Author Topic: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff ) Second Amendment  (Read 985832 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
Kommie goes full fascist
« Reply #2600 on: September 19, 2024, 05:34:24 PM »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
Ghost gun case
« Reply #2602 on: October 01, 2024, 07:23:15 AM »


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3229
    • View Profile
Re: Ghost gun case
« Reply #2604 on: October 01, 2024, 01:15:31 PM »
Obviously biased click bait headline, but I confess my mental map here is not up to the question presented.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-supreme-court-will-decide-whether-to-let-criminals-get-guns-without-a-background-check/ar-AA1rwhKI?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=81c45fc2d34c49c4b17439bfc012b5ac&ei=13

For many years home manufacture of firearms was something one could fairly easily do. Misrepresented currently by the MSM as being something anyone with basic hand tools can accomplish--you need access to precise metal working equipment instead--it was one way to turn some sweat equity into a functioning firearm, a firearm the BATFE wouldn't be able to track as they currently illegally do by retaining every form 4473 they can get their hands on and digitizing it.

3D printers then came along and the usual suspect that gave us "plastic guns," "cop-killer bullets," "Saturday night specials," to name a few hyperbolic terms used by anti-second amendment bedwetters to spin the hoi polli up began mewling about "ghost guns," a previously unheretofore known Really Scary Thing.

I've not seen ANY statistic on how many "ghost guns" are actually used in crimes, most likely for the same reason there is no record of how many "assault weapons" are used in crimes: the tems are nebulous and poorly defined, hence resisting precise data collection due to the intentional imprecision they embrace.

A better reasoned exploration of the issue can be found here:

VanDerStok Tests Limits of Yet Another ATF Rule

The Supreme Court is set to decide whether the agency may expand criminal liability under the Gun Control Act.

September 30, 2024

By STEPHEN P. HALBROOK

On October 8, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Garland v. VanDerStok, a challenge to the Final Rule of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) from 2022 redefining and drastically expanding the meaning of the terms “firearm” and “firearm frame or receiver.” This is the first of several posts in which I’d like to highlight some of the enlightening amici curiae briefs that have been filed in support of the respondents who challenged the rule.

The Gun Control Act defines “firearm” as “(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon....” 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3). An ATF regulation on the books from 1968 to 2022 defined a “frame or receiver” as “that part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock and firing mechanism”—in other words, to main part of the firearm to which the barrel and stock attach.

The Final Rule expanded “firearm” to include “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.” And it redefined “frame or receiver” to include “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” that is “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver.”

The impetus for these new definitions is the political controversy over “ghost guns,” a term used by the Administration and by gun-control advocates to refer to privately-made firearms fabricated from partially-machined raw material known as “80% receivers.” Fabrication of this precursor material into an actual receiver requires precise drilling, milling, and other machining of metal and polymer with common and uncommon tools to make an actual receiver.

Federal law requires persons engaged in the business of manufacturing or importing firearms to engrave them with serial numbers. Private individuals have always been free to make their own firearms without such federal restrictions. The new definitions have the effect of subjecting hobbyists to federal controls.

The Fifth Circuit held that ATF may not change the definition of “firearm” enacted by Congress and that its redefinition of “frame or receiver” failed to reflect the original, common understanding of that term. It thus ruled the definitions to be beyond ATF’s authority and arbitrary and capricious.

In the Supreme Court, the government begins its defense of the Rule by asserting that so-called “[g]host guns could be made from kits and parts that were widely available online and allowed anyone with basic tools and rudimentary skills to assemble a fully functional firearm in as little as twenty minutes.” Not one of those italicized terms is even close to reality.

For a reality check, I refer you to the Amici Curiae Brief filed by Rick Vasquez, former Acting Chief of ATF Firearms Technology Branch, and by the Center for Human Liberty.

Vasquez served in the Marine Corps for 21 years during which he worked as a gunsmith at the precision weapons shop in Quantico, Virginia. He also served as a gunsmith and firearms instructor for the U.S. Department of State. Most notably, from 1999 to 2014, he served as a Firearms Enforcement Officer in ATF’s Firearms Technology Branch (FTB), the division that determines whether partially-machined material that can later be manufactured into a firearm constitutes a “firearm” under the Gun Control Act.

In 2004, Vasquez was selected as the FTB’s Assistant Branch Chief, and from 2008 to 2010, he held the Acting Chief and the Assistant Chief positions. He reviewed and approved hundreds of determinations of whether items were “firearms,” the majority of which related to the manufacturing of receivers for AR-15 style firearms.

Quoting the government’s brief in VanDerStok, Vasquez writes:

In reality, not just “anyone” with “basic tools” and “rudimentary skills” can take a parts kit and assemble a “fully functional firearm” at all, let alone in a “matter of minutes.” Even assuming the hypothetical “anyone” had the tools needed to construct a firearm, they also need a level of skill, patience, and determination that eludes most non-experts.

