Get this and many more HERE!
Tis the season…for gift giving…hint hint…
Tag: 2nd amendment
Ghost Guns and the Second Amendment
The latest boogeyman conjured up by the Biden administration is ghost guns.
In his September 26 executive order on “Combating Emerging Firearms Threats and Improving School-Based Active-Shooter Drills,” President Biden mentioned these ominous “ghost guns”:
One way to continue the progress on reducing gun violence is to stay ahead of emerging violent crime threats involving firearms. My Administration has always taken these threats seriously. In April 2021, one of my Administration’s first executive actions to reduce gun violence was directed at stopping the proliferation of firearms without serial numbers, often referred to as “ghost guns.”
The executive order goes on to describe these ghost guns as “unserialized, 3D printed firearms — which can be used for illicit purposes such as gun trafficking, possession by people convicted of felonies or subject to domestic violence restraining orders, or unlawful engagement in the business of manufacturing or selling firearms.” These ghost guns can’t be traced by law enforcement and they “can be rendered undetectable by magnetometers used to secure airports, courthouses, and certain events.” They are even “a significant risk to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.”
So, what can the federal government do, constitutionally, about ghost guns?
Absolutely nothing.
Article II of the Constitution defines the powers of the president. It gives no authority to the president to ban or regulate firearms of any kind.
Article I of the Constitution grants all legislative powers to the Congress. But the Constitution is also clear that the legislative power of Congress is not absolute. There are about thirty enumerated congressional powers found in the Constitution, most of them in the eighteen paragraphs of Article I, Section 8. None of them give authority to the Congress to ban or regulate firearms of any kind.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The Second Amendment does not grant to any American the positive right to keep and bear arms. It recognizes a preexisting natural right. The Second Amendment is an additional limitation on federal power to infringe upon gun rights besides the fact that no authority is granted to the president or the federal government to infringe upon them in the first place.
So, all of this simply means that the federal government has no authority to ban or regulate firearms of any kind: no pistols, no revolvers, no rifles, no assault rifles, no shotguns, no sawed-off shotguns, no machine guns, and no ghost guns. It also has no authority to restrict how Americans manufacture or modify any of their firearms.
Federal Judge Enjoins Enforcement of the Illinois ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban
A federal judge in Illinois recently issued a permanent injunction against that state’s “assault weapon” ban, deeming it inconsistent with the Second Amendment. The Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) “is an unconstitutional affront to the Second Amendment and must be enjoined,” U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn wrote in Barnett v. Raoul, which combines several challenges to the law, on Friday. “The Government may not deprive law-abiding citizens of their guaranteed right to self-defense as a means of offense.”
McGlynn imposed a 30-day stay on his injunction to allow an appeal that seems likely to succeed. Last year in Bevis v. City of Naperville, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction against PICA that McGlynn issued in April 2023. The 7th Circuit concluded that the state was likely to prevail in its defense of the law.
The 168-page opinion that McGlynn issued on Friday, which followed a bench trial, aims to reconcile the 7th Circuit’s reasoning, which was based on a distinction between “military” weapons and “Arms protected by the Second Amendment,” with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Second Amendment precedents. That’s a tall order. But the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), which represents the plaintiffs in one of the PICA lawsuits, argues that the evidence presented at trial showed that “PICA fails even under the Seventh Circuit’s misguided test,” which it says “conflicts with binding Supreme Court precedent.”
Illinois legislators enacted PICA in January 2023, six months after a gunman used a Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle to kill seven people at an Independence Day parade in Highland Park. Among other things, the law bans a long list of specific rifle models, along with any semi-automatic rifle that accepts detachable magazines and has one or more of six listed features: a pistol grip or thumbhole stock, a protruding grip, a folding or adjustable stock, a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher, or a barrel shroud. PICA also bans “large capacity ammunition feeding devices,” defined to include rifle magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and pistol magazines that hold more than 15 rounds.
Illinois House Speaker Chris Welch (D–Westchester) said the law was aimed at “weapons of war.” That phrase suggested that Welch was talking about selective-fire rifles like those carried by U.S. soldiers, which can shoot automatically.
That was clearly not true. Such rifles are strictly regulated under federal law, which has forbidden sales of newly manufactured machine guns to civilians since 1986. PICA does not deal with machine guns; it deals with semi-automatic firearms, which fire one round per trigger pull.
Federal Judge Vacates Bump Stock Rule, Recognizes ‘Right to Possess’
Senior United States District Judge David Alan Ezra vacated the ATF’s bump stock ban rule on Monday and recognized plaintiff Michael Cargill’s “right to possess” the device under federal law.
The case is Gargill v. Garland, in the U.S. District for the Western District of Texas.
Cargill secured a favorable ruling against the bump stock ban in this same district court in 2023, however, the court did not provide any means of relief for Cargill. But the New Civil Liberties Alliance noted that once the Supreme Court of the United States ruled against the bump stock ban the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the district’s court denial of Cargill’s motion for relief, instructing the district court “to consider alterations to the judgment or other relief[.]”
Under Kamala Harris, Americans Can Say ‘Good-Bye’ To Their Sacred Rights To Speak Freely, Worship, Assemble, Bear Arms, and Vote
Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have made a penchant for chastising “hate speech” and “misinformation” on the campaign trail this election season. While those words might not seem like much to those less familiar with how our constitutional form of government, and specifically the First Amendment, is supposed to work, they are offensive to those of us who understand a thing or two about the Constitution – particularly, the notable omission of a so-called “hate speech” clause.
In truth, liberals like Kamala and Walz are merely playing with words (and not particularly well) doing their best to not tell people what they truly believe. However, Kamala and Walz are so incompetent that it should be plainly obvious to any attentive listener of what they mean by “hate speech”: they abhor – and, insidiously, think should be unlawful –any criticism personally directed at them or their woke policies. Kamala’s leftist ideology thrives in the dark; it cannot sustain under the piercing bright light of truth. That is why the Left – and the Democratic Party – is hellbent on silencing their critics, especially Donald Trump, by any means necessary. The old adage is that when the ballot fails, the bullet becomes the last option. So far, the Left has managed to rig a presidential election and install a dummy president, as well as twice attempt to kill Donald Trump. And yet, despite the titanic forces of opposition against him, is as of this writing now leading in every single one of the seven key battleground states on Real Clear Politics (he only needs to win 3 or 4 to take the electoral college).
The problem with establishing artificial barriers on speech – devised not out of reason, but emotion – is that it limits the great possibilities for a nation, economically, culturally, and technologically, stymying progress and setting the country back decades, if not centuries. “The closing of the American mind” is a real and present danger, and it is readily manifested in the policies and persona of Kamala Harris, who, in addition to being a diehard liberal, certainly lacks the mental powers to fathom the ideas that spawned the great innovations of our country’s past and are required to – in a phrase – “build back better.” Part of this has to do with the decades-long assault on speech, which only appeases the dregs of society, who lack the reasoning faculties to contribute anything of substance. By pandering to the lowest common denominator (which is the only advantage of regulating free speech at all in modern societies), it allows those less intellectually and naturally gifted to receive an artificial leg up, because on an otherwise level platform, they would easily be stampeded by their natural superiors.
But the downside of this, particularly over an extended period of time, is that all of society ossifies – we become paralyzed in this constant and false belief to cater to those who contribute, relatively speaking, nothing meaningful to the collective good. In turn, those who are the most gifted – the innovators, creative geniuses, and visionary statesmen – are forced into playing along with this ridiculous charade. The dregs of society manipulate mass opinion, and particularly Christian sentimentality, by exploiting feelings of guilt or self-righteous envy, admonishing those who do not invest everything in the dregs in the vilest of terms – racist, bigot, xenophobe, homophobe. The more gullible of the productive group are duped into believing their pandering is moral or virtuous, when in fact it simply is accommodating to the malignant dictates of communists, spiritual if not actual, who should be spurned wholesale for the cancerous blight they thrust onto the rest of us
Ghost Gun Seizures Nearly Triple In Two Years
The number of ghost guns recovered by U.S. law enforcement rose swiftly between 2016 and 2022, the same year the Biden Administration introduced background checks and outlawed accessible built-at-home kits without serial numbers for these types of firearms which had previously evaded tracing due to their DIY nature.
Now, as Statista’s Katharina Buchholz reports, the Supreme Court is hearing a case that pro-gun groups, manufacturers and citizens have brought against the U.S. government trying to overturn these rules that they say are based on an unjust expansion of the term firearm and therefore are beyond the power of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to enforce.
A lower court sided with the plaintiffs and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case back in April.
Since the introduction of the new rules and states also passing their own bans and regulations on the subject, there are indications that the proliferation of ghost guns has slowed.
There are no 2023 numbers available from ATF.
However, an analysis of police department data from 34 cities by Everytown Research showed a well-known manufacturer of ghost gun kits, Polymer80, was still the seventh most common source of guns used in crimes in 2023 across these municipalities at 1.5 percent.
Kamala Harris says she owns a Glock despite supporting handgun bans in SF, prompting speculation it’s unregistered
Vice President Kamala Harris told “60 Minutes” Monday that she owns a Glock handgun — triggering allegations of hypocrisy due to her own past support for firearm bans and questions about whether she’s complying with existing gun-control laws.
“I have a Glock and I’ve had it for quite some time,” the 59-year-old Harris told CBS News correspondent Bill Whitaker.
“My background is in law enforcement, so there you go.”
Asked if she had ever fired the gun, Harris laughingly replied, “Yes, of course I have, at a shooting range— yes, of course, I have.”
Harris previously supported handgun bans in both San Francisco, where she began her political career and served as district attorney between 2004 and 2011, and Washington, where she has served in federal office since 2017.
California state law requires gun buyers to have a Firearm Safety Certificate and DC requires all handguns to be registered.
Glocks, furthermore, cannot legally have magazines with a capacity of more than 10 bullets in the nation’s capital, and some models of Glock come with a standard capacity that exceeds that limit.
“DC residents have to register their firearms. And DC issues a gun-registration ID card for each firearm, with the make, model, and serial number. Post your card, Kamala,” tweeted Mike Davis, a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and a former Senate Judiciary Committee aide.
In a free society…
Get it, and many more, HERE.
Massachusetts Governor Uses Emergency Powers To Fast-Track Sweeping Gun-Control Law
Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey has signed an emergency preamble to the state’s sweeping gun control bill, fast-tracking its implementation and halting an ongoing effort by gun rights activists to delay its effects.
The law, H.4885, was originally scheduled to take effect on Oct. 23, or 90 days after Healey signed the bill in July, but her decision to proceed with signing the emergency preamble means it goes into effect immediately.
Under Massachusetts law, governors have the authority to issue an emergency preamble to expedite legislation when “the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, or convenience” is deemed necessary.
The law’s expedited enactment was praised by gun control groups but sharply criticized by gun rights advocates, who had hoped to gather enough signatures to delay its implementation until a potential 2026 referendum.
H.4885 expands Massachusetts’ already strict gun regulations, in part as a response to the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which affirmed an individual’s right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.
The expedited law includes provisions banning untraceable “ghost guns,” expanding restrictions on “assault-style” firearms and large-capacity magazines, and tightening the state’s “red flag” rules. It also mandates that firearm license applicants pass a standardized safety exam and complete live-fire training, while also providing mental health information to local licensing authorities.
“This gun safety law bans ghost guns, strengthens the Extreme Risk Protection Order statute to keep guns out of the hands of people who are a danger to themselves or others, and invests in violence prevention programs. It is important that these measures go into effect without delay,” Healey said in an Oct. 2 statement to media outlets.
The governor’s decision to fast-track the law has drawn swift condemnation from gun rights organizations. Tody Leary, owner of Cape Cod Gun Works and a leader of the grassroots Civil Rights Coalition, sharply criticized the move, accusing Healey of bypassing the democratic process.
DOJ Says Allowing A Pennsylvania Prosecutor Who Uses Medical Marijuana To Possess A Gun Would Be ‘Dangerous’
In a new court filing by the U.S. Department of Justice, attorneys for the federal government argue that the nationwide ban on marijuana consumers owning firearms is constitutional and should remain in place, arguing it aligns with other restrictions on gun ownership by dangerous, mentally ill or intoxicated people.
The brief, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, is the latest in a case filed earlier this year by Warren County District Attorney Robert Greene, a registered medical marijuana patient in the state. Greene teamed up with the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) to file suit in January against the government, including U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the heads of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and the FBI.
The original suit says that while Greene “intends to lawfully purchase, possess, and utilize firearms and ammunition so that he may exercise his constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and all other lawful purposes,” he’s forbidden from doing so because of his status as a state-certified medical cannabis patient.
In DOJ’s latest filing, the government says that’s by design. Its motion asks the court to dismiss Greene’s case.
“Marijuana’s physical and mental effects make it dangerous for a person to handle firearms,” it says, “and also impair a person’s judgment, including judgement about whether to use firearms.”
It also notes that possession of even state-legal medical marijuana remains a federal crime. The government, however, has not prioritized enforcement of prohibition against state-regulated medical cannabis programs, and a federal budget rider prevents the use of funds to interfere with the state-legal programs.
Hellbound and Down 
You must be logged in to post a comment.