ATF Director Testifies on Agency’s Perceived Overreach

[ad_1]

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) continued taking fire over its recent actions as Director Steve Dettelbach appeared before the House Judiciary Committee last week. Most of the 3½-hour hearing was taken up by rhetoric from both sides, but some interesting themes eventually emerged.

ATF Director Steve Dettelbach
ATF Director Steve Dettelbach testifies before the House Judiciary Committee. (House Judiciary GOP YouTube Channel)

Only a few Representatives said anything substantive toward the issue at hand. Tennessee’s Steve Cohen sagely declared that stabilizing pistol braces are “mostly…used by people who go out with the intent to kill people.” Glad he shared his expertise, despite his inability to identify the items in question, repeatedly referring to them as “stabilizing rifles,” or “whatever they’re called.” Considering an estimated 10 to 40 million Americans own pistol braces, I’d say the Congressman is mistaken. Dettelbach, to his credit, did not rise to Cohen’s bait.

If “10 to 40 million” seems a rather inexact number, you’re correct. The wide discrepancy stems from ATF’s Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), which examined the number of braces purchased since their introduction in 2013. It seems that the RIA did not include sales numbers from the years 2020, 2021, and 2022, which were possibly the three highest sales years for pistol braces. Dettelbach was asked about the failure to include those numbers, implying that ATF purposely downplayed the number in circulation, but nothing much came of it.

So, let’s look at the major questions raised, along with Dettelbach’s responses. It may provide some insight as this, and related issues move forward.

Does a stabilizing brace turn a pistol into a short-barreled rifle?

In short, according to the ATF’s new rule, yes it does. Of course, that assertion is being challenged in court, and several Representatives questioned Dettelbach on that premise.

The ATF Approval Letter

Troy Nehls (R-TX) read a 2012 letter from ATF’s then-head of the Firearm Technology Branch, John Spencer, to Alex Bosco, inventor of the stabilizing pistol brace. “Based on our evaluation,” Spencer wrote, “FTB finds that the submitted firearm brace, when attached to a firearm, does not convert that weapon to be fired from the shoulder, and would not alter the classification of a pistol or other firearm. While a firearm so equipped would still be regulated by the Gun Control Act, such a firearm would not be subject to the NFA (National Firearms Act) controls.”

Congressman Troy Nehls
Congressman Troy Nehls (R-TX) pointed out that ATF approved pistol braces in 2012. (House Judiciary GOP YouTube Channel)

In other words, Spencer said that the submitted brace design would not cause any firearm to which it was attached to be classified as a short-barreled rifle (SBR). Nehls asked Dettelbach whether that letter was considered during the rulemaking process. Dettelbach offered no straight answer, though others followed up, eliciting a more cogent response.

Ohio’s Jim Jordan later asked Dettelbach if he was “troubled by the rule.” “You told them one thing ten years ago, and now you’re directly contradicting that.” Dettelbach explained that the original brace design submitted by Bosco was never manufactured. He said that Bosco’s SB Tactical altered the design, as did other companies, from what Spencer approved in 2012.

Thomas Massie (R-KY) offered a physical example of Bosco’s original design, asking Dettelbach if it was exempt from the rule since it was indeed the exact brace approved in 2012. Dettelbach either could not, or would not, answer. This seems to make his explanation that the rule was based on changing designs questionable, at least. Massie concluded by saying, “It’s pretty obvious you’re misleading people here when you say that the brace has changed, because your rule affects the braces that didn’t change.”

Is it the brace, or how the brace is used?

Jordan offered another ATF letter that read, “We have determined that firing a pistol from the shoulder would not cause the pistol to be reclassified as a short-barreled rifle. We do not classify weapons based on how individuals use the weapon.”

This letter would seem to make the brace’s design, changed or not, all but irrelevant, so long as it performs its stated function as a stabilizing brace for disabled shooters. In addition, it seems to disabuse the Final Rule’s obsession with surface area that can be used to shoulder a brace-equipped firearm. Finally, the letter also invalidates the claims of pro-ATF politicians who employed marketing materials to show the braces were being shouldered.

Dettelbach did not have a satisfactory answer for this, replying that “The rule was necessary, in part, because it needed to address inconsistency, so that people could understand the definition of a short-barreled rifle.”

Congressman Jim Jordan
Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH) produced a letter from ATF that seemingly contradicts the agency’s concerns about shouldering pistol braces. (House Judiciary GOP YouTube Channel)

Massie asked Dettelbach whether a brace increases a firearm’s firepower or velocity. Of course, it does not. Massie then asked if Dettelbach believed he had the power to reclassify a pistol with a buffer tube because, theoretically, it could be shouldered. Dettelbach deflected to ATF’s firearms experts, refusing to comment on his perceived authority, though the rule seems to indicate that ATF does indeed believe they have such authority.

California’s Darrell Issa pressed an unfruitful but interesting line when he asked Dettelbach whether a pistol brace increases a pistol’s accuracy. Dettelbach responded that Congress wrote, in the NFA, that increased accuracy makes SBRs “unusually dangerous.” That “unusually dangerous” tag comes from the combination of concealability and the ability to be shouldered.

Most gun people I know would argue that a firearm’s accuracy, relating to danger, is entirely subjective. In a responsible person’s hands, which is what we’re discussing, accuracy makes the firearm more dangerous to the target, while less dangerous to anyone else. The NFA, of course, was aimed at criminals, though an inaccurate firearm is always dangerous to potential bystanders. This is just one example of the NFA’s contradictory nature. Despite the contradictions, Dettelbach was able to fall back on the NFA as it was passed by Congress in 1934.

Is ATF deliberately targeting law-abiding citizens?

Several Representatives went after Dettelbach for targeting millions of pistol brace owners who bought a lawful product, only to be faced with a possible felony with the rule change. Congresswoman Victoria Spartz (R-IN), who was born in the former Soviet Union, asked Dettelbach, “What is the core mission of your agency?” Dettelbach replied that the ATF’s mission is “to prevent and protect the American people from violent crime.”

The question came after Dettelbach had decried scarce agency resources and said that local police chiefs are begging him for more. Spartz countered insightfully by asking, “Do you believe that trying to turn millions of Americans, law-abiding citizens, into criminals for owning a piece of plastic is really where you should put so much emphasis? You have nothing else to do?” Dettelbach responded that he didn’t believe that is what ATF is doing. “But that’s what you are doing in fact,” said Spartz.

Congresswoman Victoria Spartz
Congresswoman Victoria Spartz (R-IN) asked a particularly insightful question regarding the use of scarce ATF resources. (House Judiciary GOP YouTube Channel)

New Jersey’s Jeff Van Drew, furthering the point, remarked that “It is cruel to tell people [that] because you are going to make a stabilizing brace illegal…that their children are going to be okay. Because it just isn’t true.”

Jordan asked Dettelbach how ATF planned to enforce the rule. “You gonna go to gun ranges? You gonna go to manufacturers and look at lists of people they sold braces to?” Dettelbach did not provide a yes or no answer. He implied that enforcement would be part of other operations, such as finding a brace at a crime scene. But he did not say that Jordan’s scenarios would not happen.

As someone who has suffered through many such hearings, Wyoming Congresswoman Harriett Hageman’s turn was probably the best and most productive five minutes that I’ve seen in a long time, or maybe ever. She skewered Dettelbach like a seasoned prosecutor, seemingly flustering the Director on a couple of occasions. She was informed, organized, calm, and focused.

“Mr. Dettelbach,” asked Hageman, “is your priority as ATF Director to catch criminals who violate the law, or to change the laws to create new criminals?” Dettelbach responded that, “We use the laws as Congress has passed them to try to protect people from violent crime and catch people who are violating the law.”

“How is your regulatory agenda accomplishing that goal?” Hageman asked. Dettelbach replied, “Because when Congress passes a law that Congress determines advances public safety, [such as] the National Firearms Act, the law has to be implemented by somebody. It has to be enforced by somebody. Law enforcement officials…do that…” Hageman interrupted sharply, saying “Congress didn’t pass a law banning bump stocks, did it? Just answer my question, yes or no.”

Dettelbach did not answer yes or no, which leads us to the question of…

Has ATF overstepped its authority?

This question is being pursued in legal challenges to the Bump Stock ban, the Frames and Receivers Rule, and the Pistol Brace Rule. The legal side is still sorting itself out, with one Federal Circuit Court ruling in favor of the Bump Stock ban, while two others have ruled against it. Neither has the Frames and Receivers Rule fared well in court, and while the Pistol Brace challenge was denied a preliminary injunction, the case itself has yet to be heard. Expect the Supreme Court to involve itself at some point.

Several Representatives, including Massie, Jordan, Chip Roy (R-TX), and Ken Buck, (R-CO) accused Dettelbach and ATF of overstepping the agency’s authority. But, again, the most fascinating and pointed examination came from Wyoming’s Hageman. Her line of questioning was quite revealing, and I’ll include a fair part of it here.

Hageman was Savage

Hageman opened by saying that “The ATF and the entirety of the administrative state continue to engage in illegal lawmaking.” She moved quickly to the Cargill Bump Stock case. “You have repeatedly stated that the ATF only carries out the laws as passed by Congress. But that isn’t true. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in fact, ruled against the ATF.”

Congresswoman Harriett Hageman
Congresswoman Harriett Hageman had the most effective five minutes of the day. She may be a rising star in gun rights. (House Judiciary GOP YouTube Channel)

Hageman noted that a crucial part of the 5th Circuit’s decision in Cargill hinged on the ATF’s flip-flopping on bump stocks, reclassifying an accessory as a “machine gun.” “But not because Congress issued any new law,” she continued. “It was a new interpretation on your part. In fact, the Court in the Cargill case found that there had been bills that had been introduced [in Congress] regarding bump stocks. But before they could be considered in earnest, the ATF went forward with this rule, ‘short-circuiting the legislative process.’ The 5th Circuit further concluded that even if the ATF interpretation of the statute were correct, the rule would clash with the Rule of Lenity because ‘it purports to allow ATF, rather than Congress, to set forth the scope of criminal prohibition.’”

Hageman then asked pointedly, “Director Dettelbach, does this situation, and the questions raised, sound familiar to you outside of the scope of the Cargill case?” Dettelbach deflected, saying the courts were split on the Bump Stock Rule, which is likely headed to the Supreme Court. Undeterred, Hageman pressed on, saying “My point is that what the ATF did with the Bump Stock [Rule] is very similar to what you’re attempting to do with the Pistol Brace Rule, isn’t it?”

“Those are different situations,” replied Dettelbach. “That’s not what the Court found, is it?” Hageman shot back. Dettelbach appeared to get flustered at this point, launching excitedly into a diatribe about how it’s “impossible” to only fire one round while using a bump stock (which isn’t true). I thought that statement also opened a small window into the Director’s personal views.

Hageman was undeterred, smiling at Dettelbach’s discomfort, saying that “It’s a pretty scathing indictment of the ATF’s attempt to subvert the lawmaking authority of Congress by misinterpreting statutes so that an unelected bureaucrat can essentially alter the underlying statute and apply new criminal prohibitions…Director, who elected you to expand and rewrite the scope of federal gun laws? You haven’t been elected by anyone, is that right?” Dettelbach responded that he is not a politician.

Congressman Thomas Massie
Thomas Massie (R-KY) asked about the original, approved brace not being exempted, as well as ATF’s criteria for shouldering a pistol. (House Judiciary GOP YouTube Channel)

So, now what?

That’s hard to say. The hearing’s purpose was to examine ATF’s actions and get some public statements from Dettelbach. As usual, most of the hearing was a waste of time. The Director held his own for the most part, deferring to Congress through the NFA. But a few cracks appeared, as with Nehls’ ATF approval letter, Massie’s points about the original brace not being exempted, and Jordan revealing that ATF previously said it doesn’t reclassify items based on how they are used.

Hageman, new to Congress (she holds Liz Cheney’s former seat), bears watching going forward. She may be a key ally in protecting Second Amendment rights. Her examination of Dettelbach should provide insight into how to move forward in this case and others like it.

The matter still rests with the courts, though it’s nice to see Congress, or some members of Congress, pushing back on Executive usurpation of lawmaking authority. The West Virginia v. EPA case moved that issue forward last summer. Let’s hope Congress will continue in that vein.

[ad_2]
#ATF #Director #Testifies #Agencys #Perceived #Overreach

Federal Judge Allows Pistol Brace Rule to Proceed

[ad_1]

A Federal District Judge has denied a request for preliminary injunction against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) Final Rule on stabilizing pistol braces. Federal District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that plaintiffs Maxim Defense and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) “have not shown they are entitled to the extraordinary remedy of preliminary injunctive relief.”

AR-15 pistol with stabilizing brace
A Federal Judge has denied a preliminary injunction against the ATF’s Final Rule on Pistol Braces, but the case will continue. (gunowners.org)

Maxim Defense and FPC challenged the Final Rule on six grounds:

  1. That it violates the Second Amendment.
  2. That it violates the First Amendment by chilling speech in terms of advertising.
  3. That it violates due process as protected by the Fifth Amendment.
  4. That it violates the Constitution’s structural provisions.
  5. That it violates the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) because it exceeds ATF’s authority.
  6. “That it violates the APA’s procedural requirements because it was not a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule.”

Judge O’Connor ruled against all six charges in denying the preliminary injunction. Some may be surprised at O’Connor’s ruling considering he previously ruled against the ATF in the Frames and Receivers case and the Bump Stock case.

But disappointing as it may be, O’Connor cogently explains his reasoning for each of the six charges. And careful reading of the decision leaves grounds for hope that the case itself, which is ongoing, may yet favor the plaintiffs. Let’s look briefly at each charge, along with Judge O’Connor’s comments, hopefully without getting bogged down in legal jargon. O’Connor addressed the charges out of order, so we will follow his lead.

The Administrative Procedures Act

Judge O’Connor notes that the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) regulates certain firearm categories, including, in this case, short-barreled rifles. Congress charged the US Attorney General with enforcing the NFA. After the 1968 Gun Control Act (GCA), the Attorney General delegated the enforcement of both statutes to the ATF.

As the enforcing authority, ATF is required to create and implement rules facilitating that enforcement. The plaintiffs allege that the Final Rule exceeds ATF’s authority because the agency “has not been delegated authority to interpret the statutorily defined and unambiguous term ‘rifle’ and, second, even if it could, the Final Rule’s interpretation is inconsistent with the statutory term’s plain meaning.”

Federal District Judge Reed O'Connor
Federal Judge Reed O’Connor. (law.com)

O’Connor wrote that “the statutory definition of ‘rifle’ uses terms such as ‘designed,’ ‘redesigned,’ ‘remade,’ and ‘intended,’ words that necessarily require the enforcing agency-or anyone who would comprehend the statute’s meaning-to evaluate objective weapon characteristics, and perhaps conduct, to decide whether a particular firearm is subject to the NFA.”

“Rules explaining when a brace or stabilizer actually redefines a firearm or remakes a firearm sufficiently to a short-barreled rifle are therefore permissible,” he added. “It does not, as Plaintiffs suggest, rewrite the definition itself. In short, it does not appear that the Final Rule so clearly contradicts the statutory definition of ‘rifle’ that preliminary injunctive relief is in order.”

Judge O’Connor goes on to say that the second charge regarding the APA is not valid because it is based on the fact that the Final Rule does not follow the proposed rule in terms of including a worksheet for a points system. This change was made based on the public comments on the proposed rule, meaning the public had been sufficiently notified.

Structural Constitutional Protections

The plaintiffs charged that the Final Rule is unconstitutional because it essentially creates federal law that potentially carries criminal penalties. In such a case, the implementing agency would require “a clear delegation” from Congress, which ATF does not have. O’Connor wrote that “the Final Rule interprets-but does not rewrite-the underlying statutes.” He denied the plaintiff’s arguments based on that finding.

The First Amendment Claim

The plaintiffs claim that ATF is making regulations based on what manufacturers say about their products and how they advertise their use. Such practices, therefore, chill free speech as manufacturers fear that ATF will use their statements and advertising to classify or reclassify a firearm for the purpose of the NFA, since the Final Rule allows the agency discretion to apply such criteria.

O’Connor denied this claim, writing that “While the First Amendment provides robust speech protections and ‘generally prohibits the government from proscribing speech [based on its] disapproval of the ideas expressed,’ no speech is being proscribed here. Rather, the Final Rule notifies the public that the government will listen to what they say about the products they manufacture and purchase…Thus, on this claim, Plaintiffs have not shown that they are substantially likely to succeed on the merits.”

ATF Guy Meme
The ATF is allowed to listen to how manufacturers and dealers describe their products and then regulate based on that information. For now, anyway.

The Fifth Amendment Claim

The plaintiffs argue that the Final Rule is vague, thus violating the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee. The Final Rule is unconstitutionally vague, they charge, because ATF is permitted to apply a set of imprecise criteria to decide whether a weapon is subject to NFA regulation. They further allege that the “discretion-laden process does not provide any useful guidance to regulated parties.”

Judge O’Connor countered that argument by saying that, while the standards may be imprecise, they are standards nonetheless, and therefore not sustainable as being overly vague. “Hence,” he wrote, “while the Final Rule’s factoring criteria may be imprecise, it is comprehensible enough to put a person of ordinary intelligence on notice that their weapon may be subject to federal firearms laws. Thus, at this stage, Plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their Fifth Amendment claim.”

Second Amendment Claims

The plaintiffs claim the Final Rule “impermissibly infringes on the ‘right of the people to keep and bear Arms’…because ‘when firearms are in common use at the [present] time,’ they cannot be banned.” The plaintiffs claim this protection “extends not just to braced pistols, but to the braces themselves.” Judge O’Connor shot that down by observing that the Final Rule does not ban pistol braces, nor firearms equipped with them. It regulates those items, which isn’t the same as a ban. He shows that this is consistent with the Bruen Decision by citing Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion.

He also notes that the Final Rule does not regulate stabilizing braces themselves. They are only subject to regulation once they are attached to a firearm. Therefore, Maxim Defense may still sell pistol braces and customers may purchase them without regulation unless they are attached to a firearm.

Stabilizing Pistol brace
Stabilizing Pistol Braces can still be manufactured and sold. But, for now at least, they are subject to regulation when attached to a firearm. (ballisticmag.com)

Finally, the plaintiffs claim that, under Bruen, the Final Rule violates the Second Amendment because there is no historical tradition of regulating such common use items, which are entitled to heightened protection under both Heller and Bruen.

