Tag: #Unconstitutional

New Mexico Rights Must Wait 

New Mexico’s Governor made gun control a priority in this year’s 30-day budget legislative session. The good news is only two gun control bills passed out of the Round House. The bad news is two gun control bills did pass out of the Round House. Not satisfied with the outcome, the Governor has already suggested she may call a special legislative session to deal with her “gun safety” agenda. 

Specifically:

SB 5 bans firearms from polling places. Restrictions include within 100 feet of a door to a polling place or within 50 feet of a monitored secured container (drop box) beginning 28 days before election day. Exemptions exist for law enforcement officers, persons in private vehicles and for those carrying concealed with a valid concealed handgun license. 

HB129 establishes a seven calendar day waiting period for the purchase of firearms. There are exceptions for buyers who hold a Federal Firearms License (FFL), a valid New Mexico concealed carry handgun license, law enforcement agencies and officers, as well as between immediate family members.

It should be noted the majority New Mexico Democrats rejected an amendment for victims of domestic violence from having to wait seven days to receive a firearm because it “might result in the homicide of a perpetrator of domestic violence…” 

If you’re looking more of the asinine thinking involved in these kinds of laws, I give you the proposed HB 316. “This bill creates a new law which makes it illegal for a felon to use a firearm during the commission of a felony. The first offense carries an up to five-year sentence. Subsequent convictions have an up to nine-year sentence.”

So… It would be a felony for a felon, who is already committing a felony by possessing a firearm, to use a firearm in the commission of another felony. 

These are the kinds of mental gymnastics required when prosecutors and judges don’t hold criminals accountable for their actions. They wheel and deal on charges, minimizing or dismissing them, imposing suspended sentences, and releasing those convicted early ‘in the interest of justice’, but now want to look like they are being serious about crime. The result is absolutely idiotic NEW crimes like this. 

Here’s a novel idea for you. Arrest, charge and convict criminals for the crimes they commit and make them serve their sentences. 

Pure speculation on my part, but I’d say New Mexico’s tiny tyrant is pushing as much gun control as she can in hopes to gain favor and a spot in the next democrat administration. She missed out last time, due in part to her own scandals, but with her second term coming to an end in 2026, she’s probably looking to land a cushy cabinet post. 

Let’s recall the Governor’s statement on her so-called “public safety legislative agenda” just before this legislative session began: “This is the largest public safety package ever presented. We are committed to using every tool and evidence-based strategy to improve the climate, to deal with gun violence, and to make sure that New Mexicans are clear that we believe in the constitutional right to safe homes and neighborhoods.”

Of course, there is no such thing as a constitutional right to safe homes and neighborhoods. State and local governments do have a constitutional duty to protect public safety, but their powers limited by the Constitution so as not to infringe on the rights of individuals. They also cannot be held liable when they fail to protect the public. That’s called taking all the responsibility but none of the accountability. 

Perhaps the New Mexico Governor was referring to the California Governor’s “Right to Safety” 28thAmendment proposal which supersedes and effectively eliminates the protections of the Second Amendment. Considering it would do the exact opposite of what it says it will do, a better title would be “The Right to Be a Victim”. 

I’m betting the Governor will put on a full-on dog and pony show when she signs these bills into law, as well as announce a special session to push the rest of her do-nothing-to-improve-public-safety. 

Hold strong New Mexico and continue to let your representatives, democrat and republican, know that Second Amendments protected rights are NOT second-class rights. And if they disagree, well, perhaps it’s time for new representation. 

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #Unconstitutional, #NewMexico, #GunOwnersOfNewMexico, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com 

The Wrong Move?

Iconic gun maker Remington recently announced they are closing their factory in Ilion, NY and moving to Georgia after 208 years. This follows the departure of Smith & Wesson from Massachusetts after 165 years, moving to Tennessee. Beretta USA, the American subsidy of the 500-year-old company left Maryland after 39 years and moved to Tennessee. All have cited the regulatory environment in their former home states. 

Just for context, Remington is our nation’s oldest gun manufacturer, founded in Ilion, NY in 1816. Generations of entire families in the community have worked for Remington. 

Of course, Remington, Smith & Wesson and Beretta are not the only firearm industry companies to flee the anti-gun states. Other notable exits include: 

Magpul moved most of its operations from Colorado to Wyoming and Texas. 
HiViz announced it was moving from Colorado to Wyoming. 
Shield Tactical said it would move from California to Texas.
Kahr Arms decided to leave New York for Pennsylvania. 
American Tactical Imports decided to move from New York to South Carolina. 
Mossberg opted to expand in Texas, not in its home state of Connecticut.

The reasons for the departures are clear and consistent. Anti-gun legislation banning the sales of the products they manufacture in the state, and in some cases banning the manufacture of the products themselves. Manufacturers also faced pushback from their customers for continuing to invest in states which are working to eliminate their Second Amendment rights. 

