Facing dire consequences if anti-gun legislation made it through the legislature and went to gun-hating Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s desk for consideration, New Mexico gun owners dodged a bullet recently when two bad measures didn’t survive the legislative process.
One such measure, SB 318, attempted to allow attacks on gun makers and gun retailers by subverting the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Specifically, it would have expanded the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act to include firearms, parts and accessories, imposing severe penalties of $30,000 per violation and holding manufacturers, distributors and online platforms jointly liable for actions by third parties.
“It allows private lawsuits without proof of harm and grants sweeping authority to the Attorney General to pursue civil penalties,” NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action said in a news alert. “This overreach increases compliance costs, threatens lawful businesses with excessive litigation and raises serious constitutional and interstate commerce concerns, all while doing little to address criminal misuse of firearms.”
Fortunately for New Mexico gun owners, the measure was never taken up by the full senate.
Another measure, SB 279, would have banned gas-operated, semi-automatic rifles, along with firearms magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammo.
Owners of such guns wanting to keep them would have to “certify” them with the government, creating a gun registry that could easily be used when and if the government later voted to confiscate those guns. That measure was approved in the Senate Judiciary Committee but was never considered in the Senate Finance Committee.
For those readers who don’t remember Gov. Lujan Grisham, she’s the person who last year signed, then re-signed, an executive order banning the carry of firearms in public parks and playgrounds in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County under the auspices of public safety. That order resulted in a number of lawsuits by gun-rights groups.
Of course, Gov. Lujan Grisham wasn’t pleased that the two bills discussed above weren’t passed by the legislature and sent to her for her signature.
“While we made progress on universal free school lunch, literacy, water planning, and firefighting resources, I cannot ignore that we failed to adequately address the public safety crisis facing our state,” the governor said in a prepared statement. “With 270 public safety bills introduced this session and only a handful passed, we have not met our responsibility to New Mexicans.”
There’s no doubt that Gov. Lujan Grisham will continue to fight to further infringe on the Second Amendment rights of New Mexico’s lawful gun owners. As she said last year during the uproar over her Albuquerque carry ban, “No constitutional right, in my view … is intended to be absolute.”
Many gun owners are unaware that Hawaii has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Now, however, thanks to a recent circuit court decision, two of those restrictions have been overturned.
On March 14, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Yukutake v. Lopez upheld a district court ruling striking down two of the provisions to the Aloha State’s gun laws. One involved the very short time (10 days) a firearms purchaser has to buy a gun after receiving the permit required to make a firearms purchase.
“The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment that the short timeframe for completing the purchase of a firearm after obtaining a permit was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment,” the ruling stated. “The purchase and acquisition of firearms is conduct protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment. Because § 134-2(e) regulates conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, the Second Amendment presumptively protects that conduct. The burden, therefore, fell on the State to justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.”
As the opinion explained, 10 days is a very short period, despite the state arguing otherwise.
“Although the State presumably has a valid interest in ensuring that the background-check results are not stale, the State pointed to no evidence that anything over 10 days or 30 days counts as stale,” the ruling stated. “In Section IV(B)(4) of the opinion, the panel concluded that the temporal limitation was ‘abusive’ within the meaning of Bruen and remanded for the district court to revise its permanent injunction, as appropriate, in light of the recent amendment to § 134-2(e) and to conform to the panel’s ruling.”
The other struck-down provision that was upheld by the circuit court was the requirement for gun buyers to bring their new guns to the police station for an in-person inspection. According to the ruling, this restriction is also overly burdensome and, therefore, unconstitutional.
“Even assuming arguendo that Hawaii’s basic system of registering firearms by owner, type, serial number, etc., was valid under Bruen—a point the panel did not decide—Hawaii’s broad in-person inspection requirement could not be justified as merely a proper ancillary logistical measure in support of such a system,” the ruling stated. “The government failed to point to evidence supporting its conclusion that the addition of a broadly applicable and burdensome physical inspection requirement will materially advance the objectives of the registration system.
As with plaintiffs’ challenge to § 134-2(e), the panel remanded to the district court to revise its permanent injunction, as appropriate, in light of the recent amendment to § 134-3 and to conform to the panel’s ruling.”
Lawful Hawaii gun owners shouldn’t begin celebrating too soon, however. It’s likely the state will ask for the entire 9th Circuit to consider the case sometime in the future.
The California gun prohibition lobby is hailing a new Assembly bill that includes a duty to retreat “When the person was outside of their residence and knew that using force likely to cause death or great bodily injury could have been avoided with complete safety by retreating,” but the measure is drawing a barrage of criticism from Republicans.
According to a synopsis of Assembly Bill 1333, introduced by Democrat State Rep. Rick Chavez Zbur (51st District), “This bill would eliminate certain circumstances under which homicide is justifiable, including, among others, in defense of a habitation or property.”
In a statement released by Everytown for Gun Safety on behalf of the California chapters of Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action, Everytown Senior Vice President for Government Affairs Monisha Henley asserted, “This legislation builds on California’s gun safety legacy and lays the blueprint for the rest of the nation. White supremacists and other extremists have hidden behind self-defense laws to fire a gun and turn any conflict into a death sentence. Now, lawmakers have an opportunity to help stop that and save lives. We thank Assemblymember Zbur for his commitment to gun safety and listening to advocates and experts on ways to keep Californians safe from gun violence.”
Translation: Shoot a thug in self-defense and risk being smeared as a right-wing racist, and probably prosecuted.
But the San Joaquin Valley Sun is reporting that Zbur, faced with massive criticism, is apparently re-thinking his bill, and he has “promised to amend the proposal to not take away self-defense rights after Republicans came out against it in force.”
The California Globe is quoting Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, who is also a Republican candidate for governor in 2026.
“Sacramento Democrats have spent the last 15 years tying the hands of law enforcement and coddling criminals, using and abusing ordinary Californians in their attempt to make criminals the real victims,” Bianco reportedly said.
“Now, they’re actively trying to tie the hands of our residents, who have had to defend themselves against re-released career criminals far too often. Prop 36 should have been a wake-up call – Californians are sick and tired of crime, and they are demanding that leaders in Sacramento do something about it. Unfortunately for us, Legislative Democrats can’t put aside their backwards ideology. It’s time for a change.”
Likewise, the San Joaquin Valley Sun is reporting statements from a couple of Zbur’s colleagues, both Republicans.
“If you thought California Democrats couldn’t be more out of touch, here’s another example,” Assemblyman David Tangipa of Clovis said. “Where do you retreat if you can’t defend yourself in your own home?”
Assemblyman Tom Lackey of Palmdale called AB 1333 “a complete assault on self-defense.”
“The misguided energy behind this proposal is beyond comprehension,” Lackey said in a post on “X.”
Here is the language in AB 1333 which is raising the ire of Golden State gun owners and even the Riverside County Sheriff.
“Homicide is not justifiable when committed by a person in all of the following cases:
(1) When the person was outside of their residence and knew that using force likely to cause death or great bodily injury could have been avoided with complete safety by retreating.
(2) When the person used more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against a danger.
(3) When the person was the assailant, engaged in mutual combat, or knowingly engaged in conduct reasonably likely to provoke a person to commit a felony or do some great bodily injury, except if either of the following circumstances apply:
(A) The person reasonably believed that they were in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury, and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily injury.
(B) In good faith, the person withdrew from the encounter with the other assailant or assailants and indicated clearly to the other assailant or assailants that the person desired to withdraw and terminated the use of any force, but the other assailant or assailants continued or resumed the use of force.”
The Globe story also noted, “the huge limitation of self-defense outraged many over the past weekend.”
“While initially submitted under the radar, AB 1333 became one of the most talked about bills within days of being introduced,” the Globe acknowledged.
An unscientific, online survey by KMPH News shows the bill getting an overwhelming negative reaction from respondents. Asked if they agree “with making self-defense against criminals illegal,” a whopping 97 percent were saying “No.”
Under AB 1333, homicide would still be justifiable under these circumstances:
“(1) When resisting any attempt to murder any person or to do some great bodily injury upon any person.
“(2) When committed in defense of a person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein.
“(3) When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a spouse, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.”
While Democrats dominate the Assembly in Sacramento, the reaction so far to AB 1333 is sending a clear message that Zbur’s proposal has crossed way over the line.
New Mexico Democrat lawmakers are pushing a sweeping ban on commonly owned and legally purchased semiautomatic firearms.
The legislation is SB 279, a reboot of the legislation Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) wanted in 2023.
On December 13, 2023, Breitbart News reported that Grisham wanted legislation modeled after Sen. Mark Kelly’s (D-AZ) Gas-Operated Semiautomatic Firearms Exclusion (GOSAFE) Act. Although GOSAFE failed passage at the federal level, Grisham believes it can be secured by her fellow state-level Democrats.
The focus on gas operation allows Democrats to continue to target the AR-15 rifle without having to call the rifle by name. It also allows them to demonize gas operation as if it is some new, groundbreaking technology making firearms more lethal.
In reality, however, the focus on the AR-15’s gas operation comes some 66 years after the gun was designed to use spent gas from a shell casing to reset the bolt group and ready the gun for the next round. The rifle is still just a semiautomatic, firing one round per trigger pull just like a Glock or Smith & Wesson handgun, but the gas from a spent shell casing replaces recoil in working the action.
New Mexico’s SB 279 bears the identical title of Sen. Kelly’s failed federal bill, the Gas-Operated Semiautomatic Firearms Exclusion Act.
On January 16, Breitbart News pointed to National Shooting Sports Foundation data showing Americans own more than 30 million rifles that fall into the Democrats’ “assault weapons” category. Many millions of these are variants of the most popular rifle in the country, the AR-15.
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio, a member of Gun Owners of America, a Pulsar Night Vision pro-staffer, and the director of global marketing for Lone Star Hunts. He was a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal in 2010 and has a Ph.D. in Military History. Follow him on Instagram: @awr_hawkins. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange. Reach him directly: awrhawkins@breitbart.com
Police in New York want the legal ability to seize firearms during a domestic violence call – even if no arrests were made. However, instead of going through normal legal channels and obtaining a search warrant or court order, police just want the legal ability to take the guns on their own.
New York State lawmakers plan to reintroduce a bill during the next legislative session that will go farther than the state’s Safe Homes Act of 2020, which allows officers to seize firearms found during a consensual search when police respond to a domestic dispute.
New York State Senator Peter Harckham, a Democrat from Westchester County, has sponsored a bill that would
“mandate” officers to confiscate all firearms left out in the open during a domestic call.
“This is not gun control, this is gun safety; and this is domestic safety,” the senator told Spectrum News. “This is keeping the victims of domestic violence alive. We had two fatalities through domestic violence and firearms in my district in the last month. This is very real. This is very deadly and this is not a permanent seizure.”
Senator Harckham’s bill would allow police to keep the seized weapons for five days – most likely to seek restraining orders or other legal options – before returning them to their rightful owners. Also, police would likely extend this five-day time limit as needed.
Tom King, president of New York State’s Rifle & Pistol Association, balked loudly about the new bill.
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law,” King told the reporters. “That means a search warrant or an order from a judge to confiscate the firearms, and they’re doing this without that.”
King pointed out the more than 100 New Yorkers who had firearms seized under the state’s newly expanded red-flag law. This group contacted King’s nonprofit seeking help getting their guns back. Some have already paid more than $10,000 in legal expenses, King said.
Takeaways
The main problem with the new bill is that it offers police yet another illegal mechanism to seize someone’s guns.
Our federal law does not allow law enforcement to go traipsing through someone’s home looking for firearms that were never used in a crime, which they will then seize for no evidentiary value.
These types of laws are passed solely for one reason – harassment. They want to harass gun owners. They want gun owners temporarily disarmed and then forced to make several trips to the police station to get their property returned, at great cost, too. Don’t forget that.
Today, gun owners have fewer rights in places like New York than they do in free states. This new bill will only make it worse.
Article courtesy of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Click here to support the project.
In with a rat-tat-tat, out with barely a whimper. That describes the great lawsuit filed by Chicago not even four months ago. The suit, originally filed in state court was transferred to federal court. And with a very short, two sentence filing, Chicago voluntarily withdrew the lawsuit from federal court.
CWB Chicago, as usual, reported on Chicago eating some humble pie.
CHICAGO — When Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson announced in March that his administration was filing a “first-of-its-kind lawsuit” against firearm manufacturer Glock, the city drummed up publicity with a press release and widespread media coverage.
There was no press release and no media coverage on Monday when the city’s attorneys unceremoniously dropped the case in a two-sentence federal court filing.
Chicago and its top-shelf lawyer buddies over at Everytown for Gun Control hailed it as a “first of a kind” lawsuit claiming that Glock pistols posed a public nuisance because criminals misuse them. The announcement back on March 19, 2024, attracted all sorts of national headlines happily parroting Chicago’s sensational claims.
