Uncategorized

Uncategorized

Bumpstocks Didn’t Get Stay – What To Do Now

April 8, 2019 by 3 Comments

This past Friday the US Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs in Guedes et al v. BATFE and Codrea v. Barr a stay in the bump stock ban rule and referred the request back to the Circuit Court for the DC Circuit.

18A1019 GUEDES, DAMIEN, ET AL. V. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, ET AL.


The application for stay, presented to The Chief Justice
and by him referred to the Court, is denied.


Applicants request that if we deny this application we
grant a limited stay of 120 hours to allow them to come into
compliance with the Final Rule. We refer the issue of such a
stay to the D.C. Circuit for its consideration.


Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch would grant the
application.

So where does this leave the case now?

The Firearms Policy Foundation released a statement by email along with the response of the Circuit Court on Sunday evening. If you do have a bump stock and are a member of one of the organizations such as Florida Carry or the Firearms Policy Foundation, you have until 5pm, Wednesday, April 10, 2019 to legally turn it in.

From FPF:

On Friday, the Supreme Court denied our legal team’s request
for a stay (i.e., postponement) of the ATF’s Final
Rule re-classifying “bump-stock-type” devices as illegal
machineguns while we continue to litigate the various claims we raised
in our lawsuit and in the other consolidated cases. The D.C. Circuit
subsequently ordered the following:

PER CURIAM ORDER [1781463] filed that,
based on the government’s representation that it will not enforce the
Bump-Stock Rule against the named plaintiffs or their bona fide
members before 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 10, 2019, the emergency
joint motion to extend stay order [1781365-2] be denied and the
administrative stay entered on March 23, 2019, and clarified on March
25, 2019, be dissolved. The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate
forthwith. Before Judges: Henderson, Srinivasan and Millett. [19-5042,
19-5044]



The Government (DOJ/ATF) has agreed to allow the individual
plaintiffs in Guedes, et al. v. BATFE, et al. and the
organizational plaintiffs’ – i.e., Firearms Policy Foundation, Florida
Carry, Inc., and Madison Society Foundation, Inc. — bona fide members
(as well as the individuals in the consolidated Codrea, et
al. action) to come into compliance with the new Final Rule by
5p.m. on Wednesday, April 10, 2019. The Government also represented
that it “will also retain the bump stocks” that are provided to them
in compliance efforts until our legal action is completely
concluded.


Friday’s Supreme Court decision to deny the stay we requested was
disappointing but not entirely unexpected. But importantly, there is
much litigation left before the cases are disposed of. Our team is
currently working on a petition for en banc rehearing by the
full D.C. Circuit. And we are prepared, if need be, to petition the
U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari (review).


We maintain that the Government’s new rule is unconstitutional and
unlawful. And we will continue to aggressively litigate this case and
work to defend American gun owners from this unlawful ban mandated
by President Donald Trump. Updates will continue to be posted to our
BumpstockCase.com
case webpage.


In an abundance of caution, we wanted to make you aware of how the
Final Rule could affect owners of affected devices. As set forth in
the Final
Rule, 83 Fed.Reg. 66530, and according
to the ATF, a bump-stock-type device owner’s options are:


1) Destroy the bump-stock device according to the ATF’s published
“Bump
Stock Destruction Instructions”; or,


2) Surrender it/them to the “nearest” ATF office. (ATF advises that
it is best to make an appointment beforehand with the nearest ATF
office.) You can find your local ATF field office and their phone
number at https://www.atf.gov/contact/local-atf-offices.


Non-compliance with the ATF’s Final Rule (i.e., continued
possession of a bump-stock-type device) could lead to serious criminal
liability. Individuals (or a company/organization) who
maintain possession of an affected device can be prosecuted for
unlawful possession of a putative machinegun, where he/she/they can be
imprisoned for up to 10 years and fined up to $250,000 (or more in
some cases) per violation.


Chief Counsel Joshua Prince of Firearms Industry Consulting Group,
a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., who is representing
Firearms Policy Foundation and numerous other plaintiffs in
Guedes, et al. v. BATFE, et al., has suggested that
individuals who wish to comply with the ATF’s Final Rule by
surrendering their device to the ATF do so under protest.


As you may be aware, both ATF’s
website relating to bump-stock devices and the Final
Rule, 83 Fed.Reg. 66530, declare that “current possessors also
have the option to abandon bump-stock-type devices at the nearest ATF
office.” In spite of that, however, some reports
(and our own experience) suggest that not all ATF local offices are
accepting bump-stock devices. Thus, you should call the local ATF
office before you travel there to confirm that they are, indeed,
accepting affected devices.


If they are accepting such devices, then make them aware that you
intend to visit their office to surrender your bump-stock device(s)
under protest and inquire as to whether they have any specific
procedures for your entry into the building.


Before you go, you will want to take pictures of your bump-stock
device(s), in case there is ever a question as to the condition, make,
and model of it/them. And you should also consider preparing a letter,
such as the Sample Letter provided below, to advise the ATF that you
are providing them your bump-stock device(s) under protest.


When you go, provide the ATF agent handling your matter with a copy
of the letter and demand that they provide you with a property receipt
that reflects their receipt of your bump-stock device(s) and specifies
the make and model of the device(s). Be aware that they may attempt to
have you sign an ATF 3400.1 Form – Consent to Forfeiture or
Destruction of Property and Waiver of Notice – which you
should NOT sign under ANY circumstance. In the event that
they ask you to sign an ATF 3400.1, inform them that the
only ATF form you are willing to sign is an
ATF 3400.23 – Receipt of Property and Other Items. If they argue at
all with you, politely tell them to review the internal memo that ATF
circulated regarding the right of individuals to surrender
bump-stock-type devices under protest and those individual’s right to
refuse to sign an ATF 3400.1 form.


It would also be prudent to separately document your experience of
the encounter in writing – such as the date and time of your visit,
the location of the ATF office you went to, the names or other
identifying information (ID #, etc.) of all ATF agents or persons you
spoke with, the details of all discussions, and any other information
they told or provided you – and keep it in a safe place.


You can also let our team know if the ATF in any way refuses or
rejects your attempt to comply with the Final Rule. You can submit a
report of your issue to hotline@fpchq.org and/or contact
your attorney for specific legal advice.


In the event that ATF elects to institute a forfeiture action
against your property, they are required to serve you with a copy. If
that happens, you should immediately contact an attorney, preferably
one who specializes in federal firearms law, if you wish to challenge
ATF’s ability to forfeit your property. Again, you can submit a report
of your issue to hotline@fpchq.org, but always
contact your attorney for specific legal advice.


Again, we will continue to aggressively litigate this case and work
to defend American gun owners from this unlawful and unconstitutional
ban.


If you are able, please help support this important lawsuit and our
fight for your rights by making a tax-deductible donation at FightATF.com.

NOTE: This message and its contents are intended to provide
general information only. It is not intended to provide legal advice.
You should always contact your attorney if you want or need specific
legal advice. 

Uncategorized

A Partial Loss In California Mag Ban Case

April 5, 2019 by 2 Comments

The opinion and ruling by US District Court Judge Roger Benitez in the California magazine ban case – Duncan et al v. Becerra – has garnered lots of attention this past week. His ruling was a permanent injunction on California’s ban on the sale of standard capacity magazines. The result has been that the major online retailers such as Palmetto State Armory, AIM Surplus, Brownells, and Midway USA have been inundated with orders for magazines by California residents.

As you might imagine, the State of California and Attorney General Xavier Becerra are not happy campers. They requested an immediate stay on the ruling while they appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. This afternoon, Judge Benitez granted a partial stay after weighing the arguments of both sides and trying to satisfy both sides.

From his order:

In layman’s terms, the State of California and the law enforcement agencies
therein will be free to re-start the enforcement of Calif. Penal Code § 32310 (a) and
(b) which currently prohibits, among other things, any person in the state from
manufacturing, importing into the state, offering for sale, giving, lending, buying,
or receiving a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds (as defined by
Calif. Penal Code § 16740). This will continue until the appeal proceedings
conclude or the stay is modified or lifted.

At the same time, the State of California and the law enforcement agencies
therein will remain enjoined (or prevented) from enforcing Calif. Penal Code
§ 32310 (c) and (d) which would have criminalized the simple possession of a
firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds and required disposing of such magazines. This will also continue until the appeal proceedings conclude or the
stay is modified or lifted.

Both parties indicate in briefing that persons and business entities in California
may have manufactured, imported, sold, or bought magazines able to hold more
than 10 rounds since the entry of this Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019 and in
reliance on the injunction. Indeed, it is the reason that the Attorney General seeks
urgent relief in the form of a stay pending appeal. Both parties suggest that it is
appropriate to fashion protection for these law-abiding persons.


THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment is stayed in part
pending final resolution of the appeal from the Judgment. The permanent
injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (a) and (b) is
hereby stayed, effective 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.


IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the preliminary injunction issued
on June 29, 2017, enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (c) and
(d) shall remain in effect.


IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the permanent injunction
enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (a) and (b) shall remain in
effect for those persons and business entities who have manufactured, imported,
sold, or bought magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds between the entry of
this Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019 and 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.

Dated: April 4, 2019

Translated this means that standard capacity magazines can’t be sold, made, imported, or given away after tomorrow, Friday, April 5, 2019 at 5:00pm PDT. However, if you bought a magazine, sold a magazine, or otherwise transferred one into California between March 29th and April 5th at 5:00pm, you are still covered by the permanent injunction against the ban. This means you have until 5:00pm tomorrow to receive it. Or take a quick trip out of state – Nevada, Arizona, etc – and be back by 5:00pm with your new standard capacity magazines.

Moreover, further translating, the preliminary injunction prevents prosecution of those who possessed a standard capacity magazine prior to July 1, 2017. They will not be forced to dispose of their magazines to comply with subsection (d).

You can read the relevant penal code here.

Uncategorized

Misleading Headline But Then Again It’s Al Jazeera

April 3, 2019 by

There was an article online with Al Jazeera that had a headline that read, “New Zealand gun lobby backs ban after Christchurch mosques attack”. You are justified in thinking that New Zealand firearms organizations are a bunch of sheep-like wusses if you believed that headline. The only problem is that when you dig further the anonymous author took quotes out of context and ignored actual opposition to the proposals of Prime Minister Jacinda Adern.

It starts with this from the Secretary of the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners:

In stark contrast to the United States, where even the most minor curbs on gun ownership meet ferocious opposition led by the National Rifle Association, New Zealand gun owners agree action is needed.


“We want to support our government in any changes to prevent a terrorist attack from happening in New Zealand again,” said Nicole McKee, secretary of the Council of Licensed Firearm Owners.

That differs from what they are saying now on their Facebook page. They have asked that the consultation period be the normal six months and that a select committee be set up to study it. This has been ignored in the NZ government’s planned bill and COLFO has said:

Today, the Arms (Prohibited firearms, Magazines and Parts) Amendment Bill was released. You had best sit up and pay attention as we are being let down BADLY.

We NEED 100,000 people to step up and state they wish to be able to fire their centre-fire semi-automatic firearms. We NEED you ALL to submit to the select committee and to ask to speak in person. That is the simple key message.

I don’t think that sounds like an organization that is backing the government of New Zealand’s gun control policies. They are also feeling like scapegoats.

Some Licensed firearm owners are feeling they are being made the scapegoat for the
actions of a terrorist, we would like to quote the Prime Minister and say on their behalf ‘We
did not do this’.

Here is what is being banned by the Government of New Zealand’s proposed bill which will carry penalties from 2 to 10 years of imprisonment for violating it.

The Bill inserts new provisions to provide a general prohibition on importing, selling, supplying, or possessing any of the following:


  • a semi-automatic firearm (other than a pistol), with some exceptions:
  • a pump-action shotgun that is capable of being used with a detachable magazine:
  • a pump-action shotgun that has a non-detachable tubular magazine or magazines that can hold more than 5 cartridges or magazines:
  • magazines for shotguns that can hold more than 5 cartridges:
  • magazines for any other firearm that are detachable and can hold—

  • 0.22 calibre or less rimfire cartridges and more than 10 of those cartridges; or
  • more than 10 cartridges and can be used with a semi-automatic or fully automatic firearm:

  • any other magazine that can hold more than 10 cartridges:
  • a part of a prohibited firearm, including a component, that can be applied to enable, or take significant steps towards enabling, a firearm to be fired with, or near, a semi-automatic action.

In the quote from the National Rifle Association of New Zealand referring to only shooting with single shot bolt action rifles, it was taken from the President’s newsletter which contained a number of bulleted items. NRA-NZ is a rifle shooting club that engages in stuff like the Palma Championships and F Class rifle contests. The newsletter notes that they are part of the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners and are letting that organization take the lead in the response to the political situation post-Christchurch mosque attack.

Finally, the COLFO has a number of position papers including this one on what they call “military-style semi-automatics” or MSSAs. From the position paper:

COLFO POLICY


COLFO considers the current licensing requirements for military style semi-automatic firearms meets both the needs of society and firearms owners. The legislation has proved successful in regulating the ownership, use and safe storage of such firearms.


COLFO also believes that MSSAs should be transferable between E endorsement holders and those with a C category endorsement. This would enable bona fide collectors and museums the opportunity to retain or purchase them.


COMMENT


The tragedies that involve mass murder using firearms are normally followed by emotive calls for tighter gun control as people look for a quick fix to feel more secure. It is a fact that those who are diagnosed as mentally ill have little or no respect for any laws let alone firearm laws.


COLFO considers legislating to further restrict firearms possession among law abiding and licensed owners will have no effect on the incidents of violence involving firearms. This has been proven by overseas experience.

I think this conclusively puts a nail in the coffin of the quote implying that they support the NZ government’s plans to ban these firearms.

My final comment is that the number of firearms voluntarily turned in is minimal (less than 50). Despite not having constitutional protections for either free speech or the right to keep and bear arms, it seems many New Zealanders are taking the Gonzales approach – Come and Take It.

Uncategorized

He’s Right, You Know

April 3, 2019 by 3 Comments

MADEbyJIMBOB is an anti-politically correct satirist. He was the subject of a story in The Federalist a few days ago about the memes he puts up on Instagram and one that recently was removed. JimBob was put on notice that his account could be shut down if he has “subsequent violations.

So what did he do that was so objectionable?

He told the truth about the mosque murders in New Zealand and the reaction of the government of Jacinda Adern.

From The Federalist:

When asked what he was hoping people would get from the post, MADEbyJIMBOB said: “The purpose of the meme was explore the perhaps unhealthy relationship between terror, trauma and reactionary legislation. The definition of terrorism is the use of violence or threat with political motivation, the inquiry is, is terrorism being exploited for political action and where is the line between responding to terrorism and rewarding violent behavior with legislation.”


This is a valid question, but one Instagram apparently thinks isn’t worth entertaining on their platform. Whether it be due solely to the mention of terrorism or some perhaps more nefarious politically based antagonism, it’s hard to say why Instagram found this so unacceptable. And there’s no appeal process, so MADEbyJIMBOB might never know.

And the meme:

Copyright MADEbyJIMOB

If you’ve read any of the killer’s off-the-wall manifesto – and I have – you know this was his intent.

As Morgan Freeman would say:

Uncategorized

A Dating Partner Of The Respondent?

April 3, 2019 by 1 Comment

The proposed red flag for North Carolina, HB 454, includes in its definition of “family or household member” as someone you are dating. Thus, someone you go out with on a blind date would be eligible to seek an “Extreme Risk Protection Order” which would order the police to take all your firearms. They could do this electronically, with no court costs, and, if they possessed a valid “Address Confidentiality Program” authorization card, could keep their address secret.

Do we really need the modern day equivalent of the Star Chamber?

I say no and so does Grass Roots North Carolina which issued the following alert:

GO ON A DATE, LOSE YOUR GUNS












Like everyone else, Gun Owners have the Constitutional right to due
process and the presumption of innocence. House Bill 454 would change all of that, allowing anyone in an ever-expanding circle
of people, including a ‘dating partner,’ to decide you are ‘imminently dangerous’ and direct the authorities to confiscate
your guns.

H454 doesn’t
define ‘dating partner,’ ‘imminent’ or what makes someone a ‘danger to themselves or
others’.  But keep in mind that those who would deny your Second Amendment rights often consider any gun
owner to be
‘dangerous,’ and they would be able to force the confiscation of your
guns without your foreknowledge (through an ex parte hearing).


So let’s say you go on a casual
outing with someone who knows you have guns, and they decide to
“report”  you, for revenge, out of spite or whatever (due to unrequited
interest, for example). They can honestly claim to be a
‘dating partner,’ a term entirely undefined by H454, and have your
property confiscated at the point of a gun.

On top of all of this, the authorities can charge you
a storage fee for keeping your guns and ammunition. They take your guns against your will and in violation of your rights, and you get to
pay for the privilege! Nothing in the
proposed law would stop the authorities from test firing your guns for a
ballistics database to see if they were used in a crime, or doing
anything else with them for that matter. While you may have to undergo a
‘mental health’ or ‘chemical dependency’ evaluation to keep what you
already own, your accuser has the option of staying anonymous under the
‘Address  Confidentiality  Program’. How nice for the accuser who will never have to confront you in court, in blatant
violation of the 6th Amendment.

Laws
already exist for
Involuntary Civil Commitment, and these provide due process, but
apparently, these aren’t good enough for the gun grabbers. In addition
to
being unconstitutional, clearly this new form of government overreach
isn’t effective, as research shows that these new laws
do not work as advertised.

Please Contribute to GRNC-PVF

It’s going
to be a busy year in the world of freedom-fighting. At the same, time
multiple special elections approach, House and Senate bills, both good
and bad, are being filed in the General Assembly. Funds and volunteers
are
already stretched thin, and we’re still climbing toward peak activity.
Now more than ever, this all-volunteer organization needs your support.
Anything you could spare will help GRNC-PVF and would be greatly
appreciated, and let’s face it, with all that’s coming our
way, donations are nothing less than an investment in the future of gun freedom in our state. Please CLICK
HERE to donate to GRNC-PVF. 



Support “Rights Watch International”
AmazonSmile Learn more about Rights Watch
International

You shop. Amazon
Gives. (What is Amazon Smile?)


IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!

  • EMAIL BOTH PARTY’S LEADERS IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY:
    Below, find the copy/paste contact
    information you need to tell the party leadership that this
    unconstitutional gun control bill must not receive a hearing. Use the
    copy/paste text
    provided under the ‘Deliver This Message’ section.


  • PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TO GRNC-PVF: Help us fight gun control while we promote Second Amendment principles.
    Please CLICK
    HERE     to contribute. Bear in mind that GRNC is an all-volunteer organization, so you can be sure your donations are put to the best
    possible use. Any amount helps, and any amount is appreciated.
NC General Assembly
Leadership copy/paste email list:
Tim.Moore@ncleg.net;
Sarah.Stevens@ncleg.net; John.Bell@ncleg.net; Jon.Hardister@ncleg.net;
Darren.Jackson@ncleg.net; Cynthia.Ball@ncleg.net; Deb.Butler@ncleg.net;
Carla.Cunningham@ncleg.net; Garland.Pierce@ncleg.net;
Amos.Quick@ncleg.net;
Phil.Berger@ncleg.net; Harry.Brown@ncleg.net; Dan.Blue@ncleg.net;
Jay.Chaudhuri@ncleg.net; Rick.Gunn@ncleg.net; Jerry.Tillman@ncleg.net;
Ted.Davis@ncleg.net; David.Lewis@ncleg.net

DELIVER THIS
MESSAGE
Suggested Subject: “Stop H454,
the Gun Confiscation Bill“
Dear Republican Leader:

I
am writing today because I am outraged
over H454’s attempted erosion of Constitutional liberties, in
particular, the right to due process.  With just the word of a ‘dating
partner’ (an undefined term), someone’s firearms can be forcibly
confiscated by law enforcement. This confiscation would be based on
‘dangerous behavior,’ another term that the bill doesn’t define.



Those
who are hostile to the Second Amendment often (and
absurdly) consider gun owners dangerous by their mere existence.
Considering that, and the fact that anyone, out of spite or revenge,
would be
able to have a citizen’s guns forcibly taken from him or her, these
constitutionally abhorrent orders will, in essence, legally codify the
practice of
‘SWAT-ing’ anyone who owns or is believed to own a gun.

For these reasons, I’m insisting that you take whatever legislative steps necessary to halt this freedom denying measure.

Do
the right thing:
use your position to take active steps to make sure this ominous gun
control bill will never have a hearing, and never receive a vote. I will
be
closely monitoring your actions regarding this gun control bill through
alerts from Grass Roots North Carolina.

Respectfully,

I think Black Rifle Coffee has captured the type of “dating partner” who might file for a ERPO if they knew you possessed a firearm in the video below. Yes, it is a spoof but the reality is that there are men and women like that out in society.

Uncategorized

DC Circuit’s April Fools Joke On The Constitution

April 1, 2019 by 3 Comments

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia released its decision in the combined cases of Guedes et al v. BATFE et al and Codrea et al v. Barr. It was a per curiam decision with Judge Karen Henderson dissenting in part and concurring in part. The court sided with the District Court in denying the preliminary injunction of the bump stock rule.

PER
CURIAM
: In October 2017, a lone gunman armed with
bump-stock-enhanced semiautomatic weapons murdered 58
people and wounded hundreds more in a mass shooting at a
concert in Las Vegas, Nevada. In the wake of that tragedy, the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
(“Bureau”) promulgated through formal notice-and-comment
proceedings a rule that classifies bump-stock devices as
machine guns under the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C.
§§ 5801–5872.
See
Bump-Stock-Type Devices, 83 Fed. Reg.
66,514 (Dec. 26, 2018) (“Bump-Stock Rule”). The then-
Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker initially signed the
final Bump-Stock Rule, and Attorney General William Barr
independently ratified it shortly after taking office. Bump-
stock owners and advocates filed separate lawsuits in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia to
prevent the Rule from taking effect. The district court denied
the plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction to halt the
Rule’s effective date.
Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives
, 356 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D.D.C. 2019).
We affirm the denial of preliminary injunctive relief.

 The case was heard by Judges Karen Henderson, Sri Srinivasan, and Patricia Millett. Srinivasan and Millett were appointed to the Court of Appeals by former President Obama while Judge Henderson by President George H. W. Bush.

In reaching their decision, the court found that BATFE was entitled to Chevron deference and that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed in their case as a result.

Judge Henderson parted company with her colleagues and said that the bump stock rule does contradict the statutory definition of a machine gun. As such, she would have granted the injunction.
She examined the history of the National Firearms Act, rulings of BATFE, the previous rulings that the bump stock was NOT a machine gun, the slow motion video evidence submitted to the District Court, and the affidavit of Richard Vasquez who had done the technical evaluation of the bump stock.

She concluded:

If the focus is
—as it must
be—on the trigger,
a bump stock
does not qualify as a “machinegun.” A semiautomatic rifle
shoots a single round
per pull of the trigger and the bump stock
changes
only
how
the pull is accomplished. Without a bump
stock
, the shooter
pull
s the trigger with his finger for each shot.
With a bump stock, however, the shooter
—after the initial
pull
—maintains backward pressure on the trigger and puts forward pressure on the barrel with his non-
shooting hand;
these manual inputs cause the rifle to slide and result in the
shooter’s
stationary
finger pulling the trigger.
Bump
-Stock
–
Type Devices
, 83 Fed. Reg.
at 66,533 (“The constant forward
pressure with the non-
trigger hand pushes the firearm forward,
again pulling the firearm forward, engaging the trigger, and
firing a second round.”). T
he bump stock therefore
affects
whether the shooter
pull
s
his
trigger
finger or keep
s it
stationary
. It does not change the movement of the trigger
itself
, which “
must be released, reset, and fully pulled rearward
before
[a]
subsequent round can be fired.” Verified
Declaration of Richard (Rick) Vasquez, former Acting Chief
of the Firearms Tech
. Branch of ATF, at 3–4.


Like countless other Americans, I can think of
little
legitimate
use
for
a bump stock. That thought
, however
, has
nothing to do with the legality
of the Bump Stock Rule. For
the reason
s detailed
supra
, I believe the Bump Stock Rule
expands the statutory definition of “machinegun” and is
therefore
ultra vires
. In my view, the plaintiffs are likely to
succeed on
the merits of their challenge and I would grant them
preliminary injunctive relief.


Accordingly, I respectfully dissent

Uncategorized

Brownell’s Releases The BRN-134D Minigun

April 1, 2019 by 2 Comments

A full-auto minigun would be a NFA item and probably would run afoul of the Hughes Amendment. However, Brownells has recently released a semi-auto version of the minigun. It isn’t cheap but I could see buying a few of these if I had been the lucky person in Wisconsin who just won the Powerball lottery last week.

