[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
The passage of additional gun restrictions on Capitol Hill appears to be unlikely, after a 28-year-old shooter killed three 9-year-olds and three adults at a private Christian grade school in Nashville.
The suspected shooter had no criminal background and was able to legally purchase seven guns from five local gun stores, according to Nashville Police Chief John Drake. The shooter was armed with two assault-style weapons and a handgun, authorities said.
Congress was able to enact a law last year that enhanced background checks for gun buyers under 21 and added funding for mental health services and school security, but Democrats say that wasn’t enough. President Joe Biden on Monday and Tuesday urged Congress to pass legislation banning assault-style weapons — which Congress couldn’t do even when Democrats controlled both chambers in 2021 and 2022.
Senate Chaplain Barry Black, in his opening prayer Tuesday called on senators to do more than offer their sympathies: “When babies die at a church school, it is time for us to move beyond thoughts and prayers,” and he warned, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.”
Throughout the day Tuesday, GOP House Speaker Kevin McCarthy ignored questions from reporters about the Nashville shooting or the possibility of more gun legislation, and by Tuesday afternoon had issued no statement about the mass shooting or the people killed.
Rep. Tim Burchett, a Tennessee Republican who represents the Knoxville area, said Congress isn’t going to fix the problems that led to Monday’s shooting.
“We can pass all the laws we want,” Burchett told CBS News political correspondent Caitlin Huey-Burns on CBS News’ “Red and Blue” Tuesday. “It was already in a gun-free zone. We do that all the time up here — we pass laws, and then they really have no effect. You’ve got to deal with what’s at the heart of this. It’s evil, some even would say demon possession, even, but go further, we’ve got a mental health crisis in this country.”
Republican Sen. Bill Hagerty, the junior senator from Tennessee, said he’s focused on the families of the victims, not the “politics” of the matter.
Asked Tuesday about an assault weapons ban, Hagerty replied, “I’m certain that politics will waive into everything, but right now I’m not focused on the politics of the situation. I’m focused on the families and the victims.”
Sen. John Thune, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, said it’s too soon for any movement on gun legislation, such as universal background checks.
“It’s premature,” Thune told reporters Tuesday. “There’s an ongoing investigation, and I think we need to let the facts come out.”
Still, not all Republicans are resistant to the possibility of more gun control laws.
“I don’t know if there’s much space to do more, but I’ll certainly look and see,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina.
Graham said he wouldn’t vote for an assault weapons ban, adding that if Democrats think that’s the solution, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer should to bring it to the floor.
“If you had an assault weapons ban, I wouldn’t vote for it, but bring it up, if you think that’s the fix,” he said. “You know, Senator Schumer’s in charge. Do you think that fixes the problem? Bring it up. Let’s vote. I’m not afraid to vote.”
Caitlin Huey-Burns, Rebecca Kaplan, Alan He and Jack Turman contributed to this report.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Three children and three adults were killed following a mass shooting at Covenant School in Nashville’s Green Hills neighborhood on Monday morning, officials said.
The suspected shooter, who was fatally shot by police, was identified as 28-year-old Audrey Hale from Nashville, authorities said. Officials said that she was armed with “at least” two assault rifles and a handgun.
Police said their preliminary investigation indicates that the suspect was at one time a student at the school, Nashville Police Chief John Drake said. He did not know exactly when she may have attended.
Covenant, founded in 2001, is a private Christian school with 33 teachers and up to 210 students starting in preschool through 6th grade, according to the school website.
Nashville Police Chief John Drake said at a news conference that the shooting was a targeted attack. Drake said police discovered “a manifesto” as well as planning material.
“We’ve also determined there were maps drawn of the school in detail of surveillance, entry points, etc,” Drake said. “We know and believe that entry was gained by shooting through one of the doors, is how they actually got into the school.”
The shooter entered Covenant School through a side door and traversed the building, moving from the first floor to the second floor and “firing multiple shots,” Metropolitan Nashville Police Department spokesman Don Aaron said.
Responding officers saw the shooter firing on the second level, and at that point, they “engaged” her, Aaron said. The shooter was fatally shot by two of the five responding police officers at the scene, he said.
While not much is known about the shooter, the fact that she was identified as a woman is rare. Since 1982, only three mass shootings in the United States have been carried out by women, according to data from the Statista Research Department. In that same time frame, men have been behind 135 mass shootings, Statista reported.
In 1979, 16-year-old Brenda Spencer opened fire on Cleveland Elementary School in San Diego, killing two adults and wounding eight children. Spencer used a .22 caliber rifle her father had given her for Christmas, CBS8.com reported.
At the time the teen famously told a reporter that she carried out the shooting because “I don’t like Mondays,” CBS8.com reported.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
CNN
—
The Justice Department on Friday asked the Supreme Court to fast-track its consideration of a recent appeals court ruling that deemed unconstitutional a federal law barring gun possession by those under domestic violence restraining orders.
