The ongoing conflict over the Rare Breed Forced Reset Trigger (FRT-15) has resulted in a federal lawsuit in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) accuses Rare Breed of conspiring to defraud the Unites States. Specifically, the suit claims that Rare Breed has “knowingly and intentionally conspired to defraud the United States by impeding, impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful Government functions of ATF in their regulation of machineguns under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).”
The ATF has classified this as a machine gun. (Rare Breed Triggers Photo)
The suit further claims that ATF has probable cause to believe that Rare Breed has “engaged in the ongoing commission of mail fraud…wire fraud…as well as conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud…in connection with their sale of the illegal FRT-15s.”
Interestingly, this action is a civil suit, not a criminal proceeding. The ATF asks the court for “injunctive relief…in order to protect the United States from further fraud.” The January 19, 2023, suit was filed in Federal District Court in the Eastern District of New York. The judge has unsurprisingly issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Rare Breed Firearms, Rare Breed Triggers, Company President Lawrence DeMonico, and owner Kevin Maxwell. Violation of the TRO by selling any more FRT-15s could result in serious criminal charges against DeMonico and Maxwell.
The cycle of a standard AR-15 trigger system. (Rare Breed Triggers Photos)
What is the FRT-15?
The term “forced reset” is an accurate descriptor of how the trigger works. Standard AR triggers reset when the shooter releases rearward pressure, thus allowing the trigger mechanism to move forward, whereupon another trigger press starts the whole process over. The FRT-15 uses a newly designed hammer that, as it is cocked by the bolt carrier, forces the trigger forward to the reset, along with the shooter’s finger, as the bolt moves forward to chamber the next round.
A locking bar prevents the trigger from being pressed again until the bolt cycle is complete. By maintaining pressure on the trigger, the shooter can take advantage of the hammer-assisted reset to dramatically increase the rate of fire.
Keep in mind that the locking bar’s pressure on the trigger prevents another press until the bolt cycles. The completion of the bolt cycle is what releases the locking bar. Between the hammer and the locking bar, the shooter cannot simply hold the trigger to the rear. It must execute its function for each round fired. So, while the FRT-15 is capable of a prodigious rate of fire, Rare Breed contends that it is still a semi-automatic trigger.
The cycle of the Rare Breed FRT-15. The brown component is the hammer. The green component is the locking bar. Note how the movement of the bolt carrier forces each to engage the trigger, controlling the reset. (Rare Breed Triggers Photos)
What’s the problem?
Rare Breed did not submit the FRT-15 to ATF for classification. They believe their product is a semi-automatic trigger by definition, so they saw no need. ATF obtained two examples of the FRT-15 commercially and tested their function. Based on those tests, ATF classified the FRT-15 as a machine gun under the NFA and GCA.
ATF sent a Cease-and-Desist order to Rare Breed, which the company defied. Rare Breed also sued the ATF in a Florida Court, where they lost. Nevertheless, Rare Breed continued selling FRT-15s.
The Charges Against Rare Breed
As noted above, ATF is suing the company and its executives for fraud against the United States because the company allegedly sold illegal “machine guns,” thus disregarding the ATF’s duty to “protect” the public against such devices. The mail and wire fraud charges stem from Rare Breed’s allegedly misleading its customers and shipping FRT-15’s and the similar “Wide Open Trigger (WOT) under a false name (Red Beard Treasures).
The ATF also claims that, by selling tens of thousands of these products illegally, they cost the government an estimated $32 million in unpaid tax stamps. That charge seems very shaky because of the way machine gun law works, but the government seems to be all in against Rare Breed.
US Attorney General Merrick Garland has vowed to protect Americans from illegal guns. Which the FRT-15 supposedly is. (washingtonpost.com)
US Attorney General Merrick Garland said, regarding the suit, that the Justice Department will do “everything in its power to protect the American people from gun violence and to hold accountable those that flood our communities with illegal guns.” Never mind that not one FRT-15 has been used in a crime.
The Outlook for Rare Breed
The final result is difficult to predict, but some things seem fairly clear. The ATF has massaged the definition of “machinegun” by claiming the NFA language of “a single pull of the trigger” may be interpreted as “a single function of the trigger.” If allowed, that change could be significant. The FRT-15 clearly requires one “pull” per round fired. But how the term “function” is defined regarding the FRT-15 is murkier.
The government chose possibly the most anti-gun court in possibly the most anti-gun state to file the suit. A judge in Brooklyn is not likely to be gun friendly. Indeed, the TRO has already been issued, with a preliminary injunction likely to follow. The suit doesn’t say so, but it seems very likely that the government is lining up criminal charges against DeMonico and Maxwell. A successful civil suit stopping the FRT-15’s sale would be a potential weapon in such a case.
Rare Breed President Lawrence Demonico puts an FRT-15 through its paces. (Rare Breed YouTube Channel)
One thing is clear: the government appears to be trying to ruin Rare Breed, DeMonico, and Maxwell financially. The suit is asking the court to order Rare Breed to reimburse everyone who bought FRT-15s and WOTs, as well as making good on the alleged lost tax money. There’s no way the defendants have that kind of cash.
The first round probably won’t go well for Rare Breed. The company will likely appeal, but that would go to the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals, which is equally anti-gun. This will be a major story moving forward. We will keep you up to date as it progresses. You can read the suit for yourself at courtlistener.com.
Just before the New Year, we told you about the ATF’s unprecedented December 27 Open Letter to Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) redefining “firearm” from the agency’s so-called “Final Rule” on frames and receivers. The “Final Rule” apparently wasn’t as “final” as they wanted it to be. The Open Letter basically said that any unfinished blank, receiver, or frame is a firearm under federal law. The same day, ATF also sent a letter specifically to Polymer80, mentioning several of their products by name, and unilaterally redefining them under the new standard.
Polymer80 has taken the offensive against the ATF. (polymer80.com)
Polymer80 responded with a lawsuit on January 9. The suit follows what is becoming a well-worn path accusing the ATF and the Biden Administration of usurping Congressional power through executive fiat. “This lawsuit,” reads the complaint, “challenges the Biden Administration’s unlawful attempt to unilaterally rewrite federal law, create new criminal and civil liability, destroy the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights by privately making firearms, and infringe the First Amendment rights of Plaintiff Polymer80, Inc. (“Polymer80”) to market and sell the lawful products targeted by the Biden Administration.”
Polymer80 notes that the “heart” of their business is “the aim to allow customers to ‘participate in the build process’ of creating a constitutionally protected instrument.” As many know, the ability to build one’s own firearm has been legal since the Republic’s founding. Until now.
Polymer80’s business model has always been about engaging their customers in the process. (polymer80.com)
Polymer80’s Charges
Polymer80s attorneys break that overarching charge down to its component parts in a damning indictment of executive overreach regarding firearms law. The suit has only just been filed with no action yet taken. But these charges are important, as are the similar charges in other suits, which we will note briefly in a moment. For now, let’s take a quick look at the lawsuit’s narrative components.
“The ATF’s longstanding legal position has been that receiver blanks, jigs, tools, and related instructions do not fall within the ATF’s regulatory jurisdiction because they are not “firearms” as that term is defined and understood under federal law.”
