Jump to content

Charlie T Waite

Territorial Governors
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Charlie T Waite

  2. NEW YORK, NY (October 24, 2022) – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that, because of New York’s defeat in NYSRPA v. Bruen, New York City’s subsequent elimination of the city’s “proper cause” requirement, and the acquisition of unrestricted carry permits by all individual plaintiffs, the parties in its Greco v. NYC litigation filed a stipulation to dismiss the case as moot. The stipulation, which was approved today by Southern District of New York Judge Lewis Liman, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org. “Make no mistake, the satisfactory outcome of this case is just the beginning of the larger fight to restore the rights of all New Yorkers,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “FPC Law is still involved in multiple active suits against New York, and will continue to drag New York lawmakers kicking and screaming into compliance with the dictates of the constitution.” FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation.
  3. SAN DIEGO, CA (October 24, 2022) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) announced the filing of a supplemental brief in their Jones v. Bonta lawsuit, which challenges California’s age-based ban on firearms purchases by peaceable adults under the age of 21. The Brief, which was requested by Judge M. James Lorenz of the Southern District of California after the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded Jones in light of NYSRPA v. Bruen, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org. “The Bruen decision affirmed the constitutional framework established by District of Columbia v. Heller in deciding Second Amendment claims,” argues the Brief. “Here, California bans 18- to 20-year-old adults from purchasing all semiautomatic centerfire rifles and long guns. The State’s action constitutes a ban on commonly owned, bearable arms. Under the proper framework established by Heller and affirmed by Bruen, California’s ban on 18-to-20-year-olds purchasing firearms is unconstitutional.” “Not only is California’s ban targeting 18- to 20-year olds unconstitutional, it devalues their lives and their ability to protect themselves and their loved ones,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC’s Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation. “18- to 20- year olds in California can get married, start a family, and sign a mortgage, and then fly off to fight a war, but California will not trust or allow them to buy a firearm in order to defend their own lives, their families, or their homes.” FPC and FPCAF are joined in this lawsuit by the California Gun Rights Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation.
  4. Beginning last year, NRA-ILA has been keeping readers up to date with an ongoing effort by the Mexican government and domestic gun control supporters to attack the American firearms industry. According to a new report from Politico, this conspiracy to leverage a foreign sovereign to undermine an American constitutional right has become more formalized in recent days with the creation of a new advocacy group named Global Action on Gun Violence. Back in August 2021, the Mexican government filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts against the most prominent U.S. gun manufacturers alleging that these heavily regulated businesses were somehow responsible for Mexico’s violent crime problem. The suit was the international version of a domestic gun control strategy from the 1990s, when anti-gun jurisdictions and avaricious plaintiff’s attorneys teamed up in an effort to bankrupt the U.S. firearms industry by holding companies accountable for the third-party criminal misuse of their products. This wild departure from long-established tort law eventually necessitated Congress enacting the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). In an attempt to get around the PLCAA, the Mexican suit argued that the U.S. federal courts should ignore both U.S. law and the Second Amendment and instead rule against the gun companies under the laws of Mexico. Some observers will find it ironic that Mexico has sought to exert sovereignty over foreign businesses in this manner when the Mexican government has failed to exercise sovereignty over its own purported territory. A 2020 Washington Post item stated, In a classified study produced in 2018 but not previously reported, CIA analysts concluded that drug-trafficking groups had gained effective control over about 20 percent of Mexico, according to several current and former U.S. officials. The Mexico suit was filed with the help of handgun prohibition group Brady (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.), and specifically longtime Brady counsel Jonathan Lowy. At the time, NRA pointed out, “That Brady would ally itself with a foreign government that has become virtually synonymous with corruption proves just how detached the gun control movement has become from the values and traditions that define America.” Sadly, the anti-gun radicals at Brady weren’t the only Americans to collaborate with the Mexican regime. More than a dozen states and the District of Columbia filed an amicus brief supporting Mexico’s lawsuit. Those states included, Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Oregon. Further, a separate amicus brief signed by more than two dozen district attorneys was filed in support of the Mexico lawsuit. Among the signees to that brief were some of the most anti-gun and soft-on-crime district attorneys in the country. The list included DAs Chesa Boudin (San Francisco), Kim Foxx (Cook County/Chicago), George Gascon (L.A. County), and Larry Krasner (Philadelphia). Sanity prevailed on September 30, when U.S. District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV dismissed Mexico’s lawsuit in its entirety. In doing so, Saylor cited the PLCAA and rejected the plaintiffs’ bizarre Mexican law scheme, stating, “This Court does not have the authority to ignore an act of Congress. Nor is its proper role to devise stratagems to avoid statutory commands, even where the allegations of the complaint may evoke a sympathetic response.” Mexico has announced that they intend to appeal the decision. Despite their Massachusetts defeat, on October 10 the Mexican government filed a second federal suit in Arizona against five U.S. gun dealers. Once again, the suit was filed with the assistance of Jonathan Lowy, this time working on behalf of the new Global Action on Gun Violence. The Politico piece explained that the new group intends to target the firearm industry on behalf of foreign governments, noting, “The group, which has not yet formally launched, intends to represent foreign governments or others rallying against the gun industry in lobbying and litigation.” The item went on to state, Earlier this month, Global Action on Gun Violence quietly filed paperwork with the DOJ under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, with Lowy and Elizabeth Burke, who was also an attorney at Brady, registering as agents of Mexico. Further, the group’s board is set to include former Brady Legal Action Project Director Dennis Henigan. It is one thing for the Mexican government to attempt to deflect from its own shortcomings by blaming its neighbor to the north for its considerable woes. It is entirely another for American gun control advocates to become the agents of a foreign power as part of a campaign to undermine freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Your NRA will be will be following further developments in this increasingly shameful episode and will continue working to ensure the businesses that make the robust exercise of Second Amendment rights possible don’t fall victim to foreign governments and their domestic collaborators.
  5. There seems to be some controversy brewing near our border, but not the one you might be thinking about. About 120 miles south of our northern border, at a September gun show held in Great Falls, Montana, people noticed something that seemed odd. According to a report from Montana’s Independent Record, the Cascade County Sheriff’s Office received “a complaint that a man at the Montana Expo Park (where a gun show was being held) was acting suspiciously by taking photographs of vehicles.” When officers arrived, including Cascade County Sheriff Jesse Slaughter, and the man in question was contacted, he told the officers that he was a police officer from another city, and he was working with a task force running an ongoing surveillance operation of gun shows in the United States, allegedly in an effort “to catch Canadians smuggling illegal firearms into Canada.” He was even working with a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agent, who was also on the Montana Expo Park property and was tracked down. Of course, there’s nothing unusual about federal law enforcement partnering with state and/or local law enforcement to thwart criminal activity. There are countless examples of these kinds of task forces putting any number of law enforcement agencies together to work in concert. But this time was a little different. You see, the other city is the City of Lethbridge, which is in Canada, and the task force was apparently organized by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). What brought attention to the Lethbridge police officer was that he was reported to be in a black SUV with Canadian license plates, driving around the property while photographing vehicles. Usually, if US authorities are going to give foreign agents permission to operate in the US, they will notify the local authorities. After all, one wouldn’t want an international incident to arise because local officials stop, arrest, or have an even more troubling interaction with a representative of a foreign government conducting what they may believe to be illegal, clandestine operations on US soil. The ATF agent told Sheriff Slaughter that his office had contacted city police about the operation, but the property is under the jurisdiction of Cascade County, which falls under Sheriff Slaughter’s purview. If the ATF’s intent was to notify the appropriate local law enforcement, you would think it would take the time to figure out under which jurisdiction the operation was being run. Sheriff Slaughter’s report on the incident noted, “I told (the ATF agent) that because he did not tell me about the operation, they were no longer allowed to continue conducting it.” This did not seem to sit well with federal agent, as the report added, “(The ATF Agent) then stated he does not have to tell me, insinuating that because he is a federal agent he is not required to do so.” In spite of the federal agent’s attempt to seemingly flex his federal muscles, Sheriff Slaughter said both the ATF agent and the Canadian police officer left. What, exactly, was going on remains unclear. Sheriff Slaughter pointed out that the two law enforcement officers gave different descriptions of the operation taking place. The Canadian operative claimed the purpose was to catch Canadians who were trying to smuggle firearms from the US into Canada, while the ATF agent said the investigation was focused on a specific American. What is also unclear is why the ATF did not contact Sheriff Slaughter, but claims it did contact the city police, even though they did not have jurisdiction over the area where the operation took place. Surely the federal government has the resources to figure out a relatively simple issue like jurisdiction. And although there is no requirement that local officials be notified of an ongoing federal operation, as Sheriff Slaughter pointed out, “They’re supposed to, it’s a courtesy thing. They need to tell us what’s going on, because we’re responsible for that jurisdiction.” We have seen ATF used by the current administration as a political and propaganda tool to further anti-gun efforts when it cannot accomplish what it wishes to do through legislation. Therefore, it would come as no surprise to see the agency avoid contacting the Cascade County Sheriff intentionally when conducting a firearm-related investigation in his jurisdiction. Especially if there was anything remotely questionable about that investigation. If the investigation was a legitimate law enforcement exercise, focused on potential criminal activity and based on actual evidence of the same, then that’s fine. But the Canadian operative seemed to imply the task force he worked for was looking at gun shows—plural—in the US, which begins to sound more like a fishing expedition. And if the ATF is part of this Canadian task force, to whom does it answer or report? Again, perhaps this is all legitimate; but on the chance that it is not, or there is even a small aspect of it that might be questionable, it warrants further exploration. Maybe Congress needs to ask for some details from ATF about allowing foreign law enforcement to operate in the US. Especially when it could involve issues related to the Second Amendment.