“The presence of a gun in a house with a domestic abuser increases the risk of homicide sixfold,” US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in her petition Friday, urging the high court to decide before its summer recess whether to take up the case.
The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said in February that the 1996 law was unconstitutional, and while the ruling applies only to Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, advocates worry it will have wide implications, including that it will discourage victims from coming forward.
The circuit court cited the major Second Amendment ruling handed down by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority last year that laid out a new test for lower courts to use to analyze a gun regulation’s constitutionality.
Prelogar told the Supreme Court on Friday that the 5th Circuit’s reasoning was wrong and the high court should take up the case so “that it can correct the Fifth Circuit’s misinterpretation of Bruen,” referring to last summer’s Supreme Court opinion.
The high court’s majority opinion in June said that part of the test was whether a gun restriction had a parallel to the regulations in place at the time of the Constitution’s framing.
The 5th Circuit said, with its opinion regarding the domestic violence gun restriction earlier this year, that the prohibition on alleged abusers lacked that kind of historical parallel and therefore was unconstitutional.
If the 5th Circuit’s “approach were applied across the board,” Prelogar wrote, “few modern statutes would survive judicial review; most modern gun regulations, after all, differ from their historical forbears in at least some ways.”
At the time of the circuit court ruling, Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement that Congress had determined the gun ban statute “nearly 30 years ago” and signaled the department’s plan to appeal the ruling.
“Whether analyzed through the lens of Supreme Court precedent, or of the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, that statute is constitutional. Accordingly, the Department will seek further review of the Fifth Circuit’s contrary decision,” he said.
Guns are used to commit nearly two-thirds of intimate partner homicides, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said. A 2021 study found that the majority of mass shootings are also linked to domestic violence.
Though some of the states covered by the appeals court have similar state law restrictions, the new ruling undermines a crucial tool that survivors have to protect themselves from their abusers. If the 5th Circuit’s logic were adopted nationwide by the US Supreme Court, the consequences would be devastating, advocates say.
“People are going to know that their abuser still has their gun. They’re going to continue to live in absolute, abject fear,” said Heather Bellino, the CEO of the Texas Advocacy Project, which works with victims of domestic violence. “They are going to be afraid to get a protective order, because now that gun’s not going away.”
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Visa and Mastercard paused their decision to start categorizing purchases at gun shops, a significant win for conservative groups and Second Amendment advocates who felt tracking gun shop purchases would inadvertently discriminate against legal firearms purchases.
The move is a setback for gun control groups. They say categorizing credit and debit card purchases might help authorities see potential red flags — like significant ammunition purchases — before a mass shooting could be carried out.
After Visa and Mastercard announced their plans to implement a separate merchant category code for gun shop purchases, the payment networks got significant pushback from the gun lobby as well as conservative politicians. A group of 24 GOP state attorneys general wrote a letter to the payment networks threatening legal action against them if they moved forward with their plan.
Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
There are also bills pending in several state legislatures that would ban the tracking of purchases at gun shops. That would have made it even more difficult for Visa and Mastercard to implement the categorization.
In a statement, Visa indicated that the legal pushback was partially the reason it paused the implementation.
“There is now significant confusion and legal uncertainty in the payments ecosystem, and the state actions disrupt the intent of global standards,” the company said.
Visa and Mastercard have said the gun shop categorization was a decision out of their control. The International Organization for Standardization, better known as ISO, is the group that categorizes merchant codes and Visa and Mastercard were just following their decision, the companies said. Gun control advocates lobbied for the change to ISO, not to Visa and Mastercard.
Visa and Mastercard’s plan wouldn’t have tracked individual gun buys. It would have broken out purchases at gun stores as a separate category.
But not all large purchases at a gun shop would have been considered a red flag. For example a purchase of a gun safe, which costs several thousands of dollars, would have been seen as a large purchase at a gun shop even though the safe is considered a responsible tool of gun ownership and unrelated to potential mass shootings.
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, who led the 24 state GOP group that pressured Visa and Mastercard, said in a statement that, “Visa and Mastercard came to the correct conclusion. However, they shouldn’t just ‘pause’ their implementation of this plan—they should end it definitively.”
Thanks for reading CBS NEWS.
Create your free account or log in
for more features.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
CNN
—
In the coming weeks, Gov. Ron DeSantis is poised to show Floridians – and the country – just how much further he is willing to go than any other Republican leader to turn his state into a conservative vision where abortion is nearly outlawed, guns can be carried in public without training, private schools are subsidized with taxpayer dollars and “wokeness” is excised.
