Author Topic: Second Amendment/ATF related cases (Read 6414 times)

Live Life · « **Reply #75 on:** January 08, 2025, 04:36:02 PM »

NOTE: This is a state case where Bruen methodology was applied and judge correctly applied "text, history and tradition" with burden shifting to the government - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1458590#msg1458590

Adding Ohio v Brown (OH indicted/charged but not convicted RKBA) to Range v Garland (nonviolent felon RKBA) - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1458720#msg1458720

Opinion - https://law.justia.com/cases/ohio/first-district-court-of-appeals/2025/c-240230.html

2A VICTORY: MAJOR SCOTUS DECISION LEADS TO ANOTHER BIG WIN! - Major 2A win in Ohio involving an individual indicted for possessing a firearm while under indictment for crime of which he was never convicted - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwbKQGR0Er8

Quote

0:00 Major 2A Win in Ohio State Court - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwbKQGR0Er8&t=0s
1:03 Court Sides With 2A In Major Case - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwbKQGR0Er8&t=63s
3:45 Case Background & Facts - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwbKQGR0Er8&t=225s
6:40 Great Judge Analysis & Burden Shifts To Gov't - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwbKQGR0Er8&t=400s
9:25 How This Differs From Felony Convictions - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwbKQGR0Er8&t=565s
13:50 Rahimi Was A Major Anti-Gunner Loss - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwbKQGR0Er8&t=830s
15:00 This Is A Great 2A Win! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwbKQGR0Er8&t=900s
17:07 Thank You! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwbKQGR0Er8&t=1027s

Live Life · « **Reply #76 on:** January 08, 2025, 04:50:31 PM »

Adding to update to efforts to abolish/eliminate ATF as an agency - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1460480#msg1460480

NAGR: How ONE Year Pushed the ATF Towards Extinction in 2025 - Zack Clark, Social Media manager for the National Association for Gun Rights, goes over every defeat and controversy the ATF had to juggle. Is the new barrage of public scrutiny enough to permanently downsize the ATF? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VyfKLCCARE

Quote

00:00 365 Days of ATF FLOPS - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VyfKLCCARE&t=0s
00:27 UPDATE: ATF Director QUITS - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VyfKLCCARE&t=27s
00:40 Help us DISMANTLE the ATF - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VyfKLCCARE&t=40s
00:57 The ATF Illegally used Millions of Taxpayer Money - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VyfKLCCARE&t=57s
01:28 The Tragic Little Rock Raid - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VyfKLCCARE&t=88s
02:28 ATF Kicks Us Off Their Property - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VyfKLCCARE&t=148s
02:40 The Interrogation of the ATF - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VyfKLCCARE&t=160s
03:29 Embarrassed on National News - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VyfKLCCARE&t=209s
04:11 The ATF's Judicial Losing Streak - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VyfKLCCARE&t=251s
05:56 The ATF Bragged About Disarming You - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VyfKLCCARE&t=356s
06:21 The Raid of Mark Manley - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VyfKLCCARE&t=381s
07:19 The ATF is Vulnerable - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VyfKLCCARE&t=439s

Live Life · « **Reply #77 on:** January 08, 2025, 05:03:47 PM »

Antis' heads are really going to explode in 2025.

Adding to Pro-2A organizations efforts and accomplishments - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1459450#msg1459450

Undoing DECADES of Gun Control - Where do we even start? President of NAGR, Dudley Brown, gives a breakdown on our strategy to use this upcoming Trump administration to RESTORE our Gun Rights and rewind DECADES of Gun Control - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T630llM3WSU

Quote

00:00 Now is our Chance - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T630llM3WSU&t=0s
00:13 Help Us Fight! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T630llM3WSU&t=13s
00:23 National Constitutional Carry - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T630llM3WSU&t=23s
00:47 Deregulate Suppressors - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T630llM3WSU&t=47s
01:16 ABOLISH The ATF! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T630llM3WSU&t=76s
02:03 Overturn Biden's Gun Control - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T630llM3WSU&t=123s
02:31 Repeal ATF's "Engaged In Business" Rule - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T630llM3WSU&t=151s
02:48 FRTs, Pistola Braces, and Homemade Firearms - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T630llM3WSU&t=168s
03:07 Eliminate Biden's Office of Gun Control - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T630llM3WSU&t=187s
03:28 Instruct DOJ to Uphold 2A - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T630llM3WSU&t=208s
03:48 End Red Flag Gun Confiscation Funding - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T630llM3WSU&t=228s
04:24 Hold Federal Agents Accountable - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T630llM3WSU&t=264s
04:34 End the ATF's Illegal Gun Registries - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T630llM3WSU&t=274s
05:20 Dismantle ATFs Purchase Reporting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T630llM3WSU&t=320s
05:40 Shrink the NICS "Prohibited Persons" List - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T630llM3WSU&t=340s
06:25 Repeal "Sporting Purpose Clause" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T630llM3WSU&t=385s
07:00 Repeal "The Federal Gun Tax" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T630llM3WSU&t=420s
07:39 DESTROY The NFA! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T630llM3WSU&t=459s
08:16 Join THE FIGHT! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T630llM3WSU&t=496s

Live Life · « **Reply #78 on:** January 08, 2025, 05:34:15 PM »

Adding to update of Gray v Jennings (DE AW/magazine ban), Snope v Brown (MD AW ban) and Ocean State Tactical v Rhode Island (RI magazine ban) - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1460337#msg1460337

SUPREME COURT DISTRIBUTES TWO SAF CASES FOR CONFERENCE - https://www.saf.org/supreme-court-distributes-two-saf-cases-for-conference/

Quote

The U.S. Supreme Court has distributed two Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) cases for conference on Friday, Jan. 10.

The two cases – Snope v. Brown and Gray v. Jennings – challenge “assault weapons” bans in Maryland and “assault weapons” and magazine capacity bans in Delaware.

In Snope, SAF is challenging Maryland’s ban on “assault weapons” and is joined in the case by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and private citizen, David Snope.

SAF sought cert after the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled en banc that the modern semiautomatic rifles banned by Maryland fall outside the protection of the Second Amendment because they are too similar to military arms. SAF and its partners contend this reasoning “is becoming a commonplace misapplication” of Supreme Court precedents established by the 2008 Heller ruling, 2010 McDonald decision and 2022 Bruen decision.

“Snope provides the Supreme Court with an excellent vehicle to correct the widespread misapplication of the Court’s precedent regarding these firearms and the Second Amendment, itself,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The case is on appeal from final judgment with an en banc decision of a circuit court. Moreover, the specific type of firearm in question is commonly owned across the country, placing it well within the scope and protection of the Second Amendment. By granting cert in Snope, the high court can help settle the matter once and for all.”