Even as the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right, states like New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, California and New Jersey have continued to pass blatantly unconstitutional laws targeting the manufacturing, sales and possession of commonly owned and legally used firearms. 

Following the 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen ruling, “Bruen Response” laws essentially banning public carry of firearms were introduced in New Jersey, New York, Maryland and California. New York even laughing titled their public carry ban the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act”. New Mexico’s governor decided an executive order for a so-called “public health emergency” (a Covid era remnant) was sufficient to ban ALL public carry of firearms in one county. 

While many of the provisions of the “Bruen Response” laws are being held up by temporary injunctions pending final adjudication, some portions continue to be enforced. Other laws banning so-called “assault weapons” and so-called “large capacity” magazines are successfully being challenged and making their way through the appeals process. 

The Hawaii Supreme Court even went to the extreme of openly defying the United States Supreme Court by deciding “We hold that in Hawaiʻi there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.”

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. 

So, if you are a firearm industry manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer, do you really want to remain in a state which is systematically working to completely outlaw your products, business, and way of life? No, of course not. It wouldn’t make a bit of sense. Just as many individuals are choosing to flee the high crime, high tax, high cost, high regulation, and low constitutional rights blue states to the red states, the firearm industry is fleeing too. But is this the right move? 

First off, let’s look at what’s happening to the formerly deep red states. Austin, Texas is currently the go-to destination of tech companies fleeing California. But in doing so, they’ve brought the same people and attitudes who continue voting for the exact same policies responsible for the problems they are fleeing. Don’t believe it, take a stroll through downtown Austin and see for yourself.  Texas is no longer deep red, but an embarrassing blush of purple. And this is without considering the over 7 million “asylum seekers” and “migrants” flooding the country over the last three years. 

If you look at many of the formerly solid red states, you’ll see a lot more blue showing up, mostly around the metropolitan areas. As these population centers grow with those fleeing the high crime/high tax, etc. areas, they are bringing the same thing with them. Unfortunately, that means the same failed and unconstitutional gun control laws which contributed to the demise of the areas they left. 

Whose fault is this? Well, quite frankly it’s our fault, you and me. We have allowed others to control our government, courts, and educational systems by simply wanting to live our own damn lives. Because so many of us believe a big government is bad, we simply don’t get involved in it. Instead, we let others who say they will be our voice and will change the system from within, only to have them quickly assimilated into the culture and become part of the problem. 

Make no mistake, the voice of sanity and reason across the country is strong and growing stronger every day, but it needs to be more involved. We can’t sit back and hope some hero on a big white horse is going to ride in and save us. We must be the ones who take back control of our towns, counties, states and the nation. Every elected seat on every elected board and commission matters. 

Ugo Gussalli Beretta’s position on moving was, “If we’re going to build a factory somewhere, I want to put it in a state where I don’t have to worry about it, or my sons don’t have to worry about it, or even my grandkids.” A 100-year view of the company. 

Do you really think we have 100 years before there are no more safe havens left for our Second Amendment protected right? 

Bob

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

Defying SCOTUS & Aloha To Rights

When the United States Supreme Court ruled against the State of Texas, there was an immediate and loud reaction to “Defy SCOTUS!”. But now, the Hawaii Supreme Court has ruled that there is no right to carry a firearm in public in Hawaii saying the US Supreme Court rulings do not apply there. With this, the very same loud voices are crying foul and say Hawaii cannot defy the United States Supreme Court. 

So, comply with decisions you agree with and defy the ones you don’t? Sorry, but that’s not the way the system works.

First off, the ruling in Texas was extremely limited and only applied to the Border Patrol being able to access portions of the border under control by the State of Texas, and if necessary, cutting their fences, to do their jobs. 

What it DID NOT address is the ginormous pachyderm in the room that our current administration has redefined the job of the Border Patrol to be that of an illegal alien welcoming committee instead of defending our borders and preventing illegal border crossings. 

The absolute worst-case scenario in this situation would be federal government attempting to remove or take members of Texas contingent into custody by force. From everything I’ve seen from the border area, the individuals on the ground on both sides are professionals and that won’t happen. However, I can also envision the FBI false flag division getting involved to create a situation where they ‘need to act’. Time will tell. 

In the meantime, Texas will continue to defend its border from foreign invasion, without having to defy SCOTUS. 

In the Second Amendment world, many states have been openly defying the Supreme Court with their so-called ‘Bruen response laws’, essentially attempting to implement the exact same unconstitutional restrictions in a different way.  

Now we have the Hawaii Supreme Court issuing a unanimous ruling directly defying the United States Supreme Court by deciding there is no right to carry a firearm in public in the State of Hawaii. 

Relying on US Supreme Court decisions in many cases including Miller, Heller, McDonald and even parts of Bruen, the Hawaii Supreme Court uses them as rational to reject the actual conclusion of Bruen. They go into great detail cherry-picking outlier opinions from reports and publications supporting their conclusions. Justification for current firearm regulations include laws from the slave era days of restricting firearms to white property owners and King Kamehameha I (1795 –1819) enacting Hawaii’s first law: Ke Kānāwai Māmalahoe, or “law of the splintered paddle.”