DeSantis’ agenda is expected to dominate the debate in Tallahassee when state lawmakers return to action on Tuesday for what is perhaps the most anticipated legislative session in recent memory. With a decision on his presidential ambitions waiting on the other side of the 60-day session, DeSantis has hyped the humdrum of parliamentary proceedings and legislative sausage-making into a spectacle worth following.
“People look at Florida like, ‘Man, the governor has gotten a lot done,’” DeSantis told “Fox & Friends” last month. “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.”
With DeSantis’ backing or urging, Republican lawmakers have filed a slate of bills that will keep Florida at the forefront of the culture wars that are raging in statehouses across the country. There are legislative proposals targeting drag shows, treatments for transgender children, diversity and equity programs at public universities, gender studies majors, professor tenure, teachers unions, libel protections for the media, so-called “woke” banking and in-state college tuition for undocumented residents. Other proposals would extend DeSantis’ powers as governor, including to control the hiring of professors on every public campus through his political appointees and put him in charge of picking the board that oversees scholastic athletics in the state. Another would amend a longstanding “resign to run” law so DeSantis could launch a bid for president without stepping down as Florida governor.
Though no governor in Florida’s modern history has wielded executive power or the bully pulpit quite like DeSantis, it’s the closely aligned, Republican-held legislature that has handed the governor many of the policy wins that have fueled his political rise. Already this year, the legislature has met in special session to shore up several of DeSantis’ priorities, including the freedom to transport migrants from anywhere in the country to Democratic jurisdictions and fewer hurdles for his new election crime office to charge people for voting errors and violations.
Lawmakers in the special session also approved DeSantis’ plans for a takeover of Disney’s special government powers – punishment for the entertainment giant’s objection last year to the Parental Rights in Education law, dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by critics, which prohibited the instruction of sexual orientation and gender identity until after third grade. Under the new law, DeSantis chooses the board members that oversee the taxing district around Disney’s Orlando-area theme parks. Last week, he appointed to the board a political donor, the wife of the state GOP chairman and a former pastor who once suggested tap water could turn people gay.
Now, lawmakers have proposed taking up the legislation at the heart of that feud once again, by extending the prohibited topics in the Parental Rights in Education law to eighth grade. The bill also declares “it is false to ascribe to a person a pronoun that does not correspond to such person’s sex” and it prohibits school districts from requiring teachers or other employees to use a student’s preferred name or pronouns.
For his part, DeSantis will deliver the state of the state address on Tuesday and then spend much of the following weeks on the road to promote his new book, “The Courage to be Free,” a memoir transfixed on the political battles from his first term. It will be up to Republican lawmakers to give DeSantis fresh material from which he can build a narrative for a presidential campaign, should he choose to run. DeSantis has said he intends to decide after the session if he will jump into the 2024 contest.
Privately, DeSantis’ political team believes that as a sitting governor, DeSantis’ ability to stack policy wins is critical to mounting a campaign against former President Donald Trump. Like Trump and former Gov. Nikki Haley, the only other major declared candidate, many potential contenders for the nomination are out of office and unable to dictate an agenda for other Republicans to match. And, unlike DeSantis, their records may not reflect what animates GOP primary voters at the moment.
In a speech behind closed doors last week to the conservative Club for Growth, DeSantis also suggested he is a singular force among elected Republicans in pushing the party to engage in ideological battles.
“I’m going on offense,” DeSantis said, according to audio of his speech obtained by CNN. “Some of these Republicans, they just sit back like potted plants, and they let the media define the terms of the debate. They let the left define the terms of debate. They take all this incoming, because they’re not making anything happen. And I said, ‘That’s not what we’re doing.’”
Democrats, a perennial minority in Tallahassee with even fewer members after the last election, have little recourse to stop DeSantis and Republican lawmakers. Democrats have asserted that the Republican agenda is failing to address the problems many Floridians are facing, including skyrocketing rents, a housing shortage and fast-rising property insurance rates.
“Just a reminder, eggs are still $5 for a dozen,” Senate Minority Leader Lauren Book said Monday. “It’s $3.50 for a gallon of gas. If you live in the state of Florida in a high rise, you still have to buy flood insurance. But the Republicans want to fight about drag and which bathroom people use.”
Still, there are signs of dissent among Republicans in how hard to push on several fronts. Some Republicans have raised concern at the price tag for a DeSantis-backed expansion of a school voucher program that currently allows low-income parents to offset the cost of sending their children to private and religious school. Under the latest proposal, the program would be open to virtually all parents regardless of income, including those who choose to home school their kids.
At a committee meeting last week, state Sen. Erin Grall, a Republican, warned that the “potential for abuse rises significantly with the dollar amount and keeping a child at home.”
