The following contains partial editorial content which is the opinion of the author, a retired Police Chief and current contributing writer to Law Enforcement Today.
As recently reported in Law Enforcement Today, a priority of the Biden administration, aside from their obsession with depriving Americans of their liberty, is gun control.
A case which has been filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) to the United States Supreme Court may present one of the best opportunities to once and for all to end the left’s obsession with gun control, according to ZeroHedge.
The case, Bianchi v. Frosh centers around a Maryland law, SB281, an “assault weapons ban” disguised as the Firearms Safety Act of 2013.
In the writ of certiorari filed to the high court, the question proposed is, “Whether the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with a type of “Arms” that are in common use for lawful purposes?”
Under the question presented, the overturning of this law would, as ZeroHedge notes, be “an unprecedented victory for gun owners nationwide.”
Should the court decide in favor of the plaintiffs, assault weapon bans in states from California to Massachusetts, including New York and New Jersey would be gutted.
According to Adam Kraut of the FPC, “This case presents the Court with an ideal vehicle to both address the scope of protected arms and constitutionally infirm analysis applied by these recalcitrant lower courts.”
As the petition notes, the term “assault weapons” is a “pejorative an inaccurate label for a category of common semi-automatic firearms.” As noted in the Heller case, the petition describes that class of firearms as being “in common use” and noted they are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”
As we have seen over the years, the far-left, anti-gun crowd typically defines “assault weapons” as any firearm which is basically “black and scary looking.”
A classic example is the AR-15, which other than its outward physical appearance is virtually the same as a Bushmaster hunting rifle. But since it has a pistol grip, handguards and in some cases a scope, the left defines it as an evil “assault weapon.”
ZeroHedge notes that Maryland’s assault weapons ban is “an assortment of inconsistent rules and regulations thought up by bureaucrats in Annapolis who have little understanding of the firearms they seek to regulate,” which is typical for anti-gun politicians.
For example, they cite the following inconsistencies in the statute…”AK pattern rifle chambered in 7.62×39? Banned. AK pattern rifle chambered in 5.45×39? Good to go. “AK Pistol in 7.62×39? Good to go.” They note the only difference between the two is the presence of a stock. Period.
This is of course absurd, but it’s what to be expected of anti-gun bureaucrats.
Remember, these are the same people who claim an AR-15 can fire “over 10 rounds per second,” as Harvard University Constitutional Law professor Laurence Tribe claimed in 2018. Since he made a complete fool out of himself, Tribe has since deleted the tweet.
Maryland’s law bans the AR15, however allows them if they conform to a so-called “Heavy Barrel Profile,” or HBAR. In addition, the statute permits “rifles that are functionally identical to the AR15, like the Ruger Mini 14.”
Why the AR15 then? Clearly because that particular weapon has been identified as the boogeyman among the left, despite the fact it is rarely used in the commission of criminal offenses.
It is unknown when SCOTUS will take up the case, which obviously will take place during its 2022 term.
As ZeroHedge notes, it is quite likely that the case will be taken up, as it seems obvious that at least four justices would be interested in hearing the case, with a number of justices indicating a willingness to hear 2nd Amendment cases, as indicated by the NYSRPA v Bruen case.
With the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett replacing the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one would think the high court now has a somewhat solid conservative majority.
However Barrett, along with fellow Trump-appointee Brett Kavanaugh hasn’t exactly proved dependable in their judicial decisions on what should have been clear conservative wins.
However, when Barrett and Kavanaugh served in lower courts, they “signaled they think courts need to rethink the framework used to often measure how gun regulations are evaluated,” known as “intermediate scrutiny.”
In a nutshell, intermediate scrutiny is a test applied by courts to determine a statute’s constitutionality, according to Cornell Law’s Legal Information Institute. It is only invoked “when a state or federal government passes a statute which negatively affects certain protected classes.” The challenged law must:
- further an important government interest
- and must do so by means that are substantially related to that interest.
