Gun Control 2022 (IV) - Gun Rights, Control, & Government

[Grinning Dragon]

Chef Noir serving a delicious plate of irony.

Well that king dude is nothing more than a low-IQ parasite any-how. Doesn't surprise me much he's also a hypocrite.

[Grinning Dragon]

Common Use: 60% of centerfire rifle hunters use an AR-15

Common Use: 60% of centerfire rifle hunters use an AR-15

By Larry Keane

The time has come for President Joe Biden and the rest of the gun control politicians to pack up the worn-out line that “no one needs an AR-15 to hunt deer.”

Turns out, recreational target shooters and hunters do want Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs). That’s the family of AR-platform [semiautomatic] rifles that come in many calibers. According to the 2022 Ammunition Consumption Study by Winchester Ammunition, more than half of recreational shooters firing a centerfire rifle used an MSR. Of those who hunted with an MSR, 40 percent chose the MSR as their firearm of choice.

Winchester Ammunition conducted a survey of 1,600 hunters and recreational shooters in the first quarter of 2022 to better learn which firearm recreational shooters and hunters were using. Turns out the most popular selling centerfire rifle in America is the rifle of choice.

That might come as a surprise for Capitol Hill lawmakers, especially for the 217 Members of Congress who voted to ban MSRs and some semiautomatic shotguns and handguns when they passed H.R. 1808, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022. The argument made that MSRs serve no practical purpose for hunting is false.
It Will Hunt

Currently, 10 states restrict hunting with .223 or 5.56mm. Three of those states only allow shotguns, or straight-wall cartridges. New Jersey has an outright ban on MSRs. Even those states with caliber restrictions allow for MSRs that fire larger calibers. It’s not just deer, though, and not all in Washington, D.C., buy the line that AR-15s aren’t good for hunting.

U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy defended using an MSR for hunting hogs when asked by Vice News. “I’m law abiding, I’ve never done anything, I use it to kill feral pigs,” Sen. Cassidy said in a People Magazine report questioning lawmakers why Americans choose this rifle in the wake of the tragedy in Uvalde, Texas. “The action of a criminal deprives me of my right,” he added about proposed bans.

U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) told CNN, “In my state, they use them to shoot prairie dogs and, you know, other types of varmints. And so I think there are legitimate reasons why people would want to have them.”

That might not mean much to Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) who held hearings to castigate MSR manufacturers. Nor would it earn consideration from Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) who ushered the bill through the U.S. House of Representatives to ban MSRs. No one expects Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to recognize the utility from her gated San Francisco estate. South Dakotans, however, see it differently. Controlling varmints and predators is a necessity to ranchers.

Congressman Ken Buck (R-Colo.) would agree. He said of the AR-15, “It is the gun of choice for killing a fox, it is a gun that you control predators on your ranch, on your farm, on your property.”

The news that recreational target shooters and hunters are turning to the MSR as the rifle of choice is hardly a surprise to the firearm industry, recreational target shooters or hunters.
Built Better

Jordan Sillars, writing for MeatEater, the hunting brand made famous by Steve Rinella who hosts a Netflix series by the same name, listed off the pros and cons of hunting with MSRs. Among the many reasons for hunters to consider the rifle are the fact that it is semiautomatic, has low recoil that allows for quick follow-up shots, its modularity and is customizable, as well as lightweight and maneuverable. That’s important for hunters whether hunting from a box blind on a weekend or trekking into off-grid public lands.

Even when it comes to the .223/5.56mm cartridge, Sillars wrote in another piece that today’s modern ammunition deserves a second look where it’s legal for those who think it is diminutive.

“Bullet design has come a long way since your granddaddy decided a whitetail gun was .30-06 or bust,” he wrote.

In fact, Rinella, who normally hunts with large caliber bolt-action rifles, said time shooting the MSR helped him improve marksmanship. “Without the distraction of getting my molars loosened, and thanks to steady repetition, I was able to learn a thing or two about bad habits that I wasn’t even aware of,” he said.

Politicians railing against MSRs might argue that recreational target shooters and hunters could use other rifles to do the same thing. The numbers, though, don’t lie. The MSR is filling their need – and the Second Amendment gives them the right to choose the firearm that meets their needs. It is not for the government to decide.

