Washington State Bans AR-15 Sales – Washington’s decision to ban sales of AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles is a disappointing move. Despite Governor Jay Inslee’s assertion that these weapons have no purpose other than mass murder, many gun owners use them for self-defense, hunting, and recreational shooting.
Furthermore, the ban is unlikely to have a significant impact on reducing gun violence. Criminals and those with malicious intent will still find ways to obtain firearms illegally, while law-abiding citizens will be deprived of their Second Amendment rights.
The additional measures signed into law, such as the 10-day waiting period for firearm purchases and holding gunmakers liable for negligent sales, also infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners without addressing the root causes of gun violence.
Overall, Washington’s decision to implement these gun restrictions is misguided and likely to be ineffective in achieving its intended goals. Criminals and other people wanting to shoot others will still find the means to get the firearms necessary. This law does little to change that.
Opponents called the ban an unconstitutional infringement of the rights of law-abiding gun owners and immediately filed a lawsuit seeking to have it struck down.
The federal lawsuit, filed by the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation and other opponents, contends the law signed by Inslee “has criminalized one of the most common and important means by which its citizens can exercise their fundamental right to self-defense.”
The lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the ban.
The national Firearm Industry Trade Association also condemned Inslee for signing the law banning what it called “Modern Sporting Rifles” and vowed to sue to overturn it.
“Governor Inslee and Washington’s Attorney General Bob Ferguson put politics ahead of their duty to defend the Constitution and protect the rights of their citizens,” Lawrence Keane, the trade group’s senior vice president and general counsel, said in a statement.
The measure signed by Inslee, House Bill 1240, bans the sale, transfer, distribution, manufacture and importation of 62 gun models the law defines as “assault weapons,” including AR-15s, AK-47s and similar rifles.
Gun Tactics is dedicated to providing you with the very best Gun & Tactics News, Info And Media.
More Gun Restrictions Talk After MSU Shooting – Following the tragic shooting at Michigan State University, Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks (a Democrat BTW) has promised the Michigan Senate will be introducing gun control. These over the top measures will include safe storage laws, tougher universal background checks (here we go again!), and red flag laws. Brinks, who is a Democrat from Grand Rapids , said she watched the news of the shooting unfold with “dread and horror” and NOW feels a responsibility to introduce what SHE deems is “common-sense legislation”. Yeah, RIGHT.
As we all have by now heard, on Monday night, three students were killed and five others were wounded, resulting in many students seeking shelter on campus. This is the second tragic shooting in Michigan in 15 months, with four students killed in a shooting at Oxford High School in November 2021.
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, an alumna of Michigan State University, urged action to curb gun violence and called the issue of gun violence a “uniquely American problem.” (Uniquely American? Guess she doesn’t watch the news huh?) House Speaker Joe Tate, a Detroit Democrat and former MSU football team captain, has criticized lawmakers for inaction and called for change. After the House and Senate canceled their sessions, they plan to meet to discuss how to prevent gun violence. Sounds like a LOT of talk.
This is how Dems want us to protect ourselves…
Anthony McRae, the suspected shooter, was offered a plea deal back in 2019 that allowed him to plead down from carrying a concealed pistol without a concealed carry permit, a five-year felony, to possession of a loaded firearm in a vehicle, a two-year high court misdemeanor (WTF?). He served 18 months of probation, which he completed in May 2021. Under the high court misdemeanor charge, McRae was able to legally own and possess a gun after probation. The enforcement of current laws is being questioned, as McRae’s plea deal prompted some to call for better enforcement of existing firearm laws before pushing for additional regulation.
More Gun Restrictions Talk After MSU Shooting
Great Lakes Gun Rights criticized the immediate push for additional gun regulation and urged Michigan residents to demand their lawmakers “oppose all gun control efforts.” Brenden Boudreau, executive director for Great Lakes Gun Rights, stated, “handgun registration laws and ‘gun-free’ zones didn’t stop this evil madman, and they won’t stop another one in the future. More gun control in Michigan will leave law-abiding citizens helpless when they need to defend themselves and others.” Seems that if more gunowner had been around, this threat may have been put down before it escalated to what it became.
Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt, R-Porter Township, said his “heart breaks” for the victims and families (thoughts & prayers again?). Nesbitt said schools need to continue to be made safer and improvements should be made to mental health screening and care. He also stressed that current laws should be enforced, an apparent reference to McRae’s past plea deal and what Nesbitt called “soft-on-crime prosecutors.” He noted that “proposing bills that do not address the root causes of this epidemic just to do something is just as bad as doing nothing.” He didn’t mention any need for, perhaps, armed personnel at MSU or any other practical measures. Just more rhetoric.
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has previously called for universal background check requirements for people who want to buy firearms, a safe storage standard for guns in the home, and “extreme risk” protection orders, also known as a red flag law, to allow guns to be taken away from people deemed a risk to themselves and others. Democrats called for similar reforms after the 2021 killing of four students at Michigan’s Oxford High School. However, Republicans 2nd Amendment protectors who controlled the House and Senate blocked votes on the measures.
But, unfortunately, Democrats took control of the state Legislature in January for the first time in nearly four decades and have suggested they will emphasize the gun-related policies this term. Brinks, who was already prepared to introduce legislation on this topic, stated, “We will start there, and you will see those bills introduced.” Scary thought given the current drive to make Michigan a Constitutional Carry State.
While this tragic shooting at Michigan State University has once again brought attention to the issue of gun violence in America. And, as usual, the response from Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer is the introduction of gun control measures. Empty ideas with no realistic plan in sight. Same ‘ole same ‘ole.
Gun Tactics is dedicated to providing you with the very best Gun & Tactics News, Info And Media.
ATF Posts “Final” Rule on Stabilizing Braces – On January 13, 2023, the Attorney General signed ATF final rule 2021R-08F, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” amending ATF’s regulations to clarify when a rifle is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The new rule outlines the factors that the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and Explosives (ATF) would consider when evaluating firearms equipped with a purported “stabilizing brace” (or other rearward attachment) to determine whether these weapons would be considered a “rifle” or “short-barreled rifle” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, or a “rifle” or “firearm” subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act.
The rule’s amended definition of “rifle” clarifies that the term “designed, redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided other factors, as listed in the definition, indicate the weapon is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder.
It is important to note that this rule does not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle. Such stabilizing braces are designed to conform to the arm and not as a buttstock. However, if the firearm with the “stabilizing brace” is a short-barreled rifle, it needs to be registered within 120-days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.
A Stabilizing Brace
ATF Posts “Final” Rule on Stabilizing Braces
This rule is effective the date it is published in the Federal Register. Any weapons with “stabilizing braces” or similar attachments that constitute rifles under the NFA must be registered no later than 120 days after date of publication in the Federal Register; or the short barrel removed and a 16-inch or longer rifle barrel attached to the firearm; or permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached; or the firearm is turned in to your local ATF office. Or the firearm is destroyed.
With this new rule, the Biden administration claims that the brace creates a likeness to short-barreled rifles, which require a federal license under the National Firearms Act. This has led to backlash from some lawmakers, with U.S. Senator Jim Risch of Idaho releasing the following statement slamming the rule:
“President Biden’s administration once again took aim at the rights of Idaho’s law-abiding gun owners. The administration’s rule requiring pistol braces be registered with the federal government threatens to turn responsible gun owners into felons overnight. This is unacceptable. I will always defend Idahoans’ Second Amendment rights and will forcefully oppose President Biden’s radical anti-gun agenda.”
It is worth mentioning that during the 117th Congress, Senator Risch was a cosponsor of the Pistol Brace Protection Act to ensure law-abiding gun owners will not have to register or remove their pistol brace, and the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act to remove taxation, registration, and regulation requirements for short-barreled rifles and shotguns under the National Firearms Act.
