A federal appeals court has upheld the majority of the NY SAFE Act, a law passed in the Empire State enacting the strictest firearms laws in the United States. The ruling also struck down one of the more obviously ridiculous provisions (full ruling here). The decision is being immediately appealed by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (one of the plaintiffs) as the case continues its march to the Supreme Court where it may finally settle, once and for all, whether modern firearms like the AR-15 are protected under the Second Amendment as strongly as handguns . . .
“A Milwaukee County jury reached a verdict in the Badger Guns civil trial on Tuesday afternoon, October 13th,” fox6now.com reports. It ruled Badger Guns was negligent in selling the gun that was used to seriously injure two Milwaukee police officers.” How’s that you ask? “The lawsuit alleges the store was negligent and should’ve spotted clear warning signs that the gun was being sold to a ‘straw buyer,” or someone who was buying the gun for someone who couldn’t legally do so.” And the bottom line [via nbcnews.com] is . . .
Over at huffingtonpost.com, Lonnie and Sandy Phillips [above], parents of Aurora cinema massacre victim Jessica Ghawi, have penned a post decrying the outcome of their lawsuit against Lucky Gunner for selling spree killer James Holmes “armor piercing” ammunition [their term]. The Phillips lost their suit. The judge awarded the respondents a $203k settlement. TTAG reader DH has this to say about that:
First, Mr. and Mrs. Phillips, I’m sorry you lost your daughter. No one should have to endure that. You may want to stop reading now . . .
Last week, we brought to your attention the story that the Nassau County, New York District Attorney’s Office required its attorneys and other staff, as a condition of employment, to forego their constitutionally-protected right to own a pistol at home. That story had legs, and apparently generated more than a little heat for the Acting District Attorney, Madeline Singas (above). So much so, in fact, that she’s now decided to backtrack: her staff can now own handguns at home without fear of reprisals at work . . .
Question: when is a BB Gun a “firearm”?
Answer: When you bring it to Minnesota, under certain circumstances.
Just this week, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held, in the matter of State of Minnesota v. David Lee Haywood, that a BB Gun is, indeed, a “firearm” for purposes of Minnesota law, dashing the hopes of David Lee Haywood that he’d be able to avoid both a firearms conviction for being a felon-in-possession, and an extended stay in prison for owning a BB gun . . .
In case you’ve been too distracted by all the headlines about Syria, Hillary Clinton’s e-mail problems and the return of Bloom County to notice, Pope Francis spent the last few days here in these United States. TTAG reader James R. lives near Philadelphia, where His Holiness celebrated a hugely-attended mass on Sunday. The security measures taken in preparation for the Pontiff’s visit piqued James’ curiosity . . .
Is the extensive muzzle brake permanently attached to the end of one version of the MPX’s barrel a muzzle brake or a “silencer”? The battle between SIG SAUER and the ATF has been raging for months. SIG SAUER’s position: it’s a muzzle brake. The part doesn’t reduce the noise of the gun in the slightest. But there’s a twist: SIG planned to make and sell a specially designed shroud that would transform the muzzle brake into a properly registered silencer. The ATF was not pleased. They dropped the ban hammer on the part. SIG SAUER sued. And now a judge has made his decision . . .
TTAG reader Armchair Command’oh writes:
In its letter to X-Products, the ATF claims that when affixed to an AR lower, the can cannon must be registered under the NFA. Their argument: the definition of an NFA firearm includes “short-barreled shotguns,” which is a shotgun with a barrel under 18″ of length. Problem. In their letter, the ATF pulls the definition of shotgun from the GCA, not the NFA. And this bit of interpretive legerdemain makes all the difference in the world . . .
X Products came out with a nifty little device a while back that uses blank 5.56 NATO cartridges to launch soda cans through the air. It was a really cool and fun concept, and we’ve had a blast using it. Apparently the ATF has caught wind of this little ray of fun and sunshine and decided that it must be stamped out at all costs. X Products received a love note from the firearms regulators the other day stating that their product is now considered an “Any Other Weapon,” an item which is highly regulated under the National Firearms Act. The hyper-regulatory brainiacs consider the can luncher a “shotgun” meaning your SBR tax stamp won’t cut the mustard here. In short, anyone who owns one of these things without paying the tax stamp for the privilege may be a felon in the eyes of the ATF. Here’s the letter from X Products . . .
I’m a “high-powered attorney” in the same sense that a Smith and Wesson M&P 15-22 is a “high-powered assault rifle.” Sure, I may have have the appearance of being one: I work for a national law firm, dealing with cases involving huge corporations with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. At the same time, however, I’m far from the partnership fast track. That’s okay with me — the people I work with are nice, and I figure that being at home on a regular basis with wife and child count for more than a few extra bucks at the end of the year . . .
In Oregon, Jared Padgett [not shown] stole his brother’s rifle, ammunition, magazines and a bag to carry them in. The teenager entered a Reynolds High school locker room and fatally shot fellow student Emilio Hoffman. Padgett then shot and wounded a teacher. Jared’s brother Lucas asked the police to return the rifle and accessories, valued at over $2,000. But even though there will be no trial (Jared Padgett committed suicide in a bathroom stall), the city administration refused, citing a vague “evidence” requirements . . .
The recent Heller III decision from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was not completely unanimous; Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented from the decision authored by Judge Douglas Ginsburg, stating that she would have upheld all elements of the D.C. law as being constitutional. That’s not too surprising. Judge Henderson, who was appointed to the Court of Appeals in 1990 by then-President George H.W. Bush, has had a history of being unfriendly to the right to keep and bear arms. When the original Heller case came before her in 2007 . . .