Tag: 2nd amendment

What Hunters Should Know About Colorado’s First-in-the-Nation Gun Ban

Colorado is poised to become the first state in the nation to ban entire categories of rifles, pistols, and shotguns based solely on their operating systems and without regard for cosmetic features like collapsible stocks or pistol grips.

However, recent amendments to the legislation have created loopholes that would make it easier for hunters to continue owning these now-banned types of firearms. These amendments earned the support of Governor Jared Polis and passed the state Senate on a narrow 19-15 vote.

Now, the bill heads to the state House of Representatives, where the Democrats supermajority all but assures the bill’s passage.

Sportsmen’s groups have decried the legislation as an attack on Second Amendment rights and warn it could impact conservation funding moving forward.

“Modern sporting rifles and semi-automatic shotguns are not only important to our hunting heritage but are highly popular in the recreational shooting community which is widely credited as the source of roughly 80% of conservation funding generated through the Pittman-Robertson Act,” said the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation. “This legislation would severely undermine our hunting heritage, firearm rights, and would negatively impact the American System of Conservation Funding.”

The bill’s supporters argue that the legislation is necessary to prevent mass shootings, and they refuse to characterize the bill as a “ban.”

Keep reading

Bill Lowering Minimum Age for Rifle Purchases Passes FL House Committee

Legislation to lower the minimum rifle purchase age from 21 to 18 passed a Florida House committee on Wednesday.

The legislation, House Bill 759, is sponsored by state Reps. Michelle Salzman (R) and Tyler Sirois (R).

The minimum age for rifle purchases was raised from 18 to 21 in the wake of the February 14, 2018, Parkland high school shooting, and many Republicans legislators in the state are ready to remove the restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of 18 to 20-year-olds.

Orlando Weekly quoted Gun Owners of America’s Luis Valdes speaking in support of HB 759: “As a father, I want my daughter to be armed when she’s under the age of 21 and she’s living outside of my house and she’s able to protect herself, because right now this [law] disarms women, disarms our college students, and disarms our children.”

State Rep. Dianna Hart (D) opposed HB 759, saying, “We say brains are not developed until you’re 25, but we want to hand 18-year-olds long guns.”

Hart did not mention that out nation gives hand grenades, fully automatic rifles, and other weapons to 18-year-olds who sign up for the military.

Keep reading

Mel Gibson Controversy Highlights a Bigger Scandal: Many Americans Lose Their Gun Rights for No Good Reason

Elizabeth Oyer, a former public defender who was appointed as the Justice Department’s pardon attorney in April 2022, says she was fired last Friday because she refused to sign off on a recommendation to restore Mel Gibson’s gun rights. The movie star and director, who supported Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election and was recently designated as one of the administration’s three “ambassadors” to Hollywood along with Jon Voight and Sylvester Stallone, lost the right to own firearms because of a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction.

Oyer presents the episode as a conflict between public safety and political favoritism, and The New York Times framed the story the same way. But the incident also illustrates how difficult it is for people who have lost their Second Amendment rights as a result of criminal convictions—a category that includes the president himself—to regain those rights, even when there are no grounds to think they pose a threat to public safety.

In March 2011, Gibson pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor battery charge involving his girlfriend, and Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Stephanie Sautner sentenced him to 36 months of probation. Although Gibson’s deal with prosecutors allowed him to avoid jail time, his plea triggered an ancillary penalty under 18 USC 922(g)(9), which makes it a felony for anyone who “has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to receive or possess a firearm. Another provision of the same law, Section 922(g)(1), sweeps more broadly, imposing the same lifelong disability on anyone who has been convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year of incarceration, no matter how long ago it was committed and whether or not it involved violence.

As Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted in an opinion she wrote as an appeals court judge, the constitutionality of the latter prohibition is doubtful. Barrett dissented from a 2019 decision in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld the application of Section 922(g)(1) to a manufacturer of therapeutic shoes and footwear inserts who had pleaded guilty to mail fraud. History “demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns,” she wrote. “But that power extends only to people who are dangerous.”

The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen added heft to that argument by clarifying that gun control laws must be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” when they impinge on conduct covered by the “plain text” of the Second Amendment. In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that Section 922(g)(1) failed that test as applied to Bryan Range, a Pennsylvania man who had pleaded guilty to food stamp fraud, a state misdemeanor that was notionally punishable by up to five years in prison. Based on similar reasoning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit last year overturned the Section 992(g)(1) conviction of Steven Duarte, a California man who had lost his gun rights because of a nonviolent criminal record.

Without such judicial intervention, “prohibited persons” like Range and Duarte have little recourse. Under 18 USC 925(c), they theoretically can ask the attorney general to restore their Second Amendment rights. The attorney general has the discretion to do that based on a determination that “the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.” But that responsibility has been delegated to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which Congress has barred from considering such applications.

“Although federal law provides a means for the relief of firearms disabilities,” the agency explains, “ATF’s annual appropriation since October 1992 has prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals. As long as this provision is included in current ATF appropriations, ATF cannot act upon applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals.”

If the ATF cannot act on such applications, can people with disqualifying criminal records seek relief in federal court? No, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in the 2002 case United States v. Bean.

Keep reading

Gun Owners Take DC Magazine Restrictions To Supreme Court

Gun owners in the nation’s capital are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the District of Columbia’s ban on magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The petition in Hanson v. District of Columbia was docketed, or officially accepted for filing, by the court on Feb. 28. The respondent, the District of Columbia, was directed to file a response by March 31.

The district enacted the Firearms Registration Amendment Act of 2008 after the Supreme Court invalidated the city’s sweeping restrictions on gun ownership in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). In Heller, the nation’s highest court determined that individuals have a right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense at home.

The statute made it a felony-level offense to have a magazine that could hold more than 10 rounds. A violation can result in a prison term of three years and a fine of $12,500. District officials say the law is needed to protect the public.

Lead petitioner Andrew Hanson and co-petitioners Tyler Yzaguirre, Nathan Chaney, and Eric Klun, who all have concealed carry pistol licenses in the District of Columbia, possessed magazines holding more than 10 rounds outside D.C. and said they would use their magazines for lawful purposes in the district if the 10-round limit did not apply.

Hanson argues in the petition that the district’s magazine cap is unconstitutional according to a test the Supreme Court articulated in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which recognized a right to bear arms in public for self-defense.

Weeks after Bruen was decided, the petitioners sued the District of Columbia, asking for a declaration from a federal district court that the magazine cap ran afoul of the Second and Fifth Amendments.

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras issued an April 2023 decision that denied Hanson’s request to block the law on constitutional grounds. Contreras found that the local law adheres to the U.S. Constitution.

The judge found that the District’s ammo limitation, which was aimed at promoting public safety, was justified. The ban constituted “an attempt to mitigate the carnage of mass shootings in this country.”

Keep reading

We Caught FBI Using “Minority Report Style” Secret Form Pressuring Gun Owners To Forfeit Their Rights

Gun Owners of America just caught the FBI coercing more people into giving up their Second Amendment rights!

Thanks to a FOIA request by GOA’s lawyers, we uncovered even more evidence on the FBI’s unconstitutional and unlawful NICS Indices program.

In 2019, it was discovered that the FBI was using a document titled “NICS Indices Self-Submission Form” that purported to allow American citizens to “voluntarily” waive their Second Amendment rights. 

By completing this FBI form, law-abiding Americans allegedly “consent” for the FBI to enter their names into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, marking them as permanently prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition.  And as the form warns, once an individual waives their rights, it’s impossible to get them back.

Now, the mere existence of this form was troubling, and it clearly violates the Second Amendment and even the Gun Control Act. But at that point, we weren’t sure how extensively the FBI was using the form, if in fact it was being used at all.

Fast-forward a few years to 2022.

GOA published our initial findings that the FBI had provided these forms to agents for use on American gun owners, who were pressured into signing and therefore “voluntarily” relinquished their rights to purchase, possess, and use firearms.

These FOIA records painted a vivid picture of FBI agents showing up to people’s homes, place of work, etc., presenting to them these forms, and “asking” them to declare themselves to be a “danger” to themselves or others, or lacking the “mental capacity to adequately contract or manage” their lives.

You can imagine how coercive these sorts of FBI visits must have been.  The FBI’s use of this secret form has occurred during recent years when the bureau has become increasingly politicized and weaponized against Americans, including gun owners.

Keep reading

Oklahoma Senators Approve Bill To Protect Second Amendment Rights Of Medical Marijuana Patients

Lawmakers in Oklahoma this week advanced a bill aimed at protecting gun rights of state-registered medical marijuana patients, although federal law still bars cannabis users from owning firearms regardless of their patient status.

The Senate Committee on Public Safety unanimously passed the measure, SB 39, from Sen. Julie Daniels (R), on Wednesday with a vote of 6-0. If it’s enacted, the legislation would specify that applicants for state-issued handgun licenses would not be disqualified merely for being a medical marijuana patient.

It states that “an applicant shall not be considered ineligible solely on the basis of being a lawful holder of a medical marijuana patient license” and also makes a medical marijuana exception around disqualifications for “any violation relating to illegal drug use or possession.”

Yet another provision in the bill says that “nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation to deny an otherwise qualified applicant from obtaining a handgun license pursuant to the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act solely on the basis of the applicant being a lawful holder of a medical marijuana patient license.”

Ahead of the vote at Wednesday’s hearing, Daniels pointed out that courts across the nation are increasingly pushing back against the notion that merely using marijuana should deny them their Second Amendment rights.

“In recent years, the courts have all come down on the side that someone should not be denied a firearm license or be prosecuted for possession of a firearm solely because they use marijuana,” she told colleagues. “And in Oklahoma, of course, we have a medical marijuana program. So the point of this bill is to make clear that solely because you have a medical marijuana patient card does not mean that you should be automatically denied a firearm license.”

Carrying or using a shotgun, rifle or pistol while under the influence of marijuana—even if it was “obtained pursuant to a valid medical marijuana patient license”—would remain illegal if the drug affects someone “to a degree that would result in abnormal behavior,” the bill says.

The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigations, for its part, said in a statement on Wednesday that it will abide by the new rules, if adopted.

“We respect the right of Oklahomans to legally have firearms,” the agency said, according to local ABC affiliate KOCO News 5, which first reported the committee’s passage of the bill. “We will work with new laws passed by the legislature.”

As for the federal law against gun ownership by marijuana users, a federal appeals court panel earlier this month dismissed a three-year prison sentence against a person convicted for possession of a firearm while being an active user of marijuana, ruling that the federal government’s prohibition on gun ownership by drug users is justified only in certain circumstances—not always.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said in the opinion that while not all disarmament of drug users violates the Second Amendment, it nevertheless sometimes can.

Keep reading

Trump Signs Executive Order To Protect Gun Owners

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order to re-establish the full rights of American gun owners under the Second Amendment.

“The Second Amendment is an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty,” the order states.

“It has preserved the right of the American people to protect ourselves, our families, and our freedoms since the founding of our great Nation. Because it is foundational to maintaining all other rights held by Americans, the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.”

The order states that, within 30 days, Attorney General Pam Bondi “shall examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, and present a proposed plan of action to the President, through the Domestic Policy Advisor, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.”

Former President Joe Biden issued a raft of measures designed to restrict gun owners’ rights. In April 2021, for example, he signed six executive orders which included measures to combat the production of so-called “ghost guns,” new red-flag measures and new rules about stabilizing braces for pistols.

In one of his final executive orders, Biden put in place new background checks for private sellers. He continued to promise to ban “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines.

Keep reading

Circuit Court Judge Strikes Down Illinois FOID Card Requirement for Guns in the Home

On Monday, White County Resident Circuit Judge T. Scott Webb ruled against a requirement that Illinois residents must obtain a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card in order to possess a gun in the home for self-defense.

The case, State of Illinois v. Vivian Claudine Brown, which was supported by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association, centered on Brown’s possession of a .22 rifle in the home for self-defense on March 18, 2017, without an accompanying (required) FOID card.

She was charged due to her lack of a FOID card, and a suit was subsequently filed. The suit challenged not only the FOID card requirement but also the fee to obtain such a card, which is $10. Brown argued that the fee “suppresses a fundamental right that is recognized to be enjoyed in the most private areas, such as the home.”

Webb weighed the case in light of Heller (2008) and Bruen (2022), ultimately found that “the defendant’s possession of a .22 caliber rifle within the confines of her own home, even without a valid FOID card falls squarely within the protections afforded her by the Second Amendment.”

Keep reading

Trump Dismantles Biden’s Gun Control Actions, Signs Executive Order to Protect Gun Owners

President Trump on Friday signed an Executive Order dismantling Joe Biden’s gun control actions.

“The Second Amendment is an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty. It has preserved the right of the American people to protect ourselves, our families, and our freedoms since the founding of our great Nation. Because it is foundational to maintaining all other rights held by Americans, the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed,” President Trump’s Executive Order said.

Trump ordered US Attorney General Pam Bondi to review all of Joe Biden’s unconstitutional gun control Executive Orders to assess ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment.

“Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, and present a proposed plan of action to the President, through the Domestic Policy Advisor, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans,” Trump’s EO said.

Pam Bondi will review “All Presidential and agencies’ actions from January 2021 through January 2025 that purport to promote safety but may have impinged on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens,” the EO said.

Keep reading

Federal appeals court rules handgun ban on adults under 21 is ‘unconstitutional’

Afederal appeals court on Thursday struck down a handgun ban on adults under the age of 21, ruling that the current age-based restriction violated the right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

The ruling is the latest since the Supreme Court established a new test for assessing modern firearms laws in 2022. The conservative-led Supreme Court determined in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, that current gun restrictions were required to be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The New Orleans based Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that 18- 20-year-olds are among those whose “right to keep and bear arms is protected.”

“The federal government has presented scant evidence that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds’ firearm rights during the founding-era were restricted in a similar manner to the contemporary federal handgun purchase ban, and its 19th century evidence ‘cannot provide much insight into the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contradicts earlier evidence,'” the judges wrote in their decision, per CNN.

The ruling is in response to a federal ban on handgun sales to people under 21, which was first adopted by Congress in 1968 as part of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, Reuters reported.

Keep reading