The Mercury News reported in 2005, “Although Mayor Gavin Newsom has not taken a position, several of the city’s most liberal leaders are supporting the far-reaching ban — including District Attorney Kamala Harris and four supervisors who are listed as sponsors.”

This statement underscores the political climate in San Francisco, where liberal leaders like Harris were eager to push their anti-gun agenda.

The ban, which required city residents to surrender all handguns within a mere four months, was a blatant overreach. The New York Post noted that the measure was “approved by San Francisco voters on Election Day 2005, but struck down by state courts before it could take effect.”

It’s telling that even the courts recognized the potential for this ban to violate fundamental rights.

But Harris didn’t stop there. On September 18, 2024, Breitbart News highlighted another alarming aspect of her approach to gun control. While serving as San Francisco DA, she supported firearm storage regulations that essentially allowed police to invade the privacy of citizens’ homes under the guise of compliance checks.

Kamala Harris said, “…just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home… doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs.”

This statement is not just a threat to personal liberties; it is an outright declaration of intent to undermine the sanctity of the home.

In a time when the Second Amendment is under constant attack, Harris’s history raises serious questions about her commitment to the rights of American citizens. Is this the type of leadership we want in our government? It’s time to scrutinize the motives behind such politically motivated actions and demand accountability from those in power.

Article generated from corporate media reports.

Then, suddenly, everything went quiet.  Why?

We all know why; because this has happened so many times in the past and the outcome is now laughably predictable.  The eventual reveal of the alleged assailant’s identity derailed progressive gun control efforts.  His race and background did not fit the narrative mold that Democrats are looking for (the unhinged white male gun nut, preferably conservative).

Terry Clark Hughes Jr. already had a long rap sheet in North Carolina well before he killed four police officers this past week in Charlotte.  With multiple warrants spanning several years as well as being involved in a high speed chase in January of 2024, Hughes should have been buried in the prison system for a very long time.  Sadly, this was not the case – North Carolina is a blue state and Charlotte is a Democrat run city notorious for its soft treatment of repeat criminals.

Vi Lyles, the Mayor of Charlotte since 2017, is the city’s first black female mayor and a Democrat.  The city council is predominantly progressive and has been pursuing “defund the police” measures since 2020.  And this is the kind of political environment that you will consistently find in nearly every city in the US with high crime rates and mass shootings.  It’s not a theory, it’s a rule.

Since at least 2017 Charlotte has been suffering from what many residents call a “revolving door” when it comes to prosecutions and prisons.  Critics have accused the city leadership of engaging in “high profile arrests and low profile releases” in order to keep crime stats down.  This includes a myriad of sex offenders and violent criminals set free in the past few years, only to have them victimize even more people not long after.

For example, only two weeks ago Shareef Sudan Thompson, 36, was released from jail on bond despite facing charges in a violent stabbing last week in Uptown Charlotte.  Local journalists discovered he has an extensive criminal history and police continue to question why extremely dangerous offenders are treated with such accommodations.  City officials offer no clear answers, except to suggest that the bond system is to blame.

After the election of Vi Lyles, Charlotte soon rose through the ranks of most violent cities in the nation.  It recently jumped to a list of the top 15 cities in the US with the fastest growing homicide rates.

Leftists and gun control advocates blame guns every time there’s a high profile shooting, yet they conveniently ignore the history of the shooters and who is in charge of the cities and criminal policies the shootings take place in.  The Democrat policy of catch and release when it comes to the worst possible criminals is the biggest contributor by far to violent assaults and murders across the country.

Roughly half of all crimes in the US are perpetrated by a small percentage of offenders with pervasive criminal histories.  Locking these people up for extended sentences should be the primary solution to the problem, but progressives absolutely refuse.  Most likely, these releases are designed to obscure a growing crime epidemic in blue cities across the country.  Meaning, if we want shootings like the one in Charlotte, NC to stop, Democrat officials must be removed from power first.

It came after the NRA filed a lawsuit against the ATF, or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, arguing that the agency’s rule to reclassify the brace-equipped pistols as short-barreled rifles is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay sided with the gun rights group, arguing that the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals already concluded that the ATF pistol-brace rule “fails the logical outgrowth test and violates” the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and is “unlawful” under the act.

