Tag: 2nd amendment

Supreme Court Gives Trump Administration More Time To Consider Challenging Marijuana And Gun Ownership Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court has approved a request from the government’s top lawyer that sought more time to consider a challenge to a February appeals court ruling around the federal prohibition on gun ownership by people who consume marijuana.

An order by Justice Brett Kavanaugh last week granted government lawyers an extension until June 5 to decide whether to appeal a February ruling from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer had previously requested the extension, telling the high court that the government needed more time to consider the case.

“The Solicitor General has not yet determined whether to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in this case,” said Sauer’s three-page filing. “The additional time sought in this application is needed to continue consultation within the government and to assess the legal and practical impact of the court of appeals’ ruling.”

The case concerns a defendant, Keshon Daveon Baxter, who was found in possession of both a firearm and a bag of marijuana. The government charged him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits gun ownership by “unlawful” users of controlled substances.

Baxter argued in district court that the prohibition was itself illegal, contending both that “unlawful” use was too vague in the statute to be enforceable and also that the government’s ban on drug users’ possession of firearms was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The lower court rejected both arguments—a ruling Baxter appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

It a February opinion, an Eighth Circuit panel upheld the portion of the district court’s decision denying Baxter’s vagueness claim but reversed the lower court’s ruling on the constitutionality of the firearms ban. However, judges wrote that there were insufficient factual findings in the record “for this Court to review Baxter’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge.”

Nevertheless, the Eighth Circuit wrote, “We reverse the district court’s ruling on Baxter’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Had the Supreme Court not granted the government’s extension, in the case, U.S. v. Baxter, a decision whether to appeal the Eighth Circuit ruling would have been due May 6.

Sauer, an appointee of President Donald Trump, formally assumed his role as solicitor general earlier this month. He previously helped represented Trump in his landmark case on presidential immunity.

Keep reading

Supreme Court’s “Ghost Gun” Ruling Accidentally Paves Way For Next-Gen 80% Firearms

In late March, the Supreme Court upheld a Biden administration rule regulating so-called ghost guns — unserialized firearms — delivering what initially appeared to be a victory for billionaire-funded gun control groups, anti-Second Amendment Democrats, and their allies in the corporate media. However, the ruling has inadvertently opened a new frontier for DIY firearm kits, alleges one ghost gun maker.

The high court’s ruling in Bondi v. VanDerStok (originally Garland v. VanDerStok, but renamed after a new Attorney General was appointed) was a 7–2 decision upholding the rule issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) requiring ghost gun makers to include serial numbers on kits and conduct background checks on purchasers.

According to Defense Distributed’s Cody Wilson, the March 26th opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, was a master class in judicial hand-waving—a carefully worded evasion that accidentally set a new standard even stronger than Chevron for upholding administrative agency actions while quietly greenlighting the next evolution of DIY firearm kits.

In Wilson’s view, the high court’s ruling did not ban ghost guns but instead inadvertently provided a roadmap for how the industry can survive — and even thrive.

Parsing through Gorsuch’s opinion, Wilson cited a few lines from pages 11 and 12 that show the DIY firearm kit industry is far from dead:

On page 11:

In the same way and for the same reason, an ordinary speaker might well describe the “Buy Build Shoot” kit as a “weapon.” Yes, perhaps a half hour of work is required before anyone can fire a shot. But even as sold, the kit comes with all necessary components, and its in-tended function as an instrument of combat is obvious. Really, the kit’s name says it all: “Buy Build Shoot.”

On page 12:

That turns out to tell us all we need to know about the statute’s “ready conversion” test. As we have seen, a person without any specialized knowledge can convert a starter gun into a working firearm using everyday tools in less than an hour. Mullins, 446 F. 3d, at 755. And measured against that yardstick, the “Buy Build Shoot” kit can be “readily converted” into a firearm too, for it requires no more time, effort, expertise, or specialized tools to complete.

“Although the plain text in this opinion is intended more as an admonishment of Polymer80, which had become the ghost gun industry’s largest single success story, it also undermines the ATF’s purposely vague “tests” for determining when components have or have not become firearms,” Wilson said, adding that ghost gun kits are not dead after the ruling – just the high court saying kits must be:

  1. Require more than an hour of effort and work
  2. Involve uncommon tools to complete, and;
  3. Lack all necessary components to be built into a functioning weapon

On Saturday, Defense Distributed debuted the next iteration of DIY firearm kits that fit the new definitions of the high court’s ruling. The new ghost gun is called the “G80.”

