Posts Tagged ‘Gun Control’

Reacting to the “catch and release” of one of its leaders for openly carrying a firearm on federal grounds that ban firearms inside the facility, Washington activists are planning a responsive armed demonstration, the Our State, Our Rights coalition announced today on Facebook. Liberty for All and Defend Amendment X will gather in front of the Tom Foley Federal Building in Spokane next Friday to protest the arrest and detention of Anthony Bosworth by DHS police on Wednesday.

“Bosworth … was arrested, detained for five hours in a steel cage without charges, denied Miranda rights, and access to an attorney, interrogated by the FBI as a domestic terrorist, and then released with a citation for ‘failure to comply,’ even though his civil rights were clearly violated at every turn,” the protest announcement explains. “His only action was that he was standing outside the federal courthouse at a 10th amendment rally, while legally openly carrying a firearm. The Feds have still not returned his firearms.”

Read the rest @ http://www.examiner.com/article/washington-activists-plan-peaceful-armed-assembly-response-to-activist-s-arrest?CID=examiner_alerts_article

Via David Codrea…

Demonstrating once again that Everytown is a place seething with ignorance and prejudice, Shannon Watts of Moms Demand Action sent out a tweet Thursday every bit as insulting to young women as patron and patriarch Michael Bloomberg proved to be about minorities.

“You think your drunk college-age daughters are bad with their iPhones?” Watts asked, approvingly parroting the headline to an editorial in The Washington Post by an anti-gun psychiatrist. “Imagine them with guns.”

Read the WaPo article-it’s good for a few laughs anyways-the surprising thing is that supposedly “educated”people think like this…

The thing is, from her own narrative, the shrink admits she raised a scatterbrained girl. At least her daughter has learned enough to know mom will shield her from the consequences of her irresponsibility and buy her a new phone if she loses or destroys it because she’s oblivious or falling-down-stairs drunk. In any case, that’s hardly cause to project those failings onto all, and use the reality that some people abuse freedom to deny it to all.

Prejudiced citizen disarmament flack Watts joined an anti-gun headshrinker in painting all college women as drunken airheads, too irresponsible and incompetent to exercise their right to armed self-defense.

Sure, some college-aged people behave badly. And some behave well. Just like the rest of the world, isn’t it?

The antis twist that around, too. That way, if Chicago experiences a rising murder rate, why, that’s a perfect opportunity to rail about “concealed carry killers” or some other damned lie aimed at disarming people who aren’t the problem.

Funny, how college women are competent enough to drive “deadly” vehicles, to vote, to live on their own, to join the military, to get jobs, to form contracts, to get married, to “choose,” and to assume all kinds of adult responsibilities. Funny how “progressive feminists” (and talk about Opposite Day on steroids – or would that be estradiol?) rail against “inequality” and the like, yet when it comes to choosing the right to keep and bear arms, their default position is along the lines of “There, there, dearies, don’t you worry your pretty little heads about it.”

That’s hardly hyperbole. It’s the continuation of a gun-grabber tradition.

“Women are virgins when it comes to guns,” District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, one of 25 women in Congress who sent a letter to the National Rifle Association protesting its then-new “Refuse to be a Victim” program was quoted in the January 1994 issue of Women & Guns magazine. “It should stay that way.”

Again we see stereotyping, and presuming to speak for all, because those who would control others know best. Right now it looks like there’s no shortage of people calling Watts on her shared WaPo prejudices over on her Twitter feed, and hopefully that post will stay up (if it doesn’t, I have a screenshot). At least that’s an improvement over her boss, who when he stepped in it and revealed his inner bigot, had the clout to order the video of it suppressed.

Setting the state up for massive gun owner civil disobedience along the lines of what has occurred in California and is currently happening in New York and Connecticut, Democrat State Senator Jacqueline Y. Collins filed the Firearms Registration Act with the Secretary of State on Friday. The act was then presented for first reading and referred to the Democrat-dominated Assignments Committee.

