Tag: #NoNewGunLaws

More Than 1 Gun in 30 Days in Kalifornistan?

On Monday, March 11, San Diego based Federal Judge William Q Hayes ruled in the case of Nguyen v. Bonta that California’s one-gun-a-month (OGM) law is unconstitutional. The enforcement of the judgment was stayed for 30 days for the State to appeal. 

This case adds to the growing list of California’s do-nothing-to-increase-public-safety gun control laws to be ruled unconstitutional. This ruling (linked below) is significant as it comes from a second federal judge rather than numerous rulings from Judge Roger T. Benitez. 

It should be noted California hasn’t been deterred by other states repealing their own 1-in-30 laws or having them struck down in court. In recent years, the State decided to double down and expand its own 1-in-30 law in a classic case of gun control scope creep. We can only speculate as to what would be next. 

When initially enacted in 2000, the limitation only applied to handguns. It was expanded in 2021 to include all semiautomatic centerfire rifles (or combination of rifle and handgun) and expanded again in 2024 to include any firearm, including completed frames or receivers, or so-called “firearm precursor parts”. 

While officially justified as to “stop one gun purchaser from buying several firearms and transferring a firearm to another person who does not have the legal ability to buy a gun him/herself”, I clearly recall the rhetoric from the initial 1-in-30 handgun ban, and the subsequent expansions saying this was needed since ‘no one should be able to buy an arsenal all at once’.  After all, straw purchases, buying a gun on behalf of a prohibited person, is already illegal in California, as well as the rest of the country, so why would this law even be needed?

The reaction from California’s Governor/Yet-To-Be-Announced Presidential Candidate was as predictable as it was ignorant with him choosing to insult the judge and push his own ridiculous anti-gun 28th Amendment. 

“Another day, another common sense gun safety law struck down by a right-wing judge. This is exactly why we need to amend the U.S. Constitution to establish a Right to Safety.”

Let’s not forget where this all begins, the Second Amendment:  

“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.” 


Just as other cases have ruled that the right to keep arms “necessarily involves the right to purchase them”, purchasing more than one firearm (or ammunition) from a licensed dealer is covered by the Second Amendment. 

Once again, the United States Supreme Court’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (Bruen) ruling is the key element. Post Bruen, all Second Amendment related laws must be consistent with the “text, history, and tradition” of the country, with the burden of proof falling on the State when a law is challenged.

The State’s justifications for “text, history, and tradition” in this case provides an insight into how little they regard individual rights and the Constitution. 

The State relied on “expert testimony” that firearms were not widely owned or purchased during the Founding and Reconstruction era, logic not backed up by actual historical data.

The state referenced laws regulating the storage, sale, and transport of gunpowder which in fact were fire-safety laws, not gun control laws. Also referenced were laws which restricted the sale and trade of firearms and gunpowder to Native Americans due to the risk of “Native violence” or carrying firearms and gunpower more than a certain distance from a settlement lest they fall into Native American hands. 

Similar to previous Bruen “text, history, and tradition” arguments, the State relied on racist laws from the colonial era to justify the constitutionality of modern day gun control laws. 

As with the other cases involving the invalidation of unconstitutional California gun control laws, the State will appeal this to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. There is zero doubt the “Nutty Ninth” will issue a stay for Nguyen v. Bonta and begin the torturously slow appeals process. We can expect the case will be slow walked, delayed, stalled and motioned to death until the current 5-4 conservative majority of the Supreme Court flips to a liberal majority, either by the replacement of a justice or packing of the Court with new liberal justices.  

Meanwhile, your unlimited tax dollars will be used to argue against your rights, and your donations will be used to argue for them. While a final ruling on this case is likely years away, the lawyers on both sides will be the big winners while your rights are on hold. 

Remember, gun control does absolutely nothing to increase public safety and the answer to fix that shortcoming is always to implement more gun control.

The ONLY way to keep more gun control laws from being passed is to STOP electing people who will not protect our natural, constitutionally protected rights.

Yes, it does matter who you vote for!

Bob

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/akvemjzqgvr/03112024california.pdf

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunsSaveLives, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com

2024 – Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

A brand spank’n new year is upon us, but a lot of the same old crappy baggage continues to hang on for another round. While we’ve seen a lot of progress with our efforts to protect and restore our Second Amendment protected natural rights, we’ve seen our share of setbacks too. The coming year is going to be full of battles in hostile-to-Second-Amendment-rights courtrooms and it’s the final outcome we need to focus on, not simply the ‘interim successes’. 

Many of what I call interim successes have been to obtain preliminary injunctions or otherwise block enforcement of select portions of new, draconian gun control laws while the cases play out in the federal courts. They are simply a foot in the door of the looming legal battle. Actual victories include things like eliminating the requirement for a government issued permit to carry a firearm in public and stopping new gun control laws before they see the light of day. 

A couple of cases in point for interim successes. 

California’s Bruen Response bill SB 2, among other things, makes nearly every place in public, including all non-specifically posted private property, a “sensitive place” and thus off limits to anyone with or without a concealed carry license. Scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2024, a federal court issued a Preliminary Injunction on December 20, 2023, against 26 specific location types of the new law. This was certainly an interim success although it did not invalidate the entire list of “sensitive places” or the portion that eliminated 95% of the instructors providing conceal carry certification instruction in the state. 

Then, on December 30th, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay against the preliminary injunction, clearing the way for the full text of SB 2 to go into effect at the first of the year. The stay is “pending resolution of the motion for a stay pending appeal by the merits panel”, which has no set schedule to resolve the issue. 

