Tag: 2nd amendment

Federal Court Delivers Blow to ATF’s Ban on ‘Ghost Guns’

A federal judge delivered a blow to the Biden administration’s gun control policy by reversing a federal ban on so-called “ghost guns” and argued that the ATF overstepped its authority.

Texas-based United States District Court Judge Reed O’Connor on Friday ruled that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) erred by saying that unfinished gun parts are guns and can, therefore, be regulated. His ruling said that parts aren’t guns under federal law.

“This case presents the question of whether the federal government may lawfully regulate partially manufactured firearm components, related firearm products, and other tools and materials in keeping with the Gun Control Act of 1968,” wrote O’Connor in his order (pdf). “Because the court concludes that the government cannot regulate those items without violating federal law, the court holds that the government’s recently enacted final rule … is unlawful agency action taken in excess of the ATF’s statutory jurisdiction. On this basis, the court vacates the final rule.”

His order also stated that the ATF is trying to regulate a gun component as a “frame or receiver,” even after the agency determined “the component in question is not a frame or receiver.” Elaborating, he wrote: “It may not. Logic dictates that a part cannot be both not yet a receiver and receiver at the same time. Defendants’ reliance on that logical contradiction is fatal to their argument.”

Pro-firearms groups and websites cheered the ruling, saying that it was an attempt to claw back what they described as attempts by the Biden administration to grab guns via federal rulemaking. The case was brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition, a pro-Second Amendment group.

Keep reading

Gavin Newsom proposes 28th Amendment to restrict gun rights

California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday said he is proposing the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which will restrict gun rights. 

The proposed amendment would raise the minimum age to purchase firearms to 21, implement universal background checks, create what Newsom called a “reasonable waiting period for gun purchases” and ban civilians from buying so-called “assault weapons,” according to the governor’s announcement on Twitter.

Keep reading

ATF Says a Quarter Million Guns Registered Under Pistol-Brace Ban

Only a fraction of the guns affected by the ATF’s new rule were registered with the agency during the four-month grace period that ended this week.

The ATF told The Reload on Friday it has received just over a quarter million applications to register pistol-brace-equipped firearms. Registering the affected guns was one path toward avoiding possible criminal punishment for possessing the guns under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) after the agency implemented a rule reclassifying the firearms as subject to NFA restrictions. The ATF waived the tax requirement for registration to encourage owners to comply before the deadline.

“The final rule provided possessors of such firearms the option to comply with the registration requirements of the National Firearms Act through a tax-free process using either the ATF eForms System or a paper application process with a deadline for such applications of 11:59 PM (ET) on May 31, 2023,” Erik Longnecker, Deputy Chief of the ATF’s Public Affairs Division, told The Reload. “As of June 1, 2023, ATF received 255,162 applications for tax-free registration.”

That number represents just a fraction of the braced guns believed to have been sold in the decade since the ATF first classified a version as outside the scope of the NFA. In the impact assessment for the rule, the ATF estimated that three to seven million devices exist. However, the Congressional Research Service puts the number much higher at somewhere between 10 and 40 million.

That puts the registration rate for pistol-brace-equipped guns at between 0.6 percent and eight percent.

Longnecker noted that owners of the affected guns could also comply with the rule by either dismantling the firearms and destroying the braces or turning them over to the ATF. He said the agency does not know how many Americans may have taken those routes.

Keep reading

Hunter Biden, Second Amendment Warrior?

President Joe Biden has long been an advocate for strict restrictions on guns, so his son makes something of an unlikely advocate for expanded gun rights. But Hunter Biden may soon find himself on the opposite side of his father’s gun control crusade in at least one aspect. The younger Biden is reportedly considering a challenge to a federal law that bans illegal drug users from owning guns.

The issue hits close to home for Hunter: The Department of Justice is investigating a gun purchase he made in 2018. This is a time period during which he has admitted to regularly using crack cocaine. That could put him afoul of the law against drug users having guns.

Hunter Biden’s “lawyers have already told Justice Department officials that, if their client is charged with the gun crime, they will challenge the law under the Second Amendment, according to a person familiar with the private discussions granted anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly,” reported Politico. “That could turn a case that is already fraught with political consequences into a high-profile showdown over the right to bear arms.”

Here’s hoping?

The provision in question—part of the Gun Control Act of 1968—is, frankly, insane, preventing any person “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from buying a gun. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has interpreted this provision to mean that anyone who has used any illegal drug in the past 12 months cannot legally purchase a gun.