The government focuses on the Polymer80 parts kit for a Glock-style semiautomatic pistol, but fails to explain the supposedly simple process. Vasquez provides a step-by-step summary of fabricating a functioning firearm from this parts kit. He notes: “On their first attempt, non-experts are frequently unable to even get their firearms to work after many hours of frustration. Many beginners don’t know where to start.”

The government also fails to discuss the complexity of building AR-15-style firearms from parts kits, which is a far more difficult task than building Glock-style handguns. As Vasquez explains, “Machining the fire control cavity of a lower receiver in particular,” a task necessary to complete an unfinished receiver, “is a painstaking process that demands precision and requires technical expertise with uncommon tools.”

Not surprisingly, Vasquez’s explanations are highly technical and may be difficult to understand by persons who are not firearm experts. The illustrations in the brief are helpful. I won’t even try to define all of the terms he uses. But that’s why his brief is so significant. The Supreme Court should not be misled by the government’s unrealistic claim that anyone can make a functioning firearm from a kit in minutes. The average person won’t be able to make one at all.

Let’s start with building a Glock-style handgun. As to the tools needed, Vasquez relates, “most everyday citizens (to say nothing of a prototypical street criminal), do not have all of them on hand.” When California sued ATF in 2020 for not designating various “80-percent” parts kits as “firearms,” the government stressed that tools such as end mills “are beyond the common household tools’ that [California] repeatedly characterize as sufficient to complete this detailed work.” California v. ATF, ECF No. 64, No. 20-cv-6761 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2021).

Austin Murphy, a California journalist, wrote an article “How easy is it to build a ghost gun?” The Press Democrat (Nov. 12, 2021). Vasquez quotes from the article in the various stages of the build to show it to be beyond the capabilities of non-experts without expensive, advanced tools. In fact, Murphy enlisted the aid of a gun machinist with expert knowledge and tools to do most of the work.

Murphy said he “felt a twinge of panic as he read the instructions,” prompting him to seek the aid of an expert with a serious workshop. Vasquez writes that “even after turning the work over to experts three separate times—first to mill the frame, then to assemble the numerous parts, and finally to fix it when it jammed—it took the group more than seven hours to build a functioning firearm from a Polymer80 kit.”

As Vasquez observes, “When the out-of-pocket cost of building a gun at home exceeds the cost of buying a new one, it bolsters the conclusion that homebuilding is an exercise mostly undertaken by hobbyists.” For gangbangers with no skills or tools, the black market or theft does the trick instead.

To show how “anyone” can make a Glock-style pistol in minutes, the government refers to a video in which a skilled firearm expert uses a jig, drill bits, Dremel high-speed grinding tool, files, and sandpaper to fabricate a frame from a Polymer80 kit. That is followed by the installation of numerous intricate parts by use of roll pins.

It’s not so easy. As described by Vasquez, one must first place the frame precursor in a jig in order to drill six holes; “if these opposite side pin holes are not aligned to within a few thousands of an inch, the firearm cannot be assembled.” Next, one mills the top rail and then the barrel block, which is also difficult.

For those steps, Murphy enlisted a second firearm expert “to make sure I made no dumb, dangerous mistakes....” Murphy tried to install the slide lock spring and locking lever by himself, but that was “slapstick—witness my dozen or so attempts to drop the itty-bity slide lock into its elusive groove.” Next came installation of the magazine release spring and button, combining the trigger assembly and dropping it into the frame, inserting the pins for the slide stop lever, and attaching the slide. (In the video cited by the government, the slide was already assembled.)

As Vasquez relates, “the moment the builder tries to rack the slide is often the first time that the builder learns something went wrong with the milling process.” That happened to Murphy, who gave his malfunctioning pistol to his expert friend for a few more hours of troubleshooting.

Vasquez concludes the first part of the brief with the observation that “the central premise of the government’s argument—that ‘anyone’ can build a fully functioning Glock-style handgun from a parts kit ‘in a matter of minutes’—is simply wrong.”

Part two of the brief describes the far more difficult process of building an AR-type firearm, which is why the government virtually neglects the subject. To complete an AR lower receiver from a partly completed “blank” that one purchases, the area that houses the trigger mechanism and hammer must be milled out and holes must be drilled for the selector, trigger, and hammer pins. As the government brief explained in California v. ATF, that requires “multiple drill bits strong enough to drill aluminum or polymer ..., along with lubricants to reduce heat and prevent the drill bits from melting,” as well as “specialized tools, such as end mills, [that] must be used to excavate the cavity to house the trigger and fire control mechanism.” As Vasquez adds, one also needs a vise block, bench block, barrel rod, torque wrench, armorer’s wrench, and more.

