TTAG Weekly Gun Law Roundup: A Bumpy Road, More Red Flags

Friday weekly gun law roundup

Bigstock

Another week, another dive into the expected, the silly, and the strange, legally speaking. Here’s what you need to know about this week’s developments in gun law:

bump fire stock ban

Dan Z for TTAG

The Bump Stock Litigation

It hasn’t been easy following the various bump stock cases that have had significant events in the last week, with the final rule having been set to take effect March 26. What is probably the most significant was the D.C. Circuit hearing oral arguments in Guedes v. ATF this week. Guedes is a straight-on attack on the Trump administration’s attempt to sidestep Congress in banning bump stocks by administrative fiat.

To put a short point on a long, boring story: the Trump administration sought to gain political capital (with who is anyone’s guess) by responding to public outrage following the Las Vegas killings, and directing the Department of Justice to ban bump stocks. Before this, bump stocks were never considered “machineguns” by the ATF, but rather mere accessories.

After being pressured by the DOJ and the Trump administration, the ATF did an about face and decided their decades-old interpretations were incorrect, and that the term “machinegun” is broad and nebulous enough to include a ham sandwich, as well as bump stocks.

With the final rule looming, appeals were expedited and all the stops were pulled out in the various lawsuits across the country. After oral arguments in Guedes, the D.C. Circuit, as well as in several other cases, stays were issued as to the parties, meaning the feds can’t enforce the new rule against people involved with these lawsuits, including members of the involved organizations who own bump stocks. This doesn’t indicate one way or the other how the cases will go, but it certainly tosses a wrench into any aggressive enforcement the ATF might want to conduct while the appeals are pending.

You may have seen headlines along the lines of the Supreme Court “refusing to stop” the Bump Stock ban. This is misleading.

Gun owners of America, plaintiffs in one of the several bump stock cases, requested the Supreme Court issue an emergency stay given the severe consequences that could attend the ATF enforcing the bump stock ban before the cases are finalized, and the stay was denied.

This has absolutely nothing to do with who is more likely to win the case, but that the Supreme Court declined to use its discretionary power to step in at this time. It is more likely the Supreme Court is waiting for the Circuit Courts to iron out the issue more, and possibly avoid getting involved. The areas of law involved are rapidly developing, and thus it’s no surprise the Court isn’t eager to jump right in.

The bottom line is this: when Diane Feinstein says a gun control measure is unconstitutional, it’s not going to be that hard to find a court to agree. Don’t be duped into thinking the bump stock cases are settled. We’ve got a long, bumpy road ahead.

Red flag law extreme risk protection order

Bigstock

Still More Red Flags 

March 26 saw a Republican-led Senate committee hold a hearing on controversial “red flag” laws, a generally well-intentioned but poorly executed breed of gun control already on the books in 14 states and the District of Columbia.

The general idea is that people posing a genuine threat to themselves or others can be ordered to surrender their arms. The problem is that many states seek to issue these orders ex parte (without the presence of the person subject to the order), resulting in SWAT raids on an unsuspecting individual, the type of which have already claimed human life.

The Senate committee was exploring the ins and outs of these laws, contemplating setting incentives for states to adopt them. The discussion wasn’t all terrible, as several sensible gun policy experts testified to the dangers of ex parte orders and allowing the processes to be initiated at the whim of a family member or ex-lover.

The general consensus seemed to be that a “Vermont style” red flag laws struck the best balance. Under these regimes, the opportunity for the subject to be heard is presumed, orders are only issued ex parte with evidence of extreme potential for harm, and the people who can initiate the process are far more limited.

Colorado’s senate this week, approved a “red flag” law far more dubious than those discussed in the U.S. Senate. The Colorado bill allows “a family or household member or a police officer” to ask the court to enter an order if they can convince the court “by a preponderance of the evidence that a person poses a significant risk to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody.”

The key here is the phrase “by a preponderance of the evidence,” which translated from legalese means the court must be 51% convinced. A far cry from the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard usually used in cases involving stripping a person of their rights, which means more like 99%. The law is expected to pass the state house.

Despite good intentions, this is an area that is entirely unproven, and there is little evidence presented that law enforcement has any ability to distinguish credible threats from a hole in the ground. The potential for “false positives” (labeling someone a threat for offensive jokes, for example) poses a serious safety concern, not to mention First Amendment concerns. What’s left to examine is whether the putative benefits of these laws outweigh the inherent risks.

Maryland gun control laws bills

Bitstock

Crab Cakes, Gold Medals, and Gun-Grabbin’

Maryland is introducing a flurry of new gun laws, most of which can only be described as solutions looking for problems. There’s an attempt to require four hours of training and a license as a prerequisite to purchasing a long gun, an effective ban on lending handguns, and other administrative changes. Oh, and the state wants to effectively ban a specific type of competition heavy barreled AR-15. Because reasons.

Arkansas?!

Yep, Arkansas. A northwestern Arkansas lawmaker fulfilled one of her campaign promises to try to roll back the loosening in carry laws accomplished her predecessor helped to push through. She hopes to roll back campus carry, implement the fabled “universal background check” and, fascinatingly, require the use of holsters? Whatever. The measures are unlikely to pass given Arkansas’ legislative makeup.

Ohio constitutional carry

Bigstock

Ohio Carry

A pair of Ohio lawmakers are seeking to deregulate concealed carry in their state. The proposal is pretty solid, allowing anyone over the age of 21 and not otherwise disqualified from carrying a firearm to do so without needing a license, still subject to the law as it governs license holders. In a somewhat rare and seemingly just twist, the law as proposed also expunges convictions from past violations that would now be lawful. It’s nice seeing lawmakers trying to shrink the pool of “criminals,” for a change.

comments

  1. avatar Cthulhu 2020 says:

    I like the roundup. Thanks for putting it together!

    1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      Ditto

  2. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    There is NO such Thing “well intentioned gun control!” Especially, when it comes to so-called “RED FLAG LAWS”. Where some form of “silver-tongued legalese” is used to disregard and sidestep the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights under the false pretense of public safety…(Because it’s a Constitutional Infringement, stupid !!! ) Just remember, United WE stand, Divided we fall ! Red Flag laws do just that….It will be coming in the future that this will be used against political opposition (Trump Supporters/MAGA hat wearing NRA members will be 1st in line…) Think about how eager the NZ police were to run out and confiscate a civilians property. The glee at criminalizing a fellow citizen! The STASI, and the S.S. were gleeful as well…

  3. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

    “The general consensus seemed to be that a “Vermont style” red flag laws struck the best balance. Under these regimes, the opportunity for the subject to be heard is presumed, orders are only issued ex parte with evidence of extreme potential for harm” – or, for a completely innocent relative of someone with extreme potential for harm.

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/12/luis-valdes/vermont-teens-planned-a-school-shooting-and-police-confiscate-a-relatives-guns/

  4. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Red Flag laws?

  5. avatar WI Patriot says:

    You win some, you lose some, but you continue to fight…

  6. avatar Alan says:

    If the ownership, possession and use of firearms by the law abiding were ever, via changes in the law, done away with I wonder as to the following. What might be the next hobbyhorse be that they would mount?

    1. avatar dph says:

      You don’t have to wonder much, how about knives, free speech, income redistribution, how fast your car can go and they won’t wait to outlaw firearms to start. In Canada they already have laws limiting free speech, the government gets to determine what’s reasonable. The last one is going on the books in the EU in 2022. All of these items have been talked about by so-called “American” politicians. Welcome to the 21st Century, I suspect soon we will be closer to “1984” than to 2020. Oh hell,we’re already there.
      https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2019/03/27/europe-auto-speed-limits/39262785/

  7. avatar possum says:

    Our president said the 2a is safe. So no worries

  8. avatar Gideon Rockwell says:

    we can give not one inch on the Red Flag laws. It is just a gun confiscation law concealed as so called common sense gun law. When the libs throw common sense in an argument it is the same as triple dog daring you to stick your tounge to a freezing flag pole, if you give in, it will not end well.

  9. avatar barnbwt says:

    The ham sandwich provides the chemical energy necessary for a shooter to repeatedly work their trigger finger rapidly, so obviously it must be classified as a machine gun conversion device.

    The bump stock provided the axial-flexibility for a shooter to more easily bounce a firearm’s trigger off their stiffened finger rapidly as it recoils, so obviously it had to be classified a machine gun conversion device.

    The belt loop provided the rigidity for a shooter to more easily brace their finger against a firearm bounced off of it rapidly by its recoil, so obviously it had to be classified as a machine gun conversion device.

    The disconnector provided a way to hold the hammer back long enough for the action to complete its cycle without manual input, so obviously it had to be classified as a machine gun conversion device.

  10. avatar strych9 says:

    I like this series. Keep them coming.

  11. avatar Lee Long says:

    The Second Amendment clearly states the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon your opinion doesn’t come into play shall not be infringed upon any and all gun laws at State otherwise is a violation of the Constitution and can be considered an act of treason which is punishable by Death

  12. avatar Smith Wesson says:

    I like the new focus of ttag!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email