Tag: gun control

US Supreme Court hears arguments over domestic-violence gun curbs

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday was hearing arguments on the legality of a federal law that makes it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to have guns in the latest major case to test the willingness of its conservative majority to further expand gun rights.

The justices heard an appeal by President Joe Biden’s administration of a lower court’s ruling striking down the law – intended to protect victims of domestic abuse – as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”

The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the measure failed a stringent test set by the Supreme Court in a 2022 ruling that required gun laws to be “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” in order to survive a Second Amendment challenge.

Some of the conservative justices questioned Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, defending the law on behalf of the Biden administration, and expressed skepticism about her argument that the Second Amendment permits laws that prohibit people who are not law abiding and responsible from possessing firearms, including domestic abusers.

Keep reading

Due Process Demands Stricter Standards for Restraining Orders That Negate Gun Rights

Since 1994, federal law has prohibited gun possession by people who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders. Although that provision may seem like a commonsensical safeguard, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled last February that it was not “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”—the constitutional test prescribed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. On Tuesday, in United States v. Rahimi, the Supreme Court will consider whether the 5th Circuit was right about that.

Rahimi is primarily about the contours of the right to keep and bear arms as it was traditionally understood. But a Cato Institute brief notes that the case also raises the question of what due process requires when the government seeks to deprive someone of that right.

Under 18 USC 922(g)(8), which Congress approved as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, it is a felony, currently punishable by up to 15 years in prison, for someone to possess or receive a firearm when he is subject to a court order that restrains him from “harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner” or the partner’s child or from “engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury” to the partner or the partner’s child. The order must be preceded by a hearing of which the respondent “received actual notice,” and it must include either a finding that the respondent poses “a credible threat” or language that “prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force” that “would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury.”

To issue an order, in other words, a judge need not conclude that the respondent actually poses a threat. To trigger the loss of gun rights, the order need only include boilerplate regarding the use of force. And as 5th Circuit Judge James C. Ho noted in his concurring opinion last February, orders that include such language are “often used as a tactical device in divorce proceedings,” “are granted to virtually all who apply,” are “a tempting target for abuse,” and in some cases have been used to disarm the victims of domestic violence, leaving them “in greater danger than before.”

Are the procedural protections specified by Section 922(g)(8) enough to guarantee the “due process” that the Fifth Amendment demands before someone can be “deprived of life, liberty, or property”? The Cato Institute, joined by the Goldwater Institute, thinks not.

Keep reading

It’s Hard To See How the 9th Circuit Can Manage To Uphold California’s ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban

Over the weekend, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit stayed a permanent injunction against California’s “assault weapon” ban that a federal judge issued on October 19. That means the law, originally enacted in 1989 and subsequently broadened, will remain in effect while the appeals court hears the state’s appeal in Miller v. Bonta. But if the 9th Circuit carefully considers U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s reasoning in issuing the injunction, it is hard to see how the appeals court can conclude that California’s ban is consistent with the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment precedents.

Benitez had previously ruled that the “assault weapon” ban was unconstitutional. In August 2022, the 9th Circuit vacated that June 2021 decision and instructed Benitez to reconsider the case in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the June 2022 case in which the Supreme Court concluded that New York had violated the Second Amendment by requiring residents to show “proper cause” before they were allowed to carry handguns in public for self-defense.

Bruen explicitly rejected the “interest-balancing” tests that federal courts had commonly used to uphold gun control laws. It instead prescribed a historical test aimed at determining whether a given regulation is consistent with the right to keep and bear arms as it was traditionally understood. “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority. “The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.'”

Applying that test to California’s “assault weapon” ban, Benitez first considers whether the targeted firearms are “in common use,” meaning they are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Beginning with its landmark 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court has said weapons fitting that description are covered by the Second Amendment.

Keep reading

Don’t Blame the Maine Shootings on ‘Woefully Weak’ Gun Laws

Five months before an Army Reserve sergeant killed 18 people at a bowling alley and a bar in Lewiston, Maine, his relatives told police he was increasingly paranoid, erroneously complaining that people were describing him as a pedophile. Two months later, he underwent a psychiatric evaluation after service members who were training with him at West Point reported that he was behaving erratically, and last month he told a friend he was “going to shoot up the drill center” at his base in Saco, Maine.

The fact that the 40-year-old petroleum supply specialist nevertheless managed to commit his horrifying crimes last week, after which he killed himself, underlines the challenge of identifying and thwarting mass murderers. But contrary to what some critics claimed, the problem was not Maine’s “woefully weak” gun regulations.

On its face, Maine’s “yellow flag” law, enacted in 2019, could have made a crucial difference in this case. It authorizes police, after taking someone into “protective custody” based on probable cause to believe he is “mentally ill” and poses a threat to himself or others, to ask a “medical practitioner” for an assessment of whether the detainee “presents a likelihood of foreseeable harm.”

If the medical practitioner thinks so, police “shall” seek a court order temporarily barring the individual from obtaining or possessing firearms. The respondent is entitled to a hearing within 14 days, after which the order can be extended for up to a year based on “clear and convincing evidence” of a threat.