In New Mexico, the Governor issued a total ban against carrying of firearms in public, licensed or unlicensed, in Albuquerque and all of Bernalillo County on September 8th as part of an executive order declaring so-called “State of Public Health Emergency Due To Gun Violence”. This 30-day executive order, renewed monthly since that time, also including a new state mandated monthly inspection of firearm dealers. 

On September 13th, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against the portion of the original executive order which banned all open or concealed carry in Albuquerque and the rest of Bernalillo County. A new executive order issued on September 15th now only bans public parks or playgrounds, or other public areas provided for children to play, an enormously nebulous definition. Untouched are the other provisions including the monthly inspections for firearm dealers OR the entire concept of implementing gun control via executive order. 

While this plays out in court, the Governor has announced her intention to utilize this year’s 30-day legislative budget session beginning on January 16, 2024, to introduce a number of new gun control measures. 

While preliminary injunctions and partial restraining orders are a step in the right direction, they are nowhere near a decisive victory. These are just a couple of significant cases heading towards a showdown in the United States Supreme Court, including:

Mock v. Garland (Pistol Brace Rule)
VanDeStok v. Garland (Frame or Receiver Rule)
Miller v. Bonta (CA “Assault Weapon” Ban)
Renna v. Bonta (CA Handgun Roster)
Multiple “Bruen Response” bills banning public carry of firearms in NJ, NY, MD & CA. 

Along with numerous others. 

The timing of when these cases get to the United States Supreme Court is likely to be the deciding factor in their outcome.  Today there is a 5-4 conservative majority on the Court. All it will take is for ONE seat to be flipped during the current or ANY democratic administration, and these cases will go down in flames. Any progress in protecting or restoring Second Amendment protected natural rights will most certainly be reversed at the very first opportunity by a “liberal” Supreme Court. 

Clearly, there is no such thing as “expanding” gun rights as the anti-gun zealots view any ruling against gun control laws. The United States Supreme Court has never expanded gun rights, and never can. They have only restored rights that were taken away by unconstitutional laws. 

Also keep in mind there is a significant effort underway by the extreme left wing, both in Congress and in the (government funded) private sector right now to unseat one or more of the “conservative” Associate Justices, or at least force a recusal from several important cases coming before the Court. Public smears of fabricated ethics violations are being pushed against the “conservative” side, while suppressing allegations against the “liberal” side. 

Of course, nothing can erase the absolute absurdity of a conservative vs. liberal point of view in any of our constitutional courts, least of which at the United States Supreme Court.

So as these cases play out their very expensive game in court, let’s not forget that two steps forward and one step back is still progress in the right direction. But at the same time, anything short of a complete and total repeal of these unconstitutional gun control laws is also two steps forward and one step back for the anti-gun side.

As a reminder, the ONLY way to keep more gun control laws from being passed is to STOP electing people who will not protect our natural, constitutionally protected rights.

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunsSaveLives, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com

California’s SB 2 Update: Repugnant to the Second Amendment

On Wednesday, December 20, 2023, United States District Judge Cormac J. Carney issued a Preliminary Injunction against certain “sensitive places” provisions of California’s SB 2 law scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2024. In a brutal rebuke, Judge Carney wrote “SB2’s coverage is sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.” 

Few comments better characterize California’s childish Bruen response law than the temper tantrum reaction to the injunction from the Governor. 

“Defying common sense, this ruling outrageously calls California’s data-backed gun safety efforts ‘repugnant’. What is repugnant is this ruling, which green lights the proliferation of guns in our hospitals, libraries, and children’s playgrounds – spaces, which should be safe for all. California will keep fighting to defend our laws and to enshrine a Right To Safety in the Constitution. The lives of our kids depend on it.” 

You’ll notice the Governor had to get in a pitch for his yet-to-be-announced Presidential campaign platform of adding a 28th Amendment to repeal your natural rights protected by the Second Amendment. 

This is of course a huge victory, even if it turns out to be short lived. Enjoined are: 

  • Hospitals, mental health facilities, nursing homes, medical offices, urgent care facilities, and other places where medical services are customarily provided,
  • Public transportation,
  • Establishments where intoxicating liquor is sold for consumption on the premises,
  • Public gatherings and special events,
  • Playgrounds and private youth centers,
  • Parks and athletic facilities,
  • Department of Parks and Recreation and Department of Fish and Wildlife property, except hunting areas,
  • Casinos and gambling establishments,
  • Stadiums and arenas,
  • Public libraries,
  • Amusement parks,
  • Zoos and museums,
  • Churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship,
  • Financial institutions, and
  • Any other privately owned commercial establishment that is open to the public, unless the operator clearly and conspicuously posts a sign indicating that license holders are permitted to carry firearms on the property.
  • “Parking areas” made a “sensitive place.”

Note the order does not enjoin schools, state or local public buildings, airports and legislative offices. Nor does it prevent the implementation of new instructor rules which immediately ban up to 95% of the instructors currently providing conceal carry firearm training in the state today. 

A few quotes from the order (references removed): 

SB2 turns nearly every public place in California into a “sensitive place,” effectively abolishing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding and exceptionally qualified citizens to be armed and to defend themselves in public.

The Second Amendment reads: “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”.  It “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” both inside the home and outside it. The text’s “right to ‘bear arms” refers to the right to ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ 

That the vast majority of conceal carry permit holders are law-abiding. Indeed, CCW permitholders are not responsible for any of the mass shootings or horrific gun violence that has occurred in California. And herein lies the problem: despite ample opportunity for an evidentiary hearing, the State has failed to offer any evidence that law-abiding responsible citizens who carry firearms in public for self-defense are responsible for an increase in gun violence.

