Tag: gun control

Gun Owners Of America Defeats Hidden Gun Control In Military Funding Bill

When laws are debated in Congress that are too controversial to pass on their own, oftentimes sneaky politicians will attempt to place similar language into must-pass bills.

One of those must-pass bills is the National Defense Authorization Act, also known as the NDAA. The annual NDAA creates new programs, strategies, and authorizes the Department of Defense to procure new technologies.

This year, thanks to Gun Owners of America and the support of our grassroots members, we are happy to report that the proposed gun control amendments to the NDAA have been defeated.

So, you might ask, what gun control did the anti-gun politicians in Congress try to sneak into this year’s bill?

The answer is a permanent reauthorization of the Undetectable Firearms Act.

Gun Owners of America is the only pro-gun lobbying organization to historically oppose the Undetectable Firearms Act since its passage into law in 1988. 

The act itself began as an attempt to ban handguns like the Glock 17 when they were first introduced to the market in the mid-80s. At this time, polymer-framed handguns were a very new idea, and a misunderstanding about the Glock’s polymer frame prompted an idea that even though the Glock had a metal slide, its polymer frame would somehow make it undetectable to metal detectors and, therefore, be the weapon of choice for criminals.

When the act was finally passed through Congress, a compromise was made – so it did not affect any existing handguns.

Nowadays, with the advent of 3D printing, the Undetectable Firearms Act stifles manufacturers from producing smaller, lighter, and higher-performing handguns because they must meet the UFA’s weight requirement. This issue is compounded for the consumer handgun market because of the massive demand for concealed carry firearms, especially in light of the recent landmark NYSRPA v. Bruen decision.

Keep reading

New York can’t stop churchgoers from bringing guns to worship: appeals court

An appeals court panel has ruled against a New York law that prohibits the carrying of firearms into houses of worship, upholding a lower court decision that blocked the law from taking effect.

On Friday, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit released a 261-page opinion regarding four cases centered on multiple challenges to New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act.

Regarding the Act’s provision banning concealed carry in places of worship, the panel ruled that “Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the CCIA burdens their sincerely held religious practice.”

“CCIA is not neutral because it allows the owners of many forms of private property, including many types of retail businesses open to the public, to decide for themselves whether to allow firearms on the premises while denying the same autonomy to places of worship,” stated the ruling.

“By adopting a law that applies differently as to places of worship (alongside the other enumerated sensitive places) than to most other privately owned businesses and properties, the CCIA is, on its face, neither neutral nor generally applicable.”

Keep reading

Medical Marijuana Growers And Caregivers Can Own Guns, But Patients Can’t, FBI Says In Little-Noticed Memo

Being a state-registered medical marijuana caregiver or grower doesn’t automatically disqualify a person from owning a firearm, the FBI says. But merely possessing a medical cannabis card as a patient does render a person ineligible.

Amid the growing tension between federal gun policies and the ever-expanding state marijuana legalization movement, a little-noticed FBI memo from 2019 offers a lens into the byzantine legal interpretations surrounding cannabis and firearms—an issue that’s recently been raised in multiple federal court cases.

The government has several different ways it assesses firearm eligibility in the context of cannabis, according to the memo from FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, which was briefly noted in a report from The New York Times last week. In some cases, that involves affirmatively restricting gun rights based on activities or documentation that doesn’t necessarily mean a person is an active marijuana consumer.

At their core, the federal rules say that being an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance, including marijuana, means a person cannot buy or possess a gun. Would-be gun purchasers are required to disclose such use as part of a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) form before making a purchase, and lying on that form is a felony offense.

The statute behind that prohibition has been challenged in a number of federal courts over the past couple of years, with more than one judicial body determining that the restriction is unconstitutional. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has steadfastly defended the ban, however, contending that medical marijuana patients and everyday consumers pose unique dangers to society that justify withholding Second Amendment rights.

But the federal government’s interpretation of the policy is apparently more nuanced, as evidenced by the memo from CJIS’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System Section that’s gone largely unscrutinized since being published more than four years ago.

A person’s firearm eligibility is partly determined by whether their use of a controlled substance is deemed “current.” FBI says that’s “not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate the individual is actively engaged in such conduct.”