Common Use: NSSF Announces Over 24 Million ‘Modern Sporting Rifles’ in Circulation

NEWTOWN, Conn. — NSSF®, the firearm industry trade association, updated the industry estimate of Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) in circulation in the United States to 24,446,000 since 1990. That is an increase of over 4.5 million rifles since the last estimate was released in 2020. The estimate is derived from NSSF research, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Exportation Report (AFMER) and U.S. International Trade Commission (U.S. ITC) data, in cooperation with manufacturers, importers and exporters of MSRs, or AR-15 and AK-style rifles. This most recent estimate includes production figures current through 2020, when the industry estimates over 2,798,000 of these rifles were produced or imported. This estimate does not include MSRs that were produced and exported or imported and later exported. The MSR remains the most-popular selling centerfire semiautomatic rifle in the United States today. There aremore MSRs in circulation today than there are Ford F-Series trucks on the road. “This is a truly significant figure that demonstrates – again – the popularity of this commonly-owned style of rifle,” said NSSF President and CEO Joe Bartozzi. “The firearm industry responds to market demand and this shows that during the elevated period of firearm sales that began in 2020, this particular style of rifle is the top choice for law-abiding citizens for hunting, recreational shooting and self-defense.” The MSR’s popularity for lawful ownership is attributable to several factors, including accuracy, reliability, modularity and low recoil.

[Pax Nerdvana]

Common Use: 60% of centerfire rifle hunters use an AR-15

Common Use: 60% of centerfire rifle hunters use an AR-15

By Larry Keane

The time has come for President Joe Biden and the rest of the gun control politicians to pack up the worn-out line that “no one needs an AR-15 to hunt deer.”

Turns out, recreational target shooters and hunters do want Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs). That’s the family of AR-platform [semiautomatic] rifles that come in many calibers. According to the 2022 Ammunition Consumption Study by Winchester Ammunition, more than half of recreational shooters firing a centerfire rifle used an MSR. Of those who hunted with an MSR, 40 percent chose the MSR as their firearm of choice.

Winchester Ammunition conducted a survey of 1,600 hunters and recreational shooters in the first quarter of 2022 to better learn which firearm recreational shooters and hunters were using. Turns out the most popular selling centerfire rifle in America is the rifle of choice.

That might come as a surprise for Capitol Hill lawmakers, especially for the 217 Members of Congress who voted to ban MSRs and some semiautomatic shotguns and handguns when they passed H.R. 1808, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022. The argument made that MSRs serve no practical purpose for hunting is false.
It Will Hunt

Currently, 10 states restrict hunting with .223 or 5.56mm. Three of those states only allow shotguns, or straight-wall cartridges. New Jersey has an outright ban on MSRs. Even those states with caliber restrictions allow for MSRs that fire larger calibers. It’s not just deer, though, and not all in Washington, D.C., buy the line that AR-15s aren’t good for hunting.

U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy defended using an MSR for hunting hogs when asked by Vice News. “I’m law abiding, I’ve never done anything, I use it to kill feral pigs,” Sen. Cassidy said in a People Magazine report questioning lawmakers why Americans choose this rifle in the wake of the tragedy in Uvalde, Texas. “The action of a criminal deprives me of my right,” he added about proposed bans.

U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) told CNN, “In my state, they use them to shoot prairie dogs and, you know, other types of varmints. And so I think there are legitimate reasons why people would want to have them.”

That might not mean much to Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) who held hearings to castigate MSR manufacturers. Nor would it earn consideration from Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) who ushered the bill through the U.S. House of Representatives to ban MSRs. No one expects Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to recognize the utility from her gated San Francisco estate. South Dakotans, however, see it differently. Controlling varmints and predators is a necessity to ranchers.

Congressman Ken Buck (R-Colo.) would agree. He said of the AR-15, “It is the gun of choice for killing a fox, it is a gun that you control predators on your ranch, on your farm, on your property.”

The news that recreational target shooters and hunters are turning to the MSR as the rifle of choice is hardly a surprise to the firearm industry, recreational target shooters or hunters.
Built Better

Jordan Sillars, writing for MeatEater, the hunting brand made famous by Steve Rinella who hosts a Netflix series by the same name, listed off the pros and cons of hunting with MSRs. Among the many reasons for hunters to consider the rifle are the fact that it is semiautomatic, has low recoil that allows for quick follow-up shots, its modularity and is customizable, as well as lightweight and maneuverable. That’s important for hunters whether hunting from a box blind on a weekend or trekking into off-grid public lands.

Even when it comes to the .223/5.56mm cartridge, Sillars wrote in another piece that today’s modern ammunition deserves a second look where it’s legal for those who think it is diminutive.

“Bullet design has come a long way since your granddaddy decided a whitetail gun was .30-06 or bust,” he wrote.

In fact, Rinella, who normally hunts with large caliber bolt-action rifles, said time shooting the MSR helped him improve marksmanship. “Without the distraction of getting my molars loosened, and thanks to steady repetition, I was able to learn a thing or two about bad habits that I wasn’t even aware of,” he said.