“The court, therefore, sees no reason why it should not consider this argument and APA claim in ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion,” the judge added. “To not do so would be exalt form over substance, particularly since the Fifth Circuit has already determined that this claim has a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits.”

The judge agreed with the NRA’s arguments that its members would be substantially harmed by the ATF rule, which was finalized in January 2023.

“Compliance with the Final Rule is not discretionary, and the NRA’s members face severe penalties for their failure to comply with the Final Rule,” Judge Lindsay wrote in the ruling last week. “Accordingly, both of the final requirements for injunctive relief are satisfied because the threatened injury to the NRA’s members outweighs the threatened harm to the Defendants, and enforcement of the Final Rule under the circumstances will not disserve the public interest.”

Pistol braces were first marketed in 2012 as a way of attaching a pistol to the shooter’s forearm, stabilizing it and making it easier to use for disabled people. However, many users found that the braces could also be placed against the shoulder, like the stock on a rifle.

The disputed ATF rule classifies some guns equipped with pistol braces as short-barrel rifles, based on several factors including their size and weight and the manufacturers’ marketing materials. Short-barrel rifles are subject to special registration, longer waiting periods for purchase, and higher taxes because officials have claimed they are potentially more dangerous than handguns.

“While firearms equipped with ‘stabilizing braces’ or other rearward attachments may be submitted to ATF for a new classification determination, a majority of the existing firearms equipped with a ‘stabilizing brace’ are likely to be classified as ‘rifles’ because they are configured for shoulder fire based on the factors described in this rule,” the ATF rule says.

Because the brace-equipped firearms will have a barrel fewer than 16 inches in length, they are “likely to be classified as short-barreled rifles” that are subject to the enhanced federal regulation, it adds.

In a 2–1 ruling last year, the Fifth Circuit found that the ATF finalized the rule without giving the public a meaningful chance to comment on it. That made it invalid under the federal Administrative Procedure Act, the panel found.

The court at the time did not immediately block enforcement of the rule, instead sending the case back to a lower court judge who found that it violated the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

“[T]he Court finds that the Government Defendants’ implementation and enforcement of the Final Rule substantially threatens to inflict irreparable constitutional harm upon the [Firearms Policy Coalition] members,” Judge Reed O’Connor wrote last year. “Absent injunctive relief, the Final Rule will impair and threaten to deprive them of their fundamental right to keep and bear commonly used arms as a means of achieving the inherently lawful ends of self-defense.”

Other than NRA members, the previous Fifth Circuit ruling allowed members of the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Gun Owners of America to not face ATF enforcement regarding the braces.

In a news release last week, the NRA, which has millions of members nationwide, said that Judge Lindsay’s order represents a big win for its members. It noted that members of the group who need to use a pistol brace will be shielded from potential ATF enforcement.

“This is a major victory for the NRA, its members, and all who believe in Second Amendment freedom,” NRA President Charles Cotton said in the release. “From day one, we vowed to fight back against President Biden and his rogue regulators—and to defeat this unlawful measure.”

Under the rule, if a person is caught using a pistol brace that has not been registered, the weapon can be seized by federal officials and the owner could face a fine of $10,000 or prison time of up to 10 years, according to the ATF. The agency says gun owners must either remove the brace from the pistol, register it as a short-barreled rifle, remove the barrel and attach a longer one, forfeit the firearm at a local ATF office, or destroy it.

The ATF or the Department of Justice have not yet issued a response to the ruling.

On Jan. 2, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) said the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has nearly 14 million records of firearms applications that failed a national background check because of “unique prohibiting events.”

According to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), out of those recorded cases, 47,930 denials were issued to illegal immigrants between Nov. 1998 and Nov. 2023.

FAIR explained that even though the 13.9 million unique prohibiting events cataloged in the FBI database represent events and not individual illegal aliens, the data still points to “large numbers of migrants in the market for firearms.”

The group warned that “the dangers posed by largely unvetted illegal aliens possessing firearms” have significantly worsened over the past three years because the administration of President Joe Biden has “presided over record numbers of new illegal aliens entering” the United States.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reported the seizure of 547,610 illegal weapons in 2023 alone, including ammunition, gun parts, silencers, scopes and even body armor. Additionally, there were 1,147,497 recorded weapons seizures in 2022. It is unclear how many of those illegal firearms were taken from the ownership of migrants.

