Mediaboss Marketing

On April 28, Judge Stephen P. McGlynn of the Southern District of Illinois, in Barnett v. Raoul, issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the recently-passed Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA), which bans "assault weapons" and standard-capacity magazines.

That morning, I had posted "A Judge Who Understands Firearms," describing the oral argument in which Judge McGlynn exhibited superior expertise about firearms and how they work, in contrast to the lack of such knowledge by too many judges.

At the beginning, the court stipulated the following proposition to which any court should agree: "no state may enact a law that denies its citizens rights that the Constitution guarantees them.Even legislation that may enjoy the support of a majority of its citizens must fail if it violates the constitutional rights of fellow citizens."

In finding that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits, the court brushed aside the argument that magazines holding more than the verboten number of cartridges are unnecessary to the functioning of a firearm and are thus not "arms." It didn't help Illinois that its own expert called them "arms"!

Also rejected was the argument that the prohibition on pistols with arm braces don't interfere with Second Amendment rights. Despite its recent attempt to restrict some braces, ATF itself recognizes that braces may be necessary for persons with disabilities to hold and fire certain pistols. Again, braces are "arms."

Next, the court succinctly summarized how the banned features facilitate the ability to accurately shoot and hit their intended target in case of confrontation, which is clearly protected by the Second Amendment:

Plaintiffs stated that "[a] pistol grip improves accuracy and reduces the risk of stray shots," that "[t]humbhole stocks likewise provide[] for greater accuracy and decreases the risk of dropping the firearm or firing stray shots," and that "flash suppressors not only prevent users from being blinded in low lighting conditions but also reduce recoil and muzzle movement, makingthe firearm less painful to use." Defendants' have also recognized that such items "facilitate . . . sustained accuracy." This Court agrees that in the case of each of these items "[t]he defensive application is obvious, as is the public safety advantage in preventing stray shots."

What a refreshing contrast to judicial opinions that superficially claim that pistol grips are designed to spray fire from the hip or that fail to address the specific banned features at all, opting instead to parrot the term "assault weapon" in every other sentence.

Next, Judge McGlynn found what is undeniable that AR-15s are in common use and thus meet the Heller-Bruen test for protected arms: "more than 24 million AR-15 style rifles are currently owned nationwide," and they accounted for "nearly half of the rifles produced in 2018, and nearly 20% of all firearms of any type sold in 2020." "Under the Caetano test, even 1% of the 24 million AR-15 style rifles held by citizens is sufficient to result in a finding that such arms are in common use."

To make the statistics vivid, consider that sales of AR-15s more than double the sales of Ford F-150 pickup trucks.

No small wonder that the defendants "were unable to produce evidence showing that modern sporting rifles are both dangerous and unusual." (Notice that Judge McGlynn didn't use the loaded propaganda term "assault weapons.")

Since the banned firearms and magazines are in common use, they are protected and supposed historical analogues are irrelevant. Nonetheless, the state claimed some early restrictions such as those on Bowie knives as historical analogues, but they were concealed-carry regulations with a different "how and why" (Bruen's term) of the current ban on mere possession.

As to the balance of harms that a court must consider in granting a preliminary injunction, the court found it "uncontroverted that many of the banned modifiers, including but not limited to pistol grips, protruding grips, flash suppressors, and shrouds, have legitimate purposes that assist law-abiding citizens in their ability to defend themselves. The other side is less clear there is no evidence as to how PICA will actually help Illinois Communities." Indeed, the Illinois Sheriffs' Association filed a brief opposing the ban and some local Illinois States Attorneys believe the ban to be unconstitutional.

Enactment of the PICA was a response to the Highland Park shooting last July 4, an act of violence that we all condemn. However, as the court observed, "it does not appear that the legislature considered an individual's right under the Second Amendment nor Supreme Court precedent." Judge McGlynn offered the following sage reflections:

"Nothing in this order prevents the State from confronting firearm-related violence. There is a wide array of civil and criminal laws that permit the commitment and prosecution of those who use or may use firearms to commit crimes. Law enforcement and prosecutors should take their obligations to enforce these laws seriously. Families and the public at large should report concerning behavior. Judges should exercise their prudent judgment in committing individuals that pose a threat to the public and imposing sentences that punish, not just lightly inconvenience, those guilty of firearm-related crimes."

With that, the court issued a preliminary injunction state-wide against enforcement of the ban. The state has sought a stay of the injunction pending appeal.

Read more from the original source:
Second Amendment Roundup: Illinois Gun Ban Enjoined - Reason

As Americans continue to come to terms with the pandemics ripple effect on business, unemployment, and snags in the supply chain, one of the bright spots in the economic landscape is the state of the firearm and ammunition industry.

Each year, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) publishes a detailed report on the impact of the firearm and ammunition industry on the U.S. economy and jobs. In addition to examining the effect that companies that manufacture, distribute, and sell firearms, ammunition, and hunting equipment have had in the last year, the report looks at trends more generally.

