Pandemic gun violence surge was not linked to rise in gun sales, study finds

New Study Delivers a Kill Shot to Another Anti-Gun Narrative

Research suggests looking at role of job loss, economic change, closure of schools and community organizations and civil unrest

The Guardian – 2021-07-09

Gun homicides surged across the United States during the coronavirus pandemic, in the same year that Americans bought a record-breaking number of guns.

But some of America’s leading gun violence researchers have concluded that what might seem like an obvious cause-and-effect – a surge in gun buying leads to a surge in gun violence – is not supported by the data.

Through July of last year, there was no clear association between the increase in firearm purchases and the increase in most interpersonal gun violence at the state level, according to a new study published in Injury Epidemiology, a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

A peace march 6 March 2020 in Oakland to showcase the impact of Oakland’s lifesaving gun violence reduction programs.

The findings suggest that “we need to be looking at other factors, like job loss, economic change, the closure of schools and community organizations and nonprofits, and civil unrest,” in order to understand last year’s increase in gun violence, Julia Schleimer, the lead author of the new study, said.

There did appear to be some association between the increase in gun purchasing and an increase in domestic violence gun injuries in April and May, but that correlation might also be explained by other factors, including increased substance abuse or the decreased access to domestic violence support services during the early months of lockdown, Schleimer said.

The results of the new study are an unexpected addition to the fierce political battle over how to explain last year’s estimated 25% increase in homicides, which experts say they expect will be the worst single-year increase in killings since the 1960s. While official government data is not yet available, experts are projecting that the US saw an additional 4,000 to 5,000 homicides nationwide in 2020, and the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive recorded nearly 4,000 additional gun homicides last year compared with 2019.

Even though the homicide rate across big cities remains close to half of what it was in the 1990s, some politicians have used the single-year jump in killings to paint Democrats and the Biden administration as soft on crime, using an old political playbook of stoking anxiety over crime and violence in order to win elections.

Joe Biden has responded by focusing on firearms access and calling for new gun control laws, as well as supporting increased funding for police and community violence intervention programs.

The findings of the new study from the state-funded Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, do not fit tidily into either of these partisan political narratives. While the new study raises doubts about a correlation between last year’s spike in gun purchases and the increases in shootings, it doesn’t address the underlying risk of easy access to guns in the US, Schleimer said.

While official government crime data is not yet available for 2020, roughly three-quarters of US homicides annually are committed with guns, and experts estimate nonfatal shootings injure 100,000 people a year, often leaving survivors with serious, life-altering injuries.

There is a large body of research demonstrating the correlation between gun access and increased risk of gun injury, Schleimer said, an association that is particularly clear when it comes to the risk of gun suicide. The increase in shootings during 2020 may have been driven by Americans who already owned guns before the pandemic, not by the people who bought guns for the first time last year – but that does not mean that gun access is irrelevant, she said.

At the same time, the lack of any clear correlation between what the researchers estimated as 4.3m additional firearm purchases nationally from March through July 2020, and a 27% increase in firearm injuries over that time, suggests that other factors besides gun access and gun control laws deserve more attention, and more research, Schleimer said.Advertisement

“There are a lot of strategies that can address some of the more social determinants of violence,” Schleimer said, including supporting violence interrupters and other community-based violence intervention programs, and focusing on economic policies that might help reduce gun violence, which is deeply correlated with poverty and concentrated disadvantage. “There’s some good evidence on youth summer job programs and young people’s risk for violence.”

It made sense that politicians and other public figures would point to the increase in gun buying in 2020 as a potential reason shootings had increased last year, Schleimer said.

But, she said, “Our findings, from this current study, in this particular context, are not supporting that.”

The new study has several limitations, including the complexity of factors that might have influenced gun violence during 2020, and the lack of official data on both gun sales and gun injuries. The researchers estimated gun sales using federal background check data, and relied on shooting incident data collected from media reports by the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive.

Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Prevention and Policy, said the study followed “rigorous statistical methods,” and that it raised interesting questions about whether the increase in gun violence might be more closely connected to some Americans’ willingness to carry their previously purchased guns during the pandemic, rather than a spike in first-time gun purchases.

It was possible that in some states, many of the additional gun sales in 2020 went to people who had already owned multiple firearms – meaning that the surge in sales did not necessarily contribute to an increase in the overall prevalence of gun ownership, Webster said in an email.

