Federal Judge Grants Initial Blockade Against Public Carry Prohibitions in Maryland

The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) disclosed that a U.S. District Court Judge, George L. Russell, III, has instituted a preliminary injunction against the prohibition in Maryland on carrying firearms in areas where alcohol is sold, private properties without the proprietor's approval, and in close proximity to a public demonstration. The details of the ruling in Novotny v. Moore are accessible at FPCLaw.org.

Join the Discussion on the Gun Coyote Forum

Judge Russell stated in his order that the other statutes, mentioned by State Defendants, don’t align with SB 1’s limitation on places where alcohol is sold as they don’t place a ‘similar constraint on the right to armed self-defense.’ He elucidated that historical statutes only restrained those under the influence from carrying firearms, in contrast to SB 1 which enforces a blanket ban at alcohol-selling locations.

Cody J. Wisniewski, General Counsel and Vice President of Legal of FPC Action Foundation and counsel for FPC, expressed relief that the court acknowledged Maryland’s erroneous provisions and blocked the enforcement of certain aspects of its law barring peaceable carry permit possessors from bearing arms in numerous state locations. He added, however, that the court didn’t entirely accede to their motion, allowing the enforcement of limitations in certain areas, prompting FPC to contemplate their forthcoming actions.

Supporting FPC in this legal endeavor are Maryland Shall Issue and the Second Amendment Foundation. Individuals wishing to support FPC's endeavors and join their Grassroots Army can register at JoinFPC.org, and those inclined to support charitable endeavors to reinstate the Second Amendment and other inherent rights can make tax-deductible contributions to the FPC Action Foundation.

The Firearms Policy Coalition, a nonprofit organization, aims to defend constitutional rights and focuses on promoting individual liberty and reinstating freedom, with an emphasis on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and related civil liberties. The FPC team consists of advocates striving to accomplish the organization’s objectives via various avenues including litigation, scholarly publications, legislative, regulatory actions, grassroots activism, education, and outreach.

FPC Law stands as the premier public interest legal team dedicated to Second Amendment litigation and research. The organization is devoted to creating an environment steeped in maximal human liberty, defending constitutional rights, promoting individual liberty, and restoring freedom, encompassing issues like freedom of speech, due process, privacy, and limited government.

Gun Coyote | Gun Deals

Supreme Court to Deliberate on Ammunition Background Check Challenge

A legal challenge against New York’s ammunition background check will be deliberated in a Supreme Court conference on October 6. The case in question, Gazzola v. Hochul, was initiated by two gun stores situated in New York and contests the state’s protocol for ammunition background inspections and annual examinations of gun shops by the New York State Police. These regulations were enacted during a distinct session in 2022 summoned by Governor Kathy Hochul, in which restrictions on concealing firearms in public places were also established.

Join the Discussion on the Gun Coyote Forum

This session was organized as a reaction to a preceding Supreme Court ruling, New York Pistol and Rifle Association v. Bruen, which declared a New York “shall issue” law unconstitutional. The newly instated laws from this session have since sparked multiple lawsuits, including Antonyuk v. Hochul, which challenge specific provisions in the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA).

The appellants in the case argue that the enactment of this new law and the imposition of annual inspections of firearm dealerships by the State Police overstep New York State’s legal authority. They also maintain that the obligatory background checks for ammunition purchases are excessive.

The appellants sought an initial injunction from both the District Court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and prior to the law’s enactment, solicited Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor of the Supreme Court to intervene. However, Justice Sotomayor rejected the appellants' urgent petition, permitting another Justice to possibly accept it. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas chose to proceed with the petition, enabling a full Supreme Court examination on October 6 to determine whether to hear the case. Nonetheless, a conference review does not guarantee a Supreme Court hearing; the Justices may opt to allow further deliberations in the lower courts.

Paloma A. Capanna, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, expressed eagerness to learn the outcomes of the Justices’ deliberations and hopes for a Supreme Court hearing, asserting her belief in the law’s unconstitutionality. 

Governor Hochul, however, seemed to conflate Gazzola v. Hochul with another case, Antonyuk, speculating that Justice Thomas was focusing on undermining New York’s concealed carry regulations, although Gazzola specifically pertains to ammunition background checks and inspections.

Governor Hochul criticized the Justices, suggesting they are catering to their backers and asserting that the existing law persists in the state, with preparations underway to counteract any further impediments.

The fate of the case will be decided by the Supreme Court on October 6, with the law staying in effect until then.

Gun Coyote | Gun Deals

Biden's Newly Established Office of Gun Violence: A Channel for Directing Taxpayer Funds to Firearm Prohibition Organizations?

The Biden administration, renowned for its advocacy for gun control, has intensified its endeavors by initiating the Office of Gun Violence Prevention, assigned to be overseen by Vice President Kamala Harris. This establishment purports to work towards diminishing gun violence. However, it seems to be a conduit for engaging gun control proponents and intensifying their narratives and agendas, all at the expense of taxpayers. 

