magazine bans

Uncategorized

JAMA Viewpoint On “Assault Weapons”

September 27, 2022 by

I was sent an embargoed article that appears in the September 27th issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. The article is by Philip Cook of Duke University and John Donohoe of Stanford University. It is entitled “Regulating Assault Weapons and Large-Capacity Magazines for Ammunition.” I have embedded the full two-page article below.

Both Cook and Donohoe have a history of research that supports gun control. Their op-ed proposes the regulation of certain semi-automatic firearms with features that they deem objectionable as well as a ban on large capacity magazines (sic). Their premise is that enacting such laws will decrease mass murders and the lethality of them.

They note that while the House of Representatives has passed such a ban that it probably would not pass the Senate. Thus, they are calling upon states to take the initiative to enact new assault weapons bans along with magazine bans.

They rely upon three major sources to back up their claims that such bans would be effective. First, they refer to a RAND Corporation study examining previous studies on the effectiveness of the Clinton AWB. While acknowledging that RAND found these studies “inconclusive”, Cook and Donohoe say “logic” would say the bans had a positive impact. Second, the authors then look at Australia which banned possession of all semi-automatic weapons and forced a “buyback” (sic). They say there has been only one mass shooting in Australia post-ban. What this ignores when applied to the United States is that Australia has over ten times the land area of Texas while having about four million less residents. Finally, they look at a study of “32 experts” conducted in 2016 and published in the New York Times in 2017. The “experts” deemed a new AWB as the most effective policy to prevent future mass murders. Looking over the list of “experts”, only four names stand out as not being anti-gun: David Kopel, John Lott, Gary Kleck, and Eugene Volokh. The rest were the usual suspects including Daniel Webster and David Hemenway.

While this article is being published after the Bruen decision, it seems to ignore the realities of it. For example, concurrent with the Bruen decision, the Supreme Court vacated the 9th Circuit’s ruling in Duncan v. Bonta and remanded it back for rehearing consistent with the new standards. Just this week, the 9th Circuit remanded the case back to Judge Roger Benitez and the District Court for “proceedings consistent with” the Bruen decision. This case was a challenge to California’s magazine ban. Similarly, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded a Maryland case on an assault weapons ban back to the 4th Circuit.

Based upon text, history, and tradition, I would find it very (!) hard to find any justification that would support the proposed bans of Cook and Donohoe in a way that would be consistent with the Bruen decision. Whether the intended audience of physicians or even the physician editors comprehend this is unknown. That said, you have to believe that a retired professor of public policy and a professor of law understand the implications of Bruen and choose to ignore it.

Cook-Guns-policy-JVP220102_preembargo

Uncategorized

When They Say They Don’t Want To Ban Guns…

March 29, 2021 by 1 Comment

When the gun prohibitionists say they don’t want to ban guns but merely regulate them or some of them, point to this.

A friend passed it to me and it contains at least 75 instances going back to 1993 where there were calls to ban guns.

2020 Presidential candidates that have advocated gun confiscation.
[or any synonyms thereof: mandatory buy back etc, virtual confiscation/permission requirements ]

https://betoorourke.com/gun-violence/
Beto O’Rourke[Actual and virtual confiscation/governmental permission requirements for an unalienable human right]

https://medium.com/@corybooker/corys-plan-to-end-the-gun-violence-epidemic-ab377d9fb112
Cory Booker:
Cory’s Plan to End the Gun Violence Epidemic
[virtual confiscation/governmental permission requirements for an unalienable human right]

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/gun-violence
Elizabeth Warren

https://noqreport.com/2019/10/27/front-runner-elizabeth-ersatz-warren-now-demanding-gun-confiscation/
[Actual & combined with virtual confiscation/governmental permission requirements for an unalienable human right]

https://ericswalwell.com/endgunviolence/Eric Swalwell
[Actual and virtual confiscation/governmental permission requirements for an unalienable human right]

https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
Joe Biden: The Biden plan to end our gun violence epidemic
[virtual confiscation/governmental permission requirements for an unalienable human right]

https://issues.juliancastro.com/disarming-hate/Julián Castro
[virtual confiscation/governmental permission requirements for an unalienable human right]

https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/17/kamala-harris-force-gun-owners-sell-assault-weapons-government/
Kamala Harris Would Force Gun Owners To Sell Their Assault Weapons To The Government
[Forced compensated confiscation]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/14/mandatory-buyback-assault-weapons-kirsten-gillibrand-1462712
Kirsten Gillibrand suggests support for mandatory buyback of assault weapons
[Actual confiscation/governmental permission requirements for an unalienable human right].

https://medium.com/the-moment-by-pete-for-america/an-action-plan-to-combat-the-national-threat-posed-by-hate-and-the-gun-lobby-5752a68c954e
Pete Buttigieg
[virtual confiscation/governmental permission requirements for unalienable human rights].

