Elections Have Consequences – (Part 3)

20 Years Ago: The “Assault Weapons Ban” of 1994 Passed into History (or, Elections have Consequences)

Like many of you, I find it hard to believe that 2004 was 20 years ago. A couple weeks ago Guy Relford mentioned it was the 20th anniversary on his radio show (The Gun Guy on WIBC) and it got me thinking about how far we have come in regards to 2nd Amendment (2A) rights. It also serves as another reminder that elections have consequences.

On 13 September 2004, the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (AWB of 94) hit the 10-year sunset and was no more. The actual title of the bill was the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, (and that’s the biggest case of false advertising since Chunky Monkey Ice Cream.) Reading the provisions of the AWB of 94 I was reminded of how our elected officials kept us safe by identifying assault weapon features such as: telescoping stocks (making it easier for people of smaller stature shoot effectively is bad?) Bayonet lugs (because attaching a large knife to a rifle gives it an effective range of 1 yard?) A flash-hider (because having night vision after the first shot is a bad thing?) And the ever-evil pistol-grip (which has more to do with ergonomics and design than with making a rifle more “assaultee”.)

In 1994 the Democrats had a 57-43 majority in the Senate. Senate rules require 60 votes to “end cloture” and allow the bill to come up for a vote. Six Republicans voted in favor of the AWB of 94. Elections do have consequences. Less than two months after the AWB of 94 was signed into law, Republicans took the majority in both the Senate and House for the first time in over 40 years. Actions have consequences as well.

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, there are an estimated 28 million modern sporting rifles in private hands, an estimate 20 million are AR-15 platforms. The “in common use for lawful purposes” standard from the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in DC v Heller (2008) would make another ban unlikely to pass judicial scrutiny. Unfortunately, we’ve seen the current administration operate in an unconstitutional manner (student loan forgiveness, rent moratorium.) Elections do have consequences.

After reviewing the provisions of the AWB of 94 (and a couple other things since I saw a lot of similarities) I made a couple observations. First, a lot of our elected officials really know absolutely nothing about firearms. I don’t mean “explain the difference between how a semi-automatic handgun operates compared to a semi-automatic rifle” level of knowledge. I mean “doesn’t know which end the bullets come out” level of knowledge. Second, the ends always justify the means, so they reverse-engineer the means to arrive at the ends.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 gave us a point system which led to the ban of many imported firearms, including the Walther PPK. You can buy the gun carried by James Bond here in the United States, it’s made in Arkansas, not Germany.

Wearing another of my many hats, I’m a staff member on an Internet-based discussion forum that has a classifieds section. In this role I’ve learned there are many things about which I do not know. I can’t tell a counterfeit Benchmade Infidel knife from a real one. I know a Lee-Enfield rifle is chambered in .303 British, but I can’t tell the difference between one used in the Boer War and one used in WW II. Then one day, a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) brought up an issue, and I was even more certain that to people who know nothing about firearms, the ends justify the means.

Since November 1990, there has been a ban on importing semi-automatic rifles and shotguns with certain features. Importers bring them into our country and swap out foreign parts for US-made parts to make it legal according to a point-system designed by people who really know nothing about firearms. This also means that replacing US-made parts with foreign-made parts that have nothing to do with the weapon’s operation, makes it an illegal weapon.

I’d be willing to say that most of the folks reading this are familiar with Benelli and Beretta semi-automatic shotguns. I’d also be willing to say that very few of you know that neither Benelli or Beretta semi-automatic shotguns can be imported with an extended tube magazine. But wait, there’s more.

To determine which firearms are illegal to import there is of course, a point system. 20 parts, if more than 10 of them are imported, then parts must be replaced with US-made parts until the number of imported parts is 10 or less.

Of the parts listed which could possibly make a firearm illegal: a magazine counts for 3 points. The magazine body, follower, and floorplate each count as 1 point. A magazine feeds ammunition into a firearm. Is there a difference in operation of the firearm if the magazine was made in Bulgaria or in Texas? Is anyone surprised they didn’t assign a 1-point value to the magazine spring?

Does the country of manufacture of the butt-stock and fore-grip make a firearm more or less dangerous? Changing the American Walnut butt-stock and fore-grip on my Winchester Model 12 out and replacing it with a Polish Walnut butt-stock and fore-grip really won’t matter. Replacing the American Walnut butt-stock and fore-grip on my Romanian AK-47 (semi-automatic version) imported after November 1990 and replacing it with a Polish Walnut butt-stock and fore-grip could lead to a long prison sentence since that is 2 points. Switch out the pistol-grip made in Texas by Magpul with an original Romanian pistol-grip? That’s another point.

What attaches the butt-stock on an AK-47 to the receiver? It’s a bent piece of metal called a trunnion. An American-made bent piece of metal verses a Chinese-made bent piece of metal can be the difference between a legal weapon and an illegal weapon since it counts as 1 point.

To sum up my observations: Anti-2A individuals seem to pride themselves on their ignorance of firearms. The ends always justify the means. Cosmetic features that have no effect on the operation of a firearm are an easy means to an end, when you have no knowledge about what you want to ban.

The landmark SCOTUS case New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) established the “text, history, and tradition” standard in reference to 2A rights. I don’t think any of the examples I provided would pass that standard.

Any way you look at it, a lot of elected officials voted for these laws. Elections do have consequences.

Kelly Myers, ISRPA Government Affairs Co-Director

September 19, 2024September 19, 2024

Elections Have Consequences (Part 2)

As gun owners, we are those who exercise and support the 2nd Amendment (2A.) As gun owners from Indiana, we exercise and support Article I Section 32 of the Indiana Constitution, “The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.” The Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) went from 1939 (US v Miller upheld the National Firearms Act of 1934 requiring registration of machine guns and the tax stamp, which doubled the cost of a Thompson sub-machine gun. Miller did set the precedent for firearms lawfully possessed for lawful purposes being protected under 2A) until DC v Heller (2008) with no substantive 2A cases.

Heller was a 5-4 decision. Two of the four in dissent were Republican President appointees. Justice Stevens appointed by President Ford; Justice Souter appointed by President (HW) Bush. It is hard to believe the same individual who appointed Justice Souter, appointed Justice Clarence Thomas.

McDonald v Chicago (2010) affirmed that States had to respect 2A rights as well. It was also a 5-4 decision. Justice Stevens was the only Republican President appointee in dissent.

We went another 12 years after McDonald before a substantive 2A case came up before SCOTUS. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) was a landmark case and a 6-3 decision. Bruen gave us “text, history, and tradition” as the standard to what was and wasn’t constitutional. As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion, “The 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right.”

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. 1984 (referred to as “Chevron Deference” since it set the precedent for the legislative and judicial branches to defer to the “experts” in the executive agencies… and 40 years of a bad precedent.) Also referred to simply as “Chevron”. Two years after Chevron, things started to change on SCOTUS that would lead to where we are today.

So how did we get here? We (as 2nd Amendment, or 2A supporters) have a 6-3 SCOTUS on a good day, 5-4 on a bad day. As much as I miss the days of the Reagan Administration, Justice Scalia was President Reagan’s only solid 2A supporter appointed to SCOTUS, and Justice Scalia started SCOTUS towards where we are today. Justice Day-O’Connor was often “the swing vote” on SCOTUS. Justice Kennedy was the “swing vote” on Heller, he was not always on our side.

President George HW Bush gave us David Souter. He replaced Eisenhower appointee William Brennan who voted in the majority opinion on Chevron (Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. 1984. “Chevron Deference” set the precedent for the legislative and judicial branches to defer to the “experts” in the executive agencies… again 40 years of a bad precedent.) Chevron was overturned by Loper-Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo 2024.

In the card game Blackjack a tie is known as a “push.” Trading Justice Souter for Justice Brennan was a push. Then Bush 41 appointed Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall. The confirmation hearings were on a level that we wouldn’t see again until President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh. The addition of Justice Thomas to SCOTUS would later turn out to be a major win for 2A supporters.

The two SCOTUS Justices appointed by Bill Clinton (Bader-Ginsburg and Breyer) replaced Kennedy appointee Byron White and Nixon appointee Harry Blackmun. Both Clinton-appointed Justices replaced

Justices who supported Chevron Deference. Both Justices Baser-Ginsburg and Breyer were in dissent on Heller. We’ll call this a push.

George W Bush appointed Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. It is of note they replaced Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Day-O’Connor. There was a reason Heller didn’t come up before SCOTUS until both Justices Rehnquist and Day-O’Connor were off the court. Justice Rehnquist replaced Warren Burger as Chief Justice. Justice Burger voted in favor of Chevron; this was still a push. I hold my breath on some of the decisions from Chief Justice Roberts (replaced Justice Rehnquist in 2005,) but he is solid on 2A. Justice Alito is as good on 2A as Justice Thomas. This was a major shift in SCOTUS as to how 2A was viewed by the court.

