Monday, February 26, 2024

Washington Representative Commits to Advancing Permit-to-Purchase Gun Law in 2025 Despite Legislative Challenges

 

(AP Photo/Seth Perlman)

Several gun control initiatives in the Washington Legislature have recently stalled, but Representative Liz Berry, a Seattle Democrat and prominent advocate for gun control, has announced her determination to introduce a permit-to-purchase requirement in 2025.

Subscribe To Our Deals Newsletter


Craving top firearm deals? Join Gun Coyote's community for unbeatable finds! IMPORTANT: If you are a Gmail or Yahoo user be sure to check your Spam folder and click Report Not Spam otherwise Gmail or Yahoo may not make our newsletter visible to you.

“This is the next significant step we aim to take, and I am committed to making it happen next year,” Berry expressed to the Seattle Times.

This announcement serves as a caution to gun rights supporters in Washington who have successfully opposed various proposals, such as SB 5963 concerning gun insurance, HB 1902 on purchase permits, SB 2054 limiting gun purchases to one per month, and HB 1178 aiming to repeal state preemption — a measure highly sought after by Seattle’s political leaders and Mayor Bruce Harrell.

Despite the setback of these measures, a few restrictive gun control bills are still under consideration, including:

House Bill 2118, which mandates enhanced security measures and liability insurance for firearms dealers, potentially threatening the viability of small businesses.
Senate Bill 5444, seeking to ban firearms in specific public spaces like libraries and transit facilities, with an exception for concealed pistol license holders.
House Bill 1903, requiring the reporting of lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours.

Berry’s advocacy for these measures reflects a Democratic push for more stringent gun laws, a stance she believes is supported by the public, though opinions vary significantly across the state.

Representative Jim Walsh, a key figure on the House Judiciary Committee, noted that while the aforementioned bills appear stalled, nothing is definitive until the legislative session concludes.

Recent legislative actions, such as implementing a 10-day waiting period for all gun purchases, have been criticized by gun rights groups as overly restrictive. Public testimony against the permit-to-purchase bill highlighted a similar Oregon measure deemed unconstitutional, underscoring the legal and constitutional challenges facing such initiatives.

The push for these gun control measures follows a series of restrictions enacted in response to the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy, including enhanced background checks, red flag laws, and bans on certain firearms and magazines.

Despite these efforts, Washington has seen a notable increase in homicides, suggesting that these laws have not effectively addressed violence. Gun rights advocates argue that the focus should be on enforcing current laws and imposing stricter penalties for criminal activities, citing historical opposition from liberals to initiatives aimed at increasing penalties for armed crimes.

 

As the legislative session approaches its March 7 conclusion, Representative Berry’s pledge to reintroduce gun control proposals in 2025 signals an ongoing debate over gun rights and public safety in Washington.

Please note that this story contains affiliate links. If you click on these links and make a purchase, we may receive a commission at no extra cost to you. This support helps us continue to bring you more of the content you love. Thank you for your support!

Thursday, February 22, 2024

Missouri Lawmaker's Call to Repeal Constitutional Carry Sparks Debate Amid Kansas City Tragedy

(Tactical Gear)

No anti-gun advocate has ever embraced constitutional carry in their state, often citing misleading reasons for its opposition. Despite evidence suggesting constitutional carry does not lead to increased crime rates and may actually decrease them, these critics remain unmoved, especially in places like Missouri, specifically Kansas City.

Subscribe To Our Deals Newsletter


Craving top firearm deals? Join Gun Coyote's community for unbeatable finds! IMPORTANT: If you are a Gmail or Yahoo user be sure to check your Spam folder and click Report Not Spam otherwise Gmail or Yahoo may not make our newsletter visible to you.

Recently, following a devastating shooting at the Kansas City Chiefs’ Super Bowl celebration, Representative Ashley Aune, a Democrat from Kansas City and a self-proclaimed Second Amendment supporter, has pushed for “commonsense” gun control measures. She proposes reinstating a permit requirement for carrying handguns in public, a move she believes is essential for responsible firearm ownership despite acknowledging the significant resistance her proposal is likely to encounter.

Following the tragic shooting during the Kansas City Chiefs’ Super Bowl celebration last week, Representative Ashley Aune, a Democrat from Kansas City, Missouri, has called for the introduction of “commonsense” gun control measures. Aune is advocating for the state of Missouri to implement a requirement that individuals must obtain a permit to carry handguns in public spaces.

Aune, a gun owner who supports the Second Amendment, expressed concern over the current approach to firearm regulation in the state. “I think it’s a dangerous, dangerous way to approach firearms,” Aune remarked. She emphasized the importance of acknowledging the safety and responsibility aspects of firearm ownership.

Aune’s stance as a gun owner does not mitigate her anti-gun position, as evidenced by her 0% NRA rating, contrasting sharply with pro-gun legislators like Kentucky’s Thomas Massie, who boasts a 92% rating.

The incident in Kansas City, involving at least one stolen firearm, highlights the ineffectiveness of such laws against criminals disinclined to follow them. The act of shooting into a crowd due to a disagreement, an illegal action in itself, underscores the folly in believing new regulations would prevent such tragedies.

Implementing more stringent laws would unjustly penalize law-abiding citizens, forcing them through unnecessary obstacles to exercise rights they have long enjoyed without issue. This approach, as proposed by Aune, uses the Kansas City tragedy not as a genuine call for safety but as an opportunity to undermine Missouri’s established gun rights under the guise of reaction.

Please note that this story contains affiliate links. If you click on these links and make a purchase, we may receive a commission at no extra cost to you. This support helps us continue to bring you more of the content you love. Thank you for your support!

Wednesday, February 21, 2024

Tennessee Gun Owners Face Challenge as Legislators Propose Stringent Anti-Gun Laws


In Tennessee, gun owners are currently facing a slew of proposed anti-gun laws as the legislative session progresses.

Subscribe To Our Deals Newsletter


Craving top firearm deals? Join Gun Coyote's community for unbeatable finds! IMPORTANT: If you are a Gmail or Yahoo user be sure to check your Spam folder and click Report Not Spam otherwise Gmail or Yahoo may not make our newsletter visible to you.

Nine such proposals are being reviewed in House subcommittees, all of which pose significant challenges to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens without addressing the root causes of criminal behavior or violent crime.

For instance, HB 2329 aims to repeal Tennessee’s status as a state that allows permitless carry, targeting the provision that permits lawful handgun carrying under § 39–17–1307(g). Additionally, another proposal, HB 1593 introduced by Democratic State Representative Justin Pearson, seeks to enforce comprehensive background checks for all firearm sales within the state, encompassing both private and commercial transactions.

This proposed legislation mandates background checks unless the transaction involves a licensed gun dealer, occurs through a dealer with a receipt, or falls under specific exceptions such as antique firearms, dealer-to-dealer transfers, or transfers to law enforcement or military agencies.

Furthermore, a proposed ban targets a wide array of semi-automatic rifles labeled as “weapons of war” and any magazines with capacities exceeding 10 rounds. HB 1935 categorizes “weapons of war” to include semi-automatic, centerfire rifles with detachable magazines and one of several specific features, such as a protruding pistol grip or a folding stock, among others.

Additional proposals under consideration include HB 1587, which would ban the production of semi-automatic rifles; HB 1589, which seeks to outlaw the manufacture, transfer, or sale of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds; HB 1592, which would criminalize failing to report a lost or stolen firearm within 24 hours; HB 1595, which proposes establishing a committee to examine the effects of gun violence; HB 1954, which would escalate the penalty for transferring a firearm to a minor to a felony; and HB 2336, which aims to prohibit the manufacture and distribution of 80% frames or lowers.

These legislative efforts in Tennessee are causing concern among gun rights advocates, highlighting the ongoing debate over gun control measures and their impact on lawful gun ownership and Second Amendment freedoms.

Please note that this story contains affiliate links. If you click on these links and make a purchase, we may receive a commission at no extra cost to you. This support helps us continue to bring you more of the content you love. Thank you for your support!