2019

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/us/politics/Ralph-Northam-Virginia-democrats.html
[NYT] VA Governor Northam “has not ruled out confiscating assault weapons from gun owners.”

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kristine-marsh/2019/11/04/behar-advises-2020-dems-dont-tellwait-until-you-get-elected-then
Behar Advises 2020 Dems: ‘Don’t Tell…Wait Until You Get Elected Then Take Guns Away’</a>.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/texas/article/Beto-O-Rourke-claims-he-hasn-t-talked-about-14563106.php
Beto O’Rourke claims he hasn’t talked about confiscating guns

https://www.c-span.org/video/?464471-1/house-judiciary-committee-hearing-assault-weapons
Dr. RaShall Brackney, Chief of the Charlottesville Police Department [Paraphrasing] “Any weapons that can be used to kill people should be banned”

https://marchforourlives.com/peace-plan/
A Peace Plan for a Safer America [Demands for compensated confiscation as well as virtual confiscation of all guns in addition to a licensing requirement for an unalienable human right]

https://noqreport.com/2019/07/12/iowa-senator-claire-celsi-gets-snippy-2nd-amendment-defender/
Iowa state Sen. Claire Celsi dictatorial senator threatens to take guns by force if the gun owner wasn’t “nice” to her.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/1/18683860/democrats-2020-gun-control-mass-shootings
Vox: Democrats have been discussing the same ideas on guns for 25 years. It’s time to change that.
[Virtual and actual gun confiscation, requiring governmental permission for an unalienable human right].

https://twitter.com/Nate_McMurray/status/1143390664341807104?
Nate McMurray YEP. I’M COMING FOR YOUR AR15
[Congressional candidate calling for gun confiscation]

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gibson-guns-legislation-weaponizing-20190625-story.html
La Times: Banning semiautomatic weapons won’t solve America’s gun problem
[Detailing why just getting rid of semi-autos won’t be enough]

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/illinois-state-senator-maybe-its-best-to-just-grab-all-the-assault-weapons-guns-after-all/
Illinois State Senator Julie Morrison: “Maybe it’ll just be a confiscation and we won’t have to worry about paying the fine.”

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2019/05/14/goosebumps-cnns-baldwin-camerota-cheer-hogg-family-push-mass-gun
‘Goosebumps’! CNN’s Baldwin, Camerota Cheer Hogg Family, Push Mass Gun Confiscation

https://www.syracuse.com/opinion/2019/04/20-years-after-columbine-guns-are-the-problem-guns-need-to-go-commentary.html
Syracuse.com: 20 years after Columbine: ‘Guns are the problem. Guns need to go.’ (Commentary)

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1108562224514326528
Bernie Sanders: We must follow New Zealand’s lead.. ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1108908752865054720
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Ban bump stocks, semiautos, &amp; high cap mags designed to kill people

2018

https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/november-december-2018/a-real-longterm-solution-to-gun-violence/
Washington Monthly: A Real Long-Term Solution to Gun Violence
;[Forced nationalization of the arms industry, compensated confiscation]

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a25235545/gun-buyback-national-gun-registry-success-gun-control/
Harper’s Bazaar: Why We Need to Ban Assault Rifles

href=”https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/11/ban-all-semiautomatic-firearms/
Mother Jones: Ban All Semiautomatic Firearms

https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/columnists/mcdermott-the-gun-ban-that-worked/article_23d189b9-7ce1-55f8-bca6-a0b5c2f6c23a.html
stltoday.com: The gun ban that worked [Virtual gun confiscation – the demand to require governmental permission to possess an unalienable human right]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/25/toronto-shooting-handgun-ban-canada
The Guardian: ‘Why does anyone need a gun?’: Toronto shooting prompts calls for handgun ban

