frontlines

A Closer Look at Kamala Harris’ Second Amendment Record by Susanne Edward, September 4, 2020

Though the mainstream media and its flock of so-called “fact-checkers” might be intent on sanitizing Kamala Harris’ stance on the Second Amendment before the election on November 3, her words have left little to the imagination when it comes to how far she is willing to go to disarm you.

Like the vast majority of her party in 2020, Harris has advocated for more regulation when it comes to such policy matters as “universal” background checks and outlawing whole classes of firearms, including naming specific makes and models of popular rifles. Harris even co-sponsored Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) latest attempt at an “assault-weapons” ban. 

During an appearance on comedian Jimmy Fallon’s show in September last year, amid her own failed Presidential bid, Senator Harris (D-Calif.) explained her push for “mandatory buybacks,” a politically correct euphemism for confiscation, as “mandatory” means you must comply.

“They are weapons of war with no place on the streets of a civil society. I've seen assault weapons kill babies and police officers,” said Harris.

A month later, at a March for Our Lives-hosted “gun-safety” event, Harris declared that “we have to have a buyback program.”

“And I support a buyback program. It’s got to be smart. We’ve got to do it the right way,” she said. “But there are five million (assault weapons) at least, some estimate as many as 10 million, and we’re going to have to have smart public policy that’s about taking those off the streets but doing it the right way.”

Can her desire be more explicit?

Throughout the presidential campaign she eventually abandoned, Harris claimed that she would evade the legislative branch to achieve her objectives. During one debate, she said, “Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action.”

But even the mainstream media, which typically supports a staunch anti-gun agenda, have been busily trying to softenHarris’s image when it comes to firearms; perhaps these media members realize that her harsh stance could turn away the millions of new gun owners now endeavoring the protect themselves and their families. 

After a Facebook post of a private citizen erroneously attributing a gun confiscation quote to Harris made the rounds this past month, USA Today and Snopes jumped on board with a “false” fact rating. Technically, their assessment is defensible, but the idea that Harris does not support a plan to take firearms from the homes of gun owners isn’t exactly a given. 

If a “mandatory buyback” of “assault weapons,” a term that can only be defined politically, was indeed enacted under a Biden-Harris administration, wouldn’t law enforcement be used if some people did not comply?

In 2018, at a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Harris said she was for “common-sense” laws, and claimed that “it’s a false choice to suggest that you are either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away.”

But under the national spotlight, Harris has dropped any nuance on the issue and is now publicly in favor of every flavor of gun control that has thus far been dreamed up by the left.

(America's First Freedom, NRA, by Susanne Edward, September 4, 2020)

New Gun Law Takes Effect – Intoxicated While Hunting

Last fall in 2019 Governor Cuomo signed a law that lowers the legal blood alcohol threshold while hunting from 0.10 to 0.08, similar to the current level for operating a car or boat. The penalty remains the same. The law just took effect September 1st, 2020.

Anyone convicted of hunting while intoxicated stands to lose their hunting-related licenses for a period not to exceed two years. The crime is classified as a misdemeanor, punishable by up to, but not more than one year in jail, and/or a fine of no more than $500.

Posted on August 7, 2020 by AmmoLand Editor Jim Grant  

By Larry Keane

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Everytown for Gun Safety continued its Veepstakes auditions as Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer joined Shannon Watts to talk about her gun control credentials.

Gov. Whitmer’s highlight of the event was boasting about putting 6,600 Michiganders in the firearm and ammunition industry out of work by deeming them “non-essential” during the coronavirus pandemic. Most of their industry peers across the United States could remain on the job. Gov. Whitmer, though, shuttered gun businesses in her state and was proud of it on her Everytown Veepstakes tryout with Shannon Watts.

“I would do it again. I absolutely stand by the decision that I made,” Gov. Whitmer said. “I’m not going to apologize. And I’m not going to be bullied into doing things differently…It was very clear, the purchase of a gun does not fall in that [life-sustaining] criteria.”

Should she be 2020 presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s running mate, Gov. Whitmer would fit the ticket. Former Vice President Biden’s antigun track record is well-known and he’s had his own run-in with Michigan gun owners, scolding one Detroit Second Amendment supporter, saying “You’re full of sh*t!” Together the two would make for the most antigun presidential ticket in modern history.

For Safety and Security

Watts dismissed concerns Michiganders have for their personal safety. She went as far as labeling the more than 2.5 million Americans who bought a gun for the first time as just “the gun extremist community.” Gov. Whitmer blamed President Donald Trump.

“That is just the kind of dog-whistle that always makes me fearful that we’ll have more violence break out across the country.” She glossed over the numerous examples of law-abiding Americans protecting themselves, their families, their businesses, and their neighbors.

For her part, Gov. Whitmer supports reinstating the failed 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and gun control grab bag favorites like “red flag” laws that deny due process to the accused, closing loopholes that are in fact just the Second Amendment and more. There’s just one problem keeping her from getting her way – voters.

“I can’t just change these laws on my own,” Gov. Whitmer said. “I need a legislature to work with me. I don’t have a legislature that is very friendly when it comes to working on this issue.”

Gov. Whitmer is correct, though she did not make the point she thought she was making.

Biden and Beyond in November

Gov. Whitmer praised Biden’s candidacy and what it could mean for stricter gun control.

“With Joe Biden in the White House we’re going to have a leader who makes decisions based on the best information there is, so that we have higher odds of achieving all the goals that he’s running on,” Gov. Whitmer told Watts. “He’s the perfect candidate at this time.”

Former Vice President Biden’s gun control “goals” also include appointing former U.S. Congressman Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (D-Texas) as his chief gun-grabbing sheriff to confiscate 18 million of the most popular selling centerfire semiautomatic rifles in America. His ‘leadership’ includes telling his wife to blindly fire a shotgun into the air without knowing the target and suggesting police try their best to shoot threatening armed attackers in the leg. He called the firearm industry “the enemy” and wants to dismantle it.

Not everyone agrees with Biden or Gov. Whitmer on these extremist ideas. An NSSF survey of likely voters in 18 battleground states, including Michigan, showed that enforcing existing gun laws and protecting lawful firearm sales are at the top of their minds heading into November. NSSF regularly updates the #GUNVOTE online resource so voters don’t risk their rights in the ballot box.

About The National Shooting Sports Foundation

NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

From Gun Politics in NY:  A-8078C, Permits 4-H certified shooting sports instructors to supervise and instruct persons under sixteen years of age at shooting ranges, and A-8666A, Relates to authorizing hunting big game by rifle in the County of Tompkins, have been signed by Governor Cuomo.

2nd Amendment supporters are very happy about a California Appeals Court decision concerning "large capacity magazines".  S.C.O.P.E. contributed to this victory with an Amicus Brief (Friend of the Court).  There is a link to it here if you would care to read it.

Amicus Brief

S.C.O.P.E. hopes that by winning this appeal at this level, it will set the stage for an eventual Supreme Court review of the constitutionality of all these magazine restrictions, especially here in New York.  Unfortunately, appeals move slowly through the court system and it may be awhile before we know its ultimate fate.

The Second Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled in favor of a Rockland County gun owner who had twice applied to have the restrictions removed from his pistol permit and receive an unrestricted pistol permit.  

His requests were denied on both occasions and the judge whom he petitioned not only denied his application for an unrestricted permit but also instructed the petitioner not to reapply for at least one year. 

The judge’s [licensing agent] decision that “enjoined the petitioner from applying for an unrestricted pistol permit for one year” was overruled concluding “…the licensing agent was without authority to bar the petitioner from reapplying for an unrestricted pistol permit for one year “.  

"A party may forfeit the right to access the courts if he or she 'abuses the judicial process by engaging in meritless litigation motivated by spite or ill will'.  Here, however, the injunction was not imposed by a court but by a judge acting as a licensing agent (see Penal Law 265.00[10]) in a quasi judicial capacity.  The issuance of the injunction was beyond the scope of his powers to either deny or grant the application (see Penal Law 400.00[4-a]."

Despite still being without an unrestricted permit, this gun owner [and others], are not mandated to wait a specified time before reapplying. This sets a precedent statewide. 

(NRA-ILA)  In Duncan v. Becerra, a case supported by the NRA, the  United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that California’s ban on the possession of “large capacity magazines”(LCMs) violates the Second Amendment.

The decision affirms a ruling last March by Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez, who ruled, unequivocally, that the California law was unconstitutional.

The panel’s lengthy and considered opinion was written by Judge Kenneth K. Lee, joined by Judge Consuelo M. Callahan. Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that the California ban was constitutional. 

The case centers on California Penal Code §32310, which prior to 2016, imposed restrictions on the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, and receipt of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. In 2016, the law was amended to add an outright ban prohibiting nearly everyone in the state from possessing such magazines. California residents who owned LCMs were given the option of removing the magazine from the state, selling it to a firearms dealer, permanently modifying the magazine so that it was incapable of holding over ten rounds, or surrendering it to law enforcement for destruction. Failure to do so could result in imprisonment for up to a year.

Judge Lee, who was appointed to the Ninth Circuit by President Trump last year, begins by observing that California’s near-total ban of LCMs “strikes at the core of the Second Amendment –the right to armed self defense. Armed self-defense is a fundamental right rooted in tradition and the text of the Second Amendment.”California’s law not only banned standard-issue magazines for many handguns commonly used for self defense, but made  “half of all magazines in America …unlawful to own in California.”  

Using a two-prong test to determine the constitutional validity of Cal. Penal Code §32310, the court first asked whether the law burdened conduct protected by the Second Amendment; if so, the second inquiry focused on the appropriate level of review (level of scrutiny) to apply in evaluating the law.

Under the first prong, the court found the law did burden protected conduct. LCMs were “arms”protected by the Second Amendment “for a simple reason”–without a magazine, many weapons, including “quintessential”self defense weapons like handguns, “would be useless.”LCMs were neither dangerous nor unusual, and firearms or magazines “holding more than ten rounds have been in existence –and owned by American citizens –for centuries.”LCMs had “never been subject to longstanding prohibitions”on possession or use.

