Gun Laws

Good

Colorado has proposed SB25-003, a law which would ban the manufacture, distribution, transfer, sale, and purchase of any semiautomatic firearm that has a detachable magazine, with the exception of .22 rimfire. First offense would be a misdemeanor, second offense a felony.

Exempt from this law is the government, colleges, and armed security guards that work for companies operating armored vehicles.

It also appears to establish a requirement to have a firearms license with required training that expires every 5 years and must be taught by a sheriff department approved instructor.

I hope this passes. This is so blatantly unconstitutional that there is no way it makes it through the courts.

By Divemedic, ago

Another Brick In The Wall

A Mississippi court in the 5th Circuit has just ruled that a ban on machine guns is inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of the 2nd Amendment, which makes the ban unconstitutional. Admittedly, this decision only applies to the defendant in the case, but it is the correct decision.

One court case at a time. There is a chance that, some time in my life, I will be able to go down to my LGS and walk out with a FA. That day will be a glorious one.

By Divemedic, ago

Caetano v. Massachusetts

The next time some brain dead moron tries saying that the Second Amendment only applies to muskets, please refer them to Caetano v. Massachusetts 577 U.S. 411 (2016). In that case, the US Supreme court held 9-0 that the Second Amendment applies to all bearable arms, not just those that were in existence at the time that the Second Amendment was ratified.

In that case, the Massachusetts Supreme court had ruled that stun guns are not protected [by the Second Amendment] because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” that stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” and that “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 

The U.S. Supreme Court, per curiam, vacated, reiterating that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that it has rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.”

This line of argument will eventually be the one that kills both the NFA and the GCA.

By Divemedic, ago

Guardians

Some of the cops who are acting as SROs in Orange county schools are demanding raises. This will result in $18 million in costs to the county for police coverage in schools located in 5 different Orange county cities. The school district says that they can’t afford it, so they are going to transition to using Guardians.

Don’t get excited. That doesn’t mean that teachers and other staff who want to carry concealed weapons will be permitted to do so. No, I have already posted on how the Guardian program is being misused because school administrators are leftists who only want guns in the hands of their friends.

Mom’s Demand Action is demanding that the schools simply find the money somehow.

It’s a little scary that our children’s safety can be negotiated, especially based on dollars

Yep, that’s the left- there is no tax to high, no gun control too onerous, no Constitutional right that is off limits, nor government spending that is too much when it comes to doing what they want done.

Keep in mind that cops who are charged with defending students have claimed in court that they don’t have to do anything, and the court has agreed.

Orange county was not previously a participant in the Guardian program. They would rather squander tens of millions of dollars each year in paying cops to arrest and hassle kids, but then hide in the parking lot when God forbid there IS an actual shooter.

When the Guardian program was first announced, I bought a new handgun just for what I thought it was going to be- armed teachers. I practiced with that firearm until I could exceed the minimum standards on the course of fire for Federal Air Marshals. Then the program was actually put in place, and what do you know- only cops and people who were politically connected were allowed to be part of it. May issue ALWAYS becomes a grift for leftists to steal more money from the public trough. It isn’t that the left is antigun, they are just only in favor of guns for other leftists.

By Divemedic, ago

Make This Make Sense

The Ninth Circuit made this ruling on so called “sensitive places” where states can prohibit firearms:

  • Parks, athletic facilities and similar areas. Gun bans there are likely constitutional.
  • Playgrounds and youth centers. Gun bans there are likely constitutional.
  • Bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. Gun bans there are likely constitutional.
  • Places of amusement, including casinos, stadiums, amusement parks, zoos, museums and libraries. Gun bans there are likely constitutional.
  • Parking areas connected to certain sensitive places. Gun bans there are likely constitutional.
  • The private-property default rule. Hawaii’s rule banning guns on private property unless the owner gives consent orally, in writing or on a sign is likely constitutional.
  • Places of worship. State-mandated gun bans there are likely unconstitutional, but nothing prevents the owner or operator from banning firearms.
  • Gatherings that require a permit. Gun bans there are likely unconstitutional.
  • Financial institutions. State-mandated gun bans there are likely unconstitutional, but nothing prevents the owner or operator from banning firearms.
  • Hospitals and other medical facilities. State-mandated gun bans there are likely unconstitutional, but nothing prevents the owner or operator from banning firearms.
  • Public transit. A broad ban on carrying guns on public transit is likely unconstitutional, but a narrower law allowing the carrying of unloaded and secured firearms would likely be constitutional.