“Receiver blanks did not fall under the purview of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (“Gun Control Act” or “ACT”), an Act with definitions carefully defined by Congress. Nor did the Act apply to receiver blanks combined with tools, jigs, instructions, and/or kits.”
“President Biden campaigned on a promise to prompt Congressional action to impose new laws on receiver blanks.”
“President Biden failed to convince Congress to impose new laws on receiver blanks.”
“Subsequently, President Biden pressured Defendants [the Justice Department and ATF] to take unilateral action to impose new regulations having the force of law on receiver blanks.”
“In response to the Biden Administration’s pressure, Defendants adopted a Final Rule. In doing so, Defendants (a) ignored administrative procedures; (b) flouted longstanding principles of congressional intent; and (c) illicitly redefined…the Gun Control Act.
“The Final Rule unlawfully rewrites federal law by: (1) expanding definitions of ‘frame’ and ‘receiver’ so that ATF may regulate partial frames or receivers; and (2) expanding Congress’ definition of ‘firearm’ to include ‘a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted’ into a ‘firearm.’ These expansions contradict congressionally defined laws and regulations. Congress has never demonstrated an intent to regulate partial frames or receivers or weapon parts kits that could be readily made into a firearm.”
“The Final Rule not only unlawfully increases Defendants’ regulatory powers but also confers to Defendants the power to hold criminally liable businesses and citizens who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”
“The Final Rule repudiates the ATF’s longstanding legal position on receiver blanks, expressly stating that prior classification determinations ‘shall not continue to be valid or authoritative…and claiming that receiver blanks now fall within ATF’s regulatory jurisdiction.”
“The Final Rule also violates the First Amendment. The Final Rule’s requirement that submissions to the ATF for classification determination must include the submitting party’s marketing materials unlawfully regulates speech protected by the First Amendment. The Final Rule will have the unconstitutional result that two identical pieces of metal could be treated differently depending on whether they are associated with…instructions, jigs, tools, or some unknown combination, chilling First Amendment speech used to guide lawful activity recognized by the Final Rule itself.”
“Subsequent to adopting the Final Rule, the ATF issued an Open Letter that specifically targets Polymer80. The Open letter states that certain Polymer80’s (sic) partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional pistol frames are ‘firearm[s]’ under the Gun Control Act and the Final Rule even when not sold as part of a parts kit.”
“The Open Letter further rewrites federal law by expanding the definitions of ‘frame’ and ‘receiver’ so that ATF may regulate partial frames or receivers even when not sold as part of a parts kit. The Open Letter effectively amended the Final Rule by using a definition of ‘readily’ that is facially contradictory to the Final Rule, making it a legislative rule with the force of law. It was subject to but did not undergo the required notice-and-comment procedures.”
“The Open Letter represents a stark, unsupportable reversal of the ATF’s previous determinations that Polymer80 pistol frame or receiver blanks are not ‘firearm[s]’ under the meaning of the Gun Control Act…The Open Letter singles out Polymer80 and creates rules of play for Polymer80 that are materially different from other marketplace participants.”
“Also, on December 27, 2022, the ATF sent, unprompted by Polymer80, a letter directly to Polymer80…The Polymer80 Letter reinforced the Open Letter but tailored its ‘evaluation’ to only Polymer80’s products and was sent only to Polymer80. The Polymer80 Letter classified several of Polymer80’s receiver blanks as a ‘frame’ and also a ‘firearm,’ as defined by the GCA…and implementing regulations.”
The ATF now says this is a “firearm” after decades of saying it wasn’t. (polymer80.com)
Polymer80’s Main Charge and Request
The suit concludes by saying that the Final Rule, the Open letter, and the Polymer80 Letter are unconstitutional regulations designed to drive them out of business. It’s tough to see it any other way, though the ATF’s lawyers will certainly try to convince the court otherwise.
Polymer80 asks the court for a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent the ATF from enforcing the Final Rule and the Open Letter and to declare both unconstitutional. They also ask for attorney’s fees, court costs, and “such other relief as the Court deems equitable and just.”
A Legal Assault on the Justice Department and ATF
The Polymer80 suit is but the latest in a series of legal actions taken against US Attorney General Merrick Garland, the Justice Department, the ATF, and Director Steve Dettelbach. If there was any question about whether Dettelbach, when he was confirmed last summer, would do Biden’s political bidding, that question has been emphatically answered. ATF has become the instrument of Biden’s executive assault on the Second Amendment through its Final Rule of Frames and Receivers, the Open Letter, and the anticipated Final Rule on Pistol Braces.
ATF Director Steve Dettelbach has proven himself a willing instrument for Joe Biden’s anti-gun Executive policies. (cleveland.com)
But the legal pushback has been strong. The Vanderstok v. Garland challenge to the Final Rule is ongoing. That case originated the First Amendment charge that Polymer80 is also pursuing. It was that charge which likely prompted the ill-considered Open Letter and the Polymer80 letter. Those rash actions may haunt the ATF moving forward.
The recently decided Cargill v. Garland case will put further pressure on ATF, since the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals declared the Final Rule on Bump Stocks unconstitutional for reasons similar to those put forth in Vanderstok and Polymer80, namely that ATF is unlawfully making rules that carry the weight of federal law, and then claiming the authority to enforce those same rules.
This is suddenly a “firearm” under the ATF’s new rule. (polymer80.com)
Cargill will certainly be appealed. But ATF suddenly finds itself playing defense against a well-coordinated legal assault. These lawsuits, and perhaps others, may well serve to curtail out-of-control executive agencies across the board. The Supreme Court’s West Virginia v. EPA and Bruen Decisions will also probably play a role.
Big things are happening with the Second Amendment right now. 2022 was a banner year for gun rights. 2023 is shaping up to be that way too. Stay tuned.
2022 has been a big year for Second Amendment rights. Despite facing a hostile President and Congress, 2A advocates mostly held the line and scored several major wins this year. Some perceived losses may yet turn out to be significant victories over time as gun control activists and politicians stick their necks out too far. So, as 2022 fades in the rear-view mirror, let’s look back at those wins and losses, and talk about where we’re heading from here.
(besthqwallpapers.com Text added)
Clear Second Amendment Wins
Let’s start with the good news. We won more than we lost in 2022, and the biggest win literally affects everything else in this article. So, let’s start there.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen
If you’ve been following along, you’ve seen us write extensively about the Supreme Court’s Bruen Decision. If not, here’s the short version: The Court ruled in June that New York’s draconian concealed carry laws were unconstitutional. In the ruling’s majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas declared that the Second Amendment is not a “second-class right.” Therefore, it cannot be subjected to the balancing often applied by judges when weighing gun laws’ constitutionality.
That balancing was part of a two-step approach to gun laws that not only looked at the Second Amendment’s text, but also considered the government’s responsibility to provide for public safety. Never mind that most gun laws only apply to responsible gun owners. Thomas wrote that such an approach is “one step too many” and that any gun law not addressed in the Second Amendment’s clear text must adhere to the text and history of gun laws as they existed when the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791.