Politicians railing against MSRs might argue that recreational target shooters and hunters could use other rifles to do the same thing. The numbers, though, don’t lie. The MSR is filling their need – and the Second Amendment gives them the right to choose the firearm that meets their needs. It is not for the government to decide.

Common Use: NSSF Announces Over 24 Million ‘Modern Sporting Rifles’ in Circulation

NEWTOWN, Conn. — NSSF®, the firearm industry trade association, updated the industry estimate of Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) in circulation in the United States to 24,446,000 since 1990. That is an increase of over 4.5 million rifles since the last estimate was released in 2020. The estimate is derived from NSSF research, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Exportation Report (AFMER) and U.S. International Trade Commission (U.S. ITC) data, in cooperation with manufacturers, importers and exporters of MSRs, or AR-15 and AK-style rifles. This most recent estimate includes production figures current through 2020, when the industry estimates over 2,798,000 of these rifles were produced or imported. This estimate does not include MSRs that were produced and exported or imported and later exported. The MSR remains the most-popular selling centerfire semiautomatic rifle in the United States today. There aremore MSRs in circulation today than there are Ford F-Series trucks on the road. “This is a truly significant figure that demonstrates – again – the popularity of this commonly-owned style of rifle,” said NSSF President and CEO Joe Bartozzi. “The firearm industry responds to market demand and this shows that during the elevated period of firearm sales that began in 2020, this particular style of rifle is the top choice for law-abiding citizens for hunting, recreational shooting and self-defense.” The MSR’s popularity for lawful ownership is attributable to several factors, including accuracy, reliability, modularity and low recoil.

Of course, the actual number is going to be a fair amount higher then 24 million

[The every pacific owner 2]

Ohhhhh really

[Grinning Dragon]

Ohhhhh really

Yes, really. What are we really-ing too?

[Greater Cesnica]

Chef Noir serving a delicious plate of irony.

Reality is a bitch, eh?

[Grinning Dragon]

Well this is going to ruffle a few feathers and cause a run on pearls to be clutched.
Madison County schools will have semiautomatic rifles in each of the county’s six schools

[Big Jim P]

Well this is going to ruffle a few feathers and cause a run on pearls to be clutched.
Madison County schools will have semiautomatic rifles in each of the county’s six schools

People are already spazzing.

[The Two Jerseys]

Well this is going to ruffle a few feathers and cause a run on pearls to be clutched.
Madison County schools will have semiautomatic rifles in each of the county’s six schools

"What’s going to happen is we're going to have accidents with these guns" - some college professor

How? How are you going to have accidents with rifles that aren't going to be removed from the safe unless there's an active shooter situation?

[Dylar]

Well this is going to ruffle a few feathers and cause a run on pearls to be clutched.
Madison County schools will have semiautomatic rifles in each of the county’s six schools

"What’s going to happen is we're going to have accidents with these guns" - some college professor

How? How are you going to have accidents with rifles that aren't going to be removed from the safe unless there's an active shooter situation?

"Hey guys, this is the LockPickingLawyer [...]"

[Gun Manufacturers]

"What’s going to happen is we're going to have accidents with these guns" - some college professor

How? How are you going to have accidents with rifles that aren't going to be removed from the safe unless there's an active shooter situation?

"Hey guys, this is the LockPickingLawyer [...]"

LOL.

[American Legionaries]

"Hey guys, this is the LockPickingLawyer [...]"

LOL.

A safe isn't infallible, but I fail to see how having a safe in the front office is worse than having a car lock in the LEO's patrol car in the parking lot.

[The Two Jerseys]

LOL.

A safe isn't infallible, but I fail to see how having a safe in the front office is worse than having a car lock in the LEO's patrol car in the parking lot.

It's probably even better, seeing as how you can't just smash the window of a safe to gain entry.

[Grinning Dragon]

So the Gestapo FBI determined that the trigger was pulled on the firearm that killed that lady dudette on the Rust set. Well gee willikers batman, no shit, thank god we got dipshit fbi agency to tell us what we already knew.
No Surprise: FBI Forensic Report Says Trigger on ‘Rust’ Gun was Pulled

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Finally, almost ten months after cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was killed on a New Mexico movie set during the filming of ‘Rust,” an FBI forensic report obtained by ABC News confirmed what knowledgeable gun owners have known from the start of the investigation: the gun held by actor Alec Baldwin “could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger.”...