Charlie Bollenbaugh, a gun shop owner in Arizona, said that even though there are many laws about firearms, “criminals are criminals” and that they can find ways to circumvent said laws. He added that it can also be difficult to confirm who is a U.S. citizen when they enter gun shops to purchase firearms.

However, Bollenbaugh said there is a legal process that can help shop owners filter out the ineligible buyers.

In Arizona and other states, a gun buyer must first show a valid state driver’s license or government-issued photo ID along with proof of their age and residency. The buyer must also have no felony convictions.

Bollenbaugh said if a buyer is legally allowed to purchase a firearm and they have followed all the necessary procedures, the government tells shop owners like him that it is safe to proceed with a sale.

He added that customers are unable to purchase guns if they don’t go through a valid background check and present a government-issued ID. (Related: ICE data: Illegal immigrants have less than 5% chance of getting deported under current Biden administration policies.)

Illegal gun purchases by criminals still happen despite efforts to track gun transactions

In 2019, the then-Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill that required federal background checks for all legal firearms sales and transfers.

A Republican-sponsored amendment that would have required gun dealers to report to federal immigration when an illegal immigrant tried to buy a gun was also included in the bill. However, the provision failed passage in the Senate in a heavily partisan vote.

In a written statement released after the vote, Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL), sponsor of the amendment, criticized Democrats who showed “their true colors” after they rejected the amendment.

The congressman added that they are  not interested in “preventing gun violence or stopping the illegal purchase of firearms,” only in limiting the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens “to advance their political agenda.”

In some southern border states like Texas, crime involving illegal immigrants is a serious problem.

According to the Texas Department of Public Safety (TDPS), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has reported that more than 422,000 criminal aliens were booked into Texas jails between June 1, 2011, and December 31, 2023. Out of those cases, at least 300,000 were categorized as illegal aliens by the DHS.

The TDPS also reported that illegal aliens committed more than 509,000 criminal offenses, including burglary, drug offenses, theft, sex crimes, kidnapping and homicide.

According to CBP data, there were 15,267 arrests, with 307 for weapons offenses, last 2023. Early in 2024, there were 3,104 noncitizen arrests by CBP, with 48 cases involving weapons violations.

Bollenbaugh said illegal gun purchases by criminals are common despite serious efforts by law enforcement to track all firearm transactions and serial numbers in the U.S. He added that it is also illegal for a U.S. citizen to buy a gun for someone else if they are not authorized to own a firearm, which includes illegal aliens.

A gun purchase by proxy is called a “straw purchase,” and Bollenbaugh explained that such a purchase occurs if someone knowingly fills out the 4473 and background check because they are aware that the other person who wants the gun is unable to acquire it legally.

At MPP Guns, a store in Phoenix, gun manager Henry Escobar shared that their rules are very clear when purchasing a firearm. He said that if there are customers who visit them in groups of two or more, it is their policy to have everyone in the group present a valid ID.

If a customer presents an ID from another state, they will be turned down at his shop. Escobar added that they always ask potential buyers if they are “a citizen, from out of state, or a permanent resident.”

Visit Guns.news for more stories about gun rights and ownership in America. Watch the video below for more stories about gun rights in America.

This video is from The Rogue Banshee channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

• Report: Majority of illegals benefit from welfare programs in the U.S. – many of them have “anchor babies.”
• GUN GRAB: Firearms owners protest New Mexico governor’s ban on carrying guns following absurd “public health emergency” declaration by Gov. Grisham.
• Gun owners oppose new ATF regulation that prohibits private firearm transfers: REGISTRATION paves the way for CONFISCATION.

Sources include:

• ZeroHedge.com
• TheEpochTimes.com
• Brighteon.com

On April 3, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed HB 543 into law, making his state the 26th to join the constitutional carry movement and the first state to take America officially over the halfway mark in becoming majority constitutional or permitless carry. The law took effect on July 1.

On April 25, lawmakers in Nebraska passed Legislative Bill 77 (pdf), making the Cornhusker State the 27th constitutional carry state. Over the past two decades, more than half of U.S. states have passed laws allowing for constitutional carry or permitless carry.

While the terms constitutional carry and permitless carry are often thought of as interchangeable, there are subtle differences.

