Fourth Circuit Court Rules Age Prohibition on Handgun Purchases Unconstitutional

A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled (2-1) that a 21-year minimum age restriction on handgun purchases is unconstitutional. In his majority opinion Judge Julius N Richardson wrote “Looking through the historical lens to the text and structure of the Constitution reveals that 18-to-20-year olds have Second Amendment rights.

Virtually every other Constitutional right applies whatever the age, and the Second Amendment is no different. The militia laws in force at the time of ratification uniformly required those 18 and older to join the militia and bring their own arms. While some historical restrictions existed, none supported finding that 18-year-olds lack rights under the Second Amendment.” Gun control advocates are expected to appeal the decision. 

Chipman Wrong for ATF

From Jim Shepherd…

It’s safe to say that the outdoor community is not always in agreement on much of anything. Most of us think in terms of groups of unified individuals with common interests when many of the sub-groups in that collective term are actually divided.

Consider, for example, the broad term “hunter”. For most, the Webster definition “a person or animal that hunts” about sums it up.

Hunters, however, divide that category into distinct sub-groups.

They fragment into groups according to what they use to hunt (bow, rifle, shotgun, pistol, black powder, etc., etc., etc), what they’re hunting (“meat” versus “trophy”) and if that weren’t enough, “modern” versus “primitive” and “stalk” versus “stand/blind”.

And let’s not forget the distinction between the land where they hunt (public/private).

That’s why it is very significant that a majority of outdoor organizations, whether focused on conservation or the Constitution, have lined up in solidarity to oppose the Biden administration’s proposed nominee to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

The reason they’re unified against David Chipman is simple: they all agree Mr. Chipman cannot be trusted to follow the law.

His mandate from President Biden, if he were approved, would be to the contrary. He would be expected to reinterpret the existing laws in order to expand the ATF’s abilities to squeeze the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the gun industry in any way possible.

His unsuitability for a job that should require even-handed enforcement of the law is unquestioned in this industry.

Dozens of conservation and membership organizations have written letters asking Senators to oppose the nomination. The NRA and the NSSF are only two of the groups spending significant amounts of money to remind moderate Democrats that supporting wouldn’t be just another party-line decision. A vote for affirm Chipman, they say, is they’re essentially voting against gun owners and Second Amendment supporters in their home states. You know, the people who helped vote them into office.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation feels defeating the Chipman nomination is worth spending lots of money on an ad to encourage moderate senators in West Virginia and Maine to vote against the nominee. NSSF image.

Or as the NSSF’s new ad says, “don’t put the fox in charge of the chicken house.”

For an organization that prefers doing its work without attention, it’s a significant commitment.

In fact, the NSSF’s Larry Keane calls the decision to create a television ad for West Virginia and Maine “monumental”. Taking the opposition public, he says, should “remind the senators that Chipman’s nomination is a threat to jobs, revenue and, not the least- the ability of law-abiding citizens to exercise their God-given Second Amendment rights.”

Despite a furor even the mainstream can’t totally ignore, there’s still no definite word on how Senators Joe Manchin (D-W.VA), Krysten Sinema (D-AZ), Maggie Hassan (D-NH) and Angus King (I-Maine) will vote.

And Senator John Tester (D-MT) says he’s “still continuing to review David Chipman’s record and testimony to ensure he would support our brave law enforcement officers and respect Montanans’ Second Amendment rights.”

So what can we do? Plenty. While there’s still no definitive time set for a vote on the Chipman nomination it will likely be a time when we’re all distracted by other happenings.

Rather than wait until that time, you need to contact your state senators as well as the moderate Democrats and let them know that you, like much of America, are watching and hoping they will vote down the nomination.

Here’s the web address with the most information on how to contact each Senator in Washington. As always, be polite and keep your messages to the point. If you decide to call, you can call the Capitol switchboard (202) 224-3121 and ask them to connect you directly with the Senate offices.

Make your voice heard.

NSSF to Challenge New York Public Nuisance Lawsuit Law

NEWTOWN, Conn. – The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®) will challenge to overturn the law signed by New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo that would allow civil lawsuits by municipalities against the firearm industry for the criminal actions by non-associated third parties.

The law is in contravention to federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), and the legal foundations of tort law.

“This law is unconstitutional, plain and simple. It is abhorrent that Governor Cuomo is rehashing a decades-old failed playbook that was rejected by courts in the 1990’s and early 2000’s,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “Governor Cuomo is, again, blameshifting for his administration’s failures to prevent crime by pointing fingers at firearm manufacturers that have been working with federal, state and local authorities for real solutions.® This law is based on the same legal understanding that would allow victims of drunk drivers to sue Ford and Budweiser for the criminal actions of an individual. This law is not legal accountability. It is political posturing.” Read more

SB Tactical Opposes Proposed Rule on Stabilizing Braces

Bradenton, Fla. – With the release of its Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has left little doubt to its intention to wreak havoc on millions of American firearm owners and devastate the firearms industry through lost jobs and revenue.

