Another Nail

Trump & Company are trying once again to put a nail in our coffin. And the 2^nd Amendment be damned!

Trump administration is trying to make it harder for trans people to buy guns

The controversy comes amid reports that trans Americans have been increasingly arming themselves as protection against the Trump administration.

LGBTQ Nation

Molly Sprayregen (She/Her)

April 27, 2026

The Trump administration is reportedly continuing to engage in efforts to prevent trans people from owning guns, or at least intimidate them into changing their minds.

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) confirmed to the Independent that it is still working to update its policies in conjunction with the president’s executive order declaring there are only two innate sexes – male and female.

[...]

Most concerning for many trans advocates is the plan to alter ATF Form 4473, the Firearms Transaction Record that all applicants must fill out, so that folks must list their sex assigned at birth.

For trans people who have a different gender listed on other legal documents, the shift could both cause bureaucratic confusion and put their safety at risk, as the administration would more easily be able to identify trans gun owners by finding people whose sex on various legal forms contradict one another.

The Republicans are supposed to be pro-Second Amendment, but as usual, it is only lip service! The Trump administration has been stoking endless fear about the “dangers” the trans community poses to others, including false claims that trans people are more likely to commit mass shootings.

The British newspaper The Independent wrote that,

Such a rule would make it easier for ATF to gather lists of trans gun owners, simply by identifying where names appear to conflict with the listed sex, according to firearms policy experts.

It could also deter trans people from buying guns legally, since complying with paperwork would create a “Catch 22” situation — and a false statement comes with the threat of federal charges and prison time, the experts said.

"Just the announcement is going to have a chilling effect," Patrick G. Eddington, a senior fellow in homeland security and civil liberties at the Cato Institute, told The Independent.

The Second Amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" it sure does sound that our rights are being infringed upon!

Crack!

That sound you heard was the crack in MAGA and Trump’s base — split right down the middle. And it all comes from Trump’s team doing a song-and-dance to talk their way out of a killing by an ICE agent.

When Trump’s cronies said, “Who brings a gun to a protest without using it?” — CRACK!

NRA, local gun rights advocates reject Trump officials blaming Alex Pretti for being armed

Pretti was licensed to carry a gun in public when he was fatally shot by an immigration agent.

By Paul Walsh

The Minnesota Star Tribune

January 25, 2026

Gun rights advocates in Minnesota and the nation are pushing back on the contention from Trump administration officials that federal agents killing Alex Pretti on Saturday, Jan. 24, was justified because, among other factors, he had a gun and ammunition with him.

Border Patrol Cmndr. Greg Bovino told CNN one day after the shooting, “We respect that Second Amendment right, but those rights don’t count when you riot and assault, delay, obstruct and impede law enforcement officers and, most especially, when you mean to do that beforehand.”

Disagreeing was Rob Doar, senior vice president of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and a gun rights advocate. Doar said he has seen at least four videos taken by bystanders of Pretti’s death during an immigration enforcement action on Nicollet Avenue in Minneapolis. He gave the Minnesota Star Tribune a moment-by-moment account of what he saw, contradicting Bovino’s assessment.

Then another Trump stooge said this:

Doar’s organization learned of FBI Director Kash Patel’s comment on Jan. 25 on Fox News that “you cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It’s that simple. You don’t have a right to break the law.”

Doar’s group countered on X, formerly Twitter: “That is completely incorrect. There is no prohibition on a permit holder carrying a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines at a protest or rally in Minnesota.”

That cracking sound? That’s the split developing inside Trump’s loyal, gun-loving base. And the administration didn’t back off — they doubled down.

Trump administration goes after Second Amendment rights in justifying Minneapolis shooting

A number of pro-gun rights Republicans pushed back on the administration's argument that Alex Pretti was dangerous because he had a gun. Pretti was legally licensed to carry one.

NBC News

By Jonathan Allen

January 25, 2026

A war of words over deeply held beliefs erupted on the political right in the hours after a federal agent shot and killed Alex Pretti on a Minneapolis street Saturday, pitting top officials in President Donald Trump’s administration against Second Amendment defenders in his electoral base.