For Gray, SAF and its partners are challenging gun and magazine bans in Delaware and petitioned SCOTUS to rule whether an infringement of Second Amendment rights constitutes per se irreparable injury in the context of a preliminary injunction. Joining SAF in this case is FPC, DJJAMS LLC and two citizens, William Taylor and Gabriel Gray.

Noting in their petition that the high court has previously ruled that “the loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury,” SAF and its partners asked the court to determine whether the same standard applies to the Second Amendment. Currently, there exists a circuit split on the issue.

“Any infringements on one right should merit the same degree of scorn as infringements against another right since all are protected equally by the Constitution,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The Second Amendment should not become a second-class right just because there are those who don’t agree with it.”

Live Life · « **Reply #79 on:** January 08, 2025, 06:17:32 PM »

Adding US v Daniels (Drug user RKBA) to Rahimi/Range (Violent/nonviolent felon RKBA) and Ohio v Brown (OH indicted/charged but not convicted RKBA) - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1460526#msg1460526

5th Circuit rules federal ban on gun possession by drug user is unconstitutional - https://reason.com/volokh/2025/01/08/5th-cir-says-more-on-when-federal-ban-on-gun-possession-by-drug-users-is-unconstitutional/

Ruling - https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-60596-CV1.pdf

Quote

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
______________________________

ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Before Smith, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Jerry E. Smith, Circuit Judge:

Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) bars an individual from possessing a firearm if he is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance. A jury found that Patrick Daniels, Jr., was such an unlawful user, and a judge sentenced him to nearly four years in prison. But the jury did not necessarily find that Daniels was intoxicated at the time of his arrest, nor did it identify the last time Daniels used an unlawful substance.

So we reversed the conviction and held that § 922(g)(3), as applied to him, was inconsistent with the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated, and remanded for reconsideration in light of United States v. Rahimi.

After Rahimi, this circuit heard a similar challenge to a prosecution brought under § 922(g)(3). In that case, United States v. Connelly, we held that the government could not constitutionally apply § 922(g)(3) to a defendant based solely on her “habitual or occasional drug use.”

That case controls this one. Because the jury did not necessarily find that Daniels was presently or even recently engaged in unlawful drug use, we reverse his conviction again and remand.

... Second Amendment ... We look to our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation to help discern the boundaries of the right, asking whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition. (Bruen) To do this, we must “ascertain whether the new law is ‘relevantly similar’ to laws that our tradition is understood to permit, ‘apply[ing] faithfully the balance struck by the founding generation to modern circumstances.’” (Bruen) ... “Why and how the regulation burdens the right are central to this inquiry.” (Connelly) < Page 5 >

... Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit caselaw thus prescribes a two-step process for Second Amendment challenges. We first ask whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct. If it does, we then ask whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition. The government bears the burden to demonstrate that the challenged law is “relevantly similar” to laws our tradition is understood to permit, and the government meets its burden by finding and explicating “historical precursors” supporting the challenged law’s constitutionality. (Bruen) < Page 6 >

... Second, § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional where it seeks to disarm an individual solely “based on habitual or occasional drug use.” This panel is bound to follow Connelly under the rule of orderliness, so we must once again find § 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied to Daniels unless the government can show that Daniels was disarmed for reasons above and beyond habitual or occasional marihuana use. < Page 10 >

... The jury was instructed that, to find that Daniels was an “unlawful user,” it need not find “that he used the controlled substance at the precise time he possessed the firearm” because “Such use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before.”
Instead, the jury was instructed that it need only find “that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct.”

This language dooms Daniels’s conviction. The jury did not necessarily find that Daniels had even used marihuana “within a matter of ... weeks before” his arrest, but only that his use “occurred recently enough” to indicate Daniels was “actively engaged” in unlawful use.

... In other words, the government’s burden of proof was too low, as it was not required to convince a jury that Daniels was presently or even regularly intoxicated at the time of arrest. < Page 11 >

... Analogies to historical laws disarming the mentally ill or the intoxicated will likely find stronger footing if the government can establish a connection between the defendant’s active or regular drug use and violent or dangerous conduct ... The government has not pointed to sufficiently analogous historical laws to establish why Daniels himself should be considered presumptively dangerous. < Pages 13-14 >

... Daniels’s § 922(g)(3) conviction is inconsistent with our “history and tradition” of gun regulation. (Bruen) We do not invalidate the statute in all its applications, nor do we decide that § 922(g)(3) could never cover the conduct of which Daniels stands accused. But applications of § 922(g)(3) must accord with our nation’s history of firearm regulations, and disarming individuals solely for their prior, occasional, or habitual marihuana use does not.

The judgment of conviction is REVERSED and REMANDED.

Live Life · « **Reply #80 on:** January 08, 2025, 06:34:26 PM »

Quote from: Live Life on December 31, 2024, 04:54:44 PM

NOTE: This is work in progress ... I will work on further consolidation so related cases can be accessed through all the related links

Live Life · « **Reply #81 on:** January 09, 2025, 08:08:42 AM »

Update to National carry reciprocity - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1459412#msg1459412

Rep. Richard Hudson Leads Colleagues in Introducing Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act - https://hudson.house.gov/press-releases/rep-richard-hudson-leads-colleagues-in-introducing-constitutional-concealed-carry

Full text of bill - https://files.constantcontact.com/3b67df90801/756b24fd-c7be-4d21-8ec3-eb8305aa2d42.pdf?rdr=true

Quote

January 8, 2025
WASHINGTON, D.C. – After being sworn into the 119th Congress, U.S. Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC) led over 120 of his colleagues in introducing H.R. 38, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. This bipartisan legislation would provide nationwide reciprocity for concealed carry license holders and for residents of Constitutional Carry states.

"Our Second Amendment right does not disappear when we cross invisible state lines, and this commonsense legislation guarantees that," said Rep. Hudson."The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act will protect law-abiding citizens' rights to conceal carry and travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or onerous civil suits. I am proud to see such strong and widespread support, and I will not stop fighting to get this legislation signed into law."

H.R. 38 allows people with state-issued concealed carry licenses or permits to conceal a handgun in any other state. It also allows residents of Constitutional Carry states to carry in other states.

Read an exclusive story in Fox News here - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-gop-mounts-trump-backed-push-expand-concealed-carry-permits-millions-americans

Rep. Hudson has introduced the bipartisan Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act in previous years. In December 2017, the bill was passed by the House with bipartisan support, yet it was not taken up in the Senate. Rep. Hudson has repeatedly said he would continue to pursue the legislation. Additionally, President Donald Trump has committed to signing national concealed carry reciprocity legislation into law.

H.R. 38 is supported by major pro-Second Amendment organizations, including the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), Gun Owners of America (GOA), the U.S. Concealed Carry Association (USCCA), and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).

“The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed an individual’s fundamental right to keep and bear arms,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of NRA-ILA. "Congress should now ensure that the right to self-defense does not end at a state line. NRA applauds and thanks Rep. Hudson for his longstanding and unwavering leadership in the fight for right-to-carry reciprocity.”

“Congress has the opportunity to deliver the greatest legislative victory for the gun rights movement in a century, and President Trump has already voiced his support,” said Aidan Johnston, GOA Director of Federal Affairs.“With all 50 states now issuing concealed carry permits, 49 states allowing nonresident carry, and 29 states with permitless or Constitutional Carry, it is simply common sense for Congress to ensure that each state’s concealed carry license is valid in every other state. We thank President Trump for his leadership on this issue and urge Congress to swiftly send Rep. Hudson’s Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act to the President’s desk to be signed.”

“On behalf of the USCCA’s more than 850,000 members nationwide, we applaud Congressman Hudson's continued leadership in defending the rights of responsibly-armed Americans," said Tim Schmidt, President and Co-Founder of USCCA. "Our Constitutional rights do not end at state lines. This legislation is critical to ensuring law-abiding gun owners' fundamental right to defend themselves and their loved ones regardless of geography or location. The USCCA remains committed to seeing H.R. 38, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, one of the most consequential reforms for gun owners nationwide, signed into law.”

“This legislation eliminates the confusing patchwork of laws surrounding concealed carry permits that vary from state-to-state, particularly with regard to states where laws make unwitting criminals out of legal permit holders for a simple mistake of a wrong traffic turn,” said Lawrence Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel.“It safeguards a state’s right to determine their own laws while protecting the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. We thank Rep. Hudson for his leadership on behalf of America’s hunters and recreational shooters.”

Live Life · « **Reply #82 on:** January 09, 2025, 07:35:37 PM »

Adding to update of Snope v Brown (MD AW ban) - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1460532#msg1460532

SCOTUS TO CONFER FRIDAY ON CCRKBA CHALLENGE OF MARYLAND BAN - https://ccrkba.org/2025/01/08/scotus-to-confer-friday-on-ccrkba-challenge-of-maryland-ban/

Quote

BELLEVUE, WA – The Supreme Court of the United States has distributed the case of Snope v. Brown, which was brought by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms against Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” for a Friday, Jan. 10 conference.

CCRKBA is joined by the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition in this long-running case, which was already granted certiorari in June 2022, when the high court vacated an appeals court ruling and remanded it back to the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court for further action based on guidelines established that month by the Court in its landmark New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision. Now that the Fourth Circuit has stubbornly clung to its original, and fundamentally erroneous decision supporting the Maryland ban, CCRKBA and its allies have once again petitioned the Supreme Court for review.

“We’re definitely hopeful the high court agrees to take this case again and schedules oral arguments soon,” said CCRKBA Managing Director Andrew Gottlieb. “An affirmative ruling by the Court which settles the question whether modern semiautomatic rifles are protected by the Second Amendment will have a far-reaching impact across the country. A decision that removes any doubt about the right of the people to keep and bear modern rifles is long overdue.

“Frankly,” Gottlieb added, “considering the emphasis anti-gunners place on the reference to the militia within the Second Amendment, it would clearly protect such firearms. The gun ban lobby obviously didn’t think their argument through very far. ”

An affirmative Second Amendment ruling would immediately have a direct impact on similar gun bans in California, Washington, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Delaware and any other state where modern sport-utility rifles are prohibited.

“The national implications of a Supreme Court ruling on Maryland’s ban cannot be over-stated,” Gottlieb observed. “Modern semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15 are the most popular rifles in America today. They are used for hunting, predator control, competition, recreational shooting, home and personal protection. With millions of these firearms in common use, it would be inconcievable to think they are not protected by the Second Amendment, which does not specify the types of arms it protects, but only says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It’s time for the court to put teeth in that phrase, and back it up with the full force of law.”

Live Life · « **Reply #83 on:** January 09, 2025, 07:41:28 PM »

Adding to update of National carry reciprocity - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1460571#msg1460571

CCRKBA SUPPORTS NATIONAL CONCEALED CARRY LEGISLATION - https://ccrkba.org/2025/01/09/ccrkba-supports-national-concealed-carry-legislation/

Quote

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is throwing its support behind national concealed carry reciprocity legislation introduced this week by Congressman Richard Hudson (R-NC), chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

President-elect Donald J. Trump, who will be inaugurated Jan. 20, has already promised to sign a reciprocity bill if it reaches his desk.

“The time is long past due for this nation to enter the 21st Century by recognizing the right to bear arms doesn’t stop at state borders,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “This is, and always has been, a core issue for the Citizens Committee and we will encourage all of our members and supporters to tell Congress it is time to make reciprocity the law of the land.

“The way was paved for national reciprocity with the Supreme Court’s landmark 2010 ruling in the McDonald case, which incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment,” he observed. “It is simply a matter of common sense that all states should automatically and unflinchingly honor carry permits and licenses issued by every other state. After all, the bearing of arms for self-defense is a constitutionally-protected right, and it’s time for states such as California, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and a few other states, along with the District of Columbia, to recognize that.”

An earlier reciprocity measure passed the House in 2017, but was never considered by the Senate.

“Passage of a national reciprocity bill will go far in the effort to fully restore the Second Amendment to its rightful place in the Bill of Rights following years of erosion,” Gottlieb stated. “When we became a nation, the right to keep and bear arms traveled with all Americans as they moved from state to state, across territories and the vast wilderness which became the United States. The right was honored and respected from sea to shining sea, and it should be the same today.”

Live Life · « **Reply #84 on:** January 10, 2025, 11:40:15 AM »

Adding to update of National carry reciprocity - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1460645#msg1460645

GOA-Backed Concealed Carry Reciprocity Introduced in House and Senate - https://www.gunowners.org/goa-backed-concealed-carry-reciprocity-introduced-in-house-and-senate/

Quote

January 9, 2025 – GOA-backed legislation was introduced in both chambers of Congress that would grant national reciprocity to concealed carry permit holders and to residents of Constitutional Carry states who cross state lines. This policy would gut the ability of anti-gun states to restrict residents and non-residents alike from carrying firearms for their personal defense. The GOA-backed bills H.R. 38 and S. 65 were filed by Congressman Richard Hudson of North Carolina and Senator John Cornyn of Texas respectively.

Aidan Johnston, GOA’s Director of Federal Affairs, issued the following statement:

“Congress has the opportunity to deliver the greatest legislative victory for the gun rights movement in a century, and President Trump has already voiced his support. With all 50 states now issuing concealed carry permits, 49 states allowing nonresident carry, and 29 states with permitless or Constitutional Carry, it is simply common sense for Congress to ensure that each state’s concealed carry license is valid in every other state.

“We thank President Trump for his leadership on this issue and urge Congress to swiftly send Sen. Cornyn’s and Rep. Hudson’s Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act to the President’s desk to be signed.”

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, added:

“GOA has been fighting anti-gun states in the courts for years on this issue. In New York, we recently teamed up with Newsmax’s Carl Higbie to sue the state over its blanket ban on issuing permits to non-residents, and we were recently part of a lawsuit to force California to issue concealed carry permits to non-California residents as well.

“While GOA has so far been successful in moving the needle on the availability of out-of-state permits, many Americans still face daunting hurdles, and national reciprocity can drastically simplify everything. No longer would anti-gun jurisdictions like Hawaii be able to use archaic and discriminatory bans to bar non-residents from carrying. We urge Congress to quickly pass this Second Amendment-affirming legislation.”

Live Life · « **Reply #85 on:** January 10, 2025, 11:50:37 AM »

Update to National carry reciprocity - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1460731#msg1460731

Cornyn, Cruz, Grassley, Tillis, Senate GOP Introduce Concealed-Carry Reciprocity Bill - https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/news/cornyn-cruz-grassley-tillis-senate-gop-introduce-concealed-carry-reciprocity-bill/

Quote

January 9, 2025
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-TX), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), along with 40 of their Senate GOP colleagues, today introduced the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which would allow individuals with concealed carry privileges in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state that allows concealed carry, while still abiding by that state’s laws:

“The Lone Star State has long championed our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and gun owners in Texas and across the country should not have that fundamental right violated when they cross state lines,” said Sen. Cornyn. “This legislation would reduce unnecessary burdens for law-abiding citizens and allow them to carry a concealed firearm in every state that permits it, and I’m grateful for the overwhelming support from my fellow Republican colleagues on this commonsense bill.”

“The rights protected in the Second Amendment are foundational to a free society and the preservation of individual liberty,” said Sen. Cruz. “I am proud to cosponsor this bill, which champions the rights of law-abiding gun owners and ensures those rights are protected.”

“Responsible gun owners shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to exercise their constitutional right when visiting other concealed carry states. This bill would reduce confusion and legal inconsistencies for law-abiding Americans, while also respecting states’ rights to set their own laws,” said Sen. Grassley. “I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this commonsense law.”

“As a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, I’m proud to introduce the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act,” said Sen. Tillis. “This commonsense legislation ensures that law-abiding citizens can exercise their constitutional right to carry concealed firearms across state lines while respecting the laws of each state. This legislation is a critical step in protecting the right of self-defense for Americans, no matter where they travel.”

The legislation is also cosponsored by Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and Senators Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Mike Lee (R-UT), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Jim Risch (R-ID), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Roger Marshall (R-KS), Rick Scott (R-FL), James Lankford (R-OK), Katie Britt (R-AL), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Ted Budd (R-NC), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Tim Sheehy (R-MT), John Kennedy (R-LA), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Steve Daines (R-MT), Eric Schmitt (R-MO), Todd Young (R-IN), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), John Barrasso (R-WY), Jim Banks (R-IN), Tim Scott (R-SC), Bernie Moreno (R-OH), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Mike Rounds (R-SD), John Curtis (R-UT), John Boozman (R-AR), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Roger Wicker (R-MS), John Hoeven (R-ND), Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), and Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV).

This legislation is endorsed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), and Gun Owners of America (GOA):

“On behalf of the millions of NRA members and law-abiding gun owners across the country, the National Rifle Association thanks Senator Cornyn for re-introducing the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act,” said Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action John Commerford. “This common-sense solution remedies a confusing patchwork of state laws and ensures that your right to self-defense does not stop at the state line.”

“This is common sense legislation that solves the problem of the confusing patchwork of laws surrounding concealed carry permits, particularly with regard to states where laws make unwitting criminals out of legal permit holders for a simple mistake of a wrong traffic turn,” said NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane.“This legislation safeguards a state’s right to determine their own laws while protecting the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. NSSF thanks Senator Cornyn for his principled leadership to protect Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners who seek to protect themselves and their loved ones as they travel across state lines.”

“Congress has the opportunity to deliver the greatest legislative victory for the gun rights movement in a century, and President Trump has already voiced his support. With all 50 states now issuing concealed carry permits, 49 states allowing nonresident carry, and 29 states with permitless or Constitutional Carry, it is simply common sense for Congress to ensure that each state’s concealed carry license is valid in every other state,” said GOA Director of Federal Affairs Aidan Johnston. “We thank President Trump for his leadership on this issue and urge Congress to swiftly send Sen. Cornyn’s Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act to the President’s desk to be signed.”

Background on the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act:

- Allows individuals with concealed carry privileges in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state with concealed carry laws;
- Treats state-issued concealed carry permits like drivers’ licenses where an individual can use their home-state license to drive in another state, but must abide by that other state’s speed limit or road laws;
- And protects state sovereignty by not establishing a national standard for concealed carry.

Mk-211 · « **Reply #86 on:** January 10, 2025, 01:07:07 PM »

Any word from SCOTUS yet, on today's issues?

Live Life · « **Reply #87 on:** January 10, 2025, 02:18:55 PM »

Quote from: Mk-211 on January 10, 2025, 01:07:07 PM

Any word from SCOTUS yet, on today's issues?

Nothing yet regarding 2A cases.

Mark Smith, former Trump media surrogate/transition team/2A scholar will be on Fox News to discuss SCOTUS updates tomorrow and maybe we may have something by then - https://x.com/fourboxesdiner/status/1877792647001088300

SCOTUS NEWS: FOUR 2A CASES IN FRONT OF SCOTUS TODAY... US Supreme Court addresses four Second Amendment cases today in conference and Stephen Halbrook makes the case of what they should do - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VPyH0R9KY8

Quote

0:00 SCOTUS To Conference 4 Major 2A Cases - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VPyH0R9KY8&t=0s
2:35 Long Guns Good, Hand Guns Bad - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VPyH0R9KY8&t=155s
5:20 They Just Want To Ban ALL Guns - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VPyH0R9KY8&t=320s
7:44 How Heller Changed All This & Heller 2 Case - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VPyH0R9KY8&t=464s
10:35 Importance of Kavanaugh's Dissent - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VPyH0R9KY8&t=635s
11:50 Why There Are No Circuit Splits & Ocean State Tactical - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VPyH0R9KY8&t=710s
15:45 Thank You! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VPyH0R9KY8&t=945s

RocketMan · « **Reply #88 on:** January 10, 2025, 03:23:54 PM »

I predict a lot of folks will find themselves in hot water when they carry to another state with crappy, convoluted and restrictive conceal carry laws.

Live Life · « **Reply #89 on:** January 10, 2025, 03:26:56 PM »

There are some people who apparently don't prefer a boring life either by intent or ...

And just like that, 2025 become very interesting.

More to come

Live Life · « **Reply #90 on:** January 10, 2025, 06:59:14 PM »

Quote from: Live Life on January 10, 2025, 02:18:55 PM

Quote from: Mk-211 on January 10, 2025, 01:07:07 PM
Any word from SCOTUS yet, on today's issues?
Nothing yet regarding 2A cases.

Here's Mark Smith's update - https://x.com/fourboxesdiner/status/1877828251487461715

Quote

2A SCOTUS AR-15 BAN UPDATE. It is now past 4pm Eastern time and no order list has come out from SCOTUS. I am not surprised given the justices spent the morning in the Tik Tok oral argument.

We should expect some news about Snope, Ocean State Tactical and other 2A cases around 9:30am Eastern time on Monday.

Mk-211 · « **Reply #91 on:** January 10, 2025, 07:14:03 PM »

armoredman · « **Reply #92 on:** January 10, 2025, 08:40:58 PM »

Dagnabbit

Live Life · « **Reply #93 on:** January 10, 2025, 09:14:49 PM »

Update to AW/magazine ban - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1460644#msg1460644

Did anti-gunner handmaidens of Colorado legislature just give a gift to the Second Amendment movement?

Quote

"Never Interrupt Your Enemy When They Are Making a Mistake - Napoleon Bonaparte"

Everytown ... Colorado already has a ban on high-capacity magazines ... someone can easily just go buy a magazine in a neighboring state ... legislation to ... ban the purchase and sale of military style firearms that accept detachable high capacity magazines would close this loophole and save lives ...

It's very interesting what Everytown said that the right to buy semi-automatic rifles is a loophole to a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds ... they want to go to the extreme measure of banning these semi-automatic firearms that are capable of taking or attaching detachable magazines or accepting these detachable magazines ...

Good news is people have taken notice of this and I suspect the Supreme Court is going to take notice of this when they conference this case and they probably have already done so ... What will SCOTUS do?

ANTI-GUNNERS TRYING TO BAN ALL SEMI-AUTOS... Colorado wants to ban all semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines but will this backfire on the anti-gun movement? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGPGIQuL1uc

Quote

0:00 Major Breaking News! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGPGIQuL1uc&t=0s
1:02 Never Interrupt Your Enemy When They Are Making a Mistake... - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGPGIQuL1uc&t=62s
2:23 Why This Matters... - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGPGIQuL1uc&t=143s
4:18 Everytown on Colorado Magazine Laws - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGPGIQuL1uc&t=258s
6:10 Halbrook Responds - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGPGIQuL1uc&t=370s
8:05 What Will SCOTUS Do? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGPGIQuL1uc&t=485s

Live Life · « **Reply #94 on:** January 11, 2025, 06:25:03 AM »

Update to ATF - Pistol Brace - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1458265#msg1458265

Erich Pratt, Senior VP of GOA sends demand letter to ATF with response date of 1/14/25 regarding ATF's disregard for court injunctions granted against ATF - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/atf-pistol-brace-rule-lawsuits.920838/post-12667777

Rogue ATF Bureaucrat Ignores Injunction on Pistol Brace Rule - https://www.ammoland.com/2025/01/atf-disregards-court-order-enforcing-the-pistol-brace-rule/

Quote

January 9, 2025
via e-mail to megan.bennett@atf.gov

Megan Bennett
Assistant Director, Office of Enforcement Programs and Services
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
99 New York Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20226

Re: Recent FIPB Pistol Brace Guidance to Gun Owners of America Member Violates Southern District of Texas Court Order

Dear Ms. Bennett:

My name is Erich Pratt. I am the Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, Inc. (“GOA”) and the Senior Vice President of Gun Owners Foundation (“GOF”). GOA and GOF are nonprofit corporations dedicated, inter alia, to preserving and defending the Second Amendment rights of gun owners.

GOA and GOF together have more than two million members and supporters nationwide. As you know, ATF issued a Final Rule in early 2023 entitled “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” 88 Fed. Reg. 6478 (the “Rule”), which purported to “clarify” when a pistol equipped with a stabilizing brace is in fact a short-barreled rifle (“SBR”) subject to taxation, registration, and attendant criminal penalties under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), 26 U.S.C. § 5801et seq.

This Rule was slated to affect millions of commonly owned firearms, claiming them to be unregistered SBRs possessed in violation of the NFA. Yet the Rule offered no clear guidance as to when ATF would consider a braced pistol to be an unregistered SBR. Instead, the Rule merely referenced a stabilizing brace’s “surface area” and then identified six “factors” ATF would consider, behind closed doors, in making individual determinations. Even so, the Rule emphasized that it only “serve[d] to clarify that certain weapons equipped with ‘stabilizing braces’ are short- barreled rifles regulated under the NFA,” 88 Fed. Reg. at 6554 (emphasis added), not that every weapon equipped with a stabilizing brace would be an SBR.

GOA and GOF sued ATF in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to enjoin the Rule, explaining that the Rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Second Amendment, among other provisions of law.1 On October 27, 2023, the Southern District of Texas preliminarily enjoined the Rule as to the individual “Plaintiff[] … and his resident family members, as well as GOA’s current members and their resident family members. ”Texas v. BATFE , 700 F.Supp. 3d 556, 573 (S.D. Tex. 2023) (emphasis added). This injunction remains in effect during the pendency of ATF’s appeal to the Fifth Circuit. Other district courts have similarly enjoined or vacated the Rule, and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have rejected the Rule as well. See, e.g., Watterson v. BATFE , 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183109 (E.D. Tex. June 7, 2023); Britto v. BATFE , 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200933 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2023);Colon v. BATFE , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13966 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2024); Mock v. Garland , 2024 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 105230 (N.D. Tex. June 13, 2024); see also Mock v. Garland , 75 F.4th 563 (5th Cir.2023); Firearms Regul. Accountability Coal., Inc. v. Garland (“ FRAC ”), 112 F.4th 507 (8th Cir.2024).

One would think that ATF, a federal law enforcement agency, would abide by the district court’s injunction not to enforce the Rule, not to mention the similar injunctions (and one vacatur) entered by other federal courts. Unfortunately, one would be wrong.

On December 12, 2024, a member of Gun Owners of America received a response to a question posed to ATF, signed not by any identifiable ATF official, but rather generically “FIPB,” standing for ATF’s Firearms Industry Programs Branch (attached with personal information redacted). In this December 12, 2024 email, FIPB adopted a legal position about pistol braces that is (i) at odds with the opinions of various courts to have considered the Rule, (ii) likely in violation of various injunctions against ATF’s enforcement of the Rule, and (iii) in conflict with the statute and even the Final Rule itself.

Specifically, our member reported having “recently purchased a CZ Scorpion Mini+ pistol, and … considering installing a pistol brace.” However, “hav[ing] encountered conflicting information regarding whether this modification would require the firearm to be registered as an SBR,” the member asked for “clarification on the applicable regulations.”

In its response to that request, FIPB responded with the position that “[f]ederal law requires a pistol with an attached stabilizing brace or stock be registered as a short barreled rifle....”FIPB’s email contains no qualification of that broad statement. In fact, ATF has no idea what sort of brace this GOA member planned to install on the pistol. In other words, FIPB advised this GOA member that if a pistol is equipped with a stabilizing brace, then it is an SBR as a categorical matter – irrespective of multiple courts’ orders that ATF not enforce that reasoning, and even despite the Rule’s factorial test and ATF’s assurance that only “certain weapons equipped with‘stabilizing braces’” would be SBRs under that test. 88 Fed. Reg. at 6554 (emphasis added).

FIPB continued. Despite acknowledging an injunction issued by the Northern District of Texas against the Rule, FIPB then posited that, irrespective of injunctions against enforcement of the Rule, “ATF remains responsible for enforcement of statutory provisions … under the NFA,” opining that ATF may enforce its new view of the law, the Rule and orders enjoining it notwithstanding.

In other words, it would thus seem that FIPB now considers all braced pistols to be SBRs – an alarming change in position which was not announced publicly, or in any representation to any court, but rather in a private communication to one GOA member. Of course, FIPB’s entirely new position goes much further than even the highly contested Final Rule, which opined that nearly every – but not every – pistol with a stabilizing brace would be an SBR. See Mock , 2024 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 105230, at *11-12 (“Under the Final Rule, the ATF estimated about 99% of pistols with stabilizing braces would be reclassified as NFA rifles.”); FRAC , 112 F.4th at 521 (“By the ATF’s own estimation, 99% of braced weapons are ‘rifles’ under the NFA and GCA, not just a simple ‘majority.’”). But as noted, both the Eighth Circuit and the Fifth Circuit have flatly rejected this result. See FRAC, 112 F.4th 507; Mock , 75 F.4th at 585.

And in addition to being even more expansive than the Rule itself, FIPB’s new position likely violates the Southern District of Texas’s order that ATF’s expansion of NFA liability not extend to members of GOA.

Ignoring the district court’s order in our case, FIPB’s email adopts the cutesy theory that, even though ATF has been enjoined from enforcing the Rule, it may still enforce its interpretation of the statute – which not coincidentally just so happens to be identical to (if not worse than) the interpretation laid out in the Rule.See attachment (“ATF is complying with the Court’s order,” but “[t]he District Court’s order does not prohibit enforcement of the [NFA] or [GCA],” only“action in reliance on the Final Rule....”).

Not only is this spurious theory too cute by half, but also it likely violates the orders of the numerous courts who have expressly stated that ATF may not enforce the legal theories advanced in the Rule. For ATF to claim to enforce those same theories under the statute but not under the Rule is a distinction without a difference, and one that demonstrates FIPB’s contempt for these federal courts and the rule of law.

Even worse than FIPB’s purported blanket ban on pistols with stabilizing braces, during litigation over the Rule, ATF previously asserted without explanation that the specific firearm at issue here – a CZ Scorpion Mini with a stabilizing brace attached – was an SBR,2 but had that conclusion rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See FRAC , 112 F.4th at 525 (“the ATF judged the pictured weapons to be short-barreled rifles,” but “the Slideshows … are devoid of any explanation as to how the ATF applied the Final Rule to the pictured weapons,” and indeed, the brace Rule “allows the ATF to arrive at whatever conclusion it wishes without “adequately explain[ing] the standard on which its decision is based.”); see also id. at 524 (the Final Rule makes it “‘nigh impossible for a regular citizen to determine what constitutes a braced pistol, and … whether a specified braced pistol requires NFA registration.’”).3

In other words, ATF’s theory – specifically applied to the CZ Scorpion pistol at issue here – was rejected as applied to a firearm equipped with an PDW stabilizing brace. And yet FIPB’s email takes the position that the very same firearm – when equipped with any stabilizing brace – is a short-barreled rifle. The audacity of that claim – which directly conflicts with decisions of two federal courts – cannot be understated.

What is more, as GOA explained to the court in its pistol brace case, numerous prior ATF classification letters “have determined that a stabilizing brace, when added generally to any pistol, does not turn the firearm into a short-barreled rifle under the NFA.” GOA Complaint, supra note 1, ¶76.4 And, although the Final Rule “Final Rule” purported to “rescind[] all [of these] previous braced-weapon classifications, declaring them ‘no longer valid,’”5 that rescission was enjoined,and then later vacated. Mock v. Garland , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105230, *19 (N.D. Tx. June 13,2024).

This means that ATF’s prior “braced-weapon classifications” are back in effect, never having been lawfully rescinded. This includes ATF’s repeated determination that certain braces can be placed on any pistol without running afoul of the NFA. And again, one of those classification letters involved a brace used on the CZ Scorpion, the very firearm about which our member inquired. GOA Complaint ¶67. FIBP’s email to our member does not purport to re-rescind ATF’s prior classification letter approving the use of a brace on such pistol.

We are not aware that ATF has promulgated any subsequent rule making where it is now possible “for a regular citizen to determine what constitutes a braced pistol” ( FRAC , 112 F.4th at524) versus a short-barreled rifle. Nor are we aware of any new ATF classification letter as pertaining to stabilizing braces vis-à-vis the CZ Scorpion Mini.

Thus, FIPB is doing precisely what it is enjoined from doing – making ad hoc determinations, in secret, based on vague and unpublished criteria that no ordinary person could hope to understand. Of course, “[a] designation by an unnamed official, using unspecified criteria, that is put in a desk drawer, taken out only for use at a criminal trial, and immune from any evaluation by the judiciary, is the sort of tactic usually associated with totalitarian regimes. ”United States v. Pulungan, 569 F.3d 326, 328 (7th Cir. 2009).

A final point bears emphasis. It is difficult to imagine FIPB’s novel interpretation of the NFA, and unprecedented attempt to circumvent the orders of several federal district courts, surviving the imminent turnover in presidential administrations, and forthcoming confirmation of a new ATF Director. To the contrary, lawless actions like these stand out like a sore thumb for those, like GOA, who seek to stamp out government weaponization and corruption wherever it exists.

GOA previously submitted its concerns via an email sent to Acting Chief Matthew Shear and Chief William Ryan this Monday, January 6, 2025, outlining GOA’s concerns with FIPB’s interpretation. We requested an answer by close of business yesterday, Wednesday, January 8, 2025. No response was received, and thus it appears that both Chief Ryan and Acting Chief Shear stand behind the unlawful position in the December 12, 2025 email to our member. Thus, we are now elevating our concerns to you.

Accordingly, we demand your immediate clarification that the FIPB email sent to our member does not, in fact, represent ATF’s official position on this issue, but rather was issued in error.

To the contrary, we demand your strong assurances that it is your understanding that the mere fact that a pistol is equipped with a stabilizing brace does not dispositively render it a short-barreled rifle.

Finally, we demand your guarantee that ATF intends to comply with the district court orders enjoining enforcement of the Rule. This compliance includes refraining from enforcement of the Rule’s flawed and repudiated theories repackaged in an injunction-sidestepping ‘statutory’ theory, or any other theory which purports to comply with the injunctions but nonetheless exposes GOA members to criminal liability.

Rather, it is our understanding that, pending resolution of existing litigation, ATF is – or should be – awaiting further guidance, and not taking any definitive positions or issuing classifications with respect to the status of pistols equipped with stabilizing braces. Please let us know if this understanding is not correct.

Please send your response to us, in writing, within three (3) business days of the date of this letter, or by the close of business on January 14, 2025. We remind you, the FIPB email to our member was signed “FIPB” – a branch you direct under the Office of Enforcement Programs and Services. Thus, if we do not receive your response within three business days, we will safely assume that the flawed positions articulated in the December 12 email to our member are properly attributed to you. And in that case, we will proceed accordingly.

We suggest that you consider this letter carefully. And we look forward to your prompt reply.

Sincerely yours,
Erich Pratt

Attachment

cc:
Matthew Shear, Acting Chief, FIPB
William Ryan, Chief, FATD
Andrew Lange, Deputy Assistant Director
James Vann, Deputy Assistant Director

Live Life · « **Reply #95 on:** January 11, 2025, 02:24:04 PM »

Update to AW/magazine ban - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1460785#msg1460785

Quote from: Live Life on January 10, 2025, 02:18:55 PM

Quote from: Mk-211 on January 10, 2025, 01:07:07 PM
Any word from SCOTUS yet, on today's issues?
Nothing yet regarding 2A cases.

Mark Smith ... will be on Fox News to discuss SCOTUS updates tomorrow and maybe we may have something by then

Mark posted this in the morning but can't find any Fox News article/video - https://x.com/fourboxesdiner/status/1878117314479964428

Quote

FOX NEWS ALERT: I will be speaking with ... @foxnews today 12:30pm Eastern about President Trump, the Supreme Court, the 2nd Amendment

Mark did post a new video.

Bad news: According to Mark Smith, four cases were conferenced for the FIRST TIME yesterday by the Supreme Court and granted cert for three of the cases but NONE of the three cases were 2A cases. Mark posted he is unhappy with Friday's events as Supreme Court could decide not to review any 2A cases this term as time is running out.

Good or not bad news: All petitioners for the cases conferenced and granted cert on Friday night were lawyers for the US government. So some or all four 2A cases could be relisted on Monday to be conferenced again next Friday night. (Bruen case was relisted multiple times)

2A NEWS IN SCOTUS SNOPE AR-15 BAN CASE... The Supreme Court granted cert in 3 cases on Friday night but none of them were in 2nd Amendment cases - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHEok0BIPxw

Quote

0:00 Bad Omens For 2A - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHEok0BIPxw&t=0s
1:01 What Just Happened... - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHEok0BIPxw&t=61s
3:35 Why This Is Concerning - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHEok0BIPxw&t=215s
5:45 The 3 Cases With Cert Grants - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHEok0BIPxw&t=345s
8:00 What Does This Mean? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHEok0BIPxw&t=480s
11:14 How Bad Is This? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHEok0BIPxw&t=674s

Live Life · « **Reply #96 on:** January 11, 2025, 03:26:31 PM »

Adding to National carry reciprocity updates - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1460732#msg1460732

FPC attorney Anthony Miranda break down a critical concealed carry reciprocity bill introduced by Congress - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKXy727utic

