The proposed amendment is not the same – ours wants “strict scrutiny.” The “strict scrutiny” language will make it much easier to bring and win legal challenges to Iowa’s gun laws.
It requires “strict scrutiny” be applied to any firearms laws, therefore much more likely a court could strike down important state laws that protect public safety, such as Iowa’s background check, concealed-carry and permit-to-purchase laws.
The concept of strict scrutiny is a binding precedent set by the Supreme Court in United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938). More specifically, the infamous Footnote Four.
“There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments, which are deemed equally specific when held to be embraced within the Fourteenth….”
I could stop there, having shown that — no doubt to Ms. Stellish’s dismay — strict scrutiny must be applied to any gun control law, as they infringe upon the Second “of the first ten amendments.” I needn’t show what the effect of such scrutiny would be because Stellish has already conceded that gun control laws will fail upon close examination. One might wonder, rhetorically, of course, exactly why Jackie Stellish is deliberately and overtly advocating for the violation of human/civil rights through unconstitutional laws. I seem to recall something about “conspiracy against rights.”
But this is educational, and others may not be so insightful as Stellish. I continue.
It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.
The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest.
The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest.
Take H.R. 8Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 for example.First, it infringes upon a constitutionally enumerated right, so right off strict scrutiny is automatically required. Now the tests.The compelling governmental interest is “to ensure individuals prohibited from gun possession are not able to obtain firearms.” Presumably the intent would be to protect life, one of the Declaration of Independence‘s unalienable rights which “Governments are instituted” to secure.
Test one passed.
Is the law narrowly tailored to achieve that goal? No.
It requires everyone wishing to transfer a firearm to prove they aren’t prohibited, not just those who are.
It targets all transactions even though government reports confirm that prohibited persons most commonly acquire firearms through unlawful channels (primarily the black market and theft).
By far the most commonly used in crime type of firearm is handguns. This bill requires checks for all firearms.
Requiring everyone to prove they are not prohibited persons (rather requiring the government to prove they are) is presumption of guilt without due process, and a prior restraint on rights.
Test two failed.Is the law the least restrictive means available? No.
One could create a toll-free number which any seller could call, input the buyer’s social security number to an automated system, and get an instant pass/fail, and a control number. Instead, both must travel to an FFL, pay a fee, fill out a 4473, the FFL enters the firearm in the bound book, and makes the NICS call. This creates a permanent record of who has what.
One could avoid regulating 100 million gun owners, and limit the regulation to prohibited persons. Via NICS, the government already tracks them. Those on parole/probation are already subject to searches, and the dangerously mentally ill shouldn’t be on the street anyway.
Since the black market is the primary source of crimes guns, one could ignore other transactions, and concentrate on eliminating that market with existing laws. Firearms trafficking is illegal, after all.
Test three failed.
H.R. 8, if passed and signed would be unconstitutional. Not to mention stupid, if the real goal was to reduce gun violence. But we know what they want.
Shall we apply strict scrutiny to a few more victim-disarmer wet dreams?
“Assault weapon” ban:
1. Interest – Protect life. Check.
2. Narrow – Bans large class of implements rarely used in violent crime, not just the handguns used predominantly. Fail.
3. Least restrictive – Ban large class of weapons commonly held for defense, when they could simply use sentence enhancement for unlawful use. Fail.
The ban would be unconstitutional.
Safe storage”
1. Interest – Protect life. Check.
2. Narrow – Requires all defensive tools to be “secured,” even when unnecessary. Fail.
3. Least restrictive – One could set penalties for intentionally (to meet mens rea requirements) allowing access by a prohibited person or unsupervised child and bad things actually happen. Fail.
The ban would be unconstitutional.
Please note that in HELLER the Supreme Court ruled that “safe storage,” even in the form of a trigger lock, fails “any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights”, not just strict scrutiny. Defense attorneys, take note.
Permit-to-purchase:
1. Interest – Protect life. Check.
2. Narrow – Similar to background checks. Targets everyone, not criminals. Fail.
3. Least restrictive – Redundant, since FFL purchases — as yet — require NICS checks. Fail.
The ban would be unconstitutional.
The only reason these rights-violating laws stand is the appointment of judges who actively refuse to perform their constitutional and judicial duty to apply strict scrutiny to laws infringing the Second Amendment.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!
Back in 2017, shortly after the Mandalay Bay shooting sparked yet another wave of anti-rights advocacy, I noted a little compliance problem. I described what it would take to start firearms confiscations (and presumably arrests). TL;DR: It wouldn’t be pretty.
“The sheer immorality of victim disarmament aside, one would hope every law enforcement officer out there would stop to consider all the possible ramifications of kicking in several million doors because the occupants are well armed.”
— Moi, back in the ’90s
But hey; that assumed they wouldn’t know who had what, or where. But what if they could somehow manage registration this time? There’s a reason the socialist Dems are pushing universal “background checks” — preemptively-prove-your-innocence prior restraint –so hard. It isn’t to fight crime, since criminals already bypass such checks with illegal channels. It’s to get a record of all transactions, so they can collate lists from those 4473s. If they can get this through the Senate and the White House (which I do not rule out despite Trump’s — “I’m pro-2A except for bump stocks, age limits, ex parte protective order SWATting…” — statement), the next step would be changing the law to allow the ATF to collect 4473s (which they’ve been doing anyway, during FFL inspections) and enter the information into an electronically searchable database. Once they’ve got that, the next step is to require is gun owners to register themselves and their guns, since anyone who did NICS is already in their files.
Then owner licensing.
All that might take a while, but if the Dems get the White House in 2020, it’ll speed up.
So let’s look ahead and guess what they might do with total registration. Again, we know it won’t have anything to do with fighting violent crime. It’s about us. They really need us disarmed to carry out the Green Raw Deal. Will it work?
No. As it happens, we already have fine examples of owner licensing and firearm registration, coupled with confiscations: California and Illinois.
A year ago, California was using their lists to confiscate firearms from people who’d “lost” their right to keep and bear arms (such as it is in the People’s Republik). They had a backlog of 10,225 people to shake down. In a multi-agency, two-day operation, they attempted to confiscate weapons from 47 people.
Then there’s Illinois, where their record keeping is, in actuality, so bad that they issue Firearm Owner IDs — licenses — to felons. Who pass background checks. On those rare occasions, when they realize someone has become prohibited, less than half the time does the person turn in his weapons; probably 6,000 per year still armed. And they can’t figure it out until one of those known criminals goes on a killing spree.
States can’t keep up now, when they know who has how many guns, and where. Go national with another 100,000,000 targets of unknown locations and arms. It would be impossible for them to perform confiscations through unconstitutional law enforcement actions, much less bound by constitutional due process requirements.
With registration — however they attempt it — the government cannot successfully confiscate through normal processes even if they bypassed posse comitatus and use every man, woman, and whatever in the military.
Remember California Representative — and presidential hopeful — Swalwell’s threat of overwhelming military force? That was neither joke nor hyperbole. It was a trial balloon, to see how people — including the usually anti-military left — would react to the idea of waging war against gun owners. Because law enforcement methods demonstrably do not work, and they know it.
Imagine 2020. Trump and the Republicans caved on major campaign promises: border security, killing Obamacare, gun control especially. Sure, Trump still talks the talk, but his actions prove him a liar. And the Senate Republicans let reciprocal carry and hearing protection die.
They alienated their voter base, who turn to anti-Republican protest votes or just stay home. Democrats take the House, Senate, and White House. President Whomever (they’re all pro-Green Raw Deal socialists, and anti-rights) declare a gun violence national emergency. A flurry of disarmament bills pass as fast as the first background check bill of the 116th Congress.
And the military mobilizes; designated cat-bellers.
Pre-Obama, I would have rated the odds of the military going along as being pretty low. But the leadership has been purged and social justice is damned near written into the UCMJ. I’m not taking bets on what they’d do.
But Swalwell and others have told us what they want to do. A declaration of war on America. I suppose they imagine it as a civil war between professional military forces and Bible-clutching deplorables; good reality TV, while they sip Chardonnay.
I don’t want that. And neither should they. No one sane does.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
“A BILL To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act any semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.”
H.R. 1263 was filed a couple of weeks ago. I’ve been checking congress.gov daily for the text, since the devil is always hiding in the little details. And, frankly, just making nearly every semiautomatic rifle an NFA item already sounds pretty bad.
Any semiauto that takes a detachable magazine — which is anything but .22 rimfire fixed tube magazines — would become an NFA item. That isn’t even the truly bad part.
