Archive for the ‘Second Amendment’ Category

WV man to spend 5 years in federal prison in case involving machine gun parts provided to Boogaloo members – WVNS-TV

MARTINSBURG, W.Va. Chief U.S. District Judge Gina Groh sentenced a man from West Virginias eastern panhandle to five years in federal prison for unlawfully possessing a firearm silencer, United States Attorney William Ihlenfeld announced.

Timothy Watson, 31 of Ranson, pleaded guilty in March 2021 to one count of Possession of Unregistered Firearm Silencer. Watson admitted to having an unregistered silencer in November 2020 in Jefferson County.

U.S. Attorneys presented evidence Wednesday that Watsons conduct also involved his manufacture and transfer of hundreds of machinegun conversion devices for AR-15 style rifles, also known as drop in auto sears, to nearly 800 individuals including individuals whom he had reason to believe were adherents to an extremist political movement referred to as Boogaloo, a term referencing an impending civil war or violent uprising against the government for perceived incursions on U.S. Constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment, according to Ihlenfelds office. From those sales, the FBI opened matters involving 58 individuals, resulting to date in three firearms-related arrests and one conviction. Many of the investigations remain ongoing, said a news release.

Watson was ordered to forfeit the silencer, all 3D-printed items that the government will argue are machinegun conversion devices, the 3D printers, 3D printer parts, and 3D printer supplies, as well as a U.S. Postal Service package containing the same conversion devices. All items were seized during a search in November 2020.

The FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service continues its investigation in the case.

Watson remains in the Eastern Regional Jail awaiting a transfer to a federal facility.

Here is the original post:
WV man to spend 5 years in federal prison in case involving machine gun parts provided to Boogaloo members - WVNS-TV

House Witness on Extremism Accuses Madison Cawthorn of Not Listening to Testimony – Newsweek

An expert on U.S. militias has accused Representative Madison Cawthorn, a Nort Carolina Republican, of not listening to her testimony at a House hearing on extremism before offering a discordant condemnation of her views a short time later.

Dr. Amy Cooter, a Vanderbilt University professor, testified during a House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing on extremist militia members recruiting veterans on Wednesday. During the opening statement of her testimony, Cooter noted that she was a gun owner and had extensively interviewed militia members.

Cooter said that her research had found "the majority of militia members are law-abiding citizens" before expressing concerns about violent "extremist units" seeking recruits that include "some disenchanted veterans." Minutes later, Cawthorn condemned what he called a "disgusting" hearing while singling out Cooter's testimony for allegedly "attacking the idea of having militias."

"I just heard Dr. Amy Cooter with her opening statement start attacking the idea of having militias in our country," Cawthorn said. "I understand that she used some special words and things to say that 'oh no, I'm not against all militias.' But unfortunately having a militia is a protected right within our constitution under the Second Amendment. And I believe it is disgusting to say that there is extremism and that we need to root out extremists inside our military, inside our veterans."

"For you to come here and members of Congress to say, 'oh well, you know whatit's actually a high likelihood that people who are veterans who are in militias are actually extremists,' that is disgusting," he later added. "Dr. Cooter, I would like to point a question to you: Are you anti-militia?"

Cooter responded to Cawthorn by saying that she suspected he had "actually missed all of our opening statements," while pointing out that she has been accused of being a "militia apologist" but was speaking specifically about a minority of extremists within militias.

"Mr. Cawthorn, I believe that you actually missed all of our opening statements and I would encourage you to review the film on that," said Cooter. "If you would have heard me, you would have heard me say I've been a gun owner since I was 21. I grew up in the foothills of Appalachia and I have very close personal contacts with militia members across the country."

"I'm frequently accused of being a militia apologist because I actually try to focus very frequently on how many of them are law-abiding folks," she added. "But the focus today is on that extreme element and the potential danger that that extreme faction specifically can pose to our veterans and to our country."

Cawthorn thanked Cooter for "saying that you don't think many members of militias are extremists" and remarked that he was "glad" she was a gun owner. The congressman then insisted that he did watch Cooter's opening comments before saying that he was "saddened" the hearing was taking place at all, due to it being "about finding extremists inside of our veterans."

After the hearing, Cooter tagged Cawthorn on Twitter while sharing a link to the text of her testimony, once again encouraging the congressman to review her statements. The professor also said that Cawthorn allegedly condemning her speech without having listened to all of it reminded her of behavior she sometimes encounters from students.

"I think I will wrap up my tweeting spree by using just a few more 'special words' to note that, as a professor, I am well accustomed to people having not done the readings, but I'd suggest at least looking to context cues before staking a claim on any given debate," Cooter tweeted.

