Tag: 2nd amendment

Wealthy LA father who pulled gun on masked intruders as they tried to break into his luxury home while his baby was inside reveals he has been STRIPPED of his firearm permit ‘because he yelled at cops when they arrived’

A Los Angeles father who pulled a gun on masked intruders when they tried to break into his luxury home has revealed he has been stripped of his firearm permit.

In a video for the National Rifle Association, Vince Ricci said his concealed carry license was ‘revoked’ after he was attacked by two men at his $2million house.

‘After successfully defending my home and my family and my five-month-old child, California has now decided to suspend my Second Amendment [rights],’ Ricci said.

The entrepreneur, who is the CEO of a photo studio, told Fox News the sheriff’s office called him on Thursday telling him it was due to him ‘yelling’ at officers.

He had previously blasted the LAPD for ‘sloppy police work’, including their alleged negligence in picking up casings scattered near his home as evidence.

DailyMail.com has reached out to the LAPD for comment.

On November 4 just after Ricci returned home to his gated LA home, two armed men jumped his fence and tried to force their way into his house.

Footage of the gunfight revealed the moment in which he is approached by one of the masked assailants at about 7.30pm.

In a swift attempt to defend himself, his wife, five-month-old and the nanny inside Ricci reached for his gun and started a shootout with the intruders.

Obtaining a concealed carry permit in California is more difficult than other states with Ricci telling Fox News Digital it took him months to process it.

In California residents over the age of 18 can legally carry firearms on private property and residences without a permit or license.

‘My situation is unique because it happened at my front door, all on camera,’ he said. ‘But this happens time and time again all over the country…

‘People sweep it under the rug because it doesn’t behoove their political agenda. The fact is, evil will always exist.’

Keep reading

Biden’s Justice Department Says Marijuana Consumers Are ‘Unlikely’ To Store Guns Properly In Latest Defense Of Federal Ban

The Biden administration has once again found itself in federal court defending a ban preventing people who use marijuana from buying or possessing firearms, arguing that historical precedent “comfortably” supports the restriction and that cannabis consumers with guns pose a unique danger to society, in part because they’re “unlikely” to store their weapon properly before using marijuana.

In a brief submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Wednesday, attorneys for the Justice Department responded to a series of prompts from the judges, asserting that the firearm ban for marijuana consumers is justified based on historical analogues to restrictions on the mentally ill and habitually drunk that were imposed during the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification in 1791.

The federal government has repeatedly affirmed that those analogues, which must be demonstrated to maintain firearm restrictions under a recent Supreme Court ruling, provide clear support for limiting gun rights for cannabis users. But several federal courts have separately deemed the marijuana-related ban unconstitutional, leading DOJ to appeal in several ongoing cases.

For the case before the Third Circuit, the government is defending the ban against Erik Matthew Harris, who was convicted of violating the federal statute prohibiting the possession of a firearm by a person “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” As the Daily Caller first reported, Harris’s legal representation also submitted a supplemental brief to the court on Wednesday that broadly disputes both the substance of the conviction under the statute, as well as the idea that there are relevant historical analogues to uphold the existing ban.

Keep reading

Holton Township, Michigan establishes its own MILITIA to protect second amendment and declares it will not enforce new red-flag laws restricting gun ownership

A Michigan township has established its own militia to protect the Second Amendment rights of its 2,500 citizens.

Holton Township, in Muskegon County, passed a Second Amendment Resolution on Tuesday night establishing itself as a ‘Second Amendment Sanctuary’. 

The resolution included an addendum establishing their very own militia. 

Under the changes, all legal residents with primary residence within Holton now have the opportunity to join the militia but must adhere to federal firearm checks. 

The town said they are adopting policies ‘necessary for the security and rights of Holton Township residents.’

‘The people of Holton Township, through their duly elected members of the Holton Township Board, hereby designate Holton Township as a Second Amendment Sanctuary in order to preserve for the people of, on and in Holton Township, the inalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America,’ the resolution reads. 

‘The Holton Township Board hereby declares its intent to oppose any infringement on the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. 

‘We, the people of Holton Township, hereby declare our inalienable rights, our freedom and our Liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.’ 

The addendum laid out conditions for residents wishing to join the militia. 

Residents must be over the age of 18, have passed a federal firearms background check and state on open social media or by letter that they wish to join the militia. 

The addendum also says that the township will not acknowledge any new laws that are associated with red flag laws. 

Keep reading

Gun Hobbyists (and Liberty) Win Big in Court

The Biden administration’s scheme to threaten the public with tightened gun-control regulations by reinterpreting laws to mean what they never meant in the past is running into some speed bumps. Stumbling over one of those obstacles is an attempt by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to define unfinished firearm frames and receivers—functionally, paperweights—as firearms for the purpose of regulating homemade “ghost guns.” The courts aren’t buying the government’s argument and on November 9 delivered another slap to regulators and the White House.

