This is TTAG’s weekly roundup of legal and legislative news affecting guns, the gun business and gun owners’ rights. To read more, a deeper dive is available here at Firearms Policy Coalition.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Case Set for Oral Argument
This week, the Supreme Court set New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York for oral arguments. This comes after NYC begged the Court to stay out in every conceivable way. Even promising that should the case continue, the city would not argue anything beyond their assertion that the case is moot.
In this case, the plaintiffs argued that a city law banning transport of lawfully owned firearms anywhere but one of six licensed firing ranges inside of New York City was unconstitutional. The government argued that the case was moot because they had changed the law, eliminating the provisions the petitioners asserted as unconstitutional. The court rejected these attempts to derail the first gun case in a decade, instead stating the mootness argument could be addressed during oral arguments.
It will be interesting to see how the defendant, New York City, proceeds. Will it stick to its anti-gun guns and refuse to address the merits of the case, hoping it makes the justices uncomfortable? Will it cave and give a full-throated defense of its arbitrary and irrational laws? This will be one for the record books, that’s all that is clear.
Ohio Governor rejects “red flag” laws
In Ohio, Governor Mike DeWine took a stand, if you can call it that, on new gun control legislation. DwWine rejected red flag laws, citing their inefficacy and dangerousness. He didn’t stop there, though, because that would be far too much to ask. DeWine continued by recommending expanding involuntary commitment statutes in the state and instituting “seller protection certificates.”
While it’s refreshing to see politicians recognize the various problems inherent in red flag laws, something we have covered in depth, involuntary commitment laws are no better as a “solution,” and pose even more serious problems.
DeWine’s proposed expansion would force people involuntarily committed to mental health facilities to turn in, sell or give away their firearms and do the same to people with drug addiction.
This is problematic because involuntary commitment often comes without proper due process, and it’s unclear whether the state would provide an effective means of restoring the rights of people subject to the law. Drug addiction poses its own course of problems: who defines “addiction?” What is the permanence of the rights revocation? Would this discourage addicts to seek treatment?
Presidential Candidate Beto O’Rourke continues to push a ban on “assault weapons” and a mandatory gun buyback
Presidential (not-so)hopeful Beto O’Rourke again pushed the dimly-lit torch for a gun “buyback” and ban on “assault weapons.” This comes after he has faced pushback at rallies because of statements he’d made at the third Democratic National Debate in September. Gun confiscation “mandatory buybacks” are his official stance on American gun control.
It’s a real shame aggressive contempt for the Constitution and the rights of Americans doesn’t disqualify people from political office. If only we made them swear an oath to uphold it….
California Governor signs ban on the purchase multiple long guns per month
Friday saw the Governor of California sign Senate Bill 61 into law. SB61 limits citizens to the purchase of one long gun per month. A similar restriction already applied to handguns in the state.
This restriction passed after many years of failed attempts. Perhaps that’s because the law is idiotic, as people generally can only competently operate one rifle at a time. The gun control crowd’s fascination with the number of weapons a person owns or buys will always escape me.
Challenge to California’s open carry restrictions argued in federal court
On Thursday, a challenge to California’s 2012 restrictions on open carry was heard in federal court. The petitioners argued that the state’s requiring applicants show “good cause” for an open carry permit amounts to a de facto ban.
The petitioners also argued that the state effectively bans open carry because it provides no realistic procedure to even start an application for an open carry permit-the state won’t even provide sheriffs with the necessary forms.
Young adult handgun purchase ban shot down in federal court
Western District Court of Virginia overruled a lower court decision that found an age restriction of 21 years old on handgun purchases unconstitutional. Two young adults from Virginia were denied the ability to purchase a handgun, one of whom had been the victim of an abusive relationship.
The pair announced their plan to appeal the decision this week. While the loss wasn’t a big surprise, it’s good to see these young people keeping up the fight. This is the only way we’re going to see change. People aged 18-21 are adults. There is no excuse for categorically denying the basic human rights of such a broad swath of people.
2 concerns with all in this article.
Most important in my perspective. The Supreme Court and NYC.
Id like to see NYC and almost all if not all gun laws tossed out for review. All under Strict scrutiny.
In other words and its my dream. Hand the anti gun folks their collective asse$.
The other being Kommifornia. Kick them out of the Union or split it up.
Kicking them out would be preferred. 28 million crazy people. Let thm wreck themselves and leave the rest of us out of it.
Maybe if we are lucky. It will just drop into the ocean in the near future.
Good for Ohio. They have a bunch of jackasse$ running the show there too lately.
JIF,
Kick them out…OK.
Break them up…not OK…potentially gives them more electoral votes.
Well Sir’s most of California woes are your fault
because?
you let in all the Illegal aliens and let them stay morons!
and guess what…uneducated illegals vote Dem/lefty for more free stuff (or at least their kids do and you all let that happen too BS birthright citizenship when both mommy and daddy are lawbreakers…WHO passes that law?)
— well we tried to end this crud, all the WAY BACK IN 1994 with California proposition 187 it passed by 60%. a big number to pass by in a non-presidential election year and by that size of a number allot of Latino/ Americans voted for it. look it up —( by the way 187 is the murder# in the police code book here)
it basically stated once passed. No one who was not legally here could get a state service– any at ALLL!!!!!!! that even included education –no green card kiddy don’t go to school –(keep your dumb kid at home we don’t need to educate him/her on our dollar)
——-BUT—then the fed’s stepped in and said the whole law was unconstitutional and WE had to educate some other countries kids on our dollar
SO——WE TRIED –SUCCEEDED -PASSED A LAW –AND GOT SHOT DOWN BY THE FED’S –DON’T BLAME US WE TRIED –YOU THE REST OF THE COUNTRY FAILED!!!!!US HERE IN CALIFORNIA!!!!!! DON’T EVER BLAME US –BLAME YOURSELVES!!!!!
Blame the OTHER 49 states, NEVER US
WE did our part and YOU ALL DID NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The quality of federal government is AT LEAST as much your fault/responsibility as residents of other states. Sell the “It’s all other peoples fault” somewhere else.
really…pleeeeese
1 vote out of 50 to change the feds??
and remember WE the STATE voted to end all the freebies in PROP 187 and you did not back our move?
then you blame us for failing?
just admit it to yourself, if you the other 49 states had backed that play in 1994…there would be 30 million less illegals and anchor babies by now
Dude – illegals aren’t citizens & therefore don’t have the right to vote.
Kalifornia is filled with gun-hating, city dwellers that don’t understand guns at all & who vote. Illegals are just there doing shit jobs that the lazy, tax-feeding, entitled citizenry won’t do.
yep the illegals don’t vote….BUT MORON…18 years later their KIDS DO! and you left the door open and they BRED at least 3 generations of DNC voters….
and its “not the jobs Americans will not do”
ITS the jobs Americans will not DO FOR 5$ per hour Bitch!
if had backed that play in 1994 think of a nation without 30 million more illegals and the anchor babies??? ALL your fault! We made a law calling the mess out and you ignored it
The other 49 states didn’t turn first the cities and then the whole state into a sanctuary state. The other states didn’t appoint Dianne Feinstein or Barbara Boxer or Moonbeam Brown; that was done by voters in your state. Now the Democrat politicians are wrecking even more havoc on your quality of life, all with the enthusiastic voter support of your fellow citizens. California, heal thyself!
All you guys are as dim as stupid –read my post again and add or subtract a bit morons
1994 have a Anchor baby that same year and DING it can vote in 2012 or lets even call it 1984! and DING the baby votes in the 2002 elections
You all left the fucking door open and the illegal aliens BRED…SEVERAL generations of DNC/ LIB voters.
Just own it the FEDS…AKA you all 49 other states left the door WIDE open for FOUR whole decades and now you all whine about Cali being DNC blue??? REALLY you all are that dim???
you just can’t admit that in 1994 California called upon you all to help and you ALL ignored it!!!
remember morons California is where RED AS HECK– GOP to the bone Regan got his start!
“…uneducated illegals vote Dem/lefty for more free stuff (or at least their kids do and you all let that happen too BS birthright citizenship when both mommy and daddy are lawbreakers…WHO passes that law?)”
Well, you can blame the Founding Fathers for that ‘law.’ It’s in the Constitution.