And the time may be just right for challenging it. This Supreme Court has proved willing to strike down overreaching gun laws.

Keep reading

ATF: Marijuana users in Minnesota can’t own firearms despite new law

Just one day after Minnesota legalized the recreational use of marijuana, an agency that regulates the use of firearms warned that any current user of marijuana is prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition.  

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (AFT) field office in St. Paul, Minn., issued the clarification Tuesday shortly after Gov. Tim Walz (D) signed a bill legalizing recreational marijuana. The clarification states that under federal law, current users of marijuana are prohibited from possessing, receiving, transporting or shipping firearms or ammunition.  

“Until marijuana is legalized federally, firearms owners and possessors should be mindful that it remains federally illegal to mix marijuana with firearms and ammunition,” Jeff Reed, ATF’s acting special agent in charge of the St. Paul Field Division, said in a statement.

“As regulators of the firearms industry and enforcers of firearms laws, we felt it was important to remind Minnesotans of this distinction as the marijuana laws adjust here in the State of Minnesota.” 

According to an analysis by the RAND Corporation, nearly 40 percent of residents in Minnesota reported owning a gun between 2007 and 2016. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 18 percent of Americans reported using marijuana in 2019.

Keep reading

Texas Lawmakers Advance Bill To Raise Age For Buying Semiautomatic Rifles To 21

Texas state lawmakers advanced a bill on Tuesday that seeks to raise the minimum age to purchase a semiautomatic rifle to 21, just days after a mass shooting in Allen.

Two Republicans on the House Select Committee on Community Safety joined the committee’s Democrats to approve moving House Bill 2744 to the full chamber for a vote. This move is seen as a small victory for gun control advocates despite the bill being unlikely to pass the conservative Legislature and become law.

Reps. Sam Harless from Spring and Justin Holland from Rockwall, both Republicans, voted with Democrats on the last day of the bill’s deadline to move out of committee and continue through the legislative process. Their support came as a surprise, notably with Holland’s previous strong pro-Second Amendment stance.

The bill has been widely criticized by Republicans and gun rights advocates as infringing on the constitutional rights of law-abiding adults. Opponents of the bill have argued that if an 18-year-old is considered an adult with respect to voting, purchasing tobacco, and serving in the military, then it should entitle them to the full rights to protections granted by the U.S. Constitution.

The unexpected vote came just days after a gunman killed eight people, including several children, at a mall in Allen, Texas. Harless described his decision as “the most emotional vote” he’s ever taken, The New York Times reported. “I started crying after I made it. That means my heart told me I made the right vote,” he said.

Keep reading

“Were You Expecting Us?”: ATF Agents Go ‘Door To Door’ To Confiscate FRT-15 Triggers

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) under the Biden administration continues its ‘door-to-door’ operation to seize Rare Breed FRT-15 triggers from private citizens. The latest example comes days ago when ATF agents, noticeably armed and wearing ballistic plate carriers, showed up at a person’s home, demanding the surrender of the FRT-15 trigger.  

A man who claimed to be the owner of Moonlight Industries, a company specializing in making chest rigs for special forces operators, posted a video on Moonlight’s YouTube channel of two ATF agents visiting him at his home.

The conversation begins with the woman ATF agent saying, “Were you expecting us?”

The man responded, “Well, it doesn’t surprise me with a guy wearing a plate carrier showing up…” 

The woman ATF agent (who does most of the talking) said, “The reason why we’re here … that just recently, the ATF, classified the FRT as machine guns.” 

She said, “We are aware that you might have purchased some of these FRTs.” She admitted, “Like the whole agency is basically ‘reaching out’ to these purchasers, and we have to pick them up.” 

After all that, Moonlight’s owner responded, “Well, I won’t be answering any questions today … and I don’t have any comments on this subject … and I won’t be giving you anything.” 

In a split second, the male ATF agent asked Moonlight’s owner, “Are you refusing to give us the trigger?”

Moonlight’s owner said, “I’m not refusing to give anything. I just won’t be answering any questions.” 

Keep reading

Refuting the “Second Amendment Protected Slavery” Argument Part III: Ratifying the Bill of Rights

With the Constitution ratified by the necessary states in 1788, it officially became the supreme law of the land in the states so ratifying.  Up until this point in the story, there wasn’t a single piece of direct, or even indirect evidence, of a concerted effort to protect the right to keep and bear arms to the Constitution in order to maintain local militias for the purpose of enforcing slavery.

