Time For Canadians To Stop Being Polite

I took time to read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms today. Obviously, there is no equivalent of our Second Amendment in it. Interestingly, there is no protection for property of any sort within it unlike our Fifth Amendment. Some Canadian scholars have written that this was purposely omitted as it was seen as a restriction on government. Indeed the first article of the Charter expressly states the rights guaranteed within it were “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law”.

I’m not a Canadian legal expert but that sure as heck sounds like the whole Charter is founded upon the rational basis level of scrutiny. Given that, it is no wonder Prime Minister Justin Trudeau thought a mere Order in Council was sufficient to ban over 1,500 firearms from ownership. In his mind, there was no need to bring it to Parliament and have a debate on the ban.

There is a petition demanding that the matter be brought to the House of Commons for debate. It has over 175,000 signatures currently. It has been presented to Parliament by MP Glen Motz who represents the Medicine Hat area of Alberta.

Perhaps it is time to stop being so polite.

Maybe it is time to tell Trudeau and his cop to politician Minister of Public Safety Bill Blair to stick it where the sun doesn’t shine. I might suggest even flying a Canadian version of the Gonzales Flag similar to the rough one I just Photoshopped below.

The bully-boys of the RCMP firearms unit might not like it. Nonetheless, Article 2(b) declares “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression” as a Fundamental Freedom guaranteed to all Canadians.

From Our Friends At VCDL

Now that the Virginia House has approved HB 961, it goes to the Senate for hearings. This bill would ban “assault weapons” (sic), standard capacity magazines, suppressors, and bump stocks.

The hearings on the bill start today.

From VCDL:

Turnout needed!  Monday, February 17, at 8 am, the Senate Judiciary committee is going to hear HB 961, Delegate Mark Levine’s “assault weapon”/higher-capacity magazine/suppressor/ bump stock ban!

This is a key opportunity to defeat HB 961 and there is a good chance we can do so!

BREAKING:  VCDL has heard there will be an attempt to modify HB 961 to help save it from being defeated.  HB 961 is a disaster and cannot be fixed.  It must be killed in its entirety!

I suggest getting there early, as we will hopefully flood the room and beyond.

After going through the metal detectors, continue straight ahead and go through the glass doors.  Make an immediate right, walk down the hall, and make another immediate right to get to Senate Committee Room A.

Here’s what the current version of HB 961 does:

Makes possession of a large number of semi-automatic guns, classified as an “assault weapon” by this bill, a felony.  This includes many popular rifles, handguns, and shotguns!  You can keep any “assault weapons” you currently have, but you can’t buy any more.  The wording is so poor that you probably won’t be able to even fix a broken “assault weapon,” as each part is classified as an “assault weapon”!  Gun dealers in Virginia won’t be able to sell an “assault weapon” or any parts for one to anybody, include to gun owners in other states.  This will do severe financial harm to Virginia gun dealers. 

Bans magazines that hold more than 12 rounds of ammunition.  There is NO grandfathering!  Possession of such a magazine (keeping it at home only) after January 1, 2021 will be a Class 1 misdemeanor.  However, transporting such a magazine is a felony!

Bans suppressors, making possession of one a felony.  You can keep any suppressors you currently have, but you cannot purchase any more and you won’t be able to fix them if they break.

Bans bump stocks.  Any that you have must be destroyed by January 1, 2021.  Possession of one after that date is a felony.

Di Goes To Capitol Hill

Dianna Muller was invited to testify before the House Judiciary Committee today. The topic was “Protecting America from Assault Weapons” (sic). By the title and the composition of the witness panel you knew it was going to hostile to gun rights.

The witnesses included Kristen Rand from the Violence Policy Center (sic), David Chipman from Giffords, Chief RaShall Brackney of Charlottesville, VA, a doctor from El Paso, and the mayor of Dayton, Ohio. The only other pro-rights advocate invited was Amy Shearer of the Heritage Foundation.

Dianna is a retired police officer, 3-Gun champion, and founder of the DC Project. As a police officer in Tulsa, she was assigned to patrol, Street Crimes, Narcotics, and Gang units. She probably has seen more crime up close and personal than anyone else on the panel including the odious David Chipman of Giffords who served with BATFE.

via ytCropper

Double click on the video link above to see the excerpt of Dianna’s testimony. You can find her written testimony here.

