Tag Archives: Gun Control

Judge Issues Partial Stay in CA ‘High Capacity’ Mag Ban

Epic legal effort allowed California residents to purchase high capacity magazines during a seven day window for the first time in nineteen years.

***

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez issued a partial stay in the judgement against California’s “high capacity” magazine ban.

https://media.breitbart.com/media/2019/04/SJM-L-MILGUN-0111_2-640x480.png

A brief history on rulings associated with this ban is helpful:

  • On June 29, 2017, Breitbart News reported that Benitez blocked the implementation of California’s “high-capacity” magazine ban two days before it was to go into effect. He noted that the ban could not survive the test of Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) ruling. He noted “When the simple test of Heller is applied … the statute is adjudged an unconstitutional abridgment.”
  • On July 17, 2018, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Benitez’s ruling by a 2-to-1 vote, but sent the case back to Benitez for reconsideration.
  • On March 29, 2019, Breitbart News reported that Benitez again ruled against the ban, issuing an order barring California Attorney General Xavier Becerra from enforcing the ban.
  • On April 2, 2019, Breitbart News reported that Becerra was requesting a stay on the March 29 ruling, pending outcome of appeal.

Benitez has now issued a stay on the March 29, 2019, ruling, effective at 5 p.m. on April 5, 2019, while subsequently upholding the June 29, 2017, ruling as a means of protecting individuals who purchased “high capacity” magazines between March 30 and April 5.

The case is Duncan v. Becerra, No. 2:17-cv-56-81 in the U.S. District Court for Southern California.

Source: AWR Hawkins | Breitbart

Advertisements

NZ Confiscations Begin: Police Going to Gun Owners’ Homes, Jobs… One Gun Owner Dead

https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/AP_19081144449716.jpg

According to members of New Zealand’s largest firearm forum, Kiwi police are starting to go to gun owners’ places of employment, homes, and even visiting gun ranges in an attempt to gather information and get gun owners to relinquish their firearms.

Police are apparently trolling social media for leads on newly-prohibited firearms.

Additionally, it appears that New Zealand’s crackdown on semi-automatic long guns has claimed its first victim. According to Stuff which appears to be the New Zealand equivalent of The Patch . . .

A former Russian soldier who feared going back to prison tried to call his son before dying of a suspected suicide following a three-hour standoff with police.

The family of 54-year-old Troy Dubovskiy told Stuff he was sought by police after his property in the Christchurch suburb of St Martins was searched on Tuesday.

Police acted on information from the public.

His son posted a photo of him wearing a Russian Army Helmet and posing with an airsoft rifle on social media.

Dubovskiy’s 16-year-old son, who Stuff has decided not to name, said police searched the homes of his father, mother and grandparents after someone reported a photo the teen made his profile picture on Facebook five days ago.

The photo, which he first posted to Facebook several years ago, shows the teen holding a replica rifle and wearing a Russian helmet. The teen used the equipment along with his father while playing Airsoft, a team sport where people shoot each other with pellets using replica guns.

The boy’s father was a veteran of the Soviet and later Russian Army and spent time in Afghanistan and Chechnya while assigned to a special forces unit.

Upon a search of the residence, police found an 8mm blank pistol, an airsoft rifle, and a SKS carbine. The SKS is now illegal under the country’s new ban.

Source: by Luis Valdez | The Truth About Guns

Colorado AG: Sheriffs Who Will Not Enforce Gun Confiscation ‘Should Resign’

https://media.breitbart.com/media/2019/03/Colorado-Attorney-General-AG-Phil-Weiser-AP-640x480.jpg

Colorado Attorney General, Phil Weiser (Socialist-D) said sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun confiscation laws “should resign” their posts.

Democrat lawmakers are pushing a red flag law that will allow a court to issue confiscatory order empowering police to go to a gun owner’s home and take away his firearms. As of March 12, 2019, ten Colorado counties had declared themselves “Second Amendment Sanctuaries” to signal that they would support their sheriffs in refusing to enforce the confiscation law.

Numerous sheriffs have subsequently taken a stand against the red flag law, and the Colorado Sun quotes AG Weiser saying those sheriffs “should resign.”

Weiser said he expects the law to be challenged in court, where he believes it will be upheld. Once upheld, he said sheriffs will be obligated to enforce it.

https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2018/09/1862/1048/18_AP18104722258880.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

But Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams sees it differently. He told Fox News, “If you pass an unconstitutional law, our oaths as commissioners or myself as the sheriff — we’re going to follow our constitutional oath first.”

Logan County Sheriff Brett Powell said, “It’s time we quit trying to put lipstick on a pig and start funding our mental health facilities, instead of trying to take the rights from our people.”

Source: by AWR Hawkins | Breitbart News

***

The Real Resistance: Washington State Sheriffs Refuse To Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws

https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/sheriff_0.jpg?itok=VYZTJ_la

The refusal of law enforcement officers to enforce the new restrictions plays into a longer history of so-called “constitutional” sheriffs

New Zealand Bans Guns After Mass Shooting; All “Military-Style” And “Assault Rifles” Outlawed

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced the “first tranche” to reforms on gun laws – beginning with the immediate ban on the sale of semi-automatic and ‘assault’ rifles, six days after attacks on two mosques in Christchurch left 50 people dead. Notably, accused gunman Brenton Tarrant – specifically hoped his attack would lead to the restriction of gun rights

https://www.abc.net.au/news/image/10908460-3x2-940x627.jpg

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern (ABC News)

“On 15 March, our history changed forever. Now, our laws will too,” said Ardern. “We are announcing action today on behalf of all New Zealanders to strengthen our gun laws and make our country a safer place.”

“The effect of this will mean that no one will be able to buy these weapons without a permit to procure from the police. I can assure people that there is no point in applying for such a permit,” she said, adding “In short, every semi-automatic weapon used in the terrorist attack on Friday will be banned in this country.”  

The ban will apply to all firearms currently defined as “Military Style” or “Semi-Automatic” (MSSA), defined as a semi-automatic firearm – including shotguns – capable of being used with a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds.

https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/1533370684913_0.jpg?itok=XxGtLd_S

Guns which are not affected by the ban include semi-automatic .22 caliber rimfire firearms with a magazine holding no more than 10 rounds, as well as semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns with a non-detachable tubular magazine holding no more than five rounds

Ardern also announced a gun buyback scheme that will cost between NZ$100 million and $200 million (between US$69 million and $139 million), depending on the number of weapons received.

Anyone who keeps their guns after an amnesty period which has yet to be announced will face fines of up to $4,000 and three years in jail – which is less jail time than a New Zealand resident could receive for downloading or sharing a video of the Christchurch attacks.

As far as “Tranche two,” Ardern said “There is more to be done and tranche two will look at issues around licensing, issues around registration, issues around storage. There are a range of other amendments that we believe do need to be made and that will be the second tranche of reforms yet to come.”

Currently in New Zealand: 

· There are 245,000 firearms licences

· Of these, 7,500 are E-Category licences; and 485 are dealer licenses

· There are 13,500 firearms which require the owner to have an E-Cat licence, this is effectively the known number of MSSAs before today’s changes

· The total number of firearms in New Zealand is estimated to be 1.2-1.5 million

That said, Ardern told reporters that she has no idea how many assault rifles are in New Zealand. The police minister followed up, saying: “It’s part of the problem. The prime minister gave a figure for the buyback [$100m – $200m], the reason there’s such a large gap is we have no idea.”

Source: ZeroHedge

***

Graham Wants Passing Firearm Confiscation Laws To Bring Democrats And Republicans Together

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) says firearm confiscation laws portend a way that Democrats and Republicans can “come together.”

https://media.breitbart.com/media/2019/03/Lindsey-Graham-640x480.jpg

CNN reported that Graham has long supported red flag laws, which allow a court to issue firearm confiscation orders for individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others.

House Democrats have already passed legislation during this Congress to criminalize private gun sales and extend the instant background check for firearm purchases. They are now pressing for $50 million in annual funding to bring academia into the gun control push.

The Democrats have also been vocal in their support for gun confiscation laws, and this is where Graham believes the left and right can come together.

He told CNN, “I haven’t really looked at the House package, but this is to me the area where we can come together.” Graham has scheduled a March 26 Judiciary Committee hearing on the confiscation orders.

California, Illinois, and Florida all have gun confiscation orders via red flag laws. California’s law did nothing to prevent the November 7, 2018, Borderline Bar & Grill shooting in which 12 innocents were killed. The law in Illinois did not prevent the February 15, 2019, shooting at Henry Pratt Company, where five innocents were killed. And the Florida law did not stop the August 26, 2018, shooting at Jacksonville Landing or the January 23, 2019, shooting at SunTrust Bank in Sebring. A total of eight innocents were killed in the two Florida shootings.

CNBC noted that Graham’s willingness to “[hold] a hearing on gun control is … a remarkable development in the GOP-dominated Senate.”

Source: by AWR Hawkins | Breitbart

 

The Real Resistance: Washington State Sheriffs Refuse To Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws

Washington state recently introduced bills for some of the strictest gun laws in the country but they have some very important opponents: the sheriffs.

https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/sheriff_0.jpg?itok=VYZTJ_la

Long thought to be the last line of defense between authoritarianism and freedom, sheriffs are in a unique position. As elected officials, basically nobody has authority over them – not the judges, not the Feds – no one except the people who may or may not choose to re-elect them.

What are those new gun laws in Washington?

In November, Washington voters passed a ballot initiative, I-1639. To purchase a semi-automatic rifle, buyers must be over 21, undergo an enhanced background check, must have completed a safety course, and need to wait 9 days to take possession of their weapon. And that’s not all. A gun owner who doesn’t store his or her weapon “properly” can be prosecuted.

And that was just the beginning of the unconstitutional momentum.

Feeling the wind at their backs after the ballot, gun campaigners and liberal legislators have now gone even further in the new legislative session. Bills introduced in the last week to Washington’s Democrat-dominated legislature look to further restrict firearms. Some laws would ban high capacity magazines and plastic guns made with 3D printers. Others would mandate training for concealed carry permits, and remove guns and ammo during and after domestic violence incidents.

Washington’s attorney general, Bob Ferguson, who proposed several of the bills, said in an email: “Now is the time to act. Washingtonians have made it clear that they support common-sense gun safety reforms.” (source)

Things are getting more and more difficult for gun owners in a state that has two very different demographics.

Washington is a reflection of the rest of the US.

The state of Washington is similar to the United States in general. The vast majority of the population lives in a few large cities, distant from the rural and small-town folks in a lot more than just mileage. The left-leaning cities are in direct opposition to the more right-leaning rural communities, but the rural communities are under the thumb of the city voters due to numbers.

Back when they voted on I-1639, 27 of the 39 counties were against the measure, but because the twelve counties that voted FOR it were more populous, the initiative passed.

Does this sound familiar? If it weren’t for the electoral college in national elections, we’d probably have Hillary Clinton as our president, and she’s notoriously anti-gun for little people. The situation of gun owners would look very different right now if that had happened.

Now the state is divided because the counties that voted against the measure are refusing to be governed by unconstitutional laws to which they objected in the first place

And they’re supported by their sheriffs.

Some Washington law enforcement officers are refusing to enforce these laws.

Klickitat County Sheriff, Bob Songer, Republic police chief Loren Culp, and Ferry County Sheriff Ray Maycumber are among those who have publicly vowed not to enforce the new unconstitutional gun laws.

In Ferry county in eastern Washington, more than 72% of voters rejected I-1639. In the county’s only incorporated city, Republic, the police chief Loren Culp asked the council in November to declare the city a “second amendment sanctuary”. That vote has been delayed until March, but in the meantime, like Songer, Culp says he will not enforce.

The sheriff in Ferry county, Ray Maycumber, told the Guardian that he would not be enforcing the laws either, at least until the NRA’s litigation is completed.

“There’s a window of time when I get to make the assessment”, he said. Should the NRA not succeed, he said, he would “consider if I want to go on in the job”.

…The refusal of law enforcement officers to enforce the new restrictions plays into a longer history of so-called “constitutional” sheriffs resisting the gradual tightening of gun laws. There are also hints, in the stance, of the doctrine of “county supremacy”, long nursed on the constitutionalist far right, which holds that county sheriffs are the highest constitutional authority in the country. (source)

Matt Marshall, the leader of the Washington Three Percent, is hoping to persuade other Washington counties to adopt local second amendment sanctuary ordinances. Next week, he meets with people in Lewis and Pierce counties to urge them to urge them to adopt resolutions not to enforce unconstitutional gun laws.

This isn’t the first time that sheriffs have stood up against unreasonable laws.

As elected officials, sheriffs have an obligation to their constituents and to the Constitution of the United States of America.

In 2013, El Dorado County Sheriff John D’Agostini kicked the US Forestry Service out of his county.

The El Dorado County Sheriff says he’s not happy with the U.S. Forest Service, so he’s stripping them of their authority by keeping them from enforcing state law within the county.

Sheriff John D’Agostini is taking the unusual step of pulling the police powers from the federal agency because he says he has received “numerous, numerous complaints.”

In a letter obtained by CBS13, the sheriff informs the federal agency that its officers will no longer be able to enforce California state law anywhere in his county.

“I take the service that we provide to the citizens of El Dorado County and the visitors to El Dorado County very seriously, and the style and manner of service we provide,” D’Agostini said. “The U.S. Forest Service, after many attempts and given many opportunities, has failed to meet that standard.” (source)

This kind of action is firmly supported by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The power of county sheriffs was upheld in the Supreme Court.

In 1994, Graham County Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack and Ravalli County Montana Sheriff Jay Printz successfully sued the Clinton Administration over the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas found that the Brady Act’s attempted commandeering of the sheriffs to perform background checks violated the tenth amendment.

“The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service–and at no cost to itself–the police officers of the 50 States.

…Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.” (source)

The decision upheld the power of county sheriffs.

County sheriffs are the last legal line of defense.

Legally speaking, our county sheriffs are the last line of defense in the battle for gun rights.

Federal agencies do not have state powers. Due to the Constitution’s structure of dual sovereignty, the feds have no authority to enforce state laws. Furthermore, states cannot be compelled to enforce federal laws. (source)

The next option is widespread civil disobedience, which we saw recently in New Jersey.

Thanks to a December 5 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, New Jersey’s ban on gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds took effect on December 10. By that date, all owners of heretofore legal “large capacity magazines” (LCMs) were required to surrender them to police, render them inoperable, modify them so they cannot hold more than 10 rounds, or sell them to authorized owners. Those who failed to do so are guilty of a fourth-degree felony, punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 and up to 18 months in prison.

How many of New Jersey’s 1 million or so gun owners have complied with the ban by turning LCMs in to law enforcement agencies? Approximately zero… (source)

Try as anti-gun legislators and activists might, there is a difficult battle ahead for anyone who tries to disarm the American people. Between Constitution-supporting elected officials and American civilians who will not comply, the real Resistance seems to be ready… and armed.

Source: ZeroHedge

Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

President Bolsonaro Decrees Expanded Gun Ownership Access For Brazilians

https://i1.wp.com/aldianews.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_image/public/articles/15023373w.jpg

Brasilia, Jan 15 (EFE).- President Jair Bolsonaro on Tuesday signed a decree facilitating gun ownership in Brazil, thus fulfilling one of his main campaign promises.

Giving the public greater access to weapons has been one of Bolsonaro’s flagship issues, and he had promised to take a hard line against criminality in a country where last year there were 63,880 known murders, an average of 175 per day.

Current law already permits people over age 25, without criminal records and with legal employment to own weapons once they prove that they are psychologically able to be trusted to possess them and can justify their need for them, requirements that now will be eased.

The measure does not – however – make it easier to carry weapons outside the home or, for instance, on the street.

Bolsonaro, who signed the decree at a ceremony at Planalto Palace, made reference to the nationwide referendum held in 2005 in which 63 percent of Brazilians voted against a proposal to completely ban gun sales.

“Given that the people made a sovereign decision in the 2005 referendum, to guarantee themselves that legitimate right to self-defense, I, as president, am going to use this weapon,” said Bolsonaro, displaying the pen with which he then signed the decree.

“The people decided to buy weapons and ammunition and we cannot deny what the people wanted at that time,” the president added at the signing ceremony, at which some of his Cabinet ministers, including Justice and Public Safety Minister Sergio Moro, were present.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/b1.jpg

At his inauguration on Jan. 1, Bolsonaro reiterated his desire to facilitate gun ownership for “good citizens” so that they can defend themselves and fight crime in one of the world’s most violent countries.

The measure, Bolsonaro said, seeks to allow “good citizens to be able to have peace within their homes.”

According to a survey (probably fake) published by the Datafolha institute late last year, the percentage of Brazilians who feel that owning guns must be “prohibited since it represents a threat to the lives of other people” increased from 55 percent in October, when Bolsonaro was elected president with a 55 percent majority, to 61 percent in December.

The decree will expire in 120 days unless it is ratified by the Brazilian Congress.

Source: by EFE | Al Dia International