Tag: gun control

New gun control laws sweep three blue states

Starting in October, three blue states will put into effect a slew of new gun reform legislation. Lawsuits against Colorado and Maryland have arisen, while Connecticut has steered clear of any new legal trouble.

Below is a breakdown of the legislation that went into effect on Oct. 1 in Colorado, Maryland, and Connecticut.

Once considered a purple political state, Colorado has been passing gun control legislation at a fast-moving pace. Two laws, passed by the legislature in April, will instill a three-day waiting period for firearm purchases and make the path easier for gun violence survivors and victims to sue manufacturers and dealers.

House Bill 23-1219 imposes a three-day waiting period and a background check for those who seek to purchase a firearm. Customers previously could purchase a gun and receive it the same day. If gun stores violate the new regulations, they could be charged a $500 fine for a first offense and up to a $5,000 fine for a second offense.

A gun rights group filed a lawsuit challenging the new timeline requirements, calling the waiting period “unconstitutional.” The Rocky Mountain Gun Owners initially filed a lawsuit against the law after the Democratic-led legislature passed the bill in April, but the group withdrew its suit after a judge ruled there was no standing.

“We will not bow down to unconstitutional infringements on our Second Amendment freedoms,” Rocky Mountain Gun Owners Executive Director Taylor Rhodes said in a statement last week.

“We’ve reloaded our legal arsenal and are ready to take on this absurd waiting period that does nothing but trample on the rights of peaceable gun owners. We will not let tyranny prevail.”

The group cited the Supreme Court ruling from last year, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, saying the ruling invalidates “the lower court rulings’ justification for gun control.”

Senate Bill 23-168 makes it easier for Coloradans who are victims of gun violence to file lawsuits against gun manufacturers and sellers by removing the requirement to pay the defendant’s legal bills for those who lose the lawsuit. Similar laws have been enacted in New York and New Jersey and are also facing legal troubles.

Keep reading

Feds Threaten To Make It Harder For Medical Marijuana Patients To Get State Gun Permits In Arkansas

Arkansas’s recently enacted law permitting medical cannabis patients to obtain concealed carry gun licenses “creates an unacceptable risk,” and could jeopardize the state’s federally approved alternative firearm licensing policy, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) says.

The Arkansas law took effect in August, clarifying that a person’s status as a qualified patient in the state cannot be used “in determining whether an applicant is eligible to be issued a license to carry a concealed handgun.”

The policy change has apparently attracted the critical attention of federal officials at the Justice Department, The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette first reported. A letter sent by Marianna Mitchem, chief of ATF’s Firearms and Explosives Industry Division, to the operations director for the Division of Arkansas Crime Information this week said there are “public safety concerns” with the law.

Mitchem advised the state official that Arkansas has been previously notified that a condition of its alternative gun licensing scheme, which allows gun buyers to receive approval by the state without going through a federal background check, is that firearms cannot be purchased by a “controlled substance user.” In the eyes of the federal government, that includes medical cannabis patients.

The letter contained a veiled threat, stating that if the state department did not answer two specific questions, it would warrant a reevaluation of Arkansas’s alternative gun permit policy.

Keep reading

Connecticut enacts its most sweeping gun control law since the Sandy Hook shooting

Connecticut’s most wide-ranging gun control measure since the 2013 law enacted after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting takes effect Sunday, with proponents vowing to pursue more gun legislation despite legal challenges happening across the country.

The new law, signed by Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont in June, bans the open carrying of firearms and prohibits the sale of more than three handguns within 30 days to any one person, with some exceptions for instructors and others.

“We will not take a break and we cannot stop now, and we will continue to pass life-saving laws until we end gun violence in Connecticut. Our lives depend on it,” said Jeremy Stein, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence.

Immediately after it was passed, the law was challenged in court by gun rights supporters. Connecticut’s landmark 2013 gun law, passed in response to the 2012 elementary school shooting in Newtown that claimed 26 lives, is also being contested in court.

Besides Connecticut, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, other politically liberal-leaning states including California, Washington, Colorado and Maryland also have passed gun laws this year that face legal challenges. They come in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court last year expanding gun rights.

Keep reading

Federal Judge Blocks California ‘High-Capacity’ Magazine Ban for Second Time

U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez blocked California’s ban on ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds on Friday.

This is the second time Benitez has issued a decision against the ban.

On June 29, 2017, Breitbart News reported that Benitez blocked the ban to prevent “otherwise law-abiding” citizens from being criminalized.

He noted that the ban takes away Second Amendment rights “and amounts to the government taking people’s private property without compensation.”

On Friday, Benitez issued a decision against the ban again by following the Bruen (2022) framework, which requires tradition to be on the side of the gun control in question.

KQED quoted Benitez noting, “There is no American tradition of limiting ammunition capacity.”

He noted that, historically speaking, detachable magazines “solved a problem with historic firearms: running out of ammunition and having to slowly reload a gun.”

He added, “There have been, and there will be, times where many more than 10 rounds are needed to stop attackers,” Benitez wrote. “Yet, under this statute, the State says ‘too bad.’”

Keep reading

Opponents of Measure 114 gun laws say case is about “individual rights” in trial opening

In opening statements Monday, lawyers for two people suing over Oregon’s new gun laws said Ballot Measure 114′s provisions are the “most significant threat to [the right to bear arms] Oregonians have faced in nearly 165 years.”

“This case is not about public health, public safety or public concern,” plaintiffs’ attorney Tony Aiello told Judge Robert Rascio. “This is about individual rights. This is about the individual right to self defense and the right to bear arms to secure that right.”

Aiello said plaintiffs in the state trial plan to show that Measure 114, approved by voters last year, effectively limits Oregonians to owning only antique firearms. He said Measure 114 regulates firearms that were plentiful prior to 1859, the year Article I, Section 27 of the Oregon constitution — the section protecting the right to bear arms — was ratified.

The new laws would ban high capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, require a completed background check to buy or transfer a firearm and require a person to take training and receive a permit to purchase a firearm. Raschio, an Oregon Circuit Court judge based in Harney County, blocked the new laws from taking effect in December pending this week’s trial.

In their opening statement, lawyers defending the new rules for the Oregon Department of Justice said the court must determine if large capacity magazines are considered “arms” under the state constitution, and thus protected, a question they said had already been resolved by the Oregon State Court of Appeals.

“The Court of Appeals rejected the idea that semiautomatic firearms are protected arms,” attorney Anit Jindal said. “Indeed, evidence at trial will confirm that large capacity magazines were not commonly used for self defense in 1859.”

In his opening statement in defense of Measure 114, Jindal said the new restrictions are a reasonable public safety response to the risk posed by large capacity magazines. They plan to call witnesses who will show how those magazines allow shooters to continue firing without reloading and have increased the lethality of mass shootings.

“Taken together, the testimony of defendant’s experts will demonstrate to the court, that large capacity magazines increase the number of firearms homicides and the frequency and fatality of mass shootings,” Jindal said.

He added that they will also show that large capacity magazines are rarely used in self defense, that the permit-to-purchase system is a reasonable public safety measure and that time restrictions in that requirement are consistent with the history of the right to bear arms.

Keep reading

Hunter Biden INDICTED on three felony charges for lying about being on drugs when he bought a gun

Hunter Biden faces up to 25 years in prison after being indicted on three felony charges for lying about his crack cocaine addiction when buying a gun.

In a sensational development, the First Son will have to appear in court after a Delaware grand jury returned three charges against him, including two counts of false statements on his gun forms, and one of possessing a firearm while addicted to illicit drugs.

It is a shattering blow for President Joe Biden who has stood by his son and is running for reelection in 2024. 

The move by Special Counsel Davis Weiss is a significant escalation in his investigation into the president’s son for gun and tax crimes, which is still ongoing. 

It also comes the same week that Republicans in the House opened a formal impeachment inquiry into President Biden for his alleged connections to Hunter’s business dealings and is likely to have a long-term impact on his political career.

Keep reading

Ninth Circuit rebukes lawmakers, grants injunction against California law targeting gun marketing

A California law ostensibly aimed at restricting the marketing of firearms to minors infringes on the free speech rights of adults, according to a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In its ruling handed down on Thursday morning, the panel vacated a lower court decision denying an injunction against the law’s enforcement and delivered a resounding win for both First and Second Amendment advocates.

Writing for the majority, Judge Kenneth Lee ruled that the law forbidding marketing and advertising firearms that “reasonably appear to be attractive to minors” is likely to infringe on the First Amendment, given that the statute is so broadly written that advertisements aimed at adults who can lawfully purchase a firearm would be swept up in its provisions.

While California has a substantial interest in reducing gun violence and unlawful use of firearms by minors, its law does not “directly” and “materially” further either goal. California cannot straitjacket the First Amendment by, on the one hand, allowing minors to possess and use firearms and then, on the other hand, banning truthful advertisements about that lawful use of firearms. There is no evidence in the record that a minor in California has ever unlawfully bought a gun, let alone because of an ad. Nor has the state produced any evidence that truthful ads about lawful uses of guns—like an ad about hunting rifles in Junior Sports Magazines’ Junior Shooters—encourage illegal or violent gun use among minors. Simply put, California cannot lean on gossamers of speculation to weave an evidence-free narrative that its law curbing the First Amendment “significantly” decreases unlawful gun use among minors. The First Amendment demands more than good intentions and wishful thinking to warrant the government’s muzzling of speech.

California’s law is also more extensive than necessary, as it sweeps in truthful ads about lawful use of firearms for adults and minors alike. For instance, an advertisement directed at adults featuring a camouflage skin on a firearm might be illegal because minors may be attracted to it.

While the state of California had argued that the statute didn’t violate the First Amendment given the broader latitude given to regulations on commercial speech, the panel was unswayed, with Lee writing that even under a lowered standard of intermediate scrutiny the law fails to pass constitutional muster in light of the fact that the “state has made no showing that broadly prohibiting certain truthful firearm-related advertising is sufficiently tailored to significantly advance the state’s goals of preventing gun violence and unlawful firearm possession among minors.”

Keep reading

Biden’s Gun Control Law Will Radically Change U.S. Gun Ownership

President Joe Biden keeps telling Americans that the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), the gun control bill he signed last year, is the most significant gun control legislative accomplishment in nearly 30 years. He is right, but it will do nothing to improve safety. The innocuous-sounding BSCA will radically change gun ownership.

Americans are only now learning that the act prohibits federal funding for “training in the use of a dangerous weapon.” In July, the Biden Department of Education announced it would end funding to schools with riflery or archery teams or hunter safety classes. Federal funding for public schools is substantial and hard to ignore, typically accounting for about eight percent of education spending. This prohibition effectively spells the end of classes or sports pertaining to shooting or archery in public schools. It is an attempt to end the American culture of legal gun ownership.

Federal law explicitly prohibits the creation of a federal firearm registry, but through a proposed 108-page set of regulations published at the end of August by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATF), the Biden administration is trying to use the BSCA to implement universal background checks on all gun purchases and to track virtually everyone who obtains a gun.

Keep reading

New Mexico Lawmakers Call For Governor’s Impeachment Over 2A Authoritarian Overreach

New Mexico State Representatives Stefani Lord (R-22) and John Block (R-51) called for the impeaching of Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) after she issued a public health emergency to strip the right away for law-abiding citizens to carry firearms in public in and around Albuquerque, the state’s largest city.

“This is an abhorrent attempt at imposing a radical, progressive agenda on an unwilling populous. Rather than addressing crime at its core, Governor Grisham is restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” Lord wrote in a press release shared on X.

🚨PRESS RELEASE: @RepBlock & I are calling for the impeachment of @GovMLG. New Mexicans won’t stand by as she disregards her oath to uphold our Constitution.

Read the full press release below! 👇 pic.twitter.com/r5kt9nOSvI

— Rep Stefani Lord (@Lord4NM) September 9, 2023

While impeachment calls grow, Erich Pratt, Senior VP of Gun Owners of America, told us: “The Governor’s actions are evil and tyrannical. GOA’s attorneys are already preparing a complaint. So heads up to the Governor: ‘We will see you in court.’”

Keep reading

Open and concealed carry laws suspended in Albuquerque for 30 days

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham says she is suspending open and concealed carry laws in Albuquerque and throughout Bernalillo County for the next 30 days, temporarily prohibiting the carrying of guns on public property.

The governor made the announcement during a news conference Friday afternoon.

Gov. Lujan Grisham declared gun violence a public health emergency Thursday, following the murder of an 11-year-old boy on his way home from an Isotopes game Wednesday night. That case, combined with several other violent cases involving children, sparked the decision.

The new public health order is effective Friday, Sept. 8. After 30 days, they will evaluate whether they should renew the order or make adjustments.

The public health order is a statewide mandate, but it only suspends open and concealed carry laws in communities with extremely high violent crime rates and firearm-related emergency room visits. Right now, that only includes the Albuquerque metro.

Keep reading