2A NEWSLETTER WEEK OF MAY 10th

Photo Source: Shutterstock via Pro Visual Solutions

Proposed New York Legislation Targets Popular Glock Pistols

The New York State Legislature is evaluating a bill that could lead to a ban on widely used semi-automatic pistols manufactured by Glock. This significant legislative effort is led by Democratic State Senator Zellnor Myrie of Brooklyn. Set to be introduced in the New York State Senate on Tuesday, the proposal has sparked a heated debate among Second Amendment supporters and firearm enthusiasts.

The bill would mandate that firearms manufacturers make specific alterations to their products to ensure that the firearms cannot be easily converted to fire fully automatically. Failure to comply with these stringent requirements would result in a ban on the offending models.

This legislative action mirrors a similar approach taken by Illinois, hinting at a potential ripple effect across other states. History has shown that when one state implements stringent gun control measures, it often sets a precedent that others may follow. This could signify a substantial shift in the national landscape of gun rights, potentially influencing future legislative decisions in various states.

The implications of such a bill are profound for both the firearm industry and gun owners. Glock pistols are among the most popular firearms in the United States, favored for their reliability and efficiency. A ban on these pistols could not only limit choices for law-abiding gun owners but also impact competitive shooting sports and self-defense.

It's absolutely vital that we stand up and make our voices heard against this bill. We need to push back, showing legislators just how deeply these sweeping regulations could affect us all. This isn't just a threat to our rights as gun owners; it's a potential slippery slope that could impact every American.

This bill doesn't just hit at the core of our Second Amendment rights—it also ignores the fact that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible, law-abiding citizens who use their firearms for protection, sport, and professional needs.

We urge everyone to get involved. Reach out to your representatives through emails and phone calls, make your stance known at public hearings, and gather the community to discuss the potential impacts. It’s also the perfect time to amplify our concerns on social media and get the conversation going wider.

Don't forget, too, the power of joining forces with organizations such as the Firearms Policy Coalition, dedicated to protecting our gun rights. They have the legal know-how and the network to make significant impacts, and they need our support now more than ever.

This issue might be starting in New York, but it could very well ripple across the entire nation. No matter where you live, your rights could be at risk. Let’s come together to ensure this bill doesn’t set a precedent we might never overcome.

Photo Source: Shutterstock via Wirestock Creators

State AGs Fear Impact of Second Amendment Victory on Restrictive Gun Laws

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin leads a group of 18 other state AGs in a concerted effort to uphold Massachusetts' stringent gun laws, which are currently facing a Second Amendment challenge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. These laws notably include an extensive ban on the sale and possession of what they label as assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines (LCMs), defined as magazines that hold more than ten rounds. This coalition's actions highlight a significant concern among pro-Second Amendment advocates about governmental overreach and the erosion of constitutional rights.

Massachusetts and New Jersey share similarly restrictive gun measures, including outright bans on assault weapons. Notably, under Governor Phil Murphy's administration, New Jersey decreased the allowable capacity of LCMs from 15 to 10 rounds in 2018—a move that has sparked significant opposition from gun rights proponents. AG Platkin champions these laws, claiming they are essential for curbing violence, yet this claim is widely criticized for lacking substantial evidence that these laws effectively reduce crime rates. Such measures do not deter crime but instead infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens, restricting their ability to defend themselves effectively.

The amicus brief, supported by a coalition including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, argues against the suitability of assault weapons and LCMs for self-defense. This position is contentious, as many of these firearms are popular for various legal uses, including sport shooting and home defense. The notion that these weapons are not suited for self-defense is a subjective judgment that undermines individual rights.

Moreover, the brief's use of historical firearm regulations to justify modern restrictions is an overextension of legal precedent, potentially misapplying old laws to vastly different contemporary contexts. This approach has provoked criticism for potentially using outdated precedents to strip away modern constitutional rights.

As the legal battle over Massachusetts' gun control laws unfolds, it serves as a focal point for the national debate over the Second Amendment. The involvement of so many state AGs in supporting these restrictions signals a worrying trend toward more extensive gun control measures across the country. We urge you to remain proactive and engaged, challenging these laws to protect the rights enshrined by the Constitution against expansive state powers. This case underscores the importance of standing firm in defense of fundamental freedoms against sweeping legislative actions.

Photo Source: Shutterstock via Allexxandar

Victory for Second Amendment Rights: Semi-Automatic Gun Ban Defeated in Colorado's Democratic-Controlled Statehouse

The Colorado State Legislature has declined to pass a bill that would have banned the sale, transfer, and manufacture of semi-automatic firearms. This move comes despite the state’s Democratic majority pushing forward with several other gun control initiatives. The failure of this semi-automatic ban bill shows there is significant resistance to what many see as overly restrictive measures that infringe on Second Amendment rights.

The proposal's rejection by Senate Democrats, who expressed concerns over the ban’s effectiveness and scope, reflects a growing awareness that such sweeping regulations may not be the solution. This recognition is crucial, as it aligns with the views of many Colorado residents and Second Amendment advocates who believe in responsible gun ownership without excessive government overreach.

Despite the Colorado House passing the ban, which was seen by its proponents as a historic and tremendous achievement, the resistance in the Senate underscores a critical debate about the effectiveness of such firearm bans. This bill would not only fail to solve the underlying issues of gun violence but also unfairly penalize law-abiding citizens who use their firearms for sport, hunting, and self-defense.

Colorado's shift towards more liberal gun control measures, such as increasing the legal gun purchase age from 18 to 21 and other proposals nearing approval—including a tax on gun and ammunition sales and expanded powers for the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to scrutinize illegal gun sales—indicates the state's legislative momentum towards stricter gun laws. However, the rejection of the semi-automatic ban represents a significant pushback against this trend and a victory for Second Amendment supporters.

It is imperative for Second Amendment advocates in Colorado and nationwide to stay informed and engaged. This engagement is essential to ensure that future legislation respects constitutional rights and focuses on real solutions that effectively address crime and safety without infringing on the freedoms of law-abiding citizens. The rejection of the semi-automatic ban in Colorado may serve as a bellwether for other states considering similar measures, demonstrating that sweeping bans may not find the support they anticipate.