The Anti's Are Getting Worried About A Supreme Court Case

The Supreme Court agreed to hear NY State Rifle and Pistol Association v. The City of New York in January. The case involves an absurd New York City regulation that forbids those with handgun permits from taking their legally owned handguns outside the city limits of New York. These permits only allow a person to keep the handgun in their residence or to practice at one of only seven firing ranges within the city limits. They cannot take their handguns to vacation homes, to ranges outside the city limits, or to competitions outside the city regardless of how it is stored.

Yesterday, Ladd Everitt, Director of One Pulse for America and formerly the communications director for Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic), had an op-ed in the New York Daily News urging the city to repeal its handgun transport ordinance. This is the same Ladd Everitt who delighted in portraying those of us in the gun culture as "insurrectionists" and leading demonstrations outside NRA headquarters that attracted about a dozen protesters.

From his op-ed:

A ruling in NYSRPA vs. NYC could overturn not only the city’s gun transport reg, but also “may-issue” laws governing concealed carry of firearms in public in New York and seven other states. Carry licenses are more difficult to obtain than premises licenses in NYC. Law enforcement officials have discretion to deny carry licenses to applicants with a history of violence. The NRA spent $1 million to get Kavanaugh confirmed to the Supreme Court because they believe he will provide the decisive fifth vote to eliminate such discretion by declaring a new, individual right to carry guns in public.

New York City leaders don’t have to fall into the trap the NRA is baiting for them. It is within the authority of NYPD Commissioner James O’Neill to revise or repeal the regulation at the center of NYSRPA vs. NYC. If he took this step (conceivably with the blessing of Mayor de Blasio) and cleared the way for premises licensees to transport secured firearms to locations outside the city, the plaintiffs’ stated grievance would be remedied. The Supreme Court might decide to drop the case before ruling on it.

Ladd may be an asshole but he isn't dumb. He realizes the danger to the gun control lobby if the Supreme Court rules against New York City which they probably would in all likelihood. In addition to his concerns about may-issue concealed carry permits, the Supreme Court could finally clarify the standard to be used by lower courts in deciding Second Amendment cases. If they said it must be strict scrutiny and they backed this up by taking cases where courts applied intermediate scrutiny, it would open the door to a large round of 2A litigation.

Mayor Adrian Fenty of the District of Columbia was sure of the rightness of DC's ban on handguns. He decided that DC would appeal their loss in the Court of Appeals in the Heller case to the Supreme Court. We know that turned into DC v. Heller and a recognition that the Second Amendment was an individual right.

Ladd concludes by saying:

It’s true that allowing New York City residents to transport guns outside the city would entail certain public safety risks, even if the practice was regulated. But with the gun violence epidemic increasing in the United States, our communities simply cannot withstand newfound constitutional protections for violent “good guys with a gun." Now is the time for the NYPD to step up and protect all Americans by repealing NYC’s gun transport ordinance.

I love Ladd's hyperbole even when he is way off base. The problem isn't with honest citizens who own a firearm, perhaps have a carry permit, and who engage in armed self-defense. The problem is with violent criminal actors (to use Dr. William Aprill's phrase). They view gun laws as something to be ignored just like they ignore the laws dealing with theft, assault, and homicide.

When you see a Michael Bloomberg, a Shannon Watts, or one of the Brady co-presidents calling for New York City to ditch this law and moot the NYSRPA case, then you will know the gun control lobby is really running scared. Coming as this op-ed does from the periphery of the gun control lobby, it is a sign that some are awakening. I just hope the rest continue along with their smug, elitist attitudes thinking that they can't lose.

Florida Carry Sues Miami Beach Police

Open carry is generally not legal in Florida. However, there are exceptions such as when one is fishing or hunting. Because of this, groups like Florida Carry organize "fishing trips" where their members legally open carry. The Miami Beach Police didn't think much of this and disrupted, assaulted, and detained members of Florida Carry at one such event as shown in the video below.




As a result, the Miami Beach Police Department is now being sued by Florida Carry and the individuals illegally detained for violation of their civil rights under color of law.

From Florida Carry:

Miami Beach, FL - A lawsuit for deprivation of civil rights under color of law and violations of Florida firearms and fishing laws has been filed today against the City of Miami Beach and officers of its police department over an incident where the officers assaulted, battered, and detained law-abiding fishermen at a Florida Carry fishing meetup on the South Pointe Fishing Pier on June 24th 2018. The incident was captured on video.

Dubbed the "South Pointe Six", six Florida Carry members and supporters were held by police for well over two hours without cause, while the police officers went on a fishing expedition of the own in an illegal attempt to find something... anything... the officers could use in order to charge the "South Pointe Six" with a crime before finally failing and releasing them.

Even after eventually releasing Florida Carry's members, the Police Department forced the premature end of our First Amendment protected gathering by closing the public fishing pier until all known Florida Carry members and supporters left the area.

"Florida Carry will not allow our members to be abused, injured, held without cause, and have their civil rights violated without the strongest possible response to prevent these types of attacks on the good, law-abiding, citizens of our Great State." Said Florida Carry Executive Director, Sean Caranna.

"Most police officers and deputies that we encounter are outstanding professionals who have an incredibly tough job to do, we respect that honor that. However, we've seen these types of abuses happen far too many times in cities and counties who do not respect the Right to Bear Arms. Every City and County in Florida should already know that proper training about the legal possession and carry of firearms is necessary. These types of abuses will not be tolerated - IT ENDS HERE."

The plaintiffs are represented by Florida Carry General Counsel Eric Friday.

They Should Have Done Like French Farmers

I was reading a press release on Monday from RW Arms of Fort Worth, Texas. They were a retailer of bump stocks. As I understand it, they had purchased the entire remaining inventory from Slide Fire last year. The press release said they were were surrendering their remaining 60,000 bump stock to BATFE for destruction.

Fort Worth based retailer, RW Arms, will turn in their entire inventory of bump stocks to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) on Tuesday, March 26th, to be destroyed, in compliance with the Bump Stock Ban. RW Arms will transfer 60,000 bump stocks to American Shredder in Fort Worth, Texas, to be shredded and recycled under the supervision of ATF agents.

 Subsequent stories in Texas newspapers shows them being crushed at the recycling plant.

Now I'm sure they turned them over like this because they want to stay in the good graces of the BATFE and the rest of the Deep State. However, I might have taken a page from the French farmers protesting what they considered injustices.

I would have loaded them up into this.

Driven them to this building which is the headquarters of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

Donned my yellow vest. And then done this like French farmers have done in Paris.




Bearing in mind that French farmers have dumped more "odiferous" offerings, I think this would have been a more gentle protest of the perversion of the rule of law by the administrative state at the behest of politician than those French farmers might have conducted. I guess we will have to wait and see if the courts can grow a spine and actually stand up for the rule of law.

Chief Justice Roberts Refuses To Issue Stay

The Firearms Policy Coalition and the Firearms Policy Foundation released this statement by Twitter concerning the refusal of Chief Justice John Roberts to issue an emergency stay of the bump stock ban rule.

FPF Statement on Bump-stock Ban Litigation Following Denial of Stay Application - https://t.co/EDeJprYIqZ pic.twitter.com/ymIj2Qf9h7

— Firearms Foundation (@gunpolicyfdn) March 26, 2019

Updates on the case will continue to be posted at www.bumpstockcase.com.

It should be remembered that the key issue is not really bump stocks. The key issue is whether or not any government agency can reinterpret the black letter law to outlaw something or some action that they had expressly said was legal earlier.

DC Circuit Stays Bump Stock Rule (Updated)

The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has issued a stay on the enforcement of the BATFE's bump stock ban. It is only temporary and is intended to give the judges on the Circuit Court the time needed to study the expedited appeal. It doesn't go to the merits of the case but the judges acknowledged that the March 26th deadline was an issue.

From the court's order:

BEFORE: Henderson, Millett, and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges

O R D E R

Plaintiffs in these three consolidated cases challenge a final agency rule banning Bump-Stock-Type Devices, 83 Fed. Reg. 66514 (Dec. 26, 2018) (“Bump-Stock Rule”), which is scheduled to take effect on March 26, 2019. On February 25, 2019, the district court denied the plaintiffs’ joint request for a preliminary injunction staying the Bump-Stock Rule’s effective date. On March 1, 2019, this court granted the Appellants’ joint motion for expedition of this case, in which they sought resolution of the appeal on a highly expedited basis before the March 26, 2019, effective date. Under that expedited schedule, this case was argued on March 22, 2019. At oral argument, counsel for the government explained that it was now its position that the Bump Stock Rule’s March 26, 2019 effective date should be viewed as the date when the government will cease exercising its prosecutorial discretion not to enforce federal law against those who possess or trade in bump-stockdevices covered by the Bump-Stock Rule. Oral Arg. 49:00-51:55. Following oral argument, the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. filed a voluntary motion to dismiss its appeal, or in the alternative to stay its appeal, and advised that the government opposes the motion to dismiss. In light of these representations, it is

ORDERED that the motion of the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., to dismiss its appeal, No. 19-5043, be granted. Appeal No. 19-5043 is hereby dismissed. It is

FURTHER ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that the effective date of the Bump-Stock Rule, 83 Fed. Reg. 66514 (Dec. 26, 2018), be administratively stayed in its application only as to the named Appellants in appeals Nos. 19-5042 and 19-5044, pending further order of this Court. The purpose of this stay is exclusively to give the Court sufficient opportunity to consider the disposition of this highly expedited appeal, and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of the appeal. See D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 33 (2018).

 As I understand this, it only applies to the individuals and organizations named as plaintiffs in the cases.

UPDATE: The attorneys for the appellants have filed an Emergency Joint Motion to Modify the Stay Order. Since the government refuses to compromise, they are requesting either clarification from the Court saying the stay " includes their respective members, supporters, and those similarly situated members of the public" or to stay the Final Rule in its entirety until the DC Circuit has made a decision on the merits. They request either alternative be extended to 48 hours after the Court makes its final determination in order to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The motion can be found here.

UPDATE II: Please see the comment from Brandon Combs of the FPC/FPF below. FPC v. Whitaker was dismissed only insofar as its appeal goes. As Brandon notes, they plan to amend their filing in District Court now that AG William Barr has "ratified" the earlier decision.

UPDATE III: The DC Circuit Court has clarified their stay of the bump stock rule but will not extend the stay to all bump stocks. As a result, the plaintiffs in this case have filed an application for an emergency stay with Chief Justice John Roberts.

From the clarification, in part:

FURTHER ORDERED that the request for clarification be granted in part and be denied in part. The administrative stay entered on March 23, 2019, applies only to the named Appellants in appeals Nos. 19-5042 and 19-5044, including any current bona fide members of the named membership associations.

Thus, if you are a member of the Madison Society Foundation, Florida Carry, or the Firearms Policy Foundation, the stay applies to you and you will not have to turn your bump stock in tomorrow or destroy it by then.

Here is what FPF says about membership:

 This morning the U.S. DOJ filed brief arguing that Members of Firearms Policy Foundation who own/possess bump-stock-type devices are currently protected by the D.C. Circuit's administrative stay of the ATF's bumpstock ban Final Rule. To become a member and Join FPF please donate $1 or more at FightATF.com or JoinFPF.org.

If you want to join the Madison Society Foundation, it is $30 for a lifetime family membership. Go here if you'd like to join them.

Finally, the membership page for Florida Carry can be found here.

I don't have a bump stock but I did join the FPF because I appreciate the work they are doing.

Upgrading My $1 Mossberg 500

Years ago I won a Mossberg 500A 12 gauge shotgun in a raffle held by a local police department auxiliary. The entry fee was $1 and I paid it with change in my pocket. The shotgun was in a woodland camo and came with both a 18.5" improved cylinder barrel and a 20" barrel with rifle sights. This shotgun sat in a box for years until just recently when I decided to upgrade it for a home defense shotgun.

My first step was taking it apart (thank you YouTube!) and giving it a deep cleaning. The barrel had a bit of rust on the outside of it so with a mix of sandpaper and rust remover I cleaned it up. I used Birchwood Casey's Gun Scrubber Synthetic Safe Cleaner on all the parts to remove dirt, fouling, and old grease. I then scrubbed the bore of the barrel until it shone like a mirror.

My next steps were to decide if I wanted to replace the follower, to add a picatinny rail, to add a red dot sight, whether to make it compatible with mini-shells, and to upgrade the follower spring. Once I decided to upgrade the stock Mossberg follower I had a number of choices to make. Delrin plastic or aluminum? Lime green or any number of anodized options? It came down to the lime green Delrin  follower from S&J Hardware and the aluminum anodized one from NDZ Performance. I eventually decided on the S&J follower because it seemed "slicker". If I was also going to replace the thumb safety, I might have gone with a NDZ combo package. However, the existing safety seems perfectly adequate.

S&J Hardware Delrin follower - picture from their website.

I had planned to replace the existing spring with a Wolff Extra Power magazine spring. Indeed, I actually bought one. However, it was so strong that it was near impossible to get it installed. I finally gave up and stayed with the stock spring. I may eventually switch but I think the stock spring will work for now.

The brass bead on the 18.5" barrel would have been perfectly adequate. I had toyed with adding the XS Sights big dot sight but decided a red dot would work better in the long run. I got a UTG picatinny rail from Amazon along with a certified refurbished Bushnell TRS-25 red dot sight. I have used the Bushnell sight on a Ruger 10/22 and on an AR-15 pistol. I was concerned whether it would hold up to the shock of a shotgun round but was assured in an email from Bushnell that it would do fine with 2.75" shells.

As I intend to give 1 3/4" mini-shells a try, I bought an OPSol Miniclip 2.0 Flex directly from OPSol Texas. Every review, written and video, agreed that the OPSol Miniclip was the way to go. The Miniclip is a little rubber doo-dad that can be slipped in and out of the shotgun to let the mini-shells feed.

After going to all the trouble to update the internals of the Mossberg 500, it would have been a shame to ignore the exterior. Remember I had to sand some rust off the barrel. I went back and forth on a number of camo patterns and eventually settled on a modified tiger stripe. It would be easy to do using spray paint and blue painters tape.

I had planned to just use black and olive drab for the tiger stripe pattern. I decided to modify it a bit by using a light olive as an accent to the black stripes. These were done using a pair of fishnet pantry hose, more blue tape, and the lighter olive spray paint.

 As you can see in pictures below, I think it came out nicely. I did go over the finished paint job with two coats of a matte finish sealer.

And a closer detail picture of the modified tiger stripe camo.

The blue tape is, obviously, still on the safety and the pump rails. I want to let the sealer cure overnight before removing it.

All that is left to do is mount the picatinny rail and red dot as well as reassemble the internals of the shotgun. That and to take it to the range for testing!

This was a fun project that didn't cost that much money. Everything all told was less than $100 and will make this old Mossberg 500 much improved.

World Class Snark

I love snark. The tweet below is, in my opinion, world-class.

As most probably know, that Irish-American former congressman from Texas by the name of O'Rourke has decided to run for president. I'd wager that if he were forced to take an Ancestry DNA test, the only Spanish blood in his veins might have come from a survivor of the Spanish Armada that washed ashore in Ireland.

Cheer to entrepreneur and business advisor Carol Roth for giving us the proper pronunciation of O'Rourke's first name.

People are apparently arguing about how to pronounce "Beto".
It is pronounced: "Rob-ert"

— Carol Roth (@caroljsroth) March 20, 2019

Polenar Tactical At CZ Media Day

The guys and girl at Polenar Tactical, the Slovenian firearms training and video folks, have just produced a Full 30 video on the CZ's Media Day. Among the firearms shown are the Bren 2 in .308, a CZ precision rifle, and various CZ competition pistols with and without optics.

Give Thom A Call This Morning

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) has been equivocating on red flag laws in his letters to constituents (like me!). Tillis is also a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee which is holding hearings on red flag laws. Now is the time to send Thom a message regarding red flag law. Grass Roots North Carolina is asking for people to give his office a call this morning to let him know this ain't OK.

Tillis, by the way, is up for reelection in 2020 so he is in that part of his term where he needs to play politician 100% of the time. We need to use that to our advantage.

From the GRNC alert:

STOP 'RED FLAG' LAWS: CALL THOM TILLIS

On Friday night, GRNC alerted supporters to the fact that US Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) looks to be capitulating to his anti-gun colleagues in Washington. Tillis has telegraphed his support for "Extreme Risk Protection Orders" (or "Red Flag" laws) by supporting S. 7. This bill would allow the word of an accuser, voicing “concerns,” to strip a citizen of several of the Constitutional protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights—without due process. Yet, in Senator Tillis’ recent correspondence with concerned constituents, he did not address any of the glaring and very serious problems with S. 7. Telling the "whole" truth is to tell the truth. Omitting critical details on such an important matter is, well... something else. This does not inspire voter confidence in Tillis' resolve to support the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, it looks like the Judiciary Committee, of which Tillis is a member, will conduct a hearing on S. 7 on March 26. Human rights are non-negotiable, and therefore, Tillis must not vote for this bill---but he seems poised to. As part of Friday's alert, we asked gun owners and other supporters of the Bill of Rights to phone Thom Tillis' DC office on Monday morning (3/18/2019), and this alert is a friendly reminder to do just that. Below, in the Immediate Action section, find details on how to reach Tillis and demand that he stand for the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, not against them.  To read more about "Red Flag" laws, and Thom Tillis' willingness, to cozy up to them as a member of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, click to read Friday's alert, and/or click to read a previous alert on the topic. Support "Rights Watch International" Learn more about Rights Watch International You shop. Amazon Gives. (What is Amazon Smile?)

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!

