Second Amendment/ATF related issues (Discussion thread)

[Live Life]

I migrated the "2A/ATF related cases" thread from THR restarted by many requests but that thread was meant to be informative/educational to keep THR/APS members updated of current 2A/ATF related events - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.0

I certainly agree and support the need for a 2A/ATF related discussion thread and perhaps I may start such a thread to allow open "polite" discussion.

So starting the "discussion" thread to allow open "polite" exchange of thoughts and opinions.

[Live Life]

Migrating "discussion" posts from "informative" thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1456994#msg1456994

The judges Trump appointed are the most significant legacy of his first term.  As you said, it has shifted the trend to expanding 2nd Amendment rights rather than tightening them.

Yes, as Bruen methodology that CHANGED how all future Second Amendment cases are now tested with "Text, history and tradition" and burden shifting to the states/government; in the next term, I believe we will see majority Supreme Court justices clarify proper application of Bruen methodology that NO LONGER rely on interest balancing approach of considering greater good of society/community when applying individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as extensively explained by constitutional attorney Mark Smith - https://youtu.be/nriZvVwPOmA?t=87

It is uncomfortable to think about where we would be if Trump lost in 2016.  That is a rabbit hole I am glad we didn't go down.

I believe we dodged a bullet in 2016 and literally dodged another bullet in 2024.

And Bruen ruling would not have happened if it wasn't for Trump appointed justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.

[Live Life]

Migrating "discussion" posts from "informative" thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1457236#msg1457236

Here are some other sources.

Barnett v. Raoul (3:23-cv-00209) (S.D. Ill. 2023) - NSSF Gun/Mag Ban - https://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?/topic/81074-barnett-v-raoul-323-cv-00209-sd-ill-2023-nssf-gunmag-ban/

Morse v Raoul (IL Suppressor Ban) - https://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?/topic/80657-morse-v-raoul-il-suppressor-ban/

Snope v Brown fka Bianchi v Frosh - MD AWB - https://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?/topic/79365-snope-v-brown-fka-bianchi-v-frosh-md-awb/

FPC v Garland - Firearms in post offices - https://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?/topic/83114-fpc-v-garland-firearms-in-post-offices/

Rhode v. Bonta - California Ammo purchase background check - https://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?/topic/80978-rhode-v-bonta-california-ammo-purchase-background-check/

Great threads.

Cannot wait for some of these cases to be ruled by the Supreme Court majority.

[Live Life]

Migrating "discussion" posts from "informative" thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1457741#msg1457741

Short term, cutting them off at the knees and putting a stop to their regulatory overreach might be better, with a long term goal of repealing all the unconstitutional laws and thereby making the ATF unnecessary.

With trifecta of WH/House/Senate under control of one party and Elon/Vivek DOGE with apparent support of "We the People", now may be better time than ever to undertake the push back process of reaffirming the Second Amendment.

Otherwise, how and when else could we do it, if ever?

[Live Life]

Migrating "discussion" posts from "informative" thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1457816#msg1457816

Republicans have a history of squandering a trifecta.

That's because many were RINOs ... 

I'm hopeful we will do away with many restrictions, but with such a thin majority, it may be difficult to keep all the squishy Republicans on board with everything on the wish list.  One can hope, though.

Let's hope and godspeed.

Long live the Republic. 👍

[Live Life]

Migrating "discussion" posts from "informative" thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1457733#msg1457733

The ATF certainly has a horrible track record and it's leadership has mostly been people who despise the Second Amendment. The root of the evil, however, is the laws and regulations they enforce.

Ideally, the NFA would be repealed. If it remains in place, I don't know that having a different agency (like the FBI) take over its enforcement would be any better.

Short term, cutting them off at the knees and putting a stop to their regulatory overreach might be better, with a long term goal of repealing all the unconstitutional laws and thereby making the ATF unnecessary.

[Live Life]

Migrating "discussion" posts from "informative" thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1458006#msg1458006

On another note, 16 states have joined the suit against Glock to hold them responsible for crimes committed with illegal switches attached to their guns.  Maybe a good thing if they are all disposed of together rather than 16 separate costly (to Glock) litigations.

[Live Life]

Migrating "discussion" posts from "informative" thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1458415#msg1458415

The people behind these suits need to stop all the interlocutory requests for stays, reviews, whatever.  SCOTUS almost never considers them, and the gun hating appeals courts always shoot them down.  It's a waste of time and money.  Seems it would be better to get a final judgement ASAP, then appeal.

I am in agreement, particularly for some 2A cases in anti-2A Circuits as appealing them to circuit courts won't do much and doing emergency application to Supreme Court for interlocutory review is unlikely as justices have already expressed they want cases to arrive for review after final merits decisions.

But for some 2A cases in pro-2A district/circuit courts, favorable TRO/preliminary injunction/stays have been granted to provide immediate relief for gun owners/businesses/organizations/members.

