California gun owners have long been besieged by a lengthy list of unjust, unconstitutional firearm laws that make practicing their Second Amendment right more difficult. And a new law that just took effect is going to make freedom even more scarce in The Golden State.
The new law, passed by the legislature last year and signed by anti-gun Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom, required credit card networks to make a new firearm-specific Merchant Category Code (MCC) available to banks and other financial institutions by Monday.
At issue is a special MCC for gun and ammunition purchases adopted last year by the International Organization for Standardization. MCCs are used by payment processors (like Visa and Mastercard) and other financial services companies to categorize transactions.
Prior to the creation of the specific code for guns, firearms retailers fell under the MCC for sporting goods stores or miscellaneous retail. If the new code is used, credit card companies and other payment processors can tell the purchases were firearms, basically creating a de facto registry of firearms and firearm owners.
While many find that distasteful—even illegal—California Democrats and Newsom embraced the idea. Consequently, for any firearms or ammunition now purchased in California with a credit card, there is a record kept that it was for a firearm or related product.
As NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action has pointed out in the past, collecting firearm retailer financial transaction data amounts to surveillance and registration of law-abiding gun owners. Those promoting this scheme are in favor of firearm and gun owner registration. Consequently, it should be assumed that the goal of this program is to share all collected firearm retailer MCC data with government authorities and potentially private third parties that might include gun control organizations and anti-gun researchers.
Being able to know if a purchase was for a gun or ammo must sound like a great idea to Newsom and his gun-ban cronies, and a few other states have passed similar laws, including Colorado and New York. However, just as with many gun-related issues, while California seeks to punish gun owners, many states have sought to protect them from such overreach as the use of the new gun-specific MCC. In fact, more than a dozen states have passed laws outlawing the uses of such codes, including nine states—Indiana, Utah, Wyoming, Kentucky, Iowa, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama and Delaware—just passed such measures this year.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul at a recent gun violence prevention convention. (Photo: Hochul/Ny.gov)
Today, the Supreme Court gave New York’s “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” the boot, thanks to a challenge led by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF).
GOA and GOF weren’t messing around when they filed their petition back in February.
The petition took aim at parts of the law they deemed unconstitutional, like the “good moral character” requirement for concealed carry permits.
After the Bruen decision in 2022, Gov. Kathy Hochul and the Albany crew rushed to pass this new law, but it turned out to be even more restrictive than the last one that got shot down.
GOA quickly stepped up to challenge it.
Even though GOA managed to get a preliminary injunction to block some parts of the law, the Second Circuit mostly reversed it.
The controversial law demanded that applicants for a concealed carry license prove their “good moral character,” undergo in-person interviews with law enforcement, provide four character references, and complete 18 hours of training—way more than the previous 4-hour requirement.
Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, didn’t hold back his excitement:
“New York’s anti-gun politicians were quick to double down after the Bruen decision, but today they’ve been smacked down again,” he said in a press release.
“With the High Court making clear the Second Circuit got it wrong and by remanding the case back to the lower court, the High Court is forcing New York’s politicians to eat a huge plate of humble pie,” he continued. “We look forward to continuing the fight for New Yorkers’ right to carry – without government pre-requisites.”
This Supreme Court decision marks a big win in the ongoing battle for gun rights in New York.
A critical ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit has saved the state of Ohio’s firearm preemption law.
Like many states, Ohio has a law on the books barring municipalities from passing gun laws more restrictive than those that the state has instituted. Such laws are designed to alleviate the pitfall of a gun owners trying to navigate and patchwork of different gun restrictions every time they cross into a different city.
In 2007, Ohio enacted a preemption law prohibiting municipal ordinances from infringing on Ohioans’ rights to “own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.” The law additionally awards “costs and reasonable attorney fees” to anyone “that prevails in a challenge” to an ordinance that violates the preemption law.
As a little background on the issue, twice—in 2018 and again in 2020—Ohio lawmakers expanded the law to forbid more regulations and to also apply to knives. Since 2010, the state has fought for the law in the courtroom, winning some and losing some.
In 2010, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the original 2007 law in a lawsuit where the city of Cleveland had challenged the statute claiming that it infringed on the city’s municipal home rule authority. Later, Cincinnati filed a similar lawsuit, challenging the 2018 and 2022 amendments, that also argued the law violated free speech and separation of powers.
In City of Cincinnati v. Ohio, the trial court originally ruled in favor of Cincinnati and preliminarily enjoined the 2018 and 2020 amendments. However, when the state appealed the case to the 1st Circuit, that court held that under the 2010 Cleveland case the 2018 and 2020 amendments do not violate the state’s constitutions.
In the ruling, the court stated: “Amended R.C. 9.68 survives this constitutional challenge primarily because the Supreme Court of Ohio largely foreclosed the City’s arguments against it in its decision upholding Original R.C. 9.68 against substantially similar claims.
To the extent the 2018 and 2022 amendments to the law may have altered its preemptive effects and expanded the liability of political subdivisions that act in conflict with it, the City has not proven by clear and convincing evidence that those amendments change the constitutional calculus forged by City of Cleveland (2010). We therefore sustain the state’s sole assignment of error and reverse the trial court’s judgment preliminarily enjoining Amended R.C. 9.68.”
The case has been remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings.
s shown below, I’d change this graphic to show the silhouette of a Marlin. (MN Gun Owners Caucus/X)
“[Minnesota’s] House File 3570 was referred to the House Committee on Public Safety Finance and Policy and would ban so called ‘assault weapons by expanding upon an existing statute used to define these firearms,” NRA-ILA reported Wednesday. “The bill would also prohibit the sale or transfer of ‘assault weapons’, establish a buyback program, and call for an appropriation from the general fund.”
“HF 3570 uses a broad list of different firearms to define ‘semiautomatic military-style assault weapon’,” NRA continued. “Additionally, varying models of a specific gun or models similar to those listed in the bill are prohibited. Modifications and accessories like protruding grips and barrel shrouds, are features that would also cause a gun to be banned. The transfer of semiautomatic military-style assault weapons is prohibited, with very limited exceptions for law enforcement and the military.”
It’s like Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party Second Amendment haters have taken all the various iterations of semi auto bans from “by name” to “by characteristics” and added steroids to the mix. Whereas 1994’s federal ban included semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines with two or more of the “evil” mods like folding stocks, pistol grips, flash hiders and the like, taking a page from California, HF 3570 reduces rejection criteria to “one or more.”
It also lines out a section ceding that “a firearm is not a ‘semiautomatic military-style assault weapon’ if it is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes under United States Code.” While Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership was the first to warn about the Nazi origins of the “sporting purposes” term, the elimination of even that tells us much about the authoritarian mindset of Minnesota’s violence monopolists.
HF 3570 adds another curious disqualifier, “thumbhole stocks.” That’s because initially, thumbhole stocks were offered as stability and comfort workarounds to the federal pistol grip ban. So, California and other Democrat states decided their priority was for firearms to be less steady and therefore less accurate, ludicrously in the name of “commonsense gun safety.”
And naturally, no attack on armed citizens would be complete without special carveouts for the “Only Ones” expected to enforce the infringements.
(b) Semiautomatic military-style assault weapon also includes any…
Then go down to line 3.5 and it includes:
…rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;
And the Marlin advertises a 14 + 1 capacity.
This is what these maniacs are demonizing as a “weapon of war” that “has no business on our streets” and no other purpose but the mass slaughter of innocents. After all, you can’t hunt deer with it! All that’s missing is some lefty vet saying it’s the same gun he carried in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And Minnesota’s not alone—California’s right with them on “large capacity magazines,” albeit they exempt “.22 caliber tube ammunition feeding devices or tubular magazines contained in a lever-action firearm” (emphasis added)—at least until the grabbers decide otherwise. And it would appear to be the same in New York, while Illinois, surprisingly, hasn’t “caught up” yet.
It’s interesting to note the backgrounds of the bill’s authors, Leigh Finke, Esther Agbaje, Alicia ‘Liish’ Kozlowski, Larry Kraft, and Samantha Sencer-Mura, DFL stalwarts and darlings of the prohibitionists all, and not a farmer or a laborer in the bunch. (That’s OK—it’s not like Antifa is comprised of those workers” they say they champion.) Ask them about the specifics of what they’re banning, aside from “everything,” and it’s highly likely that an on-the-spot challenge would result in a “shoulder thing that goes up” answer.
While HF 3570 is in its initial stages and has a long way to go, the dominant DFL is using momentum it gained getting due process-denying “red flag” gun confiscations mandated beginning this year. Meanwhile, Minnesota’s denying 18 to 20-year-old adults their right to carry firearms is being challenged.
Don’t look to formerly NRA-endorsed Gov. Tim Walz to honor any of the promises he made before he decided he didn’t need them anymore. That’s what happens when gun owners are led to believe a Democrat Fudd believes in their rights or has anyone’s interests at heart but his own.
The question now is, when is the Supreme Court going to use Bruen to put a stop to this nonsense? They will, won’t they?
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. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
The war on regulation in California is escalating.
Gun violence prevention advocates say it’s saving lives, while gun rights supporters argue it’s regulation overkill.
“If you ask me if it was something that made shooting difficult, yes it was,” said Stolfi.
Stolfi is using a World War 2 era M-1 carbine for target practice.
“The imposition of needing a background check, and vendors not wanting to send ammunition to California, it became problematic for me to find this ammunition for this rifle with ease,” said Stolfi.
The Cloverdale resident has been buying gun powder and primers to hand load cartridges for many of his rifles since the tighter ammo restrictions were put in place.
Experts expect the case that is challenging state law requiring background checks for purchasing ammunition to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. For Bradley Stolfi, he supports common sense gun regulation.
“I think every firearm should require a background check and it should be thorough,” said Stolfi.
But a state law implemented in 2019 requiring in-person background checks for ammunition isn’t one of them.
“That incurred a substantial cost in all the materials I needed to do it,” said Stolfi.
Many hunters and gun owners say the restrictions violate their 2nd amendment right to bear arms. A federal judge recently agreed, overturning the law.
But days later, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-to-1 vote put a hold on that ruling.
“We have seen a California that is a far safer place today than it was 30 years ago. Background checks work for firearms. Background checks work for ammunition,” said Steve Lindley.
Lindley has a law enforcement background, and now works for Brady United Against Gun Violence.
“We’re not trying to prevent anybody from purchasing a firearm or purchasing ammunition. What we’re trying to do is keeping firearms and ammunition out of the hands of people who are prohibited or are a danger to our communities,” said Lindley.
“There’s a small number of people out there that shouldn’t have access to ammunition, and that’s more of a problem than is being addressed by just making it more difficult to get the ammunition,” said Stolfi.
The stay issued by the Court of Appeals means background checks for ammunition can once again proceed for now.
“Background checks, safe storage, those type of things all compounded together, make a significant difference,” said Lindley.
But Stolfi believes rather than making it more difficult to purchase ammunition, banning high-capacity magazines, would have more of an impact in saving lives.
“I don’t see any need for any magazine to be able to hold more than 10. That’s going to get me in a lot of trouble with guys I know, but that’s what I think,” said Stolfi.
Stolfi is aiming to find that balance between restrictions and gun rights enshrined in the Constitution.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, posted on X saying the ruling by the court of appeals means the state’s “life-saving ammunition laws will remain in effect as we continue to defend them in court.”
It’s unclear when the case will be heard.
However the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rules, legal experts say the case will likely reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