Monday, February 19, 2024

Missouri GOP Halts Pro-Gun Bills After Kansas City Shooting Amid Public Safety Debate

(AP/Charlie Riedel)
 

Following the tragic shooting at the Kansas City Chiefs' victory parade, Missouri Republicans have halted progress on two significant pro-Second Amendment bills this legislative session. The arrested suspects, being underage, were not legally permitted to own firearms, underscoring that they were not representative of lawful gun owners. Despite this, some Republican lawmakers are hesitating due to concerns over the perception of supporting gun rights in the aftermath of the incident, which resulted in one fatality and numerous injuries.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter


Craving top firearm deals? Join Gun Coyote's community for unbeatable finds! IMPORTANT: If you are a Gmail or Yahoo user be sure to check your Spam folder and click Report Not Spam otherwise Gmail or Yahoo may not make our newsletter visible to you.

The proposed legislation included measures to allow concealed carry permit holders to bring firearms onto public transportation and into places of worship, as well as to exempt firearms and ammunition from state and local sales taxes.

One of the bills would have allowed concealed carry permit holders to bring firearms onto public transportation, including buses, as well as inside places of worship. The other would have exempted firearms and ammunition from both state and local sales taxes.

House Majority Floor Leader Jon Patterson, R-Lee’s Summit, said that while he believes both bills were worthy of debate, “they have no path to becoming law at this point.”

“Now is not the appropriate time to be taking up those bills and therefore they will not be brought up this session,” Patterson said.

The decision from Patterson, who is responsible for bringing up bills for debate on the House floor, follows a deadly shooting Wednesday in Kansas City.

The shooting occurred at the celebration of the Kansas City Chiefs’ Super Bowl victory, killing one person and leaving more than 20 people injured.

Patterson said he spoke with the sponsors of both bills and “had productive conversations about what was in the best interest of our body as a whole, including many members who were at the shooting.”

House Majority Floor Leader Jon Patterson expressed his belief in the merit of these bills but acknowledged the current political climate as unsuitable for their advancement. This decision comes in the wake of the Kansas City parade shooting, prompting discussions among lawmakers about the most appropriate response to ensure the legislative body's collective best interest.

Critics argue that delaying these bills gives undue power to anti-gun proponents, who may never deem it a suitable time for such legislation. Representative Emily Weber voiced her opposition to the bills, advocating instead for discussions on gun control measures she believes are more urgent.

Rep. Emily Weber, D-Kansas City, said she’s glad the House would not pass the bills this session, but she doesn’t want them to come up in future sessions either.

“What are we going to do in the future? What's going to be next session and the session after that? Because we've all heard these bills multiple times now,” Weber said. “And we will continue to still hear these bills.”

Weber said the legislature should instead take up gun control bills.

“I would really love for them to sit down with us and have conversations about the common sense gun laws that we've been trying to file and push and get hearings,” she said.

Representative Adam Schnelting, the author of one of the bills, criticized the decision to postpone these legislative efforts, pointing out that existing laws did not prevent the Kansas City tragedy. He argues that enabling lawful gun owners to protect themselves in more settings is a sensible step forward, especially in light of the current prohibitions on public transit that disarm commuters.

The debate highlights a broader conflict within Missouri's legislature over how to balance gun rights with public safety concerns. Despite the contention, legislative leaders appear to have shelved any gun-related proposals for the remainder of the session, drawing criticism for not taking a firmer stance on self-defense rights. Critics emphasize the missed opportunity to address safety concerns in public transit and places of worship, arguing that proactive measures are necessary to protect citizens in an increasingly unpredictable world.

Please note that this story contains affiliate links. If you click on these links and make a purchase, we may receive a commission at no extra cost to you. This support helps us continue to bring you more of the content you love. Thank you for your support!

Friday, February 16, 2024

Minnesota Proposes Expansive Assault Weapon Ban, Including .22 Rimfires

House File 3570, currently under review by the Minnesota House Committee on Public Safety Finance and Policy, proposes a ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ by expanding the definitions used to categorize these firearms. This legislation aims to halt the sale or transfer of these weapons, initiate a buyback program, and allocate funds from the general fund for its implementation.

