Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Georgia Lawmakers Target Savannah, Pass Bill Outlawing City Gun Storage Ordinances by Mark Chesnut

We’ve covered for some time the so-called “safe storage” ordinance passed by Savannah city leaders and the resulting lawsuit challenging the ordinance on Second Amendment grounds.

Now, lawmakers in the Peach State have voted to put an end to the whole mess.

First, however, some background. Savannah passed an ordinance in April 2024 that requires firearms to be “securely stored” when left in cars and establishes a maximum penalty of $1,000 in fines and 30 days in jail for people who leave them inside unlocked vehicles. It also mandates that those who have had a firearm stolen report the theft to the Savannah Police Department within 24 hours.

Gun-rights organizations and pro-gun lawmakers believe the ordinance violates Georgia’s firearms preemption law. And a subsequent lawsuit argued just that.

More recently, Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr jumped into the fray, saying that the ordinance simply doesn’t meet court muster.

“This misguided attempt to punish law-abiding Georgians does absolutely nothing to address crime, and it won’t hold up in Court,” Carr said in a press release announcing that he had filed a brief with the Superior Court of Chatham County in support of the plaintiffs in a case challenging the law.

 

“No matter how much the Mayor disagrees with our laws, he cannot openly infringe on the Second Amendment rights of our citizens. Progressive politics aren’t a defense for government overreach.”

Before the trial could start, the state Senate on January 13 voted along party lines to ban cities from requiring gun owners to lock up their guns in cars, the first bill approved in this year’s legislative session.

The legislation was approved in the Senate by a 32-21 vote. The state House had passed the measure last April 4, and it now heads to Gov. Brian Kemp for his consideration.

The controversy centers on whether the city ordinance violates the state’s strong firearms preemption laws. Sponsors and supporters of the measure in both the House and Senate say it does.

And indeed, a general reading of the law suggests it runs afoul of the language. That law states: “No county or municipal corporation, by zoning, by ordinance or resolution, or by any other means, nor any agency, board, department, commission, political subdivision, school district, or authority of this state, other than the General Assembly, by rule or regulation or by any other means shall regulate in any manner: (A) Gun shows; (B) The possession, ownership, transport, carrying, transfer, sale, purchase, licensing, or registration of firearms or other weapons or components of firearms or other weapons; (C) Firearms dealers or dealers of other weapons; or (D) Dealers in components of firearms or other weapons.”

One supporter, state Sen. Colton Moore, stated that the bill would safeguard gun owners’ rights.

“You can travel the state freely knowing you’re not going to be a victim of a crime and then be made a criminal as we’ve seen in Savannah,” Moore said during the Senate debate on the bill. “We’re putting freedom back into the hands of the citizenry.”

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

Virginia Anti-Gun Democrat Lawmakers Introduce Sweeping Gun Ban Proposal by Mark Chesnut

When anti-gun Democrat Abigail Spanberger was elected Virginia’s new governor back in November, it was a victory that many believed would embolden gun-ban advocates in the state legislature. Judging from a new measure now under consideration by lawmakers, “embolden” might have been too mild a word.

House Bill 217 is a sweeping gun and magazine ban with a few other restrictions thrown in for good measure. According to a state alert to Virginia members distributed by Gun Owners of America (GOA), the measure is a “damaging” one.

“As the Virginia Legislature’s starting date rapidly approaches, anti-gunners are already preparing to axe your gun rights by firing off new bills during the bill pre-filing period,” GOA wrote in the alert. “HB 217 is especially damaging, and it aims to do a sweeping number of infringements on your rights if passed.”

According to GOA, the measure would ban the importation, sale, manufacture, purchase and transfer of a wide range of commonly owned semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns by classifying them as “assault firearms” based on features such as pistol grips, threaded barrels, folding or adjustable stocks, muzzle devices or the ability to accept detachable magazines.

Additionally, it specifically targets semi-automatic pistols and shotguns commonly used for lawful purposes, including pistols with threaded barrels and semi-automatic shotguns with detachable magazines or fixed magazine capacities exceeding seven rounds.