At the core of the debate is that Pretti — who was permitted to carry a gun in public in Minnesota — had a concealed firearm on his person that eyewitness videos show federal agents apparently discovering and removing during the altercation that led to his death. Videos do not appear to show Pretti holding the weapon during that confrontation.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sought to justify the killing by asserting at a news conference that Pretti “attacked those officers, had a weapon on him, and multiple dozens of rounds of ammunition, wishing to inflict harm on these officers coming, brandishing like that and impeding their work that they were doing.” No evidence has been provided to back up this account.

Noem argued that his possession of a firearm demonstrated that he did not intend to remain peaceful.

“I don’t know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign,” Noem said on Saturday.

Boy was that the wrong track to take with the gun loving Republicans!

Republican calls are growing for a deeper investigation into the fatal Minneapolis shooting, do you remember in 2000 when Charlton Heston said that you are only taking my rifle "From my cold, dead hands.” Well Trump & Company want to do just that... take the guns form the from the cold, dead hands of the protesters.

Republican calls are growing for a deeper investigation into the fatal Minneapolis shooting

AP News

By  STEVEN SLOAN

January 25, 2026

A growing number of Republicans are pressing for a deeper investigation into federal immigration tactics in Minnesota after a U.S. Border Patrol agent fatally shot a man in Minneapolis, a sign that the Trump administration’s accounting of events may face bipartisan scrutiny.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Andrew Garbarino sought testimony from leaders at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, saying “my top priority remains keeping Americans safe.”

A host of other congressional Republicans, including Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas and Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, pressed for more information. Their statements, in addition to concern expressed from several Republican governors, reflected a party struggling with how to respond to Saturday’s fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care nurse at a VA hospital.

But Trump cronies doubled down,

Deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller issued social media posts referencing an “assassin” and “domestic terrorist” while Noem said Pretti showed up to “impede a law enforcement operation.”

The Minnesota Star Tribune went on to say,

Also weighing in on comments after Pretti’s killing was the National Rifle Association (NRA), for decades a powerhouse advocate for the near limitless constitutional right to bear arms.

The NRA spoke up after an assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, Bill Essayli, posted on X:

“If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you. Don’t do it!”

The NRA called Essayli’s comment “dangerous and wrong. ... Responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.”

AOL wrote,

Reaction from gun rights advocates: Those assertions from administration officials drew rebukes from gun rights advocates who typically find common cause with the GOP. "The Second Amendment protects Americans' right to bear arms while protesting—a right the federal government must not infringe upon," the Gun Owners of America posted on X. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican who respresents Kentucky's 4th congressional district, wrote on X, "Carrying a firearm is not a death sentence, it's a Constitutionally protected God-given right, and if you don't understand this you have no business in law enforcement or government."

And remember: in the cold northern woods of Minnesota, trees don’t crack from the cold — they explode.

 

 

This Will Be A Disaster!

Do you remember that last week Trump is thinking about taking away our guns because we're trans. Now the gun rights nuts are at it again, they want to be able to get gun permits in other states with easy permits laws, get a gun and go back to states where they don't qualify for a gun permit.

New Hampshire aims to take gun law dispute with Massachusetts to Supreme Court

CBS News

By Neal Riley

September 4, 2025

New Hampshire and 24 other states want to take Massachusetts to the U.S. Supreme Court in a dispute over gun laws.

Earlier this year, the highest court in Massachusetts ruled that firearm restrictions in Massachusetts apply to visitors from New Hampshire and other states. The court considered two cases involving New Hampshire residents who were charged with unlawfully carrying guns in Massachusetts, even though they got those guns legally in their home state.

"The Second Amendment does not end at the Massachusetts border," New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella said in a statement Thursday.

New Hampshire vs. Massachusetts

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts said in its ruling that "the Second Amendment right to bear arms is not absolute," and the state is not prohibited from "requiring firearm licenses for persons within its borders."

Yeah... in the past the Supreme Court has ruled that you have to obey the laws in each state you go though. So what that means if you have a large capacity magazine and you come to Connecticut where they are banned, you are screwed. What these right-wing gun nuts want is what is often referred to as "national reciprocity" for gun permits. As you can imagine the Firearm Industrial Trade Association is all for this...

NSSF Welcomes Rep. Richard Hudson’s Concealed Carry Reciprocity Legislation

H.R. 38 Would End Patchwork of Confusing Gun Laws for CC Permit Holders

WASHINGTON, D.C.. — The NSSF®, The Firearm Industry’s Trade Association, wholeheartedly welcomes U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson’s (R-N.C.) introduction of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2025, H.R. 38. The legislation was introduced with 113 co-sponsors, demonstrating the wide-ranging support for protecting law-abiding concealed carry permit holders from navigating a patchwork of varying gun control laws when crossing a state line.

The bill aims to eliminate the confusion of varying state-by-state laws and provide protection for Second Amendment rights for permit holders. The legislation would allow handgun owners who are legally permitted and authorized by their home state to carry a concealed firearm to lawfully carry in other states provided they comply with the law in other states – much in the same way a driver’s license is recognized.

A person who would not qualify for a gun permit in their home state could go to a state that doesn't have a residency requirement or background checks for private sales. They then could buy guns in there home state.

The problem is 29 states have virtually no rules for gun permits while 21 states have strict requirements for gun carry. Most states you have to be 21 to carry a gun, but in some you can be as young as 18 for a permit. Some states require background checks, while some don't require background checks.

Does that sound like a recipe trouble? Here is the thing, almost half of the states are behind this! Concealed Carry wrote:

A coalition of 24 state attorneys general have signed a letter urging Congress to pass H.R. 38, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. The letter, dated May 21, 2025, addresses key concerns voiced by critics of national reciprocity and offers a detailed defense of the legislation.

Many law enforcement organizations are clearly opposed to H.R. 38, but as usual the Republican will bow to the gun lobby and kiss their feet.

There have many Supreme Court cases that support state rights to regulate guns in their states... this is an end run around the states rights! I'm not a lawyer but I have to wonder about Connecticut's Red Flag Law, the laws limiting the size of the magazine or the ban on automatic weapons if those could be circumvented by national reciprocity?

As the website Everytown for Gun Safety wrote:

“Concealed carry reciprocity” is a reckless proposal that would undermine state gun laws and allow people with dangerous histories and no training to carry hidden, loaded guns across the country. “Concealed carry reciprocity” wouldn’t create a national standard for who can carry a concealed handgun in public. Instead, it would force each state to accept the concealed carry standards of every other state, even states that have weaker standards, or worse, no standards at all. H.R. 38 would make it difficult or impossible for law enforcement to verify whether a person from another state is legally carrying a concealed gun in public. It would even allow individual law enforcement officers to be sued for attempting to verify that a person is carrying legally.

Yep.

The Second Amendment

How often have you heard the Republicans on gun rights keep pushing that it is everyone's right to own a gun... well they want to make an exception... for us! Why? Because we are all "mentally ill"!

Trump Admin Reportedly Considers Revoking Trans People's Right to Own Guns. Only 0.1% of Mass Shooters Are Transgender

“Instead of actual solutions, the administration is again choosing to scapegoat and target a small and vulnerable population,” said a spokesperson for the LGBTQ+ advocacy group GLAAD

People

By Charna Flam

September 4, 2025

Need to know:

• On Aug. 27, 23-year-old Robin Westman, who was transgender, opened fire at Annunciation Catholic Church, killing two children and injuring another 21 people
• Though transgender people account for only a small fraction of mass shooters in America, reports have now surfaced that the Trump administration is considering excluding the trans community from the Second Amendment right to possess firearms
• The latest Justice Department proposal suggests that transgender people be labeled as mentally ill in order to bar them from owning guns

President Donald Trump's Justice Department is reportedly weighing a new policy that would target the transgender community following the Wednesday, Aug. 27, mass shooting at a Catholic school and church in Minneapolis.

CNN and ABC News report that senior DOJ officials are considering limiting the right to possess firearms for transgender people. The alleged conversations, which are still in their early stages, come nearly one week after 23-year-old transgender woman Robin Westman opened fire at Annunciation Catholic Church, killing two children and injuring another 21 people.

If enacted, the policy would be the latest in a string of attacks on the transgender community since Trump entered office for his second term.

This just goes to show you the hate Trump & Company has for us!

The Daily News reports....

The report, which called the discussions preliminary, said one option would be to use President Trump’s order barring trans people from serving in the military as a template for gun restrictions.

The goal would be “to ensure that mentally ill individuals suffering from gender dysphoria are unable to obtain firearms while they are unstable and unwell,” a Justice Department official told CNN, using a favored right-wing term for trans people.

This is serious!

Current law says gun rights can only be revoked from a person who is declared “mentally defective,” a very high legal bar that could not support a blanket ban applied to any large group of Americans.

This is very serious! The White House in an Executive Order on July 24 said in a statement,

Shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment through the appropriate use of civil commitment will restore public order.  Surrendering our cities and citizens to disorder and fear is neither compassionate to the homeless nor other citizens.  My Administration will take a new approach focused on protecting public safety.

In the past Trump has called us mentally ill! Trump has repeatedly used language and policy to portray transgender identities as false, delusional, or a mental disturbance. Such rhetoric is both dehumanizing and at odds with the DSM and AMA standards.

Trump is using the shooting at the Catholic church as the impetus for this! However, punishing an entire trans community for the actions of one person is how scapegoating and demonizing begins.

In incidences where four or more people were shot or killed, excluding the shooter. Newsweek reports that the Gun Violence Archive (GVA) as of around 2025, the GVA reports approximately 4,134 mass shootings in the U.S. since January 1, 2018 and of those:

2018 — Aberdeen, Maryland (Rite Aid warehouse)

2019 — Denver-area charter school shooter

2023 — Covenant School, Nashville

2025 — Minneapolis shooter

And I am worried that all these attacks on our trans community that Trump ultimate end goal is concentration camps for us.

---

Meanwhile, the gun nuts are wondering who they got in bed with.

Crime Crackdown in D.C. Shows Trump Administration’s Uneasy Relationship With Guns

If President Trump’s actions were intended to drive a law-and-order wedge between Democratic big-city leaders and their constituents, it has also exposed a division in his own coalition.

The New York Times

By Glenn Thrush

Sept. 1, 2025

The Trump administration’s crackdown on crime in Washington has been propelled, in part, by an aggressive clampdown on guns, with city and federal officials confiscating around 150 weapons since the president declared a crime emergency in the capital nearly three weeks ago.

“I’m pleased to report another 105 arrests have been made and 12 illegal guns taken off the streets of Washington, DC,” Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote on social media on Thursday. It was part of her near-daily tally of gun seizures, an effort spearheaded by Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

Under almost any other president, heralding a gun sweep would not be notable. But the shift toward gun enforcement — and publicizing the aggressive street sweeps — marks an abrupt departure for an administration that has courted Second Amendment maximalists and sharply downgraded federal firearms enforcement.

[...]

While these moves have not exposed major political divisions, they have caused some uneasiness among gun-rights supporters who are concerned that law-and-order officials like Ms. Pirro, who once supported restrictions on assault rifles, will create a chilling effect on legal gun owners in the district and in the surrounding area.

“It sends a message we don’t like,” said Luis Valdes, the Florida director of Gun Owners of America, an influential gun rights group that has pushed for the repeal of most federal gun laws.

Hey! You crawled into bed with Trump so stop your bitching! 

Mini-Post: What Are They Thinking?

As the truth comes out on Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill and it is not beautiful! It is down right deadly!

GOP tax bill would ease regulations on gun silencers and some rifles and shotguns

AP News

By  MARY CLARE JALONICK

June 23, 2025

The massive tax and spending cuts package that President Donald Trump wants on his desk by July 4 would loosen regulations on gun silencers and certain types of rifles and shotguns, advancing a longtime priority of the gun industry as Republican leaders in the House and Senate try to win enough votes to pass the bill.

The guns provision was first requested in the House by Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde, a Republican gun store owner who had initially opposed the larger tax package. The House bill would remove silencers — called “suppressors” by the gun industry — from a 1930s law that regulates firearms that are considered the most dangerous, eliminating a $200 tax while removing a layer of background checks.

Do you believe this S--t!

ChatGPT found that...

The U.S. has by far the highest number and rate of mass shootings among developed nations. For example, between 1998 and 2019, 73% of mass shootings in developed countries occurred in the U.S., resulting in 816 deaths (N-IUSSP)

While there is no standardized global definition for "mass shooting," U.S. rates per capita are much higher than in other developed countries. For example, Louisiana had about 4.3 mass shootings per 100,000 people from 2014–2022, and Washington, D.C. had 10.4 per 100,000, but these are city/state rates, not global. No other developed country comes close to these figures. (NBC News)

And don't forget that the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision in Garland v. Cargill, struck down the federal ban on bump stocks. Bump stock was used in the mowing down of concert goes in Las Vegas.

This is all about the Republicans playing to their MAGA base and not the voters. They don't care who gets killed as long as they get the votes.

Mini-Post: Divorced From Reality!

Do you know what was hidden in the new budget bill... hint: it is not about the budget!

Trump’s ‘big beautiful’ bill deregulates firearm silencers like one allegedly used by Luigi Mangione

New York Post

By Ryan King

May 22, 2025

Firearm silencers could soon get deregulated if the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which cleared the House earlier Thursday, prevails in the Senate.

Buried deep in the megabill is a provision that would scrap a $200 federal excise tax on silencers and remove them from registration requirements under the National Firearms Act in a significant win for gun rights and hearing protection advocates.

“This is a massive 2A victory — one that takes important steps toward restoring our constitutional freedoms,” Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), a gun store owner, who aggressively lobbied for the measure, said.

Contrary to what the name implies and many movies suggest, silencers don’t actually make gunshots go silent, proponents argue. Instead, they are used to direct gases from the gun’s barrel through a series of chambers to reduce the sound of the loud bang.

On average, they can muffle the sound of a gunshot 20–35 decibels. Gunshots generally have an average of 150-170 decibels. For comparison, mowing the lawn usually averages between 85 to 96 decibels.

This is sick! 

In December 2024 involving the use of a firearm equipped with a silencer. UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was fatally shot outside a hotel in Midtown Manhattan by Mangione . 

It Wasn’t The Wild West.

[Opinion]

It was the Reagan when all the madness began. Before then we knew what amendment meant in its entirety. After that the Supreme Court went crazy.

When the Second Amendment was written back then the rate of fire was 3 or 4 rounds a minute. Now it is in the hundreds per minute. The Trump Supreme Court is now based on  the “original” meaning of the Constitution. However, they still ignore “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”

Did you know a judge last week as Reuters reported “A federal judge has dismissed charges against a Kansas man for possessing a machine gun, saying prosecutors failed to establish that a federal ban on owning such weapons is constitutional.”

In Chicago a judge overturned the ban on concealed weapons, “A federal judge ruled the Illinois law banning people with concealed carry permits from taking guns on public transportation is in violation of the Second Amendment.” as reported on CBS News.

In states with no gun laws the deaths from guns is ten times higher than states with strong gun laws, the Trace writes,

One of the most consistent findings in gun violence research is that regions with more guns see more gun deaths. This assessment applies to both firearm homicide and firearm suicide and holds true among U.S. states and across international borders.

Other research has shown that states with stricter gun laws generally have lower rates of gun violence, including both firearm homicide and firearm suicide. Many of these studies found only correlational relationships, not causal ones, and research on the effects of specific gun policies is still limited. But more gun violence research is being conducted now than ever before, and the literature on specific gun policies is growing. One of the most recent studies, one that did attempt to infer causality, found that state gun regulations — particularly background checks and waiting periods — were associated with substantial reductions in gun death.

Other research has found considerable evidence in favor of the same two policy interventions, as well as a link between some gun laws and lower rates of violent crime and suicide (in the case of child-access prevention laws) and more permissive laws and higher rates of gun violence (in the cases of concealed carry and “stand your ground” laws).

Tell me which party pushes doing away with or weakling gun laws?

 

The Republicans have this dream of bring back the wild west, with a six gun strapped to every leg. They dream of becoming Wyatt Earp or The Virginian, or other TV western heroes. Maybe you can do that in a western ghost town but not in New York City.

Vote Blue for sensible gun laws. Vote Blue as if your life depends upon it… because it does.

 

End this craziness now!

[/Opinion]

It Is All About Politics With Our Lives

When Trump was in the White House they were in favor of it, now that Biden is president they are against it. What is “it”? The banning of bump-stocks.

Republican senator blocks ban on bump stocks for guns brought by Democrats

Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., sought unanimous consent to pass the BUMP Act, but Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., objected for the GOP, effectively blocking the legislation.

NBC News

By Sahil Kapur and Frank Thorp V

June 18, 2024

Senate Democrats sought to pass legislation Tuesday banning bump stocks for firearms after the Supreme Court overruled a previous ban, but a single Republican objected on behalf of his party, effectively stalling the bill.

Backed by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., sought “unanimous consent” to pass his BUMP Act that would prohibit the devices, which modify semi-automatic weapons to fire bullets more quickly.

The New Mexico senator said he’s a firearm owner who sees no purpose for bump stocks other than to facilitate mass shootings, as in Las Vegas in 2017, when a gunman killed dozens of people at a music festival and more than 500 people were injured.

But the Republicans now see an advantage in blocking the bill because now the bill is evil… it will take away your Second Amendment right… those evil Democrats always trying to take away your guns!

But the bill was met with an objection from Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., blocking it from moving forward. The objection was backed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and many other Republican senators, marking a turnaround after many of them championed a bump stock ban imposed by the Trump administration after the Las Vegas massacre.

Ricketts labeled the bill “a gun-grabbing overreach," saying it is written vaguely and could give the Biden administration power to target “common firearm accessories, not just bump stocks.”“That’s really, really scary,” Ricketts said, calling the measure an infringement on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Playing politics with your lives!

They are so Two-faced and they think you are that we the voters will not not notice it.

'Shame on him for disrespecting the dead': Nevada senator erupts after Sen. JD Vance's bump stock remarks

Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen is seeking re-election this year in Nevada, where a gunman killed 58 people in 2017 with firearms equipped with bump stocks.

NBC News

By Frank Thorp V and Sahil Kapur

June 17, 2024

Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., tore into Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, on Monday over remarks he made about bump stocks as the Senate grapples with whether to ban them.

Vance, who is widely considered a vice presidential contender on the GOP ticket with former President Donald Trump, called efforts by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and other Democrats to ban the devices “a huge distraction.”

“I think that we have to ask ourselves: What is the real gun violence problem in this country, and are we legislating in a way that solves fake problems? Or solves real problems?” Vance told reporters. “And my very strong suspicion is that the Schumer legislation is aimed at a PR problem, not something that’s going to meaningfully reduce gun violence in this country.”

Now this is from a Senator who approved Trump’s Executive Order ban on bump-stocks but now it has become evil because the Democratic introduced the bill!

Lets step back a bit… What did the Supreme Court do last week?

US Supreme Court rejects federal ban on gun 'bump stocks'

Reuters

By Andrew Chung and John Kruzel

June 14, 202

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday declared unlawful a federal ban on "bump stock" devices that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns, rejecting yet another firearms restriction - this time one enacted under Republican former President Donald Trump.

The justices, in a 6-3 ruling authored by conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, upheld a lower court's decision siding with Michael Cargill, a gun shop owner and gun rights advocate from Austin, Texas, who challenged the ban by claiming that a U.S. agency improperly interpreted a federal law banning machine guns as extending to bump stocks. The conservative justices were in the majority, with the liberal justices dissenting.

The rule was imposed in 2019 by Trump's administration after the devices were used during a 2017 mass shooting that killed 58 people at a Las Vegas country music festival.

Democratic President Joe Biden, whose administration defended the rule in court, said the decision "strikes down an important gun safety regulation."

"Americans should not have to live in fear of this mass devastation," Biden added, saying he has "used every tool in my administration to stamp out gun violence."

"I call on Congress to ban bump stocks, pass an assault weapon ban and take additional action to save lives - send me a bill and I will sign it immediately," Biden said.

But now Two-faced Trump did a 180 and is now against the ban on converting semi-automatic weapons to fully-automatic weapons!

Our lives are for sale for votes. Votes for Trump by the far-right gun nuts.

Watch the Republicans trying to squirm and weasel out of answering the questions!

Guns

[Editorial]

The Lewiston murders there were signs that the person was mentally unstable, but Maine laws made it hard to do anything about it.

The Republican mantra is “Keep the guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.” to that end Connecticut was one of the first states to pass what is called a “Red Flag” law and now those laws are being challenged in court.

A blockbuster gun rights case lands at the Supreme Court. Here are three justices to watch.
The controversial case tests the limits of a blockbuster Second Amendment decision that requires gun prohibitions to be grounded in the nation's history.
USA Today
By John Fritze
November 6, 2023

With the nation reeling from the deadliest mass shooting of the year, the Supreme Court this week will hash out a Second Amendment dispute that could have enormous consequences for victims of domestic violence.

On Tuesday, the court will hear oral arguments about a law banning people who are subject to a domestic violence restraining order from owning a gun. Studies indicate that women are five times more likely to die from domestic violence if a gun is present.

The case centers on a Texas man involved in five shootings between 2020 and 2021 who pleaded guilty to a federal crime: possessing a firearm despite being the subject of a domestic violence restraining order. His appeal to the Supreme Court could have sweeping implications for other gun prohibitions.

That's because his attorneys are relying on a blockbuster Supreme Court decision from just over a year ago to challenge the constitutionality of the federal law he was charged with violating. In that case, the court ruled that gun regulations must be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation" to survive court challenges. Justice Stephen Breyer, who has since retired, noted a study in his dissent about the increased risk for domestic violence victims when guns are present.

Stop right there!!!!!

"Consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation" what that is suppose to mean?

Does that mean only muskets are allowed?

Does that mean the laws before the Reagan court struck the guns laws down?

To me it sounds like the justices think we are living in the 1700s.

The encyclopedia Britannica says,

District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. It was the first Supreme Court case to explore the meaning of the Second Amendment since United States v. Miller (1939).

And from there gun rights advocates had a field day with bring gun cases to court to where are today.
AP News wrote;

Why one survivor of domestic violence wants the Supreme Court to uphold a gun control law
By MARK SHERMAN and LINDSAY WHITEHURST
November 6, 2023

Ruth Glenn knows from harrowing personal experience the danger of putting a gun in the hands of a violent spouse or partner, the issue at the heart of a case before the Supreme Court.

On a beautiful June evening in 1992, Glenn was shot three times, twice in the head, and left for dead outside a Denver car wash.

The shooter was her estranged husband, Cedric, who was under a court order to stay away from Glenn. But there was no federal law on the books at the time that prohibited him from having a gun.

[…]

The high court is hearing arguments Tuesday in a challenge to the 1994 law. The closely watched case is the first one involving guns to reach the justices since their landmark Bruen decision last year expanded gun rights and changed the way courts evaluate whether restrictions on firearms violate the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms.”

Glenn, the president of Survivor Justice Action, is allied with gun control groups that are backing the Biden administration’s defense of the law.

Gun rights organizations are supporting Zackey Rahimi, the Texas man whose challenge to the law led to the Supreme Court case.

Question: Conservatives say we have to keep the guns out of mentally ill people then we are they supporting the overturning of “Red Flag” laws?

But supporters of Rahimi said the appeals court got it right when it looked at American history and found no restriction close enough to justify the gun ban.

They also object to the hearing process under which restraining orders can be issued as insufficiently protective of the rights of people like Rahimi.

I thinks that they talk out of both sides of their mouths, they are saying we have to keep guns out of the mentally ill people hands but on the other side they are trying to get those laws thrown out!

In another AP article…

Abuse victims say gun surrender laws save lives. Will the Supreme Court agree?
By MARYCLAIRE DALE
October 31, 2023

As Janet Paulsen prepared to leave her husband, who had become increasingly volatile over their 15-year marriage, she slipped down to his gun safes one night while he slept to try to change the combination locks.

“There were 74 firearms in my house,” said Paulsen, who was stunned by how many guns she found, but could not figure out how to change the codes. “When I went to get my protection order, I brought pictures of all of those firearms with me.”

Georgia, where she lives, is not among the 21 states with gun surrender laws that can force people to relinquish their weapons while they are deemed a risk to themselves or others. So Paulsen’s husband, whom she accused of threatening and erratic behavior, was only ordered to stay away from her and their 13-year-old twin boys until a court hearing.

[…]

“It took me five years to get up the courage to divorce him, because I knew I would pay a price. And you know what happened when I did? He shot me,” said Paulsen, 53, a former property manager and endurance athlete who was left partially paralyzed in the 2015 shooting.

And that is what the conservatives want to over turn!

If Paulsen endured those threats in Seattle today, not only would her husband’s cache of weapons be moved to police storage, a judge would hold a hearing within days to grill him about his access to other firearms. Does anyone else in your family have a weapon? Do you have access to guns at work? What happened to the gun listed in your firearms purchase history?

A federal appeals court, in a Texas case, deemed the practice unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the issue on Nov. 7 — but no one knows if it’s to overturn the Fifth Circuit ruling or double down on it.

And the court case is having a chilling effect in other states as they try to pass “Red Flag” laws.

Meanwhile, some state courts are loosening firearm bans for other reasons. Gun surrender orders are on hold in at least five counties in Washington after a state appeals court said they violated a man’s Fourth Amendment right protecting individuals from improper search and seizures and Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.

That worries advocates who point to new data that show gun seizures could reduce the nation’s 2,500 or more annual domestic violence deaths — more than half of which involve guns — by 10% or more. The most dangerous time for victims is when they try to leave a relationship, long before their abuser would be convicted of anything.

The next time you hear a Republican politician say we have to keep guns out of mentally ill people asked them about “Red Flag” laws if he is in favor of the Supreme Court overturning the laws?

 

---

The other gun case that is going to the Supreme Court… Bump stocks.

Do you know what they are? They are a conversion kit that converts a semi-automatic weapon to a fully-automatic weapon.

Supreme Court will rule on ban on rapid-fire gun bump stocks, used in the Las Vegas mass shooting
AP News
By MARK SHERMAN
November 3, 2023

The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether a Trump era-ban on bump stocks, the gun attachments that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns, violates federal law.

The justices will hear arguments early next year over a regulation put in place by the Justice Department after a mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017.

Federal appeals courts have come to different decisions about whether the regulation defining a bump stock as a machine gun comports with federal law.

[…]

The new case is not about the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms,” but rather whether the Trump administration followed federal law in changing the bump stock regulation.

The ban on bump stocks took effect in 2019. It stemmed from the Las Vegas shooting in which the gunman, a 64-year-old retired postal service worker and high-stakes gambler, used assault-style rifles to fire more than 1,000 rounds in 11 minutes into a crowd of 22,000 music fans.

It is my right to have automatic weapons!!!!! That is the rallying cry of the far-right.

“The definition of ‘machinegun’ as set forth in the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act does not apply to bump stocks,” Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote for the 5th Circuit.

But a panel of three judges on the federal appeals court in Washington looked at the same language and came to a different conclusion.

Judge Robert Wilkins wrote for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that “under the best interpretation of the statute, a bump stock is a self-regulating mechanism that allows a shooter to shoot more than one shot through a single pull of the trigger. As such, it is a machine gun under the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act.”

The New Republic magazine wrote,

The NFA also provided the first and current legal definition of what counts as a machine gun. Congress defined one as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” The full definition also covered any components that can be used to easily build a machine gun, as well as “any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun.”

Judge Jennifer Walker Elrodwas appointed by President George W. Bush.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which is responsible for the NFA machine-gun registry, had previously concluded that some bump stocks did not fall under the law’s definition of machine-gun parts. After the Las Vegas shooting, however, it changed course as the devices came under considerable criticism and scrutiny. Even the National Rifle Association said after the shooting that it believed that bump stocks should be “subject to additional regulations.” The new ATF rule, which defined all bump stocks as machine-gun parts, went into effect in 2018.

And this is why the case is before the Supreme Court.

 

My guess is that the court will let stand the bump stock Executive Order and the "Red Flag" is any bodies guess.

[/Editorial]