Tag: firearms policy coalition

Court Denies Temporary Injunction to Bump Stock Ban

Thomas DiGennaro | @tom.digennaro

Firearms Policy Coalition, a grassroots gun rights advocacy organization, filed two different legal suits challenging the bump-stock ban. The first suit, FPC v. Whitaker challenged the constitutionality of President Trump’s appointment of Attorney General Whitaker. FPC’s statement reads “[Acting Attorney General Whitaker] has no authority to issue the [bump-stock ban] because the President failed to adhere to the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and federal laws regarding succession and vacancies in the office”. The second suit, Guedes v. BATFE, challenged the ATF’s classification of bump-fire as machine guns under the NFA. 35 exhibits that attempted to prove this claim false were filed. They filed a motion seeking a temporary injunction to prevent the Trump Administration from implementing and enforcing the new regulation.

Continue reading “Court Denies Temporary Injunction to Bump Stock Ban”

Advertisements

Proposed Oregon Gun Bill: Ineffective and Oppressive

Thomas DiGennaro | United States

OR SB 501 is working its way through the state legislature. Originally proposed by Democrat State Senator Robert Wagner, it has the potential to severely diminish the rights of Oregon gun owners. Before it got to Wagner’s desk, a group of activists Students for Change drafted the Oregon gun bill.

Apparently, a group of college kids who know next to nothing about firearms is definitely qualified to draft legislation that affects over 1,000,000 gun owners. If the bill passes, citizens will face stricter regulation than even Connecticutians or Californians. When the two states with the strictest gun laws are in there for comparison, you know it’s serious.

What OR SB 501 Entails

  • Bans magazines/weapons with a capacity of over 5 rounds
  • Limits ammunition purchases to 20 rounds per month
  • Mandates a permit for any firearm purchase (regardless of firearm class)
  • Mandates background checks on ammunition
  • Implements 14-day waiting periods on firearm purchases

The Firearms Policy Coalition has included this Oregon gun bill, and countless others, on their take action page, where you can contact your representatives to oppose this legislation.

Even New York has a 10 round magazine capacity, does not require a permit for rifle or shotgun purchases, and has neither limits nor background checks on ammunition purchases. This is the state with the world’s biggest city and some of the strictest gun laws in the country. However, these measures would have Oregon far surpass the Empire State.

The Oregon Gun Bill: Ineffective Measures

Clearly, these proposals egregiously violate the most basic rights of gun owners. They also make owning a firearm for legitimate purposes very inconvenient. Obviously, the five-round capacity is outrageous. This would force gun owners to turn in or destroy common, legally owned six-round revolvers, remarked Republican Oregon Representative Bill Post.

Moreover, limiting the purchase of ammunition to 20 rounds per month would interfere with individuals who wish to engage in basic target shooting or hunting. Without a doubt, most gun owners go through more than that in just one hour at a range.

A 14-day waiting period could endanger those seeking a firearm for their own self-protection. In many cases, individuals desire a gun when they or their families may be in danger. 14 days is plenty of time for an aggressor to mount an attack on an unarmed defendant.

I shouldn’t have to explain why background checks for ammunition are ludicrous. Background checks for firearms are already in place.

Stay in Your Lane

Not only is the proposal repressive towards basic sporting, hunting, and self-defense, it also will be largely ineffective in deterring crime and mass shootings. These measures would partially disarm legal gun owners.

However, they would have little to no impact on the illegally-owned firearms in circulation. If you cap magazines at five rounds and ammo purchases at 20 rounds per month, law-abiding citizens will have inadequate arms and munitions to defend themselves from those who operate on the outside of righteousness.

This attempt to find a solution to gun violence is an absolute blunder. It is a prime example of why those ignorant on the subject should not be involved in the legislative process.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

We Can’t Trust Trump to Stop the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019

Thomas DiGennaro | United States

Senator Feinstein of California has introduced Bill S 66 the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 which includes the following regulations:

Key Provisions:

  • Bans the sale, manufacture, transfer, and importation of 205 military-style assault weapons by name. Owners may keep existing weapons.
  • Bans any assault weapon that accepts a detachable ammunition magazine and has one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock. Owners may keep existing weapons.
  • Bans magazines and other ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, which allow shooters to quickly fire many rounds without needing to reload. Owners may keep existing magazines.

Exemptions to Bill:

  • The bill exempts by name more than 2,200 guns for hunting, household defense or recreational purposes.
  • The bill includes a grandfather clause that exempts all weapons lawfully possessed at the date of enactment.

Other Provisions:

  • Requires a background check on any future sale, trade or gifting of an assault weapon covered by the bill.
  • Requires that grandfathered assault weapons are stored using a secure gun storage or safety device like a trigger lock.
  • Prohibits the transfer of high-capacity ammunition magazines.
  • Bans bump-fire stocks and other devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire at fully automatic rates.

Updates to Assault Weapons Ban of 2017:

  • Bans stocks that are “otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability of a firearm.”
  • Bans assault pistols that weigh 50 or more ounces when unloaded, a policy included in the original 1994 ban.
  • Bans assault pistol stabilizing braces that transform assault pistols into assault rifles by allowing the shooter to shoulder the weapon and fire more accurately.
  • Bans Thordsen-type grips and stocks that are designed to evade a ban on assault weapons

This legislation would essentially force the rest of the nation to comply with New York and California regulations of semi-automatic rifles. In other words, a semi-automatic AR-15 with a detachable magazine would never be sold again at a gun store. This legislation will effectively ensure that future generations do not have legal means to obtain sufficient arms and munitions to keep a tyrannical government in check or to defend themselves against criminals.

This is it, ladies and gentlemen, this is the legislation we have long feared. This is the justification for the NRA and the Trump Administration caving on the bump stock ban, in order to appease lawmakers like Feinstein and prevent this type of legislation. But you give the mouse the cookie, be damn well sure they’re coming for the glass of milk.

The scariest part? It just may get through the Republican Senate and have Trump’s signature on it. Trump’s priority is building the wall, and the majority of Senate Republicans’ priority is to end the government shutdown. If Feinstein and the Democrats in Congress give Trump his wall and end the shutdown, we might just be looking at our worst fears come true. Isn’t that just the beauty of democracy? The left and right working together, coming to compromise. Compromise at the expense of the American people’s liberties.

The NRA has not released any statements regarding this yet. Trump made remarks supporting Feinstein’s proposals of Assault Weapon Bans, as well as advocating for the expansion of background checks, in February 2018. With the NRA’s and Trump’s support of bump-stock bans, red flag laws, expansion of background checks, and encouragement of lawmakers to pass more gun laws, I wouldn’t hold my breath on their opposition.

What hope do we have for halting the continued perversion of the Second Amendment? As usual, Firearms Policy Coalition is doing what they do best; taking action to defend the Second. They have announced their strong opposition to this bill, set up a link on their site to contact your congressional representatives to demonstrate your opposition, and are likely working on legal action to be filed if S 66 moves forward. This, of course, is in addition to their two legal suits against the bump stock ban, and against California’s violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendment. We can also likely count on Senator Rand Paul getting up on the soapbox and filibustering the hell out of this bill.

If your Second Amendment rights are important to you, don’t bet it all on Trump, the Republican Senate, or the NRA. Make your voice heard to your representatives, and donate what you can to Senator Paul and FPC. Those dollars will surely be used more efficiently than your tax dollars.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.

Featured Image Source

Gun Groups File Lawsuit in Defense of California Gun Owners

Thomas DiGennaro | United States

The FPC is at it again, furiously defending gun owners and their rights. This time, they have partnered with the Calguns Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Madison Society Foundation to file a joint suit against the State of California, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, California DOJ Bureau of Firearms Chief Martin Horan, and California Deputy Attorney General Robert Wilson. This suit is filed by legal representation for two California residents, as well as the previously listed advocacy groups.

The two residents are Chad Lipton and Paul McKinley have previously (decades ago) been convicted of non-violent felonies in states outside of Californias jurisdiction, have had those felonies vacated by their respective courts, and have no federal prohibitions against firearm ownership. However, California DOJ has still not afforded them and outright denies them, their firearm purchases. The California DOJ is awfully aware that Arizona and Washington (the courts of original jurisdiction) have restored and recognized their Second Amendment Rights, which is a key factor in this lawsuit being filed.

This contradiction between Washington and Arizona’s courts to California’s courts extends the unconstitutionality of the matter from solely the Second Amendment to the Fourteenth Amendment as well, specifically the “full faith and credit” clause. Plaintiffs also argue that this contradiction occurs because California and its DOJ has set out to prevent as many citizens from being armed as they can make a legal justification for, no matter how remote or unconstitutional. They have “ignored the judgments and pronouncements of the courts of other states because they do not prefer the policy outcome“, and thus the Fourteenth Amendment violations. While California isn’t exactly known as the most gun-friendly state, there are still over 4.2 million gun owners residing within its borders, and many of the elected officials, as well as chief law enforcement, are working very hard to reduce that number. 

“The question presented by this case is whether the State of California, through its chief law enforcement officers, can prevent current California residents who are not federally or otherwise prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms if their previously-disqualifying offenses, which occurred in other states, have been vacated, and especially when their fundamental, individual rights have been fully restored to them by courts of competent jurisdiction in those respective states”, reads the first lines of the key filings of the legal suit.

Firearms Policy Coalition is a well run, fierce, and vehemently pro-gun advocacy group that puts the dollars you give them towards legal action to defend the rights of gun owners in all fifty states. Prior to their role in this suit, they filed two separate suits against the ATF and the Trump Administration for the bump-fire stock ban and are actively devoting time and resources to the cause they stand for, unlike the NRA, who don’t earnestly fight for your gun rights.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.

Featured Image Source