As ZeroHedge notes, when this principle is applied, “a law has more of a chance to survive legal challenges because the government must prove that it is ‘substantially related to an important government interest.’”
The outlet notes that if the high court is looking for a case which has “far-reaching consequences for the 2nd Amendment,” Bianchi v Frost is such a case.
The anti-gun zealots have used, ZeroHedge notes, the National Firearms Act (NFA), along with other acts in order to accomplish banning bump stocks, with the ultimate goal being to ban semi-automatic firearms under the NFA, which would eliminate virtually every firearm owned by the American people.
If the Supreme Court takes up Bianchi, and rules in favor of the plaintiff, it “would put a significant roadblock in front of that,” ZeroHedge says. Law Enforcement Today agrees.
For a recent piece we published about the abject failures of the gun control lobby, we invite you to:
EVERYWHERE, USA – All we hear from so many on the wrong side of the gun control argument is how universal background checks, gun registries, and even outright abolition of gun ownership will make all of our communities safer.
The people who argue from this point of view are not operating in the realms of logic, reason or common sense.
While it may be cliché to say it, the reality is that stricter gun control laws only make it harder on law-abiding citizens.
As Tom Knighton recently wrote, “The problem is that so few people seem to really grasp that. Yes, the Second Amendment community does, but the rest of the world? Not so much.”
Let’s take a second to break down all the arguments. It should only take a second given that none of their arguments have any shred of validity.
The 2nd Amendment is not a blank check for unrestricted ownership.
Most gun rights advocates would agree. We believe that convicted felons, domestic abusers, sexual offenders, and people with documented issues with certain types of mental health issues typically should not be in possession of weapons.
However, where we draw the line on this particular argument is a little thing called due process. You know, that pesky little thing guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
According to the Cornell School of Law:
“The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be ‘deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.’
The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law and provide fair procedures.”
Based on that premise, we do believe certain people should be excluded from ownership and possession…but not without due process. And yes, that does include “red flag” laws.
Also, the 2nd Amendment only promises that the right to keep and bear arms shall be uninfringed… not unlimited.
Infringe is a verb that means “to actively break the terms of a law, or to act so as to limit or undermine.”
It is these definitions that allow a simple rebuttal to most of the gun control arguments.
The 2nd Amendment only refers to members of a well-armed militia, or the military.
Here is a quick grammatical idea, followed by a history lesson.
The 2nd Amendment states:
“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.”
The comma matters. What you see above is a dependent clause which cannot stand alone, precedes an independent clause, which can stand alone.
In other words, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is a stand alone clause. Nothing else needs to be said.
But, the founding framers added another aspect.
Given that they were fighting against a tyrannical government, they believed that the people needed to be able to take up arms against governmental rule that was truly tyrannical and threatened the existence of a free state.
Now, to the history lesson.
“Well regulated” at the time of the writing of the amendment referred to something being in perfect working order. Another way of looking at this would be that the American citizenry would well trained and well equipped to defend itself against tyranny.
If we abolish all guns, gun crimes will all but go away.
The last year that the US Justice Bureau tracked statistics related to where violent offenders obtained their weapons was 2004.
But those statistics show one thing. More than half of all gun-related crimes were committed by someone who possessed that weapon illegally.
But since 2004, as numerous states have tightened their gun laws, that number has increased to be roughly 65% were obtained illegally. Illegally obtained weapons were used at a rate of 1.85 to 1, when compared to weapons that were obtained legally.
So what does this really mean? It shows that states and cities with stricter gun laws have more people obtaining firearms in violation of the law for use in commission of a crime.
They aren’t stealing weapons or buying them on the black market for target practice and home protection.
Universal background checks would stop people from illegally obtaining guns.
No, it would only add an additional step to the process of a private sale. Much like buying a car at a dealership, where they are required to get a copy of your valid driver’s license and proof of insurance, the same is not true of a private sale.
An individual with no license or insurance and 12 DUIs can show up at your door to buy a car from your Facebook market place post, and with cash in hand, you sign the title and give them a bill of sale and off they go.
On their way home, they stop at the bar, get drunk and drive home, hitting a pedestrian along the way. If only we made the seller run a DMV check on the status of the buyer’s license and insurance.
The point here is this: we could “close the federal loopholes” and require people to do background checks for private sales, but it still won’t stop bad actors from obtaining a weapon at whatever means the deem necessary. However, it is absolutely debatable as to whether we should restrict private sale transactions.
Well, if we taxed the hell out of gun and ammo purchases, most people couldn’t afford to own a single weapon, much less multiple.
Let’s go back to the “shall not be infringed” thing. Remember that one definition of infringed is “to act so as to limit.”
Limiting the ability to own would be considered an infringement. And the framers used the severest terms possible when they said “shall not.”
Yeah, but the founders did not envision that the common man would own military grade weapons.
Actually, they did. The weapons that the average farmer, rancher, or [insert occupation here], had was the same weapon that was being used by members of the military.
However, if you want to argue that the framers did not envision automatic and semi-automatic weapons capable of disbursing multiple round quickly and accurately, that might be a valid point, but there is no evidence that the men who wrote the amendment expected the American citizen to be armed with less capability than the men who were serving in the military at that time.
The arguments for stricter gun control measures have no legitimacy or validity when held up against the 2nd Amendment. None.
But let’s pretend for just a minute that they did…and we enacted some of the measures that the anti-gun crowd want. There would still be no stopping this:
Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters? Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you. Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories. Click to check it out.
Here’s your “gun control”: Organized group of thieves using U-Haul trucks to burglarize gun stores
ATLANTA, GA – ‘Tis the season for shopping for those hard-to-find gifts, even if those ‘gifts’ are stolen guns, apparently.
In Atlanta, they are seeing a spike in gun thefts by an organized group of people utilizing U-Haul trucks to take off with the stolen guns.
One of the latest reported incidents occurred at the Range, Guns, and Sales located in Embry Hills.
With this reported burglary, the criminals utilized a U-Haul truck to drive through the brick wall so that they could gain access to the interior of the store and the guns inside on Halloween. The manager of the store, identified only as D-J, told CBS 4:
“One hit, one hit, got through the front wall. They really were dedicated to get inside the store at all costs, even though they know we have a big police presence at nighttime…
“The way they set it up to smash inside of a brick wall with a U-Haul truck, is kinda scary. So that puts it into perspective on how dangerous these people are.”
According to Atlanta Police, this store was not the only one hit on Halloween – there were three in total.
And the criminals did not stop there… they continued their spree and struck two more gun stores on November 3rd.
While the exact number of guns stolen has not been released, it is reported that the criminals made off with at least twenty from one store alone.
D-J told CBS 4 that the criminals were not able to get away with any firearms from his store because of the way they secure them. But that did not stop them from taking two empty boxes that they must have thought contained firearms.
“We feel like we need gun stores across America, even just across the metro Atlanta area, to start tightening up their security measures on how they lock up their guns, how they secure their guns. Because a lot of firearms could be stolen and you don’t want them getting into the wrong hands.
“In the wrong hands, two guns is a lot to me. So 20, I can imagine what they plan on doing. That’s if they’re planning on selling or starting a small war. You just never know. Having guns in the wrong hands is never a good thing.”
While acts like these are disturbing in and of their own, what may be worse is the number of guns that are being stolen during vehicle burglaries.
In June, WSB-TV 2 reported that over 800 guns had been stolen out of cars in 2021…and that was in June.
The issue, more often than not, is people who leave their vehicles unlocked while having their lawfully owned guns inside of them.
Typically, criminals tend to leave cars alone that are locked, unless they can see something inside that they want to take. However, if the valuables that are in the car are out of sight, especially guns, odds are the criminals will continue walking as long as the car is locked.
Regardless, it is never a good idea to store a firearm inside of a vehicle, locked or unlocked.
