New York

Uncategorized

Ten Days Of Freedom In New York City

August 21, 2022 by

If you are a gun owner in New York City and you want a carry permit, you have 10 days under an emergency rule adopted Friday by the NYPD to apply before the onerous New York State rules apply. The rule (see below) gives those with a pending application guidance as well as new applicants. Even more importantly, it applies to anyone who applied for a permit within the last three years but was denied for failing to show “proper cause”. Those who were denied can reopen their applications without paying any additional fees.

Perhaps I am being optimistic but I see this as the New York City equivalent of “freedom week” in California when Judge Benitez ruled the ban on standard capacity mags unconstitutional.

According to the emergency rule, so long as an application is pending before September 1, 2022 when the New York State law goes into effect, the standards will be those in the emergency rule. This means no searching of your social media among other things.

Here are the key items in the emergency rule:

  • No letter of necessity required
  • A statement saying you have read and are familiar with the law regarding deadly force, carry requirements, and responsibilities of a handgun owner
  • A statement saying how you plan to store your handgun when not being carried
  • A statement saying you have or will get training

Contrast the above with news that the Sheriff’s Department of Orange County (NY) has stopped scheduling appointments for gun permit fingerprints and will stop all fingerprinting after August 31st. This is in response to the requirements that New York State has imposed for a permit beginning September 1st. According to the FAQ issued by the Sheriff’s Department, they are the only place you can get fingerprints taken for a permit. Reading between the lines, it appears that the sheriff is hoping an injunction will stay the new law.

Uncategorized

NYPD Signals They Expect To Lose Bruen

February 9, 2022 by 5 Comments

The New York Police Department is looking to hire 73 part-time investigators whose job includes doing background checks for handgun licenses.

From Rob Romano on Twitter:

Among the job duties the NYPD has for these new hires is this:

Conducting interviews and investigations of candidates applying for handgun licenses; process various applications for carrying handguns; determine and ensure applicant meets requirements for license requested; fingerprint applicant using LIVESCAN system; research various databases and contact references to substantiate information submitted by applicant; and notify applicant of approval or appeal process for denial of handgun permit.

While you can never predict what the Supreme Court will do, it seems to me that the NYPD is signaling that they expect the court to rule against New York in NYSRPA v. Bruen. That case is a challenge to the state’s denial of carry permits for the purpose of self-defense.

In this instance, I really hope that the NYPD is correct in their assessment.

Uncategorized

Letitia James Responds To NRA Move

January 15, 2021 by 2 Comments

New York Attorney General Letitia James has responded to the legal moves by the National Rifle Association to reincorporate in Texas.

NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today released the following statement after the National Rifle Association (NRA) declared it would seek bankruptcy protections in federal court, as well as sought to reincorporate its nonprofit status in the state of Texas:

“The NRA’s claimed financial status has finally met its moral status: bankrupt. While we review this filing, we will not allow the NRA to use this or any other tactic to evade accountability and my office’s oversight.”

In August, Attorney General James filed a lawsuit against the NRA, Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre, and three of LaPierre’s current or former top executives for failing to manage the NRA’s funds; failing to follow numerous state and federal laws, as well as the NRA’s own bylaws and policies; and contributing to the loss of more than $64 million in just three years for the NRA. The suit was filed against the NRA as a whole, LaPierre, as well as former Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer Wilson “Woody” Phillips, former Chief of Staff and the Executive Director of General Operations Joshua Powell, and Corporate Secretary and General Counsel John Frazer.

According to a story on the bankruptcy filing by Reuters, it is thought the move will put the New York lawsuit on hold and may remove James’ power over the NRA through the reincorporation. Maybe yes, maybe no.

Uncategorized

NRA To Reincorporate In Texas

January 15, 2021 by 4 Comments

After 150 years, the National Rifle Association is finally abandoning New York. They have filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas and plan to reincorporate in Texas.