Republicans also have not settled on a new legislative framework for the future of abortion access in the state. Before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last summer, DeSantis signed a bill to ban abortion at 15 weeks without exception. He recently signaled he would support legislation that banned abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected; however, he has not publicly advocated for it with the same fervor as his other priorities. Meanwhile, the state’s Senate President Kathleen Passidomo previously said she wanted a 12-week ban that included exemptions for rape and incest.
John Stemberger, president of the Florida Family Policy Council, an influential conservative group, said he expects a compromise heartbeat bill will pass that includes some exceptions. Other anti-abortion groups want to see DeSantis sign a complete ban on abortion.
“While exceptions are important and represent real human beings, the bottom line is they are small in number, so it’s a huge victory even with exceptions and I think the governor and his staff are thinking the same way,” Stemberger said. “He’s certainly committed to signing a heartbeat bill.”
It remains to be seen, too, how Republicans respond to DeSantis’ immigration agenda. DeSantis has proposed repealing a measure that granted in-state tuition for undocumented students who were brought to the US by their parents. The law, championed by his own lieutenant governor, Jeanette Nuñez, when she was a state representative, was a top priority of his predecessor, then-Gov. Rick Scott, and passed the GOP-controlled legislature with help from many of the party’s Latino members. Additionally, DeSantis wants lawmakers to mandate that employers check the immigration status of all workers against a federal database called E-Verify, a proposal opposed for years by the state’s influential hospitality and agriculture industries that bankroll many Republican campaigns.
Republicans have also faced pressure from the right on another DeSantis priority: eliminating the state permit to carry a concealed weapon in Florida. Under the proposal, eligible Floridians could carry a concealed gun in Florida without seeking approval from the state, which currently requires proof of training and a background check to obtain.
While Democrats and gun-control advocates have criticized DeSantis for removing one of the few checks on firearms in the state, gun-rights activists have said the measure doesn’t go far enough. They want Florida to allow people to carry a gun in public in the open and for the state to eliminate gun-free zones. In Florida, it’s currently illegal to carry a firearm at a school or on a college campus.
“The title of ‘constitutional carry’ for this bill is a lie,” Luis Valdes, the Florida director of Gun Owners of America, said during a recent committee hearing on the bill. “Why are Republicans defending (former Democratic attorney general) Janet Reno’s gun control policies?”
DeSantis has suggested, at times, that it is up to the legislature to put these bills on his desk. But for some conservatives, DeSantis has set the expectation that he can bully Republican lawmakers into supporting any measure he gets behind.
DeSantis himself has said his political philosophy is guided by taking political risks that others won’t.
“Boldness is something that voters reward,” DeSantis said Sunday in California. “The lesson is swing for the fences. You will be rewarded.”
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Students, activists and local leaders gathered in Lansing, Michigan, to rally for laws to prevent gun violence one week after a deadly shooting at Michigan State University.
The Michigan Board of Education, MSU students and gun control organization March For Our Lives hosted the rally, which took place Monday.
At a press conference kicking off the event, MSU students remembered Alexandria Verner, Brian Fraser and Arielle Anderson, the three students killed in last week’s shooting. Five others were injured after a man opened fire at several locations on MSU’s campus on Feb. 13. The suspect later died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound after being confronted by police off-campus.
Local leaders, including representatives from the American Federation of Teachers and state lawmakers, called for the passage of stricter gun control legislation during the press conference. Multiple MSU students shared stories from last week’s shooting, explaining how they sent worried messages of love to their parents and other family members during the incident.
David Hogg, founder of March For Our Lives, also spoke at Monday’s event.
“I’m tired of being at these things,” he said. “I think all of us are.”
Hogg argued for Democrats and Republicans to find common ground on gun control laws and “start focusing on what we can agree on, which is the fact that we need to do something about this.”
“Every single student in America is exhausted, every single parent in our country is exhausted,” he said.
Hogg also praised younger voters for their activism and for supporting candidates who fight for gun control legislation, calling for older people and lawmakers to step up.
“I often hear older people saying, ‘Thank God the kids are here,’” he said. “Stop it. You’re not dead yet.”
Three days after the shooting, Democrats in the Michigan state Senate introduced several gun control bills, according to MLive. The legislation had been in the works after a separate school shooting that took place in Oxford, Michigan, in November 2021, where four students were killed.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
CNN
—
A coalition of primarily GOP-led led states sued the Biden administration Thursday in an effort to block a new federal rule that subjects pistol-stabilizing braces to additional regulations, including higher taxes, longer waiting periods and registration.
The rule, announced earlier this year by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, went into effect on January 31. Gun control proponents have argued that stabilizing braces effectively transform a pistol into a short-barreled rifle, which is heavily regulated under the National Firearms Act.
But in the lawsuit filed by 25 Republican state attorneys general, a Second Amendment advocacy coalition and two of its members, and a disabled gun owner who uses the stabilizing braces, the plaintiffs argue the regulations are “arbitrary and capricious” and are not covered by the 1934 law or the Gun Control Act of 1968.
“The rule regulates pistols and other firearms equipped with stabilizing braces, even though the text, structure, history, and purpose of the NFA and GCA show that the statute does not regulate such weapons,” states the lawsuit, which names US Attorney General Merrick Garland, the ATF and its director as defendants.
ATF declined to comment on the lawsuit. CNN has reached out to the Justice Department for comment on the suit.
The coalition of states challenging the rule is led by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who said Thursday during a news conference announcing the suit that the ATF’s new rule “is also another case of a federal agency not staying in its lane and doing the job the Constitution clearly delegates to Congress – writing laws.”
“Let’s call this what it is: An effort to undermine Americans’ Second Amendment rights,” he said. “This is an egregious final rule turning millions of common firearms accessories into ‘short-barreled rifles.’ This is a completely nonsensical regulation.”
According to the new rule, manufacturers, dealers and individual gun owners have 120 days to register tax-free any existing short-barreled rifles covered by the rule. They can also remove the stabilizing brace or surrender covered short-barreled rifles to the ATF, the agency said.
Restrictions on stabilizing braces have been hotly debated after they were proposed by the ATF in 2020, when the bureau suggested a new rule that would regulate pistol braces under the NFA. The 2020 proposal sparked a major backlash from groups such as the National Rifle Association.
The regulations challenged on Thursday were given new life in 2021 after pistols with stabilizing braces were used in mass shootings in Boulder, Colorado, and in Dayton, Ohio. At the time, Garland unveiled several proposals aimed at curbing gun violence, including reupping the restriction on pistol braces.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Washington — Less than a year after the Supreme Court issued its major decision expanding gun rights, the new legal test laid out by Justice Clarence Thomas in his majority opinion has reshaped the legal landscape for firearms laws and led to uncertainty over whether measures that aim to curb gun violence can survive legal scrutiny.
The laws — those recently enacted in the states, as well as longstanding federal restrictions with broad support — are being tested in courtrooms from coast to coast, where judges are tasked with evaluating whether they are “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
“We’re seeing a lot of action and a lot of unpredictability when it comes to the Second Amendment after Bruen,” said Joseph Blocher, co-director of Duke University’s Center for Firearms Law. “It’s happening in a bunch of different directions, and the source of the change is the new methodology that the Supreme Court announced in the Bruen case because it instructs courts to evaluate the constitutionality of laws based solely on whether they are in some ill-defined sense consistent with historical tradition.”
Under the Supreme Court’s new standard for determining whether gun laws are within constitutional bounds, the government is required to show that the measure is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation.
“We hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct,” Thomas wrote. “To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. “
The decision, which struck down a New York handgun licensing law, prompted the governors of New York and New Jersey to enact new firearms restrictions, and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed into law last month a measure that bans the sale and distribution of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in the state.
But the new requirements have been swiftly met with a flood of lawsuits from gun rights organizations and firearms owners who argue they do not pass constitutional muster under the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. And federal judges navigating the changed legal landscape have cited the June ruling in their own decisions, many blocking enforcement of the gun laws.
“For the vast majority of America historically and until June of last year, the overwhelming obstacle to gun regulation has been political. It has not been the case that courts are actively striking down gun laws, it’s that they’re not being passed in the first place,” Blocher said. “After Bruen, we’re seeing a more active role for courts. But there’s still absolutely room even under the most restrictive reading of Bruen to pass common-sense gun regulations that the vast majority of Americans favor.”
Signed into law days after the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decision, New York’s new rules requires concealed carry applicants to demonstrate “good moral character” and bans firearms in some “sensitive” spaces like places of worship, bars, and public parks. Six gun owners in New York and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association challenged provisions of the law, arguing it was unconstitutional.
A federal district court in Syracuse, New York, blocked provisions of the law from being enforced after drawing on the framework set forth in the Bruen decision, but the 2nd Circuit allowed them to go into effect. The gun owners asked the Supreme Court to intervene, but the court declined, leaving the law in place while proceedings continue.
Similar to New York’s restrictions, the New Jersey law criminalizes carrying handguns in certain sensitive places, including public libraries and museums, bars and restaurants, and on private property. Gun owners and four gun organizations challenged provisions of the law, and last month, a federal district court judge halted enforcement of the sensitive-place rules.
“The state may regulate conduct squarely protected by the Second Amendment only if supported by a historical tradition of firearm regulation,” U.S. District Judge Renee Bumb wrote. “Here, Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants will not be able to demonstrate a history of firearm regulation to support any of the challenged provisions.”
