Advertisements
Home

Ryan Blocking Concealed Carry Reciprocity, Congressman Tells Armed American Radio

2 Comments

H/T AmmoLand.

Paul Ryan is a turd floating in the D.C. sewer.

 The Democrats had no problem with “timing” to press for citizen disarmament when they were in power. (Speaker Paul Ryan/Facebook)

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- Speaker Paul Ryan will not allow Congressional action on national concealed carry reciprocity to move bills forward, Rep. Thomas Massie told host Mark Walters Thursday on Armed American Radio.  The reason given is Ryan thinks the timing isn’t right to consider H.R. 2909, the D.C. Personal Protection Reciprocity Act, a supplement to state reciprocity provisions of H.R. 38.

Massie introduced his legislation after the ball field shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise and other Republicans by an anti-Trump Bernie Sanders supporter in Alexandria, VA.

“I would tell you this is a gun-free zone except that I know the criminals are carrying every day,” Massie told Walters via phone from “right outside the Capitol.

“It is only a 10-mile gun-free zone for law-abiding citizens,” Massie explained. “Although Virginia’s a reciprocity state, and most everybody with a permit could have been carrying in Virginia, they couldn’t carry in Washington D.C. where they started their day and where they were going to end their day.”

District gun laws meant those who left their D.C. offices for the ball field were unarmed and at this guy’s mercy by mandate.

What prevented the shooting from being worse and racking up a higher victim toll was that a member of the leadership had police protection, Massie said. “I guarantee you there are thousands of firearms here in D.C. they’re just not in the hands of lawful citizens.”

Massie went on to explain how he’s seen “a lot of pro-gun bills being introduced but they were going nowhere.” That’s a common tactic among politicians happy to capitalize off good press they can showcase to their constituents while cynically understanding the bills are intended for that, not to actually be passed and to change anything.

So why has there been no movement on reciprocity and on the additional provision of recognizing state permits in the District?

“We’ve got over 80 cosponsors at this point,” Massie told Walters when asked the status of his bill, which is currently and procedurally in the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform because Congress has oversight responsibility for Washington D.C. He’s “pressing for a hearing on it.”

Massie is understandably frustrated by “leadership” obstruction.

“Why haven’t we seen movement over either 38 or 2909 since the horrific events in Virginia?” Walters asked, noting the Republicans control the House and the Senate and both Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell appear to be blocking bills advancing the right to keep and bear arms.

“You know what?” Massie replied, “The Speaker told me he didn’t think the timing was right. And I think this is the exact timing to bring this bill.”

Of course it is. What a disingenuous excuse. When will the timing be better?

The thing is, depending on who gun owners listen to, both Ryan and McConnell are called “staunch supporters of the Second Amendment.” Yet time after time, on guns, on Obamacare, on immigration, on any real change, they look like they’re taking positions directly contrary to why a critical mass of Americans got tired of standard Republican excuse-making fare and voted for Donald Trump.

Rights depend on “timing”?

“A right delayed is a right denied,” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. noted.

Any “Republican” who doesn’t understand that deserves to be replaced by someone who does.

“Politics is the art of the possible,” apologists for the status quo representing themselves as “pragmatic” will counter. “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”

Requiring permits in the first place is hardly perfect. And as far as what is possible goes, how would those averse to testing limits have a clue?

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

Advertisements

Which Political Party Wants You Disarmed?

2 Comments

H/T AmmoLand.

It is scary how the DemocRat party has changed since John F.Kennedy was president as he was a lifetime member of The NRA.

Now they want people to be helpless subjects.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” — George Mason 1788

Which political party wants to take your guns?

Democrats War on Guns
Democrats War on Guns

Slow FactsUSA –-(Ammoland.com)-  I hadn’t thought about that question until this last election. Sure, I’d seen the usual campaign photographs of political candidates wearing hunters-orange and carrying a long gun. That picture changed when Secretary Hillary Clinton said the NRA was her enemy.  Now I’ve looked at the data.  The Democrats are out to disarm us.

I recently looked at why the concealed carry rate varies across the fifty states.  Fewer people receive their carry permits where politicians mandate long hours of training.  Fewer people get their permits when the application is cumbersome and expensive.  As you’d expect, fewer of us are willing to pay these higher costs.