“ATF has determined that the present time is represented by the time frame of within the past 12 months,” the memo says.

Keep reading

Judge Rules Federal Ban on Handgun Sales to 18- to 20-Year-Olds Unconstitutional

A recent ruling by Judge Thomas Kleeh, appointed by former President Donald Trump and chief judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, has overturned the Biden administration’s attempt to prevent adults aged 18 to 20 from purchasing handguns.

This decision emerged from the case of Steven Robert Brown and Benjamin Weekley, who were prohibited from buying guns under the administration’s directive.

The ruling said that “Plaintiffs’ conduct — the purchase of handguns — ‘fall[s] [within] the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command’ and the challenged statutes and regulations are not ‘consistent with the Nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation,’” and that a rule barring Brown and Weekley from buying handguns was “facially unconstitutional and as applied to Plaintiffs.”

The decision relied heavily on the standard set by the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. vs. Bruen that required any gun control law to have its roots in the historical tradition of firearms regulation.

Kleeh noted that under Bruen, ‘‘To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.” He added that ‘‘the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’”

Keep reading

California Defies SCOTUS by Imposing Myriad New Restrictions on Public Gun Possession

A California law that is scheduled to take effect on January 1 will impose a host of new restrictions on public possession of firearms. That may seem counterintuitive, since Senate Bill 2 is the state legislature’s response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which upheld the Second Amendment right to carry guns for self-defense outside the home. But California, like several other states with discretionary carry-permit policies that had to be revised because of Bruen, is attempting an end run around that decision by simultaneously making permits easier to obtain and much harder to use.

In Bruen, the Supreme Court said states may not require permit applicants to demonstrate “a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.” Accordingly, S.B. 2, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law on September 26, eliminates California’s “good cause” requirement, along with a similarly amorphous “good character” criterion (although it still disqualifies applicants deemed “reasonably likely” to pose a danger to themselves or others). By limiting the discretion of licensing authorities, S.B. 2 notes, those changes could have opened the door to “broadly allowing individuals to carry firearms in most public areas.” Deeming that outcome intolerable, legislators instead decreed that guns may not be carried in most public areas.

Copying the constitutionally dubious approach taken by states such as New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Hawaii, S.B. 2 designates myriad locations as “sensitive places” where guns are not permitted. It also establishes a default rule that people may not bring guns into a business unless the owner “clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance of the building or on the premises indicating that licenseholders are permitted to carry firearms on the property.”

As a federal lawsuit challenging those rules notes, the law “turns the Bruen decision on its head, making nearly every public place in California a ‘sensitive place’ (in name only)” and “forbidding firearm carry even after someone has undertaken the lengthy and expensive process to be issued a concealed handgun license.” California’s gun-free zones  “include every park and playground, every hospital, all public transportation, any place that sells alcohol (which, in California, includes most gas stations and convenience and grocery stores), all land under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation or the Department of Fish and Wildlife (with exceptions for hunting), libraries, churches, banks, and many more.” S.B. 2 “even transforms private businesses into ‘gun-free zones’ by default, imposing an unprecedented affirmative duty on private business owners to post signage to authorize people exercising an enumerated constitutional right to enter the property.”

As a result, says the complaint in May v. Bonta, “Californians who desire to exercise their enumerated right to carry are essentially limited to some streets and sidewalks (so long as those public places are not adjacent to certain other ‘sensitive’ places), plus a few businesses willing to post a ‘guns allowed’ sign at the risk of potentially losing other customers by doing so.” The law “creates a patchwork quilt of locations where Second Amendment rights may and may not be exercised, thus making exercise of the right so impractical and legally risky in practice that ordinary citizens will be deterred from even attempting to exercise their rights in the first place.”

Keep reading

Laws Requiring Permission to Obtain Guns Look Vulnerable

According to a landmark 2022 Supreme Court decision, the Second Amendment constrains the requirements that states may impose on residents who want to carry guns in public for self-defense. It stands to reason that the same is true of the steps that people must take to acquire guns in the first place.

That is essentially what the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit concluded last week, when it ruled that Maryland’s handgun licensing system is inconsistent with the right to keep and bear arms. The case exemplifies a new front in constitutional challenges to gun control laws under the Second Amendment test that the Supreme Court established last year.

