Federal law enforcement officials have launched a new initiative to inform the public of what they say is a growing problem that involves the illegal modification of semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic weapons.
Officials from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives launched a series of public service announcements designed to raise awareness on the dangers of these machine gun conversion devices, which are often referred to as “switches,” “chips” or “auto sears.”
A simple aftermarket device added to the internals of a firearm can convert a semi-automatic gun into a fully automatic weapon, ATF officials said in a new public service announcement.
The devices can be 3D-printed at home, but are often sold online, sometimes under misleading names to avoid detection by law enforcement, and billed as being legal to possess.
But despite their seeming harmlessness on their own, simply owning one of the conversion devices carries the same legal penalty as carrying an illegal machine gun, even if you don’t even have a weapon to modify.
The public service announcements feature U.S. Attorney Martin Estrada and leadership from the ATF Los Angeles, highlighting the dangers of the illegal conversion devices and the stiff legal penalties for those found in possession of them.
“These devices are not gun accessories. They are illegal and considered machine guns under federal law,” says ATF LA Field Division Special Agent in Charge Christopher Bombardiere.
He adds that the ATF has recovered more than 31,000 of the devices in the last five years and compared the problem to the rise of ghost guns — untraceable firearms that are assembled using spare or 3D-printed parts and which have no serial number.
Law enforcement officials say the devices can switch a semi-automatic pistol or rifle into fully automatic in as little as 60 seconds. “One pull of the trigger can release all the ammunition in the magazine,” they said.
In a new PSA, a law enforcement officer demonstrates how a semi-automatic pistol can be converted into fully automatic using an aftermarket device known as a “switch.” (ATF)
Estrada said simply possessing one of these “switches” can carry a sentence of up to 10 years in prison and federal law enforcement officials are being extra diligent to keep the devices off the streets.
If you know of anyone who may be purchasing, making or stockpiling these devices, you are urged to contact your local ATF office. They can also be safely turned over at a local office.
A machine gun is described under the National Firearms Act as follows:
Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
The combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun.
To view one of the public service announcements published by the ATF, click here.
On Wednesday, State Senator Julie Morrison, the Majority Caucus Whip, introduced legislation that could result in Illinois gun owners’ losing their driver’s licenses without due process, less than two weeks after 2 million Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card holders rebelled and chose not to register their firearms in protest of Gov. Pritzker’s assault weapons ban that he signed into law last January.
In a video statement released on Thursday evening, Illinois State Rifle Association president Doug Mayhall said, “Now the anti-gun legislators are coming after your Driver’s License!”
Mayhall went on to explain Senate Bill 2720, which “proposes that when a FOID card is revoked – and the FOID card holder does not comply with Section 9.5 of the FOID Act by surrendering their FOID card to authorities – the gun owner may not be issued a driver’s license; renew a driver’s license; retain a drivers license; or be issued a permit to drive under the Illinois Vehicle Code.”
The legislation also requires the Illinois State Police to notify the Secretary of State’s office and report anyone that fails to comply with Section 9.5.
But the issue is more troublesome than simply having your FOID card revoked according to Mayhall.
“Under the Red Flag Law – there can be an ex parte case filed against you. In other words, someone can say you are a problem and go before a judge without you present. You then can lose your FOID card and not get a hearing for at least two weeks.
So what’s the bottom line here? A person under this bill can be falsely accused and lose their right to drive without a single hearing.”
The loss of a driver’s license can have serious implications, and it has the potential of completely disrupting one’s livelihood – including someone’s ability to get to and from work.
The timing of the legislation to coincide with the January 1st deadline of Illinois’ gun registry and the one year anniversary of the assault weapons ban is not accidental, as Mayhall pointed out.
“After Governor Pritzker was left embarrassed when less than 2 percent of the 2.4 million FOID Card holders registered their firearms by the January 1st deadline, he’s now looking for new ways to target and harass gun owners.”
The legislation is awaiting a committee assignment, and the Democrats maintain a comfortable 40-19 supermajority in the state Senate.
With the anniversary of January 6th behind us, we’d think all the insurrection rhetoric would be behind us, at least for a time.
Unfortunately, that’s asking way too much.
You’d think that, at some point, the people screaming about it would recognize that if the political demographic most likely to be armed and pay for training out of their own pockets were interested in overthrowing the government, they’d bring more than signs to the party.
But alas, that isn’t entering most people’s brains.
Yet I can’t help but think at least some understand that on some level.
Washington (January 11, 2024) – Following the anniversary of the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol, Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Congressman Jamie Raskin (MD-08) introduced the Preventing Private Paramilitary Activity Act, legislation that would create a federal prohibition on paramilitary groups through civil and criminal enforcement. The prohibition would hold individuals liable who directly engage in certain types of conduct, including intimidating state and local officials, interfering with government proceedings, pretending to be law enforcement, and violating people’s constitutional rights, while armed and acting as part of a private paramilitary organization.
…
“Patrolling neighborhoods, impeding law enforcement and storming the U.S. Capitol, private paramilitary groups like the Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters and the Proud Boys are using political violence to intimidate our people and threaten democratic government and the rule of law,” said Congressman Raskin. “Our legislation makes the obvious but essential clarification that these domestic extremists’ paramilitary operations are in no way protected by our Constitution. I’m grateful to Senator Markey for his partnership on this critical effort to protect the rule of law, deter insurrection and defend our democracy.”
A copy of the legislation can be found HERE.A one-page overview of the legislation can be found HERE.
The legislation creates different tiers of criminal penalties based on whether violations result in injury or property damage; provides harsher penalties for repeat offenders; and allows for a probationary sentence for first-time offenders. It also creates civil remedies by authorizing the Department of Justice to seek injunctive relief against paramilitary activity, and by creating a private right of action for individuals harmed by paramilitary activity to seek injunctive relief and/or damages. The legislation contains clear exceptions for activities such as historic reenactments, state-sanctioned trainings, and veterans’ parades.
Among specific points brought up regarding what this bill will restrict was, “training to engage in such behavior.”
But let’s be honest, what lawmakers claim a bill will do and what the text says can be quite different. I was already uncomfortable with what I was reading, since “patrolling” has a specific meaning in a lot of contexts, but I can also see someone applying it to a pro-gun march with some folks open carrying.
Was that what this bill was trying to address?
So, I took a look and, frankly, I’m not exactly thrilled with what I see.
For one thing, the word “patrolling” is mentioned several times in the press release announcing the bill and is expressly prohibited in the text of the bill, but is never actually defined by the bill. That means the definition of “patrol” is likely to be subjective.
‘‘(a) OFFENSE.—It shall be unlawful to knowingly, in a circumstance described in subsection (b), while acting as part of or on behalf of a private paramilitary organization and armed with a firearm, explosive or incendiary de8 vice, or other dangerous weapon—
‘‘(1) publically patrol, drill, or engage in techniques capable of causing bodily injury or death;
‘‘(2) interfere with, interrupt, or attempt to interfere with or interrupt government operations or a government proceeding;
‘‘(3) interfere with or intimidate another person in that person’s exercise of any right under the Constitution of the United States;
‘‘(4) assume the functions of a law enforcement officer, peace officer, or public official, whether or not acting under color of law, and thereby assert authority or purport to assert authority over another person without the consent of that person; or
‘‘(5) train to engage in any activity described in paragraphs (1) through (4).
Now, based on this alone, all sorts of things will fall under this regulation and, theoretically, be prohibited. Arguably, even your kid’s tae kwon do class would be illegal, since that would be training in “techniques capable of causing bodily injury” at a minimum.
Luckily, it’s not quite that stupid. It does require certain other conditions to be met as well. The problem? Those conditions are kind of a low threshold to clear.
Note that the above section clearly states that a circumstance from section (b) must be met, so that seems to say that if any of those apply, we’ve got a problem. I’m not a lawyer, so I may be misreading this, but it seems they’re pretty easy to meet, including crossing state lines, using “instrumentalities of interstate or foreign commerce,” involve a gun or explosive device, uses a so-called-high capacity magazine, or takes place within the United States.
And since the next to last listed uses the word “or” before going on, it makes it pretty clear that only one needs to be met.
The problem here is that just traveling on a road at all could be construed to be using an instrumentality of interstate commerce.
While it’s unlikely to be enforced that way, it sure looks like the fact that you’ll drive to a Brazilian Jiu Jitsu class could meet this criteria.
However, a far more likely issue arises when we look beyond that.
For example, if you’ve never been in the path of a natural disaster, you probably don’t realize what it’s like to find your local law enforcement overwhelmed. People can and do decide to take advantage of that and a lot of people join together to protect their neighborhoods. One could say they patrol the neighborhood.
It would seem this bill would prohibit that.
More than that, though, it seems that a lot of firearm training classes could be negatively impacted. After all, are we not learning “techniques capable of causing bodily injury or death” when we attend? I mean, isn’t that the point?
Plus, you’re going to take a road at some point or another, meeting at least one of the circumstances laid out in the bill, as well as using a firearm–again, that’s kind of the point–and probably a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, which is how the bill defines “high capacity magazine.” Literally any firearm training class seems like it would violate the law.
Any.
Now, again, I’m not a lawyer. It’s possible that there’s some quirk in how this is written that my layman eyes are missing that prevents it from meaning what it sure looks like it means, but I doubt it.
If there’s any good news to be found in this travesty of a bill, it’s that this is in the House, which the GOP controls. What’s on the page right now will likely never come to a vote. The absolute best-case scenario for this bill would be for the committee to gut this thing and rebuild it to not be a complete and total abomination.
Even then, I don’t see this going anywhere. It’s far more likely to get assigned to a committee where it can die a lingering death.
If it doesn’t, the gun training industry is going to need to lawyer up.
The title of this article may seem curious, but there is a point to it. Consider the fact that “assault weapon” is an intentionally nebulous, malleable term created and promoted by anti-gun extremists with the stated intent of creating confusion. A “weapon” can actually be anything that is simply used to inflict damage or bodily harm. It can be specifically designed to be used as a weapon, but could it be the actual use of the item, not the design, that makes the ultimate determination as to whether it is, indeed, a “weapon”?
This may be a philosophical debate, but is an antique rifle hung above a fireplace—one never intended to be taken down, loaded, and fired—still a “weapon” because of its design, or has it now become a decoration because of its actual ornamental use?
To take an even deeper philosophical dive, is a chair’s existence in the universe somehow magically altered from furniture to “weapon” the moment someone picks it up to strike someone else? Perhaps this is a loose variation on the quantum mechanics thought experiment of Schrödinger’s cat.
The chair is both furniture and weapon, and the rifle is both weapon and decoration, until someone “opens the box” to decide the application, thus determining how the items will actually exist in the world.
The ultimate truth is that something is only a weapon if it is used, or intended to be used, as one. So an “assault weapon” can, technically, be any item used to “assault” someone.
But proponents of banning the possession of firearms by law-abiding US citizens have strived for decades to inculcate in the American psyche the notion that an “assault weapon” is a specific type of firearm; usually a semi-automatic rifle that incorporates a detachable magazine.
Today, the anti-gun industrial complex wants the image of an AR-15 to pop into your mind when it screams about banning “assault weapons,” but that wasn’t always the case. In the early days of the use of the term—in the mid-1980s—it was often semi-automatic versions of the AK-47, MAC-10, or Uzi that were depicted with the sobriquet “assault weapon.”
The term is so malleable and undefinable by design, however, that extremists have also used it to describe countless handguns and shotguns, and the ability to utilize a detachable magazine is not always considered a prerequisite for inclusion as an “assault weapon.” Indeed, even those who promote banning “assault weapons” are often so confused by their own term that they frequently either misidentify firearms, or simply cannot, or refuse to, offer a definition of the term.
In other words, those who wish to ban “assault weapons” will ultimately determine what is an “assault weapon,” the list of items banned will likely be far more inclusive than exclusive, and said list will also likely be subject to never-ending expansion.
In fact, the most recent version of a proposed federal ban on “assault weapons” would appear to ban ALL semi-automatic firearms, then “exempts” some semi-autos from the ban, and would require the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to maintain a list of guns that would be legal under the new paradigm.
So, what does any of this have to do with the “Bowie knife”? More than you might think.
Much like an “assault weapon,” a “Bowie knife” is fairly hard to define—at least, originally, when the term was created ~1830s. The original “Bowie knife”—the one supposedly carried by frontiersman Jim Bowie that was initially “popularized” through accounts of his use of it at the Sandbar Fight in 1827—likely did not resemble what most today consider a Bowie knife. And while today’s versions often vary in appearance, most are relatively large knives, carried in a sheath, and frequently include a crossguard and a clip-point.