Keep being classist bigots, NY politician cunts.
New York Uses Historic Gun Bans Against Native Americans, Catholics to Justify Current Restrictions in Court Filing

The Empire State believes its gun-carry restrictions are similar to racist gun bans from the past, and that’s why they should be upheld.

New York cited historical bans on gun ownership by Native Americans and Catholics to support its current concealed-carry permitting law. The state argued in a Monday filing its “good moral character” clause, which allows officials to deny permits to those they don’t feel are good people, is rooted in the historical tradition of “Anglo-American” gun regulations. It first pointed to several colonial gun bans as analogous to its own law.

“From the early days of English settlement in America, the colonies sought to prevent Native American tribes from acquiring firearms, passing laws forbidding the sale and trading of arms to Indigenous people,” the filing from the office of Attorney General Letitia James (D.) reads.

New York then cited historical laws in England and America denying people their gun rights based on religion as another example of the tradition its requirement is based in.

“[E]ven after the English Bill of Rights established a right of the people to arm themselves, the right was only given to Protestants, based on a continued belief that Catholics were likely to engage in conduct that would harm themselves or others and upset the peace,” the filing said.

The arguments come in an effort to save the subjective standard for issuing permits after the Supreme Court struck down the state’s similarly subjective “good reason” clause earlier this year in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. That case also established a new standard for reviewing Second Amendment cases that involves proving regulations are rooted in tradition from the time of the founding.

New York resorting to examples of openly racist or bigoted laws as analogs indicates they may have a difficult time convincing courts it is constitutional. That’s especially true if the case makes its way back up to the Supreme Court, where five of the nine justices themselves are Catholic.

Additionally, the Supreme Court has written at length about the racist history of gun-control laws in the United States. In both Bruen and McDonald v. Chicago, the Court argued race-based bans were an affront to, and evidence of, the fundamental nature of the right to keep and bear arms.

New York’s filing acknowledges the bigoted nature of the laws they cite as similar to their own. However, it argued that the laws show a tradition of subjectively denying the right to bear arms.

“A clear-eyed look at American history and doctrine will necessarily reveal episodes that are shameful but nonetheless relevant, as the Bruen opinion teaches us,” the filing said in a footnote. “Of course, if a modern instance were to arise where gun licensing requirements were applied in a discriminatory manner, it could, should, and would be struck down as unconstitutional.”

But the Court explicitly rejected Chicago’s argument in Mcdonald that racist antebellum gun bans were an indication severe restrictions could be legal if decoupled from their discriminatory factors.

“[W]hile §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains ‘an antidiscrimination rule,’ namely, the Equal Protection Clause, municipal respondents can hardly mean that §1 does no more than prohibit discrimination,” the Court wrote in the case. “If that were so, then the First Amendment, as applied to the States, would not prohibit nondiscriminatory abridgments of the rights to freedom of speech or freedom of religion; the Fourth Amendment, as applied to the States, would not prohibit all unreasonable searches and seizures but only discriminatory searches and seizures—and so on. We assume that this is not municipal respondents’ view, so what they must mean is that the Second Amendment should be singled out for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment. We reject that suggestion.”

The Court further argued the reaction to racist restrictions on the ownership and carry of guns by African-Americans, the so-called “Black codes,” were indications that Second Amendment protections were understood to be fundamental to basic human rights.

“[M]unicipal respondents’ argument ignores the clear terms of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866, which acknowledged the existence of the right to bear arms,” the Court wrote. “If that law had used language such as ‘the equal benefit of laws concerning the bearing of arms,’ it would be possible to interpret it as simply a prohibition of racial discrimination. But §14 speaks of and protects ‘the constitutional right to bear arms,’ an unmistakable reference to the right protected by the Second Amendment. And it protects the ‘full and equal benefit’ of this right in the States. It would have been nonsensical for Congress to guarantee the full and equal benefit of a constitutional right that does not exist.”

New York’s filing identified a few other laws it said were similar to the “good moral character” clause it hopes to preserve. It cited some militia regulations from the 17th and 18th centuries, which empowered government officials to disarm people they believed posed a threat to the community. It also cited statutes that allowed people to be disarmed after being involved in a rebellion or insurrection against the United States unless or until they swore an oath of loyalty.

“In the Revolutionary era, colonies frequently disarmed individuals based on their reputation for being disloyal or hostile to the new American nation,” the filing said.

Overall, New York’s filing seeks to convince the Court the Second Amendment’s history provides a wide birth for gun regulations, even those based solely on the description of state officials. The state argues there is precedent for all sorts of restrictions to be found in the historical record.

