Gun Laws Missing Something?  by Bohdan Rabarsky

Where should the focus be in mass killings?

Unfortunately, the latest shootings have shown that mass killings aren’t uniquely American. On Tuesday, February 11th in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, Canada, a shooter killed eight people and wounded 25 people. The shooter killed a 39 year old teacher and five students as well as his mother and an 11 year old stepbrother.  The latter were found in a residence and occurred before the shooter went to the school.  The shooter eventually took his own life. 

The firearms recovered were a long gun and modified handgun.  At the time of this writing, it hasn’t been determined how the shooter obtained the firearms.

Canada has a National Handgun Registration ongoing since 1934. On May 1st, 2020, Canada banned 1500 models of ‘assault weapons.’ Canada further expanded this list on December 5th 2024 by adding 300 more ‘assault weapons’ and 324 unique makes & models. On April 4, 2025, Canada banned 179 additional ‘assault weapons.’  Currently, there is a national freeze in effect on handgun sales, purchases and transfers.    

These weapon bans came in the wake of the 2020 mass killings in Nova Scotia, when a mass killer murdered 13 people over two days, then set fire to buildings that killed nine more people. The killer illegally obtained 4 stolen guns; 3 guns that were smuggled in from the United States and a Smith & Wesson handgun was taken after killing a RCMP officer.

The Tumbler Ridge shooter was born a biological male who transitioned to a female six years ago.  He was also a high school dropout. According to police records, over the years authorities have responded to his home over concerns about mental health issues.     

Canada’s strict gun laws wouldn’t have prevented either of these two mass murders. Canada’s strict gun laws target lawful gun owners, require firearm safety training, extensive background checks and registration. In the case of the Nova Scotia incident, the killer used burning buildings to kill 9 people, so any gun laws wouldn’t have made a difference.

In Sydney Australia, about 1,000 Jewish people were gathered together at Bondi Beach to celebrate Hanukkah when two gunmen, armed with long barreled weapons, began firing a them.  At least 16 people died and about 40 were hospitalized.  The murderers were a 50 years old man and his 24 years old son.

Australia has very strict gun control laws, including a 28 days waiting period for gun purchases. 

Ms. Segal and other Jewish leaders in Australia told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that the deadly events were shocking but not unexpected.  They said that antisemitic incidents have intensified.   “It hasn’t come without warning,”.

Authorities in Canada, Australia and America need to start focusing on the mental health of their residents, instead of enacting more gun laws against legal gun owners, as that obviously hasn’t prevented mass killings.

A New FFL

SCOPE has written about the difference between the Biden and Trump administrations in regards to FFL’s and the ATF bureaucracy.  In response to SCOPE’s recent email on the newly nominated ATF Director, Robert Cekada, we received the following email.

I began my journey to become a licensed firearms dealer in New York in early 2024. It took over a year to receive the federal firearms license (FFL) alone. I mailed my FFL application May 30th 2024 and finally received it on June 2nd 2025. After 13 months, I had my 07 FFL. Another 3 months later, I had my New York dealer and gunsmithing licenses

Initially my application was on hold due to "possible" ties to a previous FFL. Rather than looking at my completely unblemished record (including no traffic violations) they made assumptions and the DOJ had everything on hold.

Fast forward to Donald J Trump. President Trump’s administration created new policies within the ATF which were designed to help protect the 2nd Amendment: in regards to licensed FFLs; and to gun owners in general. It was not easier to get a Federal Firearms License but he insured that dealers would not be penalized for clerical errors (a policy put in place by the previous administration). He decreased the size of the ATF and let them know there were not only in place to enforce firearms laws but to help legal, law-abiding FFLs. Current policy is that the ATF is to help FFLs whenever possible and give them the benefit of doubt rather than go to immediate revocation of their license.  Had Donald Trump not been in office I firmly believe I would not have received my FFL.

 Throughout the time I waited, I spoke to various agents of the ATF, numerous times.  My dealings with the ATF have been pleasant and all of the agents have helped me to the best of their ability. I know firsthand how an administration can "alter" the policies within a federal organization (whether they are legal or not.)  I see how easily the policies can be manipulated by whoever the current administration is - including those at the state level.