If there are times in which a firearm must be stored inside of a vehicle, the Atlanta Police Department recommends buying security cables from a local gun store that will enable you to secure the firearm to something secured to the car, like the rails for the front seat.
Additionally, responsible gun owners can get gun safes installed in the trunks of their vehicles that can be secured to the frame of the car. While none of the examples are foolproof, it will at least make getting the guns a little bit harder for the criminal, thus, lessening the number of criminals that have guns.
Violent crime in large metropolitan areas has increased significantly throughout the last year. Most of the guns that these criminals possess, they have illegally as they are convicted felons.
And that’s exactly why we’re launching this national crowdfunding campaign as part of our efforts to help “re-fund the police”.
So much for “gun control”: Armed home invasion suspects arrested – they were 12 and 14 years old
KALAMAZOO, MI – The Kalamazoo Public Safety Office reported that they had taken two suspects into custody for an armed home invasion.
While this type of reporting does not always get national news, it does in this case because the suspects are ages 12 and 14 years old.
Home invasion suspects arrested with gun and drugs https://t.co/B5dpyiysVx
— KDPS (@KalPublicSafety) November 5, 2021
The Kalamazoo Public Safety Officers were in the area of Oak Street due to an increased amount of thefts and stolen vehicles occurring in the neighborhood.
While patrolling the streets, a police sergeant took note of two children walking up to a house that appeared to have no one home.
Of course, this sparked the sergeant’s attention since they were in the area for an increased crime rate so the sergeant sat back and watched to see what the two were planning.
It did not take long to see that they both intended to allegedly break into the residence.
Home invasion suspects, 12 and 14, arrested with stolen handgun, drugs in Kalamazoo https://t.co/MY4HO956iJ
— MLive (@MLive) November 5, 2021
The Kalamazoo Public Safety began to move in on the two who were actively trying to break in. But the resident, who was home, appeared and scared the two off.
Unfortunately for the kids, officers had already set up a perimeter and were ready for them. The two fled and were quickly caught by officers in a brief foot pursuit in the front yard of the home they were trying to break into.
The two suspects, ages 12 and 14 years of age, were not identified by police, but they were arrested and charged for the burglary attempt. Police allege that when they arrested the two they found:
“A stolen handgun, illegal drugs, and a large amount of cash were recovered from the suspects. Both suspects were lodged at Kalamazoo County Juvenile Home on various felony charges.”
The rise in crime brought officers into that neighborhood for proactive patrols including stolen vehicles. According to MLive.com:
“There were 139 stolen vehicle offenses in Kalamazoo in the first five months of 2020, according to the Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety. In comparison, so far this year, there have been 208 stolen vehicle offenses in the city, Public Information Officer Ryan Bridges said.”
You’ve made it to Friday!! Join @JeffPorterWX and me today at noon. Here’s what we’re covering:
• Two children taken to Kalamazoo Juvenile home after attempted home invasion
• Antiviral pill for COVID-19
• Weekend Weather pic.twitter.com/Y4hdec5m0X
— Kate Siefert (@KateWWMT) November 5, 2021
Bridges noted that the rise in vehicle thefts alone is close to a 50 percent increase year over year. He said:
“We want to remind motorists to always lock their doors and not leave their keys or valuables in their vehicles once exiting.”
Police in areas that experience high numbers in terms of vehicle burglaries, like Bridges, report that most vehicle burglaries in residential neighborhoods occur because the owner leaves the vehicle unlocked.
Oftentimes, kids will go through neighborhoods in the middle of the night and try door handles on different vehicles and move past the ones that are locked and ransack those that are not.
Unfortunately, this means that any valuables that are stored inside will be taken by the thief, and while that is frustrating enough, it can also be scary because a lot of people keep garage door openers in their vehicles.
This means the thief can easily make entry into your garage, and possibly your home, while you sleep.
To prevent this, ensure that all of your vehicles are locked that are stored outside of your garage. Keep valuables locked up and out of sight if you must leave them in your vehicle.
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.