Honestly, if I didn’t read the decision myself, I would have thought this was something from the Babylon Bee, yet the quotes from the ruling speak for themselves. The link to the ruling is below. It’s a hoot. 


“Article I, section 17 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution mirrors the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. We read those words differently than the current United States Supreme Court. We hold that in Hawaiʻi there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.”

“As the world turns, it makes no sense for contemporary society to pledge allegiance to the founding era’s culture, realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution. “The thing about the old days, they the old days.” The Wire: Home Rooms (HBO television broadcast Sept. 24, 2006) (Season Four, Episode Three).”

“The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities. The history of the Hawaiian Islands does not include a society where armed people move about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others.”

“There is no individual right to keep and bear arms under article I, section 17. So there is no constitutional right to carry a firearm in public for possible self-defense.”

Federalism principles allow states to provide broader constitutional rights protection to their people than the federal constitution. However, in Hawaii’s case, they are using this principle to eliminate rights protected at the federal level.  

So, Hawaii, the 50th state of the United States, has just declared that they are not bound by the US Supreme Court’s decisions on the Second Amendment. What other natural rights protected by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights can be eliminated in Hawaii? 


There are many issues with this ruling but for me it boils down to the extremist left attempting to destroy the rule of law and the legitimacy of the US Supreme Court. To be clear, they only want to destroy the rule of laws they DON’T agree with. If they agree with it, it should be enforced vigorously and those who break it punished severely. 

The US Supreme Court itself has been a target of the extremists since it shifted to a 5-4 conservative majority. There have been, and continue to be, numerous attacks on the conservative justices. These include attempts to impeach, attempts to get them to retire or recuse themselves from important cases, threats to reorganize the courts, impose term limits, and even a plan to pack the Court with five new liberal justices in order to “remove political bias”.  

Yet the biggest threat is to simply defy Supreme Court decisions the extremists disagree with. By ignoring the court’s ruling, they delegitimize the court itself and eliminate its function as the third independent branch of the government. Sadly, this is conceivable since it is the executive branch which enforces Supreme Court rulings. And as we’ve seen lately, the executive and legislative branches have zero interest in complying with Supreme Court rulings they oppose.

It’s very simple. Once you destroy the rule of law, you have no law. We don’t get to selectively defy one Supreme Court ruling because we disagree with it while absolutely demanding others comply with a ruling we do agree with. That’s not how the system works. 

I’ll ask again, do you really think it doesn’t matter who you vote for? 

Bob

https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/SCAP-22-0000561.pdf

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #Unconstitutional, #GunVote, #Aloha2ARights, #Hawaii, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com

California Ammunition Freedom Gone and The Curse of Blue Slips

As was expected, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted California’s request on Monday, February 5, 2024 and issued a stay in Rhode v. Bonta, the ammunition background check ruling which was ruled unconstitutional just six days ago by Federal Judge Roger T. Benitez. Ammunition background checks now continue, preserving the State’s precious status quo during the appeals process. Not preserved are the constitutional rights of Californians. 

Of course, the ‘status quo’ the state wanted to preserve is not the one which was in place since ammunition was invented, or the founding of our nation in 1776, or since California joined the union in 1850, but that time honored tradition ushered into place in 2016 with Proposition 63 and the bait-and-switch Senate Bill 1235. 

The short order did not offer any explanation or the rationale behind it, however it did contain the dissenting opinion from one judge on the three-judge panel.

“I would deny the motion for a stay pending appeal. I do not believe appellant has met his burden of showing a likelihood of success on the merits or that irreparable injury will occur absent a stay.”

Whenever there is a decision like this, everyone always looks at who appointed the judges involved as an indication of their political bias. AGAIN, I’ll point out that political leaning in a constitutional court should be given absolutely ZERO consideration, but that’s not the reality we live in. In this case, two of the judges were appointed by republican George W. Bush and one was appointed by democrat Joe Biden. But does that really matter?  Guess what, it doesn’t, and that’s where Blue Slips come in. 

Blue slips are a quaint partisan tradition in the United States Senate which ensures a judge with an ‘acceptable’ political ideology to the home state senators is appointed to the court. It is a slip of paper the home state senator returns to the Senate Judicial Committee to show their approval of a federal judicial nominee. 

While it is the President of the United States who appoints federal judges, the Senate must give them a hearing and approval. Depending on the majority party of the Senate, the President must choose a candidate not based on their legal prowess or judicial integrity, but one that will be acceptable to the home state senators and the majority in the Senate. Even in the case of majority representation in the Senate, the home state Senators can withhold their blue slip and thereby deny the nominee a hearing and vote. 

What this archaic Senate rule means is only liberal leaning judges are ever going to be appointed in a liberal state. The result is what we now see in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a supposedly independent judicial body which functions as a rubber stamp for liberal legislatures in the Ninth Circuit. 

By the way, this is the same logic used in the argument to pack the Supreme Court with five new liberal justices in order to remove political bias. 

Rhode v. Bonta now continues its appeal process with unconstitutional law left in place. One thing we can be absolutely certain of at this point, 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. Meanwhile, only the lawyers will be benefiting. 

Sorry California. Ammunition Freedom Week was great, but it is over now and the constitutional right to bear arms has been relegated to second-class right status once again. 

As for you in the rest of the country, are you paying attention? Do you really think it doesn’t matter who you vote for? 

Bob

https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/24.02.05-Stay-Granted.jpg

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #Unconstitutional, #GunVote, #AmmuntionBan, #AmmoBackgroundCheck, #EditorOnHoliday, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com

California Ammunition – Freedom, For Now 

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024, in the case of Rhode v. Bonta, Federal Judge Roger T. Benitez ruled California’s ammunition restrictions unconstitutional and issued a full injunction. Requests by the State to stay the decision pending appeal and an administrative stay were rejected. Subsequently, the state filed a notice to appeal and an Emergency Motion to Stay the Injunction with the Ninth Circuit.

Recall that California’s ammunition background checks were the product of the 2016 Proposition 63. State voters authorized a system where gun owners would have to apply for a $50/four-year ammunition purchase permit. However, before the elections the state legislature enacted Senate Bill 1235 and “prospectively amended” aspects of Proposition 63, including the ammunition purchase permit program, before it was even voted on. Instead of creating a system using an ammunition purchase permit that was valid for four years, Senate Bill 1235 required residents to submit to an automated background check every time they need to buy ammunition. This bait-and-switch plan was because the voters would not have approved the current background check system. 

The decision itself is another significant setback for California’s gun control scheme from the bench of Federal Judge Roger T. Benitez. It is extremely well written and worth reading to understand the basis of the decision and the absurdity of the State’s arguments. The link to the ruling is at the bottom of this text. 

To give you an idea of how ridiculous the justification of the law was, the ultra-liberal/woke State of California referenced 50 historical laws that limited or banned the transfer of firearms or ammunition to slaves, blacks, Native Americans, mixed-race individuals, and other minorities.

“The State’s compilation lists 48 laws which made it a crime to possess a gun and ammunition by Negros, Mulattos, slaves, or persons of color, and two laws that prohibited sales to Indians. For example, the Attorney General lists a 1798 Kentucky law which prohibited any “Negro, mulatto, or Indian” from possessing any gun or ammunition. An 1846 North Carolina law offers another example wherein it was prohibited to sell or deliver firearms to “any slave.””

The court declared, “These fifty laws highlighted by the Attorney General form a lengthy, shameful, repugnant, insidious, and reprehensible list of instances illustrating government tyranny against our own citizens.”

The judge ruled that it not only violates our fundamental right to bear arms but also crosses lines with the Constitution’s Commerce Clause and is preempted by the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act.

The impact of this ruling and been swift and exceptional. Licensed California Ammunition Vendors no longer must run background checks for ammo sales. In fact, any business in the state may now sell ammunition without being an “ammunition vendor”. California residents may bring in ammunition from out of state and freely sell or trade ammo with others. Retailers around the country quickly changed their policies and immediately began shipping ammo directly to customers in the state. 

For anyone that has had to deal with it, California’s ammunition background check system is/was a massive pain in the ass. For retailers, capturing all the required inventory information and having to run, and charge, a new fee just to buy a box of ammo. For the customer, it’s been a nightmare of epic proportions, new fees, problems with address changes, DROS (Dealer Record of Sales) file mismatches, indefinite waits for approval and denials for no conceivable reason. Reports from around the state have highlighted denials for joe-average-gun-owner who’s never moved and never been charged with a crime, COE (Certificate of Eligibility) holders, and active-duty law enforcement officers. Lengthy and occasionally infinite wait times, and sometimes exorbitant fees in attempts to resolve issues within the ammunition background check system were noted by the Court. 

But keep in mind California’s ammunition background check system was never intended to function as JUST a background check system. It was designed for future, far more restrictive ammunition control laws. It was built to deny purchases. What did the future hold? 

