Care to guess who got robbed soon after this video was posted? Grumpy
Category: A Victory!
Feb 4 (Reuters) – A federal law prohibiting marijuana users from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Oklahoma has concluded, citing last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that significantly expanded gun rights.
U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick, an appointee of former Republican President Donald Trump in Oklahoma City, on Friday dismissed an indictment against a man charged in August with violating that ban, saying it infringed his right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.
Wyrick said that while the government can protect the public from dangerous people possessing guns, it could not argue Jared Harrison’s “mere status as a user of marijuana justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm.”
He said using marijuana was “not in and of itself a violent, forceful, or threatening act,” and noted that Oklahoma is one of a number of states where the drug, still illegal under federal law, can be legally bought for medical uses.
“The mere use of marijuana carries none of the characteristics that the Nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation supports,” Wyrick wrote.
Laura Deskin, a public defender representing Harrison, said the ruling was a “step in the right direction for a large number of Americans who deserve the right to bear arms and protect their homes just like any other American.” She called marijuana the most commonly used drug illegal at the federal level.
The U.S. Department of Justice did not respond to request for comment but is likely to appeal.
The decision marked the latest instance of a court declaring a gun regulation unconstitutional after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority in June ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.
That ruling, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, announced a new test for assessing firearms laws, saying restrictions must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
On Thursday, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited that decision in declaring unconstitutional a federal law barring people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. —
California lawmakers held an oversight hearing on Tuesday to figure out how to improve the state’s Armed and Prohibited Persons System, also known as APPS, which is a program that is supposed to keep guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous people.
The program has faced criticism for using antiquated systems and having the workload outweigh the manpower.
“California leads with some of the most stringent gun laws, but gun violence is a daily reality for communities across our state,” Assm. Reggie Jones-Sawyer said. “We know gun violence across California requires stronger action.”
The APPS program, which only exists in California, places legal gun owners on a list of people who are prohibited from having weapons if they are convicted of a felony, violent misdemeanor, have a restraining order against them or for a mental health reason. The program has been in place since 2001 and uses the state’s Automated Firearms System, which tracks in state registration of firearm owners across the state. The California Department of Justice oversees the APPS program.
“The program has been plagued with numerous challenges since its introduction,” said Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris in Tuesday’s hearing, noting there were 24,000 people on the APPS list. “That is just not good enough,” she said.
Tuesday’s oversight hearing included lawmakers from the Assembly Public Safety Committee and Administrative Review Committees.
The CA DOJ was still in the process of putting together its latest data, which is expected to release sometime in the spring, so the agency used numbers from its 2021 report in Tuesday’s hearing.
CA DOJ officials said of the 24,000 people on the APPS list, 10,000 of them were still in the process of being investigated to have weapons taken away. Another 14,000 are considered “pending cases,” meaning the investigations were exhausted because of reasons including agents being unable to clear weapons, unable to locate the person, or those on the list moved out of state. Officials said they expected the 10,000 figure to remain consistent, noting prohibited people land on the list daily.
The CA DOJ has 73 special agents dedicated to taking weapons away from those prohibited from having them every day. Officials said 56 special agents are currently doing the work while the agency tries to fill 17 vacant positions, noting turnover is high when other large law enforcement agencies have better pay.
Former California Highway Patrolman and Republican Assm. Tom Lackey said law enforcement retention and recruitment go beyond pay.
“Morale amongst law enforcement is low right now; all agencies are having trouble because the incentive has been thwarted,” Lackey said. “Everybody hurts when we demonize an entire profession for conduct of a few.”
San Diego’s police department and city attorney’s office have a state-leading gun violence restraining order program. The state has earmarked $1 million for the agency to help train other local agencies across the state.
Sgt. Thomas Dillon and Chief Deputy City Attorney Nicole Crosby suggested lawmakers consider approving resources to create regional APPS/Gun Violence Restraining Order task forces. They noted this will help boost manpower and streamline communication between agencies.
“We have a great relationship with DOJ but the burden of firearms collection falls on local law enforcement,” Crosby told lawmakers.
“The biggest concern we have is to maintain accurate information in a timely manner,” Dillon told lawmakers, who noted the APPS system uses old technology and requires the use of several state databases to gather information on a prohibited person.
Republican Assm. Laurie Davies introduced a bill, Assembly Bill 303, that would create a new database for the APPS system.
Tuesday’s hearing was informational, meaning no votes or action was taken. It’s possible state lawmakers could address the system’s issues through legislation or the state budget process.
A peaceful Chicago neighborhood received a shock last month when an 80-year-old man defended his home from two intruders.
The homeowner, who is a holder of a valid FOID card, was inside his home in the 8500 block of West Catherine when two individuals knocked on his door at 10:30 am. Upon opening it, the intruders, a man and woman, forcibly entered the home and a scuffle ensued.
However, the determined homeowner didn’t give up without a fight and managed to fire a shot, striking the man in the chest. The second intruder, the woman, escaped unharmed.
The homeowner sustained several injuries in the altercation, including a severe head injury, and Fox32 reports that he was rushed to Resurrection Hospital in critical condition.
The two perpetrators fled the scene but eventually sought medical treatment at the same hospital. The perp who was shot was admitted in critical condition. Since then the police have gained custody of both intruders. Charges are still pending.
U.S. District Court Judge Zahid Quraishi, a Biden appointee, killed a new law that was widely celebrated by anti-gun Liberals and Democrats. The law would have allowed the state to shut down, and likely bankrupt, the firearms industry if a single gun were misused in a crime.
The Federal Judge said that he agreed with the gun industry that the New Jersey law was likely unconstitutional and granted the National Shooting Sports Foundation a preliminary injunction.
In a 20-page opinion, the Judge said that the New Jersey law signed last summer by Gov. Phil Murphy ignored a larger federal law (the PLCAA) that protects the makers of guns, and other items, from being dragged into court when somebody misuses their product.
Here’s a recap of Gov. Phil Murphy’s package of anti-gun measures:
Judge Quraishi said that the federal 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) gives immunity to gun and ammo makers and sellers against the types of public nuisance laws Murphy championed.
“The court is mindful that firearms are inherently dangerous and even more so in the wrong hands,” wrote the judge, “but it is also mindful that the PLCAA embodies Congress’s earnest effort to balance those dangers against the national interest in protecting access to firearms.”
Mark Oliva, the spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, told a Washington Examiner reporter, “It’s a basic understanding of tort law. It’s the foundation of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, that anyone that criminally misuses a firearm or a product is responsible for the damages caused by their crime, not the person that lawfully made, lawfully sold that product.”
In an initial filing last November, the NSSF said the New Jersey law “is squarely preempted by federal law. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, several state and local governments sought to use novel applications of common law theories like negligence and nuisance to impose civil liability on manufacturers and sellers of firearms and ammunition when third parties misused their products. Congress saw these lawsuits for what they were: unconstitutional efforts to stamp out lawful and constitutionally protected activity.”