Firearms Friday: A Tale Of Two States

The laws that have been proposed, speeches given, and legislation that has been passed over the past few years is troubling to say the least and unconstitutional at worst. While we have been able to fight and defeat many of these bogus promises of safety, there are a few that managed to get on the books and have been restricting the rights of second amendment practitioners ever since. One of the more egregious and confusing laws which was brought to my attention recently is one that comes from, don’t be shocked, California.

A number of years ago (effective January 1, 2001), legislators in the Fool’s Gold state enacted PC 12131 which established the “Safe Handgun Roster.” While sold to the public as a means to limit the sale of unsafe firearms in the communist bloc, the reality of the legislation is that it was a means to shake down the firearms industry by imposing unnecessary testing and exorbitant fees on an annual basis. No wonder why Leland Yee turned to the black market!

The definitions of those firearms that meet the criteria to get on this list was then expanded upon in 2007 as “legislators passed AB 1471 which mandated that all semi-automatic pistols must employ microstamping technology.” What this now means is previous generations of firearms are safely housed on this arbitrary list while new generations are considered un-safe. A perfect example of this is the cluster that one law enforcement finds themselves in as they attempt to transition to the 4th generation Glock 19 as their service weapon. According to the Attorney General, the office of which previously exempt law enforcement from selecting from the list, they are a generation too late and therefore cannot use their newly purchased roster of service side arms.

There is a much more comprehensive blog post on Full30 at the following link, which was referenced for much of the material above, if you would like to read more about this SNAFU: https://blog.full30.com/ca-gun-law-stupidity-knows-no-bounds/.

However, not all the news recently makes you want to slam your head against the wall repeatedly. Come to think of it that might make that a semi-automatic assault wall which would also be illegal in California. It also used to be illegal in Maryland until the good news was handed down by the Maryland 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Kolbe v. Hogan decision. The case challenged the 2013 Maryland arms prohibition statute which bans the sale of firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and also bans many firearms, by labeling them as “assault weapons.”

Some of the important highlights which were reported in the Washington Post include:

In a 2-1 decision written by Chief Judge Traxler [appointed by President Clinton in 1998], the Fourth Circuit held that strict scrutiny is the proper standard of review for bans on common arms, such as those at issue in Kolbe. The case was remanded to the district court, which had applied the wrong standard, namely a weak version of intermediate scrutiny. The Maryland attorney general announced that he will seek en banc or Supreme Court reversal of the Kolbe decision. Below is a summary of the most important parts of the Kolbe decision.

Why the arms are part of the Second Amendment

Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “common” and “standard.” There are more than 75 million of them in the United States. Indeed, “most pistols are manufactured with magazines holding ten to 17 rounds.” In fact, “Virtually every federal court to have addressed this question” has found that magazines over 10 rounds are in “common use,” and thus are covered by the Second Amendment.

Why strict scrutiny is appropriate

First, because the prohibition “burdens the availability and use of a class of arms for self-defense in the home, where the protection afforded by the Second Amendment is at its greatest.”

Second, because the burden is substantial, “not merely incidental.” For example, the statute imposes “a complete ban” on “AR-15 style rifles—the most popular class of centerfire semi-automatic rifles in the United States.” Notably, the ban “also reaches every instance where an AR-15 platform semi-automatic rifle or LCM [large capacity magazine] might be preferable to handguns or bolt-action rifles–for example hunting, recreational shooting, or competitive marksmanship events, all of which are lawful purposes protected by the Constitution.”

Strict scrutiny was also appropriate for the magazine ban, because “a citizen’s ability to defend himself and his home is enhanced with an LCM.” For example, the inherent difficulties of some defense situations mean that citizens often need the ability to fire multiple shots, and changing magazines while under violent attack may not be possible.

A statute that “completely prohibits, not just regulates, an entire category of weaponry . . . might be ‘equivalent to a ban on a category of speech.'” (Quoting D.C. Circuit Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent in the Heller II case.) The extensive prohibition is “akin to a law that ‘foreclose[s] an entire medium of expression.’ City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 55 (1994). Such laws receive exceptionally rigorous review in the analogous context of the First Amendment, id., and we see no reason for a different method here.”

Unlike some other courts that have upheld magazine and firearms bans, the Kolbe majority did not purport to be expert in gun-fighting tactics, or to claim that judges know what law-abiding citizens “need” for self-defense. To the contrary, the 4th Circuit recognized that under the Second Amendment and Heller, choices about self-defense are reserved to the defenders. For “whatever reason” particular arms are preferred by particular law-abiding citizens, “The right to self-defense is largely meaningless if it does not include the right to choose the most effective means of defending oneself. . . . The extent of danger—real or imagined—that a citizen faces at home is a matter only that person can assess in full.” (Quoting 7th Circuit Judge Manion’s dissent in Friedman v. Highland Park).

In the short term, this reestablished the second amendment rights of the citizens of Maryland but that it the short sighted measure of this case. The reaffirming ramifications of this decision could potentially be applied across the nation serving as the judicial support, firepower if you will, sometimes needed to protect and defend affronts to our Constitutional rights. Nicely done Maryland. Glad there are some in the courts will to take a stand and do something that the President refuses to do… defend the Constitution of the United States of America!

Firearms Friday: Definitions

Today there was an article in the Washington Post stating in the title that “There have been 204 mass shootings — and 204 days — in 2015 so far”. What the headline doesn’t immediately tell the reader is that the definition has been changed in order to satisfy the author’s agenda. Five paragraphs deep into the article the means of miscalculation is finally revealed:

“The Mass Shooting Tracker is different from other shooting databases in that it uses a broader definition of mass shooting. "The old FBI definition of Mass Murder (not even the most recent one) is four or more people murdered in one event," the site's creators explain. "It is only logical that a Mass Shooting is four or more people shot in one event."”