According to the latest report, Firearm and Ammunition Industry Economic Impact Report 2023, the industrys economic growth in recent years has been nothing short of remarkable and has been driven by an unprecedented number of Americans choosing to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. This includes an estimated 4.2 million new gun owners in 2022.

Since 2008, the overall economic impact of the industry has increased by more than 320% from $19.1 billion (2008) to $80.7 billion last year. 2022 alone represented an increase of over $10 billion over the year before.

Other highlights:

The reports state-by-state breakdown shows that these economic gains are by no means restricted to pro-gun jurisdictions and extend to every state. The economic impact of the gun industry in New York State, for instance, exceeded $3 billion ($3,187,992,000) last year. Likewise, California benefitted by an annual total output of just under six billion dollars ($5,992,739,100).

While anti-gun politicians and their gun-control allies attack the gun industry (here and here, for instance) as part of a campaign against firearm-related commerce in general, the indisputable fact remains that the industrys continued strength relies on millions of law-abiding consumers sport shooters, hunters, farmers and other everyday Americans exercising their fundamental constitutional rights and investing in the Second Amendment.

Read more here:
Investing in the Second Amendment: Gun Industry Shows Continued ... - NRA ILA

The Criminal Justice and Public Safety committee will be holding several hearings during the week of May 8th that will greatly impact your Second Amendment rights in Maine. Some of the proposals being heard are listed below. NRA members and Second Amendment supporters are strongly urged to attend these hearings and make their voices heard. For those who are unable to attend, please press the take action button below to contact committee members and make your voices heard!

Maine Joint Standing Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety,State House, Room 436,Public Hearing: May 8th at 9:00 A.M.

Submit Testimony

PRO GUN:

LD 624 strengthens existing law that expressly prohibits the State of Maine from creating any kind of gun-registry. This bill closes loopholes in existing law that could be exploited to create a quasi-gun registry in Maine.

ANTI-GUN:

LD 1011 would require law abiding gun owners who are victims of theft to report a stolen firearm within 72 hours of when the owner knew or should have known it was lost or stolen. Rather than deter fraudulent gun sales, this bill would turn victims of gun theft into criminals and make people whose guns have been lost or stolen hesitant to assist police for fear of prosecution.

LD 1340 would ban legal rapid-fire modification devices that are already commonly owned and in use by Mainers. These devices include but are not limited to bump stocks and binary triggers that are used in a wide array of legal activities including competitive and recreational shooting. Possession of such devices would result in a Class D crime.

Maine Joint Standing Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety,State House, Room 436,Public Hearing: May 9th at 1:00 P.M.

Submit Testimony

PRO GUN:

LD 1560 strengthens Maines Stand Your Ground Law by removing the duty of the victim to retreat or comply with the criminals demands. Mainers should not be required to comply with or hide from criminals to protect themselves. This bill would empower and protect law-abiding citizens.

Again, please contact members and urge them to oppose all anti-gun measures and support all measures that protect your Second Amendment rights.

Read the original post:
Maine: Several Critical Gun Bills Being Heard Next Week - NRA ILA

Lois Thielen, Times Writers Group| St. Cloud Times

One day last month, a young man near Long Prairie was out in his yard working on his vehicle. His dog, Waylon, was stretched out on the grass along the driveway nearby. Suddenly Waylon's owner heard multiple gun shots; his dog had been shot. His owner got Waylon to the local veterinarian but hisdog died there soon after.

It happened only 10 miles from our farm.

The reports of seemingly senseless gun violence directed at people just going about their business are constant. Here's three from last month, about the time Waylon was shot:

*On April 12, a 59-year-old Illinois man was fatally shot by his 79-yeear-old neighbor while using a leaf blower in his own yard.

*On April 13, a 16-year-old honor student was shot by an 84-year-old man after the boy rang his doorbell but had picked the wrong house while picking up his brothers from a friend's house.

*On April 18, two Texas cheerleaders were shot by a 25-year-old man after one of them mistakenly tried to get in the wrong car after a late night practice.

There is something seriously wrong with a country when the response to every mistake, every misunderstanding, every perceived slight, is to pull out a gun and start shooting.

There seems to be an endless number of firearms, a lot of angry, scared or mentally disturbed people and no restrictions whatsoever on what these angry, scared and mentally disturbed people can do with their vast caches of weapons.

The sheer amount of weaponry is unlike any developed country in the world. As a March 13, 2023, article by Dr. Michael Kryzanek in a Bridgewater State University blog entitled "Guns, violence and the Second Amendment " reports, "...the United States is unique in the world when it comes to gun culture and a failure to take action to regulate gun ownership...the United States has five percent of the world's population and 46 percent of the world's privately owned weapons."

Other first-tier nations, including Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany and Canada, all have strict gun laws, that place limits on ownership, require training with firearms, prohibit assault rifles and require detailed background checks of gun buyers. The number of gun-related deaths in these countries is extremely low, Kryzanek concludes.

Our country's attitudesabout guns perplex other developed countries. "People in these countries cannot fathom why the United States permits such lax laws and how the American people and particularly American political leaders accept the tragic loss of life," Kryzanek said.

