frontlines

US judge overturns California’s ban on assault weapons

Posted: JUN 5, 2021 / 06:25 AM CDT | Updated: JUN 6, 2021 / 06:59 AM CDT  The Associated Press

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A federal judge Friday overturned California’s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons, ruling that it violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego ruled that the state’s definition of illegal military-style rifles unlawfully deprives law-abiding Californians of weapons commonly allowed in most other states and by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Under no level of heightened scrutiny can the law survive,” Benitez said. He issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law but stayed it for 30 days to give state Attorney General Rob Bonta time to appeal.

Gov. Gavin Newsom condemned the decision, calling it “a direct threat to public safety and the lives of innocent Californians, period.”

In his 94-page ruling, the judge spoke favorably of modern weapons, said they were overwhelmingly used for legal reasons.

“Like the Swiss Army knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle,” the judge said in his ruling’s introduction.

That comparison “completely undermines the credibility of this decision and is a slap in the face to the families who’ve lost loved ones to this weapon,” Newsom said in a statement. “We’re not backing down from this fight, and we’ll continue pushing for common sense gun laws that will save lives.”

Bonta called the ruling flawed and said it will be appealed.

California first restricted assault weapons in 1989, with multiple updates to the law since then.

Assault weapons as defined by the law are more dangerous than other firearms and are disproportionately used in crimes, mass shootings and against law enforcement, with more resulting casualties, the state attorney general’s office argued, and barring them “furthers the state’s important public safety interests.”

Further, a surge in sales of more than 1.16 million other types of pistols, rifles and shotguns in the last year — more than a third of them to likely first-time buyers — show that the assault weapons ban “has not prevented law-abiding citizens in the state from acquiring a range of firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense,” the state contended in a court filing in March.

Similar assault weapon restrictions have previously been upheld by six other federal district and appeals courts, the state argued. Overturning the ban would allow not only assault rifles, but things like assault shotguns and assault pistols, state officials said.

But Benitez disagreed.

“This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection. The banned ‘assault weapons’ are not bazookas, howitzers, or machine guns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes,” his ruling said.

States across the country relaxing gun ownership restrictions 

Despite California’s ban, there currently are an estimated 185,569 assault weapons registered with the state, the judge said.

“This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes,” the ruling said. “One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter.”

“In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle,” he added.

In a preliminary ruling in September, Benitez said California’s complicated legal definition of assault weapons can ensnare otherwise law-abiding gun owners with criminal penalties that among other things can strip them of their Second Amendment right to own firearms.

“The burden on the core Second Amendment right, if any, is minimal,” the state argued, because the weapons can still be used — just not with the modifications that turn them into assault weapons. Modifications like a shorter barrel or collapsible stock make them more concealable, state officials said, while things like a pistol grip or thumbhole grip make them more lethal by improving their accuracy as they are fired rapidly.

The lawsuit filed by the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, California Gun Rights Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition is among several by gun advocacy groups challenging California’s firearms laws, which are among the strictest in the nation.

The lawsuit filed in August 2019 followed a series of deadly mass shootings nationwide involving military-style rifles.

It was filed on behalf of gun owners who want to use high-capacity magazines in their legal rifles or pistols, but said they can’t because doing so would turn them into illegal assault weapons under California law. Unlike military weapons, the semi-automatic rifles fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, and the plaintiffs say they are legal in 41 states.

The lawsuit said California is “one of only a small handful states to ban many of the most popular semiautomatic firearms in the nation because they possess one or more common characteristics, such as pistol grips and threaded barrels,” frequently but not exclusively along with detachable ammunition magazines.

The state is appealing Benitez’s 2017 ruling against the state’s nearly two-decade-old ban on the sales and purchases of magazines holding more than 10 bullets. That decision triggered a weeklong buying spree before the judge halted sales during the appeal. It was upheld in August by a three-judge appellate panel, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in March that an 11-member panel will rehear the case.

The state also is appealing Benitez’s decision in April 2020 blocking a 2019 California law requiring background checks for anyone buying ammunition.

Both of those measures were championed by Newsom when he was lieutenant governor, and they were backed by voters in a 2016 ballot measure.

"Gun violence is not a “public health crisis” requiring bans and liability insurance."  by Don Smith

To the Editor (Times of Wayne County):

Gun violence is not a “public health crisis” requiring bans and liability insurance.