Kudos to Dianna and the women of the DC Project who showed up in support of her. Congress needs to hear their stories and what they have to say. It may be like talking to a brick wall. Nonetheless, they are important and need to be circulated amongst those whose minds aren’t closed.

Village Of Deerfield (Illinois) To Appeal Overturn Of Its AWB

The Village of Deerfield, Illinois had passed an ordinance in 2018 that would have banned standard capacity magazines and “assault weapons” (sic) broadly defined. They were sued by the Illinois State Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation in the case of Easterday v. Deerfield. A second case was filed against the village by Guns Save Lives which was supported by the NRA.

The village lost in March when the Lake County Circuit Court issued a permanent injunction against the ordinance. Judge Luis Berrones found that the ordinance was a new law and not an amendment of a prior ordinance. In 2013 when the Illinois General Assembly passed the Concealed Carry Act and an amended FOID Act, they gave home rule municipalities a few days to amend their ordinances which could have included assault weapon bans. After that time, this power was reserved to the state.

Yesterday’s Chicago Tribune is reporting that Deerfield plans to appeal.

The Village of Deerfield plans to appeal a judge’s March 22 ruling permanently blocking the village from enforcing a ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.


In a short statement Tuesday, the village announced that Mayor Harriet Rosenthal and the village board had unanimously agreed April 15 to appeal the ruling of Lake County Circuit Court Judge Luis Berrones to the Illinois Appellate Court.


In that ruling, Berrones contended that Deerfield overstepped its authority in April 2018 when it enacted a ban on assault weapons after the Illinois legislature had declared such regulations to be the exclusive power of the state.

The village’s statement on the appeal notes that they are being represented pro bono.

We appreciate the continued pro bono services that have been provided already, and that will be provided throughout the appellate process by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Mr. Christopher Wilson, partner of the Chicago office of Perkins Coie. We continue to believe that these weapons have no place in our community and that our common-sense assault weapon regulations are legal and were properly enacted.”

So an unholy alliance of gun prohibitionists and Big Law (Perkins Coie has 1,000+ lawyers) continues to conspire to help the Village of Deerfield trample on the rights of its citizens to protect themselves. This is lawfare at its worst.

Sharp V. Becerra – Assault Weapon Registration Lawsuit – Moved To Federal Court

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

In late August, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D-CA)  moved to have the lawsuit against him and the California DOJ over their ineptness implementing the new registration of bullet button weapons moved to Federal court. One would have thought that he’d want to keep a suit against the California Department of Justice in state court.
The case was moved to US District Court for the Eastern District of California and assigned to Judge Morrison England, Jr. 
Today, the plaintiffs which include a number of individuals and a number of civil rights organizations filed an amended complaint. Joining the plaintiffs is the Madison Society Foundation.  The amended complaint also adds a Section 183 claim for deprivation of due process rights.

While I might have been tempted to just say “screw it”, all the individual plaintiffs spent hours trying to comply with the law requiring registration of their firearms. Some of the plaintiffs are IT professionals and tech savvy. Nonetheless, the database system was so screwed up, most of them were not able to do so. The response of Cal DOJ was “you procrastinated, so tough”. From the complaint:

The following Monday, July 2, 2018,
Plaintiff (Terry) Jahraus contacted the DOJ for assistance, but the DOJ official told him, essentially, “it
was [his] responsibility to comply with the law [and] that he had all year to do so.” In other
words, DOJ blamed him for failing to register, even though its own statutorily-mandated
registration system was inaccessible and defective throughout the entire period he had attempted
to register it well before the deadline.

The joint release of the Second Amendment Foundation, Calguns Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, and the Madison Society Foundation is below:

SACRAMENTO, CA (September 24, 2018) — Attorneys for seven California gun owners and five advocacy organizations announced a new court filing in a now-federal constitutional rights lawsuit over the State of California’s “assault weapon” registration debacle. The case, Sharp, et al. v. Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et al., was originally filed in the County of Shasta Superior Court. But in late August it was removed to federal district court in Sacramento at the request of Attorney General Xavier Becerra and the DOJ defendants. The new court filing is online at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/sharp.

On August 24, the California Attorney General moved the case to federal court on the basis that the plaintiffs’ claims present a federal constitutional question, in addition to their state-based claims. That same day, the lawsuit was assigned to District Court Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Two years ago, Judge England issued a bench ruling to enjoin a California statute that criminalized the use of Assembly video footage in political advertisements in a case brought by Firearms Policy Coalition and its Proposition 63 ballot initiative political committee, FPC Second Amendment Defense Committee.

“While it’s interesting that Attorney General Becerra doesn’t want his own state’s courts to hear how badly he mis-administered the mandated firearm registration program, we welcome the opportunity to show Judge England how the DOJ violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs and others like them,” said George M. Lee, lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “General Becerra’s actions and failures affected many gun owners from San Diego to Eureka. These law-abiding gun owners tried to register their weapons as required by law but could not do so because DOJ’s registration system was wholly inadequate to do the job. We are simply asking that those injuries be reasonably remedied so that those citizens are not subject to criminal liability for possessing illegal, unregistered weapons – solely as a result of DOJ’s failures.”

In the latest complaint, submitted last Friday, the plaintiffs added a claim for deprivation of their due process rights under Title 42, Section 1983 of the United States Code. The complaint also adds as an institutional plaintiff the Madison Society Foundation, a nonprofit organization that fights to protect the right to keep and bear arms.

The plaintiffs say that Becerra and the DOJ had a legal and constitutional duty to provide a functional registration system during the registration period, but that they were unable to exercise their own rights and legal duties “due to the Defendants’ actions and failures, including but not limited to the inaccessibility, defects, and/or non-functionality of the DOJ’s CFARS-based registration system.” The plaintiffs alleged that the DOJ’s ‘botched’ “assault weapon” registration scheme – including the error-prone Internet application for registration that often crashed completely – violated both the U.S. Constitution and California Constitution’s guarantees of due process. They also allege that the failed DOJ system violated the plaintiffs’ and other similar gun owners’ statutory rights.

“Even though the lawsuit is now in a federal district court, it’s still just a straight-forward case about how Attorney General Becerra and his DOJ didn’t do the job they were mandated to do,” explained Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs. “Their actions and failures violated the rights of thousands of California gun owners. It’s just that simple.”

Under California’s voluminous gun control laws, someone merely transporting an unregistered “assault weapon” to the shooting range – even if one believes it was legal and registered under other DOJ systems, like DROS – “is guilty of a felony” and potentially subject to a prison sentence of “four, six, or eight years.” Other crimes can be added on to that, including common separate charges like possession and manufacturing.

The complaint says the plaintiffs “seek an un-extraordinary result, compelled by the basic tenets of due process: That they simply be allowed to register their eligible firearms and comply with the law, and that the Attorney General, the DOJ, and their officers and agents similarly comply with the law by allowing such registrations and ensuring they are properly and timely processed through a functioning online database as they have been required by statute to do.”

“This unjust California government-created problem must be stopped immediately,” Second Amendment Foundation Founder and Executive Vice President, Alan Gottlieb, said in a previous statement. “Gun owners should not be put at risk due to state regulatory incompetence.”

The plaintiffs said that they would soon be asking Judge England for a preliminary injunction to protect affected gun owners’ rights and property while the case goes forward to summary judgement or trial.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys George M. Lee and Douglas Applegate of San Francisco-based Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate LLP, as well as Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, a former California deputy attorney general and prosecutor. Attorneys Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay of the Sacramento-based Benbrook Law Group, who earlier this month secured a major First Amendment victory in a case that challenged a different California gun control statute that banned truthful, non-misleading speech about handguns, have been added to the legal team.

The lawsuit is backed by The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), and Madison Society Foundation (MSF), also institutional plaintiffs in the case.

Californians who tried to register their firearms as “assault weapons” before July 1 but were unable to, or who suffered a privacy breach at DOJ, should contact the organizations’ Legal Action Hotline immediately at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/hotline or by telephone at 855-252-4510.

Lawsuit Against Deerfield (Illinois) AWB Makes Fox And Friends

Richard Pearson, Executive Director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, was interviewed this morning on Fox and Friends regarding the lawsuit that ISRA and the Second Amendment Foundation have filed against the Village of Deerfield, Illinois. The lawsuit seeks a restraining order against the village’s recently enacted assault weapons (sic) and high capacity (sic) magazine ban on the grounds that village doesn’t have the authority to do so under Illinois state law.

You can see the video of the interview here.

Boulder City Council Sued In Federal Court

Tuesday, May 15th, the Boulder City Council unanimously passed a ban on semi-automatic rifles with cosmetics they didn’t like, a ban on standard capacity magazines, and bump fire stocks.

As the Denver Post reported:

The ordinance prohibits the sale and possession of assault weapons, as defined by the city. Also outlawed are magazines with high-capacity magazines and bump stocks.

Owners of the latter two items will have until July 15 to dispose of or sell them. Assault weapons will be grandfathered in; those in possession of such firearms have until the end of the year to receive a certificate proving prior ownership.

The grandfather clause was an olive branch to gun owners, said Councilman Sam Weaver, as was the abandonment of an early proposal to establish a registration system for assault weapons in the city.

Colorado has a state firearms preemption law that, on the face of it, forbids cities from adopting regulations which “prohibits the sale, purchase, or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law.” Firearms law is considered a matter of state concern. Denver, so far, is the only city in the state whose firearm regulations were upheld because it was considered a “special case” due to its size.

At the meeting where the Boulder City Council adopted their ban, representatives from the Mountain States Legal Foundation vowed that they would oppose the measure in court. They have kept their word.

In a release sent out late last night, the Mountain States Legal Foundation announced that they had filed suit in US District Court for the District of Colorado. The lead plaintiff is Jon Caldara who is a member of the Boulder Rifle Club. In addition, Caldara is the president of the Independence Institute, a libertarian think tank, based in Denver.

More on the lawsuit including a link to the complaint is below:

May 16, 2018 – DENVER, CO.  A group of
Boulder residents who face heavy fines and jail time for the mere
possession of firearms that are legal throughout Colorado and the United
States filed a lawsuit yesterday challenging the Boulder City Council’s
actions.  Represented by Mountain States Legal Foundation, the
plaintiffs are taking a stand against the city council’s
unconstitutional passage of a broad-sweeping ban of the most popular and
widely-owned firearms and magazines in America.  In a blatant act of
discrimination against a political minority, the city council also
unconstitutionally raised the minimum age for firearm possession in
Boulder city limits to twenty-one.  The lawsuit was filed in federal
district court in Denver, Colorado.
Jon Caldara, a well-known, pillar of the
community; the Boulder Rifle Club, which has been in existence since
1889; Bison Tactical, a small business in Boulder city limits; and Tyler
Faye, a member of the University of Colorado Shooting Team, all seek to
defend their rights and the rights of their fellow Boulder residents
against the illegal, unconstitutional, and discriminatory actions of the
City of Boulder.
“This ban is tantamount to Boulder
attempting to stop drunk driving by banning Subarus,” said Cody J.
Wisniewski, attorney with Mountain States Legal Foundation representing
the plaintiffs.  “It accomplishes nothing other than making criminals of
law-abiding citizens.”
“The West wasn’t won with a registered
gun,” said William Perry Pendley, Mountain States Legal Foundation’s
president.  “Colorado is not California; these laws have no place here.”
On May 15, 2018, the Boulder City Council
passed Ordinance 8245, amending the Boulder Revised Code to ban many
rifles, shotguns, pistols, and standard-capacity magazines, as well as
raising the minimum age for firearm possession to twenty-one, within
Boulder city limits. The ordinance was passed by a unanimous vote
despite an overwhelming number of public comments, telephone calls, and
emails expressing concerns with and opposition to the ordinance. 
Mountain States Legal Foundation will be seeking a preliminary
injunction to suspend enforcement of the ordinance pending the outcome
of the litigation.  Without such an injunction, Boulder residents may be
subject to up to $1,000 in fines and ninety (90) days in jail per
violation.
Mountain States Legal Foundation, founded
in 1977, is a nonprofit, public-interest legal foundation dedicated to
individual liberty, the right to own and use property, limited and
ethical government, and the free enterprise system. In 2012, Mountain
States Legal Foundation, on behalf of its clients, prevailed in the
Colorado Supreme Court in
Regents of the University of Colorado v. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.
The Court’s unanimous decision in that case confirmed the right of
concealed carry permit holders to possess concealed firearms on the
public university’s campus.
For more information:  Caldara v. City of Boulder

Injunction Sought Against California Assault Weapons Law

The attorneys for five individual plaintiffs and four institutional plaintiffs (SAF, Calguns, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Firearms Policy Foundation) filed for an injunction today in the case of Holt et al v. Becerra. The case is filed in California Superior Court for Riverside County. The filings today also added another individual plaintiff – Craig Stevens. SFC Stevens is an active duty member of the California Army National Guard and is currently deployed to the Middle East.

The joint press release on the filing is below:

RIVERSIDE, CA (January 3, 2018) — Attorneys for 5 California gun owners and 4 civil rights advocacy organizations have filed for an injunction against the state’s Department of Justice regulations on so-called “assault weapons.”

In the request for an injunction, the plaintiffs argue that “they, and many others similarly situated, will suffer irreparable injury if they are forced to comply with the registration requirement in accordance with the Challenged Regulations by the statutory deadline of June 30, 2018. In essence, they and many others would either be illegally forced to register or illegally denied the ability to register their firearms.”

Also filed was an amendment to the case, adding Craig Stevens as an individual plaintiff suing over the regulations. According to the filing, Stevens is “currently an active-duty member of the California Army National Guard, having the rank of Sergeant First Class (SFC), and is currently and as of December 23, 2017, deployed overseas to the Middle East.”

Stevens has tried multiple times to comply with the DOJ regulations on “assault weapons,” but the DOJ rejected his application even though there was no legal basis for them to deny him the registration of his firearm. “The declaratory and injunctive relief, and/or mandamus relief, sought in this action are necessary as set forth herein, to vindicate his right (and obligation), and the rights (and obligations) of others similarly situated, to register this legally-owned firearm as the only available means by which to maintain lawful possession of such firearms according to the DOJ’s regulatory scheme,” the court filing says.

About the new filings, plaintiffs’ attorney George M. Lee explained, “As we show in our motion for an injunction, the State’s regulatory and enforcement scheme was designed and functions to separate law-abiding people from their rights, property, and statutory obligations. We seek in this case to make DOJ follow the same laws they impose on others – and protect law-abiding gun owners in the process.”

Raymond DiGuiseppe, co-counsel and former California deputy attorney general, agreed. “The Department of Justice has grossly exceeded their authority and is illegally imposing its will on thousands of California gun owners. Their regulations and actions undermine the rule of law and put potentially hundreds of thousands of people at risk for serious criminal liability. We look forward to resolving these issues as quickly as possible and protecting California’s law-abiding gun owners from this regulatory overreach.”

Named as defendants are California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Chief of the DOJ Bureau of Firearms Stephen Lindley, the California Department of Justice itself, Director of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) Debra Cornez, and State Controller Betty Yee.

The lawsuit is backed by The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF).

A copy of the complaint and petition for writ of mandate can be viewed or downloaded at http://bit.ly/holt-v-becerra.

CASE BACKGROUND:

In July 2016, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a number of new gun control bills into law, including two (SB 880, Hall; AB 1135, Levine) expanding the State’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The bills were universally opposed by civil rights advocacy groups including Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owners of California, the National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and others.

“The Legislature ignored every rule in the book to fast-track their civilian disarmament agenda and herd the people into a state-wide gun-free-zone,” said FPC Spokesperson Craig DeLuz in a statement at the time.

Following that, in December 2016, the California DOJ submitted its first attempt at “assault weapons” regulations under the OAL’s “File & Print” process, which means that the DOJ claimed the regulations were not subject to the public notice or comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

However, the DOJ withdrew the regulations near the end of OAL review period, after receiving thousands of opposition letters from FPC members and Second Amendment supporters.

Then, in May of last year, the DOJ re-submitted regulations under the same “File & Print” process. FPC, FPF, CGF, and Craig DeLuz sued the DOJ over the Department’s actions of blocking access to the public records concerning its promulgation of these regulations. The regulations were completely rejected by OAL a little more than a month later.

Next, the DOJ submitted a virtually-identical set of regulations under the “File & Print” process, again claiming “APA-exempt” status. Inexplicably, this time the OAL approved the regulations, shuttling them along for publication through the Secretary of State in July 2017 and thus allowing the DOJ to proceed with its new “assault weapon” regulatory process.

Then, just before closing doors for the Thanksgiving 2017 holiday, the DOJ notified FPC and other Institutional Plaintiffs that it had filed yet another proposed rulemaking on “bullet-button assault weapons” (that would create new 11 CCR § 5460) for the purpose of attempting to retroactively bootstrap its prior July regulations into effect for all purposes including criminal prosecutions.

FPC published the new proposed regulations and prior regulatory updates at BulletButtonBan.com, a Web site it established in 2016 for tracking the new California assault weapon laws and regulations. Members of the public can use FPC’s Grassroots Action Tools to submit responsive written comments to DOJ regarding the new proposed regulations.

A public hearing on the new regulations is scheduled for 10 a.m. on January 8, 2018, at the Resources Building Auditorium in Sacramento.

ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS:

Plaintiffs George Holt, Irvin Hoff, Michael Louie, Rick Russell, and Craig Stevens are all law-abiding, tax-paying residents of California who lawfully own firearms potentially subject to the DOJ’s illegal regulatory scheme. This scheme would retroactively deem their firearms “assault weapons” that either must now be registered as such through a burdensome and wasteful registration process or that cannot be registered all, effectively rendering any continued possession unlawful. The DOJ’s regulations expose them to criminal liability that would not otherwise exist under the actual laws regulating firearms in California.

The plaintiffs have joined this lawsuit to stand against the illegal regulatory actions of the DOJ and protect their rights and the rights of countless other law-abiding California gun owners being placed in jeopardy.

ABOUT THE ORGANIZATIONS:

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.

Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, through advocacy, legal action, education, and outreach.

Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.

That Shoulder Thing That Goes Up

Former Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) was asked many years ago by Tucker Carlson if she could define a barrel shroud which was mentioned in her assault weapons (sic) ban bill. She replied that it was that shoulder thing that goes up. We in the gun culture just shook our collective heads at her ignorance yet realized that even stupid stuff can be enacted into law.

State Sen. Antonio Munoz (D-Chicago) who is the Assistant Majority Leader in the Illinois Senate introduced an amendment to a bill (SB 556) that was intended to make technical corrections to Illinois criminal laws. Amendment 1 contains, in part, language intended to institute an assault weapons (sic) ban in the state of Illinois. One wonders if Sen. Munoz picked this bill because of its purpose or its number.

(14) Carries or possesses on or about his or her
person, in any vehicle, or concealed on or about his or her
person any semi-automatic assault weapon.
In this paragraph (14), “semi-automatic assault
weapon” means:

(A) any of the firearms or types, replicas, or
duplicates regardless of caliber, known as:

(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies
Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries
UZI and Galil;

(iii) Beretta AR-70 (SC-70);
(iv) Colt AR-15;
(v) Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and
FNC;

(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
(vii) Steyr AUG;
(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, and TEC-22; or
(ix) any shotgun which contains its ammunition
in a revolving cylinder, such as (but not limited
to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;



(B) a semi-automatic rifle or pump action rifle
that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and
has any of the following:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or
partially or completely encircles the barrel, and
that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with
the non-trigger hand without being burned;



(C) a semi-automatic pistol that has an ability to
accept a detachable magazine and has any of the
following:

(i) a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole
stock;

(ii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially
or completely encircles the barrel, and that
permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the
non-trigger hand without being burned; an
ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol
outside of the pistol grip;

(iii) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or
more when the pistol is unloaded; or

(iv) a semi-automatic version of an automatic
firearm;



(D) a semi-automatic rifle or pistol with a fixed
magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10
rounds of ammunition;



(E) a semi-automatic shotgun that has any of the
following:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5
rounds; or

(iv) an ability to accept a detachable
magazine.



“Semi-automatic assault weapon” does not include:
(A) any firearm that:
(i) is manually prepared by bolt, pump, lever,
or slide action;

(ii) is an unserviceable firearm or has been
made permanently inoperable;

(iii) is an antique firearm; or
(iv) is a rifle with a fixed tubular magazine
located under the barrel that is only capable of
holding rounds of ammunition placed end to end; or
(B) any air rifle as defined in Section 24.8-0.1 of
this Code.

Illinois Carry has issued a call for witness slips to counter this amendment.

Urgent
Call to Action
Witness
Slips Needed
Earlier this evening Amendment 1 to SB556 Criminal Law Tech was scheduled
to be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow morning at 10:30 AM.
If this bill becomes law, it will arbitrarily define and ban possession of
“assault weapons” throughout the State of Illinois.
Witness Slips Are Needed
Now!
Please take a moment tonight or early tomorrow morning
to show your opposition to this ban on the some of the most commonly owned,
modern firearms.
And, if you haven’t already
filed a witness slip against SB1657 Gun Dealer Licensing, please see
the instructions in our IllinoisCarry Forum Alert.  File
these slips before tomorrow morning as well!
File Witness Slips Now!
To avoid
having to complete each field manually, 
Log on to
your ILGA Dashboard (or 
Create a New Account if you have not already done so) then return to
this email and click on the links for each witness slip. If you do not wish
to create an account, simply click on each witness slip link and complete
the required fields manually:
I, IDENTIFICATION: Enter your
personal information. Enter “NA” for the Firm/Business or Agency
and Title fields unless you are officially representing an organization.
II. REPRESENTATION: Enter
“Myself” unless representing an organization.
III. POSITION: Unless
instructed otherwise for a particular bill leave the description field at
its default value “Original Bill”. Indicate your position by
selecting the “Proponent” or “Opponent” radio button.
IV. TESTIMONY: Select the
“Record of Appearance Only” radio button.
If filing manually, complete
the Captcha challenge and agree to the ILGA Terms of Agreement.
Then click Create Slip.

Oppose
Witness slips can be tracked here.

UPDATE: The Illinois State Rifle Association has also released an alert on this requesting witness slips for both this bill and SB 1657. As I’ve said elsewhere, there is a lot wrong with Illinois politics but I do like the concept of witness slips. A trip to your state capitol during a work week is not doable for most people. Witness slips puts your opposition or approval to a bill in the public record.

From ISRA:

Action Alert – Summary – Two witness slips for Tuesday:

SENATE: File a witness slip now through Tuesday 10:30 am
(May 16) against SB556, as amended with Senate Floor Amendment 1
(SFA1).  The amendment turns this bill into a semi-auto ban, attempting
to ban your favorite rifles and pistols. 

Follow carefully any steps in BOLDFACE as they may differ slightly that you may usually see.

If
you look up this bill on the ILGA website, you have to view the text of
the amendment (links provided below) to see that the bill is being
converted from a shell bill (“makes a technical change…”) into a gun
ban.

HOUSE:  If you have not already done so, file Witness Slips NOW
Through Tuesday 11:00 am (May 16) against SB1657, Illinois Gun Dealer Licensing.

Last month you were also asked to submit a witness slip against this bill,
but that was when the bill was in the Senate.  This is for a HOUSE hearing.
So please submit a slip again, opposing this bill in the next hearing.

Also,
please call your Illinois State Representative and politely remind the
person that answers the phone that you are urging your representative
not to support Illinois Gun Dealer Licensing, SB1657. 
 

 SB556  Munoz – SFA1 – Semi-auto and magazine ban
This
is a ban of your favorite semi-auto firearms and magazines.  This is
done by amending an empty piece of legislation (“shell” bill) that has
already progressed in the Senate.  If you look up the bill, you have to
read the amendment (SFA1) to see its impact.
The status page of the bill will not show the new intent of the bill.  

Make your voice be heard by submitting
a witness slip against this bill in this committee hearing:

Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing – 10:30 am on May 16, 2017
SB556  SFA1 Munoz – Semi-auto ban

SB1657  Willis – GUN DEALER LICENSING

This
is the Senate version of the legislation that would force your favorite
gun store to close under a mountain of new regulations.  This bill will
affect your ability to buy firearms or ammunition in Illinois.  Never
mind the weight of all the federal regulations that gun dealers and gun
owners must deal with, your retailer and you will have more Illinois
regulations and fees now too. 

 

The bill as amended passed out of the Senate on a 30-21 vote and
is now headed to a committee hearing in the Illinois House of
Representatives. Your continued action is needed against SB1657,
make your voice be heard by submitting
a witness slip against this bill in this committee hearing:

House: Judiciary Criminal Committee Hearing – 11:00 am on May 16, 2017 

SB1657  Willis – GUN DEALER LICENSING

How to create your witness slips:

If you have an account already at my.ilga.gov, go there and login now.
If you do not have an account, you are encouraged to do so, to make it easier to fill in witness slips in the future.

 
At this point, logged in or not, you click on this link to create your witness slip against SB556 SFA1:
http://my.ilga.gov/WitnessSlip/Create/100498?committeeHearingId=14966&LegislationId=100498

If you are logged in, you get to skip to step III.
I.
IDENTIFICATION: Enter your personal information. Enter “NA” for the
Firm/Business or Agency and Title fields unless you are officially
representing an organization.
 
II. REPRESENTATION: Enter “Myself” unless representing an organization.
 
III. POSITION: 1. Under description, Make sure that SFA1 is selected.  2. Indicate your position by selecting the “Opponent” radio button. 
 
IV. TESTIMONY: Select the “Record of Appearance Only” radio button.
 
If filing without a login, complete the Captcha challenge and agree to the ILGA Terms of Agreement.
 
Then click “Create Slip.” 

At this point, logged in or not, you click on this link to create your witness slip against

SB1657:

http://my.ilga.gov/WitnessSlip/Create/104404?committeeHearingId=14949&LegislationId=104404

If you are logged in, you get to skip to step III.
I.
IDENTIFICATION: Enter your personal information. Enter “NA” for the
Firm/Business or Agency and Title fields unless you are officially
representing an organization.
 
II. REPRESENTATION: Enter “Myself” unless representing an organization.
 
III. POSITION: Indicate your position by selecting the “Opponent” radio button. 
 
IV. TESTIMONY: Select the “Record of Appearance Only” radio button.
 
If filing without a login, complete the Captcha challenge and agree to the ILGA Terms of Agreement.
 
Then click “Create Slip.”

Afterwards, you can track witness slip activity for these bills/hearings:
SB556   click here 
SB1657 click here


Contact your State Representaive and politely tell him/her that you are a law-abiding gun owner and that you expect them to vote against SB1657 even if it is amended. To
verify who your State Resresentative is, use the lookup apps available
at the Illinois State Board of Elections website. (click here)
 
Even if you prefer email, also contact them at their Springfield and
district offices.  Email can be ignored, but phones must be answered. 
Remember, the person who answers the phone is usually a state employee
reporting to the legislator,  and is just doing their job.

Support For An AWB Hits Low

The Gallup released a poll yesterday that should cast doubts in the minds of any politician proposing a new “assault weapons” ban. Barely one-third of those polled would support a law that “would make it illegal to manufacture, sell, or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles.”

Support for any such “assault weapons” ban only amounted to 36% of those polled. By contrast, the number opposing such a ban comprise 61% of those polled by Gallup. This question has been asked for the last 20 years. The high point in support for such a ban was in the year 2000 when 59% of those polled supported such a law.

Support for a ban does divide along partisan lines with Republicans and independents being strongly against such a ban. Just as importantly, only 50% of Democrats support such a ban which is down from 63% as recently as year 2000.

Gun ownership does play a role in the results with those households owning firearms more likely to be against any new ban than those who don’t. Nonetheless, both groups, owners and non-owners alike, have a majority of respondents who are against a new ban.

A longer term question asked by Gallup has to do with whether the laws governing the sale of firearms should be stronger, weaker, or left as is. This question has been asked since 1990. Currently, 55% of those polled believed laws should be made stricter. This is up from 2012 when only 44% agreed that laws should be made stricter but down from a high of 78% in 1990.

This is just speculation on my part but I think if you were to run correlations of these numbers with the amount of money spent by Bloomberg’s organizations and other allied gun prohibitionist groups pushing “universal background checks” you would find a strong correlation. It does illustrate that the forces on the side of gun rights need to do a better job explaining that the “gun show loophole” (sic) is just a myth and that Bloomberg’s background checks cover a lot more than mere sales.

It should be pointed out that rights and the free exercise thereof should never be predicated on support in the polls. Public opinion is both fluid and fickle whereas rights should be solid and enduring. Polling is better reserved for determining which side is doing a better job of getting their message across than for making changes in laws.