2A NEWSLETTER WEEK OF JULY 5TH

Biden's Debate Woes and the Threat to the Second Amendment

Joe Biden's recent debate performance has left many Democrats uneasy. His stumbling and sometimes incoherent responses have increased calls for him to step aside as the Democratic nominee. Major outlets like Politico, The Bucks County Herald, and Political Wire have all discussed the growing concern within the party about Biden's ability to win in 2024.

With Biden's position looking shaky, names like California Governor Gavin Newsom and Vice President Kamala Harris are being floated as potential replacements. However, for Second Amendment supporters, the idea of either stepping in is problematic given their strong anti-gun records.

As Governor of California, Gavin Newsom has enforced some of the toughest gun control laws in the country. His administration has pushed for mandatory background checks for ammunition purchases, banned high-capacity magazines, and required microstamping technology for new firearms. These policies have been criticized for infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners without significantly reducing gun violence.

Kamala Harris also has a long history of pushing for strict gun control. During her time as a Senator and as California’s Attorney General, she supported universal background checks, a ban on assault weapons, and closing the so-called "gun show loophole." Her record raises concerns among gun rights advocates about what her leadership might mean for the Second Amendment.

A recent example of California's aggressive gun control stance is our settlement. After a lengthy legal battle with the state, we were forced to spend millions just to defend against what we argued were baseless charges. This case highlights how far California will go to enforce its strict gun laws, often placing enormous financial burdens on businesses operating within legal boundaries.

In short, Biden's poor debate performance has opened up the possibility of a new Democratic candidate, but the implications for gun rights are significant. Newsom and Harris's records suggest a potential increase in national gun control measures, which could pose a serious threat to the Second Amendment.

Our experience is a crucial reminder of the lengths to which these laws can be enforced, emphasizing the critical nature of the upcoming election for gun rights supporters.

Debunking CAC’s Amicus Brief and the ATF Lawsuit in the Supreme Court

The Constitutional Accountability Center's (CAC) amicus brief, submitted on July 1st, misinterprets the Gun Control Act of 1968 by supporting the ATF's 2022 rule, which stretches the definition of "firearm" to include weapon parts kits and partially complete frames or receivers sold with jigs. This overreach contradicts the GCA's original intent, which focused on regulating fully functional firearms to prevent immediate access by criminals, not on non-functional parts requiring significant effort to convert into firearms. The brief's claim that the GCA's phrase "readily be converted" should cover these items ignores the historical context and legislative intent, leading to unnecessary regulatory burdens on lawful gun owners and manufacturers without effectively enhancing public safety.

Here’s why their amicus brief is flawed:

The ATF claims kits "may be readily converted" to functional firearms. But let’s get real – “readily” means "quickly and easily." Home assembly requiring significant effort doesn’t fit this definition. The courts saw this too, which is why they ruled against ATF’s rule.

80% lower receivers are not firearms. They are chunks of metal or polymer that require significant work to become functional firearms. Without the additional effort, they can only serve as handy door stops, pen holders, or paperweights. 80 lower receivers represent freedom and self-reliance, allowing law-abiding citizens to build their own firearms legally.

In 1968, Congress aimed to regulate complete firearms, not unfinished parts. The GCA’s goal was not to expand control to every potential gun component. 80% lowers were never meant to be part of this regulation.

The ATF cherry-picks dictionary definitions to support their view. In reality, the GCA's wording targeted complete, functional firearms – not every screw and spring that could someday be part of a gun. 80% lowers are not firearms under the GCA.

Both a federal district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the ATF’s interpretation, highlighting its inconsistency with the GCA’s text and intent. Even the Supreme Court has agreed to review the case, showing there’s serious doubt about the ATF’s overreach.

This isn’t about public safety; it’s about bureaucratic power grabs. Regulating incomplete gun parts like 80% lowers as firearms is an overextension and a misinterpretation of the law.

The GCA was meant to regulate actual guns, not pieces and parts that might one day become guns. 80% lowers are a vital part of exercising our Second Amendment rights and should not be restricted by the ATF’s overreach.

Stand up against this overreach and support your right to build your own firearms. Purchase a few 80 lowers today and start on a new build. Every purchase supports our lawsuit against the ATF, which is expected to be heard by the Supreme Court in October. Join us in defending our rights and ensuring that responsible gun owners can continue to enjoy their freedoms.

Surprising Ways Gun Laws Influence Firearms Purchases and Why 2A Supporters Should Care!

Moving can be a challenging decision, and for gun owners, it involves more than just considering the weather or job opportunities. It's about the freedom to exercise their Second Amendment rights. We explored a Reddit thread to understand why gun laws significantly influence where pro-Second Amendment individuals choose to reside:

1. "No Job is Worth Becoming a Felon"

Redditor Greenmountain92 shared that they wouldn’t take a job in a state that would make them a felon for owning what they have. Turning down high-paying jobs, sometimes offering $180-210K after taxes, is not uncommon (u/Highspdfailure).

2. The Escape from New York

Living within commuter distance of NYC isn’t ideal for many gun owners. One user (u/False_Cancel274) moved from NYC to New Jersey to reduce restrictions but still be able to commute to work (u/OODAhfa).

3. Chasing Gun-Friendly States

Moving specifically for better gun laws isn’t just a thought—it’s a reality. From leaving New York to settle in South Carolina (u/Competitive-Key7940) to migrating from California back to their native state (u/Inevitable_Rough_993), many Redditors have uprooted their lives to enjoy more firearm freedom.

4. Born and Raised in 2A-Friendly States

Some feel fortunate to live in gun-friendly states from the start. For them, it’s not just about gun laws but a broader lifestyle and cultural fit (u/BobDoleStillKickin).

5. The High Cost of Living and Gun Laws

Living in a state with heavy regulations often comes with a high cost of living. Many gun owners prefer states where their rights are protected and the living expenses are manageable (u/phredee).

6. Cross-Border Commutes

Moving across state lines for work and better gun laws is common. Adding 30 minutes to an hour to a commute is a small price to pay for the right to bear arms (u/pants-pooping-ape).

7. Rejecting Restrictive States

States like California, New York, and Illinois are no-go zones for many gun owners. They’d rather stay in states where they feel their rights are respected and their lifestyle isn’t compromised (u/andrewkim075).

8. "I Do What I Want"

For some, moving isn’t necessary—they follow the Swanson doctrine: “I do what I want,” and make sure their lifestyle aligns with their principles, regardless of state lines (u/rip0971).

9. Retiring in Pro-2A States

Choosing a retirement location often means selecting a pro-2A state. One user (u/WestSide75) mentioned their plan to retire in a state that has castle doctrine and strong Second Amendment protections.

10. Moving for Better Legislation

Sometimes, moving isn't just about current laws but also about the direction a state is heading. Many choose to leave states where they see gun laws tightening over time (u/Nemo_the_Exhalted).

11. "Enough to Fly My Private Helicopter"

For some professionals, the location of their job doesn’t matter as long as they can live in a pro-gun state. One lawyer (u/sat_ops) joked that it would take "enough to fly my private helicopter from Pennsylvania" to make them move to an unfriendly state.

12. Sacrificing Convenience for Freedom

Even a short move can make a big difference. One user (u/any-ad8307) moved from NYC to NJ, finding the slightly looser laws there worth the hassle of moving.

For Pro-2A Individuals, Gun Laws Aren't Just Part of the Decision—They're Often the Decision Itself

When it comes to choosing where to live, pro-2A individuals place a high value on their right to bear arms. This fundamental freedom shapes not only their lifestyle but also their personal and professional decisions. Whether it's turning down lucrative job offers, moving cross-country, or sticking to their roots, the right to own and carry firearms is a cornerstone of their identity and daily life.

For many, the thought of moving to a state with restrictive gun laws is unthinkable. The potential of becoming a felon for simply owning their legally purchased firearms is a deal-breaker. Redditors echo this sentiment like Greenmountain92 and Highspdfailure, who have turned down high-paying jobs to avoid such scenarios.

Others, have chosen to endure longer commutes to live in states with more favorable gun laws. The financial and personal sacrifices they make underscore the importance of firearm freedom in their lives.

For some, moving is about escaping tightening regulations and finding a place where their rights are respected. There are many stories from users that highlight the lengths to which pro-2A individuals will go to secure their freedoms, including uprooting their lives and families.

Even the decision to retire is influenced by gun laws. WestSide75 and others plan their retirements around states with strong pro-2A stances, ensuring they can continue to exercise their rights well into their golden years.

Gun laws are not just a consideration for pro-2A individuals—they are often the primary factor in deciding where to live. This commitment to the Second Amendment drives significant life choices, from career moves to family relocations, reflecting the deep-rooted importance of firearm freedom in their lives. Whether it's the pursuit of better legislation, the rejection of restrictive states, or the simple desire to "do what I want," the right to bear arms is a central tenet for many Americans.