Consider these major causes of deaths and their percent of total deaths in 2019: 

(1) Heart Disease: 635,260; 23.1%;   (2) Cancer: 598,038; 21.7%;   (3) Accidents (unintentional): 161,374; 5.9%; ..... (12) Gun Violence: 38,730; 1.4% 

Some seek a ban on the commonly used modern sporting rifle or AR-15, albeit cosmetically similar to a military rifle, yet factually a semi-automatic rifle. Fully automatic firearms are prohibited from citizen ownership by the Firearms Act of 1968. FBI statistics show AR-15s to be used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all crimes. 

Finally, though well intentioned, proposals for gun liability insurance misunderstand a fundamental principle of insurance.  It is designed to cover fortuitous, or accidental events, “...not intentional behavior such as criminal acts...”, according to Willem O. Rijksen, vice president of public affairs for the American Insurance Association. This applies to guns, cars or any instrument that is used to deliberately harm a person. 

Consider this statement by State Senator Pam Helming: “It is time to stop playing politics and pass legislation that is clearly written, has been vetted by the public, and will truly protect our citizens without stripping the rights of law-abiding citizens.”

NRA spokeswoman Stephanie Samford reminds us: “Insurance is not needed to exercise any other Constitutional right”.

Don Smith, Chairman

Wayne County S.C.O.P.E.
P.O. Box 608
Macedon, NY 14502

Times of Wayne County
P.O. Box 608
Macedon, NY 14502

Members!  Save the Date!  October 16, 2021

"America will never forget their sacrifices"

On May 29, 2004, America dedicated the National World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C., which pays tribute to all Americans who served in history's most terrible war. Inscribed near a wall honoring those who gave their lives in World War II is a simple statement from Harry S. Truman: "Our debt to the heroic men and valiant women in the service of our country can never be repaid. They have earned our undying gratitude. America will never forget their sacrifices.

At this time of year, when Americans kick off their summers with holiday weekend vacations and barbecues, it is good to pause and remember our countrymen who have answered the call to serve, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

Conflict: Revolutionary War (1775-1783)

U.S. Military Deaths: 25,000

Conflict: War of 1812 (1812-1815)

U.S. Military Deaths: 20,000

Conflict: Mexican War (1846-1848)

U.S. Military Deaths: 13,300

Conflict: Civil War (1861-1865)

U.S. Military Deaths: Union 360,000 | Confederate 260,000

Conflict: Spanish-American War (1898)

U.S. Military Deaths: 2,500

Conflict: World War I (1917-1918)

U.S. Military Deaths: 116,500

Conflict: World War II (1941-1945)

U.S. Military Deaths: 405,400

Conflict: Korean War (1950-1953)

U.S. Military Deaths: 36,600

Conflict: Vietnam War (1964-1973)

U.S. Military Deaths: 58,200

Conflict: Persian Gulf War (1990-1991)

U.S. Military Deaths: 380

Conflict: Afghanistan (2001- )

U.S. Military Deaths: 1,000**

Conflict: Iraq War (2003- )

U.S. Military Deaths: 4,400**

*Includes battlefield and other deaths, such as soldiers who died of disease. Because official records may be incomplete,

especially prior to World War I, military death figures are estimates.

**Approximate military deaths as of June 1, 2010.

Anti-Gun Mayor Says She's The Victim After Husband Busted On Drug, Gun Charges  by Cam Edwards | May 21, 2021

What’s an anti-gun mayor supposed to say when police raid her home and find illegally possessed firearms and illicit drugs inside? In the case of Rochester, New York mayor Lovely Warren, the answer is to claim that you’re the victim of a political investigation and an attempt to derail your re-election campaign.

“I find the timing of yesterday’s events, three weeks before early voting  starts, to be highly suspicious,” Warren said, in her speech, which was posted by Rochester First.

“There’s nothing implicating me in these charges today, because I’ve done nothing wrong. I haven’t spoken to Tim since his arrest, and I’m not standing here to defend him.”

“Tim” is Timothy Granison, Warren’s husband and the alleged owner of an unregistered handgun discovered in the couple’s home earlier this week (a modern sporting rifle was found as well, though so far police haven’t said if was registered with the state as required under New York’s SAFE Act set of gun control laws). Warren’s correct in noting that she’s not currently facing charges in connection with the drug investigation, though the mayor is facing felony charges of her own in a case involving alleged violations of the state’s campaign financing laws.

Still, it stretches credulity to believe that Warren would have had no idea of her husband’s alleged activity. If the mayor can’t even keep felons from keeping drugs and guns in her home (Granison was convicted of felony robbery in 1997, when he was 18), can she really be trusted to keep drug dealers and gun traffickers out of the city she manages?

Rather than address that obvious question, Warren instead chose to pin the blame on the prosecutor in her first public comments after her husband’s arrest, accusing Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley of targeting her husband in an attempt to help Warren’s opponent in the mayoral race. Dooley, however, had already thrown cold water on that idea while announcing the arrest of Granison and six other accused drug dealers on Thursday.

