Mediaboss Marketing

Governor Mark Gordons Office released a statement Monday confirming that the State of Wyoming has joined 20 other states in a lawsuit arguing that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is overstepping its authority and infringing on Americans Second Amendment right to privately buy and sell firearms. In the lawsuit, the coalition of states argue that the ATFs regulatory restrictions exceed the authority granted to the agency by Congress and are a violation of the Second Amendment.

According to the complaint, The right to keep and bear arms is central to our countrys history and traditions, so Congress must be careful when addressing that right through federal legislation. Under the final rule, the defendants would put innocent firearms sales between law-abiding friends and family members within the reach of federal regulation, the complaint continues.

Gordon said the Biden Administration is attempting to treat every legal gun owner as a commercial gun dealer, and every gun sale or trade as a commercial transaction, and that the administration is exceeding its authority and targeting our Second Amendment rights without going through Congress. In December, Wyoming joined 25 other states in signing a comment letter opposing the new rule. The states have asked the Court to vacate the rule as contrary to law.

Here is the original post:
Wyoming joins 21-State Coalition in Lawsuit in Defending Second Amendment Rights from Federal Overreach - Sheridan Media

Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)

U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) joined Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN) in announcing their plan to introduce a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to block the Department of Commerces Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) interim final rule that prohibits Americans from exercising their Second Amendment rights. The rule not only infringes on the Second Amendment rights of Wyoming citizens, but completely halts small businesses from exports, something that will have a huge impact on their revenue.

Wyoming firearm and ammunition manufacturers have every right to export their products just as every business in this country does, said Lummis. This politically motivated export restriction is wrong, and I am proud to join Senator Hagerty in protecting the Second Amendment and overturning this disastrous rule.

The interim final rule:

Severely restricts the ability of Wyoming firearm, ammunition and related-component manufacturers to obtain a license to export their products for sale.

This is an attempt to effectively permanently extend the current pause on such export licenses and will rescind approximately 2,000 active export licenses for certain firearms.

In addition to being an unlawful exercise of regulatory authority, this will have a substantial negative impact on gun manufacturers, suppliers and the jobs they support.

Read more:
Lummis Works to Overturn Latest Assault on the Second Amendment - The Cheyenne Post

WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) joined Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN) in announcing their plan to introduce aCongressional Review Act(CRA) resolution to block the Department of Commerces Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) interim final rule that prohibits Americans from exercising their Second Amendment rights. The rule not only infringes on the Second Amendment rights of Wyoming citizens, but completely halts small businesses from exports, something that will have a huge impact on their revenue.

Wyoming firearm and ammunition manufacturers have every right to export their products just as every business in this country does,said Lummis.This politically motivated export restriction is wrong, and I am proud to join Senator Hagerty in protecting the Second Amendment and overturning this disastrous rule.

Theinterim final rule:

Severely restricts the ability of Wyoming firearm, ammunition and related-component manufacturers to obtain a license to export their products for sale.

This is an attempt to effectively permanently extend the current pause on such export licenses and will rescind approximately 2,000 active export licenses for certain firearms.

In addition to being an unlawful exercise of regulatory authority, this will have a substantial negative impact on gun manufacturers, suppliers and the jobs they support.

###

Read the rest here:
Lummis Works to Overturn Latest Assault on the Second Amendment Senator Cynthia Lummis - Cynthia Lummis

President Joe Biden made numerous false claims about the Second Amendment during an interview that aired this week on Univision.

Biden made the remarks during the interview, which aired Tuesday, when asked by Enrique Acevedo about his anti-gun agenda, especially as it pertains to parts of the country that have large numbers of Latinos that have experienced mass shootings.

When asked if he would take executive action to limit Americas Second Amendment rights if he wins re-election, Biden responded: Absolutely. Look, I, along with Dianne Feinstein, passed the first limitation on assault weapons and the number of bullets that could be in a rifle. The idea anybody needs 100 rounds on a rifle and an AR-15.

Biden falsely claimed that we dont have background checks for anybody purchasing a weapon.

Biden, claiming that he taught the Second Amendment in law school, also falsely claimed that the Second Amendment was written with limitations on what Americans could own.

From the very beginning, there were limitations. You couldnt own a cannon, he falsely claimed. You couldnt. You could own a rifle or a gun. They werent weapons of war.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP

WATCH:

Read more from the original source:
Biden Makes Numerous False Claims About Second Amendment During Univision Interview - The Daily Wire

The Supreme Court reputedly has a long-awaited conservative majority committed to enforcing the meaning of the Constitution as it was understood when it was adopted. This commitment to originalist interpretation will soon be tested in two cases now before the court that have what lawyers call bad optics.

One case, United States v. Rahimi, involves a Second Amendment challenge to a federal statute criminalizing the possession of firearms by people subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders. State courts typically use these orders to forbid threatening or abusive conduct toward the subjects intimate partner. The federal gun ban is automatically imposed if the order either says that the subject presents a credible threat to the physical safety of the partner or explicitly forbids the use of physical force against the partner.

The other case, Garland v. Cargill, involves a regulatory ban on bump stocks that enable a semiautomatic rifle to achieve a rate of fire comparable to that of fully automatic machine guns. After a 2017 Las Vegas massacre in which semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks were used to kill 60 people and injure hundreds more, the Trump administration classified them as machine guns, which made them illegal.

No judge can relish being accused of siding with domestic abusers or of allowing a weapon to remain on the market that facilitated mass murder. Unless the court rules in favor of the government in these cases, denunciations undoubtedly will follow, especially in an election year.

These cases have come before a court that has been transformed by Republican efforts to stop the politicized use of judicial power to effect progressive social change. What began with calls for judicial restraint during the Nixon era eventually became a long campaign devoted to promoting originalist theories of interpretation.

This effort had its first conspicuous success in 2008, when a 5-to-4 majority struck down a handgun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller. Justice Antonin Scalias majority opinion featured a detailed originalist analysis that rejected an overwhelming and longstanding consensus in the lower courts. Rather than assume that the Second Amendment protects only a right of state governments to maintain militia organizations, the court concluded that the constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms may be exercised by individuals for the purpose of self-defense.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

Originally posted here:
Opinion | Two Guns Cases Will Test the Supreme Courts Conservative Majority - The New York Times