Rules matter more than money.

Fees and training only explains part of what we see.  The larger factor than the price of the permit is if we may apply for a permit at all.  States fall into three broad categories when they regulate concealed carry of a firearm in public.

Some states grant permits on a “may issue” basis.  In those states, a judge or sheriff can deny your application for any reason..or for no reason at all.  Politicians, judges, and retired law enforcement officers are the usual permit holders in “may issue” states.

Some states give permits on a “shall issue” basis.  Law abiding citizens are granted a permit in those states.  There may be mandatory training and fees, but an ordinary citizen can apply.

Some states said their firearms laws weren’t effective at disarming criminals.  Rather than disarm their honest citizens, these states adopted “unrestricted carry” also called constitutional carry.  There, you’re allowed to carry any firearm that you’re legally allowed to own.

The carry rate varies from a high of about 15 percent down to zero in some states.  The number of us who will get our permit is determined by the issuing scheme and the costs.  These factors explain how many, but they don’t explain why.

Why do we see these large variations in fees and issuing regulations?

The answer is politics.  Some states have Democrats as their governor, attorney general, and in control of their legislatures.  Others have Republicans in those positions.  The degree of Democrat control is strongly linked to the decline in carry permits.  Look at the next figure.  All the states in the upper left corner are Republican controlled while all the states in the lower right corner are all Democrat controlled.

On average, the permit rate is about three-and-a-third times higher in Republican controlled states than in Democrat controlled states.  Said another way, about 70 percent of us are disarmed as we move from Republican to Democrat controlled states.  To put a number on it, 10.9 million of us are disarmed by the gun-control regulations in Democrat controlled states.

Where do those restrictions come from?

On average, Democrat controlled states impose higher fees and mandate longer training hours before they will issue a carry permit.  In some states, Democrats refuse to grant permits to any ordinary citizens.  All the states with an effective zero percent licensing rate use a “may issue” licensing scheme.  The states that use a “may issue” licensing scheme are all Democrat controlled.  They are shown in blue in the following figure. In contrast, most of the states that recognize “unrestricted carry” are Republican controlled or politically neutral.  They are shown in red.  Vermont is the single exception and has never required permits.

I didn’t believe it at first, but Democrats really are out to disarm honest citizens.

Widespread firearms prohibition is a fairly new political phenomenon.  Both parties used to support the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.  There also was a time when Democrats supported the working middle class.  Today, the middle class wants to protect themselves at home and in public.  We will be better served when both political parties address our needs and recognize the right to bear arms.

~_~_

About Rob Morse
The original article is here.  Rob Morse writes about gun rights at Ammoland, at Clash Daily and on his SlowFacts blog. He hosts the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast and co-hosts the Polite Society Podcast. Rob is an NRA pistol instructor and combat handgun competitor.

Legislative Resolution Opposes Civil Rights for Those Visiting California

Leave a comment

H/T AmmoLand.

At one time I wanted to visit the Golden State but now with their hatred of firearms and the Second Amendment I will not go.

Legislative Resolution Opposes Civil Rights for Those Visiting California

Firearms Policy CoalitionSACRAMENTO, CA —-(Ammoland.com)- Asm. Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles) is asking the California State Legislature once again express their contempt for civil rights with the introduction of Assembly Joint Resolution (AJR) 24.

AJR 24 voices the Legislature’s opposition to current efforts in congress to pass “concealed carry reciprocity” legislation (S. 446 and H.R. 38) and any other similar legislation because it would require all states to recognize the concealed carry licenses of other states, creating equity for all when it comes to exercising the constitutional right to bear arms.

“This is not the first time the California Legislature has expressed their complete and utter disregard civil rights” stated Craig DeLuz, Spokesman for the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). “California has a long and tortured history with using gun laws to pick winners and losers instead of supporting equality and civil rights for all.”

The first gun control law passed in California, AB 80 was enacted in 1854. It was, “An Act to prevent the sale of firearms and ammunition to the Indians in this State.” In 1924 the Hawes Act was enacted to prevent Hispanics and Chinese from obtaining firearms. It also modified California’s concealed carry permit program to allow local law enforcement to subjectively discriminate in the issuance of permits under the guise of “discretion”, a practice that continues to this day.

Under California law, even if a law abiding resident passes thorough federal, state and local background checks, successfully completes specified training, which includes the law relating to use of force, and demonstrates competency with their firearm, they can still be turned down by the local sheriff or police chief for absolutely no objective reason at all.

Then there was the Mulford Act of 1967, which banned the right to openly carry a loaded firearm. This measure was meant to disarm civil rights activists groups like the Black Panthers.

“Gun control in California has always seemed to be about keeping unfavored groups of people from owning, possessing or bearing firearms”, said DeLuz. “ In AJR 24, the unfavored group of people are those who visit here from states that actually respect the second amendment rights of their residents.”

AJR 24 has been referred to the Assembly Public Safety Committee, where FPC plans to vigorously oppose it. “California is not an island and needs to respect the rights of all Americans.” said DeLuz, “We understand that they don’t respect the rights of their own residents. But now they want to export their discriminatory policies to all 50 states.”

No hearing date has been set for either the Congressional bills or AJR 24.

About the Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Is Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA) Really all it is Cracked Up To Be?

2 Comments

H/T AmmoLand.

 

By Roger J. Katz, Attorney at Law and Stephen L. D’Andrilli
This is a follow-up to our recent post on Congressman Chris Collins’ bill, titled the “Second Amendment Guarantee Act” (H.R. 3576) (“SAGA”).

Second Amendment Guarantee Act
Second Amendment Guarantee Act
Arbalest Quarrel
Arbalest Quarrel

New York, NY  -(Ammoland.com)- In our previous post we explained some major failings of Congressman Chris Collins’ bill as drafted.

In our next post we will set down our own suggestions for a possible redraft of pertinent federal legislation that, in our humble opinion, will, we feel, more adequately accomplish Congressman Collins’ objective, and transcend it.

Even so, we are mindful that drafting firearms legislation on the federal level—even with the best of intention and care—can invite unintended consequences. But, before we proceed with a suggested redraft of H.R. 3576, some explanation is in order—hence the need for this interim article.

Second Amendment Guarantee Act 

There are several problems with the Second Amendment Guarantee Act as drafted. The bill, in its present form, does not, in our estimate, accomplish the immediate goal the bill’s sponsors hope, trust, and pray it would accomplish, namely the toppling of New York’s Safe Act, and, by extension, the toppling of similar restrictive, draconian firearms’ legislation, such as Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act—an Act the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit gave its “good housekeeping seal of approval” on in the disastrous Kolbe decision ((Kolbe vs. O’Malley, 42 F. Supp. 3d 768 (D. Md. 2014); vacated and remanded, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2016); rev’d en banc, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017)). In Kolbe Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Maryland’s “assault weapon” ban and “LCM” ban. In revisiting the three Judge panel’s decision in that case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit–hearing the case “en banc”–held that Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act ban on “assault weapons” and“LCMs” did not infringe the Second Amendment. In so holding, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ignored U.S. Supreme Court precedent, essentially overriding and shredding the U.S. Supreme Court Majority Opinions in the seminal Second Amendment Hellercase (554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008)) and in the subsequent seminal Second Amendment McDonald case(McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010)). Hopefully, Kolbe will be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court and overturned by the high Court. If so, that will, in our estimate, accomplish more—and accomplish more directly and categorically and unequivocally—to defeat Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act and to defeat similar legislation, like New York’s notorious “Safe Act”—than Congressman Collins’ bill will do on the Legislative front, even if the Congressman’s bill were, in its present form, enacted. But, we do not see Collins’ Second Amendment Guarantee Act, even in the language of the present, weak and equivocal form ever moving out of Committee to full House Debate, and eventual House vote, absent concerted effort on the part of the public urging House Republicans to move the bill along.

Our previous comments concerning what we see as failings in the Second Amendment Guarantee Act as presently drafted are not meant to cast aspersions on the bill or on the bill’s sponsors. Quite the contrary, we commend Congressman Collins for his efforts, commend those who drafted the bill, and we commend those U.S. Representatives who signed on to the bill—assuming those U.S. Representatives who signed on to the bill are truly serious in pressing forward with their efforts to strengthen the Second Amendmenton the federal level.