To pass that test, a law must be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” But Maryland’s law, which requires would-be handgun owners to complete a process that can take up to 30 days, bears little resemblance to regulations enacted in the 18th or 19th century.

Maryland is one of 14 states that require background checks for all firearm purchases, whether or not the seller is a federally licensed dealer. Since 2013, Maryland has imposed an additional requirement on handgun buyers: They must first obtain a “handgun qualification license,” which entails completing at least four hours of firearm training and undergoing a seemingly redundant “investigation” aimed at screening out people who are legally disqualified from owning guns.

Maryland argued that its law fits a tradition of disarming “dangerous” individuals, such as people with felony records, illegal drug users, and people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. But even assuming those categories of “prohibited persons” are validated by long-standing practice, 4th Circuit Judge Julius Richardson said, Maryland’s statute goes further by “preemptively disarming every person until they can each prove that they are not dangerous,” which “burdens a far broader swath of people.”

Writing in dissent, Judge Barbara Milano Keenan highlighted the Supreme Court’s distinction between “may issue” laws like New York’s, which required carry-permit applicants to demonstrate “proper cause,” and “shall issue” laws, which make permits available to all applicants who meet “objective criteria.” Maryland’s licensing system for handgun buyers falls into the latter category, Keenan said, which suggests the Court would be inclined to uphold it.

While the Supreme Court did indicate that “shall issue” laws could be consistent with the Second Amendment, it also noted that “any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends.” It therefore did not rule out “constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”

Although it’s not clear what counts as an unacceptably “lengthy” time to wait for permission to obtain a firearm, the 4th Circuit majority thought a month was too long. If so, the laws of other states that license gun buyers could be vulnerable.

Keep reading

Poised To Lose Battle Over Gun Ads, City Bans All Advertising But Its Own

Spoiled brats upset at losing a game sometimes take their ball and go home so nobody can play, but can petulant politicians do the same with advertising venues? That’s the question as city officials in Flagstaff, Arizona, end advertising at the local airport rather than allow a firearms-related business to advertise its services to tourists. Well, they’re discontinuing advertising for everybody except a city agency that promotes select businesses. That’s unlikely to resolve the dispute.

Earlier this month I covered the case of Rob Wilson, who wanted to continue advertising his Timberline Firearms & Training to people visiting the high-desert community. “Officials rejected the ad, telling Wilson that its representation of shooting sports violated the city’s ban on displaying ‘violence or anti-social behavior’ and its new advertising policy against depicting guns,” I wrote.

That policy hadn’t even been approved yet. “The City’s Facility Advertising Policy remains in draft form,” Flagstaff Public Affairs Director Sarah Langley told me via email. It was scheduled for consideration at the November 14 council meeting. Langley added that part of the city’s objection is that Timberline’s new advertisement is a video, unlike the rotating still images used in past ads. Arizona’s Goldwater Institute, which represents Wilson, denies any such change and shared with me a video identical to the current one and date-stamped August 13, 2019.

Not that still vs. moving images should make a difference.

It quickly became clear that Flagstaff’s city government didn’t want Wilson’s business, or gun-related businesses in general, advertising at its facilities and was scrambling to come up with a justification. But government agencies are limited in their ability to pick who can and can’t speak on public property.

Keep reading

Signs of Civil Disobedience in Illinois Gun Registration Efforts

There’s just a little more than a month left before Illinois gun owners must register their so-called assault weapons with the state police or risk the possibility of criminal charges if they’re caught with their modern sporting rifle, and so far it looks like many gun owners are willing to run that risk. As of November 21st, fewer than 3,500 gun owners have registered some 6,600 newly banned firearms with the state police; about 0.001 percent of the state’s 2.4 million legal gun owners.

Advertisement

So far state officials are downplaying the lack of compliance, suggesting there’ll be a flood of new registrations as we get closer to the January 1 deadline.

On Oct. 31, when about 2,000 people had registered their grandfathered-in assault weapons about a month into the policy being in effect, Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly said the registration process had been “slow but steady.”

“We’ll just see how the process continues to work and we’ll share the data as we continue on a daily basis to do so,” Kelly said during an unrelated event in Springfield.