President Trump and Director Cekada have my full support and I am indebted to both of them for changing the internal policies of the ATF. Hopefully they have set a precedent that will remain in place for generations to come.

David B Freemanowner
Green Dragon Guns, LLC
38 Main St
Akron, NY 14001

HR 2189  by Tom Reynolds

The House voted 233-185 to pass H.R. 2189, Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act.  According to the bill’s summary:

This bill removes less-than-lethal projectile devices (e.g., certain TASERs) from regulation under the Gun Control Act.

The term less-than-lethal projectile device means a device that:

1) is not designed or intended to expel (and may not be readily converted to discharge) commonly used ammunition or projectiles exceeding a velocity of 500 feet per second;

(2) is designed and intended to be used in a manner not likely to cause death or serious bodily injury; and

(3) does not accept (and cannot be readily modified to accept) an ammunition feeding device.

The Attorney General and ATF to must determine whether specific devices qualify as less than lethal, upon request, with a 90-day response timeline.

22 Democrats voted for the bill (1 Republican against) which indicates that a few Democrats are willing to put aside their hatred of anything that resembles guns and recognize that de-escalation tools should not be subject to the same taxes, registration requirements, and regulatory red tape as rifles and handguns.

The bill heads to the Senate next.

The bill creates a distinct legal classification for devices like Tasers and similar conducted energy or impact projectile weapons.  They  would be exempt from Gun Control Act firearm definitions and related regulations, National Firearms Act firearm definitions including taxes and registration requirements, and firearm and ammunition excise taxes under the Pittman Robertson framework.

It will be interesting to see if New York Senators Schumer and Gillibrand can put aside their knee jerk negative reaction to anything resembling guns and vote for this common sense bill.

Can Pro-Gun bills actually come from the NYS Legislature?  By Ron Havlen

The number of bills containing the word ‘firearm’ introduced or acted on in the 2025-2026 session seems staggering. Especially when bills listed with a version in both the NY Assembly and NY Senate are counted as just one bill, resulting in 349.

Recently published was the new ‘Top Ten most Egregious Firearms Legislation.’ We even added a second “Watch List” of what we also consider bad bills, that didn’t quite make the top ten.

However, not all is the doom and gloom as we might initially think. There are actually a few somewhat bright spots, although rare. Below I list what I believe are the most beneficial bills to legal firearms ownership that I found within the current legislative session. It’s not many, but it does show there are a few legislators in NYS that can appreciate the rights inherited by all New York State citizens.

A03840/S01872– This bill would repeal the background check fees for guns and ammunition as they were included in the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA).

 Assembly sponsor Blankenbush with several co-sponsors. Senate sponsor Walczyk.

A05584/S03481– This bill would eliminate background checks for ammunition sales in New York State and prevent the State from passing other background check fees on to dealers or their respective customers.

 Assembly sponsor Bailey with co-sponsor, Senate sponsor Helming with co-sponsors.

A02472/S01647– The ‘Civil Rights Restoration Act’ recognizes the abuse of basic rights in the SAFE act and seeks to return due process and the right to keep and bear arms to the people of New York State. It clarifies rights to counsel and legal hearing. While the bill doesn’t mention ‘Red Flag Laws’, it goes a long way to rectify certain injustices inherent in such laws.

 Sponsored by Assembly sponsor Hawley with co-sponsors and Senator Borrello.

A03863/S07302– This bill simply states its purpose is to eliminate the re-certification requirements for firearms licenses created by the Safe Act.

 Assembly sponsor DiPietro and Senate sponsor Gallivan.

A02547– The purpose of this act is to repeal Chapter 1 of the laws of 2013, amending the Criminal Procedure Law and other laws relating to: suspension and revocation of          firearms licenses; private sale or disposal of firearms, rifles or shotguns; and establishing a minimum age to possess a firearm relating to gun control.   What does all that mean; repeal the ‘SAFE Act.’

 Assembly sponsor DiPietro.

A09203– This is a very simple bill; it seeks a NY State Constitutional amendment which says “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.”