Also much like an “assault weapon,” there’s nothing innovative or unique to a “Bowie knife”—either originally or currently—that makes it remarkably different from other knives. It has a blade and a handle, just like most other knives, and is a design that is millennia old. It is on the larger end of the spectrum of knives, but the same can be said for countless other knife designs that predate the “Bowie knife” by centuries, if not also millennia.
Similarly, “assault weapons” utilize the same technology for operating—including as related to storing, loading, discharging, and cycling ammunition—as has existed for well over a century. In fact, the semi-automatic operation utilized by “assault weapons” was invented in the 19th century, mere decades after the “Bowie knife” came to be. These firearms generally fire ammunition that is not only no more powerful than what most hunters use for harvesting deer, but is often much less powerful, ballistically speaking.
And just like with “assault weapons,” around the time the term “Bowie knife” was being more frequently used to describe certain styles of blades, laws that sought to regulate them began popping up around the country. Again, the knife was not innovative or truly unique in any way, but because people attached a certain mystique to the name (just like with “assault weapons”), and the knife itself began growing in popularity (again, just like with “assault weapons”), it drew the attention of lawmakers determined to impose regulations on arms.
Second Amendment scholar and attorney David Kopel wrote two articles last year that expose the eerie similarities between how these knives were treated in the mid-to-late 19th century and semi-automatic firearms today, although that does not appear to have been the goal of his work. One discusses some of the ways firearms and “Bowie knives” were regulated in America prior to 1900, and another looks at statutes between 1837 and 1899 that were specific to regulating “Bowie knives.”
One of the points raised by Kopel makes yet another argument for how “Bowie knives” were America’s first “assault weapon.” It wasn’t until a single, high-profile incident took place that laws restricting “Bowie knives” really started being enacted.
In 1837, a debate between two Arkansas State Representatives escalated to the point of both drawing “Bowie knives,” with the end result being one dead, and one seriously wounded. Of course, this was long before the Internet, television, or radio, and even the telegraph was still in the process of being developed for widespread use at the time, so news spread slowly in those days. Nonetheless, a fatal stabbing in the Arkansas State House likely garnered a bit of national attention, and undoubtedly helped spur on some of the “Bowie knife” laws that were passed following the event.
In the same year the Arkansas fight took place, but before the actual altercation, two states—Mississippi and Alabama—enacted the first “Bowie knife” restrictions. After the fight, Georgia passed its own restrictions, some of which were eventually declared unconstitutional. The next year saw four states enact their own restrictions, and by 1859, a total of 16 states and territories had enacted some form of a restriction on “Bowie knives.”
By 1899, with 46 states included in the Union, 32 had laws on their books that referenced “Bowie knives” or a variant of the term, according to Kopel.
So, if you thought emotionalism driving legislation was a problem unique to modern times—due largely to the explosion of social media and the 24/7 instant news reporting of any tragedy—that’s probably not the case. In fact, now that we do have the Internet, social media, and seemingly unlimited news outlets (even if most of the media tend to support rabidly anti-gun views), there are probably more opportunities today to fend off legislation that is emotionally driven, as there are more opportunities for the public to hear logic-based views countering emotional arguments.
Looking back at the spread of anti-“Bowie knife” legislation in the 19th century, two things should be noted. First, at least one law that banned the sale of them was deemed unconstitutional, and in violation of the Second Amendment, when challenged in court. Another court found the carrying of “Bowie knives” to be a right protected under the Second Amendment.
Another interesting aspect of the comparison between “Bowie knives” and “assault weapons” is the fact that most of the legislative animus towards each has been geographically flipped. In the 19th century, it was Southern states that predominantly looked to restrict the vilified knives, while the northeast largely ignored such restrictions.
Kopel even noted an interesting contrast to how the South was treating “Bowie knives” out of New Hampshire:
“Like all of the Northeast, New Hampshire in mid-century had no interest in Bowie knife laws. But Bowie knives did appear in a legislative resolution that considered Bowie knives and revolvers to be effective for legitimate defense.”
Today, of course, Southern states tend to reject restrictions on “assault weapons,” while many states in the Northeast have adopted bans and other unconstitutional restrictions on them.
Eventually, the hyper-emotional reaction to “Bowie knives” from the 19th century waned, and today, most states consider them little different than any other knife. No state currently bans their sale, as some tried to do way back when, and no state currently tries to dissuade their possession with prohibitive taxes for purchase or possession, as was imposed in the past. And no state bans their mere possession. Bans on sales, exorbitant taxes, and bans on possession are all, of course, methods today’s anti-arms extremists use to try to restrict our right to own “assault weapons.”
So, whether or not you agree with the hypothesis that “Bowie knives” were America’s first “assault weapon,” there is at least one conclusion to this discussion with which anyone who supports the Second Amendment can likely agree.
Rather than capitulate to the anti-“assault weapon” hysteria of today, as so many apparently did during the anti-“Bowi knife” hysteria of the 19th century, NRA and our supporters must continue to fight against the irrational, emotional arguments of those who promote disarming law-abiding Americans. We are not willing to be “those” who are described in the aphorism widely attributed to philosopher George Santayana:
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
We must remember what happened to America’s first “assault weapon,” and reject the emotional, illogical call to impose restrictions on our right to arms, as those in the 19th century should have done with the imposed restrictions on “Bowie knives.” The similarities between the two campaigns separated by roughly a century-and-a-half should be recognized, and rather than wait for states that act irrationally to eventually come to their senses, as was the case with “Bowie knives,” we need to defeat these emotionally-driven, anti-freedom agendas, and make sure these particular errors of the mid-to-late 19th century are not repeated.
Recently, we reported on the establishment of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, an effort by the Biden Administration to funnel taxpayer dollars to the partisan project of gun control. Whatever else can be said of the office, it is at least trying to justify its existence by staying busy, to the detriment of law-abiding gun owners.
Last week the office convened a meeting with democrat state legislators in an effort to dragoon them into enacting anti-gun policies that have failed to gain traction at the federal level. Even the U.S. Justice Department – supposedly the executive’s guarantor of civil rights – is now drafting constitutionally dubious “model legislation” that states can use to crack down on gun owners. The effort shows Biden’s weaponization of government for political purposes continues to sink to new lows.
White House propaganda characterized this meeting as part of the “Biden-Harris Administration’s Safer States Initiative.” The details of the initiative can be found in a brochure that lists various actions the White House wants states to take to promote the administration’s goal of normalizing persecution of gun owners. The general thrust of the “initiative” seems to be that anti-gun officials can turn back the U.S. Supreme Court’s development of Second Amendment doctrine and the public’s increasing embrace of the right to keep and bear arms by mass, coordinated action in the opposite direction.
The outline of the administration’s plan for state action is follows:
“Establish a State Office of Gun Violence Prevention”;
“Invest in Evidence-informed Solutions to Prevent and Respond to Gun Violence”;
“Strengthen Support for Survivors and Victims of Gun Violence”;
“Reinforce Responsible Gun Ownership”;
“Strengthen Gun Background Checks”; and
“Hold the Gun Industry Accountable”.
The outline paints a picture of obvious gun control euphemisms interspersed with potential efforts at problem solving. But the details of the plan paint a different story, one replete with the same unconstitutional, failed, or – at best – unproven policies the firearm prohibition lobby has pursued for decades. Little of it has anything to do with crime or safety. Instead, most of it is squarely focused on making life more difficult for anyone who would dare own a gun or operate a firearm-related business.
The first step, “Establish a State Office of Gun Violence Prevention,” seeks to replicate the White House’s own Office of Gun Violence Prevention within the states themselves. That is, the states should create positions for dedicated gun control activists within their internal bureaucracy. This would give gun control the imprimatur of official state policy and allow the activists to use public funds to pursue their agenda with local officials and private anti-gun organizations.
Every taxpayer would be a mandatory contributor to the cause. Every state employee would be indoctrinated in gun control as an essential element of “good governance” and would have to reflect this outlook in their own work. Whatever elements of the public remained pro-gun would have to be re-educated from the top down in this new civic norm.
The second step, “Invest in Evidence-informed Solutions to Prevent and Respond to Gun Violence”, is significant mainly for its subtle shift in language from the prior gun control rhetoric of “evidence-based” solutions to the lower standard of “evidence-informed.” This is a tacit admission that there is precious little quality evidence for anything the administration is recommending.
Among the policies recommended in this section is “Fund Community Violence Interventions.” In theory, this would use a community-based approach to reducing firearm-related crime through “comprehensive social, health, and economic support for individuals at greatest risk”. Where this has actually been tried, however, the funds often go to “community groups” composed of unprincipled grifters, including “peacekeepers” who in some cases are ex-prisoners who not only fail to keep the peace but contribute to the violence they are supposed to prevent.
States are additionally encouraged under this heading to enact “extreme risk protection order” or “red flag” laws, which are a means of authorizing forcible (and sometimes lethal) confiscation of firearms from non-prohibited persons who are accused of posing some sort of “danger” to themselves or others. What these laws don’t do – assuming they are even administered in good faith – is actually address the underlying factors that may be contributing to the person’s instability or distress. Once the guns are confiscated, the state’s work is done; the person is then left to fend for themselves or pursue alternate means for whatever mischief they may have had in mind.
The third step, “Strengthen Support for Survivors and Victims of Gun Violence”, would seem to be the least controversial of the plan’s objectives. But one of the policies under this heading would actually help protect criminals from detection and prosecution by recommending that certain federally-funded services for crime victims be provided without the statutory requirement that the victims “cooperate with law enforcement”. This is part and parcel of the administration’s approach to “safety,” which bends over backwards to give individuals who actually cause harm a pass, while seeking to shift ever more burdens to the law-abiding public at large. It also shows that the administration will twist statutes to its will wherever possible, including by making legal requirements “waivable” when they prove politically inconvenient.
Generally speaking, the administration’s recommendations under this heading also show equal concern for criminals who are shot as an outcome of their illegal activities as for other victims of “gun violence” who have no culpability in bringing that status on themselves.
The Fourth step of “Reinforcing Responsible Gun Ownership” is synonymous with “enacting punitive gun control.” Even while urging concern for criminals who get themselves shot while participating in crime, the administration advocates for penalizing those whose guns are stolen or used by a third party to cause harm, unless the gun owner complied with mandatory storage and reporting requirements.
This prong of the plan includes model “safe storage” legislation drafted by none other than the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Under DOJ’s proposed model, a person not actually carrying or using a gun, or having it within arm’s reach, would have to disable it with a locking device or store it in a locked container. This is at odds, however, with U.S. Supreme Court precedent that forbids storage requirements that would render a gun unavailable for “immediate self-defense”. Of course, the proposed law would exempt DOJ’s own officers, as well as other law enforcement personnel, from these general requirements, demonstrating DOJ’s commitment to “gun safety” ends at is own liability.
Another DOJ model law would penalize anyone who’s firearm was stolen, unless the person submitted a mandatory report to the government “no later than 48 hours after the person … knew or reasonably should have known of the … theft” (emphasis added). This could apply to a theft the person was actually unaware of (for example, from a sporadically used camper or hunting cabin), but – in a prosecutor’s opinion – could have been discovered with more care or diligence. This concept makes the gun owner who was victimized by the theft the low-hanging fruit for law enforcement, rather than the criminal who actually stole the gun. It betrays, once again, an approach to public safety that faults everybody but the perpetrator for the commission of a crime.
It should come as no surprise that the administration’s recommendations for “Strengthening Background Checks”, the fifth step, includes criminalizing private firearm transfers, even to non-prohibited persons who intend to use the firearms lawfully. But the administration wants the states to go further, including by making confidential juvenile records available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, so they can be used to deny otherwise non-prohibited adults firearm purchases. This includes both youthful indiscretions that did not result in criminal prosecutions, as well as records of certain mental health interventions. Thus, while the administration is eager to protect criminals from prosecution, it is also eager to make sure that kids who had a bumpy road to adulthood are penalized when it comes to their Second Amendment rights.
The final category of “Holding the Gun Industry Accountable” includes making the gun industry responsible for third party criminal acts (notwithstanding existing federal law to the contrary) and heaping redundant state licensing and bureaucratic requirements for dealers onto the existing federal ones. Even more tellingly, however, it recommends banning some of the industry’s most popular products, including semi-automatic long guns (which the administration deceptively calls “assault weapons”). Usually, the administration promotes such bans as a public safety imperative. It’s admission here that they are also (perhaps primarily) a way to punish businesses simply for being involved in the gun trade is especially revealing.
Needless to say, most of the hardcore anti-gun states have implemented versions of these measures already. Meanwhile, moderate or pro-gun states are either not interested in them or (appropriately) have higher priorities for actually fighting crime. But it says something significant that the administration is willing to expend so much effort signaling to its supporters and donors how much they want to clamp down on the Second Amendment.