Subscribe


Craving top firearm deals? Join Gun Coyote's community for unbeatable finds! IMPORTANT: If you are a Gmail or Yahoo user be sure to check your Spam folder and click Report Not Spam otherwise Gmail or Yahoo may not make our newsletter visible to you.

The bill categorizes a wide range of firearms as ‘semiautomatic military-style assault weapons’ and includes prohibitions on various models or similar firearms, along with those that have certain modifications or accessories like protruding grips and barrel shrouds. The proposed law strictly limits the transfer of these weapons, with narrow exceptions for law enforcement and military use.

Critics argue that this bill combines elements from previous semi-auto bans, intensifying restrictions by reducing the criteria for banning to the presence of “one or more” specified features, moving away from the 1994 federal ban’s requirement for multiple features.

The bill also removes exemptions for firearms recognized for sporting purposes, highlighting a departure from previous legislation and underscoring the strict stance of Minnesota’s lawmakers against the broad ownership of firearms.

Notably, the bill specifies that ‘semi-automatic military-style assault weapons’ include rimfire rifles with fixed magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, directly impacting firearms like the Marlin 70620 Model 60 .22 Long Rifle, which has a capacity of 14 + 1 rounds. This specification has led to criticism that the legislation broadly categorizes everyday firearms as excessively dangerous.

The legislation has sparked debate over its implications for gun ownership and Second Amendment rights, with concerns about the potential for widespread restrictions on firearms that are commonly used for recreational purposes.

As the bill progresses, it reflects the ongoing tension between efforts to regulate firearms more strictly and the rights of gun owners, set against a backdrop of national debate on gun control measures. With similar efforts observed in states like California and New York, the discussion around HF 3570 highlights the complex landscape of gun legislation in the United States, raising questions about the balance between public safety and constitutional rights.

Please note that this story contains affiliate links. If you click on these links and make a purchase, we may receive a commission at no extra cost to you. This support helps us continue to bring you more of the content you love. Thank you for your support!

Thursday, February 15, 2024

Kansas City Shooting Spurs Calls for Gun Control Amid Ongoing Investigations

(AP/Reed Hoffman)

Details remain scarce regarding the Kansas City shooting that resulted in one fatality and over twenty injuries, with little known about the three suspects described by the police chief as “bad actors.” Nonetheless, leading Democrats, including President Joe Biden, are seizing this tragedy as a call to action for Congress to enact stricter gun control measures.

Subscribe


Craving top firearm deals? Join Gun Coyote's community for unbeatable finds! IMPORTANT: If you are a Gmail or Yahoo user be sure to check your Spam folder and click Report Not Spam otherwise Gmail or Yahoo may not make our newsletter visible to you.

President Biden has passionately advocated for legislative action to ban “assault weapons,” limit magazine capacity, enhance background checks, and restrict firearm access to those deemed unfit to own them. He characterized the shooting as a profound wound on the American spirit, emphasizing the nation’s understanding of necessary actions but lacking the resolve to implement them.

“It is time to act. That’s where I stand. And I ask the country to stand with me. To make your voice heard in Congress so we finally act to ban assault weapons, to limit high-capacity magazines, strengthen background checks, keep guns out of the hands of those who have no business owning them or handling them,” Biden said.
The president said the shooting at the victory parade “cuts deep in the American soul,” and claimed that “we know what we have to do, we just need the courage to do it.”

Representative Emanuel Cleaver, serving the Kansas City area, has echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the need for tighter gun regulations over prayers, especially after such a joyous occasion was marred by violence. He expressed skepticism about Congress’s willingness to act, given its historical inaction even after incidents involving child victims.

“This is ugly,” Cleaver told The Star. “It was supposed to be one of the happiest days in decades. And then people are running for their lives. I know that if the murder of children didn’t inspire Congress to act, then the murder of football fans won’t get a piece of consideration. So it goes on and on and on. I don’t know what to do.”

