Political Arena

ATF ANNOUNCES IT’S DELAYING AMMO BAN

Monday, March 16, 2015

ATF Announces It’s Delaying Ammo Ban After Getting Over 80,000 Comments…But Seems to Leave the Door Open

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on Tuesday formally announced it would delay its proposed controversial ban on certain ammunition used in the popular AR-15 rifle.

The ATF indicated it wasn’t scrapping the idea completely, and said it could revisit it later. Still, the announcement is at least a short-term victory for gun owners and Republican members of Congress who strongly opposed the ATF’s plan.

The ATF proposed a framework in February that was likely to lead to a ban on M855 cartridges. The ATF was mounting an argument that because these bullets can pierce armor in certain circumstances, they should be banned under a 1986 law aimed at protecting police.

But gunowners and Republicans in particular argued that the ATF had no legal right to take a step in this direction, which would have required a ban on a widely popular round that has been exempted from the ban for decades. The ATF itself indicated that there was widespread opposition to the idea in the more than 80,000 comments it received.

“Although ATF endeavored to create a proposal that reflected a good faith interpretation of the law and balanced the interests of law enforcement, industry, and sportsmen, the vast majority of the comments received to date are critical of the framework, and include issues that deserve further study,” the ATF said Tuesday.

“Accordingly, ATF will not at this time seek to issue a final framework,” it added.

The ATF did, however, say it would review the comments and that it could revisit the issue at a later date. “After the close of the comment period, ATF will process the comments received, further evaluate the issues raised therein, and provide additional open and transparent process (for example, through additional proposals and opportunities for comment) before proceeding with any framework,” it said.

The announcement does appear to take away any immediate threat of an ammunition ban by the ATF. The ATF was expected to take comments on the proposal until next week, and as the deadline loomed, Republicans were increasingly concerned about the proposal.

On Monday, for example, more than half of the Senate warned the ATF that its proposed ban would put the Second Amendment to the Constitution “at risk.”

Earlier this week, the ATF took steps to make it clear that there was no immediate ban on the ammunition in question, after a separate ATF publication indicated it might have already taken effect.

UTAH 2015 LEGISLATIVE UPDATE #3

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

NEW BILL ADDED

SENATE BILL 0256 Sen. Hinkins — CONCEALED FIREARM AMENDMENTS — Status: SENATE COMM – FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION

This bill was introduced on the 24th and modifies non-permit holder to the ability to concealed and UNLOADED firearm. This has the effect of not criminalizing a person who is OC and accidentally covers or choses to conceal to begin with. They must still carry UNLOADED.

In my humble opinion, this has a downside. This is not the same thing as a CFP. They are still subject to school zones and other laws that CFP holders are not. They also have not had the opportunity to truly learn the laws. In short, this makes that fine line just a little bit thinner and it would not be difficult for a non-CFP holder to cross it and find themselves in trouble.

HOUSE BILL 0260 Rep. Oda — CONCEALED FIREARM PERMIT AMENDMENTS — Status: NOT PASSED — TABLED

This was the bill that would allow concealed carry by any non-exempt citizen. As you may have seen in the news, this bill has been tabled at the urging of Gov. Herbert with acceptance of Rep. Oda. On the surface it appears they both agree that a multi-year evaluation would be needed to accurately assess this action. For the time being, it sounds like this one is dead in committee.

HOUSE BILL 0298 Rep Ivory — EXEMPTIONS ACT AMENDMENTS — Status: HOUSE COMM – FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION

This bill amends provisions relating to exempted items in bankruptcy proceedings for the purposes of collecting an unsecured debt. Namely, this bill would exempt firearms and ammunition from bankruptcy proceedings for the purposes of collecting an unsecured debt.

HOUSE BILL 0300 Rep Greene — FIREARM AND DANGEROUS WEAPONS AMENDMENTS — Status: PASSED HOUSE — IN SENATE COMMITTEE

This bill makes a technical change and defines concealed weapon to include only concealed firearms.