Here you go:
(b) Applicability.—Any person who, on the date of the enactment of this Act, lawfully owns or possesses a semiautomatic rifle or shotgun (as defined in section 5845(a) of such Code, as amended by this Act) that has the capacity to accept a detachable ammunition feeding device (as defined in such section) shall, not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, register the semiautomatic rifle or shotgun in accordance with section 5841 of such Code. Such registration shall become a part of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record required to be maintained by such section. The prohibition on possession of an unregistered firearm under section 5861 of such Code shall not apply to possession of such a semiautomatic rifle or shotgun that has the capacity to accept such a detachable ammunition feeding device on any date that is 120 days or less after the enactment of this Act.
“Register.” Not apply to register. You need a tax stamp within 120 days of enactment. No stamp after the magical date and you’re a felon.
Good luck with that.
It’s currently taking a minimum of 227 days to receive the stamp. That is, it’s taking three months longer than this bill would allow. With existing NFA firearms.
Now throw in Ghu only knows how many millions of newly declared NFA rifles, and the waiting period for approval is going to shoot up into the decades at best.
There are 175,977 transferable machineguns registered now, and it takes better than 7 months to get a stamp. Throw in an estimated 16 million semiauto AR- and AK-pattern rifles into the mix and you’ll have 92 times as many for 92 times the wait, 644 months (I rounded). It’ll take almost 54 years to get your stamp.
Well, longer. I only added ARs and AKs; hardly the only semiauto rifles out there.
Rep. Douche did not set that 120 day limit by mistake. He deliberately crafted a law designed to be absolutely impossible to comply with, even if you were so inclined.
This bill will make it through the Democrat socialist-controlled House. It probably won’t make it through the coward-controlled Senate, but given my own Senator’s lust for shredding the Second Amendment, I’m not sure enough of that to bet.
If it does, it is an outright declaration of war.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
HR 1112, the so-called “Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019,” just passed the House as expected.
If you haven’t been keeping up, this one was billed as closing what Demoscum Rep. Jim Clyburn calls the “Charleston loophole.” The Charleston shooter bought a gun while awaiting trial on a misdemeanor drug charge. A clerical error directed the NICS examiner to the wrong police department when he tried to clarify the charge. As a result, it took longer than the allowed 3 days, and the sale went as a default proceed. CLieburn claims extending the NICS period to 10 days would fix that.
As I said: CLIEburn. He lied. Let’s review some history.
He purchased his handgun on April 11, 8 days after his 21st birthday. As noted, the NICS check was delayed.
On June 17, he murdered a bunch of kindly, innocent people who had welcomed him.
During the post-shooting investigation, authorities began to wonder if his arrest should have caused a NICS denial.
Roughly a week after the shooting, “examiners officially denied the Roof application.”
The killer’s NICS denial didn’t take 10 days. It took 74 days to figure maybe he should flunk the NICS check. For arithmetically-challenged congresscreeps, 74 is more than 10. Even with this extension, the chumbucket’s sale would have proceeded.
No preemptively-prove-your-innocence check is going to work, if the people running it won’t do their jobs until after people die.
But here’s the thing: NICS should have approve the sale anyway. The scumbag hadn’t been convicted on that drug charge; the case was still pending. The charge was a misdemeanor, not the felony indictment that makes one prohibited to purchase. And that arrest was apparently his only drug bust, so there weren’t “multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years,” as called for in 27 CFR § 478.11 Meaning of terms.
Probably that’s why Chum-boy bought the gun when he did. He was finally 21 and wanted to get it before the conviction.
So once again, they’re pushing a law to allegedly fix a crime problem, but targeting innocent people. Infringements based upon lie.
“High capacity” magazine bans because Parkland (he used politically correct 10-rounders).
“Assault weapon” bans because Santa Fe (he used a pump shotgun and a revolver).
Universal background checks because Mandalay Bay (he passed background checks).
Once is chance. Twice is coincidence. Third time is enemy action. This is an — as yet — undeclared war.
If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Appeal is good. Because that ruling is a mess. Friedrich just shot an upright middle finger to the Constitution, statutory law, administrative procedure, physical reality, and sanity. It’s that bad.
The Guedes case and the — previously — separate Codrea challenge were consolidated as Guedes et al. So this ruling is twice as damaging as it might’ve been.
The hours I spent studying hundreds of pages of documentation can be summarized quite briefly.
A preliminary injunction temporarily stopping implementation of the rule is denied.
A preliminary injunction isn’t called for anyway because you can get compensation later… for losing an “unlawful machinegun” for which compensation isn’t offered?
Administrative Procedures Act (APA) required 90 days of commenting, not the 85 we got. Tough shit. Unless you can prove someone definitely would have offered something not presented by another commenter, no harm, no foul. So what if their right to speak was denied?
APA requires a public hearing, which was denied. Tough shit. ATF said no one would have offered anything new (even though FPC/FPF was trying to do just that).
New definitions of old terms. (This will require elaboration below.)
The president can appoint acting-anything regardless of the Constitution and statutory law.
Judge Dabney L. Friedrich is nuts.
In declaring bump-stock-type devices (BSTD) machineguns, the ATF found it necessary to redefine a couple of terms. A machinegun is “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”
While it was long believed that “automatically” referred to the process of chambering, firing, extracting, and reloading, the government’s lawyer, one Eric Soskin, informs us it now means something that “thus allows the ordinary — of the ordinary skill, the ordinary shooter to shoot must [sic] faster.”
“Function of the trigger,” received a similarly crazed reworking. I’ll spare you the pages of argument, but it goes: “function of the trigger” refers to the finger, not the trigger. The government’s definition of machinegun now becomes…
“any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot much faster, without manual reloading, by a single volitional function of the trigger finger.”
With bump-stocks, it no longer matters that the finger engages the trigger and operates it for every shot. Engagement doesn’t count unless the finger itself is intentionally moved to operate that trigger. Volitional movement of other body parts — like the non-trigger hand and arm that move the rifle into the finger — don’t count. They defined the trigger as actually being the finger, or as plaintiff’s attorney Joshua Prince put it:
I think then it becomes the question of whether the person is actually the machine gun, and how are we going to contend with that. Because now if we’re saying for it to operate automatically it has to be the person who actuates it, we’re talking about every single person in the United States and throughout the — through the world as being a machine gun, if that’s the rabbit hole we’re going to go down.
A year ago, I was warning that this made body parts into machineguns, along with anything that can be fired “much faster.” The federal government just went to court and said so. You’re welcome. Please hit my tip jar.
As for pants and rubber bands… that remains to be seen. When all this documentation becomes public, you must read the discussion of rubber bands. When asked if a closet full of semi-auto rifles and a box of rubber bands would be considered by the ATF to be a machinegun, the DOJ lawyer answered:
You know, I think until we — I don’t think we are in a position to come out and give an advisory opinion on what the agency might decide to do with a particular rubber band.
In denying the preliminary injunction, Friedrich found that it was not justified because “the Coalition is unlikely to succeed on these final challenges to the bump stock rule.” She essentially found that the ATF may arbitrarily redefine any word for which Congress neglect to specify a definition (the discussion included “the” and “shall,” and probably should have included “and.”
Friedrich found that federal agencies are not required to follow federal law if they don’t think it would helpful.
And she found that the President can do whatever he wants.
Did I wake up in Maduro’s Venezuela this morning?
I’m sure someone will trot out the old argument that this is Trump’s multidimensional art of the deal. When the ANPRM dropped, it was, “He’s just going to get a bunch of opposed comments so he can say no one really wants this.” When NPRM dropped, it became, “Nah, it a cunning plan to collect comments so the ATF can say they made a mistake and the rule isn’t justified.” When the rule dropped, “His plan is to get this challenged in court so it’ll get tossed as obviously, blatantly illegal.”
Well, it’s in court, and the judge isn’t tossing it. In fact, she says it’s probable that it will stand. And guess who appointed Dabney L. Friedrich, who looks to be upholding the ban, to the DC District Court.
Go ahead, tell me about the dimensional shift to SCOTUS.
Oh, and Friedrich? It’s not “Condrea.”
* That NBC article illustrates just why I will not use that outlet as a source without confirmation. It’s factually wrong on multiple points. The judge did not — yet — uphold the ban. Friedrich did not dismiss the case. And her court is not in Washington state.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
San Jose leaders propose tougher gun laws
“We’ve seen enough studies demonstrating straw purchasing are endemic particularly among gangs that are purchasing guns, often from gang members who don’t have a prior record,” said Liccardo.
But Liccardo cited national statistics showing about half of all guns used in crimes were purchased illegally – leading to community heartache.
Straw purchases might be as high as 10.8%, but since retail sources accounted for just 7.5%, it seems unlikely.
The mayor is proposing four amendments to the city’s existing gun ordinances. He’ll require video and audio recording of all gun sales in shops, for access by police if needed;
If he’s planning to record “about half of all guns used in crimes […] purchased illegally,” he has to require black market dealers to do recordings. No doubt the costs of compliance will drive them out of business.
prohibit the sale of guns and ammunition within a residence;
That’s already the case in California.
require a license for the sale or transfer of all concealable firearms;
Again, that’s current law.