“The agency rule at issue here flouts clear statutory text and exceeds the legislatively-imposed limits on agency authority in the name of public policy,” wrote Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt for three judges of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in ruling on VanDerStok v. Garland. “Because Congress has neither authorized the expansion of firearm regulation nor permitted the criminalization of previously lawful conduct, the proposed rule constitutes unlawful agency action, in direct contravention of the legislature’s will.”

Specifically, the court addressed portions of the ATF’s new “frame and receiver” rule which reinterpreted existing law, particularly elements of the Gun Control Act of 1968. The rule would extend the ATF’s reach and allow the government to restrict home construction of firearms in ways that the Biden White House wants as part of a crusade against so-called “ghost guns” but hasn’t been able to get through Congress.

Keep reading

5th Circuit Panel Unanimously Finds ATF’s 80 Percent Firearm Frame Rule ‘Unlawful’

A three-judge panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided on Thursday against the ATF’s 80 percent frame rule, finding that the ATF overstepped its bounds in issuing it.

The 80 percent or partial frame rule is contained within ATF Final Rule 2021-05F, and makes clear the ATF’s position that partially completed pistol frames–commonly known as 80 percent frames–are “firearms.”

The ATF’s rule on frames took effect on August 24, 2022, and following public pushback, the ATF released a December 27, 2022, letter, reiterating that their rule does hold that “partially complete pistol frames” are “firearms.’ This opens the door for a background check requirement for certain gun parts and/or parts kits.

All three judges on the Fifth Circuit panel decided against the ATF’s rule.

The three judges, Kurt D. Engelhardt, Andrew S. Oldham, and Don Willet, were all appointed by Donald Trump. The case made its way to them on appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The judges seized on the the ATF’s act redefining partial frames as firearms, noting that in so doing the ATF went beyond Congress.

Engelhardt wrote the court’s opinion and noted:

The agency rule at issue here flouts clear statutory text and exceeds the legislatively-imposed limits on agency authority in the name of public policy. Because Congress has neither authorized the expansion of firearm regulation nor permitted the criminalization of previously lawful conduct, the proposed rule constitutes unlawful agency action, in direct contravention of the legislature’s will.

Oldham, concurring, pointed to what he saw as the ATF’s core blunder: “ATF’s foundational legal error is that it conflated two very different statutes: the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act of 1934. Those two statutes give ATF very different powers to regulate very different types of weapons.”

Keep reading

Federal Judge Smacks Down Biden’s ATF AR-15 Gun Ban

A Trump appointed federal judge just smacked down an attempt by Biden’s ATF to ban AR-15 pistols with arm braces.

It’s amazing. No matter how bad crime gets, the Democrat left is still intent on trying to disarm law abiding Americans.

Gun sales are through the roof right now, as Americans were horrified by the attacks on mostly unarmed Israelis by Hamas in October.

The Washington Examiner reports:

Judge crushes ATF AR-15 gun ban

A federal judge late Wednesday gave millions of gun owners breathing room when he slammed the Biden administration’s effort to ban a big slice of the AR-15 market.

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk blocked the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from enforcing its ban on AR-15 style “pistols” equipped with arm braces, calling the agency’s new rule unlawful.

“Public safety concerns must be addressed in ways that are lawful. This rule is not,” said the Trump-appointed judge.

The nine-page decision is the latest to challenge the ATF over its rule requiring millions of owners of braced guns to register the firearms and pay a $200 tax, or face 10 years in jail. Kacsmaryk’s decision is the most sweeping, covering the whole country.

At issue is the ATF’s rule issued earlier this year to ban the braces on the guns. The agency claims it turns a pistol into a dangerous rifle and supporters have cited how the weapons have been used in a handful of mass shootings.

However, for years before its ban, the ATF allowed the braces to be sold, and they have become so common that some estimate 40 million or more are in circulation, making the AR-style pistol one of the most commonly held firearms in the nation.

This tweet includes an image of the guns in question.

Keep reading

US Supreme Court hears arguments over domestic-violence gun curbs

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday was hearing arguments on the legality of a federal law that makes it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to have guns in the latest major case to test the willingness of its conservative majority to further expand gun rights.

The justices heard an appeal by President Joe Biden’s administration of a lower court’s ruling striking down the law – intended to protect victims of domestic abuse – as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”

The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the measure failed a stringent test set by the Supreme Court in a 2022 ruling that required gun laws to be “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” in order to survive a Second Amendment challenge.

Some of the conservative justices questioned Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, defending the law on behalf of the Biden administration, and expressed skepticism about her argument that the Second Amendment permits laws that prohibit people who are not law abiding and responsible from possessing firearms, including domestic abusers.

Keep reading

Due Process Demands Stricter Standards for Restraining Orders That Negate Gun Rights

Since 1994, federal law has prohibited gun possession by people who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders. Although that provision may seem like a commonsensical safeguard, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled last February that it was not “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”—the constitutional test prescribed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. On Tuesday, in United States v. Rahimi, the Supreme Court will consider whether the 5th Circuit was right about that.

Rahimi is primarily about the contours of the right to keep and bear arms as it was traditionally understood. But a Cato Institute brief notes that the case also raises the question of what due process requires when the government seeks to deprive someone of that right.

Under 18 USC 922(g)(8), which Congress approved as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, it is a felony, currently punishable by up to 15 years in prison, for someone to possess or receive a firearm when he is subject to a court order that restrains him from “harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner” or the partner’s child or from “engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury” to the partner or the partner’s child. The order must be preceded by a hearing of which the respondent “received actual notice,” and it must include either a finding that the respondent poses “a credible threat” or language that “prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force” that “would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury.”

To issue an order, in other words, a judge need not conclude that the respondent actually poses a threat. To trigger the loss of gun rights, the order need only include boilerplate regarding the use of force. And as 5th Circuit Judge James C. Ho noted in his concurring opinion last February, orders that include such language are “often used as a tactical device in divorce proceedings,” “are granted to virtually all who apply,” are “a tempting target for abuse,” and in some cases have been used to disarm the victims of domestic violence, leaving them “in greater danger than before.”

Are the procedural protections specified by Section 922(g)(8) enough to guarantee the “due process” that the Fifth Amendment demands before someone can be “deprived of life, liberty, or property”? The Cato Institute, joined by the Goldwater Institute, thinks not.

Keep reading

It’s Hard To See How the 9th Circuit Can Manage To Uphold California’s ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban

Over the weekend, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit stayed a permanent injunction against California’s “assault weapon” ban that a federal judge issued on October 19. That means the law, originally enacted in 1989 and subsequently broadened, will remain in effect while the appeals court hears the state’s appeal in Miller v. Bonta. But if the 9th Circuit carefully considers U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s reasoning in issuing the injunction, it is hard to see how the appeals court can conclude that California’s ban is consistent with the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment precedents.

Benitez had previously ruled that the “assault weapon” ban was unconstitutional. In August 2022, the 9th Circuit vacated that June 2021 decision and instructed Benitez to reconsider the case in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the June 2022 case in which the Supreme Court concluded that New York had violated the Second Amendment by requiring residents to show “proper cause” before they were allowed to carry handguns in public for self-defense.

Bruen explicitly rejected the “interest-balancing” tests that federal courts had commonly used to uphold gun control laws. It instead prescribed a historical test aimed at determining whether a given regulation is consistent with the right to keep and bear arms as it was traditionally understood. “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority. “The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.'”

Applying that test to California’s “assault weapon” ban, Benitez first considers whether the targeted firearms are “in common use,” meaning they are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Beginning with its landmark 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court has said weapons fitting that description are covered by the Second Amendment.

Keep reading

A Montana Case Tests the Constitutionality of the Gun-Free School Zones Act

Last summer, Gabriel Metcalf alarmed passersby in Billings, Montana, by “pacing his front lawn holding a rifle.” When local police approached him, Metcalf said he was protecting himself from a neighbor he thought was stalking him. The officers conceded that Metcalf was not violating any state laws but asked him to cut it out. Because Metcalf was not inclined to follow their advice, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) got involved. Noting that Metcalf lived across the street from an elementary school and admitted walking on the sidewalk near his home with the rifle, the ATF charged him with violating the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act.

That law, 18 USC 922(q), makes it a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. Since schools are scattered throughout communities across the country, those gun-free zones cover a lot of territory—including the sidewalk outside Metcalf’s home. But in seeking dismissal of Metcalf’s indictment, his public defender, Russell Hart, argues that his conduct is not covered by the statute and, in any case, is protected by the Second Amendment. The latter argument seems promising in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the 2022 decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right to publicly carry firearms for self-defense.

In the 1995 case United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its power to regulate interstate commerce when it passed the original version of the Gun-Free School Zones Act in 1990. “The Act neither regulates a commercial activity nor contains a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce,” Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted in the majority opinion. Congress responded in 1995 by amending the law to specify that it applies only to “a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce”—boilerplate that had no practical effect on the statute’s broad reach.

The law includes several exceptions. It does not cover unloaded guns kept in “a locked container” or “a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle.” It does not apply to guns “on private property” that is “not part of school grounds.” And it does not allow prosecution “if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license.”

Keep reading