Updated will be provided as they become available.

BAN CERTAIN AMMO

Monday, March 2, 2015

Here’s How the White House Is Justifying Trying to Ban Certain Ammo Without Congress

The White House on Monday defended the Obama administration’s move to ban certain bullets used in a wildly popular rifle, a proposal that has stirred opposition from Second Amendment advocates and a prominent member of Congress.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is considering a ban on M855 ball ammunition, which pro-gun groups have said is among the most popular cartridge used for the AR-15 rifle and is frequently used for sporting purposes like hunting, because of its so-called “armor-piercing” capabilities.

“It would be fair to say, as we are looking at additional ways to protect our brave men and women in law enforcement, and believe that this process is valuable for that reason alone,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told TheBlaze during the press briefing. “This seems to be an area where everyone should agree that if there are armor-piercing bullets that fit into easily concealed weapons, that puts our law enforcement at considerably more risk.

“So I put this in the category of common-sense steps the government can take to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans, while also making sure that our law enforcement officers who are walking the beat every day can do their jobs just a little more safely,” he continued.

Current law provides exemptions for certain ammunition that could be considered “armor-piercing” bullets – such as the M855 – if the ammunition is primarily used for sporting purposes.

The proposal is open now for public comment at the ATF level.

Gun Owners of America spokesman Erich Pratt called it an attempt to do through executive branch regulation what the White House couldn’t get done in Congress.

“In 2013, the administration lobbied hard to get Congress to ban AR-15s and other similar semi-automatic rifles. But even in a Democrat-controlled Senate, anti-gunners could only muster 40 votes, a clear minority,” Pratt told TheBlaze Monday. “So the proposed ATF ban on M855 ammo is simply an attempt by the Obama administration to make an end-run around the Congress. After all, if it can ban a common cartridge that is used for the AR-15 rifle, then it can substantially drive up the cost of using the firearm.”

Last week, the National Rifle Association and Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, drafted a letter to ATF Director B. Todd Jones, saying the regulation being considered “does not comport with the letter or spirit of the law, and will interfere with Second Amendment rights.”

“ATF has now rescinded that exemption because repeating handguns that fire the M855 round are commercially available,” the letter said. “Yet this round is amongst the most commonly used in the most popular rifle design in America, the AR-15. Millions upon millions of M855 rounds have been sold and used in the U.S., yet ATF has not even alleged – much less offered evidence – that even one such round has ever been fired from a handgun at a police officer. The idea that Congress intended LEOPA to ban one of the preeminent rifle cartridges in use by Americans for legitimate purposes is preposterous.”

The ATF proposal states: “The firearm industry has developed commercially available handguns designed to use conventional rifle ammunition. This ammunition meets the content requirement of the definition, but previously was not classified as ‘armor piercing’ under the statute because there were no handguns that could ‘use’ it. As a result of the availability of these handguns, however, some conventional rifle ammunition now falls within the statutory definition and is properly classified as ‘armor piercing ammunition,’ despite the fact that the ammunition itself has not changed. Consequently, ammunition manufacturers have requested exemptions for this ammunition.”

Public Comment Contact Information:

ATF will consider all comments received on or before March 16, 2015. Submit comments:

– Email: APAComments@atf.gov
– Fax: (202) 648-9741
– Mail: 6N-602, Office of Regulatory Affairs, ATF, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226

ATF Proposal

UTAH 2015 LEGISLATIVE UPDATE #2

Thursday, February 19, 2015

HOUSE BILL 0260 Rep. Oda — CONCEALED FIREARM PERMIT AMENDMENTS — Status: TABLED

HOUSE BILL 0298 Rep Ivory — EXEMPTIONS ACT AMENDMENTS — Status: IN COMMITTEE

HOUSE BILL 0300 Rep Greene — FIREARM AND DANGEROUS WEAPONS AMENDMENTS — Status: IN COMMITTEE

This bill makes a technical change and defines concealed weapon to include only concealed firearms.