 Assembly sponsor Barclay with several co-sponsors.

While, for the most part, our entire NY State government despises the average citizen’s basic rights, there are a few within the NY legislature who appreciate that it is the people, not the overbearing government, that have actual rights.

I encourage you to contact your legislators about the bills we list in the Top Ten Egregious and the Watch List and voice your concerns. I also encourage you to look beyond those bills at others you might find oppressive. And then I also encourage you to contact the legislators listed above and thank them for their support of the basic freedoms of New York Citizens.

NYS Assembly Members

 NYS Senate Members

A T F Director

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has been the spearpoint for various presidential administrations in those administrations’ efforts to neuter the 2nd Amendment, through the government bureaucracy. 

Democrats fondly remember the ‘golden years’ - prior to Trump - when the ATF’s budget increased, ATF Directors were firmly anti-2A and agents were closing a record number of gun stores.

Anti-2A organization “The Trace” bemoans President Trump’s recent year in office: In one year’s time, he has effectively starved the ATF of resources and support. He nixed regulations meant to expand background checks for gun purchases and relaxed penalties for lawbreaking gun dealers. He proposed slashing the agency’s budget, and he has diverted agents away from fighting violent crime to beef up immigration enforcement. After the ATF’s permanent director resigned, Trump twice installed inexperienced interim leaders as replacements.

Yeah.  So, what’s the problem?

“Lawbreaking gun dealers” were only dealers who made a clerical mistake.

“…diverted agents away from fighting violent crime to beef up immigration enforcement. Enforcing immigration rules against gangs like Tren de Agua and individual murderers, rapists and sex-traffickers isn’t fighting violent crime?  Are these people worse than gun dealers who made a clerical mistake?  Not in Democrat’s minds.

“Proposed laying off 20 percent of the agency’s staff.”  With its history of anti-gun efforts, one has to believe the ATF is still populated by deep staters who are dedicated to preserving their personal power and position through dedication to the Democrat Party’s anti-gun philosophy.  Since many in the ATF are not political appointees, it is difficult for a pro 2nd Amendment administration to get the ATF to do a ‘180.’  Cutting the budget is one way to attack it.

But ‘The Trace’ is partially correct that there were several changes in ATF Directors during the past year.  So, Trump has nominated a permanent director.  The Senate Judiciary Committee recently held a confirmation hearing for Robert Cekada, President Donald Trump’s nominee to serve as Director of the ATF. 

During the hearing, Cekada repeatedly said that the ATF’s mission is “not to burden lawful gun owners.” He committed to upholding the Constitution’s right to ‘keep and bear arms’ and he promised no interference with law-abiding citizens exercising that right.  Regulations must align with law and avoid unnecessary burdens on lawful gun owners and the firearms industry.  No major opposition emerged – which gives us some reason to pause; one would expect wailing to the heavens by Democrats over a Trump nomination.

Cekada has been the ATF’s Deputy Director since 2025.  He has been with the ATF since 2000 and has held a variety of positions.

Ammoland gives us reason to hope as it reports that “The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) expressed support, with representatives noting Cekada’s history of collaboration and his pledge not to impose undue regulatory hurdles. The American Suppressor Association (ASA) entered a supportive letter into the record, praising his commitment to accountability, transparency, and stakeholder engagement. Gun rights advocates and law enforcement alike appeared unified in viewing him as a stabilizing, experienced choice.”

Hopefully, Cekada is not a deep stater who has been in hiding and is, instead, a rabid supporter of President Trump’s agenda for the 2nd Amendment.

Pretti in Minneapolis

There is controversy over the shooting of Alex Pretti, in Minneapolis, on January 24th, over Pretti carrying a firearm and over subsequent statements by various individuals, including President Trump.  All of this is being interpreted in several ways, according to the person’s philosophical belief. 

Here are some thoughts on the legal right to carry (but not about the justification for the shooting.)

According to Chief Brian O'Hara of the Minneapolis Police Department, Pretti had a Minnesota state permit to carry a concealed handgun, and Pretti had no criminal record.  That permit would allow him to carry anywhere it was legal to carry.

Was carrying at the protest legal?  According to the US Concealed Carry Association, “Many states do not have specific laws targeting protests.”  Minnesota is one of the states that generally defaults to carrying being generally lawful at protests.

There may be location-specific restrictions that apply whether or not a protest is occurring.  For instance, one could not carry to a protest on school grounds.  That type of situation has not been mentioned, so it does not seem to be a case here.

It appears that it was lawful for Pretti to be carrying to the protest.

However, lawful carry can become illegal if you are violating another law at the same time, such as brandishing, threatening behavior, etc.  In other words, what happens at the protest can impact the legality of carrying there.  Pretti was obviously interfering with a federal law enforcement activity.  Did that make his carrying illegal?  That’s a complicated question for the courts to decide but one that should have been evaluated by Pretti before going to the protest.

Those would seem to be the facts about the legality of Pretti’s concealed carry.  Now the question is: should he have been carrying? Just because you can do something does not mean you should do something. 

If one intends to go to a protest to watch the protest and / or avoid direct confrontation with law enforcement, there will be various opinions.  We know protests can turn violent and the purpose of carrying is protection, so one can make a strong case for legally carrying in these circumstances.  Remember Kyle Rittenhouse had to legally protect himself against violent assault. 

If one intends to get in direct confrontation with law enforcement at a protest, whether physical or taunting, that is a different set of circumstances.  It’s obvious that Pretti was involved in both taunting and a physical confrontation.

When he went to the protest, did Pretti intend to get involved to that level?  What was his state of mind?  An incident eleven days before, on January 13th, gives us a strong clue.  At the protest of the 13th, Pretti is shown, in a video, swearing at law enforcement officers and then kicking out the tail light of a federal SUV.  He was then forcefully taken to the ground by multiple agents.  Pretti either breaks free or was released and he runs away.  Subsequent video of the confrontation shows Pretti with a handgun in his waistband but that was unknown to law enforcement, at that time.

Firearm trainers stress extreme caution when confronted by a law enforcement officer (LEO), whether it be a traffic stop or something more serious.  First, keep your hands away from the hand gun.  Second, tell the LEO you have a concealed carry permit and you are armed.  Third, tell the LEO where it is located.  That minimizes the possibility of a tragedy.  Pretti did none of that on the 13th or the 24th.

So, it is clear by Pretti’s actions on both the 13th and the 24th that he knew there was a serious possibility of a direct confrontation with law enforcement and that he intentionally carried.

If Pretti was going to a protest and not intending a confrontation with law enforcement, it’s legal to carry and a case can be made that carrying was a good thing.

If Pretti was going to a protest and at that protest intended to have a confrontation with law enforcement, carrying may or may not have been legal and it was definitely foreseeable that it was a bad idea.

Wolford v Lopez Aftershock

SCOPE wrote about the Wolford V Lopez Supreme Court (SCOTUS) lawsuit which challenged Hawaii’s law that it was ‘…unlawful for concealed-carry license-holders to carry firearms on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization.’  (Gas stations, stores, restaurants, etc. had to post a sign that it was okay to carry on their property.)  This would also impact New York’s misnamed ‘Concealed Carry Improvement Act’ which contains a section that parallels Hawaii’s law.

SCOPE believes the attitude of the SCOTUS’ justices made Hawaii’s chances look bleak.  Apparently, Hawaii’s legislators agree with SCOPE that their outlook is bleak, so they have introduced Senate Bill 3041.  This bill would force businesses open to the public to “post a color-coded placard indicating whether the business or restaurant allows firearms or large knives to be brought onto the premises.” It would have to be posted where it is “clearly visible to the general public and patrons entering the business or restaurant.”  Failure to post the sign would shut down the business completely, because it is “unlawful to operate a business or restaurant unless the placard is posted.”

I wonder how many non-gun owners ask themselves if a business allows large knives as they enter?  As Mae West might have said, ”Are you glad to see me or is that a large knife in your pants?”

