Tag: gun control

Four Injured in Another Shooting in Gun-Free Denver

The City of Denver has among the most restrictive gun laws in the state of Colorado. Colorado ranks 13th in the nation for most restrictive gun laws, and for liberty advocates, anti-gun policy is often incoherent. What are they even trying to do?

To answer that question, we found a helpful chart from Rand explaining the intention and expected outcomes of various types of gun legislation.

It’s helpful in that it explains their “logic” and pinpoints the disarmament lobby’s intentions. That being said, if we measured the impact of these policies in the states that already have them, I doubt the objectives have been achieved. Consider these stats for Colorado…

Keep reading

Hochul Calls for Nationwide Ban on ‘Assault Weapons’ in Wake of NYC Shooting

Governor Kathy Hochul (D-NY) said Tuesday on CNN’s “Inside Politics” that a new federal assault weapons ban is needed in the wake of a mass shooting in Manhattan.

Hochul said, “I’m sitting in Midtown right now. My office is just a few blocks away and walking in this morning, and you see the security guards down there and everyone is just wondering, you know, is this is this a one-off? Could this happen again? I mean, that sense of security is shattered when someone comes from another state carrying an assault weapon designed only for battlefields, but using it, intending to use that to commit mayhem and mass murder in our cities.”

She continued, “This is happening because there are still assault weapons in our country.”

Hochul added, “If every state had the same laws uniformly, you could not have a situation where we fight really hard in the state of New York to make sure that we have the toughest gun laws in the nation. We have the lowest of all the large states homicide rate by guns. New York City, New York State, has the lowest homicide rate by guns in the nation for large states, and that’s because of laws that are working. We want that same sense of urgency to go out across the nation.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court to Take Up Ban on Gun Ownership for Marijuana Users

The Supreme Court will consider hearing a gun control case related to a federal ban on firearm possession by marijuana users.

The high court is reportedly expected to have a private discussion on whether it will take up the case of US v. Cooper on September 29. The law has been roundly criticized by gun rights advocates who argue that it is a violation of the Second Amendment.

The case centers on LaVance LeMarr Cooper, who was prosecuted for owning a firearm as a marijuana user, which made him a “prohibited person” under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), a federal criminal statute that bars certain people from owning firearms or ammunition.

This subsection targets those who unlawfully use controlled substances.

A police officer pulled Cooper over in Iowa during a traffic stop. They found a loaded Glock 20 in his vehicle. He did not have any felony convictions, but did have a misdemeanor conviction in 1996 for driving with a suspended license and marijuana possession.

Cooper later admitted to smoking marijuana on a regular basis — about three to four times per week. Prosecutors charged him with violating the federal statute. He waived his right to a jury trial and consented to a bench trial. This means he did not dispute that he owned a firearm while being a marijuana user.

The district court found him guilty on both counts and sentences him to over three years in prison  for the offenses — even though he was not intoxicated at the time of the traffic stop.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in February vacated Cooper’s convicted and remanded the case. The panel rules that the lower court failed to properly apply the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in Cooper’s case.

Keep reading

The Trump Administration Defends the Federal Ban on Interstate Handgun Sales

A couple of years ago, Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Donald Trump, caused a kerfuffle by erroneously reporting that his boss had bought a Glock pistol while visiting a gun store in Summerville, South Carolina. That claim was striking because it implicated Trump, who was then seeking the Republican Party’s 2024 presidential nomination, in a federal crime: Since he was under indictment in state and federal court, he was barred from buying firearms. But even if Trump had not faced felony charges, the transaction that Cheung described would have been illegal because of federal restrictions on interstate handgun purchases.

As a resident of Florida, Trump would not have been allowed to directly buy a pistol from a South Carolina gun dealer. Instead, he would have had to arrange and pay for shipment of the weapon to a licensed dealer in Florida, who could have completed the transaction there, typically in exchange for an additional fee. A lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas takes aim at that rule, arguing that it is inconsistent with the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) says the ban on interstate handgun sales fails the constitutional test that the Supreme Court established in the 2022 case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

As president, Trump now controls the nation’s vast military might, including its nuclear arsenal. But because the dubious New York case against him resulted in felony convictions, he is not allowed to possess firearms, let alone buy new ones. And even if his convictions are overturned on appeal, he still won’t be allowed to buy a handgun in South Carolina or any other state he might visit. His administration, which is avowedly committed to protecting Second Amendment rights, nevertheless is defending that restriction against the FPC’s challenge, saying it “serves legitimate objectives” and “only modestly burdens the right to keep and bear arms.”

That argument sounds suspiciously like the sort of “interest balancing” that the Supreme Court emphatically rejected in Bruen. When a gun restriction affects conduct covered by “the Second Amendment’s plain text,” the Court said in that case, the government has the burden of demonstrating that it is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” That test typically requires identifying historical analogs that are “relevantly similar” in motivation and scope to a challenged law.

Keep reading

American with ‘CIA’ credentials and variety of weapons arrested in Mexico

An American national with credentials that read “CIA” has been arrested in Mexico on weapons charges, Mexican authorities said Saturday. 

The unidentified man was arrested “for his probable involvement in the crimes of disturbing the peace and possession of weapons designated for exclusive use by the Army,” according to the Secretariat of Security of the State of Mexico.

Authorities found six firearms, magazines, live ammunition and tactical equipment, the agency said.

“The individual was carrying a credential with the inscription ‘CIA’,” authorities wrote on X.

Images posted by the security agency showed rifles, handguns, tactical vests, helmets, pocket knives and ammunition. 

The State Department told Fox News that it was aware of reports of the man’s arrest. 

An agency spokesperson said it has no higher priority than the safety and security of U.S. citizens abroad.

​’When a U.S. citizen is detained abroad, the department works to provide consular assistance,” the spokesperson said.

Mexican authorities have not disclosed any additional details about the man’s arrest or why he was in the country. 

Keep reading

Senate GOP focuses on law enforcement to stop Mexican cartels, Democrats blame U.S. gun industry

Senate Democrats and Republicans are taking a widely different view of the issue of Mexican cartels’ smuggling and gun violence and how to stop it – with Democrats appearing to continue to focus on the U.S. firearms industry while Republicans focus on investigative efforts and the dangers that cartel members pose to law enforcement and other Americans.

The largely disparate views were recently highlighted during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing titled “The Thin Blue Line Protecting America from the Cartels.”

“Today’s hearing focuses on the very real threat of Mexican drug cartels and the lengths law enforcement goes to defend Americans,” Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassly, the committee’s top Republican, said at the June hearing. 

“These are the folks who enforce the law at great personal cost. As of late, they’ve been pelted with rocks, assaulted with homemade explosives … . And yet, they continue to hold the line against one of the greatest national security threats to America – Mexican drug cartels.”

Among the three federal law enforcement officials to testify at the June 17 hearing was the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Matthew Allen.

“In my 22 years-plus in the DEA … . I’ve experienced several instances of cartels and criminal organizations surveilling our people, both in Mexico and the United States,” said Allen the special agent in charge of the agency’s Los Angeles Field Division. “I’ve personally lost several friends on this job – two of them, very close friends of mine. It’s a dangerous job.”

Grassley also warned about the dangers of cartel members infiltrating the United States, citing the son-in-law of Ruben Oseguera Cervantes – known as “El Mencho” and the leader of Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a major drug-trafficking organization in Mexico – living in Southern California under a fake name until his arrest last year. 

Prosecutors say the son-in-law, Cristian Fernando Gutierrez Ocho, faked his own death and fled to the U.S. to avoid Mexican authorities after kidnapping two members of the Mexican Navy in 2021. He is also accused of conspiring to import thousands of kilograms of methamphetamine and cocaine into the U.S.

Allen said agents working on a tip arrested him in a gated community, “just down the street from the chief of police.”