Newsweek reached out to Cawthorn's office for comment.

The rest is here:
House Witness on Extremism Accuses Madison Cawthorn of Not Listening to Testimony - Newsweek

The National Shooting Sports Foundation Names Representative Quang Nguyen as its Arizona State Legislator of the Year – Prescott eNews

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF)announced Mondayit had recognized Representative Quang Nguyen asthe 2021 NSSF Arizona State Legislator of the Year. NSSF explained the prestigious recognition was awarded for Representative Nguyens determined commitment to protect the firearm industry against frivolous lawsuits, recognizing the firearm industry as essential during state emergencies and preserving Americas Constitutional Second Amendment rights.

We are honored to present Representative Nguyen with the 2021 NSSF Arizona State Legislator of the Year Award for his bold and determined leadership in the Arizona State House of Representatives, said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. His efforts to end frivolous lawsuits against firearm businesses, define the firearm industry as essential during state emergencies and passing a resolution urging the U.S. Senate to reject the nomination of David Chipman as the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives have shown Representative Nguyen to be an invaluable partner to the firearm and ammunition industry in Arizona. NSSF appreciates his commitment to protect our industry against unwarranted threats to lawful commerce and enabling our businesses to serve their customers in Arizona.

I am deeply honored to earn this recognition of the National Shooting Sports Foundation,Rep. Nguyen said.As a legislator, and as a private citizen, I will continue to protect and defend the Second Amendment in every way possible. It is imperative that we all engage to defeat those who seek to remove our rights, grab our guns and erode Americas firearms industry.

Representative Nguyen, with Arizona Republican state Sen. Wendy Rogers, was instrumental in passingSenate Bill 1382, which prohibits state entities from suing a member of the firearm industry for lawful design, marketing, distribution and sale of firearms and ammunition to the public. The legislation also prohibits a civil action from being brought against a manufacturer or seller of a firearm or ammunition or related trade association for damages resulting from the criminal misuse of the firearm or ammunition, with exceptions. The bill also codifies in statute that firearm businesses are essential during a state of emergency.

Representative Nguyens Senate Bill 1382 was just the first of many actions he spearheaded to protect the firearm industry. Representative Nguyen led the effort to pass a Legislative Proclamation calling on U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly to recuse himself from a potential confirmation vote on David Chipman as ATF Director. Sen. Kelly is co-founder of the Giffords gun control group, for which Chipman is a lobbyist. Chipmans nomination was ultimately unsuccessful.

NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmens organizations and publishers nationwide.

Quang Nguyen is a Republican member of the Arizona House of Representatives serving Legislative District 1, which includes Prescott, and portions of Yavapai and Maricopa Counties. Follow him on Twitter at@QuangNguyenAZ.

Excerpt from:
The National Shooting Sports Foundation Names Representative Quang Nguyen as its Arizona State Legislator of the Year - Prescott eNews

First major Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court in over a decade could topple gun restrictions – The Conversation US

The stakes in one of the most significant Second Amendment cases in U.S. history are high.

The Supreme Courts ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, expected by mid-2022, could declare a New York state restriction on carrying concealed handguns in public places unconstitutional.

Such a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, which include a National Rifle Association affiliate, could loosen gun regulations in many parts of the country.

In my view as a Second Amendment scholar, this case is also noteworthy in that how the court reaches its conclusion could affect the Second Amendment analysis of all weapons laws in the future.

The court is set to hear oral arguments on Nov. 3.

In 1911, after an increase in homicides, New York instituted a handgun permitting system. In 1913, the permitting system was amended to address concealed carrying.

For more than a century, someone seeking to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense in the state has needed to file a permit application showing that they have what the law calls proper cause.

To obtain an unrestricted permit, applicants must demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community, such as by showing they are being stalked.

New Yorks attorneys defend this restrictive approach to issuing concealed carry permits as an effective means to reduce gun violence. In 2020, there were 43,592 gun deaths in the United States, including suicides and homicides. There are also over 80,000 non-fatal firearm injuries each year.

New York has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and its homicide rate is below the national average.

Robert Nash and Brandon Koch were denied unrestricted concealed carry permits because a judge determined that they did not satisfy New Yorks proper-cause standard.

Instead, Koch was issued a license to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense while traveling to and from work. Both plaintiffs licenses also permit them to carry concealed handguns for hunting and target practice, and for self-defense in areas not frequented by the general public.