Two days later in Lake Forest, Gov. J.B. Pritzker downplayed any suggestion that not enough people owning the prohibited guns were registering them, saying it was too early to make such an assessment and suggesting registration would pick up closer to Jan. 1.

“I can tell you, at least for me, that I think all of us take our time sometimes when we know the deadline is two-and-a-half months (away), that we’ll find the time eventually to go online, which is what they need to do and to register as they’re required to do,” Pritzker said.

Maybe Pritzker’s right, but if I were him I wouldn’t bet his billion-dollar fortune on his assumption that gun owners are just waiting for the last minute to comply with the state’s mandate. Sure, some folks may be holding off in the hopes that the federal courts will put a halt to the Illinois law before the reporting requirements kick in, but with scores of county sheriffs and even some prosecutors saying that they don’t plan on proactively enforcing the “assault weapons” ban my guess is that when the deadline rolls around there are still going to be an awful lot of gun owners who haven’t informed the state that they possess a now-banned rifle, pistol, or shotgun.

Advertisement

After Pritzker signed the gun ban into law, an estimated 90 of Illinois’ 102 county sheriffs issued letters stating they “believe that (the new gun law) is a clear violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” and that they wouldn’t enforce it.

At public hearings in Springfield and Chicago earlier this month, state police heard concerns about the ban and its registration requirement from several gun rights advocates. One Republican lawmaker predicted that “hundreds of thousands” people would “absolutely not comply” with registering their weapons.

“We know this public hearing is taking place because (of) the governor and his radical-left agenda,” state Rep. Brad Halbrook, a Shelbyville Republican who is a member of the House Freedom Caucus, a group composed of his chamber’s most conservative legislators, testified before the state police. “He and his Democrat legislators passed this bill and then laid it at your feet to have to deal with it.”

So far Halbrook’s prediction looks to be pretty accurate. The number of registered guns will undoubtedly go up, of course, but I’d still be shocked if there was a big surge in the days before the mandate takes effect. When New York mandated a similar registration of “assault weapons” as part of the SAFE Act in 2013, we saw “massive noncompliance” on the part of gun owners more than two years after the deadline passed. Attorney Paloma Capanna had to sue the state police to get the numbers, and learned that just 44,000 guns out of an estimated 1 million “assault weapons” had been registered with the state police.

Keep reading

The 4th Circuit Says Maryland’s Handgun Licensing Law Is Unconstitutional

Maryland is one of 14 states that require background checks for all firearm purchases, whether or not the seller is a federally licensed dealer. Since 2013, Maryland has imposed an additional requirement on handgun buyers: They must first obtain a “handgun qualification license,” which entails completing at least four hours of firearm training and undergoing a seemingly redundant “investigation” aimed at screening out people who are legally disqualified from owning guns. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, that process, which can take up to 30 days, violates the Second Amendment.

In a decision published on Tuesday, a divided 4th Circuit panel concluded that Maryland’s handgun ownership licensing system is not “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”—the constitutional test that the U.S. Supreme Court established last year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Writing for the majority in Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore, 4th Circuit Judge Julius Richardson notes that Bruen “effected a sea change in Second Amendment law,” making a variety of gun control laws newly vulnerable to constitutional challenges. Maryland’s handgun licensing law is the latest example.

The state argued that the law fits a tradition of disarming “dangerous” individuals, such as people with felony records, illegal drug users, and people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. “Maryland simply assumes that those federal prohibitions are justified by a historical ‘dangerousness’ exception,” Richardson writes. And because “the challenged law is ostensibly designed to prevent those same groups of people from acquiring handguns,” the state argued, “it also falls within the same ‘dangerousness’ exception.”

But even if the goal is the same, Richardson says, the “mechanism” embodied in the licensing law is “entirely different.” Maryland did not merely prohibit people from owning guns based on criteria that supposedly indicate they pose a threat to public safety. “Instead,” Richardson writes, “it prohibits all people from acquiring handguns until they can prove that they are not dangerous. So Maryland’s law burdens all people—even if only temporarily—rather than just a class of people whom the state has already deemed presumptively dangerous.”

Keep reading