Rather Expose Them Christian News Blog

New York Town of Babylon, Long Island Bans Gun Stores

 

Out Of Business istock SteveByland 91648661
SteveByland

For far too long, the Second Amendment could be referred to as the Rodney Dangerfield of the Bill of Rights.

Within many circles of so-called civil rights advocates, it simply got no respect.  With the landmark HellerMcDonald, and Bruen rulings from the U. S. Supreme Court, many of those who looked at the right to keep and bear arms as a second-class right, or dismissed it completely as a “collective” right not held by individuals, were forced to admit an uncomfortable, to them, truth.

The Second Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution to protect the right of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms.

What many of the people who continue to despise the idea of anyone owning firearms still don’t seem to understand (or simply ignore) is that, to possess firearms, you also must be able to acquire them.  Ignoring this rather obvious logical connection, anti-gun extremists continue to do whatever they feel they can to try to limit firearm ownership by limiting the ability to acquire them—in spite of the fact that such actions should be considered unconstitutional by anyone with even the most rudimentary critical thinking skills.

In that vein, Babylon Village, N.Y., which lies about 25 miles outside New York City on the east coast of Long Island, recently decided it can ignore the Second Amendment, and imposed a ban on gun stores.

A February 6 article in a local newspaper, The Beacon, reported, “No one will be able to sell firearms, ammunition, fireworks or other explosives in the Village of Babylon, according to a new law approved by the Village Board last week.”

The article noted that, although some objections were raised by people attending the public meeting, the Board of Trustees approved the ban unanimously.

Deputy Mayor Frank Seibert claimed, “For safety reasons, I think this is a good policy.”  He did not, apparently, elaborate on what, exactly, were the “safety reasons.”

Mayor Mary Adams attempted to justify the move by noting that there were concerns about people selling marijuana (illegally, we presume) behind a local marijuana store (New York legalized recreational marijuana sale/use in 2022).

If there’s known illegal activity, then do something about it.  But alleged illegal activity behind a permitted marijuana store should not be relevant as an apparent excuse for outlawing all gun stores in the village. Especially when one considers we have an enumerated right to own and acquire firearms, while sale or use of marijuana is not constitutionally protected.

Adams also tried defending the village’s ban on gun stores by noting other areas allow them.  But that’s not how protected rights work.  Imagine if the village took the same approach to any other protected rights?

Using the Mayor’s logic, the village could ban houses of worship, newspapers, bookstores, legal practices, and virtually anything else it wants, provided another area allows them.

While we don’t anticipate other civil rights organizations like the ACLU raising objections to the gun store ban, we can guarantee the group would scream bloody murder if Mayor Adams and her cohorts on the Board of Trustees started banning newspapers and houses of worship.

Perhaps to avoid being accused of completely banning the sale of firearms in Babylon, the new law will allow for the continuation of gun shows that take place at the American Legion Hall in Babylon.  These apparently take place twice a year, although it is unclear if the new law (we have yet to see a copy of what was enacted) would allow for more frequent shows.

But simply “allowing” two gun shows per year should not appease anyone who is concerned with the right to arms.  It is not an “occasional” right, just as it is not a “collective” right.  Would free press advocates be satisfied with the village “allowing” newspapers to be sold only twice a year?  Would those who cherish the freedom to worship as they see fit be satisfied with doing so only twice a year?

Perhaps the most ironic aspect of the American Legion Hall gun show exemption is the fact that anti-gun advocates have been targeting gun shows for decades.

In their world, where all guns are evil, gun shows are a breeding ground for illicit activities involving firearms.  It seems counterintuitive that Babylon would prefer having gun shows over gun stores, considering the lengths to which other anti-gun extremists have gone to vilify those very shows.

Ultimately, the actions of the village to ban gun stores has nothing to do with “safety,” and everything to do with trying to advance anti-gun efforts.  Remember, this is New York we are talking about; a state that has some of the most restrictive laws on the books when it comes to firearms.  The state already has draconian restrictions on the private sale of firearms, so virtually all transfers must go through a gun store.

New York gun laws regularly land the state in the top five, if not at the top, of lists put out by anti-gun organizations when they rank states based on what anti-gun laws they would like to see in place.  While New York regularly gets an A from anti-gun organizations for infringing on the rights of gun owners, we imagine Babylon would get an A+ for going the extra mile of making guns even harder to acquire by its law-abiding residents.

We will be looking into the actions of Babylon further to see what can be done to protect the Second Amendment rights of its residents.  Stay tuned.

 


About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

Gun Lobby Profile Q&A: U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.)

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2024/06/gun-lobby-profile-qa-u-s-rep-steve-scalise-r-la; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

NSSF Editor’s Note: We are pleased to post the latest of our occasional Q&A features with an elected official who supports hunting and shooting sports. NSSF thanks U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) for speaking with us about his staunch support for the Second Amendment and the importance of the firearms and ammunition industry. Rep. Scalise represents the First District of Louisiana and is serving his eighth term in Congress. Rep. Scalise currently serves as the Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Number 2 leadership position within the House Republican Conference. In addition to his leadership positions, Majority Leader Scalise is also a member of the House Second Amendment Task Force and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus. We thank Majority Leader Scalise for speaking with us.

U.S. Rep. Scalise duck hunting with son, Harrison. Photo courtesy of The office of U.S. Rep. Scalise
U.S. Rep. Scalise duck hunts with son, Harrison. Photo Courtesy of the office of U.S. Rep. Scalise

1) Who introduced you to hunting and shooting sports?

My dad really got me interested in hunting. He took me deer hunting and it was something we would do together as father and son. It was really a lot of fun when I was younger, and I’ve carried on that tradition with my son and take him hunting often. It’s just a great family tradition.

2) What was your most recent shooting sports/hunting experience?

Just a few months ago, I went duck hunting with my son, Harrison. He’s gotten to be an avid hunter, and he’s a great shot, so he likes going out hunting. I’ve made sure to teach him the things that are important for gun safety. But also, he really is a great champion of the industry and cares about resources.

3) Describe your favorite shooting sports or hunting activity.

I'm really just going out hunting with my son. It’s a great way for us to bond. We have a lot of fun together, as we both enjoy deer hunting and duck hunting. You know, it’s not easy to find somebody who wants to get up at five o’clock in the morning and go out and sit in a cold duck blind for a few hours, but it’s something we enjoy doing together.

And deer hunting is very similar – we spend a few hours together. He shot his own deer, and we mounted the deer for him and he takes great pride in that. He also shot an alligator, by the way. It was a unique experience in South Louisiana and we had a lot of fun with that, as well.

4) Which piece of pending legislation in Congress related to the conservation, hunting and the firearm industry is particularly important to you and why?

In general, any legislation preserving the Second Amendment is important to me. I don’t think people realize how many attacks we face every year on our Second Amendment rights from people who want to take away our ability to buy and own handguns, firearms, rifles, any kind of a sporting firearm. Our Second Amendment rights are constantly under attack by policymakers in Washington and by President Biden himself.

And so I’ve brought pieces of legislation forward myself – I have a bill that makes commonsense reforms to firearm purchases (H.R. 8364, the Firearm Interstate Commerce Act). Right now, a person in one state can buy a rifle or a shotgun from a licensed firearm dealer in another state, if the sale is legal in both states, but they can’t buy a handgun from that same person. This is an arbitrary barrier to citizens’ Second Amendment rights, and we should update our laws to remove that barrier.

We need to make it easier for people to exercise their Second Amendment rights. It’s something that should be a basic understanding right, but it’s under attack all the time.

5) What do you see as challenges and opportunities in Congress for hunters and shooting sports enthusiasts?

It’s important we make sure that we pass these traditions on to the next generation. A lot of the great traditions tied to hunting come from parents getting their kids, whether it’s sons or daughters, involved and getting them interested at a young age. Because if you’re not doing that, there’s so many other distractions: video games, social media, things that kids can do that take them away from communicating with other people or interacting with their parents or their friends. Hunting is such a great bonding experience that provides that face-to-face offline socialization and quality time, and it’s lost if you don’t hand it down to the next generation.

I think all of us that enjoy hunting and sport shooting in the great outdoors need to make sure we’re passing it on to the next generation so they don’t let other things preoccupy their time and allow this great tradition to go away.


About The National Shooting Sports Foundation

NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org

National Shooting Sports Foundation

GOA (Gun Owners of America) Condemns New Radical Anti-gun Policy at YouTube

 

Washington, D.C. — Gun Owners of America (GOA) issued the following statements after YouTube announced a formal change in their policies towards firearms related content:

“Restricting access to adults only—for content that depicts wholly legal and constitutionally-protected activity—is wrong, and it aims to push a sinister narrative to minors that firearms are evil,” said Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President. “In turn, as younger generations come of age, they will not question or push back on further violations of our Second Amendment rights.”

“Alvin Bragg and his anti-gun friends have been aggressively pressuring YouTube to censor and directly prohibit certain content related to guns for years now, and sadly they just succeeded and free speech has once again become the victim,” said Aidan Johnston, GOA’s Director of Federal Affairs. “Congress must demand answers from YouTube on how influential DA Bragg and gun control groups were in facilitating this change in policy and determine whether the Biden Administration or its White House Office of Gun Control was weaponized to force the censorship of Second Amendment content.”

Background: This week, YouTube and parent company Google announced plans to change their policy on firearms related content – effective June 18th. Under the new policy, which will be retroactive and apply to all existing content on the platform, the following will apply:

Content showing the use of homemade firearms, automatic firearms, and certain firearm accessories will be age restricted.

Content showing how to remove “safety devices” will be banned.

Firearms in movies, video games, military and police footage, and warzone footage will not categorically be age restricted—creating a double standard for Hollywood and anti-gun corporate media.

In April, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg sent a letter to YouTube CEO Neil Mohan urging him to alter their algorithms to ensure that certain firearms content is not promoted. Additionally, he urged the company to directly censor and remove certain firearms-related content.

This letter came on the heels of Media Matters publishing an anti-gun propaganda piece attacking YouTube and certain content that the biased “media” outlet deemed unfavorable. Additionally, in May of 2023, the anti-gun group Everytown published an article highlighting anti-gun research about YouTube’s firearms content from the Tech Transparency Project, which was a key citation in DA Bragg’s letter.

Anti-gun groups are continuing their crusade against online firearms content, with the hope of leveraging these efforts into censorship and lawsuits should social media companies refuse to comply. GOA—which runs a YouTube channel with over 175,000 subscribers and counting— will continue to push back.


About Gun Owners of America

Gun Owners of America is a nonprofit grassroots lobbying organization dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. GOA represents over two million members and activists. For more information, visit GOA’s Press Center.Gun Owners of America GOA logo

Just Like That: Biden ATF Criminalizes Tens of Thousands of Private Gun Sellers

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2024/04/just-like-that-biden-atf-criminalizes-tens-of-thousands-of-private-gun-sellers/; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

ATF Emblem NRA-ILA
The ATF are up to their gun-banning tricks again. IMG NRA-ILA

We have long been warning of the rule that the Biden ATF has been preparing to redefine who is considered a firearm “dealer” under U.S. law.  The administration’s explicit objective was to move as close to so-called “universal background checks” for firearm sales as possible. Aiding in this effort was 2022’s lamentable (and misnamed) Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), which made a subtle change to the underlying standards for when a person is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms and therefore required to be federally licensed. Licensees, in turn, must run background checks when making sales to unlicensed buyers. The BSCA’s removal of a single word from a federal statute has now resulted in a 466-page monstrosity of a rule that redefines what it means to be a firearm “dealer” and threatens to turn untold thousands of upstanding citizens into criminals for exercising their constitutional rights.

Previously, an individual only needed a federal license to sell firearms when engaged in “a course of trade or business “involving “repetitive” buying and reselling of firearms with the “principal objective” of “livelihood and profit.”

The BSCA removed the “livelihood” element so that profit-seeking alone would fulfill the required objective of the sales.

