2nd Amendment updates
- Thread starter belvedere
- Start date
Belve.....have you ever seen or heard of this? I came across it looking for something else.
publicleadershipinstitute.org
Firearms Arsenal Disclosure Act - Public leadership Institute
Summary: The Firearms Arsenal Disclosure Act requires individuals to disclose to law enforcement when they personally own an unusually large number of firearms and applies to them the recordkeeping, safe storage and other requirements that apply to licensed firearms dealers. … Continue reading →
publicleadershipinstitute.org
I had heard of that, but as far as I know it never made it to a vote or at least in the US Congress. It or some version of it may have made it is some of the communist states. I saw the whole bill at some point and one of the main reasons it never saw the light of day was not because it was unconstitutional but because it didn't have a prescribed penalty for the violation for it. It's like this stupid piece of crap they hung on our permitless carry law. They added a provision in there we now have a "responsibility to respond" if we are stopped and asked by a LEO if we have a "weapon" in the vehicle. Before they did this we could tell him to go pound sand. Now if we don't answer or lie to the cop we can be arrested for " not responding" but there is no penalty for it, so about the only thing a judge can do is sentence you to go home and watch Okra and eat peanut butter.
New York to Block Sale of Glock Pistols?
Discover the concerns surrounding the sale of certain pistols in New York. Learn about the debates over the potential ban on Glock handguns.
A Ninth Circuit panel Thursday ruled that a blanket prohibition on convicted felons possessing firearms violates their Second Amendment rights, at least when it comes to nonviolent offenders who served out their sentence.
In a split decision, the three-judge panel threw out firearm possession conviction of a Los Angeles member of a street gang who had five prior felony convictions and was later sentenced to 51 months in federal prison for being a “felon-in-possession.”
Writing for the majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Carlos Bea, a George W. Bush appointee, said the landmark 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen requires that the government shows that there is a historical tradition that supports the categorical prohibition on defendants such as Steve Duarte possessing a firearm.
This, according to the judge, the government failed to do because there was no analogous law at the time of the Founding Fathers that someone like Duarte would have been deprived of their right to bear arms. In fact, the judge said, his offenses would have been considered misdemeanors rather than felonies or not even have existed at all in the 18th and 19th centuries.
“We do not base our decision on the notion that felons should not be prohibited from possessing firearms,” Bea wrote, noting that as a matter of policy the blanket prohibition may make a great deal of sense. But, citing preceding decisions, the judge said “the very enumeration of the Second Amendment right in our Constitution takes out of our hands the power to decide for which Americans that right is really worth insisting upon.”
U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a Donald Trump appointee, joined Bea in the majority opinion.
U.S. District Judge Milan Smith Jr., another George W. Bush appointee, dissented and said that Supreme Court’s Bruen decision didn’t invalidate existing Ninth Circuit law on the issue but in fact reiterated “that the Second Amendment right belongs only to law-abiding citizens.”
Thursday’s ruling is a shift in Ninth Circuit law, and it differs from the view adopted by many circuits, said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California in Los Angeles. However, it’s similar to what the Philadelphia-based Third Circuit decided last year in Range v. Attorney General, according to The majority opinion left open the possibility that felons convicted of violent crimes could still be prohibited from owning firearms after they served their sentence.
In the case of felonies that in the 18th and 19th centuries were traditionally punished with with death, forfeiture of the offender’s estate or a life sentence, Bea said, we might “venture to assume it settled that these offenses were of a kind the Founding generation thought serious enough to warrant the permanent loss of the offender’s Second Amendment right.”
The U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, which defended Duarte’s conviction before the Ninth Circuit panel, declined to comment on the ruling.
However, according to Volokh. federal prosecutors are likely to ask the Ninth Circuit for an en banc review of the decision, where all the judges of the Ninth Circuit will hear the case.
“That review will probably be influenced by the Supreme Court’s Rahimi case, which deals with whether people subject to domestic violence restraining orders lose their Second Amendment rights, and which is due to come down from the court by June 30,” Volokh said. “The question in Rahimi and the question in this case aren’t identical, but they share considerable similarities.”
In a split decision, the three-judge panel threw out firearm possession conviction of a Los Angeles member of a street gang who had five prior felony convictions and was later sentenced to 51 months in federal prison for being a “felon-in-possession.”
Writing for the majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Carlos Bea, a George W. Bush appointee, said the landmark 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen requires that the government shows that there is a historical tradition that supports the categorical prohibition on defendants such as Steve Duarte possessing a firearm.
This, according to the judge, the government failed to do because there was no analogous law at the time of the Founding Fathers that someone like Duarte would have been deprived of their right to bear arms. In fact, the judge said, his offenses would have been considered misdemeanors rather than felonies or not even have existed at all in the 18th and 19th centuries.
“We do not base our decision on the notion that felons should not be prohibited from possessing firearms,” Bea wrote, noting that as a matter of policy the blanket prohibition may make a great deal of sense. But, citing preceding decisions, the judge said “the very enumeration of the Second Amendment right in our Constitution takes out of our hands the power to decide for which Americans that right is really worth insisting upon.”
U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a Donald Trump appointee, joined Bea in the majority opinion.
U.S. District Judge Milan Smith Jr., another George W. Bush appointee, dissented and said that Supreme Court’s Bruen decision didn’t invalidate existing Ninth Circuit law on the issue but in fact reiterated “that the Second Amendment right belongs only to law-abiding citizens.”
Thursday’s ruling is a shift in Ninth Circuit law, and it differs from the view adopted by many circuits, said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California in Los Angeles. However, it’s similar to what the Philadelphia-based Third Circuit decided last year in Range v. Attorney General, according to The majority opinion left open the possibility that felons convicted of violent crimes could still be prohibited from owning firearms after they served their sentence.
In the case of felonies that in the 18th and 19th centuries were traditionally punished with with death, forfeiture of the offender’s estate or a life sentence, Bea said, we might “venture to assume it settled that these offenses were of a kind the Founding generation thought serious enough to warrant the permanent loss of the offender’s Second Amendment right.”
The U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, which defended Duarte’s conviction before the Ninth Circuit panel, declined to comment on the ruling.
However, according to Volokh. federal prosecutors are likely to ask the Ninth Circuit for an en banc review of the decision, where all the judges of the Ninth Circuit will hear the case.
“That review will probably be influenced by the Supreme Court’s Rahimi case, which deals with whether people subject to domestic violence restraining orders lose their Second Amendment rights, and which is due to come down from the court by June 30,” Volokh said. “The question in Rahimi and the question in this case aren’t identical, but they share considerable similarities.”
I'm not sure about this one. While I know several people who have had felony convictions for bullspit charges ? I somehow think they'll screw this up and put firearms back into the hands of violent offenders.
I also know that in Mo....You can get your gun rights back, IF you have enough money. Which is complete bullspit. Myself, I've been jailed twice for domestic violence. And to this day have never struck a woman. Both instances were over 2 decades ago. Both cases involved violent women. In both cases, charges were not filed. The new standard is to jail both parties involved. While this might be a bit more fair ? To have this turned into a revenue stream is a major concern.
On decriminalization of marijuana. Had a HEATED argument with one of She's kids over this. The overturning of previous convictions. Her view was that anyone convicted should be set free, my view ? BULLSPIT !! My reasons being.
1. It was illegal when they were busted. Just because it's legal now ? You were still breaking the law THEN.
2. LOOK at the amount of weed involved. If it was under 1 pound ? Yeah, I might go for that. But if you were trafficking ? HELL NO. This is why.
If you were trafficking in drugs ? It was for the MONEY. Which in effect means, When they get out, Most will start trafficking in something else. Financial gain is the motive.
My worry, Is this will be done in a typical government blanket style amnesty. This could very well bite us in the ass. When these people start committing crimes, They will now be counted as the law abiding citizen. And if not careful ? We, The L.A.B. (law abiding citizen) could get a statistical bite in the arse.