  6. There’s a big gap between what the progressive elite preaches as their “transformative vision of public safety” for you and me, and what many of them see as appropriate for their special selves. We’ve noted before that Chicago’s anti-gun Mayor Lori Lightfoot is protected by Unit 544, a special police security detail of approximately 71 officers, in addition to the mayor’s existing “separate personal bodyguard detail” of 20 officers. According to the mayor, the personal police force is necessary because, at the time the unit was created in 2020, there was “a significant amount of protests all over the city, and some of them targeted my house.” Ex-mayor of New York City and failed presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, who bankrolls the gun control group Everytown and “supports every single active effort to restrict gun ownership that exists,” was guarded by NYPD police officers as mayor and is now protected by private security. “I have a security detail, I pay for it all myself, and . . . they’re all retired police officers who are very well trained in firearms.” Gun control activists who don’t have a police department at their disposal can do as billionaire Bloomberg does and hire their own professional bodyguards. Stacey Abrams, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee for Georgia, has recently come under fire for having spent over $1.2 million on private security since December. She has pledged to undo several pro-gun laws passed in the state, including the constitutional carry law, while pushing for new restrictions on responsible gun owners. In addition to her commitment to gun control, Ms. Abrams is reported to sit on the board of a “far-left foundation that has repeatedly called for the defunding of police,” although she has lately said she does not support such defunding. Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), who as a candidate was endorsed by Everytown as a “strong gun safety champion,” has embraced, also, the progressive agenda’s cornerstone of defunding the police. Even as the “phrase ‘defund the police’ has become politically radioactive” for Democrats, Ms. Bush remains adamant. In an interview this month with CNN, on being asked, “would you still double down or use that slogan, ‘defund the police?’” she responded, “Absolutely.” Ms. Bush has reportedly spent almost $500,000 in campaign funds on her private security. She has alleged that the outlay is necessary because (among other things) of “racist attempts made against my life,” including, even as a member of Congress, police officers threatening her life. “I have private security because my body is worth being on this planet right now… So suck it up and defunding the police has to happen.” Unlike the vast majority of Americans, billionaires and celebrity politicians protected by their own designated police officers or the proverbial “hired guns” don’t have to worry about how the restrictive gun control laws they champion actually affect ordinary citizens. For instance, the same protests and violence that prompted the creation of Mayor Lightfoot’s special Unit 544 left less exalted residents across Chicago vulnerable. A report by the city’s Office of Inspector General describes how the onset of the 2020 events found the Chicago Police Department “outflanked, under-equipped, and unprepared to respond to the scale of the protests and unrest with which they were met in the downtown area and across Chicago’s neighborhoods.” In a 2021 interview by the Washington Post, Ms. Bush claimed (while “two security agents trailed her along the tour through St. Louis”), that her policies wouldn’t impact poor communities. “You call 911, they will still be the same as what it is now... If you have violence happening and you call the police, they will still show up.” Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt (R), though, recently described Bush’s “defund the police” remarks as “incredibly irresponsible” and a “slap in the face” to crime victims. She “told everybody else suck it up” while “St. Louis had a 50-year high in homicides last year, Kansas City had an all-time high in homicides last year— those two cities are actually moving forward with the funding police departments. So this isn’t just rhetoric anymore, this is reality here in the heartland…We’re never going to defund the police here in Missouri, not now, not ever if I have anything to do with it.” To be clear – we aren’t taking issue with these politicians (or anyone else) spending tens or hundreds of thousands of their own dollars on whatever level of private security they feel is appropriate. It’s that imposing gun control from inside their own safety bubble means that less famous or financially blessed individuals are left with limited access to a lawfully acquired firearm or an adequately staffed police force when the need arises. So, while Cori Bush quite rightly maintains that her “body is worth being on this planet,” it’s not so clear that she and her progressive compatriots feel the same about yours.