Other provisions in the bill would ban the sale and transfer of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds if manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, outlawing standard-capacity magazines that are factory-issued with many popular firearms, along with making the importation, sale, manufacture, purchase or transfer of a prohibited firearm a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine.

The bill would even criminalize possession, purchase or transport of a so-called “assault firearm” by anyone under the age of 21, even if the firearm was lawfully owned and manufactured before the ban date.

“In addition, HB207 could obliterate the gains we made on the federal level by convincing Congress to lower the National Firearms Act tax on suppressors from $200 to $0, thanks to your persistence and advocacy,” GOA wrote.

 

“HB207 hopes to impose a new $500 Virginia tax on suppressors, in addition to the existing federal tax and registration requirements.”

To battle the measure, GOA asked members to do two things in the immediate future. First, use the form provided in the state alert to inform their state delegates that they oppose HB 217, HB 207, SB 28, and SB 38.

The second request is to join the Virginia Citizens Defense League Lobby Day at the state capital on January 19. VCDL’s lobby day is an opportunity for gun owners’ message to be heard and amplified, and a massive attendance of gun owners there can make a serious impact on how these bills move forward.

Ultimately, Republicans losing the governorship in Virginia has created a situation where gun-ban legislation will be pushed harder than ever before. It’s up to gun owners to make their voices heard and fight to kill these restrictive measures.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies You have to be kidding, right!?!

VA: New Sweeping Gun & Magazine Bans and Suppressor Taxes by Chris Stone

As the Virginia Legislature’s starting date rapidly approaches, anti-gunners are already preparing to axe your gun rights by firing off new bills during the bill pre-filing period.

HB 217 is especially damaging, and it aims to do a sweeping number of infringements on your rights if passed. The bill:

  • Bans the importation, sale, manufacture, purchase, and transfer of a wide range of commonly owned semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns by classifying them as “assault firearms” based on features such as pistol grips, threaded barrels, folding or adjustable stocks, muzzle devices, or the ability to accept detachable magazines.
  • Targets specifically semi-automatic pistols and shotguns commonly used for lawful purposes, including pistols with threaded barrels and semi-automatic shotguns with detachable magazines or fixed magazine capacities exceeding seven rounds.
  • Bans the sale and transfer of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds if manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, outlawing standard-capacity magazines that are factory-issued with many popular firearms.
  • Makes the importation, sale, manufacture, purchase, or transfer of a prohibited firearm a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine.
  • Imposes a three-year prohibition on possessing, purchasing, or transporting any firearm for anyone convicted under the bill, expanding firearm prohibitions through misdemeanor offenses.
  • Criminalizes possession, purchase, or transport of an “assault firearm” by anyone under the age of 21, even when the firearm was lawfully owned and manufactured before the ban date.
  • Authorizes seizure and forfeiture of firearms, magazines, and accessories involved in violations, even when the underlying offense is a misdemeanor rather than a felony.
  • Expands concealed handgun permit disqualifications by tying permit eligibility to the new “assault firearm” misdemeanor convictions.

In addition, HB207 could obliterate the gains we made on the federal level by convincing Congress to lower the National Firearms Act tax on suppressors from $200 to $0 thanks to your persistence and advocacy. HB207 hopes to:

  • Impose a new $500 Virginia tax on suppressors, in addition to the existing federal tax and registration requirements.

To recap, the Virginia Legislature has already also introduced SB 27 which holds manufacturers and dealers liable and susceptible to potentially multimillion dollar lawsuits for things out of their control and SB 38, seeks to grow the already stringent regulations regarding the confiscation or transfer of firearms from a “prohibited person.”

How can we fight back against these egregious policies that threaten our inalienable Second Amendment rights? There are currently two essential and immediate options that we need your help with.

1.  Use the form at the top of this post to contact your state delegate and senator, and tell them that you oppose HB 217HB 207SB 27, and SB 38 for the reasons outlined above. We need to flood Richmond politicians with calls and emails to make it clear that Virginians will not tolerate and stand by when our constitutional rights are under attack.

2.  Join us for the The Virginia Citizens Defense League Lobby Day on January 19, 2026. VCDL’s lobby day is an opportunity for our message to be heard and amplified; with a massive attendance of gun owners at the state capitol, we can make a serious impact on how these bills perform. Click here to learn more

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Born again Cynic!

Vermont Democrats Want to Create a New ‘Gun-Free Zone’ By Cam Edwards  

 

AP Photo/Jon Gambrell
For decades, Vermont had a well-deserved reputation as one of the most 2A-friendly states in the nation. Permitless carry has been the norm there for decades, and despite the fact that Democrats routinely controlled the state legislature and governor’s office, gun control bills found little support among lawmakers.

That’s all changed over the past fifteen years or so, and while Democrats haven’t moved to repeal permitless carry they’ve enacted a number of new gun laws including a waiting period, Extreme Risk Protection Orders, universal background checks, bans on gun sales to adults under the age of 21, and bans on “large capacity” magazines (to name a few).

Now Democrats are once again hoping to add to the list of “gun-free zones” in the state by pushing for a ban on lawfully carried firearms in bars in the city of Burlington.

Burlington Mayor Emma Mulvaney Stanak, Senate President Phil Baruth, and members of Gun Sense Vermont will gather at the Statehouse on Wednesday to renew their push for a bill banning guns in Burlington bars.

 

In March, the charter change garnered nearly 87% of Burlington Town Meeting Day voters’ support.

S.131 passed the Vermont Senate in April and has stayed in the House Committee on Government Operations ever since.

Vermont has a firearms preemption law in place that prevents Burlington officials from enacting the gun ban on their own, which is why the mayor and other anti-gunners are pushing for the legislature to create a carveout for the state’s biggest city.

Vermont Gov. Phil Scott has previously rejected the proposal, stating that piecemeal gun control laws that vary from town to town are a bad idea, and he’s not wrong. But that’s not the only reason to oppose the creation of yet another “gun-free zone.”

Most gun owners would agree that mixing firearms and alcohol is a bad idea, but while Vermont doesn’t specifically criminalize possessing firearms while under the influence, any reckless behavior with a gun while intoxicated can still lead to criminal charges.

Importantly, though, not everyone in a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol is there to get sloshed, and depriving them of their ability to lawfully carry just because they’re in a place where booze is available makes no sense.

When my late wife and I would go out to dinner, I was generally the designated driver, and I was generally carrying one of my handguns as well. She got to have a cocktail or two, I stuck with my Coke Zero, and neither one of us caused any issues for our fellow patrons or restaurant staff.

If individual bar owners want to make the choice to declare their establishments off-limits to lawful carry, they already have the ability to do so. In Vermont all they have to do is post the proper signage, and if they run across any patrons who are carrying they can ask them to leave (and call police if they refuse to do so).

Burlington officials and their allies in the legislature want to take away the power of these business owners to choose for themselves whether to allow lawful carry on their premises by instituting a blanket ban on carrying in these establishments. That’s entirely unnecessary, and if Democrats do advance this measure to Scott’s desk, he should once again declare his opposition and formally veto the legislation.

Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.

Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.

 

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

A Strong Contender for America’s Dumbest Gun-Control Law by Scott Witner

Colorado gun show entrance with lawful vendors and attendees
If there is a single, consistent strategy in the modern gun-control playbook, it is this: choke off youth participation.

The thinking is simple, even if it is deeply flawed. Discourage young people from hunting, shooting sports, and firearms culture today, and it becomes easier to erode public support for the Second Amendment tomorrow. It is a long game—and Colorado has just offered one of its most counterproductive examples yet.

Beginning January 1, 2026, a new Colorado law will prohibit anyone under the age of 18 from attending a gun show unless accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. The state claims this is about “safety.” In reality, it looks far more like another attempt to stigmatize lawful gun ownership and place barriers between young people and a constitutionally protected right.

To even host a gun show under Colorado’s new regime, organizers must submit detailed security plans to local law enforcement. These plans include vendor lists, projected attendance numbers, surveillance camera coverage, and other operational details. Promoters must also carry liability insurance tailored to the event. None of this is free, and none of it is accidental.

But the restriction on unaccompanied minors stands out as particularly misguided. Most young people who attend gun shows already come with family members. Forcing them to prove that fact at the door only reinforces the message that firearms ownership is somehow suspect or dangerous. For many teenagers—especially those inclined to question authority—this kind of treatment has the opposite of its intended effect. It does not discourage interest. It fuels it.

There is also a cultural blind spot at work here. Making something forbidden or tightly controlled has long been a reliable way to make it more appealing to young people. Turning gun shows into quasi-restricted spaces risks transforming them into something perceived as edgy or “off-limits,” which is hardly a deterrent to curious teens.
Meanwhile, the restriction itself is easily bypassed. An 18-year-old friend or sibling solves the problem instantly, and anyone tasked with enforcing the rule on the ground is likely to recognize its futility.

Where the law may succeed is in raising costs. The added regulatory burdens placed on gun shows inevitably drive up admission prices. Higher entry fees discourage families from attending and make it harder for first-time visitors, young or old, to participate. That, not safety, appears to be the real objective.

This gun show restriction is only one piece of a broader legislative push in Colorado. Additional measures, including permit-to-purchase schemes and mandatory training requirements for certain semi-automatic firearms, are scheduled to take effect as well. Each layer adds cost, delay, and friction for law-abiding citizens, while doing little to address violent crime.

Legal challenges are already underway. Last fall, the Colorado State Shooting Association, the official state affiliate of the National Rifle Association, filed suit against Senate Bill 25-003, dubbed by critics the “Polis Permission Slip”, which establishes a permit-to-purchase system for firearms.

Colorado lawmakers may believe they are shaping safer communities. What they are actually doing is reinforcing the perception that government views a fundamental right as a problem to be managed rather than a liberty to be respected. History suggests that approach does not age well—and it certainly does not win hearts and minds, especially among the next generation.

Photo of author

Scott Witner

Scott Witner is a former Marine Corps Infantryman with 2nd Battalion, 8th Marines, and served with the 24th MEU(SOC) during a six-month deployment to the Mediterranean. He’s completed specialized training in desert warfare, mountain warfare, and jungle operations across the U.S., South Korea, and Japan.
With over a decade in the firearms and outdoor industry, Scott has helped leading brands grow their visibility and reach through strategic marketing and content development. He currently resides in Northeastern Ohio, where he enjoys hiking, shooting, and testing related gear in the environments it’s intended to be used in.
Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

The Desperate Governor Doing Desperate Things

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies You have to be kidding, right!?!

We sure dodged a bullet with this guy!

Minnesota’s Walz Says He’s Going To Take “Aggressive” Executive Action On Guns

by Mark Chesnut 

Minnesota governor and failed vice presidential candidate Tim Walz is fed up with Republican lawmakers’ opposition to all the gun control schemes he wants to see passed in the North Star State.

In fact, he’s so fed up that he’s now threatening to unilaterally make his own laws through executive action, despite the fact that such shenanigans would almost certainly run counter to the law.

At a press conference last week, Walz said he is preparing to take “incredibly aggressive executive action” on gun control proposals because of what he called “stonewalling” by Republicans in the legislature, according to a report at Fox9.com.

Of course, what he calls “stonewalling” is simply lawmakers representing their constituents, many of whom don’t believe more gun laws are the answer to any of the state’s problems.

“I’ll be rolling out a series of incredibly aggressive executive actions because of the stonewalling, and the ability to deal with this,” Walz told reporters in his usual impossible-to-understand speech pattern. “78% of people in the suburbs support an assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines. 60% of the people strongly support it across the state, 18% do not.

 

Those 18 are apparently Republican legislators and leaders who are here at the Capitol. Minnesotans are dying, literally, for us to do more around gun violence prevention.”

His B.S. statistics aside, Walz’s boast about executive action comes after anti-gun lawmakers were unable to garner enough support to get a special gun-control session of the legislature to first base.

Finally, he decided the idea of a special session was just “a waste of time”—one of the few sensible things he has said since he came into the limelight during the 2024 presidential election.

Categories
A Victory! All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

DOJ Challenges Virgin Islands’ Firearm Restrictions in Landmark Lawsuit by John Crump

Lawsuit Gavel Judge Court iStock-Mark Youso 1455889577
The Justice Department accuses the defendants of systematically violating the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens through unconstitutional policies and practices related to firearm licensing. iStock-Mark Youso 1455889577

On December 16, 2025, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a major lawsuit in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, St. Thomas and St. John Division, against the Government of the Virgin Islands, the Virgin Islands Police Department (VIPD), and Police Commissioner Mario Brooks.

The Justice Department accuses the defendants of systematically violating the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens through unconstitutional policies and practices related to firearm licensing. The complaint, spanning 12 pages, seeks declaratory and equitable relief under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to restore these fundamental human rights.

The lawsuit hinges on the assertion that the Second Amendment, affirmed as a “fundamental right” by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms both at home and in public for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. This right, extended to the Virgin Islands under 48 U.S.C. § 1561, has been upheld in cases such as McDonald v. City of Chicago and District of Columbia v. Heller. However, the U.S. alleges that the Virgin Islands defendants have defied these rulings, rendering the constitutional right to bear arms “a virtual nullity” within the U.S. territory.

 

Central to the complaint are several specific grievances. The VIPD, under Commissioner Brooks’ supervision since January 23, 2025, enforces laws that require applicants to submit to warrantless home searches and to install safes bolted to their floors or walls as conditions for obtaining a firearm permit. These requirements, deemed unconstitutional by Heller, which struck down similar restrictions, impose significant financial burdens and privacy invasions. Additionally, the processing of applications is delayed by several months to a year, with no probable cause to justify home inspections. Non-compliance results in de facto denials, further obstructing citizens’ rights.

The complaint outlines three counts of violation under 34 U.S.C. § 12601. Count I addresses “Unconstitutional Conditions,” arguing that requiring warrantless searches and safe installations violates the Second Amendment by conditioning the right to bear arms on waiving constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and imposing financial expenditures. Count II, “Unreasonable Delays,” highlights excessive wait times and the lack of status updates, which deny applicants timely access to firearms and compel them to administrative exhaustion.

Finally, count III, “Unconstitutional ‘Proper Reason’ Requirement,” challenges the Virgin Islands’ law, mirroring the New York statute struck down in Bruen, which mandates applicants prove a “proper reason” for carrying a firearm, a discretion left entirely to the Commissioner.

The regulatory framework in the Virgin Islands exacerbates these issues. Possession of a firearm is a crime unless licensed, with permits valid for three years and tied to specific firearms, and permits require annual inspections.

The undefined “good moral character” and “proper reason” criteria allow arbitrary denials, while penalties for unlicensed possession include up to 10 years’ imprisonment and fines of $10,000 to $15,000. These stringent measures, combined with the VIPD’s pattern of denying licenses to those with “too many” firearms, create a formidable barrier to exercising Second Amendment rights.

Factual allegations, based on accounts from multiple permit applicants, detail the arduous process. Applicants must provide a purpose for ownership, undergo mandatory home inspections without legal justification, and install costly safes even in shared households.

The VIPD’s reliance on “character vouchers” and its discretionary power to define “proper reason” further conditions rights on external approval, contradicting Bruen’s rejection of “special need” requirements.

The U.S. seeks a declaration that these practices violate federal law, a permanent injunction against implementing offending Virgin Islands statutes in this manner, and additional relief as justice requires. This action underscores a broader effort to ensure that law enforcement practices align with constitutional protections, particularly in territories where local policies may diverge from federal standards.