In response to California’s argument that completing an AR-type receiver blank is just a “simple process,” Daniel Hoffman, the then (and current) Chief of ATF’s Firearm Technology Industry Services Branch (previously called the Firearms Technology Branch) explained how difficult it is. Hoffman is a retired Army Infantry sergeant with nearly thirty years technical experience in complex weapon platforms. He wrote:

I completed my first AR-type receiver in the fall of 2017, using a compatible AR-type fixture (e.g., a jig), a hand drill, and a drill press. The initial drilling of the fire control cavity took me approximately three hours. However, the dimensions on the cavity were not to specification, and I needed another hour and a half to get the receiver into a functional state. Even at four and a half hours, and with my considerable experience with firearms, the completed receiver build quality was substandard, with the fire control cavity not being cut to exact specifications.

Once the lower receiver is fabricated, there are over 100 parts to assemble to make a functional AR firearm. Expenses may cost anywhere from $500 to $3000, depending on the quality. As Vasquez concludes, “even if one spent the time and money to gather all of the necessary tools, equipment, and parts, they would still need the knowledge and skill to assemble a working AR-type firearm.”

In sum, the government hopes to stampede members of the Court into believing that so-called “[g]host guns could be made from kits and parts that were widely available online and allowed anyone with basic tools and rudimentary skills to assemble a fully functional firearm in as little as twenty minutes.” The brief of former Acting Chief of ATF Firearms Technology Branch Rick Vasquez explodes that fantasy.

 
STEPHEN P. HALBROOK is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and author of the Independent books The Right to Bear Arms, Gun Control in Nazi-Occupied France, Gun Control in the Third Reich, The Founders’ Second Amendment and That Every Man Be Armed.

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=15089


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff ) Second Amendment
« Reply #2605 on: October 01, 2024, 05:49:50 PM »
Thank you.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3229
    • View Profile
More on “Ghost Gun” Book Cooking
« Reply #2606 on: October 01, 2024, 07:24:37 PM »
Further explanation of the dubious means embraced by the ATF to gin up a “ghost gun” panic:

Second Amendment Roundup: ATF's Wish to Trace More Firearms Doesn't Justify Redefining "Firearm"

The Volokh Conspiracy / by Stephen Halbrook / Oct 1, 2024 at 9:28 PM

ATF declares that its Final Rule at issue before the Supreme Court in Garland v. VanDerStok "will enhance public safety by helping to ensure that more firearms may be traced by law enforcement to solve crime and arrest the perpetrators."  Radically expanding the definition of "firearm" from what Congress enacted is allegedly justified by the policy argument that the agency will be able to "trace" more firearms.  Whether that will solve more crimes is a big "if."

We're all familiar with the spiel.  A criminal leaves his gun at a "crime scene" (how often does that happen?) but gets away, unidentified.  Police find the gun and ask ATF to trace it.  The gun is engraved with the manufacturer's name and serial number.  ATF starts with the manufacturer and, using the records kept by federal licensees, traces the gun to its retail purchaser.  And voilà, the criminal is identified and arrested.

But now the sky is falling.  ATF insists that its Final Rule is the Ghost Buster for "ghost guns," a propaganda term used to describe privately-made firearms.  Unless the kits from which hobbyists make their own guns are declared to be "firearms," their homemade guns won't be traceable.  Criminals who lose their guns at "crime scenes" won't be caught.

After years of ATF exaggerating the usefulness of tracing, Congress enacted a law in 2013 requiring ATF to "make clear that trace data cannot be used to draw broad conclusions about firearms-related crime" by including in its releases of information the following language: "Law enforcement agencies may request firearms traces for any reason, and those reasons are not necessarily reported to the Federal Government. Not all firearms used in crime are traced and not all firearms traced are used in crime."

Consider the disconnect.  ATF traces all firearms it encounters.  A person is subject to a domestic violence restraining order and ATF learns that he has a very large gun collection.  They raid his house, seize all 200 of his guns, and then trace them.  That goes down as 200 "crime guns" seized at a "crime scene" that have nothing to do with his offense of mere possession while subject to the order.
As explained in my two previous posts (here and here), Congress defines a "firearm" as a weapon "which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive" or "the frame or receiver of any such weapon."  ATF's Final Rule expands that definition to include partially-machined raw material, information, jigs, and tools that sufficiently-skilled persons may fabricate into a firearm.  Whether ATF has such authority is the issue before the Court in VanDerStok.

One of the superior amici briefs filed in the case is that of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, authored by Dan Peterson and C. D. Michel.  I'll cover some of the highlights in that brief and offer some additional material in the following remarks.

Only licensed manufacturers and importers who are "engaged in the business" are required by the Gun Control Act (GCA) to identify and serialize firearms.  18 U.S.C. § 923(i).  Hobbyists are free lawfully to craft their own guns without these requirements.  ATF claims that the resultant "ghost guns" cannot be traced, thus requiring the non-gun materials that hobbyists use to make guns be redefined as guns.

But the GCA, as amended by the Firearm Owners' Protection Act, sharply delineates licensees from private individuals.  While ATF may inspect licensed dealer records "in the course of a bona fide criminal investigation," it is prohibited from establishing "any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions."  18 U.S.C. §§ 923(g) & 926(a).