CCW permitholders are among the most responsible, reliable law-abiding citizens. They have been through a vigorous vetting and training process following their application to carry a concealed handgun. 

The California State Sheriffs’ Association that “[i]nstead of focusing on a law-abiding population, efforts should address preventing gun crimes committed by those who disobey the law and holding them accountable.”

What’s next:

Here is the next critical piece coming from the California Attorney General’s comments. “We believe the court got this wrong, and that SB2 adheres to the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in Bruen. We will seek the opinion of the appellate court to make it right.”

And this is where things will get funky. They don’t call the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the Nutty Ninth for nothing. A three-judge panel could go either way depending on the draw of the judges. However, an en banc panel, given the Ninth’s “creative interpretation” of evidentiary rules and Supreme Court precedent, would unquestionably rule to uphold SB 2. While the Preliminary Injunction is factually and legally correct, it may not survive the purely political judgement from the Nutty Ninth. This Preliminary Injunction is good news, but it ain’t over yet. 

As a reminder, the ONLY way to keep more gun control laws from being passed is to STOP electing people who will not protect our natural, constitutionally protected rights.

Bob

Read the ruling at: https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2023-12-20-Order-Granting-Plfs-MPI.pdf

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunsSaveLives, #GunVote, #NoToSB2, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com

California’s SB 2 – Part 2, No CCW Training For You!

California’s SB 2 doesn’t only restrict licensed conceal carry from just about everywhere outside your home, it makes it more difficult for you to obtain a concealed carry permit in the first place. Despite the fact the entire purpose of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen case was to eliminate the subjective and arbitrary “may issue” rules which allowed local officials to deny licenses because the person didn’t have sufficient “just cause”, an unsurmountable and unpublished standard for the public to achieve. The anti-gun states are now resorting to other barriers to keep people from getting licenses. 

California’s requirements and prices for getting a concealed carry license have always been higher because they want to make it as difficult, time consuming and expensive as possible to eliminate as many people as they can. Those who can afford it, the more wealthy and influential citizens of the state, have never had an issue getting a license. But then, those are the same people who have close personal relations with the issuing authority. 

The new, stricter requirements include ALL the following minimum criteria:

  • The course shall be no less than 16 hours in length.
  • The course shall include instruction on firearm safety, firearm handling, shooting technique, safe storage, legal methods to transport firearms and securing firearms in vehicles, laws governing where permitholders may carry firearms, laws regarding the permissible use of a firearm, and laws regarding the permissible use of lethal force in self-defense.
  • The course shall include a component, no less than one hour in length, on mental health and mental health resources.
  •  Except for the component on mental health and mental health resources, the course shall be taught and supervised by firearms instructors certified by the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 31635, or in a manner to be prescribed by regulation.
  • The course shall require students to pass a written examination to demonstrate their understanding of the covered topics.
  • The course shall include live-fire shooting exercises on a firing range and shall include a demonstration by the applicant of safe handling of, and shooting proficiency with, each firearm that the applicant is applying to be licensed to carry.
  • A licensing authority shall establish, and make available to the public, the standards it uses when issuing licenses with regards to the required live-fire shooting exercises, including, but not limited to, a minimum number of rounds to be fired and minimum passing scores from specified firing distances.
  • The licensing authority may require a community college course certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, up to a maximum of 24 hours, but only if required uniformly of all license applicants without exception.
  •  For license renewal applicants, the course of training may be any course acceptable to the licensing authority, shall be no less than eight hours, and shall satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (2) to (6), inclusive, of subdivision (a). No course of training shall be required for any person certified by the licensing authority as a trainer for purposes of this section, in order for that person to renew a license issued pursuant to this chapter.
  • The applicant shall not be required to pay for any training courses prior to the initial determination of whether the applicant is a disqualified person. 

But wait, there’s MORE! California decided to dramatically DECREASE the number of instructors authorized to provided conceal carry firearm training by coming up with a new, highly restrictive list of who can be a State CCW DOJ Certified Instructor. The state has now excluded NRA certified instructors who by some counts provide about 95% of the conceal carry firearms training in the state. As of January 1, 2024, the ONLY instructors authorized to provide this training are those certified by: 

AND their certification training must be within six months. Because, you know the State of California wants to make sure the instructors are current in order to be safe.

  • Bureau of Security and Investigative Services, Department of Consumer Affairs, State of California-Firearm Training Instructor
  • Federal Government, Certified Rangemaster or Firearm Instructor
  • Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Firearm Instructor Training Program or Rangemaster
  • United States Military, Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) as marksmanship or firearms instructor
  • Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), State of California-Firearm Instructor or Rangemaster
  • Authorization from a State of California accredited school to teach a firearm training course. 

AND in typical California fashion, this new regulation was announced as an EMERGENCY REGULATION just before the holidays meaning there would only be a tiny public comment period before it becomes law on January 1, 2024. Was this an emergency? Of course not. But by putting it out as an emergency just before it is scheduled to go into effect, it makes it impossible for effective legal challenges to be presented and for those impacted to make the necessary accommodations to continue to offer certified conceal carry courses. 

The result will be a massive backlog of people attempting to get into the very few classes around the state offered by the new state certified instructors. This will delay applicants from getting the state mandated training they must have to get their concealed carry license and drive prices up even higher. 