The rush to propose solutions before fully understanding the incident’s circumstances highlights a prevailing instinct among gun control advocates to leverage any gun-related violence as a rationale for limiting Second Amendment rights. This approach persists despite the possibility that the individuals involved in the shooting might have already been prohibited from possessing firearms or might have benefited from lenient legal outcomes in the past.

Advocates for gun control argue that restricting lawful gun ownership is the path to increased safety, a stance contested by those who see such measures as ineffective knee-jerk reactions to tragedy. The recent shooting in a highly regulated area like New York City, which already enforces the stringent gun laws Biden advocates for, underscores the limitations of such regulations in preventing criminal misuse of firearms.

The Kansas City shooting tragedy, transforming a celebratory event into a day of mourning, highlights the need to address the root causes of such violence — the individuals responsible — rather than pursuing an illusion of safety through prohibitive legislation that infringes on the right to self-defense.

Please note that this story contains affiliate links. If you click on these links and make a purchase, we may receive a commission at no extra cost to you. This support helps us continue to bring you more of the content you love. Thank you for your support!


Tuesday, February 13, 2024

Michigan Implements New Gun Control Laws Amid Constitutional Concerns

(Shuttershock)

Today marks the implementation of new gun control measures in Michigan, introducing penalties for gun owners whose firearms are accessed by unauthorized users due to inadequate storage. The state has enacted these laws aiming to improve the safety protocols surrounding the acquisition, storage, and possession of firearms, despite raising concerns over governmental intrusion and potential conflicts with constitutional rights.

Subscribe


Are you passionate about firearms and always on the lookout for the best deals in the market? Look no further! Gun Coyote, the premier Gun Deals Search Engine, invites you to join our exclusive community. IMPORTANT: If you are a Gmail or Yahoo user be sure to check your Spam folder and click Report Not Spam otherwise Gmail or Yahoo may not make our newsletter visible to you.


Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel underscored the importance of these regulations, portraying them as a significant step forward in ensuring public safety within the state.

“This is a monumental development for the residents of Michigan, promising to significantly enhance the safety of both residents and visitors,” Nessel stated in a report by WNEM 5.

Among the newly enacted measures are universal background checks, red flag laws, and stringent requirements for the secure storage of firearms, especially in homes with children.


The red flag legislation allows courts to temporarily confiscate firearms from individuals judged to pose a threat to themselves or others. Critics argue that these laws bypass traditional due process rights and open the door for unfounded accusations to result in the seizure of firearms.

The extension of background checks to include all firearm transactions, including private sales, is intended to align Michigan’s laws with federal prohibitions against firearm ownership by individuals with felony convictions or misdemeanor domestic violence charges. Critics, however, point out that federal regulations do not mandate universal background checks and that individuals prohibited from owning firearms may still obtain them illegally, potentially increasing costs for legal purchases and the resale market.


Steve Dulan, a firearms law professor at Cooley Law School, expressed concerns to WNEM about the practical effects of the legislation, suggesting it could complicate compliance and inadvertently discourage lawful gun ownership. He emphasized that Michigan's approach adds complexity and might increase the risk of both unwarranted legal action against gun owners and vulnerability to criminal acts for those who choose to go unarmed.

To assist gun owners in adhering to the new storage laws, local law enforcement agencies are distributing complimentary gun locks and safety kits.

Please note that this story contains affiliate links. If you click on these links and make a purchase, we may receive a commission at no extra cost to you. This support helps us continue to bring you more of the content you love. Thank you for your support! 

Monday, February 12, 2024

Armed Response at Houston Church Highlights Crucial Role of Lawful Gun Owners in Preventing Tragedy

Lakewood Church
(AP Photo/Pat Sullivan)

The shooting at Lakewood Church in downtown Houston, which resulted in two injuries and the death of the female perpetrator, has sparked controversy without much detail from police investigations. Nevertheless, Texas Democrats have attributed the tragedy to the state's lenient gun regulations. Shortly after the incident was reported, Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa issued a statement condemning the state's gun policies as a source of danger to the community, highlighting the vulnerability of various public spaces under current leadership.