The idea was that back then, there were few people of voting age who were born in the USA. Actually, the number was zero, so in order to make sure that future voters could claim legitimacy in their quest to vote, this was included.
According to the contemporary writings, the idea that this would apply to people here illegally never entered their thoughts, because it was understood that those who entered illegally would be summarily removed.
Well We now know that you KNOW nothing about the Constitution at all
the ‘founding fathers” did not add birthright citizenship….Lincoln did AFTER the civil war and he did it ONLY for the blacks already here and it would have expired!
Hey I live in CA, and I am a conservative, and there are plenty more like me. The Demonrats got control of the State legislature by voter fraud and gerrymandering. I have always suggested that the Leftist pukes take Northern CA, and we take Southern CA. Then we put op a big wall and keep them out, so they can continue to turn the North into a bigger shitpile then it is now.
Dear California and other gun grabbers;
Can anyone out there tell me how limiting the number of purchases of any type of firearm makes anyone safer?
So back to HOW is limiting the number of purchases going to stop gun violence OF ANY KIND. PROVE your assertion! Asking question that you have no right to ask is NOT proving your assertion aka why anyone needs to buy more than one a month is merely you FORCING you opinion over someone else’s right of choice!
Being a former soldier, we only carried one rifle and MAYBE one side arm, although most only just the one rifle. I hear all these LIARS calling the AR-15 a weapon of war, as if please GET REAL, the spin on these is just that someone who wants to aid the criminal cartel is trying to disarm the public. The AR-15’s give the home owner and the elderly an ability to defend their home.
Hollywood loves to show guns coming out of everywhere with endless amounts of ammo, all playing into a fake narrative that the gun grabbers can say see look this is real, as if please GET REAL.
The CDC has clearly shown the numbers of defensive uses are between 80-300 times than the number of CRIMINAL uses. FACTS FACTS tell a rape victim the rapist has the right to rape them, I dare you, and they have the right to defend their body!
SO again can anyone out there tell me how limiting the number of purchases of any type of firearm makes anyone safer?
All I see are people with EVIL thoughts and fears that they have toward their fellow man FORCING their opinion over someone else’s right of choice
I’m pretty upset that the challenge to our (CA) open carry prohibition is including permits.
Excuse me…you mean the best we can do is beg the State’s permission to carry OPENLY? I don’t agree with any permitting (I’m a constitutional carry advocate), but even before the 2012 ban open carry didn’t require permission.
BTW, Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown openly confessed that he signed the ban not because of any safety concerns from private citizens. He said it was too daunting to properly train law enforcement to know a citizen’s rights, so to avoid deadly confrontations leading to innocent deaths at the hands of LEOs, he simply took away our ability to carry. Nice, huh?
The feds overturned Ca law a long time ago that used to hold up voting rights for a year to out of state US citizens. The Feds made the state pay welfare to anyone from the first day they arrived. Ca was a wonderful place, my family has 5 generations here – my wife has 7 generations. Maybe if we could have limited these people in the first place, Ca would still be the best place in the union to live.
We have to remember it was the Fed with there laws forcing Ca to pay welfare to any who asked and Ronald Reagan(when he was gov) who started all the restrictive gun laws in this state.
Matt 7.5 “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye”
Are you retarded or just dumb?
California did this to itself…. Allowing ILLEGAL ALIENS to overrun your state….. Don’t EVEN try blaming the United States (which Kali is no longer a part of, btw).
Ahhh the feds control the border moron! not the state of cali….sheeesh man you are dumb
a repost from above…..
Well Sir’s most of California woes are your fault
because?
you let in all the Illegal aliens and let them stay morons!
and guess what…uneducated illegals vote Dem/lefty for more free stuff (or at least their kids do and you all let that happen too BS birthright citizenship when both mommy and daddy are lawbreakers…WHO passes that law?)