So, with the new ATF final rule on pistol brace attachments, owners of firearms equipped with stabilizing braces will now have to register or remove the brace within 120-days. The new rule aims to clarify when a rifle is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder, and to determine whether these weapons would be considered a “rifle” or “short-barreled rifle” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, or a “rifle” or “firearm” subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act. It is important to note that this rule does not affect stabilizing braces that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities. However, it has led to backlash from some lawmakers, who argue that it threatens the rights of law-abiding gun owners and that they will forcefully oppose President Biden’s anti-gun agenda.
Gun Tactics is dedicated to providing you with the very best Gun & Tactics News, Info And Media.
Supreme Court Asked To Decide NY Gun Law – Holy 2nd Amendment Batman!!! Looks like there’s something brewing, again, in the Big Apple. It is going to get harder and harder to own a firearm!
On Tuesday New York Attorney General Letitia James asked the Supreme Court to allow a new state law that will place restrictions on carrying a concealed firearm to stay in effect while a legal challenge on the very same law play out.
The dispute is the first time the court has been asked on an emergency basis to consider a significant Second Amendment case since last summer’s ruling that expanded gun rights nationwide.
In the case in question, New York State Rifle v. Bruen, the court struck down New York’s prior concealed carry gun law. A 6-3 majority said the law prevented law-abiding citizens with “ordinary self-defense needs” from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, convened a special legislative session in order to pass a new law called the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” on July 1, just days after the opinion was made public. But the new law came under immediate attack as gun owners rightfully claimed that it was in direct “defiance” of the Supreme Court decision and continued to make it too difficult for ordinary citizens to obtain concealed carry permits.
Last fall, a district court blocked key provisions of the new law, related to requirements that an applicant demonstrate “good moral character,” provide a list of all former and current social media accounts from the past three years and “sensitive place” restrictions that include health care settings, churches and parks.
In December, however, a federal appeals court put that decision on hold and ordered expedited consideration of the matter with opening briefs due on January 9. Now, gun owners want the Supreme Court to step in.
In an emergency application filed on December 21, a lawyer for the gun owners asked the justices to step in and he defended the district court opinion. He said it was “carefully designed to limit New York’s enforcement of a sweeping gun control statute, enacted in retaliation against New York gun owners” for having prevailed in the Bruen case.
Supreme Court Asked To Decide NY Gun Law
The lawyer, Stephen D. Stamboulieh, said that the 184 page opinion was “meticulously tailored” to “uphold the right of New Yorkers to keep and bear arms.”
The justices are not considering the merits of the case, only whether to lift the appeal court order pending appeal.
“Although it comes in an emergency -application posture, the request represents the first chance for the justices to weigh in on how lower courts are applying the Bruen decision and its new doctrinal framework for Second Amendment cases,” said Andrew Willinger of the Duke University School of Law.
In Tuesday’s filing, James said the district court’s opinion was “riddled with errors” and urged the justices to stay out of the dispute and let the appeals court ruling stand. She stressed that the appeals court had expedited consideration of the new law and that “further percolation of the relevant issues in the lower court is needed to inform” the Supreme Court’s review.
Gun Tactics is dedicated to providing you with the very best Gun & Tactics News, Info And Media.
San Jose Gun Owners Required To Insure – OH BOY! San Jose gun owners, break out your wallets and purses and get ready to comply with the city’s new gun ordinance come January.
That’s right, starting yesterday, all San Jose gun owners will be required to have insurance that will cover any firearm harm or accidental firings. It’s part of the city’s new gun harm reduction ordinance—a contentious, first-of-its-kind law that claims to seek a reduction in gun incidents by mandating liability insurance and collecting an annual fee from gun owners (sounds more like punishment to us). They CLAIM the annual fees would be used to fund programs that address suicide prevention, mental health and addiction services, and firearm safety training or victim compensation. We’ll see…
San Jose households with a firearm will be required to have a homeowner, renter or gun liability insurance policy for their firearms. The city is still designing plans to collect the annual fee, which is tentatively set for $25. San Jose will start collecting once the city selects a nonprofit to manage the money.