[Live Life]

Migrating "discussion" posts from "informative" thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1459160#msg1459160

LL - considering the way the Biden administration has pushed through so many judicial appointments lately (with the conniving and help of Stinky Schumer), what do you see these political activist judges doing in the long run?

Perhaps not much.

Biden has appointed 235 judges with 7 pending - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Joe_Biden

But Trump appointed 234 judges during previous term - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump

With appointments Trump will make during 2025-2028 term, many Circuit Courts could end up 50/50 or leaning pro-2A.

Key factor I believe is how the lower courts end up interpreting/applying Heller/Bruen test and since Rahimi reaffirmation of "Text, history and tradition" with burden shifting to the state/government; we are starting to see "proper" application in lower courts, even for typically anti-2A 9th Circuit, where rulings are made because state/government did not produce sufficient evidence of historical analogue of 2A/firearm regulation.

And what is acceptable "historical analogue" has been argued in depth in various recent court cases with judge McGlynn doing an exhaustive, detailed definition to comprehensive examination of what is acceptable "historical analogue", even considering dissenting counter arguments as remanded by the 7th Circuit in Harrel v Raoul - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/scotus-considering-bianchi-v-frosh-duncan-v-bonta-the-turning-point-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-24#post-13023981

Constitutional attorney Mark Smith went into details of when, how and why historical analogue "LAWS ON THE BOOKS" are qualified for the Bruen test in new 55 page article - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1458590#msg1458590

So as defiant practice of lower courts not properly interpreting/applying Bruen methodology and acceptable "historical analogue" tossed out by higher courts and ultimately the Supreme Court, it may not matter how many judges Biden appointed as subsequent Supreme Court rulings will clarify and mandate how future 2A cases are to be reviewed and ruled. 

I cannot wait ... 2025 and future Supreme Court terms sure looks to be very exciting indeed. 

[Live Life]

Migrating "discussion" posts from "informative" thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1459559#msg1459559

If I were to go by his facebook video, I would say he gets it regarding the BoR. That's only one data point though. I worry a little about a guy chasing gov positions. Unless I missed it, I'm not seeing any info on who floated his name and who all is behind him. From the WGL video, he wanted the Presidential Personnel Office position but was turned down, presumably by Trump's staff. If they didn't want him running a smaller office, I worry about him running the much larger ATF.

I'm open to learning more about him though.

Same sentiment here as I know nothing about him.

And William Kirk did say that his reporting is only "rumors". 

Rumors are starting to swirl ... Remember, these are only rumors

[Live Life]

Migrating "discussion" posts from "informative" thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1459637#msg1459637

So does CA no longer require a magazine disconnect to get a gun on the "safe" list? I see several additions there that I own that do not have a disconnect, because disconnects are useless and dangerous. Back when I lived in CA, I stopped buying semi-autos immediately after that regulation was created.

Yes, according to court orders under preliminary injunctions as these cases are pending Duncan case ruling at the 9th Circuit - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/ca-handgun-roster-unsafe-handgun-act-facing-new-legal-challenges.913421/post-12865237

Boland v Bonta (CA Unsafe Handgun Act/handgun roster) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/ca-handgun-roster-unsafe-handgun-act-facing-new-legal-challenges.913421/post-12581660

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Attorney General Robert Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know the existence of this injunction order, ARE HEREBY PRELIMINARILY RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from implementing or enforcing California Penal Code sections 31910(b)(4)–(6), or from otherwise preventing the retail sale of handguns that do not have a chamber load indicator, a magazine disconnect mechanism, or microstamping capability but that meet the other requirements of the Unsafe Handgun Act.

CORMAC J. CARNEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE​

Renna v Bonta (CA Unsafe Handgun Act/Handgun roster) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/ca-handgun-roster-unsafe-handgun-act-facing-new-legal-challenges.913421/post-12595428

For these reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS the following:

(1) Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED as to California Penal Code §§ 31910 (b)(4), (5), (6) & (7) (CLI, MDM, microstamping, and three-for-one removal provisions);
(2) Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED as to all other challenged provisions of the UHA;
(3) Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing California Penal Code §§ 31910 (b)(4), (5), (6) & (7) (CLI, MDM, microstamping, and three-for-one removal provisions) ...

Dana M. Sabraw,
Chief Judge
United States District Court​

[Live Life]

Migrating "discussion" posts from "informative" thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1460454#msg1460454

Civilian ownership of "Weapons of War" is the entire point of the 2nd.

The ruling seem so contradictory-
machine guns are weapons of war so they are prohibited,
Short shotguns are NOT weapons useful to a militia so they are prohibited.

I do agree that debate over "weapons of war" is timely and perhaps warrants a "proper legal" thread discussion apart from this limited "layperson" subjective opinion/commentary tracking thread. 