Nevertheless, ATF has been on a crusade to trace all firearms that law enforcement encounters, and its attack on privately-made firearms is only the latest stage in this endeavor.  The Final Rule, ATF urges, is necessary to address an "urgent public safety and law enforcement crisis posed by the exponential rise of untraceable firearms commonly called 'ghost guns.'"

Let's test this claim with reality.  New Jersey is one of the states that traces every firearm it encounters, to include the .22 rifle a widow abandons at a police station.  Not exactly a crime scene.

In 2022, New Jersey criminalized the purchase of a parts kit not made by a licensed manufacturer with a serial number.  ATF trace data for New Jersey that same year shows 5,248 firearm traces, of which 3,824 – 73% – were for "possession of weapon" and "found firearm."  Keep in mind that the Garden State makes possession per se without the right papers a crime.  How many of these were privately-made firearms?  Only 67 traces were for "homicide" and 132 for "aggravated assault."  As to firearms seized from the possessor, how did tracing solve any crime?

The Citizens Committee brief goes on point by point in explaining why tracing isn't what it's cut out to be and how meaningless is the supposed data on "ghost guns."  First, a trace only leads to the first retail purchaser, if that person can be located.  Without evidence, no reason exists to consider that person a "suspect" in whatever the crime is.  And after that first purchase, the gun may have been inherited, given as a gift, sold, lost, or stolen.

Second, criminals don't typically buy guns from a licensed dealer, and thus their acquisitions cannot be traced.  Where do criminals get their guns?  Out of 24,848 prison inmates surveyed, a Bureau of Justice Statistics study Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes (2019) reported:

Off the street/underground market: 43.2%

Obtained from individual: 25.3%

Theft: 6.4%

Purchased/traded at retail source: 10.1% [only 6.9% under one's real name]

Other sources: 17.4%

The study made no mention of any of the firearms being made from kits.  Multiple studies of the sources from which criminals get their guns, going back to the 1980s, report similar results.

Third, evidence does not support the government's argument of an "urgent public safety and law enforcement crisis posed by the exponential rise of untraceable firearms…." Let's compare some numbers.  There are an estimated 500 million firearms in private hands in the United States.  The types of kits that hobbyists most often make into firearms are for AR-15 rifle types and handguns similar to Glocks.  ATF data shows that about two and a half million Glocks were introduced into commerce between 2016 and 2022.  According to the National Shooting Sports Association, there were 24 million+ modern sporting rifles (mostly AR-types) in American civilian circulation as of 2020.

Compare those numbers with the 19,000 privately-made firearms alleged to have been traced in 2021.  That's hardly a drop in the bucket.  And consider this further finding by Congress in the 2013 law cited above: "Firearms selected for tracing are not chosen for purposes of determining which types, makes, or models of firearms are used for illicit purposes. The firearms selected do not constitute a random sample and should not be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or any subset of that universe."

Other than the numbers of privately-made firearms traced, no information exists as to why they were traced.  ATF has raided companies that market kits and presumably seized their inventory, which could jack-up the statistics dramatically.  Eleven states and the District of Columbia restrict privately-made firearms, so traces generated in those places may reflect mere possessory offenses.

Based on unverified media accounts, Everytown for Gun Safety Foundation lists 187 alleged "shootings" with "ghost guns" between 2013 and 2024, for an average of about 15 per year.  But the data include accidents and suicides, not just assaults.  In any event, 15 shootings per year are a miniscule fraction of the tens of thousands of traces of "ghost guns" now being reported by ATF annually.

This is not the first time ATF has manipulated trace data for political ends.  In the 1990s, in order to justify a ban on "assault weapons," it was charged with creating the impression that criminals prefer them.  Its Forward Tracing Program entailed getting information from manufacturers on the subject firearms and "tracing" them to the retail dealers.  Then they told the public that the designated firearms were disproportionately used in crime based on them being traced so much.  I document this cooking of the books in America's Rifle, chapter 14.

It goes without saying that the issue before the Supreme Court in VanDerStok is purely legal: does ATF have authority to expand the definition of "firearm" enacted by Congress and thereby to criminalize activity that Congress did not make unlawful?  Contrary to government claims, there is no "urgent public safety and law enforcement crisis posed by the exponential rise of untraceable firearms…." But even if there is, it's a matter for Congress, not the agency, to address.

The post Second Amendment Roundup: ATF's Wish to Trace More Firearms Doesn't Justify Redefining "Firearm" appeared first on Reason.com.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/10/01/second-amendment-roundup-atfs-wish-to-trace-more-firearms-doesnt-justify-redefining-firearm/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
WT: Ghost Gun case coming before SCOTUS
« Reply #2607 on: October 07, 2024, 04:41:37 AM »
Simple assembly of ghost guns at core of case before court

By Stephen Dinan THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says he’s so inept he “can’t screw in a lightbulb,” but even he was able to build a “ghost” gun from a kit with no problem.

“I made one of those handguns out of the kit, went down to the range, shot it. Shoots just like a traditional firearm, it can wound just like a traditional firearm, it can kill just like a traditional firearm,” ATF Director Steven Dettelbach told CBS News’ “Face the Nation” earlier this year.