It was incorporated into the DROS systems so it could match the caliber of information you intended to buy to the calibers of firearms you owned. No registered firearms in .40 caliber would mean you can’t buy ammo in .40 caliber. Never mind you can change calibers on some firearms. Besides, you can’t add that to DROS. Denied!
Trying to buy ammunition without a firearm registered in the system? Denied!
Trying to buy hollow point bullets for your handgun when hollow point handgun ammunition has been banned? Denied!
Trying to buy 200 rounds of .22 LR when the monthly limit has been set to 100 rounds, Denied!
Trying to buy lead ammo after it has been completely banned ‘for the environment’ so all your less expensive practice and sporting ammo is no longer available. Denied!
Trying to buy “assault weapon” ammo after sales of .223/5.56 & 7.62 ammo are banned. Never mind that you’ve been shooting that in your bolt action rifle for years. Denied!
Trying to buy “sniper rifle” ammo (whatever that is) after it has been banned. Never mind that’s also your hunting ammo. Denied!
Trying to buy ammo because there are “mostly peaceful” protests or riots in one city and your family is threated? Ammunition sales, along with firearm sales and deliveries, can be turned off in that city, or county or the whole state with a just a few clicks of the keyboard. Denied! 

THESE are the features which were waiting to be deployed. 

Don’t believe it? California has tried to restrict ammunition purchases for years, but they lacked the system to enact the controls. The DROS based ammunition background check system was designed for this purpose.  Much of the legislation had already been proposed and just put on hold. 

Naturally, the State has appealed this to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in hopes to stay the opinion while it appeals the case in the Nutty Ninth. If I was a betting person, I’d say there’s a very good chance the Ninth will stay this order and allow ammunition background checks and restrictions to be enforced again during what will be a VERY lengthy appeal process. 

After all, the ammunition background checks are a key piece of California’s scheme to restrict-to-the-point-of-eliminate firearms in the state and losing it at the beginning of the appeals process would be a huge slap in the face. This ruling would also be a disturbing omen to other gun control states who have or are trying to do the same thing. 

For now, California ammunition sales are once again free. It remains to be seen if this will be another Freedom Week or a permanent reversal. Hopefully the good citizens of the state of California will make good use of this time and not only stock up on ammo but also contribute to the organizations who are fighting these unconstitutional laws on our behalf. 

Here’s an important quote to remember from the Rhode v. Bonta ruling: 

“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’”

Bob

https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/24.01.31-Rhode-Decision.pdf

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #Unconstitutional, #GunVote, #AmmuntionBan, #AmmoBackgroundCheck, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com

California’s Assault Weapon Ban Ruled Unconstitutional 

On Thursday, October 19, 2023, Federal Judge Roger T. Benitez issued a ruling in Miller v. Bonta. The case challenged California’s so-called “Assault Weapons” ban. Judge Benitez ruled the law was unconstitutional but stayed the ruling for 10 days to allow the State to appeal. This is a significant ruling as it struck down the law utilizing the latest U.S. Supreme Court tests brought in by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen. 

Of course, this isn’t the first time Judge Benitez has ruled on the Miller v. Bonita. He ruled the so-called “Assault Weapons” ban unconstitutional on June 4, 2021. It has been in appeals since that time and returned to him for reconsideration in light of NYSRPA v. Bruen.

The 79-page ruling is well written and concise, as all of Judge Benitez’s rulings have been. It precisely details how California’s laws do not past the text, history, and tradition test, nor any of the previous Supreme Court’s Second Amendment tests. He also refutes, at times brutally, some of the State’s experts, testimony, and evidence. 

The full ruling is linked below, and I encourage you to take the time to read it so you will understand not only the ruling, but what ‘logic’ the State of California is using against you. 

Here are a few significant quotes from the ruling: 

The California legislature, at a time in the past when the lower courts did not recognize an individual’s right to keep firearms and in a state that has no constitutional analogue to the Second Amendment, balanced that interest above and against its law-abiding citizens who wanted these firearms for self-defense.

However, among the American tradition of firearm ownership, there is nothing like California’s prohibition on rifles, shotguns, and handguns based on their looks or attributes. Here, the “assault weapon” prohibition has no historical pedigree and it is extreme.

The State says criminals already have and favor using guns described as “assault weapons.” Rather than being outgunned, many citizens want these same firearms as a defense against criminal attacks. Americans today own 24.4 million modern rifles (i.e., AR-15 platform and AK-47 platform rifles), according to the State’s expert. Of the AR-15 rifle owners surveyed, 61% said one reason they acquired their gun is for home defense. Consequently, while criminals already have these modern semiautomatics, the State prohibits its citizens from buying and possessing the same guns for self-defense. At the same time these firearms are commonly possessed by law-abiding gun owners elsewhere across the country. Guns for self-defense are needed a lot because crime happens a lot. A recent large-scale survey estimates that guns are needed defensively approximately 1,670,000 times a year.

Another report, originally commissioned and long cited by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that there are between 500,000 and 3,000,000 defensive gun uses in the United States each year. That is a lot of situations where Jane Doe needs a firearm to defend herself and her family. Trial testimony from hoodlums is not needed to prove that a homeowner brandishing an AR-15 can be a strong deterrent to criminal attackers. But when brandishing does not stop an attack, Jane needs an effective defense. That is where an AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle can come to the rescue. And although this Court focuses its analysis on rifles, California’s ban also includes such common weapons as semiautomatic shotguns with removable magazines and semiautomatic handguns with threaded barrels.

