By Tanya Metaksa
TANYA METAKSA
What’s New—State Legislation: California—AB503, carrying in churches; Florida—SB7028, a massive record-keeping bill; Kentucky—pro-gun rally being held on Jan. 31; Maryland —hearings before three committees; Minnesota-hearing before the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee on Jan. 21; Oregon—LC38, a gun storage bill, has been profiled; New Hampshire—Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan 23; New Mexico—pre-filed bills introduced; Washington—Jan 20 hearing before Senate Law and Justice, Jan 21 hearing before the House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee, SB5434, expanding gun free zones can be voted on in Senate; West Virginia—SB96, expanding preemption law; Judicial-Jones v, Becerra; Other—TX governor Abbott honors Jack Wilson.
State Legislation
All state legislatures with the exception of Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, and Texas will be in session in 2020
With the exception of the following legislatures all the rest will begin in January 2020: Beginning in February—Minnesota, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Oregon & Wyoming; March—Louisiana; April—Arkansas
California: Jan. 14 the Assembly Public Safety Committee has scheduled AB503, allowing citizens with a Right-to-Carry Permit to carry to, from and in a place of worship.
Florida: The Florida Senate Infrastructure and Security Committee passed SB7028, a bill to “close the gun-show ‘loophole,’ create a record-keeping system for private gun sales and set aside $5 million to establish a ‘statewide strategy for violence prevention’.”
Illinois: The following bills are still viable in 2020: SB1966, adding many more restrictive provisions to the FOID cards and giving bureaucracy almost unlimited powers, passed the House 62-52. It now goes back to the Senate for consideration. Other bills under consideration: SB337 will create an electronic firearms transfer form that will lead to an electronic firearms registry. HB1467, to require the registration of all ammunition sales; SB107, a comprehensive ban on firearms and accessories; HB174, set requirement for reporting of firearms loss or theft; HB888, require FOID applicants to list social media accounts; revoke FOID cards if guns are reported lost in 3 incidents in 2 years; and HB892, ban firearms that include modern materials. SB44, a bill with just a title, by Sen. Michael Hastings, has just had an amendment (Senate Amendment 1 to SB44) added to have State Police designate “gun liaison officers” that would have the authority to seize Firearm Owner Identification Cards (FOID) and then seize all ammunition and firearms.
Indiana: In an era where NYC will allow felons and sex criminals to be allowed to freely mingle with the citizenry until their trial, Indiana is considering SB16, which would prohibit juveniles who used a gun in a crime and were punished to be denied their Second Amendment rights until they reached the age of 26 or 28.
Kentucky: A coalition of state-wide gun groups is holding a pro-gun rally on Jan. 31.The rally will begin at the Capitol Annex in the State Capitol Building at 9:00 AM and will continue until 3:00 PM.
Maryland: Hearing dates for gun bills have already been scheduled in the legislature.several committees met Jan.15 to consider bills: The House Judiciary Committee considered HB4, would ban any private transfers of long guns as well as the loan of any such firearm and would impose draconian penalties. Also bills may be scheduled for Jan. 22, and 29. The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee considered SB39 that would add Anderson Manufacturing .223 Caliber and .300 Caliber long guns to the current list of banned “assault weapons.” The Senate Budget and Taxation Committee considered SB55, creating a “buy-back fund” to purchase so-called “assault weapons.”
Massachusetts: The Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security held a hearing on firearms legislation. The list of bills that were on the agenda can be found at https://malegislature.gov/Events/Hearings/Detail/3247.
Michigan: HB4434, reducing the penalty for those that forgot to renew their Right-to-Carry Permits to a civil fine rather than a felony, passed the House 90-19 and can be considered in 2020.
Minnesota: Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee has scheduled Jan. 21 at 1:00 PM for a hearing on the following bills: SF434, prohibiting private transfers of firearms, SF436, “red flag” legislation; SF72, self-defense legislation, and SF748, constitutional carry.
New Hampshire: A carry-over bill, HB687, allowing firearms seizure without due process was approved in the House 201-176 with 20 Democrats voting NO. It now goes to the Senate. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on SB469, repealing the current shooting range protection law, on Jan 23.
New Mexico: The legislature won’t begin until January 21, but a number of bills have been pre-filed. Companion bills HB7 and SB5 are “red flag” bills and HB85, a bill to ban firearms accessories such a triggers and other modifications.