They say:

In this special edition of our weekly Brownells new products vlog, Paul Levy shows us the new BRN-134D™ Minigun. Developed in partnership Dillon Aero, the BRN-134D is the latest addition to Brownells line of detail-correct semi-auto clones of military firearms. It sports all the standard Minigun features: rotary barrel system with 6 ordnance-grade steel barrels chambered in 7.62×51 NATO, electric-powered motor, disintegrating link feed chute, and a 3,000 round ammo box. The BRN-134D comes with a Picatinny rail up top for the red dot or scope of your choice (optic not included) and an aircraft-mountable stand of rugged, powder-coated steel (included). The price? Surprisingly reasonable!

 Paul Levy has a different idea of “surprisingly reasonable” than me. That said, you are getting a lot of weapon for your $125,000.

Uncategorized

The Ultimate Camo!

April 1, 2019 by

UF Pro has just announced they are releasing a new camo pattern. It should work in the deer stand, the duck blind, and, most importantly, for our armed forces wherever they may be. It truly is a universal camo.

This camo is so universal that they makers are calling it Invisible Camo.

Uncategorized

Town Hall In Charlotte On Wednesday

April 1, 2019 by

Spectrum News is holding a town hall in Charlotte this coming Wednesday, April 3rd, to view a documentary entitled “Gun Violence and Gun Control in the Carolinas”. This will be followed by a discussion period with those attending the town hall. I think you can reasonably expect the gun prohibitionist lobby to be there in full force wearing their Bloomberg-provided red shirts.

Grass Roots North Carolina is reaching out to those who can be in Charlotte on Wednesday evening to attend. If you live in Charlotte, a surrounding county, or even in South Carolina, and you value your constitutional rights, it would be useful to attend.

GRNC released this alert on the event:

Attend Town Hall Mtg with GRNC’s President

ATTEND THE TOWN HALL MEETING!

Spectrum News is airing a
documentary on the “state of gun violence and gun control in the
Carolinas,” then hosting a town hall meeting immediately afterward…


Join GRNC’s President at a Town Hall 
F.
Paul Valone, GRNC’s President, will be one of the few (if not the only)
pro-gun-rights member of the panel at Spectrum’s town hall discussion.
Fortunately, audience members will have the opportunity to ask questions
of the panel. That’s where you come in. The gun rights
community needs you to be there to ask reasonable questions, those that
will not get asked if only the anti-gun crowd is in attendance.

Help End the Echo Chamber
If
you are in the Charlotte area (or can be) on Wednesday, April 3rd, at
7:30 pm, please join Paul Valone along with other GRNC supporters to
help make sure this town hall meeting is conducted in a fair-minded
fashion, and therefore, actually has a chance to be productive, and not
just an echo chamber for the anti-gun crowd.

Below you’ll find
details about the town hall meeting. Your attendance is needed, so
please do join us. If you are indeed going to be there, please email
GRNC’s Director of Development to let us know:  directorofdevelopment@grnc.org. 


IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!

 

  • ATTEND THE SPECTRUM NEWS TOWN HALL MEETING ON GUN VIOLENCE/GUN CONTROL: 

    This
    Wednesday, April 3rd, this town hall meeting will immediately follow
    the 8:00 pm documentary on “Gun Violence and Gun Control in the
    Carolinas.” It’s best
    if you arrive in time to watch the documentary so you can secure a seat,
    and the program will surely offer context for the discussion. Arrive by
    7:30 if you can    .

    You ought to have the
    opportunity to ask questions of the panel. GRNC can provide you with
    appropriate questions, those that will mesh with the specifics discussed
    in the documentary, and particular topics to be discussed by the
    panel.

    Spectrum News has stated that they would like to “shine a
    light on feasible ways to prevent gun violence without infringing on
    Second Amendment rights or interfering with law-abiding citizens or
    hunters who would never use a gun to commit a crime.”