The Congressional Research Service estimates that there are somewhere between 10 million and 40 million firearms in circulation with Pistol Stabilizing Braces. Under the NPRM posted to the Federal Register, the vast majority of these would become unregistered short-barrel rifles. This creates a significant burden on legal gun owners, especially the disabled shooter these products were designed to support.

“ATF’s proposal would outlaw the vast majority of pistols sold with Stabilizing Braces, and by ATF’s own admission, would result in more than a billion dollars in damage to the firearms industry and countless American jobs lost,” said Alex Bosco, inventor and founder of SB Tactical. “As the leader in the Pistol Stabilizing Brace industry, we will champion the legal and economic interests of the millions of owners of brace products who are using the device as intended for sport shooting, home protection and to overcome a physical handicap.”

In what amounts to the largest firearms registration scheme in U.S. history, the ATF has explicitly prohibited the grandfathering of existing braced firearms. This leaves the millions of firearms owners, who relied on previous ATF guidance, in legal jeopardy with only a few options, which include adding a longer barrel, surrendering their firearm to the ATF, destroying the firearm, or paying the $200 tax and registering the firearm as a short-barrel rifle. Read more

TOP STORY: Judge Says California “Assault Weapon Ban” Unconstitutional

BELLEVUE, WA — The Second Amendment Foundation has won a significant court ruling in the case of Miller v. Bonta , which challenged the constitutionality of California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” with U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez declaring the state’s statutes regarding such firearms to be unconstitutional.

SAF was joined in this action by the Firearms Policy Coalition, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Poway Weapons and Gear, Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, and several private citizens including James Miller, for whom the case is named.

“In his 94-page ruling, Judge Benitez has shredded California gun control laws regarding modern semi-automatic rifles,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It is clear the judge did his homework on this ruling, and we are delighted with the outcome.”

In his opening paragraph, Judge Benitez observes, “Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle, the AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR- 15 type rifle. Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional.”

Later in the ruling, Judge Benitez observes, “The Second Amendment protects modern weapons.” A few pages later, he adds, “Modern rifles are popular. Modern rifles are legal to build, buy, and own under federal law and the and the laws of 45 states.” Perhaps most importantly, the judge notes that California’s ban on such firearms “has had no effect” on shootings in the state. “California’s experiment is a failure,” Judge Benitez says.

“There is not much wiggle room in the judge’s decision,” Gottlieb stated. “Today’s ruling is one more step in SAF’s mission to win back firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Dorsey Weighs In on Biden’s Anti-Gun Nominee to ATF in Forbes Column

If the Biden presidency had a brand slogan, it might be: Why choose sanity when a crisis will do? With gas shortages and fuel prices soaring, a southern border that looks like a scene out of World War Z, rockets lighting up the Middle East, China on the move, inflation set to surge and our cities under siege with rampant crime, what’s a POTUS to do? How about nominate the most anti-gun zealot ever to head the 5,100-employee Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. By selecting Bloomberg toady David Chipman, an anti-gun activist who also worked for Gifford’s gun control group, Biden has just given a middle finger to America’s 150 million gun owners.

To read the rest of the column click here.

U.S. LawShield, Virginia Citizens Defense League File Suit Against City of Winchester, VA

Houston, TX – U.S. LawShield®, the leader in the Legal Defense for Self-Defense industry, has recently filed a joint lawsuit with the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) against the City of Winchester, Virginia for violating articles of the Constitution of Virginia.

“Our mission is based on preserving and protecting our members’ Constitutional right to bear arms—particularly in order to defend themselves and their loved ones,” says Randy Macchi, COO and General Counsel for U.S. LawShield. “We have filed this lawsuit to protect the rights of our 10,000+ members in Virginia and to stop the unconstitutional infringement of those rights. U.S. LawShield and the VCDL are requesting that temporary and permanent injunctions be filed against recent implementations of city and state codes.”

Currently, there is no Virginia statute that prohibits a person from openly carrying a firearm. Virginia code does state that a person is prohibited from carrying a concealed handgun in public unless that person is issued a Concealed Handgun Permit. Virginia, like many other states, has what is known as “preemption” laws, which prevent localities from creating a patchwork of gun laws across the Commonwealth that are difficult or burdensome for otherwise law-abiding gun owners to navigate. Recent city ordinances in Winchester and several other Virginia jurisdictions have begun to implement these types of firearms restrictions. Read more

NLCA Files Brief in Lawsuit Against ATF’s Bump Stock Final Rule

The New Civil Liberties Alliance has filed a reply brief in Cargill v. Garland, et al. in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The lawsuit seeks to overturn the federal ban on bump stocks and halt its enforcement. NCLA contends that only Congress, not an administrative agency like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), can write criminal laws such as the ban on bump stocks.