Keep reading

U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly Introduces New “Assault Weapons” Ban

Dubbed the “GOSAFE Act,” this unconstitutional bill would regulate the sale, transfer and manufacture of “gas-operated semi-automatic firearms by establishing a list and prevent modifications of so-called “prohibited firearms.”

Similar legislation has been introduced in state legislatures and has even been signed into law by Colorado Governor Jared Polis in recent weeks.

According to a press release from the bill sponsor U.S. Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) the GOSAFE Act would:

Regulate the sale, transfer, and manufacture of gas-operated semi-automatic firearms by:

  • Establishing a list of prohibited firearms;
  • Preventing modifications of permissible firearms;
  • Mandating that future gas-operated designs are approved before manufacture;
  • Preventing firearm self-assembly and manufacturing;
  • Prohibiting machinegun conversion devices;
  • Limit high-capacity ammunition devices;

This legislation is certainly more restrictive than what even California and New York have on the books regarding semi-automatic firearms.

Keep reading

Trump’s Solicitor General Asks Supreme Court For More Time To Weigh Challenge To Gun Ban For Marijuana Consumers

The government’s top lawyer is asking the Supreme Court for more time to consider whether to challenge a February appeals court ruling concerning the federal prohibition on gun ownership by people who consume marijuana. It’s the latest development in a series of recent cases around the constitutionality of the firearm restriction.

The new filing, from Solicitor General D. John Sauer, concerns a case in which the defendant, Keshon Daveon Baxter, was found in possession of both a firearm and a bag of marijuana. The government charged him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits gun ownership by “unlawful” users of controlled substances.

Baxter argued in district court that the prohibition was itself illegal, contending both that “unlawful” use was too vague in the statute to be enforceable and also that the government’s ban on drug users’ possession of firearms was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The lower court rejected both arguments—a ruling Baxter appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

It a February opinion, an Eighth Circuit panel upheld the portion of the district court’s decision denying Baxter’s vagueness claim but reversed the lower court’s ruling on the constitutionality of the firearms ban. However, judges wrote that there were insufficient factual findings in the record “for this Court to review Baxter’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge.”

Nevertheless, the Eighth Circuit wrote, “We reverse the district court’s ruling on Baxter’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

The federal government currently has until May 6 to decide whether to file a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the appeals court ruling. The new filing from Sauer asks for a 30-day extension on that deadline.

Keep reading

DECLASSIFIED: Democrats’ Very Real Secret Plot to ‘ELIMINATE’ 2nd Amendment Exposed by Tulsi Gabbard

What if I told you there was a classified plan sitting on the shelf, ready to execute, designed to dismantle the 2nd Amendment?

And what if I told you the Democrats designed that plan with the intention of putting it into effect after the election, using ‘domestic counterterrorism’ as the justification?

In fact, that is exactly the case, as documents just declassified by President Trump’s Director of National Intelligence shows.

There really was a secret plot to disarm the patriots of this country who understand the 2nd Amendment doesn’t have a thing to do with deer hunting.

And the only reason we’re not facing that reality right at this very moment… is because God saw fit to wake up enough Americans to SOUNDLY DEFEAT President Trump’s challengers last November — who truly thought they would win!

Had they done so… had they AGAIN put in the steal, we might be having a very different conversation right now.

Here’s what happened instead.

Tulsi Gabbard recently announced the creation of a new task force under her direct command specifically focused on rooting out — AND EXPOSING — just these sorts of illegal, secretive, anti-American weaponizations of the U.S. federal government aimed at its own people.

Twelve days ago, the conservative advocacy group American First Legal sent a letter to Director Gabbard requesting that she look into and declassify the document known to be connected to the Biden Administration’s surveillance and censorship strategy.

At the time, Gabbard responded that she was already at work on that very thing.

Keep reading

New Colorado Law Makes It Far More Difficult to Buy Semi-Automatic Firearms

Enacting what gun-grabbers see as the next-best thing to an outright “assault weapon” ban, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis on Thursday signed off on a law that will make it a much bigger hassle purchase many semiautomatic firearms.