Here is the full press release sent out this afternoon by Wayne LaPierre. I will have more on the bankruptcy filing after I have had time to read it. Imagine how much time and legal expense they could have saved if they had listened to law professor Joseph Olson when he suggested as a board member in 1991.

NRA Leaves New York to Reincorporate in Texas, Announces New Strategic Plan

NRA Plans to Exit New York to Pursue Opportunity, Growth and Progress in Texas; Plan Benefits Association, Its Millions of Members, and All Supporters of the Second Amendment

Fairfax, VA – The National Rifle Association of America (“NRA”) today announced it will restructure the Association as a Texas nonprofit to exit what it believes is a corrupt political and regulatory environment in New York. The move will enable long-term, sustainable growth and ensure the NRA’s continued success as the nation’s leading advocate for constitutional freedom – free from the toxic political environment of New York.

The NRA plan, which involves utilizing the protection of the bankruptcy court, has the Association dumping New York and organizing its legal and regulatory matters in an efficient forum. The move comes at a time when the NRA is in its strongest financial condition in years.

The NRA will continue with the forward advancement of the enterprise – confronting anti-Second Amendment activities, promoting firearm safety and training, and advancing public programs across the United States. There will be no immediate changes to the NRA’s operations or workforce.  

The Association will seek court approval to reincorporate the Association in the State of Texas – home to more than 400,000 NRA members and site of the 2021 NRA Annual Meeting in Houston.

“This strategic plan represents a pathway to opportunity, growth and progress,” says NRA CEO & EVP Wayne LaPierre. “Obviously, an important part of this plan is ‘dumping New York.’ The NRA is pursuing reincorporating in a state that values the contributions of the NRA, celebrates our law-abiding members, and will join us as a partner in upholding constitutional freedom. This is a transformational moment in the history of the NRA.”

The restructuring plan aims to streamline costs and expenses, proceed with pending litigation in a coordinated and structured manner, and realize many financial and strategic advantages.

The Path Forward

The NRA will move quickly through the restructuring process. Its day-to-day operations, training programs, and Second Amendment advocacy will continue as usual.

By exiting New York, where the NRA has been incorporated for approximately 150 years, the NRA abandons a state where elected officials have weaponized the legal and regulatory powers they wield to penalize the Association and its members for purely political purposes.

In the summer of 2018, then New York Attorney General candidate Letitia James vowed that, if elected, she would use the powers of her office to investigate the “legitimacy” of the NRA.

Without a shred of evidence to support the claim, she called the Association a “terrorist organization” and a “criminal enterprise.” As promised, she commenced an “investigation” upon being elected to the Office of NYAG and, predictably, filed a lawsuit seeking to dissolve the NRA just prior to the November 2020 national election.

The NRA filed a lawsuit in August 2020 against the NYAG similar to its lawsuit against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Department of Financial Services, filed in 2018. The NRA pursues the defendants for attempting to “blacklist” the organization and its financial partners in violation of their First Amendment rights. The NRA will continue those legal actions.  

“Under this plan, the Association wisely seeks protection from New York officials who it believes have illegally weaponized their powers against the NRA and its members,” says William A. Brewer III, counsel to the NRA in those cases. “The NRA will continue the fight to protect the interests of its members in New York – and all forums where the NRA is unlawfully singled out for its Second Amendment advocacy.”

With respect to its headquarters, the NRA has formed a committee to study opportunities for relocating segments of its business operations to Texas or other states. The Association will analyze whether a move of its headquarters, now located in Fairfax, Virginia, is in the best interests of its members. In the meantime, the NRA’s general business operations will remain in Fairfax.

To facilitate its strategic plan and restructuring, the NRA and one of its subsidiaries filed voluntary chapter 11 petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. Chapter 11 proceedings are routinely utilized by businesses, nonprofits and organizations of all kinds to streamline legal and financial affairs.  

The NRA also announced Marschall Smith will serve as Chief Restructuring Officer. A former Senior Vice President and General Counsel of 3M Company, Smith has more than 35 years of legal and business experience with an emphasis on compliance, corporate finance, and corporate governance.