President Obama appointed Justices Sotomayor and Kagen. They replaced Justices Souter and Stevens who both opposed Heller. Call that a push.

When President Trump was elected, he nominated Neil Gorsuch to replace the late Antonin Scalia. As I said in Part 1, I am no fan of Senator Mitch McConnell, but thanks to him we don’t have Merrick Garland as a SCOTUS Justice. Even with Justice Gorsuch, we were still a shaky 5-4 SCOTUS at this point.

When Justice Kennedy retired, SCOTUS became a much more certain 5-4 when Justice Kavanaugh was appointed. The confirmation hearings for Justice Kavanaugh were worse than the hearings for Clarence Thomas and those hearings in 1991 were very bad.

When Amy Coney-Barrett replaced Ruth Bader-Ginsburg… that was what gave us at least a solid 5-4 (on a good day a 6-3) SCOTUS majority. It was a very good day when NYSRPA v. Bruen was a 6-3 decision. Justice Bader-Ginsburg opposed both Heller and McDonald, Justice Coney-Barrett was in the majority on Bruen. Enough said.

Trading Justice Breyer for Justice Brown-Jackson was a push, except Brown-Jackson is much younger than Justice Breyer

I hate to think where our 2A rights would be if Hillary Clinton had been elected in 2016. Justice Thomas is 76 years old; Justice Alito is 74. Elections do have consequences.

Kelly Myers
ISRPA Government Affairs Co-Director

August 22, 2024August 22, 2024

The Most Important Election in our Lifetimes – Kelly Myers

The Most Important Election in our Lifetimes (and this time I really mean it.)

We are all old enough to remember many elections that were the “most important election.” All we have to do is look at what is happening now and consider what could happen in the next 4 years to know this is the most important election of our lifetimes.

Where are we now? The current administration has shown it will operate in an unconstitutional manner as stated by the Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) in “student loan forgiveness” (taxpayer-funded money transfer is more accurate.) The power of Executive Agencies (non-appointed/non-elected bureaucrats under the Executive Branch of government) were severely curtailed in a recent SCOTUS decision known as Loper-Bright. The case points out that the Legislative Branch makes laws, and Executive Agencies do not. This ended a 40-year-old precedent known as “Chevron Deference” where decisions should be “deferred” to the experts at Executive Agencies. Despite this, agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (BATFE, or simply the ATF) seem to be doubling down on their attacks on the law abiding.

In a recent case in the 8th US Circuit involving pistol stabilizing braces: the ATF argued that despite publishing slideshows with pictures of specific pistol-length AR and AK variants with specific braces, now being considered short-barreled rifles (and require registration and a tax stamp under the National Firearms Act of 1934 or you can get 10 years in prison for each offense) it really didn’t count since the final rule hadn’t been published in the National Registry. Fortunately, the 8th Circuit was having none of that. Unfortunately, the ATF is playing with our money and can make arguments with such hutzpah. (Hutzpah is Yiddish for gall or audacity. I can’t use the other words I’d like to use here.)

But wait, there’s more. The Department of Treasury is operating an entity known as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) that works with financial institutions and card processors to “track suspected Lone Actor/Homegrown Violent Extremism Indicators.” In reality (as Senator Jim Jordan provided in a press release) the information being sought includes payments to Delta Defense (US Concealed Carry Association,) reloading equipment from Dillon Precision, and Smokey Mountain Knife Works. This all going on while the ATF can’t explain their own 500 pages of rules defining who is “in the business of selling firearms” but can revoke the Federal Firearms License of a gun store in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania because the hyphen in Wilkes-Barre was missing on one ATF Form 4473.

I will be the first to admit the previous three paragraphs paint less than a rosy picture. While reading an op-ed published in The Federalist by Dr John Lott (President, Crime Prevention Research Center) I was reminded that things could actually be worse. The title of the article: If elected, Kamala Harris would be the most anti-gun President in US history. Having met Dr Lott a few times, I can tell you a couple things about him. First, if there is a stereotype for an Economics Professor, it is Dr John Lott. Second, when he makes a statement, he backs it up.

Forced “gun buybacks” (incredibly misleading since the government never owned them, taxpayer-funded confiscation seems more accurate,) taking executive action if Congress won’t change the law (clearly unconstitutional, but that hasn’t stopped the current administration.) In an amicus brief to SCOTUS in 2008 the Democrat nominee for President argued the constitutionality of gun bans since there is no individual right to possess firearms. Thankfully SCOTUS saw it differently.

Heading up the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, VP Harris and her team of gun-banners managed to come up with the following:

“Eliminate gun manufacturers immunity from liability.” As with any manufacturer, if a defective product is brought to market there can be lawsuits. This is a direct attack on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Ford and Jim Beam don’t get sued for drunk drivers. If they did, there would be a similar law for automobile and liquor manufacturers. This is an attempt to sue firearms manufacturers out of existence.

“Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.” It would be helpful if “assault weapons” could be identified by means other than “anything we want to ban.” The country had a quote-unquote assault weapons ban from 1994-2004. An Analyst from the Bureau of Justice Statistics stated that another ban would have results that were “too small to measure” or “statistically insignificant.” As far as high-capacity magazines, no one can seem to agree on a number of rounds that constitutes “high.” Much like the number of home-invaders can’t be predicted.

“Mandate people lock up their guns.” This was addressed in the landmark DC v Heller (2008) as well as when New York changed the SAFE Act law prior to a SCOTUS decision. Responsible gun owners secure their firearms. Responsible governments encourage, rather than mandating.

“Impose background checks for all firearms transfers.” Universal background checks require universal registration. As history has taught us, registration leads to confiscation. Only the law-abiding follow the law. I’m sure the criminal element who trades drugs for guns will participate in universal background checks, being the law and all.

Again, not a rosy picture, but this is our current reality. We have made great strides at the State-level here in Indiana to protect the rights of gun-owners, but we have more work to do.

Are you registered to vote? Do you know a fellow gun owner who is not? You can register at the County Clerk’s Office or a Bureau of Motor Vehicles Branch. The general election is 5 November, early voting starts 8 October.

Kelly Myers
ISRPA Government Affairs Co-Director

June 19, 2024June 19, 2024

Your vote Matters – Kelly Myers

As I’m writing this, we are one month removed from the Indiana Primary Election. With that in mind I have one question, “Did you vote?”

Looking at the numbers there were a lot of people in Indiana who chose to sit out the 2024 Primary election. According to the Indianavoters.in.gov, there are 4,709,250 registered voters in Indiana. That’s an estimated 91% of the adult population. 814,077 voted in the 2024 Primary, that is 17%.

If you live in Brown County, there’s a roughly 3 in 10 chance you voted (31% voter turnout, the HIGHEST in the State.) If you live in Lake, St Joseph, or Marion County, the chances are roughly 1 in 10 with an 11-12% turnout.

As gun owners, WE HAVE TO SHOW UP AND VOTE!

29% of the votes in the 2024 Primary were absentee votes. This includes both early voting and traditional mail-in absentee ballots.

Having spent over 21 years in the US Air Force, I voted absentee many times over the years. I voted in person once prior to joining the USAF, in 1984 and yes, I did vote for President Reagan (so did a lot of other people.) The next time I would vote in-person would be in a special election as a Florida resident, in 2001. I voted in every election in between and since. Over 40 years of voting (yes 1984 was 40 years ago) I lived in many places and did many different things. In all those elections there was one thing in common: I was a gun owner.

While I choose to vote at the polls on Election Day, we all need to make sure we get to the polls when we can. If you can vote early? Vote early. Are you over 65? You can vote with a traditional absentee ballot in Indiana. Any way you do it, make sure you vote.

As gun owners and supporters of the 2nd Amendment, we outnumber those who oppose the freedoms we enjoy. Our majority doesn’t count unless we show up and vote.

Kelly Myers
ISRPA Government Affairs Co-Director

February 23, 2024February 27, 2024

IN Senate Committees Pass Pro-Gun Bills as 2024 Session Enters 4th Quarter

UPDATE 2-26-2024 2230: HB 1235 is up for 3rd reading TOMORROW 27 Feb. 2024! Based on votes on the two failed amendments I expect there will be resistance on 3rd reading. CONTACT YOUR SENATOR ASAP and urge him/her to support HB 1235!

We are about to start the 4th quarter of the 2024 Indiana General Assembly Legislative Session. Two Bills we’ve focused on- HB 1084 Privacy of Firearms Financial Transactions and HB 1235 Prohibited Causes of Actions Concerning Firearms– made it out of their respective committees this week and are headed to the Senate floor. THANK YOU to all of our members that took the time to contact your Representatives and Senators- your diligence has paid off! But we’re not there yet! This is a great time to step back and take a look at the “big picture”.

Since the is a “non-budget year” (Indiana’s State budget is passed every-other year on odd years) this is a “short session”. Things moved really fast in the 1st half and even faster so far in the 2nd half.

A bill which didn’t receive a lot of notoriety was House Bill (HB) 1143, Disposal of Firearms via Trade for New Equipment. HB 1143 definitely got my attention when it passed the House 83-14 with 16 Democrats voting in-favor. This bill gives law enforcement agencies more options with firearms that would go to public auction. In addition to auction, these firearms can be traded for new equipment or ammunition with other law enforcement agencies, federal firearms licensees, or licensed firearms manufacturers.

I was at the Statehouse to support another bill in the Senate Corrections and Criminal Law Committee and saw the opportunity to testify in support of HB 1143. More options lead to a better use of resources. A better use of resources leads to paying less in taxes. On 20 February HB 1143 passed the Senate Corrections and Criminal Law Committee on a 6-2 vote. On 22 February it passed 2nd reading in the Senate with no amendments and will now upon 3rd reading have a vote in the full Senate.

Also on 20 February in the Senate Corrections and Criminal Law Committee for a hearing was HB 1235 Prohibited Causes of Actions Concerning Firearms. This bill prohibits political subdivisions from suing the gun industry and will end the 24+ year old lawsuit known as the City of Gary v Glock. This bill had passed the House on a near-party-line vote.

I had predicted in legislative alert emails that this one would be a fight. While my predictions aren’t always accurate, I was right this time. Along with the usual suspects in opposition was the lead-attorney for the Brady Campaign (formerly known as Handgun Control Inc.) A great Team from the Pro-2A side included: Guy Relford from The 2A Project, John Weber from NRA-ILA, Christopher Lee from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Constitutional Attorney Jim Bopp Jr. from Terre Haute, and myself representing the Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association. We also had a few citizens representing themselves in support of HB 1235. THANK YOU to all who supported this effort!

HB 1235 passed out of committee on a 5-3 vote (not a party line vote, we had one Republication side with the Democrats.) Look for more legislative action alert emails on this one, the fight isn’t over.

On 21 February in the Senate Insurance and Financial Institutions heard HB 1084 Privacy of Firearms Financial Transactions. This bill prohibits developing a registry of guns and gun owners through tracking financial transactions and merchant category codes. HB 1084 passed the House 73-22 with six Democrats voting in favor.

After the previous day’s fight with HB 1235, this day went much better. While the red-shirted Moms Demanding Action filled the front row of the hearing room, only one of them spoke in opposition. In support of HB 1084 was once again Guy Relford from The 2A Project, John Weber from NRA-ILA, myself representing the Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association and a few private citizens who recognized the importance of this legislation. HB 1084 passed out of the Senate Insurance and Financial Institutions on a 6-2 vote.

We are in the 4th Quarter of the legislative session but there is a lot of game yet to be played. Look for Legislative Action Alerts supporting both HB 1084 and HB 1235. Opportunities to let your State Senator know the gun owners of Indiana are paying attention will be coming soon.

In Liberty,

Kelly Myers
ISRPA Government Affairs Co-Director

November 16, 2023November 16, 2023

2024 Indiana General Assembly Opens For Business Next Week

The Indiana General Assembly kicks off the 2024 Legislative Session next week, November 21. Although a short Session, we will see many Bills impacting our 2A Rights. ISRPA will be working hand-in-hand with the NRA and NSSF on several pieces of legislation, including Bills to counter financial institutions discrimination against individuals and businesses exercising their Constitutional Freedoms by banning their ability to process credit cards and other financial transactions essential in functioning in today’s society. These financial institutions have taken an approach directly out of the Chinese Communist Party Playbook to cancel citizens from participating in society and business if they don’t adhere to strict far-left standards.

Other pieces of legislation that are expected include:

- Prohibiting firearms at polling places
- Penalties for failure to report lost or stolen firearms
- Raising the minimum age required to carry a handgun
- Penalties for privately-made firearms
- Making it harder for a person convicted of domestic battery to own a firearm
- Raising the age to buy “assault weapons”
- Protecting the Second Amendment:
  - Making federal laws, executive orders or administrative orders that infringe on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms unenforceable in Indiana.
  - Providing state income tax credits for firearm safety
  - Letting law enforcement trade confiscated firearms
  - Penalizing people who fail to safely store firearms at home
  - Keeping firearms locked and unloaded
  - Requiring liability insurance to carry a handgun