In her remarks to reporters, Doorley took pains to dismiss any suggestion that the raid on Warren’s home and the arrest of her husband were motivated by politics. She explained that Granison only became a suspect at some point into the seven-month probe.

“I’m sure there are going to be people out there who think that this is politically motivated. It was not,” Doorley said. “Timothy Granison was not the original target of this wire investigation.

“Approximately seven months I met with members of law enforcement, we had a target, we began to go up on phones, as we do with a wiretap investigations,” she went on. “During the course of the investigation, Timothy Granison became apparent to us as being a plyer in this narcotics ring, and it was at this point that we followed the evidence. Simple as that.”

While the outcome of Granison’s criminal case is unclear (he’s pleaded not guilty to the felony charges), one thing is certain: next Tuesday’s mayoral debate between Lovely Warren and challenger Malik Evans, a Rochester city council member, should be one for the ages. Thankfully, it’ll be streamed online, so even if you don’t live in the Rochester area you’ll be able to tune in for what will be some must-see TV.

Saying No to the Crown

After the Revolutionary War, some Americans doubted that the newly freed colonies could govern themselves. In May 1782 George Washington received a letter from one of his officers, Colonel Lewis Nicola, proposing that the general use the army to make himself king of the United States.

Washington’s response on May 22 was sharp:

With a mixture of great surprise and astonishment I have read with attention the sentiments you have submitted to my perusal. Be assured sir, no occurrence in the course of the war has given me more painful sensations than your information of there being such ideas existing in the army as you have expressed, [which are] big with the greatest mischiefs that can befall my country. If I am not deceived in the knowledge of myself, you could not have found a person to whom your schemes are more disagreeable. . . . Let me conjure you then, if you have any regard for your country – concern for yourself or posterity – or respect for me, to banish these thoughts from your mind.

Yet there were some who still wondered if General Washington would give up his power. He had the adoration of the people and command of the Continental Army. Washington erased doubts once and for all in late 1783 when he appeared before Congress, meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, to “surrender into their hands the trust committed to me” by resigning his commission.

King George had said that if Washington voluntarily gave up power, then he truly would be the greatest man on earth. Oliver Cromwell hadn’t done it. Napoleon would not do it. But Washington did. He might have had a kingdom for the asking. He was not interested. He put his country first, not himself.

U.S. Supreme Court limits police power to enter homes with no warrant  Andrew Chung

The United States Supreme Court Building's facade is seen in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 13, 2021. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to make it easier for police to enter a home without a warrant for reasons of health or public safety, throwing out a lower court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a Rhode Island man after officers entered his home and confiscated his guns.

The 9-0 ruling directed the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider Edward Caniglia's lawsuit accusing police of violating his constitutional rights by bringing him to a hospital for a mental health evaluation and taking away his guns without a warrant after a 2015 argument with his wife.

Lower courts had ruled that police in the Rhode Island city of Cranston did not violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The case centered on a legal doctrine that gives officers leeway to engage in "community caretaking" to ensure public safety. In its ruling, the Supreme Court, which has previously applied this doctrine to vehicles, said it does not apply to the home as well.

"What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court.

In ruling against Caniglia, the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that even if his case did not involve an emergency, the police conduct was justified under the community caretaking doctrine.

There has been heightened concern over police conduct, including how authorities deal with mentally ill people, in the wake of protests in many cities last year against racism and police brutality.

President Joe Biden's administration backed police in the case. A Justice Department lawyer told the justices that officers should not be required to obtain warrants in situations in which people could be seriously harmed.

Where Are All The Guns?  by Frank Melloni - Thursday, April 29, 2021

Where are all the guns? If you walk into any gun store these days, you are likely to hear this question uttered across the counter. With more than five million law-abiding citizens making their first purchase, it is no wonder that we are seeing a shortage of just about every type of firearm on the market. The follow-up questions, of course, are “Why's it taking so long to recover?” and “What is being done to replenish the market?” Curious myself, I reached out to some of the biggest manufacturers to find out what their new production approach was and maybe even get a little peek behind the curtain.

Savage Arms

Of all the manufacturers that I spoke with, Savage was the most optimistic. The only roadblock that they claim to be hitting is the lead times on certain products, namely the Asian-made optics for some of its complete firearm packages. While the focus during late 2020 was on the Axis and Axis II families, today production is up across the board without major shutdowns of any one product type.