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a20747292/nra-guns-take-them-away
Esquire: Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/05/03/ban-assault-weapons-buy-them-back-prosecute-offenders-column/570590002/
Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters: Ex-prosecutor in Congress

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/3/17174160/assault-weapons-ban-research-study
Vox: Why an assault weapons ban can’t address America’s gun problem

https://twitter.com/Emma4Change/status/988036115579002881?
Emma González [March for our Lives]:
Removing the assault and semi-automatic weapons from our Civilian society, instituting thorough background checks and mandatory waiting periods (and raising the buying age and banning the production of high-capacity magazines) are the ways to stop shootings in America.

http://www.charlottenewsvt.org/2018/03/21/ban-military-style-assault-weapons-sake-children/
The Charlotte News: Ban military-style assault weapons for the sake of our children

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9454161/gun-violence-solution
Vox: What no politician wants to admit about gun control “taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners

http://www.naacp.org/latest/opinion-gun-safety-freedom/
NAACP President OPINION: Gun Safety Is about Freedom [Australian style gun confiscation – making gun owners an offer they can’t refuse ]

https://www.pressherald.com/2018/02/25/maine-voices-yes-we-want-to-take-away-your-guns-the-case-for-civilian-disarmament/
Maine Voices: Yes, we want to take away your guns

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/27/robinson-dont-let-the-absurd-ploy-to-arm-teachers-distract-you/
Mercury News – Eugene Robinson
Robinson: Arming teachers is absurd — ban military-style assault rifles

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/02/22/want-to-end-gun-violence-mr-president-get-rid-of-guns.html
The Star: Want to end gun violence Mr. President? Get rid of guns

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-skelton-florida-shooting-gun-control-20180219-story.html
La Times: No one becomes a mass shooter without a mass-shooting gun

https://www.designmom.com/a-gun-ban-is-inevitable/
It’s Too Late. You’ve Lost Your Guns.

2017

https://splinternews.com/ban-guns-1820487148
Splinter news: BAN GUNS

https://www.redhawksonline.com/2017/11/13/las-vegas-shooting-response-keep-or-eliminate-guns/
Redhawks Online: Guns must go

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/11/10/hand-over-your-weapons/6IxJLanMKGak7RvCLipwbN/story.html
Boston Globe: Hand over your weapons

https://www.news-press.com/story/opinion/2017/11/10/renew-ban-military-style-assault-weapons/851942001/
News-Press – USA Today Editorial Board: Renew ban on military-style assault weapons

https://crooked.com/article/bring-gun-fight/
Dan Pfeiffer: What to Bring to the Gun Fight [national gun registry, Tracking and limiting purchases of ammunition and a national gun buyback program]

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/354513-eugene-robinson-gun-control-should-include-buyback-program-like-australias
Eugene Robinson: Gun control should include buyback program like Australia’s

https://www.mediaite.com/online/washington-post-editorial-board-calls-on-trump-to-pass-gun-control-end-this-american-carnage/
Washington Post Editorial Board Calls on Trump to Pass Gun Control: ‘End This American Carnage’
[Members of The Washington Post Editorial Board]

https://theweek.com/articles/729108/ban-guns
The Week: Ban guns

https://planamag.com/ban-guns-amend-the-constitution-a9c288c20965?gi=aede7377ca64
Plan A Magazine: Ban Guns. Amend the Constitution.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/opinions/ban-semiautomatic-weapons-and-save-lives-sachs/
(CNN) Sachs: Ban semiautomatic assault weapons and save lives

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/for-gods-sake-america-just-ban-guns
Prospect magazine: Dear America: it’s time to grow up and ban guns

2016

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/needed-domestic-disarmame_b_8739712.html
Huffington Post: Domestic Disarmament, Not ‘Gun Control’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/assault-weapons-must-be-banned/2016/06/13/0d6a58f4-3195-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?
Washington Post – Eugene Robinson: Assault weapons must be banned in America

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/08/opinions/bell-obama-guns/index.html
W. Kamau Bell [CNN]: I want Obama to take away your guns

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-nelson/cant-we-just-put-the-damn_b_8939952.html
Huffington post: Can’t We Just Put the Damn Guns Down?
http://feeds.huffingtonpost.com/c/35496/f/677045/s/4cb82e24/sc/27/l/0L0Shuffingtonpost0N0C20A160C0A10C0A70Canderson0Ecooper0Eguns0Econspiracy0In0I8936530A0Bhtml/story01.htm
Anderson Cooper:“Speaking only for myself, watching Obama get repeatedly accused of wanting to take people’s guns away makes me sort of wish he’d just do something to earn that accusation. May as well!”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/07/president-obama-isn-t-taking-people-s-guns-but-maybe-he-should.html
The Daily Beast: President Obama Isn’t Taking People’s Guns—But Maybe He Should.