“1) colonial laws providing for disarmament of dissident or hostile groups,” the state filing said. “2) Revolutionary laws individually disarming persons’ disaffected to the cause of America,’ 3) militia mustering statutes providing for disarmament if a person was deemed unfit at inspection, and 4) Reconstruction-era and later licensing requirements like New York City’s that involved an individualized assessment of dangerousness – is ‘relevantly similar’ to the good moral character assessment under the CCIA, and therefore satisfies the Bruen standard.”

The case is just one of many filed in the aftermath of the Bruen decision, which served as a catalyst for New York lawmakers to pay a myriad of new gun restrictions that seemingly fly in the face of the ruling. How the case turns out will likely provide a good barometer for how well the other new restrictions fair in federal court.

[Pax Nerdvana]

So the Gestapo FBI determined that the trigger was pulled on the firearm that killed that lady dudette on the Rust set. Well gee willikers batman, no shit, thank god we got dipshit fbi agency to tell us what we already knew.
No Surprise: FBI Forensic Report Says Trigger on ‘Rust’ Gun was Pulled

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Finally, almost ten months after cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was killed on a New Mexico movie set during the filming of ‘Rust,” an FBI forensic report obtained by ABC News confirmed what knowledgeable gun owners have known from the start of the investigation: the gun held by actor Alec Baldwin “could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger.”...

Keep being classist bigots, NY politician cunts.
New York Uses Historic Gun Bans Against Native Americans, Catholics to Justify Current Restrictions in Court Filing

The Empire State believes its gun-carry restrictions are similar to racist gun bans from the past, and that’s why they should be upheld.

New York cited historical bans on gun ownership by Native Americans and Catholics to support its current concealed-carry permitting law. The state argued in a Monday filing its “good moral character” clause, which allows officials to deny permits to those they don’t feel are good people, is rooted in the historical tradition of “Anglo-American” gun regulations. It first pointed to several colonial gun bans as analogous to its own law.

“From the early days of English settlement in America, the colonies sought to prevent Native American tribes from acquiring firearms, passing laws forbidding the sale and trading of arms to Indigenous people,” the filing from the office of Attorney General Letitia James (D.) reads.

New York then cited historical laws in England and America denying people their gun rights based on religion as another example of the tradition its requirement is based in.

“[E]ven after the English Bill of Rights established a right of the people to arm themselves, the right was only given to Protestants, based on a continued belief that Catholics were likely to engage in conduct that would harm themselves or others and upset the peace,” the filing said.

The arguments come in an effort to save the subjective standard for issuing permits after the Supreme Court struck down the state’s similarly subjective “good reason” clause earlier this year in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. That case also established a new standard for reviewing Second Amendment cases that involves proving regulations are rooted in tradition from the time of the founding.

New York resorting to examples of openly racist or bigoted laws as analogs indicates they may have a difficult time convincing courts it is constitutional. That’s especially true if the case makes its way back up to the Supreme Court, where five of the nine justices themselves are Catholic.

Additionally, the Supreme Court has written at length about the racist history of gun-control laws in the United States. In both Bruen and McDonald v. Chicago, the Court argued race-based bans were an affront to, and evidence of, the fundamental nature of the right to keep and bear arms.

New York’s filing acknowledges the bigoted nature of the laws they cite as similar to their own. However, it argued that the laws show a tradition of subjectively denying the right to bear arms.

“A clear-eyed look at American history and doctrine will necessarily reveal episodes that are shameful but nonetheless relevant, as the Bruen opinion teaches us,” the filing said in a footnote. “Of course, if a modern instance were to arise where gun licensing requirements were applied in a discriminatory manner, it could, should, and would be struck down as unconstitutional.”

But the Court explicitly rejected Chicago’s argument in Mcdonald that racist antebellum gun bans were an indication severe restrictions could be legal if decoupled from their discriminatory factors.

“[W]hile §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains ‘an antidiscrimination rule,’ namely, the Equal Protection Clause, municipal respondents can hardly mean that §1 does no more than prohibit discrimination,” the Court wrote in the case. “If that were so, then the First Amendment, as applied to the States, would not prohibit nondiscriminatory abridgments of the rights to freedom of speech or freedom of religion; the Fourth Amendment, as applied to the States, would not prohibit all unreasonable searches and seizures but only discriminatory searches and seizures—and so on. We assume that this is not municipal respondents’ view, so what they must mean is that the Second Amendment should be singled out for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment. We reject that suggestion.”

The Court further argued the reaction to racist restrictions on the ownership and carry of guns by African-Americans, the so-called “Black codes,” were indications that Second Amendment protections were understood to be fundamental to basic human rights.