He had one of his firearms experts join him for the talk with CBS, and the man figured he would demonstrate how easy it was to combine a gun “receiver,” assembled from a kit purchased online, with a Glock slide, which is how many so-called ghost guns are completed.

But the slide wouldn’t fit and the expert, still on camera, quietly set the unworkable handgun to the side.

That failure is at the heart of a case before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, as the justices grapple with the Biden administration’s attempt to crack down on ghost guns.

At root, a ghost gun is a firearm fabricated outside the regulated industry, meaning it lacks a serial number that

would allow the ATF to track down the initial purchase if the weapon is ever recovered at the scene of a crime.

The modern world of 3D printing and online sales of kits and partial weapons has created an explosion of such weapons. The Biden administration has pushed back with new rules classifying the kits and partial weapons as full firearms, making them subject to the Gun Control Act of 1968 and requiring them to have a serial number.

The case turns on the definition of what makes a firearm, which in turn seems to rest on how easy it is to build a ghost gun.

Rick Vasquez, who at one point ran the ATF’s firearms technology branch, told the justices that compiling a kit gun is far more complicated than Mr. Dettelbach would have them believe.

Mr. Vasquez said it takes a lengthy list of tools and the kind of skill, patience and determination “that eludes most nonexperts.” Not to mention more money than the average street criminal is likely to have lying around.

“In sum, the central premise of the government’s argument — that ‘anyone’ can build a fully functioning Glock-style handgun from a parts kit ‘in a matter of minutes’ — is simply wrong,” Mr. Vasquez and the Center for Human Liberty said in their brief to the justices, argued by their lawyer, Bradley Benbrook.

Making an AR-15-style rifle from a kit would be even “more difficult,” they said.

The case is the latest in a string of major gun controversies to reach the high court in the last few years, with the justices first expanding them seemingly tightening Second Amendment rights.

This new case, Garland v. VanDer-Stok, doesn’t reach those big constitutional questions. Rather, it turns on the language of the Gun Control Act, which governs the sale and purchase of firearms.

The justices will have to figure out if Congress, in writing that law, intended to also cover gun kits, which don’t include complete firearms or even all the materials needed to fabricate one, or whether the law covers what’s known as “80% receivers” which include the un-machined material that can be made into the middle part of a gun.

“A company that sells kits and parts that can be converted into functional firearms, frames, and receivers in minutes — and that are designed and marketed specifically for that purpose — is selling firearms, frames, and receivers,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices.

But opponents say the ATF and Attorney General Merrick Garland, who oversees the agency, are stretching the law beyond what Congress intended.

Besides, they say, the danger of ghost guns is oversold because registration numbers don’t actually help solve very many crimes.

“Look, Merrick Garland, if you want all this, you’re going to have to persuade Congress,” said Stephen Halbrook, a leading Second Amendment scholar. “It’s a matter of law, and if Congress thinks it’s a crime problem, it’s for Congress to deal with.”

For decades, the ATF agreed with that take and allowed sale of 80% receivers without regulation, as part of the country’s long tradition of private firearms manufacturing.

But the Biden administration changed that in 2022, saying ghost guns had grown to be too big of a problem. It said the Gun Control Act’s serial number requirement now applies to gun kits and even to a nonfunctional receiver.

The government says ghost guns are increasingly being found at crime scenes. The Department of Justice said police recovered more than 2,300 a month in early 2023, up from about 1,600 in 2021 and about 160 a month in 2017.

The ATF says it traces about 400,000 guns each year, though critics say that figure includes firearms that weren’t recovered at the scene of any crime.

In announcing the new change President Biden likened guns to an Ikea couch, saying even if it came in pieces and required assembly it was still a couch.

“It’s not hard to put together,” Mr. Biden said. “And, folks, a felon, a terrorist, a domestic abuser can go from a gun kit to a gun in as little as 30 minutes.”

The administration lost in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and asked the justices to overturn that ruling.

Mr. Biden has backing of gun crime victims, including Frank Blackwell and Bryan Muehlberger, each of whom lost a child in a 2019 school shooting in California involving a “ghost” gun.

Exact details are murky because the high school student shooter killed himself and the gun kit was apparently purchased by his father, a firearms aficionado who was also deceased by that point.

Mr. Blackwell and Mr. Muehlberger warned the justices of horrifying consequences should the Biden administration lose the case.

“An increasingly internet-literate generation of children will be able to buy DIY ghost guns online,” they argued in their brief. “And a concrete step taken to slow the epidemic of childhood firearm deaths will be replaced with a regime in which children can order these deadly weapons to their doorsteps — the regime under which Gracie and Dominic were killed.”

Experts, though, questioned the value of registration numbers in the first place.

John R. Lott Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, said it’s rare that guns are left at the scene of crimes unless the shooter was killed or seriously injured — in which case it’s not so important to trace the purchase anyway. When others do leave guns behind they usually aren’t registered to the perpetrator.