And I will post that judge McGlynn recently ruled and explained in detail how "weapons of war" could be approached in Harrel v Raoul (And affecting cases pertaining to Protect Illinois Communities Act: NAGR v Naperville, Harrel v Raoul, Barnett v Raoul, GOA v Raoul, Herrera v Raoul, Langley v Kelly) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/scotus-considering-bianchi-v-frosh-duncan-v-bonta-the-turning-point-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/post-13023981

“military use” refers to weapons that are selected, procured, tested, and issued to military members for use in combat. (Page 111)
​
“military-grade” ... issued to the military for use in combat. (Page 112)

"dual use" ... the Court holds that “dual use” refers to weapons that, while predominantly useful in military contexts, are also useful for civilian offensive or defensive use in confrontation such that they would be covered by the Second Amendment’s guarantee. (Page 112)​

And he stated:

... Moreover, stating that military-grade weapons cannot be used by civilians because they need to be reserved for the militia is not a cogent [convincing] argument ... commercially available AR-15’s external similarity to the M16 rifle and M4 carbine belies its nature, as its lack of burst or fully automatic fire fundamentally renders it a different weapon. Thus, while they may be similar externally, they are not the same weapon and have vastly different functions

... Therefore, the Court holds that “military use” refers to weapons that are selected, procured, tested, and issued to military members for use in combat. With this in mind, none of the weapons, magazines, or attachment prohibited by PICA can be called “military-grade” since they were not issued to the military for use in combat ... a clear example is the semiautomatic handguns that are useful in military service yet are also “the quintessential self-defense weapon.” Clearly, even though handguns are useful and are used in military service, they are clearly protected by the Second Amendment (Page 110-112)

... This Court also holds that thirty-round magazines are not predominately useful in military service and, even if they were, dual use has clearly been demonstrated given their usefulness for individual self-defense and their ubiquity. (Page 113)​​

[Live Life]

Migrating "discussion" posts from "informative" thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1460488#msg1460488

It looks like national reciprocity is getting more traction. Interestingly, GOA is in support of the bill. I'm still worried that the devil is in the details, and that I'll still end up in jail if I cross into Calif (or NY or NJ) while armed, because I'm carrying the wrong model pistol or >10 round mag. Or carrying within 5000 feet of some "restricted area".

I'm just not sure how they will create a bill that prohibits each state, or jurisdictions within a state, from still creating their own "regulations" in the vein of, "We acknowledge the reciprocity law with the exception of... and then there's 100 pages of sutff that no one is going to study, but will still get pinched on.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-gop-mounts-trump-backed-push-expand-concealed-carry-permits-millions-americans

[Live Life]

Migrating "discussion" posts from "informative" thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1460494#msg1460494

I never thought I'd live to see the day when the GOA has more relevance than the NRA.

[Live Life]

Migrating "discussion" posts from "informative" thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1460762#msg1460762

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.

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]

Migrating "discussion" posts from "informative" thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1460945#msg1460945

^^^^

Having been out of CA for a while now, I am curious about the guns being added. I recall you already said that the magazine disconnect regulation is no longer valid, but are there still CA-specific requirements for pistols added to the list other than the ten round mags? For example, I remember that if it was the exact same pistol other than one was blue and one was OD, both colors would have to be submitted for "safety" testing. Are rules like that still in place, or more importantly, rules that require the CA guns to be mechanically different than the same gun sold in the rest of the country?

No, but you may see "CA approved" added to sales listing due to 10 round magazine capacity limit (Which is likely to go away as soon as Duncan case reaches Supreme Court or majority justices review and rule on magazine capacity ban case, whichever comes first).  So as long as make/model numbers match, they are CA legal.

Previous requirements of magazine disconnect mechanism, loaded chamber indicator and micro stamping are no longer applicable due to Boland/Renna court injunctions.

Law enforcement/military importation/transfer exemptions still apply - https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/exemptpo

So only firing/safety/drop testing applies - https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/certified-handguns/search

As of January 1, 2001, no handgun may be manufactured within California, imported into California for sale, lent, given, kept for sale, or offered/exposed for sale unless that handgun model has passed firing, safety, and drop tests and is certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice.

[Live Life]

Migrating "discussion" posts from "informative" thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461254#msg1461254

No. The Constitution doesn't have a Fudd clause. They need to amend that language. It's 2025, there's a new Sheriff in town, and predicating our rights on "sporting purposes" can *expletive deleted*ck right off.

Perhaps they could use "lawful purposes" instead?

Better. 

He's my Senator, so I should probably send him an email.

[Live Life]

Migrating "discussion" posts from "informative" thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461354#msg1461354

Perhaps they could use "lawful purposes" instead?

I don't like that.  Self defense isn't considered lawful to some people. 

If someone does a crime with a gun, convict them of the crime.  No need to add charges due to possession of a gun.  That is just used as an excuse because idiots in the justice system don't want to give out tougher sentences.

[Live Life]

Migrating "discussion" posts from "informative" thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461581#msg1461581

Thank you again for all of your work in this thread and others, sir.

You are very welcome.

We are living in "historic" time of this nation to witness Second Amendment protection expanding to "modern" types of arms and accessories like First Amendment protection expanding to "modern" forms of communication like email/texting.

With "trifecta" same party control of House/Senate/White House along with majority of Supreme Court, 2025 may be the start of "best opportunity" to fulfill many things related to gun rights.

It's time for "We the People" to seize the moment.

[Live Life]

Migrating "discussion" posts from "informative" thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461784#msg1461784

Perhaps they could use "lawful purposes" instead?

I don't like that.  Self defense isn't considered lawful to some people. 

If someone does a crime with a gun, convict them of the crime.  No need to add charges due to possession of a gun.  That is just used as an excuse because idiots in the justice system don't want to give out tougher sentences.

I'm not willing to concede that the ATF has the authority to ban otherwise legal, constitutionally protect3d items just because they are built overseas.  If a gun configuration is legal to build in the US you should be able to import it.

I know that's a long shot somewhere between "drop silencers from the NFA" and "abolish the ATF" on odds, but that would be my goal.

[Live Life]

Migrating "discussion" posts from "informative" thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461880#msg1461880

Thanks, Live Life !  Glad to see you're wielding that cudgel again here at APS!

Terry, 230RN

[Live Life]

Migrating "discussion" posts from "informative" thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1462260#msg1462260

I see that the Shadow Systems pistols recently approved for CA sales all have magazine disconnects. Thankfully they are all marked "CA" so that no one in America accidentally buys a dangerous and unsafe pistol that can get you killed.

Though if the mag disconnect ban is no longer in place in CA, I wonder why they would go through the expense of adding one.

More than likely, R&D (Which can take years to avoid patent infringement) and final production work for CA drop safety testing was done prior to court injunctions.

So unlike S&W M&P mag disconnects which can easily be removed with interfering with pistol operation (I think they did that intentionally as they produce same models with/without mag disconnects), if other designs weren't as such, they probably will keep the magazine disconnect mechanism (MSM) instead of redesigning the MSM and perhaps having to resubmit for drop safety testing.

S&W did the same for M&P frame mounted safety as well.

[Live Life]

Migrating "discussion" posts from "informative" thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1462267#msg1462267

To be clear, Shadow Systems recently made these pistols specifically for CA. No SS pistols have ever had disconnects, nor do any new SS pistols outside CA have them.

SS page indicates XR920 was developed in response to Law Enforcement request - https://shadowsystemscorp.com/xr920/

Born out of a custom request for Law Enforcement

Regardless of court injunctions, many CA law enforcement agencies require magazine disconnect mechanism (MDM) for duty weapons and if SS XR920 was targeted for Law Enforcement use, it explains why XR920 has MDM even though court injunctions do not require it for listing on CA Handgun roster.

It's like how many newly added pistols have Loaded Chamber Indicator (LCI) even though LCI is no longer required for CA Handgun roster.

[Live Life]

Migrating "discussion" posts from "informative" thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1462271#msg1462271

Neither of my XR920s have one.

I actually prefer not having magazine disconnect.

[Live Life]

Migrating "discussion" posts from "informative" thread - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1462275#msg1462275

I'd be interested in looking at a CA XR920.  I'm pretty familiar with a Glock trigger mechanism, and I'd be interested in how they engineered and installed a mag disconnect.  I also wonder what that does to the trigger pull.

For Clarity, "the XR920" does not have a mag disconnect.  That's the model that was "born out of a request from Law Enforcement".  There is a specific submodel of the XR920 that is CA compliant with an MDM. It has a specific model number (SS3039CA).  That's not the gun the blurb on the XR920 page is talking about

I was responding to Ben's post why CA approved models all have magazine disconnect.

I see that the Shadow Systems pistols recently approved for CA sales all have magazine disconnects.

Though if the mag disconnect ban is no longer in place in CA, I wonder why they would go through the expense of adding one.

And looks like "XR920" is the CA compliant model "SS 3039-CA".  These are recently added CA models - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461226#msg1461226

- Shadow Systems   XR920 SS-3039-CA*   9MM   Pistol   3.75"   01/01/2025
- Shadow Systems   DR920P SS-2239-CA*   9MM   Pistol   4.5"   01/01/2025
- Shadow Systems   MR920 SS-1039-CA*   9MM   Pistol   3.75"   01/01/2025

And SS pages for different models:

XR920 - https://shadowsystemscorp.com/xr920/
DR920P - https://shadowsystemscorp.com/dr920p/
MR920 - https://shadowsystemscorp.com/mr920/