— well we tried to end this crud, all the WAY BACK IN 1994 with California proposition 187 it passed by 60%. a big number to pass by in a non-presidential election year and by that size of a number allot of Latino/ Americans voted for it. look it up —( by the way 187 is the murder# in the police code book here)
it basically stated once passed. No one who was not legally here could get a state service– any at ALLL!!!!!!! that even included education –no green card kiddy don’t go to school –(keep your dumb kid at home we don’t need to educate him/her on our dollar)
——-BUT—then the fed’s stepped in and said the whole law was unconstitutional and WE had to educate some other countries kids on our dollar
SO——WE TRIED –SUCCEEDED -PASSED A LAW –AND GOT SHOT DOWN BY THE FED’S –DON’T BLAME US WE TRIED –YOU THE REST OF THE COUNTRY FAILED!!!!!US HERE IN CALIFORNIA!!!!!! DON’T EVER BLAME US –BLAME YOURSELVES!!!!!
Blame the OTHER 49 states, NEVER US
WE did our part and YOU ALL DID NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And then, you (California) totally gave in, and did far more than the Feds required.
It should be remembered that the Republicans supported the bill, while most Dems didn’t. (Feinstein is a notable exception, despite her current leanings.)
Clinton is the one who did the most to get the federal court to shoot it down; he claimed that the law would somehow interfere with federal efforts to curb illegal immigration. (Personally, I don’t quite see how removing an economic ‘carrot’ would hurt the federal effort, but evidently the court was convinced.)
But blaming California’s current legal climate on the rest of the country is, IMO, pure bunk. The state did that to itself. Thinking that the law requiring social benefits (welfare & education) somehow applies uniquely to California is nothing other than wrong.
Yes, IMO, the proposition was right, (and, more importantly, an economic necessity) but California’s current problems aren’t the fault of anyone else, since the state has gone above and beyond in the effort to provide aid and comfort to illegal aliens.
this part of your post is BS
“Yes, IMO, the proposition was right, (and, more importantly, an economic necessity) but California’s current problems aren’t the fault of anyone else, since the state has gone above and beyond in the effort to provide aid and comfort to illegal aliens.”
Cause and EFFECT…the other 49 states leave the door open and the illegals BREED in several generations of anchor babies that CHANGE the state from RED to BLUE…what don’t you guys GET about that???
or is it most voters can’t see farther than 4 years???
We should redo California as a territory so they couldn’t make up their own stupid legislation. Does anybody know if Maglite moved from the state?
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=maglite+headquarters
According to the link above MAGLITE as of September 2018 is located in Ontario California.
{NYC} “Will it stick to its anti-gun guns and refuse to address the merits of the case, hoping it makes the justices uncomfortable? Will it cave and give a full-throated defense of its arbitrary and irrational laws?”
I predict they will go all-out in defense of their law, because guns, dummy!
The tap-dancing on display will be something to see…
The real tap dancing will be from the court.
How the Libitard leaning judges can justify voting for NYCs law.
The 3 biddies on the court will vote along for the city. Its just the way liars of settled law and the half dead do.
The only real question will be Roberts the weak. Which way will he go?? Remember its not a tax. It should be a 6-3 vote for strict scrutiny. But who knows with this bunch of KLownZ <(:+0) ??
Which of the anti-2A block (Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagen, Sotomajor) do you think would ever join a pro-2A majority to create a 6-3 majority (especially if it announces strict scrutiny of some other high standard for 2A challenges)? Never gonna happen.
Kagen *might* join the majority as to holding that the case is not moot (as might Breyer, but I think the chances there are vanishingly slim), but as to the substantive 2A points I just do not see any of the liberal block breaking ranks.
We’ll see . . . I’ll be in DC to attend and report on the argument for TTAG.
“The only real question will be Roberts the weak. Which way will he go??”
Obama, in a BROADCAST SPEECH, instructed the SCOTUS not to strike down his ‘legacy’ law, and Roberts delivered with a ‘tax’.
3 Senate Democrats threatened to restructure the court if the justices do not rule as they see fit.
Roberts demonstrated his lack of testicular fortitude when Obama threatened him on striking down his legacy, ‘ObamaCare’. I expect a repeat performance this time. I want to be wrong, but I expect to get kicked in the teeth again.
Worse, it will embolden the Leftists to do it again, and push even harder. I pray Justice Thomas has a rabbit he’s planning to pull out of a hat for us…
I have to say, some of the comments to this article are UNINTELLIGIBLE….