“I am honored to join the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization during this important time,” Smith says. “Our goal is to work through the restructuring process efficiently and quickly – even as NRA leadership approaches 2021 with renewed energy and an expanding national platform. This plan has no impact on the NRA’s most important goal:  serving its membership and protecting the Second Amendment.”

The NRA will propose a plan that provides for payment in full of all valid creditors’ claims. The Association expects to uphold commitments to employees, vendors, members, and other community stakeholders.

“The plan allows us to protect the NRA and go forward with a renewed focus on Second Amendment advocacy,” says NRA President Carolyn Meadows. “We will continue to honor the trust placed in us by employees, members and other stakeholders – following a blueprint that allows us to become the strongest NRA ever known.”

Additional Information:

Patrick J. Neligan of Neligan LLP, Dallas, Texas, is serving as debtor’s counsel; William (Wit) Davis is counsel to the NRA Board of Directors and its Special Litigation Committee; Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, Dallas, Texas, serves as special counsel to the NRA. To learn more, please visit www.nra.org/forward.

Uncategorized

COVID-19, Supply Chains, and Firearms Manufacturers

March 27, 2020 by 3 Comments

I received an email yesterday afternoon from Kimber. It was detailing the impact of COVID-19 on their operations. Kimber has plants in both Yonkers, New York and Troy, Alabama. If you have spent any time watching the talking heads on TV, you know that New York has overtaken Washington State in the number of coronavirus cases.

Here is part of what was in the email:

Due to the New York state decision to shutter non-essential businesses as part of the COVID-19 response plan, Kimber Mfg. Inc. has stopped production at its New York facilities. 

Production continues at Kimber’s new, state-of-the-art Troy, Alabama manufacturing facility, with the entire line of handguns and long guns being assembled. Due to the large number of parts manufactured in Yonkers and the state mandated closure in New York, the Troy facility will suspend production on March 31st . “This situation is unfortunate as we were off to an incredible start in gun shipments in 2020 and were running our factories seven days a week. We would like to thank our dealers and consumers for their overwhelmingly positive response to our 2020 new products,” said Greg Grogan, Kimber president. With that said, if you are in the market for a Kimber firearm, now is the time to make that purchase.”

Kimber’s Alabama based customer service and repair services remain open to help customers with any questions they may have. In addition, the Alabama based Kimber online store is open and products are shipping as long as inventory lasts. Montana based dealer sales and customer service departments also remain open.

The bottom line is that even though your assembly plant is in an area which only has a relatively small number of coronavirus cases, you are still impacted adversely. Alabama has 531 cases as of today versus New York State with 39,140 cases according to the Johns Hopkins University compilation. Indeed, Westchester County, NY where Yonkers is located has over 10 times as many infections as the entire state of Alabama.

Then there is the whole issue of essential versus non-essential businesses. Some states have said firearms manufacturing would be considered an essential business because it provides tools to the defense industry or to law enforcement. Other states do not consider it essential. Even if you are in a state that considers your production essential, if your subcontractor making critical parts is located in a place that takes the opposite view, you are screwed.

The firearms industry is composed of primarily small businesses. Even the largest companies like Ruger and Smith & Wesson are considered small by comparison to other manufacturers. While the products are flying out the doors now, a mid to long period of enforced closure due to the pandemic is going to hurt.

Uncategorized

Know The Enemy – Letitia James

December 30, 2019 by 2 Comments

Letitia James is the Attorney General of New York. She recently published her 2019 Year in Review. Reading through this 62 page report gives you some indication of her attitudes and intentions towards gun owners and gun rights groups.

Michael Bane often says on his podcast that if someone says they plan to do you harm, take them at their word. James said in her campaign platform she intended to investigate the charitable status of the NRA. Indeed, that was the number one item on her bullet list dealing with “gun violence” (sic).

As we know, her office has followed through on that threat. The letter that prefaces her 2019 Year in Review noted that she had “opened an investigation into the NRA’s charitable practices “.