But, we are faced with two disturbing, incontrovertible realities that must be recognized and dealt with.

FIRST:

Notwithstanding his goal in introducing his bill (H.R. 3576) in the House—overturning New York’s Safe Act—we wonder whether Congressman Collins and the other sponsors of the bill have the heart to see their actions through to completion. If introduction of the bill is mere grandstanding to serve a political end but nothing more—namely to illustrate that Congressman Collins and others who signed on as sponsors to the bill are strong supporters of the Second Amendment—the introduction of a bill that goes nowhere and is not really intended to go anywhere serves does not serve the interests of the American people but, rather serves only the interests of Legislators themselves who seek to secure their political futures. Legislators must have the courage and strength and fortitude of their conviction to see their initial efforts through. Otherwise, the American public should be circumspect–as we are circumspect–in applauding what may amount to, at most, half-hearted efforts to “look good” to a Legislator’s base. We have already seen how numerous national handgun carry reciprocity bills are still stuck in Committee. Why is that? Were the sponsors of those bills intent on seeing their actions through? If so, why has there been no action on those bills? Not one of those bills, to the extent that we are aware, has moved even one step beyond the initial stage of Congressional introduction of the bill even though the most recent has been introduced in Congress a couple of months ago, and others have been introduced several months ago; and all of them languish in Committee.

We see no House or Senate Committee action. We see no House or Senate debate. We see no amendment to any one of those bills. We see no House or Senate vote. We see nothing concrete beyond introduction of a bill.

From what we can see and deduce from a disturbing inaction on the part of Congress is that no action on any one of these pro-Second Amendment bills is expected anytime soon, if ever. So, from this experience, we ask: Why should anyone expect Congressional movement on Congressman Collins’ bill? The question is rhetorical. For, no one should expect action on Congressman Collins’ bill. There must exist, then, an urge to action, and that urge, or nudge, will have to come, it is apparent, from the outside—from the public.

Don’t expect House members to act on the bill. But, why is that? Why must the public urge Congress to act? Why can’t these Legislators follow through on their actions? Apart from introduction of pro-Second Amendment bills, accompanied by muted Press Releases, nothing is ever accomplished. Of course, we cannot expect the mainstream media—a tool of powerful, ruthless, nefarious, internationalists who seek nothing less than destruction of our Second Amendment—to herald enactment of pro-Second Amendmentbills. But this means those Legislators who do truly support a strengthened Second Amendment must work all the harder to see their initial efforts through to completion.

SECOND:

Even if the Second Amendment Guarantee Act were enacted, still, as drafted, the Act guarantees nothing, to our mind, that is concrete. The Act as drafted is extraordinarily brief, modifying one and only one Section of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. While brevity is preferable over length for length’s own sake, simplicity in construction is not a good thing if ambiguity, vagueness, and critical gaps in legal drafting exist.

In this instance, H.R. 3576 is truncated, vague and ambiguous and therefore invites the antigun crowd to challenge it, or, simply, to ignore it. were the bill enacted, as restrictive State firearms legislation may claim the bill–as federal law–is too indefinite to be considered, from a legal perspective, inconsistent with State law. Thus, contrary to the assertions of Congressman Collins Press Release, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act, in its present form, would not, then, likely accomplish what Congressman Collins and the other sponsors of it believe it would accomplish. There is too much wiggle room in it. Apart from inviting a challenge by restrictive gun law States, there is nothing in Congressman Collins’ bill that would legally prevent States from continuing to enforce their restrictive gun Statutes.

WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT IS AN IMPERFECT BILL THAT LIKELY WOULD NOT ACCOMPLISH WHAT CONGRESSMAN COLLINS SAYS IT WOULD ACCOMPLISH WERE IT TO BE ENACTED

Apart from the reality that no Committee action on this bill is to be expected, we again emphasize that, even if, by some miracle, this bill made it out of Committee, passed the House and then moved to the Senate where it received a super majority of votes, leading to enactment, it is highly doubtful that the bill would, in its present form, operate as an automatic repeal of restrictive gun laws such New York’s Safe Act or Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act, or of any other draconian State restrictive firearms Act that openly, glaringly infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

HOW DOES CONGRESSMAN COLLINS’ BILL MODIFY EXISTING FEDERAL LAW?