End quotes

As expected, the State of California immediately appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals where it is certain to be indefinitely stayed pending rehearing and its inevitable and expected overturn. It remains to be seen if the Ninth Circuit will once again violate its own rules as it did with the appeal of recent ruling in Duncan v. Bonta, the ban on so-called “large capacity magazines”, and have the same en banc panel that heard it previously rule on the stay. 

Judge Benitz’s rational in this case is logical, reasonable, and above all, is legally sound. When viewed through the lens of the Constitution, Second Amendment, and the relevant U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment rulings, there is no other logical conclusion than what he came to. The problem is activists judges who are more interested in social agenda and political affiliations warping the definitions of these same elements to support a completely different conclusion. That is the case’s next hurdle in the Nutty Ninth. 

One last quote from the ruling: 

Punishing every good citizen because bad ones misuse a gun offends the Constitution. A state supreme court in 1878 said it succinctly: “If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.”

Bob

https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/MIller-Decision-2023.pdf

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #Unconstitutional, #GunVote, #AssaultWeaponBan, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com

California Magazine Ban Unconstitutional, Part Deux

On Friday, September 22, 2023, U.S District Judge Roger Benitez again ruled California’s ban on so-called “large capacity magazines” unconstitutional. The law, California Penal Code 32310, was brought in by Proposition 63. The ruling was stayed for 10 days to allow the State of California to appeal. As expected, the State immediately appealed… almost like it was already sitting on a desk waiting to go. 

You may recall Judge Benitez made the same ruling in 2017. It was affirmed on appeal by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2019, Summary Judgement was granted to the plaintiffs. This led to California’s famous “Freedom Week” before the judgement was stayed, and the 9th Circuit re-heard the case en banc and reversed the decision. In 2022, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the appellate en banc decision, and remanded the case. The appeals court sent it back to Judge Benitez for rehearing in light of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen case. 

In response, the California’s governor/still-unannounced-2024-Democrat-presidential-nominee-wannabe’s reaction was as swift as it was predictable. Using as many insults, lies, exaggerations and rhetoric as he could squeeze into a single tweet, he also managed to cram in a plug for his absurd 28th Amendment gun-control proposal. 

“BREAKING: California’s high-capacity magazine ban was just STRUCK DOWN by Judge Benitez, an extremist, right-wing zealot with no regard to human life.

Wake up, America.

Our gun safety laws will continue to be thrown out by NRA-owned federal judges until we pass a Constitutional Amendment to protect our kids and end the gun violence epidemic in America.” 

A couple of highlights from the ruling itself. 

Among the arguments the State made are that ammunition feeding devices, magazines, are not an integral part of the firearm and therefore, not covered by the Second Amendment. However, this is inconsistent as 10 round and less magazines are legal in the state, but not legal over 10 rounds. California’s Unsafe Handgun Act also requires new semiautomatic pistols to have an integrated magazine-disconnect mechanism, therefore rending the pistol unable to fire even a single shot without a magazine. 

The State contends that large capacity magazines are not typically used in self-defense and are therefore not suitable for self-defense. The State’s expert concluded, without evidence or investigation using only anecdotal statements, that it was statistically rare for a person to fire more than 10 rounds in self-defense and that only 2.2 shots are fired on average. 

Yet these were some of the compelling facts the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals en banc panel used to overturn the ruling. 

The ruling itself (linked below) is 71 pages and is an excellent read. All the previous findings of fact and conclusions from the original 2017 ruling are included, now updated with Bruen’s text, history, tradition test applied. It also thoroughly examines the State’s arguments and details their flaws in law and logic. If you are interested in countering the gun-control rhetoric and nonsense, I strongly urge you read it for yourself. 

Here is one line which encapsulates the sum of the ruling. 

“There is no American tradition of limiting ammunition capacity and the 10-round limit has no historical pedigree and it is arbitrary and capricious.”

What happens now? 

As expected, the State appealed this ruling, and the process begins anew. If this case follows the same path as it did before, it will first be heard by a three-judge panel, appealed by losing side, then reheard en banc. Keep in mind the previous initial ruling in the case was in 2017 and only granted certiorari in 2022.  

We can also expect the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to slow walk this case through the process, dragging it out as long as possible. After all, the current makeup of the United States Supreme Court is the same as when it ruled in Bruen. If (and ONLY IF) it is granted certiorari again, it would likely rule in favor of the plaintiffs. That means there is NO WAY IN HELL the gun-control community, which includes the majority of the judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is going to let this case anywhere near the Supreme Court until the Court has a majority of liberal leaning Justices to support their decision. 

With this I’m going to point out the obvious again. Fighting to get your rights back after they have been taken away is a fool’s errand. At BEST you have a very long and extremely expensive legal battle with little chance of succeeding, no matter how egregious the constitutional or legal issues are. The only people winning are the lawyers. Meanwhile, regular law-abiding citizens have lost their rights and ability to properly defend themselves and their families. 