As explained by the United States Concealed Carry Association, constitutional carry means the state’s laws do not prohibit its citizens who qualify to possess a firearm legally from carrying one either openly or concealed, eliminating the need, time, and expense of applying for and obtaining a permit.

While gun merchants are required to provide the U.S. government with data on who purchases a firearm—as well as what, when, and where they purchased it—going constitutional carry eliminates the requirement for a permit to carry that weapon, therefore eliminating the need to supply the United States government with data on which of those gun owners may be carrying their concealed handguns in public places.

In most states, constitutional carry is conditional. Most set the age requirement for concealed carry without a permit at 18 or 21. In states like Georgia and Oklahoma, civilians must be 21 years old to conceal carry without a permit. But members of the military can conceal carry at 18 without a permit. In April, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum signed HB 1339 (pdf) into law, which allows non-residents to concealed carry in the Peace Garden State.

Permitless carry includes constitutional carry states, as well as states like Tennessee that require individuals to meet specific qualifications, such as no DUIs in the last decade. Other states allow open carry. However, the rules vary by state.

While open carry is currently legal in Alabama, it’s illegal to open carry in a vehicle without a permit. When carrying a firearm in a vehicle the firearm must be unloaded and locked up.

In the 1800s, as noted by the National Association for Gun Rights, constitutional carry was the law of the land in all 13 of the first states in the newly formed United States of America. However, by the 20th century, 49 of America’s 50 states had enacted bans on concealed carry rights, with Vermont being the lone holdout.

According to the Supreme Court, most states passed their Constitutional or permitless carry laws starting in 2015, with a spike coming during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021 and 2022.

“Nationwide, these permitless laws don’t mean that every adult can carry a concealed firearm anywhere they want,” the court states, noting, “There are still bans on guns in specific facilities such as K-12 schools, and states typically ban people with a record of serious criminal offenses from carrying guns. But it does mean that eligible adults no longer have to go through the process of applying for a permit.”

In Pennsylvania, legislators passed Constitutional Carry in the State House on Nov. 17, 2021. At that time, Republicans controlled the State’s House and Senate. On Nov. 22, 2021, SB 565 was passed by the State Senate and handed over to Democrat Gov. Tom Wolf, who vetoed the measure on Dec. 2, 2021.

With a new Democrat governor, Josh Shapiro, and a newly minted Democrat-controlled House pushing no less than four gun control bills—HB 338, HB 731, HB 1018, and particularly HB 714—it is unlikely that the Keystone State will see constitutional carry passed any time soon.

Conversely, while Louisiana’s Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards vetoed a constitutional carry bill, SB 118, in June of 2021, the swearing-in of pro-Second Amendment Republican Gov. Jeff Landry on Jan. 8 has prompted predictions that Louisiana will join the Constitutional Carry club in 2024.

The fact that the Supreme Court saw it differently is concerning. It isn’t just about future sales of constitutionally protected firearms at risk. This law forces citizens to register their firearms before January 1st. Once registered, the damage will be done. The Supreme Court knows this and allowed it anyway. Not good. Here’s the report generated from corporate media articles by Discern Reporter…

The Supreme Court has opted to uphold an Illinois law that prohibits high-powered semiautomatic weapons. In a recent order, the Court rejected a request from the National Association for Gun Rights for a preliminary injunction, allowing the law to remain in effect.

The legislation, signed by Democratic Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker in January, imposes penalties on individuals engaged in various activities related to assault weapons or .50 caliber rifles. These activities include carrying, possessing, manufacturing, selling, delivering, importing, or purchasing such firearms. The law also extends statutory penalties to those involved in selling, manufacturing, delivering, importing, possessing, or purchasing assault weapon attachments or .50 caliber cartridges.

Furthermore, the ban encompasses kits or tools designed to enhance the fire rate of semiautomatic weapons, and it sets limitations on the purchase of specific magazines. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the law will remain in effect while it undergoes litigation in lower courts.

The National Association for Gun Rights, in response to the ruling, expressed dissatisfaction and emphasized their intention to pursue the case further. Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights, stated, “A right delayed is a right denied, and every day these gun bans are enforced is a travesty to freedom. We will be back to the Supreme Court as soon as our legal team finishes drafting our cert petition, and they will have to decide if they really meant what they said in Heller and Bruen.”

This decision aligns with a prior ruling by the 7th District U.S. Court of Appeals in November, which also declined to block the law. Earlier, in August, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the law in a 4-3 decision.