If you are illiterate or have trouble grasping the English language, do us all (and yourself) a favor by NOT attempting to communicate by writing…. Apparently you’re incapable of forming a proper sentence…
Js
Dear JS.
If you wish to be helpful, go teach 5th grade English to congress explain what a comma in a sentence means, then explain to them what multiple commas in one sentence means! READ the Second amendment as it was meant to be read! J.S. I’ll assist you a comma in a sentence is used in place of the word “AND” likewise multiple uses of the comma, and, and, and.
Are you trying to write nonsense as a joke response to him or is this normally how you try and communicate?
I’m with him in my frustration over the butchery of written English. I don’t know about 5th grade but my 12th grade English teacher would break some rulers if she saw how people who are supposedly adults can’t write an intelligible paragraph.
So, in your opinion,the Second Amendment was meant to read, “A well regulated Militia and being necessary to the security of a free State and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms and shall not be infringed.”
I disagree. And so would anyone else who actually understands the use of a comma, not just now, but then (when it was written). (Reread that sentence, inserting “and” for each comma, and see how much sense that makes.)
Hell, just re-read your own comment, replacing each comma with “and,” and see how it sounds.
Me think it just Russian trolls pretending be Ukrainian trolls using Google translate into meth cooked brain redneck talker style. You see nothing, move along.. doh.
“It’s a real shame aggressive contempt for the Constitution and the rights of Americans doesn’t disqualify people from political office. If only we made them swear an oath to uphold it…. ”
Add: Aggressive contempt for our country.
You are right there ought to be an oath to defend the Constitution and there ought to be a law forbidding the use of a firearm in a crime and there ought to be a law against unjustified use of a firearm in a homicide and there ought to be a law against unlawful firearms possession and a law… Of course the problem is that we do not have enough laws not that we do not have enforcement of laws! How easy to gain a few more votes by passing a new law. No one seems to be able to advance their political career by enforcing some old law. As George Washington (the president) admonished, get politics out of government unless you want to tear this country apart.
“The gun control crowd’s fascination with the number of weapons a person owns or buys will always escape me.”
This has always confuse me as well – when people ask, I usually reply, “more than you”, or, “more than one”. Often, I then ask if they would like to know how many cars I own.
My answer is Hammers are used in more deaths than guns and I own several hammers, do you want to know more?
Hammers kill more people than all long guns, not all guns…
When I’m asked how many, I just say “not enough”.
It gives me hope for the human race that SCOTUS insisted on ruling on New Yorks onerous laws, even if they change them when they get caught. A ruling should set useful limits to prevent power grabbing. Hopefully.
My fervent hope for the city of and NY state in the courts decision reigns in their un Constitutional carry schemes so that the Leftards eyes pop out of their heads,one can dream can’t they.
Ohio and DeWine are easy enough to explain. The state has been slowly turning leftist, beginning in the north and steadily moving south. This year or last it firmly hit Southwest Ohio. The powers that be said they were going to turn up the heat and they observed the frog. He looked like he might jump so they didn’t turn it up as far as they indicated was possible. They will continue to boil the Ohio frog, checking on him now and again, until he is right cooked.
This is nothing unique to Ohio. It’s happening in just about every state. The left keeps hammering until they see push-back. Push-back early, often, and with great force to stop this in its tracks. Time is on tyranny’s side. It always was and always will be. Tick-tock.
“SB61 limits citizens to the purchase of one long gun per month. A similar restriction already applied to handguns in the state.”
-And-
“The gun control crowd’s fascination with the number of weapons a person owns or buys will always escape me.”
Where they get all the money needed to purchase multiple guns per month will always escape yours truly, to say nothing about the cost of all that secure storage space.
Actually, it does not limit it to one purchase every 30 days… you can buy as many as you want, whenever.. same for handguns.
It limits the DROS to one per month, actually one longgun and one handgun every 30 days. So you can only take possession of 1 a month. I found a going out of business sale online last year, bought 6 handguns, and spent the next half a year getting them.. my ffl dude stored them for just a little extra fee.
Don’t forget the rediculous 10 day waiting period. I understand a cooling off period for your first gun.. but if you already own one, what exactly is this 10 day thing for? Courts already denied that argument. they said something like well you will eventually get it so we don’t care..
