Armed With Reason

[Lawdog]

An end of week gun issue roundup by the Bloomberg gang.

 

There is a link in the article to a missive about Justice Barrett's concurrence opinion on the Hawaii case that I found interesting.

 

Friday Finds - Armed with Reason

[Blackwater 53393]

Lots of deflection and hand wringing in that screed, but the analysis of Justice Barrett’s opinion was pretty clear and they certainly didn’t like it!!

 

Recent events in the high court have them clutching their pearls and wringing their hands!!

[Lawdog]

And they’re not sure what to do about it.

[John Kloehr]

45 minutes ago, Lawdog said:

And they’re not sure what to do about it.

 

They are coalescing around a multi-point plan.

 

First, while any general location ban or restriction will no longer fly, the approach will be to describe as many specific places as possible as sensitive places.

 

Second, increased prohibited groups at the state level. If not for purchase of firearms, to restrict who can qualify for a carry permit.

 

Third, increased training requirements, enhanced background checks, and additional requirements such as psych evaluations (sneaking may-issue back into the process), and increased costs. While exorbitant fees are already listed as abusive, the limits are not tested and running up costs to "justify" increased fees is not tested.

 

Fourth, expanding licensing requirements to even purchase and own firearms (a la FOID cards), and expand under-21 restrictions to all arms. Require reverification before each purchases. Limit the time for purchase once approved. For all licensing, shorten the period of validity, require the full process at each renewal as if it was a new application, including training and live-fire qualification.

 

Fifth, increased requirements on FFLs for licensing, record keeping, security, surveillance, and inspections.

 

Sixth, lobbying for "affirmative choice" laws. Anyplace open to the public must post either a guns banned or guns allowed sign. So have government mandate speech without mandating what the speech is, except picking one or the other.

 

Seventh, a grass-roots effort to visit businesses encouraging them to post no-guns signs.

 

Eighth, continue to lobby for laws on anything (such as car storage requirements, there are several lists of possibilities), with an eye to making each state a little different than those states bordering it. This creates "traps" for travelers. Must be in a hidden lock box or can not be in a hidden lock box, must be in glove box or console vs can not be in glove box or console. Must be visible if not on body vs can not be visible if not on body.

 

Ninth, strike down pre-emption laws where they exist, encourage local restrictions where possible.

 

Tenth, insurance requirements for carriers, owners, and dealers. Requirement to prove insurance prior to applying for any license. Providing annual proof of insurance along with a fee for state record-keeping.

 

And some others, these are some common ones I have seen discussed and presented. Don't worry about me posting this list giving them ideas, I scraped it all from their grabber pages. Some of their "ideas" have already been struck down in some districts, this does not prevent trying them in other districts. Even when they lose in court, the process itself is considered a win and like with Wolford, each loss refines and refocuses the activities.

 

Edited July 3 by John Kloehr

[Blackwater 53393]

1 hour ago, John Kloehr said:

 

They are coalescing around a multi-point plan.

 

First, while any general location ban or restriction will no longer fly, the approach will be to describe as many specific places as possible as sensitive places.

 

Second, increased prohibited groups at the state level. If not for purchase of firearms, to restrict who can qualify for a carry permit.

 

Third, increased training requirements, enhanced background checks, and additional requirements such as psych evaluations (sneaking may-issue back into the process), and increased costs. While exorbitant fees are already listed as abusive, the limits are not tested and running up costs to "justify" increased fees is not tested.

 

Fourth, expanding licensing requirements to even purchase and own firearms (a la FOID cards), and expand under-21 restrictions to all arms. Require reverification before each purchases. Limit the time for purchase once approved. For all licensing, shorten the period of validity, require the full process at each renewal as if it was a new application, including training and live-fire qualification.

 

Fifth, increased requirements on FFLs for licensing, record keeping, security, surveillance, and inspections.

 

Sixth, lobbying for "affirmative choice" laws. Anyplace open to the public must post either a guns banned or guns allowed sign. So have government mandate speech without mandating what the speech is, except picking one or the other.

 

Seventh, a grass-roots effort to visit businesses encouraging them to post no-guns signs.

 

Eighth, continue to lobby for laws on anything (such as car storage requirements, there are several lists of possibilities), with an eye to making each state a little different than those states bordering it. This creates "traps" for travelers. Must be in a hidden lock box or can not be in a hidden lock box, must be in glove box or console vs can not be in glove box or console. Must be visible if not on body vs can not be visible if not on body.

 

Ninth, strike down pre-emption laws where they exist, encourage local restrictions where possible.

 

Tenth, insurance requirements for carriers, owners, and dealers. Requirement to prove insurance prior to applying for any license. Providing annual proof of insurance along with a fee for state record-keeping.

 

And some others, these are some common ones I have seen discussed and presented. Don't worry about me posting this list giving them ideas, I scraped it all from their grabber pages. Some of their "ideas" have already been struck down in some districts, this does not prevent trying them in other districts. Even when they lose in court, the process itself is considered a win and like with Wolford, each loss refines and refocuses the activities.

 

JK pretty much has it covered!
 

That list is the prime reason to work for and hope for a broad ruling that prohibits as many of these “workarounds” as possible and expands the prohibitions on infringement of the Second Amendment!!

 

This will require much more litigation and the breadth of resulting rulings will need to be as expansive as possible.