Is Democrat Illinois State Senator Jacqueline Y. Collins ready to enforce her demands against gun owners who will not comply?

Collins’ measure “[p]rovides that every person in the State must register each firearm he or she owns or possesses in accordance with the Act,” the official synopsis declares. It also “[p]rovides that a person shall not purchase or possess ammunition within this State without having first obtained a registration certificate identifying a firearm that is suitable for use with that ammunition, or a receipt demonstrating that the person has applied to register a suitable firearm under the Act and that the application is pending.”

In addition, it requires “the Department of State Police must complete a background check of any person who applies for: (1) a registration certificate for a firearm that was lawfully owned or possessed on the effective date of the Act, was brought into the State by a new resident, or was acquired by operation of law upon the death of the former owner; or (2) a renewal of a registration certificate unless, within 12 months of the date the renewal application is submitted, the applicant passed a background check conducted by the Department in connection with the applicant’s acquisition of another firearm.”

Ominously, it also “Provides that it is a Class 2 felony to sell or transfer ownership of a firearm to another person without complying with the registration requirement of the Firearms Registration Act.” That can get someone three to seven years, a punishment equivalent to that people who intentionally transmit HIV are sentenced to.

This new batch of proposed infringements is in addition to requirements already imposed by Illinois State Law requiring gun owners to have a Firearms Owner Identification Card to purchase firearms and ammunition. In fact, it’s an in-your-face to gun owners from an avowed gun hater.

Collins is a former CBS-TV in Chicago “news” editor with credentials from Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism and Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, among other credentials from “progressive” academia. Fittingly, she was a “2001 Legislative Fellow for U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.” She was also endorsed by the Brady campaign at the same time it threw its weight behind (former?) “gun communist” Bobby Rush and future felons (and prohibited persons) Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Rod Blagojevich.

When she joined rabidly anti-gun “priest” Mike “Snuffy” Pfleger for a media blood dance, they were strangely silent on the fact that the ones doing the killings in Chicago are exempt from gun registration schemes they would impose on the law-abiding. That’s because in Haynes v. U.S., the Supreme Court ruled that requiring felons to register guns violated Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.

Collins knows this, of course, as do all gun-grabbers who would require registration, which is a prerequisite for confiscation. That increasing numbers of gun owners know that and have defiantly told those enacting such Intolerable Acts to get bent is not lost on impotent and enraged state monopoly of violence cultists, who vent their fury by demanding others employ that violence to bend the “scofflaws” to their will.

Whether or not Collins’ latest deliberate act of spitting on freedom stands a chance of being enacted remains to be seen. Regardless, a critical mass of gun owners will not let that alter their resolve to hold fast to their rights and to not back up another inch. There’s a new paradigm, with a growing number of determined citizens recognizing what colleague Mike Vanderboegh has identified as two countries sharing the same territory, and where his fundamental question “Do the people serve the government or does the government serve the people?” has yet to be ultimately tested in our time.

Whether or not it is tested depends on how far domestic enemies with “appetites for the liberty and property” of others are willing to press those they would compel obedience from. If they’re not willing to enforce against all, it will show a self-defeating weakness in the Chicago machine, and encourage other gun owners to join in and spread mass defiance even further. And if they are, we’ll all get an unequivocal answer to that question.

http://www.examiner.com/article/illinois-democrat-s-firearms-registration-act-may-test-new-paradigm?CID=examiner_alerts_article

The coalition that sponsored last fall’s successful gun-purchase background-check initiative wants to intervene in a lawsuit trying to overturn the state law.
By Joseph O’Sullivan
Seattle Times Olympia bureau

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson on Monday applauded an attempt by a coalition of gun-regulation groups to intervene against a lawsuit seeking to roll back the new law expanding background checks on gun buyers.

A lawsuit filed in December by gun-rights supporters alleges Initiative 594 violates the Second Amendment and can inadvertently criminalize people because its language is too vague. Ferguson, along with the state Attorney General’s Office and Washington State Patrol Chief John Batiste, are currently named as defendants.

