Author: Bob

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

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