The ONLY way to keep this from happening again is to STOP electing people who will not protect our natural, constitutionally protected rights.

Bob

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023-09-22-Decision-Signed-by-Judge-R.-Benitez2263869.1.pdf

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #Unconstitutional, #GunVote, #StandardCapacityMagazine, #EditorOnHoliday, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com

Bruen? What’s Bruen? (Hard Left Turn At Albuquerque Part 2)

True to political form, New Mexico’s leftist governor issued an updated executive order on September 15th, another Friday afternoon. This comes two days after a Federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against a portion of the original executive order, the section which banned all open or concealed carry in Albuquerque and the rest of Bernalillo County. The new order modifies this section to only include public parks or playgrounds, or other public areas provided for children to play in. 

The opposition to the governor’s original “public health emergency” executive order was loud and swift. Many within her own Democrat party including the Albuquerque Mayor, Police Chief, the Bernalillo County District Attorney and Sheriff opposed it. Even the Democrat State Attorney General spoke out against the order and said he would not defend it because of its unconstitutionality. 

With this order modification, it will be interesting to see if those who previously opposed gun-control by public health emergency executive order are now okay with this limited version. 

It’s worth noting that none of the tragic shootings of children cited by the governor as her motivation for banning the open or concealed carry of firearms occurred in a public park or playground. 

Let’s be crystal clear about what is happening here. Ever since the United States Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen in 2022, gun-control states have been passing “Bruen response laws”. Not to comply with it mind you, but to circumvent it and make the ruling moot. A common feature among them is to declare virtually all public and privately owned space outside your home a “sensitive space” where firearms are not allowed, thus negating the whole concept of being able to carry a firearm for personal protection outside the home. 

The good news is most of the elements of these laws are currently held up in litigation as they clearly violate Bruen. A bold new solution to get around these legislative gun-control laws being held up in the courts was needed. Enter the public health emergency and a governor who leans far enough to the left to sign her name to it. 

I have zero doubts this concept came from the very same privately funded gun-control institutions who are behind the majority of gun-control legislation in this country. This may have been why New Mexico’s governor wasn’t phased by her own Attorney General saying he would not defend it. These groups have also been providing free legal services to defend their gun-control products all over the country. All they need is a politician’s signature.

The fact that the governor has no intention of calling a special legislative session this year to address rising crime, violence or public safety is further evidence her public health emergency is an end run around Bruen. She will instead prioritize “gun safety measures” in the 2024 session including a prohibition on automatic weapons, a 14-day waiting period for gun sales and a ban on selling guns to those under 21. Of course, none of these are or has been a factor in the crime and violence problem the state has been facing. 

One section untouched by the temporary restraining order is the monthly inspections of firearms dealers to ensure compliance with gun laws. While there has never been any implication of firearms dealer’s operations contributing to the current crime and violence situation, authorizing monthly state inspections is another gun-control priority measure to increase costs for dealers and consumers through state licensing and regulation. I am hopeful the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) will make good on their promise to file suit against this before the state begins inspections. 

Less noticed at the bottom of the updated executive order is a section stating that free trigger locks shall be made available to each firearm owner, limit of one each, just call or email the state. Groundbreaking thinking on behalf of the governor of New Mexico? Well…. 

Did you know you can get FREE gun locks from just about every police department in the country, including the Albuquerque Police Department and Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Department? No fuss, no muss, just go in and ask for them. How is this possible? Because the NSSF, the trade association for the firearms industry provides them for free. 

“Project ChildSafe is a real firearms safety solution that helps make communities safer. Since 1999, more than 15,000 law enforcement agencies have partnered with the program to distribute more than 37 million firearm safety kits to gun owners in all 50 states and five U.S. territories.”

Please consider the governor has said she would extend this public health emergency order at the end of the 30-day period based on the results on crime.

Crime and violence are complicated community issues. They have been made worse by years of criminal laws being loosened, no-bail laws passed, the election of soft-on-criminal prosecutors defunding the police, violent offenders not being arrested or prosecuted, convicted criminals let out of prisons and prisons being closed. 

To think that a 30-day public health emergency order that does NOTHING but disarm the law-abiding citizenry in public will do anything but make crime and violence WORSE is insanity. If gun-control by executive order is allowed to stand, everyone around the country better start getting used to saying: 

It’s just 30-days to flatten the curve.

Bob

*Image from Gun Owners of New Mexico

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #Unconstitutional, #NewMexico, #Albuquerque, #Bernalillo, #30Days, #GunOwnersOfNewMexico, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com

Hard Left Turn At Albuquerque 

Friday afternoon, September 8th, New Mexico’s left fringe governor issued Executive Order 2023-130 Declaring State of Public Health Emergency Due To Gun Violence. With this order, she banned the carrying firearms in public, both open carry and licensed concealed carry in Albuquerque as well as the rest of Bernalillo County. This, along with some other new state level controls, will be in effect for 30 days, at which point she will decide if it will be renewed. 