Supervisor Janice Hahn proposed the new ordinance. (Photo: Hahn.LaCounty.gov)
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors advanced an ordinance today to enhance regulations for gun and ammunition dealers in unincorporated areas of the county.
LA County Board Supervisor Janice Hahn pushed for the new policy.
“We need to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands and part of that effort is ensuring gun and ammunition dealers are acting responsibly,” said Hahn.
“These are commonsense regulations that will make sure gun dealers have basic security measures in place, maintain inventory, and keep records of who they sell guns and ammunition to,” she added.
The new ordinance will impact 18 gun dealers and two exclusive ammunition dealers in unincorporated LA County.
The Los Angeles County Treasurer and Tax Collector will enforce these rules.
Key provisions Include
Ammunition dealers must obtain a business license and meet requirements similar to gun dealers. Previously, exclusive ammunition dealers didn’t need a specific license.
Stores selling guns and ammunition can’t allow minors unless an adult accompanies them. Mixed-use stores must offer sight separation.
Dealers should maintain annual sales reports, keep purchaser fingerprints, update a weekly inventory, install security cameras, and display signs about gun access risks.
The Treasurer and Tax Collector will publicly post names of suspended and revoked licensees.
The annual license fee for initial applications and renewals will increase.
The ordinance awaits a second hearing on November 7th. If approved again, it will become effective 30 days afterward.
Prior Regulations
This regulation is the third in a series of four proposed by Supervisor Hahn. Previous ordinances banned .50 caliber firearms sales and prohibited firearms on county property.
Another in development will introduce a 1,000-foot buffer between gun shops and “child safety zones.”
Furthermore, LA County is advocating for greater awareness and utilization of gun violence restraining orders (GVROs) aka “red flag” laws.
GVROs are gun confiscation orders that target those accused — not convicted — of being a threat to public safety.
SAF Responds
“Politicians like Janice Hahn is the reason the Second Amendment is so important. She has done everything in her power to shred our Bill of Rights,” said Alan Gottlieb, the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), in an email to GunsAmerica.
“Our founding fathers warned us about those in government who abuse their power and made sure that we had courts to protect our freedom,” he continued. “The Second Amendment Foundation will make sure that she will be a defendant in the court room!”
Federal Judge Roger T. Benitez last month, and for the
second time, declared California’s ban on so-called
“high-capacity magazines” is unconstitutional.
When U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez last month handed down his crushing 71-page ruling in a case known as Duncan v. Bonta — declaring California’s ban on so-called “high-capacity magazines” to be unconstitutional for a second time — one could tell by reading the opinion he had really done his homework.
In his ruling, Judge Benitez observed, “There is no American tradition of limiting ammunition capacity and the 10-round limit has no historical pedigree and it is arbitrary and capricious. It is extreme. Our federal government and most states impose no limits and in the states where limits are imposed, there is no consensus. Delaware landed on a 17-round magazine limit. Illinois and Vermont picked limits of 15 rounds for handguns and 10 rounds for a rifle. Colorado went with a 15-round limit for handguns and rifles, and a 28-inch tube limit for shotguns. New York tried its luck at a 7-round limit; that did not work out. New Jersey started with a 15-round limit and then reduced the limit to 10-rounds. The fact that there are so many different numerical limits demonstrates the arbitrary nature of magazine capacity limits.”
All this tells us is that people who craft gun control laws limiting magazine capacities don’t know zip about firearms. Nobody has ever explained to me — and I have asked — why the 10-round limit seems to be popular among gun prohibitionists. I wasn’t really surprised; after all, no explanation would make sense, anyway.
Were someone to claim a 10-rounder would help prevent mass shootings, I’d just remind them about Elliot Rodger, the Isla Vista killer who murdered six people in 2014. After killing three people with a knife, he drove to the area near the University of California, Santa Barbara and killed three more people using two different handguns and California-compliant 10-round magazines.
For the best perspective on what this ruling meant to anti-gunners, one need only look to the message on “X” (formerly known as Twitter) posted by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 22. Here’s what he said: “California’s high-capacity magazine ban was just STRUCK DOWN by Judge Benitez, an extremist, right-wing zealot with no regard to human life. Wake up, America. Our gun safety laws will continue to be thrown out by NRA-owned federal judges until we pass a Constitutional Amendment to protect our kids and end the gun violence epidemic in America.”
Newsom earlier this year announced his proposed 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would essentially nullify the Second Amendment and replace it with gun control fanaticism designed to turn the right to keep and bear arms into a government-regulated privilege.
Far Left
Newsom isn’t the only far-left Democrat governor (recall last week’s Insider, which discussed New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s arbitrary and quickly-enjoined order essentially suspending the Second Amendment in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County), but he is certainly a standout.
He probably went into convulsions when reading through the Benitez decision. The judge observed, “Why are larger magazines chosen for self-defense? Crime happens a lot. One recent estimate holds that guns are needed defensively approximately 1,670,000 times a year.”
And then there was this: “California relies entirely on the opinion of its statistician for the hypothesis that defenders fire an average of only 2.2 shots in cases of confrontation. Where does the 2.2 shot average originate? There is no national or state government data report on shots fired in self-defense events. There is no public government database.”
Translation: Somebody may have simply made it up.
Judge Benitez’s recent ruling looked back on his previous decision regarding the California mag ban, which was remanded back to his court following the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen ruling. In a footnote on Page 5 of his new decision, the judge added this footnote: “As this Court explained in its prior decision, ‘[a]rtificial limits will eventually lead to disarmament. It is an insidious plan to disarm the populace and it depends on for its success a subjective standard of ‘necessary’ lethality. It does not take the imagination of Jules Verne to predict that if all magazines over 10 rounds are somehow eliminated from California, the next mass shooting will be accomplished with guns holding only 10 rounds.
To reduce gun violence, the state will close the newly christened 10-round ‘loophole’ and use it as a justification to outlaw magazines holding more than 7 rounds. The legislature will determine that no more than 7 rounds are ‘necessary.’ Then the next mass shooting will be accomplished with guns holding 7 rounds. To reduce the new gun violence, the state will close the 7-round ‘loophole’ and outlaw magazines holding more than 5 rounds determining that no more than 5 rounds are ‘suitable.’ And so it goes, until the only lawful firearm law-abiding responsible citizens will be permitted to possess is a single-shot handgun.’”
Mass Shooting Misinformation
California’s magazine ban was initiated ostensibly to reduce potential carnage in a mass shooting incident, which are rare but high-profile. The media loves a bloodbath.
Author and researcher John Lott, founder and president of
the Crime Prevention Research Center, was at the Gun Rights
Policy Conference last month with some interesting information
about armed citizen intervention in mass shootings.
What the media apparently doesn’t like, however, is a case where an armed private citizen intervenes and stops a shooting. The FBI claims it happens rarely, but during last month’s 38th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) in Phoenix, author/economist John Lott referred to his recent report on the “massive errors” in the FBI’s active shooting reports from 2014 to 2022.
According to Lott, “Sources the media relied on undercounted the number of instances in which armed citizens have thwarted such attacks by an order of more than ten, saving untold numbers of lives.”
“Of course,” Lott wrote, “law-abiding citizens stopping these attacks are not rare. What is rare is national news coverage of those incidents. Although those many news stories about the Greenwood shooting also suggested that the defensive use of guns might endanger others, there is no evidence that these acts have harmed innocent victims.”
Lott also notes, “The FBI reports that armed citizens only stopped 14 of the 302 active shooter incidents it identified for the period 2014-2022 … An analysis by the CPRC identified a total of 440 active shooter incidents during that period and found that an armed citizen stopped 157.”
Even if Lott’s numbers were off by 50% (which I doubt), his figure would still far exceed the number of armed citizen interventions acknowledged by the FBI.
Look for an upcoming report from Lott’s Crime Prevention Research Center updating the number of active concealed carry permits and licenses in the United States, which will not include the estimated number of armed citizens in the 27 states which have adopted permitless (constitutional) carry.
Alan Gottlieb (left) honored Dave Workman with the Lifetime
Achievement award from the Citizens Committee for the Right
to Keep and Bear Arms at last month’s Gun Rights Policy Conference.
Personal Honors
At the recent GRPC, this correspondent was honored to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and to be named to the Joseph P. Tartaro II “Hall of Fame.”
Tartaro was the longtime president of the Second Amendment Foundation and executive editor of Gun Week and then TheGunMag.com, where I am now editor-in-chief. He was what Central Casting would have offered as the quintessential “crusty” old newspaper editor, a sharp-eyed reader with an excellent grasp of the English language, and a veritable walking encyclopedia of the history of the gun rights movement. And he was my friend.
Dave was also named to the Joseph P. Tartaro Hall of Fame,
making him the only double award recipient in the 38-year history
of the conference, which was held in Phoenix.
I recently announced my pending retirement from that position — don’t worry, I’m not departing from Insider Online or GUNS Magazine — because at my age, it’s time to slow down a little. I’ve been working for SAF and CCRKBA for more than 23 years, which came after spending 21 years at the old Fishing & Hunting News, which came after nearly seven years at a little weekly newspaper in Washington State.
There is a lot of brass in my workshop which needs reloading, and a fair amount of firewood still in need of cutting, splitting and stacking in the woodshed. Who knows, I may even find time to press a trigger!
New York’s Gun Law Amendments: The Hochul Government’s changes are viewed as worsening the issues and not aligning with recent Supreme Court rulings.
Opposition to the Second Amendment: New York’s leadership, especially under Hochul and Cuomo, is criticized for curbing Second Amendment rights.
Ammunition Background Check Issues: Hochul’s attempt at implementing background checks for ammunition mirrors Cuomo’s failed 2013 attempt, causing processing delays.
Unclear Leadership: The recent resignation of the New York Superintendent of State Police, Steven Nigrelli, adds to the uncertainty and complexity of gun law enforcement.
Controversial Gun Policies: Policies around firearm storage, proof, and fees for background checks are being challenged as infringements on citizen rights.
iStock
New York’s licensed firearms dealers and gun ranges are getting swamped with questions over confusing new laws concerning concealed handgun carry licenses, ammunition, and firearms “transfers” (that is to say, purchases, trade-ins, and giveaways).
In this article, we address these important and timely issues and provide our take, attempting clarification on what the law is.
On enactment and enforcement of York’s Concealed “Carried Improvement Act” (“CCIA”), including recent amendments to the CCIA, licensed firearms dealers and those also operating gun ranges have unfairly suffered the brunt of attacks by frustrated New Yorkers who have seen constant and infuriating delays in their taking possession of firearms and ammunition.
These delays did not occur prior to the amendments to New York’s Gun Law which points to a disturbing fact: the Hochul Government’s changes to the Gun Law, purporting to comply with the June 2022 U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Bruen, did no such thing. In many ways, the Government’s amendments to the Gun Law made matters worse.
Hochul and the Democrat-Party-controlled Legislature in Albany simply gave lip service to the Bruen rulings. As a matter of fact, the Hochul Government merely continues the policy established by her predecessor Andrew Cuomo. The aim of this State Government in the Twenty-First Century is to continue the process of further constraining and constricting the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms in New York, and to do so with increasing rapidity.
It is therefore business as usual for a New York Government that is virulently opposed to the Second Amendment of the Nation’s Bill of Rights.
And it isn’t only New York civilians who are facing frustrations and confusion. The new amendment is also impacting active-duty New York Police Officers. And both citizen civilians and police officers are all taking out their frustration on the wrong people: the Gun Dealer and Gun Range Owner.
This impossible situation is all by design and then enhanced and perpetuated by the Hochul Government.
Is there any way out of this morass?
Yes. But it is important to understand that Hochul’s recent “ammunition” amendment to the Handgun Law isn’t alone the cause of the problem. It is simply a reflection of the New York Government’s long-standing and deep-seated abhorrence of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms and the Government’s contempt for those citizens residing in New York who are intent on exercising their right, regardless of the many obstacles placed in their path by the Government.
It is also important to understand that this new amendment isn’t a standalone provision. It is simply the most recent addition to the Hochul Government’s “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (“CCIA”).
Moreover, the ammunition background check requirement is not something new that Governor Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany dreamed up. It has been done before.
Hochul’s predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, tried to impose an ammunition background check system on New York firearms owners in 2013—ten years before the passage of Hochul’s CCIA. Cuomo’s ammunition background check provision was written into the New York Safe Act of 2013. It didn’t pan out, then, just as it isn’t panning out now. The Superintendent of the New York State Police could not get the damn thing to work even in 2014, one year after the Safe Act was implemented. And it was costing the taxpayer millions of dollars.
So, Cuomo scrapped it, and the Superintendent of State Police and those working to get the thing operational breathed a sigh of relief.
Hochul never pointed this little matter out to the public when she resurrected Cuomo’s little scheme.
She, too, is having problems implementing this ammunition background check system—hence the delays in processing transfers of ammunition and firearms. Nothing has changed, ten years after Cuomo originally promulgated an ammunition background check provision and placed it in the Safe Act.
The difference between Hochul and Cuomo is that Hochul doesn’t mind the constant problems and obviously doesn’t care about the many people—citizen civilians, licensed gun dealers and owners of gun ranges, and even active-duty New York Police officers—voicing vociferous and incessant complaints and doing so with justification.
If Hochul is going to create a mechanism of enforcement, then at least make the damn thing work. Otherwise, do away with it. But she won’t do that.
She won’t do that because it is obvious that Hochul relishes the delays. Otherwise, she, like Cuomo, would have either scrapped the thing or would have urged the State Legislature in Albany to formally repeal the amendment or she would have placed continual pressure on the Superintendent of State Police who is tasked with getting this thing to work efficiently and effectively.
But, as far as we can tell, Hochul has done none of these things and has no plans to do so. She simply doesn’t care. She doesn’t care because she is doing exactly what her wealthy benefactors, and what the Biden Administration, and what those citizens residing in New York, who voted her into Office, want her to do. Hochul knows she is on safe ground politically on this, and that is all that matters to her—at least at this moment. Hopefully, this will change as increasing violent crime and the frustration of the public ramps up.
But, what about the New York Superintendent of State Police?
Does he care about the problems he is faced with in getting a notoriously difficult database up and running? This thing does, after all, sit on his lap.
Well, he doesn’t care either because, at this moment, there is no New York Superintendent of State Police.
Acting NYS Police Superintendent Steven Nigrelli resigns Screengrab NYPost 10-21-2023
Steven Nigrelli, the Acting Superintendent and the most recent Superintendent resigned his post on September 23, 2023, after Governor Hochul refused to make his position permanent, ostensibly because he faced employment harassment charges.
So, who is the new acting Superintendent of State Police? Who can say? We don’t know. No news account to date we are aware of has reported an appointment of a new acting Superintendent of State Police. So, if Hochul did appoint someone, anyone, she failed to mention that person’s name. And, if she is considering an appointment, she hasn’t made that fact known either.
This only complicates matters, not only for the State Police that cannot get the NICS database working but for every New Yorker who suffers a delay in obtaining either a firearm or ammunition.
New York law now requires a Licensed Gun Dealer and Gun Range Owner to run NICS background checks only through the Superintendent of State Police and not directly through the Federal Government for firearms and ammunition transfers. And keep in mind that, even if Hochul authorized Licensed New York Gun Dealers and owners of Gun Ranges to utilize the Federal NICS system for undertaking background checks, the FBI only does background checks involving transfers of firearms. They are not legally authorized, even if they were willing to do checks on those individuals who simply wish to purchase ammunition.
And this delay is affecting active-duty police officers as well because they are not exempted from the NICS background check requirement either for the purchase of ammunition or for the purchase of firearms beyond Departmental-issued firearms.
If there is a delay in running a check, everyone is, then, in the same boat.
But none of this negatively impacts your run-of-the-mill criminal element or murderous international cartel member that, thanks to Biden’s Open Border misadventure, has enabled millions of illegal aliens to take up residence in our Nation, and like a horrific viral infection, these illegals have coursed through the entire body politic.
The criminal element doesn’t bother with Hochul Gun Regime compliance matters, anyway.
If criminals get hit with a gun charge among other things, these noxious elements can expect a lenient judicial system to give them a slap on the wrist and send them on their merry way to create more mayhem for both police and the average citizen. And this is exactly what is happening in New York.
*For those readers interested in the specific operative State Statutes and Municipal Codes, Rules, and Regulations, feel free to contact the Arbalest Quarrel directly or through Ammoland Shooting Sports News, and we will be happy to provide you with the citations.
To Lawfully Carry A Handgun In New York, the City Government Still Requires A Person To Acquire A Valid Concealed Handgun Carry License That IS Issued By The NYPD License Division
One burning question concerns whether, under the CCIA, a valid concealed handgun carry license issued in a New York county or municipality other than the City of New York enables a license holder to carry his or her handgun for self-defense IN the City of New York.
The answer is an emphatic “no.” Handgun Preemption Laws that most States follow have no application in an Anti-Second Amendment State like New York.
This means that, as long as New York City, or any other county or city in New York, establishes rules and codes that appear legally consistent with the State’s Handgun Law—found in Penal Code Section 400.00 et. seq.—then those jurisdictions are free to create and implement new rules, codes, and regulations that are more detailed and potentially tougher than the State’s own Handgun Law requirements. This has always been true of New York City.
Even with the passage of the CCIA in July 2022, State law does not preempt the Rules of the City of New York on the matter of the City’s continuing refusal to honor the validity of concealed carry licenses issued by another New York jurisdiction.
Anyone who applies for a New York City Handgun Concealed Carry License must comply with the City’s stringent Handgun Rules, the NYPD License Division enforces those Rules rigidly. This means that if a person wishes to carry his or her concealed handgun in New York City, that person MUST first acquire a valid New York City-issued handgun carry license.
But, wouldn’t that mean, from a logical standpoint, that a rule, code, or regulation that’s more stringent than the State law, is, by logical implication, illegal by the very reason that such rule, code, or regulation is more restrictive than the State Law?
Of course. But when was a New York Gun Law ever internally consistent, let alone consistent with the Second Amendment of the Bill of the Rights of the U.S. Constitution?
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s “Proper Cause” requirement in Bruen, sure. But this doesn’t legally prevent any jurisdiction in New York, be it municipal or county, from establishing its own Gun rules, codes, or regulations, applicable to that jurisdiction that a prospective handgun carry applicant must follow.
New York City requires anyone who wishes to carry a handgun lawfully in the City to obtain a handgun carry license issued by the NYPD License Division, regardless of the fact that a person may already possess a valid handgun carry license issued by another New York City or County.
Doesn’t The Curtailment Of The Proper Cause Requirement Negate The Need To Acquire Multiple New York Concealed Carry Licenses
The fact that no jurisdiction in New York is allowed any longer to require a person to show extraordinary (“Proper Cause”) need as a condition for obtaining a handgun carry license doesn’t legally prevent any city or county from requiring compliance with its own peculiar rules, codes, and regulations involving concealed handgun carry licenses.
In that case, a city or county can mandate that a person obtain a concealed handgun carry license for that jurisdiction, regardless of any other valid New York concealed handgun carry license he or she might happen to hold, applicable for the specific county or city.
At the moment, New York City is the only jurisdiction, now as before, that requires a person to acquire a license to lawfully carry in the City. Nothing in the CCIA changes that old mandate.
Remaining New York Gun-Related Questions Not Presently Before The Courts
One Thorny Question Concerns Whether A Person Domiciled in a Jurisdiction Outside of New York Can Obtain a New York Concealed Handgun Carry License
A New York Gun Dealer asked the Arbalest Quarrel the other day whether a person residing in another State can obtain a New York State handgun license.
The New York State Gun Law doesn’t assert categorically that a person must be domiciled in New York to obtain a handgun carry license. New York case law bears that out. So, the consensus of opinion in the Courts to date is that a person need not be domiciled in New York to obtain a New York Concealed Handgun Carry License.
However, an out-of-state applicant must still comply with both the training and “Good Moral Character” requirements of the CCIA and other applicable State and Federal Statutes.
A Second Thorny Question Concerns The Legality Of Charging A Person Fees For The Purchase Of A Firearm And Ammunition.
The fees are assessed by the State Police, ostensibly to cover the cost of undertaking a background check on a person to verify the person is not under Statutory disability that would preclude the transfer of a firearm and ammunition to that person.
The fee for the transfer of a firearm has increased. But New York never before charged a fee for the purchase of ammunition. It does so now. A fee of $2.50 is now assessed for the background check that the State Police now undertakes on the purchase of ammunition.
Note: The fee of $2.50 applies only to the background check itself, not to the number of boxes of ammunition a person purchases.
But each time a person purchases a new box or boxes of ammunition, there is a new $2.50 fee imposed because the State Police is required to undertake a new background check on that person. It therefore, behooves a person to purchase as much ammunition as he can afford at any one time to keep the fee at a straight $2.50.
A Couple More Points Concerning Fee Assessment On Firearm And Ammunition Transfers
First, the background check is charged to the seller of firearms and ammunition, not the buyer. A seller must provide the State Police with a valid Credit Card. The State Police applies a charge to the seller’s credit card immediately. The seller doesn’t eat the charge but passes the fee onto the purchaser. This is perfectly legal. This creates consternation, and that is understandable. A gun dealer and gun range owner have substantial expenses. They have to make a living, too.
If there is a delay—the usual occurrence—in completing the NICS background check, the transferee must still reimburse the seller of the firearm or ammunition immediately even though the transferee doesn’t take immediate possession of the firearm or ammunition. That is one reason why a person—a civilian citizen or active-duty police officer—gets upset with the Gun Dealer or the owner of the Gun Range. The transferee pays out of pocket immediately and gets nothing for his troubles as he must await the State Police processing of the transfer. That can take hours or even days.
Second, are both the fees and the dollar amounts of those fees lawful? They are. New York law specifies the State Police can assess fees for conducting NICS background checks and also provides a mechanism for determining what dollar amount is lawful.
A Third Thorny Question Pertains To The Legality Of Agency Policy
AdobeStock_Rawpixel
A third question is whether the Superintendent of the New York State Police can require a person who owns and possesses several firearms to show proof of having acquired a firearm safe to store those firearms.
A licensed New York Gun Dealer and the owner of a Gun Range has posed this question to us.
The New York State Police has required a person who holds several firearms on a restricted handgun premise license to present the State Police with a photograph of that safe.
This suggests that the person does not presently have a firearm safe, which is an expensive purchase, and would probably wish to defer the purchase of a safe if that were possible. It isn’t.
We believe that the State Police can require proof of purchase of a firearm safe once a New York premise license details possession of a certain (arbitrary) number of firearms on a premise license.
Is this true? If so, why?
According to New York Courts, the question is considered more a matter of policy than of law.
But Gun Policy, apart from State Statutes or County or Municipal code, rule, or regulation, still operates with the force of law.
New York Courts have dealt with this issue and have so stated.
When a complainant contests a “Gun Policy, New York Courts have said that the complainant must prove that a given New York Gun Policy is “arbitrary and capricious” before a Court will strike that Policy down.
This follows from the “Primary Jurisdiction of Agency Rule” that Courts have followed since U.S. Supreme Court rulings in the Chevron case that was decided decades ago, and a long line of cases following Chevron, since.
This Term, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a renewed look at Chevron and is considering either constraining the Court’s rulings in that case or overturning the rulings of Chevron outright.
The Biden Administration is apoplectic with rage over this.
But, at the moment, Courts generally acquiesce to agency decisions because of Chevron. Agencies have tremendous discretion. And, so, failure to prove to the satisfaction of a Court that a gun “policy” is “arbitrary and capricious”—a difficult standard to meet and the burden of which falls on the complainant—the policy will stand.
New York Police Departments are, therefore, given substantial freedom of action to create and implement policy directed at firearms licensing requirements.
This also follows from the fact—as New York Courts routinely make as asserted in their rulings, and that remains “Black Letter Law”—that, while the keeping and bearing of arms remains a basic and indisputable Right, the licensing of one to keep and bear arms remains a privilege.
The Arbalest Quarrel has pointed out that possessing a license (a Government bestowed privilege) as a condition precedent to the enjoyment of a fundamental, unalienable Right is not only logically fallacious and legally unsupportable but also nonsensical.
So, unless, or until, the U.S. Supreme Court has the courage to abolish the nonsense of allowing a State or Federal Government to license exercise of a God-Given Right, the citizen will continue to suffer the consequences of the rudeness of State actors who refuse to countenance the sanctity of natural law, eternal rights.
And the worst consequence by far is the insinuation of Tyranny upon us and our inability to effectively contend with that Tyranny if the citizenry is unable to bear arms to defeat it.
That, of course, is what a Treacherous Government’s concern is really all about—the power of the armed citizenry to thwart the will of the Tyrant who would dare subjugate the common man.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with ensuring “Public Safety” and preventing “Gun Violence.” Those things are nothing more than makeweights, mere cliché, that only a fool would believe. And there are, unfortunately, plenty of them that reside amongst us.
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.
On Wednesday, State Senator Julie Morrison, the Majority Caucus Whip, introduced legislation that could result in Illinois gun owners’ losing their driver’s licenses without due process, less than two weeks after 2 million Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card holders rebelled and chose not to register their firearms in protest of Gov. Pritzker’s assault weapons ban that he signed into law last January.