Moreover, the usual menagerie of gun control advocates cheered the fake news. “Good job, Mr. Mayor,” the ever-shrinking Chicago Tribune editorialized at the move.
CHICAGO – Today, the City of Chicago announced a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against Glock, the manufacturer of the most popular handguns in the United States, alleging that Glock is facilitating the proliferation of illegal machine guns on the streets of Chicago. The lawsuit alleges that Glock unreasonably endangers Chicagoans by manufacturing and selling in the Chicago civilian market semiautomatic pistols that can easily be converted to illegal machine guns with an auto sear – a cheap, small device commonly known as a “Glock switch.” The suit is the first to use Illinois’s new Firearms Industry Responsibility Act, passed and signed into law in 2023 to hold gun companies accountable for conduct that endangers the public.
Filed earlier today in Cook County Circuit Court, the lawsuit reports that law enforcement personnel in Chicago have recovered over 1,100 Glocks that have been converted into illegal machine guns in the last two years alone in connection with a wide variety of crimes, including homicides, aggravated assaults, batteries, kidnappings, burglaries, home invasions, carjackings, and attempted robberies. The lawsuit alleges that Glock knows it could fix the problem but refuses to do so, and the City is seeking a court order requiring Glock to cease sales of its easily converted pistols to Chicago civilians. The City also seeks penalties against Glock and damages for the harm that Glock has caused to the City.
“The City of Chicago is encountering a deadly new frontier in the gun violence plaguing our communities because of the increase of fully automatic Glocks on our streets,” said Mayor Brandon Johnson, a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. “Selling firearms that can so easily be converted into automatic weapons makes heinous acts even more deadly, so we are doing everything we can in collaboration with others committed to ending gun violence to hold Glock accountable for putting profits over public safety.”
“Right now, anyone in the United States with $20 and a screwdriver can convert their Glock pistol into an illegal machine gun in just a few minutes,” said Eric Tirschwell, executive director of Everytown Law.“We intend to hold Glock accountable for the unconscionable decision to continue selling its easily modified pistols even though it could fix the problem, knowing that by refusing to do so it is exacerbating gun violence in Chicago.”
“We are proud to partner with the City of Chicago and Everytown Law in this vital effort to enhance public safety and create a safer Chicago for all its residents,” said H. Christopher Boehning, partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.
The page, still up as of July 24, 2024, shows a screaming headline that won’t even fit on at the top of their page.
In with a rat tat tat, out with barely a whimper
In recent days, in a move barely mentioned (if at all) in most of those same media outlets, Chicago dropped their lawsuit. In fact, the great ground-breaking lawsuit, filed with the help of the very best legal minds (cough) over at Everytown, was withdrawn in a two sentence filing.
In reality, the lawsuit filed in March of this year proved nothing new. It was just another poorly rehashed lawfare action against a respected firearm manufacturer that produces some of the most popular defensive handguns sold in America and elsewhere in the world.
Glock products have saved countless lives when used in self-defense and to put down violent criminals, terrorists and lunatics. They have also thwarted millions of criminal attacks.
But Chicago politicians needed to do something to distract from their feckless leadership and the failure of gun control schemes to stop criminals. After all, gun control disarms victims, not criminals. And when the victims are unarmed and defenseless, the criminals can ply their trade with impunity, particularly when prosecutors don’t prosecute and judges don’t incarcerate offenders.
Right along those lines, the same legal beagles re-filed the the withdrawn case once more in state court, only this time they’ve added a couple of Glock authorized gun shops as defendants. Yes, Eagle Sports and Midwest Sporting Goods now get to spend tens of thousands of dollars defending against a defective lawsuit. At least until Brandon’s legal team files another two sentence voluntary dismissal.
Does anyone want to take a bet that this latest filing will meet the same end, perhaps even sooner than the original filings?
Facing dire consequences if anti-gun legislation made it through the legislature and went to gun-hating Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s desk for consideration, New Mexico gun owners dodged a bullet recently when two bad measures didn’t survive the legislative process.
In with a rat-tat-tat, out with barely a whimper. That describes the great lawsuit filed by Chicago not even four months ago. The suit, originally filed in state court was transferred to federal court. And with a very short, two sentence filing, Chicago voluntarily withdrew the lawsuit from federal court.