UTAH 2015 LEGISLATIVE UPDATE #1

Thursday, February 5, 2015

Currently, only one bill is in play, at this time, on the hill that would spark an interest to Concealed Firearm Permit holders. Last year Rep. Oda proposed a similar bill that was vetoed by Governor Herbert. In this version of the bill, it would provide an exception to the ‘penalty’ for anyone that was 21 years old and not a restricted person to carry a concealed UNLOADED firearm.

A couple of caveats to note. This does not exempt the non-CFP from all the other laws that may lead to an arrest. The biggest being carrying in public school. Not only is this a serious state but also a federal crime. For non selfish reasons, I would still suggest every person that choses to carry to take a CFP Course as it will help them learn the laws. Below is an exert and link to the proposed bill.

HOUSE BILL 0260

75 Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Firearm Act, do not apply to any of the following:
76          (a) a United States marshal;
77          (b) a federal official required to carry a firearm;
78          (c) a peace officer of this or any other jurisdiction;
79          (d) a law enforcement official as defined and qualified under Section 53-5-711;
80          (e) a judge as defined and qualified under Section 53-5-711; or
81          (f) a common carrier while engaged in the regular and ordinary transport of firearms as
82     merchandise.
83          (2) The provisions of Subsections 76-10-504(1) and (2), and Section 76-10-505 do not
84     apply to any person to whom a permit to carry a concealed firearm has been issued:
85          (a) pursuant to Section 53-5-704; or
86          (b) by another state or county.
87          (3) Except for Sections 76-10-503, 76-10-506, 76-10-508, and 76-10-508.1, this part
88     and Title 53, Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Firearm Act, do not apply to a nonresident traveling
89     in or though the state, provided that any firearm is:

90          (a) unloaded; and
91          (b) securely encased as defined in Section 76-10-501.
92          (4) Subsection 76-10-504(1) does not apply to a person 21 years of age or older who
93     may lawfully possess a firearm, as long as the firearm is not loaded.

Exert from 76-10-504(1)

76-10-504. Carrying concealed dangerous weapon — Penalties.

(1)Except as provided in Section 76-10-503 and in Subsections (2), (3), and (4), a person who carries a concealed dangerous weapon, as defined in Section 76-10-501, including an unloaded firearm on his or her person or one that is readily accessible for immediate use which is not securely encased, as defined in this part, in or on a place other than the person’s residence, property, a vehicle in the person’s lawful possession, or a vehicle, with the consent of the individual who is lawfully in possession of the vehicle, or business under the person’s control is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

More to come and this and other possible bills progress.

PANEL SAYS STATE CAN’T INTERVENE IN CONCEALED-WEAPON APPEAL

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

A federal appeals court decided Wednesday that California has no legal right to challenge a ruling that prevents counties from imposing strict requirements on carrying concealed weapons in public.

The decision was another victory for gun rights advocates, but it may not be the last word. The state can appeal. If the state and other groups ultimately lose, counties throughout California will be required to issue permits for concealed weapons to residents who meet background checks and want the weapons for self protection.

In a 2-1 ruling, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied an attempt by Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris, a gun control group and law enforcement associations to intervene in a case that struck down San Diego County’s policy of tightly restricting the carrying of concealed guns.

The panel that issued Wednesday’s decision was the same one that ruled 2-1 in February in favor of gun owners.

State law permits county law enforcement agencies to set rules that limit permits for concealed guns, but the 9th Circuit panel said the rules should make it possible for any law-abiding residents to carry guns.

The state and the advocacy groups tried to intervene after San Diego Sheriff William D. Gore decided he would not appeal the February ruling.

But Judges Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain and Consuelo M. Callahan — considered the most conservative jurists in the circuit — said Wednesday that their ruling did not question the constitutionality of a state law, only the way San Diego County chose to regulate guns.

But legal analysts said February’s ruling, if upheld, would lead to relaxed requirements statewide for carrying concealed guns.

The state may ask the 9th Circuit panel to reconsider the decision or ask an 11-member panel to allow it to intervene.

A spokesman for Harris said her office was still reviewing the decision.

Gun owners and Harris are on opposite sides of the case, but the gun lobby did not strongly fight California’s attempt to appeal the February ruling. Gun groups think they can win in the U.S. Supreme Court and would like the case to reach the high court.

“The attorney general can now decide whether the … case ends here,” said Chuck Michel, a lawyer who represented gun owners in the case.

Jonathan Lowy, director of legal action for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said his group believes the court misinterpreted the law when it denied California and his group and others the right to challenge the February ruling.

“We are now considering our options,” he said.

DC LEADERS PROPOSE CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMITS

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

WASHINGTON (AP) – Residents of the nation’s capital will be able to get a permit to carry concealed handguns outside the home, but only after they provide a specific reason for needing one, officials said Wednesday.

Mayor Vincent Gray and other city officials said they plan to propose legislation that would make the District of Columbia similar to a half-dozen states, including Maryland, where residents can be denied a concealed-carry permit if they can’t show a need for one. The Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to Maryland’s law last year.

In July, a federal judge struck down the District’s ban on carrying handguns outside the home. The judge put his ruling on hold to give the city time to rewrite its gun laws.

The District is seeking to let the police chief decide whether people have a reason to carry a concealed firearm, and officials said living in a high-crime neighborhood would not be a sufficient reason to obtain a permit. People who’ve received death threats or have been the victims of domestic violence are among those who could be granted permits.

“It has to be personalized. It has to be something specific,” D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan said.

Alan Gura, an attorney for plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said the proposal did not comply with the judge’s order.

“In America, the police don’t determine what rights we have good reason to enjoy,” Gura said. “You don’t need a good reason to speak, to worship, to vote or to carry a gun for self-defense.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court struck down the city’s 32-year-old ban on handguns. Since then, the District has required gun owners to register their firearms every three years, complete a safety course and be fingerprinted and photographed, among other requirements.

The concealed-carry requirements, which the D.C. Council will vote on next week, would be even more restrictive. Those seeking a concealed-carry permit would have to complete a “more extensive” safety course than what’s required for gun owners. Non-residents would also be able to get licenses if they meet the same standards. Open carrying of firearms would remain illegal under the proposal.

Gray, a Democrat and a member of the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, made clear that he was establishing the concealed-carry program reluctantly, citing last year’s mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard and the street violence in Chicago as examples of the need for stronger gun laws.

“I happen to be one that really does not support having people walking around with guns, concealed or otherwise,” Gray said.

Permit holders would also be barred from carrying guns in locations including government buildings, public transportation, bars and restaurants, stadiums and places where public officials need to be protected.

Earlier this year, a federal appeals court struck down California’s requirement that residents must show they faced a “clear and present danger” to receive a gun permit, although the ruling is on hold pending an appeal. Gura said the judge in the District’s case followed the logic of that ruling, which found that residents only need to show a desire for self-defense.

The other states where residents must show a reason to get a permit are Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York.

THIS GUY BUILT A TOWER TO SHOW HOW BAD FEDERAL REGULATIONS HAVE GOTTEN

Saturday, September 6, 2014

Federal Regulations: Wait for When It Starts to Collapse on Top of Him.

Massive.

Gargantuan.

Unreadable.

There are plenty of words to describe the enormous expanse of federal red tape, but Patrick McLaughlin, a senior research fellow at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, took the maxim “a picture is worth a thousand words” to heart when he set out to visualize the growth in federal regulations between 1950 and 2013.

In 1950, federal regulations were nothing to sneeze — in the neighborhood of 10,000 pages, according to McLaughlin — but maybe a smart person with plenty of time on their hands could get through it.

How much regulation has been added between then and now?

Watch the video to see (spoiler: it’s a lot) and witness the immense stack nearly crush McLaughlin, helping to prove his point about red tape:

UTAH CITIES PUSHED TO PURGE GUN RULES BY NATIONAL GROUP

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Second Amendment » U.S. gun-rights group urges repeal of local firearm laws in conflict with state code.

An elected Holladay City Council member, Gunn for years has been an outspoken board member for the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah.

He wasn’t aware of the Second Amendment Foundation’s so-called pre-emption project (relying on state laws pre-empting local firearms restrictions) or its demand letter sent to the city attorney in his own community.

“The question I would pose to them is: ‘Do you really think it is in the public’s interest to eliminate these ordinances?’ ” Gunn said.

Pointing to the major legal victories of gun-rights advocates before the current U.S. Supreme Court, the retired attorney noted that most of those dealt with the right to keep a gun in one’s home for self-defense.

“So I’m a little surprised that Second Amendment folks are now expanding the scope of their attack to include guns in cemeteries and guns in parks. But maybe I shouldn’t be surprised.”

Even so, Gunn said if Holladay does have any ordinances in conflict with state firearms law, “we probably will change them.”

Utah’s turn » Miko Tempski, the foundation’s general counsel, said Utah is the seventh state to undergo the city-by-city scrutiny of gun laws. Researchers found 49 ordinances that conflicted with state law.

Eight have responded so far to the letters that went out July 8 — Draper, Herriman, Ivins, Park City, Sandy, Utah County, West Point and West Valley City. All agreed to review their ordinances and some confirmed that they would remove the targeted provisions.

Sandy City Attorney Walter Miller promised prompt action, noting that the City Council’s “respect for the Second Amendment closely mirrors that of your organization.”

<<FULL STORY>>

SHE WAS FIRED FOR CCW AT WORK — NOW SHE’S SUING

Monday, March 17, 2014

A former Wells Fargo employee has filed a lawsuit in circuit court against the bank, contending the financial institution violated her constitutional rights when they fired her for carrying a concealed firearm at work.

Florida resident Ivette Ros, a former bank manager at Wells Fargo, claims she feels “naked” without her gun and says because she had a concealed carry permit it was unlawful for her employer to terminate her for carrying, the Tampa Tribune reported.

“I am within my constitutional right,” Ros reportedly said. “The bank is one of the places that I am able to carry a weapon to. My weapon was concealed. I have a certified license.”

A former Wells Fargo manager was fired after company officials learned she was carrying a concealed firearm to work. (Image source: Shutterstock)

Last year someone noticed Ros was carrying a firearm and reported her to bank officials, according to the Tribune. She was later fired.

“I’m a manager of a bank,” she added. “We have a lot of robberies that happen in our banks. I feel safer having that weapon if I ever needed to protect my employees.”

“I feel safer having that weapon if I ever needed to protect my employees.”

However, while Wells Fargo wouldn’t comment on a specific ongoing case, the bank told the Tribune that they have a strict policy forbidding firearms.

“Team members are strictly prohibited from possession of firearms and weapons on company premises,” spokeswoman Kathy Harrison reportedly said.

Ros’ lawyer disagrees.

“Employers can’t discriminate against their employees nor can they discriminate against their customers if they are … law-abiding, licensed concealed weapons permit owners,” Noel Flasterstein told the Tribune.

“Just because it’s in their handbook doesn’t mean it is correct or it will withstand a legal scrutiny or a legal investigation, which is what we’re doing in this case,” he reportedly added.

Another legal expert, however, said Ros was outside her legal rights, noting that Wells Fargo is a private institution.

“There is nothing in the state statute that says the employer has to let her bring it into the building,” reportedly said Jason Bent, an assistant professor of law at Stetson University College of Law.

The bank does offer some exceptions in certain areas, though, that would allow team members to store their firearm in their vehicle while they work at the bank, the Tribune reported.