The Ripple Effect

Gun Owners Feeling Frisky Following Bruen Ruling

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms produced this
bumper sticker, which seems appropriate to the Western Journal’s online survey about gun control.

A recent online survey by the Western Journal — which probably would not meet scientific standards — provided an opportunity for the firearms community to weigh in where other polls never seem to relay the ferocity of opposition to gun control.

So, when the Western Journal asked, “Should there be more restrictions on guns rights?” the reaction was an overwhelming “No.” When last I checked on the numbers, only 9.98% of respondents, all 806 of them, said, “Yes.” Custer faced better odds at the Little Bighorn, as a crushing 90.02% responded in the negative, a total of 7,269 votes.

Of course, there might have been some double votes, but even if only half of all those “No” votes were valid, there would still be 3,634 voices against more restrictions, roughly 4.5 times as many as those calling for more restrictions.

One might suspect most of those numbers came in after the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in June. That 6-3 decision has resulted in something of a political ripple effect, producing some things a lot of people haven’t heard about.

Message to Colorado gun control proponents. Watch for this
bumper sticker in the Centennial State.

Centennial State Smackdown

In the aftermath of Bruen, some states essentially nullified the offensive requirement of concealed carry permit applicants to provide “good cause” to be armed. Almost reflexively, stubborn anti-gun politicians in New York, New Jersey and California immediately instituted other mandates in an effort to dance around the decision and keep gun owners on a leash.

However, out in Colorado, something interesting happened. The town of Superior had adopted a ban on so-called “assault weapons” and grassroots activists quickly took the town, and the local sheriff, to federal court. Late last month, U.S. District Judge Raymond P. Moore issued a temporary restraining order against enforcement of the ban. The order had a 14-day time limit.

According to the Denver Gazette, Judge Moore’s order blocked the gun ban and a prohibition on so-called “illegal weapons,” whatever those are. Somewhere in that mix were gun magazines holding more than ten rounds.

While assuring the town he had some sympathy for its gun control effort, the judge noted in his opinion, “(T)he Court is unaware of historical precedent that would permit a governmental entity to entirely ban a type of weapon that is commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, whether in an individual’s home or in public.”

The offensive ordinance included a definition of an “assault weapon” that translates to semiautomatic, centerfire rifles. Owners of such guns would have until Dec. 31 to get a “certificate of ownership” from the Boulder County Sheriff’s Department.

Plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit contend provisions in Ordinance 0-9 violate the Second Amendment, and don’t sell that idea short. Ever since the 2010 high court ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment, every state, county and municipal gun control action must now pass the constitutional smell test.

The case is known as Rocky Mountain Gun Owners et al. v. The Town of Superior et al.

According to CBS News, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners Executive Director Taylor said the small victory is “a sign of what’s to come.” He’s got a point. In other states, notably California, Washington, New York and Massachusetts, gun owners are rallying against efforts by anti-gun politicians at all levels to essentially ignore the Bruen ruling and carry on as though nothing of importance had happened.

It could become a spectator sport just to see how far the high court will allow these efforts to go before smacking them down.

Sales Remain Healthy

Gun control fanatics hate it when monthly reports from the National Instant Check System (NICS) show continued healthy background check numbers, which translate in part to completed gun sales.

The first half of 2022 saw 15,868,017 initiated NICS checks, which included 2,570,608 checks in June. At this point, the National Shooting Sports Foundation weighs in with its “adjusted figure” which is reached by “subtracting the NICS purpose code permit checks and permit rechecks used by states for CCW permit application checks and checks on active CCW permit databases,” NSSF explains.

According to the industry group’s data adjustment, June NICS numbers related to gun sales reflect an 8.1% growth over the number of such checks in June 2021. NSSF also reported, “The second quarter 2022 NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 3.92 million reflects a decrease of 8.9 percent compared to the second quarter 2021 figure of 4.3 million. Historically, this is the third-highest second quarter on record.”

Ditch Mitch?

Veteran U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is in a bit of trouble back home very few outside of the Bluegrass State heard about.

After McConnell, who is the Senate Minority Leader, recently received a bad tiding from the Republican Party of Jessamine County. They censured McConnell for his support of the recently adopted “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act,” a gun control measure.

According to the Louisville Courier-Journal, the censure resolution said the bill, passed on the day after the Supreme Court handed down its Bruen ruling, “violates the Second, Fifth and 14th amendments.”

The resolution, said the newspaper, also called on McConnell to resign as Republican leader. The Jessamine County group “shall cease any and all support” of McConnell because of his support for the gun control compromise package.

The federal legislation was quickly adopted in response to mass shootings in New York and Texas.

The Heat Goes On

Where McConnell was targeted for local censure, another Republican politician called it quits as he was preparing for a re-election campaign because the mass shooting at a Tops supermarket in Buffalo, N.Y. was very close to home.

Congressman Chris Jacobs, according to a report in the Buffalo News, committed what might be considered political suicide by jumping across the aisle to vote with House Democrats supporting legislation to ban so-called “assault weapons.”

This was no small occurrence. According to the Buffalo News, Jacobs had just been filming an ad for his re-election campaign, along with sportsmen and gun rights activists in his 27th District in northern New York right near Buffalo. Now he’s not running for another term at all.

The newspaper account said Jacobs has had support from hunters and gun owners, but after the Tops mass shooting he “began to see the world differently.” The reaction from people described as “Republican and Conservative leaders” was a demand Jacobs’ “removal from the congressional race.”

The midterm election is shaping up as a no-holds-barred political brawl, with gun rights in the spotlight. As this report was being written, there was not an indication who might jump into the race to replace Jacobs. 

Garden of Evil

The acting attorney general of New Jersey, Matthew Platkin, announced last month the creation of a new office in the Garden State, and its sole purpose is to sue firearms companies.

According to NJ Advance Media, the Statewide Affirmative Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) office will “bring civil enforcement actions against gunmakers and dealers that ‘knowingly or recklessly contribute to a public nuisance in New Jersey through unlawful or unreasonable conduct.’” This followed on the heels of a new law signed by anti-gun Democrat Gov. Phil Murphy allowing such lawsuits.

Apparently, Murphy and Platkin think they can successfully challenge the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by then-President George W. Bush. PLCAA was passed to prevent the kind of harassment legal actions being cooked up in New Jersey that are, according to some critics, designed to cost the firearms industry small fortunes in legal fees, thus crippling their bottom line.

The report said this new office “will be helmed by a director and staffed with attorneys and investigators.”

The announcement drew quick criticism on social media. One gun owner observed on Twitter, “They should stop selling weapons and ammo to states that have clearly demonstrated that they can’t be trusted,” an interesting idea, which brought this, among other reactions: “We’re better off without New Jersey than without gun manufacturers.”

Subscribe To GUNS Magazine