Mr. Lott said registration is “only useful for confiscating guns.


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3229
    • View Profile
Mexico to Americans: You Don't Need No Stinkin' Second Amendment
« Reply #2609 on: October 23, 2024, 08:52:38 AM »
The cognitive dissonance is strong in this suit and subsequent ruling. Mexico, in short, is seeking here to ignore US federal law and seek to sue the second amendment into oblivion, with the help of the usual Brady Bunch suspect in the US:

Second Amendment Roundup: Supreme Court Grants Cert in Mexico v. Smith & Wesson

The Volokh Conspiracy by Stephen Halbrook / Oct 22, 2024 at 11:14 PM//

On October 4, the Supreme Court granted cert in Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos.  It involves Mexico's suit against the American firearms industry, which alleges that the industry enables the drug cartels to empower their stranglehold over Mexican society.  The First Circuit upheld the claim by reversing the dismissal of the case granted by the District Court in Massachusetts.

The absurdity of Mexico's lawsuit is illuminated by action in another case just days later. On October 16, U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan in Brooklyn sentenced Genaro Garcia Luna to 460 months imprisonment for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, international cocaine distribution conspiracy, conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, and conspiracy to import cocaine. But Luna wasn't just another El Chapo, whom Judge Cogan sent to the big house five years ago.

For over a decade, Luna was the head of Mexico's Federal Investigative Agency, and then became Secretary of Public Security.  According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Luna "used his official positions to assist the violent Sinaloa Cartel (the Cartel) in exchange for millions of dollars in bribes."  That included "facilitating safe passage of the drug shipments, providing sensitive law enforcement information about investigations into the Cartel and helping the Cartel attack rival drug cartels…."  He thereby enabled over a million kilograms (over 2.2 million pounds) of cocaine to be imported into the United States.

But corruption-ridden Mexico wants to blame America's lawful gun industry for its status as a failed state.  In the cert petition, the petitioners describe the background to the question presented as follows:

The Mexican Government has sued leading members of the American firearms industry, seeking to hold them liable for harms inflicted by Mexican drug cartels. According to Mexico, America's firearms companies have engaged in a series of business practices for decades—from selling semi-automatic rifles, to making magazines that hold over ten rounds, to failing to impose various sales restrictions—that have created a supply of firearms later smuggled across the border and ultimately used by the cartels to commit crimes. Mexico asks for billions of dollars in damages, plus extensive injunctive relief imposing new gun-control measures in the United States.

The district court dismissed the case under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which generally bars suits against firearms companies based on criminals misusing their products. But the First Circuit reversed. It held that PLCAA does not bar this suit because Mexico stated a claim that defendants' business practices have aided and abetted firearms trafficking to the cartels, proximately harming the Mexican government.

The petition states that the following two legal issues under PLCAA require resolution by the Court:

Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the "proximate cause" of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico.
Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to "aiding and abetting" illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.
PLCAA was enacted to require dismissal at the inception of lawsuits like this.  Other courts have recognized that.  The First Circuit's decision creates a circuit split.

Back in the 1980s, unable to convince legislatures to ban handguns, the anti-gun movement began filing lawsuits against the industry for crimes committed by third parties.  It didn't matter that the courts disagreed with the theory of liability, because the industry could be bankrupted by legal fees.  Over time, municipalities became plaintiffs in such suits, only to be rebuffed by the courts.  Congress finally stepped in by passing PLCAA to stop these abusive lawsuits.

The anti-gun movement continues to pursue the same strategy.  One of Mexico' lawyers listed on the complaint is Jonathan Lowy, counsel for BRADY (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.). BRADY supports repeal of PLCAA, but resorts to the courts to undermine the law since Congress has not done so.

Mexico's complaint parrots the same kinds of allegations which PLCAA was designed to bar.  As summarized by the First Circuit, Mexico alleges that "by passing along guns knowing that the purchasers include unlawful buyers, and making design and marketing decisions targeted towards those exact individuals, the manufacturer is aiding and abetting illegal sales."  As everyone knows, the manufacturers sell to distributors, which sell to dealers.  Each of these entities is licensed under the Gun Control Act and is subject to ATF inspection and oversight. The complaint includes no allegation that any of the defendants violated U.S. laws or knew that others with whom they did business did so.

While there is thus no proximate harm from America's lawful firearms industry to Mexico, the First Circuit proposes the following incredible analogy:

Imagine that a U.S. company sent a mercenary unit of combat troops to attack people in Mexico City. Such an attack would directly cause Mexico itself the expense of paying soldiers to defend the city. Proximate cause would be quite clear. So, too, here, where the defendants are alleged to have armed the attackers for their continuing assaults.

The Mexican government itself, through bad actors such as Genaro Garcia Luna, has facilitated the ability of the cartels to attack people in Mexico.  We frequently read stories of Mexican villages that form militias to protect themselves from the drug gangs. The Mexican government has failed at the most fundamental duty of any government: protecting the population under its rule.