Mayor Sam Liccardo, who designed the policy, said this is a great step to making San Jose safer from gun violence. According to his office, more than 200 people are killed or injured annually by gunfire in San Jose. Fatal and non-fatal firearm shootings of San Jose residents cost $995 million in 2019-20, Liccardo said.
“Gun insurance incentivizes safer behavior,” Liccardo told San José Spotlight. “Just as drivers with auto insurance received discounts on their premiums for having safe driving records in the 1990s, getting a car with anti-lock brakes, or in the 1980s getting a car with airbags, so too insurance can incentivize gun owners to take gun safety classes, ensure their guns have chamber-load indicators, purchase gun safes and get trigger locks.”
How does it work?
A San Jose resident’s liability insurance policy must cover losses or damages resulting from the accidental use of a firearm including but not limited to death, injury or property damage. There is no mandatory minimum coverage.
“Firearm owners have the option of complying with the liability insurance requirement through homeowner’s insurance or renter’s insurance policies that provide liability coverage,” Kristen Van Kley, city spokesperson, told San José Spotlight. “Homeowner’s and renter’s insurance are widely available from many different insurers in California.”
Gun owners must out fill an insurance attestation form and have a policy in effect by January 1. The form must also be with the firearm at all times as proof of compliance. If a firearm is discovered without the form, it will trigger a police report and could result in administrative citations, with fees starting at $250.
The only San Jose gun owners who are exempt from the insurance requirement are police officers and those with concealed carry permits, according to city documents. Low-income gun owners may apply for a waiver.
“There should be little burden for gun owners, as most home and renters insurance policies already cover what is required by the law, or else a rider can be acquired by the policyholder at no or little cost,” Liccardo said. “Gun owners will simply need to confirm they have such insurance.”
But the issue of coverage may be more complicated. Council members Maya Esparza and Dev Davis previously said most insurance agencies they talked to told them only accidental firings outside of a household could potentially be covered. Negligence or criminal behavior would not.
“I spoke with two insurance agents including my own from different companies and neither of them said that negligence use is specifically covered in their policies,” Davis said. “I’m still not certain how we can require a specific type of insurance that does not exist.”
Why now?
Liccardo originally proposed the idea after the 2019 Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting that claimed the lives of three children. Things stalled when COVID-19 hit in March 2020, but Liccardo brought the idea back in May 2021 following the mass shooting at the VTA light rail yard in downtown San Jose. The ordinance passed almost unanimously in February and received support from groups like Moms Demand Action and other organizations advocating for gun reform.
The ordinance was also highly contested. Its implementation was delayed as the city dealt with multiple lawsuits from gun rights activists and taxpayer associations. In August, a federal judge ruled against blocking San Jose’s gun law, so the city moved forward with implementation. So far, the court has dismissed nine of the ten claims filed by two litigants, and a third plaintiff has withdrawn their suit, according to Liccardo.
However, San Jose is not out of the woods just yet. Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, said his organization and a coalition of Second Amendment advocates plan to sue the city once the law is implemented. They claim the policy violates their right to bear arms by placing barriers and mandating that gun owners pay to use that right. He also said he believes the gun insurance will have “zero impact” on reducing gun violence.
“This law is just not going to prevent criminal misuse,” Paredes said. “What it will do is make it a little more difficult and cumbersome for some of the people in lower income areas of San Jose—those people who live where crime happens more regularly—to own a gun.”
What do YOU think about this new law? Do you think it will start a trend across the country? Let us know in the comments below.
Gun Tactics is dedicated to providing you with the very best Gun & Tactics News, Info And Media.
New York’s Gun Law Blocked By Judge Again – The anti-gun lobby of New York’s latest attempt to restrict who can carry a handgun in public and where firearms can be brought was picked apart AGAIN Thursday by a federal judge, who ruled that multiple provisions in a state law passed this year are unconstitutional.
