Gun Control Watch

[HankB]

. . . The second would have prohibited individuals under 21 years of age from owning and possessing certain assault weapons, among others

It was just bad, no more youth shooting sports including shotgunning like trap or skeet with a semi-auto shotgun.

Did the bill have a grandfather clause if, say, an 18 year old purchased one of the firearms in question a couple of weeks ago?

[BobR]

Did the bill have a grandfather clause if, say, an 18 year old purchased one of the firearms in question a couple of weeks ago?

It was a Democrat bill, do you think they would do that? I know you had to ask but no, no grandfathering.

They did carve out a military/LEO exception'

(d)  The person who is less than 21 years of age gained possession of the firearm from a member  of the Armed  Forces  of
the  United  States,  a  reserve  component  thereof  or  the  National Guard  or  a  law  enforcement  officer  while  the  member  or  law enforcement officer was carrying out official duties.
 4.    The  provisions  of  subsection  1  do  not  apply  to  a  person who is less than 21 years of age and who:  (a)  Is  a  member  of  the  Armed  Forces  of  the  United  States,  a
reserve component thereof or the National Guard;
 (b)  Was  discharged  or  released  from  service  in  the  Armed Forces  of  the  United  States,  a  reserve  component  thereof  or  the National Guard under honorable conditions;

bob

[JTHunter]

It was a Democrat bill, do you think they would do that? I know you had to ask but no, no grandfathering.

They did carve out a military/LEO exception'


bob

That sounds like the AWB Gov. "Jabba" of IL-ANNOY signed in January.
At least one, possibly more, of the lawsuits suing the state is/are based on that "equal protection" disparity. 

[WLJ]

Say hello to the 28th Amendment

Today Governor Gavin Newsom proposed a 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to enshrine fundamental, broadly supported gun safety measures into law. While leaving the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition, the Governor’s proposal guarantees common sense constitutional protections and gun safety measures that Democrats, Republicans, independent voters, and gun owners overwhelmingly support – including universal background checks, raising the firearm purchase age to 21, instituting a firearm purchase waiting period, and barring the civilian purchase of assault weapons.

The 28th Amendment will permanently enshrine four broadly supported gun safety principles into the U.S. Constitution:

    Raising the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21;
    Mandating universal background checks to prevent truly dangerous people from purchasing a gun that could be used in a crime;
    Instituting a reasonable waiting period for all gun purchases; and
    Barring civilian purchase of assault weapons that serve no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time – weapons of war our nation’s founders never foresaw.

Love this self promotion

“A man of action, Governor Gavin Newsom has the backbone to actually do something about the gun fetish culture around weapons of war, and tackle the relentless problem of gun violence and mass shootings,” said Senator Aisha Wahab. “As someone impacted by gun violence, I have an obligation to elevate the voices of victims and those of us left behind in the wake of tragedy.”

Governor Newsom Proposes Historic 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to End America’s Gun Violence Crisis
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/06/08/28th-amendment/

Extremely unlikely this will go anywhere but it shows where they would like to take us.

[Ben]

^^^

Yeah, total showboat move. My tinfoil self tells me that haircut is prepping for a last minute entry into the dem primaries when Joe finally says that he chooses not to run. There's no other reason for haircut to be spending more time on stuff going on outside of California than in California.

While it won't go anywhere, I do wonder about the constitutional legality of an introduced new amendment basically contradicting another amendment.

[Pb]

I wouldn't be surprised if Newsome is the next President. 

Why in the world is Biden running?  And it looks like the GOP is going to be stupid enough to let Trump lose again. 

[MechAg94]

^^^

Yeah, total showboat move. My tinfoil self tells me that haircut is prepping for a last minute entry into the dem primaries when Joe finally says that he chooses not to run. There's no other reason for haircut to be spending more time on stuff going on outside of California than in California.

While it won't go anywhere, I do wonder about the constitutional legality of an introduced new amendment basically contradicting another amendment.

On the bold part, the amendments enacting and repealing prohibition are sort of done that way. 

Of course, creating monstrous and unnecessary gray areas seems to be a common political strategy so I wouldn't be surprised if the wording is not at all clear. 

[Ben]

On the bold part, the amendments enacting and repealing prohibition are sort of done that way. 

This is true. I should have specified Bill of Rights, since messing with the foundational unalienable rights is a whole different level, IMO.

[RoadKingLarry]

This is true. I should have specified Bill of Rights, since messing with the foundational unalienable rights is a whole different level, IMO.

I have no doubt that there are a big plenty on the "left", and more than a few on the "right" that would love to eliminate the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th right out of hand.
Imagine how much easier it would be to govern rule a country without those impediments.

[HankB]

I have no doubt that there are a big plenty on the "left", and more than a few on the "right" that would love to eliminate the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th right out of hand.
Imagine how much easier it would be to govern rule a country without those impediments.

Exactly. Quite a few years back I had a brief discussion with a hoplophobe who wanted the 2nd A repealed. I asked her "OK, once part of the Bill of Rights is repealed, how long do you think it will be until the rest is repealed as well?"

She really didn't like the question.

[sumpnz]

Dear Gov Newsom,

Molon labe.

Nothing but love,
Me

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.

[Ben]

Quote from: Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago

This book is highly recommended reading, especially with our currents state (of affairs).

[French G.]

I don’t listen to Newsom much but I heard his speech on this. He’s dangerous. His appearance, personality, and speech are all from Joel Osteen central casting. Except of course he doesn’t believe in a god to sell. But he could easy lead a modern army of religious zealots. The religion of course being that of their own infallibility and historical inevitability.

[sumpnz]

To pass a constitutional amendment, the way all since the bill of rights were passed, you need a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress, and ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures.  So 34 senators, or 146 representatives, or the legislatures of 13 states can deny any proposed amendments. 