Along with the NRAs New York affiliate, Nash and Koch contend that these limitations on their ability to carry a concealed handgun violate their right to bear arms. They assert a broad view of the right to carry a handgun, one that extends virtually whenever and wherever the need for self-defense might arise.

New Yorks law defies that conception of the Second Amendment.

In considering Bruen, the Supreme Court will focus on the meaning of an important precedent: District of Columbia v. Heller.

When the Supreme Court issued its Heller ruling in 2008, a 5-4 majority struck down Washington, D.C.s ban on the possession of handguns in the home. The court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to keep and bear arms.

Writing for the majority, the late Justice Antonin Scalia declared that the central component of the Second Amendment was not a well regulated Militia, but rather the inherent right of self-defense.

But the majoritys decision included cautionary language that lower-court judges have since relied on to uphold gun laws.

The right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited and is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose, Scalia wrote. His opinion even contained a list of presumptively lawful regulatory measures, such as restrictions on the possession of firearms by felons or bans on carrying them in sensitive places like schools and government buildings.

The NRA and other gun rights supporters have bristled at the general acceptance by judges of the constitutionality of laws restricting firearm use.

That discontent culminated in Bruen.

In 1980, most Americans lived in places that either banned concealed carry or had a New York-style proper cause permitting regime. An NRA push beginning in the late 1980s loosened public carry laws around the country.

In states where gun rights advocates possess relatively little clout, they hope that Bruen will accomplish through the courts what they have failed to accomplish through the political process.

Today, New York is one of eight states requiring that people seeking to carry concealed handguns have a proper or good cause. California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island have similar laws on the books.

If the court strikes down New Yorks law, Americans in those states could expect an increase in the number of people legally carrying handguns in their communities. Anyone who wants to carry a concealed handgun would have an easier time doing so.

Bruen could also be a turning point for how judges evaluate all Second Amendment cases whether theyre about assault weapons, tasers or felon-in-possession offenses.

Until now, judges have generally assessed whether such restrictions are justified by current public safety concerns.

Many gun rights advocates are asking the Supreme Court to reject that approach. Instead, they want judges to decide cases on the sole basis of history and tradition unless the judiciarys interpretation of the text of the Second Amendment resolves the issue. This is known as the text, history and tradition test.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh is credited with first articulating this test in a dissent he issued prior to his rise to the Supreme Court.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett all have embraced similar judicial philosophies to some degree.

But theres a catch: Guns have always been regulated in America.

New Yorks regulation has been on the books for over a century and had a legacy that extended back even further.

If the justices abandon a conventional approach for the text, history and tradition test, I would expect a new round of lawsuits over weapons laws that have already survived prior court challenges. Gun rights advocates would likely, for example, sue over restrictions on large-capacity magazines or safe storage requirements in places where those issues have already been resolved.

This litigation would call on judges to rule on the sole basis of a difficult historical exercise: comparing modern laws addressing modern guns and contemporary gun violence to the laws, practices and weapons of a bygone era.

The court has three main options.

It could uphold New Yorks law. It could strike it down. Or it could find a middle ground, such as issuing a narrow ruling that punts big questions about gun restrictions down the road.

Chief Justice John Roberts has steered his colleagues toward narrow rulings before. But he will hold little sway if the three justices former President Donald Trump appointed team up with Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, the courts two other conservatives, on a far-reaching majority opinion.

Trump conferred with the NRA before nominating Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett all of whom received the gun groups blessing.

The ruling will underscore the significance of their presence on the court.

[Understand whats going on in Washington. Sign up for The Conversations Politics Weekly.]

Read the original here:
First major Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court in over a decade could topple gun restrictions - The Conversation US

Stephen Halbrook Guest-Blogging About the Second Amendment and Public Carry of Firearms – Reason

I'm delighted to report that Stephen Halbrook, a leading firearms law litigator and scholar, will be guest-blogging this week about the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and in particular about N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, which is now pending before the Supreme Court. Halbrook has written over 30 law review articles and several books on the Second Amendment and firearms law more broadly, including, most recently, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right of the People or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?; those works have been cited in more than 20 court cases and 500 law review articles.

He has also litigated extensively in the field, often representing groups such as the NRA, National African American Gun Association, Western States Sheriffs' Association, Congress of Racial Equality, and more. He has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in Castillo v. U.S. (2000), Printz v. U.S. (1997), and U.S. v. Thompson/Center Arms Co. (1992), as well as in front of many other courts. I very much look forward to his posts!

Go here to read the rest:
Stephen Halbrook Guest-Blogging About the Second Amendment and Public Carry of Firearms - Reason