Coming To a State Near You (3)  by Tom Reynolds

On Tuesday, SCOPE wrote about New Mexico Governor Michelle Grisham issuing an Emergency Health Order suspending concealed and open carry of guns in New Mexico.

The idiocy of Grisham’s order was aptly set out by state New Mexico State Senator Greg Baca who said: “A child is murdered, the perpetrator is still on the loose, and what does the governor do? She … targets law-abiding citizens with an unconstitutional gun order.”

And then there are reservations by law enforcement, voiced by Bernalillo County sheriff, John Allen, who said: “…the temporary ban challenges the foundation of our constitution, which I swore an oath to uphold…I am wary of placing my deputies in positions that could lead to civil liability conflicts, as well as the potential risks posed by prohibiting law-abiding citizens from their constitutional right to self-defense.”

Even some national Democrats expressed concern at the scope of the order. Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu of California posted on X: “I support gun safety laws. However, this order from the Governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution…No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution.”

The legal pushback was immediate.  At least four lawsuits, two of which seek immediate injunctive relief, have been filed. (It’s possible more have been filed and are not yet publicly available.)

·       National Association For Gun Rights

·       We The Patriots

·       Randy Donk, Gun Owners of America

·       Shawn Blas

As SCOPE pointed out on Tuesday, the 30 day length of this order may cause the issue to be declared ‘moot’ by the courts before an decision is made.  However, it will be interesting to see if any liberal judge is willing to rule for Grisham in a case where her actions are so clearly unconstitutional.

The National Association for Gun Rights’ lawsuit summarized the legal situation well, that the orders violate the Second Amendment:

“The State must justify the Carry Prohibition by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. But it is impossible for the State to meet this burden, because there is no such historical tradition of firearms regulation in this Nation.”

A second lawsuit by Bernalillo County resident Randy Donk and the Gun Owners of America likens the executive order and public health emergency declaration to “martial law” and argues that it is a suspension of constitutional rights.

Does Grisham care about any of the constitutional aspects of her order or the possible repercussions?  Not likely.

The Guardian reports that New Mexico state representatives Stefani Lord and John Block are calling for the impeachment of Governor Grisham for issuing the ‘emergency’ order.  “This is an abhorrent attempt at imposing a radical, progressive agenda on an unwilling populace. Rather than addressing crime at its core, Governor Grisham is restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” the statement from Lord read.

New Mexico’s legislature is almost two-thirds Democrat so there is little danger of the impeachment succeeding.

As SCOPE has often pointed out, Grisham gets her leftist credentials punched at no cost to her.  The state uses the taxpayers’ deep pockets to defend the order while those opposing it will have to self-finance.

And those on the Left (especially governors in other blue states like Kathy Hochul) will view this as a test case to see how far they can push their attacks on the 2nd Amendment.

Coming to a State Near You (2)  by Tom Reynolds

New Mexico Governor Michelle Grisham declared a public health emergency that imposed a 30 day suspension of open and concealed carry of firearms’ laws, in Albuquerque.

She suspended the 2^nd Amendment! 

Clearly unconstitutional, the 30 day, short term of the order is crafted to avoid a judicial ruling against it. A temporary restraining order to put it on hold might be possible. However, if she gets a sympathetic trial judge, the time could run out before a final ruling can be secured on appeal. The short term also makes it less likely that the case can be taken to the federal court system and ultimately to the Supreme Court, since it will be moot by that time.

It's New Mexico, why should we care?

Because, emergency orders are one of the methods used by the Left in New York State to restrict constitutional freedoms!  If it succeeds in New Mexico, the New York State gun grabbers will be further encouraged. 

Remember the SAFE Act?  It was passed under an emergency ‘Message of Necessity’ that bypassed normal legislative rules.  (It was such an emergency that some of it is just now being enacted 10 years later.)

Remember the COVID restrictions that were enacted as emergency procedures (and kept in place by Kathy Hochul long after the ‘emergency’ was over)?

Just claim ‘public health emergency’ and the unconstitutional actions of the left claim the high ground as necessary for the good of citizens - instead of being viewed as the power grabs that they are, in reality.  And no one understands better what is good for citizens than the ‘Rich men north of Richmond’ (and northeast of Binghamton.)

If gun violence is a public health emergency, what’s to stop Democrats (or anyone in power) from declaring ‘climate change’ an emergency and taking unconstitutional steps?  How about racism as an emergency?  Or transgenderism? 

And if these are emergencies, shouldn’t any comments against the government’s position be prohibited by temporarily suspending the 1^st Amendment protected right of Free Speech?  (Presidents John Adams and Woodrow Wilson enjoyed the benefits of ‘Sedition Acts’ to jail those who protested against their policies.)  

Laws have been crafted to give the government the flexibility to deal with emergencies and we can ‘trust’ the left to abuse any flexibility in their pursuit of absolute power. 

Not everything in New Mexico ends in 30 days and some of it should sound familiar to New York gun owners.  The public health order also directs:

·   The Regulation and Licensing Division to conduct monthly inspections of licensed firearm dealers to ensure compliance with all sales and storage laws.

·   The Department of Health to compile and issue a comprehensive report on gunshot victims at hospitals in New Mexico.

·   A prohibition on firearms on state property, including state buildings and schools. This also includes other places of education where children gather, such as parks.

Left unsaid is that this ignores the actual causes of violence. Legal gun owners are NOT contributing to these violent crimes. But those law-abiding gun owners who rely on their Second Amendment rights for self-defense are now defenseless.

In a press conference, Governor Grisham made some ‘interesting’ comments -straight from the Kathy Hochul guidebook - in defense of her actions.

A reporter asked: You took an oath to the Constitution. Isn’t it unconstitutional to say you cannot exercise your carry license?

Grisham replied: With one exception, and that is if there’s an emergency, and I’ve declared an emergency for a temporary amount of time, I can invoke additional powers.  (I checked my pocket Constitution and, would you believe, there is NO statement to that effect in the Constitution.)

Grisham added: “…what about their (the victims) constitutional rights? I took an oath to uphold those, too.”  (She obviously was not referring to the victim’s 2nd Amendment rights.)

And then Grisham added: No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute. There are restrictions on free speech.

We have a ‘liberal triple’ there: she believes her view trumps the view of the Supreme Court of the United States; her oath of office about upholding the U S Constitution is NOT absolute; and guess what’s next in her sights – the 1st Amendment.  

A reporter, who was obviously versed in 2nd Amendment, pointed out that, “There are already laws against the crime” and “Why not just do better law enforcement?”  Then the reporter clinched it with this question: Madam Governor, do you really think that criminals are going to hear this message and not carry a gun in Albuquerque on the streets for 30 days?

Grisham replied in one word: “No.”

That one word says it all for gun grabbers everywhere; they are not after the criminals who cause crime but are intent on taking guns away from law abiding citizens.

If successful, why not go for 60 days?  Or 90 days?  Since the governor decides when the emergency ends, why should it end?

There are two possible unintended consequences which might prove beneficial to 2A supporters:

If a court decides that this is not moot at the end of the 30 day period, New Mexico could supply a judicial vehicle to curtail future anti 2A efforts by Democrat governors of Democrat states who believe they are above the U S Constitution.  Of course, as evidenced by this emergency order, the gun grabbers tend to ignore the law when they are in a state run by Democrats.

Secondly, at some point, conservatives and others who believe in the Constitution, but are ‘conscientious objectors’ in the war on guns, may be pushed to the point where they are forced to do something drastic; like get involved and vote!

I know getting involved and voting is an extreme, drastic, unthinkable measure but the governors and legislators of blue states are attacking the 2nd Amendment from multiple approaches.  And legalities will not stand in their way since they have bottomless taxpayer pockets to fund their efforts while the law-abiding victims have limited financial resources.  The worst that can happen to the gun grabbers is that they return to ‘square one’ and try again.

What can happen to the ‘conscientious objectors’ is on that same day they were pushed too far, they will stand confused and ask, ’How did that happen?’

Coming To a State Near You  by Tom Reynolds

NY State Ammo Background Check set to begin the Wednesday, September 13, 2023.  (That’s THIS Wednesday)

There are two facets to the new regulations. 

• First is the involvement of the State Police as a “middleman” for the purchase of a gun. FFL’s will no longer contact the FBI directly through the NICS check system. A gun dealer must now go through the NY State Police. A new fee of $9.00 to the state will be paid by the gun purchaser.

• The second aspect of the new law requires a background check for the sale of all ammunition. Also going through the NY State Police.  Each transaction carries a new fee of $2.50 to the state. There is not expected to be a limit on the number of rounds of ammo a person can buy with each transaction.  (Yet!)

I’m guessing there may be a lot of ammo sold today and tomorrow! 

On Wednesday, it is also reported that at least 100 federally-licensed dealers in firearms in New York will be closed for business because they will be on strike.  Without dealers, there will be nothing for you to buy: No firearms; No ammunition. (By the way, that’s the point of the strict new ATF enforcements on gun dealers.)

The strike is happening to raise public awareness of unjust laws passed in the summer of 2022, which dealers are fighting in federal court.

On July 25, 2023, the New York State Police “Joint Terrorism Taskforce” started enforcing of those laws against dealers without notification to anyone. (Dealers are terrorists?)  On September 13, 2023, the NYSP will attempt to launch its new firearms and ammunition background checks and it will start to build a database of gun owners.  (Illegal under federal law.)

At high noon on September 13, you may wish to stand in solidarity with dealers fighting for your Second Amendment rights, your privacy, your Heller-McDonald- Bruen rights. If so, go to your local rod & gun club, your local range, your local sportsmen’s association property, and fire a round. (Do so in accordance with the instructions of your range safety officer.) Make this the “Shot Heard ‘Round the State II.” This was done ten years ago after the “SAFE Act.”

_______________________________________________________

Not to be outdone, California is always competing with New York to be the least constitutional state in the country.

California legislators have approved new taxes on firearms and ammunition.  The legislation, passed in the California Senate, would levy an 11-percent (11%) state tax on all firearm and ammo transactions, according to Fox News.

The text of the legislation criticizes the increasing revenue from firearms sales by dealers and gun sellers after the coronavirus pandemic.  “The firearm industry has also enjoyed record growth and profits for years,” the law reads.  (How absolutely capitalist.  The government creates a shortage by not enforcing laws and consumers want a product to protect themselves and someone produces that desired product and makes a profit.  Nothing could make the left angrier!)

It’s a sure bet that the legislation will be signed into law by uber-progressive Governor Gavin Newsom, who has until October 14th to veto or sign the legislation.  (Newsom has also proposed creating a 28th Amendment to the Constitution that would ban so-called assault weapons and enact a mandatory waiting period for gun purchases.)

Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said his organization intends to challenge the policy in the courts, according to Fox. 

Voting is a constitutional right and poll taxes were aimed at stopping people from exercising that right; they were eventually declared unconstitutional.  Michel said, “It’s a poll tax. It’s a tax on exercising a constitutional right.”

The Northern Mariana Islands passed a $1000 excise tax on handguns, which was ruled unconstitutional in Murphy v. Guerrero (2016).  (Not that the leftists in California – or anywhere else – have ever let the U S Constitution stand in the way of their quest for absolute. uncontested power.)

California makes Hochul look like a piker with the size of their tax.  But count on Kathy to take on the challenge.

Letter to Hochul:   A SCOPE member sent in the following letter

Governor Kathy Hochul

NYS Capital Building                                                                    Albany, NY 12224                                                           
September 7, 2023

Dear Governor Hochul,

When the New York State Police began the pistol permit recertification process you had the option of recertifying by mail or electronically. Now everyone is limited to recertify electronically and you can no longer recertify by mail.

As a senior citizen I did not grow up with a computer or a smart phone. I am limited as to what I can do on a computer and have had problems with virus attacks, computer breakdowns and email problems where I have not been able to receive emails for several days. Those emails are lost when my computer is up and running again, I do not receive emails on a smart phone. I would prefer to recertify my pistol permit by mail because of the stated computer problems I have had in the past.

A recent Pew research survey shows that 64% of seniors over 65 have no internet connection, and they do not want to go to a friend or a library to use a computer. Many do not even know how to operate a computer.

The state sends me a notice of renewal for my motor vehicle registration, for my trailer registration, for my boat registration, They can and should do the same for my pistol permit recertification. I hope your office makes renewal by mail a reality when it comes to pistol permit recertification.

We have early voting in this state either in person or by mail in ballot. I also understand that your office is currently looking to expand mail in ballots for elections.  Mail in pistol permit recertification is something your office can make available, please do so.

Let’s Not Kill the Lawyers  by Tom Reynolds

The 2nd Amendment is not going anywhere so the gun grabbers are looking for ways to backdoor 2A into impotence.  For instance: drive FFL’s out of business; make owning a gun very expensive; make purchasing guns and ammo very bureaucratic, to name just a few.

Legal Insurrection ran a story on George Washington University Law School student Tahmineh Dehbozorgi.  Her family emigrated from Iran after the takeover by Islamic radicals in 1979.  She is concerned about what she is seeing in America’s legal system and made comparisons to Iran.  Specifically, she is concerned about another tactic of the left: scaring lawyers away from defending clients that the left considers enemies.  (People like Donald Trump and his supporters or anyone who believes in the 2nd Amendment would make the left’s enemies list.) 

For instance, she says, unlike Iran, “nobody, no party, should be using the justice system for their political gain.”  (Could she have been thinking about the Department of Injustice under Attorney General Merrick Garland?)

Dehbozorgi highlighted that the Islamic regime used guilt-by-association tactics to prosecute lawyers who represented the regime’s opponents.  When she saw that President Trump’s legal advisers were being indicted along with him, it sounded like guilt by association to her

After appearing on Fox and Friends she tweeted: “As a law student, seeing attorneys named as co-conspirators and threatened to have their licenses revoked only because they gave legal advice to former President Trump worries me. This is against the very nature of the American justice system I’ve long aspired to be a part of.”

The morning after she tweeted about her Fox appearance, Maryland lawyer and Democratic National Committee operative Robbie Leonard seemed to threaten her when he tweeted back: “If she’s in law school in Maryland, then please put me on her character committee interview.” 

Disagree with the left and they will punish you!  Passing her ‘character and fitness exam’ is essential for bar admission in every US jurisdiction and this sounds like a direct threat to her.  (Will anyone challenge Leonard’s personal character and fitness for making this threat?  Is Leonard – and the left – familiar with that 1st Amendment stuff about Free Speech?)

The 65 Project will spend millions to expose and try to disbar more than 100 lawyers who worked on Donald Trump’s post-election lawsuits.  It hopes to deter Republican lawyers from joining any future Republican election efforts.  In addition, 65 Project wants to shame Republican lawyers and make them toxic in their communities and their firms.  

The left would seem to be perfectly happy for the American judicial system to mimic Iran’s where Judges do the bidding of the political party in power.  Can you imagine challenging an election in Iran?  Iran would put you and your attorneys in prison. (Oh wait, isn’t that happening…?)  

Dehbozorgi explained that the Iranian people gave up their freedoms, little by little, to Iran’s Islamic Republic regime, in exchange for economic benefit:  Khomeini came in and promised free stuff: free school; free health care; free utilities. The Islamic Republic centralized the economic system and took away people’s social freedoms to maintain control.  (Couldn’t happen in the USA.  Giving up freedom for free stuff.  Nah.)

But Dehbozorgi is just a law student.  What about someone who has represented liberal causes for years and was a major part of the old American Civil Liberties Union. (As opposed to the new ACLU which usually bases constitutional rights on which political party one belongs to.)

For instance, what does Harvard emeritus professor Alan Dershowitz have to say about this attempt to banish lawyers who disagree with the left.

"I can tell you that six lawyers so far called me and said, 'We will not defend Trump even though we'd like to because of what happened to you, Alan Dershowitz, because you have been canceled.'"

Dershowitz has lost jobs and speaking engagements after representing Trump in the 1st impeachment trial,

Dershowitz also said that lawyers at big firms were being asked by their companies not to touch cases involving Trump.

Dershowitz continued, “The threats to the lawyers are greater than at any time since McCarthyism. Nor is the comparison to McCarthyism a stretch. I recall during the 1950s how civil liberties lawyers, many of whom despised communism, were cancelled, and attacked if they dared to represent people accused of being communists. Even civil liberties organizations stayed away from such cases, for fear that it would affect their fundraising and general standing in the community. It may even be worse today, as I can attest from my own personal experiences, having defended Trump against an unconstitutional impeachment in 2020. I was cancelled by my local library, community center and synagogue. Old friends refused to speak to me and threatened others who did. My wife, who disagreed with my decision to defend Trump, was also ostracized. There were physical threats to my safety.”

TV’s talking heads have of describing the legal actions against Donald Trump by saying that the USA is turning into a “Banana Republic.”  Perhaps, they should be describing it as an ‘Iranian Regime’, instead. 

If Hochul’s and Biden’s regimes come after your guns, you may need a lawyer. 

Oh yeah, and if you end up in court, it would be nice to have some 2nd Amendment supporters on the jury.  Remember that the next time you want to get out of jury duty.

Government Interest vs Personal Rights  by Tom Reynolds

Governor Hochul applauded passage of the 2022 NYS Concealed Carry Improvement Act and stated: "I refuse to surrender my right as governor to protect New Yorkers from gun violence or any other form of harm. In New York State, we will continue leading the way forward and implementing common sense gun safety legislation."    

Governor Kathy Hochul has repeatedly said she was trying to protect the citizens of New York State when she signed the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) in July 2023. Factually she did so in animosity of the decision by the Supreme Court in NYSRPA v. Bruen.

Does the government have a basis for restricting our Second Amendment right in order to protect the citizenry? They would have us believe that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Instead, they claim it protects a militia right or a military right. But an individual right to own a gun for personal protection is an idea that is deeply rooted in American culture. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller in 2008 said: “The Second Amendment protects a right that is “exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”

Yet elected officials and their allies continue to insist on appealing to emotion when people are innocently injured or killed because of domestic violence and emphasizing the unconstitutional removal of guns by utilizing “red flag” laws.

Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) Executive Director Adam Kraut said: “Red flag laws are based on the inherently Orwellian belief that you can take actions against someone for an alleged crime that hasn’t occurred. Such laws authorize seizure and punishment for a crime nobody committed but which could occur at some place and time in the future. This may work in a science fiction movie but should not be allowed in real life.

Despite the existence of tragic events, we do not believe that we should measure or define our rights on the basis of how others may misuse these rights or their misbehavior. A psychopath’s misbehavior should not be a basis for us losing our right to own a particular firearm of our choice. Cars, like guns, can be misused but it is not rational to consider banning cars.

Despite the Bruen decision states continue to look for laws to prevent crime and even allow victims of gun crimes to sue manufacturers. Yet they refuse to prosecute those who are responsible for gun crimes. NY City DA Alvin Bragg either dismissed or downgraded 52% of the cases brought to him in his first 11 months in office. Likewise, Chicago DA Kim Foxx has refused to incarcerate criminals.

Many lower courts, following the Heller decision of 2008, attempted to justify gun control by balancing the good versus the bad of guns. But we should not be losing our gun rights because of an expressed government interest. In fact, our rights are there to thwart the government.

From John Connor in Guns Magazine

The following are a few choice comments from a recent John Connor article that are amusing – and unfortunately true.

I don’t want to have to tell my grandchildren that America was once a great country, and have them disbelieve it. And I don’t want them to arrive at adulthood and find Congress used them as their “line of credit.”

Withholding is a narcotic deadening taxpayers’ senses to the process of governmental pickpocketry...I’d like to propose: No more payroll tax withholding. Everybody would have to sit down once or twice a month and write checks to the feds and their state treasurers for their taxes. Yeah, it would be a huge pain in the neck, but all of a sudden, millions of people would be awakened and enraged by the wasteful, excessive and often criminal spending of their hard-earned bucks.  Writing those checks would be like shots of adrenaline. I predict legislators’ lives would quickly become less than comfy-cozy. That’s OK with me. I believe our liberties are never safer than when politicians are a little bit, umm…terrified.

“We’ve got to pass it so you can see what’s in it.” That’s the rule for stool samples…not laws!  Before any bill is put to a vote in Congress, members must pass a witnessed written test, to show they understand it in full and know its consequences and costs. If they refuse or fail, they can’t vote on that bill.

It seems to me that most of your efforts are bent toward controlling and “regulating” people like me; military veterans, hard-working taxpayers and folks who would not willingly or knowingly violate any law. If I were meant to be controlled, I woulda come with a remote.

Oh, and by the way—the book 1984 was meant to be a warning, not a guidebook for government.

I’ve heard it said by “progressives” that the problem with capitalism is a small group of people could end up controlling almost everything. But the solution they offer is to give an even smaller group absolute control over everything—and all the power of the state to enforce it.

And let’s prohibit use of the fallacious term “redistribution of wealth.” For most of us it amounts to “taking whatever you’ve got left and giving it away to others.” Let’s make ’em use that phrase and see how it flies.

I’ve heard a lot of people muttering that this government is going Socialist...I think this would be better defined as a plutocracy: one wherein the plutocrats want everyone else controlled by a Socialist government. It makes sense for them. Hey, it’s better for them than making us slaves, because they can still tax the workers among us to feed and support the more docile, manageable peasants.

I don’t know where you come down on the Tea Party. Entrenched politicians call them anarchists and radicals. It seems to me their platform is to take over, stop stealing our money, adhere to the Constitution, restore our liberty and then leave everybody the heck alone as much as possible. Ooohhh, sounds pretty dangerous to me.

The government says all they need to make this country a paradise is more money and more power. I think P.J. O’Rourke said it best: “Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.” The difference, I see, is many teenage boys know better than to drink and drive.

And for those of you who, like me, feel the government ignores you, ridicules you and attacks you, remember this gem from Mahatma Ghandi: “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they attack you, then you win.” It’s the ignored, ridiculed and attacked who finally, regretfully but resolutely, fight.

This did not come from Connor but SCOPE recently saw a comment on why the left wants desperately to outlaw magazines.  Think of it as MAGA-zines.

Active Shooters, Parole Wars, the Babylon Bee and Six Packs  by Tom Reynolds

Whenever there is an Active Shooter situation, you can be sure the leftist media will be covering it and Biden & Hochul & Newsome will call for more gun control.  If an armed citizen should stop it, the coverage tends to be close to zero.  The coverage of defensive uses of guns is almost non-existent. 

SCOPE has previously written about Defensive Gun Use, which does not usually mean shots were fired; show a criminal you are armed and they often have second thoughts about their career choice. Numerous studies put the number of Defensive Gun Uses at 1 million or more, annually.

But sometimes, just showing a weapon isn’t enough, especially if the criminal is already shooting his / her weapon (an Active Shooter).

Luckily, there is a list on John Lott’s web site of cases where armed citizens have stopped ACTIVE SHOOTER incidents.   It’s a long list of lives saved but worth a look.

Cases where armed citizens have stopped active shooter incidents (crimeresearch.org)

____________________________________________

SCOPE recently reported that bills have been introduced in the NY Assembly (A2035) and the NY Senate (S2423) that would allow incarcerated individuals who are 55 years and older and who have also already served 15 years in prison to appear before the parole board for potential release, regardless of the crime they committed.

Will Barclay, the Assembly Minority leader has taken issue with these far left antics and reports on Assembly Republican efforts to tighten, not loosen, parole standards.  The following are excerpts from his press release of August 25^th.

Our (Assembly Minority) Conference has offered a number of legislative solutions aimed at protecting victims and their families.

Assemblyman Maher sponsored legislation (A.4041) to ensure those who murder children under 13 years old will receive a mandatory life sentence with no opportunity for parole and I have sponsored legislation (A.5225) to reform the composition of the parole board and require a unanimous determination from the board members before an inmate be released.

Second chances are an important part of our criminal justice system, and I believe there are lots of instances where individuals should be presented with an opportunity to make amends. Unfortunately, not everyone deserves such latitude, and in instances where the public is in danger, we must take every possible measure to ensure the most serious offenders are not given the wrong type of second chance—a second chance to take another life 

_________________________________

If you are reading this, you have the internet.

If you have the internet, you may have seen or heard about the satirical website, the Babylon Bee.  (Leftists have been known to quote it as a reliable source!)

The below link goes to a video on their web site that makes fun of some of the ridiculous statements about guns from the gun grabbers.

Babylon Bee Video relies heavily on the Crime Prevention Research Center’s Research (crimeresearch.org)

____________________________________

Gun owners are often pictured by the leftist media as beer guzzling rednecks. 

This story reinforces the need to concealed carry but it also reinforces our image with the left:

Breitbart News reported that  Cordelius Martin entered a store in Cassopolis, Michigan and announced a robbery. Surveillance video shows that a customer was in the store at that time with a six-pack of beer in his hand.  The customer, a concealed carry permit holder, pulled his pistol with his right hand and shot the robber numerous times while continuing to hold the beer in his left hand.

I doubt if any handgun safety courses teach shooting with a six-pack in hand.  But hey, you never know!

Interstate license to carry  by Tom Reynolds

Massachusetts, like New York, is noted for ignoring the Supreme Court’s decisions on the 2^nd Amendment.  For instance, in Caetano v Massachusetts, every Massachusetts’ court ruled that a stun gun was illegal in Massachusetts because it did not exist at the time the 2^nd Amendment was passed.  It took the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to remind Massachusetts’ courts that SCOTUS had already said that guns did not have to be in existence in 1792 to be legal.

Much to our surprise and delight, in another case, one Massachusetts district court recently obeyed SCOTUS rulings.  While the decision only applied to this specific case, it provides the rationale for concealed carry reciprocity between states.

In the Commonwealth v. Dean Donnell, a New Hampshire man (Donnell) was charged in a Massachusetts’ District court for carrying a firearm in Massachusetts without a non-resident license to carry (LTC).

Donnell’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss the case claiming the law violates the Second Amendment and, therefore, is unconstitutional.  In the Bruen decision, SCOTUS ruled that the 2^nd Amendment must be interpreted based on the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment as it was understood when the amendment was passed in 1792.  Donnell’s legal team argued that “there is no historical analogue burdening the right to interstate travel” with a firearm.

Also, Donnell argued that the defendant’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution were also violated since LTCs for Massachusetts residents are good for five years but a Non-state resident’s temporary LTC must be renewed annually.

Because Massachusetts could not give an example of a similar law stopping an otherwise law-abiding citizen from carrying a firearm outside their home state during the ratification of the Second Amendment, the judge ruled that the law Donnell was accused of violating was inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment. 

The judge also applied the Equal Protection Clause by pointing out the difference in the length of time a non-resident and a resident license lasted.

The judge also rejected the state’s claim “that the licensing scheme imposes a permissible burden because of the substantial state interest in preventing certain people from possessing firearms.” The judge pointed out that certain people are already prohibited by federal law, so the state’s argument wasn’t valid.

As we often point out, criminals already ignore gun control laws while most gun control laws make criminals of otherwise law-abiding citizens.  The judge said that a person should not become a felon for exercising a constitutional right while passing through Massachusetts.

The judge dismissed the case. As we said, this case is a state-level case and only affects the defendant but provides a rationale for reciprocity.

More on Background Checks  by Tom Reynolds

SCOPE has been writing about the background checks on ammo and the new fees.  There is so much going on behind the scenes that it is difficult to keep current with the latest information.  However, a bit of background is in order.

Passed as part of the SAFE Act, the ammo background check mandate was delayed for years because the state police could not implement it. 

If the new background checks are implemented on September 13^th, as scheduled, New York will be the second state (behind California) to require ammunition background checks.

Per Bearing Arms web site, California’s ammunition background check requirement, has led to tens of thousands of false denials for legal gun owners.

California’s law is the subject of a federal lawsuit.  U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez must rule whether the law is an infringement on Second Amendment rights.

Although not identical to California, NY’s law is also likely to face a lawsuit after the background checks actually start taking place. Once the state police are running checks on every purchase of a box of ammunition, people will have ‘standing’ to sue.

A letter protesting this state action has been sent to Kathy Hochul from some of New York’s Republican congressional delegation*.  It is signed by Congresspersons Claudia Tenney, Elise Stefanik, Nick Langworthy and Brandon Williams. 

In addition, a resolution condemning the CCIA has been introduced in the House by NY congresswomen Elise Stefanik and Claudia Tenney as well as seven others from other states**. 

These efforts raise attention to the issue but Hochul isn’t big on listening to Republicans from her state...or any state…or listening to the Supreme Court.

One of the strategies of the left, as to gun control, seems to be to introduce as much legislation in as many places as they possibly can.  Introducing ammo background checks in multiple states is only one example.  This costs the gun grabbers nothing as they are on the taxpayers’ dime and are in blue states where there is not much chance that they will be defeated at the ballot box or impeached.  Citizens challenging these laws costs the citizens hundreds of thousands of dollars to get through the appeals system.  Basically, NY State (and California and Illinois, etc.) want to bankrupt their opponents into silence.  So, they are not only going after the 2^nd Amendment but also your 1^st Amendment right of Free Speech.

The best answer to this is to spread the word on how our 2A rights are being threatened in order to motivate 2A and 1A defenders to go to the ballot box before they lose their rights, completely.

 

*The link to the letter to Hochul follows:

51119baa-96a9-4b3c-a1c5-4c7b4934dbe5.pdf (constantcontact.com)

 

**The important part of the House Resolution follows:

Whereas there have now been multiple New Yorkers suing the State of New York over the CCIA to protect their constitutional rights: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—

(1) New York State’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act violates the rights of New Yorkers under the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and is unconstitutional;

(2) the courts should immediately strike down the Concealed Carry Improvement Act as unconstitutional; and

(3) all States should pass legislation supporting Second Amendment rights instead of trying to restrict or undermine Americans’ constitutional rights.