PHONE SENATOR THOM TILLIS: On Monday morning (3/18/2019), please phone Thom Tillis’s DC office at this number: (202) 224-6342. If you can’t call in the morning, please call as soon as you can after that. Deliver the following message to Tillis’ staff or his voice-mail.   Hello, I am calling about the senator’s recent correspondence on the topic of Senate Bill 7, “Extreme Risk Protection Orders,” sometimes called, “red flag” laws. In this correspondence, he conspicuously failed to address the severe Constitutional problems with red flag laws; the establishment of ex parte hearings is just one of many examples. In fact, these laws threaten Second, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections—at least. I am quite troubled by Senator Tillis’ effort to dance around the major problems with red flag laws and I expect him to be more candid, indeed more honest, with me in the future. As a North Carolina voter and a gun owner, I also expect the senator to live up to his oath of office, to the Republican Party’s platform, to the pro-Second Amendment statement on his own website, and to do everything in his power to defeat this revolting, un-American bill, and any other bill like it. Thank you.

Reactions, Pro And Con, To Connecticut Supreme Court Ruling

As you can well imagine the gun prohibitionists are ecstatic over the Connecticut Supreme Court's constitutionally dubious ruling in Soto et al v. Bushmaster et al today. Both the Brady Campaign and the Giffords Law Center had filed amicus briefs in the case.

From the Brady Campaign which has been working hard to punch holes in the Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act for many years:

Justices have reversed a lower court ruling allowing the lawsuit to move forward and put the question to a jury of whether or not Remington and gun dealers can be held accountable for its role in the 2012 shooting. The lawsuit argues that the assault-style weapon used in the massacre had knowingly been marketed to the public despite being designed for military use. It is also argued that the weapon’s marketing deliberately appealed to young people, particularly those like the 20-year-old who killed 26 people in Newtown, Connecticut.

“This is a good day for justice and for victims of gun violence everywhere,” stated Brady President, Kris Brown. “The law requires everyone, particularly businesses, to operate in a way that will not cause foreseeable harm. It’s time for gun companies to be held to this same standard, and stop being allowed to put profits over people. Brady stands ready to continue our support of Sandy Hook families in their quest for justice.”

For 30 years Brady’s legal team has led the way in winning precedent setting cases that hold gun companies accountable for their role in gun crimes. These cases are reining in and challenging gun industry protection laws, and include a negligent marketing claim against the maker of an assault weapon used in a mass shooting in 1993. This case was discussed at length in today’s decision. Brady’s team provided advice and counsel to the Sandy Hook lawyers throughout the case, also filing an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs.

“We are happy that the Sandy Hook families will get the day in court they deserve. Companies that choose to market weapons of war to the public should not get a free pass from the duty to use the reasonable care that every other person or business must follow,” stated Brady’s VP of Legal, Jon Lowy. “It is unfortunate that the gun industry’s special protection law forced these grieving families to endure years of appeals to get what should be rightfully theirs -- their day in court and an opportunity to prove their case. Thankfully this court recognized that if you unreasonably market weapons of war to the public, you can be held accountable for the consequences.”

Reader of this blog know that not one military in the world has adopted the semi-automatic AR-15 or its progeny for use. Calling it a "weapon of war" and "designed for military use" is an outright lie and both Brown and Lowy know it.

Likewise, the Cult of Personality's Legal Arm otherwise known as Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence has weighed in on the ruling with a comment from Adams Skaggs who is their chief counsel.

“Today’s decision is a victory for the families of Sandy Hook and a victory for the principle that no industry is above the law or above accountability. The Connecticut Supreme Court squarely rejected the idea that any industry, no matter how powerful, can slam the courthouse doors shut to the victims of their illegal marketing practices. Now, these families who suffered so much will have the day in court they rightly deserve. We look forward to working with them as this case moves forward, and to supporting all victims of American gun violence as they pursue justice.”

Understandably, those who stand for the rule of law and the recognition that the liability for the criminal misuse of any legal product lies with the criminal were not pleased with this ruling.

Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation responded strongly saying, in part:

“This ruling strains logic, if not common sense,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The court dismissed the bulk of the lawsuit’s allegations, but appears to have grasped at this single straw by deciding that the advertising is somehow at fault for what did that day in December more than six years ago.

“This is like suing Ford or General Motors because a car they sold was stolen and used to run over a pedestrian all because the car manufacturers advertised that their car had better acceleration and performance than other vehicles,” he added.

, 20, first killed his mother and took her legally-purchased Bushmaster rifle to the school, where he murdered 20 youngsters and six adults. The lawsuit contends that Remington’s advertising was designed to glorify the Bushmaster rifle and enhance its appeal to younger consumers.
Justice Richard Palmer, writing for the majority, said that the “regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the state’s police powers.”

“That is absurd in this case,” Gottlieb observed. “Did the advertising even remotely suggest that the Bushmaster is best for murdering people? It appears to me like the court was looking for a way to squeak around the provisions of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that Congress passed in 2005. After all, the court dismissed most of the allegations, but now has decided that advertising might be at fault. That’s a stretch of credulity worthy of surgical elastic.”

“There is no evidence the killer was driven by any advertising whatsoever,” he said. “This is an affront to the First Amendment as well as the Second. Even hinting that the killer was motivated in some way by an advertising message is so far out in the weeds that it may take a map for the court to find its way back.”

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, which is located in Newtown, Connecticut and whom is the actual lobby for the firearms industry, also disagreed with the majority's opinion in the ruling. While a bit more circumspect that the SAF's comment, it still expresses their displeasure.

NEWTOWN, Conn. – The Connecticut Supreme Court today reversed (4-3) a state Superior Court ruling and decided in Soto v. Bushmaster that the case can go forward based on the plaintiffs’ allegation that the defendants marketing and advertising of a legal product somehow violated Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). The Court’s split decision held that CUTPA fit within an exemption to the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) that permits lawsuits where the defendant violated a statute applicable to the sale of firearms. In a strongly worded and well-reasoned dissent, Chief Justice Robinson rejected the majority’s overly broad interpretation of the scope of the limited exception, which is contrary to legislative text, canons of statutory interpretation and the legislative history of the PLCAA. The majority’s decision today is at odds with all other state and federal appellate courts that have interpreted the scope of the exception. As the trade association for the firearms industry, the National Shooting Sports Foundation® filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants in this case and both respectfully disagrees with and is disappointed by the court’s majority decision.

Finally, from what I can tell from an internet search, neither Cerberus Capital Management nor Remington Outdoor Company have issued statements.

Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Remington Can Be Sued Regardless Of PLCAA

The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled today that Remington can be sued by families of Newtown victims. This overturns a 2016 Connecticut Superior Court ruling that said that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act precluded such a lawsuit. The 4-3 decision by the state supreme court held that while most claims were properly dismissed Bushmaster's marketing of the AR-15 amounted to violations of the state's unfair trade practices.

The majority opinion  written by Justice Richard Palmer concluded:

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial court properly determined that, although most of the plaintiffs’ claims should have been dismissed, PLCAA does not bar the plaintiffs’ wrongful marketing claims and that, at least to the extent that it prohibits the unethical advertising of dangerous products for illegal purposes, CUTPA qualifies as a predicate statute. Specifically, if the defendants did indeed seek to expand the market for their assault weapons through advertising campaigns that encouraged consumers to use the weapons not for legal purposes such as self-defense, hunting, collecting, or target practice, but to launch offensive assaults against their perceived enemies, then we are aware of nothing in the text or legislative history of PLCAA to indicate that Congress intended to shield the defendants from liability for the tragedy that resulted.

The judgment is reversed with respect to the trial court’s ruling that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring a CUTPA claim and its conclusion that the plaintiffs’ wrongful death claims predicated on the theory that any sale of military style assault weapons to the civilian market represents an unfair trade practice were not barred under the applicable statute of limitations, and the case is remanded for further proceedings according to law; the judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

 The majority also concluded that it was doubtful that the most popular rifle and carbines sold in the US over the last few years was even protected by the Second Amendment. As Professor William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection notes, the Connecticut Supreme Court seems to be daring the US Supreme Court to take this case.

Jacobson goes on to say:

The question is not only whether the U.S. Supreme Court will take the case, but when that will happen — now, or only after a final judgment is rendered in the CT courts. That’s key, because if a gun manufacturer otherwise protected by PLCAA has to go through discovery and trial, that defeats the purpose of PLCAA.

The dissent  written by Chief Justice Richard Robinson examined the PLCAA, Congressional intent, and case law and concluded:

In summary, whether this court agrees with Congress or not, in adopting the arms act, Congress adopted findings and statements of purpose in 15 U.S.C. § 7901; see footnote 1 of this dissenting opinion; which made very clear its intent to absolve defendants like these— gun manufacturers and distributors—from liability for criminal use of firearms by third parties except in the most limited and narrow circumstances and, particularly, to shield them from novel or vague standards of liability.22 This court is obligated, therefore, to construe the predicate exception to the arms act, 15 U.S.C. § 7903 (5) (A) (iii), narrowly in light of that clear expression of congressional intent.

Chief Justice Robinson continues:

Consequently, I strongly disagree with the majority’s conclusion that CUTPA, which is a broadly drafted state unfair trade practices statute applicable to all commercial entities in a variety of factual circumstances, comes within that exception.24 Instead, I would conclude that, because CUTPA, both in its statutory text and in its implementation under the cigarette rule, reaches a range of commercial conduct that far exceeds the manufacture, marketing, and sale of firearms, it is not by itself a predicate statute. That state unfair trade practices statutes had not been used to hold firearms manufacturers civilly liable to crime victims25 renders the plaintiffs’ CUTPA claims particularly novel in the contemplation of Congress; see 15 U.S.C. § 7901 (a) (7) (2012); and, thus, subject to preclusion under the arms act.

I most certainly hope that Remington appeals this decision to the US Supreme Court as this ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court certainly serves to undercut the supremacy of Federal law. More importantly, I hope the US Supreme Court takes this case sooner than later.

As an aside, Justice Palmer who wrote the majority opinion in this case served as the US Attorney for Connecticut from 1991 to 1993 and was appointed by President George H. W. Bush. So much for assuming Republicans respect the rule of law, the Constitution, or the supremacy of Federal law on what is rightfully a Federal issue. I guess Justice Palmer didn't want to irritate his friends down at the country club by ruling in favor of those icky gun companies.

Plain Meaning Of Statutory Terms? I Don't Think They Understand The Term

The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, otherwise known as the Cult of Personality's Legal Arm, has filed a notice that they will be filing an amicus brief in Guedes et al v. BATFE et al. This is the bump stock ban case that is on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit after the denial of a temporary restraining order. The amicus brief will be in support of the government's position.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 29(b), Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (“Giffords Law Center”) hereby gives notice that it intends to file a brief in this matter as amicus curiae in support of Defendant-Appellees. Giffords Law Center focuses specifically on firearms policy and the plain meanings of statutory terms, highlighting Appellants’ reasoned approach to and the pressing need for bump stock regulation. All parties have consented to the filing of this brief.

Beyond the fact that the BATFE are the appellees and this notice highlights"Appellants' reasoned approach", to say that Giffords Law Center focuses on "the plain meanings of statutory terms" is an oxymoron. The National Firearms Act is clear on the definition of a machine gun and the BATFE's own expert from the Firearms Technology Division Richard Vasquez got it right when he said bump stocks were not machine guns.

The rule from BATFE and the DOJ justification of it were made up from whole cloth. Both the NFA Handbook and ATF Ruling 2006-2 are clear on the definition of a machine gun and a bump stock doesn't meet that definition. Congress was clear in what they meant in their definition of a machine gun and that is the real plain meaning.

NC Bill Allowing For Armed Teachers Makes Fox News

NC Senate Bill 192, the School Security Act of 2019, was introduced in the General Assembly last week. It would allow for teachers who have completed the Basic Law Enforcement Training program to become "teacher resource officers". They would get a bonus for serving as a teacher resource officer in addition to their normal teaching duties.

As the gun prohibitionists like to say about any gun control bill, "It's a good first step." However, in this case it is the first step in allowing some teachers to be armed in an effort to protect students. The BLET requirement is overboard in that it requires the teacher resource officer to be trained in many things that would be extraneous to actually protecting students. For example, there would be no need for a teacher resource officer to know anything about motor vehicle laws, law enforcement driver training, or traffic crash investigation. That said, it gets our foot in the door.

Retired NC teacher and USMC veteran Jean Fitzsimmons was interviewed on Fox and Friends First regarding arming teachers. Here is what he had to say. Kudos to him to him for getting up that early in the morning and for the mention of Grass Roots North Carolina.

Some Humor To Start Your Monday Morning

It's a Southern Thing is one of my favorite humor sites. They have been running a series on the correct pronunciation of towns in various southern states. They have arrived at North Carolina and the results are funny.

As a native North Carolinian and life-long resident, I should note that some of these are hard even for us. I did OK on the western and Piedmont names but got a bit lost on some of the coastal NC names. I had 11 correct and four wrong which is probably because I grew up in the Piedmont and moved to the mountains in my 20s.

I'm a bit surprised that they didn't include some more Cherokee names like Lake Junaluska or the name of my favorite NC town which is Whynot.

Consumer Safety Alert For S&W M&P 15-22

Smith & Wesson has issued a consumer safety alert for all versions of their M&P 15-22 manufactured before February 1, 2019. They found that in a couple of samples the breech face counter bore depth was not within manufacturing specifications and could cause slam fires.

The full alert sent out on Friday is below:

ESCRIPTION - Please Read This If You Have A M&P15-22 Rimfire Firearm.

PRODUCT AFFECTED:
ALL models of M&P15-22 rifles and pistols manufactured before February 1, 2019.

STOP USING YOUR M&P15-22 UNTIL IT HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND YOUR BOLT REPLACED (IF NECESSARY).
Smith & Wesson has identified two M&P15-22 firearms from recent production on which the breech face counter bore depth was not within manufacturing specification. In those firearms, the lack of depth may allow the bolt, upon closing, to crush the rim of the case, causing the round to fire, cycling the bolt, and potentially resulting in multiple discharges without depressing the trigger. This issue can occur in the following two scenarios:

1) With a loaded magazine in the firearm and the bolt locked to the rear, depressing the bolt release to allow the bolt to drop freely may ignite the round as the bolt closes without engaging the trigger and with the safety selector in either the safe or the fire position, and may also result in multiple discharges.

2) With a loaded magazine in the firearm, bolt in the closed position and a round in the chamber and the safety selector in the fire position, depressing the trigger will cause the round to fire normally, however as the bolt cycles, the next round may be ignited by the bolt crushing the rim of the case as it closes, causing multiple discharges.

We believe that these are isolated incidents, however, any unintended discharge of a firearm has the potential to cause injury. Therefore, we have developed this inspection procedure to ensure that all products in the field are safe to use. We are asking customers to perform the following procedure and to refrain from using their M&P15-22 until the bolt has been inspected and replaced as necessary.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PRODUCT INVOLVED:
The out of specification condition has been found only in bolts that were recently manufactured. While our investigation suggests that the incidents are isolated, we have established this inspection procedure as a precautionary matter to ensure that all M&P15-22 firearms in service meet our design specifications. We are asking consumers of all M&P15-22 firearms manufactured before February 1, 2019 to inspect their bolt for this condition.

REMEDY/ACTION TO BE TAKEN:
The bolt from your M&P15-22 must be inspected to determine whether it exhibits the condition identified in this notice. To determine whether your firearm is affected by this condition, please inspect your firearm by following the inspection instructions provided here.
DOWNLOAD INSTRUCTION MANUAL | VIEW INSPECTION VIDEO

CLICK HERE FOR FAQ FACT SHEET
If you are uncomfortable in conducting the bolt inspection outlined here, or are unsure whether the condition described in this notice applies to your bolt, please send your bolt to Smith & Wesson for inspection and replacement if necessary.
If you want Smith & Wesson to perform the inspection, send your bolt to Smith & Wesson for free inspection and replacement (if necessary).

If you want to perform the bolt inspection yourself, contact us for the free M&P15-22 BOLT INSPECTION GAUGE Part Number: 3012155 OR place an ORDER ONLINE to recieve inspection gauge.

If the bolt from your firearm is affected by the condition outlined in this notice, please send the bolt to Smith & Wesson. If necessary, your bolt will be replaced at no cost to you. Your bolt will be returned as quickly and efficiently as possible. All shipping and replacement costs will be covered by Smith & Wesson.

To determine if this consumer advisory applies to your M&P15-22 firearm, please utilize our
SERIAL NUMBER VERIFICATION TOOL

Website For More Information: MP15-22SafetyAlert.com
Email: MP15-22SafetyAlert@smith-wesson.com
Customer Service Phone: 1-800-713-0356

GRNC Alert On US Senate Gun Control Hearings

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) who suddenly grew a spine during the Kavanaugh hearings may be backsliding a bit. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee he plans to hold hearings on gun control including on red flag laws. The Brady Campaign is crowing about it in an email and set up a special alert so as to pack the hearing room.

Grass Roots North Carolina took notice of the hearing a bit earlier and sent out their own alert. This is one that readers from anywhere can use to contact Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. If you are from a state where one of your senators is a member of the committee, make sure to use their email contact form. Just modify the one GRNC composed to be sent to Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC).