Subscribe


Are you passionate about firearms and always on the lookout for the best deals in the market? Look no further! Gun Coyote, the premier Gun Deals Search Engine, invites you to join our exclusive community. IMPORTANT: If you are a Gmail or Yahoo user be sure to check your Spam folder and click Report Not Spam otherwise Gmail or Yahoo may not make our newsletter visible to you.

Hinojosa's critique did not address specific gun control measures that could have prevented the assailant, accompanied by a child and armed with a rifle, from initiating the attack. Nor did he acknowledge the crucial role of off-duty law enforcement officers, who were providing armed security at the church and swiftly neutralized the threat.

The woman, wearing a trench coat and escorting the child, walked into Osteen's Lakewood church in between services shortly before 2 p.m. CT and inexplicably began firing a long rifle, said Houston Police Chief Troy Finner. 

"Once she entered, at some point she began to fire," Finner said. He added that officers on scene reported the woman, whose age was estimated at 30-35, said she had an explosive device. 

Two officers fired and struck the woman, Finner said, a Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission officer and a Houston Police Department officer. "Unfortunately the 5-year-old was hit. There was a 57-year-old man who didn't have anything to do with it, I don't think, who was shot in the leg," the chief said.

Houston Police Chief Troy Finner reported that the armed woman, estimated to be between 30-35 years old, began shooting inside the church, leading to the injury of a five-year-old and a 57-year-old man. The intervention by officers from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission and the Houston Police Department was pivotal in halting the shooter, who also claimed to have an explosive device.

Critics, like Hinojosa, who blame Texas's gun laws for the incident, overlook the occurrence of similar violent acts in states with stringent gun control measures. For example, a shooting at a church in Laguna Hills, California, in 2022 resulted in casualties, challenging the notion that stricter laws necessarily prevent such violence.

The debate intensifies as Democrats push for designating houses of worship as "sensitive places" where carrying firearms is prohibited. This approach has been contested, as seen in New York and California, where legal challenges have paused efforts to establish gun-free zones in religious venues.

Critics argue that proposals from figures like Hinojosa would leave many places of worship vulnerable unless they could afford private security. The incident at the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas, in December 2019, where volunteer security neutralized a shooter, is cited as an example of the efficacy of armed response in preventing further violence.

The Lakewood Church shooting, rather than highlighting flaws in Texas's gun legislation, underscores the significance of immediate armed intervention in safeguarding lives against threats, emphasizing the role of both off-duty officers and armed civilians in ensuring community safety.

Please note that this story contains affiliate links. If you click on these links and make a purchase, we may receive a commission at no extra cost to you. This support helps us continue to bring you more of the content you love. Thank you for your support!

Sunday, February 11, 2024

Subscribe and Save with the Gun Coyote Newsletter

 

Subscribe


Are you passionate about firearms and always on the lookout for the best deals in the market? Look no further! Gun Coyote, the premier Gun Deals Search Engine, invites you to join our exclusive community. IMPORTANT: If you are a Gmail or Yahoo user be sure to check your Spam folder and click Report Not Spam otherwise Gmail or Yahoo may not make our newsletter visible to you.

Saturday, February 10, 2024

Super Bowl Sunday Deal! Upgrade Your Collection with a PSA Dagger Compact 9mm

 

BUY NOW $249.99 Was $299.99

FEATURES

A compact-sized polymer-framed pistol, the Palmetto Dagger with Carry Cuts™ introduces game-changing ergonomics and controllability. Made from high-quality stainless steel and advanced polymers, this pistol lives up to today's highest expectations while maintaining the unmatched Palmetto State Armory value. Chambered in 9x19mm, the Palmetto Dagger is fed from a supplied PMAG® 15 GL9™ (15-Round) magazine and operated by a smooth single-action striker-fired trigger mechanism. The Palmetto Dagger is feature-rich even in its standard form, yet also provides a framework for further customization, as it is highly compatible with many aftermarket offerings. The new Carry Cuts™ offer smoother edges to the rear and front of the slide to help with faster drawing without snagging the user's holster. The slide is also finished with in Black Cerakote. 