Although this ruling doesn’t take effect immediately, U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby blocked key elements of the state’s feeble & hurried attempt to rewrite its handgun laws after the old ones were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in June.
The state cannot ban people from carrying guns in New York City’s subway system or Times Square (where protection is needed the most), the judge ruled, though he said it did have a right to exclude guns from certain other locations, including schools (tell that to school shooters!).
Many of New York state’s new licensing rules went too far, he wrote, including one that required applicants to be of “good moral character,” and another that made applicants turn over information about their social media accounts.
The end result was a licensing scheme that prohibited people from carrying a handgun for self-defense unless the applicant could persuade licensing officials that they wouldn’t use it to hurt themselves or others, the judge wrote. This simply cannot be proven or policed rationally.
“Simply stated, instead of moving toward becoming a shall-issue jurisdiction, New York State has further entrenched itself as a shall-not-issue jurisdiction. And, by doing so, it has further reduced a first-class constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense … into a mere request,” wrote Suddaby, who sits in Syracuse.
Suddaby, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, put his decision on hold for three days to allow the state to challenge it in a higher court.
New York Attorney General Letitia James’s office filed an appeal later Thursday. AG James is famously anti-2nd Amendment.
“Today’s decision comes in the wake of mass shootings and rampant gun violence hurting communities here in New York and across the country. While the decision preserves portions of the law, we believe the entire law must be preserved as enacted,” said James, a Democrat.
Legislators rewrote the state’s handgun laws this summer after a Supreme Court ruling invalidated New York’s old system for granting permits to carry handguns outside the home. The high court struck down the state’s longstanding requirement that people demonstrate an unusual threat to their safety to qualify for such a license.
The new law, which went into effect Sept. 1, broadly expanded who could get a handgun license, but it increased training requirements for applicants and required them to turn over more private information, including a list of everyone living in their home. The state also created a long list of places where firearms would be banned.
Suddaby’s ruling upheld the state’s right to exclude guns from certain “sensitive locations,” but only in instances where there were “historical analogues” for such rules, meaning guns have been banned from such places in the past.
Judge Glenn T. Suddaby
Rules prohibiting most people from carrying guns into schools, government buildings, polling places and places of worship were OK, the judge wrote. But the state couldn’t put new bans on people from carrying handguns on public transportation systems, in summer camps or places where alcohol is consumed.
Suddaby also dealt a blow to a provision prohibiting people from bringing guns onto someone else’s property unless the owners give permission — by posting a sign in a shop window, for instance.
Gov. Kathy Hochul, also a Democrat, defended the state’s laws as “common-sense restrictions.”
“While this decision leaves aspects of the law in place, it is deeply disappointing that the Judge wants to limit my ability to keep New Yorkers safe and to prevent more senseless gun violence,” Hochul said.
There have been several federal challenges to the new law from gun rights advocates who argue the legislation violates the Second Amendment and free speech rights.
This lawsuit was bought by six gun owners from upstate New York who claim the law infringes on their constitutional rights. Most of the plaintiffs have licenses to carry and argue the law keeps them from holding a weapon in designated sensitive places like state parks or church.
One plaintiff intends to apply for a carry permit but is unwilling to share social media posts or character references with investigators, according to the federal complaint.
Suddaby telegraphed his ruling five weeks ago when he threw out a previous challenge to the law on technical grounds. The plaintiff in that case then teamed up with five other gun owners and sued again, expanding the list of defendants to include state district attorneys and sheriffs who were charged with enforcing the law.
New York is among a half-dozen states that had provisions of their gun laws invalidated by the Supreme Court.
Gun Tactics is dedicated to providing you with the very best Gun & Tactics News, Info And Media.
Supreme Court Blocks Bump Stock Ban Challenge – The Supreme Court rejected a new effort to expand gun rights today (Monday, October 3rd) by declining to hear a challenge to a Trump-era ban on so-called bump stocks. Bump Stocks allow semi-automatic rifles to fire more quickly by using the natural recoil of the rifle to assist it.