2015

https://newrepublic.com/article/125498/its-time-ban-guns-yes-them
New Republic: It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html
The New York Times: End the Gun Epidemic in America
[First Front Page Editorial In 95 Years] This editorial published on A1 in the Dec. 5 edition of The New York Times. It is the first time an editorial has appeared on the front page since 1920.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/yes-they-want-to-take-your-guns-away
The Daily Beast: Yes, They Want to Take Your Guns Away

http://www.c-span.org/video/?328774-1/hillary-clinton-town-hall-meeting-keene-new-hampshire&amp;start=2831
Hillary Clinton: “In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program.”…..“I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level”

href=”https://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9455025/us-gun-violence
Vox: Becoming a gun-free society would be hard. But we should still try.

href=”https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/5/1427845/-Effective-Gun-Control-A-National-Semi-Auto-Ban
Daily Kos: Effective Gun Control – A National Semi-Auto Ban

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-gun-free-society/2015/10/04/6da29040-69c4-11e5-9ef3-fde182507eac_story.html
Washington Post: A gun-free society

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/01/statement-president-shootings-umpqua-community-college-roseburg-oregon
Obama: “We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”

http://www.tallahassee.com/story/opinion/columnists/ensley/2014/11/22/stop-insanity-ban-guns/19426029/
Tallahassee Democrat – Stop the insanity: Ban guns

2014

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/10/remarks-president-qa-david-karp-ceo-tumblr
Obama:;A couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said, well, that’s it — we’re not seeing that again. And basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-gun-control-ban-homicides-suicides-20140528-story.html
La Times: You say gun control doesn’t work? Fine. Let’s ban guns altogether.

2013

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/gun-control-we-need-domes_b_2718536.html
Huffington Post: Gun Control? We Need Domestic Disarmament

2012

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process
Daily Kos: How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/nyregion/cuomo-says-he-will-outline-gun-measures-next-month.html?_r=1&amp;
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

href=”https://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/ban-all-guns-now/Content?oid=2147131
Detroit Metro Times: Ban all guns, now

href=”https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/why-gun-control-is-not-enough/
Opinionator – New York Times: Why Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/273753-house-dem-calls-on-people-to-turn-in-your-guns
House Dem: ‘Turn in your guns’

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/first-get-rid-of-the-guns/
Eugene Robinson: First, Get Rid of the Guns

https://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2012/12/gun-control
Economist The gun control that works: no guns

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ostroy/get-rid-of-the-damn-guns_b_1694753.html
Huffington Post: Get Rid of the Damn Guns

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/24/1077374/-Yes-conservatives-we-want-to-take-away-your-guns
Yes conservatives, we want to take away your guns…

2011
https://tucson.com/news/opinion/editorial/reinstate-ban-on-military-style-assault-weapons/article_d2687749-92aa-5d92-93bf-475d1beea35b.html
Arizona Daily Star: Reinstate ban on military-style assault weapons

1993

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-28/local/me-6058_1_gun-violence
La Times – Taming the Monster: Get Rid of the Guns

Uncategorized

Brownells: Putting Their Money Where Their Mouth Is

September 8, 2020 by 1 Comment

A lot of companies talk a great game but rarely do they put their money where their mouth is. Brownells is an exception. Brownells both makes and sells standard capacity magazines. Now they are supporting the fight to overturn California’s ban on these magazines in a big way.

How big?

$50,000 big. They just donated $50,000 to the California Rifle and Pistol Association to help fund the legal bills for Duncan v. Becerra.

From their press release:

GRINNELL, Iowa (September 8, 2020) – Brownells is donating $50,000 to the California Rifle & Pistol Association to help fund the fight to restore freedom and standard-capacity magazines to California gun owners.

In August, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit upheld a previous decision against California’s ban on magazines in the Duncan v. Becerra case. The panel determined a ban on magazines with capacity of over 10 rounds violates the 2nd Amendment rights of Californians.