While allowing, and being bribed to allow, the cartels to run rampant over the country, the government has only a single gun store in the entire country to allow law-abiding citizens to purchase firearms – and it's run by the military in Mexico City.

As it colludes with American actors to destroy the Second Amendment – after all, that's the point of the whole exercise of bringing its lawsuit – the Mexican government reinforces its own contempt for civil liberties, such as the fundamental human right to defend life.

Mexico's 1857 constitution (Art. 10) provided: "Every man has the right to have and to carry arms for his security and legitimate defense. The law will indicate which arms are prohibited and the penalty for those that will carry prohibited arms."  That was whittled down in the same article of its 1917 constitution to say that the inhabitants have "a right to arms in their homes, for security and legitimate defense, with the exception of arms prohibited by federal law and those reserved for the exclusive use of the [military]. Federal law will determine the cases, conditions, requirements, and places in which the carrying of arms will be authorized to the inhabitants."

In other words, Mexican citizen have a "right" to arms only as granted by the government.  For further insights on the topic, see David Kopel's article "Mexico's Gun Control Laws: A Model for the United States?"

After the briefs were filed, Mexico made a last-minute attempt to scuttle the case. Smith & Wesson notified the Supreme Court that, just recently, six manufacturers had been dismissed by the district court for lack of personal jurisdiction.  However, the suit remained live against Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms.  Mexico responded that the dismissals undermined the petitioners' arguments about the importance of the case.  The Court ignored Mexico's filing and granted cert.

Understanding the issues in Mexico v. S&W requires a deep dive into PLCAA.  While not framed as a Second Amendment case, the issues profoundly affect whether that right will be protected.  PLCAA itself begins with a reaffirmation of Second Amendment rights and how lawsuits have been brought against the industry for crimes committed by third parties.  See 15 U.S.C. § 7901 et seq.  It declares that a "qualified civil liability action," defined as an action against a federal firearms licensee for damages or other relief resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm, "may not be brought in any Federal or State court."

There is a predicate exception from the ban on such lawsuits if the manufacturer or seller of a firearm "knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product [firearm], and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought…."  That exception includes false entries in required records and conspiracy to sell a firearm knowing that the actual buyer is a prohibited person.  Ignoring that the plain meaning of the exception encompasses violations only of specific firearm statutes, the First Circuit decided that Mexico's common-law claims qualified and that Mexico sufficiently alleged that the defendants' actions were the proximate cause of harm.

The survival of America's gun industry, and thus the Second Amendment, depends on the resolution of those claims.  The Supreme Court should dispose of the case with an order pursuant to § 7902 of PLCAA: "A qualified civil liability action … shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending."

The post Second Amendment Roundup: Supreme Court Grants Cert in Mexico v. Smith & Wesson appeared first on Reason.com.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/10/22/second-amendment-roundup-supreme-court-grants-cert-in-mexico-v-smith-wesson/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff ) Second Amendment
« Reply #2610 on: October 23, 2024, 09:09:16 AM »
Our American Creed is living on the edge in so many ways  :-o

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3229
    • View Profile
IL
« Reply #2611 on: November 09, 2024, 01:32:31 AM »
My former stomping grounds enjoined from enforcing an “assault weapon” et al schema. From the ruling:

"Most importantly, considering all of the evidence presented, the Court holds that the provisions of PICA criminalizing the knowing possession of specific semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, magazines, and attachments are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction is GRANTED. The State of Illinois is hereby ENJOINED
from the enforcement of PICA's criminal penalties in accordance with 720 ILL. COMP. STAT. §§ 5/24-1(a)(14)-(16) (bump stocks and assault weapons); 5/24-1.9(a)-(h) (assault weapons and attachments); and 5/24-1.10(a)-(h) (large-capacity magazines) against all Illinois citizens, effective immediately. As the prohibition of firearms is unconstitutional, so is the registration scheme for assault weapons, attachments, and large-capacity magazines. Therefore, the State of Illinois is ENJOINED from enforcing the firearm registration requirements and penalties associated with entering false information on the endorsement affidavit for non-exempt weapons, magazines, and attachments previously required to be registered...."

https://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2024/11/a_good_decision.php
« Last Edit: November 09, 2024, 09:48:14 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
Second Amendment Rights for Illegal Aliens?
« Reply #2612 on: November 10, 2024, 08:37:38 AM »
Is the Second Amendment Only America’s Right? Do Illegal Immigrants Have Gun Rights?
Ammoland Inc. Posted on November 8, 2024 by Ammoland Editors & Staff
Opinion

Constitutional We the People right to keep and bear arms second amendment Constitution United States America On Wooden Shutterstock 145503493
Shutterstock 145503493
The debate over gun rights has taken a new turn, as recent legal challenges ask whether the Second Amendment’s protections apply solely to U.S. citizens or extend to all individuals on American soil, including undocumented immigrants. Recent court rulings and arguments from legal scholars have brought this question to the forefront, sparking concerns over government power and constitutional rights.