Current instructors who do not possess the proper certifications will now be scrambling to get into the very few classes available for non-law enforcement and military members, causing significant delays for them being able to offer concealed carry firearms training again. 

Has concealed carry firearm training ever been shown to be deficient or a safety issue in the State of California? Of course not. But the ever-increasing requirements have always been used as a means of making it more expensive and more time consuming, thus further eliminating those who would otherwise be able to obtain the rare and highly coveted conceal carry license in California. 

Again, I will point out that California wants to eliminate private citizens carrying firearms for personal protection in the state. By doing so, Californian’s become 100% dependent on the State of California for their protection. When the state has a complete monopoly on your safety, it can dictate whatever measures of control it wants, and you will have no other option but to comply and pay whatever they want for it.

This law will be appealed, and portions undoubtedly will be held up, but it will be in litigation for years. It will be heard and appealed numerous times, being held up until the makeup of the United States Supreme Court changes. 

Let’s also keep in mind YOU are paying for both sides of all of this. Your (unlimited) tax dollars and your donations to Second Amendment groups will be fighting it out, and only the lawyers will be happy.

The ONLY way to keep more gun control laws from being passed is to STOP electing people who will not protect our natural, constitutionally protected rights.

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunsSaveLives, #GunVote, #NoToSB2, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com

California’s SB 2 – Part 1, No Guns Anywhere!

California’s SB 2, the state’s response to the United States Supreme Court’s historic 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, goes into effect January 1, 2024. Like the other anti-gun states’ Bruen response bills, California’s new legislation isn’t designed to bring the state’s unconstitutional “may issue” concealed carry laws into legal compliance. Instead, it virtually eliminates the ability of law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm for personal protection in public in the state. 

When NYSRPA v. Bruen was decided, a number of states called emergency sessions to respond to the decision and find ways around it. California actually had its response bill ready to go, but it failed by one vote, so they claim. I’m guessing this was more a courtesy to New York to allow them to be the first one to pass legislation to bypass the ruling. But California has now stepped back up to the plate. 

As with all gun control laws, the text attempts to justify the draconian restrictions based on bought and paid for biased “research” and “studies” showing how legally owned and carried firearms is a public safety hazard. These “studies” also falsely point out how states with more permissive firearm laws have more so-called “gun violence” as opposed to those with strict gun control laws, like California. As always, these are creative works of fiction which start with the end result in mind and work backwards to find “facts” that support their argument, while ignoring the actual history and hard data throughout the country. 

Quite simply, California wants to eliminate private citizens carrying firearms for personal protection in the state. By doing so, Californian’s become 100% dependent on the State of California for their protection. When the state has a complete monopoly on your safety, it can dictate whatever measures of control it wants, and you will have no other option but to comply and pay whatever they want for it. 

Here is a summary of the new concealed carry restrictions and so-called “sensitive places”. Keep in mind, this is for persons who HAVE a valid concealed carry license. 

  • Bring a firearm into or possess a firearm within or upon the ground of the Governor’s Mansion, or any other residence of the Governor, the residence of any other constitutional officer, or the residence of any Member of the Legislature.
  • To knowingly possess any firearm in any building, real property, or parking area under the control of an airport.
  • A bus, train, or other form of transportation paid for in whole or in part with public funds, and a building, real property, or parking area under the control of a transportation authority supported in whole or in part with public funds. A public transit system includes the vehicles used in the system, including, but not limited to, motor vehicles, streetcars, trackless trolleys, buses, light rail systems, rapid transit systems, subways, trains, or jitneys, that transport members of the public for hire.
  • Possesses a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone or who brings or possesses a loaded firearm upon the grounds of a campus of, or buildings owned or operated for student housing, teaching, research, or administration by, a public or private university or college, that are contiguous or are clearly marked university property,
  • A building, real property, or parking area under the control of a preschool or childcare facility, including a room or portion of a building under the control of a preschool or childcare facility. 
  • A building, parking area, or portion of a building under the control of an officer of the executive or legislative branch of the state government
  • Brings or possesses within any state or local public building or at any meeting required to be open to the public. 
  • A building designated for a court proceeding, including matters before a superior court, district court of appeal, or the California Supreme Court, parking area under the control of the owner or operator of that building, or a building or portion of a building under the control of the Supreme Court
  • A building, parking area, or portion of a building under the control of a unit of local government.
  • A building, real property, and parking area under the control of an adult or juvenile detention or correctional institution, prison, or jail.
  • A building, real property, and parking area under the control of a public or private hospital or hospital affiliate, mental health facility, nursing home, medical office, urgent care facility, or other place at which medical services are customarily provided.
  • A building, real property, and parking area under the control of a vendor or an establishment where intoxicating liquor is sold for consumption on the premises.
  • A public gathering or special event conducted on property open to the public that requires the issuance of a permit from a federal, state, or local government and sidewalk or street immediately adjacent to the public gathering or special event but is not more than 1,000 feet from the event or gathering.
  • A playground or public or private youth center and a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to the playground or youth center.
  • A park, athletic area, or athletic facility that is open to the public and a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to those areas.
  • Real property under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation or Department of Fish and Wildlife.
  • Any area under the control of a public or private community college, college, or university, including, but not limited to, buildings, classrooms, laboratories, medical clinics, hospitals, artistic venues, athletic fields or venues, entertainment venues, officially recognized university-related organization properties, whether owned or leased, and any real property, including parking areas, sidewalks, and common areas.
  • A building, real property, or parking area that is or would be used for gambling or gaming of any kind whatsoever, including, but not limited to, casinos, gambling establishments, gaming clubs, bingo operations, facilities licensed by the California Horse Racing Board, or a facility wherein banked or percentage games, any form of gambling device, or lotteries, other than the California State Lottery, are or will be played.
  • A stadium, arena, or the real property or parking area under the control of a stadium, arena, or a collegiate or professional sporting or eSporting event.
  • A building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public library.
  • A building, real property, or parking area under the control of an airport or passenger vessel terminal, as those terms are defined in subdivision (
  • A building, real property, or parking area under the control of an amusement park.
  • A building, real property, or parking area under the control of a zoo or museum.
  • A street, driveway, parking area, property, building, or facility, owned, leased, controlled, or used by a nuclear energy, storage, weapons, or development site or facility regulated by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
  • A church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship, including in any parking area immediately adjacent thereto, unless the operator of the place of worship clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance of the building or on the premises indicating that license holders are permitted to carry firearms on the property. **Signs shall be of a uniform design as prescribed by the Department of Justice and shall be at least four inches by six inches in size.
  • A financial institution or parking area under the control of a financial institution.
  • A police, sheriff, or highway patrol station or parking area under control of a law enforcement agency.
  • A polling place, voting center, precinct, or other area or location where votes are being cast or cast ballots are being returned or counted, or the streets or sidewalks immediately adjacent to any of these places.
  • Any other privately owned commercial establishment that is open to the public, unless the operator of the establishment clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance of the building or on the premises indicating that license holders are permitted to carry firearms on the property. Signs shall be of a uniform design as prescribed by the Department of Justice and shall be at least four inches by six inches in size.
  • Any other place or area prohibited by other provisions of state law.
  • Any other place or area prohibited by federal law.
  • Any other place or area prohibited by local law.
  • A licensee MAY transport a firearm and ammunition within their vehicle so long as the firearm is locked in a lock box. Nothing in this subdivision is intended to preempt local laws placing more restrictive requirements upon the storage of firearms in vehicles.

