A Partial Loss In California Mag Ban Case

The opinion and ruling by US District Court Judge Roger Benitez in the California magazine ban case - Duncan et al v. Becerra - has garnered lots of attention this past week. His ruling was a permanent injunction on California's ban on the sale of standard capacity magazines. The result has been that the major online retailers such as Palmetto State Armory, AIM Surplus, Brownells, and Midway USA have been inundated with orders for magazines by California residents.

As you might imagine, the State of California and Attorney General Xavier Becerra are not happy campers. They requested an immediate stay on the ruling while they appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. This afternoon, Judge Benitez granted a partial stay after weighing the arguments of both sides and trying to satisfy both sides.

From his order:

In layman’s terms, the State of California and the law enforcement agencies therein will be free to re-start the enforcement of Calif. Penal Code § 32310 (a) and (b) which currently prohibits, among other things, any person in the state from manufacturing, importing into the state, offering for sale, giving, lending, buying, or receiving a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds (as defined by Calif. Penal Code § 16740). This will continue until the appeal proceedings conclude or the stay is modified or lifted.

At the same time, the State of California and the law enforcement agencies therein will remain enjoined (or prevented) from enforcing Calif. Penal Code § 32310 (c) and (d) which would have criminalized the simple possession of a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds and required disposing of such magazines. This will also continue until the appeal proceedings conclude or the stay is modified or lifted.

Both parties indicate in briefing that persons and business entities in California may have manufactured, imported, sold, or bought magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds since the entry of this Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019 and in reliance on the injunction. Indeed, it is the reason that the Attorney General seeks urgent relief in the form of a stay pending appeal. Both parties suggest that it is appropriate to fashion protection for these law-abiding persons.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment is stayed in part pending final resolution of the appeal from the Judgment. The permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (a) and (b) is hereby stayed, effective 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the preliminary injunction issued on June 29, 2017, enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (c) and (d) shall remain in effect.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (a) and (b) shall remain in effect for those persons and business entities who have manufactured, imported, sold, or bought magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds between the entry of this Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019 and 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.

Dated: April 4, 2019

Translated this means that standard capacity magazines can't be sold, made, imported, or given away after tomorrow, Friday, April 5, 2019 at 5:00pm PDT. However, if you bought a magazine, sold a magazine, or otherwise transferred one into California between March 29th and April 5th at 5:00pm, you are still covered by the permanent injunction against the ban. This means you have until 5:00pm tomorrow to receive it. Or take a quick trip out of state - Nevada, Arizona, etc - and be back by 5:00pm with your new standard capacity magazines.

Moreover, further translating, the preliminary injunction prevents prosecution of those who possessed a standard capacity magazine prior to July 1, 2017. They will not be forced to dispose of their magazines to comply with subsection (d).

You can read the relevant penal code here.

Misleading Headline But Then Again It's Al Jazeera

There was an article online with Al Jazeera that had a headline that read, "New Zealand gun lobby backs ban after Christchurch mosques attack". You are justified in thinking that New Zealand firearms organizations are a bunch of sheep-like wusses if you believed that headline. The only problem is that when you dig further the anonymous author took quotes out of context and ignored actual opposition to the proposals of Prime Minister Jacinda Adern.

It starts with this from the Secretary of the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners:

In stark contrast to the United States, where even the most minor curbs on gun ownership meet ferocious opposition led by the National Rifle Association, New Zealand gun owners agree action is needed.

"We want to support our government in any changes to prevent a terrorist attack from happening in New Zealand again," said Nicole McKee, secretary of the Council of Licensed Firearm Owners.

That differs from what they are saying now on their Facebook page. They have asked that the consultation period be the normal six months and that a select committee be set up to study it. This has been ignored in the NZ government's planned bill and COLFO has said:

Today, the Arms (Prohibited firearms, Magazines and Parts) Amendment Bill was released. You had best sit up and pay attention as we are being let down BADLY.

We NEED 100,000 people to step up and state they wish to be able to fire their centre-fire semi-automatic firearms. We NEED you ALL to submit to the select committee and to ask to speak in person. That is the simple key message.

I don't think that sounds like an organization that is backing the government of New Zealand's gun control policies. They are also feeling like scapegoats.

Some Licensed firearm owners are feeling they are being made the scapegoat for the actions of a terrorist, we would like to quote the Prime Minister and say on their behalf ‘We did not do this’.

Here is what is being banned by the Government of New Zealand's proposed bill which will carry penalties from 2 to 10 years of imprisonment for violating it.

The Bill inserts new provisions to provide a general prohibition on importing, selling, supplying, or possessing any of the following:

• a semi-automatic firearm (other than a pistol), with some exceptions:
• a pump-action shotgun that is capable of being used with a detachable magazine:
• a pump-action shotgun that has a non-detachable tubular magazine or magazines that can hold more than 5 cartridges or magazines:
• magazines for shotguns that can hold more than 5 cartridges:
• magazines for any other firearm that are detachable and can hold—

• 0.22 calibre or less rimfire cartridges and more than 10 of those cartridges; or
• more than 10 cartridges and can be used with a semi-automatic or fully automatic firearm:

• any other magazine that can hold more than 10 cartridges:
• a part of a prohibited firearm, including a component, that can be applied to enable, or take significant steps towards enabling, a firearm to be fired with, or near, a semi-automatic action.

In the quote from the National Rifle Association of New Zealand referring to only shooting with single shot bolt action rifles, it was taken from the President's newsletter which contained a number of bulleted items. NRA-NZ is a rifle shooting club that engages in stuff like the Palma Championships and F Class rifle contests. The newsletter notes that they are part of the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners and are letting that organization take the lead in the response to the political situation post-Christchurch mosque attack.

Finally, the COLFO has a number of position papers including this one on what they call "military-style semi-automatics" or MSSAs. From the position paper:

COLFO POLICY

COLFO considers the current licensing requirements for military style semi-automatic firearms meets both the needs of society and firearms owners. The legislation has proved successful in regulating the ownership, use and safe storage of such firearms.

COLFO also believes that MSSAs should be transferable between E endorsement holders and those with a C category endorsement. This would enable bona fide collectors and museums the opportunity to retain or purchase them.

COMMENT

The tragedies that involve mass murder using firearms are normally followed by emotive calls for tighter gun control as people look for a quick fix to feel more secure. It is a fact that those who are diagnosed as mentally ill have little or no respect for any laws let alone firearm laws.

COLFO considers legislating to further restrict firearms possession among law abiding and licensed owners will have no effect on the incidents of violence involving firearms. This has been proven by overseas experience.

I think this conclusively puts a nail in the coffin of the quote implying that they support the NZ government's plans to ban these firearms.

My final comment is that the number of firearms voluntarily turned in is minimal (less than 50). Despite not having constitutional protections for either free speech or the right to keep and bear arms, it seems many New Zealanders are taking the Gonzales approach - Come and Take It.

He's Right, You Know

MADEbyJIMBOB is an anti-politically correct satirist. He was the subject of a story in The Federalist a few days ago about the memes he puts up on Instagram and one that recently was removed. JimBob was put on notice that his account could be shut down if he has "subsequent violations.

So what did he do that was so objectionable?

He told the truth about the mosque murders in New Zealand and the reaction of the government of Jacinda Adern.

From The Federalist:

When asked what he was hoping people would get from the post, MADEbyJIMBOB said: “The purpose of the meme was explore the perhaps unhealthy relationship between terror, trauma and reactionary legislation. The definition of terrorism is the use of violence or threat with political motivation, the inquiry is, is terrorism being exploited for political action and where is the line between responding to terrorism and rewarding violent behavior with legislation.”

This is a valid question, but one Instagram apparently thinks isn’t worth entertaining on their platform. Whether it be due solely to the mention of terrorism or some perhaps more nefarious politically based antagonism, it’s hard to say why Instagram found this so unacceptable. And there’s no appeal process, so MADEbyJIMBOB might never know.

And the meme:

Copyright MADEbyJIMOB

If you've read any of the killer's off-the-wall manifesto - and I have - you know this was his intent.

As Morgan Freeman would say:

A Dating Partner Of The Respondent?

The proposed red flag for North Carolina, HB 454, includes in its definition of "family or household member" as someone you are dating. Thus, someone you go out with on a blind date would be eligible to seek an "Extreme Risk Protection Order" which would order the police to take all your firearms. They could do this electronically, with no court costs, and, if they possessed a valid "Address Confidentiality Program" authorization card, could keep their address secret.

Do we really need the modern day equivalent of the Star Chamber?

I say no and so does Grass Roots North Carolina which issued the following alert:

GO ON A DATE, LOSE YOUR GUNS

Like everyone else, Gun Owners have the Constitutional right to due process and the presumption of innocence. House Bill 454 would change all of that, allowing anyone in an ever-expanding circle of people, including a ‘dating partner,’ to decide you are ‘imminently dangerous’ and direct the authorities to confiscate your guns. H454 doesn't define ‘dating partner,’ ‘imminent’ or what makes someone a 'danger to themselves or others’.  But keep in mind that those who would deny your Second Amendment rights often consider any gun owner to be ‘dangerous,' and they would be able to force the confiscation of your guns without your foreknowledge (through an ex parte hearing). So let’s say you go on a casual outing with someone who knows you have guns, and they decide to "report"  you, for revenge, out of spite or whatever (due to unrequited interest, for example). They can honestly claim to be a ‘dating partner,’ a term entirely undefined by H454, and have your property confiscated at the point of a gun. On top of all of this, the authorities can charge you a storage fee for keeping your guns and ammunition. They take your guns against your will and in violation of your rights, and you get to pay for the privilege! Nothing in the proposed law would stop the authorities from test firing your guns for a ballistics database to see if they were used in a crime, or doing anything else with them for that matter. While you may have to undergo a ‘mental health' or 'chemical dependency' evaluation to keep what you already own, your accuser has the option of staying anonymous under the ‘Address  Confidentiality  Program’. How nice for the accuser who will never have to confront you in court, in blatant violation of the 6th Amendment. Laws already exist for Involuntary Civil Commitment, and these provide due process, but apparently, these aren’t good enough for the gun grabbers. In addition to being unconstitutional, clearly this new form of government overreach isn’t effective, as research shows that these new laws do not work as advertised. Please Contribute to GRNC-PVF It’s going to be a busy year in the world of freedom-fighting. At the same, time multiple special elections approach, House and Senate bills, both good and bad, are being filed in the General Assembly. Funds and volunteers are already stretched thin, and we’re still climbing toward peak activity. Now more than ever, this all-volunteer organization needs your support. Anything you could spare will help GRNC-PVF and would be greatly appreciated, and let’s face it, with all that’s coming our way, donations are nothing less than an investment in the future of gun freedom in our state. Please CLICK HERE to donate to GRNC-PVF.  Support "Rights Watch International" Learn more about Rights Watch International You shop. Amazon Gives. (What is Amazon Smile?)

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!

EMAIL BOTH PARTY'S LEADERS IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY: Below, find the copy/paste contact information you need to tell the party leadership that this unconstitutional gun control bill must not receive a hearing. Use the copy/paste text provided under the ‘Deliver This Message’ section. PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TO GRNC-PVF: 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. NC General Assembly Leadership copy/paste email list: Tim.Moore@ncleg.net; Sarah.Stevens@ncleg.net; John.Bell@ncleg.net; Jon.Hardister@ncleg.net; Darren.Jackson@ncleg.net; Cynthia.Ball@ncleg.net; Deb.Butler@ncleg.net; Carla.Cunningham@ncleg.net; Garland.Pierce@ncleg.net; Amos.Quick@ncleg.net; Phil.Berger@ncleg.net; Harry.Brown@ncleg.net; Dan.Blue@ncleg.net; Jay.Chaudhuri@ncleg.net; Rick.Gunn@ncleg.net; Jerry.Tillman@ncleg.net; Ted.Davis@ncleg.net; David.Lewis@ncleg.net

DELIVER THIS MESSAGE

Suggested Subject: “Stop H454, the Gun Confiscation Bill“ Dear Republican Leader: I am writing today because I am outraged over H454's attempted erosion of Constitutional liberties, in particular, the right to due process.  With just the word of a ‘dating partner’ (an undefined term), someone’s firearms can be forcibly confiscated by law enforcement. This confiscation would be based on ‘dangerous behavior,’ another term that the bill doesn't define. Those who are hostile to the Second Amendment often (and absurdly) consider gun owners dangerous by their mere existence. Considering that, and the fact that anyone, out of spite or revenge, would be able to have a citizen's guns forcibly taken from him or her, these constitutionally abhorrent orders will, in essence, legally codify the practice of ‘SWAT-ing’ anyone who owns or is believed to own a gun. For these reasons, I’m insisting that you take whatever legislative steps necessary to halt this freedom denying measure. Do the right thing: use your position to take active steps to make sure this ominous gun control bill will never have a hearing, and never receive a vote. I will be closely monitoring your actions regarding this gun control bill through alerts from Grass Roots North Carolina. Respectfully,

I think Black Rifle Coffee has captured the type of "dating partner" who might file for a ERPO if they knew you possessed a firearm in the video below. Yes, it is a spoof but the reality is that there are men and women like that out in society.

DC Circuit's April Fools Joke On The Constitution

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia released its decision in the combined cases of Guedes et al v. BATFE et al and Codrea et al v. Barr. It was a per curiam decision with Judge Karen Henderson dissenting in part and concurring in part. The court sided with the District Court in denying the preliminary injunction of the bump stock rule.

PER CURIAM : In October 2017, a lone gunman armed with bump-stock-enhanced semiautomatic weapons murdered 58 people and wounded hundreds more in a mass shooting at a concert in Las Vegas, Nevada. In the wake of that tragedy, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“Bureau”) promulgated through formal notice-and-comment proceedings a rule that classifies bump-stock devices as machine guns under the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 5801–5872. See Bump-Stock-Type Devices, 83 Fed. Reg. 66,514 (Dec. 26, 2018) (“Bump-Stock Rule”). The then- Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker initially signed the final Bump-Stock Rule, and Attorney General William Barr independently ratified it shortly after taking office. Bump- stock owners and advocates filed separate lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the Rule from taking effect. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction to halt the Rule’s effective date. Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives , 356 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D.D.C. 2019). We affirm the denial of preliminary injunctive relief.

 The case was heard by Judges Karen Henderson, Sri Srinivasan, and Patricia Millett. Srinivasan and Millett were appointed to the Court of Appeals by former President Obama while Judge Henderson by President George H. W. Bush.

In reaching their decision, the court found that BATFE was entitled to Chevron deference and that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed in their case as a result.

Judge Henderson parted company with her colleagues and said that the bump stock rule does contradict the statutory definition of a machine gun. As such, she would have granted the injunction.
She examined the history of the National Firearms Act, rulings of BATFE, the previous rulings that the bump stock was NOT a machine gun, the slow motion video evidence submitted to the District Court, and the affidavit of Richard Vasquez who had done the technical evaluation of the bump stock.

She concluded:

If the focus is —as it must be—on the trigger, a bump stock does not qualify as a “machinegun.” A semiautomatic rifle shoots a single round per pull of the trigger and the bump stock changes only how the pull is accomplished. Without a bump stock , the shooter pull s the trigger with his finger for each shot. With a bump stock, however, the shooter —after the initial pull —maintains backward pressure on the trigger and puts forward pressure on the barrel with his non- shooting hand; these manual inputs cause the rifle to slide and result in the shooter’s stationary finger pulling the trigger. Bump -Stock - Type Devices , 83 Fed. Reg. at 66,533 (“The constant forward pressure with the non- trigger hand pushes the firearm forward, again pulling the firearm forward, engaging the trigger, and firing a second round.”). T he bump stock therefore affects whether the shooter pull s his trigger finger or keep s it stationary . It does not change the movement of the trigger itself , which “ must be released, reset, and fully pulled rearward before [a] subsequent round can be fired.” Verified Declaration of Richard (Rick) Vasquez, former Acting Chief of the Firearms Tech . Branch of ATF, at 3–4.

Like countless other Americans, I can think of little legitimate use for a bump stock. That thought , however , has nothing to do with the legality of the Bump Stock Rule. For the reason s detailed supra , I believe the Bump Stock Rule expands the statutory definition of “machinegun” and is therefore ultra vires . In my view, the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge and I would grant them preliminary injunctive relief.

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent

Brownell's Releases The BRN-134D Minigun

A full-auto minigun would be a NFA item and probably would run afoul of the Hughes Amendment. However, Brownells has recently released a semi-auto version of the minigun. It isn't cheap but I could see buying a few of these if I had been the lucky person in Wisconsin who just won the Powerball lottery last week.

They say:

In this special edition of our weekly Brownells new products vlog, Paul Levy shows us the new BRN-134D™ Minigun. Developed in partnership Dillon Aero, the BRN-134D is the latest addition to Brownells line of detail-correct semi-auto clones of military firearms. It sports all the standard Minigun features: rotary barrel system with 6 ordnance-grade steel barrels chambered in 7.62x51 NATO, electric-powered motor, disintegrating link feed chute, and a 3,000 round ammo box. The BRN-134D comes with a Picatinny rail up top for the red dot or scope of your choice (optic not included) and an aircraft-mountable stand of rugged, powder-coated steel (included). The price? Surprisingly reasonable!

 Paul Levy has a different idea of "surprisingly reasonable" than me. That said, you are getting a lot of weapon for your $125,000.

The Ultimate Camo!

UF Pro has just announced they are releasing a new camo pattern. It should work in the deer stand, the duck blind, and, most importantly, for our armed forces wherever they may be. It truly is a universal camo.

This camo is so universal that they makers are calling it Invisible Camo.

Town Hall In Charlotte On Wednesday

Spectrum News is holding a town hall in Charlotte this coming Wednesday, April 3rd, to view a documentary entitled "Gun Violence and Gun Control in the Carolinas". This will be followed by a discussion period with those attending the town hall. I think you can reasonably expect the gun prohibitionist lobby to be there in full force wearing their Bloomberg-provided red shirts.

Grass Roots North Carolina is reaching out to those who can be in Charlotte on Wednesday evening to attend. If you live in Charlotte, a surrounding county, or even in South Carolina, and you value your constitutional rights, it would be useful to attend.

GRNC released this alert on the event:

Attend Town Hall Mtg with GRNC’s President

ATTEND THE TOWN HALL MEETING!

Spectrum News is airing a documentary on the “state of gun violence and gun control in the Carolinas,” then hosting a town hall meeting immediately afterward…

Join GRNC’s President at a Town Hall 
F. Paul Valone, GRNC’s President, will be one of the few (if not the only) pro-gun-rights member of the panel at Spectrum’s town hall discussion. Fortunately, audience members will have the opportunity to ask questions of the panel. That’s where you come in. The gun rights community needs you to be there to ask reasonable questions, those that will not get asked if only the anti-gun crowd is in attendance.

Help End the Echo Chamber
If you are in the Charlotte area (or can be) on Wednesday, April 3rd, at 7:30 pm, please join Paul Valone along with other GRNC supporters to help make sure this town hall meeting is conducted in a fair-minded fashion, and therefore, actually has a chance to be productive, and not just an echo chamber for the anti-gun crowd.

Below you’ll find details about the town hall meeting. Your attendance is needed, so please do join us. If you are indeed going to be there, please email GRNC’s Director of Development to let us know:  directorofdevelopment@grnc.org. 

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!

 

• ATTEND THE SPECTRUM NEWS TOWN HALL MEETING ON GUN VIOLENCE/GUN CONTROL: 
  
  This Wednesday, April 3rd, this town hall meeting will immediately follow the 8:00 pm documentary on “Gun Violence and Gun Control in the Carolinas.” It’s best if you arrive in time to watch the documentary so you can secure a seat, and the program will surely offer context for the discussion. Arrive by 7:30 if you can.
  
  You ought to have the opportunity to ask questions of the panel. GRNC can provide you with appropriate questions, those that will mesh with the specifics discussed in the documentary, and particular topics to be discussed by the panel.
  
  Spectrum News has stated that they would like to “shine a light on feasible ways to prevent gun violence without infringing on Second Amendment rights or interfering with law-abiding citizens or hunters who would never use a gun to commit a crime.”
  
  The address for the meeting is below. If you can attend, please inform GRNC’s Director of Development as soon as possible so we know you’re coming. This will make it easier for us to touch base with you before or at the meeting. Use this email address: directorofdevelopment@grnc.org 

MEETING LOCATION:	Spectrum News Studios 316 East Morehead Street Charlotte, NC  28202
MEETING DATE/TIME:	Wednesday, April 3, 2019 Please arrive by 7:30 pm  Documentary at 8:00 pm Town Hall immediately follows
TIPS:	Email GRNC ahead of time (as soon as you can) to let us know you’re going to attend: directorofdevelopment@grnc.org. If you’d like, GRNC can provide you with questions to ask the panel.
	Arrive early (7:30 or earlier) to allow for parking and to make sure you get a seat.
	Please dress for the press. Kindly dress professionally, with no inflammatory slogans or symbols on clothing.