While the court fights in New Jersey and New York have involved new laws enacted in response to the Supreme Court’s decision, the new legal test set forth by the high court puts federal laws that predated the ruling in jeopardy.
In a case involving a West Virginia man who was charged in May for unlawfully possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number, U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin found the law to be unconstitutional and dismissed the charge.
“A firearm without a serial number in 1791 was certainly not considered dangerous or unusual compared to other firearms because serial numbers were not required or even commonly used at that time,” he wrote.
Last week, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled a 30-year-old federal law that prohibits a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing firearms is unconstitutional in light of the Bruen decision.
“The government fails to demonstrate that [the statute’s] restriction of the Second Amendment right fits within our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” Judge Cory Wilson wrote for the panel. The law is an “outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted,” he concluded, citing Thomas’s opinion.
Attorney General Merrick Garland indicated the Justice Department will appeal the ruling. It could ask the full 5th Circuit to rehear the case or seek review by the Supreme Court.
Blocher, of Duke’s Center for Firearms Law, said prohibitions like the domestic violence gun law are regarded today as “valid and even essential.”
“In the founding era, you won’t always find laws that directly disarmed people for intimate-partner violence,” he said. “It wasn’t something legislatures concerned themselves with, but it would be absurd to say we can’t do that today simply because in 1791 women were not given the protection of law that they deserved then and now.”
While some gun measures, such as so-called “red flag laws” that allow courts to issue temporary orders authorizing law enforcement to seize firearms from individuals who are seen as threat to themselves or other people, have bipartisan support, the Bruen decision could pave the way for legal challenges to those laws, too.
District court judges have struggled in their efforts to apply the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, particularly when assessing whether a firearm regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition, said Esther Sanchez-Gomez, litigation director for Giffords Law Center.
“It invites district courts to become historians in ways they’re not equipped to be,” she told CBS News. “It also requires this in-depth review of the historical record, which is an onerous task, even for an expert, and district courts with heavy dockets are not well-positioned to be taking that on.”
The challenge for judges in applying the new so-called “historical tradition” test spilled into public view in October, when U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves issued an order raising the possibility of appointing a historian to serve as a “consulting expert” in a case challenging the constitutionality of a federal statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms.
“This Court is not a trained historian. The Justices of the Supreme Court, distinguished as they may be, are not trained historians. We lack both the methodological and substantive knowledge that historians possess,” he wrote. “The sifting of evidence that judges perform is different than the sifting of sources and methodologies that historians perform. And we are not experts in what white, wealthy, and male property owners thought about firearms regulation in 1791. Yet we are now expected to play historian in the name of constitutional adjudication.”
Many of the court fights over new state gun controls are in the early stages, and judges have been asked to block enforcement of the laws while legal proceedings continue.
Still, their struggles in applying the Supreme Court’s new legal test and recent decisions invalidating new and existing laws loom over state and federal efforts to enact more gun controls. But advocates of more stringent gun laws say the prospect of legal battles should not be a deterrent for lawmakers.
“Legislators should be taking Justice Thomas at his word and understand that Brue is not a regulatory straightjacket,” Sanchez-Gomez said. “Doing nothing in the wake of the violence out of fear it might be challenged seems like a game of negotiating with yourself at the cost of many lives. Let’s talk about Bruen, understand what it means, but given that it’s still in flux, it’s counterproductive to be thinking too much about exactly the outer bounds.”
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Nancy Rotering was relieved when Illinois enacted its new assault weapons ban earlier this month: Had such a law been on the books earlier, the Highland Park mayor told me, her community might have been spared “the agony and the grief” it suffered last year, when a 21-year-old with a semiautomatic rifle opened fire on an Independence Day parade, killing seven people and injuring dozens of others. “We got it done,” Rotering said of the law. “I’m proud of Illinois for setting an excellent standard.”
But the law, signed by Governor JB Pritzker on January 10, is facing not only the inevitable barrage of legal challenges that always spring up in response to gun control measures—it’s being undermined by the very officials tasked with enforcing it. More than 90 sheriffs in a state of 102 counties have vowed to defy the Protect Illinois Communities Act, claiming in nearly identical statements—based on a template drafted by Jim Kaitschuk, executive director of the Illinois Sheriffs’ Association—that the law is unconstitutional. “The right to keep and bear arms for defense of life, liberty, and property is regarded as an inalienable right by the people,” read one iteration of the statement, issued by Sheriff James Mendrick of DuPage County, the most populous county to join the protest. “Neither myself nor my office will be checking to ensure that lawful gun owners register their weapons with the State, nor will we be arresting or housing law-abiding individuals that have been arrested solely for non-compliance of this Act.”