“[M]unicipal respondents’ argument ignores the clear terms of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866, which acknowledged the existence of the right to bear arms,” the Court wrote. “If that law had used language such as ‘the equal benefit of laws concerning the bearing of arms,’ it would be possible to interpret it as simply a prohibition of racial discrimination. But §14 speaks of and protects ‘the constitutional right to bear arms,’ an unmistakable reference to the right protected by the Second Amendment. And it protects the ‘full and equal benefit’ of this right in the States. It would have been nonsensical for Congress to guarantee the full and equal benefit of a constitutional right that does not exist.”

New York’s filing identified a few other laws it said were similar to the “good moral character” clause it hopes to preserve. It cited some militia regulations from the 17th and 18th centuries, which empowered government officials to disarm people they believed posed a threat to the community. It also cited statutes that allowed people to be disarmed after being involved in a rebellion or insurrection against the United States unless or until they swore an oath of loyalty.

“In the Revolutionary era, colonies frequently disarmed individuals based on their reputation for being disloyal or hostile to the new American nation,” the filing said.

Overall, New York’s filing seeks to convince the Court the Second Amendment’s history provides a wide birth for gun regulations, even those based solely on the description of state officials. The state argues there is precedent for all sorts of restrictions to be found in the historical record.

“1) colonial laws providing for disarmament of dissident or hostile groups,” the state filing said. “2) Revolutionary laws individually disarming persons’ disaffected to the cause of America,’ 3) militia mustering statutes providing for disarmament if a person was deemed unfit at inspection, and 4) Reconstruction-era and later licensing requirements like New York City’s that involved an individualized assessment of dangerousness – is ‘relevantly similar’ to the good moral character assessment under the CCIA, and therefore satisfies the Bruen standard.”

The case is just one of many filed in the aftermath of the Bruen decision, which served as a catalyst for New York lawmakers to pay a myriad of new gun restrictions that seemingly fly in the face of the ruling. How the case turns out will likely provide a good barometer for how well the other new restrictions fair in federal court.

"Good" old NYC. Buncha ivory tower snobs

[The Two Jerseys]

So the Gestapo FBI determined that the trigger was pulled on the firearm that killed that lady dudette on the Rust set. Well gee willikers batman, no shit, thank god we got dipshit fbi agency to tell us what we already knew.
No Surprise: FBI Forensic Report Says Trigger on ‘Rust’ Gun was Pulled

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Finally, almost ten months after cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was killed on a New Mexico movie set during the filming of ‘Rust,” an FBI forensic report obtained by ABC News confirmed what knowledgeable gun owners have known from the start of the investigation: the gun held by actor Alec Baldwin “could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger.”...

Keep being classist bigots, NY politician cunts.
New York Uses Historic Gun Bans Against Native Americans, Catholics to Justify Current Restrictions in Court Filing

The Empire State believes its gun-carry restrictions are similar to racist gun bans from the past, and that’s why they should be upheld.

New York cited historical bans on gun ownership by Native Americans and Catholics to support its current concealed-carry permitting law. The state argued in a Monday filing its “good moral character” clause, which allows officials to deny permits to those they don’t feel are good people, is rooted in the historical tradition of “Anglo-American” gun regulations. It first pointed to several colonial gun bans as analogous to its own law.

“From the early days of English settlement in America, the colonies sought to prevent Native American tribes from acquiring firearms, passing laws forbidding the sale and trading of arms to Indigenous people,” the filing from the office of Attorney General Letitia James (D.) reads.

New York then cited historical laws in England and America denying people their gun rights based on religion as another example of the tradition its requirement is based in.

“[E]ven after the English Bill of Rights established a right of the people to arm themselves, the right was only given to Protestants, based on a continued belief that Catholics were likely to engage in conduct that would harm themselves or others and upset the peace,” the filing said.

The arguments come in an effort to save the subjective standard for issuing permits after the Supreme Court struck down the state’s similarly subjective “good reason” clause earlier this year in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. That case also established a new standard for reviewing Second Amendment cases that involves proving regulations are rooted in tradition from the time of the founding.

New York resorting to examples of openly racist or bigoted laws as analogs indicates they may have a difficult time convincing courts it is constitutional. That’s especially true if the case makes its way back up to the Supreme Court, where five of the nine justices themselves are Catholic.

Additionally, the Supreme Court has written at length about the racist history of gun-control laws in the United States. In both Bruen and McDonald v. Chicago, the Court argued race-based bans were an affront to, and evidence of, the fundamental nature of the right to keep and bear arms.