Judge O’Connor noted the validity of that claim, but also wrote that the plaintiffs had submitted only “minimal historical analysis” bearing on the claim. “Though the historical record may support such a result at the summary judgement stage, the briefing presently before the Court is not sufficient to justify the extraordinary remedy of preliminary injunctive relief. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits of their Second Amendment claims at this juncture.”

In Sum

“Plaintiffs have not shown they are entitled to the extraordinary remedy of preliminary injunctive relief. While Plaintiffs may ultimately prevail on summary judgment, the Court finds that they have not, at this preliminary stage, demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of at least one of their claims. Failure to satisfy this element necessarily bars their request for injunctive relief.”

What it Means

Honestly, while somewhat disappointing, the denial of a preliminary injunction isn’t really damaging to the case. All it means is that the plaintiffs failed to show its necessity, which is why I included the judge’s words addressing their chances of succeeding on the claims’ merits. That is an absolute requirement for a preliminary injunction. The case will move forward, and each side will have their say before the court.

Judge's Gavel
Judge O’Connor’s ruling shows that he is playing this case by the book. We should welcome that. (Shutterstock)

In a way, this is a good thing, because it shows the plaintiffs where they got it wrong and where they should improve their arguments. It also shows that Judge O’Connor is playing this case by the book. If we honestly believe the law is on our side here, then we should welcome that. We want judges who follow the law.

The actual court proceedings will allow the plaintiffs to expand their arguments and introduce supporting evidence that they perhaps did not have time to develop because this hearing came so quickly after the Final Rule was issued. Invoked properly, Heller and Bruen may yet save the day. Judge O’Connor himself noted that the plaintiffs may well prevail in court.

So, while we might wish we had the injunction in hand, its denial is really a minor setback that may yet prove beneficial. The pro-gun side lost a skirmish, but the campaign is still before us, and now we know more about the campaign environment. Stay tuned.

[ad_2]
#Federal #Judge #Pistol #Brace #Rule #Proceed

“When is Enough, Enough?” Congressional Hearing on the ATF Pistol Brace Rule

[ad_1]

“When is enough, enough?” That was the name given to the March 24 Congressional hearing regarding the ATF’s perceived overreach by changing rules and instituting a “zero tolerance” policy toward Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL). The hearing was jointly conducted by the House Judicial Subcommittee on Crime, and Federal Government Surveillance and the House Oversight Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs.

SB Tactical SB3 pistol brace
The ATF’s new Pistol Brace Rule was discussed in the March 23 Congressional hearing. (sb-tactical.com)

Four witnesses appeared before the committee: Alex Bosco, founder of SB Tactical and inventor of the stabilizing pistol brace; Amy Swearer, a Heritage Foundation Constitutional and Second Amendment expert; Second Amendment attorney Matt LaRosiere; and Everytown for Gun Safety Federal Legal Director Rob Wilcox.

The Hearing’s Supposed Purpose

The hearing’s stated purpose was to examine recent policy overreaches by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosive (ATF) and how those policies impact lawful gun owners and businesses.

Watching the entire five-hour and two-minute proceeding, I often wondered, “When is enough, enough,” regarding political grandstanding, propagandizing, and deflection? Honestly, the hearing’s substantive parts would have easily fit into an hour-long time block.

Both Republicans and Democrats were guilty of this, though the Democrat side almost uniformly refused to address the hearing’s purpose. Democrat politicians either mouthed anti-gun propaganda; asked leading questions of the Everytown spokesman to further their propaganda, with which he was only too willing to cooperate; praised the ATF, which suits their current gun control purposes; and one Democrat played “gotcha” with Matt LaRosiere over an ill-considered Instagram post. There were at least two Democrats whose pronouncements bordered on hysteria. And no, I’m not exaggerating.

SB Tactical founder and pistol brace inventor Alex Bosco
SB Tactical founder and pistol brace inventor Alex Bosco was clear and concise about what his product is and, perhaps more importantly, what it is not. (House Judiciary GOP YouTube Channel)

The Republicans also wasted much time, though they were more sympathetic to the hearing’s purpose. The problem with these representatives is that they didn’t know much about the topic, yet got their remarks in anyway, many of which were intended to score political points on issues not germane to the topic at hand. I get that they can’t be experts on every issue, but the time would have been better spent by giving those who do know it longer speaking opportunities.

The hearing was interrupted twice, in a short period of time, by outbursts from anti-gun activists. They were removed by the Capitol Police, and one was arrested after returning to the chamber and being ejected again. This second incident forced a short recess. The arrest was for an unnamed offense committed outside the chamber. That particular activist was later noted to have a record of such activities, including prior arrests. Several Democrats defended the outbursts, even thanking the activists, including Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA), who used the incident to talk about January 6, 2021, further wasting the committee’s time.

The Substantive Testimony

Going forward, I will break down the relevant testimony by the representative, mostly Republicans, who made the statement or asked the question.

Matt Gaetz (R-FL)

Gaetz began by noting that the Government Accounting Office (GAO) reported that ATF illegally collected data on lawful firearms purchases. The agency was later forced to delete 252 million records they held illegally.

Gaetz asked Everytown’s Wilcox whether he was familiar with the report. Wilcox responded that he was and claimed the records helped solve crimes, therefore, he supported ATF’s actions. He also tried to deflect by stating that the loophole exploited by ATF, which the GAO had identified, was from a law signed by President Ronald Reagan and implying that President Donald Trump encouraged that exploitation, which he may well have done.

Gaetz’ cut Wilcox off with “I don’t care who did it. I’m just worried about the impact on my citizens.” He pressed Wilcox on the fact that ATF had to delete the illegal records, from which Wilcox repeatedly deflected, not wishing to acknowledge ATF’s malfeasance.

Rob Wilcox of Everytown for Gun Safety
Everytown for Gun Safety’s Rob Wilcox was an effective witness for anti-gun politicians who didn’t want to address the issue at hand. He fared less well against Jim Jordan. (House Judiciary GOP YouTube Channel)

Gaetz’ best moment was responding to Wilcox’s statement that the ATF’s data gathering was lawful, though the GAO said differently. Gaetz said to Wilcox, “That’s the concern of my constituents, when [ATF] go[es] beyond their authority. You may find these things virtuous, but no one elected you, they elected us [Congress] to make the laws. And we make the laws and they don’t follow them, then people’s rights get diminished.” The key implication was that no one elected the ATF’s bureaucrats either.

Gaetz also addressed Wilcox’s statement that pistol braces make firearms more powerful by asking Bosco, who invented the pistol brace, whether that was the case. Bosco replied, “They do not. They do not,” to which Wilcox smirked. More from Bosco later.

Gaetz made one more excellent point by noting that when the ATF gets caught going beyond its authority, it’s explained away as the ATF “doing their best.” “But when Americans,” Gaetz continued, “get inadvertently converted to felons because the ATF has exceeded their authority, there is no such grace for them, is there?” Gaetz addressed that question to Swearer, who replied, “That would seem to be the case under the recent policy of zero tolerance.”

Jamie Raskin (D-MD)

Raskin was the only Democrat who seemed willing to address the issue at hand. And though I disagree with his stance, I respect his willingness to engage, though he got in his share of political grandstanding, as did Gaetz if I’m being fair.

Raskin stated that pistol braces have evolved from their original intent of aiding disabled veterans to fire AR pistols. He contended that braces are now used as de facto stocks, enabling buyers to skirt the process of legally acquiring a short-barreled rifle (SBR). YouTube videos from several prominent gun channels were shown to make this point.

Representative Jamie Raskin
Maryland’s Jamie Raskin was the only Democrat to advance a solid point, though he still supported ATF’s unilateral action against pistol braces. (House Judicial GOP YouTube Channel)

Raskin’s point is well taken and, if we’re being honest, is probably true in many cases. Does that mean braces should be regulated? Of course, I think they should not be, but the point remains that Raskin’s argument is valid. Where we differ is Raskin believes the ATF was justified in making the pistol brace rule. The opposing argument, to which I subscribe, is that whether or not braces effectively allow illegal SBRs, Congress should make that determination, not an unelected federal agency. This is especially true since the National Firearms Act (NFA), which governs SBRs, was enacted by Congress, and was not the result of an Executive Branch rule.

Bosco, when later asked about Raskin’s allegations, responded that some people using the brace in ways other than what he intended does not change the device’s nature, which is to help disabled people shoot safely and more effectively.

Lauren Boebert (R-CO)

Like Raskin, most of Boebert’s time was spent making political pronouncements, though she did make one valid point about the ATF’s history of playing fast and loose with the law. You may recall the agency’s ill-conceived Obama-era Operations Gunrunner and Fast and Furious, in which ATF deliberately transferred firearms to prohibited persons. Those prohibited persons included Mexican drug cartel members, in the case of Fast and Furious.

In case you don’t know, the ATF supposedly sought to track those guns in an effort to identify cartel members and expose smuggling pipelines. The scheme failed miserably, with the guns being lost entirely, until one was later used to murder US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. No one at the ATF or Justice Department was ever held accountable for Terry’s murder, nor was any wrongdoing admitted.

Jim Jordan (R-OH)

Jordan’s reputation for addressing the meat of any issue was on full display. He immediately asked Everytown’s Wilcox, “Did you or anyone in your organization communicate with the ATF or the Biden Administration about these issues we are discussing today prior to the notice of proposed rulemaking?” The notice of proposed rulemaking was ATF’s announcement that it intended to reclassify and regulate pistol braces.