Since the Maine killer was released after his psychiatric evaluation at West Point’s Keller Army Community Hospital, where he stayed for two weeks, he apparently did not meet the state’s criteria for involuntary commitment. But that needn’t have been the end of the matter.

After the shootings, neighbors in Bowdoin said the sergeant’s psychological problems were “pretty well-known.” The Maine Information and Analysis Center had alerted police about his “recently reported mental health issues,” including “hearing voices and threats to shoot up the National Guard Base in Saco, ME.”

The local sheriff’s office had received disturbing reports from “increasingly concerned” relatives, a friend, and the Saco base. But its investigation did not result in an assessment or a court order, possibly because police thought his relatives had “a way to secure his weapons.”

Gun control activists complained that Maine’s “yellow flag” law is harder to use than the “red flag” laws that 21 states have enacted, which have fewer and weaker procedural protections. That criticism seems doubly misguided.

Keep reading

Second Amendment Win: California’s ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Has Been Thrown Out

Second Amendment supporters may want to remember the saying, “As California Goes, so Goes the Nation,” after a federal judge overturned the Golden State’s three-decade-old ban on so-called “assault weapons” on Thursday. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, of San Diego, found no equivalent in early American history and ruled that the ban was therefore unconstitutional.

The judge further ruled that the semiautomatic rifle – known in the industry as “modern sporting rifles” – such as the AR-15 are common household items used for self-defense by millions of law-abiding citizens, who should not have their Second Amendment rights abridged by a state – even as the firearms have been misused by others in crimes including mass shootings.

“Guns and ammunition in the hands of criminals, tyrants and terrorists are dangerous; guns in the hands of law-abiding responsible citizens are necessary,” Benitez wrote in his ruling. “To give full life to the core right of self-defense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms commonly owned and kept for lawful purposes.”

Benitez, who previously overturned the ban, added, “The State of California posits that its ‘assault weapon’ ban, the law challenged here, promotes an important public interest of disarming some mass shooters even though it makes criminals of law-abiding residents who insist on acquiring these firearms for self-defense. Nevertheless, more than that is required to uphold a ban.”

Keep reading

NY State Bill Would Require Background Checks to Buy 3D Printers

New York lawmakers are looking at requiring consumers to first go through a criminal history background check before they can buy certain 3D printers. 

The legislation is designed to crack down on potential misuse of 3D printers capable of manufacturing gun parts. The proposal comes from Democratic Assemblymember Jenifer Rajkumar, who introduced the bill on Friday. 

Under the legislation, 3D printer retailers would need to request a background check from New York’s criminal justice services when a customer tries to make a purchase. Criminal justice services would then need to notify the retailer if the customer has received a felony or serious offense that would make them ineligible to possess a firearm. 

Keep reading

Supreme Court Allows Biden Admin to Continue Enforcing Ghost Gun Regulations

On Monday, the Supreme Court vacated an order from a lower court, allowing the Biden administration’s new regulations on ghost guns to take effect.

A Texas-based judge ruled against President Joe Biden’s new rules on ghost guns, firearms without serial numbers. However, a request to vacate the order was filed to Justice Samuel Alito and referred to the full court, which ruled in favor of vacating the order.

Alito issued an order on October 6, giving ghost gun manufacturers Blackhawk Manufacturing Group and Defense Distributed until Wednesday to provide a better reason as to why they should not have their firearms regulated the same way as other gun manufacturers.

Keep reading

California Adds New Excise Tax on Gun and Ammo Sales

Retail sales of guns and ammunition will soon be subject to a new state excise tax in California. Under Assembly Bill 28, which Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law on September 26, 2023,  an 11% tax will apply to gross receipts from retail sales of ammunition, firearms, and firearm precursor parts starting July 1, 2024. Revenue generated by the tax will be deposited in a new Gun Violence Prevention and School Safety Fund.

California’s new gun tax is similar to the federal firearms and ammunition excise tax (FAET), which was first implemented in 1919 and is administered by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). The FAET is 10% of the manufacturer’s price for pistols and revolvers, and 11% of the manufacturer’s price of other portable weapons, shells, and cartridges. It applies to firearms and ammunition for domestic use barring certain exemptions, for example, businesses producing fewer than 50 guns per year are exempt from the FAET.

Keep reading

Jewish NYC Councilwoman Inna Vernikov arrested for carrying gun at pro-Palestinian rally

Republican Brooklyn Councilwoman Inna Vernikov was arrested Thursday when she was spotted toting a firearm at a pro-Palestinian rally— resulting in calls for her to be removed from office.

The councilwoman, who is Jewish and has spoken out against pro-Palestinian supporters, was in attendance as protesters convened on the campus of CUNY’s Brooklyn College Thursday.

“[Vernikov] was observed with the but-end of a firearm (handgun) protruding from the front portion of her pants” while observing the protest between noon and 2:45 p.m. Thursday, police sources told The Post.

“The Councilwoman eventually left the location and upon notification to police, the Councilwoman was contacted and she turned herself in to the 70 Precinct, in the company of her attorney [around 2:50 a.m. Friday],” the sources continued.

The 39-year-old was arrested and charged with possession of a firearm because she was on school grounds, the sources said.

Keep reading