WASHINGTON, DC (June 30, 2022) – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that the United States Supreme Court has granted, vacated, and remanded its Bianchi v. Frosh lawsuit, which challenges Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The case will now return to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals “for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen.”
[…]
“This is an important moment,” said FPC Policy Counsel Matthew Larosiere. “We have suffered at the hands of government actors who felt empowered by a lack of clear standards from the Supreme Court. All too often, horrible restrictions which threaten jail time for simply owning a common type of arm–one the people have an undeniable right to–were allowed to stand. This case presents one of the first opportunities to give force to our right to these common firearms, and we intend to see it through.”
The case was sent back to the lower court in light of Bruen. This is good reporting; TGF has included links to case documents and other links perhaps of interest to the case.
After congress let Reagan’s ASW ban expire during Bush Jr’s administration, I bought an “Assualt Weapon” in Maryland. There was a three-day waiting list. And get this: The county police showed up during that three days to inspect the weapon. I was young and very ignorant, but that was the local ‘law’ back then. This databasing of weapons has been ongoing for decades. Fill out 4473s if you want to, but keep in mind that: “wise a serpent, harmless as a dove” (Matthew 10:16) would indicate prudence in these matters. For the record, I no longer reside in MD nor have the weapon.
Republican Chris Jacobs (NY): “I strongly support the Second Amendment and the right to self-defense and have a record of doing so,” Jacobs said. “What I do not support is easy access to high-powered semiautomatic weapons and large capacity magazines that have time and time again resulted in mass casualty shootings.”
Frankly it’s incredible that anyone would say such a thing. It’s like admitting that you don’t care anymore about lying to your constituency. You’re willing to admit it, and be so brazen that you’re willing to tell the lie again and then admit that you’re a liar in front of everybody.
It’s like telling your wife you love her and you’ll be home right after meeting your girlfriend in the hotel down the road. You’ll even bring flowers.
But some people are willing to sustain the abuse time and again.
But in the 50-50 evenly-split Senate, the bill is unlikely to pass despite a political breakthrough last month in bringing the bill forward. In that chamber, it would require support from at least 10 Republicans. Nor is it certain that all 50 Democrat senators are on board.
I’m certain that Ted Cruz and Jim Jordan would filibuster the bill, perhaps with the help of others (I’d like to think Rand Paul would help, but he’s just weird enough that no one can predict what he’ll do on any given thing).
Anyway, the Senate needs 60 votes for this, so this is probably just showmanship and blustering.
At least two republican congress-critters showed themselves as needing to be thrown out.
Via The Gun Feed, this is a trap. You will end up required to have insurance and a license, just like with a car. It’s defacto registration and tracking. It’s federal gun control of concealed carry of a firearm across state lines. The operative phrase is; FEDERAL GUN CONTROL. National Reciprocity, which is what this law is, should be opposed by all freedom loving and gun owning Americans.
Republican Montana Sen. Steve Daines introduced legislation Monday that would allow for those who live in a concealed carry or Constitutional carry state to carry their concealed firearms in other states.
The legislation, first obtained by the Daily Caller, is titled the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. The bill would ensure a Montana resident can legally conceal carry a gun into a state where the state’s own residents can conceal carry. This bill also allows for individuals with a state-issued concealed carry license to conceal a gun in any other state, as long as the permit holder follows the laws of that state.
Must we bother to state that government confers no rights whatsoever. The headline alone should be a huge warning.
Amalgamated Bank CEO Priscilla Sims Brown says the reasons major credit card companies have given for not supporting the tracking of gun purchases don’t hold up.
Merchant category codes (MCC) are used for all kinds of purchases by card companies, but not firearms.
Whether you’re getting your car repaired, or buying dinner, nearly every business that takes a credit card has a unique merchant code that reports your purchase — except when you buy a firearm.
A merchant category code, typically referred to as MCC, is a four-digit number used by credit card companies to classify different types of businesses and identify the types of goods or services that a company sells. They were first mandated by the Internal Revenue Service in 2004, and currently, the MCC guidelines are maintained by the International Organization for Standardization.
If you have ever been called by your bank, asking you to confirm prior purchases that were detected as potentially fraudulent, that was by way of an MCC. Credit card companies use MCC intelligence and data to find aberrations or patterns in consumer purchases to prevent things ranging from fraud to human trafficking.
