Gun Laws

The Firearms Policy Coalition recently had a major victory in Federal court. On June 30, a Federal Judge in the Northern District of Texas struck down the ATF ruling that an 80 percent receiver is a firearm, and the order applies nationwide: the case is VanDerStok v. Garland. The judgement was final on July 5.

Last year, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a new rule that improperly defined a range of inert objects as “firearms.” This new definition of “firearm” contradicted the text of the federal Gun Control Act. With this effort to rewrite federal regulations, the Biden administration tried to redefine tens of thousands of individuals into criminals. The FPC sued, arguing that the rule was illegal. The winning argument was that the ATF exceeded its authority.

On June 30th, Judge Reed O’Connor of the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of the FPC and gun owners. This is a huge step forward. There will be an appeal from the ATF.

During the case, briefs were filed in support of the ATF by California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Washington. So there is your complete list of the 18 anti-freedom states.

On the freedom side of things, the FPC was joined by Defense Distributed, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Blackhawk Manufacturing (doing business as 80 percent arms). For now, it’s time to celebrate a major victory on behalf of the Constitution and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Read some of Judge O’Connor’s concluding words in his opinion (note: “defendants” refers to the ATF):

In sum, there is a legal distinction between a weapon parts kit, which may be an aggregation of partially manufactured parts not subject to the agency’s regulatory authority, and a “weapon” which “may readily be completed [or] assembled . . . to expel a projectile.” Defendants contend that drawing such a distinction will produce the absurd result whereby a person lawfully prohibited from possessing a firearm can obtain the necessary components and, given advances in technology, self-manufacture a firearm with relative ease and efficiency. Even if it is true that such an interpretation creates loopholes that as a policy matter should be avoided, it not the role of the judiciary to correct them. That is up to Congress. And until Congress enacts a different statute, the Court is bound to enforce the law as written.

I agree. It is time to stop these bureaucrats from becoming a de facto legislative body.

In light of the FPC’s fight against the ATF, I would recommend that we all donate at least a little to the FPC. They are doing good work. Fight the good fight. A dollar spent now may prevent ten spent later. Become a member and have a shot at winning a firearm. WE know they are doing more with our donations than the NRA ever has. Plus, they have cool stuff.

There are many in the gun community that are angry with Trump for the bump stock ban. I have never blamed Trump for the travesty that was the bump stock ban, because I don’t think that he is the one who sold out gun owners. Let’s be honest here- the NRA greenlighted the bump stock ban. This is nothing new, the NRA was pro gun control for most of its history.

In the 1920s, the National Revolver Association, the arm of the NRA responsible for handgun training, proposed regulations later adopted by nine states, requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon, five years additional prison time if the gun was used in a crime, a ban on gun sales to non-citizens, a one day waiting period between the purchase and receipt of a gun, and that records of gun sales be made available to police. Florida becoming the 26th state to get rid of concealed weapons carry as a crime meant getting rid of that NRA proposal after 100 years.

During the 1930’s, the NRA helped shape the National Firearms Act of 1934. President Franklin Roosevelt wanted to make gun control a feature of the New Deal. The NRA assisted Roosevelt in drafting National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act, the first federal gun control laws. These laws placed heavy taxes and regulation requirements on firearms that were associated with crime, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and silencers. Gun sellers and owners were required to register with the federal government and felons were banned from owning weapons. Not only was the legislation unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in 1939, but Karl T. Frederick, the president of the NRA, testified before Congress stating, “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

After the assasination of President John F. Kennedy on  Nov. 22, 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald with an Italian military surplus rifle purchased from a NRA mail-order advertisement, NRA Executive Vice-President Franklin Orth agreed at a congressional hearing that mail-order sales should be banned stating, “We do think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.”

The NRA also supported California’s Mulford Act of 1967, which had banned carrying loaded weapons in public in response to the Black Panther Party’s impromptu march on the State Capitol to protest gun control legislation on May 2, 1967.

Then came 1968. The assassinations of JFK, jr and Martin Luther King prompted Congress to enact the Gun Control Act of 1968. The act brought back some proposed laws from 1934, to include minimum age and serial number requirements, and extended the gun ban to include the mentally ill and drug addicts. In addition, it restricted the shipping of guns across state lines to collectors and federally licensed dealers. The only part of the proposed law that was opposed by the NRA was a national gun registry. In an interview in American Rifleman, Franklin Orth stated that despite portions of the law appearing “unduly restrictive, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

It wasn’t until a mini-revolt was staged at the 1977 NRA convention that there was a change in direction. A group of gun owners pushed back and deposed the old leaders in a move called the “Cincinnati Revolt.” Led by former NRA President Harlon Carter and Neal Knox, the revolt ended the tenure of Maxwell Rich as NRA executive vice president and introduced new bylaws. The Revolt at Cincinnati marked a huge change in direction for the NRA. The organization thereafter changed from “hunting, conservation, and marksmanship” and towards the defense of the right to keep and bear arms. The catalyst for this movement was that the NRA wanted to move its headquarters from Washington, DC to Colorado. The new headquarters in Colorado was to be an “Outdoors center” that was more about hunting and recreational shooting than it was the RKBA.

I became a member of the NRA about a decade later and remained an annual member, until I became a life member about 15 years later. I believed for years that the NRA was fighting the good fight for gun owners. It wasn’t.

The NRA was always influenced by a group of Fudds who supported hunting, but hated guns that weren’t for hunting. The bureaucrats who were a part of the NRA’s organization always tried to steer towards hunting, eventually caused the organization to morph into an organization that used the threat of Democrat gun bans for fundraising.

LaPierre was able to use the large flow of money to fund his luxurious life on the company dime, including over $13 million each year for travel and a postemployment golden parachute worth $17 million. LaPierre testified in the NRA’s bankruptcy hearings about his annual weeklong trips to the Bahamas on the company dime.

All they were good at was bargaining away gun rights to the Democrat gun banners in exchange for money and power. That’s why my political donations for the past 15 years went to other gun rights organizations, and yours should, too.

EDITED TO ADD:

Thanks to an anonymous poster, we get this quote, directly from the pages of the March 1968 edition of The American Rifleman, the NRA’s official monthly publication:

the NRA has consistently supported gun legislation which it feels would penalize misuse of guns without harassing law-abiding hunters, target shooters, and collectors”

NRA president Karl T. Frederick

Note that they make no mention of RKBA as anything other than support for the hobby of hunting. The article goes on to declare the NRA’s support for firearm registration, waiting periods, as well as prohibitions on sales of ammunition and firearms across state lines. The also express support for the prohibition of firearms to what they termed as :undesirables.”

The NRA is not, and apparently never has been, a true supporter of the Second Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. They should rename it the National Hunting Association. It can collapse and die for all I care. We don’t need them.

This guy complains that Florida’s constitutional carry is dangerous because there is no training requirement for people to carry a weapon. While I agree that people need training, this guy is being a disingenuous prick. Let me tell you why.

This is how he fulfills the “instructor must observe the student firing a weapon” requirement that is under Florida’s current CCW training requirement. Does that look like a class being taught by an instructor that cares about firearms training? Does that look like a high quality class? He gives a 2 hour class, where there is a 20 question quiz at the end that he gives the students the answers to, then makes them fire a single round into a bullet trap.

His class is nothing more than a scam to meet the bare requirements of the law, extract $49 from students, and try to sucker them into taking other courses that aren’t required by the law. Reading that article, I would steer clear of Brandon Gun School. There are other schools out there that deliver a much better class than that, and aren’t of the “I’m a gunowner, but” brand of instructor who is willing to sell out gun owners for a quick buck…

Let me start by saying that I am not a lawyer, and you therefore shouldn’t rely upon my advice. With that being said, here is my reading on the new “constitutional carry” law that was signed by the governor today. (pdf alert, but not stored here at SectorOcho)

It removes the legal requirement to have a concealed weapons permit for anyone who can legally receive a concealed weapons permit in the state of Florida. If also removes the restriction against having a firearm in a pharmacy that was previously in effect for anyone not a LEO or a CWP holder.

Places that are off limits to carry remain otherwise unchanged. If you are legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon, carrying a weapon at a school is a misdemeanor. I still advise maintaining a permit because permit holders do not have to go through a waiting period for purchases.

Here is the big change, as far as I am concerned:

790.251 Protection of the right to keep and bear arms in motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes; prohibited acts; duty of public and private employers; immunity from liability; enforcement.—
(2) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section, the term:
(c) “Employee” means any person who is authorized to carry a concealed weapon or concealed firearm under s. 790.01(1) possesses a valid license issued pursuant to s. 790.06 and:
1. Works for salary, wages, or other remuneration;
2. Is an independent contractor; or
3. Is a volunteer, intern, or other similar individual for an employer.

As used in this section, the term “firearm” includes ammunition and accoutrements attendant to the lawful possession and use of a firearm.

No public or private employer may violate the constitutional rights of any customer, employee, or invitee as provided in paragraphs (a)-(e):
(c) No public or private employer shall condition employment upon either:
1. The fact that an employee or prospective employee is authorized to carry a concealed weapon or concealed firearm under s. 790.01(1) holds or does not hold a license issued pursuant to s. 790.06; or
2. Any agreement by an employee or a prospective employee that prohibits an employee from keeping a legal firearm locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot when such firearm is kept for lawful purposes.
This subsection applies to all public sector employers, including those already prohibited from regulating firearms under the provisions of s. 790.33.

If you recall, the previous law was a bit of a gray area when it came to guns in parking lots. Take that, Disney.

A bunch of other stuff was added that governs schools and school boards. I haven’t read that yet.

So there you have it, some big changes coming to the state on July 1 when the law takes effect. I will be waiting to see some lawyer’s interpretations of the new law.