Justice Clarence Thomas authored the epic majority opinion for the Bruen Decision.
Bruen was built on the shoulders of the earlier Heller and McDonald decisions and may yet prove to be the tsunami that swamps most American gun control laws. Numerous lawsuits are being pursued throughout the country and gun controllers are on the defensive. More on that below. Bruen has literally changed the game and puts 2A advocates on offense for the first time in a while.
West Virginia vs. EPA
This Supreme Court case had nothing to do with gun laws, but it may help reign in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives (ATF) and the FBI when it comes to making rules that carry the force of federal law.
It seems that West Virginia didn’t like the EPA making sweeping rules that also equal federal law and they sued to stop it. The Supreme Court sided with the Mountain State and said that federal agencies cannot arbitrarily make rules that carry economic or political significance. Congress is supposed to do that.
So, this case will likely serve as part of the basis for the lawsuits set to challenge the upcoming ATF pistol brace rule, as well as other ATF and FBI overreaches. We’ll keep you up to date on how that goes.
Constitutional Carry Expands
2022 saw the Constitutional Carry movement expand to fully 50% of these United States. Florida seems set to be number 26, providing even more momentum. Of course, gun control advocates have predicted blood in the streets each time, as they always do. But it hasn’t happened, and it won’t happen. Nationwide, responsible citizens who carry commit crimes at a lower rate than police officers. We hope this trend continues.
No Federal “Assault Weapons” Ban
Despite the political theater in the House of Representatives, and it was indeed dramatic, the Senate failed to muster support for HR 1808, the “Assault Weapons” ban. Even though gun control luminaries like Bill Clinton urged its passage, Senate Democrats couldn’t get within 20 votes of what was needed to pass it.
Despite passing the House of Representatives, gun control advocates could not push the AWB through the Senate in 2022. (firearmspolicy.org)
President Joe Biden will likely continue his droning about “assault weapons,” but there appears to be no appetite in the Senate, especially with swing votes Kristen Sinema of Arizona and West Virginia’s Joe Manchin up for reelection in two years in very pro-gun states. HR 1808 is officially dead. Hallelujah!
Firearms Sales Remain Strong
The anti-gun rhetoric from the White House and the media has done nothing to dampen Americans’ appetite for buying guns. Black Friday of 2022 was the third highest on record for NICS checks, and a large percentage of purchases are by first-time gun buyers. Let’s welcome them into our community, regardless of political or other differences. The Second Amendment is for everyone, and it will take all of us to protect it.
Second Amendment Losses
2022 did witness a couple of losses for the good guys. But only a couple, and those may turn out alright in the end.
The Bi-Partisan “Safer Communities Act”
This bill passed the Senate after Texas Senator John Cornyn crossed the aisle to negotiate away some Constitutional rights in the name of “safety.” The law implemented three new programs:
Funding for states to enact Red Flag laws to take away guns from people deemed a danger to themselves or others. Red Flag laws, as we have noted, are dubious at best. They bypass due process and force the defendant to prove his innocence, instead of being innocent until proven guilty. And if the person is so dangerous, why leave them on the street? Red Flags, as with all gun laws, only address the firearm, not the person wielding it. In this case, the law supposedly does that before the firearm is even used. Very problematic. Not to mention the fact that such laws are ripe for abuse. Finally, many murderers who should theoretically be stopped by Red Flags are not because law enforcement agencies have failed to follow up.
Closing the so-called “boyfriend loophole.” This has long been a staple of the anti-gun wish list. Convicted spousal abusers are already banned from owning a firearm under federal law. The law for non-marital abuse is fuzzier. Restraining orders are easy to get and often hinge on which partner files first. The bar for issuance is relatively low, and violating a restraining order is usually a misdemeanor. This law bars firearms ownership to persons subject to a restraining order or otherwise convicted of non-marital abuse, even if that person is not by definition a felon. Look, I get it. Abuse is wrong, no matter what. But taking away a Constitutionally protected right is a big deal. Opening the door for a misdemeanor qualification sets a dangerous precedent.
Enhanced background checks for persons aged 18-20. This change is now reflected in the revised Form 4473 just introduced by the ATF. Basically, the NICS background check system now has extra time to check juvenile records if necessary. The FBI also reports all delays and denials to local law enforcement, including the applicant’s home address. Have a common name that always gets you delayed? Well, your local police or sheriff’s department now gets a heads-up every time you buy a gun, no matter what your age.
This is the law that Joe Biden is referencing when he brags about passing “the most significant gun control in 30 years.”
Texas Senator John Cornyn was booed in his home state after negotiating for gun control in the Senate. (KTRK Houston)
New Credit Card Merchant Codes for Gun Stores
This one comes from the private sector, so there may not be much we can do about it. Priscilla Sims Brown, CEO of Amalgamated Bank, lobbied and persuaded the body governing credit card companies to implement a new merchant code specific to gun store purchases. She claims it will help stop gun trafficking. Like criminals regularly buy their stuff from gun stores.
Never mind that gun tracking schemes never stop crimes and have rarely aided in solving them. Canada’s expensive gun-tracking program was scrapped for that very reason. Many fear that this code will lead to credit card companies denying purchases at gun stores. Some have reported it already happening, though those reports have not been verified.
To Be Determined
Many of these may seem like losses at first glance. But I believe they represent opportunities for gun rights advocates. We know gun controllers will push as far as they can. The good thing about that is they often push too far, opening the door for the good guys to challenge them in court and creating legal precedents to curtail them in the future. That’s what happened with the Heller, McDonald, and Bruen Decisions.
Credit card companies now have a special merchant code to track sales from gun stores. Nevertheless, gun sales remain strong. (Getty Images)
State Gun Control
Gun control advocates have begun focusing on states. It’s easier for them to make headway on that level. But, despite the early returns, there’s a lot to like here, though it may take years to sort through.
We won’t dig into the details because we’ve done that elsewhere. But over-the-top gun control like Oregon’s recent Measure 114, New York and New Jersey’s obnoxious carry laws in response to Bruen, and numerous magazine bans are undergoing court challenges. We are already seeing preliminary restraining orders against these laws, and we should score some significant victories.
The states, of course, will appeal and obfuscate as long as possible, so it will take time. But Bruen has changed the game. Even state Constitutions are being cited against these laws, as in Oregon. Expect those states to change their Constitutions if they can, but, either way, the Second Amendment, supported by Bruen, trumps them all.
Federal Judge Roger T. Benitez (peace be upon him) remains a thorn in the side of California’s gun control regime. (breachbangclear.com)
New Shipping Rules
Back in August, five Democrat Senators sent a letter to 28 shipping carriers, including FedEx and UPS, asking searching questions about how they ship legal firearms, parts, and accessories. Those Senators implied that these companies contribute to “gun violence” through their business activities.
It’s all ridiculous, of course. But FedEx and UPS have since responded by implementing new terms of service that essentially allow them to track all firearms shipments while requiring gun dealers to provide them with purchaser details upon request. They also say that information may be shared with federal agencies, even if sharing is against the law.
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen has launched an investigation into these practices, and it looks like he means business. Knudsen was joined by 17 other state attorneys general. We’ll keep you updated on how that shakes out.