With very few exceptions, not noted here, almost everywhere you would go outside your home is now considered a “sensitive place”, including ALL private property and churches UNLESS they display a state prescribed sign indicating licensed concealed carry is permitted. Also included is all property inside and outside effected places, including parking lots and in many cases the adjacent sidewalks and streets. Concealed carry is not even permitted inside a licensed persons own vehicle when on the highway, it must be stored in a locked box. 

Calling this an absolutely childish reaction from the gun control community to the Supreme Court’s decision is putting it mildly. SB 2, and the other Bruen response laws completely ignore the Court’s ruling on “sensitive places” and clearly violates the Bruen, Heller and McDonald cases. 

The good news is the vast majority of similar provisions in other states have already been halted by injunctions pending the cases being heard in the federal courts. That of course hasn’t stopped California from writing, passing and implementing the exact same laws here, because, well, California knows best. Besides, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which encompasses California, has never denied a gun control law once it reaches the full Court. 

This law will be appealed, and portions undoubtedly will be held up, but it will be in litigation for years. It will be heard and appealed numerous times, being held up until the makeup of the United States Supreme Court changes. 

Let’s also keep in mind YOU are paying for both sides of all of this. Your (unlimited) tax dollars and your donations to Second Amendment groups will be fighting it out, and only the lawyers will be happy.

The ONLY way to keep more gun control laws from being passed is to STOP electing people who will not protect our natural, constitutionally protected rights.

Next up: California’s SB 2 – Part 2, No CCW Training For You!

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunsSaveLives, #GunVote, #NoToSB2, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com

GOSAFE is Not Maine Strong

Following the senseless killings in Lewiston on October 25, 2023, Maine Strong has been appearing all around the state as proud Mainers rally together to support the families of those impacted. Mainers are also demanding answers from the US military, the mental health system and law enforcement for their abominable and inexcusable failures to use the tools already at their disposal and perfectly capable to have prevented this horrific tragedy. Seeing more evidence that the government will never be able to protect them, they are purchasing home and carry defensive firearms and taking training classes in even greater numbers. 

What isn’t Maine Strong is the state’s supposedly “Independent” Senator Angus King’s knee-jerk gun control bill. Called the ”Gas-Operated Semi-Automatic Firearms Exclusion (GOSAFE) Act”, it is co-sponsored by the usual gun-control zealot politicians. It shreds any sense of Constitutionality while laughing proclaiming it “Protects Americans’ Second Amendment Right”. It also misses the point that government failures should never be the basis of new gun control laws. 

Here is their summary of the GOSAFE act: 

The GOSAFE Act regulates firearms based on the inherently dangerous and unusual lethality of their internal mechanisms, as opposed to focusing on cosmetic features that manufacturers can easily modify.

If enacted, the bill would regulate the sale, transfer, and manufacture of gas-operated semi-automatic weapons by:

Establishing a list of prohibited firearms;
Preventing unlawful modifications of permissible firearms;
Mandating that future gas-operated designs are approved before manufacture; and
Preventing unlawful firearm self-assembly and manufacturing.

Protects Americans’ Second Amendment Right

The GOSAFE Act protects Americans’ constitutional right to own a gun based on a firearm’s established use for self-defense, hunting or sporting purposes.
The GOSAFE Act accomplishes this by including exemptions based on maximum ammunition capacity according to a firearm’s individual class: a rifle, shotgun, or handgun.

