Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

Source.

Visa and Mastercard paused their decision to start categorizing purchases at gun shops, a significant win for conservative groups and Second Amendment advocates who felt that tracking gun shop purchases would inadvertently discriminate against legal firearms purchases.

The decision is, at the same time, also a defeat for gun control groups. There had been hope that categorizing credit and debit card purchases would allow authorities to potentially see red flags — like significant ammunition purchases — before a mass shooting could happen.

After Visa and Mastercard announced their plans to implement a separate merchant category code for gun shop purchases, the payment networks got significant pushback from the gun lobby as well as conservative politicians. A group of 24 GOP state attorneys general wrote a letter to the payment networks threatening legal action against Visa and Mastercard if they moved forward with their plan.

There are also bills pending in several state legislatures that would ban the tracking of purchases at gun shops, which would have made it even more difficult for Visa and Mastercard to implement the categorization.

Washington Examiner (via MSN) is also reporting on this story, along with Bloomberg.

Oh, I suppose this isn’t a win for us and loss for the controllers.  I suspect it’s a strategic retreat.  They are retreating for some period of time.  The controllers never sleep and won’t let up their efforts.

Given the Fascist nature of the coupling of large corporations with the FedGov, I suspect we’ll see attempted action at the federal level to push this forward.  They’re just handing the football off to a different runner.

Source.

A Missouri law banning local police from enforcing federal gun laws is unconstitutional and void, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes ruled the 2021 law is preempted by the federal government under the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause.

“At best, this statute causes confusion among state law enforcement officials who are deputized for federal task force operations, and at worst, is unconstitutional on its face,” Wimes wrote.

Missouri’s Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey in a statement said he will appeal the ruling.

“As Attorney General, I will protect the Constitution, which includes defending Missourians’ fundamental right to bear arms,” Bailey said. “We are prepared to defend this statute to the highest court, and we anticipate a better result at the Eighth Circuit.”

The Missouri law had subjected law enforcement agencies with officers who knowingly enforced federal gun laws without equivalent state laws to a fine of $50,000 per violating officer.

Federal laws without similar Missouri laws include statutes covering weapons registration and tracking, and possession of firearms by some domestic violence offenders.

Well then.  I expect we’ll see all city, county and state LEOs enforcing immigration laws and arresting illegals now, right?

Oh, wait.

Consider the irony.  States like NY, NJ, California and Illinois get to infringe upon rights outlined in the 2A despite what the Bruen decision said, but when states don’t have these corresponding laws to the FedGov, they have to enforce them anyway.

It’s almost like the scales are always tilted toward infringement, yes?

Gun Owners of America has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the ATF concerning the pistol brace rule.  The motion can be found in its entirety here.  The motion concludes as follows.

The fact that the Final Rule technically presents a (forced) choice does not absolve it of its unconstitutional sins. As the Fifth Circuit observed in BST Holdings v. OSHA, “the loss of constitutional freedoms ‘for even minimal periods of time … unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’” 17 F.4th 604, 618 (5th Cir. 2021) (burden on liberty interests posed by vaccination mandate was irreparable harm) (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)). The vaccination mandate in BST Holdings “threaten[ed] to substantially burden the liberty interests of reluctant individual recipients put to a choice between their job(s) and their jab(s).” Id. Here, the Final Rule imposes a similar choice, forcing individuals to choose between destroying their property or prosecution.

When the government is a party, the balance-of-equities and public-interest factors merge. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009); Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 187 (5th Cir. 2016) (same). A court therefore must weigh whether “the threatened injury outweighs any harm that may result from the injunction to the non-movant” and whether “the injunction will not undermine the public interest.” Valley v. Rapides Parish Sch. Bd., 118 F.3d 1047, 1051, 1056 (5th Cir. 1997). There is no harm to ATF from pausing enforcement of the Final Rule and maintaining the status quo. The Final Rule claims to “enhance[] public safety,” 88 Fed. Reg. at 6481, yet ATF is able to point to only two handgun braces (out of millions) that have been criminally misused, see 88 Fed. Reg. at 6495. Even then, there is no evidence that those crimes could not have been committed using a different firearm. Weighing against this are the very real and ongoing irreparable harms to Plaintiffs discussed above. Indeed, the public is served when the law is followed, and “there is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action.” Wages & White Lion Invs., LLC, v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 16 F.4th 528, 560 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). The balance of equities and public interest weigh heavily in favor of an injunction.

GOA and GOF have members and supporters nationwide. Exhibit 13 at ¶ 6. The geographic scope of interests presented, as well as the complications inherent to a piecemeal implementation or injunction of the Final Rule, which impacts criminal prosecutions and fundamental rights, support this Court granting nationwide relief.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should preliminarily enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Final Rule.

Our friend Stephen Stamboulieh is one of the attorneys in this case.

Source.

Lawmakers are poised to let Floridians carry guns, without the need for a concealed weapons permit. In a strange crossfire, though, the pro-gun bill is drawing heat from both sides of the battle over access to firearms.

So-called ‘constitutional’ carry advocates are angry because they want people allowed to openly display weapons, a step not allowed in the legislation. Supporters of more gun limits call it crazy to give more untrained Floridians the opportunity to wield guns.

But the delicately crafted ‘permitless’ compromise has the support of the Florida Sheriffs Association and other law enforcement groups, who balk at open carry. A question hovering: Will DeSantis sign a bill that doesn’t satisfy Second Amendment ideologues?

I’ve written on how this so-called “constitutional carry” bill is a farce, a phantom put forward by workers of magic and flim-flam artists.  I’ve also written DeSantis to tell him that no one will be happy with this outcome.

The progs will hate him for it, of course.  But this doesn’t appease those who want their liberty recognized by law.

No one wins.  It means nothing.  It’s worthless.

Will DeSantis sign it?

Source.

Biden made the comments at the House Democratic Caucus Issues Conference in Baltimore, Maryland on Wednesday night.

“I know it may make some of you uncomfortable, but that little state above me, Delaware is one of them, has the highest rate, one of the highest rates of gun ownership. But guess what? We’re going to ban assault weapons again come hell or high water and high capacity magazines. When we did it last time to reduce mass deaths,” Biden said.

These are signs of a demented old man who doesn’t know what’s going on around him.  First, those sentences make no sense.  The second bolded sentence is a sentence fragment and thus incomplete.  Also, it bears no relationship to the preceding sentence.  The man is losing it.

Second, the horse left the barn long ago.  He’s down the road and into the bush now.  There’s no getting him back in.  Semiautomatic pistols and handguns are ubiquitous.  They’re everywhere, carried on a daily basis even if your local Karen can’t see them.  You see, we’ve made it like that.  We’ve made it to where gentlemen don’t openly display their weapons.  Like criminals or those who are ashamed, everybody hides them now.  Karen’s can’t see them, and because of that, they don’t know that so many exist.

But they do.  Multiple tens of millions of them.  And they won’t be confiscated or turned in.

Further, the Bruen decision has now made it impossible for there to be a national ban on semiautomatic weapons.  A new AWB is a pipe dream.

Deal with it.

Source.

Only three states fully prohibit the open carry of firearms by citizens, and I bet you’d be surprised to hear Florida is among them. Yes, we frustratingly find ourselves in the company of New York and Illinois on this issue. And Republican leaders, including Gov. Ron DeSantis, appear poised to keep it that way under the misnamed “constitutional carry” bill that is expected to pass this session.

Gun owners saw right through the façade when House Speaker Paul Renner threw a press conference at the end of January to celebrate introduction of the “constitutional carry” bill.

On the one hand, it does go a long way in restoring the rights of our residents and visitors alike to carry arms in public for self-defense without a permit. On the other hand, the bill falls short of every constitutional carry law in the country by quietly omitting the right to carry openly.  So our leaders are trying to appease one side and fool the other.

I drove eight hours to testify at a hearing earlier this month on the current bill, and walked away ecstatic when witness after witness demanded the addition of open carry. In contrast, when pressed about open carry afterward, sponsor state Rep. Chuck Brannan (R-Macclenny) apathetically stated the bill “is what it is as filed.” Meanwhile, Brannan’s sentiments were shared by Florida Senate President Kathleen Passidomo (R-Naples).

[ … ]

The same old arguments about bad people getting guns and “Wild West shootouts” materializing in the streets will be raised, but we have a mountain of evidence from other states to refute these claims. And to clarify, this legislation has nothing to do with acquiring firearms – rather it only authorizes those who already own firearms legally to carry them in public without government permission.

Now is the chance for Gov. DeSantis to once again step in and snag victory from the clutch of defeat by the members of his own party in the Legislature. While he’s catching some flak over other Second Amendment missteps, DeSantis can prove the doubters wrong with this issue by demanding open carry before anything gets his signature.

We don’t want watered down legislation. We want the great leap that other states have taken, which will put Florida at the forefront of liberty on another critical issue and far away from New York, Illinois and Washington, D.C. I’m urging Florida’s leadership to get it done – the right way!

Luis Valdes is the Florida state director for Gun Owners of America, a nonprofit, grassroots lobbying organization. He is a former police officer and detective.

The so-called “constitutional carry” Florida is pushing is not constitutional carry.  There is nothing in the constitution about the government telling men how they must carry their weapons.  What they’re doing is a sham, a fakery, and an insult.

It’s a trick perpetrated by carnival barkers and flim-flam artists.

The Florida legislature has failed that they even have to be told to do this, and even greater that they’re refusing to do it.  This is all a gigantic failure, and while I like what I see in DeSantis, if he claims on the campaign trail that he recently passed constitutional carry, I’ll point out the lie each and every time I see it.

He should make it clear to the legislature that unless this bill includes open carry, he won’t sign it.  That the current bill doesn’t include it is totally irrelevant.  They can work through the night to pass the right language.  So in addition to being flim-flam artists, the legislators are liars for pretending in front of constituents that there is nothing they can do about it.

They can always rectify errors.

Maybe they were already a member.  I don’t often follow Minnesota politics, but this one is a doozey.  If you value your firearms and live in Minnesota, you will have to move if this bill passes.

Cowboy State Daily.

Jones was referencing Senate File 148, which would preempt any local firearms regulations that contradict Wyoming statute.

It’s done well so far. The Wyoming Senate passed it by a vote of 30-1 on Feb. 8. It passed its second of three readings before the Wyoming House on Wednesday.

“I think it will pass,” Jones said. “If it doesn’t pass, a municipality could feasibly implement their own gun control, as long as they exempt firearms manufactured in Wyoming.”

SF 148 clears up an oversight that’s created some confusion over gun policy in Wyoming, Jones said, adding that Wyoming has long had a “preemption statute.”

That means gun rights policy set by the state preempts those proposed by a municipality or other localized but essentially entity, such as the University of Wyoming campus, he said. Private property owners and privately owned businesses still retain the right to restrict guns as they see fit on their premises.

The Wyoming Freedom of Firearms Act was passed in 2010. That protects Wyoming gun or gun accessory manufactures from undue federal regulations, Jones said.

However, for undetermined reasons, the preemption statue wasn’t properly referenced in the Freedom of Firearms Act, Jones said. So technically, a municipality or other entity can pass its own additional gun restrictions – they just wouldn’t apply to guns made in Wyoming.

And since outside of a few custom firearm makers, firearms manufacturers are based outside of Wyoming, those local gun restrictions would apply nearly all commonly owned firearms.

SF 148 fixes that, making it clear that the preemption statue applies to all firearms, not just those made in Wyoming, Jones said.

SF 148 was prompted in part by a challenge to UW’s prohibition against carrying firearms on campus, Jones said.

In 2018, Lyle Williams of Unita County was ticketed for open-carrying a firearm in the university’s convention center during the state Republican party’s annual conference.

That citation was challenged on the grounds that both open and concealed carry are allowed by state statute in Wyoming. But in 2020, Albany County District Court Judge Tori Kricken ruled in the university’s favor.

In her decision, Kricken cited the fact that the preemption statute as cited in the Freedom of Firearms Act applies only to guns made in Wyoming, Jones said.

That’s a stupid reason for a judge to reach a decision like that.  There is no excuse for a lame judiciary who looks to the jot and tittle of the law but ignores the sweep and intent.

Anyway, this needs to pass so that residents of Wyoming can once again not have to worry with progressive do-gooders.  For example, Jackson, Wyoming is likely to try something similar in nature within city limits.  Have you looked recently at the makeup of the city council in Jackson?

Source:

As a progressive democrat, I generally try to avoid any set of ideas that smacks of conspiracy theory. That caveat being stated, I have followed gun control legislation and its failures, as have many ofus, for some time. Most of us are familiar with the words of the Second Amendment to the Constitution:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The author may be “familiar with the words of the Second Amendment” but not the punctuation; there is but one comma, the second one in the above misquote. Nor can “krypton981” read English well.

It appears to me that the concept of a well regulated Militia would involve not only the government, for the purposes of regulation, but also entities such as the National Guard, rendering those entities entirely sufficient. The Republicans, however, appear to conveniently ignore the first phrase, and devolve interpretation merely to the right of anyone in this country to “bear arms”, (including underage children who may be “given”a gun). The right to bear arms is not, of course, mentioned in the amendment, although that phrase is vociferously used as an argument against gun control or even gun safety.

This should be a fun reminder to gun lovers everywhere. Let’s see:

“A healthy breakfast being necessary to the start of a great day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.”

Who or what has the right to keep and eat food? The breakfast, the day? Who has the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment language? The Militia, the State? No, it’s the people. Breakfasts and days don’t eat food, nor do Militias and States have rights.

And it’s no theory; it was a conspiracy to overthrow the crown of England that gave us the Second Amendment codifying God’s immutable right for the people to keep and bear arms.

In response to the headline: perhaps not, but homeschooling sure enough is.

Photo from the article: attributed, artfulblogger/Flickr/cropped/ CC BY 2.0

From the article:

The only thing more predictable than boys being fascinated with weapons is them eventually sketching one in class. But that’s not allowed anymore. What is it that makes a little boy — practically straight out of the womb — take an interest in weapons and emulate gun-toting, swash-buckling heroes? Even doctors aren’t sure. As one pediatrician told me about my then 16-month-old son who turned every stick into a sword, “We don’t know why. They just do it.”

Doctors don’t know why because they are almost exclusively Godless servants of money, turned agents of the State for profit. But “we” do know. In a post here at TCJ, Ignorance, Feigned or Real, we show that inherent sin is provable, both in nature and from Scripture.

Now, weapons are not evil, sinful, or a sign of sin, but necessary for living in a world overtaken by the results of the fall of man into sin. Sin entered into the world through Adam’s disobedience to God, and all men inherited this sinful nature from him (Romans 5:12). Seemingly, the Holy Bible being its own authority and believing what the Bible says about inherent sin upset some lurkers. Oh well. Jesus loves me; this I know because the Bible tells me so. If the Bible is good enough for God, it’s good enough for me. Where were we?

All men are sinners. As one does not have to teach a child to strike another child and steal his toy, so too, the very need for self-defense is evident, even inherited knowledge in an infant. If the child will commit assault and theft quite without any training in the matter, why should he not, evidently in his nature from Adam, recognize the need, yay, the divine right of self-defense to preserve life and immediately, even as an infant, undertake to train himself in this requirement? We see no discontinuity in the idea.

Even a heathen doctor could have told this mother; we do this because we are men, and we must keep you from harm. It is our duty. Seems simple enough even to somebody who’s never read the word of God. Now, as we know, this duty of men comes from God and is evident in nature. Woe to them who makes the State or women rulers of households and keepers of men as chattel.

You can read the rest of the sad tale of child abuse at the hands of government communists indoctrinating children in the ways of sinful effeminacy if you desire. Get your children out of government-run schools!