The lawsuit’s timing, filed on the same day as its documentation, reflects the urgency of addressing these alleged violations. Led by U.S. Attorney Adam Sleeper and Assistant U.S. Attorney Angela P. Tyson-Floyd, with support from the Civil Rights Division under Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, the case pits federal authority against territorial governance. The outcome could set a precedent for the administration of Second Amendment rights across U.S. territories, potentially reshaping firearm licensing nationwide.

For residents of the Virgin Islands, this case represents a critical juncture. The alleged bureaucratic hurdles and unconstitutional conditions have long frustrated law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves, a right the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed.

As the legal battle unfolds, it will test the balance between the U.S. Virgin Islands government’s wants and individual liberties, with implications that may extend beyond the Caribbean to the mainland United States.

This lawsuit is a bold assertion of federal oversight to protect constitutional rights in the Virgin Islands.

By challenging the VIPD’s practices, the U.S. aims to dismantle what it describes as a coordinated effort to nullify Second Amendment protections through unconstitutional means.

As the case progresses, it will likely draw significant attention from legal scholars, gun rights advocates, and policymakers, offering a potential roadmap for resolving similar disputes elsewhere.


About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Cops Gun Fearing Wussies

NYC gun buyers raise Second Amendment appeal over licensing rules

A trio of New York City gun owners say the city’s gun registration requirements and waiting period require

them to traverse additional administrative hurdles to acquire guns legally.

MANHATTAN (CN) — A group of New York City gun buyers asked a federal appeals court on Tuesday to reinstate their Second Amendment challenge against the state’s administrative gun licensing requirements, which they claim infringe on their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Charles Mills, Craig Sotomayor, and Braden Holliday sued New York City in 2023, claiming regulations like the city’s 90-day waiting period to purchase firearms, background checks and the ban on possessing a backup concealed handgun limit are “absolute bar — even if temporarily — to their right to have and bear arms.”

Holliday, a Bronx resident, separately challenged the city’s imposition of purportedly exorbitant application and renewal fees as a restriction on his ability to possess arms.

He says New York City’s licensing and renewal fees, at $428.50, “grossly exceed” the $10 statutory cap imposed on every other jurisdiction in state, with the exception of Nassau County on Long Island.

Their case was thrown out at the motion to dismiss stage in December 2024 by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff, who concluded that “none of the predominantly administrative regulations here operates to permanently deprive applicants of their right to own and carry firearms.”

Appealing to the Second Circuit, the gun owners claim Rakoff misapplied and misunderstood the text, history and tradition analysis under Bruen to be applied in Second Amendment challenges, and the viability of constitutional challenges to “exorbitant licensing fees.”

“Reversal of the district court decision is required here, because at the 12(b)(6) [motion to dismiss] stage Second Amendment challenges, the issue is only whether the law is being challenged affect the plaintiff’s right to acquire, possess and or carry arms,” attorney Amy Bellantoni told the three-judge Second Circuit panel during oral arguments on Tuesday morning.

Bellantoni told the panel New York City’s administrative constraints on gun purchasing “go right to the very heart of the plain text of the Second Amendment, which is the right to keep and bear, to have and possess, and right to acquire is necessarily wrapped up within the right to possess, because without the ability to acquire, then you have no possession and no carriage, you have no defense.”

U.S. Circuit Michael Park, a Donald Trump appointee, queried what the injury from the licensing fee and registration fees entails for gun buyers.

“We’re not at the stage right now yet where the city needs to justify requiring a permission slip, but I will say that the harm there is that without the ability to acquire at the point of purchase, my client has been harmed,” Bellantoni said. “He’s not been able to acquire the handgun and carry it and possess it for self-defense at that moment.”

Park also asked how mandatory waiting period was different from a presumptively permissible administrative delay for a background check.

Bellantoni said a waiting period of five to fifteen minutes to run the buyers’ background check would be sufficient.

“Now, 30 days, it’s not reasonable,” she said. “What are we waiting for? They’re already eligible law-abiding people, and now they have to be like children. You know, wait until they get permission to take their property out of the store. It makes it’s it makes no sense.”