Join the Discussion on the Gun Coyote Forum

This venture can be perceived in various lights. Some may view it as merely a promotional gimmick designed to placate the relentless gun control advocates, who are integral supporters of the Biden-Harris administration. Notably, this newly inaugurated office operates without congressional sanction, distinct congressional allocation, or clear and coherent policy-making or enforcement authority. It appears to exist primarily to synchronize the administration's stance on firearms. 

The allocation of this role to Harris is indicative. She, with her notably low approval ratings and a history of inconsequential legislative contributions, seems to be in a precarious position. The administration's media counterparts struggle to project a consistent image of her, oscillating between representing her as a burden and endeavoring to restore her public image. Harris’s responsibilities also encompass managing the southern border's migratory activities, a scenario that continues to deteriorate.

However, undermining the establishment of this office would be imprudent. It marks a significant development in the proliferating gun control framework that involves multiple sectors including media, academia, technology, and more. The executive branch is progressively utilized against firearm proprietors and the firearm industry via harsh regulatory and enforcement strategies. The advent of this dedicated office, managed efficiently, could potentiate a shift in longstanding freedoms and traditions. 

It is unequivocal that Biden intends to allocate substantial portions of the White House budget to engage professional advocates for gun control, thus utilizing public funds. The most conspicuous instance of this was the attempt to nominate David Chipman, a fervent advocate for gun control, as the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Thankfully, this nomination was thwarted due to extensive opposition.

Furthermore, the deputy directors of the newly formed office include individuals like Robert Wilcox, who has a history of working with groups advocating stringent gun control measures. He has been a proponent of policies like the ban on AR-15 rifles and private firearm transfers. His appointment and the operations of this office are not subject to Senate approval and represent a significant concern for Americans who advocate for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The best expectation from this newly inaugurated office could be its inefficiency and lack of significant accomplishments, a common occurrence with politically motivated bureaucratic additions. The activities of this office will be meticulously observed, and any significant developments will be promptly reported. The concern remains that this office is another step towards undermining Americans’ Second Amendment rights, all while using taxpayer money.

Gun Coyote | Gun Deals

Defending the Second Amendment: Dissecting the Unfounded Accusations Against Trump’s Palmetto State Armory Visit

 

In the recent whirlwind of speculation and sensationalist headlines, it’s been suggested that Donald Trump allegedly committed a felony by purchasing a firearm in South Carolina while under federal indictment, highlighting a visit to Palmetto State Armory. The narrative quickly drifted into a convoluted portrayal of racism and alleged connection to a tragic shooting incident. However, let’s dissect the situation with a balanced perspective, focusing on fair judgment and factual integrity, particularly in addressing the pro-Second Amendment stance and rejecting the hurried labels of racism.

Join the Discussion on the Gun Coyote Forum

Firstly, the assumption that purchasing a firearm from Palmetto State Armory is inherently racist is fundamentally flawed and profoundly unfair to both the company and law-abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights. Connecting a whole entity to the malicious acts of one individual fails to consider the essence of individual responsibility and blurs the lines between a lawful business transaction and a criminal act.

Moreover, attributing the alleged purchase to Trump’s racism significantly undermines the critical evaluation of facts. Trump’s visit to a gun store, especially one that’s prominent like Palmetto State Armory, should be perceived as an endorsement of citizens’ rights to bear arms, a foundational principle of our nation, rather than an underhanded approval of a heinous crime. 

Donald Trump, regardless of the relentless media portrayal, has consistently demonstrated a commitment to inclusivity and equal opportunity. His administration made historical strides in endorsing criminal justice reform through the First Step Act, which predominantly benefits the African American community, thereby dispelling the incessant racial narratives perpetuated by some sections of the media. 

Further, the notion that Trump should be omniscient about every detail of every business he engages with is impractical and unrealistic. The focus on Trump’s purported ignorance of the store’s history is an attempt to derail the conversation from a pro-Second Amendment stance to an insidious connection to a crime. Every politician and citizen should be allowed the courtesy of individual evaluation without the undue burden of an entity’s entire history, especially when it relates to isolated incidents beyond their control.

Besides, the depiction of pro-Second Amendment enthusiasts as “children in a toy store” starkly underestimates the solemn understanding and respect that countless responsible gun owners have for firearms. By defending the right to bear arms, one is upholding the fundamental freedoms and individual rights that are cornerstones of our democracy. 

It’s imperative to approach this narrative with a discerning mind, emphasizing the importance of individual rights, corporate responsibility, and the equality championed by Trump’s policies, rather than succumbing to unverified insinuations and sweeping generalizations. Let’s foster a dialogue that is built on mutual respect and understanding, steering clear of prejudiced conjectures, and focusing on the unwavering commitment to the foundational principles of our great nation.