  7. Thanks John, I was hoping I can find them in 20GA without buying a whole box. It seems no-one has 3 to spare so I will have to switch everything to 12GA, and take you up on your offer - PM sent Charlie
  8. As the title says, I am in search of 3 Brass 20 GA shells for a project I am working on. If you have 3 to spare PM me and let me know the cost. Charlie
  9. New polling from this week shows Americans are thinking much less about gun politics than they were this summer. Despite a spate of historic gun stories over the past few months, voters' interest in gun policy is cratering just as the election season enters its home stretch. The latest New York Times poll shows just one percent of Americans now list it as their top issue, a significant decline from earlier this year. I do my best to explain what may be driving this decline. Some of it is likely the result of the typical cresting and receding of support for gun control in the wake of a high-profile mass shooting. But there are a few unique factors at play too. Of course, that doesn't mean the gun groups have given up on trying to persuade voters. The NRA is out with new ads in key battleground races. Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman takes a look at the message the gun-rights group is going with. The courts continue to be extremely active in the wake of the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. A federal judge has blocked part of New York's latest gun-carry law, the second to do so in as many weeks. A California judge stopped the state from sharing gun owners' private information with researchers. And I take a close look at a federal judge's decision to strike down the federal ban on possession of guns with destroyed serial numbers. Gun-rights lawyer Kostas Moros also joins me on the podcast this week to go over our piece detailing what second-generation Americans thought of the Second Amendment and whether it applied to individuals. Plus, I explain why I decided to join CNN as a gun analyst. file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Packages/microsoft.windowscommunicationsapps_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/msohtmlclip/clip_image001.png Why I’m Joining CNN as an Analyst By Stephen Gutowski I have signed a contract to be a contributor with CNN. I’m excited about the opportunity to work with many solid reporters and reach a new audience. I’ve long criticized how major media outlets have reported on firearms. A severe lack of knowledge about guns, gun owners, gun laws, and even gun politics is endemic throughout the industry. But I’ve also long been an advocate of engaging with other reporters to help foster a more informed media. I’ve contributed stories to outlets across the political spectrum. I’ve given advice to writers at every one of the top news outlets in the country and even taken many to the range for first-hand experience. So, I’m glad to get a chance to put that worldview into practice on a greater scale than ever before. Click here to read more. file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Packages/microsoft.windowscommunicationsapps_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/msohtmlclip/clip_image001.png Poll: Americans Lose Interest in Guns as Midterms Approach By Stephen Gutowski Only a tiny percentage of Americans view gun policy as the top issue in the upcoming midterm elections. That’s according to a new poll from The New York Times and Siena College released on Monday. Just one percent of likely voters told the paper guns were their top priority less than a month away from the election. That means the issue has dropped eight points from the same poll back in July, putting it in a tie for 14th-most important. Independents rated the issue slightly higher in importance, with two percent listing gun policies as their top concern. Biden voters reported the same level of concern. However, those who listed guns as a top concern during the summer were more likely to prefer Democrats control Congress, and the decline of the issue combined with the increase in concern over issues Republicans are viewed more favorably on, such as inflation, could signal bad news for the president’s party. Click here to read the full piece. file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Packages/microsoft.windowscommunicationsapps_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/msohtmlclip/clip_image001.png Analysis: Why Have Americans Lost Interest in Gun Politics Ahead of the Elections? [Member Exclusive] By Stephen Gutowski Only one in a hundred Americans list guns as their top priority just a few weeks out from the midterm elections. That’s a significant decline from what The New York Times found in the aftermath of the Uvalde shooting this summer. YouGov’s two most recent polls put the number closer to five percent but saw a similar decline in interest. Given the advantage Democrats held among those listing it as their top issue, the decline of the gun issue coupled with the rise of economic issues Americans favor Republicans on could prove politically significant. And it’s not just polling signaling sliding interest in gun politics. You can see it in the midterm ads too. Groups on both sides of the gun debate have diversified their messaging to include issues beyond gun policy. But why is that decline happening in the first place? If you're a Reload Member, click here to read more. If not, join today at 20% OFF for exclusive access! file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Packages/microsoft.windowscommunicationsapps_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/msohtmlclip/clip_image001.png Federal Judge Blocks New York’s Church Gun Ban By Stephen Gutowski The Empire State’s latest gun-control law was dealt another setback in federal court today. Judge John Sinatra of the Western District of New York, a Trump appointee, found the state’s total ban on licensed gun-carry inside places of worship is unconstitutional. He issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the