Wilcox responded that “We submitted a formal proposal for rulemaking through the appropriate channels.” In response to Jordan’s clarifying question, Wilcox acknowledged that Everytown submitted this proposal before the ATF’s notice.

Despite Wilcox’s attempts to dodge by referring to his original answer, Jordan forced Wilcox to admit that he, personally, as well as other Everytown representatives, have spoken personally to ATF officials, including ATF Director Steve Dettelbach, in an effort to influence and drive ATF policy.

Again, in case you are not aware, Everytown for Gun Safety is a leading gun control organization founded and fully funded by extreme anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg. Jordan accused Wilcox, and Everytown, of scheming with ATF to change the pistol brace law, thus going after millions of lawful American gun owners. Wilcox did not respond.

Representative Jim Jordan
Ohio’s Jim Jordan, as usual, got right to the point. (House Judiciary GOP YouTube Channel)

Jordan then turned to Bosco and pointed out that ATF has confirmed, on several occasions, that pistol braces are not NFA items and are perfectly legal. He even had a copy of the original 2012 letter from ATF to Bosco stating that fact.

Jordan asked Bosco, “When did the bill pass that changed the law?” Bosco replied that “There was no bill.” “No bill,” repeated Jordan, “that’s the fundamental issue, right? No bill. Mr. Dettelbach, the new director, he never ran for Congress.”  Jordan went on to confirm that no bill to reclassify pistol braces as an NFA item was ever submitted, debated, or passed by Congress, nor was one signed by the president.

At a prompt from Jordan, Bosco declared that his company alone sold 2.3 million braces between 2020 and the present day, a figure that was not considered by the ATF when it performed its impact study. Bosco had earlier noted that ATF’s impact study concluded that changing the rule would put four out of the five companies manufacturing pistol braces out of business, including his own SB Tactical.

Jordan suggested that ATF’s not considering the last three years of sales, which we all know were explosive, was because of Everytown’s influence. Bosco declined to comment on that point, but he did note that Congressional Research Services estimate that between 10 and 40 million people own pistol braces. One would think they could be more precise, but those are the numbers of potential felons resulting from the rule change.

Jordan finished by stating that Congress should pass legislation blocking the rule. His reasons were that ATF lacks the power to make such sweeping changes and that the rule was unduly influenced by Everytown for Gun Safety.

Andrew Clyde (R-GA)

Andrew Clyde is a gun store owner and FFL in private life, so he was predictably prepared. I thought his time was very productive and certainly addressed the hearing’s stated topic. A strength was that he asked the witnesses clear questions and allowed them to answer. Those answers are worth transcribing here.

Clyde’s first question was directed to the Heritage Foundation’s Swearer. “What,” he asked, “is the pistol brace rule’s purpose?” Swearer responded that “I firmly believe that the intended purpose is simply to try to ‘do something,’ if you will, about gun violence, in the typical way of ‘well look, we’ve done something…we’ve regulated more.’ The problem,” she continued, “is the regulation is not directed at the violent criminals themselves. It’s directed at millions of peaceable citizens who are not and never were the problem.”

Representative Andrew Clyde
Georgia’s Andrew Clyde asked good questions, eliciting thoughtful answers from the witnesses. (House Judiciary GOP YouTube Channel)

“Meanwhile, to the extent that it is regulating these devices for would-be violent criminals…congratulations, they have a plethora of other ways of either obtaining the same firearm…because if they’re not prohibited and just bent on violence, they can pay the same $200 tax and they still have the same firearm, so we haven’t even cut down that option for them.

“Or, they can turn around, as most of them do, and break other laws, obtain firearms off the street, pistol brace or no pistol brace, NFA or not NFA, and as most of them do, they’re already not using these firearms. They’re using non-NFA firearms. It just is not directed at…remotely at any part of the problem.”

Turning to Bosco, Clyde asked why the ATF changed its mind after repeatedly confirming the pistol brace’s legality. “Because the political winds at the ATF changed,” Bosco replied. “That’s simply it. They needed to do something, anything, and the one thing that I think a lot of people wanted to talk about was the brace issue.” From my standpoint, given the Biden Administration’s rhetoric, there seems little doubt that Bosco is correct on this issue, especially with Wilcox’s testimony in response to Jordan.

Finally, Clyde asked Swearer, “Will the ATF’s pistol brace rule save lives?” Swearer replied unequivocally, “Most certainly not.”

Chip Roy (R-TX)

Chip Roy is another representative who cuts to the heart of issues. He did so again here, asking Swearer whether the ATF’s recent rulemaking processes violate the separation of powers laid out in the Constitution. She responded in the affirmative.

Roy then followed up by saying. “You believe the ATF has abused its rule-making authority here.” Swearer replied, “Yes, and it has done so in a way that infringes on rights without the American people having a process by which to recall those appointees,” unlike they have with members of Congress.

Roy then asked, “Is the rulemaking process unconstitutional and unlawful?” “Yes, in several capacities,” Swearer confirmed. “Therefore,” said Roy, “it being applied to American citizens would be unlawful and unconstitutional, and, therefore, Congress, in its duty, in separation of powers, has an obligation to check that overrun (sic) Executive Branch.” Swearer agreed with that statement.

Representative Chip Roy
Chip Roy of Texas pressed home the pistol brace rule’s unconstitutionality. (House Judiciary GOP YouTube Channel)

Roy then asked Bosco if he ever thought that the government would declare his product illegal. Bosco responded that, “I never, never, would have thought that ATF would unilaterally make a decision through the bureaucratic process to ban my product…that’s up to you guys [Congress]. That’s not up to a bureaucratic agency. The product was designed, again, as a safety product, an orthotic device, it changes nothing on the firearm.”

Bosco continued, “I have no disagreement with ATF’s ability to do their job of putting criminals in prison, but I don’t think anybody on this side [pointing to Democrats] should agree to give ATF the authority to unilaterally make a product illegal and circumvent the legislative process. That’s the only reason I’m here to talk with you guys, is to say that.” Bosco’s next comment was directed to the Democrats: “If you want to do that, then you do that. But don’t let an executive agency circumvent your power, your authority.”

Andy Biggs (R-AZ)

Finally, Arizona’s Andy Biggs had one important question for Bosco, asking whether the ATF contacted him, as the pistol brace’s designer and inventor, for input on the final rule. Bosco said, “No, they didn’t. But for years, we worked with ATF to try to get to the bottom of parameters that we could work with to allow us to make a product that [would] fit and suit what they thought the needs should be.”

I should also note that Byron Donalds (R-FL) asked good questions of Swearer and Bosco, but we’ve already covered their answers in other sections.

Results

Honestly, I don’t see any real action coming from this hearing. Democrats and Republicans seemed to be having two different conversations on two different topics. I believe that several representatives are serious about trying to turn back the ATF’s power grab, as proven by Andrew Clyde’s introduction of the House Joint Resolution of Disapproval regarding the pistol brace rule. That resolution is co-sponsored by Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC). This resolution, if passed, would nullify the ATF’s pistol brace rule. A similar resolution has been introduced in the Senate. The House Judiciary Committee will vote on the resolution, which requires only a simple majority to pass, on Tuesday, March 28.

The resolution will likely pass the House, but it would require at least three Democrat votes in the Senate. Those defections are unlikely. And let’s be honest, even if it passes both houses, there’s no chance that Joe Biden would sign it.

Amy Swearer of the Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation’s Amy Swearer was her usual competent self before Congress. (House Judiciary GOP YouTube Channel)

I think that any real action on the pistol brace rule will have to come from the courts, as it has on the ATF’s frames and receivers rule. But the hearing wasn’t a complete waste of time, despite half the lawmakers present just repeating the same gun control mantras ad nauseum. 

The only one I’ll mention in any detail, since it bears on the topic, is the notion introduced by Everytown’s Wilcox and parroted by several politicians that pistol braces make AR pistols deadlier. Bosco vehemently denied that “fact,” stating over and over that the brace is “an orthotic device,” not a “force multiplier.” LaRosiere pointed out the absurdity of claiming that a device that makes a firearm harder to conceal makes it more lethal. Swearer agreed with Bosco and LaRosiere, saying that the allegations “don’t make a whole lot of sense.” But since when have gun controllers made sense?

Finally, I believe that some information gleaned from this hearing, such as Bosco’s testimony, as well as certain of Wilcox’s revelations, may prove useful in the upcoming legal challenges that the rule faces. Let’s hope so, anyway, or that will have been a completely pointless five hours and two minutes.

[ad_2]
#Congressional #Hearing #ATF #Pistol #Brace #Rule

Federal Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction Against ATF in Polymer80 Case

[ad_1]

A Federal Judge has granted Polymer80’s request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction against the ATF over the latter’s Final Rule on Frames and Receivers, as well as the agency’s infamous Open Letter on December 27, 2022. In his decision, Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas wrote that “ATF’s new definition of ‘frame or receiver’… is facially unlawful.” Polymer80 immediately reopened sales of products banned by ATF decree last year.

Judge's gavel with handgun and ammunition
A Federal Judge has granted Polymer80 a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the ATF’s Final Rule of Frames and Receivers and the agency’s Open Letter of December 27, 2022. (istock photo)

The TRO and preliminary injunction forbid ATF from enforcing the rule against Polymer80 or its customers. The preliminary injunction is a good sign. Judges only grant those motions if they believe the plaintiff, in this case Polymer80, has a good chance of succeeding on the merits of their case, as Judge O’Connor noted in the decision.