The Centers for Disease Control Pulls a Fast One
The CDC commissioned a study over a decade ago regarding defensive gun use. The study was done by Florida State University criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck. The study found that Americans defend themselves with firearms as many as 2.5 million times per year. The results didn’t fit with the CDC’s desired outcome, nor that of the Obama Administration, so they were quietly forgotten, though the study remained on the CDC’s website.
Recently, gun control advocates from the Gun Violence Archive complained to the CDC that the study’s web presence interfered with their ability to push anti-gun measures. Certain members of the Biden Administration applied a little pressure on the Gun Violence Archive’s behalf, and voila! The study disappeared.
Gun rights groups immediately cried foul and have demanded the study be replaced. The Gun Violence Archive claimed the study was flawed, despite being conducted by a credentialed researcher. This from a group who almost single-handedly redefined “mass shooting” by including gang and criminal activity not counted by the FBI crime statistics. When you hear the media talk about hundreds of mass shootings every year, that’s their source. And it is certainly flawed.
We are awaiting the CDC’s response. Don’t be surprised if this one goes to court.
New ATF Rules
As mentioned earlier, the ATF loves to make new rules. That’s how the Biden Administration is getting some of its gun control since Congress hasn’t done it. One major rule dropped in 2022, with another expected any day, as of this writing.
The Frames and Receivers Rule targeted so-called “ghost guns.” Companies marketing 80 percent lower receivers looked to take a big hit. But, in a surprising move, these same companies appear to have been saved by a federal judge who said that removing the jig from the kit brings them into compliance. The jig is now sold separately. Even more surprising, the ATF accepted this rule, but has now dropped a surprise overnight rule change classifying all unfinished frames and receivers as firearms. this may have been in response to the ongoing lawsuit challenging the original rule. The plaintiffs have moved to have the entire rule vacated and enjoined and the ATF seems to be fighting back. we will stay on top of that one for you.
So far, companies have been able to work around the ATF’s Frames and Receivers Rule (thefirearmblog.com)
The Pistol Brace Rule is expected in January. We don’t have the particulars, but it looks like pistol braces will be classified as NFA items similar to short-barreled rifles and require a tax stamp. More details as they emerge. expect multiple lawsuits in response, especially considering one is already underway.
But soon-to-be House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) has alerted the ATF that he intends to look into their rulemaking process. Jordan doesn’t like that ATF arbitrarily changes rules, potentially turning legal gun owners into felons. Only Congress has the power to make federal law, and Jordan may be asserting that right. We will keep you up to date on how that goes.
A Good Year for the Second Amendment
Overall, it’s been a very good year for gun rights. Bruen is proving to be the gift that keeps on giving. As it creates more precedent, the next few years could very likely be even better. Hardline gun control states are gyrating wildly trying to escape Bruen’s reach, but they are only making it worse for themselves as they infringe even more. Looking at you, New York and New Jersey.
The surging firearms sales trends, no doubt boosted by Joe Biden’s rhetoric, are good news as well. Bringing more gun owners into the fold will strengthen Second Amendment support and degrade gun controllers’ influence. It’s a fact that when people embrace the Second Amendment, they rarely go back.
The Second Amendment really is for everyone. (Shutterstock – Text added)
But we must continue to do our part. Politicians are politicians. They will always seek to increase their own power at the people’s expense. Same with government bureaucrats like the ATF. Most issues generally have a 10-80-10 breakdown. 10% of people support it no matter what. Another 10% oppose it no matter what. The 80% in the middle are those who decide how it goes. We have to convince those folks, or most of them, that the Second Amendment is for all of us, whether we actively engage with it or not. The Second really does protect all the rest.
The New Year made Alabama the 25th state to implement Constitutional Carry, meaning that a permit is not required to carry a firearm in public. While anti-gun states like New York, New Jersey, Oregon, and others seek to restrict carry rights as much as possible, gun-friendly states are doing the opposite.
The Constitutional Carry train continues to roll across the country. (Shutterstock)
Constitutional Carry: What It Is
The term “Constitutional Carry” refers to the fact that the United States Constitution, via the Second Amendment, recognizes and protects Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, including firearms. The Supreme Court’s Heller Decision found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, as opposed to a collective right, practiced as part of a militia, as gun control advocates continue to insist.
Therefore, as the supreme law of the land, the Constitution protects an individual’s right not only to own firearms in the home, but also to carry them in public for self-protection or any other lawful purpose. State and local permitting programs, according to Constitutional Carry supporters, run afoul of that protection and are neither necessary nor proper. Alabama and 24 other states now adhere to that premise.
Constitutional Carry: What It Is Not
Alarmists would have us believe that easing carry restrictions, much less Constitutional Carry laws, will result in “Wild West” style shootouts in the streets. But they said the same thing when concealed carry laws, even with permits, began sweeping the nation. Those alarmists have been wrong in every case, though that fact does not stop them from repeating the claim ad nauseam. The “blood in the streets” prediction is but a tool to further their control agenda.
The Second Amendment overrules state permit laws. Or it should. (Shutterstock)
Constitutional Carry, as noted by Alabama legislator Shane Stringer, who sponsored the bill, does not apply to prohibited persons under the law. Prohibited persons are still prohibited and will stay that way unless other legislation changes their status.
Even in Constitutional Carry states, residents may still wish to obtain a permit. The permitless carry law only applies to the state in which it was enacted. If a resident wants to carry out of state, a permit from their home state allows them to do so, assuming the destination state has reciprocity with their home state. This will continue to be a concern until we have nationwide Constitutional Carry. Don’t hold your breath on that one.
Odds and Ends
The national media is unsurprisingly critical of Constitutional Carry. Most media members, and their bosses, are fully invested in the anti-gun narrative and will paint Constitutional Carry negatively whenever possible.
But the fact remains that not one doom and gloom scenario has come to pass as carry laws broaden. Concealed carry holders commit crimes at a significantly lower rate than even police officers. The statistics prove it. Lawful gun owners who choose to carry do not want to lose that ability by becoming a prohibited person. I’m one of those people. Firearms are not only my primary hobby, but they also provide my living. So, don’t you think I’ll continue to carry responsibly? Me and almost everyone else.
Lawful carriers commit fewer crimes than police officers. (al.com)
Law Enforcement Opposition?
The media also likes to trumpet the rare case of law enforcement not supporting lawful concealed carry or Constitutional Carry. What they will not tell you is why most of those officials oppose broader carry laws.
First, big city police chiefs are not cops. Oh, they probably have experience in law enforcement, but once they reach those positions, they are bureaucrats appointed by the mayor. They were chosen because they will support the mayor’s policies and their jobs depend on doing just that. Most big-city mayors are in favor of gun control. Therefore, their subordinates, including the police chiefs, play along. When you hear a big city police chief pushing for tighter gun restrictions, they are doing what their boss expects them to do.
Second, we occasionally hear that local sheriffs, or sheriff’s associations, oppose Constitutional Carry. This was the case in Alabama and the media spared no ink in reporting it. But, again, they rarely elaborated on why the sheriffs did so. Many sheriff’s departments nationwide help pay their bills with concealed carry permit fees. They don’t want to lose that revenue source. It’s pretty crappy that they put such things over Constitutional rights, but there it is.