In an effort to delay striking down California’s draconian magazine ban, the California Attorney General’s office petitioned for an en banc review of panel’s ruling, extending the struggle for California gun owners to regain their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

To help see that struggle through to a victorious finish, Brownells is contributing $50,000 for CRPA’s efforts to the cause.

“The California Rifle & Pistol Association Foundation is proud of the partnership with Brownells to fight for the rights of all Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” said CRPA Foundation Director of Development Rick Travis. “Brownells’ generous donation will be used 100% in the fight to see the Duncan v. Becerra case to a successful conclusion in restoring the Second Amendment in California.”

If the rulings against California’s magazine ban are upheld, they could serve as precedent in similar decisions against other similar bans enacted by anti-gun politicians in other states.

Uncategorized

Cal DOJ Says Not So Fast

August 17, 2020 by 2 Comments

Despite the win in Duncan v. Becerra, neither the District Court nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted the stay of the original ruling. Thus, despite what you might see from a number of dealers of standard capacity magazines, they still cannot be shipped to California at this time.

The Firearms Policy Coalition posted the notice from the California Department of Justice regarding this to Twitter.

In addition to warning both companies and California purchasers regarding the existing stay, it also serves to give notice that California will be appealing Judge Lee’s ruling and asking for an en banc hearing. However, as of this morning, no appeal had been filed.

Uncategorized

Duncan V. Becerra: A Win In The 9th Circuit

August 14, 2020 by 3 Comments

A three judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a win today for the Second Amendment. In a 2-1 decision, the court found that the California ban on standard capacity magazines failed to pass the two part test and thus contravened the protections of the Second Amendment. They affirmed Judge Roger Benitez’s original ruling in Duncan v. Becerra. His ruling had been partially stayed pending this appeal.

As with all Second Amendment wins in the 9th Circuit, I fully expect that this case will go to an en banc hearing. It will either be granted on the request of one of the other judges sua sponte or on appeal by California. In the meantime, this is a win to be savored.

Below is a synopsis of the court’s 81 page opinion and dissent. The opinion was written by Judge Kenneth Lee and was joined by Judge Consuelo Callahan. Chief Judge Barbara Lynn of the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation, was the dissenter. Judge Lee, a native of South Korea, was appointed by President Trump to fill the seat left open by the death of liberal icon Judge Stephen Reinhardt.

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs challenging California Government Code § 31310, which bans possession of large-capacity magazines (“LCMs”) that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition; and held that the ban violated the Second Amendment.


The Ninth Circuit employs a two-prong inquiry to determine whether firearm regulations violate the Second Amendment: (1) whether the law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment; and (2) if so, what level of scrutiny to apply to the regulation. United states v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127, 1136 (9th Cir. 2013)

The panel held that under the first prong of the test, Cal. Penal Code § 32310 burdened protected conduct. First, the panel held that firearm magazines are protected arms under the Second Amendment. Second, the panel held that LCMs are commonly owned and typically used for lawful purposes, and are not “unusual arms” that would fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Third, the panel held that LCM prohibitions are not longstanding regulations and do not enjoy a presumption of lawfulness. Fourth, the panel held that there was no persuasive historical evidence in the record showing LCM possession fell outside the ambit of Second Amendment protection.


Proceeding to prong two of the inquiry, the panel held that strict scrutiny was the appropriate standard to apply. First, the panel held that Cal. Penal Code § 32310 struck at the core right of law-abiding citizens to self-defend by banning LCM possession within the home. Second, the panel held that Section 32310’s near-categorical ban of LCMs substantially burdened core Second Amendment rights. Third, the panel held that decisions in other circuits were distinguishable. Fourth, the panel held that this circuit’s decision in Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2015), did not obligate the panel to apply intermediate scrutiny.


The panel held that Cal. Penal Code § 32310 did not survive strict scrutiny review. First, the panel held that the state interests advanced here were compelling: preventing and mitigating gun violence. Second, the panel held that Section 32310 was not narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling state interests it purported to serve because the state’s chosen method – a statewide blanket ban on possession everywhere and for nearly everyone – was not the least restrictive means of achieving the compelling interests.


The panel held that even if intermediate scrutiny were to apply, Cal. Penal Code § 32310 would still fail. The panel held that while the interests expressed by the state qualified as “important,” the means chosen to advance those interests were not substantially related to their service.


Chief District Judge Lynn dissented, and would reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Judge Lynn wrote that the majority opinion conflicted with this Circuit’s precedent in Fyock, and with decisions in all the six sister Circuits that addressed the Second Amendment issue presented here. Judge Lynn would hold that intermediate scrutiny applies, and Cal. Penal Code § 32310 satisfies that standard.


Uncategorized

Oh! The Horror!

January 15, 2020 by 2 Comments

Magpul donated 1,000 30-round PMags for the NRA to give out to those who attended the January 13th NRA rally at the Virginia State Capitol. Duane Liptak, Magpul’s Executive VP, is a member of the NRA Board of Directors. Bear in mind that a magazine ban is one of the agenda items for anti-gun Democrats in the Virginia General Assembly. A magazine ban, I should add, that has no grandfathering.

Giving out 30-round PMags was reminiscent of what Magpul did for rallies in Vermont in 2018 and in Colorado in 2013. In other words it was nothing new. Nonetheless, the gun prohibitionists at the Cult of Personality known as Giffords have their panties in a wad over this.

Gun rights advocates from around the country are urging armed protesters to descend on Virginia’s capital before the General Assembly’s first legislative session of 2020 to stop Democrats from passing gun-control bills.

The NRA is even getting involved by offering to hand out 30 round magazines to protesters for free if they show up.

Tweet from the NRA: EMERGENCY AIRLIFT: @Magpul_HQ sent us 1,000 30 Round PMAGs to hand out tomorrow in Richmond to NRA members who show up to fight Northam's extreme gun ban! We'll see everyone TOMORROW at the General Assembly Building in Senate Sub-Committee Room1 on the 5th Floor at 8am!

A 30 round magazine was used to shoot this organization’s co-founder, Gabby Giffords, kill six people and injure 12 others in Tucson.

First off no magazine of any size can be used “to shoot” anyone. A magazine is merely a container. It, more importantly, just like a firearm is an inanimate object that cannot do anything unless it is used by human being.

In Ms. Giffords’ case, the murderer in Tucson had a Glock pistol as his weapon of choice. He did have a Glock 18 knock-off magazine that jammed when he was reloading allowing heroic bystanders to end his rampage.

The killer bought it legally after passing a FBI NICS check. That he was able to pass such a check despite evidence of mental issues was due to the failure of school authorities to report his behavior and due to the Pima County Sheriff’s Department ignoring his actions. The latter was due to a friendly relationship between the killer’s mother and Sheriff Clarence Dupnik.

Giffords and other such organizations who send out these pleas for money rely on shock value and the decay of memory with regard to past events. That it is dishonest has never stopped them in the past and won’t stop them in the future. Fortunately, there are both the Internet and those of us with long memories to set the record straight.

Uncategorized

Lawsuit Against Deerfield (Illinois) AWB Makes Fox And Friends

June 5, 2018 by 2 Comments

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.

Uncategorized

SAF, CalGuns, Firearms Policy Coalition, And Others Sue California Over Mag Ban

April 29, 2017 by 1 Comment

News of this was released this afternoon while I was in the Annual National Firearms Law Seminar and didn’t have my computer handy. A coalition of groups including the Second Amendment Foundation, the CalGuns Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Firearms Policy Foundation plus seven individuals filed suit challenging the state’s ban on standard capacity magazines. The suit was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California.

From the news release sent out by the CalGuns Foundation:

FRESNO, CA (April 28, 2017) — Today, attorneys for 7 individual gun owners and 4 civil rights advocacy organizations have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the State of California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity” firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds “on their own behalves, and as representatives on behalf of the class of individuals who are or would be affected by the Large-Capacity Magazine Ban.”
The civil rights case, captioned as William Wiese, et al. v. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, and is supported by civil rights groups The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF)
A copy of the lawsuit’s complaint and its exhibits can be viewed or downloaded here.
Last year, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Senate Bill 1446 (SB 1446), which changed state statutes to completely ban law-abiding people from possessing all “large-capacity” firearm magazines as of July 1, 2017. Following that, Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 63 (Prop 63) “Safety For All Act” gun control initiative—which also contained language banning “large-capacity” magazines—was passed by voters in the November general election.
Prior to Proposition 63 and SB 1446, thousands of law-abiding Californians could possess legally-owned (“grandfathered”) large-capacity magazines, but now must remove them from their possession or ownership in the State by July 1 at their own expense or face criminal liability and fines.
The plaintiffs believe that the State’s ban violates their constitutional rights, including their fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms protected under the Second Amendment, because magazines are “an intrinsic part of all semi-automatic firearms” and “are not merely individual pieces of personal property, but rather, are intrinsic and inherent constitutionally-protected parts of constitutionally-protected firearms.”
In a “Finding of Emergency” for related firearm magazine regulations it had sought to issue in December (attached to the complaint as Exhibit A), the California Department of Justice admitted that “[t]here are likely hundreds of thousands of large-capacity magazines in California at this time” and that the “Department therefore expects many gun owners to be affected by the new ban.”
In addition to its Second Amendment claims, the lawsuit “further challenges the Large-Capacity Magazine Ban statutory scheme which would…. subject thousands of law-abiding gun owners to criminal liability and sanctions, and subjecting their lawfully-possessed personal property to forfeiture, seizure and permanent confiscation, without due process or compensation.”
The case also includes vagueness challenges, one of which centers on the confusion surrounding the State’s two active—but very different—chaptered versions of Penal Code § 32406. A number of exemptions to the ban are found in the active Section 32406 that was enacted under SB 1446, but the active version of Section 32406 enacted by California voters under Prop 63 contains far fewer exemptions.
“California’s magazine ban laws violate the constitutional rights of law-abiding people in many ways,” said attorney George M. Lee, a partner of the plaintiffs’ San Francisco law firm Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate LLP. “Not only does the ban infringe on Second Amendment rights, but it is clearly now a taking of private property. In fact, as we contend in the complaint, it amounts to a de facto confiscation.”
Lee also takes issue with the way the new magazine ban affects people who have lawfully possessed “grandfathered” magazines since before the original ban on importation in 2000. “As a part of the legislative compromise associated with that original ban, owners of those grandfathered magazines were specifically exempt from the law,” he said. “The Legislature is basically reneging on that deal made many years ago.”
“The State of California’s ban scheme stands for the proposition that most any personal property can simply be taken away from you or forced out of your possession without due process or just compensation by legislative fiat,” commented CGF Chairman Gene Hoffman. “Today it’s firearm magazines, but tomorrow it will most certainly be some other constitutionally-protected private property.”
“Enforcement of this ban,” explained SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “would immediately place thousands of law-abiding California gun owners in jeopardy of criminal liability and subjects their personal property to forfeiture, seizure and permanent confiscation, which is government taking, without due process or compensation. We cannot allow that to go unchallenged.”
“California’s magazine laws will turn many thousands of good, law-abiding people into criminals,” said Brandon Combs, president of FPC and chairman of FPF, “but do nothing to advance public safety.
“While California’s political leadership might prefer some kind of police state without any Second Amendment or property rights, we believe that the Constitution takes their policy preferences off the table. This lawsuit is one of many that we hope will help restore fundamental freedoms in the Golden State and across the nation.”
Douglas A. Applegate, also of Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate LLP, joins Lee on the case as co-counsel.

This plus the NRA lawsuit is a good start.

Uncategorized

NJ Senate Votes On Mag Limitation And Gun Ban Tomorrow (updated)

May 12, 2014 by 8 Comments

The NRA-ILA sent out an alert advising that the New Jersey State Senate will vote on SB 993 tomorrow (Monday, May 12th) at noon. They are asking the people in NJ call or email their state senator and request that they vote against this bill.

From the NRA-ILA:

On Monday, May 12, the New Jersey Senate is scheduled to consider Senate Bill 993
at noon.  As previously reported, S.993 seeks to restrict the maximum
capacity of ammunition magazines from 15 to 10 rounds and ban certain
popular firearms.  Under the guise of public safety, anti-gun
politicians continue their efforts in Trenton to erode the Second
Amendment rights of New Jersey residents.  New Jersey is one of only a
few states which already has a magazine restriction, and another
arbitrary limit will have no impact on crime or criminals.  Instead,
this legislation demonstrably favors criminals who prefer to prey on
unarmed victims.


Senate Bill 993 is scheduled to be considered by the full Senate at noon on Monday, May 12.  It is more important than ever to call and e-mail your state Senator and respectfully, yet insistently, urge him or her to vote AGAINST S.993.  Contact information for state Senators can be found here.


If you would like to tune into the Senate debate on S.993, you can do so by clicking here.