Grassley also hammered away at Democrats on the committee as they appeared to zero-in on U.S. gun dealers as a major factor in cartel violence. 

“It was Democrats who threw open our southern border,” he argued. 

Illegal border crossings surged during the previous Biden administration, with at least 7.2 million migrants purportedly encountered from January 2021 to January 2024.

Keep reading

New Jersey Democrats Unleash Onslaught of Gun Control Bills

At this point, you’d think that New Jersey lawmakers would have run out of ways to harass gun owners, but sadly, that is not the case. In fact, the Senate Law & Public Safety Committee is meeting today to consider a whopping 18 different gun control bills.

Keep in mind that the state already requires a permit to purchase a firearm, and a separate permit to carry. There’s a 7-day waiting period on all firearm transfers, and person-to-person sales are now allowed. New Jersey has a ban on so-called assault weapons and magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. Those gun owners who do possess a valid carry permit are barred from exercising their Second Amendment rights in scores of locations, though the state’s “gun-free zones” are the subject of ongoing litigation in federal court. 

Despite all those laws, Democrats still have an appetite for more. From NRA-ILA:

Some of the worst bills on the agenda include:

S.1558 makes it a first-degree crime (up to 20 years in jail) to transport, ship, or even dispose of a firearm without a serial number. There is no exception for previously owned historical firearms that were lawfully manufactured and lawfully acquired without a serial number.

S.3893 prescribes penalties for the sale and possession of “machine gun conversion devices.” Such devices are already banned at both the state and federal levels.

S.3894 creates a crime for possession of digital instructions to illegally manufacture firearms or firearm components. This legislation creates a crime even if someone never produces a gun or component—simply possessing a digital file for a component makes you a criminal.

S.3895 expands the crime of reckless discharge. Discharging a firearm in New Jersey is already illegal unless done “for a lawful purpose,” which is an affirmative defense. Now, every time a firearm is used—even in legitimate self-defense situations, prosecutors will have more tools to harass law-abiding gun owners. 

S.3706 mandates the use of Merchant Category Codes. This is nothing more than government-sanctioned snooping that can be used to create a firearms registry or discriminate against gun owners and lawful businesses.

S.3896 attempts to criminalize lawful self-defense with a firearm. Though cloaked in language focusing on criminal misconduct by bad actors, the operative portion of the bill is not limited to bad actors and allows prosecution for self-defense where a firearm is discharged.

S.3900 allows imprisonment before trial for an unlimited amount of time when someone is merely accused of a firearms offense. If someone is accused of a gun crime, the government gets to lock them up and throw away the key while they await trial.

S.3894, is an assault on our First Amendment rights as well as our right to keep and bear arms. It’s never been a federal crime to manufacture your own firearm, and New Jersey’s criminalization of that act is already constitutionally suspect. Making it a crime to possess a digital file or lines of code that can aid in that manufacture is at least as egregious. Code is speech, whether New Jersey Democrats want to acknowledge that or not, and prohibiting the possession or dissemination of a code that can create a constitutionally-protected item (with the help of a 3D printer or CNC machine) is an act of authoritarianism overreach. 

Keep reading

Letting Marijuana Users Have Guns Poses ‘A Clear Danger,’ Trump’s Solicitor General Tells Supreme Court

In a recent filing with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Trump-led Department of Justice (DOJ) is doubling down on arguments made under former President Joe Biden that users of illegal drugs—including marijuana—”pose a clear danger of misusing firearms.”

That risk, DOJ contends, justifies the longstanding federal prohibition on gun ownership by drug consumers—known as Section 922(g)(3)—despite the Constitution’s broad Second Amendment protections.

In a petition for review by the high court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argues that despite recent appeals court decisions calling the constitutionality of the firearms ban into question, the restriction is nevertheless lawful.

“Section 922(g)(3) complies with the Second Amendment,” the government’s June 2 filing in the case, U.S. v. Hemani, says. “That provision targets a category of persons who pose a clear danger of misusing firearms: habitual users of unlawful drugs.”

