Police say a man shot and killed another man who entered his residence in Beach Park Thursday morning and pulled a knife when a fight ensued.
The Lake County Sheriff’s Office and Beach Park Fire Department responded around 12:40 a.m. Thursday to the 38100 block of North Loyola Avenue in Beach Park for a report of a person shot.
Sheriff’s 911 Telecommunicators were told that the person who fired the gun, a 24-year-old man, was involved in an altercation with the man who had been shot.
Syracuse, NY -- A Syracuse man has been indicted on a murder charge in the shooting death of a neighbor inside the Clinton Plaza Apartments downtown.
But Kevin Pulley’s lawyer argued Wednesday that his client was actually the initial victim being chased by a “knife-wielding attacker” when he pulled the trigger.
Little was revealed by defense lawyer Jim Hopkins other than his contention that Pulley, 42, shot John Turner, 52, to death in self-defense. It’s unclear, for example, if anyone else was involved in the alleged altercation or what the dispute may have been about.
DAWSON CREEK, B.C. - Police say two women are critically injured after a black bear attacked a family hiking near Dawson Creek in northeastern B.C., then guarded the victims from rescuers until it was shot dead.
A statement posted to social media by the B.C. Conservation Officer Service says the family of four turned and ran when the bear charged them Monday evening.
The service says the bear chased them and attacked one woman, while another woman and a teenage boy were injured trying to help her.
Northglenn detectives said that two teen burglary suspects had a semi-automatic gun and a machete before they were shot and killed by the homeowner over the weekend after trespassing. Police believe the suspects were also responsible for burglarizing a nearby home on Sunday afternoon.
Retired teacher and unopposed District 28 House of Delegates candidate Mark Ross lives nearby and got a call the suspect had been seen heading toward his daughter’s house.
Ross says at the time, his wife was babysitting their grandkids there while his daughter was at a doctor appointment.
“That made it even more special to me,” he said. “They’re not going to bother my grandbabies for sure.”
Ross grabbed his pistol and went to his daughter’s house and looked around. He says he spotted the suspect trying to get in through the basement.
A woman says she was raped in her bedroom before she grabbed a gun and shot at her accused rapist several times, according to police in Oklahoma. She struck him in the foot, then “left the scene out of fear for her life,” Tulsa police said in a news release shared on Facebook. Officers were called to the shooting in northeast Tulsa at about 1:55 p.m. Sunday, Oct. 2, according to the post. The man, identified as Wilfredo Gomez, was taken to a hospital.
Image from ATF New Definition of Firearm in "Final Rule"
On September 2, 2022, the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting a preliminary injunction, in part, on the ATF "Final Rule" which radically changed the decades long definition of what is a firearm in federal law. The opinion explains that ATF created the longstanding definition of what is a firearm in 1978. Now, over forty years later, they are updating and expanding the definition into new areas. From the opinion/order, p. 2-4:
In April 2022, ATF published a Final Rule changing, among other things,the 1978 definition of “frame or receiver.”See Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms, 87 Fed. Reg. 24,652 (Apr. 26, 2022)(codified at 27 C.F.R. pts.447, 478, and 479(2022)).1ATF split the phrase intotwo parts, assigning the term “frame” to handguns and the term “receiver” to any firearm other than a handgun, such as rifles and shotguns. See 27 C.F.R. §478.12(a)(1), (a)(2). ATF then defined the terms “frame” and “receiver” along the same lines as the 1978 rule, though with updated, more precise technical terminology.2 But ATF did not stop there.
Rather than merely updating the terminology,ATF decided to regulate partial frames and receivers. Under the new Final Rule, “[t]he terms ‘frame’and ‘receiver’shall include a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver, including a frame or receiver parts kit, that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver.”Id.§478.12(c). But “[t]he terms shall not include a forging, casting, printing, extrusion, unmachined body, or similar article that has not yet reached a stage of manufacture where it is clearly identifiable as an unfinished component part of a weapon (e.g., unformed block of metal, liquid polymer, or other raw material).” Id. When determining whether an object is a frame or receiver, the ATF Director is not limited to looking only at the object. “When issuing a classification, the Director may consider any associated templates, jigs, molds, equipment, tools, instructions, guides, or marketing materials that are sold, distributed, or possessed with the item or kit ....” Id.
The Final Rule also amends ATF’s definition of “firearm”to include weapon parts kits.The ATF’s new definition of “firearm,”“shall include a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.”Id.§478.11(definition of “firearm”).
The Court found ATF exceeded their authority. From the opinion/order, p. 6:
1. The Final Rule exceeds ATF’s statutory authority under the plain language of the Gun Control Act.
The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be ... in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations.”5 U.S.C. §706(2)(C). Plaintiffs argue the Final Rule exceeds ATF’s statutory authority under the Gun Control Act in two ways. First, Plaintiffs argue that the Final Rule expands ATF’s authority over parts that may be “readily converted” into frames or receivers, when Congress limited ATF’s authority to “frames or receivers” as such.Second, Plaintiffs argue that the Final Rule unlawfully treats weapon parts kits as firearms.Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on both claims.
On September 23, 2022, Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, doing business as 80 Percent Arms, filed a motion to intervene (to be included in the lawsuit). The motion is under consideration. The court has ordered the ATF to reply by October 7, 2022.
On September 26, 2022, the court denied the Goverment's motion
for clarification, where the ATF wanted to complete a classification of
one of the plaintiff's products. The Court ruled to do so would be in
contravention of the injunction it placed in effect on September 2,
2022.
Texas is in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Another Court in Texas refused to issue a preliminary injunction.
In North Dakota, in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Peter D. Welte refused to grant a preliminary injunction in another case challenging the ATF "Final Rule".
A major contention is the wording of the 1968 Gun Control Act, which clearly differentiates weapons which "may be readily converted" and receivers, which does not include the "may be readily converted" language.
In addition, the inclusion of information, tooling, and jigs as part of what is defined as a firearm is new and a considerable expansion of governmental power.
In Delaware, Judge Maryellen Noreika has ruled the ability to make and possess homemade guns is protected by the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court may eventually take a case on what power, if any, the ATF may legitimately have to regulate the private, non-commercial making of or sale of firearms, and what may be defined as a "firearm". The court action may take years.
©2022 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
During last week’s hearing, the defendant’s attorney presented a motion for self-defense immunity. Judge Lori Fleming took up the motion. Fleming cited with the defendant indicating that he acted in self-defense. The Judge allowed the motion to be granted.
Therefore, Dominik Short will not go to trial and the court dropped the charges against him.
Count 4 against James Hamilton was for aggravated assault. According to court documents, on May 13, 2022, Hamilton unlawfully put Dominik Short in immediate bodily harm with a deadly weapon. That weapon was a handgun.
ATF images of "Firearms" in "Final Rule"
On September 27, 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued an open letter to all Federal Firearms Licensees. The letter is available online.
The letter is seven pages long and includes several images. The purpose of the letter is explained in the first paragraph. From the atf.gov:
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is issuing this open letter to further assist the firearms industry and the public in understanding whether a “partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional” receiver of an AR-15/M-16 variant weapon has reached a stage of manufacture such that it “may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted” to a functional receiver, and is therefore classified as a “frame or receiver” or “firearm” in accordance with the final rule titled “Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms (Final Rule 2021R-05F), which became effective August 24, 2022. In particular, the following addresses items that are clearly identifiable as an unfinished component part of a weapon—specifically, partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional AR-type receivers (also known as receiver ‘billets’ or ‘blanks’).
The "Final Rule" is being contested in the courts. In North Dakota, Judge Peter D. Welte accepted the ATF definition of a firearm in the Final Rule, at least in his refusal to issue a temporary injunction against the implementation of the rule. The rule might still be found to be unlawful in the court case.
In the Northern District of Texas, Judge Reed O'Conner found the ATF exceeded its authority, and issued a limited injunction against implementation of the rule. From the opinion:
1.The Final Rule exceeds ATF’s statutory authority under the plain language of the Gun Control Act.
The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be ... in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations.”5 U.S.C. §706(2)(C). Plaintiffs argue the Final Rule exceeds ATF’s statutory authority under the Gun Control Act in two ways. First, Plaintiffs argue that the Final Rule expands ATF’s authority over parts that may be “readily converted” into frames or receivers, when Congress limited ATF’s authority to “frames or receivers” as such. Second, Plaintiffs argue that the Final Rule unlawfully treats weapon parts kits as firearms. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on both claims.
The letter by ATF explaining the Final Rule does not mention the ongoing court cases. It reiterates ATF's position that association with tools and jigs, instructions or guides, can make a non-firearm into a firearm.
From page 3 of the letter:
Thus, in order not to be considered “readily” completed to function, ATF has determined that a partially complete AR-type receiver must have no indexing or machining of any kind performed in the area of the trigger/hammer (fire control) cavity. A partially complete AR-type receiver with no indexing or machining of any kind performed in the area of the fire control cavity is not classified as a “receiver,” or “firearm,” if not sold, distributed, or marketed with any associated templates, jigs, molds, equipment, tools, instructions, or guides, such as within a receiver parts kit.
On page 6, the ATF emphasizes that information and tools which make the creation of a frame or receiver easier, are now considered items which make an incomplete part a firearm:
However, the above analysis only applies to partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frames or receivers without any associated templates, jigs, molds, equipment, tools, instructions, guides, or marketing materials. Pursuant to Final Rule 2021R-05F, partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frames or receivers that are sold, distributed, possessed with such items (or made available by the seller or distributor to the same person) may change the analysis, including those distributed as frame or receiver parts kits. 27 CFR 478.12(c). For example, jigs, templates, or instructions can provide the same indexing as if it were placed directly on the unfinished frame or receiver.
At the end of the letter, the ATF adds further warnings about how unfinished frames or receivers are considered "defense articles", and subject to permits for export or import. From page 7:
Further, although unfinished frames or receivers that do not meet the definition of a “firearm” are not subject to regulation under GCA provisions, they are still considered “defense articles” on the U.S. Munitions Import List and, therefore, require an approved Application and Permit for Importation of Firearms, Ammunition and Implements of War (ATF Form 6) for importation into the United States under 27 CFR 447.41; 447.22, and are also subject to export controls.1
In the old Soviet Union, typewriters had serial numbers and were tightly controlled by the state. Information was tightly controlled. In the United States, the distribution of information is protected by the First Amendment.
The ATF is asserting that tools and information on how to make frames or receivers are, essentially frames and receivers. This is an unprecedented expansion of government control over the private making of firearms, never before existing in the United States.
The injunction by Judge O'Conner
Judge O'Conner sees the major expansion of power by the government. He believes the ATF does not have the authority to do so.
©2022 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
COLUMBUS, Ga. (WTVM) - Your home is your safe place, but it also can be targeted by criminals. Now, a Troup County man is in a Columbus hospital tonight recovering from a gunshot wound.
According to the Troup County Sheriff’s Office, a man broke into a home and soon found out, the hard way, that he picked the wrong house.
“The homeowner confronted him. She had a handgun and she fired one round striking him in the lower abdomen,” says Sgt. Stewart Smith, Troup County Sheriff’s Office.
In the record breaking sales of firearms in 2020 there were numerous people who purchased firearms who had not purchased a firearm before.
Many of the new gun owners were driven to purchase guns because of the uncertainty seen in 2020. There were many riots. There were prosecutors who refused to prosecute. The murder rate grew rapidly. The political system was attacked and vilified.
Gun sales reached a record level of about 20.66 million guns sold in 2020, according to this correspondent's calculations.
The National Shooting Sports Federation ran surveys at numerous retail outlets. Those surveys indicated there were about 8.4 million first time gun buyers in 2020 and 5.4 million in 2021:
Recent firearm industry retail data revealed first-time gun buyers especially, totaling more than 5.4 million in 2021 and 8.4 million in 2020, are seeking training opportunities with their new purchases.
Once experienced with the process involved to legally purchase their gun and confident with using it, it’s no wonder gun-owning Americans view the push for more gun control with increasing skepticism.
Surveys are difficult to verify.
According to the NSSF survey, about 13.8 million gun purchasers in 2020 and 2021 were first time gun buyers.
In a California federal case about whether a state can ban semi-automatic firearms and magazines (Miller v Bonta), Judge Roger Benitez required the state to provide statistics about gun sales.
California is unusual among states, it requires all legal firearm sales to be processed through a federal dealer. Those statistics are the most complete data we have on firearms sales in a state.
The California Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms, was forced to provide data about new firearm buyers.
Blake Graham, Assistant Director of the California Department of Justice provided the following in a sworn document to the court:
The total number of firearms sold in California with background checks in 2020 was 1,165,309. As of March 12, 2021, the total number of firearms sold in California with background checks in 2021 was 180,058. These figures account for all firearm sales conducted through FFLs in the state, including private- party transactions, consignments, and pawn sales.
Graham also provided the number of first time firearm purchasers, as well as could be determined:
Based on these parameters, approximately 369,511 individuals purchased a firearm in California who had not previously submitted a DROS application to the Department prior to January 1, 2020. As of March 12, 2021, approximately 42,548 individuals purchased a firearm who had not previously submitted a DROS application to the Department prior to January 1, 2021.
Of the guns purchased in all of 2020 in California, about 32% were by new gun buyers. Of the guns purchased up until March of 2021, about 24% were new gun buyers.
There were about 20.66 million guns purchased in the USA in 2020. Using the percentages from California, about 6.55 million of those would be new gun buyers. In the smaller sample from 2021, the percentage of new gun buyers was 24%. Extrapolated to the entire USA for all of 2021, that would be another 4.34 million new gun buyers.
Extrapolating the California percentages to the entire United States, there would be about 10.95 million new gun buyers in 2020 and 2021.
The total for the two years, based on the California Department of Safety figures, would be 10.95 million new gun buyers. While this figure is smaller that the NSSF estimate of 13.8 million new gun buyers, it is based on sales in California.
Gun sales are more difficult for the first time buyer in California than for most other states. This might discourage prospective gun owners from buying a first gun in California.
For example, new gun owners in California must take a test and pass it. Then they are given a Firearms Safety Certificate (FSC). An FSC is required before they can purchase a firearm. Only one firearm may be purchased in any given 30 days.
Once the firearm is purchased, the purchaser has to wait 10 days before they are allowed to possess it.
In 2020, Californians purchased about .024 firearms per capita.
In non restrictive states (other than CA,HI,NY,NJ,MA,MD and DC) , residents purchased .075 firearms per capita, or over three times as many.
Considering the limitations of retail surveys and the potential bias in purchasing guns in a restrictive state, the California numbers are reasonably close to the NSSF estimate.
As this is written, we are more that half way through 2022. It is reasonable to surmise over 12 million new gun owners have been added to the number of gun owners in the United States in the last three years.
The new gun owners go far in explaining the difficulty in obtaining ammunition at prices common only four years ago.
©2022 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
The Tuscaloosa Violent Crimes Unit says they’re looking into whether or not a fatal shooting that happened at an apartment complex over the weekend was in self-defense.
VCU said they’ve spoken to several witnesses and reviewed the evidence in the shooting, which happened at River Road Apartments around 11 p.m. Saturday, and at this time they’ve made no arrests.
CERES, Calif. —
A man died Tuesday morning after a home invasion involving multiple intruders with guns, the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Office said in a release.
The break-in was reported at 6 a.m. in the 2600 block of Gondring Road in the city of Ceres, the sheriff's office said. Deputies who responded found a man identified as 22-year-old Christian Sanchez with serious injuries.
Senior Judge Rodger T. Benitez
This famous case started as Duncan v. Becerra. Judge Benitez found California's ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition to be unconstitutional on its face. On March 29, 2017, Judge Benitez issued an injunction preventing enforcement of the ban. In the week that followed, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of magazines were sold to California residents who had been deprived of their Second Amendment rights.
The week of March 29, 2017 to April 5, 2017, has become known as Freedom week.
The name of the case changed as the name of the California AG changed.
Subsequent court actions reversed the injunction, upheld Judge Benitez' opinion, reversed the three judge panel with an en banc hearing, and appealed the en banc hearing to the Supreme Court. On June 22, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its decision on the Bruen case. On June 29, the Supreme Court vacated the decision by the Ninth Circuit en banc on Duncan v. Bonta, and sent it back to the Ninth Circuit to be re-decided.
The Ninth Circuit sent the case back to Judge Rodger T. Benitez.
Judge Benitez is following proper procedure. He is not allowing delays.
On September 26, 2022, Judge Roger T. Benitez of the District Court for the southern District of California issued an order as to the timing for briefs on the now Duncan v. Bonta case.
From the District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Roger T. Benitez:
On June 29, 2017, this Court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (c) & (d) requiring persons to dispossess themselves of magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds lawfully acquired and possessed. The preliminary injunction was affirmed on appeal. Duncan v. Becerra, Appeal No. 17-56081 (9th Cir. July 17, 2018). On March 29, 2019, on summary judgment, this Court concluded that California Penal Code § 32310 is unconstitutional. On April 4, 2019, this Court made the preliminary injunction on subsections (c) and (d) permanent but stayed, pending appeal, the injunction of § 32310 (a) & (b).
This Court was again affirmed on appeal. Duncan v. Becerra, Appeal No. 19-55376 (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2020). The Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc, vacated its opinion, and entered an opinion reversing the judgment of this Court.Duncan v. Bonta, Appeal No. 19-55376 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2021). The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and remanded for further consideration. Duncan v. Bonta, No. 21-1194, 142 S. Ct. 2895 (June 30, 2022). The Ninth Circuit now remands the case to this Court for further proceedings in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) and the mandate has issued.
This Court hereby spreads the mandate upon the minutes of this Court.
The Defendant shall file any additional briefing that is necessary to decide this case in light of Bruen within 45 days of this Order. Plaintiffs shall file any responsive briefing within 21 days thereafter. This Court will then decide the case on the briefs and the prior record or schedule additional hearings.
The previously entered preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (c) and (d) for magazines able to hold more than ten rounds shall remain in effect for all those who previously acquired and possessed magazines legally (including those persons and business entities who acquired magazines between March 29, 2019 and April 5, 2019), pending further Order of this Court. Dated: September 26, 2022
The 45 days to file briefs ends on November 10th, by my calculations; the time given for response briefs ends on November 30th.
The Miller v. Bonta case briefs will have been in and responded to about a month earlier, at the end of October.
Miller v. Bonta and Duncan v. Bonta are closely related cases about restoring Second Amendment rights.
©2022 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Larry Easter, 54, told Lake Criminal Court Judge Salvador Vasquez he had married his fiancee since the 2020 fight and would be successful on probation.
Defense attorney Adrian Guzman said Lake County prosecutors agreed to dismiss Easter's felony counts because recently gathered physical evidence didn't match up with a statement given by Easter's wife's friend.
Lake County Deputy Prosecutor Tara Villarreal said the evidence corroborated Easter's claim of self-defense with regard to his wife's friend.
According to charging documents, the friend became angry when Easter slapped his then-fiancee and grabbed a knife. Easter grabbed a gun from a closet, and the female friend was shot in the leg.
EDWARDSVILLE — A judge on Monday acquitted an Alton man of first degree murder and unlawful discharge of a firearm because he was defending his home.
Judge Neil Schroeder on Monday ruled that Arvin Freeman, 46, of Alton was justified in shooting Robert Woods, 30, of Springfield, Missouri, in the rear on Feb. 13, 2021. Woods died from bleeding caused by the shot.
Schroeder said a person is justified in using deadly force if they believe it is necessary to prevent an attack on their home.
On September 23, 2022, Judge Maryellen Noreika issued a preliminary injunction against the State of Delaware, in the case of Rigby v Jennings.
The case is about whether the State of Delaware can outlaw homemade guns, and the distribution of materials and software to make homemade guns.
The decision is a win for supporters of Constitutional rights, but has some troubling verbiage.
Judge Maryellen Noreika was appointed by President Trump in 2018.
Judge Noreika relies on the "Final Rule" from the ATF, which is under dispute in several cases, as to what is a "firearm". Further arguments fall apart if the definition of what is a firearm reverts to the decades old definition.
Judge Noreika then makes a claim, supported by a Colorado case, that if a commercial transaction may be regulated, then all transactions may be regulated. Footnote 11, p. 11:
Sections 1459(a) and 1463(b) do not solely target commercial transactions. There is no reason to believe, however, that the non-commercial character of a transaction changes the analysis. See Colorado Outfitters Ass’n v. Hickenlooper, 24 F. Supp. 3d 1050, 1074 (D. Colo. 2014) (“Logically, if the government can lawfully regulate the ability of persons to obtain firearms from commercial dealers, that same power to regulate should extend to non-commercial transactions.”),vacated on other grounds and remanded, 823 F.3d 537 (10th Cir. 2016).
This is a jump of logic, and directly against the dicta in Heller, which states the Second Amendment allows:
“laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
There must be differentiation between the commercial sale of arms and non-commercial transactions, or the above statement is nonsensical.
On page 12, Judge Norieka cites the commercial sales dicta on Heller. She acknowledges the dicta does not mean every regulation of commercial sales is constitutional. From the opinion, p. 12:
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court identified a non-exhaustive list of“presumptively lawful regulatory measures” that included “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” 554 U.S. 570, 625–27 (2008). Such laws “comport with the Second Amendment because they affect individuals or conduct unprotected by the right to keep and bear arms.” 11Binderup v. Att’y Gen. United States of Am., 836 F.3d 336, 343 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc); see also Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426, 431 (3d Cir. 2013), abrogated on other grounds by Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). Of course, not every regulation on the commercial sale of arms is presumptively lawful. In United States v. Marzzarella, the Third Circuit explained that“[i]n order to uphold the constitutionality of a law imposing a condition on the commercial sale of firearms, a court necessarily must examine the nature and extent of the imposed condition.” 614 F.3d 85, 91 n.8 (3d Cir. 2010). Here, §§ 1459A(a) and 1463(b)
Judge Noreika makes a differentiation between the ability to transfer unfinished receivers, the ability to possess them, and the ability to make firearms. From page 12:
In contrast to the statutes regulating distribution of firearms, the contested statutes prohibiting the possession of unfinished frames and receivers (§1459A(b)) and untraceable firearms (§ 1463(a)) do burden rights protected by the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment, which protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” protects the possession of untraceable firearms and unfinished firearms and receivers because its text covers the possession of firearms. Sections 1459A(b) and 1463(a) criminalize the possession of unserialized finished firearm frames and untraceable firearms without providing any way for Plaintiffs to keep firearms they lawfully manufactured.12 Thus, the Second Amendment presumptively extends to the conduct prohibited by these statutes.
Another court, in Texas, reached the opposite conclusion. The court held the legal ability to possess something was meaningless without the ability to receive it or transfer it.
Later, Judge Noreika makes another jump of logic, claiming the requirement to place serial numbers on unfinished firearm frames is not an infringement on Second Amendment rights. She cites a California Ninth Circuit case (Teixeira) to make this dubious point. From the opinion p. 14:
Here, §§ 1459A(a) and 1463(b) permit anyone lawfully able to sell a firearm to do so, and simply require that those selling or transferring firearms to abide by federal law when doing so. Section 1459A(a) permits federally licensed gun dealers and manufacturers who abide by federal law’s serialization and record-keeping requirements to transport, ship, transfer, and sell unfinished firearm frames and receivers. Thus, Plaintiffs will have still have access to these components. Further, § 1463(b) bars the sale or transfer of untraceable firearms but does not prohibit any type of firearm to be bought or sold, so long as it is traceable. Barring the distribution of untraceable firearms may make purchasing a firearm more inconvenient, but this does not amount to a Second Amendment burden because of the easy access to traceable firearms. See, e.g., Teixeira v. Cnty. of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670, 680 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining that “gun buyers have no right to have a gun store in a particular location, at least as long as their access is not meaningfully constrained.”). Therefore, the Court finds that these regulations impose conditions on the sale and transfer of firearms that do not burden Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights because they do not bar the sale of any type of weapon or impose onerous regulations on those wishing to distribute unfinished firearm frames and receivers.
The Supreme Court has held, in Heller, easy access to one type of firearm does not mean other types of firearms may be banned.
This Delaware law bans access to firearms without serial numbers. The requirement for firearms to have serial numbers is relatively recent. It started in 1938 and was expanded in 1968. There are millions of firearms in commercial circulation who do not have serial numbers, and which have never been required to have serial numbers.
Whether this doctrine protecting whole classes of firearms would be extended to include the class of homemade firearms,
remains to be seen.
The Delaware opinion is positive in that the ability to make and possess homemade guns is affirmed as being protected under the Second Amendment.
However, in the Delaware opinion by Judge Norieka, the ability to access the knowledge to make guns, the parts necessary to make guns, and the freedom to make the guns without government permission (serialization), are all held to be irrelevant.
©2022 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
A man casually carrying a shotgun and claiming to be from Chicago walked into a Florida convenience store during an attempted robbery but walked out when a clerk displayed his own weapon, authorities said.
I will be traveling to Dallas for the Gun Rights Policy Conference.
Updates may be sparse for the next few days.
Dean Weingarten
Samuel Stebbins writes for 24/7 Wall St and a number of other left leaning organizations such as the NYTs, HuffPost and MSN.
He has written a number of articles involving guns, crime, and statistics. The numbers he cites are usually correct. They are from sources such as the FBI Uniform Crime Reports.
Unfortunately, it is easy to make errors if you do not understand how the numbers are generated. It appears to be the reason for the laughable numbers in Samuel's article claiming "Gun Sales are Collapsing in Illinois".
In Illinois, gun sales are falling even faster than they are nationwide. There were a total of 2,064,400 FBI firearm background checks in the state in the first half of 2022 compared to 6,050,704 in the first six months of 2021 -- a 65.9% reduction and the largest decline among states.
The problem with the above statement is background checks in Illinois are only slightly connected to gun sales.
I tried to contact Samuel so I could explain the error to him, and offer my services if he needs some professional firearms expertise in the future.
Unfortunately, a few searches did not turn up an email or a phone number to contact him.
In the article, Samuel uses the National Instant background Check System checks as a proxy for gun sales. There are problems with this.
The FBI carefully notes, when publishing the figures:
"These statistics represent the background checks initiated through the NICS. They do not represent the number of firearms sold."
In most states, the ratio between gun sales and NICS numbers varies between about .5 and .7 gun sales for each NICS check.
Illinois is a special case, as is Kentucky. Both of those states use NICS checks prodigiously for purposes other than gun sales. Both states run NICS checks over and over and over, month to month to month. The process is mostly automated and costs them very little.
In 2019, in Illinois, there were over 4.95 million NICS checks, and about 395 thousand firearms sales, or a ratio of about .08 firearms sold per NICS check.
In 2020, in Illinois, there were about 8.47 million NICS checks and about 534 thousand firearms sold, for a ratio of about .063 firearms sold per NICS check.
Looking at the first six months of 2021 and 2022, the gun sales in Illinois dropped from about 274 thousand in the first six months of 2021 to 215 thousand in the first six months of 2022, a 22% reduction.
In January of 2022, Illinois revised their procedures for running NICS Checks on the Firearms Owners IDentification (FOID) card. NICS does not show any permit rechecks for Illinois in 2022.
The number of NICS Checks for permits and permit rechecks for the first six months of 2021 was about 5.79 million.
For the first six months of 2022, it was 1.85 million, an enormous drop. The drop occurred because of the change in Illinois firearms law.
The change in permit and permit rechecks explains 98% of the drop in NICS checks from the first six months of 2021 to the first six months of 2022 in Illinois.
Instead of a "collapse" in gun sales, the drop in gun sales for Illinois was in the middle of what most states experienced, at about 22%.
It is an easy mistake to make, if you do not understand how the NICS numbers are generated.
Samuel, if you have questions, you can reach me at press@AmmoLand.com.
©2022 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Posts
All Comments