In our current climate I’d wager that 45-60 senators would oppose this (most Rs, even RINOs plus some Ds that remember 1994).  Highly unlikely it would even get a simple majority in the House, let alone 2/3 majority.  They might struggle to get even 13 states to ratify.  The left coast, most of New England and mid-Atlantic, Illinois, but that’s probably it.  That coalition could stop an amendment to strengthen the 2A but can’t repeal it.

[Ben]

To pass a constitutional amendment, the way all since the bill of rights were passed, you need a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress, and ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures.  So 34 senators, or 146 representatives, or the legislatures of 13 states can deny any proposed amendments. 

In our current climate I’d wager that 45-60 senators would oppose this (most Rs, even RINOs plus some Ds that remember 1994).  Highly unlikely it would even get a simple majority in the House, let alone 2/3 majority.  They might struggle to get even 13 states to ratify.  The left coast, most of New England and mid-Atlantic, Illinois, but that’s probably it.  That coalition could stop an amendment to strengthen the 2A but can’t repeal it.

I mean, we just got to 26 states with either permitless or constitutional carry. I can't see those states flipping to antigun anytime soon.

[RoadKingLarry]

To pass a constitutional amendment, the way all since the bill of rights were passed, you need a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress, and ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures.  So 34 senators, or 146 representatives, or the legislatures of 13 states can deny any proposed amendments. 

In our current climate I’d wager that 45-60 senators would oppose this (most Rs, even RINOs plus some Ds that remember 1994).  Highly unlikely it would even get a simple majority in the House, let alone 2/3 majority.  They might struggle to get even 13 states to ratify.  The left coast, most of New England and mid-Atlantic, Illinois, but that’s probably it.  That coalition could stop an amendment to strengthen the 2A but can’t repeal it.

It doesn't matter how the vote is cast, it matters how the vote is counted.

[Pb]

We all know repealing the Second Amendment is pointless.  They will just ignore it to death, exactly like they did the 10th Amendment.  The Second Amendment is absolutely meaningless without people willing and able to vote out anti-gun politicians.

[dogmush]

.  The Second Amendment is absolutely meaningless without people willing and able to vote out anti-gun politicians.

Well......there is another way to give the 2nd Amendment meaning, and it relies less on ballot counters.

[WLJ]

Gets raided by the IRS and they take the 4473s.

Tom Van Hoose has owned Highwood Creed Outfitters in Great Falls, Montana for 13 years. As he pulled into work Wednesday morning, twenty heavily armed Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division agents swarmed his store. He tells TTAG that the IRS agents, in full battle rattle, had been mustered from as far away as Denver and Idaho to serve a warrant for his financial records.

The question then is, why would the IRS want customer transaction information? Van Hoose tells us the 4473 forms were not included on the list of financial records specifically listed on the warrant the IRS agents served him during the raid. Yet they took them anyway.

Concerned about handing over his firearm transaction records, Van Hoose told me he called Kirk Nelson, the ATF Area Supervisor in Helena, Montana with whom he said he’s always had a good working relationship. Nelson initially told him he didn’t have to turn over the 4473 forms as they don’t contain financial information and weren’t listed on the warrant. But after some further discussion with the IRS agents on the scene, Nelson changed his tune and told Van Hoose to hand them over.

The usual Could Be More To This warning applies

IRS Confiscates Tens of Thousands of 4473 Forms From Great Falls, MT Gun Dealer
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/irs-confiscates-tens-of-thousands-of-4473-forms-from-great-falls-mt-gun-dealer/

[Ben]

^^^

Regardless if there is more to the story from the "gun store guy screwed up" side, there would still be no valid reason (IANAL) for the IRS to take 4473s. Sure, if the ATF were involved due to firearms violations, he would have to give them up, but the IRS doesn't need them for IRSey stuff.

[MechAg94]

Does anyone know if the laws that say the govt can't set up a gun registry; do they specifically target the FBI and ATF?  I wouldn't think so, but I thought I would ask.  Hasn't stopped them anyway.

[MechAg94]

Progressive Judge Says Commerce Clause Overrides the Bill of Rights
https://www.ammoland.com/2023/06/progressive-judge-says-commerce-clause-overrides-the-bill-of-rights/?ct=t(RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN)

In a recent decision of The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in the case Range v Lombardo, on June 6, 2023, the en banc court ruled some felony convictions are not sufficient to restrict Second Amendment rights, based on the historical record. Eleven of 15 judges concurred with the majority opinion.

    Four judges dissented…

Judge Roth explicitly states the modern expansion of the commerce clause, to include virtually all activity that has any effect on commerce, overrides the Bill of Rights because the scope of modern commerce is far greater than commerce at the founding.

Thankfully this was a dissenting judge and one of just a few.  Some judges are nuts. 

[RocketMan]

Progressive Judge Says Commerce Clause Overrides the Bill of Rights
https://www.ammoland.com/2023/06/progressive-judge-says-commerce-clause-overrides-the-bill-of-rights/?ct=t(RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN)

Thankfully this was a dissenting judge and one of just a few.  Some judges are nuts.

Our nation has evolved beyond the need for that pesky constitution.

[Ben]

More is coming out on the Montana raid. We probably need to hear more "from the other side" info for more informed discussion, but there's some weird stuff. From Liberty Doll:

https://youtu.be/YNVOc6oWiC0

Local LE was there to provide security for 20 armed feds???
The IRS took the 4473s but took no financial documents???


EDIT: Also, an interesting comment I saw: The IRS took the 4473s for tax related reasons. Specifically for people with braced pistols who did not register them and get the tax stamp.

EDIT2: For clarity, the comment was suggesting that, not stating it.

[WLJ]