The phrasing of the Second Amendment, which grants the right to keep and bear arms to “the people,” is at the heart of the legal debate. In the 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, the Supreme Court held that any regulation restricting this right must align with historical practices from the founding era, making laws without precedent presumptively unconstitutional. This test is now being applied to a federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(a), which prohibits firearm possession for undocumented immigrants.

Legal challenges are increasingly arguing that the federal government cannot exclude undocumented immigrants from “the people” in the Second Amendment.

Alan Mygatt-Tauber, author of “The Second Amendment Rights of Undocumented Immigrants,” states that the term “the people” in the Second Amendment must include all those physically present in the U.S., regardless of status. He argues, “The Court has consistently focused on territorial presence, rather than status, as the touchstone of constitutional rights” and notes that this reasoning has extended protections to undocumented immigrants under other amendments in the Bill of Rights.​

Who Are “The People”?
The issue is whether “the people” in the Second Amendment applies to undocumented immigrants. Under Bruen, courts must examine whether restrictions on firearm possession are consistent with historical norms. This has led some to argue that, historically, immigrants—including those not yet citizens—were allowed to bear arms for defense and thus should still be covered by the Second Amendment today. However, others contend that undocumented status fundamentally excludes individuals from such protections.

Devout supporters of the Second Amendment argue that it is a fundamental right that should not be contingent on citizenship. They see the restriction on undocumented immigrants as setting a troubling precedent that could lead to further erosion of Second Amendment rights for other groups. This concern echoes Mygatt-Tauber’s argument, where he highlights that “historical laws disarming individuals were focused on preventing arms falling into the hands of those deemed dangerous,” not on blanket bans based solely on one’s legal immigration status.​

Gun Owners: For or Against?
On one hand the argument can be made that the right to bear arms should be a universal protection under the Constitution, applicable to anyone physically present in the country.

For American gun owners, the potential ripple effects of these cases are significant. If 922(g)(5)(a) passes the Bruen test, many worry it could establish a dangerous precedent, allowing the government to restrict gun rights for groups based on broad, government-defined classifications instead of individualized assessments of dangerousness.

This concern takes on new urgency following the decisive 2024 election of Donald Trump, which sent a clear message: Americans want a return to strong, decisive action on illegal immigration, including mass deportations. With Trump’s historic mandate, a national effort to deport undocumented immigrants is expected to begin in 2025, reinforcing the principle that America’s laws—and rights—are for those who respect its borders and laws. For gun owners, this is a step toward restoring order and safeguarding American communities and resources, which they believe have been strained under weak enforcement.

This connection between law enforcement and Second Amendment rights underscores the conviction that the right to bear arms should be a fundamental protection for U.S. citizens and legal residents—those who are committed to America’s founding principles. Gun rights advocates argue that if the government can broadly disarm undocumented immigrants, it’s essential that this action reflects a wider national commitment to securing American values and heritage. Upholding mass deportation policies, they contend, is a critical part of defending America’s resources, culture, and rights, including the right to bear arms.

So what is the truth, where do we go from here?

Historical Context & Legal Precedents
Historically, the founders did not institute broad prohibitions on firearm ownership for immigrants. Colonial-era laws allowed immigrants who had not yet attained citizenship to bear arms in defense of their communities. The federal prohibition on undocumented immigrants possessing firearms is relatively recent in the scope of American history, and opponents argue that it lacks the historical foundation required by Bruen.

Supporters of the ban, however, argue that it is necessary for public safety, drawing parallels with historical laws that limited firearm access for groups considered to pose threats, such as disloyalists or Native Americans. Yet critics argue these restrictions were based on individual assessments or specific historical circumstances, not broad prohibitions based on legal status alone.

Supreme Court Rulings and Broader Implications
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), affirming the right to bear arms as an individual right, there has been an ongoing debate over whether these rights apply to non-citizens. Lower courts have issued mixed rulings, with some concluding that “the people” includes undocumented immigrants, while others hold that it does not. The Supreme Court has not directly addressed the issue, leaving uncertainty in its wake.

Legal experts believe that if the Supreme Court takes up a case on this issue, it could redefine the scope of the Second Amendment, impacting not just undocumented immigrants but also American gun owners. The potential for a ruling that broadly restricts gun ownership based on status has alarmed many advocates, who argue that any ruling limiting the right to bear arms could have a lasting impact on individual freedoms.

Future Implications
As these legal challenges progress, the stakes for Second Amendment rights in America have rarely been higher. For advocates of universal gun rights, this debate represents a fundamental question about the nature of the Second Amendment: is it an American right or a human right?

The courts’ eventual decisions on whether undocumented immigrants are part of “the people” will ripple across the legal landscape, influencing how rights are applied and interpreted in the future. With these cases, the judiciary has a unique opportunity to reinforce the Second Amendment as a protection rooted in principles of self-defense and liberty, underscoring the right to bear arms as a fundamental liberty that transcends legal status and government boundaries.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile