Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[Gun Ban]]>

New Mexico lawmakers adjourn without holding votes on gun ban, waiting period bills

by Leave a Comment

New Mexico gun owners and Second Amendment supporters are breathing a sigh of relief today after the 2023 New Mexico legislative session wrapped up on Saturday while leaving several of Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s top gun control priorities unaddressed and unable to become law.

Less than a month ago Lujan Grisham was describing a ban on “assault weapons,” barring under-21s from purchasing firearms, and establishing a 14-day waiting period on all firearm transfers as “must haves” this session. She even threatened to haul lawmakers back to Santa Fe for a special session on gun control if the Democrat majorities failed to deliver the anti-2A measures to her desk. By Saturday afternoon, shortly after the session’s close, the governor was singing a different tune.

“I know that is an area that you want me to say I’m disappointed,” Lujan Grisham added. “I’m motivated. I am very motivated to find additional ways to make sure that we really do everything in our power that makes our communities and cities in our state safe.”

The Legislature passed a gun storage law named after a 13-year-old Albuquerque boy authorities say was shot and killed by a fellow student who took his father’s gun to an Albuquerque middle school.

Lawmakers also passed a bill that cracks down on organized retail crime and made it a fourth-degree felony to buy a gun for another person who is prohibited from owning a firearm.

But some of the governor’s biggest priorities went nowhere, including a ban on assault weapons; a bill to raise the age to 21 to buy or possess semi-automatic firearms, including assault weapons; and a 14-day waiting period to buy guns.

Other gun-related legislation — prohibiting firearms within 100 feet of polling places and updating the Unfair Trade Practices Act to lift restrictions on the filing of lawsuits against manufacturers or distributors — passed the Senate but didn’t get a hearing in the House, where they were likely to meet stiff opposition.

Given the fact that Democrats control both chambers of the legislature and have previously passed Lujan Grisham-suggested bills including “universal” background checks and a “red flag” firearms seizure law, the unwillingness of lawmakers to go along with the vast majority of the governor’s anti-gun mandates is a truly welcome development for gun owners. As for the governor’s previous calls for a special session, it doesn’t look like that’s gonna happen after all.

Since taking office in 2019, Lujan Grisham has called at least one special session in every year except for her first year as governor.

She suggested a special session on crime bills would not be in the works, though she cautioned lawmakers to expect public pressure on the issue after an election cycle in which crime played a prominent role.

“I try not to use special sessions as a tool to force issues that we don’t have good collaboration on,” Lujan Grisham said.

But she said she would have called a special session on medical malpractice issues, had lawmakers not been able to broker a late-session compromise.

Looking ahead, Lujan Grisham also said she would continue to seek passage of additional gun-related legislation, citing specifically proposals to enact a waiting period for firearm purchases and increasing from 18 to 21 the minimum age for buying certain types of guns.

“New Mexicans should know that as long as I’m governor, I’m going to keep trying to reduce to the highest degree, gun violence and violence in particular,” the governor said.

And as long as she continues blaming responsible gun owners for the actions of violent criminals, gun owners in the state are going to keep pushing back. By the time next year’s session kicks off, we’re also likely to have several more good court decisions around the country that will cut against Lujan Grisham’s anti-gun agenda.

This was supposed to be a big year for gun control activists in the state, who were hoping that the Democratic backlash to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen would enable them to enact several major restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. Instead, they managed to get a gun storage bill signed into law, but virtually every other item on their anti-2A agenda was either voted down outright, bottled up in committee, or failed to get a vote on the floor of either the House or Senate. This is a major victory for gun owners and Second Amendment advocates in New Mexico, and a welcome defeat for the gun prohibitionists in the state.

Is Illinois’ gun and magazine ban on hold? Depends on who you ask.

by Leave a Comment

According to Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Attorney General Kwame Raoul, the only Illinois residents exempt from the state’s newly-imposed ban on “large capacity” magazines and “assault weapons” are those named plaintiffs in several state-based lawsuits who’ve been able to secure an injunction against enforcement of the new law. But Second Amendment advocates say that last Friday’s ruling by a judge in Macon County actually applies statewide, and argue that the governor and attorney general are sowing confusion with their claims to the contrary.

So far, the Illinois State Police haven’t said whether they’re continuing to enforce the law’s provisions banning possession of “large capacity” magazines or the sale of modern sporting rifles, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Pritzker and Raoul try to keep quiet for as long as they can given that the Illinois State Supreme Court has agreed to expedite the appeal of the Macon County judge’s decision.

Passage of the law prompted immediate legal challenges in both state and federal courts by gun rights advocates who said it violated both the Illinois and U.S. constitutions.

One of those suits was filed by a group of plaintiffs led by Republican state Rep. Dan Caulkins, of Decatur.

On March 3, Judge Rodney S. Forbes ruled that the exceptions to the assault weapons ban violate the equal protection clause in the Illinois Constitution as well as the “special legislation” clause that prohibits the General Assembly from passing “a special or local law when a general law can be made applicable.

“We look forward to vigorously defending this final judgment by Judge Forbes,” Caulkins said at a news conference Wednesday. “We believe that we have the facts on our side.”

That decision, the judge wrote, was based on a 5th District Court of Appeals ruling in another case in which an Effingham County judge had granted a temporary restraining order to block enforcement of the ban. That order, however, applied only to the roughly 800 plaintiffs who were named in the case.

That case, Accuracy Firearms LLC v. Pritzker, also is on appeal before the Supreme Court.

The state Supreme Court says it will take up Caulkins lawsuit in May, and I don’t think the governor or the state police can stay silent on whether the law is being enforced despite Judge Forbes’s ruling until then, but I’m sure they’ll try to keep the status quo as confusing as possible in the meantime.

While the state Supreme Court won’t consider the constitutionality of the new ban for another couple of months, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is the next stop for one of the federal lawsuits filed in the wake of the bill being signed into law. Naperville, Illinois gun store owner Robert Bevis filed his appeal with the Seventh Circuit late on Tuesday, asking the court to overturn the decision by U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall denying an injunction to halt enforcement of the gun and magazine prohibitions.

The case appears to be the first to challenge the Illinois ban to the federal appellate court. The appeals court could side with Kendall or block the measure, which was signed by Gov. J.B. Pritzker on Jan. 10 and immediately banned the sale of military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Kendall ruled last month that, “because assault weapons are particularly dangerous weapons … their regulation accords with history and tradition.”

Bevis’ lawyers argue that Kendall’s ruling is wrong, that, under previous Supreme Court rulings, weapons must be found to be “dangerous and unusual” to be banned.

“An arm that is commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes is, by definition, not unusual,” they wrote in their court filing Tuesday. “Thus, such an arm cannot be both dangerous and unusual and therefore it cannot be subjected to a categorical ban.”

They told the 7th Circuit the matter “is not a close case.”

We’re probably a couple of weeks away from a hearing on the injunction request, much less a decision by a three judge panel of the Seventh Circuit, but things are still moving fairly quickly all things considered. We also have a hearing scheduled for next month in the four other federal lawsuits, which have been consolidated into one case. U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn is set to hear oral arguments on the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction on April 12th, so there are a lot of moving pieces when it comes to the ban’s future in addition to the widespread confusion over the law’s current status.

Colorado’s proposed “assault weapons” ban struggling to find support

by Leave a Comment

It’s a near certainty that the Democratic majority in Colorado’s state legislature is going to approve some gun control bills this year, none of which are likely to make the state a safer place. The imposition of “universal” background checks, red-flag laws, and a ban on “large capacity” magazines hasn’t stopped violent crime from steadily rising over the past ten years; not surprising given that legal gun owners aren’t the primary drivers of crime in the first place.

What is throwing more cold watersurprising is the troubles that a proposed ban on so-called assault weapons has seen in the state. A draft version of the bill that was leaked weeks ago finally emerged from the shadows last Friday afternoon; quietly introduced without fanfare or the vocal support of Colorado Gov. Jared Polis. Now Democratic leaders in the state Senate are on the proposed ban, even as they tout their support for a number of other infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.

While they didn’t offer an official position on how they would vote, Senate President Steve Fenberg, D-Boulder, and Senate Majority Leader Dominick Moreno, D-Adams County, noted just how contentious the last time legislators tackled similar proposals.

Fenberg hinted the “hesitation” toward the “assault weapons,” and how some people, even if supportive of the idea, view it as a potential distraction.

…

Fenberg said there is a lot of “hesitation” on the bill within the Senate. It’s not that people don’t support the concept, but they don’t feel it’s the right policy at the right time, he said, adding it could also serve as a distraction and not the most effective way to save lives.

“These other bills have gone through a very strenuous process” and will continue to be amended as they move through the legislature, he said. People are thinking hard about what’s the right policy, what’s defensible and can be enforced, and what will be effective, he added.

On the other hand, the discussion around the “assault weapons” ban bill has been more political, he said, and, as a result, people may not have as much confidence that it will be a policy that delivers the results it promises.

None of the gun control measures that the state’s Democratic majority have imposed over the past decade have delivered any measurable results, at least in terms of reducing violent crime. Take a look at these stats, courtesy of KDVR in Denver.

Colorado’s ban on “large capacity” magazines (defined by lawmakers as anything over 15-rounds) and “universal” background checks were approved in 2013. The presence of those laws didn’t reduce firearm-related crimes in 2014, and failed to prevent firearm-related crimes from rising almost every year since. In fact, while violent crimes involving all kinds of weapons have increased since then, the share of firearms-related offenses is growing at more rapid pace than crimes involving other weapons.

For gun control activists and anti-gun politicians, these figures are all the more reason to pass even more gun control legislation. But if insanity is doing the same thing while expecting different results, then it’s downright crazy to think that continuing to place more restrictions on peaceable gun owners is going to impact violent criminals.

Yet here we are. The “assault weapons” ban introduced in the House may not have the legs to make it Gov. Polis’s desk (though I wouldn’t take anything for granted), but both House and Senate Democrats are likely to approve waiting period legislation, bans on gun sales to adults younger than 21, restrictions on shooting on rural private property, and several other measures that are unquestionably aimed at legal gun owners. Hopefully Fenberg is right about the prospects of the proposed “assault weapons” ban in the Senate, but even if that bill fails there are plenty of reasons for Coloradans to be concerned about the erosion of one of their most fundamental rights.

Thousands testify in opposition to Lamont’s gun control bills

by Leave a Comment

Gov. Ned Lamont’s proposed package of new gun control laws, which feature everything from expanding the state’s ban on “assault weapons” to instituting a gun rationing scheme, ran into a buzzsaw of opposition at the Connecticut state capitol on Monday. Thousands of residents signed up to testify either in person or through written statements as the Senate Judiciary Committee held its first hearing on the package, with the vast majority of them objecting to the governor’s attempt to crack down on responsible gun owners.

Of the nearly 5,000 people who submitted comments more than 4,500 were opposed to Lamont’s anti-gun plans, compared to about 300 supporters. Many gun owners turned up in person in the hopes of testifying face-to-face with lawmakers as well.

Hyde Harman, who served in the military during the Vietnam War, said Lamont’s plan would restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

“I don’t open carry, but I don’t care if someone else does,” said Harman, adding that state police often take 15 minutes to respond to his rural town of Voluntown along the Rhode Island border in eastern Connecticut.

Since overall crime is down in recent years and both Lamont and then-Gov. Dannel P. Malloy have closed prisons, Harman questioned why Lamont’s proposals are needed.

“If crime is down, why so many new restrictions?” Harman asked. “How is limiting my ability to purchase more than one gun per month going to stop crime? If the assumption is that I am making straw purchases, which is already illegal, then I am offended and this almost sounds libelous to me.”

…

Darin Goens, state director of the NRA who has testified for 17 years in 11 states, said it is “splitting hairs” on which state has the toughest guns laws, but Connecticut ranks in the top five with California, New York, and others. He noted that New York and New Jersey have storage laws, but gun crimes have continued. He questioned boosting the age to 21, up from 18, to purchase a gun.

Currently, those 18 and older are allowed to purchase rifles or so-called long guns while handguns are limited to those 21 and older. But Goens said the increased age would not have stopped various shootings around the nation.

“We could pass everything on the slate here today and it would have no impact,” Goens said, adding that criminals “don’t care” and will not follow the laws.

Jake McGuigan, managing director of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said he is concerned about a bill supporting micro-stamping, which is mandated in California.

“The technology is unproven,” McGuigan said. “The technology does not function reliably. … It’s only going to impact law-abiding gun owners purchasing at the retail level. … No manufacturers know how to comply.”

Anti-gun lawmakers also got a reminder that Lamont’s efforts to turn the right to keep and bear arms into a culture war battle hurts every responsible gun owner, including those on the left.

Longtime activist Cornell Lewis said that having the ability to possess weapons are important, including his grandparents who defended themselves years ago in Georgia. He described the scene of a rally for social justice at the state Capitol in which some people had concealed weapons.

“When the Proud Boys showed up, I shook their hands with a contingent of eight people,” Lewis told the committee. “They stood in the driveway of the state Capitol for two hours. If we were not armed, we would have been attacked. … We’ve never had to take our weapons out. … It’s important for people like myself to possess, legally, weapons. … The only reason that we have not been attacked by white supremacists … is they know we’re armed, and they know we’re not joking.”

Beyond the proposed one-gun-a-month law, microstamping, raising the age to purchase firearms and ammunition to 21, and the expansion of the state’s “assault weapons” ban to include those firearms lawfully purchased and possessed before the original ban was enacted, Lamont is calling for a host of other restrictions on legal gun owners, including the establishment of a 10-day waiting period on all gun transfers, increasing the criminal penalty for possessing a “large capacity” magazine, expanding the state’s firearm storage law, and requiring all home-built firearms to be registered with the state.

None of Lamont’s bad ideas would have a substantial effect on violent crime in Connecticut, and the vast majority of them are flagrant infringements on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, but with the large Democratic majority in both chambers at least some of the governor’s anti-civil rights package has a good chance of being enacted despite the widespread opposition vocalized on Monday. Don’t count gun owners out completely though. Second Amendment groups like the Connecticut Citizens Defense League have been doing an incredible job of mobilizing members, and last year the group was able to help defeat a similar anti-gun package introduced and promoted by Lamont. CCDL members were out in force in Hartford for yesterday’s Judiciary Committee hearing as well, and they’ll be keeping up the pressure on legislators to reject the governor’s illegitimate gun grab and other infringements on their fundamental rights ahead of the Judiciary Committee’s March 31st deadline to advance these gun control bills, or better yet, reject them outright.

Colorado Dems float gun ban for young adults

by Leave a Comment

Ten years ago Colorado enacted its first new gun control laws in decades, approving a ban on “large capacity” magazines (arbitrarily defined as any magazine that can accept more than 15 rounds) and “universal” background checks. Since the the Democrat-controlled legislature as added several additional gun control laws to the books, including Extreme Risk Protection Orders, while repealing the state’s firearm preemption law and allowing localities to impose their own local ordinances even more restrictive than state law.

All the while, the state’s violent crime rate has been been steadily rising, particularly in Denver and some of the surrounding suburbs like Aurora. But the failure of one gun control law is just an excuse to add even more to the books, as far as anti-gun lawmakers are concerned, and this year Democrats are expected to introduce an avalanche of anti-2A bills. Several have already been officially announced and have even received legislative hearings, while others, like a proposed ban on “assault weapons”, are still being crafted behind the scenes.

On Tuesday night, several Democrats sat down with the Denver Post to unveil one of their top priorities for this year’s session: banning the sale and possession of firearms to adults under the age of 21.

“We know that there’s a disproportionately high rate of violence perpetrated by young people using firearms,” Sen. Jessie Danielson, a Wheat Ridge Democrat, said, adding that that includes suicides.

Danielson, Sen. Kyle Mullica of Thornton, and Reps. Monica Duran of Wheat Ridge and Eliza Hamrick of Centennial, all Democrats, cited statistics on the policy from the Giffords Law Center for the need.

According to the center, there was a 61% increase in gun suicides among minors between 2011 and 2020 and 18- to 20-year-olds being 17% of known homicide offenders despite being 4% of the general population chief among them. The Giffords Law Center advocates for more stringent gun laws and is named for former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, who was shot in the head at an event.

“I’m not saying that (the bill’s) going to fix everything, but it sure as hell is an important, huge step in recognizing and acknowledging that we need to do something here in Colorado,” Duran said.

What Colorado needs to do is address its crumbling mental health system, which is in dire need of repair; particularly when it comes to juvenile mental health.

As of February 28, 2022, Colorado has a bed capacity of 216 when it comes to psychiatric residential treatment for kids. There are another 156 beds for kids with more acute needs. And according to the Colorado Department of Human Services, 16 congregate care facilities for youth shut down in the last five years.

Over a decade ago, the philosophy on treatment changed with the belief kids would do better receiving treatment in familiar settings versus in a facility. Fifteen years ago, Colorado had more than 1,600 youth placed in congregate care settings. That population is now less than 300.

In an email to 9NEWS, the state wrote:

“Many youth who were previously served in residential facilities are able to be successfully served in their home or in family-like settings with outpatient services and supports. Very few youth demonstrated requiring the type of acute clinical care offered in congregate settings as most families benefited from local resources and referrals to community services aimed to strengthen families.”

But the concern over closing facilities creates a ripple effect for groups serving kids, as well as for Children’s Hospital Colorado.

Dr. Ron-Li Liaw, the hospital’s Mental Health-in-Chief, said the loss of residential beds for kids, as well as acute psychiatric beds, is being felt in their hospital. Kids are coming into their emergency department for help with nowhere else to go. Liaw said, at times, half of the department is filled with kids in a behavioral health crisis.

She also said some kids have stayed at the hospital for five to six months with nowhere to go for long-term care needs. She said this isn’t the right kind of care for kids, but they are doing the best they can while working to expand capacity.

That’s a huge problem, and it’s utterly untouched by banning young adults from keeping and bearing arms. But the legislation isn’t just a distraction from the dysfunctional mental health system in the state, it’s an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of young adults.

Courts from California to Tennessee have recently ruled that various laws prohibiting under-21s from purchasing or carrying firearms in self-defense is a violation of their Second Amendment rights, so even if this bill becomes law its future is very much in doubt. Rather than waste time and energy trying to prevent suicide by depriving an entire class of law-abiding citizens access to a fundamental right, lawmakers like Danielson and Duran should be focused on fixing the fundamental flaws in Colorado’s access to mental health treatment. If they’re unwilling to do that, why not throw some money towards the Colorado Firearms Safety Coalition’s voluntary program allowing gun owners to temporarily store their firearms with local FFLs and firearms instructors when they believe its necessary to do so?
The fact is that there are lots of things Colorado Democrats can do if they want to address suicide, but they’re choosing a gun control solution to what is fundamentally a mental health problem. I question whether this ban would do much to bring down the state’s shockingly high youth suicide rate, but there’s no doubt that it would infringe on the basic right to keep and bear arms for tens of thousands of responsible young adults across the state. There are much better ways of tackling this serious problem instead of just “doing something” that’s likely to be thrown out the courts if does become law, but as we’ve seen for the past decade in Colorado, when it comes to public safety the Democrats have come to believe that it’s always the next anti-2A measure that will finally make a difference.
If you or someone you know are experiencing thoughts of suicide, please reach out to the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline by calling 988 on your phone or reach out online at 988lifeline.org.