Example of a ‘Bump Stock’
This decision not to hear the two related cases, a blow for 2nd Amendment activists, leaves the ban in place. The conservative-majority court issued a major ruling in June that expanded gun rights, although the legal issues in the bump stock cases were different.
Bump stocks are accessories for semi-automatic rifles like the popular AR-15-style weapons. They use the recoil energy of a trigger pull to enable the user to fire up to hundreds of rounds a minute.
In a rare example of a Republican administration’s taking action on gun control, President Donald Trump’s administration imposed the ban after the mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017, when Stephen Paddock used bump stocks to open fire on a country music festival, killing 58 people. Paddock died by suicide as he was about to be apprehended.
The ban on Bump Stocks, implemented by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), went into effect in 2019 after the Supreme Court declined to block it. Since then, the already conservative court has tilted further to the right, with conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, replacing liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in 2020.
The court has a new 6-3 conservative majority, and it ruled for the first time in the June gun rights decision that the right to bear arms under the Constitution’s Second Amendment protects an individual right to carry a handgun outside the home. The ruling was the most significant expansion of gun rights since the Supreme Court held in 2008 that there was an individual right to bear arms in self-defense at home.
The bump stocks challenge, however, did not deal directly with the scope of the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. The challengers instead said the government did not have authority to ban bump stocks under the National Firearms Act, a law enacted in 1934 to regulate machine guns. In 1968, the Gun Control Act expanded the definition of machine gun to include accessories “for use in converting a weapon” into a machine gun, and the ATF concluded when it issued the ban that bump stocks meet that definition.
The groups challenging the ban said the legal definition of machine gun has been distorted beyond recognition and argue that courts should not defer to the federal agency’s interpretation.
The court turned away two related appeals, one brought by Clark Aposhian, a Utah gun lobbyist who had purchased a bump stock before the ban took effect, and another led by Gun Owners of America and other gun rights groups. Lower courts upheld the ban, although judges on the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals were divided in both cases.
In June, some Republican in Congress joined Democrats in enacting the first legislation to reduce gun violence in decades. Momentum was spurred by another mass shooting, this time at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, a month earlier, in which 19 schoolchildren and two teachers were killed.
Gun Tactics is dedicated to providing you with the very best Gun & Tactics News, Info And Media.
Abbott States raising the age to buy an AR-15 is ‘unconstitutional’ – Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said Wednesday that it would be unconstitutional to increase the minimum age to buy AR-15 style rifles from 18 to 21 years old — a key proposal Democrats and some Uvalde parents have called for after an 18-year-old gunned down many children at Robb Elementary school in May.
“It is clear that the gun control law that they are seeking in Uvalde — as much as they may want it — has already been ruled as unconstitutional,” Abbott said at a reelection campaign event in Allen.
The gunman in Uvalde bought two AR-15-style rifles days after he turned 18, the legal purchasing age in Texas, and used the weapons to kill 19 students and two teachers at Robb Elementary.
Abbott States raising the age to buy an AR-15 is ‘unconstitutional’
In the aftermath of the horrific shooting, Texas SenateDemocrats have asked for a special legislative session to increase the minimum age to purchase a semi-automatic rifle. Advocates call the proposal a compromise with GOP lawmakers — a three-year increase to the legal age instead of an outright ban on the style of weapon.
“Simply doing nothing is about as evil as it comes,” state Sen. Roland Gutierrez, D-San Antonio, whose district includes Uvalde, claimed in June.
Gov. Abbott at his Wednesday campaign event brought up court rulings from the past three months, including a federal court in Fort Worth on Thursday that struck down a Texas law limiting adults under 21 from carrying handguns. U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman wrote that the Second Amendment does not specify limits on age.
The U.S. Supreme Court also struck down a century-old New York gun law in June that restricted concealed carry of handgun, a ruling that didn’t impact Texas. In the last 13 years, as firearms have become more accessible in the state. Democrats in Texas say this is responsible eight mass shootings that occurred during that time.