The bill would exempt tube feed .22LR rifles from the 10 round maximum. It would also allow both current law enforcement officers to carry 15-round magazines while off-duty and it would extend this same “courtesy” to retired law enforcement officers.

The kicker part of the bill is this:

14. (New section) Any person who legally owns a semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 10 rounds or a large capacity ammunition magazine as defined under subsection y. of N.J.S.2C:39-1 which is capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition on the effective date of P.L. , c. (C. ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill) may retain possession of that rifle or magazine for a period not to exceed 180 days from the effective date of this act. During this time period, the owner of the semi-automatic rifle or magazine shall:

a. Transfer the semi-automatic rifle or magazine to any person or firm lawfully entitled to own or possess that firearm or magazine;

b. Render the semi-automatic rifle or magazine inoperable; or

c. Voluntarily surrender the semi-automatic rifle or magazine pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.2C:39-12.1

UPDATED: Sebastian is reporting that the bill passed the NJ Senate on a 22-17 vote. It now goes to Gov. Chris Christie who has never been a friend of gun owners. However, he does have Presidential aspirations and this could help our cause. Now is the time to start pressuring him. His online contact address is here.

Uncategorized

Hickenlooper Seeks Political Cover With Signing Statement

March 21, 2013 by 4 Comments

When Gov. John Hickenlooper (D-CO) signed into law Colorado’s forthcoming ban on standard capacity magazines, he took a page from Presidents Bush and Obama and issued a signing statement with the bill. The signing statement notes that Gov. Hickenlooper consulted with the Colorado Attorney General’s Office on the bill and how it should be construed narrowly by law enforcement.

This is nothing but an attempt to push off some of the blowback he is receiving or will receive about this law on to the Republicans. No Republican legislator voted for this law and were adamant in their opposition to it. However, Colorado’s Attorney General, John Suthers, is a Republican. In my opinion, Attorney General Suthers should not provide any political cover to Gov. Hickenlooper and should tell him the law says what it says. It will only be when Colorado voters realize just how draconian this law really is that they will turn out the Democrats responsible for it.

Narrow enforcement of this law may make it tolerable over time. Strict enforcement of the law, despite the harm it will do, will turn this law into a 21st Century Intolerable Act and force its repeal. It will also make court challenges more likely to win especially if the “readily converted” provision makes many firearms unusable.

The signing statement is below:

STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER

ISSUED MARCH 20, 2013 UPON THE SIGNING OF HB13-1224

In signing HB13-1224, we acknowledge that some have expressed concerns about the vagueness of the law’s definition of “large-capacity magazine.” By its terms, the law does make illegal any magazine manufactured or purchased after July 1, 2013, that is capable of accepting, or is designed to be readily converted to accept, more that 15 rounds of ammunition. Similar language is used in other states’ statutes limiting large-capacity magazines. We know that magazine manufacturers have produced and sell magazines that comply with these other state laws that limit large-capacity magazines and we are aware of no successful legal challenges to those laws. And when a Colorado-based magazine manufacturer came to us to share their concerns about the vagueness of the definition of “large-capacity magazine” contained in the original version of the bill, we worked with the bill’s sponsors to fine-tune the definition to make it more precise.

We also have heard concerns about the requirement in the law that a person who owns a large-capacity magazine prior to the law’s enactment may legally possess that magazine only as long as he or she “maintains continuous possession” of it. We do not believe a reasonable interpretation of the law means that a person must maintain continuous “physical” possession of these items. Responsible maintenance and handling of magazines obviously contemplates that gun owners may allow others to physically hold and handle them under appropriate circumstances. We are confident that law enforcement and the courts will interpret the statute so as to effectuate the lawful use and care of these devices.

In considering the language of HB13-1224, we have consulted with the Office of the Attorney General and we concur with its advice that the large-capacity magazine ban should be construed narrowly to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Second Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. We have signed HB13-1224 into law based on the understanding that it will be interpreted and applied narrowly and consistently with these important constitutional provisions.

To this end, today we are directing the Colorado Department of Public Safety to consult with the Office of the Attorney General and others, as necessary, with respect to the interpretation of HB13-1224’s large-capacity magazine ban, and then to draft and issue, to law enforcement agencies in the State of Colorado, technical guidance on how the law should be interpreted and enforced. This work should be done by July 1, 2013, the law’s effective date.