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

March 25, 2024March 25, 2024

Indiana Primary Election Ratings & Endorsements Are Now Posted on NRAPVF.ORG

Fellow ISRPA Members,

The NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) has updated the grades on (most of) the candidates in the upcoming (7 May) Primary Elections. These include Governor, US Senate, US House, State Senate, and State House candidates.

This year will not only be highly-contentious in the Presidential election, but in Indiana as well. The Governor, one US Senator, and several US House seats (Districts 3, 6, and 8) do not have an incumbent.

One race that has caught my attention (you can’t avoid all the TV and radio commercials) is the 6th District US House. This District runs from just south of Indianapolis to south of Columbus in the west, and from (all the way east to the Ohio State line) south of Winchester to well south of Richmond.

One of the Republican candidates in this race is Jefferson Shreve. It is rare to see a Republican candidate with a an NRA-PVF “F” grade. Those of us who live in the Indianapolis area and remember his run for Indianapolis Mayor in 2023 (when he adopted the same anti-2nd Amendment platform as the Indianapolis City/County Council which included an “Assault weapons ban”, eliminating Constitutional Carry of handguns, raising the age limit to purchase ANY firearm to 21) know he earned the F-grade.

Those of you who live in the eastern part of the State who get your local news out of Dayton or Cincinnati: Jefferson Shreve is buying a lot of commercial time on radio and TV. Keep in mind that he earned the F from NRA-PVF while running for Indianapolis Mayor.

The note below is from NRA-ILA. It contains dates and links revolving around Indiana. Check it out!

Kelly Myers
Government Affairs Co-Director
Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association

Dear Indiana NRA Member:

Tuesday, May 7, is Primary Election Day in Indiana. NRA Political Victory Fund candidate ratings and endorsements for the primary are now available at http://www.nrapvf.org. Be sure to check out the NRA-PVF website before you vote, so you know where the candidates stand on issues of importance to gun owners and sportsmen.

Early voting starts Tuesday, April 9th. Make sure you exercise your right to vote — early or on Primary Election Day — and support candidates who will protect your Second Amendment rights! Voter information and polling locations can be found at https://indianavoters.in.gov

Sincerely, NRA-PVF

March 7, 2024March 7, 2024

Kelly Myers on The Gun Guy

Listen in as ISRPA Legislative C-Director Kelly Myers calls into the The Gun Guy Radio Show on WIBC on Saturday, March 2nd. Guy discusses several bills that are entering the final process as the Legislature enters the final week. Kelly joins Guy at the 57-minute mark of the broadcast.

February 20, 2024February 20, 2024

ACTION NEEDED NOW!!

HB 1235 (Prohibited causes of action concerning firearms) is up for a hearing in the Senate **Tuesday February 20 at 0830 **.

HB 1084 (Privacy of firearms transactions (prohibits use of credit card codes for gun store purchases) is set for a hearing in the Senate Wednesday morning, February 21.

Both will be in Room 130 at the Indiana Statehouse

CONTACT YOUR SENATOR and let him or her know you support these important bills.

And if you can, come to the Statehouse to show your support. Room 130 is on the 1st floor (basement) of the Statehouse, so just take the elevator to Floor 1 and you’ll be able to locate the conference room.

HB 1235 prohibits political subdivisions (any government entity below Indiana State-level) from filing nuisance lawsuits against firearms and ammunition manufacturers, dealers, sellers, and trade associations. HB 1235 would also put an end to a 25 year old lawsuit (Gary v Glock) that is currently putting the personal information on an estimated 400,000 ATF Form 4473s at risk.

Read more about these bills below. Then contact your Senator! The “find your legislator” button is in the upper-right on the Indiana General Assembly website.

YOUR SUPPORT IS NEEDED NOW!!

Here is a sample letter to your Senator supporting HB 1235.

In Liberty,

Kelly MyersCo-Director, Government Affairs

February 9, 2024February 9, 2024

“Halftime Report” for the 2024 Session of the Indiana General Assembly

The first half of the 2024 Indiana General Assembly Legislative session is in the books and it was very good for those of us who support our 2nd Amendment Rights. While not all of the bills we’d like to see made it out of committee, we have two very solid bills that passed the House and are awaiting committee assignment in the Senate.

Although it wasn’t voted on in committee, Senate Bill 28 (Discriminatory Financial Services Practices) exposed the corrosive effects of social credit scores. During the committee hearing testimony, there was a significant number of freedom-loving Hoosiers representing themselves and exercising their 1st Amendment Rights. THANK YOU to all who showed up to support this important legislation! All is not lost- look for parts of Senate Bill 28 to be amended into House Bill 1084.

House Bill 1084 (Privacy of Firearms Financial Transactions) passed the House 73-22 (16 Democrats voted in favor of this bill!) Look for it to be assigned to the Insurance and Financial Institutions Committee in the Senate. While it looks like smooth sailing we can take nothing for granted at the Indiana Statehouse.

House Bill 1235 (Prohibited Causes of Actions Concerning Firearms; this bill will end the 25-year-old lawsuit known as City of Gary v Glock and protect the personal information on 400,000 ATF Form 4473s) passed out of the House 68-27. I personally look for this one to be a fight in the Senate. It will most likely be assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee Chaired by Senator Liz Brown (who the NRA Political Victory Fund gave a D-grade.) Along with myself representing the ISRPA, John Weber from the NRA-ILA, Christopher Lee from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and Guy Relford from The 2A Project will be testifying in committee supporting this bill. I am proud to be part of that team supporting the 2nd Amendment.

Look for chances to support these bills in the near future: we will keep you informed! I’ve already seen an email blast from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action supporting both House Bills 1084 and 1235.

In Liberty,

Kelly Myers
Co-Director, Government Affairs

June 19, 2023July 18, 2023

Indianapolis City Council Attempts to Enact Gun Control

URGENT ALERT – CALL TO ACTION

From NRA-ILA: What is a usually quiet time in the State with regard to public policy, as the legislature has adjourned until next year, has turned into a perilous summer for our Constitutional Rights and safety of Hoosiers. The Mayor of Indianapolis, Joe Hogsett, and City Council Members are showing a total and reckless disregard for the US Constitution and State Law in order to create a smokescreen for their public safety incompetencies that have created the violent mayhem in Indianapolis.

With a Procecutor that turns violent criminals back out on the street, a Mayor who brushes off riots in the streets as merely “a reckoning” and after Indianapolis businesses leave downtown after years of unanswered pleas to enforce our existing laws and clean up the streets, the Mayor has put forth a toothless, unenforceable, and unconstitutional proposal to cover up his failures before the upcoming election this fall.

They have proposed a “ smokescreen” ordinance, which unanimously passed the City Council Public Safety Committee and will receive a vote by the entire City Council on July 10th.

CALL YOUR CITY COUNCELLOR NOW AND BE SURE THAT YOU ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE IN THE FALL ELECTIONS…IT IS TIME TO SAVE THE CITY!!!!

The ordinance raises the age to buy a firearm from 18 to 21, ends constitutional carry, and bans many common semi-automatic firearms. In 2011, NRA worked with the General Assembly to pass a preemption law preventing localities from passing and enforcing gun control. The council has admitted that this proposal cannot take effect as long as preemption is still the law in Indiana.
It is interesting to note that proponents for the ordinance continue their spectacularly insincere diatribe of spewing that their efforts are not an attempt to limit the rights of law-abiding gun owners and that they are not against you or your guns……I call their callous attempts to placate law-abiding Hoosiers B.S.

Note: Although this is an Indianapolis City Ordinance, EVERYONE should call their city and county leaders to make sure that this BS does not happen in their City. We have seen anti 2A letters and proposals come out of Fort Wayne (Mayor Henry) and Carmel (Mayor Brainard and some City Council members). and we need to nip this issue off at the bud!