A day after the shooting in Uvalde, Abbott was asked if he would consider banning “AR-style weapons” for 18-year-olds. The governor at the time appeared hesitant.
HailStone Ammo – Ammo You Can Trust
Abbott States raising the age to buy an AR-15 is ‘unconstitutional’
“Ever since Texas has been a state, an 18-year-old has had the ability to buy a long gun, a rifle. Since that time, it seems like it’s only been in the past decade or two that we’ve had school shootings. For a century and a half, 18-year-olds could buy rifles and we didn’t have school shootings. But we do,” Abbott said. “Maybe we’re focusing our attention on the wrong thing.”
What are YOUR thoughts? Should the 2nd Amendment stand as is or should we add restrictions on gun ownership throughout the country? Comment below.
Gun Tactics is dedicated to providing you with the very best Gun & Tactics News, Info And Media.
All of NY a Gun Free zone – Democrat New York Governor Kathy Hochul is championing the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), which critics say is burdensome and an infringement on numerous constitutional rights.
“In response to the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down New York’s century-old concealed carry law, we took swift and thoughtful action to keep New Yorkers safe,” Hochul said in a press release. “I refuse to surrender my right as Governor to protect New Yorkers from gun violence or any other form of harm. In New York State, we will continue leading the way forward and implementing common sense gun safety legislation.”
The CCIA requires New Yorkers applying for gun permits to provide all their social media accounts from the past three years, sparking concern over political bias in the approval process.
The legislation also bans guns from dozens of location types in New York, including churches, restaurants serving alcohol, public transportation, theaters, and public sidewalks.
“Effective September 1, 2022, the possession of a firearm, rifle, or shotgun is prohibited in sensitive locations,” a press release from the governor said, highlighting the following as “sensitive locations”:
Any location owned or under control of federal, state, or local government for the purpose of government administration, including courts;
Any location providing health, behavioral health, or chemical dependence care or services;
Places of worship or religious observation;
Libraries, public playgrounds, public parks, and zoos;
NYS Office of Children and Family Service licensed or funded facilities (childcare facilities);
Nursery schools, preschools, summer camps;
NYS Office for People with Developmental Disabilities licensed or funded facilities;
NYS Office of Addiction Services and Supports licensed or funded facilities;
NYS Office of Mental Health licensed or funded facilities;
NYS Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance licensed or funded facilities;
Homeless shelters, family shelters, domestic violence shelters;
NYS Department of Health licensed or funded residential facilities;
Colleges, universities, private schools, public schools, and other educational institutions;
Public transportation and transit facilities;
Bars and restaurants serving alcohol, and on-premises cannabis consumption locations;
Theaters, stadiums, racetracks, museums, amusement parks, performance venues, concert halls, exhibit halls, conference centers, banquet halls, gaming facilities, video lottery terminal facilities as licensed by the gaming commission;
Polling places;
Public sidewalks and other public areas that are restricted from general public access for a limited time or special event;
Gatherings of people to collectively express their constitutional rights to assemble or protest; and
Times Square (with boundaries determined by New York City).
All Of NY A Gun Free Zone
Gun Owners of America (GOA), a gun rights group suing the state over the legislation, said the CCIA “would essentially make all of NY a gun free zone and infringes upon the rights of its citizens.”
“New York state is blatantly citing racist and discriminatory laws in defense of their new Concealed Carry law,” the group said via Twitter on Wednesday. “GOA sued the state, and we hope to get an injunction TODAY!”
WATCH: New York state is blatantly citing racist and discriminatory laws in defense of their new Concealed Carry law, which would essentially make all of NY a gun free zone and infringes upon the rights of its citizens.
A federal judge on Wednesday sided with New York, asserting that GOA and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) did not have standing to represent their members in court, The Hill reported. The groups are expected to appeal to the U.S. Second Circuit Court.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) in July slammed the legislation, too, claiming New York State officials were “defying” the Supreme Court ruling and continuing “to conflate law-abiding license holders with the unlicensed scofflaws behind the surge in violent crime.”