This capacity must be “permanently fixed” meaning the firearm cannot accept a detachable, high-capacity magazine that would increase the number of rounds that can be fired before reloading and make reloading easier.

Exemptions include:
.22 caliber rimfire or less firearms
Bolt action rifles
Semi-automatic shotguns
Recoil-operated handguns
Any rifle with a permanently fixed magazine of 10 rounds or less
Any shotgun with a permanently fixed magazine of 10 rounds or less
Any handgun with a permanently fixed magazine of 15 rounds or less
Limits High-Capacity Ammunition Devices

The GOSAFE Act limits a firearm’s ability to inflict maximum harm in a short amount of time by directly regulating large capacity ammunition feeding devices.
The bill would limit the number of rounds that large capacity ammunition feeding devices are permitted to carry to 10 rounds of ammunition or fewer.
Additionally, the GOSAFE Act makes conversion devices, including bump stocks and Glock switches, unlawful.

Improves Public Safety Response & Protects Law Enforcement
The GOSAFE Act will force would-be mass shooters to reload their guns more frequently — giving people time to flee and law enforcement time to arrive on the scene – while also maintaining law enforcement access to regulated firearms, so law enforcement continues to have the tools they need to respond to a mass shooting event.

Creates Optional Buy-Back Program
The GOSAFE Act will prevent stockpiling of these lethal firearms and large capacity magazines, and also ensure no one loses the value of any firearms they currently have, by establishing a voluntary buy-back program, which would allow firearm owners to voluntarily turn over and receive compensation for non-transferrable firearms and magazines as defined by this legislation.

Back on July 8th, 2019, I wrote about a previously unknown group of gun control extremists who proposed banning the semi-automatic mechanism. The idea wasn’t given much attention because it was so preposterous. In reality, it was a draft of things to come put out to see how much opposition it would attract in the real world. Guess what? It has been used by the states of Washington and Massachusetts in their definitions of so-called “assault weapons” and now it’s mainstream.  As they described it at the time: 

“Now, the most severe gun-related problem facing our society is the proliferation of guns containing a semiautomatic mechanism.” Their organization “is working to achieve legislation that will ban the semiautomatic mechanism in any gun sold or owned in Massachusetts. These are weapons that were designed for military and law enforcement purposes only and not for the general public. Revolvers, lever-action, pump-action, and bolt-action guns cover the full spectrum of civilian needs, whether they are hunting, personal protection, or home protection. The semiautomatic mechanism for guns has no place in civilian hands.”

Sound familiar?  

The misguided Senator’s proposal would set the standard of firearm technology back to pre-1885 technology when the first semi-automatic firearm was produced. 

Wrapped up in this ban would be: 
Gas operated pistols, which encompasses all the AR/AK pattern and similar pistols.
Depending on the interpretation of gas-operated, even blowback pistols could be included. 
Their definition of “permanently fixed” (meaning the firearm cannot accept a detachable, high-capacity magazine) would mean ZERO modern magazine fed firearms would be legal as any could be utilized with a so-called “high-capacity” magazine as well as a neutered low-capacity one. 
Voluntary buy-backs, a misnomer since the government never owned your firearms in the first place, have a nasty tendency to become mandatory buy-backs. 

NOWHERE in the proposed legislation does it say how they’ll be getting guns out of the hands of criminals, cracking down on their illegal use or hold those who unlawfully use them against others accountable, only restricting the rights of the law-abiding. 

It’s also important to realize the glaring logic flaws in the Senator’s proposal. The false claim of “force would-be mass shooters to reload their guns more frequently” has never been shown to be true and even a cursory look at previous criminal acts reveals lower capacity magazines have been successfully used in shootings. In addition, stating a “gas-operated semi-automatic” firearm does not fall under the constitutional right to own category for self-defense, hunting or sporting purposes ignores the well documented use of firearms in this country. 

While the Senator’s bill should be dead on arrival, it’s important to note the well-placed timing, post-tragedy for maximum impact. Remember the gun control mantra of “Never let a good crisis go to waste”.  The tragic loss of life is simply an opportunity to progress an agenda that couldn’t get traction before.

Even if this bill could gain enough RINO votes to pass and be signed into law, it is obviously constitutionally flawed in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen’s text, history, and tradition test. But keep in mind this is ONLY with the current make-up of the United States Supreme Court. Should the court majority be flipped from the current 5-4 conservative led court either by court packing, a forced removal of a Justice, a retirement or death, this decision will most likely be revisited and reversed at the Court’s first opportunity. 

The ONLY way to keep more gun control laws from being passed is to STOP electing people who will not protect our natural, constitutionally protected rights. 

Senator King wants to be reelected to his third term as a Senator from Maine in November 2024. I believe it’s time for new representation for the State of Maine.  

Maine deserves better. 

Bob

Semi-Automatic Mechanisms – The New Assault Weapons https://oddstuffing.com/archives/577

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunsSaveLives, #GunVote, #NoToGoSafe, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com

Engaged In The Business

Lost among all the headlines was the story of the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) new rule proposal updating who is considered “Engaged in the Business” of selling firearms and therefore, must obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL). While it may sound like a simple administrative update, it’s really a huge new law and with a hidden goal in mind, universal background checks to feed the national gun registry, all by administrative action. The public comment period for this new rule is closing on December 07, 2023. 

Essentially, the new administrative rule is using another wild interpretation of the so-called Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) as it’s justification. Similar to the interpretation used by the Education Department to shut off funding to schools with hunter safety and firearm programs, this is a new set of administrative rules not supported by law. 

The new rule will greatly expand the list of individuals who must obtain a FFL in order to sell firearms from their personal collection. The proposed rule also tightens the rules for obtaining and keeping a FFL for traditional dealers. 

A couple of highlights: 

Broadens the activities that require an FFL: The proposed rule establishes presumptions concerning activities that necessitate an FFL, such as renting a display table at a gun show, labeling firearms with price tags, offering another firearm for sale after one sale, and earning a profit on sales. 

New requirements for obtaining an FFL: The proposed rule modifies the requirements for obtaining an FFL, including additional background checks for applicants, enhanced scrutiny of an applicant’s business plans, and imposition of new corporate entity requirements.

New recordkeeping requirements: The proposed rule imposes new recordkeeping requirements on FFLs, including requirements to retain copies of bills of sale issued to buyers in transactions involving firearms.

The rule goes into great detail of the circumstances which would subject someone to having to get a FFL, as well as a detailed financial cost analysis of why getting a FFL is absolutely, positively NOT a burden to people wanting to sell from their collection. While there are many, Many, MANY actions which would require a FFL, it seems the main one is to make a profit on what is being sold, rejecting the premise that some things actually increase in value over time and individuals having the ability to buy and sell their own property. 

Requiring individuals obtain a FFL would subject them to the full range of ATF rules and regulations for manufactures and dealers, including preapproval inspections, record keeping, background checks, and periodic unannounced audits of their premises, or homes for home-based FFLs, by the ATF and even their own state regulators.

This comes at a time when the ATF is attempting to shut down as many current FFLs as it can using draconian interpretations of minor rule violations as “willful acts”. This new rule would simply cast a much larger net for shutting down more firearm sales. 

What doesn’t seem to be mentioned is there is no consideration of individuals who live in the most gun-controlled states like Massachusetts or California where state and local licensing is also required and home-based FFLs are no longer allowed. It seems individuals in these states are not a concern for the ATF since they already have universal background checks.

What is the impetus for this rule change? I have no doubt it is a backdoor means of achieving a critical gun control goal unobtainable through legislative means. Specifically, a federal law mandating universal background checks to feed the national gun registry. 

By mandating private sellers must become FFLs, all sales must be conducted on a Form 4473 with a background check. While universal background checks themselves have consistently proved ineffective at crime or violence reduction, the paper trail created DOES record/register every sale to an individual. These records are now routinely collected at periodic dealer inspections and, against current law, entered into a national database. A comprehensive national gun registry is a vital element for future confiscation efforts. 

There is still time to make a comment, and I do recommend you do. Will your comment be so legally and morally profound it will stop the ATF from implementing new regulations? HELL NO! The comment period is simply an annoying legal formality the government must follow, even though they’ve already made up their mind as to what they are doing. They must review each and every submission, even if it’s by the summer intern breezing through at lightning speed. 

What it DOES do is assist in the lawsuit which must follow their ill-advised implementation. Every voice of dissent helps. It doesn’t have to be a long, detailed or a legalese type dissertation, just what you believe is wrong by putting this new regulation in place. It DOES need to be profanity free, as those are disregarded. 

The link to the proposed rule, a mere 31 pages long, and to make a comment is below. I respectfully ask you to take a few moments and add your voice to those who are opposed to this overreaching and unjustified gun control action. 

Bob

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/09/08/2023-19177/definition-of-engaged-in-the-business-as-a-dealer-in-firearms

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunsSaveLives, #GunVote, #EngagedInBusiness, #FFL, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com

Feeling Safer vs. Being Safer

In case you missed it, more and more Americans are choosing to exercise their Second Amendment rights, much to the abhorrence of the gun control elitists who prefer you be unarmed, helpless victims in waiting. We The People continue to recognize they are solely responsible for their own safety and need to have the very best tools at their disposal to be safe. 

Firearm purchases in the last few years have set records month after month. Estimates place October 2023 at approximately 1.33 million firearm sales, an increase of 8.3% over October 2022. With this, the total number of privately owned firearms is now estimated at 500 million, up from 393 million in 2018, and nearly doubling since 1996. The current US population is approximately 340 million. 

A recent poll (see image) from decidedly left leaning NBC news found 52% of Americans say they or someone in their household owns a firearm. This is up from 2019 (46%) and 2013 (42%). While the percentage of firearm owning families does skew higher for republicans (66%), independent (45%) and democrat (41%) family numbers are still significantly higher.  

I can tell you from my own experience running a small, members only range/sporting club, political affiliation means absolutely nothing when it comes to firearm ownership. Wanting to protect yourself and your family is the deciding factor. 

Does this sound like Americans are embracing the gun control propaganda that firearm ownership is bad? No, in fact it is quite the opposite.

Personal protection is the reason Americans site most for owning a firearm (60%) followed by hunting (36%) and recreation/sport (13%)*. Following the Hamas attack and shooting in Maine, sales of concealed carry firearms began to spike, along with tactical shotguns and AR-15 platform rifles. Interest and attendance at conceal carry and other firearm classes has also increased.

There’s a big difference between feeling safer and being safer. For years the anti-gun crowd has tried to convince you that taking away your firearms or severely limiting your ability to buy or use them, will make you “feel” safer. Of course, this is nothing but a bold-faced lie. Their ever-increasing strict gun control laws target ONLY the law-abiding citizenry and have never done anything to keep the criminals from acquiring and using firearms against you. Now add in the so-called “criminal justice reforms” such as no bail, not prosecuting violent criminals with crimes and the mass release of offenders already serving time, and it’s easy to see why gun control laws targeting the law-abiding only make you less safe. 

Remember, gun control does absolutely nothing to increase public safety and the answer to fix that shortcoming is always to implement more gun control.

But then the argument is the police are always there to protect you, another lie. In case after case where people have sued the police for not doing enough to protect them, all have ruled the police have zero legal responsibility to protect you. This isn’t to say most law enforcement officers don’t want to, but there is absolutely no way they can be there 24/7. Add to this the so-called “criminal justice reforms” and the defund the police movement approach coveted by many left leaning cities, and you have departments which can’t even respond to emergency calls within hours. 

Being safer is having the knowledge and capability to protect yourself and your family, in your home or out in public, with the best tools available for the job. But it goes beyond that. Being safer means taking the responsibility of owning, carrying and using firearms seriously. It not only means the right equipment it means training in the use of your firearms as well as situational awareness, de-escalation techniques and non-lethal self-defense tools, because not every situation is a deadly force one. It means knowing the law and knowing what your personal, moral, and ethical limits are. It means having an emergency plan for your home and when you are in public. It means constantly assessing what is going on around you and how you are going to mitigate those risks. 

But I’m going to take being safer one step further. It means doing everything you can to ensure a safer environment for the next generation of your family. It means stopping asinine, do-nothing gun control laws that have never made the public safer in their tracks. It means voting out your political representatives at the local, county, state, and federal level when it becomes clear they will not follow their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, ALL the Constitution. It means finding and electing new representation who will or, maybe standing up yourself.  

Feeling safe means nothing if you aren’t actually safe. Reject the gun control lies and propaganda and decide what is right for you and your family. 

Bob

*The percentage adds up to more than 100% due to multiple responses. 2013 Gallop poll.

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunsSaveLives, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com

Walk A Mile In The People’s Shoes

In the wake of unspeakable tragedies, the gun banning politicians celebrate the opportunity presented by the deaths of innocent victims by a mentally deranged gunman. They do this by coming up with new and inventive laws to infringe on the rights of the law-abiding citizenry, while doing nothing to punish or prevent those who break the thousands of laws most of us live by, and the criminals simply ignore. Perhaps it’s time to remind them of how we the people actually live since they seem to have lost their perspective after arriving in the hallowed halls of Congress. 

Following the tried-and-true oppression principle of “You never let a serious crisis go to waste”, the gun control zealots flood the airwaves, news, and social media with emotional messages to “do something” following the horrific deaths of innocent victims. Facts don’t matter at a time like this, only that they have the ONE and ONLY solution that will stop so-called ‘gun violence’ once and for all – more gun control.

Remember, gun control does absolutely nothing to increase public safety and the answer to fix that shortcoming is always to implement more gun control.

The truth is the only thing gun control laws are successful at is turning law-abiding citizens in to law-abiding victims. When you legislate away people’s rights and ability to protect themselves and their families at home and in public, while giving criminals a free pass to continue committing crimes and escalating violence with no repercussions, you are going to get exactly what you see happening – every terrorist, criminal and thug targeting your helpless residents. 

Unlike the politicians and the elitists who line their pockets, the average everyday American doesn’t have local, state, and federal law enforcement providing them with security briefings and on-site armed protection when they travel. Everyday Americans don’t get to have venues they visit checked and cleared, members of the public background checked and screened for weapons, and armed security surround them in a security bubble when they go among the masses. Everyday Americans don’t have state of the art security systems at their homes monitored by the Capitol Police with priority response from local authorities.  

Everyday American’s provide their own security. They are their own first responder. They are the ones who go into public by themselves and face the dangers the politicians no longer allow the police or courts to deal with. They go out day and night to work, to shop, to see other people, for entertainment and to enjoy life. Nobody is there watching over them and increasingly so now, nobody is going to come right away when they call for help in time of need, assuming they can stop fighting for their life long enough to call for help.

That’s why millions of Americans choose firearms for their protection in their homes and in public. They don’t have firearms to impose their will upon others, they do it to keep themselves and their families safe. They choose the best, most capable firearms they can afford and effectively use. This means modern semi-automatic pistols with standard capacity magazines on their person. This means modern semi-automatic rifles with standard capacity magazines in their homes. Why? Because criminals will always, ALWAYS be able to get their hands on the latest and greatest weaponry regardless of the gun laws. No gun control law has ever disarmed criminals, and none ever will. They only disarm their intended victims, making them an easy, soft target. 

But hey, you’ll probably be okay in public with your unloaded revolver or semi-automatic with a neutered magazine locked up and stored separately at home with your double barrel shotgun. 

Out in the real world our politicians have forgotten, firearms are used to defend and save lives every single day. A 2013 CDC (Centers for Disease Control) study found civilian defensive use of firearms outnumbered felonious use by a rate of 3 to 1, to the tune of 2.5 to 3 million uses per year. This is the average, everyday American protecting themselves and their families. Period. 

Will you ever see your gun control politician, lobbyist or activist elite taking the city mass transit, walking to work, stepping over the drug needles and human waste, trying not to get assaulted by the thugs and mentally ill, without their security teams in tow? Of course not. 

You see, they’re not completely anti-gun, they just want to have all the guns there to protect them, NOT you. You need to be disarmed, but they – through their always armed with the best defensive firearms known to man security teams – are not. If they’re not willing to live their life as a disarmed victim in waiting, why should you? 

For all you gun banning politicians, it’s time to stop lying to the people about gun control and just admit their safety means nothing to you.

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunsSaveLives, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com