By implementing a third shift and ramping production up to seven days a week, the lines are running nonstop. The only interruption to speak of occurred during the middle of 2020 to reorganize and reconfigure the factory to meet CDC guidelines and provide a safer workplace. Our source over there signed off by saying, “In our production facilities, we have generated well over 100-percent growth in the last eight months.

Partners and suppliers are also working to keep up with demand. With our Stevens pump shotgun partner, [Savage] reconfigured and expanded their production capacity to produce even more of their security-style shotguns, a best seller for 2020. Last spring, we sold about four months of regular inventory of these in just three days.”

Kimber America

Defensive handguns have grabbed a major share of the market. With vacations on hold, many buyers used those extra funds to buy a high-end pistol. When we think of high-end pistols, Kimber America comes to mind and we got a few minutes of their time for an update. Like most other companies, Kimber is increasing production.

However, instead of just adding shifts, the company is expanding its second location in Troy, Al. To get more products out, more than 200 new employees were hired to span not only the production lines, but the engineering side of the company as well. This will ensure that we continue to see new designs for 2021 and the years to come.

While Kimber offers quite a larger variety of handguns, our contact has informed us that the high-performance models such as the Rapide and Super Jägare have garnered the most interest and they are doing all they can to get more of those out to dealers. The next highest demand goes to the concealed carry handguns from the Micro 9 category, these are getting a bump in production as well.

Taurus USA

The pandemic also reduced many folks' available funds, particularly for a first gun. Not having a ton of cash on hand doesn’t mean that you can’t get a quality firearm, and those looking to maximize their value often turn to Taurus USA. If you only have $300 and want to get every dollars’ worth, it’s hard to do better than one of its defensive pistols.

Taurus exclaimed that models like the G3 and G3c have been highly sought after since early 2020 and continue to generate sharp demand at the time of this writing. Production has been ramped up to full capacity with zero downtime in both the company's US and Brazilian factories. Research and development for new products has not been affected, as the engineers are still hard at work creating designs like the new TX-22 Competition pistol, which is sure to be a hit as most folks are doing all they can to save their center-fire ammunition.

Ruger

I wrapped my investigation up by tapping one of the best-rounded companies in the industry, Ruger. From single-action revolvers to AR-15s, this company has arguably the most extensive lineup of any firearms manufacturer. I reached out to see if they planned on keeping all of these items available in the upcoming years and, to my surprise, our contact answered in the affirmative.

Ruger’s policy is NOT to stop the production of any one product to help meet the demand of another. Instead, the company has hired extra personnel and paid overtime to ensure that each line produces as many guns as possible. At the time of our interview, they relayed that every single product is selling out, so it doesn’t make sense to change things up.

The only factory changes were those done to increase social distancing and meet CDC guidelines. As for roadblocks, the only one they had to speak to was personnel. Ruger has hired and is continuing to hire workers for nearly every position, so if you are looking to break into the firearm industry, now just might be the time to touch-up your resume.

Overall, none of the companies were willing to gamble on when things might “return to normal,” largely because demand is unprecedented and therefore unpredictable. Any estimate would be based on demand going back to a reasonable level, and unfortunately, the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic is keeping the pressure on.

We all must remain patient and optimistic that our favorite firearms will be available soon enough at our local gun shops. In the meantime, with gun-control measures being discussed in Washington, we should remain as active as possible to ensure that we will still be able to own them when they return to the shelves.

Armed Shoplifter Stopped By Concealed Carrier and a Good Samaritan  by Luke McCoy

A Beech Grove Walmart was the scene of a resisting shoplifter being fired at by a licensed gun owner and then stopped by a Good Samaritan while fleeing.

The shoplifter, who went on to draw and point a gun at the store’s security guard after escaping arrest. As the suspect was pointing a gun at the security guard, a licensed gun owner saw what was taking place and fired at him. None of the shots hit the suspect and as he fled through the parking lot, another Good Samaritan tackled him. The resisting shoplifter and the store’s loss prevention officer were treated for minor injuries. The security officer, who is also a park ranger, suffered no injuries.

Walmart does not permit open carry, so it is safe to assume the licensed gun owner was carrying concealed. Samone Burris, an Indianapolis Metro Police officer, thanked the licensed gun owner as well as the parking lot civilian for helping stop the suspect.

“IT IS PHENOMENAL THAT WHEN WE NEEDED THE COMMUNITY THEY WERE RIGHT THERE WITH US,” BURRIS SAID.

The bravery of all things should of course be honored to both heroes at the scene.

In regards to self-defense, one should always be wary of basic firearm safety: know your target and who/what is beyond the said target. It is not exactly known the measure of how much the licensed gun holder missed his mark(s) on the suspect. Although the gun-wielding suspect posed a potential risk to others after not being immediately disarmed, thankfully the shots were enough to deter the suspect, along with the Good Samaritan.