Ohio: Ohio Attorney General David Yost has stated that he is developing a database for the listing of stolen guns.
Two bills, SB223, banning bump stocks and high capacity magazines, and SB203, regulating firearms transfer at gun shows, were brought up before the Senate Government Oversight and Reform Committee but no votes were taken. HB178, a constitutional carry bill, was approved in the House Federalism Committee on June 26. It has been re-referred to the Criminal Justice and Rules and Reference Committees on June 28 and June 30. In the past year 69,375 new carry licenses and almost 100,000 renewals were issued.
Oregon: Since the backers of Initiative Petition 18 have gather the required signatures to begin the petition gathering process, the expected onerous gun storage bill, LC38, has been pre-filed. The session will begin Feb. 3, 2020.
Pennsylvania: On Dec. 16 2019, Attorney General Josh Shapiro issued an opinion that defined partially manufactured receivers as firearms thus placing these unfinished blocks of steel or any other material into the firearm category and requiring them to be treated as a completed firearm. As a result the Pennsylvania State Police website for the PA Instant Check System includes these receivers as requiring a background check before purchase. On Dec. 20 Landmark Firearms and others requested an emergency preliminary injunction in the Commonwealth Court of PA. [see Landmark Firearms case above under Judicial] On Nov. 20 three new anti-gun bills were introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee: HB2076, a person’s drivers license may be revoked if that person’s license to carry a firearm expires or is revoked; HB2077, a mandatory safe storage of firearms bill with penalties; and HB2078, waiting period prior to possession of a “semi-automatic assault rifle.” A bill to ban the sale of toy guns that are not vibrant colors, HB2216, has been sent to the House Judiciary Committee.
Texas: Gov. Greg Abbott presented the Governor’s Medal of Courage to Jack Wilson, the hero of the West Freeway Church of Christ shooting on Jan. 13.
Virginia: it appeared that the first item of business for the anti-gun legislature was to ban the carrying of firearms by even Virginians with a Right-to-Carry Permit in the state capitol. That change gave the newly minted leaders of the Virginia legislature many difficulties. Long lines of people were held up by the new security measures. But it was obvious that Democrat staffers were able to bypass the security. As Senator Mark Obeshain tweeted, “Outrageous. General Assembly staff can’t get to work but Administration official blithely bypass Dem gun screening.” Then after making it through the security the greatly outnumbered red shirted Mom’s Demand attendees were allowed 50% of the allotted seats. As Prince Froquar tweeted, “Because nothing says representing the will of the people like selecting what people can be represented.” And Virginia Shooting Sports Association tweeted, “New Rules put in place by committee majority. A lot of pro-gun people who had waiting in line since 7:00am were not happy to have people in “Mom’s Demand” t-shirts escorted in ahead of them.”
The following items were passed by the Democrat majority: SB12 and SB70, requiring background checks on private sales/transfers were combined and the new bill, SB70, only covers private sales, much to the dismay of the anti-gun lobby. The Committee passed SB69, a one-gun-per-month purchase bill, SB35, repealing pre-emption of firearms laws, and SB240, a red flag law. SB16, a sweeping anti-gun measure was tabled and it was reported that Democrats will focus on HB961, that still bans “assault weapons,” but allows those that own them keep them if the firearms are registered. It also bans magazines holding more than 10 rounds. HB569, a bill to eliminate Right-to-Carry reciprocity has been introduced.
Washington: The Senate Law and Justice Committee is holding a hearing on gun bills on Jan. 20 at 10 am. SB6077, banning high capacity magazines, and and SB6294, requiring firearm training to obtain a Right-to-Carry Permit, are currently on the agenda. On January 21 the House Civli Rights & Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing on the following bills: HB2240, banning magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, and HB2241, banning rifles and magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, will be heard together. Other bills on the agenda include HB2519, banning online sales of ammunition and a mandatory background check for ammunition purchases, HB1374, abolishing the preemption law, and HB1315, a companion bill to SB6294. SB5434, an expansion of gun-free zones, is awaiting action on the Senate floor.
West Virginia: SB96, expanding the preemption law in West Virginia was scheduled before the West Virginia Senate Government Organization Committee on Jan 16.
2020 Elections
Billionaire and Former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg is now running ads on television as a Democrat candidate for President. His ads tout his anti-gun credentials.
Elizabeth Warren has proposed increasing the current 10% excise tax to 30%. Those taxes that have been supported by gun owners, hunters and fishermen for over 70 years in order to maintain wildlife, shooting ranges and outdoor recreation areas and are paid as an addition to the cost of the item. This proposal in in addition to her other proposal for government imposed limits on gun and ammunition purchases.
Ballot initiatives-2020
Florida: Ban Assault Weapons Now!, an organization of anti-gun persons who want Floridians to think they are survivors of mass shootings in Orlando and Parkland, announced June 10 that it had obtained 103,000 signed petitions. This number should allow a Florida Supreme Court review of the proposed ballot question, a first step in the process of being put on the 2020 ballot. On July 29, 2019 Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for a written opinion on the language of the proposed initiative. She also “requests the opportunity to present argument in opposition to placement of this proposed amendment on the ballot. The proposed amendment’s title and summary are not clear and unambiguous and do not comply with the requirements of section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes. Indeed, the title and summary should not be submitted to Florida voters because the title and summary fail to inform voters of the chief purpose of the proposed amendment and are affirmatively misleading.”
Oregon: Initiative Petition 18 (IP18) has been filed. Petitioners gathered the necessary signatures to start the process for gathering signatures to put this measure on the 2020 ballot. IP18 is a proposal that would require all firearms to be locked unless being carried and stolen or lost firearms must be reported within 24 hours.
Federal
Trump Impeachment: On December 18, 2019 the U.S. House of Representatives voted to charge President Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress and send these articles of impeachment to the U.S. Senate for a trial. The vote on Article One, abuse of power, was 230-197. Two Democrats joined all the Republicans in voting NO. On the obstruction of Congress article the vote of 229-198. Representative Jared Golden (D-ME) voted NO on this article of impeachment. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), who is running for President, voted “present” on both counts. In a strange twist, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) decided to “hold” the articles of impeachment in the U.S. House rather than sending them to the U.S. Senate for a trial. After the votes were completed Pelosi stated, “We have legislation approved by the Rules Committee that will enable us to decide how we will send over the articles of impeachment… We cannot name [impeachment] managers until we see what the process is on the Senate side.” The second session of the 116th Congress has officially begun and still President Trump’s impeachment trial is held up in the House of Representatives.
2019 Gun Control bills in the U.S. Congress
Awaiting action in the U.S. Senate: In February 2019 the House passed two extreme gun control measures—H.R. 8, a universal background check bill, and H.R. 1112, a bill to extend the time from 3 days to 10 days if a prospective buyer is not cleared in a NICs check. These bills are still awaiting action in the U.S. Senate and could be incorporated into any new legislation that the House passes.
The House Judiciary Committee passed the following bills on September 10, 2019 by straight party-line votes—Democrats voting aye and Republicans voting nay. The “Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2019,” H.R. 1236, a bill that would establish federal grants to state, local and tribal governments for the purpose of establishing a program designated to allow such governmental entities to remove a person’s Second Amendment rights, passed by a vote of 22-16.
H.R. 1186, the “Keep Americans Safe Act,” a bill to ban the sale, transfer and possession of magazines with more than 10 rounds, passed by a vote of 23-16. This bill as it is currently written would allow current owners to keep already owed magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds;
H.R. 2708, the “Disarm Hate Act,” this bill’s purpose is “to prevent a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in the commission, from obtaining a firearm.”
Judicial
Jones, et al v. Becerra: This lawsuit is challenging the “California Age-Based Gun Ban” that prohibited adults between the ages of 18 and 20 from acquiring any firearm. United States District Judge denied the applications from three anti-gun groups Everytown, Giffords Law Center and Brady from filing amicus briefs as their “partisanship is apparent.”
Florida Carry, Inc., v. Broward County: The original lawsuit was filed by Florida Carry in May 2014. The lawsuit was based on the Florida preemption statute that was passed in 2014. On Jan. 9, 2019 the District Court stated “Broward County is PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing Section 2-137.1(e), 2-39(e) and Section 22 1/2-A(v), as it relates to firearms, ammunition and components therefor.” It also found that Broward County Section 2-2(jj)’s definition of “weapon” includes firearms. Thus nullifying the Broward County ordinances.
Landmark Firearms LLC, et al v. Colonel Robert Evanchick: See the background information under Pennsylvania legislation. On Dec. 20, 2019 Landmarks Firearms, US Rifle petitioned to stop the Commissioner of Pennsylvania State Police (Robert Evanchick) enjoined from implementing the new PA policy that states an unfinished receiver meets the definition of “firearm.” The petition was not implemented but a hearing on the application has been scheduled for January 21, 2020.
City of Kansas City, MO v. Jimenez Arms, Inc., et al: Kansas City, MO is during a number of firearms companies for supplying firearms to James Samuels, a former Kansas City Fire Department Captain who was charged and is being prosecuted for federal gun crimes. This suit is being supported by Everytown Law, part of Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York: Monday, Dec. 2, 2019 was scheduled to be a Second Amendment day at the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), but the argument wasn’t really about gun laws, but about whether the case is open to debate –moot– or whether SCOTUS should not bother to review this case at all.
The suit was brought by New York city residents who have “premises permits” in the City of New York. These permits as their name implies allow the gun owner to keep guns in their homes. Until 2001 New York City also issued “target licenses” that allowed gun owners to transport their firearms to shooting ranges outside the city limits. After 2001 when the only NYC-issued license were “premise permits” it became illegal for a licensed gun owner to transport his firearms to anyplace other than one of seven shooting ranges within the city limits. Violation of this ordinance could result in a year in prison.
In 2013 this suit was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (the District Court). The plaintiffs argument was that the NYC ordinance violated their Second Amendment rights, the Commerce Clause and their freedom to travel. The district Court dismissed the plaintiffs claim in 2015. The plaintiffs then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In early 2018 the Second Circuit Court held that US Supreme Court decision in Heller and McDonald did not include transportation of a firearm or having a firearm outside the home and that “the City has met its burden of showing a substantial fit between the Rule and the City’s interest in promoting public safety,” thus denying the plaintiffs’ appeal. It was then appealed to the US Supreme Court for consideration. On January 22, 2019 SCOTUS granted the plaintiffs petition.
Since January 22–almost a year ago–gun control advocates, the City and State of New York have been on a frenzy to change New York city law. All these entities fear that a pro-Second Amendment majority on SCOTUS would create case law that would broaden the scope of Heller and McDonald. Thus have worked diligently to change the laws both in NYC and in New York state to force SCOTUS to stop considering this lawsuit. NYC went through the process of liberalizing their gun control ordinance to allow licensed gun owners to transport their firearms to homes and shooting ranges outside the city. Even Governor Andrew Cuomo got involved and signed the New York State legislature’s new gun law that allowed licensed handgun owners to transport firearms to places they are legally permitted to have them.
Thus after the 2019 summer of “new gun laws” in New York, NYC then requested that SCOTUS rule the issue moot. In October SCOTUS denied the request to consider the case moot and stated, “The question of mootness will be subject to further consideration at oral argument”.
At oral argument, the issue of whether laws restricting the transportation of firearms violate citizens Second Amendment rights, was almost ignored because the “mootness” issue was discussed at great length by Justices Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, the the most anti-gun Justices on SCOTUS. In fact, most of the time was taken up with the argument over mootness. The argument of these three liberal jurists was essentially summed up by Justice Ginsberg who asked, “What’s left of this case? The petitioners have gotten all of the relief they sought.” Hopefully, there will be 5 votes that will agree with the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Paul D. Clement, who argued that the restrictions imposed by the NYC ordinance were at odds with the Second Amendment and the case should be decided by SCOTUS.
National Rifle Association, John Doe v. City of Los Angeles: The City of Los Angeles, CA adopted an ordinance (#18600) that required all prospective contractors of the City to disclose contracts or sponsorship of the National Rifle Association on Feb. 12, 2019. In April 2019 the NRA filed suit on First Amendment grounds. In early December U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson issued a preliminary injunction against the city, writing, “The City’s intent, as established by the overwhelming evidence on this record, is to suppress the message of the NRA. Such motivation is impermissible under the First Amendment and provides no justification for the Ordinance.”
Wilson added, “The Ordinance is therefore incompatible with the Constitution, and Plaintiffs are likely to be successful on the merits of their First Amendment speech claims.”