Notably, individuals who possessed firearms that would be prohibited under this law before its enactment can still retain ownership if they register the weapons with the state before January 1, 2024.

State Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) provided the final vote Democrats needed to pass Assembly Bill 28—the Gun Violence Prevention and Schools Act—passed with the two-thirds margin it required. The bill now awaits Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature before becoming law.

The final tally was 27–9 after Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil (D-Jackson) joined with Senate Republicans to vote against it. Four senators abstained.

The bill’s author, Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel (D-Los Angeles), stressed the importance of paying for gun violence prevention programs with funds generated by the new tax.

The measure passed the Assembly along party lines with a vote of 56–17. Seven additional members—six Democrats and one Republican—did not vote.

“It’s shameful that gun manufacturers are reaping record profits at the same time that gun violence has become the leading cause of death for kids in the United States,” Mr. Gabriel said in a July statement. “This bill will fund critical school safety measures and proven violence prevention programs that will save lives and protect communities across California.”

The bill now awaits Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature before becoming law. If signed, California would become the first state to impose such a tax, though some municipalities—such as Seattle and Pennsylvania—collect fees on gun sales and ammunition.

The federal government charges a similar tax on gun and ammunition sales. The United States began taxing guns and ammunition over 100 years ago and now charges 10 percent on the wholesale price of handguns and an 11 percent tax on long guns and ammunition to pay for wildlife restoration projects.

California already charges fees of $31 on gun sales to cover background checks.

The state’s tax and fee department estimates the new tax would generate $159 million from July 2024 to July 2025. If dealers pass the tax onto customers, it would generate another $14 million in state and local sales and tax revenue—$6.3 million of which would go to the state’s General Fund, according to a legislative analysis.

The bill would also establish a fund to pay for school safety and gun-violence reduction programs, counseling and support programs for victims, firearm violence research, and a court-based program to seize firearms from subjects named in domestic violence protective orders.

Former Democratic Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who survived an assassination attempt in 2011, applauded the measure’s passage.

“California just made history – again,” Giffords said in a statement posted on her website Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence. “The state continues to take on the gun lobby and pave the way for effective methods to reduce gun violence.”

Additionally, the gun-control activist organization Moms Demand Action was grateful to legislators who approved the measure.

“This bill is an innovative approach to tackling gun violence and a crucial step to improve the safety of all California families,” Cassandra Whetstone, a volunteer with the group’s California chapter, said in a Sept. 7 statement. “We are grateful to gun sense champions in the [Legislature] and community partners who worked so hard to pass this comprehensive bill that seeks to make our communities safer and target the root causes of gun violence.”

However, the National Rifle Association (NRA) opposed the new tax, saying it was not fair.

“It is unjust to saddle law-abiding gun owners with special taxes,” the NRA said on its website. “Such a measure makes it more expensive for law-abiding citizens to exercise a constitutional right and discourages them from practicing to be safe and proficient with their firearms for purposes such as self-defense, competition, and hunting.”

Sales to active or retired law enforcement officers or any law enforcement agency would be exempt from the tax.

Among the lawmakers who opposed the measure, Ms. Alvarado-Gil told colleagues on the Senate floor Thursday she researched gun violence statistics, and her findings didn’t match data included in the bill. She said her data showed drug overdose deaths far outnumbered firearm deaths in the state.

She said she also discovered that California had the lowest mass-shooting victimization rate among the most populous states.

“For me, I tend to analyze the legislation before us,” Ms. Alvarado-Gil said. “When I look at this very sensitive issue, I feel that we have a duty to legislate through facts, and not fear.”

Sen. Brian Dahle (R-Bieber) also highlighted drug overdose deaths compared to those from gun violence when arguing against the bill.

According to Mr. Newsom’s office, California’s gun death rate is 43 percent lower than the rest of the nation’s and the state is ranked No. 1 for gun safety by the gun-control advocacy organization Giffords Law Center, also associated with the former Arizona congresswoman.

The state’s gun homicide rate is also 33 percent lower than the national average, the governor’s office said in a press release Aug. 29.

Meanwhile, California saw nearly 6,000 deaths from fentanyl in 2021, according to the California Department of Public Health.