Defining Frames and Receivers

As noted above, the ATF’s new definition of frames and receivers is unlawful, according to Judge O’Connor. He reached that conclusion by comparing ATF’s definitions to those legislated by Congress in the 1968 Gun Control Act (GCA). This is important, since ATF is the primary interpreter and enforcer of the GCA, whose provisions set the parameters by which the agency operates.

O’Connor notes that “The Final Rule’s redefinition of ‘frame or receiver’ conflicts with the statute’s (GCA) plain meaning. The definition of ‘firearm’ in the Gun Control Act does not cover all firearm parts. It covers specifically ‘the frame or receiver of any such weapon’ that Congress defined as a firearm. That which may become a receiver is not itself a receiver. Congress could have included firearm parts that ‘may readily be converted’ to frames or receivers, as it did with ‘weapons’ that ‘may be readily converted’ to fire a projectile. But it omitted that language when talking about frames and receivers. ‘[W]hen Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion…Likewise, when Congress uses a phrase in one part of a definition and excludes that phrase from another part of the very same definition, courts should give effect to Congress’s deliberate exclusion.”

Polymer80 pistol blank
Congress did not define this as a frame, receiver, or firearm. The ATF cannot unilaterally change those definitions. (polymer80.com)

In other words, Congress means what it says and nothing more. The ATF lacks the authority to expand definitions beyond the clear text of what Congress enacted in 1968. This same principle is also applied to…

Defining Firearms

Judge O’Connor also writes that “Plaintiff is also likely to succeed on its claim that the Final Rule unlawfully treats weapon parts kits as firearms. The Final Rule contains its own definition of ‘firearm,’ notwithstanding that the GCA already defines the term. Under the Final Rule, ‘[t]he term shall include a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive’…That language conflicts with the statute’s definition of ‘firearm.’”

You can read the decision yourself for more details if you like. Suffice it to say that Judge O’Connor makes it very clear that Congress wrote what they wrote for a reason. He provides numerous examples of Congress being very careful of how they defined terms such as “firearm.” He also shows how Congress deliberately declined to not include certain items, like parts kits, in their definition.

ATF Director Steve Dettelbach and Joe Biden
ATF Director Steve Dettelbach has allowed his agency to be a political weapon. (cleveland.com)

The Bottom Line

“In sum,” the decision reads, “the Gun Control Act’s precise wording demands precise application. Congress could have described a firearm as ‘any combination of parts’ that would produce a weapon that could fire a projectile. It used that language elsewhere in the definition. Congress could have described a firearm as any part ‘designed’ to be part of a weapon. It used that language too. Congress could have described a firearm as a set of parts that ‘may be readily assembled’ into a weapon, as it did for ‘destructive device.’ Congress could have written all those things, and the very definition of ‘firearm’ demonstrates that Congress knew the words that would accomplish those ends. But Congress did not regulate firearm parts as such, let alone parts kits that are ‘designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.’”

Again, this decision says that Congress writes the laws and the Executive Branch, of which ATF is a part, is supposed to enforce those laws as they are written. The ATF, as well as any other federal agency, lacks the power to change definitions that are clearly laid out in Congressional statutes. This is a charge being pursued by several lawsuits about the ATF’s recent shenanigans, such as the Frames and Receivers rule, the Bump Stock Rule, and the Pistol Brace Rule.

A Clear Abuse of Power

The Constitution’s Article I reads, “All legislative Powers herein shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Nowhere is that authority delegated to the ATF or any other executive agency or court of justice. Judge O’Connor understands this, as he once commented that the judiciary “simply interprets the law.” He went on the say that if judges or justices “disagree with public policy, they have no say in that.” He was predictably pilloried by left-wing activists, law professors, and the media. Yet, he is absolutely correct about the Judicial Branch and, in this decision, the Executive Branch.

Federal Judge Reed O'Connor
Federal Judge Reed O’Connor. (dallasnews.com)

ATF’s rules purport to carry the weight of federal law, including prison time and heavy fines for those who break them. These rules are a clear overreach of executive power, and the ATF is among the most egregious offenders, especially under the current Administration.

The ATF will certainly appeal the decision, and, in fact, issued another Open Letter after the ruling, saying it expects all concerned parties to still follow the Final Rule. They really are that arrogant. But this ruling is a big win for the Second Amendment and the rule of law.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that an entity which writes, interprets, and enforces the law itself is the very definition of tyranny. That is what the ATF is doing with these rules. 

Let’s hope that the appellate courts recognize these facts and uphold Judge O’Connor’s decision. It’s time the ATF had its leash yanked. Hard.

You can read the decision for yourself at courtlistener.com.

[ad_2]
#Federal #Judge #Grants #Preliminary #Injunction #ATF #Polymer80 #Case

California “Safe Handgun” Roster Ruled Unconstitutional

[ad_1]

California’s so-called “Safe Handgun Roster” has long been a thorn in the side of lawful gun owners in the Golden State. Unrealistic restrictions have infringed on Californians’ Second Amendment rights since the roster first took effect in 1999. In fact, the roster’s parameters are so strict, that not one semi-automatic firearm has been added since May of 2013, when the final restriction was added.

California flag
A Federal Judge has ruled California’s “Safe Handgun Roster” unconstitutional. (wallpapercave.com)

If you aren’t familiar with the Safe Handgun Roster, here’s what you should know: The California legislature first enacted the Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA) in 1999. Its stated purpose was to “reduce the number of firearms deaths in the state and curbing handgun crime, as well as promoting safety.” Essentially, the UHA, which established the roster, gave the state the power to dictate to Californians which handguns they could manufacture, sell, or own, based on subjective criteria established by politicians.

2007 saw the introduction of the requirement for a loaded chamber indicator (CLI) and a magazine disconnect mechanism (MDM). These were touted as guarding against accidental or negligent discharges. On a personal note, many gun owners, including yours truly, consider magazine disconnect mechanisms to be undesirable. 

Finally, in 2013, lawmakers added microstamping capability as a roster requirement. Microstamping is the theoretical process of using a gun’s firing pin to imprint certain data, like the gun’s manufacturer, model, and serial number, onto the primer when a round is fired. These stamps would, of course, be microscopic, hence the name. The only problem was that such technology did not exist, nor does it exist today. That’s why it’s referred to as theoretical. 

Those onerous requirements, however, may be getting the bum’s rush thanks to a recent ruling in Federal District Court.

California Handguns Roster
Not one semi-automatic handgun has been added to the so-called “Safe Handguns Roster” since May of 2013. (personaldefenseworld.com)

The Lawsuit

California residents Lance Boland, Mario Santellan, Reno May, Jerome Schammel, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association filed suit in federal court, alleging that the roster, and its requirements, infringe on their Second Amendment rights, and are therefore unconstitutional.

The suit’s timing is not coincidental. Last year’s Bruen Decision by the Supreme Court opened the door to the challenge, with its requirement that gun laws must be consistent with the Second Amendment’s plain text and analogous to gun laws as they were understood and practiced in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified.

The Decision

Federal District Judge Cormac J. Carney opened the decision with a powerful statement indicating where the decision will go: “The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. That right is so fundamental that to regulate conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, the government must show more than that the regulation promotes an important interest like reducing accidental discharges or solving crime. Rather, to be constitutional, regulations of Second Amendment rights must be ‘consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’” Meaning in 1791.

U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney
U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney. (Mark Boster/Los Angeles Times)

This statement demonstrates that Judge Carney recognizes and understands a core tenet of Bruen: that courts are not allowed to weigh the Second Amendment’s plain text against a perceived public good as defined by the government or the court itself. Justice Clarence Thomas noted that such considerations were “one step too many,” and thus unconstitutional. One would think other judges would understand this clear concept, but many have proven that they either do not, or they refuse to abide by that requirement.

Judge Carney then goes on to detail how no single handgun in the entire world meets the three requirements of a CLI, MDM, or microstamping capability. Not one. Therefore, no new semi-automatic handguns have been added to the roster since the microstamping requirement of May 2013.  Californians who wish the exercise their rights, the judge notes, are limited to older designs and sometimes older handguns because the UHA prohibits their acquiring modern state-of-the-art models.

California Safe Handgun Roster additions graph
(The CalGuns Foundation)

The judge also notes that not one of the over 800 handguns on the roster meets all three requirements, having been grandfathered in as those requirements were implemented. One wonders, then, whether the roster is actually about safety, as defined by California politicians, or strangling lawful gun purchases in the state. An excellent point was made by another commentator that the police are not bound by the roster’s restrictions. Does that mean the police carry inherently “unsafe” firearms? That fact alone renders the entire roster concept nonsensical.

The state’s attorneys trotted out dubious laws from 1783 Massachusetts, 1792 New York City, and 1821 Maine to try to justify the UHA, but Carney rejected them because they dealt primarily with gunpowder storage. In addition, those laws were intended to prevent fire and explosions, as opposed to limiting access to arms, so they are not analogous to the UHA.

The state also argued that the roster does not infringe on the Second Amendment because residents can purchase and own “some” firearms. Judge Carney rejected that ill-considered point as well.

The Conclusion

Judge Carney’s conclusion lays it all out:

“The Second Amendment enshrines a fundamental constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Increasingly in modern times, with ‘the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence,’ ordinary law-abiding people feel a need to possess handguns to protect themselves against violence. This may be because they ‘live in high-crime neighborhoods,’ or because they ‘must traverse dark and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after work or other evening activities,’ or because they ‘reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury.’”

“Californians have the constitutional right to acquire and use state-of-the-art handguns to protect themselves. They should not be forced to settle for decade-old models of handguns to ensure that they remain safe inside or outside the home. But unfortunately, the UHA’s CLI, MDM, and microstamping requirements do exactly that. Because enforcing those requirements implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment, and the government fails to point to any well-established historical analogues that are consistent with them, those requirements are unconstitutional and their enforcement must be preliminarily enjoined. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED”

California Handgun Roster graph
(The CalGuns Foundation)

Implications

This is a huge win for gun rights. California has long prided itself on its draconian gun control that limits responsible citizens while doing nothing to curb crime. Many of us have witnessed the head-scratching comments from California politicians regarding firearms, as well as clownish behaviors like former state legislator Kevin DeLeon’s explanation of “Ghost Guns” and “30 magazine clips.” You should look that one up online. It would be comedy gold if it weren’t so serious.

California isn’t the only state with a gun roster. Expect other suits to follow in those states. California will no doubt appeal this decision. That appeal will go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a notoriously anti-gun panel. But the Bruen Decision has forced the 9th Circuit to reexamine some of its past rulings, which are now wending their way through the Federal court system once again. One hopes the 9th Circuit can see which way the wind blows, but don’t count on it.

So, as always with these early cases, we have a nice win but it’s not over yet. This one will drag on for a while. The immediate question is whether the 9th Circuit will order a hold on Judge Carney’s preliminary injunction, thus delaying its benefits to California gun owners. We shall see.

You can read this important decision for yourself at courtlistener.com.

[ad_2]
#California #Safe #Handgun #Roster #Ruled #Unconstitutional

Suppressor Ban Lawsuit Filed in Illinois

[ad_1]

On Monday, February 27, 2023, two individuals filed suit in an Illinois court to challenge the legality of the suppressor ban within that state, with Illinois as one of eight states that outright bans ownership of suppressors. Outside those eight states, Connecticut is the only state that allows ownership but not hunting with a suppressor, all 41 other states allow for legal ownership.

So, what’s the big deal about two guys suing the state of Illinois to own suppressors, outside the obvious? And what kind of argument do they have? Well, really there are several arguments in their filing that discuss the reasoning behind the lawsuit.

Maxim DRF suppressor pistol
Two Plaintiffs in Illinois filed a lawsuit against state officials challenging the state’s ban on suppressors ownership. Suppressors are currently banned within the state and can result in either Class 2 or Class 3 felony charges. (Photo credit: Maxim)

These residents of Illinois have decided to stand up and push back against what they feel is an unfair law, one which they argue goes against their Second Amendment right to bear arms. These two, one who has lived in Illinois his whole life and one who moved there, are not permitted under state law to own or even possess a suppressor, and depending on where they are, it’s either a Class 2 or Class 3 felony to do so. The second Plaintiff of the case had to legally transfer ownership of his suppressor to family members that reside outside Illinois. They decided to push back.

Historical Basis

In the Complaint filed, the Plaintiffs state that Illinois has criminalized suppressors despite their common use. Suppressors have been used commonly since Hiram Maxim applied for his patent in 1908 for a device that would reduce gunshot noise. He called it a “silencer,” but people who are familiar with them know the misnomer and agree that suppressor is a more appropriate term.

Suppressors have been used across history with firearms. Even President Theodore Roosevelt had a suppressor on his 1894 Winchester. For nearly 25 years after the initial patent for suppressors, the product went unregulated. It wasn’t until the 1934 National Firearms Act that suppressors started to be regulated, but not banned.

Example for ATF Form 4 tax stamp with suppressor
In one of the bases for the Complaint, the Plaintiffs point to the history of the suppressor. For nearly 25 years after the first patent was filed for a suppressor, they went unregulated. It wasn’t until the National Firearms Act of 1934 that suppressor ownership became restricted.

Common Use Arguments

The Plaintiffs lay out reasons that suppressor usage is generally accepted and that suppressors are very infrequently used for criminal activity. In 2017, acting AFT Deputy Director Turk admitted to that fact, stating suppressors “are very rarely used in criminal shootings.” One study showed that suppressor-related prosecutions for a given year were only 30-40 cases out of nearly 80,000 federal cases.

The Plaintiffs continue to state that ownership is beneficial and increases the safety of firearm use with five common and practical uses of suppressors. The first reason they give is for hearing protection. When suppressors are not used, the decibel levels from gunfire are above hearing safe, which we all know, and prolonged exposure leads to hearing loss. However, if a suppressor is used, the decibel levels are reduced to safer levels.

Secondly, suppressors are used to protect hunters and those around them. Reports have shown that up to 95% of adult hunters say they don’t wear hearing protection while hunting. Using a suppressor would protect their hearing while maintaining situational awareness.

United States map for suppressor ownership
The Complaint points to common uses of suppressors from around the country and world as a basis for the overturning of the law. Within the US, 42 states allow for ownership and 41 states allow for hunting with a suppressor. (Photo credit: American Suppressor Association)

Third, suppressors are used as a common courtesy to reduce noise in communities. Suppressors don’t silence gunshots by any stretch of the imagination, but they keep the sound down to acceptable levels to reduce the levels of noise pollution in neighborhoods. Maxim stated that was one of the reasons for his invention. In other countries around the world where suppressor ownership is legal, it’s almost seen as rude to shoot without a suppressor. I have to agree.

Fourth, suppressor ownership and usage provide for safer training and make the firearm more accurate. The suppressor mitigates at least some of the recoil from the firearm, helps with muzzle flash, and gives the shooter better control over the weapon. There are many instructors that employ suppressors in their courses to help new shooters get comfortable and reduce the propensity of the shooter to develop a flinch in response to the recoil. Additionally, suppressors help with situational awareness and allow the students to hear commands and warnings easier making the overall situation safer.

Fifth, suppressors make self-defense or defense of the home safer and more effective. When used for home defense circumstances, earmuffs or plugs might not be readily available, meaning that the user is protecting their hearing. Additionally, the suppressor allows for effective communication with others in the dwelling and the ability to hear potential threats.

Legal Terms and Rulings

Illinois law states it is illegal to have “any device or attachment of any kind designed, used or intended for use in silencing the report of any firearm.” Anyone who has used a suppressor knows that it doesn’t silence the firearm, even on a .22lr. It diminishes the report for the firearm, but regardless of what Hollywood likes to show, it does not silence anything.

We are all familiar with the Second Amendment and the text. The ATF classifies suppressors as firearms in accordance with the NFA registration. If you apply that term for suppressors, based on the Heller, McDonald, and Bruen decisions, it’s a straightforward case when taking the Second Amendment into account. There has been ambiguity regarding how the text is interpreted and how it really applies to suppressors, but using the ATF name of “firearm” for suppressors, eliminates it.

United States Supreme Court
The filing points to three landmark decisions (Heller, McDonald, and Bruen decisions) as legal standing for ruling against the State of Illinois. (Photo credit: stock)

Just as a quick background for those that might not be as familiar with those mentioned cases, each of those cases has a significant decision regarding the legality of firearm ownership thanks to the Second Amendment. In the oldest decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, the US Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, outside of service in a militia, including lawful purposes like self-defense within the home.

Following up on Heller, in 2010, in McDonald v. city of Chicago, the Supreme Court overturned the previous decision and stated that the Second Amendment was incorporated within the Fourteenth Amendment, protecting individual rights against infringement by state and local governments. After Heller and McDonald, the court had established a two-part framework to see if laws or rulings interfered with the Second Amendment, combining history with a means-end analysis.

Then with New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc v. Bruen in 2022, the Supreme court rejected the second portion of the framework, instead focusing on the constitutional text and history for a ruling. As such, the court ruled the Second Amendment included the right for an individual to carry a concealed weapon in public. The court went on to state that the text of the Second Amendment goes beyond what the Founding Fathers used as weapons or even the Reconstruction generation, but with the spirit of the text.

With those three monumental decisions, the Second Amendment received a major plus-up in protection. The Complaint that was filed in Illinois points to all three of those decisions and the texts that explicitly shows that the current Illinois law for banning suppressors violates the very heart of the Second Amendment.

Legal Precedence of Lawsuit

So, what happens if the Plaintiffs win? Well, the law would be struck down and suppressor ownership would become legal, at least on paper. If the aftermath of the Bruen decision is any indication, the state would undoubtedly fight back and appeal the decision. But it would also mean, theoretically, suppressor ownership would be legal in Illinois regardless of the current state of ATF or politics. If they win, it could mean legal cases in the other seven states that forbid ownership of suppressors as well, but could have implications beyond just that.

SilencerCo VELOS on rifle
If the men are successful with their lawsuit, it would have immediate repercussions. Qualified individuals would be able to exercise their Second Amendment right to own a suppressor in the state and safely use them on firearms. It will be interesting to see how the case progresses. (Photo credit: SilencerCo)

Conclusion

With over 86% of all NFA applications in 2022 for suppressors, it’s not hard to see the importance of this case. For those of us that live in areas that allow for suppressor ownership, it’s great to see the first steps being taken in those restricted states. The legal argument brought about by the Plaintiffs is a compelling one and it will be very interesting to see how this one plays out.

You can read the filing at https://suppressor.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Complaint_Anderson_v_Raoul.pdf

[ad_2]
#Suppressor #Ban #Lawsuit #Filed #Illinois

Suppressor Ban Defeated in New Mexico With Help From ASA

[ad_1]

At a time of many legal battles involving the firearms industry, it’s refreshing to see some wins. One such win happened on Monday, February 6th in the state of New Mexico, thanks to the American Suppressor Association.

For those that might not be aware, the American Suppressor Association acts like a unified voice for the suppressor community and regularly attends hearings on the state and federal level to fight for pro-suppressor reform and ownership. Since its inception in 2011, the ASA has helped legalize suppressor ownership in three states, helped legalized hunting with suppressors in 19 states, and defeated suppressor bans in two states.

ASA Suppressor Ban Defeated
The American Suppressor Association (ASA) was on the ground in New Mexico on February 6th to help strike down a provision in a senate bill that would ban suppressor ownership. Thanks to the ASA’s testimony, the suppressor ban was removed from the verbiage of the bill. (Photo credit: ASA)

On the Monday in question, ASA Executive Director Knox Williams testified before the New Mexico Senate Heath and Public Affairs Committee to oppose the proposed Senate Bill 171. The bill had three key points:

  • define and prohibit the sale of “assault pistols” with a clause regarding not having threaded barrels,
  • ban the manufacture or sale, etc. of a list of items including SBRs and suppressors to name a few items,
  • and the ban of any Teflon-coated ammunition that would separate upon impact.

These items are just a few highlights of the said bill.

Immediately after Williams’ thorough testimony, Sen. Soules offered an amendment to delete the provision banning suppressors, which was adopted by a bipartisan 6-1 margin removing the suppressor ban from SB 171.

“In a dozen years of lobbying for suppressors, I’ve never seen anything like this happen,” said Knox Williams. “The facts and the science are on our side, and Owen Miller, ASA’s Vice-President, and I came prepared with our knowledge to fight tooth and nail for suppressors. In a rare occurrence in politics, logic and common sense prevailed. We are ecstatic that we were able to protect suppressors from being banned, and applaud Senator Soules for removing that provision. Nonetheless, even as amended SB 171 is a draconian and unconstitutional bill that needs to be stopped.”

The bill would essentially ban most all hunting ammunition and any threaded barrel even if it isn’t on an “assault pistol”—whatever that is supposed to be—among many other items in this far-reaching bill. 

Williams and ASA Vice President Owen Miller were in New Mexico, with the NRA-ILA meeting with committee members and other legislators to explain the multiple issues with the bill. Since the bill was amended and passed, it will now go to the New Mexico Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration.

This hasn’t been the only victory for the ASA in the last few weeks. Williams also testified on a proposed ban on the sale of suppressors in the state of Virginia on January 26th. His testimony, along with others, helped the bill to be tabled indefinitely by the committee and hopefully shouldn’t see the light of day again.

Additionally, with NRA legal team, the ASA helped to restore some of the affected YouTube channels that had been taken down around the time of SHOT Show 2023. This was seen as a huge victory for many in the industry. 

[ad_2]
#Suppressor #Ban #Defeated #Mexico #ASA

ATF Brace Ban Under Scrutiny

[ad_1]

Stabilizing braces have been the subject of private letters on particular taxpayer issues and were deemed wholly legal—until now. In January 2023, Attorney General Merrick Garland signed the ATF rule 2021R-08F titled “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Brace.’”

Although the rule had been on the table for the last two years, the announcement of the regulation of pistol braces was a shock to the gun owners who owned an estimated forty million of them. The new rule would not ban braces in their entirety but would require many firearms so equipped to be registered as NFA items. The legality of the move, as well as the unreasonable 120-day period for amnesty, destined the rule to litigation. 

Lawsuits Against the Brace Ban

In early February, it was announced that the Firearm Policy Coalition filed suit against the Justice Department. Their Mock v. Garland suit maintains that the rule violates the Second Amendment as well as the Administrative Procedures Act. The latter governs which and when federal agencies can issue rules under the enforcement powers assigned to the President by Congress. The APA was recently used to block student loan forgiveness over a lack of public comment before the implementation of the rule. A subsequent suit, Watterson vs. ATF, argues that the Department of Justice did not have the legislative fiat to make the rule at all.

Maxim Defense PDW Arm Brace
Maxim Defense CQB Gen-6 PDW Stabilizing Brace.

On Feb. 10, SB Tactical—the firm that created the first pistol stabilizing brace—along with B&T USA, Rick Cicero, and twenty-six state attorney generals joined a Firearm Regulatory Accountability Coalition lawsuit against the ATF.  (Cargill vs. ATF). Jeff Creamer, CEO of SB Tactical excoriated a rule that “under the guise of public safety, the ATF has placed millions of law-abiding firearm owners in legal jeopardy. It’s a gross overreach of the Bureau’s authority and, if allowed to stand, will result in the largest gun registration scheme in US History.” Travis White, president of the Firearm Regulatory Accountability Coalition, was more pointed and “confident that the Courts will continue to hold the ATF accountable for their pattern of regulatory overreach and ever-shifting positions.”

Manufacturers of pistol braces and pistols are not the only aggrieved parties. Gun owners like Richard Cicero can demonstrate the harm of infringement beyond the registration penalty. Cicero is a retired police firearm instructor and veteran who suffered traumatic brain injuries and the loss of an arm and a leg in Afghanistan. His infirmity prevents him from using legal handguns in a safe and conventional manner without the aid of a stabilizing brace. He has also trained the physically challenged on how to fire pistols with the help of a brace.

The suit claims that the new rule was an about-face by the ATF, who had the “longstanding position that these items were not subject to NFA controls or heightened Gun Control Act, or ‘GCA’ regulations. The reversal will require millions of Americans to choose between the loss of their lawful (and lawfully acquired) firearms, the loss of their privacy, and the risk of criminal penalties.” The Final Regulatory Impact Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis conducted by the ATF concludes that their “clarification” of pistol brace regulation would result in the loss of over 750,000 firearms and cost taxpayers between two and five billion dollars.

Attorney General Patrick Morrisey at a press conference on the lawsuit against the ATF brace ban.
WV Attorney General Patrick Morrisey at a press conference covering the ATF lawsuit. (WBOY News)

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey justified pistol braces as an aid for accuracy and recoil management and called the ATF’s action the latest salvo in the Biden administration’s war against lawful gun owners. Backers of the rule claim that pistol braces allow criminals to turn pistols into short-barreled rifles. Despite the fears, pistol braces are rarely encountered on the crime scene. But pistol braces do aid in controlling a handgun, particularly among those most vulnerable to crime. Morrisey claimed that the ATF brace ban affects “most all pistol and handgun owners” and “we should not be making it harder for senior citizens and people with disabilities—and many disabled veterans—to defend themselves.” (WV News)

[ad_2]
#ATF #Brace #Ban #Scrutiny

Senate Democrats Launch “Gun Violence Prevention Caucus”

[ad_1]

There is one thing we know for certain about gun control-minded politicians: they will never stop. Ever. They ask why gun rights advocates won’t “compromise” with them, yet every such interaction results in our side doing all the giving while getting nothing in return. Hardly the definition of “compromise.” And just like clockwork, those same gun-controlling politicians are back the next week, pushing for more. 

So now, eight Senate Democrats have formed the “Gun Violence Prevention Caucus,” made up of a veritable “who’s who” of the gun control movement: California’s Dianne Feinstein, Connecticut’s Dick Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, Illinois’ Dick Durbin, New Jersey’s Bob Menendez and Cory Booker, Massachusetts’ Ed Markey, and Colorado’s John Hickenlooper. The group’s stated mission is to “promote commonsense solutions to battle the epidemic of gun violence plaguing the United States.”

Senators Dianne Feinstein and John Hickenlooper
Colorado Senator John Hickenlooper (right) has joined Senate Gun Control Grand Dame Dianne Feinstein in the new Senate “Gun Violence Prevention” Caucus. (AP/David Zalubowski/Washington Post/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades)

More Propaganda

We won’t bore you with each senator’s propaganda-laced statement regarding the organization’s launch, but a couple of points deserve mention, other than their hijacking the term “commonsense.” Blumenthal’s press release reads like a Christmas wish list for gun controllers, expressing his enthusiasm for so-called “safe storage” laws, stronger Red Flag laws, and, of course, an “assault weapons” ban. In other words, “commonsense” is a relative term, depending on who’s using it. But we already knew that.

Not to be outdone, Markey claimed that “Already this year, Americans have suffered from 52 mass shootings and 3,700 gun-related deaths.” That statement was echoed by the Giffords organization’s Adzi Vokhiwa, who said that “Last year, there were more mass shootings than days in the year, and so far, 2023 is following the same pattern.”

Senators Chris Murphy and Dick Blumenthal
Connecticut Senators Chris Murphy (left) and Dick Blumenthal. Murphy is Feinstein’s heir apparent in the Senate. (courant.com)

The only problem with those characterizations is that they are only achieved by manipulating the data. Those numbers come from a gun control advocacy group called the Gun Violence Archive (GVA). The GVA, despite their scholarly-sounding moniker, unilaterally changed the definition of “mass shooting” to artificially pump up the numbers. And pump them up they did.

