Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[Gun Owners]]>

New York gun group promises swift response to new carry restrictions

by Leave a Comment

Full disclosure: I was hoping to share an interview that I conducted with Tom King, the executive director of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co but the internet ate my homework. Thanks to technical issues I can’t share the video of our conversation, but I can at least relay what Tom told me about the group’s anticipated response to New York Democrats’ attempt to undermine the Supreme Court’s decision in NYSPRA v. Bruen by passing a host of new restrictions on the right to carry, including widespread bans on carrying in publicly accessible spaces, onerous new training requirements, and more.

King says NYSPRA is ready to go back to court to ensure that that victory won at the Supreme Court a week ago isn’t undone by anti-gun lawmakers, who were set to introduce and approve their new restrictions on the very same day without any public input or testimony. In fact, as of 10:30 this morning King says he’d been told that none of the Republicans in the New York State Senate had been able to see the legislation that they’d be voting on within just a few hours. Apparently that’s because there was no bill at that point. Check out this update from around 4 p.m. Eastern:

Three hours after the special legislative session in Albany officially began at noon, the gun bill and proposed Equality Amendment were still being hammered out behind closed doors.

Sen. Zellnor Myrie, a Brooklyn Democrat, emerged from discussions around 3 p.m. and told reporters the gun legislation was nearly completed, with some details still unresolved but agreement among leaders of the two chambers on the overall content.

“I think we’re very, very close,” he said.

Myrie said the proposal was so vital to public safety that lawmakers and the administration were focused on ensuring it would comply with the Supreme Court decision and withstand any legal challenges. Among the topics still under discussion was what types of public places would be classified as “sensitive areas” where carrying guns is forbidden.

“This is such an important public safety bill; we want to make sure that it isn’t subject to attack,” he said.

Oh, it’s going to be subject to “attack” by Second Amendment supporters, and if the law’s intent is that the average New Yorker is prevented from exercising their right to carry in public (with a few “extraordinary” exceptions for “sensitive places” for the purposes of self-defense, then it’s going to get tossed.

It’s funny… for decades now the state has had their “may issue” laws in place and never saw fit to require any sort of training or limit the places where the chosen few could carry a firearm. As of today, in fact, the 4,000 or so New York City residents who possess a handgun carry permit are free to take their firearms with them on subways and buses, but now that the Supreme Court has ruled that everyday New Yorkers, not just the powerful, wealthy, and well-connected (as well as a paltry few who could demonstrate a “justifiable need”) can carry a gun to protect themselves from violent criminals, Gov. Kathy Hochul and her fellow Democrats have suddenly found it necessary to impose a host of new restrictions that they’re apparently coming up with on the fly.

If these laws are so sensible, why didn’t Democrats try to put them in place before now? If they’re so sensible, why can’t the public weigh in on them before lawmakers approve them? In fact, how can you call something sensible when you haven’t even written it yet?

What Hochul and her anti-gun allies in the legislature are doing is nothing more than defying the Supreme Court and continuing to put the lives and safety of New Yorkers at risk by putting in place laws that are designed to inhibit their right to bear arms in self-defense. Meanwhile, what happens when one of their own allegedly violates the state’s gun control laws? They’re allowed to avoid prosecution and felony charges, naturally.

Tom King knows how frustrating this is for New York gun owners, but he encouraged them to “keep the faith” during our conversation today. As long as the Democrats in charge of the state continue to violate the Second Amendment rights of residents, King says the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association will haul them into court and hold them to account.

Yale law prof suggests new route to carry ban, but is it constitutional?

by Leave a Comment

Short answer? Almost certainly not, based on what the Supreme Court said last week in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen, but as we’ve already seen in states like New York, New Jersey, and California, anti-gun activists aren’t letting a little thing like a Supreme Court decision get in the way of their desire to disarm average, everyday Americans.

So what is Ian Ayres’ big idea? Basically, he wants to flip the current law in the vast majority of states to make concealed carry banned on private property unless the owners of that property decide to allow it.

You might be surprised to learn that when you ask someone to come and repair your dishwasher, they can legally carry a concealed weapon into your kitchen unless you expressly object. In all but three states and D.C., any visitor can, by default, carry a firearm into your home without your explicit permission. The repairman has a Second Amendment right to bear arms, but you have a right to control whether people carry guns onto your land.

A central attribute of property ownership is the right to exclude unwanted people from your land. Forty-seven states fail to adequately protect this right of landowners to control their property because they provide the wrong default rule regarding the right of invitees to bear arms. Property owners cannot make an informed choice if they don’t know they have to object (more than two-thirds of people are unaware of these default rules). And it is hard for a property owner to know that she needs to object when the objectionable firearm is concealed.

The same problem exists regarding private commercial land. All 50 states permit individuals to carry their firearms into private retail establishments by default. Private businesses must post “No Guns” signs to make their stores gun-free, and these signs must often meet strict requirements. Many retailers fear customer backlash if they post signs either restricting or permitting gun carry in their stores. So, they are inclined to stick with a state’s default rule regardless of their preferences.

If this idea sounds familiar it’s because New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has decided to implement this idea, at least when it comes to businesses, as part of plan to defy the Supreme Court and make it as difficult as possible for New Yorkers to exercise their right to armed self-defense in public.

There are two big problems with Ayers idea; one constitutional and one practical. As Ayers himself notes, every state in the union says that if you want to ban guns from commercial properties you can do so, but you must provide notice to the public in some form or fashion. 47 out of 50 states take the same view when it comes to non-commercial private property. These laws are widespread and longstanding, and there is nothing in the history or tradition of the right to keep and bear arms that supports what Ayers (and Hochul) are demanding. Given the negative implications that these policies would have on the right of the people to bear arms for self-defense in public and the fact that they have no similar analogues in American history, I don’t think there’s any way that they would be upheld by the Supreme Court.

From a practical perspective the idea is just as flawed. Ayers acknowledges that “it is hard for a property owner to know that she needs to object when the objectionable firearm is concealed,” and that wouldn’t change if all privately-owned spaces become gun-free zones by default. It would be just as difficult to determine if someone was carrying in violation of the law, but we’d also likely see far more individuals inadvertently doing so because of the reversal of the longstanding status quo. Ayers idea wouldn’t stop a single violent criminal, but would turn a lot of otherwise law-abiding citizens into accidental outlaws because they would no longer be able to legally carry in most of the places where they’ve been able to exercise their right to bear arms in the past.

Part of Ayers’ problem is that he, like many other gun control fans, still just doesn’t want to accept that the right to keep and bear arms is a real right. In his piece at The Hill, the Yale professor claims that the Second Amendment is about “individuals’ ability to defend their homes by arming themselves.” That is simply not true. The right to keep and bear arms is fundamentally about protecting yourself, not your property, and as the Supreme Court made clear last week, the right of self-defense doesn’t stop once you set foot outside your front door. If private property owners want to ban lawful carrying on their premises they can do so, but in a country with a right to keep and bear arms, the default position has historically respected that right and must continue to do so in the future.

California AG office's leak of gun owner info even worse than originally admitted

by Leave a Comment

The data leak from California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office, originally reported to have been limited to the private and personal details of concealed carry permitees in the state, was far more extensive than his office first admitted.

Yesterday afternoon Bonta’s office acknowledged that in addition to the concealed carry records, which included the full names, home addresses, and drivers license numbers of all those who had applied for a concealed carry permit (not just those who were approved), other databases run by the AG’s office were also open and available to download for an unspecified amount of time this week.

On Wednesday, it was revealed that the exposures also extended to the Assault Weapon Registry, Handguns Certified for Sale, Dealer Record of Sale, Firearm Certificate Safety, and Gun Violence Restraining Order dashboards.

“This unauthorized release of personal information is unacceptable and falls far short of my expectations for this department,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta.

Bonta has launched an investigation into the data breach.

The DOJ shut down parts of its website once it learned about the breach.

“It’s concerning anytime information that specific is released to the public,” says Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims. “Of course, what we tell the public all the time is to protect your personal information.”

Mims says it’s also important for these gun owners to make sure their home is secure since home addresses were part of the breach.

Yeah, thanks to the “unauthorized release of personal information” the AG’s office has provided a shopping list for criminals who are looking to steal guns and ammunition, as well putting who knows how many gun owners at risk of being targeted by abusive ex-partners or criminal defendants who appeared before one of the hundreds of judges whose personal info was made available online. This is really bad, but Bonta, despite saying he’s “angry and deeply disturbed” by the data leak, seems to be fairly nonplussed about the fact that his office has, in essence, doxxed hundreds of thousands of Californians.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the leaked information amounts to an entire decade’s worth of data on gun owners and those who applied for a concealed carry permit.

The California State Sheriffs’ Assn. said it was “alarmed” to learn of the breach.

“It is infuriating that people who have been complying with the law have been put at risk by this breach,” said Butte County Sheriff Kory Honea, the association’s president. “California’s sheriffs are very concerned about this data breach and the risk it poses to California’s CCW permit holders.”

All California law enforcement agencies that issue concealed-carry permits are required to provide “certain information” about permit holders to the Justice Department, “which in turn is required to safeguard that information,” according to a statement by the sheriffs’ association.

“It appears that before the breach was detected by DOJ, the information was copied and at least some portion of it was posted on the internet,” the statement said.

Justice Department officials said the data were exposed for less than 24 hours.

The department had posted updates to the portal Monday afternoon and was later made aware “of a disclosure of personal information that was accessible in a spreadsheet on the portal,” the agency’s statement said. Officials removed the information from public view and shut down the firearms dashboard Tuesday morning.

So far the only recourse offered by the AG’s office for those whose personal information was exposed has been credit monitoring to protect against identity thieves. What about the actual thieves who now have the names and addresses of local gun owners in their areas thanks to the downloading and dissemination of this data? Will Bonta be offering any protection against those criminals?

It shouldn’t even be up to Bonta, honestly, because he should resign in disgrace over what the California Rifle & Pistol Association is calling a “massive violation of California law.”

The CRPA has put together a an updated timeline of the data leak as well as all new information that’s become available and a link for prospective plaintiffs to join any lawsuit filed by the 2A group in response to the AG’s exposure of their personal information. I would encourage every California gun owner to get involved in this effort, as well as encouraging those of us who thankfully don’t have to live under the state’s anti-Second Amendment regime to kick in some cash to the state-level groups fighting for accountability for the officials who’ve put gun owners at risk.

This should also be Exhibit A the next time gun control groups in your state start talking about the “need” for gun registries, licensing, and yes, even “red flag” laws. Beyond the obvious constitutional issues with those databases, the California Attorney General has shown us just how easy it is for all of this information to be leaked online, and gun owners have no reason to believe that their own officials would do any better at keeping this information safe and secure.

UPDATE: CA AG Admits Gun Owners' Personal Data Was Released Through Firearm Data Dashboard

by Leave a Comment

Wednesday afternoon, California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office issued a press release regarding the massive data breach RedState reported Tuesday which allowed the personally identifying information (PII) of numerous categories of gun owners in the state to be downloaded from its Firearms Dashboard. Bonta admitted that the breach occurred, and the press release detailed the types of personal information that were exposed and the categories of individuals affected – which turns out to be more widespread than first reported.

The California Department of Justice has announced that personal information was disclosed in connection with the June 27, 2022 update of its Firearms Dashboard Portal. Based on the Department’s current investigation, the incident exposed the personal information of individuals who were granted or denied a concealed and carry weapons (CCW) permit between 2011-2021. Information exposed included names, date of birth, gender, race, driver’s license number, addresses, and criminal history. Social Security numbers or any financial information were not disclosed as a result of this event. Additionally, data from the following dashboards were also impacted: Assault Weapon Registry, Handguns Certified for Sale, Dealer Record of Sale, Firearm Certificate Safety, and Gun Violence Restraining Order dashboards. DOJ is investigating the extent to which any personally identifiable information could have been exposed from those dashboards and will report additional information as soon as confirmed.

The press release doesn’t indicate exactly when the office was made aware of the breach, but states that the dashboard was shut down Tuesday morning and was publicly available for less than 24 hours.

It also included a statement from Bonta, who said an investigation into what happened is already underway:

“This unauthorized release of personal information is unacceptable and falls far short of my expectations for this department. I immediately launched an investigation into how this occurred at the California Department of Justice and will take strong corrective measures where necessary. The California Department of Justice is entrusted to protect Californians and their data. We acknowledge the stress this may cause those individuals whose information was exposed. I am deeply disturbed and angered.”

An investigation is definitely needed, and corrective measures are welcome. However, in order for California gun owners to even have a scintilla of trust that when they abide by the state’s draconian gun control laws and necessarily provide the state with their personal information, that that information will be protected from public access, Bonta’s office must be transparent about how this breach occurred. Even with that transparency, California gun owners will still understandably be leery that the information they provide won’t end up being “accidentally” disseminated publicly or used by the state to harass them. But transparency is the right path, and it’s a good first step and would paint Bonta as a little more humane than former Attorney General Kamala Harris, who couldn’t have cared less about anything that would negatively affect the state’s gun owners.

And given that Bonta, a former Bay Area assemblyman who was appointed to this office and, therefore, has never won statewide office, is up for election in November, he needs to not appear to be an extremist. In the June 7 primary Bonta received 54.4 percent of the vote, but he knows he’s facing an electorate that’s not so keen on the state administration anymore. Newsom received 60 percent of the vote in the recall election, but that went down to 55.9 percent by the June primary. Two Democrat incumbents in statewide office (Superintendent of Public Instruction and Insurance Commissioner) received far less than 50 percent of the vote in the primary, and knowing that education and crime are two issues Californians are most angry about this year, Bonta doesn’t have a lot of ground to lose.

The Department of Justice will contact those whose information was exposed directly and provide instructions to sign up for free credit monitoring services.

New York City sues companies over sales of unfinished firearms

by Leave a Comment

New York City Mayor Eric Adams ran for office pledging to reduce violent crime, but since the Democrat and former NYPD officer has been in charge, major crimes have increased by a whopping 40% across the city. Now the mayor is taking action against five companies that he says violated city ordinances by shipping unfinished frames and receivers to a New York City address; one that was set up by the New York City Sheriff’s Office.

In a new lawsuit filed in federal court, Adams and other city officials allege that Arm or Ally LLC, Rainier Arms LLC, 80P Builder, Rock Slide USA LLC and Indie Guns LLC have not only broken that local ordinance, but have created a “public nuisance” in doing so, which allows them to use a law approved by then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo last year empowering public officials and the general public to sue gun makers and sellers when their products are used in a crime.

While Adams and other Democrats from Joe Biden on down have sought to paint home-built guns (“ghost guns” as they call them) as one of the main reasons behind increasing violent crime, the number of home-built guns recovered by police in New York City are just a small fraction of the total number of firearms seized or recovered in recent years.

The number of untraceable ghost guns recovered at city crime scenes or seized through investigations has increased about 200% each year since 2018, when the first such weapons were discovered in the city, one official said.

As of June 14, the city has recovered 175 ghost guns, compared to 64 ghost guns through the same period last year, a second official said. In all, the NYPD recovered 270 ghost guns last year.

A CNN analysis earlier this year of 2021 data found while ghost guns still make up a relatively small percentage of the total number of guns recovered by law enforcement, several cities reported sharp increases in the number of ghost guns recovered over time. San Francisco police told CNN they seized 1,089 guns in 2021, about 20% of which were ghost guns. In 2016, ghost guns made up less than 1% of total gun seizures in the city.

A 200% increase sounds like a lot, but it’s also the difference between seizing one gun and three. And while the NYPD recovered some 270 unserialized firearms last year, the vast majority of guns that were seized were store-bought and serialized by the manufacturer.

Every day in 2022, cops have taken 20 guns off the street, and arrested 13 people on gun charges, according to data released by the NYPD on Thursday. That amounts to about 2,600 firearms taken off the street, and — as of May 8 — some 1,693 arrests on gun possession charges.

If that pace holds, the department will seize more than 7,000 firearms and make 4,800 gun arrests by year’s end, NYPD data shows.

Both figures would be a sharp increase from previous years. Police seized about 6,200 guns and arrested 4,497 people on gun busts in 2021. In 2020, cops recovered more than 5,300 guns and arrested 4,280 people on gun charges.

Now, math was never my strong suit in school, but 270 out of 6,200 firearms in total doesn’t seem like a lot to me.

I understand that Adams is desperate to explain away his own incompetence at fighting crime by pointing his finger anywhere and everywhere he can, but “ghost guns” aren’t to blame for the increased violence in New York City. It’s the policies of Democrats like Adams and New York D.A. Alvin Bragg, as well as the decades-long hostility towards the right to keep and bear arms that are giving criminals the upper hand in New York, and while Adams may get some positive local press out of his latest lawsuit, New York’s violent offenders aren’t going to be stopped or even slightly impeded as a result of this litigation.