“You want to do something about deaths in California, why don’t we focus on fentanyl?” Mr. Dahle asked senators. “Why don’t we focus on fentanyl more than we focus on taxing young folks and people who enjoy their Second Amendment rights?”

Sen. Kelly Seyarto (R-Murrieta) additionally called the bill “ineffective.” He also noted that some initiatives, such as gun buyback programs, can backfire and allow people to turn firearms into being destroyed after the guns are used in crimes.

“That gun gets destroyed and there goes the evidence,” Mr. Seyarto said. “Until we start going after where those illegal guns are coming from, and holding the people who have those illegal guns accountable, you are not going to do anything.”

Democrat Sen. Bill Dodd, of Napa, also opposed the bill, he said, because duck hunters were left out of the process.

“I think there is a way to exclude these 70,000 duck hunters [from paying the tax],” Mr. Dodd said. “Frankly, I look at this as something, when you add another 11 percent [tax], all it’s going to do is decrease the number of young hunters and sooner.”

Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Merced) agreed, saying duck hunters have contributed greatly to a large wetland conservation area in her district, and placing another fee on that kind of activity was an unfair burden.

Sen. Dave Cortese (D-San Jose) also refrained from voting because he did not agree with passing the tax onto consumers. He also said everyone should be paying for gun violence programs, not just firearm owners.

“It is a pass-through to the consumer and, frankly, it’s disingenuous to say it’s anything other than that. It’s not equitable,” Mr. Cortese said. “Why aren’t all of us paying for these programs?”

The California Rifle and Pistol Association opposed the bill for the same reason.

“All of California’s law-abiding citizens benefit from efforts to implement programs which remediate the impacts of illegal gun violence upon our public, and all should equally help to fund their implementation,” the organization said in a statement. “Yet, AB 28 would unjustifiably place the entire burden of funding efforts to address illegal gun violence on the backs of law-abiding citizens who legally purchase and lawfully use firearms and ammunition.”

If approved, the firearm excise tax would begin in July 2024.

About the Author

Jill McLaughlin is an award-winning journalist covering politics, environment, and statewide issues. She has been a reporter and editor for newspapers in Oregon, Nevada, and New Mexico. Jill was born in Yosemite National Park and enjoys the majestic outdoors, traveling, golfing, and hiking.

Article cross-posted from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times.

The Supreme Court will hear a case this coming term, United States v. Rahimi, that could have significant ramifications for Second Amendment law.

The Supreme Court will hear a case this coming term challenging a federal law that prohibits individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms, which is expected to shape the future of Second Amendment law.

Zackey Rahimi, the individual at the center of the case, was involved in five shootings between December 2020 and January 2021, in one instance firing shots into the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger, according to court documents. When police obtained a warrant to search his home, they found him in possession of a firearm, a violation of a civil protective order entered against him in February 2020 for allegedly assaulting his ex-girlfriend.

A federal grand jury indicted Rahimi under a statute barring subjects of domestic violence restraining owners from possessing firearms. The Fifth Circuit agreed with Rahimi’s challenge to the law’s constitutionality in February, finding it did not fit “within our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the standard set out in the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.

“Rahimi, while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless part of the political community entitled to the Second Amendment’s guarantees, all other things equal,” the court found.

The Fifth Circuit specified in its ruling that the question at hand in the case is “not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal.” Rather, it frames it as a more nuanced question of due process.

“The question is whether a restraining order achieved through the civil law process (lower burden of proof), and not the criminal law process (higher burden of proof) is enough to strip a person’s constitutional rights when that person has not been convicted of a felony,” John Shu, an attorney and legal commentator who served in the George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations, explained to the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Rahimi was charged with multiple state offenses prior to engaging in the five shootings — including aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in November 2020 and use of a firearm in the physical assault of his girlfriend in December 2019 — but was not convicted. If Rahimi had been convicted of a felony, the question now before the Supreme Court would be a non-issue because, as Shu said, he “definitely would have had his firearms taken away” as “federal and state law is clear, in line with history and tradition, that convicted felons may not buy, own, or possess firearms.”

“There’s no question that Rahimi admitted to engaging in reprehensible, felonious, criminal acts, independent of the domestic violence allegations,” he said. “One huge question is why both the Texas state and federal criminal justice systems failed to investigate, arrest, charge, hold without bail, and eventually convict and incarcerate Rahimi for any of them, especially given that the civil restraining order was issued nearly a year before most of his misdeeds.”

Advocates against domestic violence have come out in full force against Rahimi: “For thousands of women, children, and other potential victims of domestic violence, as well as potential other victims of mass shootings by domestic abusers, the stakes are literally life or death,” a coalition of gun violence and domestic violence prevention groups told the Supreme Court in a brief.

While gun groups note Rahimi is not a sympathetic plaintiff, they bristle at efforts to frame his case as one about domestic violence.

“One of the problems with this kind of gun control is it merely disarms a dangerous individual and then leaves them at large in society,” Aidan Johnston, director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America, told the DCNF. “If Zackey Rahimi is too dangerous to own a gun, then why are we letting him run around in society to go and abuse other women?”

In divorce proceedings, Johnston said the judge will sometimes issue the kind of order applied to Rahimi to both parties in the case — the victim and the abuser.

“That’s what Gun Owners of America is fighting for in this case: to empower victims with their Second Amendment rights,” he said. “An unconstitutional, broad statute like this prohibited person category can result in the good guys getting disarmed while bad guys run free.”

Insofar as the Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies Bruen’s historical standard, legal experts say it could have an impact on pending cases challenging various gun restrictions in the lower courts.

In Florida, for example, the Eleventh Circuit is waiting for the Supreme Court’s ruling before proceeding with a lawsuit that challenges the states’ ban on individuals under 21 owning guns.

National Foundation for Gun Rights Executive Director Hannah Hill told the DCNF she anticipates the case having a big impact on “red flag” laws numerous states have passed.

“The arguments for stripping citizens of a Bill of Rights guarantee just based on a restraining order are identical to the arguments for red flagging someone,” Hill said. “The policies are very, very similar, and both should be struck down for the same reasons. You cannot deprive people of Bill of Rights guarantees unless a) they’ve committed an appropriate crime, and b) they’ve received full due process.”

Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed a “red flag” bill into law in May. Republican Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee called on the state legislature to pass one in April, weeks after the Nashville Covenant School shooting.

“Due process includes jury trial, the right to face your accusers, beyond a reasonable doubt standard of evidence, etc. – namely all the protections on the criminal justice process side, which are laid out in the Constitution and the extensive body of statutory and case law fleshing out exactly what those due process protections are,” Hill told the DCNF.

The Biden administration urged the Supreme Court on Monday to rule against Rahimi, arguing that individuals subject to domestic violence protective orders “pose an obvious danger to their intimate partners because guns often cause domestic violence to escalate to homicide and because abusers often use guns to threaten and injure their victims.” Moreover, the government notes protective orders must “satisfy strict requirements” to strip an individual of their firearms under federal law.

“An order must either contain a judicial finding that the person poses a credible threat to the physical safety of another, or explicitly prohibit the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force,” Department of Justice Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in the government’s brief. “A court must have issued the order after notice and a hearing. And the disqualification lasts only as long as the order remains in effect.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

The United States has more than 10 times the number of mass shootings than any other developed country in the world. In the study, the researchers looked at 4,011 mass shootings – defined as four or more gun deaths in the same short period, not including the shooter – between Jan. 1, 2014 and Dec. 31, 2022. (Related: RFK Jr.: Seizing lawful firearms will not STOP mass shootings.)

Illinois, with its restrictive gun laws and comparatively low gun ownership of 22 percent, had 414 mass shootings and a per capita rate of 3.6 mass shootings per million people.

Washington, D.C., despite not being a state, was included in the study and the researchers were shocked to find that the district had the highest rate of mass shootings per capita at 10.4 shootings for every one million people. This is despite the fact that the country’s capital has some of the strongest gun control laws in the nation.

For states, Louisiana had the highest rate of mass shootings per capita at 4.3 shootings per million people – less than half the per capita rate in Washington, D.C. despite the lax gun laws and 52 percent gun ownership.

Hawaii and North Dakota had zero mass shootings from 2014 to 2022. They are followed by New Hampshire, Vermont and Wyoming, which all had one each, Idaho with two and Maine with three.

Environmental and sociocultural factors more likely to lead to mass shootings

The high per capita number of mass shootings in states with supposedly strong gun laws strongly suggests that gun violence is caused more by environmental and sociocultural factors other than gun policy.

“I’m constantly asked, ‘What is public health doing about the rise in mass shootings?'” said researcher Leslie Barnard, a student working with the University of Colorado School of Medicine’s Firearm Injury Prevention Initiative.

“We want to help explain the ‘why, where and how often,’ to give people an understanding of this issue,” Barnard continued. “This study is not intended to answer every question, but highlights components to generate more hypotheses.”

In the data, Barnard and her colleagues noted that over the nine years when the 4,011 mass shootings took place, 27 percent of the mass shootings were social-related, 16 percent were crime-related, 11 percent were domestic violence-related, and just one percent were school- or work-related. A full 52 percent of the mass shooting incidents were not part of any of those categories. These 4,011 mass shootings caused over 21,000 injuries and deaths.

“From this data, we can speculate that certain communities and victims are underrepresented,” said Barnard. “Mass shootings in public places are covered by media, but 11 percent of mass shootings are domestic violence-related, and even more may never be reported or receive coverage. We ask ourselves how we can raise awareness and bring support to this issue.”

“Understanding where mass shootings occur across the country, and more about the context, such as how often these tragic events happen in homes, can point firearm injury prevention specialists toward how to prevent them,” said researcher Ashley Brooks-Russell, director of the Injury and Violence Prevention Center of the Colorado School of Public Health.

Barnard noted that future research on mass shootings should move away from taking a look at gun control, but should focus more on assessing socioeconomic, cultural, demographic and other political factors associated with incidents of mass shootings across states and address policies and social determinants that are associated with these shootings.

Learn more about gun violence incidents as well as their causes at GunViolence.news. Watch this clip from Fox News featuring Texas Rep. Beth Van Duyne discussing the actual issues impacting mass shootings.

This video is from the News Clips channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

• ATF has shut down nearly 2,000 gun stores since the implementation of its new “zero tolerance” policy.
• French rioting demonstrates how gun control laws are failing law-abiding citizens.
• Mass shooter at July 4 “Philly bloodbath” revealed as yet another angry TRANSGENDER and BLM supporter.
• Participating countries in 2026 World Cup warn fans to avoid traveling to the US due to mass shootings and killing sprees.
• Louisville bank shooter mocked the world, called for gun control before carrying out mass killings.

Sources include:

• DailyMail.co.uk
• USNews.com
• JAMANetwork.com
• Brighteon.com
• NATURAL NEWS

This latest example with New England Patriots cornerback Jack Jones is even funnier than normal because he had just Tweeted a month ago at NBA star Ja Morant for flashing his guns on social media. Twice. I’m not sure which is dumber. Here are the details from Discern News Wire:

Jack Jones, a defensive back for the New England Patriots, was taken into custody at Boston Logan International Airport this week for allegedly attempting to bring two firearms onto an airplane.

During the routine security check on Friday evening at Terminal B, TSA agents discovered the firearms in Jones’ carry-on bag. After the discovery, Massachusetts State Police arrested the 25-year-old and escorted him to the State Police-Logan Airport Barracks, where he later posted bail.

According to NBC Boston, Jones faces multiple charges, including possession of a concealed weapon in a secure airport area, possession of ammunition without a firearm ID card, unlawful possession of a firearm, carrying a loaded firearm, and possession of a large-capacity feeding device.

The New England Patriots issued a statement acknowledging the incident and stating that they are currently investigating the matter.

“We have been made aware of Jack Jones’ arrest at Logan Airport earlier today,” the statement read. “We are currently gathering more information and will not be making any further comments at this time.”

Jones is scheduled to appear in federal court for his arraignment next week.

On social media, users noted a comment made by Jones last month regarding the NBA’s suspension of Ja Morant, a star point guard for the Memphis Grizzlies, who was seen brandishing a gun in a video shared online.

In his tweet, Jones wrote, “@JaMorant dumb.. you letting social media and yo pride ruin yo real money. Put them guns down and run that money up. Make one of yo homies sign up for security or concealed carry if you feel like you need it that bad.. but you the bread winner you gotta start acting like it.”

@JaMorant dumb.. you letting social media and yo pride ruin yo real money. Put them guns down and run that money up. Make one of yo homies sign up for security or concealed carry if you feel like you need it that bad.. but you the bread winner you gotta start acting like it..

— Jack Jones (@presidentjacc) May 15, 2023