Priscilla Sims Brown, president & CEO of Amalgamated Bank, told CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin at the Evolve Global Summit on Wednesday that the banking and financial industry can, and should, use these codes to track gun purchases in order to help prevent acts of gun violence.
“While there are merchant codes for the hair salon and the shoe shine place and every other retailer, there’s no merchant code for gun stores,” said Brown. “If we did have a merchant code for gun stores, we could detect patterns that would indicate that there had been something unusual going on.”
Credit card companies could detect any unusual activity, and submit a suspicious activity report with law enforcement, if needed.
Okay mommy hen. We know you want to be controller of the whole world. All CEOs of big corporations do. Your job is just a chance to run the lives of other people because you know best.
“Looks Like He’s Going to Get the Chance to Raise His Hand and Lie”
Via CNN: The Senate voted on Tuesday to confirm Steve Dettelbach as President Joe Biden’s pick to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Successful confirmation of the nominee is a victory for the Biden administration and comes in the wake of a string of recent mass shootings – in Buffalo, New York, Uvalde, Texas and Highland Park, Illinois – that have shocked the nation and led to calls for further action to address gun violence in America.
The confirmation vote marks a major milestone since the ATF has operated under a series of acting directors since its last Senate-confirmed leader stepped down in 2015, and the Senate last confirmed an ATF nominee in 2013.
A Bay State gun rights advocate is calling out Attorney General Maura Healey’s firearm licensing guidance in the wake of a recent Supreme Court decision on guns.
Jim Wallace, writing on behalf of the Gun Owners Action League, is urging Gov. Charlie Baker to step in and block the AG’s move.
“We are aware of the joint ‘guidance’ released by the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General and the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security,” Wallace wrote. “We are officially demanding that the so-called ‘guidance’ be retracted and revised as it does not reflect the decision handed down by the Court!”
Wallace is referring to guidance issued by Healey’s office and the EOPSS on July 1 in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
In that case, the nation’s highest court ruled a New York law restricting firearm licenses to those who could show “proper cause” to carry was unconstitutionally infringing on residents’ 2nd Amendment rights.
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court in a 6-3 decision, specifically cited Massachusetts as a state with similar licensing laws.
Healey was swift to respond to the court’s decision, issuing clarifications for licensing authorities — in the Bay State, that’s usually the local police chief — explaining that the state’s “good reason” rule was no longer applicable.
“Following the Bruen decision, licensing authorities can no longer enforce the ‘good reason’ provision of the Massachusetts law, which allowed license restrictions or denials if an applicant lacked a sufficiently good reason to fear injury to person or property,” Healey and Public Safety and Security Secretary Terrence Reidy’s offices said in a joint release.
However, the state officials also said some restrictions within the law do still apply, specifically the provision that allows chiefs to determine if a person is “suitable for a firearm.”
So it’s no longer “may issue,” it’s now “may issue” depending upon whatever we think today.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.
Healey is a witch. You didn’t think they would actually follow the law, did you?
This seems like a bad move to me. If they’re concerned about lawsuits (as she points out near the end of the analysis), the answer to me is as clear today as it was years ago.
Ditch controller states. I’m not talking about UPS. I mean gun manufacturers. If gun manufacturers would simply refuse to distribute to states like California, New York and New Jersey, this problem would come to an abrupt end.
Here’s the catch. They would have to stop distribution to LEOs too. No sales to anyone. No replacement parts to anyone. No ammunition to anyone. That includes especially law enforcement.
Let them have what they asked for. No more guns to controllers, not more lawsuits.
But in the end, that’s not going to happen, so we’re left with UPS ditching gun owners, and gun owners having to find other ways to transport parts.
From Darrell Miller, a professor at Duke University (I don’t go behind paywalls).
Before Bruen, lower courts had held that national parks and the parking lots of rural post offices were sensitive, and had indicated that libraries, museums, hospitals and day-care centers may also ban guns.
I responded with this note.
National Parks haven’t been ruled “sensitive places” or any such thing. You should check your facts before running your mouth (or cutting loose on your keyboard).
In 2010, Congress passed, and the president signed, a law legalizing guns in national parks (they were already legal in national forests, of course, as too with wilderness areas).
2 years, 11 months ago