Certain supporters of the BSCA claimed this change was merely a codification of how courts had applied the previously existing law. They wanted to make clear, they said, that a person could be subject to licensure even if the person had means of support other than selling guns. But the NRA, in opposing the BSCA, warned that it “leaves too much discretion in the hands of government officials and also contains undefined and overbroad provisions – inviting interference with our constitutional freedoms.” In other words, there was no telling what sort of spin the most anti-gun administration in American history would try to put on changes to statutory language that had existed for decades and for which there were well-established histories of case law and enforcement policy.

The ATF’s sprawling background check rule is the most glaring and sinister example of the havoc the BSCA has unleased. In typical fashion, the anti-gun Biden administration has treated the law as a mandate to pursue the firearm prohibition movement’s longstanding aspiration to ban private gun sales. Channeling sales through a network of federally licensed dealers ensures that there is a paper trail of privately-owned guns. Proponents of the policy claim it will promote public safety by allowing police to trace the origins of guns recovered from crime scenes.  But the government’s own data shows that violent criminals either avoid the background check requirement, through measures such as theft or black-market sales, or they use “straw buyers” to purchase guns from dealers on their behalf. Forcing law-abiding gun owners to go through a dealer to sell a gun to a trusted neighbor or co-worker won’t change this, but it will put more lawfully owned guns “on paper,” a prerequisite to any future scheme of large-scale registration and confiscation, whenever guns are retroactively banned.

As for the rule itself, its main feature is a series of “rebuttable presumptions” about when a firearm seller is either “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms or has the objective to “predominantly earn a profit.” These presumptions are meant to guide the “fact-specific” inquiry into when a person’s gun sales cross the threshold that require that person to be federally licensed. We commented on those presumptions in previous articles, and they remain essentially unchanged in the final rule.

Yet, demonstrating the ATF’s skepticism of its own legal interpretations, these presumptions are explicitly meant to apply only in “civil or administrative proceedings,” even though the underlying statutes may also be criminally enforced. Such proceedings include applications for, or renewals of, firearm licenses or civil forfeiture actions by the government seeking to confiscate firearms, ammunition, and profits from gun sales.

Courts subject administrative rules to more stringent scrutiny when they are used in criminal cases, which is undoubtedly why ATF claims its presumptions are only meant for civil enforcement. ATF knows that none of the presumptions appear in or are authorized by the language of the underlying statutes themselves. To the extent they are tied to any legal authority at all, ATF claims they are derived from case law applying the pre-BSCA standard for dealer licensing. But that standard no longer exists, so it’s not clear why a court should give any deference to those cases as applied to the new BSCA standard. But ATF still hedges its bets, suggesting that its new criteria “may be useful to a court in a criminal proceeding – for example, to inform appropriate jury instructions regarding permissible inferences.”

This supposed distinction between civil and criminal proceedings, however, goes to the heart of the rule’s overall game plan. Normally, administrative rules are meant to give more specificity and detail to broad statutory regimes so regulated entities have a clearer understanding of their obligations under the law. In this case, however, the ATF merely wants to create more confusion and uncertainty. They know the rule is irrelevant to the behavior of real criminals, and they even admit their new standards cannot be strictly applied in criminal cases. But the rule may create enough doubt in the minds of conscientious, law-abiding gun owners that they simply avoid engaging in or facilitating private transfers altogether. It is, in other words, regulation by intimidation.

There is already a push for proposed federal legislation to disallow the rule; however, the current makeup of Congress makes its passage extremely difficult. Like the Biden administration’s other illegal anti-gun rules, this one is destined for a long march through the federal courts, a campaign that inherently favors the government, which can and will expend any amount of resources to try to vindicate its dubious interpretations of the law. Indeed, from the administration’s point of view, litigating the rule at taxpayer’s expense merely allows it to extend the political capital of the campaign with its anti-gun supporters by demonstrating the administration’s aggressiveness and commitment to gun control.

NRA-ILA will keep you apprised of all legislative and legal challenges to this egregious rule as they develop. Please stay tuned.


About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the rights of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)