It’s a Mish mash. It isn’t even consistent. Where in the Constitution is this even found? Where in the history and tradition of the country was there a ban on weapons in bard? Casinos? But not hospitals, churches, or banks?

If you argue that schools are sensitive places and rights can be suspended to protect children, then why not suspend the First Amendment there and disallow faggotry?

Our courts are just as partisan and divided as the citizens. It’s long past time to admit that this nation is too large and varied for one set of rules to work for everyone.

By Divemedic, ago

Going to SCOTUS

There are millions of Ford F150 pickup trucks on the roads of America. More than 41 million F-150s have been sold since the truck was introduced 76 years ago. The F series has been the best-selling truck in the U.S. for 47 years, and the best-selling vehicle of any kind in the U.S. for 42 years. If you walk out your front door and look around, you will probably seen a few F150s within the first few minutes outside.

That’s important, because with all of that popularity, one needs to remember that there are more AR patterned rifles in the US than there are F-150 pickups. Despite those facts, the Fourth district court of appeals has allowed that state’s ban on the AR-15 to remain in place because, the court ruled, the AR pattern rifle is “highly unusual.”

This means that the concept of Assault Weapons bans is heading to SCOTUS and is likely to appear on the court’s docket this term. The case, Bianchi v. Brown, is being brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

By Divemedic, ago

How do you know?

Couple arrested for pointing a rifle at a daycare center while taking bodybuilding photos.

This couple was using a rifle as a photo prop in a densely populated area. That was stupid, so let’s get that out of the way. However, the rest of the article and the charges are just as dumb. One of the charges was exhibiting a firearm on school property. It’s a strip mall, so the parking lot isn’t the grounds of a school. According to the center’s website and licensing information (It’s Devon Aire Kiddy College) they have a total of 13 children receiving voluntary pre-K out of the 90 or so kids who are ‘enrolled’ there. Pre-K isn’t elementary, middle, or secondary school, so the 1,000 foot restriction doesn’t apply:

 in the presence of one or more persons in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner and not in lawful self-defense, at a school-sponsored event or on the grounds or facilities of any school, school bus, or school bus stop, or within 1,000 feet of the real property that comprises a public or private elementary school, middle school, or secondary school, during school hours or during the time of a sanctioned school activity, commits a felony of the third degree, 

emphasis added

The daycare center in question is in a strip mall. Florida has no requirement that schools be registered or licensed. So even if this law did cover daycare centers, how is anyone supposed to know when they are within 1,000 feet of a daycare center?

By Divemedic, ago

My Florida Opinion

JKB over at GunFreeZone asks if it would be legal to shoot if this were to happen in [your state]. Here is my opinion on how Florida law would handle this:


At the beginning of the video, the three in it were committing a felony (grand larceny) as well as trespassing. You cannot use deadly force to protect property. However, as soon as they saw that the homeowner was there, they threatened to shoot him if he came out of his house. That immediately raises the offence to carjacking, which Florida law 812.133 defines thusly:

“Carjacking” means the taking of a motor vehicle which may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another, with intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the person or the owner of the motor vehicle, when in the course of the taking there is the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear.

It also constitutes robbery with a firearm, 812.13 (a first degree felony)

“Robbery” means the taking of money or other property which may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another, with intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the person or the owner of the money or other property, when in the course of the taking there is the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear.

The felons here are shouting that they have a gun and are willing to kill you to take the car. That creates another felony, aggravated assault 784.021:

(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:

(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or

(b) With an intent to commit a felony.

Since both felonies use the threat of force, they are forcible felonies. A forcible felony is defined in Florida 776.08 as:

“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

emphais added

So what can you do about stopping a forcible felony? Florida 776.031 explains that:

A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

So in Florida, you would be legally justified in shooting all of them.

By Divemedic, ago