While it is painfully obvious this order is completely unwarranted and unconstitutional, the governor issued it anyway. The governor admitted in her press conference that she expects to be sued over this and did not expect criminals will follow this order, “but this sends a message”. 

The governor said gun owners still would be able to transport guns to private locations such as a gun range or gun store if the firearm is in a container or has a trigger lock or mechanism making it impossible to discharge.  The state police would be responsible for enforcing what amount to civil violations and carry a fine of up to $5,000.

The executive order, which itself is full of inaccuracies, sneaks in another gun-control priority as well. It orders monthly inspections of firearms dealers to ensure compliance with gun laws, something the State of New Mexico has never had legal authority to do before. Authorizing monthly inspections is a step towards state licensing and regulation of firearms dealers. 

As justification for this massive overreach of state executive authority, the governor sited the deaths of three children, two in Albuquerque and one in three counties away over a three-month period. The two local shootings were from an apparent road range incident where arrests have been made and the other an apparent targeted drive by shooting. Two of the three were committed by underage shooters who are already prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. At least one was a confirmed gang shooting. 

The purposeful timing of a Friday afternoon meant there would be no chance of getting a court injunction against the order before Monday. As of today, at least two lawsuits have already been filed against this order. 

Keep in mind this is the same governor who in 2020 criticized the Trump administration for sending federal law enforcement officers to assist the overwhelmed Albuquerque police with crime and violence. “If the Trump administration wishes to antagonize New Mexicans and Americans with authoritarian, unnecessary and unaccountable military-style ‘crackdowns,’ they have no business whatsoever in New Mexico.”  Ironic isn’t it?

Republicans in the New Mexico legislature are already attempting to file articles of impeachment against the governor. However, with the Roundhouse firmly dominated by Democrats in a super-majority, the chances of this being successful is somewhere between none and nil. Current state law does not allow the governor to be recalled and unsurprisingly, bills to permit this have failed in previous legislative sessions. 

The District Attorney and Police Chief of Albuquerque, both Democrat appointees, have publicly stated they will not enforce this unconstitutional order. The Democrat Sheriff of Bernalillo County stated “I have reservations regarding this order.” A growing number of other Democrats and left-wing talking heads have also publicly criticized the overreach of this order. 

Of course, there is absolutely zero logic behind this. Disarming the law-abiding residents of an entire county while in public, while acknowledging the criminals, who are already breaking the law by carrying firearms will not, only disarms their intended victims and makes it easier and safer (for the criminals) to commit their crimes. The real answer has always been enforcing the laws already on the books and holding those who break them responsible for their own actions. 

When you’re looking at this action, keep in mind using a public health emergency to address so-called “gun violence” through radical gun-control measures has been discussed since the beginning of the Covid pandemic. 

This was not done in a vacuum. It was absolutely done in coordination with the extreme left coast gun-control organization, the Democrat party, and the current administration. This is nothing more than a litmus test to see if public health emergencies can be used to do an end run around the United States Supreme Court’s rulings against unconstitutional gun control laws. 

The off-the-left California governor is using a proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to supersede the Second Amendment and implement massive nationwide gun-control as part of his yet-to-be-announced 2024 presidential run. It is a bold and outrageous proposal full of lies made to entice gun-control advocates and falsely placate Second Amendment advocates.

You have to wonder if the New Mexico governor is also planning on using this as a steppingstone for her own political motives, such as a Vice President or senate run, a cabinet position or US ambassador posting with the next administration, something she missed out on due to her own scandals with the current administration. 

If you look at the bigger picture of gun-control, this is a logical step. It’s no accident that criminal laws have been loosened, no-bail laws passed, soft on criminal prosecutors have been elected, lawbreakers not arrested or prosecuted, police departments defunded, convicted criminals let out of prisons and prisons closed. The result has been uncontrolled crime sprees and violence that have cost lives and livelihoods, and made city streets unsafe for anyone who dares to brave them. At some point, some bold action must be taken before the people figure out these policies are what is getting them killed.  

Guess what the bold action is? Blaming the law-abiding citizen and their firearms. 

The good news is Albuquerque/Bernalillo County residents are stepping up. As I write this they are rallying and coordinating to stop this in its tracks. 

This isn’t just about the rights in one city or county, it’s about the rights of the entire nation. 
This isn’t just about one extremist gun-control politician, it’s about all the gun-control politicians. 
This isn’t about the ability to protect yourself from crime and violence in one city, it’s about the ability of every American to be able to protect themselves from crime and violence at home AND in public in EVERY city. 

One last note. Watch what is going on here carefully. While some may be against THIS unconstitutional gun-control measure, it doesn’t mean they aren’t 100% willing to replace it with another unconstitutional one. 

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #Unconstitutional, #NewMexico, #Albuquerque, #Bernalillo, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com