From GRNC:

THE GOP THREATENS A GUN CONFISCATION SCHEME

Is the old Lindsay back? According to US Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), so-called “red flag” laws are an area where Republicans may just reach across the aisle… As you review the details below, please keep a few things in mind: "Red Flag Law” and “Extreme Risk Protection Order” are simply euphemisms for the unlawful suspension of a person’s constitutional rights, absent any due process, based solely on hearsay from an accuser who has neither witnessed a crime, nor been victimized by one.  The US House is currently held by Nancy Pelosi’s extremely anti-gun party. This means the Senate may be the only reliable road block to extremist gun control bills. Yet, we now see influential Republican senators suggesting they just might send a “red flag” bill to Speaker Pelosi for her party’s rubber stamp. If it can pass the Senate, it’ll breeze through the House, and then it’s on to the President, who unfortunately, seems open to unconstitutional ‘red flag’ laws, and who gets along great with Lindsay Graham. This is Serious Wednesday, speaking on CNN as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Graham confirmed that the powerful committee will hold a hearing on gun control. The hearing is expected to cover “extreme risk protection” orders (“red flag” laws). Gun control is a topic usually shunned by members of the Republican held senate, and rightfully so. This is why their sudden interest in a gun control hearing is an ominous sign.  Click here to read the CNN story, a story that quotes Senator Graham (emphasis ours): “I think there's a lot of common ground [with Democrats] on enrolling people in the background system who are a danger to themselves or others.” It’s probably safe to assume that you don’t want to be “enrolled” in anything concocted by Lindsay Graham and approved by Nancy Pelosi, especially when it comes to infringements on your Constitutionally guaranteed rights. The CNN Story goes on: Graham, a supporter and strong ally of President Trump also says he has spoken with the President about it. (See the last bullet point, above). Say NO to Ending American Due Process It is critical that each of us contact the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Particularly North Carolina’s own, Senator Thom Tillis. Below, see how you can reach each member, starting with Senator Tillis, and let them know that you expect them to stand for due process, for gun rights, and against “red flag” laws.  Support "Rights Watch International" Learn more about Rights Watch International You shop. Amazon Gives. (What is Amazon Smile?)

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!

SEND AN EMAIL MESSAGE TO US SENATOR THOM TILLIS (R-NC): Tillis is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Use the link provided below, under 'Contact Info,' to visit his Senate contact form. Use the copy/paste message provided below, under ‘Deliver This Message.’    PHONE ALL SENATE JUDICIARY REPUBLICANS: Use the phone numbers provided below. Tell them you are calling about the Judiciary Committee's upcoming gun control hearing (March 26), and make the following points: “Red flag” or “extreme risk protection” laws are a blatant violation of the due-process rights guaranteed to each citizen by the Constitution, not to mention a violation of Second Amendment rights themselves.” The Senator surely knows that the term “red flag law” is simply a euphemism for the unlawful suspension of Constitutional rights, and the suspension of these rights is based on hearsay from someone who was neither a witness to, nor a victim of, a crime. Supporting this type of legislation would be a violation of the senator's oath of office and would be a severe breach of the trust the senator has earned from the voters.  No American lawmaker could support this sort of law and still claim to be a supporter and protector of the Bill of Rights. Therefore, I demand that the senator lend precisely zero support to any gun control legislation, particularly “red flag” bills. PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TO GRNC: Help us fight gun control while we promote Second Amendment principles. Please CLICK HERE to contribute. Bear in mind that GRNC is an all-volunteer organization, so you can be sure your donations are put to the best possible use. Any amount helps, and any amount is appreciated. Republicans on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee:  Committee Member Contact Info Sen. Thom Tillis (NC) (Please phone & email Sen. Tillis. Copy/paste text below.) (202) 224-6342 web contact form (email):  www.tillis.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-me Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC) (Chairman) (202) 224-5972 n. Chuck Grassley (IA) (202) 224-3744 Sen. John Cornyn (TX) (202) 224-2934 Sen. Mike Lee (UT) (202) 224-5444 Sen. Ted Cruz (TX) (202) 224-5922 Sen. Ben Sasse (NE) (202) 224-4224 Sen. Joshua Hawley (MO) (202) 224-6154 Sen. Joni Ernst (IA) (202) 224-3254 Sen. Mike Crapo (ID) (202) 224-6142 Sen. John Kennedy (LA) (202) 224-4623 Sen. Marsha Blackburn (TN) (202) 224-3344

DELIVER THIS MESSAGE

Suggested Subject: "NO to Unconstitutional ‘Red Flag’ Laws!"   Dear Senator Tillis: It has come my attention that the Senate Judiciary Committee intends to hold a gun control hearing on or around March 26. I also understand that the committee chairman has expressed a willingness to work with Democrats on gun control, specifically so-called “red flag” laws. “Red flag” or “extreme risk protection” laws are a blatant violation of the due-process rights guaranteed to each citizen by the Constitution, not to mention a violation of Second Amendment rights themselves. Because of this, supporting this type of legislation would be a violation of your oath of office and would be a severe breach of the trust you’ve earned from the voters you serve.  You know as well as I that “red flag law” is simply a euphemism for the unlawful suspension of (several) Constitutional rights. The suspension of these rights is based on hearsay from someone who was neither a witness to, nor a victim of, a crime. No American lawmaker could support this sort of law and still claim to be a supporter and protector of the Bill of Rights. Therefore, I demand that you lend precisely zero support to any gun control legislation, particularly “red flag” bills. Rather, I expect you to speak against “red flag” laws, exposing them for what they are. I will be monitoring your actions on this matter through alerts from Grass Roots North Carolina. Respectfully,

Standing United

The Second Amendment community is like a family. We may squabble amongst ourselves but unite when we are attacked by outsiders. This latest release from the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms illustrates that. It takes aim at attempts by House Democrats to cripple the National Rifle Association through multiple investigations.

BELLEVUE, WA – Reports that the National Rifle Association is being engulfed in what one publication described as “a rapidly expanding tangle of congressional investigations” raise an important question that nobody has been asking: Is this a deliberate effort by anti-gun-rights Congressional Democrats to overwhelm the organization’s leadership and prevent NRA from fulfilling its mission to protect the Second Amendment?

That’s what the Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are wondering as House Democrats are pressing their gun control agenda.

“According to The Trace, which is funded by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg, Congress has launched six investigations of the NRA,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “With Democrats in control of the House, promising to push a full slate of gun control measures, that seems just a little curious.”

Gottlieb, who also chairs the CCRKBA, said it is fair to question an avalanche of investigations involving the NRA at a time when its attention should be focused squarely on renewed efforts to erode the Second Amendment.