provision to go into effect immediately and remain in effect until he decides on a request for a preliminary injunction. Judge Sinatra said the state’s gun ban in churches violates the Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers. “Here, absent a TRO, Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights are being violated,” he wrote. “Law-abiding citizens are forced to forgo their Second Amendment rights to exercise their First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion, or vice versa. And they are to give up their rights to armed self-defense outside the home, being left to the mercy of opportunistic, lawless individuals who might prey on them and have no concern about the place of worship exclusion.” Click here for more. file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Packages/microsoft.windowscommunicationsapps_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/msohtmlclip/clip_image001.png California Judge Blocks Law Mandating Release of Gun Owners’ Personal Information By Jake Fogleman California must stop sharing the personal identifying information of the state’s gun owners with academic researchers, a state judge has ruled. San Diego Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal issued a preliminary injunction against California’s Assembly Bill 173 on Friday. Judge Bacal noted that allowing the law to remain in effect while the case continued sufficiently threatened the privacy rights of California gun owners. “Accordingly, plaintiffs have shown that the balance of harms weighs in favor of issuing the injunction,” she noted in her order. Click here to continue reading. file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Packages/microsoft.windowscommunicationsapps_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/msohtmlclip/clip_image001.png NRA Launches New Ads in Battleground Senate Races By Jake Fogleman The country’s largest gun-rights group is ramping up its ad spending ahead of the midterm elections. The National Rifle Association’s Victory Fund (NRA-PVF), the group’s Super PAC, released a series of 15-second digital attack ads last week targeting the battleground Senate races in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada, and Wisconsin. The ads nearly universally feature attacks against the respective Democratic candidate in each race for supporting gun-control measures and being “soft on crime.” The ads mark a major push for the NRA with just three weeks left for the election. They were quietly released on the organization’s Youtube channel with little to no promotion from either the group’s website or social media pages. That stands in stark contrast to the major gun-control groups Everytown and Giffords, who have been heavily promoting their multi-million dollar ad buys. Everytown has focused much of its advertising not on guns, but on abortion instead. The NRA ads focus on firearms with the exception of its offering in Pennsylvania, which was exclusively about crime. Click here to read the full story. file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Packages/microsoft.windowscommunicationsapps_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/msohtmlclip/clip_image001.png Podcast: The History of Individual Gun Rights With Lawyer Kostas Moros By Stephen Gutowski On this week’s episode, we’re doing something a little bit different. Instead of interviewing somebody about something they wrote, I’m talking about a piece I wrote with my co-author. Gun-rights lawyer Kostas Moros joins me to talk about our look at what second-generation Americans thought of the Second Amendment. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman explains Mexico’s new suit against American gun dealers. You can listen to the show on your favorite podcasting app or by clicking here. Video of the show is also available on our Youtube channel. The show goes public every Monday. Reload Members get exclusive access a day before. file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Packages/microsoft.windowscommunicationsapps_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/msohtmlclip/clip_image001.png Analysis: Why Did a Federal Judge Toss the Ban on Destroying Gun Serial Numbers? [Member Exclusive] By Stephen Gutowski A federal judge in West Virginia found the prohibition on possessing a gun with a filed-off serial number unconstitutional. It’s another federal regulation that’s fallen to the new Bruen test, but what was the reasoning behind the decision? Judge Joseph R. Goodwin ruled against the ban on Wednesday in a criminal case. It’s another example of a law being struck without the involvement of a gun-rights group. In fact, it’s another example of a public defender winning on a Second Amendment argument in the wake of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. As required by the standard set in Bruen, Goodwin’s opinion in the case relied on the historical record. It did this despite Goodwin’s apparent distaste for the new test, a surprisingly common occurrence among the district court judges who’ve struck down federal gun provisions post-Bruen. If you’re a Reload Member, click here to read the whole thing. If not, join today for exclusive access to this piece and hundreds more! file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Packages/microsoft.windowscommunicationsapps_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/msohtmlclip/clip_image001.png Outside The Reload Why a top official at a top gun control group left to become an agent of Mexico | Politico | By Hailey Fuchs and Myah Ward San Jose gun owners to be fined up to $1,000 for breaking new firearm law | The Mercury News | By Gabriel Greschler Bill aimed at restricting concealed carry gun permits advances despite debate | New Jersey Monitor | By Dana DiFilippo California sheriff forced to disclose names of concealed carry holders to media | Bearing Arms | By Cam Edwards
  • Create New...

Important Information

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