Guns and large knives would be legal but the business must make a public decision as to whether to allow them.  Of course, this is being proposed in hopes of creating a boycott of pro-gun businesses by sympathetic gun grabbers.  Wouldn’t it be wonderful if it worked in reverse for those businesses that are pro-gun and they get more people patronizing the business.

The sign must also be color coded: a “green placard shall indicate that the business or restaurant does not allow firearms or large knives:  a red placard indicates “that the business or restaurant allows firearms and large knives;”  a “yellow placard shall indicate that the business or restaurant allows either firearms or large knives to be brought onto the premises, but not both.”  

Criminals will be saying ‘thank you’ for making their decisions easier.  (Especially those that aren’t good at reading; they just can’t be color blind when picking out the easiest place to rob.)  I’ll bet that gun free establishments will get more crime than those allowing guns.  

The 1st Amendment includes a right to be free from compelled speech.  But hey, if you are ignoring the 2nd Amendment, why would ignoring the 1st Amendment bother you?

Demonstrating their usual deep thinking, Hawaii’s legislators leave blank the definition of a “large knife.”

Attacking 2A From All Directions

No one can deny that the leadership of the Democrat Party is thoroughly anti-Second Amendment.  But repealing that amendment is a ‘bridge too far’ so they try to weaken it in various ways.  Nowhere is that truer than in New York State.

The following are groups of laws that are currently proposed in the NY Legislature to weaken or neuter the 2nd Amendment.  The list is divided into various tactical strategies to destroy 2A in order to demonstrate the variety of approaches that gun grabbers are using.  Some laws are repeated with different bill numbers.  (A are Assembly bills and S are Senate bills.)  The most dangerous bills are those proposed in both the Assembly and the Senate.

Please remember that these proposals are in addition to the many anti-2A laws already in force in NYS; for instance, the SAFE Act and the Concealed Carry Improvement Act.

Make owning a firearm more expensive

A01290 / S6395: Tax on the sale of Ammo.  $.02 per cartridge for .22 caliber or less.  $.05 per cartridge for greater that .22 caliber.

A06024 / S01315: Tax on the sale of Ammo.  $.02 per cartridge for .22 caliber or less.  $.05 per cartridge for greater that .22 caliber.

S05813:                        11% Excise Tax on firearms. Components and ammo.

A05611 / S05974:     Requires $1 million in liability insurance

A07186:                        Requires Liability insurance (no amount specified)

A03376:                        Requires Liability insurance (no amount specified)

Use time to discourage firearm possession
Bureaucracy and Increased Expense
Lawfare
Devices

A08853 / S04277:  .50 caliber or greater firearms: possession of new ones prohibited; currently owned ones must be registered.
S01358:                   All pistols or revolvers sold must have a childproofing device or mechanism incorporated into the design of such pistol or revolver to effectively preclude an average five years old child from operating it.  (Ten pounds pull; an average five years old child's hands are too small to operate it; and require a series of multiple motions in order to fire the pistol or revolver.

A03233 / S00362: 10 day waiting period from NICS check started

A01210:                    10 day waiting period from NICS check started

A01774 / S00418: Buy only one (1) firearm every 30 days

S04807:                     Buy only one (1) rifle or shotgun every 90 days

A00360 / S03981:Hunting license, 5 hours safety course and exam, live fire instruction and test with 90% accuracy, drug test, mental health evaluation, criminal background check, safe storage container all necessary to buy firearm.

S04790:                    Purchaser of any firearm must submit to a mental health exam.

A04085 / S00658:  To possess a firearm must have a Firearms Safety Certificate (5 hours of classroom and 2 hours of live fire) and pass a written exam.

A09373 / S08608: Add much bureaucracy for selling guns to NY State

A00929:                     NY Attorney General prosecute firearm sales in other states to NY residents without going through NYS Police.

A05711:                      Easier for law officer to apply for ERPO (Red Flag).

A1962B / S3385A:  Class A misdemeanor to not safely store firearms accessible to a minor or a prohibited person when

A08406:                     Applications to seize firearms when the family court not in session.

A00436 / S00744:  Includes pistol converters in the definition of a rapid-fire modification device. (No definition of what a pistol converter is.)

 A03021 / S2158:    Establish and maintain a database of information relating to the sale or use of micro-stamped firearms.

A05105:                     Makes criminal possession of a ghost gun a class C felony

A07810 / S06403:  Civil actions against any person manufacturing, distributing, transporting, or importing into the state, or causing to be distributed, transported, or imported into the state, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give or lend, any assault weapon or ghost gun.

3D printers

A02228 / S03562:  Criminal background check to buy 3D printer capable of printing firearms

A1777A / S0227A:  Sale, distribution or disposal of digital instructions to program  a 3D printer  to  manufacture  or  produce any machine-gun, assault weapon, large capacity ammunition  feeding  device, disguised  gun, ghost gun, unfinished frame or receiver, firearm silencer, magazine, rapid-fire modification device or  major  component  of  a firearm, rifle or shotgun, to a person in New York who is not registered or licensed  as  a  gunsmith with  a Type 7 Federal Firearms License, is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. Manufacture of a ‘ghost gun,’ unfinished frame or receiver, firearm silencer, magazine, or major component of a firearm, rifle or shotgun or disguised gun is guilty of a class D felony.

A02060 / S05952: Only registered gunsmiths can manufacture a firearm on a 3D printer and any firearm manufactured by a 3D printer must contain a unique identifying number and to be registered with the state police.

Locations

A01953:                         Restricts the locations of gunsmiths and dealers in firearms in relation to child day care or educational facilities, and places of worship.

A05817 / S06787:  Increases sentences for weapons within 5,000 feet of school grounds.

A07382 / S01382:  Prohibition against concealed firearms in national parks and national wildlife refuges.

A08895 / S01799:  Limits hours of operation, addresses noise pollution and limits operations to one weekend each month for municipal shooting ranges and ranges used by law enforcement.

S01273:                          Prohibits openly carrying a rifle or shotgun.  Exception for hunting, private property and other exceptions

S05292:                          Class A misdemeanor to sell a firearm, rifle, shotgun or ammunition on state property including state and county fairgrounds, and county, city and municipal property.

Limit Persons Accessing Guns

A00346:                       Must be 21 to possess any firearm.  Exception for hunting.

A01764 / S04388:  Prohibits marketing firearms and firearm related products to anyone under 18 years old except where marketing is geared toward hunting.

A01920:                     Prohibits entry to gun shows to anyone under twelve years of age.

S01440:                    Revokes a license to carry, possess, repair and dispose of firearms for a conviction for failure to safely store firearms.

Studies

A1191B / S1455A: Study the viability of personalized firearms.

A02084 / S01289:  Establishes the office of gun violence prevention and the gun violence advisory council.         

Maryland’s Sensitive Places

The Bruen decision said that states could designate certain ‘sensitive places’ as gun free zones.  But Justice Thomas warned against overreach in designating these places.

Thumbing its nose at the Bruen decision, New York State passed the mis-named Concealed Carry Improvement Act.  (CCIA.)  It was not alone.  Several deep Democrat states passed similar laws, at least in part.  All these states have something in common; they took advantage of the opportunity to name places as ‘sensitive areas’ and totally ignored Justice Thomas’ warning about overreach.

Last week SCOPE wrote about the Supreme Court hearing the case about Hawaii’s overreach (Wolford v Lopez).  At that same time, an appeals court was hearing a similar case and its decision may be an omen of what is in store for New York State’s CCIA.

On January 20, 2026, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Maryland’s prohibition on carrying guns on private property that was held open to the public is unconstitutional.  (For instance: Gas stations, grocery stores, etc.)

The judges said that Maryland’s prohibition was “directed at gun owners, not property owners…With or without the new private-property consent rule, Maryland property owners have the right to exclude unwanted people (including those with guns) from their property.”

In addition, examples of historical precedence cited by Maryland were weak because: “Many of the historical statutes Maryland cites appear to regulate hunting on others’ property without permission.”

The Justices concluded: “Maryland’s rule would effectively declare most public places ‘gun-free zones.’ But that likely stretches the sensitive places doctrine too far…In short, there is no relevant historical tradition supporting Maryland’s private-property consent rule, at least on this record and as to property held open to the public.”

However, the court held that Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the rule for property not held open to the public.  (For instance: Homes, farms, etc.)

The ruling did allow certain places to be named as gun free zones.  Some were unanimous (as noted) but others were (held) by a 2 to 1 majority.  They are:

-  unanimously hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns in government buildings is constitutional

- hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns in public transportation is constitutional

- unanimously hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns on school grounds is constitutional

- hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration is constitutional (provided law enforcement first orders the armed individual to leave)

- hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns in state parks, is constitutional

- hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns in museums is constitutional

- unanimously hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns in healthcare facilities is constitutional

-  hold that Maryland’s prohibitions on guns at stadiums, racetracks, amusement parks, and casinos are constitutional

- hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns in locations that sell alcohol is constitutional.

The judge who disagreed with parts of the ruling issued a partial dissent, warning that the majority’s approach risks “hollowing out the Second Amendment.”  He agreed that schools, government buildings, and health care facilities can be treated as sensitive places. But he argued that approving Maryland’s long list of additional locations “stretches the sensitive places exception into a broad license to prohibit firearms in locations where people gather for almost any purpose.”

This decision only applies to the 4th circuit (Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.)  But combined with the Supreme Court’s seemingly dislike (in oral arguments) of a broad definition of ‘sensitive places that are open to the public’ and the 4th Circuit’s outright rejection of that principle, this is good news for New York gun owners and bad news for Kathy Hochul and CCIA.  

The lawsuit’s gun owners will have to decide if they will ask the full Fourth Circuit to rehear the case or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court or do nothing.  Do they want to challenge those places the 4th circuit allowed, especially those without a majority decision? 

Here is a link to the actual 94 page decision   241799.P.pdf

Wolford v Lopez is Heard by SCOTUS

SCOPE wrote about the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) accepting a lawsuit, Wolford v. Lopez, which is a challenge to Hawaii’s gun carry restrictions.  The high court must answer: “Whether the Second Amendment allows a State to make it unlawful for concealed-carry license-holders to carry firearms on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization.”

On Tuesday, SCOTUS heard oral arguments in this case.

The gun owners lawyer told the justices that “[b]y banning people from carrying firearms on private property that is open to the public unless they first obtain affirmative permission, Hawaii has run roughshod over that constitutional right.” Hawaii’s ban is inconsistent with our national historical tradition of firearms regulation.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, (who has never let the United States Constitution come before her personal politics), cited ‘Black Codes’ which were enacted after the Civil War to restrict the rights of formerly enslaved people as an appropriate historical precedent.  Jackson said, “The fact that the Black Codes were at some later point determined themselves to be unconstitutional doesn’t seem to me to be relevant to the assessment that Bruen is asking us to make.”

Sane justices disagreed with Justice Jackson.  Justice Gorsuch questioned whether the court should consider the Black Codes’ law at all, calling it an “outlier.”  Justice Alito pointed out that the law was designed to prevent formerly enslaved people from defending themselves against members of the Ku Klux Klan and “racist law enforcement officers.”

Hawaii’s lawyer agreed that the Black Codes “are undoubtedly a shameful part of our history,” but should still be used!  According to Hawaii’s lawyer and Justice Jackson, an unconstitutional law is evidence to support making another law constitutional.

Justice Alito noted, and Hawaii’s lawyer agreed, that it would violate the First Amendment for the state to ban particular political attire in a restaurant without “express consent from the owner of the restaurant.”

Hawaii’s lawyer emphasized that “the Second Amendment … is not a second-class right.” But then he argued that there are key differences between the First and Second Amendments, which effectively makes the Second Amendment less of a right than the First Amendment. 

Justice Jackson also advocated a property rights approach in an effort to save Hawaii’s law but it appeared to be unsuccessful.

Virtually all of the court’s six Republican appointees seemed to agree with the challengers that Hawaii’s law violates the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.  This would impact New York’s misnamed ‘Concealed Carry Improvement Act’ which contains a section that parallels Hawaii’s law.