New York’s filing acknowledges the bigoted nature of the laws they cite as similar to their own. However, it argued that the laws show a tradition of subjectively denying the right to bear arms.

“A clear-eyed look at American history and doctrine will necessarily reveal episodes that are shameful but nonetheless relevant, as the Bruen opinion teaches us,” the filing said in a footnote. “Of course, if a modern instance were to arise where gun licensing requirements were applied in a discriminatory manner, it could, should, and would be struck down as unconstitutional.”

But the Court explicitly rejected Chicago’s argument in Mcdonald that racist antebellum gun bans were an indication severe restrictions could be legal if decoupled from their discriminatory factors.

“[W]hile §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains ‘an antidiscrimination rule,’ namely, the Equal Protection Clause, municipal respondents can hardly mean that §1 does no more than prohibit discrimination,” the Court wrote in the case. “If that were so, then the First Amendment, as applied to the States, would not prohibit nondiscriminatory abridgments of the rights to freedom of speech or freedom of religion; the Fourth Amendment, as applied to the States, would not prohibit all unreasonable searches and seizures but only discriminatory searches and seizures—and so on. We assume that this is not municipal respondents’ view, so what they must mean is that the Second Amendment should be singled out for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment. We reject that suggestion.”

The Court further argued the reaction to racist restrictions on the ownership and carry of guns by African-Americans, the so-called “Black codes,” were indications that Second Amendment protections were understood to be fundamental to basic human rights.

“[M]unicipal respondents’ argument ignores the clear terms of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866, which acknowledged the existence of the right to bear arms,” the Court wrote. “If that law had used language such as ‘the equal benefit of laws concerning the bearing of arms,’ it would be possible to interpret it as simply a prohibition of racial discrimination. But §14 speaks of and protects ‘the constitutional right to bear arms,’ an unmistakable reference to the right protected by the Second Amendment. And it protects the ‘full and equal benefit’ of this right in the States. It would have been nonsensical for Congress to guarantee the full and equal benefit of a constitutional right that does not exist.”

New York’s filing identified a few other laws it said were similar to the “good moral character” clause it hopes to preserve. It cited some militia regulations from the 17th and 18th centuries, which empowered government officials to disarm people they believed posed a threat to the community. It also cited statutes that allowed people to be disarmed after being involved in a rebellion or insurrection against the United States unless or until they swore an oath of loyalty.

“In the Revolutionary era, colonies frequently disarmed individuals based on their reputation for being disloyal or hostile to the new American nation,” the filing said.

Overall, New York’s filing seeks to convince the Court the Second Amendment’s history provides a wide birth for gun regulations, even those based solely on the description of state officials. The state argues there is precedent for all sorts of restrictions to be found in the historical record.

“1) colonial laws providing for disarmament of dissident or hostile groups,” the state filing said. “2) Revolutionary laws individually disarming persons’ disaffected to the cause of America,’ 3) militia mustering statutes providing for disarmament if a person was deemed unfit at inspection, and 4) Reconstruction-era and later licensing requirements like New York City’s that involved an individualized assessment of dangerousness – is ‘relevantly similar’ to the good moral character assessment under the CCIA, and therefore satisfies the Bruen standard.”

The case is just one of many filed in the aftermath of the Bruen decision, which served as a catalyst for New York lawmakers to pay a myriad of new gun restrictions that seemingly fly in the face of the ruling. How the case turns out will likely provide a good barometer for how well the other new restrictions fair in federal court.

New York: "Catholics used to be banned from owning guns, so our gun control laws have historical precedent!"
2/3 of the Supreme Court: *are practicing Catholics*

That's a bold strategy, Cotton...

[Grinning Dragon]

So the Gestapo FBI determined that the trigger was pulled on the firearm that killed that lady dudette on the Rust set. Well gee willikers batman, no shit, thank god we got dipshit fbi agency to tell us what we already knew.
No Surprise: FBI Forensic Report Says Trigger on ‘Rust’ Gun was Pulled


Keep being classist bigots, NY politician cunts.
New York Uses Historic Gun Bans Against Native Americans, Catholics to Justify Current Restrictions in Court Filing

New York: "Catholics used to be banned from owning guns, so our gun control laws have historical precedent!"
2/3 of the Supreme Court: *are practicing Catholics*

That's a bold strategy, Cotton...

Only gun banners could be this twisted in proclaiming their glee on historical bigotry to continue to push their bigotry against groups who dare to exercise their enumerated right.