- A national concealed carry reciprocity bill was just introduced into Congress and this is aiming to fulfill the promises of the Trump administration about concealed carry reciprocity and also it is trying to use the Supreme Court's recent Bruen decision to make concealed carry lawful nationwide
- HR 38 ... The National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act ... comes off the heels of recent promises made by President Trump during his election and he said he would sign into law national concealed carry reciprocity if it passed the House and Senate
- Now Congress has introduced this bill which aims to fulfill that promise
- Supreme Court also has recently addressed this issue of concealed carry and has now established that shall issue is the minimum standard when it comes to the US and concealed carry
- But ... some states like California, New York, New Jersey and others have tried to move towards restricting concealed carry, not just for their residents, but also for anyone out of state who want to come into those states and conceal carry lawfully
- There are different types of permitting schemes and concealed carry
- May issue ... lowest standard ... used for a long time from states like CA, NY and NJ ... to essentially not allow everyone to conceal carry. With "May issue" schemes, a lot of discretion was given to law enforcement agencies by the state legislators, essentially on when and how those individuals would get a permit to conceal carry ... state could establish requirements like background checks, training, fees, etc.
- Law enforcement agencies ... [used] a ton of discretion to determine who could actually get the permit, who met a standard like a good moral character or who had a good cause to conceal carry, and that often was used to deny permits
- This is the type of scheme that was addressed by the court in Bruen ... that was struck down by the Supreme Court
- Shall issue ... if you meet some of the objective requirements then you are required to be given a permit by the state
- Constitutional carry ... some states that don't actually require a permit or at least one is not mandatory
- In constitutional carry states, the state legislators often establish that as long as someone is not a prohibited person, they can conceal carry a firearm without a permit (there may still be some restrictions under state laws ... like ... state buildings)
- Some of these states often times still have a permit that is available ... for reciprocity
- Some states even recognize other states' Constitutional Carry Permits or non-permits but some states offer a permit so that if they go to a state that requires permits, that resident you know of Texas or whoever could still concealed carry in a different state
- Some states like California that refuse to recognize other state Concealed Carry Permits and they also fail to recognize a person who maybe from a state like Texas who is operating under constitutional carry of their state
- This bill ... seeks to fix that very problem
- Bill is titled "The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act" and it was introduced by representative Hudson and is actually supported by 120 other members of Congress and ... is bipartisan
- In his press release, he stated that our Second Amendment right does not disappear when we cross invisible state lines and this common sense legislation guarantees that fact the Constitutional concealed carry reciprocity act will protect law-abiding citizens' rights to conceal carry and travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or erroneous civil suits
- So even though they're not a resident of a state, it seeks to recognize all other state permits and any state that has constitutional carry
- So what does the text of this bill actually say and what does it do?
- The bill states ... notwithstanding any provision of law of any state or political subdivision thereof and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a state, and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the state in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any state that one has a statute under which residents of that state may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm and who does not prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons by residents of that state for lawful purposes
- So what does this mean?
- Well, only thing that will be required for you to conceal carry in a different state would be for you to have a valid state ID from your state of residency and that's really all that would be required
- If you live in a constitutional carry state, the other option is for you to simply have a valid concealed carry permit from your home state
- If you have either of those, then under this bill you could travel to any state lawfully and still conceal carry. That would include even liberal states like New York
- In California, now this bill goes on to state that also a person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with subsections A and B may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a state or any political subdivision thereof related to the possession, transportation or carry of firearms unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided by this section presentation of facially valid documents as specified in subsection A is prime evidence that the individual has a license or permit as required by this section
- So under this bill, if you are, maybe pulled over by law enforcement in a different state or maybe come into contact with police and they find out that you are conceal carrying, well they cannot arrest you as long as you show them a valid ID
- If you're from a constitutional carry state or if you show them your out of state, you know permit to conceal carry, you pretty much have to be let go ... they can't do anything about that ... That's what this bill aims to do
- It seeks to have a different state recognize your permit or to recognize your state's constitutional carry
- Another very important thing that this bill does and it includes ... the term handgun includes any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into that handgun or that magazine ... So if your state laws say that you can possess or maybe have a concealed carry of standard magazines or any magazines that are 11 plus rounds ... state that you are visiting cannot restrict that as well
- This bill is very important especially post ... Bruen and can actually help to fulfill Trump's
promises for concealed carry reciprocity he made promises during the election that he would like to sign into law concealed carry reciprocity if it passed Congress and now this bill is being pushed to fulfill that promise
- With Republicans controlling the house and the Senate, having control of Congress and Trump as the president; there's definitely a chance that this could get a large push
- Of course, there's always the filibuster that could stall the efforts here but we are in a better position right now to try to get conceal carry reciprocity pushed through, especially with President Trump making one of those big promises ... This was his big promise to the 2A community
- There are definitely members of Congress who are interested in getting this pushed and getting this on Trump's desk so he can sign it into law

Live Life · « **Reply #97 on:** January 11, 2025, 04:27:38 PM »

Adding B&L Productions v Newsom to tracking (CA gun show on state property) - https://www.saf.org/bl-productions-v-newsom/

Case documents - https://michellawyers.com/b-l-productions-v-newsom-min-bill/

SUPREME COURT DISTRIBUTES THIRD SAF CASE FOR CONFERENCE - https://www.saf.org/supreme-court-distributes-third-saf-case-for-conference/

Quote

The U.S. Supreme Court has distributed a third Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) case, B&L Productions v. Newsom, for conference on Friday, Jan. 24.

The case challenges California’s statutes which ban gun shows on state-owned property. Because the gun shows at issue are not only opportunities to view and purchase firearms, but also for like-minded individuals to assemble and share ideas, the case presents questions about both the First and Second Amendments.

“The challenged laws demonstrate California’s unwillingness to respect the constitutional rights of its citizens,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “While it is no surprise California continues to demonstrate disdain for the Second Amendment, it also implicates the First Amendment and the ability for individuals to peaceably assemble and enjoy constitutionally protected freedoms. We are hopeful the Supreme Court will intervene and send a clear message to those who wish to trample our civil liberties.”

SAF filed its Petition for Cert in November of last year, and is joined by B&L Productions, the California Rifle & Pistol Association, South Bay Rod & Gun Club, Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association, Second Amendment Law Center, L.A.X. Firing Range, and several private citizens.

“California has been trying to regulate gun shows out of existence for some time,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It is alarming that the government of any state would attempt to legislate against the First Amendment rights of people who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights, and we will pursue this case for as long as it takes to see that justice is served.”

Live Life · « **Reply #98 on:** January 11, 2025, 04:36:11 PM »

Adding to ATF - Pistol Brace updates - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1460791#msg1460791

GOA - https://x.com/GunOwners/status/1877832035407896768

Quote

The @ATFHQ bureaucrats decided to ignore us, so we got our legal team involved & sent their bosses another letter.

We're going to force these tyrants to respect the Second Amendment.🔥

Read the full letter here - https://t.co/K9t6Kubcs4

GOA - https://x.com/GunOwners/status/1877823148843823583

Quote

Since ATF thinks they are above the law & decided they would not comply with NUMEROUS court orders....

We got @erichmpratt involved to defend our member's right to install a pistol brace on his gun.👏He sent @ATFHQ the below email.

GOA - https://x.com/GunOwners/status/1877814630568833191

Quote

Here is the letter from @ATFHQ to a GOA member saying ALL braced pistols are SBRs regardless of any court order.

Live Life · « **Reply #99 on:** January 11, 2025, 04:56:32 PM »

In addition to "Abolish the ATF", now "Repeal the NFA" is back on the table (Podcast on Repeal NFA and Abolish ATF link below) - https://x.com/EricBurlison/status/1877857344589041808

More popcorn!

Quote

Eric Burlison@EricBurlison

In addition to my bill to ABOLISH THE ATF (H.R. 221), on Monday I will once again introduce legislation to REPEAL THE NFA.

Adding to updates to efforts to abolish/eliminate ATF as an agency - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1460527#msg1460527

Quote

Eric Burlison@EricBurlison

If you missed our live spaces on Abolishing the ATF you can listen here.

Live Spaces podcast by sponsor of HR 221- Abolish the ATF (Also covers introduction of "Repeal the NFA" bill ... There's about 5 minutes of silence before podcast starts) - https://x.com/EricBurlison/status/1878157252332257319

News:

Author Topic: Second Amendment/ATF related cases (Read 6414 times)