(Author’s map)
My state does not have Constitutional Carry, but the legislature lets the localities set the permit fee. I recently moved from a town that charged the minimum fee of $15.00 to a county where the fee is $55.00. When I asked the clerk why it was so expensive, she told me the sheriff uses the money for his budget. I had no recourse but to pay the fee if I wanted to transfer my permit.
The Alabama Sheriff’s Association did indeed oppose Constitutional Carry. But you maybe didn’t hear that it was for budgetary reasons. They asked how the revenue shortfalls for their departments would be made up if permit fees fell dramatically or dried up altogether. The association dropped its objection when the legislature included additional funding in the final bill. But you probably won’t hear that part.
Constitutional Carry Nation
The Constitutional Carry wave has picked up steam in the last three years. Gun sales are surging, and millions of new gun owners continue to join our ranks. As those new gun owners educate themselves, many want to accept responsibility for their own safety by carrying their firearms.
Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signs Constitutional Carry into law. (Office of Governor Kay Ivey)
Constitutional Carry has proved popular for its political supporters as well. Governors and legislators are reaping electoral rewards thanks, in part, to liberty-promoting measures like Constitutional Carry. There will probably never be nationwide permitless carry, though the Supreme Court’s Bruen Decision continues to roll back decades of gun control schemes, so we’ll see.
But don’t be surprised if 2023 sees a few more states jumping on the train. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has said that he will sign a Constitutional Carry bill if the legislature puts it on his desk. That will probably happen. Nebraska is also looking good. Pro-gun states now outnumber those with anti-gun laws. The tide is turning as Bruen barrels along and more Americans choose to rely on themselves. That can only be a good thing, no matter what media darling gun controllers say.
You may have heard by now that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) made a sudden change last week to its so-called “Final Rule” regarding unfinished frames and receivers. That’s the rule that goes after what the Biden administration calls “ghost guns.” The change was announced in a December 27 open letter to all federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs).
Polymer80 co-founder and CEO Loran Kelley, Jr., (left) has responded to the ATF’s December 27 open letter. (laptrinhx.com)
If you haven’t seen it yet, here are the high points:
The ATF’s Final Rule, as clarified in the ongoing Vanderstok v. Garland lawsuit, allowed the sale of 80% frames and receivers so long as the sale did not include “non firearm objects” (NFO), defined as “associated templates, jigs, molds, equipment, tools, instructions, guides, or marketing materials.” In other words, the unfinished frames are “firearms” if sold with all that stuff. They are not “firearms” if sold alone. I know, it makes no sense to me either.
The open letter abruptly changed that policy to make those frames and receivers “firearms” in and of themselves, whether they include the NFO or not. ATF justified the change by explaining the definition of “readily” as in “readily converted.”
The sudden change seems to have been prompted by a motion in the Vanderstok case challenging the “Final Rule” as usurping Congressional authority and violating the First Amendment over the literature necessary to finish the frames. ATF looks to be trying to make the First Amendment charge irrelevant. It may do so, but it does seem that the charge of overstepping Executive authority will have to be adjudicated.
Polymer80 was allowed to sell blanks without the jigs until the ATF suddenly changed its mind. (reddit.com)
The Mag Life published an entire article dealing with the open letter, which you can find here.
Polymer80 Responds
Polymer80 founder and CEO Loran Kelley responded with his own open letter two days later:
DAYTON, Nev. (December 29, 2022)
Polymer80 Family,
As you may have seen or heard, on Tuesday ATF published an open letter to FFLs declaring that certain Polymer80 blanks are considered “Firearms” under their latest – and unprecedented – interpretation of Final Rule 2021R-0F5. I wanted to personally address this with all of you, our loyal customers, many of whom have been with us since we started in a rundown old maintenance shop on Callen Street in Vacaville, CA.
Over the past several years, Polymer80 has shouldered a considerable amount of legal expenses fighting egregious, unwarranted, and naked assaults on us, our products, and the natural and inalienable rights embedded in the Second Amendment and enshrined in our history.
I want to make three things VERY clear.
1. Polymer80 is not – and I am not – taking the bait. While Polymer80 vehemently disagrees with the open letter, we will take appropriate steps to ensure we continue to remain in compliance with applicable laws or regulations.
2. In addition to continuing to produce quality products and innovate, we are also modifying existing product lines taking into careful consideration – as best we can given ATF’s constantly changing interpretations of its own rules – ATF’s various positions, statements, and guidance, as well as the Final Rule and challenges to it across the country.
3. Finally, we are going to fight, as vigorously and fervently as ever, using every resource available to us in the legal system, against the open letter and reclaim our rights.
My ask: Polymer80 has been beyond blessed with the best customers in this industry, hands down, bar none! Out of our respect for you, we have never asked you to donate to assist us or crowdfunded to support our mounting legal expenses. We have always felt that we will prevail because people buy our products and believe in their quality and the outstanding service and support we provide. I stand behind that philosophy – and continue to put you first – to this day.
In the coming days, you will see more promotions and activity from our retail website than usual, and I ask that you support us by buying our products and being active and engaging customers. In return you will get great products at great prices, and we will use those funds to fight each of the outrageous attempts made to shut us down, including the open letter. I am calling this sales campaign “The War Chest,” because it will enable us to continue to fight and take legal action.
Please join us. Buy our products and support Polymer80. Together, we can take lawful action to stop the continuous encroachment on our lives, the American way of life, and the Second Amendment.
Thank you all and may God bless you all.
Loran Kelley Founder, CEO
Current Polymer80 kits abided by the rule, but ATF gonna ATF. (polymer80.com)
Moving Forward
How this will all shake out remains to be seen. Kelley is correct to state that Polymer80 will abide by the law. Getting busted by the feds does no one any good. But I’m glad to see that he will continue to fight, and I have some hope that the Vanderstok case will bear fruit for the good guys.
The Vanderstok case might just overturn the ATF’s Frames and Receivers Rule. Maybe. (thefirearmblog.com)
Whichever way the case goes, there will be an appeal. The plaintiffs have a strong case under the Supreme Court’s Bruen Decision, as well as last summer’s West Virginia v. EPA Decision, which limited federal agencies’ ability to make sweeping rules that carry the weight of federal law.
It’s a good time for gun rights advocates. We are winning more than we lose, and even our losses aren’t so bad, considering the appeals process looks favorable to putting many anti-gun laws to bed for good.
2023 looks to be a bellwether year for gun rights. We’ll keep you up to date as we move along.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) has denounced the US Senate’s confirmation of Martin J. Gruenberg as Chair and Member of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit and Insurance Corporation (FDIC). NSSF’s condemnation was driven by Gruenberg’s leadership of the FDIC from 2011 to 2018, during which he partnered with the Obama Justice Department to run Operation Choke Point, which restricted banking access to businesses of which the administration disapproved, including firearms manufacturers and dealers.