This case was the first challenge to ATF’s bump stock ban to go to trial, last September. Instead of shutting down an administrative shortcut and restoring constitutional lawmaking principles, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas turned a blind eye to numerous legal discrepancies caused by ATF’s unauthorized revision of a federal statute. Even though the Rule’s promulgation involved determining the scope of criminal liability, which is solely Congress’ responsibility, the district court concluded that bump stocks have always been prohibited by the statute—echoing ATF’s distorted claim that its rule is “interpretive” not “legislative” in nature. Read more

Attorneys General Oppose Biden’s ATF Director Nominee

HELENA – Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen and 19 other state attorneys general today called on the U.S. Senate to reject David Chipman’s confirmation as director of the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), citing concerns over his approach to public safety and Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.

In a letter to U.S. Senate Republican and Democratic leadership, Knudsen and the coalition of attorneys general outlined the threat President Joe Biden’s ATF nominee would pose to law-abiding gun owners if confirmed to lead the agency responsible for regulating firearms. Chipman has a long history of anti-gun rights lobbying and activism.

“Mr. Chipman has a First Amendment right as a private citizen to work for these political organizations and to lobby for the taxation, registration, and even confiscation of firearms. Americans likewise have the Second Amendment to protect their God-given rights to keep and bear arms,” Knudsen and the attorneys general wrote. “Accordingly, we ask you to oppose Mr. Chipman’s confirmation to this important position and demand President Biden nominate someone who is not hostile to our rights and way of life.”

ATF agents play an important role in upholding the public safety of communities around the country and will be disserved by an agency director with a political agenda. Americans’ Second Amendment rights do not need to be infringed to keep them safe from violent criminals.

“Its agents deserve a director who will inspire confidence from the people they serve. Given Mr. Chipman’s history of anti-gun lobbying and political activism, Americans cannot be reasonably expected to believe he will be an unbiased enforcer of current laws,” the letter stated. “As the chief legal and law enforcement officers in our respective states, we are concerned that Mr. Chipman will make Americans less safe by diverting ATF resources to attack the rights of law-abiding gun owners instead of cracking down on violent criminals and criminal organizations.”

Attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia also signed onto Knudsen’s letter.

Click here to view the letter.

CONTACT: Kyler Nerison | kyler.nerison@mt.gov

SCI Prevails in Lead Ammunition Case: State Regulations Upheld

By Safari Club International

Tucson, AZ – Safari Club International (SCI) has successfully defended a lawsuit brought by anti-hunting groups attempting to ban lead ammunition in Arizona’s Kaibab National Forest.

That lawsuit aimed to restrict hunting access on the fabricated grounds of a federal environmental law violation, and the issue has bounced around the courts for the last several years. In April 2021, however, a federal judge once again sided with SCI and the National Rifle Association (NRA) in allowing the use of lead ammunition as provided by Arizona law.

“This ruling not only preserves the freedom to hunt in an accurate, cost-effective, and accessible way, but it also upholds state authority in the regulation of ammunition use on Forest Service lands,” said Laird Hamberlin, CEO of SCI. “And it is yet another SCI win against anti-hunting groups seeking to destroy our hunting heritage.”

The case is part of a long-running series of lawsuits brought by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), a group that opposes hunting, that has challenged the use of lead ammunition in the Kaibab National Forest. CBD has claimed that the U.S. Forest Service violates the Re- sources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), a federal solid waste law, by allowing the use of lead ammo for hunting. Although this law is typically applied to manufacturing and industrial sites, CBD has tried repeatedly to expand its reach to cover lead ammo left behind in gut piles, arguing that the leftover solid waste has negatively impacted populations of the California condor, which is listed under the Endangered Species Act.

Since the first challenge in 2012, the case has ping-ponged back and forth between the district court in Arizona and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Arizona law permits the use of lead bullets. The CBD cases have been an obvious attempt to diminish state law and move more control to federal regulation. However, the federal government has no authority over ammunition use on the state level, and the judge’s decision affirms that the RRCA, a law intended for industrial waste, cannot be convoluted to limit hunting access.

As SCI has always maintained, hunters, of course, are free to choose alternatives to lead ammunition–yet the choice must remain with the individual hunter. While it is commonly understood that excessive lead exposure can be harmful, there is insufficient research and data to show that hunting with lead ammunition can hurt habitat or wildlife, or humans eating game meat harvested with lead ammunition.

As the NRA has pointed out, California, in 2007, banned the use of lead ammunition for hunting big game in the California Condor zone. Despite 99-percent hunter compliance, the ban has failed to reduce lead poisoning in condors. It is likely that industrial lead compounds, which are much different from the metallic lead used in ammunition, are responsible for many of the lead poisonings falsely attributed to lead ammunition. Read more

1 49 50 51 52 53 143