frontlines

Advocates: Next SCOTUS gun rights decision will clarify N.Y. laws

BY KATE LISA NEW YORK STATE
PUBLISHED 7:11 PM ET JUL. 10, 2023

Advocates on both sides of the gun rights debate are preparing for the next battle in interpreting Second Amendment rights and its potential impact on state laws.

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments this fall to decide if a 1994 federal statute prohibiting anyone actively subject to a domestic violence restraining order from having firearms is constitutional. It comes after a Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel threw out the conviction of Texas man Zackey Rahimi, who was convicted of possessing firearms while under such a restraining order.

Judges cited last year's Supreme Court ruling and decided though Rahimi discharged his weapon in public five times in two months while subject to the order, it did not invalidate his constitutional right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. The court argued no similar laws in U.S. history confiscated guns from people who were violent against their spouse or partner.

"If you were married to a man and he abused you, you had every right to beat your wife, as long as you didn't leave permanent marks," said SUNY Cortland political science professor Robert Spitzer. "That was the legal standard 200 years ago."

Spitzer has written five books on gun control and is an expert on national gun policy; he's skeptical the Supreme Court will completely strike down the nearly 30-year-old federal statute.

"I think the country could not tolerate such a decision," he added. "I think the court would have a hard time coming up with five votes on behalf of that decision."

Throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, colonies and U.S. states had laws where a person found hunting in the wrong place at the wrong time could have their firearms taken away, Spitzer said.

"So would that provide a valid historical analogue to modern domestic violence laws? To me, the answer would clearly be yes," he said.

Spitzer added he'll be surprised if the court upholds the domestic violence law is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment with the modernized national view of abuse — pointing to several studies linking more violent domestic abuse outcomes to gun ownership.

Abusers with access to firearms are five times more likely to kill their partners, according to a control study published in the American Journal of Public Health.

About 4.5 million American women alive today, or 1 in 27, have had an intimate partner threaten them with a gun, according to an article in the National Library of Medicine.

"Time and time again, evidence shows that when a domestic abuser has access to a gun, the likelihood that their intimate partner will end up being shot and killed is extremely high," said Rebecca Fischer, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. "However, the courts are, you know, wondering whether or not they can actually take that evidence into account."

Advocates like Fischer who fight for stricter gun control laws in the state say the highest court's decision will be pivotal in future analysis of gun laws across the nation. Last year, the Supreme Court overhauled a long-standing New York law in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen and ruled Americans have the right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. State lawmakers returned days later to strengthen New York's Red Flag Laws, which allow police to seize firearms of someone who is posing a danger to themselves or other people.

Lawmakers last June also swiftly updated the state's concealed carry law limiting the public places where guns could be taken, and stricter requirements to obtain a concealed carry permit.

"The decision will not only have implications for individuals who are threatened by intimate partners and have suffered from domestic abuse, but it also could have implications on how courts analyze gun laws and whether or not gun laws across the country are still considered constitutional under the Second Amendment," Fischer said.

SCOTUS' next gun rights decision, not expected until late spring 2024, will likely reinvigorate challenges to the state's emboldended Red Flag Law. A federal lawsuit is pending against the updated concealed carry law.

Advocates fighting to protect Second Amendment rights, like state Rifle & Pistol Association Executive Director Tom King, say the stricter law can lead to the confiscation of a person's firearms without legal due process.

"Your firearms are taken away without ever having gone to a judge — there's no search warrants, no nothing," King said Monday. "They come in, and they take your firearms. It's no different than if somebody came in and they said, 'We heard you were speeding,' and they come in and take your car away. I mean, where does it end?"

King is hopeful about the Supreme Court's review of the 1994 federal domestic violence statute, arguing the current rule is too broad. He says each person's case should be reviewed separately instead of the way the federal domestic violence law paints every person with the same brush.

"I think that each case has to be looked at individually," he said. "And I think that's what the Supreme Court is doing right now."

Advocates on both sides of the discussion agree on a single point: The Supreme Court's decision will help clarify last year's gun rights ruling, and define the new standards for judges across the nation when deciding on legal challenges to existing firearm restrictions.

"This new decision will provide some clarity on how to analyze gun laws that, right now, courts are all over the map in terms of how to interpret Bruen," Fischer said. "...If they find a law, if they utilize a law that is comparable to the federal laws that qualifies is historical and fits within the new framework of analysis, then that will give courts going forward more guidance on what type of historical laws should be applied to uphold gun laws in the future."

King is confident law-abiding gun owners in the state will be ready to comply with the court's final decision — regardless of the outcome.

"They are the highest court in the land," he said. "Whatever decision the Supreme Court makes, I will live with and I'm sure the gun owners will live with, unlike Gov. Kathy Hochul, who couldn't live with the Bruen decision."

Lawmakers passed a series of bills before the end of session groups like New Yorkers Against Gun Violence pushed hard for, including to expand the state's victims' compensation law, the Grieving Families Act and a measure to increase Medicaid reimbursement for violence prevention programs.

Hochul has until the end of the year to decide to sign them into law. She has not shared her position on the legislation or if she intends to sign the measures, Fischer said.

Violent Career Criminal Breaks Into His Last Home, Runs Into Armed Mama Bear Who Doesn’t Hesitate to Protect Her Children

By Warner Todd Huston, The Western Journal
A mother protecting her children in Louisiana is a recent example of the type of “good guy with a gun” story that liberals truly hate because it proves that guns save lives.

A convicted felon who had just perpetrated another string of violent crimes chose the wrong house to invade and the wrong woman to attack in Hammond, Louisiana, earlier this year when he met a mother who was determined to protect her children, WVUE-TV reported.

The Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff’s Office was called to a home on Klein Road in Hammond, but when they got to the residence, the action was already over.

The officers discovered the body of Robert Rheams, 51, just after 5 a.m. on a Sunday morning in January, after he tried to break into the home where a woman resided with her two young children.

The brave mother told the officers that Rheams broke in while the family was sleeping. According to WVUE, the convict was wearing a ski mask and was armed with a shovel and a lug wrench.

The woman added that Rheams confronted her and threatened to harm her with his weapons. But the woman had other ideas. She pulled out her firearm to defend her family and gave Rheams a reason to suspect he had broken into the wrong house.

The criminal was pronounced dead at the scene by the parish coroner.

Officers also said that the home invasion seemed to be a random act and that the attacker and the homeowner had had no prior contact.

After investigating the incident, the police discovered that Rheams was in the midst of a crime spree that was abruptly ended by the woman protecting the lives and safety of her children.

Officers traced Rheams’ activity back to an earlier carjacking only blocks from the woman’s home.

According to the owner of the car, Rheams carjacked the driver at a local motel.

“During the drive, he started striking the driver with his fist and the driver ran into a ditch, causing the car to become stuck,” said Tangipahoa Chief Deputy Jimmy Travis. “The driver was able to exit the car and flee to safety.”

Rheams is also the suspect in a robbery several hours before all this that occurred at a deli on Saturday night, according to the report.

Travis added that the woman would not be charged for killing Rheams because she was merely exercising her Second Amendment rights to protect herself and her children from a violent home invader.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/05/12/11-defensive-gun-uses-show-how-lawful-gun-owners-get-it-right/?utm_source=TDS_Email

Often lost in conversations about gun violence is the reality of who is responsible for the bulk of that violence. Most gun crimes aren’t committed by lawful gun owners but by a small subset of repeat violent offenders who already are prohibited from legally possessing firearms.

At the same time, the vast majority of the nation’s millions of lawful gun owners will never use their firearms to harm themselves or others (excluding, of course, actions taken in lawful self-defense).

Nevertheless, sometimes people make questionable—or even downright abhorrent—decisions with their lawfully owned firearms. This was quite apparent in recent weeks as several gun owners made national headlines for all the wrong reasons, recklessly resorting to the use of lethal force when it likely wasn’t warranted.

Although these individuals rightly should have their actions scrutinized, the reality is that Americans with legally possessed guns are far more likely to “get it right” than they are to “get it wrong.”    ............

Newsmax:  Watchdog: IRS Spent $10M on Weapons, Ammo Since 2020  by: Luca Cacciatore  Tuesday, May 2, 2023

The Internal Revenue Service has invested $10 million on weapons, ammunition, and combat gear over the last few years as Republicans warn of a militarized tax agency.

Published last week, OpenTheBooks found that the IRS spent $2.3 million on ammunition, $1.2 million on ballistic shields, $474,000 on rifles, $463,000 on shotguns, and $243,000 on body armor vests since 2020.

Another $467,000 were spent on duty tactical lighting, $354,000 on gear bags, and $1.3 million on "various other gear for criminal investigation agents" over that same period.

The spending spree comes despite the IRS appearing to be well-stocked before it, with the agency spending $35.2 million adjusted for inflation since 2006 on guns, ammo, and military-style equipment, the watchdog determined.

Republicans have frequently slammed the Biden administration for empowering the IRS, which received more than $80 billion in new funding as part of the $739 billion Inflation Reduction Act signed last year.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California led his new Republican majority in January to vote to rescind over $70 billion of that new funding. However, the legislation has stalled in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

"Do you make $75,000 or less? Democrats' new army of 87,000 IRS agents will be coming for you — with 710,000 new audits for Americans who earn less than $75k," McCarthy warned on Twitter in August.

According to the New York Post, the IRS has defended its requirement that agents carry military-style weapons because of their consistent involvement in organized crime, drug, and gang investigations.

The Treasury Department has also claimed the IRS requires 86,852 new employees over the next decade, which conservatives like McCarthy believe will be used to target everyday Americans.

© 2023 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Federal Judge Halts State’s New ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban, Cites Likely Second Amendment Violation

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/04/federal-judge-halts-states-new-assault-weapon-ban-cites-likely-second-amendment-violation/

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2023/04/30/fl-sheriff-commends-store-clerk-who-shot-robbery-suspect-8-times/

The Footnote to End All Gun Control  by John Crump|Apr. 3rd, 2023   According to the Bruen decision, the interest balancing test does not apply to Second Amendment cases. The courts can only rely on the original text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.
SCOTUS laid down a straightforward test for gun laws. If a law is inconsistent with the plain text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, it must be thrown out. This new test puts the burden on the states to prove that their law is compatible with the Second Amendment.

The United States of America is founded on the presumption of innocence. After the Supreme Court’s landmark New York State Pistol Rifle Association v. Bruen Supreme Court decision, there is now a presumption that gun laws are unconstitutional unless the government can prove there was a similar law at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment.

This decision put most anti-gun politicians and advocates in a precarious position. Almost no gun control existed at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification.  With the combination of little to no supporting historical evidence and without leniency from the previous interest balancing test, gun control advocates will have a much harder time of successfully passing legislation that will defeat SCOTUS’s new test. The anti-gun side had to find something in history that would save gun control laws.

Anti-gun state and gun control advocates usually point to the Sir John Knight’s Case that challenged the Statute of Northampton. According to the anti-gun side, the law forbids carrying a firearm in public. Still, most legal scholars agree that it banned the carrying of a gun in public only if the intent is to terrify the people. Without many other examples of gun control laws, the anti-gun side must base their arguments on this case.

Unfortunately for the gun control side, the Supreme Court addressed the Sir John Knight’s Case and others like it. According to Footnote 11 of the Bruen decision, whenever multiple interpretations can be taken from a case, the Supreme Court will favor the interpretation that favors the Second Amendment. This demand puts the burden on the state to prove their analog is consistent with the original text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.

Footnote 11 reads: “The dissent discounts Sir John Knight’s Case, 3 Mod. 117, 87 Eng. Rep. 75, because it only “arguably” supports the view that an evil-intent requirement attached to the Statute of Northampton by the late 1600s and early 1700s. See post, at 37. But again, because the Second Amendment’s bare text covers petitioners’ public carry, the respondents here shoulder the burden of demonstrating that New York’s proper-cause requirement is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical scope. See supra, at 15. To the extent there are multiple plausible interpretations of Sir John Knight’s Case, we will favor the one that is more consistent with the Second Amendment’s command.”

Because SCOTUS referenced the case in a footnote doesn’t mean the state will not try to use Sir John Knight’s Case. We have seen states argue that they can use laws from the ratification date of the Fourteenth Amendment to defend their anti-gun statutes. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified shortly after the Civil War ended when states passed laws to prevent formerly enslaved people from getting firearms. Some courts might even accept these arguments, but it is delaying the inevitable.

About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

Gun Confiscation Around The World

Click here for a printable Pdf copy

Three New York Congressmembers Want House of Representatives to Label NY Pistol Law Unconstitutional

Geneva, NY, United States / Finger Lakes Daily News  Ed Vivenzio   Jan 17, 2023

Three New York Congressmembers are urging the House of Representatives to call out New York’s concealed carry pistol law as unconstitutional.

Claudia Tenney (NY-24), Elise Stefanik (NY-2), and Nick Langworthy (NY-23) were joined by Darrell Issa (CA-48) to reintroduce a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that New York State’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) is unconstitutional.

The CCIA was passed last July in response to the June US Supreme Court decision striking down New York’s previous “may issue” pistol permitting scheme in the case of NYSRPA v Bruen.

Below are statements from the three New York Congressmembers:

“The ability to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution,” said Congresswoman Tenney. “New York State’s new concealed carry law is just another way that Kathy Hochul is working to limit New Yorker’s Constitutional rights and attack the Second Amendment. Last June, the Supreme Court repealed New York’s overly restrictive concealed carry laws, and instead of respecting the Court’s opinion, Governor Hochul chose to enact another unconstitutionally restrictive law. This resolution affirms our belief that New York’s latest law is unconstitutional and that state governments should support our Second Amendment rights, not undermine them.”

“Kathy Hochul’s gun grabbing law is unconstitutional and a direct attack on our Upstate rights and values,” Congresswoman Stefanik said. “We know that Hochul passed this law declaring historical reenactors and lawful gun owners in the Adirondack Park felons in direct defiance after the United States Supreme Court struck down New York’s gun laws, but still she doubled down on her unconstitutional agenda. I am bringing the concerns of New York patriots to the highest levels, and, just as we did in the previous concealed carry issue, I am committed to bringing this all the way to the Supreme Court.”

“As I have said from Day One, the concealed carry law is Unconstitutional and does absolutely nothing to make New Yorkers safe. Albany’s obsession with constantly targeting law-abiding gun owners while allowing violent criminals to have free rein on our streets would be laughable if it wasn’t so deadly. I am proud to join with my colleagues in standing up against our dictatorial state government and will do everything in my power to protect New York’s Second Amendment rights,” said Congressman Nick Langworthy.