Gun Coyote | Gun Deals

Philadelphia Sheriff's Department Misplaces 185 Firearms, 76 of Which Were Service Weapons

Over 185 firearms, inclusive of 76 service weapons, have been reported missing by the Philadelphia Sheriff’s Department, reveals a report from the Philadelphia Controller’s Office. The results, emerging from a three-year probe, originally identified 101 missing service firearms.

Join the Discussion on the Gun Coyote Forum

Philadelphia, known for its stringent anti-gun stance within Pennsylvania, has city leaders who frequently enact anti-gun regulations and have pursued legal actions against firearm part manufacturers like Polymer80 and JSD Supply. The disappearance of such a significant number of firearms in such a city has therefore sparked numerous questions.

Breaking down the missing service weapons, 71 were identified as handguns and five as shotguns. Despite these numbers, the Sheriff’s Office insists that apart from 20 items, all service weapons were disposed of correctly.

However, the Controller’s Office, following an extensive subsequent investigation, could find no concrete evidence or documentation to verify this claim, leaving the status of most guns still categorized as missing. The Sheriff’s Department maintains that several firearms were handed over to retired officers and ex-staff members, including former Sheriff John Green. The department has failed to provide any evidence of formal firearm transfers or mandatory background checks through a federal firearms licensee (FFL) or National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

The Controller’s Office has made explicit demands for the return of all firearms received from the Department or proof of their disposal. Any failure or refusal to comply should lead to the inclusion of the involved employees in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) as missing.

The rest of the unaccounted firearms are part of the Protection From Abuse (PFA) inventory—firearms seized from individuals with restraining orders against them. The status or whereabouts of these weapons remain unaddressed and unexplained by the Sheriff’s Department.

Sheriff Rochelle Bilal contends that the findings of the Controller’s Office are misrepresented. She attributes the missing duty firearms to discrepancies in “recordkeeping,” criticizing the Controller’s Office for their extended interval between audits, the last of which occurred a decade ago. Bilal argued that regular audits in the past could have prevented such discrepancies and presumptions of missing firearms. The Sheriff’s Department directed inquiries regarding the lost firearms to a recent press conference, maintaining that the alleged inconsistencies are due to past recordkeeping issues.

Gun Coyote | Gun Deals

California's Magazine Ban Declared Unconstitutional by Federal Judge

Federal District Judge Roger T. Benitez has declared California’s prohibition on magazines, holding more than ten rounds of ammunition, unconstitutional once more. However, he has delayed the enforcement of this decision for ten days, allowing the state an opportunity to appeal. The case, Duncan v. Bonta, revolves around the state’s restriction on the possession of standard capacity magazines, introduced as a part of Proposition 63 in 2016.

Join the Discussion on the Gun Coyote Forum

The regulation made it illegal to possess such magazines, even for responsible firearm owners who had acquired them legally prior to the implementation of the ban. The challengers of this law argued that it was a violation of their Second Amendment rights. The ruling by Judge Benitez in 2019, then under the case name Duncan v. Becerra, momentarily halted the enforcement of the prohibition, stating that it infringes upon the rights of Californians to defend themselves.

Judge Benitez emphasized the lawful use of these magazines by millions of Californians, especially for self-defense. This initial ruling led to a surge in standard capacity magazine purchases during a period known as “Freedom Week.” Subsequently, the state managed to secure a stay on the judge’s decisions, allowing residents to retain the magazines acquired during “Freedom Week,” but preventing further acquisitions. 

Due to the ten-day delay in the enforcement of the recent decision, a similar surge in purchases is not expected immediately. The case traveled up to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and was sent back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and eventually, back to Judge Benitez. Many observers interpreted these developments as attempts by the Ninth Circuit to delay a resolution in favor of the plaintiffs.

Judge Benitez, in his most recent decision, echoed his earlier arguments, critiquing the arbitrary nature of magazine capacity limitations, given the varying restrictions in different states, with many imposing no restrictions at all. He also rejected the state’s claim that more than ten rounds are unnecessary for self-defense. Benitez asserted that victims might, at times, need more than ten rounds to counter attackers.

The state has swiftly appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the path is steep, particularly as the concept of interest balancing, which weighs state’s interests against individual rights, can no longer be leveraged after the Bruen decision declared that laws must align with the Second Amendment’s text, history, and tradition.

If the Ninth Circuit does not prolong the stay, Californians will have the opportunity to acquire standard capacity magazines once the ten-day period concludes. Nonetheless, there is a prevalent anticipation that the Circuit Court will extend the stay until a conclusive ruling is reached.

Gun Coyote | Gun Deals

Video Captures Brave Officer Pulling Injured Comrade to Safety Amidst Intense Gunfire

On Wednesday, Louisville Police shared bodycam footage that captured the incident on September 7th where Officer Brandon Haley was shot. He sustained a gunshot wound to his lower torso when shots were fired from a residence close to a traffic stop.

Join the Discussion on the Gun Coyote Forum

Authorities speculate that the individuals inside the home, which was laden with firearms and illicit drugs, initiated the shooting in a planned ambush on the officer. A subsequent officer, Colin Billotto, reached the scene within moments and encountered gunfire as well. Demonstrating remarkable valor, Officer Billotto engaged the attackers and managed to pull Haley to a safer location.

Recognizing the immediate threat from the assailants, Billotto moved Haley around half a block away under continuous gunfire before administering preliminary medical assistance. By then, Haley was in a state of shock.

The shared video is quite graphic and showcases the outstanding courage exhibited by the officers under extreme circumstances.

From WDRB, the footage discloses Officer Haley’s critical condition post the shooting in the Chickasaw neighborhood. He sustained severe abdominal injuries on September 7 at 38th and West Kentucky streets as he was pursuing a car. The video reveals Haley falling to the ground as around 15 shots were discharged.

LMPD Deputy Chief Paul Humphrey conveyed in a briefing on Wednesday that the gunfire was initiated from a neighboring house. Officer Billotto, who was also at the scene, retaliated and sought to secure Haley amidst continuous shooting. Billotto, at considerable personal risk, dragged Haley to avoid further gunfire and prepared for potential further engagement from the suspect.

It took several minutes for backup to arrive, and the house believed to be the source of the shots was soon pinpointed. Following an extended confrontation, arrests were made.

Five individuals—Dominique Thompson, Jemond Groves, Quantez Porter, Jacquan Ransom, and Demarco Coney Jr.—are in custody in connection with Haley’s shooting, but none are charged with the actual shooting.

Post the shooting incident, a prolonged standoff ensued at the suspected house. A subsequent search revealed the presence of drugs such as suspected heroin, crystal methamphetamine, possibly fentanyl or cocaine, ecstasy, Xanax, and numerous firearms, with two being reported as stolen.

We extend our heartfelt wishes for Officer Haley’s swift recovery. While his condition is improving, he remains hospitalized. It’s hopeful that the responsible individuals will be accurately identified and will face justice.

Gun Coyote | Gun Deals

Federal Judge Issues New Injunctions Against ATF’s Rule on Frames and Receivers

On a recent Friday, Judge Reed O'Connor of the Federal District Court renewed preliminary injunctions barring the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) from applying the Final Rule 2021R-05F on frames and receivers to two specific companies. 

These companies, Defense Distributed, renowned for their Ghost Gunner, and Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, also known as 80 Percent Arms, are protected under this injunction in the ongoing Texas-based case, Vanderstok v. Garland, which has been pivotal in the dispute regarding incomplete frames and receivers for over a year.

In 2021, the ATF was instructed by President Joe Biden to formulate regulations to address the issue of "ghost guns". These unserialized frames are considered by the president and likeminded individuals as instruments for criminals, while within firearm circles, privately manufactured firearms (PMF) are regarded as part of historical and traditional practices.

Despite the controversy, the ATF proceeded to develop a regulation prohibiting the sale of frames and jigs together, following a series of lawsuits opposing the rule, which many argue surpasses the ATF’s legal bounds. During this period, numerous entities, including the Firearms Policy Coalition, initiated legal actions against the ATF rule in Texas.

However, groups opposing gun rights argued that the measures by the ATF were insufficient, prompting them to call for a total ban on unfinished frames and receivers. Eventually, the ATF broadened its regulation on December 27, 2022, deeming all unfinished frames as firearms henceforth.

Despite this expansion, their victory was brief, as Judge O’Connor played a pivotal role in undermining the new rule. This action protected many other companies under the injunction, including major kit manufacturer, Polymer80. The entire rule was eventually revoked by the Judge.

Subsequent to this revocation, the Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, with the majority of the rule remaining revoked post arguments. The DOJ then sought the intervention of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) through a writ of certiorari, while also seeking to pause the court’s decision to revoke the rule until SCOTUS reached a verdict.

This ongoing legal tussle prompted Defense Distributed and 80 Percent Arms to apply for a new emergency preliminary injunction against the Final Rule, which was granted by Judge O’Connor, once again offering the companies respite from ATF enforcement actions. 

Judge O'Connor’s decision is grounded in his belief that the rule infringes the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and goes beyond the ATF’s jurisdiction. The government is expected to contest this, and it appears that the final hope for the Biden Administration to uphold the rule is with the Supreme Court.