We are told that the definition of “mass shooting” is when four or more people are killed or wounded in a given incident. But what the anti-gunners don’t tell you is the FBI always excluded incidents in which the shootings were part of other crimes, such as gang turf wars or drug disputes. The GVA, which is now the go-to source for all gun control advocates, removed that qualifier. American “mass shooting” numbers skyrocketed from between two and 12 per year to hundreds. Of course, they neglect to tell you how those numbers are calculated. They’re happy to mislead you into thinking all those shootings took place in schools or shopping malls.

Senators Dick Durbin and Ed Markey
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin (left) and Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey want to bring their states’ strict gun control to the entire nation. (politico.com/Zach Gibson-Getty Images)

Biased and Untruthful Sources

Speaking of the GVA, you may recall a couple of months back when they complained to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that their published study on defensive gun use was harming GVA’s gun control efforts. A sympathetic member of the Biden Administration, the most anti-Second Amendment administration in American history, pulled some strings and had the study removed.

For the record, that study, conducted by Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck, found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense up to 2.5 million times per year. But those scholarly numbers hurt the political and ideological narrative, so they had to go.

So, when you hear these senators spouting those numbers, as they certainly will, understand that they come from the dishonest and decidedly unscholarly Gun Violence Archive. But since when have gun controllers worried about dishonesty?

Christmas List

Speaking of Blumenthal’s Christmas List, here are some of the many infringements the Caucus members say they will be pursuing:

  • “3D Printed Gun Safety Act” (Can’t have the plebes making their own stuff, can we?)
  • “Accountability for Online Firearms Marketplaces (This is part of the propaganda effort to make people think Amazon delivers guns to peoples’ doors. They don’t, nor does any other online retailer.)
  • “Background Check Completion Act” and “Background Check Expansion Act” (Like we don’t already have background checks. But this will no doubt be “universal background checks, which aren’t enforceable without a national firearms registry. Which they will then push for when their checks do not curb crime. It’s part of the plan.)
  • “Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act” (This mouthful means they want crime victims to be able to sue firearms manufacturers into oblivion when their products are misused by criminals. Like suing Ford when a drunk driver kills or injures someone.)
  • “Federal Firearms Licensing Act” (Just what it sounds like. They want you to have a federal license to exercise a Constitutionally protected right.)
  • “Gun Violence Prevention Through Financial Intelligence Act” (They want to track all gun sales to flag “suspicious transactions.” What could possibly go wrong?)
  • “HEAR Act” (Before you think they’re doing something good, like the Hearing Protection Act, they aren’t. This is Menendez’s bill to outlaw suppressors entirely and “buy back” those in circulation. HEAR stands for Help Americans Respond Act. Menendez thinks that all suppressed firearms are Hollywood quiet and allow murderers to do their work without being discovered. Completely wrong, of course, and never mind that criminals almost never use suppressors. But never let facts dim the narrative. The HEAR Act is the exact opposite of the HPA.)
  • “Jaime’s Law” (This bill aims to require background checks for ammunition sales. It’s named for Jaime Guttenberg, a victim of the Parkland, Florida murderer. The Florida tragedy aside, it’s a dumb idea that won’t accomplish anything, it’s blatantly unconstitutional, and it exploits that same tragedy for propaganda purposes.)

The list goes on, but you get the idea. There are 20 total items, for now. There will certainly be more since none of these senators has ever met a gun control proposal they didn’t like.

Senators Cory Booker and Bob Menendez
New Jersey Senators Cory Booker (left) and Bob Menendez. Menendez wants to outlaw suppressors entirely with the HEAR Act. The rest of the caucus agrees. (observer.com)

But Don’t Worry…

The Senate Gun Violence Prevention Caucus has your back. They pledge to develop “gun safety” legislation that will “preserve constitutional rights and will avoid frivolous lawsuits.”

Let’s clarify that, shall we? These senators and their allies have done everything they possibly can to end civilian firearms ownership. When asked why existing firearms were grandfathered in the 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban,” Feinstein noted that she didn’t have the votes. “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them…Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in…I would have done it.”

Nothing has changed. If anything, Feinstein is worse now and Murphy is her heir apparent in the Senate. “Constitutional” doesn’t mean the same thing to them as it does to us. They want you to be “well-regulated,” meaning they want to regulate you as opposed to the 1791 definition that meant “well-equipped” and “well-trained.” And about that militia thing…watch their heads explode if you suggest joining one. They do not acknowledge the part that says, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” You know, the inconvenient part.

And about those frivolous lawsuits. We would certainly be down with preventing crime victims from frivolously suing gunmakers. But we’ve already seen that they support that. No, what they mean here is that groups like Gun Owners of America, the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the National Rifle Association should not be able to challenge gun control laws, like the draconian measures in places like New York, New Jersey, California, and others. And it’s no coincidence that all these senators represent those draconian states.

But anyway, legal challenges like that led to the Heller, McDonald, and Bruen Decisions that currently imperil gun control regimes across the country. They are very concerned about the march of freedom, and they will do everything they can to stop it. Because it’s “frivolous.” In reality, it’s because it threatens their power, and they don’t like it.

Never forget that the operative word in “gun control” is “control.” Which is why I think of this new alliance as the “Senate Gun Control Caucus.” Emphasis on the “control.”

[ad_2]
#Senate #Democrats #Launch #Gun #Violence #Prevention #Caucus

Should Firearms Training Be Required for Politicians?

[ad_1]

Some of you may be surprised to learn that politicians often support, or even write, bills on subjects about which they know little or nothing. Just kidding, everyone knows that, especially gun owners. Seriously, who can forget then-California state legislator Kevin DeLeon going on about “30 magazine clips?” It would be comedy gold if his shenanigans didn’t carry the force of law. Well, Illinois State Senator Neil Anderson has had enough.

Illinois State Senator Neil Anderson
Illinois Senator Neil Anderson thinks politicians should understand firearms before introducing bills regulating them. (senatorneilanderson.com)

Anderson recently introduced Senate Bill 2106, which would amend the state’s General Operations Act by requiring that “any member of the General Assembly who wishes to introduce a bill pertaining to a firearm must be able to prove that he or she has completed firearm training requirements under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, range safety officer training, and a basic knowledge test of calibers and gauges of firearms.”

Such a law would be welcome indeed to gun owners who routinely roll their eyes at the erroneous things politicians say about firearms and those who own them. We are of the opinion that many of these seemingly dumb statements are calculated misinformation directed at an ill-informed public, which we see as even more nefarious. Still, requiring a certain level of demonstrable knowledge can only be a good thing. If nothing else, it would be easier to expose deliberate lies.

Why Now?

Many of you are likely aware that Illinois recently passed a draconian “assault weapons” ban in January. The law’s provisions are bad enough, but the nature of the law’s passage makes it even worse. In the waning days of the General Assembly’s lame duck session, gun control senators, urged on by anti-gun Governor J.B. Pritzker, took a bill entitled Insurance Code-Public Adjusters, completely gutted its contents, and replaced them with their gun control wish list.

These Senators avoided the chamber’s rule that bills must be read three times before a vote since the bill, with its original insurance-related language, had already met that standard. The bill’s name and number had not changed, so it technically met the standard. The bill was rewritten, rammed through the Senate, rubber-stamped by the Democrat-controlled House, and signed by Pritzker within 72 hours. The law took effect immediately. It was absolutely shameless, but it allowed Pritzker to keep his campaign promise to ban “assault weapons” in time for him to consider a run at the White House—priorities, you know.

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker
Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker was determined to ban “assault weapons” one way or another. (abc7chicago.com)

Immediate Legal Challenges

The new law sparked outrage among gun owners and Second Amendment groups. Lawsuits have dropped on an average of one every four days since the ban took effect. The law is currently on hold as the courts have issued temporary restraining orders (TRO) against its implementation.

The suits challenge, among other things, the law’s violation of the Second Amendment and the end run around the three readings rule. The latter allegation is unlikely to stand as the three readings rule has never been iron clad and the bill technically was read three times, even if the guts were entirely different when it went to a vote.

The other suits carry more weight, however, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen Decision, which the law seems to clearly flout. Illinois, like New York, New Jersey, and others, seems determined to go down with the gun control ship, which isn’t surprising given the state’s history of onerous gun control laws. Pritzker is but the latest Illinois politician to hold his state’s gun owners in contempt.

Will SB 2106 Pass?

Nope. Anti-gun Democrats rule the Illinois Senate and House with an iron fist. Even if, by some miracle, the General Assembly passed the bill, Pritzker would certainly veto it. Misinformation is the anti-gun stock-in-trade. There’s no way they will approve anything that takes away from their ability to employ it. Realistically, the bill won’t make it out of committee, where it may not even receive a vote.

Morpheus Matrix meme
Really? I never woulda thunk it.

But we admire Anderson’s willingness to bring it up. Anderson has a history of such things, supporting sportsmen’s rights and efforts to repeal Illinois’ ridiculous Firearm Owners Identification Card scheme. We think this is an idea worth pursuing, not only for firearms but for other issues as well.

We understand that legislators cannot be experts about everything on which they are asked to vote. But introducing legislation affecting millions of people should require a certain level of knowledge. Not liking guns should not qualify a lawmaker to speak authoritatively about them, which many often presume to do (see Kevin DeLeon, among many others).

We hope Senator Anderson’s bill sparks a new trend to hold lawmakers accountable for what they say and promote. It’s really not too much to ask.

[ad_2]
#Firearms #Training #Required #Politicians