Buried even further in the fantastical story was this little gem: “There have been 10 in Ohio, 14 in California and 16 in New York.” Did you catch that? While the author may have glossed over those ‘statistics’ the reality remains… 30 ‘mass shootings’ occurring in the two states with the strictest gun laws. Put another way, excessive regulation had no impact as nearly 15% of these tragedies occurred in these liberal strongholds.

Of course, this is nothing new. Redefining terms is something that the left takes pride in… quite literally recently. From redefining marriage to media attempts to reclassify all semi-automatic rifles under a rather limited, by definition, term of assault weapons. It is because of this pattern that I wasn’t surprised to read such blather from an uniformed writer (sorry, can’t use journalist for this one).

And don’t think about doing the same thing if your views are anything but liberal. That would be racist, radical, homophobic, illegal, or just downright silly. Don’t try to reinforce current definitions either because that can sometimes be worse… you might be the devil if you do that. Unless you want to be labeled, you just have to sit back, take it, and watch as the nonsense continues to destroy the country.

Don’t watch a drunk driver careening down the highway hitting car after car and call it attempted mass manslaughter. Don’t read the news about knife wielding assailants and call it a mass stabbing. Don’t listen to the excuses on the radio and call abortion doctors mass murderers. You would be skewing the facts and that is just wrong… and somehow you would be a racist too.

And, G-d forbid, don’t speak up for the rights of all law abiding citizens to defend themselves. Don’t voice your support for the military and law enforcement. Don’t call out those who refuse to accept facts or responsibility for their own actions. You will certainly be deemed a radical homophobic racist or something else like that. But, you know what, that is fine with me. I know it’s not true. Just don’t call me a liberal democrat.

Damn This Slope Is Slippery!

In New Jersey, this could become an "assault weapon".

The Brady Campaign might have to adjust their rankings as New Jersey could be moving up as the state with the third most restrictive firearms laws and into the second position if the current legislation is passed in the State Senate. As reported in the New Jersey Star Ledger, on Monday, “The state Senate’s Law and Public Safety Committee today voted 3-2 along party lines to approve the legislation (A2006), which lowers the allowed size from 15 rounds to 10. The bill has been kicking around the Legislature since 2012 as one of several dozen pushed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Ct. But while it has already passed the Assembly twice, this is the first time it has advanced in the state Senate.”

For those proponents of these ridiculous restrictions this is a clear victory in the limiting of the second amendment rights of New Jersians. However, the expansive wording found in the legislation underlines a clear misunderstanding of firearms and the manpower needed to enforce such harsh restrictions. Case in point, is how the term “assault weapon” is defined….

The legislation currently under consideration would expand the term to include all firearms with fixed or detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, regardless of caliber. In essence, this would turn granddad’s old Henry Golden Boy lever action, tube fed, 22 rifle would become illegal as it would be deemed an “assault weapon” by the state. Back in February, Emily Miller wrote extensively on this aspect of the restriction in a piece published in The Washington Times:

Since the legislation covers both detachable and fixed magazines, it has the effect of banning popular, low-caliber rifles.

The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs gave the draft legislation to top firearms experts in the country to determine what guns would fall under the expanded ban.

They discovered that the bill would affect tube-fed, semi-automatic rifles because the magazine cannot be separated from the gun.

Thus, the experts found that at least 43 common rifles would suddenly be considered a prohibited “assault firearm,” such as the .22 caliber Marlin Model 60, Remington Nylon 66 and Winchester 190.

Just having one such gun would turn a law-abiding owner into a felon overnight.

We are not just talking about the AR-15 debate anymore which, by the way, they do not meet the actual definition of “assault weapon” either. So, now that we have that bastardization of the term out of the way, let’s discuss the actual evolution of the term “assault weapon”. Actually, it all began with a completely different term, “assault rifle”.

During World War II, Adolf Hitler personally chose the name "Sturmgewehr" (literally, "storm rifle", translated in English as "assault rifle") to describe the first (the Sturmgewehr 44) of a new class of small arm, which combined the characteristics of a carbine, submachine gun and automatic rifle. A half-decade earlier the propaganda-friendly term "Sturmgeschütz" ("storm gun") was similarly invented and applied to certain armored military vehicles, turretless tank chassis mounting artillery intended for direct fire support. Otherwise, in English, use of the term "assault weapon" was restricted, prior to the 1980s, to naming certain minor military weapons systems, for example, the Rifleman's Assault Weapon, an American grenade launcher developed in 1977 for use with the M\16 assault rifle. More information and misinformation can be found on Wikipedia.

It wasn’t until later years that the definition was expanded, beginning with politicians in California in 1985, to incorporate the semi-automatic classifications and magazine restrictions of 20 rounds and the creation of a term, without definition, “assault weapon”. Basically, it was a means to lump in all firearms they deemed “scary looking” and to rally liberal support of restrictions on the second amendment. However, even this terminology is shaky to this day as “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are seen as interchangeable when, in reality, they are separate terms. “Assault weapon” is still a term floating in the realm of rhetoric… it is basically a slogan relegated to the island of undefined terms. “Assault rifle”, including the definition above, is a fully automatic rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge. You can get a better understanding of this whole dichotomy on the website “The Truth About Assault Weapons”.

The current actions of New Jersey politicians are a clear example of the slippery slope that all Second Amendment supporters have been dreading. And, since we are using completely made up terms anyway, moving forward I will see these actions in New Jersey and other right repressing states as assault legislation. Because while a hunk of steel cannot harm anyone without a person imposing their will upon it, a piece of legislation written on paper cannot harm anyone without politicians imposing their will upon it and upon the people. That is the real assault that is happening in the world today.