“Are these investigations legitimate,” Gottlieb wondered, “or are they a deliberately choreographed attempt to distract the NRA’s focus when it needs to be concentrating on the battle now developing on Capitol Hill?

“We’ve been delighted to work with NRA on a number of efforts,” he continued, “including our successful lawsuits against the 2005 post-Katrina gun grab in New Orleans, the San Francisco gun ban, our joint challenge of Seattle’s attempted parks gun ban and our ongoing federal lawsuit against a gun control initiative in Washington State. So, when we see this kind of congressional onslaught at the same time Beltway anti-gunners are trying to ram through an aggressive gun control agenda, let’s just say our radar is up.”

Gottlieb said that if there are legitimate issues, they need to be explained to the nation’s 100 million gun owners.

“Otherwise,” he observed, “all of this may amount to a lot of smoke and mirrors designed to not simply distract NRA but to discredit it in the eyes of its members, supporters and allies when we all should be working together to defend our fundamental rights at a time when they are under unceasing attack.”

I agree with Alan that this is "curious" at a time when more and more gun control bills are being introduced in Congress. Indeed, I read a bill this morning that would put any semi-automatic rifle including Ruger 10/22s capable of accepting a magazine under the purview of the National Firearms Act. 

Bumpstock Case Appealed To DC Court Of Appeals

As I reported a week ago, Judge Dabney Friedrich of the US District Court for the District of Columbia denied the motions for a temporary restraining order in the multiple bumpstock ban cases. The plaintiffs including the Firearms Policy Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition indicated they would appeal and they did. On Friday they requested an expedited hearing and briefing before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and it was granted.

More on the case from this joint press release from FPF and FPC:

WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 4, 2019) — Today, attorneys for Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation filed opening briefs in their consolidated appeals with the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the ongoing federal litigation challenging the confiscatory “bump-stock” ban rulemaking by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Copies of the briefs and related filings are available at BumpStockCase.com.

On February 25, United States District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich denied motions for preliminary injunction in the matters. The ruling came little over one year after President Trump directed the Department of Justice, at the time headed by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, to “as expeditiously as possible” propose “a rule banning all” bump-stock type devices. The challenged Final Rule was signed by Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker and published December 18, 2018.

Counsel for FPC and FPF filed notices of appeal on February 25, and on February 26, they requested an expedited appeal schedule from the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Last Friday, March 1, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit granted FPC’s and FPF’s joint motion to expedite the briefing and arguments, setting today as the deadline to file the opening briefs. The government’s answering brief will be due on March 13, and the appellants’ reply brief will be due on March 15. Oral arguments will be heard by the Court of Appeals on March 22 at 9:30 a.m.

In its brief, FPC argues that the Rule is invalid because it was issued by then-Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker. FPC explains that the designation of Mr. Whitaker – who was neither in the Department of Justice chain of command nor confirmed by the Senate – to serve in that role was both illegal and unconstitutional.

In the Guedes appeal, FPF argues that the text of the federal statutes at issue in the Final Rule are clear and unambiguous, that the rule of lenity precludes the ATF’s proposed new definition of ‘machinegun’, and that the rule is unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious. The brief also argues that the “district court abused its discretion in finding the statutory language ambiguous and erred as a matter of law in according ATF Chevron deference regarding the terms ‘single function of the trigger’ and ‘automatically’.”

Thomas C. Goldstein, Daniel Woofter, Charles H. Davis, and Erica Oleszczuk Evans of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., are on the brief for the FPC appeal. Attorneys Joshua Prince and Adam Kraut of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., and Erik Jaffe of Schaerr Jaffe LLP are on the brief for the FPF appeal.

Unless the appeals result in a temporary injunction or stay of enforcement, the ATF’s Final Rule will take effect on March 26, when the federal government will consider the affected devices to be illegal “machinguns” and carry severe criminal penalties including large fines and up to ten years in federal prison.

FPC and FPF remain committed to protecting Americans who own and possess bump-stock devices from the ATF’s unlawful Final Rule.

The case of David Codrea et al v. Barr will also be heard at the same time as the Guedes and Firearms Policy Coalition cases.

Stephen Stamboulieh, who is the attorney for Codrea et al, has this to say about the appeal:

This appeal is about an agency action in which a regulation was promulgated which seeks to dispossess hundreds of thousands of Americans from their private property. The ATF expressly acknowledges that “[b]etween 2008 and 2017, however, ATF also issued classification decisions concluding that other bump-stock-type devices were not machineguns . . . .” 83 Fed.Reg. 66514, 2018 WL 6738526 (Dec. 26, 2018). It is also undisputed that ordinary law-abiding individuals have spent, during that time period, millions of dollars of the purchase of such items in full reliance on repeated decisions of the ATF. Id. at 66543 (“This final rule is expected to have an impact of over $100 million in the first year of this regulatory action.”).

Yet, under the ATF’s new rule at issue here, if those Americans don’t surrender or destroy their heretofore legal private property, they will be prosecuted as felons. However, due to political pressure from an incident in Las Vegas at the Mandalay Bay and an instruction from President Trump to ban bump stocks, the ATF has taken an unambiguous congressional statute and has redefined plain text into something congress did not intend when it passed the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), just at ATF itself acknowledged during this time period. Worse, the district court sustained this agency action by applying the Chevron doctrine in direct contravention of controlling Supreme Court precedent that make plain that the Chevron doctrine has no place in the construction of criminal statutes.

Justice requires an injunction issue in this case. It requires such because the ATF has no authority to rewrite a congressional statute to fit the current agenda. Congress has expressly denied the ATF the authority to issue regulations with retroactive effect. “Congress alone has the institutional competence, democratic legitimacy, and (most importantly) constitutional authority to revise statutes in light of new social problems and preferences. Until it exercises that power, the people may rely on the original meaning of the written law.” Wis. Cent., Ltd. v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 2067, 2074 (2018). This is not merely a suggestion to the agencies, but a mandate from our highest court. While individuals may or may not like bump stocks, that “new social problem[ or] preference[]” is properly left to Congress to declare such and not an unelected agency which has stated over and over in the past that is has no authority to regulate bump stocks.