Pages 43 and 44 deal with her plans regarding firearms.

Gun violence is a public health epidemic in New York and across the nation. Every loss of life and injury from gun violence is a devastating reminder of our shared responsibility to face this crisis head on and to support the communities that have suffered from its effects. Attorney General James is committed to catching criminals who traffic illegal weapons onto our streets, and holding them accountable. She has taken legal action to protect states’ rights to enact common sense gun safety regulations, including leading a multistate coalition to protect New York’s right to implement these critical measures, which is currently being heard by the United States Supreme Court. She has also partnered with law enforcement agencies across the state to host gun buyback programs and get illegal guns out of our communities. She will continue to pursue every avenue available to reduce gun violence in New York.

By stating that the criminal misuse of a firearm is a “public health epidemic”, James conveniently sidesteps criminal justice steps targeted at the violent criminal actors. Criminal justice is actually not high on her radar if you read the highlights of her annual report. It appears she is more interested in abortion rights, climate change, and protecting New Yorkers “regressive Federal policies” of the Trump Administration than even “gun violence” (sic).

I find it interesting that she resorts to “states’ rights” to defend the repressive gun control laws in her state which leave the poorest at the mercy of criminals. John C. Calhoun would be proud of her use of states’ right to defend the indefensible. He used it to defend slavery and she uses it to defend the denigration of the right to keep and bear arms.

With regard to so-called “ghost guns”, she devotes a whole paragraph to them

The New York Attorney General’s Office was the first law enforcement agency in the nation to charge people for selling so-called ghost guns, or guns that are manufactured from parts sold over the Internet. These guns do not have serial numbers, so they are untraceable by law enforcement. Continuing on these enforcement efforts, in September 2019, Attorney General James directed 16 websites to cease and desist selling nearly complete assault weapons to consumers in New York. Attorney General James will continue to go after those that skirt the law to manufacture illegal and deadly assault weapons.

She then goes on to tout her support for gun buybacks.

Our neighborhoods are safer when unwanted firearms are off our streets and out of our homes. Attorney General James’ Gun Buyback Program provides a safe option for New Yorkers to get rid of guns they do not want, on a “no questions asked” basis. In 2019, Attorney General James partnered with local law enforcement agencies to host 24 gun buyback events at houses of worship and community centers all across the state. As a result of these events, the office recovered over 2,700 guns.

So in one paragraph she opines that “ghost guns” are unserialized making them untraceable by law enforcement. Then she proudly states she provided a safe option to get rid of guns people didn’t want on a no questions asked basis. I can’t be the only one to see the contradiction here. She is against guns being untraceable but is OK with guns actually used in violent crimes not being able to be traced to the violent criminal.

Finally, for some reason, she lumps police body cameras in with her section of “gun violence” (sic).

I guess when New Yorkers elected James they felt they were electing someone who wouldn’t engage in domestic violence like her predecessor nor hire prostitutes like her penultimate predecessor. That was kind of a low bar that even Tish James could hurdle.

Uncategorized

A Heavy Artillery Salvo Has Been Fired On The NRA

April 28, 2019 by 2 Comments

Much of what has been said by politicians about the NRA and everything negative that has appeared recently in the media of any sort should be considered the equivalent of sniping. It might take out one or two people but not the whole organization. That was then.

The office of New York Attorney General Letitia James (D-NY) has now fired what I would consider the preparatory barrage in the effort to dissolve the NRA. As someone noted to me, James is under pressure to act and she did on Friday.

From NPR reporting on the NRA Annual Meeting:

Even as the NRA struggled to handle its internal divisions, an external threat emerged this weekend in the form of a new investigation by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

“The Office of New York State Attorney General Letitia James has launched an investigation related to the National Rifle Association (NRA),” a spokesperson for the attorney general told NPR. “As part of this investigation, the Attorney General has issued subpoenas. We will not have further comment at this time.”

The NRA has received a document preservation notice in connection with the investigation being undertaken by the New York attorney general, according to a source familiar with the matter.

The NRA responded to the announcement of the investigation by pledging its cooperation.

“The NRA will fully cooperate with any inquiry into its finances,” said William A. Brewer III, an outside lawyer for the NRA. “The NRA is prepared for this, and has full confidence in its accounting practices and commitment to good governance.”

 This is serious.

It is even more serious because as evidenced by the NRA Meeting of the Members today too many people think just ignoring it will make it go away. The matter is NOT going away.

Compounding this is the NRA’s outside counsel who has a checkered past in terms of legal ethics. He was sanctioned in Texas and his appeal of it was upheld by the Texas Appeals Court last year.

If the NRA is going to use an outside counsel, I might suggest getting the very best – and cleanest – New York non-profit law specialist and let him or her handle it. However, given Brewer’s apparent hold on the attention of certain NRA executives, I doubt this will happen.

Uncategorized

Knife Rights Will Appeal NY “Gravity Knife” Case To SCOTUS

November 5, 2018 by

Knife Rights has announced that they will appeal their long-running case against New York over the definition of gravity knives to the Supreme Court. The case centers around common folding knives that have been the target of enforcement by the NYPD and the Manhattan District Attorney. The victims of this unjust definition have usually been trades people and minorities.

From Knife Rights on their plan to appeal:

Knife Rights’ NYC Gravity Knife Case Appeal Headed To U.S. Supreme Court

Knife
Rights is going forward with an appeal to the Supreme Court of the
United States of the Second Circuit’s decision in favor of New York City
and District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. in our long running civil rights
lawsuit over their persecution of pocket knife owners.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg last week granted us a 60-day extension
until January 13th, 2019, for submission of our petition for a writ of
certiorari asking the Court to hear our appeal.

While our
lawsuit against New York City and DA Vance centers on their abusive
enforcement of New York State’s gravity knife ban against owners of
common pocket knives, the focus changes somewhat as it moves to the
Supreme Court. Keep in mind that the Supreme Court does not generally
agree to hear a case just because any particular decision in a case is
unjust, irrational or just plain terrible, all of which describe this
ruling in spades.

Beyond settling major constitutional issues,
the Court will sometimes choose to resolve differences in the
application of Federal law among different Federal circuit courts when
its decisions are not applied the same throughout the U.S. The Second
Circuit panel’s ruling regarding our constitutional vagueness claim in
this case opens up that possibility with starkly split decisions between
it and other circuits, as well as splits between a number of state
courts. The writ explains why this case is important and worthy of the
Court’s limited time.

A Supreme Court decision to hear the case
could affect the implementation and enforcement of a wide spectrum of
laws to persons throughout the U.S. It is no longer just about these
common folding knives. New York City’s enforcement of the state’s
gravity knife law against common folding knives is now the vehicle to
answer the bigger constitutional question at issue. Only if the Supreme
Court accepts the case do we get to argue the merits of our particular
case as it reflects this bigger issue.

It’s always long odds for
any case to be accepted by the Supreme Court. However, not making the
attempt ensures we lose. And, that would allow very bad precedent to be
set in stone.

Taking a case to Supreme Court is an expensive
proposition, more so for a small organization like Knife Rights. We
still need to raise significant funds for this effort if we don’t want
to hand a victory to New York Governor Cuomo, DA Vance andr New York
City Mayor de Blasio

Please consider a year-end TAX-DEDUCTIBLE donation to Knife Rights to support our efforts at the Supreme Court.  Donate at:  www.kniferights.org/donate/foundation

Uncategorized

Democrat State Party Platforms – New Mexico To Ohio

October 16, 2018 by

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

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

I’m pushing to finish this series before early voting starts in most states. In North Carolina, it starts on October 17th. This group of platforms will include those of the Democrat Parties of New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Ohio. It is an interesting mix composed of three top-10 in population states along with two rather small states.

New Mexico

The 2018 platform of the New Mexico Democratic Party is interesting in that it is upfront about the influence that progressive and leftist groups and politicians have had on it. Of the 31 state platforms I’ve examined so far, it is the only one that has something like this in it. In a beginning section called “Representation”, the platform states:

While this 2018 Platform as a whole is new and original, reflecting New Mexico’s uniqueness and a fresh step
forward for the party, it is inspired by language from the 2014 and 2016 New Mexico State Platforms, the 2016
DNC platform, the Santa Fe and Eddy county platforms, Progressive Democrats of America- Central NM
Chapter, the Unity Reform Commission, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton Campaign promises, and several
Obama era Executive Orders. The 2018 Platform borrows language that aligns with the priorities of
organizations who are unaffiliated with the Party but who share similar values and goals including: 350.org,
New Energy Economy, Food and Water Watch, Common Cause, Frack Free New Mexico, Taos Pueblo, Public
Citizen, Move to Amend, Sierra Club…

 Given this background, it is not surprising to see a whole litany of gun control proposals in this platform under “Public Safety”.

  • We must expand and strengthen background checks for firearm purchases and close dangerous loopholes in
    our current laws
  • Oppose the sale of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines by reinstating and
    strengthening the assault weapons ban
  • Repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) that revokes dangerous legal immunity
    protections for firearm manufacturers and sellers
  • Support the enactment and enforcement of aggressive laws against illegal gun trafficking

As a side-note, this section also has quite a bit about nuclear arms contained within it including challenging the unilateral authority of the President to use nuclear weapons.

New York

New York is home to the NY SAFE Act which was rammed through the legislature in the immediate aftermath of the Newtown murders. Thus, the platform of the New York State Democratic Committee is more of a patting on the back for what they’ve done than a what we intend to do in the future. The state’s gun control laws are already draconian so there is little more that could be added.

In the section of their webpage entitled What We Stand For devoted to firearms they say:

Reducing Gun Violence


When the Sandy Hook tragedy happened, New York Democrats took common-sense action, requiring universal background checks on gun purchases, increasing penalties for people who use illegal guns, setting a penalty of life in prison without parole for anyone who murders a first responder, and establishing the toughest assault weapons ban in the country.

North Carolina

As a lifelong North Carolinian and former Democrat, I’m not surprised by what I’ve read in the North Carolina Democratic Party’s platform. The party that was composed of moderate and conservative Democrats has been fully taken over by the left wing. That trend started in 1972 with the McGovern campaign and went into high gear in the 90s and early 2000s. Some of this was indigenous and a good bit was due to in-migration from the Northeast.

In the section entitled Security and Law Enforcement, it states with regard to firearms:

GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION As Democrats we recognize that there
is a serious issue with gun violence in our country, yet we also
respect the Constitution’s Second Amendment. We believe the
promotion of standards to curtail gun violence is not inconsistent
with the Second Amendment. Among the measures we support are
strengthening background checks, closing loopholes such as the
well-known “gun show loophole,” holding gun manufacturers
accountable through repeal of their special immunity status, and
keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. We believe
that responsible gun owners should not be punished for the
wrongdoing of those who seek to do harm, but that we must also
take proactive measures to slow and eventually eliminate this
epidemic in our country.

Given that the General Assembly no longer really has any pro-gun Democrats, I look at their “respect” for the Second Amendment as a joke. In an earlier section of the platform they state:

We support the fundamental rights to freedom of
speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association and assembly
2016 North Carolina Democratic Party Platform  and the right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law. We oppose efforts to limit or eliminate these
fundamental constitutional rights.

 They are big on the freedom of speech and assembly parts as evidenced by the “Moral Monday” protests but are paying lipservice to the taking of property without due process of law. The red flag law proposed by Rep. Marcia Morey (D-Durham) provides for ex parte orders taking a person’s firearms. This means a judge issues an order based upon what a family or household member or LEO says without the person whose guns are being taken being involved in the hearing. It is only days later that the person who is the subject of the order gets to have their day in court.

North Dakota

North Dakota Democrats are moving right along with the rest of the national Democrats in their support of gun control including age discrimination, training requirements for a first time purchase, waiting periods, and universal background checks. The NPL in the name of the North Dakota party is the Non Partisan League which merged with the Democrats back in the 1950s.

From their platform adopted March 17. 2018:

Firearm Safety – The Dem-NPL Party supports common sense regulations regarding the safe use of firearms for North Dakotans.

  1. The Dem-NPL supports legislation to close the loophole stating that it’s legal to sell and buy modification kits that can convert semi-automatic weapons into automatic ones.
  2. The Dem-NPL supports requiring North Dakota unlicensed gun sellers at gun shows, and private gun dealers to conduct the same instant background checks that licensed dealers need to conduct, using the National Criminal Instant Background Check System.
  3. The Dem-NPL Supports school Resource Officers who are trained in law enforcement, and in adolescent behavior.
  4. The Dem-NPL supports secure processes for students and adults to anonymously report suspected gun violence behavior, along with organized community forums where groups can share ideas, parents and kids can learn where to turn for help, and training is provided in the community to learn the signs of potential danger, and provides information on how to seek out interventions.
  5. The Dem-NPL supports a mandatory Certified Firearm safety training for any first time purchaser of a firearm.
  6. The Dem-NPL supports increasing the age to purchase a semi-automatic weapon from 18 to 21, and require a 3-day waiting period to purchase.

I presume that Item 1 refers to bump fire stocks as any other kit or sear would come under the National Firearms Act. Likewise, there is no such thing as a private gun dealer. You either are a licensed dealer or you are a private individual selling or trading your personally owned firearms on occasion but not as a business. This is an indication to me that whoever wrote this was unfamiliar with federal firearms law.

Ohio

The Ohio Democrats have adopted the national DNC platform as their own and have not written a separate Ohio-specific platform. Therefore, to get an idea of what Ohio Democrats will do let’s look at the platforms or issue statements of Richard Cordray who is their candidate for governor and of Steve Dettelbach who is their candidate for attorney general. These seem to me to be the two major offices impacting firearms rights in the Buckeye State.

Cordray says his administration (if elected) would do the following:

  1. Require universal background checks
  2. Ban the sale of “high-capacity” magazines and bump stocks
  3. Raise the age to purchase any firearm to 21
  4. Extreme violence protection orders
  5. Appoint a “gun violence protection czar”
  6. Create “gun violence task forces”

Bear in mind that Cordray was Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s handpicked choice to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which should show where he aligns politically.

Dettelbach doesn’t mention firearms, gun control, or even “gun safety” on his campaign website. However, in an interview with WOSU Public Media, he says he is for the following:

  • Taking guns away from domestic violence offenders
  • Restricting guns for people who have an established record of serious mental health problems
  • Reinstating the assault-style weapons ban
  • Universal background checks

Moreover, in the state where the FASTER program began, he says he is against arming teachers and administrators regardless of whether they were former military or law enforcement officers. He says, “I think this is a politician’s plan quite frankly I mean it doesn’t protect people in any meaningful way it’s more than a day late and much more than a dollar short.” I guess he is ignorant of the studies that have shown the speed of response is key to saving and protecting students.

Uncategorized

ACLU Finally Stepping Up In NY And California

August 27, 2018 by

The state branches of the American Civil Liberties Union in New York and California appear to be stepping up to oppose measures aimed at the gun culture.

First, in California. The ACLU is joining with groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition to oppose AB 1968 which mandates a lifetime ban on firearm ownership by anyone who has been involuntarily admitted to a mental health facility more than once in one year.

In a letter to Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell) who is the author of the bill, they said:

“This bill stigmatizes people with a history of mental health issues, and perpetuates the harmful and false stereotype that such people are inherently violent and dangerous.”