But any discussion of curbing gun violence immediately segues into how this would infringe upon gun owners' rights under the Second Amendment. Just for the record, here is the Second Amendment: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the securing of a Free State, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Keep in mind this amendment was ratified Dec. 15, 1791, when the weapon of choice was a musket, which took four minutes to load, fired one shot at a time and was wildly inaccurate, a far cry from today's assault weapons.

Also remember the government wanted its citizens to own weapons was to enable the U. S. army of the time to have weapons as the government at that time could not afford to buy weapons for its soldiers.

Unfortunately, the Second Amendment has not been updated in these approximately 230 years to reflect modern weaponry, or placed any kind of limit on how many and what kind of weapons citizens can own.

So every day we hear of another American citizen being attacked by a gun-toting opponent or another mass shooting at a school, church or shopping mall. It's hard to feel safe in a public place or large-scale event such as a concert, county fair or sporting event. It's hard hearing our children worry about a school shooting possibly happening at their school. It's hard wondering if we'll be shot for approaching the wrong car in the parking lot or grabbing the wrong shopping cart at the supermarket.

We don't know what it's going to take to fix this country's gun sickness. All we know is that something needs to be done.

This is the opinion of Times Writers Group member Lois Thielen, a dairy farmer who lives near Grey Eagle. Her column is published the first Sunday of the month.

Continue reading here:
What's to be done about our country's gun sickness? - SC Times

Marcia Meoli| Community Columnist

The United States Supreme Court, prompted by zealous and short-sighted litigants, is now keeping our country from solving important problems of our day. It is doing this in a way thatinterfereswith the functioning of the other branches of government.

My recent thoughts on this started with a podcast I heard on NPR's "Fresh Air" from April 6. There, Eric Lipton, from the New York Times, discussed his series on the expansion of online betting in our country.A short time ago, it was illegal to gamble on sports in most places in the U.S. Now, sports and other gambling is happening virtually everywhere and on anything. Lipton traced this change to the lawsuit filed by the state of New Jersey claiming it was unconstitutional to allow one state like Nevada to have sports betting, and to prohibit this in other states.InMurphy v. NCAA, the Supreme Court held that a 1992 law prohibiting state-sanctioned sports gambling was unconstitutional under the 10thAmendment because one clause in that law commandeered power from the states. Instead of invalidating the one clause, the court invalidated the entire statute.

This left us without a national prohibition of gambling.After that, states passed laws allowing all kinds of gambling, including on sports.After Michigan passed such a law, I have seen bankruptcies by people caught up in this.These people turn over their bank accounts to pay for gambling on their phones.Their bank statements are incredible: pages and pages of entries for FANDUEL and other gambling operations.Reviewing this with the debtors, these people seem to be in a state of shock, not really understanding how they got into this situation but knowing that they were not able to get control of it until it was too late.In theMurphycase, the court seemed to understand that this could happen in the last paragraphs of its opinion, but went forward anyway because of its reading of the 10thAmendment and that errant clause in the statute.

This is becoming a pattern.The Roberts court has reviewed a number of statutes and found constitutional problems with them, overruling these statutes and causing upheaval and problems sought to be solved by elected legislators or other leaders.This includes:

Second Amendment decisions: Heller, McDonald and Bruen.Hellerwas decided in 2008, reversing the full history of interpretation of the Second Amendment, and holding that the amendment provides an individual right to bear arms, rather than a right tied to membership in a militia.The court attempted to temper the decision by stating that the right is not unlimited. But subsequent decisions of the court cast doubt on whether the court will ever find a limitation on guns acceptable.In theMcDonaldcase, the court extended individual liberty in cases involving states.In 2022, the court held in theBruencase that courts reviewing guns law should consider not the public good, but the "historical tradition of firearm regulation" (whatever that means!).

Citizens United:In 2010, the court ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.It overruled a campaign finance law passed by a bi-partisan Congress.The court attempted to temper the decision by stating that it did not believe in the likelihood of corruption or the appearance of corruption in elections.

Shelby County v. Holder: In 2013, the court overruled portions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, passed and renewed for decades to deal with discrimination in voting, stating that the act was old and no longer responsive to current needs.The court attempted to temper the decision by stating that the country has changed with respect to racial discrimination.

We now face the prospect that this court will eviscerate the FDC in its ultimate ruling on an abortion drug.

The majority members of this court think that they know better for the country than anyone else, including Congress, the president, the majority of voters and previous Supreme Courts, given its growing record of overruling long-standing precedent.Some of these justices stated under oath that they respected precedent during their confirmation hearings.Since they joined the court, they have shown no respect for precedent at all.

We should not need to pass constitutional amendments to solve problems in this country.This court is devolving into yet another hyper-partisan participant in the dysfunction of our national political system.

Community Columnist Marcia Meoli is a Holland attorney and resident. Contact her at Meolimarcia@gmail.com.

Visit link:
Marcia Meoli: Supreme Court just adding fuel to the partisan fire - HollandSentinel.com