    The address for the meeting is below. If you can attend, please inform GRNC’s Director of Development as soon as possible so we know you’re coming. This will make it easier for us to touch base with you before or at the meeting. Use this email address: directorofdevelopment@grnc.org 

MEETING LOCATION:  Spectrum News Studios
316 East Morehead Street
Charlotte, NC  28202 
MEETING DATE/TIME: Wednesday, April 3, 2019
Please arrive by 7:30 pm 
Documentary at 8:00 pm
Town Hall immediately follows
TIPS:
 Email GRNC ahead of time (as soon as you can) to let us know you’re going to attend: directorofdevelopment@grnc.org. If you’d like, GRNC can provide you with questions to ask the panel.
Arrive early (7:30 or earlier) to allow for parking and to make sure you get a seat. 
Please dress for the press. Kindly dress professionally, with no inflammatory slogans or symbols on clothing.
Uncategorized

The Anti’s Are Getting Worried About A Supreme Court Case

March 29, 2019 by 4 Comments

The Supreme Court agreed to hear NY State Rifle and Pistol Association v. The City of New York in January. The case involves an absurd New York City regulation that forbids those with handgun permits from taking their legally owned handguns outside the city limits of New York. These permits only allow a person to keep the handgun in their residence or to practice at one of only seven firing ranges within the city limits. They cannot take their handguns to vacation homes, to ranges outside the city limits, or to competitions outside the city regardless of how it is stored.

Yesterday, Ladd Everitt, Director of One Pulse for America and formerly the communications director for Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic), had an op-ed in the New York Daily News urging the city to repeal its handgun transport ordinance. This is the same Ladd Everitt who delighted in portraying those of us in the gun culture as “insurrectionists” and leading demonstrations outside NRA headquarters that attracted about a dozen protesters.

From his op-ed:

A ruling in NYSRPA vs. NYC could overturn not only the city’s gun transport reg, but also “may-issue” laws governing concealed carry of firearms in public in New York and seven other states. Carry licenses are more difficult to obtain than premises licenses in NYC. Law enforcement officials have discretion to deny carry licenses to applicants with a history of violence. The NRA spent $1 million to get Kavanaugh confirmed to the Supreme Court because they believe he will provide the decisive fifth vote to eliminate such discretion by declaring a new, individual right to carry guns in public.


New York City leaders don’t have to fall into the trap the NRA is baiting for them. It is within the authority of NYPD Commissioner James O’Neill to revise or repeal the regulation at the center of NYSRPA vs. NYC. If he took this step (conceivably with the blessing of Mayor de Blasio) and cleared the way for premises licensees to transport secured firearms to locations outside the city, the plaintiffs’ stated grievance would be remedied. The Supreme Court might decide to drop the case before ruling on it.

Ladd may be an asshole but he isn’t dumb. He realizes the danger to the gun control lobby if the Supreme Court rules against New York City which they probably would in all likelihood. In addition to his concerns about may-issue concealed carry permits, the Supreme Court could finally clarify the standard to be used by lower courts in deciding Second Amendment cases. If they said it must be strict scrutiny and they backed this up by taking cases where courts applied intermediate scrutiny, it would open the door to a large round of 2A litigation.

Mayor Adrian Fenty of the District of Columbia was sure of the rightness of DC’s ban on handguns. He decided that DC would appeal their loss in the Court of Appeals in the Heller case to the Supreme Court. We know that turned into DC v. Heller and a recognition that the Second Amendment was an individual right.

Ladd concludes by saying:

It’s true that allowing New York City residents to transport guns outside the city would entail certain public safety risks, even if the practice was regulated. But with the gun violence epidemic increasing in the United States, our communities simply cannot withstand newfound constitutional protections for violent “good guys with a gun.” Now is the time for the NYPD to step up and protect all Americans by repealing NYC’s gun transport ordinance.

I love Ladd’s hyperbole even when he is way off base. The problem isn’t with honest citizens who own a firearm, perhaps have a carry permit, and who engage in armed self-defense. The problem is with violent criminal actors (to use Dr. William Aprill’s phrase). They view gun laws as something to be ignored just like they ignore the laws dealing with theft, assault, and homicide.

When you see a Michael Bloomberg, a Shannon Watts, or one of the Brady co-presidents calling for New York City to ditch this law and moot the NYSRPA case, then you will know the gun control lobby is really running scared. Coming as this op-ed does from the periphery of the gun control lobby, it is a sign that some are awakening. I just hope the rest continue along with their smug, elitist attitudes thinking that they can’t lose.