More Than 1 Gun in 30 Days in Kalifornistan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, it does matter who you vote for!

Bob

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

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

Louisiana and South Carolina Make 28 & 29

It was a busy week for constitutional carry. On March 5th, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed Constitutional Carry Bill SB 1 making the state the 28th to implement permitless carry. The law goes into effect on July 4th, 2024. Then on March 7th, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster signed House Bill 3594 making the state the 29th to implement permitless carry. The law took effect immediately upon signing. 

For those keeping score at home, that’s 13 new permitless carry states since the Biden-Harris administration took office. The trend across the majority of the country is clearly towards less firearms restrictions instead of more.

In Louisiana, individuals 18 and over who have not been convicted of a felony may now carry a handgun without government permission. South Carolina also allows individuals 18 and over who are not otherwise prohibited to carry a handgun without government permission. South Carolina is already an open carry state, meaning eligible residents can openly carry without a permit. Both states still allow those who want to get a concealed carry permit to get one. 


The South Carolina law bans firearms in certain locations, such as schools, courthouses, and polling places on election days. It also increases penalties against those who are barred from carrying a firearm, such as convicted felons, if they are found with a gun, and establishes penalties against those who repeatedly carry a firearm in restricted areas.

South Carolina also included a provision in the new law for optional, free training offered twice a month in every county. Imagine that. Not only does the state NOT require fees for the application costs, the permit itself, and state mandated training, but they are offering FREE firearm training to those who want it. 

But let us not forget the usual suspects in opposition. 

As has been the case in every state to remove the requirement for concealed carry licensing, the opposition came from extreme fringe gun-control groups who refer to constitutional carry as ‘criminal carry’ as well as the left leaning larger law enforcement agencies and organizations run by appointed ‘politicians-with-badges’ who do not want to lose local licensing control and fees. 

It is important to note the ability to conceal carry without a permit in every state is for people who can legally purchase a firearm and are not otherwise prohibited. It has NEVER authorized criminals, drug addicts and others who would be prevented from purchasing a firearm the ability to carry one. 

The opposition included Democrat politicians suddenly reversing course to began supporting law enforcement by claiming these new laws would put officers in harm’s way. Fear-mongering quotes from local and state politicians included:

“If you don’t know how to use (a gun) and if you’re running around with it illegally, law enforcement needs to know that.”
“This bill allows an 18-year-old to walk around with a gun on their hip as if they are a cowboy.” 
“I just said a prayer last night that I hope my greatest fears don’t come true, and that’s that South Carolina becomes the Wild, Wild West.” 

Similar to what has happened in other states when mandated firearms training requirements were dropped, short sighted concealed carry instructors fearing the loss of business came out against the laws. One instructor commented, “It’s just a potential for chaos without education behind it and it’s not safe. “

Of course, the exact opposite has proved true each and every time permitless carry has been implemented. Armed citizens are less likely to be victims and violent crime has decreased. It’s as simple as that. UNLESS of course you utilize the proprietary, so-called “research” from the extremist gun-control groups, then it really is the wild, wild west out there.  Which do you believe is true? 

When it comes to training, when the cost prohibitive nature of the permit application process and mandated training programs are removed, more people actually do seek firearms training on their own. Business for firearms instructors in these states is booming (no pun intended). 

Despite the official line of wanting to weed out criminals through background checks, concealed carry permits are most often utilized to restrict who will be granted the privilege to self-defense through overly expensive, intrusive and time consuming application processes.  

Of course, the impact is greatest for those who may need to defend themselves the most, those who take public transportation, work late shifts, go through, or live in areas wealthier people can just go around. Not everyone can afford the costs of multiple fees, training, and time off from work to get a concealed carry permit. This all contributes to restricting the ability to defend yourself and your family to those who can afford the ‘privilege’.

Crime and violence continue to skyrocket around the country thanks to extreme-left law makers and prosecutors who prioritize defunding police departments, rewriting laws to lower penalties for crime, release those previously convicted of crimes and fail to hold those committing new property and violent crimes responsible for their actions. The result is more and more people are taking responsibility for their own safety and the safety of their families. In many cases, this involves buying, owning and carrying firearms for self-defense.

The full list of states with constitutional carry laws now includes Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Congratulations to the Pelican and Palmetto states!  

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #ConstitutionalCarry, #Louisania, #SouthCarolina, #SelfDefense, #GunControlFails, #USCCA, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com

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

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