The law, which will face immediate legal challenges from gun rights groups, also takes aim at bump stocks and binary triggers, while increasing the penalty for violating the state’s magazine restrictions. It’s set to take effect on August 1 of next year, with violators facing up to 120 days in jail, a fine, or both. Repeat offenders could be locked up for 18 months.  

“The bill enacts some of the most sweeping gun regulations ever considered in the Centennial State, even compared to the few dozen restrictions Colorado lawmakers have been stacking up over the last decade,” notes The Reload‘s Jake Fogleman. The law affects the purchase of so-called “assault rifles” — like AR-15s and AK-47s — as well as gas-operated pistols that use a detachable magazine. Recoil-operated handguns aren’t subject to the restrictions; the bill’s advocates say 90% of the pistol market won’t be affected. Examples of affected gas-operated handguns include the Desert Eagle, Walther PPK, Sig Sauer MPX Copperhead and Smith & Wesson MP 5.7. 

Keep reading

FBI Weaponizes Background Checks To Enforce California Gun Ban

When you go to a gun store to buy a new gun, you can expect a few things to happen.  First, some paperwork.  Second, you can expect to have to pass a background check before leaving with your gun.  And third, you can expect that the gun store will keep a record of your purchase for as long as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) requires.  After all, that is how the government traces crime guns back to their original purchasers.

But what you might not expect is an FBI agent receiving a ping that you – yes, you – just successfully bought a gun.  And you might be surprised to learn that this agent has been receiving notifications of your purchases for months – or years.

Of course, such a surveillance scheme would be flatly unconstitutional – not to mention a violation of several safeguards already codified in federal law.  Yet slowly but surely, the government has been building a record of the private collections of thousands of American citizens, even though federal law expressly prohibits that “any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions” be established.

Of course, even though they are being monitored, these victims remain law-abiding, meaning the government has no probable cause to justify seeking a warrant authorizing such a search in the first place.

Now, Gun Owners of America has discovered that the FBI has been using its Second Amendment surveillance program not only to enforce federal law, but also to help California target owners of newly banned “assault weapons.”

FBI’s NICS Monitoring Scheme

When news first broke of the FBI and ATF’s joint “NICS Monitoring” surveillance scheme, the public was shocked.  As journalist John Crump reported in April of 2021, “monitoring of NICS isn’t for prohibited people,” but rather those who are eligible to purchase firearms but who law enforcement agents nevertheless suspect might commit a crime.

GOA learned that targets of NICS Monitoring – which exploits records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) before they are deleted within 24 hours – never receive notice that their firearm transactions are being monitored.  Thus, there is no way to challenge the FBI’s surveillance.

In fact, in order to enroll a target for NICS Monitoring, an agent only needs to complete an internal request form. At no point does an agent seeking NICS Monitoring have to convince a judge (or anyone other than himself, really) that this surveillance comports with the Fourth Amendment.  Entirely usurpingly, then, the FBI’s abuse of NICS Monitoring is rampant.

Keep reading

Rep. Masssie Pushes For Nationwide Right To Carry Firearms Without Permit

Earlier this week, the House Judiciary Committee passed a bill HR 38, a bill that allows licensed concealed firearm holders to carry in other states that allow concealed carry. 

However, for Rep. Thomas Massie, R-KY, this bill does not go far enough. On X, he said “ I support this bill, but there is a better option, and it is National Constitutional Carry.” 

He added, “29 states already have Constitutional (i.e. permitless) Carry. Why not extend it to all 50 states?” 

Constitutional carry is the simple concept that any lawful individual can carry a firearm without having to ask the government for permission.

Under HR 38, Massie noted that residents of constitutional carry states can carry firearms in any state that issues permits to its citizens. The recent Bruen Supreme Court decision requires all non-constitutional carry states to issue carry permits.

Massie highlighted how when HR 38 passes, residents of the 29 constitutional carry states will be able to carry in all 50 states without a permit. Though paradoxically, residents of the 21 states without constitutional carry will need permits in their own states, while visitors from constitutional carry states won’t.