It’s unclear how much of an impact the sheriffs’ outrageous defiance could have on the law, as they share enforcement responsibilities with state and municipal police. But gun control proponents are concerned that it could undermine the gun-safety measure, erode public trust in the rule of law more broadly, and leave more Illinoisans vulnerable to gun violence. “I think it’s embarrassing for them,” State Representative Bob Morgan, the chief cosponsor of the bill, said of the sheriffs. The Democrat, who was at the Highland Park parade with his family last July and witnessed the massacre, told me over the phone that “they’re making political decisions about the safety of their community.”
“There’s a real impact of this chest-beating, these political statements,” Morgan added.
The Protect Illinois Communities Act—enacted in response to the Highland Park shooting and other acts of gun violence in the state—prohibits the manufacture and sale of assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and “switches,” devices that can turn handguns and rifles into automatic weapons. Illinois is the ninth state in the country to pass such a ban, and it is one of several gun control victories over the past year, including the passage of the most significant federal gun-safety legislation in three decades.
“This law was extremely important to me and my family and my community, not just because of what we’ve been through, but because we’ve been so intently focused on trying to prevent this from happening to anyone else,” Morgan told me.
But the weeks since its enactment—during which dozens of high-profile mass shootings swept the country—have underscored the ongoing challenges the gun control movement is facing. Consider the array of lawsuits that have been filed against the Protect Illinois Communities Act, including by the National Rifle Association and the Illinois State Rifle Association; one suit, led by failed state attorney general candidate Thomas DeVore, resulted in an Effingham County judge issuing a temporary restraining order against the law, which applies only to the 865 plaintiffs and one gun shop in the legal action. Others challenging the law include Darren Bailey, the Donald Trump–backed Republican who unsuccessfully tried to unseat Pritzker in November, and two of the lawyers who helped get New York’s concealed carry law struck down last year by the Supreme Court in a decision that could dramatically limit what kinds of gun control measures states can enact.
Though Pritkzer said in a statement that he remains “confident” the law will hold up against the mounting challenges, the high court’s ruling looms large over the legal fight. So does another factor that has long undercut Illinois’s tough gun restrictions: the comparatively lax laws in neighboring states like Indiana and Missouri, which account for a significant portion of the weapons used in Chicago crimes. “None of us are islands,” as Rotering told me, and while the ban is a “step forward,” it can only do so much in the absence of federal action.
[ad_2]
Eric Lutz
Source link

[ad_1]
CNN
—
Illinois’ Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker on Tuesday signed legislation that enacts an extensive ban on firearms as well as high-capacity magazines in the state.
The new law caps the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines, bans “switches” that allow handguns to fire rounds automatically and “extends the ability of courts to prevent dangerous individuals from possessing a gun through firearm restraining orders,” the governor’s office said in a news release.
The ban goes into effect immediately and will not require those who currently own such weapons to relinquish them, though people who already possess semi-automatic rifles will be required to register their ownership.
“No Illinoisan, no matter their zip code, should have to go through life fearing their loved one could be the next in an ever-growing list of victims of mass shootings. However, for too long, people have lived in fear of being gunned down in schools, while worshipping, at celebrations or in their own front yards,” Pritzker said in a statement. “This legislation will stop the spread of assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and switches and make our state a safer place for all.”
The bill passed in a 34-20 vote in the state’s Senate on Monday and 68-41 in the House Tuesday, largely along party lines, before heading to Pritzker’s desk. Both chambers are controlled by Democrats.
“This assault weapons ban is a step in the right direction, to improve safety for Illinois’ families and law enforcement but there’s no magic fix, no single law that will end gun violence once and for all. So, we must keep fighting, voting and protesting to ensure future generations will only have to read about massacres like Highland Park, Sandy Hook or Uvalde in their history books,” Pritzker said on Tuesday.
In the Highland Park shooting, which took place at a Fourth of July parade in the Chicago suburb last year, the suspect allegedly fired more than 70 rounds into a crowd, killing seven people and injuring dozens more. The high-powered rifle that was used in the shooting was described by authorities as “similar to an AR-15” and was legally purchased.
Several Republicans objected to the new law. State Rep. Dave Severin issued a statement in which he specifically criticized the registration requirement and supported legal challenges, while another representative, Charlie Meier, said the legislation “won’t prevent gang violence from occurring in our cities, however, it will unfortunately diminish law-abiding gun owners the right to protect themselves and their family at home.”
Pritzker, who marked the start of his second gubernatorial term with Tuesday’s ban, has also signed legislation in the past to combat gun violence.
In May 2022, the governor signed HB 4383, which prohibits individuals from selling or possessing so-called “ghost guns,” self-assembled firearms often put together with parts sold online, and ensures all firearms are serialized, allowing law enforcement to better trace them.
Pritzker later signed HB4729 in June of last year, which requires the Department of Public Health to develop and implement a two-year public awareness campaign focused on safe gun storage.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
CNN
—
Four gun traffickers have been charged with illegally selling over 50 firearms in Brooklyn, marking the first prosecution in New York state under a bipartisan gun safety law enacted last June, law enforcement officials announced at a news conference Wednesday.
Known as the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the federal law includes a gun trafficking provision that creates a standalone firearm trafficking conspiracy offense, which New York prosecutors used to charge the gun traffickers. The act also provides increased sentences of up to 15 years in prison for such crimes.
“Prosecutions of gun trafficking prior to the enactment of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act relied on statutes concerning unlicensed sale, transport, and delivery of firearms, and false statements made to firearms dealers. By using the new law in the charges today, we’re able to streamline those prosecutions by charging firearms trafficking conspiracy as a standalone federal crime,” US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Breon Peace said.
“As the first prosecution to utilize this legislation in New York and one of the first in the country, we are demonstrating that we are prepared to use all the tools at our disposal, new and old, to combat gun violence,” Peace said.
A seven-count indictment was unsealed in court, charging David Mccann, Tajhai Jones, Raymond Minaya, and Calvin Tabron with conspiring to traffic over 50 illegal firearms, Peace said.
Prosecutors allege there were multiple illegal firearm purchases between January 2022 and August 2022, with the guns being sold during the day from vehicles in and around housing projects in Brooklyn.
Two members of the gun trafficking operation allegedly got the firearms in Virginia and transported them to New York to be sold in Brooklyn, prosecutors said in a news release. Some of the firearms allegedly had defaced serial numbers and others were made from ghost gun kits, the release states.
The group allegedly sold the guns to an undercover New York Police Department officer who recorded many of the transactions. The undercover officer allegedly told the group he was a drug dealer and needed the guns, with the intent to resell some of the weapons, prosecutors said.
The guns recovered were traced back to several shootings in Brooklyn, prosecutors said, including one incident where eight people were struck by gunfire at a family celebration in Brooklyn in April 2022.
Mccann, Jones, Minaya and Tabron were all arrested Wednesday morning, Peace said.
Mccann and Minaya are also charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. Mccann is also charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute fentanyl, prosecutors said.
Mccann and Minaya are scheduled to be arraigned Wednesday afternoon.
Jones and Tabron are scheduled to be arraigned in Virginia. They will have their detention hearings on Friday.
Minaya’s attorney declined to comment. Mccann’s attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Tabron is represented by Federal Public Defenders, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Jones will have an attorney appointed to him by Criminal Justice Act, according to an EDNY spokesperson.
This latest arrest marks one of the first instances where the law was used.
Last September, a 25-year-old US citizen living in Mexico was charged in connection with trafficking firearms from Texas into Mexico. He was believed to have been the first person charged with part of the Safer Communities Act known as the Stop Illegal Trafficking In Firearms Act, according to a news release from the US Attorney’s Office from the Southern District of Texas.
The 25-year-old alleged trafficker was caught driving south on Interstate 35 heading to the port in Laredo, Texas, when he was caught with 17 guns in his car, according to Justice Department officials. In all, he bought 231 firearms, investigators said.
The bipartisan act, signed by President Biden in June 2022, was the first major federal gun safety legislation in decades and a significant bipartisan breakthrough on one of the most contentious policy issues in Washington.
The legislation came together in the aftermath of mass shootings at an Uvalde, Texas, elementary school and a Buffalo, New York, supermarket in a predominantly Black neighborhood.
On Wednesday, Peace said the new law makes it easier to prosecute interstate gun trafficking cases.

“Now we can charge the firearm trafficking itself without the obligation to show that someone was in the business of selling firearms and that’s a significant difference in what proof and evidence we would have to put forward,” Peace said, noting that the penalty has also increased. “Under the other statutes, the maximum penalties would likely be five or ten years. Under this Act, they’ll be facing up to 15 years.”
NYPD Commissioner Keechant Sewell also spoke about the flood of illegal weapons from nearby states with more relaxed firearm regulations, commonly known as the “Iron Pipeline,” highlighting how police officers were killed in the line of duty with illegal guns from other cities.
In December 2014, NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos were shot and killed as they sat in their patrol car in Brooklyn, Sewell said. The gun was bought in a Georgia pawn shop before making its way to New York City, according to Sewell.
A year later, Officer Brian Moore was shot and killed in Queens with a firearm that was stolen from a pawn shop in Georgia, Sewell said.
Officers Wilber Mora and Jason Rivera were shot and killed last year while responding to a domestic incident with a gun that was stolen from Baltimore in 2017.
“Every day, NYPD officers, with our partners, will continue to interdict, interrupt, investigate and hold criminals accountable,” Sewell said. “New Yorkers in every neighborhood should be free from fear and tragedy related to gun violence.”
[ad_2]