As AWR Hawkins notes in an article in Breitbart, the bill’s approach is essentially the same as that was used to deny Social Security recipients that needed help managing their monies. That is, it didn’t differentiate between non-violent and violent behavior and lumped them all together.

Duke University psychiatrist and behavior health professor Jeffrey Swanson had an op-ed in the Washington Post at the time criticizing this lumping together. He said then, ““the vast majority of mentally ill individuals pose no threat to themselves nor to others. Yet the ban stigmatized a broad swath of the mentally ill by treating them as a threat.

Now on to New York where the ACLU filed an amicus brief supporting the NRA in their lawsuit against Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY). To me, this is the more important of the two because the ACLU’s defense of the NRA rightly points out the danger of using the administrative state against any organization that is out of favor at the time with a politician.

Reason.com describes the efforts of the Cuomo administration to deny the NRA the ability to obtain banking and insurance coverages.

A timeline prepared by the NRA suggests the intimidation campaign began last fall. The anti-gun group Everytown for Gun Safety met with New York officials in September 2017; a month later the Department of Financial Services began an investigation that started with a company called Lockton, which administered the NRA-branded personal liability insurance program known as Carry Guard. Despite a 20-year relationship, Lockton responded by abruptly ditching the NRA as a customer in February; so did Chubb and Lloyd’s.

Emboldened by this initial success, Maria Vullo, head of the state’s Department of Financial Services, sent a pair of ominous letters to all banks, financial institutions, and insurers licensed to do business in New York. Vullo warned companies to sever ties with pro-Second Amendment groups that “promote guns and lead to senseless violence” and instead heed “the voices of the passionate, courageous, and articulate young people” calling for more restrictions on firearms. All companies receiving the letter, she advised, should “review any relationships they have with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations, and to take prompt actions to managing these risks and promote public health and safety.”

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo underlined the regulatory threat in a tweet the next day: “The NRA is an extremist organization. I urge companies in New York State to revisit any ties they have to the NRA and consider their reputations, and responsibility to the public.'”

As a result of those not-very-veiled threats, the NRA says, multiple banks withdrew bids to provide basic depository services. The NRA is also worried about being able to continue producing its NRA TV channel, with hosts including Dana Loesch and Cam Edwards, unless it can obtain normal media liability insurance.

David Cole, the ACLU Legal Director, explained in a blog post why they filed their amicus brief even though they still cling to a collective right view of the Second Amendment.

In the ACLU’s view, targeting a nonprofit advocacy group and seeking to deny it financial services because it promotes a lawful activity (the use of guns) violates the First Amendment. Because we believe the governor’s actions, as alleged, threaten the First Amendment rights of all advocacy organizations, the ACLU on Friday filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the NRA’s right to have its day in court.

His blog post points out that while it may be the NRA that is targeted today, it could be a liberal group that is being targeted tomorrow for “disapproved speech” and that violates the First Amendment.

The amicus brief opposes NY’s motion to dismiss the NRA’s case. Their argument centers on two major points. First, that the court must consider all circumstances to determine whether or not Cuomo and company threatened adverse actions against the NRA’s banks and insurers. In essence, it urges the court to look beyond the “wink-wink, nudge-nudge” wording of the press releases and guidance letters and look to the substance of what was being communicated. That is, if you do business with the NRA we will consider it a reputational risk and make it hard for you to do any business in New York State.

The second argument in the amicus brief is that Cuomo and the other defendants misstated the requirements for a First Amendment claim. The ACLU says the requirements to make a First Amendment claim are rather straightforward and the NRA met the standard. However, the defendants (Cuomo and company) have tried to add some “non-existent requirements on to the test.” The brief then takes these apart one after another and finds they have no merit. They conclude that the NRA’s lawsuit should not be dismissed and that the case should go forward.

While I don’t agree with the ACLU on a lot of things and certainly not their incorrect interpretation of the Second Amendment, I do applaud their efforts in both California and New York State. It isn the latter case where I think they’ve really stepped up in their protection of constitutional rights.