Additional Features:

Ergonomic Grip Shape

Carry Cuts™ on Slide

Aggressive Grip Texturing

Striker Fired

Flat Faced Trigger

Striker Block Safety and Trigger Safety

Steel Sights - 3 Dot

Stainless Steel Recoil Spring Guide Rod

Black Cerakoted Slide

DLC Coated Barrel

15rd Magazine

PRODUCT DETAILS


Model: Palmetto Dagger Compact

Caliber: 9mm

Action: Striker Fired

Weight: 22.4oz (unloaded)

Overall Length: 7.15"

Overall Width: 1.28"

Overall Height: 4.78" (Without Mag)

Barrel Length: 3.9"

Barrel Material: Stainless Steel

Barrel Finish: DLC Coating

Twist Rate: SAAMI Spec 1:10

Slide Material: Stainless Steel

Slide Finish: Black Cerakote

Frame: Polymer

Front Sight: Steel — White Dot

Rear Sight: Steel — White Two Dot

Safety: Striker Block Safety & Trigger Safety

Magazine: Comes with One (1) 15rd Magazine

U.S. Government Appeals to Supreme Court Over ATF's Firearms & Receivers Rule

 

(Image: GunMag Warehouse)

The U.S. Government has petitioned the Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari, challenging a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that maintained a District Court’s preliminary injunction. This injunction prevented the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from implementing its final rule on frames and receivers (Final Rule 2021R-05F).

Pull the Trigger On Savings with the Gun Coyote Newsletter!

The dispute, known as VanDerStok v. Garland, originated in Texas and involved plaintiffs Jennifer VanDerStok, Michael Andren, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and Tactical Machining L.L.C. They contested the ATF’s redefinition of unfinished firearm frames as firearms. Following their initial victory, additional companies within the 80% firearms industry sought to join the case. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor then issued a nationwide injunction, effectively nullifying the rule.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed this decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to reverse the injunction. However, a three-judge panel largely allowed the injunction to remain, sidelining the rule. Opting against a full court review (en banc hearing) due to the Fifth Circuit’s prior ruling against the ATF’s bump stock regulation in Cargill v. Garland, the government sought intervention from the Supreme Court to pause the appellate decision while pursuing the high court’s review.

The Supreme Court, in a tight 5–4 decision, agreed to maintain the stay until it resolves whether to hear the case. Should the Supreme Court decline to review the case, the stay will be lifted, and the rule voided once again.

The government argues that the Supreme Court’s review is crucial for public safety, suggesting that regulating “ghost guns” as firearms is necessary to prevent legal circumvention by ineligible individuals and to aid law enforcement in tracing firearms used in crimes. This stance, however, seems to challenge the precedent set by the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, which mandates that considerations regarding the Second Amendment should be based solely on its original text, tradition, and history.

“Ghost guns provide a ready means for felons, minors, and others who are prohibited from buying firearms to circumvent the law — thwarting Congress’s ‘comprehensive scheme’ intended to ‘verify a would-be gun purchaser’s identity,’ ‘check on his background,’ and thereby keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who should not have them.’” The government states. “And on the back end, the lack of records and serial numbers means that ghost guns have ‘severely undermine[d]’ law enforcement’s ability to ‘determine where, by whom, or when’ a firearm used in a crime was manufactured and ‘to whom [it was] sold or otherwise transferred.’ That, in turn, has impaired law enforcement’s ability to apprehend violent individuals who may pose an ongoing threat to public safety. By ensuring that ghost guns are regulated as what they actually are — firearms — the two challenged provisions of the Rule ‘prevent easy circumvention of the [Act’s] entire regulatory scheme’ and are thus ‘critical to public safety.’”

The outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision to review the case will significantly affect the regulation of the 80% firearms market and future ATF regulations.


Please note that this story contains affiliate links. If you click on these links and make a purchase, we may receive a commission at no extra cost to you. This support helps us continue to bring you more of the content you love. Thank you for your support!