On the one hand, it’s good to see them waste resources on stupidity that merely duplicates existing laws, instead of imposing new human/civil rights violations. On the other hand, they’re still directing their attention at the wrong target… if this were actually about reducing crime. But this is a state that actively invites and protects criminals, and releases the ones who were stupid enough to be jailed at all. Of course they want to disarm the preferred prey of their real constituency.
On the gripping hand, we have this.
and display information about local gun laws, and post suicide warning signs and prevention programs.
If you are sane, but still in San Jose, get out. Get out of California.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
“The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would certainly shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did.”
—James Madison, The Federalist #46
You want to see tyranny? We got your tyranny.
The Green Raw Deal.
Ocasio-Cortez may be backtracking and trying to disavow her too-truthful “FAQ,” but it was published on her own site and the metadata lists Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, as the author. The FAQ is consistent with the House Resolution she also published. The FAQ is simply a little blunter in stating their end goals.
If implemented, the GRD would fund the enslavement of the nation through hyperinflation. You would work for the government, or in whatever remaining government-approved jobs might survive her purge. You would live in approved government housing, subsisting on a vegetarian diet for as long as the food held out. Not long, since the nation’s power infrastructure would be gutted. But you might freeze to death in the winter first, as the wind gennie-powered electric heaters sit idle.
What land isn’t needed for “renewable energy” factories spewing out corrosive, toxic sludge that would horrify even the Chinese would be “afforested.”
Ocasio-Cortez and her merry band of psychopathic slavers have a plan for us that makes Ayn Rand’s Anthem look bright and cheery.
Of course the left-wing greenweenies want to disarm us. They learned that much of a lesson from Venezuela. And Stalin.
Compliance rates with their little registration and turn-in programs are already laughable. Do they expect better compliance now that they’ve explicity told what they mean to do to us?
I think not.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!
Timothy Lytton, professor at Georgia State University College of Law, says this could have implications nationwide because the judge ruled that Academy broke a federal law.
… I knew I’d found it. I happen to be familiar with Lytton, from correspondence last year.* Lytton has expressed outrage that: “Designs include handguns and semi-automatic assault-style weapons. Federal background check laws applicable to the physical sale of firearms do not apply to the electronic posting of digital blueprints”.
Mainly because electronic files aren’t firearms. He could never quite grasp that point. And while he seems vaguely aware of NICS, he’s a little hazy on other laws: “Since the 1980s, anyone can purchase the most lethal of firearms
free from all legal restrictions.”
W. T. F?
But this comment he made in a column last year is very, very important to our current discussion.
Gun parts. That’s… partially true. AR lowers, drop-in auto sears, and any receiver more than 80% complete require an FFL to sell commercially (and in the case of the DIAS, NFA applies). The ATF famously once classified a shoestring as an NFA-regulated machinegun.
But not magazines.
Which brings us to the Academy Sports “negligence” lawsuit. Academy Sports in Texas sold an AR with a 30-round magazine to the shooter-to-be, who presented himself (complete with ID) as a Colorado resident. The buyer passed a NICS check (thanks, negligent USAF). The magazine — unlawful in Colorado, which is why Magpul left the state — is the basis of the suit.
The two sides reportedly sparred at a hearing Thursday over whether the federal definition of a firearm includes any magazine sold with it, and whether a Colorado law that bans the sale of high-capacity magazines applies to Colorado residents who make the purchase in Texas.
There was no need for “sparring.” The judge should have tossed the suit with a sneer.
(3) any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the licensee’s place of business is located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee’s place of business is located if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States (and any licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both States), and (B) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;
“Any firearm,” not any “firearm part,” or “accessory.” The ATF regulates AR lowers by calling them firearms. Drop-in auto sears are “machineguns.” How does federal law define “firearm,” or “rifle” in this case?
26 U.S. Code § 5845(c) Rifle
The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.
No mention of magazine there. No “or any ammunition feeding device for same.”
18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(3)
The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
So federal law defines firearms and rifles, but doesn’t mention magazines as a part of either. In this case, we have to fall back on state law.
Does Colorado — the formal state of residence of the shooter — call magazines “firearms” in state law?
18-1-901 Definitions”
(2)(h) “Firearm” means any handgun, automatic, revolver, pistol, rifle, shotgun, or other instrument or device capable or intended to be capable of discharging bullets, cartridges, or other explosive charges.
No magazine there. In fact, 18-1-901(2)(e) makes it clear that that a firearm is a firearm whether or not it is loaded:
(e) “Deadly weapon” means:
(I) A firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; or
The magazine is extraneous to the firearm.
Let’s go a little deeper into Colorado law. Colorado does separately define large-capacity magazine.
18-12-301. Definitions
(2) (a) “Large-capacity magazine” means:
(I) A fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip, or similar device capable of accepting, or that is designed to be readily converted to accept, more than fifteen rounds of ammunition;
(II) A fixed, tubular shotgun magazine that holds more than twenty-eight inches of shotgun shells, including any extension device that is attached to the magazine and holds additional shotgun shells; or
(III) A nontubular, detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip, or similar device that is capable of accepting more than eight shotgun shells when combined with a fixed magazine.
(b) “Large-capacity magazine” does not mean:
(I) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than fifteen rounds of ammunition;
(II) An attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition; or
(III) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.
—
To Colorado, “large-capacity” magazines are a thing unto themselves, not firearms.
18 U.S. Code § 922(b)(3) restricts the interstate sales of firearms. It does not restrict the sale — interstate or intrastate — of accessories, whether scopes, slings, muzzle brakes, or magazines — which even Colorado doesn’t consider firearms. It simply doesn’t apply. Right, Prof. Lytton? (“Gun parts – as opposed to whole guns – are not subject to any of the federal regulations that govern firearms sales.”)
While Colorado statute 18-12-302 generally bans possession of “large-capacity” magazines themselves, I have to question whether that law would apply outside of Colorado.
Out of state? Of an object that was never alleged to have been in Colorado?
“Gun parts – as opposed to whole guns – are not subject to any of the federal regulations that govern firearms sales.”
Now I wonder why Lytton didn’t tell Ms. Covington that, instead of suddenly deciding magazines are firearms, contrary to actual law.
* From there, Lytton devolved into incorrectly describing the outcome of a lawsuit revolving about “MAC-10s,” misstating my positions, and evading nearly every question I asked. I can make copies of our exchange publicly available should he wish to dispute my account.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
I was going to include this in next week’s alert newsletter, but it’s so monumentally moronic, it needs to be addressed here, too.
Seeking to ban ‘undetectable’ guns, Rep. Madeleine Dean proposes law The current law “does not adequately address today’s technologies or security risks,” said Dean, who represents Montgomery County. “Today, we face a more pressing issue — firearms made entirely of plastic, or with so much plastic that they fall below the current law’s detection standard.”
“…with so much plastic that they fall below the current law’s detection standard.”
@RepDean actually did it. She filed a bill to make it illegal to violate the Undetectable Firearms Act (18 U.S.C. § 922(p)).
If the firearm doesn’t contain 3.7 ounces of steel, the maker has committed a felony. Ms. Dean’s bill would make it illegal to commit that felony.
If a plastic firearm doesn’t show up on airport x-ray, the maker has committed a felony. Ms. Dean’s bill would make it illegal to commit that felony.
To be sure of the latter, one could add barium sulfate to the plastic mix, but it really isn’t necessary. While this fact is apparently unknown to materials scientist Dean, doctors, nurses, veterinarians, parents, and anyone else who has had to deal with a child or pet who swallowed a plastic toy — heck, anyone who did a cursory web search of weird pictures — is well aware that…
Yes, plastic shows up in x-rays.
I don’t have the bill number, much less the text. I’ve asked Rep. Dean for that information. But I think it’s fair enough to take her at her own word.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
A week or so ago one of our Zelman Partisans facebook readers sent me a copy of a letter from Oregon ceasefire, a victim disarmament group.
Today is Holocaust Remembrance Day, today I shall address the situation.
Letter from Oregon Ceasefire
I had seen an alert from Oregon’s Firearms Federation about the mask being off, but I hadn’t been aware of other very serious things that were going on with this gun rights organization. But after I read the letter from Oregon Ceasefire, my eyes were opened! It seems Oregon Firearms Federation is antisemitic according to Oregon Ceasefire! I am shocked an appalled. Antisemitism is one the rise everywhere, from Jews in Francistan that can no longer wear a Kippah in public safely to the US where two muslim women have been elected to congress. One of whom supports BDS and has made antisemitic tweets about “Israel hypnotizing the world” and the other has covered up the one Jewish state on her map with the name of a country created in 1964, same year as the Beatles by the way. Indeed, this charge of a Second Amendment rights group being antisemitic needed investigation! So, I did.