Operation Chokepoint was jointly run by the Obama Justice Department and the FDIC, then led by Martin Gruenberg. (americas1stfreedom.org)
“The Senate’s confirmation of Martin Gruenberg is a flagrant disregard for his role in illegally using the levers of government to force discriminatory banking policies on the firearm and ammunition industry,” said, Larry Keane, NSSF’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “His culpability in shepherding this illegal operation was not only previously investigated by Congress but was also highlighted by Senate Banking Committee Republicans. Mr. Gruenberg’s leading role in creating, administering, and punishing the firearm industry through illegal means simply because he, President Barack Obama, and former Attorney General Eric Holder found this industry politically disfavored clearly disqualified him from being confirmed to a position of public trust.”
The NSSF’s Larry Keane condemned Gruenberg’s nomination in no uncertain terms. (personaldefenseworld.com)
What is the FDIC?
The FDIC was established in 1933, at the height of the Great Depression, to help build public trust in banks. Basically, every federally insured bank, which is almost all banks, insures a depositor’s money up to $250,000. That means if the bank folds, the feds pay off the depositors, so they don’t lose their money.
It was a safeguard against bank runs, which are caused when people fear the bank will go under. When everyone draws their money out in a panic, even solvent banks often can’t stand the strain. If people were assured that their money was safe, the ruinous bank runs marking the Depression’s first few years would stop. And it worked.
But the FDIC also supervises and investigates banks to enforce federal banking laws. This is done through an objective scoring system known as “CAMELS.” The system considers a bank’s earnings, available capital, liquidity, and stuff like that. But, in 2011, Gruenberg, as part of the Obama Administration, added a new, subjective criteria called “reputational risk.” It assesses whether the bank has a bad public image.
“Reputational risk” grew, according to the FDIC, from business dealings involving certain industries, including firearms and ammunition manufacturers and retailers. To show you how the Obama Administration viewed the firearms industry, it was lumped in with others such as “cable box de-scramblers,” “online gambling,” “fireworks sales,” and “Ponzi schemes.” Besides these dubious activities, other legitimate businesses like “coin dealers” and “tobacco sales” were included.
Gruenberg abused the FDIC’s enormous influence over banks to target the firearms and ammunition industries. (findigits.com)
The FDIC Pressured Banks
The FDIC essentially threatened banks with investigations. Essentially, guidance issued by the FDIC and Justice Department told them they would be subpoenaed to appear before an FDIC panel to answer questions about dealing with the disfavored industries or businesses.
Few banks would willingly risk running afoul of the feds, so many severed or restricted their relationships with such businesses, including the firearms and ammunition industries:
Powderhorn outfitters of Hyannis, Massachusetts was turned down for a loan by TD Bank in 2014 because they sold firearms. Despite a 20-year relationship, the bank manager told them, “Your credit history is great, but the bank is turning you down because you sell guns.”
McMillan Group International was dropped by Bank of America in 2012 because they expanded from making gun parts to manufacturing complete firearms.
Bank of America also suspended the account of American Spirit Arms, which made AR-15 rifles, after a surge in sales in late 2012. That was the sales spike after the Sandy Hook tragedy, when everyone thought Obama would get his “assault weapons” ban. The bank manager told American Spirit that they should not be selling guns or gun parts on the internet.
These are just a few of many such stories. It all goes back to Operation Chokepoint, in which Martin Gruenberg played a major role.
Martin Gruenberg was confirmed by the Senate. (ocregister.com)
Congress Investigates Operation Chokepoint
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform investigated Operation Chokepoint in 2015. Some of the findings include:
The Justice Department knew their tactics harmed legitimate, lawful businesses, but they continued anyway.
The Justice Department believed that lawful businesses should be able to prove to their banks that they had done nothing wrong. That, of course, is just about impossible, considering the feds directly warned banks to drop certain customers.
As the hearings brought Operation Chokepoint’s abuses to light, Frank Keating of the American Bankers Association penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed in which he said that the Justice Department and FDIC were “asking banks to identify customers” who were “simply doing something government officials don’t like.” Banks were forced to deny access to financial services for those customers.
The Economist added that the expense of an investigation was so threatening that “banks have good reason to be supremely cautious in their interpretation of the law, even if it means tossing out blameless clients.”
Of course, the Justice Department and the FDIC, including Eric Holder and Martin Gruenberg, knew all this. That’s why they did it. Depriving businesses of financial services means they won’t be in business very long. But that’s how the Obama Administration rolled when it came to guns.
Eric Holder was Barack Obama’s anti-gun Attorney General. (washingtonexaminer.com)
A Not Surprising Nomination
No one should be surprised that the equally anti-gun Joe Biden nominated Gruenberg to the FDIC position. Honestly, anti-gun credentials likely had little, if anything, to do with it since Biden and Obama share similar fiscal philosophies. But it does show that the current administration sees nothing wrong with Operation Chokepoint, other than maybe wishing it was more successful.
Good for the NSSF for calling Gruenberg out. If the feds try something similar in the future, perhaps we will see it coming.
Much of this information was sourced from Dave Kopel’s detailed December 2015 article on Operation Chokepoint in America’s 1st Freedom.
ATF Form 4473 is a familiar sight to gun owners. It’s usually the first step toward taking delivery of a new firearm. As government agencies do, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) occasionally revises its forms to reflect changing laws, rules, and priorities. A revised Form 4473 has just dropped, so here’s a rundown of what’s new as of December 2022.
A New Manufacturer Category
Section A is where the seller records the firearm’s manufacturer and importer, if any. Reflecting the new frames and receivers rule, ATF has now added a “Privately Made Firearm (PMF)” category. Homemade firearms have always been legal and do not require a serial number unless they are transferred to another person.
This addition requires the FFL to record that the firearm being transferred was privately manufactured. The FFL will also record the assigned serial number in the same section.
New Additions to Form 4473, Section A.
A New Residence Question
Section B, line 10 asks for the purchaser’s address. A new question has been added, reading: “Reside in City Limits?” This may reflect the fact that, while many cities have their own firearms laws, some people’s address says they live in that city when they actually reside outside the marked limits.
New Qualifying Questions
Section B is filled out by the purchaser and includes qualifying questions to establish whether the transferee is a prohibited person. Two new questions have been added, apparently aimed at straw purchasers and gun traffickers. Now, we all know that criminals do not necessarily tell the truth, but this looks to be an administrative tool to use against them if they are caught.
Line 21.b.
The first new question, line 21.b., asks “Do you intend to purchase or acquire any firearm listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s), or ammunition, for sale or other disposition to any person described in questions 21 (c)-(m), or to a person described in question 21.n.1 who does not fall within a nonimmigrant alien exception?”
Basically, line 21.b. asks whether you intend to give or sell the firearms and/or ammunition you’re buying to a prohibited person. If you answer in the affirmative, you are now prohibited yourself because you intend to make a straw purchase.
New Section B qualifying questions
Line 21.c.
The second new question is on line 21.c. It reads, “Do you intend to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) or ammunition in furtherance of any felony or other offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than one year, a Federal crime of terrorism, or a drug trafficking offense?”
In other words, do you plan to use this firearm and/or ammunition to commit a crime, engage in terrorism, or sell drugs? If so, you are now a prohibited person. Again, it seems unlikely that any such person would answer yes, but this is probably one more thing to throw at such people in court.