All that can be proven is that there were general concerns by some Southerners about a ban on the slave trade and potential meddling in slavery. But those apprehensions were generally within the context of a debate over whether there should be a stronger central government compared to the Articles of Confederation, not the regulation of the militia.

It’s also important to note that by this point, there was no need for federalists to adopt a Second Amendment in order to assure any Southern slave states and secure their approval of the Constitution since they had already ratified it. In fact, some Southern states, including South Carolina and Georgia, hadn’t even proposed such an amendment. Additionally, many states that had recommended an amendment to protect the “right to keep and bear arms” or to protect the local militia were either free states or states that didn’t rely on the militia to enforce slave laws.

Nevertheless, in The Hidden History of the Second Amendment, law professor Carl T. Bogus argued that James Madison’s motive for proposing the Second Amendment was to calm the fears of Southern slave states. He argued that they worried the Constitution would limit their use of militia for slave patrols and to quell revolts. The Second Amendment, he claims, was to ensure this role of the militia wouldn’t be infringed upon by the new federal government.

Bogus examines Madison’s initial draft of the Second Amendment, which was more descriptive than the final version and included a religious exemption clause for military service. Here, his analysis of the draft within the context of federalist and antifederalist debates and the new Constitution’s role at least uses proper context. At the same time, none of it had to do with slavery or affected Southern militia.

Bogus argues that Madison wasn’t trying to articulate an individual right to keep and bear arms, but “to set limits on congressional power. In a sense…Madison’s draft of the Second Amendment made the power to arm the militia concurrent rather than exclusive to the federal government.”

Several points need to be made on this.

The first is that this was a draft, not the final version. It’s doubtful Bogus would put much stock into it if the draft instead had said “the individual right to keep and bear private arms shall not be infringed.”

But since Bogus takes a close look at Madison’s draft language, it’s worth pointing out that the actual adopted language recognizes a “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” If you eliminate the prepositional phrase “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” the sentence is still complete due to the predicate (shall not be infringed). The prepositional phrase explains the purpose for the right, but is dependent on the other half of the sentence to make be complete. This means it is not the focus of the sentence.

Keep reading

YouTuber Guilty For Selling ‘Metal Cards’ That DoJ Says Are “Machine Gun Conversion Devices” 

A Wisconsin gun dealer whose YouTube channel has 180,000 subscribers was convicted of “conspiring to transfer unregistered machine gun conversion devices” that were nothing more than metal bottle openers etched with patterns called “lightning links” that, when milled, can convert a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle into an automatic machine gun. 

Gun dealer Matthew Hoover, who operated the CRS Firearms channel, was found “guilty of conspiring to transfer unregistered machine gun conversion devices that they referred to as “Auto Key Cards,”” the Department of Justice wrote in a press release. He was convicted of four counts of transferring unregistered machine gun conversion devices and faces 45 years in jail. 

Also facing severe jail time is Kristopher Justinboyer Ervin. The DoJ said he was convicted “of seven counts of transferring unregistered machine gun conversion devices, three counts of possessing unregistered machine gun conversion devices, and one count of structuring cash transactions to avoid currency transaction reporting requirements.”

Ervin faces a maximum penalty of 110 years in federal prison. Sentencing for the two is scheduled for July 31. 

Hoover and Ervin sold lightning links, etched into metal cards, which he referred to as “Auto Key Cards,” from around $40 for one version to more than $180. Hoover touted the cards on his YouTube channel. 

Keep reading

Another Federal Judge Rejects the DOJ’s Argument That Cannabis Consumers Have No Second Amendment Rights

A federal judge in Texas recently agreed with a federal judge in Oklahoma that the national ban on gun possession by cannabis consumers violates the Second Amendment. Kathleen Cardone, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, also concluded that the federal ban on transferring firearms to an “unlawful user” of a “controlled substance,” first imposed by the Gun Control Act of 1968, is unconstitutional.

The case involves Paola Connelly, who was charged with illegal possession of firearms under 18 USC 922(g)(3) after El Paso police found marijuana and guns in her home while responding to a domestic disturbance in December 2021. Connelly, who said she used marijuana “to sleep at night and to help her with anxiety,” also was charged with violating 18 USC 922(d)(3) by transferring guns to her husband, a cocaine and psilocybin user. Both gun offenses are punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

As a preliminary matter, Cardone held that Connelly’s Second Amendment claims were not precluded by prior decisions in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which includes Texas, upheld Section 922(g)(3). Those decisions, she noted, preceded the Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which said gun control laws must be “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Keep reading