Tag: 2nd amendment

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

The DOJ Says Forbidding Pot Users To Own Guns Is Like Telling People Not To Carry Guns When They’re Drunk

Every state prohibits driving while intoxicated, recognizing that alcohol use impairs the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle and increases the risk of potentially lethal accidents. Using a cellphone also impairs the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle and increases the risk of potentially lethal accidents. It therefore makes sense to prohibit cellphone users from owning cars.

That faulty syllogism bears more than a passing resemblance to the Biden administration’s defense of the federal law that makes it a felony for cannabis consumers to possess firearms. That law, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) argues in an appeal brief filed last week, is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”—the constitutional test established by the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. To make its case, the government cites laws passed in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries that prohibited people from carrying or firing guns while intoxicated, which it implausibly argues are analogous to the gun ban for marijuana users that Congress imposed in 1968.

The DOJ is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to uphold a 2022 decision in which Allen Winsor, a federal judge in Florida, dismissed a Second Amendment challenge to that gun ban by state-authorized medical marijuana patients. In the 10th Circuit, meanwhile, the Biden administration is appealing a contrary 2023 ruling by Patrick Wyrick, a federal judge in Oklahoma who concluded that the law, 18 USC 922(g)(3), is unconstitutional.

The government’s 11th Circuit brief wisely eschews the DOJ’s earlier reliance on what Wyrick called “ignominious historical restrictions” that disarmed slaves, Catholics, loyalists, and Native Americans. Those precedents, the government had argued, showed that legislators have the authority to withhold gun rights from any group they deem “untrustworthy.” But the DOJ is still arguing that “the people” protected by the Second Amendment are limited to “law-abiding, responsible citizens,” a category that it says does not include cannabis consumers or anyone else who breaks the law, no matter how trivial the offense.

Keep reading

Feds used secret form to strip citizen of 2A rights as part of plea deal

Gabe Kaminsky of the Washington Examiner has been doing a great job of covering the scandalous use of a secret form used by the FBI and Secret Service that compelled individuals to “voluntarily” give up their right to keep and bear arms during the Obama and Trump administration. Thanks to Gun Owners of America’s invaluable work in uncovering these documents through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, we know that the form was used on at least 60 individuals, and now Kaminsky reports that in at least one case the form appeared to have been used as plea bargain bait.

The U.S. government conditioned a plea agreement with a defendant stipulating they sign a secret form, which was not authorized through Congress and has been slammed as “unconstitutional” by Republican lawmakers, that stripped their rights to buy, own, or use firearms, documents show.

Between 2011 and 2019, the FBI, Secret Service, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement coordinated to obtain signatures on an internal form from at least 60 U.S. citizens that stripped their gun rights, according to newly obtained records and multiple Washington Examiner reports. In at least one instance, the bureau and Secret Service worked behind closed doors with what appears to be a government prosecutor who conditioned signing of the form as part of a legal case, the Washington Examiner has learned.

“Dear Agent [redacted],” reads a June 10, 2019, letter written by a lawyer to a Secret Service agent in West Palm Beach, Florida. “You will find enclosed the NICS firearm form which has been signed by my client and his doctor. This is being provided in compliance with [redacted] plea agreement. Yours sincerely.”

It’s unclear what the 2019 defendant was being charged with or why the FBI and Secret Service had involvement. The FBI redacted the case number on the document, which was obtained by the firearms rights group Gun Owners of America through the Freedom of Information Act and shared with the Washington Examiner.

There are still some very basic questions about the form’s existence that have not been answered by the FBI or the Secret Service, including what agency developed the form and why it was put into use without any Congressional notification. Well, actually I think we know the answer to that last question. Given that there is no provision in federal law allowing someone to voluntarily give up their Second Amendment rights and prohibit themselves from passing a NICS check, there’s good reason why these agencies wanted to keep congressional watchdogs and the general public about the existence of these forms.

Keep reading

Biden to sign executive order to require background checks on more gun sales

President Biden is expected to announce an executive order on Tuesday that would expand background checks to more firearm sales by expanding the statutory definition of a firearms dealer, the White House said.

Biden is set to sign the order during a trip to Monterey Park, California, where he will meet with families and the community impacted by the mass shooting that killed 11 and injured nine others in January. The White House said the executive order will bring the U.S. “as close to universal background checks as possible” without additional legislation.

Under the executive order, Biden is also directing Attorney General Merrick Garland to develop and implement a plan to prevent former federally licensed firearms dealers, whose licenses have been revoked or surrendered, from continuing to engage in the business of dealing in firearms.

Keep reading

The DOJ Says Marijuana Use, Which Biden Thinks Should Not Be a Crime, Nullifies the Second Amendment

President Joe Biden thinks it is unfair that people convicted of simple marijuana possession face lingering consequences for doing something that he says should not be treated as a crime. Biden cited those burdens last October, when he announced a mass pardon of low-level federal marijuana offenders, which he said would help “thousands of people who were previously convicted of simple possession” and “who may be denied employment, housing, or educational opportunities as a result.” Yet the Biden administration, which recently began accepting applications for pardon certificates aimed at ameliorating those consequences after dragging its feet for five months, is actively defending another blatantly unjust disability associated with cannabis consumption: the loss of Second Amendment rights.

Under federal law, it is a felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, for an “unlawful user” of a “controlled substance” to possess firearms. The ban applies to all cannabis consumers, even if they live in one of the 37 states that have legalized medical or recreational use. That disability, a federal judge in Oklahoma ruled last month, is not “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”—the constitutional test established by the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Justice Department recently filed a notice indicating that it intends to appeal the decision against the gun ban for marijuana users.

The Biden administration’s defense of the ban relies on empirically and historically dubious assertions about the sort of people who deserve to exercise the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Among other things, the Justice Department argues that “the people” covered by the Second Amendment do not include Americans who break the law, no matter how trivial the offense. It also argues that marijuana users are ipso facto untrustworthy and unvirtuous, which it says makes them ineligible for gun rights.

According to the Biden administration, the original understanding of the right to arms included exceptions broad enough to encompass people who consume any intoxicant that legislators might one day decide to prohibit. It says the law criminalizing gun possession by cannabis consumers is analogous to laws targeting “intoxicated” people who carry guns in public places.

Keep reading