By doing it this way they made sure not to upset any gangbangers since they do not follow the usual legal firearms purchase procedures they are inconvenienced by the new law.
After all if Utopian ideals really worked would prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys and criminal courts be out celebrating in the streets, or more realistically, rather than hanging up their hats (wigs) who would they prosecute (persecute)?
Not inconvenienced
Legally, you didn’t make the purchase until the contract to do so is completed, which means you got what you paid for. The seller contracted to sell you six guns, but it’s not the seller’s fault you couldn’t complete the contract by taking possession, so the contract wasn’t completed until you actually took possession.
IOW, you bought one gun a month for six months.
Unless my understanding of contract law is all wrong (which it might be, but until shown otherwise, I’ll stand by what I said).
Someone said or wrote, “We get what we deserve. ” The American sheepels are lazy, week, and easily led to slaughter. The way I read the Constitution and Bill of Rights number 2 does not specify what kind of arms we may bear. And no place have I found any authority to put in place a beauracracy that does. But here we are fighting to keep a lousy semi-automatic rifle that ain’t worth a damn to begin with, when we should be fighting to keep Constitutional carry every where in the US of any arm we desire. Anyway we want to carry it. We’ve already ready lost the war and now just resisting slightly the mop up action.
Through the Civil War, it was not unusual for non-governemtal agencies (organizations and individuals) to own cannons, the artillery of the day. Cannons were the most deadly firearms of the day. That the government understood the right of others to own them shows a respect for the constitution that has gone far astray today.
two things:
since the average time of manufacture to crime use is 7 years, then one gun a month means that the person can have accumulated 84 guns by the time they decide to go on their crime spree.
and
clicking the TTAG link for this story on gmail throws an alert saying that it is a suspicious like and “this link goes to an untrusted site are you sure you want to follow it?”
I use Malwarebytes, and no such warning comes up for me.
What are you using?
“The gun control crowd’s fascination with the number of weapons a person owns or buys will always escape me…”
There are real problems at the root of the ‘solution.’ Quite a few people happen to have a lot of guns stolen at once… and sometimes repeatedly. Often these people don’t even report the theft until the guns start showing up in criminal investigations. It’s almost as if they’re buying a bunch of guns and reselling them on the black market and claiming that they’ve been stolen to try and avoid straw buyer and private seller laws. That said, handguns are the vast majority of such ‘thefts.’
California and many other states. You are required to report the theft.. or ‘loss of possesion’ within a day or so.. varies..
That includes boating accidents. ‘Sorry officer, that was stolen months ago’.. so now you are arrested for failure to report..
Such laws usually say that you must report the loss with a certain number of days after discovering the loss.
Many people who buy a gun, then put it away for use in case of an emergency and never see it again, are shocked to learn that it’s been used in a crime because after a burglary (or after a visitor stole it) they forgot the even had it, so didn’t report it. The investigation is the first time they knew it had been stolen.
Yes, there are such people. Witness the fact that people actually leave their children behind at rest stops.
I’m hoping that the justices will ease up on New York City carry permits premise license holders should have Carry privileges I don’t believe you need to be a celebrity a doctor and lawyer etc. So you can have a red carpet on carry permits.I also believe that everybody’s life is Equally Precious And not the chosen few and I’m in strong favor of strict background checks thank you
Here is the perfect opportunity for Roberts to show he doesn’t have a yellow streak half a foot wide up his back. But, even if he shows his cowardice, Ruthie has no chance of surviving more than a year or two. Trump no matter all his other failings, can be counted on to put someone worthwhile on the court, ending the need to wonder if Roberts actually has any backbone at all.
You might want to read more about Ohio’s Gov” plan. Specifically Seller Protection certificates where the Seller provides the BUYERS PERSONAL INFORMATION to a Sheriff. Who the hell is going to give their ID to a stranger to “use”? Another problem is the change to the law if your Buyer commits a crime with the gun you sold as it lowers responsibility to negligence, which basically eliminates the defense that you had no knowledge of what the buyer was going to do with the gun!
https://www.cleveland.com/open/2019/10/gov-mike-dewine-unveils-details-of-his-gun-reform-plan.html
Comments are closed.