3 years, 2 months ago
Mark is certainly indignant over this trash judgment. I always learn something when I watch his analyses. Here is the case to which he refers. It really is pathetic.
3 years, 2 months ago
An Oregon judge ruled Wednesday that local governments can not declare themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, further saying that the sheriffs that implemented a Second Amendment ordinance were embracing “racist and white nationalist ideologies.”
Chief Judge Jim Egan of the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that the sheriffs did not have the authority to create sanctuaries that “create a ‘patchwork quilt’ of firearms laws in Oregon,” further saying that the sheriffs‘ arguments go in the “dustbin,” according to the ruling. Sheriffs in Oregon began to introduce Second Amendment sanctuaries after Oregon passed Ballot Measure 114, which requires background checks, firearm training, fingerprint collection and a permit to purchase any firearm.
“The arguments propounding unfettered access to guns, ammunitions, and implements of destruction give rise to waging of war on government because the proponents believe that our government is infected by those they hate,” Egan wrote. “As a judge, sworn to uphold the Oregon Constitution and the United States Constitution, I cannot stand by without identifying the origins of that argument, and the origins of the Ordinance. The history of white supremacist ideology in this country is older than the United States Constitution.”
Egan accused the Sheriffs’ counsel of alluding to conspiracy theories about the United Nations (UN), saying that their belief that the UN will impose mandates that will require the state and local government to disarm the American public in violation of the Second Amendment is false, according to the ruling.
“In other words, Intervenors came before this court and referenced UN mandates, which, as explained below, is a well-documented trope meant to invoke white supremacist, antisemitic fear of a takeover of our country by outsiders and minorities who are manipulated by an elite class of supervillains,” Egan wrote.
Gun Owners of America (GOA), who backed the sanctuaries, “forcefully” denied the characterization of their argument, according to Fox News.
Fox News remarks that “The Court of Appeals ruling marks the first major legal defeat for the Second Amendment sanctuary movement.”
Oh goodness, I think this is being over-dramatized a wee bit, don’t you? Nobody who advocated 2A sanctuary counties ever believed that this would all go peacefully into the night and go down without a fight.
Read the opinion of judge J. Egan, whomever that is and for what it’s worth. It reads like a freshman paper for sociology 101 at a local yokel community college. It really isn’t worthy of the time to fisk it.
Here is what you do with rulings like this. You don’t respond because that gives the ruling publicity it doesn’t deserve. You ignore it. If pressed, you ask the judiciary where they’re going to get law enforcement to enforce their ruling?
The Sheriffs are elected. They are elected to keep the peace, leave peaceable men alone to their pursuits, and honor the oaths they swore to obey the constitution and laws of God. They don’t have to enforce any laws that break that covenant.
The judge can go pound sand. He’s just a carnival barker.
3 years, 2 months ago
The House voted 77-43 to approve the measure, which would let people with concealed weapons permits carry openly or under clothing while attending religious services at locations where private or charter schools also meet.
Six Democrats joined all Republicans in voting for it, indicating a potential override of any veto by Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, who blocked an identical bill in 2021.
Republican lawmakers and several clergy members testified this week that the houses of worship in question do not have an equal opportunity to protect congregants, compared with churches that do not house schools and are not affected by blanket prohibitions.
Supporters said gun-free religious sites could be easy targets for violent attacks, citing recent incidents of shooters targeting congregations.
Rep. Jeff McNeely, an Iredell County Republican and the bill’s primary sponsor, said the proposal would fix a loophole preventing some churchgoers from exercising their Second Amendment rights.
North Carolina state Rep. Allison Dahle, a Wake County Democrat, questions Nash County Republican Rep. Allen Chesser about a handgun access bill during a committee meeting at the Legislative Building in Raleigh, N.C., on Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2023.
How nice. Her hair almost matches her jacket. She looks like she’s on drugs. What do you expect from Wake County?
So here’s the deal with that as far as I’m concerned. I hope it passes with enough votes to override a veto by goober Roy Cooper. However, first of all, don’t attend a church who prohibits proper self defense.
Second, although the pastor cannot tell you this because of legal liability, if your church meets in a school and carry is prohibited because of that, then this is called “non-permissive carry.”
Don’t ever be without means of defense of your family.
3 years, 2 months ago
See the video here.
This was a meticulous and judiciously designed weapons vault. And then the federal government had to step in and destroy all of the firearms.
An old man was minding his own business, harming no one, and simply enjoying his golden years shooting his guns in the range he designed underground, and the police captain had to bitch about stolen weapons or blather on about something or other not even noteworthy enough for me to refute. He sounded like a little girl jealous of some other little girl’s dolls.
I said his vault was meticulous. Indeed it was. His choice of friends wasn’t. It’s likely that a “friend” turned him in so that the communists could confiscate his weapons.
The second amendment is the only article in the bill of rights that includes the words “Shall not be infringed.”
3 years, 2 months ago
Slate is mostly a worthless rag, but this one actually brings to light more than the author realizes.
The Bruen decision was a multi-faceted decision partly because of the way the votes separated. Sure, it got the votes it needed in the court. We know that Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch are reliable allies.
Barrett is another story. Because she hasn’t written much on this, who knows how she will decide when the time comes to make the hard decisions.
Roberts is apparently owned by someone who has pictures. Kavanaugh is the wild card.
He voted with the majority, but wrote his own decision – there would be no reason to do that unless he’s telegraphing the future to the other justices.
There are some difficult decisions coming up for them. Bump stocks will come up – and there is absolutely no question about the statutory language there. A device like that doesn’t meet the definition.
There are other decisions: pistol braces, the 5th’s recent decision on prohibitions for men of questionable moral character, and the most recent of course is the one concerning users of controlled substances.
Jonathan Turley gets it right in his analysis of the use of controlled substances and firearms ownership.
I particularly liked this observation from the court about reading discretion into the amendment to bar those deemed untrustworthy by the government:
[I]t would be odd indeed for the Framers to have incorporated such a trojan horse into the Second Amendment. The purpose of enshrining a right into the Constitution is to limit the discretion of a legislature. But if the United States’ theory is correct and all a legislature must do to prohibit a group of persons from possessing arms is to declare that group “untrustworthy,” then the Second Amendment would provide virtually no limit on Congress’s discretion. The Framers weren’t perfect, but they also weren’t fools.
In the end, none of this is about whether men of questionable moral character should be allowed to own firearms. The man in the instance of the fifth circuit case committed crimes against others. Prosecute him for those. Ownership of a firearm in this case is irrelevant. If they had removed his firearms and he was still committed to a life of crime, he could have converted to an arsonist.
In the end, none of this is about whether men who use controlled substances should be allowed to purchase firearms (as the judge pointed out). It’s about the degree of government control over the lives of men, and to what end that goes concerning abuses and exploitation by the government.
Gun control is about control. Nothing more, nothing less.
3 years, 2 months ago
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 …
3 years, 2 months ago
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.
3 years, 2 months ago
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.
3 years, 2 months ago
Several Oklahoma Sherriffs have issued statements regarding the new ATF pistol brace rule and have announced they would not be enforcing it. The new rule hasn’t gone into effect yet but is expected to soon.
Sheriffs in Oklahoma, Logan, and Garvin counties have all stated their offices wouldn’t enforce the new rule. You can expect more and more sheriff’s offices to release similar statements in the next few days.
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.
3 years, 2 months ago
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?