[Grinning Dragon]

BREAKING: District Court Strikes Down Texas’s Ban on Concealed Carry By Adults Under 21
First the good part:

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced a victory in Andrews v. McCraw, its Second Amendment lawsuit that challenged a ban on handgun carry by young adults in the State of Texas. The judgment and injunction can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.
“The issue is whether prohibiting law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying a handgun in public for self-defense is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” wrote Judge Mark Pittman in his Opinion. “Based on the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by Founding-Era history and tradition, the Court concludes that the Second Amendment protects against this prohibition. Texas’s statutory scheme must therefore be enjoined to the extent that law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds are prohibited from applying for a license to carry a handgun.”
“Texas cannot point to a single Founding Era law that prohibited 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying a functional firearm for self-defense, because not only did no such law exist, but those individuals are an important reason why we have a Bill of Rights in the first place,” said FPC Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation, Cody J. Wisniewski.
“The typical age of individuals that went to war with the British for our Independence was between 17 and 20 years old. And young people have just as much a right to keep and bear arms in public as adults over the age of 21. This decision is a significant victory for the rights of young adults in Texas and demonstrates for the rest of the nation that similar bans cannot withstand constitutional challenges grounded in history, as Bruen and Heller require. We look forward to restoring the right to keep and bear arms throughout the United States in the coming months and years.”

Now the bad part:

In order to allow Texas time to appeal and seek a stay, the trial court stayed the injunction for 30 days. “Though Plaintiffs’ interest in the vindication of their Constitutional rights suffers while the judgment is stayed, the stay is necessary to militate the possible negative effects of relying on the injunction while it is subject to appellate review and possible reversal,” the Court said.

I hate it when judges do this. If it's unconstitutional then that is it, it's done, fuck giving the state time to appeal.

[Diopolis]

BREAKING: District Court Strikes Down Texas’s Ban on Concealed Carry By Adults Under 21
First the good part:

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced a victory in Andrews v. McCraw, its Second Amendment lawsuit that challenged a ban on handgun carry by young adults in the State of Texas. The judgment and injunction can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.
“The issue is whether prohibiting law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying a handgun in public for self-defense is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” wrote Judge Mark Pittman in his Opinion. “Based on the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by Founding-Era history and tradition, the Court concludes that the Second Amendment protects against this prohibition. Texas’s statutory scheme must therefore be enjoined to the extent that law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds are prohibited from applying for a license to carry a handgun.”
“Texas cannot point to a single Founding Era law that prohibited 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying a functional firearm for self-defense, because not only did no such law exist, but those individuals are an important reason why we have a Bill of Rights in the first place,” said FPC Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation, Cody J. Wisniewski.
“The typical age of individuals that went to war with the British for our Independence was between 17 and 20 years old. And young people have just as much a right to keep and bear arms in public as adults over the age of 21. This decision is a significant victory for the rights of young adults in Texas and demonstrates for the rest of the nation that similar bans cannot withstand constitutional challenges grounded in history, as Bruen and Heller require. We look forward to restoring the right to keep and bear arms throughout the United States in the coming months and years.”

Now the bad part:

In order to allow Texas time to appeal and seek a stay, the trial court stayed the injunction for 30 days. “Though Plaintiffs’ interest in the vindication of their Constitutional rights suffers while the judgment is stayed, the stay is necessary to militate the possible negative effects of relying on the injunction while it is subject to appellate review and possible reversal,” the Court said.

I hate it when judges do this. If it's unconstitutional then that is it, it's done, fuck giving the state time to appeal.

Good news on that front- Texas GOP really wants a third party to forbid them from restricting the gun rights of 18-20 year olds right now, and Ken Paxton is a partisan elected official.

[Imperium of Texas]

Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Prima Scriptura]

I feel like getting an AK and an A.R. 15, designating the AK for defense against proud boys and far right extremists, and the A.R. 15 to protect me against antifa and far-left extremists.

[Parai Hambriven]

It brings a tear to my eye how proud so many voters on this forum still are in the true words of the Second Amendment.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

I feel like getting an AK and an A.R. 15, designating the AK for defense against proud boys and far right extremists, and the A.R. 15 to protect me against antifa and far-left extremists.

What about for literally everything else than the extreme ends of the political horseshoe?

[Dogmeat]

I feel like getting an AK and an A.R. 15, designating the AK for defense against proud boys and far right extremists, and the A.R. 15 to protect me against antifa and far-left extremists.

What about for literally everything else than the extreme ends of the political horseshoe?

For everything else there's Mastercard.

[Prima Scriptura]

What about for literally everything else than the extreme ends of the political horseshoe?

For everything else there's Mastercard.

Now, that’s funny