim Crow bigotry would be removed from the fabric that is our state.

We’ve heard this story before.  Recall why the South Carolina senators and house members “low state” around the Charleston area were always opposed to open carry?  Near the tourist city of Charleston!  No, they always voted against it, and did so when open carry recently passed.  I listened to the debate and watched the votes online that day so I could report on it.

And Charleston is still a tourist city today.

Give me a break from the stupid please.  Please.  I can’t take any more stupid.

Tenth Amendment Center.

Two bills filed in the South Carolina House would legalize permitless carry in the state. The enactment of a so-called “constitutional carry” bill would also foster an environment more hostile to federal gun control.

Rep. Bobby Cox (R) and 61 Republican cosponsors prefiled House Bill 3594 (H3594) on Dec. 15. Rep. Thomas Beach (R) filed House Bill 3612 (H3612) on Jan. 11.

The bills differ in language, but essentially allow anyone who is legally allowed to own a gun to carry it without a state-issued license, while providing restrictions on carrying a firearm, concealed or not, in certain public places. South Carolina would continue issuing concealed carry permits for those who want them in order to take advantage of CCDW reciprocity in other states.

Currently, South Carolina gun owners must first attend training through a certified South Carolina CWP instructor before they can get a permit.

The bill seeks to repeal numerous sections of state law relating to the carrying of firearms. At the same time, it imposes restrictions on where a person can carry a firearm, concealed or not. That includes police stations, courthouses, polling locations, daycares, and preschools.

As I previously mentioned in a previous post, I watched the entirety of the debate in the S.C. Senate as South Carolina passed open carry.  At that time, constitutional carry was narrowly defeated.

I knew at that time constitutional carry wasn’t dead in S.C. and that the bills would be recapitulated this year.

Incrementalism.  It’s a good thing for us.  The progs know how to do it, we should have learned long ago.

The House will pass is fairly easily, I predict.  It will be tougher slogging in the S.C. senate.

Source.

The draft legislation has already sparked conservative backlash and lawsuit preparation from the local branch of the National Rifle Association, and while Democratic leadership has given it tentative support, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis has been noncommittal about the legislation. It has yet to get a hearing in Colorado’s statehouse, which kicked off its session earlier this month.

One of the bill’s sponsors, Democrat Rep. Andrew Boesenecker, said there remains a long runway before the legislation’s introduction, with more stakeholder input to hear and potential concerns to accommodate. Boesenecker remains confident in its support, adding, “I always count my votes.”

To Boesenecker, an Evangelical Lutheran pastor and former music teacher and who represents a district north of Denver that includes the city of Fort Collins, the bill’s details will take time, but the argument is simple.

“I drop off my kids at school,” he said, “I could no longer continue to live … not knowing what might happen to them between that time I dropped them off and was able to pick them up.”

That’s a lie.  He’s not a real pastor.  He’s a fake.  And if he’s so worried about having his children in public schools, he should be for reasons other than weapons.  Homeschool them.

Anyway, I see where this is going.  Now.  Do cops.

His draft of the bill prohibits the sale, transfer, importation and manufacture of semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines that also have one or more of a list of seven characteristics that include a pistol grip, flash suppressor, folding stock or threaded barrel. The ban would also extend to certain semiautomatic shotguns and handguns but allow some exemptions including for military personnel and police officers.

Well then!  Tell us why you want cops armed with “dangerous weapons?”  Do you think they protect you?  Contrary to what was decided in Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, Warren v. District of Columbia, and DeShaney v. Winnebago County?  Why do you believe that myth?  Who taught you that?  Do you also believe in the tooth fairy?

Another one to be struck down, or otherwise, state from which to depart if you still live there.

Hey, let me know how it goes with all of those big cats, bears and moose in the area.  You have your choice in whether to get eaten or stomped to death.  Or maybe you really don’t.

Have fun on the trail, y’all.

Source.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in a New York case seemed to pry open Hawaii’s de facto ban on concealed carry. It’s also spurring new legislative proposals.

The Honolulu Police Department is asking lawmakers to create a new misdemeanor offense for negligent concealment of a firearm.

“Having an improperly concealed firearm can cause alarm to people in the area and will result in 911 calls, burdening first responder resources,” the department wrote in the preamble to House Bill 119.

Hawaii County passed an ordinance limiting where a firearm can be carried. Honolulu is considering a similar measure. But the Legislature could enact a “sensitive places” bill that would cover the whole state.

“We never really had to worry about sensitive places because there were so few permits given to carry outside the home if you weren’t hunting,” Senate Judiciary Chair Karl Rhoads said.

Six hundred concealed gun permits were pending in Honolulu as of November. Just a few dozen concealed permits were issued on other islands, KHON2 reported.

Senate Bill 121, introduced by Sen. Glenn Wakai, would create statewide limitations on where people can carry concealed weapons. Under the bill, guns would be banned in the following areas:

• Government controlled buildings, excluding firing ranges, dwelling units and areas in buildings being used for gun shows.
• Hospitals, medical facilities, medical offices and medical clinics.
• Churches or religious assemblies.
• Public parks or recreational grounds.
• Child care facilities.
• Schools.
• Shelters, including those for homeless or juveniles.
• Universities.
• Public transportation and transit terminals.
• And “any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble.”

The Honolulu PD is just mad and they’re pissing in the fruit loops with an antiquated and outdated law.

The legislature is just being who they are, i.e., communists.  It’ll be nice to see all of this struck down when the supreme court gets the final ruling from the 2nd circuit and beats them up over it.

If indeed that happens.

We need Bruen Part II to remind the lower courts that they really meant what they said.

Source.

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont announced a series of proposed gun laws Monday in a state already considered one of the strictest for firearms ownership, including a statewide ban on open carrying expected to draw strong opposition from gun rights supporters.

Lamont revealed his latest plans to curb gun violence during a news conference in Waterbury with fellow Democrats, including Attorney General William Tong and mayors of the state’s largest cities, as well as state and local law enforcement officials.

Lamont and other officials said the legislation, which also includes new registration requirements for ghost guns and monthly limits on handgun purchases, is needed to help curb rising gun violence and crack down on illegal firearms around the state. Hartford, for example, recorded 39 murders in 2022, the most in two decades.

“That sense of anxiety and fear that many people sense — it doesn’t do us any good to say we’re in one of the safest states in the country … and people don’t feel safe,” Lamont said. “Over this last tough few years, the shootings are up. They’re up across the country. They’re up in our state.”

The governor’s proposals include a ban on the currently legal open carrying of firearms, while still allowing concealed carrying; limiting handgun purchases to one per month to discourage bulk purchases and illegal sales; and spending an additional $2.5 million on community anti-violence programs.

Tell us how many crimes were committed combined with open carrying of firearms?

This is a solution in search of a problem.  There is no problem – the problem is fake.  The perceived problem is that people feel unsafe.  People feel unsafe because you’ve funded the evisceration of the inner city with SNAP, subsidies and welfare, destroying the family in the process, and causing the corollary increase in crime.  People can’t defend themselves, or so you think.  You need more open carriers, not fewer.  And you need to fire progressive DAs who prosecute people who defend themselves.

That’ll fix the problems.