New Age Requirements
Section C now contains the following notice: “If transferee/buyer is under 21, a waiting period of up to 10 days may apply where notification from NICS is received within 3 business days to further investigate a possible disqualifying juvenile record. A NICS check is only valid for 30 calendar days from the date recorded in question 27.a.”
This comes from the Senate gun control bill passed last summer, authorizing NICS to look at juvenile records for 18- to 20-year-old gun purchasers. NICS must inform the FFL within three days of a delay for that purpose. The FFL will then note on line 27.c the date on which the transfer can proceed if NICS does not extend the waiting period.
Line 27.d provides a place for the FFL to note whether and when NICS notifies them of an additional delay and when the transfer can proceed if NICS fails to respond.
New Section C age requirements.
Implementation
ATF has advised FFLS to begin using the revised Form 4473 immediately, though the mandatory implementation date is April 1, 2023. ATF says the revised 4473 e-form will be available soon.
For most of us, the new revisions are meaningless. The waiting period for 18-20-year-olds is problematic, Second Amendment-wise, and that may be challenged in court. But some folks have filled out so many 4473s that they habitually just check off the boxes in Section B without reading the questions. I’ve seen people do it. Be aware that if you check the wrong box, the FFL can’t just toss the form in the trash and give you a new one. They have to keep the one marked in error. Don’t be the guy who accidentally puts himself on the ATF’s radar by not reading the new questions.
Thanks to Orchid Advisors for the copy of the revised Form 4473.
The draconian Oregon Measure 114 has drawn no less than four lawsuits since its passage in November. Suits seeking to block Measure 114’s implementation were filed in federal district court and a state court, yielding two different outcomes. Final rulings have yet to be made, but here’s what we know so far. Two of these suits have not yet been heard.
Oregon’s controversial Measure 114 drew four separate lawsuits against its implementation. The 1st two now have initial rulings.
What is Oregon Measure 114?
We’ve covered Measure 114 and how it was passed elsewhere, but here’s a quick rundown of what it will do if allowed to stand:
Requires permits issued by local law enforcement to buy a firearm.
Requires photo ID, fingerprints, safety training, criminal background check, and fee payment to apply for a permit. Applicants must pay for the training themselves and the permit can cost up to $65.00.
Prohibits manufacturing, importing, purchasing, selling, possessing, using, or transferring ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds and makes violations a class A misdemeanor.
The ballot measure passed with 50.7% majority, with most of the state’s counties voting “no,” but the liberal-leaning metropolitan areas carrying the day. The law was scheduled to take effect on December 8, 2022, before being preempted by the state court ruling.
The Federal Lawsuit
The State of Oregon was sued in federal court by the Oregon Firearms Federation, three Oregon sheriffs, and two Oregon gun store owners. US District Judge Karin J. Immergut asked some alarming questions as the hearing proceeded. The 1st of those questions could be attributed to the judge wanting certain explanations entered into the court record, asking the plaintiffs’ lawyers to explain the evidence backing up their claim that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are commonly used for self-defense.
Another question, however, demonstrates a clear lack of understanding regarding the Second Amendment, its history, and its purpose. “You would agree,” asked Judge Immergut, “that law enforcement conceivably should have weapons that are different than a private citizen should have, wouldn’t you?” Plaintiff’s attorney John Kaempf replied, “No, I don’t see a historical tradition of that.”
Kaempf is obviously referring to the Supreme Court’s Bruen Decision, which stipulates that any gun laws must adhere to the traditions and history of the Second Amendment as they were understood when it was adopted in 1791. Before Bruen, judges often tried to balance a perceived good, such as a nebulous idea of “public safety” when weighing the constitutionality of gun laws. Bruen expressly forbids a two-tiered examination, meaning that such balancing is now unconstitutional.
Oregon gun stores can continue operating as before under the state judge’s ruling. For now. (Andrew Selsky/AP)
But Judge Immergut seems to be one of those judges who hasn’t yet received the memo. She asked if a magazine with a given number of rounds, more than 10, is used “in a way that perhaps wasn’t contemplated,’ such as by a mass murderer, could that magazine, and others like it, be considered dangerous and unusual.” With that question, the judge was clearly looking for a way to balance magazine capacity with the state’s definition of “public safety.”
Kaempf argued that most magazines carry more than 10 rounds and such magazines have been available since the 18th century. “Under Bruen, it’s a new day,” he said. “I have great respect for Your Honor,” Kaempf continued, “and what Bruen is telling you is it’s not up to you. We already had balancing. It happened in 1791 when we passed the Second Amendment. The balancing is over.”
The Federal Ruling
There was further testimony, but space prohibits a detailed account. The entire transcript can be found at courtlistener.com. In the end, Judge Immergut did indeed apply her own balancing, citing the state’s interest in “protecting public safety” and the plaintiff’s interest in “the continued exercise of their Second Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment rights…Because the rights articulated here are extremely compelling for both sides, this court finds that a balancing of the equities does not favor either party…The burden imposed by Measure 114 on the core Second Amendment right of self-defense is minimal.”
So, what does that mean? The judge allowed the magazine ban to stand. The onerous permitting process was pushed back by 30 days to allow a better implementation plan. In other words, the judge plans to let the whole thing stand, while claiming that it favors neither side and imposes only a “minimal” infringement on Oregonian’s Second Amendment rights. That’s some real mental and legal gymnastics, right there.
The State Lawsuit
Meanwhile, Gun Owners of America (GOA) filed another suit in Harney County, Oregon. This one challenged Measure 114 under the Oregon State Constitution. Harney County Circuit Judge Robert S. Raschio ruled just hours after Judge Immergut’s federal ruling.
Judge Robert S. Raschio’s temporary restraining order against Measure 114 means Oregon gun owners can still purchase standard capacity magazines. Oregon has seen record sales of guns and magazines since Measure 114 passed. (Connor Radnovich/Oregon Capital Chronicle)
Judge Raschio blocked Measure 114’s implementation, writing that his temporary restraining order (TRO) will maintain the status quo until a further hearing can determine whether Measure 114 is legal under Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution. Article 1, Section 27 reads, “The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.”
Raschio also expressed concerns other than constitutionality. “With implementation,” Raschio wrote, “there are serious harms to the public interest as well, which could include individuals being arrested and prosecuted for Class A misdemeanors under what could be found to be an unconstitutional statutory scheme. And that could happen if Measure 114 is allowed to go into effect without significant judicial scrutiny. And, certainly, no one would argue that individual liberty is not a cornerstone of our country. First the people, then the State.”
Judge Raschio’s (TRO) is separate from the federal ruling and is legally binding. Oregon Attorney general Ellen Rosenblum immediately appealed Raschio’s ruling to the Oregon Supreme Court, which refused to intervene. Rosenblum vowed to keep fighting to bring the state court system into line with the federal ruling.
Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum isn’t happy with the state judge’s ruling. Despite her appeal, the Oregon Supreme Court declined to intervene.
Logistical Problems
Besides being unconstitutional, Measure 114 imposes serious financial and logistical problems on state and local agencies. Union County Sheriff Cody Bowen, a plaintiff on the federal suit, said he will have to remove two patrol deputies from the road and put them in a classroom to carry out the permitting scheme. Other sheriffs have made similar statements and the Oregon State Police has said that they are also unprepared. Measure 114 provided no funds for its implementation and the state has not allocated funds for that purpose.
A Haphazard Law
All this was, of course, predictable, and people like Sheriff Bowen did indeed raise concerns before the election. Measure 114 was not crafted by legislators who at least understand that such things must be paid for. Measure 114 is expected to cost $55 million in the 1st year, with ongoing costs of $50 million per year.
Union County, Oregon Sheriff Cody Bowen says Measure 114 is not only unconstitutional, but it endangers public safety by forcing him to pull two deputies from the road to a classroom to implement the unfunded permitting scheme. (flipboard.com)
Instead, Measure 114 is the work of activists who raised millions of out-of-state dollars to push an ideological agenda. There was no effort made to pay for Measure 114’s infringements. Because activists have no power to provide funding for any public program, they simply ignored it. All their money went to propaganda efforts to pass the measure. It was left to the sheriffs to point out the lack of funding, which was smoothed over by more propaganda.
But that’s how activists operate. If the legislature can’t or won’t do what they want, they push for executive action from an executive who also has no power to allocate funding. Or they push their catchphrases on a public that is regrettably underinformed about how government programs operate.
If Measure 114 stands, everyone’s state and local taxes will rise because activists (barely) pushed through a poorly thought-out ballot measure without disclosing its full ramifications. After all, a $50 million per year bill won’t pay for itself. But never mind that. The “public safety” narrative doesn’t care about such things.
Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy is at it again. Never one to pass up the chance to make political hay before the blood dries, Murphy recently told CNN that the US Senate should consider withholding federal law enforcement funds from localities dubbed “Second Amendment Sanctuaries.”
Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy never misses a chance to push his disarmament agenda. (Senator Chris Murphy/Facebook)
The Second Amendment Sanctuary movement took off several years ago amid political rhetoric, and actual efforts, to enact strict gun control. Most federal gun control legislation has, thus far, failed, but gun controllers have seen more success at the state and local levels. Rural and conservative counties responded by declaring themselves “Second Amendment Sanctuaries” in which federal and state gun control would not be enforced or would receive the lowest priority.
The Missouri legislature passed a law making the entire state a Second Amendment Sanctuary, and a recent ballot measure did essentially the same thing in Iowa via a Constitutional amendment. Murphy noted that “the majority of counties in this country have declared that they are not going to enforce state and federal gun laws. They have decided that they are going to essentially refuse to implement laws that are on the books.”
Missouri passed the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, essentially making the entire state a 2A Sanctuary. (blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com)
It’s About Disarmament, Not Safety
But, like all hardcore gun control activists, Murphy draws the wrong conclusions from his statement. He is clearly appalled to see American citizens and Constitutionally elected sheriffs having the gall to stand up for their rights against one-size-fits-all gun laws. Especially laws enacted by metropolitan politicians and funded by out-of-state billionaires like Michael Bloomberg and Connie Ballmer.
Flawed Examples
Murphy’s latest statement was prompted by the recent murders at an El Paso County, Colorado gay bar. El Paso County is a Second Amendment Sanctuary, so Murphy saw an opportunity. The police had earlier declined to pursue a “Red Flag” warrant against the shooter, despite his threatening his mother with a bomb. In fact, he faced no penalty at all for that incident. Sounds like El Paso County has more problems than whether or not it’s a Second Amendment Sanctuary.
Many Americans reject out-of-state billionaires like Michael Bloomberg buying gun control in their states. (nypost.com)
Senator Murphy referenced the Chesapeake, Virginia Walmart shooting as a swipe at Cheasapeake, which is a Second Amendment Sanctuary. But he failed to mention that the shooter passed the federal background check since he had no criminal record. How is that Chesapeake’s fault?
Tellingly, Murphy left out the tragic shooting of three University of Virginia students on a bus returning from a class trip. Neither the City of Charlottesville, Virginia nor Washington, D.C., the trip’s destination, are Second Amendment Sanctuaries. Funny how that didn’t make any difference, isn’t it?
Murphy is All In on Gun Control
But Murphy found his career niche after the horrific Sandy Hook shooting ten years ago. Understandably upset by that tragedy, Murphy went all in on gun control. Since then, he hasn’t missed an opportunity to push draconian firearms laws whenever he sees an advantage. He has even admitted that many measures would not have stopped the shooter in his crusade of the month, but he always wants to do it anyway.
That’s because gun controllers aren’t about safety. They are about disarmament. Murphy is merely one of the worst offenders. He is the Senate’s heir apparent to arch gun-banner Dianne Feinstein, who reportedly keeps pre-written gun control bills on her computer, ready to be rolled out in the event of a tragedy she believes can be exploited.
Chris Murphy is the heir apparent to arch-gun-grabber Dianne Feinstein (right). (nydailynews.com)
A Backwards Approach
Murphy apparently sees no irony in threatening to reduce law enforcement funding for localities he doesn’t like, simply because those localities have decided to stand up for their citizen’s Constitutional rights. He claims to care about public safety, yet he seems to believe hamstringing the police is a great way to achieve that goal.
How would cutting money from police forces or sheriff’s departments advance public safety? It wouldn’t and Murphy is smart enough to know it. His threat is designed to bring those localities in line with what Murphy and his ilk have decided is best for them.
In reality, Murphy likely knows that cutting funding for police means crime will increase and higher crime gives him more opportunities to rail against legal gun ownership in the guise of public safety. Again, gun control activists don’t want lower crime rates. They want to ban gun ownership, whether it be responsible citizens or not.
Don’t believe me? Just look up north in Canada. They are on track to ban all private gun ownership. Murphy no doubt wishes it were that easy here. Fortunately, we have the Second Amendment standing between him and us. And he can’t stand it. That’s why he’s so angry about Second Amendment Sanctuaries. How dare those locals defy Washington politicians and their billionaire supporters who clearly know better?
Chris Murphy doesn’t like that most US counties have declared themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries. (sanctuarycounties.com)
Purposely Unconstitutional
Never mind that gun control schemes are falling across the country thanks to the Supreme Court’s Bruen Decision. But Constitutionality has never been the gun controllers’ strong suit. Some of them are genuinely ignorant of the Constitution, but most know exactly what they are doing.
Gun control schemes are often passed in full awareness that they are unconstitutional, but also knowing that legal challenges will sometimes take years to work through the judicial system. Meanwhile, gun control becomes more normalized in the public’s eyes, and the Supreme Court’s ideological makeup could change. Too bad that knowingly passing unconstitutional laws is not illegal.
But that’s how it is, and so Murphy will threaten and cajole. “Give up your rights or we’ll stop giving you money.” Or perhaps, “Just give up this one right and we will keep giving you money.” It’s basically a protection racket right out of “Goodfellas.” Well, as a resident of one of those Second Amendment Sanctuaries, all I have to say is “Shall Not Be Infringed.”
