Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...

Category: Firearms

Red Flag Laws Are Useless In Preventing Crime


Chicago is one of the nation’s gun violence hotspots and a seemingly ideal place to employ Illinois’ “red flag” law that allows police to step in and take firearms away from people who threaten to kill. But amid more than 8,500 shootings resulting in 1,800 deaths since 2020, the law was used there just four times.


It’s a pattern that’s played out in New Mexico, with nearly 600 gun homicides during that period and a mere eight uses of its red flag law. And in Massachusetts, with nearly 300 shooting homicides and just 12 uses of its law.


An Associated Press analysis found many U.S. states barely use the red flag laws touted as the most powerful tool to stop gun violence before it happens, a trend blamed on a lack of awareness of the laws and resistance by some authorities to enforce them even as shootings and gun deaths soar.


AP found such laws in 19 states and the District of Columbia were used to remove firearms from people 15,049 times since 2020, fewer than 10 per 100,000 adult residents. Experts called that woefully low and not nearly enough to make a dent in gun violence, considering the millions of firearms in circulation and countless potential warning signs law enforcement officers encounter from gun owners every day.

Who are these “experts” and how did they determine what the correct number of gun confiscations are? This is why these laws are dangerous. They will widen the aperture of what constitutes a threat to achieve the level of gun confiscation they want.

New York Enacts More Unconstitutional Gun Laws After SCOTUS Ruling


New York is among a half-dozen states that had key provisions of its gun laws invalidated by the high court because of a requirement for applicants to prove they had “proper cause” for a permit. Gov. Kathy Hochul said Friday that she and her fellow Democrats in the state Legislature took action the next week because the ruling “destroyed the ability for a governor to be able to protect her citizens from people who carry concealed weapons anywhere they choose.”


“They seem to be designed less towards addressing gun violence and more towards simply preventing people from getting guns — even if those people are law-abiding, upstanding citizens, who according to the Supreme Court have the rights to have them,” said Jonathan Corbett, a Brooklyn attorney and permit applicant who is one of several people challenging the law in court.

Under the law, applicants for a concealed carry permit will have to complete 16 hours of classroom training and two hours of live-fire exercises. Ordinary citizens would be prohibited from bringing guns to schools, churches, subways, theaters and amusement parks — among other places deemed “sensitive” by authorities.

Applicants also will have to provide a list of social media accounts for the past three years as part of a “character and conduct” review. The requirement was added because shooters have sometimes dropped hints of violence online before they opened fire on people.

It’s still up to the arbitrary judgment of some bureaucrat to decide if your social media comments are acceptable enough for you to carry a gun. So if you exercise your 1st Amendment in a way in which the regime disapproves, you will be denied your 2nd Amendment rights.

New York Mayor Promises to Continue to Violate Constitution

Of course.

Adams insisted that despite the ruling, ‘nothing changes today’ and that the city would be reviewing its procedures to ensure that only those who are ‘fully qualified’ can obtain a concealed carry permit.

But, also of course, Adams already carries a gun. In normal elitist fashion, he thinks that his life is more important than other New Yorkers’.

Mayor Eric Adams, who qualifies for a permit both as a former police officer and a public figure, also revealed on the campaign trail that he planned to carry a concealed gun in public after taking office.

SCOTUS Rules In Favor of Civil Rights in Bruen

They ruled that New York’s gun laws violate the 14th Amendment.

Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.




A final word on historical method: Strictly speaking, New York is bound to respect the right to keep and bear arms because of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Second. See, e.g., Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 250–251 (1833) (Bill of Rights applies only to the Federal Government). Nonetheless, we have made clear that individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and made applicable against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment have the same scope as against the Federal Government.




At the end of this long journey through the Anglo-American history of public carry, we conclude that respondents have not met their burden to identify an American tradition justifying the State’s proper-cause requirement. The Second Amendment guaranteed to “all Americans” the right to bear commonly used arms in public subject to certain reasonable, well-defined restrictions




The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.

Republicans Back Restriction of Civil Rights on Eve of Election

This is politically stupid and an affront to our civil rights.

Lawmakers released the 80-page bill nine days after agreeing to a framework for the plan and 29 years after Congress last enacted major firearms curbs. It cleared an initial procedural hurdle by 64-34, with 14 Republicans joining all 48 Democrats and two allied independents in voting yes. That strongly supported a prediction by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., of approval later this week. Passage by the Democratic-led House could follow quickly.




The legislation would toughen background checks for the youngest firearms buyers, require more sellers to conduct background checks and beef up penalties on gun traffickers. It also would disburse money to states and communities to improve school safety and mental health initiatives.


Aides estimated the measure would cost around $15 billion, which Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, the lead Democratic bargainer, said would be fully paid for.


Resolving one final hurdle that delayed the accord, the bill would prohibit romantic partners convicted of domestic violence and not married to their victims from getting firearms. Convicted abusers who are married to, live with or had children with their victims are already barred from having guns.


The compromise prohibits guns for a person who has “a current or recent former dating relationship with the victim.’’ That is defined in part as one between people ”who have or have recently had a continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature.” An offender’s ability to own a gun could be restored after five years if they’ve not committed another serious crime.


On another late dispute, the bill would provide $750 million to the 19 states and the District of Columbia that have “red flag” laws making it easier to temporarily take firearms from people adjudged dangerous, and to other states with violence prevention programs. States with “red flag” laws that receive the funds would have to have legal processes for the gun owner to fight the firearm’s removal.

Politically, the Republicans are looking at a wave election in their favor thanks to the disastrous rule of Democrats. So what do they do? They give Democrats a political win that will resonate with their base and piss off the Republican base. Every time the Republicans give Democrats a win, it is not reciprocated. The Democrats don’t even give Republicans rhetorical credit. The Democrats will announce this as “we would have done more if it weren’t for those evil Republicans, but at least we did something.” Meanwhile, there is zero momentum for this in the Republican base. All it will do is disillusion pro-2nd Amendment people. Maybe they actively fight against Republicans. Maybe they just sit home in swing districts. Either way, the Republicans have blunted their electoral prospects in November.

On our civil rights, there are pieces of this bill that are a clear retardation of those rights. There was a time when I naively supported red flag laws. There should be a way to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally or morally incapacitated. The same should be true for voting, holding elected office, and a number of other things. The problem is deciding who decides? Given the totalitarian inclinations we saw from our government leaders during COVID and recent presidential administrations, I do not want anyone in the government deciding that. Does it mean that some people will get their hands on a gun (or vote) who shouldn’t? Yes. But that is preferable to handing the government the tools to disarm (or disenfranchise) the citizenry.

Politicians Discuss Restricting More Civil Rights

Good, but they aren’t done yet.

“We’re not going to put a piece of legislation on the table that’s going to ban assault weapons, or we’re not going to pass comprehensive background checks,” Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “But right now, people in this country want us to make progress. They just don’t want the status quo to continue for another 30 years.

Canada Moves to Ban Handguns and Toy Guns

Totalitarianism under the mark of altruism and safety.

OTTAWA (Reuters) -Canada’s government introduced legislation Monday to implement a “national freeze” on the sale and purchase of handguns as part of a gun control package that would also limit magazine capacities and ban some toys that look like guns.


The new legislation, which resurrects some measures that were shelved last year amid a national election, comes just a week after a gunman killed 19 children and two teachers in their classroom in Uvalde, Texas.


Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told reporters the new measures were needed as gun violence was increasing.

“We need only look south of the border to know that if we do not take action firmly and rapidly it gets worse and worse and gets more difficult to counter,” he said.


The handgun freeze would contain exceptions, including for elite sport shooters, Olympic athletes and security guards. Canadians who already own handguns would be allowed to keep them.

Most Americans Do Not Want Stricter Gun Laws

I was kind of shocked to see this on CNN.

Perhaps the best way to understand the public mindset on the gun control debate is to look at Gallup polling from earlier this year. The survey asked a simple question and a follow-up: Are you satisfied with the nation’s gun laws? And if you’re unsatisfied, do you want stricter or looser gun laws?


This year, only 36% of Americans said they were dissatisfied and wanted stricter gun control laws. Sixty-one percent were either satisfied (41%), dissatisfied but wanted less strict laws (13%) or dissatisfied and wanted no change (7%).


These numbers do shift somewhat from year to year, but the “dissatisfied and want stricter gun laws” opinion has never been a majority one this century.


The reason I like the question is because it gets at the intensity of feelings about the gun debate. Most people are generally fine with our country’s gun laws (to the degree that they are satisfied) or want them to be less strict.

Georgia Becomes a Constitutional Carry State

I think that makes Georgia the 24th state to pass Constitutional Carry? Once again, the fears of it leading to bloodbaths or the Wild West have proven to be baseless. Congrats, Georgians.

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, signed a bill into law Tuesday removing the license and background check requirements for gun owners to carry a firearm in public, drawing high praise from gun owners in the state


Biden Nears New Gun Rules

This would be terrible. So we would subject spare parts to the same regulatory rigor as a fully-functioning gun? I have to get a background check to get a new grip or barrel?

The rule is expected to change the current definition of a firearm under federal law to include unfinished parts, like the frame of a handgun or the receiver of a long gun.


In its proposed rule released last May, the ATF said it was also seeking to require manufacturers and dealers who sell ghost gun parts to be licensed by the federal government and require federally licensed firearms dealers to add a serial number to any unserialized guns they plan to sell.


The rule would also require firearms dealers to run background checks before they sell ghost gun kits that contain parts needed to assemble a firearm.

Wisconsin Republicans Introduce Constitutional Carry

It won’t go anywhere as long as Evers sits in his chair, but dare to dream

MADISON (WKOW) — Two Republican lawmakers from Wisconsin unveiled a Constitutional Carry bill.


The bill from Senator Mary Felzkowski (R-Irma) and Representative Robert Brooks (R-Saukville) would allow people to carry a concealed weapon without a license. Right now, a license is required to carry a concealed weapon in Wisconsin.

The bill’s authors say 21 states already allow Constitutional Carry.

“This is not a gun grab”

If you have to say it...

State Rep. Deb Andraca (D-Whitefish Bay) said 19 other states have extreme risk protection order laws, and passing similar legislation could save lives in Wisconsin.


“This is not a gun grab,” State Rep. Andraca said. “This is a bill that respects our Second Amendment rights with provisions, such as criminal penalties for those who bring false charges. Only a judge can issue an order based on clear and convincing evidence of a threat. The order is temporary, can be challenged or terminated with full due process.”

Scarce Ammunition

This is most certainly true.

SEATTLE — The COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with record sales of firearms, has fueled a shortage of ammunition in the United States that’s impacting law enforcement agencies, people seeking personal protection, recreational shooters and hunters — and could deny new gun owners the practice they need to handle their weapons safely.


Manufacturers say they’re producing as much ammunition as they can, but many gun store shelves are empty and prices keep rising. Ammunition imports are way up, but at least one U.S. manufacturer is exporting ammo. All while the pandemic, social unrest and a rise in violent crime have prompted millions to buy guns for protection or to take up shooting for sport.

Although, I was in Cabela’s in Richfield this morning and they have lots of 7.62, 5.56, 40mm, and others. No 9mm though…

Governor Declares Gun Violence a “Public Health Crisis”

This is scary.

Governor Cuomo’s state disaster declaration describes gun violence as a public health crisis, and made several comparisons to the Covid-19 pandemic and the resulting public health response.

“If you look at the recent numbers, more people are now dying from gun violence and crime than Covid,” the Democratic governor said.

“Just like we did with Covid, New York is going to lead the nation once again with a comprehensive approach to combating and preventing gun violence.”

Beyond the fact that Cuomo killed more people in New York than any other single person in history, think through the policy implications.

In reaction to COVID, Cuomo (and other governors) closed businesses, forced people to remain in their homes, forbade public assemblies, forced people to wear masks, prohibited people from worshiping, changed the rules of elections, and so much more. He used the violent police power of the state to enforce those rules with fines and arrests. All of this was in response to a “public health crisis.”

Now governors and other tyrants are using the government response to COVID as a template for responding to other “crises.” They see it as within their power – even their duty – to use government police power to force compliance with the arbitrary suspension of civil rights to respond to a public health crisis (as they define it).

Could you see Cuomo order the suspension of gun sales; random searches for guns; gun registrations; gun confiscations; etc.? I could. Why not? It will save lives, right?

What is the next “public health crisis” that will require government to suspend civil rights for our own good? Obesity? Climate change? Impaired driving? Racism?

When we allowed our government to take so much power during COVID, we set a new standard for government intrusion. The people who run the government will not easily give that power back.

Texas Passes Constitutional Carry

Washington (CNN)Texans will soon be able to carry handguns in public without obtaining licenses or training after the state’s Republican governor on Wednesday signed a permitless carry gun bill into law.

The measure approved by Gov. Greg Abbott allows individuals 21 and older who can legally possess firearms in the state to carry handguns in public places without permits. The legislation is set to go into effect in September.

Judge Strikes Down California’s Ban on Scary Black Guns

It only took 30 years for the gears of justice to turn.

A federal judge has overturned California´s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons, ruling that it violates the constitutional right to bear arms.


U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego ruled Friday that the state´s definition of illegal military-style rifles unlawfully deprives law-abiding Californians of weapons commonly allowed in most other states.


He handed down the two page ruling in response to a lawsuit filed against the State of California by James Miller, Patrick Russ, Ryan Peterson and the the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee.


The plaintiffs successfully argued that California’s use of the term ‘assault weapons’ was ‘a politically-concocted pejorative term designed to suggest that there is an inherently unlawful or illegitimate basis for owning otherwise common firearms protected by the Second Amendment.’


They added that California banned guns which should have been lawful to own by designating them assault weapons using faulty rationales, such as a rifle’s ammunition capacity.

Etsy Expands Anti-Gun Hysteria

Where am I going to get my crocheted holster and wood stock with “best dad ever” carved in it?

“Etsy has long prohibited the sale of weapons, including guns and most gun parts. We are expanding enforcement to include all gun parts and accessories that attach to a firearm. We take the safety of our marketplace very seriously, and we regularly revisit our policies and make adjustments in accordance with industry, legal, and regulatory standards,” an Etsy spokesperson told the Washington Examiner.


Biden Wants Anti-Civil Rights Zealot to Lead ATF

I take Chipman at his word. If he had his way, he would ban a LOT of guns.

Senator Tom Cotton’s questioning of Chipman was particularly heated as the Arkansas Republican demanded Chipman define ‘assault weapon.’


‘You have called for an assault weapons ban, I have a simple question for you: What is an assault weapon?’ Cotton questioned Biden’s pick to head the ATF.


‘What Congress defines it as,’ Chipman deflected.


‘So you’re asking us to ban assault weapons, we have to write legislation, can you tell me: What is an assault weapon? How would you define it if you were the head of the ATF? How have you defined it over the last several years as your role as a gun control advocate?’ Cotton pushed.


According to firearm sale reports on the southwestern border, Chipman said, ATF defined an assault weapon as ‘any semi-automatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine above the caliber of .22, which would include a .223, which is, you know, largely the AR-15 round.’


He still would not say definitively what he would define as an assault weapon.


‘I’m amazed that that might be the definition of assault weapon,’ Cotton said. ‘That would basically cover every single modern sporting rifle in America today.’

SCOTUS Rules that Warrantless Home Gun Confiscation Violates 4th Amendment


On Monday, the Supreme Court released its opinion in Caniglia v. Strom, which unanimously held that a lower court’s extension of Cady v. Dombrowski’s “community caretaking” exception into the home defied the logic and holding of Cady, as well as violated the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. With the court’s unanimity in Caniglia, the home remains the most sacred space under the Fourth Amendment; its sanctity literally houses its privilege. Sans warrant, exigency or consent, governmental search and seizure within it is unconstitutional.




A pithy four pages “long,” the opinion was unanimous and unambiguous: If police do not have the homeowner’s consent, an “exigent” circumstance, or a judicial warrant authorizing a search, then no version of Cady’s car exception applies to police entry into the home under the Fourth Amendment. “What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes,” Thomas wrote.


As always with realty – and, per Caniglia, the court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence — location matters. Specifically, the location of Cady’s warrantless search and seizure – a post-accident, routine search of an intoxicated, off-duty officer’s damaged and impounded car — simply cannot compare to a search of and seizure within a home. Governmental searches of vehicles regularly occur via exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement; a myriad of decisions have constitutionalized warrantless searches of vehicles, their compartments, their containers and even their occupants. Not one of these warrantless exceptions is available for the home.


Accordingly, caretaking under Cady is not carte blanche for police to search or seize within the home, nor do their “caretaking” duties create a “standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home,” Thomas wrote. Cady, itself, he noted, drew an “unmistakable distinction between vehicles and homes,” constitutionally embedding the exception outside the home.

Texas Senate Passes Constitutional Carry

Huzzah, huzzah. I lived in Texas when the concealed carry bill passed the first time and was in the first wave. I lived in Wisconsin when the concealed carry bill passed and was in the first wave. It’s nice to see the expansion of liberty in my lifetime (in this regard, anyway).

The Texas Senate has voted to advance a bill that will allow people to carry handguns in the state without a license, setting up the state to be the largest in the country to allow permitless carry.


The legislation passed by an 18-13 margin along party lines Wednesday evening. The bill would allow people 21 and older who can already legally own a gun to carry a handgun in public without the license, safety course and background check current law requires.


The bill now heads to the House, which passed similar legislation earlier this year but will not consider changes the Senate made to the bill before sending it to Gov. Greg Abbott’s (R) desk.

This made me chuckle.

“More criminals are going to walk around with guns openly, I promise you,” state Sen. Roland Gutierrez (D) said during floor debate, according to The Dallas Morning News. “More vigilantes are going to rise up.”

It’s always the same old tired scary rhetoric. Meanwhile:

Twenty other states allow some form of permitless carry.



Pin It on Pinterest