On Monday, the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, I-594 citizen sponsor Cheryl Stumbo and the local arm of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety filed to join the defendants in the lawsuit.

“It’s my role to defend initiatives lawfully passed by the people of Washington state, and my office will do so vigorously,” Ferguson wrote in an email. “We welcome the participation of the backers of the initiative in the process.”

The move, which a judge must first approve, would allow the groups to file motions and offer a full defense of a law they campaigned hard to enact.

Approved by 59 percent of voters last November, Initiative 594 expanded background checks on gun buyers beyond the federal standard to private sales like some found online or at gun shows.

But the lawsuit lays out concerns by firearms-training groups, private security guards and inspectors, and others. Among the plaintiffs are the Northwest School of Safety; Puget Sound Security Inc.; Firearms Academy of Seattle; the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation; and Alan Gottlieb, the foundation’s executive vice president.

In quick succession Monday morning, Gottlieb ticked off two reasons for gun-rights supporters to take heart with the new developments.

“I think the other side has now realized that our challenge has some very good merit to it,” he said. “The second thing is I think it shows a vote of ‘no confidence’ in the Attorney General’s Office in being able to defend.”

It is common for groups that have pushed initiatives to later become involved in the related lawsuits, according to Hugh Spitzer, acting professor of law at the University of Washington’s School of Law.

In this case, “it enables the proponents to supplement the arguments that the attorney general makes,” said Spitzer.

The development comes as gun-rights supporters have ricocheted between rallies and hearings at the Legislature, trying to find support to change or repeal I-594, or send it back to voters in a referendum.

But those bills appear to have died in the Democrat-controlled House. And a January rally at the Capitol against I-594 succeeded only in the banning of guns in the Legislature’s viewing galleries after armed demonstrators entered those areas.

Stumbo, I-594’s citizen sponsor and a survivor of the 2006 Jewish Federation shootings in Seattle, described the lawsuit as a frivolous action brought by the gun lobby.

“The same individuals who failed to weaken our state’s gun laws in last year’s election are now using the court system to do exactly that,” Stumbo said in prepared remarks.

Where is there any justice in locking up a 72-year-old man for up to 10 years for having an antique flintlock pistol? I’m sure in the Garden State authorities can find frivolous reasons, but there really isn’t any justification for such a prosecutorial overreach.

NRA News’ Ginny Simone ventured into New Jersey to speak with Gordon VanGilder, public enemy No. 1 in Cumberland County. VanGilder is a retired teacher whose career spanned 34 years. He’s an admirer of 18th century artifacts and historical memorabilia and bought the pistol to go with his collection. The pistol featured in Simone’s report is approaching its 300-year anniversary.

Simone reported that Gordon was arrested last November while heading home after lunch. A Cumberland County Sheriff’s Deputy pulled over Gordon for a traffic violation, but wanted to search his car. Upon discovering a flintlock pistol in the glove compartment, VanGilder said that another deputy wanted to let him go since he knew the firearm was an antique. The Sheriff disagreed. VanGilder was arrested the following morning, and faces up to ten years in prison; three and a half to five years of that sentence must be served before parole can be considered.

To make things more absurd, the prosecutor in the case told VanGilder’s lawyer­–Evan Nappen–who’s in the video; that ballistics test will be run on the firearm.

This case will impact Gordon’s pension as a New Jersey educator, his ability to vote, and his reputation. He will be a convicted felon if the State of New Jersey is successful in their crusade against him.

While Gordon noted that he was probably in violation of the law, he wasn’t if he was going by the federal statute, which exempts such a class of firearms. The conflict between state and federal laws is a constitutional question. Maybe this case will settle that egregious discrepancy.

Yeah, New Jersey is still one of the worst states in the country.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/02/16/in-jersey-a-flintlock-pistol-can-get-you-a-10year-jail-sentence-n1957628?utm_source=BreakingOnTownhallWidget_4&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=BreakingOnTownhall

Chicago Tribune-

“…In August, 1999, troubled by gun violence that wracked his city, former Gary mayor Scott King sued 21 gun manufacturers and distributors and six local dealers and three associations. Two local retailers reached settlements with the city, including the now-closed Fetla’s in Valparaiso and Westforth Sports in Gary. Ameripawn in Lake Station no longer sells handguns.

A trial court judge dismissed gun manufacturers and dealers, but a higher court reversed the ruling.

The lawsuit contended major manufacturers like Smith & Wesson, Colt and Beretta and gun dealers should be accountable for readily supplying guns they know will reach criminals and others who illegally can’t buy them.

King pointed to an investigation by Gary police in which undercover officers made straw purchases of at least nine handguns and boxes of ammunition after telling gun store clerks they were convicted felons or juveniles.

In its successful appeal, the city pointed to 70 murders in 1997 and 54 in 1998. From 1997 through 2,000, 764 recovered handguns were sold by dealers named as defendants.

About 30 cities across the country, including Chicago, filed similar lawsuits. All of them have been dismissed except Gary’s. Setting aside the gun makers’ arguments that a federal shield law protects them from suits, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled the case could proceed in 2009.

Gary gun suit timeline

Aug. 27, 1999 — City of Gary files suit against gun dealers, manufacturers, trade associations

December, 1999 — City settles with Fetlas, a Valparaiso retailer for $10,000

March, 2001 — trial court dismisses lawsuit, calling it unconstitutional

September, 2002 — Indiana Appellate Court reverses dismisal against certain gun dealers, allowing case to proceed.

December, 2003, the Indiana Supreme Court rules Gary may proceed with its lawsuit against gun manufacturers and sellers.

May, 2005 — Ameripawn in Lake Station agrees to stop selling pistols.

November, 2007 — City reaches confidential agreement with Westforth Sports

January, 2009 — Supreme Court denies petition for transfer.

January, 2015 — Senate Bill 390 would prohibit lawsuits against gun industry and it would be retroactive to Aug. 26, 1999.”

Read the whole story @  http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/news/ct-ptb-gary-gun-suit-bill-focus-st-0217-20150216-story.html

NRA-ILA

In a move clearly intended by the Obama Administration to suppress the acquisition, ownership and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives unexpectedly announced today that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as “armor piercing ammunition.” The decision continues Obama’s use of his executive authority to impose gun control restrictions and bypass Congress.

It isn’t even the third week of February, and the BATFE has already taken three major executive actions on gun control. First, it was a major change to what activities constitute regulated “manufacturing” of firearms. Next, BATFE reversed a less than year old position on firing a shouldered “pistol.” Now, BATFE has released a “Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c)”, which would eliminate M855’s exemption to the armor piercing ammunition prohibition and make future exemptions nearly impossible.

By way of background, federal law imposed in 1986 prohibits the manufacture, importation, and sale by licensed manufacturers or importers, but not possession, of “a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely . . . from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium.” Because there are handguns capable of firing M855, it “may be used in a handgun.” It does not, however, have a core made of the metals listed in the law; rather, it has a traditional lead core with a steel tip, and therefore should never have been considered “armor piercing.” Nonetheless, BATFE previously declared M855 to be “armor piercing ammunition,” but granted it an exemption as a projectile “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.”

Now, however, BATFE says that it will henceforth grant the “sporting purposes” exception to only two categories of projectiles:

Category I: .22 Caliber Projectiles

A .22 caliber projectile that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) will be considered to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile weighs 40 grains or less AND is loaded into a rimfire cartridge.

Category II: All Other Caliber Projectiles

Except as provided in Category I (.22 caliber rimfire), projectiles that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition will be presumed to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile is loaded into a cartridge for which the only handgun that is readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade is a single shot handgun. ATF nevertheless retains the discretion to deny any application for a “sporting purposes” exemption if substantial evidence exists that the ammunition is not primarily intended for such purposes.

BATFE is accepting comments until March 16, 2015 on this indefensible attempt to disrupt ammunition for the most popular rifle in America. Check back early next week for a more in-depth analysis of this “framework” and details on how you can submit comments.

How to comment – from the BATFE

ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before March 16, 2015, and will give comments received after that date the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before March 16, 2015. ATF will not acknowledge receipt of comments. Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method):

ATF email: APAComments@atf.gov

Fax: (202) 648-9741.

Mail: Denise Brown, Mailstop 6N-602, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226: ATTN: AP Ammo Comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Brown, Enforcement Programs and Services, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070.

From NRA-ILA

An article that recently ran in the Nevada Appeal lists the top 5 political donors in the 2014 Nevada election cycle and billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun PAC made the list.  This, in conjunction with the recently qualified ballot initiative that seeks to criminalize private-party transfers absent a background check, clearly demonstrates that Bloomberg has focused his anti-gun agenda on the Silver State.  This initiative is similar to Senate Bill 221, which was vetoed by Governor Sandoval in the 2013 legislative session.

Bloomberg’s Initiative Petition 2 (IP 2) does nothing to address the many criminal and mental health records missing from the background check system.  It instead only focuses on criminalizing private firearm transfers among law-abiding gun owners.  In 2013, just after SB 221 was vetoed, an article highlighted nearly 2,000 mental health records which would have acted as disqualifiers that were not sent to NICS.  Again this past summer, the Department of Public Safety appeared before an interim committee at the legislature requesting additional funding for staff to help input the backlog of nearly 800,000 criminal records that are also missing, some records going back 20 years.  The Department of Public Safety estimates that with the additional staff it will take about four years to fill the backlog.

Initiative Petition 2 would not keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and diverts attention and resources away from real solutions that could prevent violent crime.  If there are almost 800,000 criminal records and nearly 2,000 mental health records missing from the database, then who exactly is being entered into the prohibited possessor database?  In a state with a population just less than 3 million, an oversight of nearly 800,000 records is staggering.

The deeply flawed background check initiative contains many problems beyond an incomplete set of records.  A prime example of this would be the hunting or shooting-range exemption.  The recipient of a temporary transfer can only possess the firearm in all places where it’s legal to hunt or at an established shooting range.  For example, this would make it quite difficult to travel to your hunting location or shooting range without breaking the proposed law.  Furthermore, nothing in the initiative provides for a form of receipt or record retention by either the transferor or transferee.  In the event someone has legally transferred a firearm, how will law enforcement know if the transfer was lawful?  Is the burden on the gun owner to prove the firearm was not part of an illegal transfer?  Could this mean an ordinary traffic stop could turn into hours of turmoil attempting to track down records?  Again, IP 2 would only ensnare unsuspecting and otherwise law-abiding gun owners.

It is definitely plausible that Bloomberg’s next move would be to push for full registration in order to avoid these “problems”.  This would go hand in hand with the January 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice that concluded the effectiveness of “universal” background checks depends on requiring full gun registration, something Bloomberg and other misguided anti-gun extremists are truly after.

Earlier this week the Senate voted to uphold Governor Sandoval’s veto of Senate Bill 221. We applaud the Senate’s commitment to stand firm with the Governor, and to stand against Bloomberg and his efforts to infringe on your rights. Please call your legislators and tell them to reject Initiative Petition 2. The Legislature has until March 13th to take action on the petition. If they reject or take no action it will be sent to the 2016 ballot, if they approve the petition and the Governor signs, then it becomes law. Your legislators need to send a strong message that this deceptive and misguided effort to criminalize private firearm transfers will not be tolerated in the Silver State.

Via David Codrea..

The Wednesday ruling that the federal ban on interstate handgun transfers is unconstitutional, and that Attorney General Eric Holder and ATF Director B. Todd Jones have been enjoined from enforcing that provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968, is unquestionably huge news. While no one knows at this point what an appeal will result in, the “strict scrutiny” standard employed by U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor and his definitive opinion that the ban “is unconstitutional on its face” is sending shock waves through the citizen disarmament community, trying its best to downplay the significance of this setback to their goals.

Case in point: Here’s the Everytown Twitter feed. Do you see any mention of the Feb. 11 ruling? Ditto, not a word on their Facebook page. And here’s Everytown’s “In the News” web page. How about there?

It’s almost like they don’t want people to know something in order to protect an agenda.

Guess which “Gray Lady” that reminds me of?

In fairness, the online edition of The New York Times did post a Reuters filing on Feb. 11, but nothing from The Times’ staff. Funny thing though. I just got back from my hometown library, where they have a subscription to the national edition of The Times, and I couldn’t find the story in their print edition. I looked through copies from Wednesday, Thursday and today.

I found their editorial where they were Mugwort VPC-Steaming each other over the chances of being murdered by a “concealed carry killer” notching up a thousandth of a percentage point over lightning strikes. I even found something about such a lightning strike, that North Carolina nutjob all the “progressives” are glossing over an SPLC connection on (so no mention of that, of course). There was a feature on the “American Sniper” trial, and another on an “Only One” from Colorado who shot a skateboarder in the back, and even a front page feature today memorializing a dead, drug-abusing Times employee swearing he’d done a lot of bad things in his day, but carrying a [GASP!] gun isn’t one of them (until he was contradicted by witnesses who remembered it).

But a landmark decision that could nullify a major piece of “gun control” the antis have been counting on infringing with for almost half a century? If it’s in there, it managed to elude my old eyes. Of course, it could be a new feature, a “find the article” game for those no good at snobbishly obscure crossword puzzles, and in fairness, I didn’t look in the “Food” section.

What did I say a couple paragraphs back?

It’s almost like they don’t want people to know something in order to protect an agenda.

Then again, maybe I’m not being fair. Maybe, just like when Fast and Furious could have brought down an administration had the “legitimate news media” been doing its job instead of running interference for criminal government activity, this just isn’t their scoop.

Yeah, because after all, they’re “the newspaper of record.” That must be it.

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-york-times-anti-gun-agenda-not-limited-to-editorial-page?CID=examiner_alerts_article

(Reuters) – A U.S. ban on the interstate sales of handguns by federal firearms dealers to buyers from other states violates the U.S. Constitution, a federal judge in Texas ruled on Wednesday.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor stemmed from a challenge to the ban brought by a Texas firearms dealer and a couple from the District of Columbia in July 2014.

The federal law prohibits a dealer from transferring a handgun, but not a rifle or shotgun, to an individual who does not live in the state in which the dealer’s business is located.

“While we expect the government to appeal, we are confident that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will agree with Judge O’Connor’s sound ruling,” attorney William Mateja, who represented the challengers, said in a statement.

Andrew and Tracey Hanson met with licensed firearms dealer Fredric Mance Jr. in Texas about buying two handguns, but did not complete the transaction because they could not take immediate possession of the weapons, according to court papers.

Federal law required Mance to transfer the handguns to a federally licensed dealer where the Hansons live, Charles Sykes in the District of Columbia, where they could complete the purchase after paying shipping and transfer fees.

The Hansons and Mance, all members of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, argued in their lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas that the ban limits consumer choices and infringes on their rights.

O’Connor found that the ban violated the second and fifth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. He also distinguished the ban from other firearms restrictions such as those that target specific people, such as felons or the mentally ill.

“As law abiding, responsible citizens, the Hansons likely do not pose the threat to public safety that motivated Congress to enact the federal interstate handgun transfer ban,” O’Connor wrote in his decision.

O’Connor said the government demonstrated a compelling interest in preventing handgun crime, but failed to show how the transfer ban alleviates the problem of prohibited people acquiring handguns by crossing state lines.