California Magazine Ban Stopped in Its Tracks

Gone are the days when the law required Americans to be armed. Instead, we face a new bans on guns, ammunition, or firearms accessories every time we turn around. In fact, many people see no reason for civilians to have guns at all, let alone the weapons they view as designed specifically for the military.

Because of this flawed viewpoint, too many Americans, including politicians, prefer to take machine guns, “assault weapons” and “large-capacity” magazines completely out of the hands of civilians. These gun control advocates have tried various ways of accomplishing their desired end. Until recently, the gun bans that withstood constitutional challenges all included a special protection for the people who own a newly banned firearm or firearm accessory. These protections are commonly called grandfather clauses. Grandfather clauses allow the owners of firearms banned by a new law to keep them, despite the new restrictions against buying, making or transferring them.


Origins of the NFA (in RECOIL Magazine)

Making and Apprehending Criminals Through the Tax Laws

A hand-processed, paper-intensive, firearm background check system that costs Americans millions of dollars annually to implement is no doubt an archaic way of doing business in the year 2017. But few, if any, people have ever suggested that government processes are the model of efficiency. Unfortunately, while change may be on the horizon, it’ll take much effort and many years to see improvement for the simple reason that far too many people still agree with the following statement:

“A sawed-off shotgun is one of the most dangerous and deadly weapons. A machine gun, of course, ought never to be in the hands of any private individual. There is not the slightest excuse for it, not the least in the world, and we must, if we are going to be successful in this effort to suppress crime in America, take these machine guns out of the hands of the criminal class.” Testimony of Attorney General Homer Stille Cummings as recorded in National Firearms Act: Hearings on H.R. 9066 Before the H. Comm. On Ways & Means, 73rd Cong 1 (1934) [NFA Hearing].


Peruta v. San Diego (in RECOIL)

Gun Owners Lost the Battle but may (Eventually) Win the War

Most gun owners, particularly those in California, relished a fantasy in which the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case of Peruta v. San Diego and set the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals straight in its failure to protect the right to carry a firearm in public. These gun owners hoped that the SCOTUS would step-in, overturn the 2016 Ninth Circuit decision holding that the Second Amendment does not protect a right to carry a concealed firearm, and on top of it, loudly proclaim that the Second Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms in some manner (open or concealed) outside of one’s own home.

Last week’s refusal by the SCOTUS to grant certiorari, the legal term for hearing the case and deciding this question, was a huge disappointment to those gun owners. But to many pro-Second Amendment lawyers and citizens, the denial of cert was not a surprise. Instead, it was a relief. Their reasoning is even though we have a new President and a new Supreme Court Justice, the balance of the Supreme Court has not yet tipped with any certainty that Second Amendment cases, if heard, will result in wins for the gun community.