All things considered, the public presence of a licensed CCW holder should not be overlooked. One can only imagine what could’ve happened had the suspect not been deterred by an armed citizen.

Supreme Court to take up right to carry gun for self-defense

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear an appeal to expand gun rights in the United States in a New York case over the right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.

The case marks the court’s first foray into gun rights since Justice Amy Coney Barrett came on board in October, making a 6-3 conservative majority.

The justices said Monday they will review a lower-court ruling that upheld New York’s restrictive gun permit law. The court’s decision to take on the case follows mass shootings in recent weeks in Indiana, Georgia, Colorado and California and comes amid congressional efforts to tighten gun laws. President Joe Biden also has announced several executive actions to combat what he called an “epidemic and an international embarrassment” of gun violence in America.

The case is especially significant during the coronavirus pandemic, said Eric Tirschwell, the legal director of Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group backed by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. “Gun violence has only worsened during the pandemic, and a ruling that opened the door to weakening our gun laws could make it even harder for cities and states to grapple with this public health crisis,” Tirschwell said.

The court had turned down review of the issue in June, before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death.

New York is among eight states that limit who has the right to carry a weapon in public. The others are: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island.

In the rest of the country, gun owners have little trouble legally carrying their weapons when they go out.

Paul Clement, representing challengers to New York’s permit law, said the court should use the case to settle the issue once and for all. “Thus, the nation is split, with the Second Amendment alive and well in the vast middle of the nation, and those same rights disregarded near the coasts,” Clement wrote on behalf of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and two New York residents.

Calling on the court to reject the appeal, the state said its law promotes public safety and crime reduction and neither bans people from carrying guns nor allows everyone to do so.

Federal courts have largely upheld the permit limits. Last month an 11-judge panel of the federal appeals court in San Francisco rejected a challenge to Hawaii’s permit regulations in an opinion written by a conservative judge, Jay Bybee.

“Our review of more than 700 years of English and American legal history reveals a strong theme: government has the power to regulate arms in the public square,” Bybee wrote in a 7-4 decision for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The issue of carrying a gun for self-defense has been seen for several years as the next major step for gun rights at the Supreme Court, following decisions in 2008 and 2010 that established a nationwide right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.

In June, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, complained that rather than take on the constitutional issue, “the Court simply looks the other way.”

But Barrett has a more expansive view of gun rights than Ginsburg. She wrote a dissent in 2019, when she was a judge on the federal appeals court in Chicago, that argued that a conviction for a nonviolent felony — in this case, mail fraud — shouldn’t automatically disqualify someone from owning a gun.

She said that her colleagues in the majority were treating the Second Amendment as a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”

North country Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R. - 21st District) issued the following statement:

“My strong and consistent record of standing up for the Second Amendment Rights of my constituents in the North Country has proudly earned me an A+ rating from the NRA, the highest of any member of the New York Delegation. I cannot overstate the importance of the Supreme Court’s consideration of this case for law-abiding gun owners in New York State, especially as Governor Cuomo, President Biden, and Democrats across the country continue to impose strict, unconstitutional gun control measures. The Constitution is clear – the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I am hopeful the Supreme Court will rule in favor of that constitutional truth and protect the right of law-abiding New Yorkers and Americans to defend themselves, regardless of where they are.”

Governor Andrew Cuomo released this statement:

“In light of the Supreme Court’s announcement this morning that they will take up New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett in the next term, it’s worth remembering that New York’s nation-leading gun violence prevention laws, including the SAFE Act we passed after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary, haven’t stopped anyone with a legal right to buy, possess, or use a gun from doing so - but they have made us the safest big state in the country.

“This NRA-backed case is a massive threat to that security. Imagine someone carrying a gun through Times Square, onto the subway, or to a tailgate outside of a Bills game - the NRA’s goal here is to shift the onus onto regular New Yorkers, police officers, security guards, and first responders to determine whether an armed individual poses a threat or is simply carrying for self-defense. The streets of New York are not the O.K. Corral, and the NRA’s dream of a society where everyone is terrified of each other and armed to the teeth is abhorrent to our values.

“While we have to respect the role of the courts, we don’t have to play along with the NRA’s strategy of using them to roll back strong gun safety laws passed by individual states, turning the lowest common denominator into the law of the land. We can keep all Americans safe through federal action. Changing the law to require a background check on all gun sales, ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, implement Red Flag orders, and close the Charleston loophole is overwhelmingly popular, constitutional, and effective. We’ve proven as much in New York State, and with President Biden in the White House, Congress now has an opportunity to do the same. I urge them to take it.”