Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

Reason.  But of course it does.  The notion that the founders, free men, would have begged the government for permits, licensed their firearms, or scratched numbers on the pristine work done by the gunsmiths of the age so the government could track them, would have made them vomit.  They went to war over things like that.

"These scenarios make clear that Section 922(k) is far more than the mere commercial regulation the Government claims it to be. Rather, it is a blatant prohibition on possession." pic.twitter.com/EFfIXznBTy

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) October 13, 2022

"Finally, I can find no authority for the idea that a firearm without a serial number would meet the historical definition of a dangerous or unusual firearm." pic.twitter.com/mxNrvjiuZK

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) October 13, 2022

Reuters.

WASHINGTON, Oct 3 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court, which expanded gun rights in a major decision in June, on Monday declined to hear a challenge to a federal ban on devices called “bump stocks” that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire like a machine gun – a firearms control measure prompted by a 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting.

The justices turned away appeals by a Utah gun lobbyist named Clark Aposhian and firearms rights groups of lower court rulings upholding the ban as a reasonable interpretation of a federal law prohibiting machine gun possession.

It doesn’t meet the legal definition and they know it.  Here is the decision.

The case of McCutchen versus the United States is still alive.  It’s based on a “takings” argument.  To me this is a weaker case since technically, the government could do it with so-called just compensation.  The whole point of this is that the ATF cannot make law, but they do make law because of the overblown bureaucratic state and cowardice of the Congress to do anything about it by withholding funding and handing them pink slips.

Remember that Trump did this.  He didn’t have to.  No one held a gun to his head.  He voluntarily chose to do this.  It’s on his head – not only this ban but the precedent it sets (which is ongoing and growing as we speak with the new SBR / arm brace rules).

In connection with this, David Codrea links his piece at Ammoland where he asks what NFA items Paddock owned.  That’s right.  Paddock had prohibited weapons and you never heard anything about that.

Anyway, recall that floor camera in Paddock’s room showing all of the spent casings?  Me neither.

Las Vegas was a running gun battle with multiple shooters for several miles down main street.  Anyone who claims anything different is a liar.

The SCOTUS should have declared the ban unconstitutional because the executive branch made law.  As it stands, the best anyone could hope for now is a $150 credit on income taxes.

Weak tea and cowardice.  Just like Trump.

Really?

WAILUKU — With the defense citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision confirming that the right to carry handguns for self-defense extends outside the home, a judge dismissed firearms charges Wednesday against a Paia man who said he had a gun for self-protection when he was arrested on a trespassing charge.

“The way the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment has caused all of us — criminal defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges — to rethink our gun laws,” said Deputy Public Defender Ben Lowenthal, who represents Christopher L. Wilson. “I hope that prosecutors, when charging these cases, are mindful of this interpretation of the Second Amendment.”

If he was trespassing, he should be charged as such.  But the judge made the right call.  In this source we learn that the prosecutor initially argued that the defendant lacked standing to argue that Bruen protected him.  I think they’ve got it backwards.

The defendant isn’t involved in a lawsuit against the state.  He was charged by the state.  His lack of attempt to obtain a permit is precisely the point in question.  In other words, saying that he lacks standing to argue Bruen begs the question because it presupposes the consequent.

I wish lawyers took classes in logic.

Source.

COLUMBIA, S.C. (WMBF) – South Carolina joined 24 other states demanding banks and credit card companies stop tracking, or monitoring, firearms purchased using credit cards.

The coalition alerted the chief executive officers of three major credit card companies that the recent adoption of the Merchant Category Code for the processing of firearms purchases from gun stores is “potentially a violation of consumer protection and antitrust laws.”

In the letter to the CEOs of American Express, Mastercard, and Visa, the attorneys general say the monitoring and tracking of firearms purchases creates a “list of gun buyers” and creates the obvious risk that law-abiding consumers’ information will be obtained and misused by those who oppose Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights.

“Why would banks and credit card companies need a separate code to process gun purchases, if not to possibly track and monitor people who buy them?” Wilson asked.

The following states joined: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, West Virginia.

To read the letter, click here.

I like the SC AG.  In other decisions as well he’s been in the 2A corner.  But I’d like to see more states sign on.  Where is Florida?  Where is Idaho?  Where is Nebraska?

North Carolina isn’t on the list because of the communist AG.

The ATF is asking Congress for a massive raise to:⁰⁰Upgrade their gun registry;⁰⁰Design a background check system for ammo purchases;⁰⁰And offer a pension system for ATF agents & families if injured or killed on the job (right before they start banning millions of firearms) https://t.co/XrXMkHTs1a

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) September 19, 2022

You know, that registry that’s supposed to be illegal for them to have, and those background checks on ammo purchases that infringe on the 2A.

That and those, in case you were wondering.

How can anyone left in the ATF actually believe they are doing any sort of good for humanity?  How can they look their families in the fact knowing the oath they swore and what they do every day as ATF agents?

Dean Weingarten.

An illustration from the April 19, 1884 issue of the National Police Gazette

Rather than have gentlemen of fine upbringing carrying weapons in public, the authorities today would rather men get beaten nearly to death with baseball bats on the NYC subway.

Or get shot in NYC while being mugged.

Never mind the fact that after criminals figured out that they will get shot while perpetrating crimes, NYC would be much more peaceful.  The controllers thrive in chaos.  It suits them just fine.

You see, this isn’t about you or what keeps you or your family safe.  It’s about what helps the controllers to amass power.

Seen at Instapundit.

NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR GUN RIGHTS IS SUING: NFGR FILES FIVE NEW LAWSUITS NATIONWIDE TO END MAGAZINE AND “ASSAULT WEAPON” BANS. “On September 7, 2022, the National Foundation for Gun Rights filed five new lawsuits in four federal court circuits to eliminate unconstitutional magazine and gun bans everywhere! Combined with our lawsuits in Colorado these represent nearly half of the country. This nationwide legal blitz aims to take out every single ban on semi-automatic weapons and standard capacity magazines for good.”

Drown them in a legal morass.  Never let them rest.

David Codrea.

Licht’s Ronnie Barrett reference, of course, recalls a 2002 letter the President of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, sent to then-Chief William J. Bratton of the Los Angeles Police Department, about his company’s .50 caliber rifles:

“I will not sell, nor service, my rifles to those seeking to infringe upon the Constitution and the crystal clear rights it affords individuals to own firearms.”

Barrett again sent similar letters, one to the State of California in 2005, the Honolulu Police Department in 2008, and the State of New York in 2013.

I recounted these and more in my 2018 AmmoLand article, “More in the Firearms Industry Should Follow Hornady’s New York Example,” documenting President Steve Hornady’s announcement saying in part:

“Hornady will not knowingly allow our ammunition to be sold to the State of NY or any NY agencies. Their actions are a blatant and disgusting abuse of office and we won’t be associated with a government that acts like that. They should be ashamed.”

Yes they could stop the disarmers, and yes they should be ashamed.  But they’re not – they are only interested in the revenue.  I’ve pointed out that Cloud Defensive has taken such a stand, and it cost them money to do it.

But here’s the question.  We can point to Barrett, Cloud Defensive, Hornady, and a few others, perhaps, but what pistols and rifles do the disarmers shoot?

Until Smith & Wesson, Glock, and a host of other large manufacturers can be persuaded to join the club of those who truly respect the 2A, this effort won’t go anywhere.  It will be symbolic, and not much else.

I think it would be a good thing to do if someone took it on to mail each and every CEO of the manufacturers, but this is too much time for me to spend.  If some enterprising reader wants to start a thread on this, I’ll find a way to host it.

He was always a putz anyway. Who needs him?

Source.

A Texas judge has sided with a gun-rights lobby group that challenged a state law barring 18-to-20-year-olds in Texas from carrying a handgun outside the home.

US District Judge Mark T. Pittman, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, ruled Thursday the law violates the Second Amendment, guaranteeing the right to bear arms.

“The Second Amendment does not mention any sort of age restriction,” the judge wrote. “The Court thus concludes the plain text of the Second Amendment, as informed by Founding-Era history and tradition, covers the proposed course of conduct and permits law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”

The lobby group Firearms Policy Coalition sued the Texas Department of Public Safety for enforcing a law that prohibits those under 21 years of age from carrying a handgun outside their home, motor vehicle or watercraft. The group argued that young people under 21 had just as much right to bear arms in public as those who are older.

The founders discussed the carry of muskets on their walk to school and as a “constant companion during walks.”

FPC for the win!