What do YOU think about this? Comment below and we will share the best comments on Social Media.
Gun Tactics is dedicated to providing you with the very best Gun & Tactics News, Info And Media.
It was announced today by Illinois State Police that they have forced nearly 300 people in southern Illinois to give up ownership of their firearms after they had their firearms rights revoked. Over 300 people in Southern Illinois have firearms rights revoked as part of a “firearms enforcement blitz” from June 16 to July 31 in 41 southern Illinois counties, including St. Clair, Madison, Monroe, Clinton and Randolph counties, state police officers performed 710 “compliance checks,” which resulted in 295 people being “placed into compliance” with the state’s Firearms Owners Identification Card, or FOID card, law. Illinois State Police said those placed in compliance had to do the following:
Complete a firearms disposition record to detail the guns involved.
“The enforcement details are designed to ensure those who have had their firearm rights revoked are in compliance with the Firearms Owners Identification Card (FOID) Act,” the agency said in a news release. The enforcement details were conducted in all of the state’s 102 counties, ISP said in the release. Statewide, 1,027 people were placed into compliance with the FOID law.
“Compliance checks are not about confiscating guns, but about ensuring individuals who have lost their firearms rights to transfer their firearms to law enforcement or someone who is legally able to possess them,” Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly said during a news conference at the state police’s metro-east headquarters in Collinsville. “Illinois and the nation continue to confront how we as a society can prevent gun violence and there is no one answer or one action that any singular entity can take that will end this violence.” But he noted it takes “many” groups working together to make a difference while respecting a person’s rights under the Second Amendment.
“Ensuring those who pose a significant threat to themselves or others do not have access to firearms is not something law enforcement can do on its own,” Kelly said. He said medical professionals, school administrators and family members can contact law enforcement if they are concerned about someone they believe should not have access to guns. “It is often the people who interact with a person on a daily basis that notice threatening behavior,” Kelly said. “If you see something, say something.”
The FOID law actually requires law enforcement officials and school administrators to report to the Illinois State Police when “a student or other person is determined to pose a clear and present danger to themselves or others,” according to ISP. Kelly said there are about 2.4 million people with FOID cards in Illinois and that the state revoked about 20,000 cards in 2021. East St. Louis Police Chief Kendall Perry joined Kelly in the news conference and he praised the crackdown on FOID card violators.
Are new rules and laws really needed?
The Illinois State Police has received temporary permission from state officials for an emergency rule change to broaden the use of “clear and present danger reports” that can bar Illinois citizens from getting a FOID card or cause a revocation of a FOID card, according to a news release by Gov. J.B. Pritzker. This decision was announced after the July 4th mass shooting in Highland Park, Illinois, where seven people were killed. The suspect in this case had received a FOID card after a clear and present danger report previously had been filed on him. “The former administrative rule required a clear and present danger to be ‘impending,’ ‘imminent,’ ‘substantial’ or ‘significant,’ according to the governor’s news release. “Clear and present danger under state law however is more broadly defined requiring ‘physical or verbal behavior, such as violent, suicidal, or assaultive threats, actions, or other behavior…’” Pritzker said the state will seek to make this rule change permanent. Kelly said Wednesday if state lawmakers consider new gun control laws, his agency would give the legislators information requested, which could be the type of weapons are used in crimes or the firing capacity of guns “It’s the role of the Illinois State Police to provide facts, to provide our subject matter expertise,” he said. “We are not a political entity.” “It will be up to them, obviously, to reach whatever consensus is appropriate for the state,” Kelly said.
Gun Tactics is dedicated to providing you with the very best Gun & Tactics News, Info And Media.
![2690924869[1]](https://gun-tactics.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/26909248691-1024x576-1160x665.jpg "2690924869[1]")
![handgun-231696_960_720[1]](https://gun-tactics.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/handgun-231696_960_7201-1160x665.jpg "handgun-231696_960_720[1]")