In the Kentucky congressman’s view, if Congress can mandate California to allow permit-less carry for out-of-state visitors based on the Second Amendment, it only makes sense to extend this right to California residents as well. 

Massie posed the following question: “Why not pass national constitutional carry and afford everyone in the United States the right to ‘bear arms’ which is enshrined in the Constitution?”

Keep reading

Pam Bondi Aims To Revive a Moribund Legal Process for Restoring Gun Rights

Although President Donald Trump has been entrusted with control of the nation’s vast military might, including its nuclear weapons, he is not allowed to own a gun. He lost that right as a result of 34 state felony convictions involving falsification of business records. Whatever you think of the legally dubious case underlying those convictions, this situation makes no sense as a matter of public safety. It epitomizes the absurdly broad criteria that bar Americans from possessing firearms under federal law.

Attorney General Pam Bondi recently took an important step toward addressing the unjust, constitutionally dubious burdens imposed by that policy. An interim final rule that took effect last week aims to revive the moribund legal process for restoring the Second Amendment rights of “prohibited persons” who pose no threat to public safety. The rule rescinds the delegation of that process to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which Congress has long prohibited from accepting applications for relief.

“For decades, law-abiding Americans who have had their gun rights unfairly restricted have been left in legal limbo—creating an unconstitutional de facto lifetime gun ban,” says Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America. “This bureaucratic failure has denied thousands of individuals their lawful opportunity to restore their rights. The [Justice Department’s] decision to finally withdraw ATF’s authority in this matter is an encouraging sign that this administration is serious about protecting the Second Amendment for all Americans.” 

Under 18 USC 922(g), prohibited persons include anyone who has been convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year of incarceration, regardless of the sentence that was actually imposed, whether or not the offense involved violence, and no matter how long ago it happened. This is the provision that forced Trump to give up his guns, even though his offenses were nonviolent and did not result in any formal punishment. The law also prohibits gun possession by anyone who has ever been subjected to involuntary psychiatric treatment, even if he was never deemed a threat to others.

Anyone who defies these bans is committing a federal felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. He could face additional penalties for lying on the federal form that must be completed to buy a gun from a federally licensed dealer, which can be construed as two distinct felonies under 18 USC 922(a)(6) and 18 USC 924 (a)(1)(A), and for “trafficking in firearms,” which Congress has counterintuitively defined to include prohibited persons who obtain guns. All told, a prohibited person who dares to exercise his Second Amendment rights could face combined maximum sentences of nearly half a century.

Keep reading

Unhinged Tennessee Democrat Lunges at GOP Colleague After Gun Control Bill Fails

Chaos erupted in a Tennessee House Criminal Justice Subcommittee meeting Wednesday when far-left State Representative Justin J. Pearson (D-Memphis) lunged at a Republican colleague in a fit of rage, hurling insults and pointing fingers—literally—after his anti-gun bill went down in flames.

The showdown started when Pearson pushed his latest gun-grabbing scheme, HB 1392, a bill that would’ve gutted Tennessee’s permitless carry law—a hard-won victory for Second Amendment patriots.

Under current law, law-abiding Tennesseans can carry firearms without jumping through bureaucratic hoops, a right Pearson wanted to strip away.

Thankfully, the committee saw through the nonsense and crushed the bill in a 7-2 vote, according to NBC39.

“We have a responsibility to protect our kids and our communities,” Pearson whined from the podium, trotting out tired liberal talking points about “gun violence.” But when State Representative Andrew Farmer (R-Sevierville) dared to call him out, all hell broke loose.

Farmer said, “I know every member in this committee has been here this year, working, during committee, during session, voting on bills. And I know that you may have some things going on, but you have not. So, I don’t think it’s fair for you to come here before this committee and lecture us on hard work and convictions and hard work for our committee.

Farmer continued, “So, while I understand where you’re at and what you’re doing and why, but at the end of the day, we’ve been here working. We’ve been on the House floor voting on bills. We’ve taken the tough questions. We’ve taken the tough votes, and we’re doing so. So I just don’t think it’s fair for you to come in here and lecture this committee on hard work when we’ve been up here doing the hard work.”

That’s when Pearson lost it. Pearson said that Farmer’s remarks made him “very, very angry.” The Memphis Democrat then explained that he had been absent because his brother died by suicide last December.

Keep reading