Gun Coyote | Gun Deals

Join the Discussion on the Gun Coyote Forum

Biden Set to Unveil New Federal Office Focused on Curbing Gun Violence

President Joe Biden is expected to unveil a new federal office dedicated to curbing gun violence, coinciding with the start of the 2023 Gun Rights Policy Conference in Phoenix, Arizona, according to various media reports. The formal title of this upcoming White House office is reported to be the "Office of Gun Violence Prevention." Whether the office will effectively reduce firearm-related violence or merely advocate for further gun control measures remains to be seen.

The conference, co-hosted by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, takes place annually and is considered a major event for gun rights activists. This year, it is being held under the theme "Road to Liberty." However, supporters of the Second Amendment are concerned that Biden's initiative signals a divergence from that road, potentially leading to more restrictive measures like extended background checks, mandatory training, and even gun bans.

Political analysts suggest that the new office could serve dual purposes for Biden: it may not only address gun violence but also galvanize specific voter groups. Meanwhile, skeptics view it as a political maneuver to bypass a gridlocked Congress on gun control legislation.

The effort to create the new office is reportedly led by Stefanie Feldman, a longtime Biden aide knowledgeable in gun policy issues. The office is also expected to involve figures from gun control advocacy groups. Despite past legislative efforts, such as Biden’s "Bipartisan Safer Communities Act," the number of mass shootings has not shown significant reduction, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

Earlier this month, another Democrat, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, stirred controversy by declaring a temporary ban on the open or concealed carry of firearms, citing a "public health emergency." The move led to legal battles and criticism from both sides of the political spectrum before being partially rescinded.

In response to executive actions like these, Congressman Michael Cloud (R-TX) has reintroduced a bill to restrict the president's power to declare public health emergencies as a means of implementing gun control. The bill aims to halt any potential infringement on the Second Amendment.

The Gun Rights Policy Conference is set to feature a lineup of prominent Second Amendment advocates, legal experts, and commentators. With the timing of Biden’s announcement, many anticipate that this could serve to galvanize rather than dampen the spirit of conference attendees.

Gun Coyote | Gun Deals

Join the Discussion on the Gun Coyote Forum

Overwhelming Number of Similar Comments Back ATF's Proposed Universal Background Check Rule

AmmoLand News, in collaboration with data scientist Wes Scoggin, delved into the public responses regarding the ATF's proposal to redefine the term "gun dealer." This new definition could open the door to extensive background checks, mandating anyone profiting from gun sales to hold a Federal Firearms License (FFL). The ATF attributes its authority for this proposed change to the Bi-partisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), a bill enacted with support from both major political parties and a cornerstone of President Biden's gun control efforts.

Interestingly, this time around, public commentary seems overwhelmingly tilted towards favoring the proposed changes, with more than 96% of comments supporting it. This contrast sharply with past proposals where the majority of responses were pro-gun.

Upon examining the comments, Scoggin and AmmoLand found that a large portion of them were identical, tracing back to a campaign by Brady United. This organization made it extremely easy for their supporters to comment through an email campaign and a quick-response website plugin, potentially skewing the statistical representation of public sentiment.

The lopsided nature of these comments could be weaponized by the administration in court to suggest broad public support for the change. Even if the judiciary is supposed to maintain an impartial stance, there's a risk that such skewed statistics could influence decisions. This makes it crucial for those opposing the change to also voice their views, as the proposed rule is likely to be enacted irrespective of the final tally of opinions.

Gun Coyote News encourages readers to submit their own comments to the ATF, with the aim of balancing the narrative and countering the orchestrated efforts of anti-gun groups. They offer a template for those who wish to express their opposition, reminding them to rely on factual arguments.

The underlying message is that even if the new rule is likely to be enacted, vocal opposition can remove a significant talking point from the anti-gun lobby, making it harder for them to claim widespread public support for these changes.

Gun Coyote | Gun Deals

Join The Discussion On The Gun Coyote Forum

Judge Rejects Preliminary Injunction in Case Against ATF's Stabilizing Brace Regulation

In a recent legal development, North Dakota District Judge Daniel L. Hovland backed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its regulation of firearms that include pistol-stabilizing devices. The case, brought forth by the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC) and two dozen state attorney generals, contested the ATF's final rule on these devices. The case echoed similar arguments from other suits in Texas involving gun rights organizations, which had won preliminary injunctions against the ATF rules.

However, Judge Hovland diverged from the judgments of the Texas Courts. Appointed by George W. Bush, the judge held that the ATF was well within its purview to regulate firearms with such stabilizing devices. He wasn't swayed by a prior ruling from the Fifth Circuit and tended to align with the dissenting judge in that case.

For a preliminary injunction to be granted, the plaintiffs must show a likelihood of succeeding in their claims. Judge Hovland concluded that FRAC and its co-plaintiffs had not met this requirement. While this doesn't mean the case is lost for the plaintiffs, it does indicate they failed to prove they were likely to win.

Judge Hovland dismissed the notion that the ATF's rule infringed on Second Amendment rights, arguing that exceptionally dangerous weapons like short-barreled rifles are not protected under the amendment. He did not consider that there are more such rifles in circulation than stun guns, even though courts have acknowledged that the sheer number of stun guns suggests they are "in common use."

Moreover, Judge Hovland noted that since pistol braces themselves are not firearms, they aren't afforded Second Amendment protections. He likened these to suppressors, saying they are merely accessories—a stance conflicting with the ATF’s own views.

The judge also denied that the ATF had violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). He stated that the agency hadn't altered the definition of a rifle and had the authority to redefine what a rifle is. Furthermore, he found that the rule isn't ambiguous, contrary to what the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals believed. 

In addition, Judge Hovland rejected arguments questioning the cost-benefit analysis of the ATF’s rule and said that the absence of sales numbers after 2019 didn't invalidate the analysis. Finally, he disagreed with the plaintiffs that making the rule retroactive exceeded the ATF's authority, asserting that the interpretive nature of the rule exempts it from certain regulations.

Gun Coyote | Gun Deals

Join The Discussion On The Gun Coyote Forum

We've Launched the Gun Coyote Forum

Tired of Big Tech Silencing Your Voice on Firearms? Say Goodbye to the Endless Cycle of Engagement Farming!

Ah, Big Tech censorship—the thorn in the side of free speech, especially when it comes to discussions around firearms. Are you also fed up with your opinions getting muffled under the heavy hand of social media algorithms? You're not alone.

The quest for visibility has turned us all into engagement farmers, endlessly churning out content in hopes of a slice of the pie from platforms like X (formerly known as Twitter). But let's face it, are we really being heard, or are we just cogs in the giant wheel of social media engagement?

Don't let your voice be drowned in a sea of likes, shares, and retweets. It's time to break free and truly engage in meaningful conversations. Stay tuned as we delve into ways to bypass the system and make your voice count!

So, are you ready to be heard and not just seen? Let's reclaim the narrative, together.

Join the Gun Coyote Forum

ATF Withdraws Attempt to Revoke License of North Dakota Firearm Dealer

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) are pleased to reveal that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has withdrawn its attempt to cancel the Federal Firearms License (FFL) of Morehouse Enterprises, operating under the name Bridge City Ordnance, in Valley City, North Dakota.

Before this development, both GOA and GOF had taken legal action to defend the gun shop, which was at risk of losing its license over minor clerical mistakes. Under the Biden administration's "Zero Tolerance" approach, such errors became a basis for license termination.

This marked a shift from the ATF's former policy, which initially called for warnings and mandatory corrections for first-time offenses, progressing to license cancellation only if no improvement was made.

The timing of the ATF's unannounced inspection of Bridge City Ordnance became suspicious to many, as it occurred shortly after the store allied with GOA and GOF in another lawsuit. This other legal action contested the ATF's regulation on Ghost Gun Frames and Receivers.

Both legal battles are still underway.

Erich Pratt, the Senior Vice President of GOA, commented:

"When the ATF attempted to make an example out of gun sellers who had the courage to challenge them legally, they didn't realize what they were getting into. GOA and GOF intervened, and it became clear to the ATF that they were heading for a losing fight. We're delighted for Bridge City Ordnance and hope this experience will lead the ATF to reconsider their 'zero tolerance' stance."

Gun Coyote | Gun Deals

Gun Coyote Forums

Federal Judge Affirms Delaware Statute That Makes Gun Sellers and Makers Liable for Straw Purchases

A federal judge recently rejected a legal challenge against a Delaware statute that makes firearm manufacturers and sellers liable for straw purchases. Named the KeKe Anderson Safe Firearm Sales Act, this 2022 legislation was inspired by KeKe Anderson, an innocent bystander fatally shot in 2016 with a gun acquired via a straw purchase—a practice where an individual buys a gun on behalf of someone not legally allowed to own one.

U.S. District Judge Richard G. Andrews determined that the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the organization opposing the law, lacked the standing to bring the lawsuit. The group had contended that the Delaware law infringed on Second Amendment rights.

In response to the court's decision, Delaware's Attorney General Kathy Jennings commented that the gun lobby primarily serves corporate interests and focuses on safeguarding profits. She characterized the law as a unique form of liability protection in Delaware legislation, critiquing it as a concession to special interests that offers no benefits to the state's residents.

It's worth noting that the National Shooting Sports Foundation had previously launched a similar legal challenge in New Jersey aimed at a law that also removed liability protections for gun manufacturers and dealers. That suit was similarly unsuccessful.

Gun Coyote | Gun Deals

Get Our Deals Newsletter

U.S. District Judge Blocks New Mexico Governor's Ban on Public Carrying of Firearms

In a significant legal victory for Second Amendment advocates, U.S. District Judge David Urias has issued a temporary restraining order, effectively nullifying New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham's recent emergency health order that halted public open and concealed carry of firearms in Albuquerque and surrounding areas. The ruling comes in response to several lawsuits filed by gun rights supporters who argue that the governor's order infringes upon constitutional freedoms.

Judge Urias' decision is viewed as a stumbling block for Governor Lujan Grisham's attempts to address a spate of recent violent incidents that resulted in child fatalities. While acknowledging the governor's intentions to mitigate crime, Urias pointed out that the legal issue at hand specifically concerns the constitutional rights of citizens.

Both the Albuquerque police chief and the local sheriff had already refused to enforce the governor's firearms ban, which had empowered state police to levy civil penalties and fines up to $5,000. Meanwhile, the rest of the governor's public health directives—encompassing matters like hospital gunshot victim reports and mandatory firearms dealer inspections—remain in effect.

Gun rights activists have mounted extensive legal opposition to the governor's order, which they consider to be a breach of Second Amendment rights. Calls for impeachment of the governor have been raised by Republicans holding legislative majority seats. Various protesters, including mothers and military veterans, visibly armed, have expressed their fears about being left defenseless against violent criminals, especially given Albuquerque's history of drive-by shootings and lethal road rage incidents.

Even Democratic leaders like New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez have criticized the governor’s focus on the firearms ban, suggesting that a more comprehensive legislative approach would be better suited to address the root causes of violent crime.

In a state where open carry is legal and more than 45,000 active concealed carry licenses are held, according to 2023 data, the governor's sweeping ban affected a significant portion of law-abiding citizens in Bernalillo County and beyond. As of now, no citations have been issued for violations of the ban.

The New Mexico Chiefs of Police Association has also voiced its disapproval of the governor's order. Farmington Police Chief Steven Hebbe, head of the association, called for a special legislative session to constructively tackle the issue of gun violence, stating that stripping away the rights of responsible citizens is not the solution.

Amid this backdrop, Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller and Police Chief Harold Medina have emphasized the need for legislative action that directly addresses criminal justice system flaws rather than provoking divisive political debates. The city has been working on crime prevention strategies since 2021, but many of these initiatives have been undermined due to insufficient funding and legislative dilution.

Gun Coyote | Gun Deals

Get Our Deals Newsletter

Nation's 'Toughest' Gun Control Legislation Faces Legal Challenge

A controversial Oregon law, considered by some as the most stringent gun control legislation in the country, is headed for trial. Legal expert Tony Aiello Jr., who is representing local gun owners contesting the measure, said, "The attention this case has received is unprecedented. We're essentially discussing a law that was narrowly passed and could effectively nullify a constitutional right."

Oregon voters narrowly approved Measure 114 in the last election, securing a 50.65% majority. Only six of the state's 36 counties supported the law, which mandates permits for all gun purchases and limits magazine capacity to 10 rounds. Immediate legal challenges have prevented the law from being implemented.

Federal Judge Karin Immergut supported the law, suggesting it aligns with the U.S. tradition of regulating firearms to safeguard the public. Her ruling is currently being appealed. Aiello will present arguments for Harney County residents Joseph Arnold and Cliff Asmussen, asserting that the law doesn't withstand scrutiny under Oregon's Constitution.

Advocacy group Lift Every Voice Oregon initiated the measure, securing over 130,000 signatures to put it on the ballot. The group contends that a permit-to-purchase system would cut down on violent incidents, including suicides and homicides.

Gun sales in the state soared after the measure was passed, and business owners like Bryan Fitzgerald reported a significant uptick in firearm-related sales. Critics argue that the new permit requirements are overly stringent, going beyond even what is required for concealed carry permits in the state.

Authorities have not yet implemented training programs to meet the new requirements, although this point won't be considered in the trial, as per a judge's ruling. On the other hand, the judge allowed the gun owners to prohibit testimonies related to the effectiveness of similar laws in other states.

The trial is scheduled to conclude by the end of next week, and regardless of its outcome, Aiello expects the case to make its way to the Oregon Supreme Court.

Gun Coyote | Gun Deals

Get Our Deals Newsletter

Legal Struggle Continues to Release Gabriel Metcalf in Montana's Gun-Free School Zone Controversy

Gabriel Metcalf was taken into custody in Billings, Montana, for allegedly breaking the rules set by the Gun Free School Zone Act on August 22, 2023. During a preliminary hearing three days later, Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas K. Godfrey recommended that Metcalf be held in pre-trial detention. Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Cavan concurred, issuing an Order of Detention based on two main claims. One was that Metcalf posed a risk to community safety that couldn't be mitigated by any conditions of release. The other pointed to Metcalf's past involvement with violence or weaponry. 

These claims have been criticized for their lack of solid evidence. According to Judge Cavan, Metcalf had kept a firearm on public property within a school zone and claimed he needed it for protection against a previous neighbor. Though Metcalf has no criminal record or known history of violence, he remains confined at Yellowstone County Detention Facility in Billings, Montana.

Metcalf's federally-appointed defense lawyer, Russel Hart, has submitted a request for a new Detention Hearing, intending to present new confidential evidence, likely psychological evaluations, to challenge the detention order. 

Those who have been closely tracking the case assert that Metcalf's belief that he needs a firearm for personal safety is backed by existing police complaints against David Lee Carpenter, who currently faces another trial and is under an active restraining order. Moreover, they argue that Montana laws and relevant case studies around the Gun Free School Zone Act provide enough reason to believe the Act may be unconstitutional, supporting Metcalf's claim for an exception.

As for the next steps in legal procedure, the options are to secure the detention hearing from Judge Cavan, appeal the detention order at the District Court level if denied, and lastly, approach the Circuit Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit). 

Remaining in pre-trial detention complicates the defense process, and critics argue that it encourages accused individuals to take plea bargains. Gabriel Metcalf and his mother, who live on a limited income, continue to advocate for their constitutional rights. A fundraising campaign has been initiated by Metcalf’s mother to aid in their legal defense and to advocate for Second Amendment rights.

Gun Coyote | Gun Deals

Get Our Deals Newsletter

Republican Senator Urges Biden Administration to Clarify Surge in Revoked Gun Dealer Licenses, Alleges Attack on Second Amendment

Republican Senator Joni Ernst is calling on the Biden administration for greater transparency regarding the rising number of gun dealers who have lost their licenses due to the ATF's "zero tolerance" policy. This policy has raised suspicions of being an indirect attack on the Second Amendment.

In a previous letter dated November 7, 2022, which also had the support of Iowa's other GOP Senator, Chuck Grassley, Ernst sought clarity on the criteria and consequences of this policy. Almost a year has passed without a response from the administration. Ernst noted that the ATF has recently asked for a $1.8 billion budget hike, sufficient to hire 500 additional staff, and questioned the efficacy of such an increase given the agency's lack of responsiveness.

The Senators' earlier letter expressed concerns about a rise in the number of revoked firearm licenses in their home state of Iowa. They argued that an overly strict enforcement of minor administrative errors was putting honest businesses at risk and infringing on constitutional rights. 

Anthony Navarro, a firearm dealer who lost his license due to this policy, revealed to The Wall Street Journal that his annual revenue had plummeted from $1 million to under $100,000. He asserted that the policy serves as a covert means to undermine the Second Amendment.

In contrast, an ATF spokesperson stated last month that Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) often help in preventing gun-related crimes and that those who intentionally break the law should be held accountable. According to the ATF, there was an increase in license revocations: 122 in the last fiscal year compared to 90 the year before and 27 in 2021.

Ernst criticized the Biden administration for intentionally complicating the legal process for gun dealers, claiming it was part of an agenda to suppress Second Amendment rights. She insisted that accountability is imminent.

Her latest letter posed multiple questions for the Biden administration, including the procedure the ATF follows when revoking a license and whether there have been any changes to that process under the current administration. Ernst also asked for statistics on the number of FFL holders going out of business in fiscal years 2022 and 2023, as well as the ATF's definitions of "willful violation" compared to clerical errors.

Gun Coyote | Gun Deals

Get Our Deals Newsletter

SAF Initiates Sixth Legal Challenge Against Gov. Grisham's Restriction on Second Amendment Freedoms

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has initiated a federal legal action against New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and four additional state officials, claiming that the governor's emergency directive banning open and concealed carry in Albuquerque and the adjacent Bernalillo County infringes on the U.S. Constitution's Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

The SAF has partnered with the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and Bernalillo County resident Zachary Fort in the lawsuit. Their legal representation is provided by Jordon George of the law firm Aragon Moss George Jenkins, LLP. The firm has also submitted a request for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against the state officials. This case has been brought before the U.S. District Court in New Mexico.

Apart from Governor Lujan Grisham, the lawsuit also names Patrick M. Allen, who serves as the Cabinet Secretary for the New Mexico Department of Health; Jason R. Bowie, the Cabinet Secretary for the New Mexico Department of Public Safety; and W. Troy Weisler, the Chief of the New Mexico State Police. All of these individuals are being sued both personally and in their official roles.

Alan M. Gottlieb, the founder and Executive Vice President of SAF, stated that Governor Grisham lacks the legal right to nullify the Second Amendment, even in a so-called public health crisis. He asserted that none of the named defendants have the legal standing to enforce such a restriction.

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut added that the governor's actions appear to be a calculated move to push her own political agenda, ignoring constitutional safeguards. He emphasized that their legal filings aim to halt this unconstitutional overreach and prevent further harm to citizens affected by this directive.

Gun Coyote | Gun Deals

Get Our Deals Newsletter