Not only did Section 32310 “strike[] at core Second Amendment rights”by prohibiting LCMs for self-defense within the home, “any law that comes close to categorically banning the possession of arms that are commonly used for self-defense imposes a substantial burden on the Second Amendment.”

Significantly, in the second prong determination of the appropriate level of review, the court selected strict scrutiny, the highest possible level, as the proper standard. Strict scrutiny requires that a state law be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest. While the government interests here were compelling, a “statewide blanket ban on possession everywhere and for nearly everyone”was not narrowly tailored or the least restrictive means. The law failed even if a less demanding level of scrutiny was applied, and for many of the same reasons –a lack of anything approximating a reasonable fit between the restrictions imposed and the government’s asserted objectives. 

Addressing California’s “implicit suggestion that the Second Amendment deserves less protection”than other fundamental rights, the court rejected this outright. The Second Amendment is not some outdated “relic relevant only during the era of Publius and parchments. It is a right that is exercised hundreds of times on any given day”by law abiding Americans, including women fleeing abusive relationships, members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities who are disproportionately the victims of hate crimes, and communities of color that “have a particularly compelling interest”in exercising Second Amendment rights.”The Second Amendment “provides one last line of defense”when the state cannot or will not “step in to protect them.”“We mention these examples,”declared Judge Lee, “to drive home the point that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right,”nor is “self-defense a dispensation granted at the state’s mercy.”

The ruling is a gratifying one by the Ninth Circuit, a court that, in past rulings, has been not especially protective of the Second Amendment.

It is anticipated that the State of California will seek en banc review of this ruling. Your NRA will keep you updated on the developments in this important case.

TTAG CONTRIBUTOR , |August 14, 2020

The Second Amendment Foundation today is hailing a ruling by a three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that held California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity magazines” (LCMs) violates the Second Amendment.

“While this was not our case,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “this is a victory for all gun owners, and the majority opinion reflects our arguments in an amicus brief we submitted along with several other organizations. Most importantly, the panel majority used strict scrutiny to make its determination, and that is a huge milestone.”

The case is known as Duncan v. Becerra. The 66-page majority opinion was written by Circuit Judge Kenneth K. Lee.

SAF was joined in its amicus brief by the California Gun Rights Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Armed Equality, San Diego County Gun Owners, Orange County Gun Owners, Riverside County Gun Owners, and California County Gun Owners.

In his ruling, Judge Lee observed, “We understand the purpose in passing this law. But even the laudable goal of reducing gun violence must comply with the Constitution. California’s near-categorical ban of LCMs infringes on the fundamental right to self-defense. It criminalizes the possession of half of all magazines in America today. It makes unlawful magazines that are commonly used in handguns by law-abiding citizens for self-defense. And it substantially burdens the core right of self-defense guaranteed to the people under the Second Amendment. It cannot stand.”

California had banned possession of ammunition magazines that hold more than ten cartridges.

“This was a fantastic ruling,” Gottlieb observed. “The court went into considerable detail about the history of magazine development and essentially follows the logic of our amicus, for which we are all very proud.”

By TERI FIGUEROA, August 14, 2020, 12:59 PM

Judges Rule California High-Capacity Magazine Ban Unconstitutional
Moving Forward

In a resounding win for West Coast gun owners, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court threw out the California high-capacity magazine ban Friday, calling it unconstitutional. A three-judge panel said the rule violates Americans’ right to bear arms.

The ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an earlier decision by U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez in Duncan v Becerra. That decision ruled California’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds violated the Second Amendment. The National Shooting Sports Federation, NSSF, among others, also submitted an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs’ challenge.

“This is a tremendous victory for all who value the rule of law and preservation of individual liberties protected by the U.S. Constitution,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President of General Counsel. “The firearm industry trade association was confident that possession of these accessories is protected by the Second Amendment and that California overreached to infringe upon the fundamental civil liberties of law-abiding citizens. This serves as notice to antigun politicians that their campaign to trample on constitutional rights and advance a radical agenda to deny citizens’ their Second Amendment rights will not go unchallenged.”

“California’s near-categorical ban of LCMs strikes at the core of the Second Amendment — the right to armed self-defense. Armed self-defense is a fundamental right rooted in tradition and the text of the Second Amendment. Indeed, from pre-colonial times to today’s post-modern era, the right to defend hearth and home has remained paramount,” wrote Judge Kenneth K. Lee.

“California’s law imposes a substantial burden on this right to self-defense,” Lee continued.

The ruling obviously represents a big step for California as far as gun rights are concerned. The Associated Press reported:

California Rifle & Pistol Association attorney Chuck Michel called it “a huge victory” for gun owners “and the right to choose to own a firearm to defend your family.”

The ruling has national implications because other states have similar restrictions, though it immediately applies only to Western states under the appeals court’s jurisdiction.

California AG Xavier Becerra didn’t confirm whether he would ask the full appellate court to reconsider the ruling, reported nbcnewyork.com. However, industry experts expect continuing litigation to keep the California high-capacity magazine ban legally considered unconstitutional.