The bill (H.R. 3576), as written, operates as a redraft of one and only one federal firearms’ Statute: A Statute that may be construed as a federal firearms’ preemption Statute—in a sense, an “anti-preemption” Statute, given the weak wording of it. The preemptionStatute, Section 927 (Effect on State Law) of Chapter 44 (Firearms), of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure) of the U.S. Code, as enacted, reads as follows:

“No provision of this chapter [18 USCS §§ 921 et seq.] shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.”

Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, as written, basically tells States that, on the matter of firearms, generally, States have a free hand to regulate the field unless there is a direct and positive conflict and the two cannot be reconciled or stand together. The operative words, here, are ‘unless,’ and ‘direct and positive conflict,’ and ‘the two cannot be reconciled or stand together.’

Congressman Collins bill rewrites that Section to read:

“A State or a political subdivision of a State may not impose any regulation, prohibition, or registration or licensing requirement with respect to the design, manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, possession, or marking of a rifle or shotgun that has moved in, or any such conduct that affects, interstate or foreign commerce, that is more restrictive, or impose any penalty, tax, fee, or charge with respect to such a rifle or shotgun or such conduct, in an amount greater, than is provided under Federal law. To the extent that a law of a State or political subdivision of a State, whether enacted before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this subsection, violates the preceding sentence, the law shall have no force or effect. For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘rifle or shotgun’ includes any part of a rifle or shotgun, any detachable magazine or ammunition feeding device, and any type of pistol grip or stock design.”

This redraft of one Section of Title 18, namely, Section 927, is, in this instance, insufficient to defeat the Safe Act’s “assault weapons”ban, or to defeat “assault weapons” bans of any other State, because, among other things, there is nothing in federal law that talks about “assault weapons.” Pay particular attention to the words of the bill that read:

“A State or a political subdivision of a State may not impose any regulation, prohibition, or registration or licensing requirement with respect to the design, manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, possession, or marking of a rifle or shotgun that has moved in, or any such conduct that affects, interstate or foreign commerce, that is more restrictive. . . with respect to such a rifle or shotgun . . . than is provided under Federal law.”

The problem is that federal law is silent or essentially silent on the matter of regulation of any firearm other than those defined asmachine guns, as ‘machine gun’ is mentioned and defined with particularity in the Internal Revenue Service Code [Title 26 of the U.S. Code] and in Title 18 of the U.S. Code [18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4)] which sets forth, with particularity, the intention of Congress to regulate destructive devices, machine guns, and short-barreled rifles and shotguns: “[i]t shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver–to any person any destructive device, machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 [1986] [26 USCS § 5845]), short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity; . . .” So, then, by the very language of Congressman Collins’ bill, States such as New York would, arguably, remain free to regulate, through registration and transfer, all manner of firearms—rifles, shotguns, and handguns—apart from those clearly identified as and defined in the U.S. Code.

Because federal law is essentially silent on the regulation of rifles, shotguns, and handguns, it does not follow, logically or legally, from the language of the proposed modification to Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, that States are categorically prohibited from regulating any firearm other than machine guns, as defined in 26 USCS § 5845(b), short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles,and destructive devices, as the expression, ‘destructive device,’ is defined in 26 USCS § 5845(f). Thus, if H.R. 3576 were enacted, NY Safe and other draconian State gun laws that operate to ban, within the State, weapons defined in State law as ‘assault weapons’ and components of firearms defined in State law as ‘large capacity magazines’ (‘LCMs’) could very well remain effectively untouched and, therefore, unaffected in accordance with the modified Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, because by the very language of the Congressman Collins’ bill, NY Safe and other similar restrictive gun laws of other States remain may be arguably considered to beconsistent with or might otherwise be construed as capable of being reconciled with provisions of federal law. New York’s NY Safe and Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act, and similar draconian firearms legislation existent in other States would therefore remain intact. Hence, States might find that a Tenth Amendment challenge or other challenge to H.R. 3576 may be necessary. Yes, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act could survive a Tenth Amendment challenge, but its impact on State firearms’ laws would be nugatory. States would simply ignore the Second Amendment Guarantee Act as they could still register and regulate the transfer of firearms or ban outright many categories of weapons—including and especially, those defined as ‘assault weapons’ under State law, which the Second Amendment Guarantee Act was targeting. Thus, any guarantee of movement of, say, assault weapons in interstate traffic, would still be subject to heavy State regulation in intrastate traffic. One’s guarantee of exercise of one’s Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms would then end up as an empty gesture.