Some lower courts have said the government’s blanket ban on gun and ammunition possession infringes on the Second Amendment—at least as applied to certain individual cases—because there’s no historical justification for such a broad restriction on an entire category of people.

But in the appeal petition in Hemani, Trump’s solicitor general said the ban is necessary and narrowly tailored enough to survive the legal challenge.

The federal statute “bars their possession of firearms only temporarily and leaves it within their power to lift the restriction at any time; anyone who stops habitually using illegal drugs can resume possessing firearms.”

Notably, while the government mentions “habitual” users of illegal drugs 40 times in its filing, that word does not itself appear in 922(g)(3). The language of the statute prohibits anyone “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition.

A reply brief from Hemani’s lawyers is due to the Supreme Court by July 21.

While DOJ is asking the high court to take up the Hemani case, at least two other, similar cases are waiting in the wings: U.S. v. Cooper and U.S. v. Baxter both of which also hinge on the constitutionality of 922(g)(3).

In Cooper, an Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel dismissed a three-year prison sentence against a person convicted for possession of a firearm while being an active user of marijuana. Judges in that case ruled that government’s prohibition on gun ownership by drug users is justified only in certain circumstances—not always.

“Nothing in our tradition allows disarmament simply because [the defendant] belongs to a category of people, drug users, that Congress has categorically deemed dangerous,” their ruling said.

In Baxter, the Eighth Circuit ruled 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied to the facts in the case.

Judges in that case wrote that there were insufficient factual findings in the record “for this Court to review Baxter’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge.” Nevertheless, the they 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.”

Keep reading

Rhode Island Democrats Ban Sale, Manufacture of ‘Assault Weapons’

Rhode Island’s Democrat-run legislature passed a bill Friday banning the instate sale and manufacture of “assault weapons.”

The measure now heads to Gov. Dan McKee’s (D) desk.

The Associated Press reported that state Rep. Rebecca Kislak (D) contended for the ban, suggesting it is “an incremental move that brings Rhode Island in line with neighboring states.”

The ban “only applies to the sale and manufacturing of assault weapons and not possession.”

Gov. McKee reacted to Friday’s passage of the ban with an X post, saying: I’m proud that Rhode Island took an important step forward in protecting our communities from gun violence. I included an assault weapons ban in my budget for this very reason — and as a result, tonight we saw progress.

Keep reading

Ninth Circuit Unanimously Upholds Second Amendment Foundation Victory Over California’s Unconstitutional “One-Gun‑Per‑Month” Rationing Law

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a resounding victory for individual rights, unanimously reaffirming a lower court’s judgment that California’s “one‑gun‑per‑month” law is firmly unconstitutional.

The case—Nguyen v. Bonta—was brought by a coalition of individual plaintiffs and pro-Second Amendment organizations, including the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation.

The plaintiffs challenged California’s draconian law, which prohibits law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one firearm within any 30-day period, according to Breitbart.

Judge Danielle J. Forrest, joined by Bridget S. Bade and John B. Owens, delivered a plain-text, history-grounded dismissal of the law.

Writing for the majority, Judge Forrest stated:

California has a “one-gun-a-month” law that prohibits most people from buying more than one firearm in a 30-day period. The district court held that this law violates the Second Amendment. We affirm. California’s law is facially unconstitutional because possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected by the Second Amendment and California’s law is not supported by our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.

The court concluded that the government cannot limit the frequency of a citizen’s right to acquire firearms—comparing it to limiting free speech to one protest per month or religious freedom to one worship service a month.

The opinion rejected California’s typical defense that its law was meant to prevent so-called “straw purchases” and illegal gun trafficking.

The court found that there is “no historical cousin” to California’s one-gun-a-month scheme. The decision emphasized that nothing in America’s constitutional tradition justifies this kind of blanket limitation.

Keep reading