I wrote both groups, and asked what incident lead to such a charge?
I wrote Oregon Firearms Federation first. Please note, I’m not a reporter, I’m a columnist and so I have no guilt over telling them to keep up the good work.
Email to Oregon Firearms Federation
Within a minute after I wrote Oregon Ceasefire.
Letter to Oregon Ceasefire
It’s a few days later now, I’ve heard back from Oregon Firearms Federation(OFF), I have not heard back from Oregon Ceasefire.
It seems according to Oregon Firearms Federation the charge was prompted by a page that OFF had on their web site.
Ah! Indeed the images are horrific. Horrible images of the Holocaust, please G-d may such a thing never happen again. A sane person would never want to see such images mar the pages of history. If you have a pipe freeze and break in your house due to a air leak that can reach a pipe (speaking from experience here) one would do their best to assure that such conditions will not re-occur by sealing the leak. They would not get a hammer and enlarge the hole. But then I’m me, and the hole got sealed. Oregon Ceasefire is not me. They choose to grab that hammer. It’s worth noting that when Oregon Firearms Federation emailed me back, they informed me that the page had been up for months, and apparently in an attempt to get their name back in the news, Oregon Ceasefire notified the media who promptly called the “experts” in their Rolodex that will recite what they want to hear. But please note that the Rabbi in question Michael Z Cahana has 180 degree different opinion on these matters than another Rabbi Kahane, who’s motto was “Every Jew a .22”. Rabbi Meir Kahane HY’’D הי״דto be exact. So Rabbi Cahana in favor of defenseless victims, most certainly does not speak for us all.
But back to the matter at hand, one of the pieces of legislation, victim disarmament if you want to call it what it is, is SB0501 according to OFF.
Sponsored by Senator WAGNER, Representative SALINAS (at the request of Students for Change) (Presession filed.)
SUMMARY
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor’s brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced.
Requires person to secure permit before purchasing or otherwise receiving firearm. Specifies qualifications for permit and manner of applying for permit. Creates procedures for appealing denial of permit. Punishes receipt of firearm without valid permit by maximum of 364 days’ imprisonmen $6,250 fine, or both.
Requires person who owns or possesses firearm to secure firearm with trigger or cable lock or in locked container.
Punishes failure to secure firearm by maximum of 30 days’ imprisonment, $1,250 fine, or both.
Requires person who owns or possesses firearm to report to law enforcement agency loss or theft of firearm within 24 hours.
Punishes failure to report loss or theft by maximum of 30 days’ imprisonment, $1,250 fine, or both.
Prohibits possession of magazine with capacity to hold more than five rounds of ammunition.
Provides that person in possession of such magazine must sell or otherwise dispose of magazine within 180 days of effective date of Act. Punishes unlawful possession of magazine capable of holding more than five rounds by maximum of 364 days’ imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both.
Requires criminal background check before transfer of ammunition. Restricts ammunition receipt to 20 rounds within 30-day period.
Prohibits transfer of firearm by gun dealer or private party until latter of 14 days or Department of State Police has determined that recipient is qualified to receive firearm.
Alrighty, now let’s take a look at some actual nazi (no, they still don’t get capital letters) gun laws.
Straight from the Book “Gun Control” Gateway to Tyranny. Let’s have a look-see, shall we? See if anything looks familiar. Remembering that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was based on nazi weapons control laws of 1938, Sen. Chris Dodd’s -D daddy Sen. Thomas Dodd -D had a copy of the nazi weapons laws that he had translated. It was on those laws that he based his gun control act.
So, Page 52
Page 52
And page 57. Please note sections 12, 13 and 14
Please note the sections
And last, page 81.
Page 81
As Aaron points out in the book, these gun control laws are immoral. Because they treat the law abiding citizen in this manner as a reaction to acts committed by criminals. Torah absolutely supports self-defense. Too many blather “Thou shalt not kill”. NO, and more no. It says “Thou shalt not MURDER”. Not the same thing.
So the virtue signaling Oregon Ceasefire chooses to ignore (or never learned) history. Let’s do a brief recap shall we?
In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.
In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”
During the five years of repression that followed, society was “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews.
On October 4, 1938, Nazi police arrested one Alfred Flatow in Berlin. His crime: being a Jew in lawful possession of a firearm. Lawful because he had dutifully registered his guns in January 1932, complying with the pre-Hitler anti-firearm decrees of the Weimar Republic. The arresting police were probably unaware that Flatow won Gold and Silver medals for Germany in the 1896 Olympics. He had also served in the German army in the 1890s.
….
The Nazis also moved to control others who possessed weapons. Despite protests, the government banned all voluntary “shooting clubs” (Schuetzenvereine) in Germany. These clubs were popular forms of recreation across the nation, and many club leaders opposed the ban and even expressed objections to the Nazi government. As Hitler was rapidly centralizing and broadening his powers, he dissolved all local and independent shooting and sports clubs on May 10, 1933. Two weeks later, he created the Nazi-controlled German Shooting Sport Association (Deutscher Schiesssportverband), which became another mouthpiece for the Nazi government and, with war on the horizon, a source of males already trained in marksmanship.
So many of the laws advocated by Oregon Ceasefire have been implemented. What did that lead to?
I’ll let the witnesses tell you themselves.
First up, Eta Wrobel, a truly amazing woman. She wasn’t doing dishes either, or cleaning the camp. Eta was a modern day Devorah, leading battles.
Why oh why does it have to get to the point you need two hand grenades? Why can’t tyrants just fear to attack citizens? Why would a woman even think like this?
Oh, that’s why.
These are far from the only two female partisans. There is a little film clip on some of them.
I understand that part of the reason Oregon Ceasefire reached out to Der Stürmer, the media was because they are losing relevance since Michael Bloomberg began shoveling money into Mad Mommies, his favorite astro-turf group. So, if all guns are evil and people will be safer if they are all banned he will no doubt be glad when that happy day comes right? Um, no. Seems Bloomberg is a elitist hypocrite.
“When you have a city that has the murder rate that Baltimore has, I think it’s ridiculous to think that they shouldn’t be armed,” Bloomberg said of the Hopkins security force.
….
A group of Hopkins students called Students Against Private Police expressed dissatisfaction with Bloomberg’s remarks. In a statement, the group said Bloomberg’s support for a private, armed police force is at odds with his other work to promote gun control
Just an FYI: The Bloomberg School of Public Health is located at John Hopkins. There moulders the academic wing of Bloomberg’s Center for Gun Policy and Research, anti-self defense, of course.
I’m actually shocked, I mean Baltimore has a Demoncrat Mayor a very strict gun control as it is. Why on earth is Bloomberg worried about high crime?
Michael Bloomberg, to quote Aaron Zelman, is a “Bagel brain”.
So, in conclusion. Is Oregon Firearms Federation antisemitic? No. They oppose laws that enabled the brutality of the Holocaust, and if you’ve forgotten just how brutal it was, or never learned, that page reminds you. A post on my Zehut list mentioned a poll conducted by Schoen Consulting found that 11% of all US adults and 22% of millennials haven’t ever heard of the Holocaust. Perhaps Oregon Ceasefire is one of them.
Is Oregon Ceasefire Antisemitic? I think so. If you can compare what they are advocating with what nazi Germany had for gun laws and the persist in doing so, I would say yes they are. I believe as you look at the rise of antisemitism world wide it’s imperative that Jews learn to shoot and be ready to do so.
To that end I reached out to one of my favorite groups, Cherev Gidon. In the wake of the Pittsburgh Synagogue attack they came on my radar. I asked a simple question, Why do you do what you do? Why are you teaching Jews and others to shoot and how to defend themselves?
Yonatan, director and founder was kind enough to answer me.
Cherev Gidon Israeli Tactical Training Academy exists for the purpose of training American Jews with Israeli combat shooting skills, so that every American Jewish community will be well armed and professionally trained with the ability to mount an effective defense against any violent attack on any Jewish community (as we saw in Pittsburgh). Our goal is to have each and every American Jew carrying a firearm with them to synagogue (and everywhere they go), so that never again will any Jew fall victim to antisemitic violence. Thankfully, our program has become incredibly popular recently, and we are actively achieving our goal of making those communities hard targets. We are currently expanding to different regions and communities across the US as a result of the unprecedented demand and we hope to be able to make our training programs easily accessible to all Jews, no matter what part of the country they live in.
And do you know what? This
beats this
Wedding rings
Every day of the week and twice on Shabbat. When I wrote OFF back and thanked them for answering me, I made a comment.
Aaron
I like that.
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.