MUCH WORK IS NEEDED TO MAKE THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT AN EFFECTIVE ACT, ENABLING A PERSON, WHO IS NOT UNDER DISABILITY, TO LAWFULLY OWN FIREARMS THAT SEVERAL STATE STATUTES PRESENTLY PROHIBIT, NAMELY AND SPECIFICALLY, THOSE DEFINED AS ‘ASSAULT WEAPONS.’

The Second Amendment Guarantee Act is an extensive redraft of Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, only. But, had the bill been drafted effectively, to preclude a State from banning an entire category of firearms defined as “assault weapons,” Congressman Collins could have done so and should have done so by modifying not only Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, but by modifying, explicitly, Sections 921, 922, and 926 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, and modifying, as well, Section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Service Code (of the U.S. Code), 26 USCS § 5845, concentrating more expressly on guaranteeing one’s right to own and possesssemiautomatic weapons, the bane of antigun legislators and antigun groups–as they deposit ever more semiautomatic weapons into the category of ‘assault weapons’–prohibiting the average law-abiding citizen from legally holding any of them. 

AN IMPORTANT CAVEAT TO MODIFYING ANY FEDERAL FIREARMS LEGISLATION

As we cautioned at the beginning of this article, Federal legislation operates across the board. If done improperly, the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms could be substantially curtailed or, at least, negatively impacted, and decidedly and decisively impaired.

Consider: Federal law preempts State regulation of machine guns, “short-barreled” rifles and shotguns, and “destructive devices”altogether. The federal Government regulates ownership and possession of these firearms, together with destructive devices, through the Justice Department, the Internal Revenue Service, and through the Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Would Americans be willing to accept federal registration of firearms defined as “assault weapons” for the privilege of lawfully owning and possessing them? Well, for residents of New York and Maryland and similar States that ban possession of assault weapons, outright, and that ban various components of firearms, except for those firearms and, possibly, those components of firearm that have been grandfathered in, federal registration of firearms defined as “assault weapons”may seem a small price to pay. But, for those of us who reside in States that do not presently impose bans on possession of weapons that other States routinely proscribe, such residents of States that do not impose bans on or registration of so-called assault weaponsmay not see that legislation, such as the Second Amendment Guarantee Act, a great and wonderful thing to be enacted. For, once enacted, H.R. 3576 must then be implemented and, if federal preemption truly does supersede State law regulation of firearms, we could expect the Justice Department, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol, Firearms, and Explosives of the Justice Department (BATFE), to regulate the ownership and possession and transfer and licensing of “assault weapons,” just as it now regulates the ownership and possession and transfer and licensing of machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and destructive devices. That would likely—and conceivably, inevitably—entail the creation of a massive registry of the names and whereabouts of Americans who seek to own and possess all manner of firearms. Thus, there are hidden costs associated with federal firearms preemption Statutes.

The best thing that can be said about State regulation of firearms is that the impact of draconian firearms legislation is limited jurisdictionally to that particular State. Thus, the NY Safe Act, while impinging awfully–indeed, catastrophically–on one’s right to keep and bear arms in New York, has, fortunately, no legal force or effect in, say, Ohio, or Texas, or Wyoming.