In Mo. Concealed carry requires NO training at all. I'm waiting for this to bite us in the arse. There are too many fools running around out there that DO NOT know the law for when and where they can use a firearm.
This deserves careful scrutiny.....
I also know that in Mo....You can get your gun rights back, IF you have enough money. Which is complete bullspit. Myself, I've been jailed twice for domestic violence. And to this day have never struck a woman. Both instances were over 2 decades ago. Both cases involved violent women. In both cases, charges were not filed. The new standard is to jail both parties involved. While this might be a bit more fair ? To have this turned into a revenue stream is a major concern.
On decriminalization of marijuana. Had a HEATED argument with one of She's kids over this. The overturning of previous convictions. Her view was that anyone convicted should be set free, my view ? BULLSPIT !! My reasons being.
1. It was illegal when they were busted. Just because it's legal now ? You were still breaking the law THEN.
2. LOOK at the amount of weed involved. If it was under 1 pound ? Yeah, I might go for that. But if you were trafficking ? HELL NO. This is why.
If you were trafficking in drugs ? It was for the MONEY. Which in effect means, When they get out, Most will start trafficking in something else. Financial gain is the motive.
My worry, Is this will be done in a typical government blanket style amnesty. This could very well bite us in the ass. When these people start committing crimes, They will now be counted as the law abiding citizen. And if not careful ? We, The L.A.B. (law abiding citizen) could get a statistical bite in the arse.
In Mo. Concealed carry requires NO training at all. I'm waiting for this to bite us in the arse. There are too many fools running around out there that DO NOT know the law for when and where they can use a firearm.
This deserves careful scrutiny.....
Kind of what I was thinking Krp. One can get there gun rights back in Va. but they have to go through a process. I think there will be a lot of stuff coming up that we haven't thought about yet. It is funny that Dems want to get rid of guns but aren't Leary of giving gun rights back. Just makes me think what the real issue is.
If and that's a big IF a person has served the time for the crime and is released from prison then supposedly they have paid their debt to society. This being said then yes they should be restored all the rights that were taken. Now the truth is NOBODY has ever paid their debt to society in reality. They were convicted and sentenced to say 10 years. They were fed, housed, free Dr care, free dental, clothes etc. They didn't pay for any of this. The tax payer--you and me , paid for this. They were simply put in a different housing environment and made to play with other people that did the same or similar things.
Most of these people that wanted to got their voting rights restored by simply filling out a piece of paper. If you follow the logic of this no constitutional right is any more important than any other right so the return of their 2nd amendment right should be the same. The problem with all of this is violent people that are habitual violent criminals are going to just wash rinse and repeat, so what do we do? The reasoning of parole, release, completion of sentence is all screwed up. Mandatory sentencing is all screwed up. If the person is released from prison for whatever reason should have their rights restored. If they are too dangerous or deemed a threat to society then they should be kept locked up. It's that simple.
There is a helluva difference between a 17 year old kid that steals a car and has never done anything before and is not likely to do anything illegal again and a 17 year old kid that is a drug dealer, killed 7 people and is going to jail for his masters in crime. We don't have the room or the need to feed and care for the second case so we have two choices, either house the bastard and feed him for 7 years---a life sentence is 7 years, and then turn them loose or fly low over the Gulf of Mexico and see how many times they will bounce on the water before they get caught by a shark. I'm in favor of the second choice.
Most of these people that wanted to got their voting rights restored by simply filling out a piece of paper. If you follow the logic of this no constitutional right is any more important than any other right so the return of their 2nd amendment right should be the same. The problem with all of this is violent people that are habitual violent criminals are going to just wash rinse and repeat, so what do we do? The reasoning of parole, release, completion of sentence is all screwed up. Mandatory sentencing is all screwed up. If the person is released from prison for whatever reason should have their rights restored. If they are too dangerous or deemed a threat to society then they should be kept locked up. It's that simple.
There is a helluva difference between a 17 year old kid that steals a car and has never done anything before and is not likely to do anything illegal again and a 17 year old kid that is a drug dealer, killed 7 people and is going to jail for his masters in crime. We don't have the room or the need to feed and care for the second case so we have two choices, either house the bastard and feed him for 7 years---a life sentence is 7 years, and then turn them loose or fly low over the Gulf of Mexico and see how many times they will bounce on the water before they get caught by a shark. I'm in favor of the second choice.
You are right. It should be based on what crime was committed. If they physically harmed anyone in any way and is a felon ....sorry , no gun rights for you. Past habits are not automatically done away with. Personal actions are usually repeated as time goes by. Crimes against children are statistically proven to be repeated by perps. As well as many other crimes. Yeah....if you do the crime you do the time but that doesn't necessarily change behavior. How to change behavior is the biggest challenge. Criminals ARE taken care of financially while in jail on our dime. So it should be "do the crime and I will take care of you on MY dime". Make the criminals pay it back when they get out of jail. When they served the time and not until they pay that money back that took care of them while they were in prison should they get ANY rights back. If they really wanted their rights back for the good of society then the felons shouldn't mind. Otherwise, the felons really didn't PAY for their crime and just want their rights back for other reasons.
Affecting someone's money would be a bigger deterrence on commiting crime than letting them sit on their arse in a jail cell not having to do anything and basically getting paid while doing it. Going to prison would just be a small part in society reform. They should be required financially for society reform.
Affecting someone's money would be a bigger deterrence on commiting crime than letting them sit on their arse in a jail cell not having to do anything and basically getting paid while doing it. Going to prison would just be a small part in society reform. They should be required financially for society reform.
Senators Katie Britt and Tommy Tubberville have signed onto a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to strike down the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule on the definitions of “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms. This rule ignores the law and congressional intent and flagrantly violates the Constitution to try to require anyone who sells a firearm to register as a federal firearm licensee.
“The Second Amendment is sacred – and Joe Biden doesn’t get to regulate Americans’ right to bear arms, “ said Senator Tuberville. “Once again, the Biden Administration is trying to overregulate the gun industry and take away Americans’ rights. Make no mistake – this is an election year ploy. As long as I’m in the Senate, I’ll fight to make sure Alabamians’ Second Amendment rights are protected.”
According to the ATF, on April 10, 2024, the Attorney General signed ATF’s final rule, Definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms, amending ATF’s regulations in title 27, Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”), part 478.
“Under this regulation, it will not matter if guns are sold on the internet, at a gun show, or at a brick-and-mortar store: if you sell guns predominantly to earn a profit, you must be licensed, and you must conduct background checks,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in a statement his office released. “This regulation is a historic step in the Justice Department’s fight against gun violence. It will save lives.”
The joint resolution follows several lawsuits against the rule, including one filed in Kansas that Attorney General Steve Marshall’s office has joined.
Representative Andrew Clyde is leading the resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives. Alabama representatives Robert Aderholt, Gary Palmer, Mike Rogers and Barry Moore, were original co-sponsors of his resolution.
According to Clyde’s office, the resolution is endorsed by national Second Amendment groups Gun Owners of America (GOA), the National Rifle Association (NRA), and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).
“With a stroke of the pen, the Biden Administration once again oversteps its authority with this new rule. This regulation threatens to turn tens of thousands of upstanding citizens into criminals for exercising their constitutional rights by selling even a single firearm. The NRA fully supports Senator Cornyn and Representative Clyde’s legislation to invalidate this egregious rule,” said Randy Kozuch, Executive Director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.
“The ATF’s ‘Engaged in the Business’ Final Rule is President Biden’s unconstitutional attempt to impose by executive rule making a form of so-called ‘Universal Background Checks’ expressly rejected by Congress. This rule threatens law-abiding Americans with criminal sanction including imprisonment for occasionally privately selling firearms, conduct Congress has said does not require a license. The constitution does not grant ATF authority to ‘improve’ on what Congress has enacted or to create from whole cloth crimes not enacted by Congress. NSSF thanks Congressman Andrew Clyde for his leadership to exert Congress’ sole authority to craft criminal law, to constrain the growth of the administrative state that threatens our democracy and to stand up for the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel.