Jeremy W. Shweder for the New York City Law Department meanwhile urged the panel to affirm the lower court’s dismissal, arguing the gun owners lack standing or their claims are moot.

“Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that there are no set of circumstances under which the challenge regulations would be valid,” he told the Second Circuit on Tuesday. “Plaintiffs essentially argue that they satisfy their burden at step one merely by saying that there exists a firearm regulation and then pointing to the Second Amendment.”

Shweder said the buyers had not plausibly argued that the 90-day waiting period, an anti-trafficking measure, infringes their acquisition to the point of infringing the keeping or bearing of arms for self-defense.

“Stepping back, the anti-trafficking law is not a bar on the acquisition of firearms,” the city wrote in its appellate brief. “It is not a bar on keeping or bearing firearms; and it is not a bar on where firearms can be carried. It simply regulates the pace of additional firearm acquisitions by requiring someone who has just acquired a handgun — and may already have many more — to wait 90 days before purchasing an additional one.”

The city noted the Second Circuit has already upheld the constitutionality of the $340 licensing fees in Kwong v. Bloomberg, and that Bruen specifically contemplates licensing fees as long as they are not so exorbitant as to deny the right to keep and bear arms.

U.S. Circuit Judges Debra Ann Livingston and Reena Raggi, both appointed by George W. Bush, rounded out the panel, which did not indicate how or when it would rule.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

The Sunshine State’s Dueling Gun Proposals: The Good, The Bad And Certainly The Ugly by Mark Chesnut

While Florida is sometimes derisively referred to as the “Gunshine State,” make no mistake, some lawmakers in the state legislature are vehemently anti-gun. A bevy of both pro-gun and anti-gun bills introduced in the legislature so far this fall proves that point quite well.

On one end of the spectrum, some Democratic lawmakers want to ban so-called “assault weapons” and firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Pro-gun lawmakers are against both proposals.

On the other side, some Republican lawmakers want to lower the age for Floridians to purchase firearms from 21 to 18 for all types of guns. Gun-ban advocates, of course, vehemently opposed that idea.

Senate Bill 345 is the measure that would restrict common semi-automatic firearms and the standard magazines sold with them. Per the bill: “ An ‘Assault weapon’ means any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic, or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following semiautomatic firearms.” The measure then listed all ARs, all AKs, and hundreds of other firearms, such as the Ruger Mini-14, by name and model.

Another anti-gun measure, House Bill 321, would prohibit law-abiding Floridians from carrying a firearm in several locations, including government buildings, police stations, courthouses, schools and some other sites. Of course, criminals, who don’t follow gun laws, will still be armed in such places.

SB 256, another anti-gun measure, would require guns in vehicles or boats to be stored locked and out of sight. And, SB 180 would expand criminal liability if minors access guns, and would require gun manufacturers to include safety warnings and demonstrate safe gun locks for buyers

These measures come on the heels of a September ruling by a state appeals court striking down Florida’s law against open carry. Then, in October, a Broward County circuit judge ruled that the state law barring 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds from carrying concealed weapons violates the Second Amendment.

Logan Edge, executive director at the Florida Gun Rights Association, has said he wants lawmakers to repeal all of the measures passed after the Parkland murder, which sparked a flurry of anti-gun measures and laws.

“I would assume most people that buy firearms are law-abiding citizens,” Edge told wusf.org. “Hundreds, millions, of people in America own firearms legally, and we are not the problem when it comes to violence, it’s criminals. I don’t really see the point of, ‘Oh, if somebody’s carrying an AR-15 on their shoulder, oh, they’re a criminal.’”

Fortunately for Florida’s lawful gun owners, anti-gun lawmakers have a tough row to hoe in trying to get more gun control passed. None of the Democratic-sponsored anti-gun measures introduced in recent weeks has been scheduled for a committee hearing by the Republican leadership. The measure that would lower the purchase age, however, is already on a committee agenda to be heard soon.