Congressman Collins’ bill, as written, is too open-ended and, if it were enacted, as is, we believe that it would be of little, if any, benefit to those individuals living in States that have stringent firearms’ laws in place and, further, Congressman Collins’ bill could, actually harm those that live in States with more permissive firearms’ laws. Moreover, even if the federal Government enacts laws that tend to strengthen the Second Amendment—which would be an anomaly anyway—remember full well: what the federal Government giveth, the federal government can taketh away. Thus, Congressman Collins’ Second Amendment Guarantee Act must be redrafted with the aim of emphasizing the word, ‘Guarantee.’ It must not be an empty gesture or worse, something that manifests as the inverse to the loftiness of its title or as something that devolves into a massive firearms’ registration and eventual firearms confiscation scheme–which could happen in the event Democrats gain control of both Houses of Congress, as Democrats, given the chance, would do their damnedest to repeal outright–or with a tweaking of a word, here and there, transform the Second Amendment Guarantee Act into a nightmare–a new federal assault weapons ban; and THAT, would definitely not be a good thing.

Thus, one should always be mindful of the adage: “Be careful what you wish for”—certainly, one should be ever mindful of negative consequences–definitely where federal government agencies are given the opportunity to tinker with the Second Amendment. 

Keep in mind, Government agencies are tasked with implementing federal law through the promulgation of Administrative Rules, published in the Code of Federal Regulations, and these bureaucratic agencies of the Federal Government charged with drafting and then implementing rules to effectuate Congressional intent through Congressional legislation, often do so with a very, very heavy hand, creating and implementing rules that go well beyond the parameters of and intention of Congress.  The Devil is an artful twister of one’s desires, no matter how carefully a person calibrates his stated wishes.**

_______________________________   

*The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on the Kolbe case and will continue to do so.

**As a deadly serious example of what we are talking about here, take a look at the excellent comedy, “Bedazzled,”–the original, 1967 version with Dudley Moore and Peter Cooke, not the remake of that film. For another example, see the Arbalest Quarrel article, “The Flaws in Judge Garland’s Reasoning,” posted on the Arbalest Quarrel website on April 14, 2016.

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

 

270 Million Firearms Number Wrong; Over 400 Million in U.S.A.

4 Comments

H/T AmmoLand.

I seriously  doubt the true number of firearms in American will be know but they may come close.

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2017/09/270-million-firearms-number-wrong-over-400-million-in-u-s-a/#ixzz4sDE57WCq
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- A writer for The Trace recently complained about the numbers of guns Americans own.

From twitter:

Due diligence is indicated. The 270 million number is over a decade old and rather low. We know better now. The best current number is there are over 400 million private firearms in the United States.

You can see the 270 million number was published in 2007.

From smallarmssurvey.org:

The 270 million number is repeated on the anti-Second Amendment site smartgunlaws.com, for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.  The link fails to mention the estimate from the Small Arms Survey was done in 2007. The data that used for the survey was collected in 2006. The estimate applies to that date, 2006. From smallarmssurvey.org:

The analysis presented here relies mostly on static data, creating only a snapshot of the global firearms balance in the year 2006. There are not yet enough dynamic, time-series reports to permit a reliable sense of how civilian holdings are developing in most countries. The general global impression, though, leaves no doubt that civilians are continually acquiring more-powerful guns. There is a connection between per capita wealth and gun ownership, which is strong enough to suggest that so long as gun ownership laws are not changed, greater national wealth leads to greater gun ownership.

Greater gun ownership may lead to greater wealth. The arrow of causality is not determined by the correlation. Uncertainty about the future also leads to more gun ownership. Private gun ownership increased over 30% during the two terms of President Barack Obama.

In 2012, the Congressional Research Service gave the number of private firearms in 2007 as 294 million, about 24 million more than the Small Arms Survey in 2006. The same document says that by 2009, the number had increased to 310 million.

According to ATF reports on firearms manufacture, import and exports, the number of firearms added to the private stock were (figures rounded to .1 million):

  • 2007:  5.6 million
  • 2008:  6.9 million
  • 2009:  8.9 million
  • 2010:  8.1 million
  • 2011:  9.5 million
  • 2012: 13.1 million
  • 2013: 16.0 million
  • 2014: 12.3 million
  • 2015: 12.9 million

The estimate for 2016 is 15.6 million, based on extrapolation from the FBI National Instant Checks System (NICS).

Starting with the Small Arms Survey for the number of Firearms in the United States for 2006, the increase reported for 2007-2015 by the ATF, with the extrapolated increase from the FBI NICS system for 2016, equals another 99 million firearms. That would be 369 million firearms in the United States at the end of 2016.

If we use the Congressional Research Service number for 2007, of 294 million firearms, the estimated increase would give us 387 million firearms at the end of 2016.

Calculations using the methods developed by Newton and Zimring are well documented. They do not rely on surveys, and they include the number of modern guns added to the stock from 1899 to 1945.  Firearms manufactured before 1899 are not included.

Gary Kleck expanded on those numbers, using the same methodology in “Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America” by Gary Kleck, Table 2.1. Point Blank shows 47 million guns in 1945, increasing to 198 million guns in 1987. Point Blank received the Michael J. Hindelang Award in 1993.

The number is the cumulative addition of domestic manufacture plus imports minus exports.  It does not count guns shipped to the U.S. military.   The figures are rounded to the nearest million.

The numbers do not account for reduction of the gun stock due to wear and tear, loss, destruction or illegal exportation; or increases of the stock from illegal importation, individual or illegal manufacture, or acquisition from military sources, such as surplus sales to the private market from the U.S. military.

Using the Newton-Zimring and Kleck method and ATF reported figures from 1988 to 2015, gives a total of 389 million private firearms at the end of 2015.

Extrapolation of the FBI NICS checks increases the stock by 15.6 million guns in 2016. That gives an estimate of 404 million guns at the end of 2016.

All three estimates are much higher than the 2006 numbers used for the Small Arms Survey in 2007.  The larger numbers are reasonable, considering booming gun sales in the United States.

Starting with the survey data from The Small Arms Survey, at the end of 2016 there would be 369 million private firearms in the United States.

Using the Congressional Research Office figures, there would be 389 million private firearms.

Use the methods forged by Newton, Zimring, and Kleck, with ATF and FBI figures, there were 404 million firearms in the United States at the end of 2016.

The estimates are 99 to 134 million above the outdated 2006 figure cited by The Trace.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch

 

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Bill Introduced in Congress that Would Ban NJ’s Gun Control Laws

Leave a comment

H/T AmmoLand.

The Second Amendment Guarantee Act is some thing we need to support and urge our U.S. Representatives to sponsor.

New Jersey –-(Ammoland.com)- Now this is a bill we can support – The Second Amendment Guarantee Act, introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY), would ban most of NJ’s gun control laws.

Drafted for people living in states like New Jersey, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA) would prevent states from being able to ban any weapons that are legal under Federal Law. “This legislation would protect the Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers that were unjustly taken away by Andrew Cuomo,” said Collins.

“I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and have fought against all efforts to condemn these rights. I stand with the law-abiding citizens of this state that have been outraged by the SAFE Act and voice my commitment to roll back these regulations.”

Though widely available and commonly owned throughout the country, northeastern states like Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York have banned the mere possession of many popular long guns. Though, it’s not clear what effect, if any, these state laws have had on violent crimes.

According to Collins, the bill would ban state or local governments from regulating, prohibiting, or requiring registration and licensing (that are any more restrictive under Federal law) for the sale, manufacturing, importation, transfer, possession, or marketing of a rifle or shotgun. Additionally, “rifle or shotgun” includes any part of the weapon including any detachable magazine or ammunition feeding devise and any type of pistol grip or stock design.

With a law like that, NJ’s “assault weapon” and magazine bans would be toast. Furthermore, the entire permit system would likely be gone as well since it’s more restrictive than Federal law. This bill, plus Trump’s court appointments to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, which takes appeals from NJ, should bring hope and optimism for gun owners in NJ seeking relief from the laws that have been imposed on us for decades.

If you’d like to be a part of stopping the madness of NJ’s gun control laws, join NJ2AS or become a Frontline donor. Remember, everyone who joins NJ2AS or donates $10 or more this month will automatically be entered into our August Giveaway. There’s no cavalry on the horizon, it’s just us, so join today and help make a difference in this state.

About the New Jersey Second Amendment Society:

New Jersey Second Amendment Society – Our mission is to promote the free exercise of Second Amendment rights within the community and Legislature of New Jersey, to educate the community regarding the enjoyable, safe, and responsible use of firearms, and to engender a sense of camaraderie and fellowship among the members and their families. Visit: http://www.nj2as.com

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: