Let’s do guns

Pretty easy to do updates on gunz, those silly anti-gun folks ALWAYS have something in the hopper. Today we have a few:

Starting with Governor Newsom – Gavin signed a bill he should have vetoed, outlawing the sale of new Glocks in California. Why? Because people who want to do illegal things with them add illegal ‘switches’ to them so their illegal acts can be illegaler. Huh?

Lawmakers say the legislation targets pistols that can be converted with commercially available “pistol converters.” The converter allows the semi-automatic pistol to become fully automatic.Fox 26

It’s a Catch-22 – the present design Glock was grandfathered and legal till now for sale. If changed so “switches” wouldn’t work, it would be a ‘new’ design and would need a new California certification. To comply it would be required to ‘microstamp’ every fired case with a unique identifier. Which manufacturers say isn’t currently do-able (although California knows better and says it works, even if they can’t prove it.)

He also signed bills requiring federal background checks on firearms barrel purchases, and imposing a three gun per month purchase limit.  Expect all of these to get court challenges and get struck down (more commentary on this below.)

Next on the hit parade – Pam Bondi and the DOJ. She may have hit a high spot when she slagged Blumenthal last week, but you may remember I have tagged her (and her boss) as weak in the pro-gun area. She supported assault weapon bans and red flag laws in Florida – hardly a progun zealot there. And now:

President Donald Trump issued an executive order instructing the Department of Justice to review any case that might affect the Second Amendment.

Nice sound bite. Actual effect: none.

During the Joe Biden presidential administration, Democrats pushed for universal background checks for all gun transfers. The resistance prevented such a law from being passed in Congress. Because of the repeated failures, the executive branch ordered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to redefine what it means to be a gun dealer.

The new rule states that if a person makes money from the sale of a firearm, they must have an FFL. Moreover, if they used a spreadsheet or other tracking software to keep track of their guns, they would also require an FFL to transfer a firearm. If someone sold a gun to help pay for rent, they would need an FFL. Selling as little as a single gun could make someone a gun dealer. The idea was to squeeze as many potential transfers as possible under the new rule. Many gun rights activists viewed the ATF rule as backdoor universal background checks, essentially side-stepping Congress to make a de facto law.

Meanwhile under the ATF’s zero-tolerance policy, any error in an FFL’s paperwork lead to license revocation. So the average Joe who sells an occasional gun is screwed either way – obviously an inequitable policy that should be trashed ASAP, right? Again, not so.

After the rule was unveiled, Gun Owners of America, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, the Tennessee Firearms Association, and the state of Texas sued in a Texas federal district court to block the implementation of the law. A district court judge granted a preliminary injunction for the lawsuit members, including all members of the plaintiffs’ organizations. The DOJ requested a pause in the case to review potential Second Amendment implications. Many saw this as a positive step, thinking that the DOJ would drop its defense.

Now we know the result of the pause. The DOJ is prepared to defend the ATF’s “engaged in the business” rule despite the president’s executive order on Second Amendment cases. The Justice Department did not modify its defense; instead, it chose to defend all the original arguments laid down by the Biden-era DOJ.BFA

So the exact opposite of what the President supposedly ordered is what is happening. Very weak sauce, indeed.

Suggestion: The Bruen decision is supposed to drive the law of the land, but every anti-gun state is piling on more ridiculous limits than ever before, knowing millions of dollars will need to be spent to drag each case through the courts (kinda wonder why the Supremes don’t make a final, simple, clear determination, like the pro-gun folks have been requesting for about five decades?) Me, I am thinking that when a governor and legislature (yeah, YOU, Newsom, Pritzker, et al) pass these obvious 2nd Amendment-violating laws, that when they lose in court, all the court costs should be borne personally by the folks who vote for and signed the bad bills. Might make ’em take a little closer look , instead of them saying ‘screw it, there’s plenty of taxpayer cash to throw away on it.’

 

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists