Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Charlie T Waite

Territorial Governors
  • Posts

    9,318
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    68

Everything posted by Charlie T Waite

  1. There was a big splash in the culture war over guns this week. YouTube, the world's largest video site, had been going after gun channels over silencer-related videos before announcing the deletions were a mistake and restoring the accounts of those affected. I report on how the ordeal went down, how gun companies and creators reacted, and what the social media giant is now telling The Reload about it. The legal realm was very busy and rather explosive this week too. New Jersey saw two of its gun control laws blocked in federal court--Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman details how bad it was for them in a member-exclusive piece. Illinois also lost an appeal to reinstate its new "assault weapons" ban in state court. A Fifth Circuit panel declared the prohibition on those facing domestic violence restraining orders unconstitutional as well. That ruling likely sets up a new showdown at the Supreme Court over how to apply its Bruen decision to such laws. I'll have more in Sunday's members' newsletter on what that showdown might look like and why the Supreme Court might not come down in the same spot. So, make sure you become a member if you haven't already! Plus, Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms joins the podcast to talk about the ATF's inconsistencies. YouTube Says Silencer Video Takedowns, Gun Channel Deletions Were Mistakes By Stephen Gutowski Social media giant YouTube has reversed course on deleting videos and channels featuring videos where a silencer is attached to a gun. The video hosting site said recent moderation efforts aimed at videos where sound suppressors are affixed to guns were a mistake. The takedowns and channel strikes had appeared to affect videos, whether attaching the suppressor was part of a guide or just incidental. The company said it is now in the process of restoring videos and channels that were wrongly flagged. "Upon review, we determined the videos in question are not violative of our Community Guidelines and have reinstated them," a YouTube spokesperson told The Reload. "When it's brought to our attention that content has been mistakenly removed, we review it and take appropriate action, including reinstating and removing associated strikes." The reversal comes after channels with upwards of ten million followers run by suppressor manufacturers or professional content creators and those with a few dozen followers run by hobbyists had videos taken down and appeals denied. It is an example of another moderation controversy surrounding a tech giant and how it approaches gun content on its platform. It may spurn further distrust among gun owners looking to post or consume videos and could invite further scrutiny from already tech-skeptical Republicans who just took control of the House of Representatives. Click here to read the rest. Fifth Circuit Rules Disarming People Subject to Domestic Violence Restraining Orders Unconstitutional By Stephen Gutowski A federal appeals court reversed a Texas man’s conviction for possessing a firearm while he was subject to a domestic violence restraining order. A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit unanimously vacated the man’s conviction on Thursday, finding the federal gun law he was charged under conflicts with the Second Amendment. The panel ruled the federal ban on the possession of guns by those subject to restraining orders did not survive the test laid out in the Supreme Court’s recent New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling. It found insufficient evidence that the restraining order restriction was part of the “historical tradition” of gun regulation, as required by Bruen. “The Government fails to demonstrate that § 922(g)(8) ‘s restriction of the Second Amendment right fits within our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Government’s proffered analogues falter under one or both of the metrics the Supreme Court articulated in Bruen as the baseline for measuring ‘relevantly similar’ analogues: ‘how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self-defense,'” Judge Cory T. Wilson wrote for the panel in United States v. Rahimi. “As a result, § 922(g)(8) falls outside the class of firearm regulations countenanced by the Second Amendment.” Click here to continue reading. Analysis: New Jersey’s Gun Laws Had a Terrible, No Good, Very Bad Week in Court [Member Exclusive] By Jake Fogleman The courtroom losses are beginning to pile up for the Garden State. New Jersey has gone 0-3 in high-profile federal court battles this year, and it’s been on the receiving end of two temporary injunctions blocking its legally suspect gun laws this week alone. First came a follow-up ruling on the state’s expansive definition of “sensitive places” where licensed gun carry is banned. U.S. District Judge Renée Marie Bumb, a George W. Bush appointee, issued her second temporary restraining order against the state in a matter of weeks. She found that the location restrictions in the state’s Bruen-response bill, modeled after a similar law passed in New York, failed to comport with the country’s historical tradition of regulated gun carry. If you're a Reload Member, click here to read more. If not, join today for exclusive access! New Jersey’s Gun Industry Liability Law Blocked by Biden Appointee By Stephen Gutowski Gun-control advocates won’t be able to sue gun companies over the lawful manufacture and sale of firearms in New Jersey. That’s the order U.S. District Court Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, a Biden appointee, handed down on Tuesday. The judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of New Jersey’s “public nuisance” law, Assembly Bill 1765, that sought to allow residents to sue gun makers who don’t “establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls regarding its manufacture, sale, distribution, importing, and marketing of gun related products.” The judge sided with the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), an industry trade group, and found the state law violates the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects companies from liability for the criminal use of their products by third parties. “Congress’s intent here is clear. ‘The PLCAA’s purpose is to ‘prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others When the product functioned as designed and intended.’ A1765 does just the opposite,” Judge Quraishi wrote in his opinion. “To read A1765 as fitting within the predicate exception would run afoul of the goals of the PLCAA and would, in fact, ‘gut the PLCAA’ as NSSF suggests.” Click here to read more. Federal Judge Blocks New Jersey’s Latest Gun-Free Zones By Jake Fogleman For the second time in under a month, a federal judge has ruled that New Jersey’s attempt to rebuff the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen is likely unconstitutional. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Renée Marie Bumb issued a second temporary restraining order against “sensitive places” restrictions within New Jersey’s Bruen-response law. The state will now have to allow lawful gun carry in parks, beaches, recreational facilities, libraries, bars, restaurants, private vehicles, and casinos. The order also blocks enforcement of the state’s de facto ban on carrying in publicly-accessible private property; unless the owner indicates no guns are allowed. “The State may regulate conduct squarely protected by the Second Amendment only if supported by a historical tradition of firearm regulation,” Judge Bumb wrote in her order. “Here, Defendants cannot demonstrate a history of firearm regulation to support these challenged provisions for which they have demonstrated Article III standing. The threat of criminal prosecution for exercising their Second Amendment rights, as the holders of valid permits from the State to conceal carry handguns, constitutes irreparable injury on behalf of Plaintiffs, and neither the State nor the public has an interest in enforcing unconstitutional laws.” Click here to continue reading. State Court Rejects Illinois ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Appeal By Stephen Gutowski Illinois’ lawmakers were served another defeat in state court over their latest gun restrictions on Tuesday. A three-judge panel ruled two to one against the state’s appeal of an order blocking enforcement of its new ban on “assault weapons” and magazines that hold more than 10 or 15 rounds, depending on the gun they’re used in. The panel left the lower court’s Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which only affects the 850 plaintiffs listed in the suit, in place. The court ruled the state’s ban infringed on residents’ gun rights under the federal and state constitutions. “Defendants have argued that plaintiffs have no right in need of protection and are unlikely to succeed on the merits; however, defendants’ arguments were based on an erroneous perception that plaintiffs’ right to keep and bear arms was not a fundamental right,” Justice Barry Vaughan wrote for the majority in Accuracy Firearms v. Pritzker. “As such, we find that plaintiffs’ allegation that the Act infringes on their rights as Illinois citizens to keep and bear arms is a sufficiently alleged right in need of protection.” Click here to read the full piece. Podcast: Bearing Arms’ Cam Edwards on Pistol Brace Ban Updates and ATF Inconsistency By Stephen Gutowski This week we have one of my favorite guests back on the show: Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms. There are few people who follow gun politics as closely as Cam. And even fewer are capable of the intelligent analysis he commonly offers. So, I’m glad he’s back to talk about the complicated ins and outs of the ATF’s recent rule proposals and public statements. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss a new Secret Service report detailing strategies to prevent mass killings. The show is available on your favorite podcasting app or by clicking here. Video of the episode is also available on our YouTube channel. As always, Reload Members get early access on Sunday. Everyone else can listen or watch on Monday. Analysis: Whole Community Effort Needed to Combat Mass Shootings [Member Exclusive] By Jake Fogleman A new U.S. Secret Service report adds to a growing body of research documenting common behavior patterns among mass attackers. It also highlights the potential for community intervention, both broadly and on a small scale, to make a real difference. The National Threat Assessment Center’s (NTAC) report published Wednesday analyzed 173 “mass attacks”—defined as incidents in which three or more people, not including the attacker, were harmed in public or semi-public places—between 2016 and 2020. The report uncovered many patterns linking various attackers to one extent or another, but what most perpetrators had in common was striking. More than three-quarters of the individuals who committed mass attacks exhibited concerning behaviors or shared alarming communications before carrying them out. Nearly two-thirds exhibited behaviors or shared communications that were so concerning “they should have been met with an immediate response,” according to the researchers. Roughly 60 percent of the attackers exhibited behavior that caused others to fear for the safety of the attacker, themselves, or the broader public. Often these concerning behaviors manifested in the form of expressed threats, actively making plans to carry out an attack, more minor acts of violence, or harassing behaviors. For anyone who has spent time following the news coverage of these all-too-frequent incidents, the study results likely won’t come as much of a surprise. Time after time, it seems reports come out of the woodwork only after an incident has already transpired, revealing troubling details from an attacker’s past that, in hindsight, should have made it all too clear what was bound to happen. But this new report makes clear that such perception is more than just anecdotal. If you’re a Reload Member, click here to read more. If not, join today to read the whole piece! Outside The Reload California aims to limit concealed weapons. This time will it stick? | The Mercury News | By John Woolfolk What’s more common: A ‘good guy’ without a gun — or with one? | The Washington Post | By Glenn Kessler Mass shootings lead to widening divide on state gun policies | AP News | By David A. Lieb New Gun Research Center Funded by Firearms Executives Aims to Diversify Debate | The Wall Street Journal | By Cameron McWhirter and Zusha Elinson First hate crimes, now mass shootings. For some Asian Americans, feeling safe means owning a gun | The LA Times | By Jeong Park, Hailey Branson-Potts, and Anh Do VISA CEO says merchant codes for gun stores aren't necessary | Bearing Arms | By Cam Edwards ‘Gun Safety’ Isn’t the Issue | The Dispatch | By Kevin Williamson Federal judge rules wrongful death lawsuit against Kyle Rittenhouse can proceed | AP News | By Scott Bauer
  2. Sedalia Dave At His Last Doctors Appointment......
  3. About 6-7 years ago, I had the problem with a brick of Winchester primers in non-modified Ruger OMV 44-40s. Winchester had me send them some rounds for testing, & said it was the Rugers (e.g. light primer strikes) and not the Winchester Primers. Funny thing about this is they apologized to me for the problem, reimbursed me for the brick of primers and gave me $50 in additional gift certificates. I have not aquired any Winchester primers since, just Federal or CCI. Because this happened with Ruger OMVs I don't think it is limited to a specific brand of firearm. Charlie Forgot to add that I stopped into Scheel's last evening & ended up with 2 bricks of Federal Match small rifle primers - these work perfect for the 32 H&R Mags
  4. We have new updates on the largest gun registration effort in American history. The ATF told The Reload its pistol brace ban will be published in the federal register on January 31st, beginning the 120-day grace period for owners of braced guns to comply with the ban. The agency also added additional clarity on a disputed part of its ban. It said those with imported braced firearms will be able to dismantle or register them instead of having to destroy or turn them in. Tragedies marred the beginning of this week as a pair of mass shootings hit communities in California. Those incidents bring new significance to a report from the Secret Service examining the details of dozens of previous attacks. It found there is no single profile for who will carry out one of these attacks, but the vast majority of perpetrators exhibited warning signs in the lead-up to the event. Guest Contributor Konstadinos Moros looks at California Governor Gavin Newsom's use of gun death rate to argue the recent mass shootings in his state should lead to Congress adopting its gun laws. He argues the stat is misleading and California's laws haven't had the positive impact the governor claims. The legal landscape saw significant developments this week too. Tennessee was forced to agree to allow 18-to-20-year-olds to apply for concealed carry permits, and it had to pay the legal fees of the gun-rights group that sued over the previous ban. A state judge partially blocked enforcement of Illinois's "assault weapons" ban. And I explain why the Supreme Court's decision not to jump into the New York gun-carry case shouldn't surprise gun-rights advocates or even worry them much at this point. Plus, pistol brace inventor Alex Bosco joins the podcast to give his take on the ban. ATF Says Imported Braced-Guns Can be Registered, Rule to be Published Next Week By Stephen Gutowski The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) clarified its position on some of the millions of firearms affected by the upcoming pistol brace ban. The agency said owners of imported guns equipped with pistol braces can register or dismantle them instead of destroying or turning them in. It said assembling a pistol-braced gun, most models of which the ATF now considers rifles, from more imported parts than allowed by section 922(r) of federal law is illegal. However, the law doesn't affect the possession of those guns by people who did not assemble them, and they can be treated the same way as non-imported braced guns under the new rule. "[A] person with an imported pistol that was subsequently equipped with a 'stabilizing brace' will have the same options as anyone else under the final rule," the agency explains in a soon-to-be-released question-and-answer section on its website. "Should that person choose to register the firearm, no further modification of the firearm with domestic parts is required." Click here to read more. Report: Vast Majority of 'Mass Attackers' Exhibit Concerning Behavior Prior to Incident By Jake Fogleman More than three-quarters of the individuals who committed "mass attacks" exhibited concerning behaviors or shared alarming communications before carrying them out. That's the finding of a new U.S. Secret Service report released Wednesday. The agency's National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) analyzed 173 mass attacks between 2016 and 2020—incidents in which three or more people, not including the attacker, were harmed in public or semi-public places—to identify commonalities between the incidents that might be used to help prevent future attacks. The report found that nearly two-thirds of attackers during the study period had a history of making violent threats, and 64 percent had a history of criminal charges or arrests. The report arrives on the heels of two separate mass killings in California that claimed the lives of 18 people in three days. The findings reveal that in most cases, attackers are on the radar of other community members or law enforcement. It suggests that more can be done to identify potential threats and stop future attacks. Click here to continue reading. Analysis: California's Gun Death Rate Isn't as Impressive as California Governor Newsom Implies [Member Exclusive] By Konstadinos Moros The reaction from Governor Gavin Newsom (D.) to two horrifying mass shootings terrorizing Californians in the same week was swift. He called for Congress to adopt California's gun laws as a solution. But there are significant problems with that argument. Newsom argued the state's laws, while they have failed to stop every mass shooting, are the reason the state has a lower "gun death" rate than many other states. He notes California's gun death rate is even 37 percent lower rate than the national average, an example of why the nation should respond to California's mass shootings by adopting California's gun laws. "The Second Amendment is becoming a suicide pact," Newsom told CBS News while insisting he has respect for gun owners. "I just want to take away weapons of war that are illegal in California and should be illegal across the United States." But gun deaths, also a popular stat among gun-control advocates and organizations, are a poor way to judge the impact of gun laws on preventing mass killings or murder. That's because it lumps together murders, accidental deaths, and suicides. And suicides are the most common form of gun death, making up more than half of gun deaths in the past two years and 2/3rds in the years preceding the recent national spike in murders. If you're a Reload member, click here to read more. If not, join today for exclusive access! Tennessee Forced to Allow 18-to-20-Year-Olds to Carry Guns, Pay Gun-Rights Group's Legal Fees By Jake Fogleman Young adults in the Volunteer State will soon enjoy the same gun-carry rights as their peers over the age of 21. Attorneys for the state of Tennessee entered into an Agreed Order in federal court on Monday with gun rights advocates who sued the state over its prohibition on adults under the age of 21 carrying firearms. The order stipulates that the state's previous carry ban for young adults was unconstitutional and will no longer be enforced. It also forces the state to pay nearly $50,000 in legal fees. "The Challenged Scheme regulating the possession and carrying of handguns that restricts individuals aged 18 years old to 20 years old from carrying handguns or obtaining permits to carry handguns on the basis of age alone violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution," the order reads. "Defendant and his officers, agents, employees, and all others acting under his direction and control, are permanently enjoined from implementing or enforcing the Challenged Scheme to prevent individuals aged 18 years old to 20 years old from carrying handguns or obtaining permits to carry handguns on the basis of age alone." Click here to read the full piece. Podcast: Pistol Brace Inventor Alex Bosco on the ATF's New Ban By Stephen Gutowski This week, we're diving into the details of the ATF's pistol brace ban. That's why we have pistol brace inventor and SB Tactical owner Alex Bosco on the show. He gave his view on how many guns will be affected by the ban, whether any braced guns avoid the prohibition, and the legal case he's building against it. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about local law enforcement resisting the Illinois "assault weapons" ban, as well as my trip to SHOT Show in Las Vegas, which featured a speech from ATF Director Steve Dettelbach. You can listen to the show on your favorite podcasting app or by clicking here. Video of the episode is available on our YouTube channel. As always, Reload Members get access on Sunday, and the show goes public on Monday. State Judge Blocks Illinois' Assault Weapons' Ban By Stephen Gutowski A state judge has found Illinois' new ban on AR-15s and similar firearms violates residents' constitutional rights. Judge Joshua Morrison granted a temporary restraining order to the plaintiffs in Accuracy Firearms v. Pritzker on Friday. He found the state's ban on so-called assault weapons, including popular guns like the AR-15 and AK-47, violates several sections of the state constitution and also contradicts the latest gun-rights ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). "The Court finds the Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success in relation to the equal protection clause of the Illinois Constitution and that the Defendant's use of criteria, especially those that is not evenly applied violates the face of the Supreme Court's findings in New York State Rifle Association, Inc v. Bruen [SIC]," Judge Morrison wrote in his decision. Click here to read the rest. Analysis: Why isn't the Supreme Court Intervening in the New York Gun-Carry Cases? [Member Exclusive] By Stephen Gutowski It's understandable that gun-rights advocates are disappointed by the Supreme Court's recent decision not to get involved in two cases against New York's latest gun restrictions, but they shouldn't be surprised or particularly concerned by it. On Thursday, the Court declined to issue an emergency order sidestepping the Second Circuit and put a stay on enforcement of New York's new gun dealer security requirements and ammunition background check system. Plaintiffs in Gazzola v. Hochul argued the law's implementation could cause them to shutter their businesses, and they asked the justices to block it while their case makes its way through the legal process. So, when the Court decided not to act, the plaintiffs were understandably dismayed. "We are disappointed that not one of the nine justices saw fit to grant the plaintiffs some stay of enforcement of the new laws against them," Paloma Capanna, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told Fox News Digital. "We are challenging the ability of the state of New York to target dealers in firearms in the lawful stream of commerce, to put them out of business, which is what the new laws will do. So it really was unfortunate to see that we couldn't get any emergency temporary injunction against those laws." That came just over a week after the Court decided not to intervene in Antonyuk v. Nigrelli, which challenges New York's expansive post-Bruen gun-carry restrictions. In that case, plaintiffs wanted the Court to lift a Second Circuit stay against a district judge's ruling that the restrictions are unconstitutional. But the Court didn't do that either. It's easy to see why this might cause consternation among gun owners, especially in the wake of the Supreme Court issuing the landmark Second Amendment ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen just six months ago. And New York's Bruen response law was passed to rebuke that very ruling. Most of the controversial provisions appear plainly unconstitutional under the standard set in Bruen, as several lower court judges have already found. The cases against many of the provisions look like they may be slam dunks. At the very least, they seem to justify delaying enforcement of the law while the legal fight is worked out. However, that's not usually how the Supreme Court operates. Even beyond the Second Amendment, the Court often doesn't follow up landmark rulings with further intervention on the topic. At least not right away. If you're a Reload Member, click here to read more. If not, join today to read the whole piece! Outside The Reload New York seeks to test Supreme Court on gun control | The Hill | By Zach Schonfeld Amid a Plague of Shootings, Bystanders Become Heroes | The New York Times | By Julie Bosman, Mitch Smith, Eliza Fawcett and Serge F. Kovaleski Illinois appeals judge's restraining order on gun ban | AP News | By John O'Connor ATF website offers incorrect guidance on NFA compliance | Bearing Arms | By Ryan Petty Gun used in Monterey Park massacre an assault weapon under state law, known to jam | L.A. Times | By Libor Jany, James Queally, and Richard Winton When Should Cops Be Allowed to Stop Gun-Carriers? | National Review | By Robert VerBruggen
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.