“Data from Chicago and some other cities suggest that we have seen a sharp increase in illegal gun carrying,” he wrote. “The role that guns are playing in the increased levels of homicides may have more to do with increases in illegal gun carrying than with the number of incidents in which people buy guns legally, especially in the short-term.”

In general, Webster wrote, the relationship between gun ownership and the increased likelihood of a shooting depended a lot on who was acquiring the gun. “In places and among individuals who are particularly low risk, more guns may have little impact on rates of lethal violence, but in places and among individuals of high risk, gun ownership can greatly increase risks of lethal violence,” he wrote.

Schleimer also cautioned that it’s possible that there might be some connection between gun purchasing and gun violence in 2020 that was masked by other factors the researchers were not able to measure or control for.

“Last year was such a unique year in many ways, and the context was continually evolving, and there were a lot of factors changing all at once, both locally and at the state level and nationally in the context of the pandemic and social and civil unrest,” Schleimer said. “That really complicated what we were able to do analytically.”

To examine the possible link between gun sales and shootings, the UC Davis researchers looked at trends in gun purchasing, and gun injuries, across 48 states, and then examined whether there was a correlation between the number of additional guns purchased and the number of additional gun injuries during the spring and summer. They controlled for a range of state-level factors that might influence the number of gun injuries, including stay-at-home orders, coronavirus cases and deaths, unemployment, measures of racial tension and civil unrest and seasonal variations in rates of gun injury.

While an early analysis from the same researchers, looking only at March through May, had found a correlation between increased gun purchases and gun injuries, their final analysis did not find any clear pattern between how many additional guns were purchased in a state through July 2020 and how much of an increase the state saw in non-domestic violence firearms injuries. The study did not analyze gun suicides or suicide attempts.

… we have a small favour to ask. Tens of millions have placed their trust in the Guardian’s high-impact journalism since we started publishing 200 years ago, turning to us in moments of crisis, uncertainty, solidarity and hope. More than 1.5 million readers, from 180 countries, have recently taken the step to support us financially – keeping us open to all, and fiercely independent.

With no shareholders or billionaire owner, we can set our own agenda and provide trustworthy journalism that’s free from commercial and political influence, offering a counterweight to the spread of misinformation. When it’s never mattered more, we can investigate and challenge without fear or favour.

Unlike many others, Guardian journalism is available for everyone to read, regardless of what they can afford to pay. We do this because we believe in information equality. Greater numbers of people can keep track of global events, understand their impact on people and communities, and become inspired to take meaningful action.

We aim to offer readers a comprehensive, international perspective on critical events shaping our world – from the Black Lives Matter movement, to the new American administration, Brexit, and the world’s slow emergence from a global pandemic. We are committed to upholding our reputation for urgent, powerful reporting on the climate emergency, and made the decision to reject advertising from fossil fuel companies, divest from the oil and gas industries, and set a course to achieve net zero emissions by 2030.

Gun Tax – Pay or Have Your Guns Confiscated

Gun owners in San Jose, California, will soon face a yearly tax and be required to carry additional insurance after their city council voted unanimously Tuesday evening to impose the new measures.

San Jose to tax gun owners, will confiscate firearms for noncompliance

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/san-jose-tax-gun-owners-city-confiscate-firearms-noncompliance

By Breck Dumas FOXBusiness – July 1, 2021

Gun owners in San Jose, California, will soon face a yearly tax and be required to carry additional insurance after their city council voted unanimously Tuesday evening to impose the new measures.

The forthcoming fee for gun ownership in the city has not yet been determined, but officials said that anyone found to be in noncompliance will have their weapons confiscated.

The city council’s aim is to try to recoup the cost of responding to gun incidents such as shootings and deaths. According to the Pacific Council on Research and Evaluation, which studied the issue and sent a representative to testify before the panel, gun-related incidents cost the city roughly $63 million every year in the way of paying for police officers, medics and other expenses, The San Francisco Chronicle reported.

The new measures come just weeks after a disgruntled Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority employee gunned down and killed nine colleagues at a San Jose railyard.

San Jose-based FOX 2 reported that citizens weighed in on the proposal, with some praising the council for the measure and others condemning the move as unconstitutional.

“I strongly oppose more taxation on legal gun owners,” San Jose resident Sasha Sherman told the council. “Each time a gun owner buys ammunition, they pay an 11% tax, plus a background check fee.”

Another speaker argued, “It puts a financial burden on a constitutional right, which is the right to bear arms.”

While the council directed staffers to draft up the law for a final September vote, the dollar amount on the new tax for gun owners has not yet been determined. San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo suggested the new annual fine will likely be “a couple dozen dollars,” and claimed insurers assured the city that firearms owners adding gun liability coverage to existing policies would cost the affected citizens little or nothing.

But with no official registry of gun owners either locally or federally, officials recognized that enforcement of the forthcoming taxes and insurance requirements could be difficult if not impossible. So, they said they would authorize any law enforcement officers to confiscate the firearms of any gun owner they stumble upon who does not provide proof that they have complied.

“Crooks aren’t going to follow this law,” Liccardo told reporters. “When those crooks are confronted by police and a gun is identified, and if they haven’t paid the fee or insurance, it’s a lawful basis for seizure of that gun.”

Texas Supreme Court Rules Gun Store Can’t Be Sued for Selling Gun Under Law Biden Wants To Eliminate

Friday’s ruling was a major victory for gun-rights advocates. It’s also a dire warning: If the Biden administration is allowed to repeal the PLCAA, it doesn’t need to change the Constitution or overturn landmark Second Amendment rulings like District of Columbia v. Heller to implement the kind of gun control it wants.

C. Douglas Golden, The Western Journal
June 27, 2021

On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the San Antonio-area store couldn’t be sued by victims of the 2017 Sutherland Springs, Texas mass shooting because the store was protected by the PLCAA when it sold a Ruger AR-556 rifle, an additional 30-round magazine and ammunition to a Colorado man who allegedly killed 26 individuals at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs. The shooter later killed himself during a police chase.

According to The Associated Press, Devin Kelley purchased the rifle with a Colorado ID from Academy Sports and Outdoors in 2016. While he should have been precluded from buying the gun after a bad conduct discharge from the U.S. Air Force in 2014 after he was court-martialed in 2012 for abusing his wife and stepson and served 12 months confinement, the AP reported, the Air Force failed to notify the FBI of the conviction.

Trending: Biden on Chauvin Sentence: ‘Seems To Be Appropriate’
However, the plaintiffs in four lawsuits against the store claimed Academy Sports and Outdoors wasn’t protected under the PLCAA because Kelley provided the store with a Colorado ID, the AP reported. Under the federal Gun Control Act, they alleged that meant Academy had to comply with both Colorado and Texas gun laws — and in Colorado, magazines that hold more than 14 rounds are banned.

Two lower courts allowed the lawsuits to go ahead. However, the Texas Supreme Court ruled unanimously that PLCAA protections applied to Academy since the Gun Control Act narrowly applies to the sale of firearms only.

“Indeed, although the transaction between Academy and Kelley on April 7, 2016, encompassed the sale of two Magpul large-capacity magazines — one packaged as a stand-alone product and one packaged with the Ruger AR-556 rifle — the plaintiffs do not contend that the sale of the stand-alone magazine along with the rifle rendered the transaction unlawful even though it could not have taken place legally in Colorado,” wrote Texas Supreme Court Justice Debra Lehrmann in her opinion.

“And the statutory text does not allow us to treat the magazine packaged with the rifle any differently. Plaintiffs essentially seek to rewrite [the law] to apply to ‘the sale or delivery of any rifle and any bundled component parts.’ This we cannot do.

“In sum, the sale of the Ruger AR-556 rifle to Kelley complied with the legal conditions of sale in both Texas and Colorado. Because the Gun Control Act did not regulate the sale of the magazines, the Colorado law prohibiting their sale was immaterial.”

Lehrmann also noted that “[l]itigation against the Air Force for failing to collect, handle, and report the required information is ongoing in federal court.”

Academy’s lawyers called it a “landmark” decision, according to The Texas Tribune.

“Our thoughts and prayers continue for the victims of this tragedy,” the lawyers said. “We feel the entire Supreme Court opinion applied the law carefully and thoughtfully in this situation.”


Back in February, on the third anniversary of the Parkland, Florida, high school shooting, President Joe Biden announced three major gun control initiatives he wanted to pursue, including “eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.”

That empurpled language was code for repealing the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields firearm manufacturers and retailers for gun crimes committed with weapons that were legally produced or purchased. Of the three legislative proposals he floated, this was the one that raised the least alarm among gun rights advocates, with universal background checks and bans on so-called “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines” getting a lot more play.

And yet, repealing the PLCAA would be the most pernicious of the three. If you don’t believe me, just ask the owners of Academy Sports and Outdoors.

In terms of setting precedent that the maze of regulations blue states continue to impose on magazines, ammunition and other firearm accessories aren’t covered under the reciprocity provisions of the Gun Control Act, yes, the decision the decision Friday could end up being more important inasmuch as it illustrates what would happen if Democrats were to repeal the PLCAA.

During an April 8 speech on his gun control executive orders, Biden claimed “the only industry in America, a billion-dollar industry, that can’t be sued, has exempt from being sued, are gun manufacturers.”

“Imagine how different it would be had that same exemption been available to tobacco companies, who knew and lied about the danger they were causing, the cancer caused and the like,” the president said, according to a Rev.com transcript.

“Imagine where we’d be. But this is the only outfit that is exempt from being sued. If I get one thing on my list, the Lord came down and said, ‘Joe, you get one of these.’ Give me that one, because I tell you what, there would be a come-to-the-Lord moment these folks would have real quickly. But they’re not, they’re not, they’re exempt.”

First, consider what an admission that is. Democrats have wanted — yearned for — the return of a ban on so-called “assault weapons” since the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004. They’ve been clamoring for universal background checks since time immemorial.

Yet, if divine intervention gave Joe Biden one of the things on his checklist, he’d ask for legislation that would allow people to sue firearms manufacturers — in other words, the repeal of the PLCAA. It’s not difficult to figure out why.

If the PLCAA were to be repealed, firearms dealers would also have to receive some protection from the Democrats who would, presumably, be the motive factor behind killing the law. You have a better chance of finding Jimmy Hoffa alive and well and and managing a Baltimore-area Quiznos.

In 2021, the easiest way to hollow out our Second Amendment rights is to repeal legal protections for everyone in the industry and subject gun manufacturers and firearms dealers to death by a thousand nuisance-lawsuit paper cuts.

Friday’s ruling was a major victory for gun-rights advocates. It’s also a dire warning: If the Biden administration is allowed to repeal the PLCAA, it doesn’t need to change the Constitution or overturn landmark Second Amendment rulings like District of Columbia v. Heller to implement the kind of gun control it wants.

All it needs is enough greedy lawyers and enough partisan juries.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Colorado: One Good Guy With A Gun Takes Out Cop Killer, Prevents Mass Shooting

He risked everything that he possibly could to go out there and for us and it’s the most selfless, bravest thing I’ve ever witnessed.”

“We want to thank and recognize John as we believe that his actions saved more lives from being taken. He needs to be recognized by Arvada and all the citizens of Colorado for his brave and selfless actions.”

John Hurley of Golden is being remembered as a hero for stopping gunman Ronald Troyke.

Hurley was apparently shopping at the Army Navy Surplus store, as he frequently did.

“John pulled into our parking lot around 1:30 and was contemplatively smoking a cigarette near his car,” wrote store owner Steven Cohen. “Within under a minute upon John entering the store, 10-15 shots of what sounded like a rifle or tactical shotgun were fired in the square 50 yards away.”

Codi Groszkiewicz, a waitress Schoolhouse Kitchen and Libations, watched out a kitchen window, saw Hurley, in a bright orange shirt, bolt out of the surplus store.
“And he was running straight towards where we heard those shots. Everyone else was running in the other direction,” Groszkiewicz said. “I just know that he was going out there into the middle of all the danger that I ever could have imagined in my life.”

“John and another unknown customer unrelated to John went out of the open door toward the square with clear intent to eliminate the threat,” wrote Cohen. “While the unknown customer turned left to assess the situation without pulling out a weapon, John ran quickly without hesitation straight toward the shooter.”

“John shouted at onlookers behind him to stay inside and hide because the gunman was coming back,” wrote Cohen. “John used this as an opportunity to run towards the library where the shooter was and hid behind a brick wall. Upon the shooter walking again back toward the square, John pulled out his concealed pistol and shot 5-6 rounds toward the suspect,” Cohen wrote.

Keeping the shooter at bay for any amount of time may have had an effect.

“That’s why he was more secured in an area where he couldn’t get away to do anything else because of where he was cornered, he was trapped,” said Groszkiewicz.

“There was no other police officers around at the time. There was no one else there to prevent this from happening. And this man ran,” she related.

As she watched from the window in the restaurant, she also realized they needed to get customers to safety.

“My first instinct was to try to get everybody that I could into the basement.”

They locked the doors. When they emerged, she saw first responders putting someone on a stretcher and taking them away.

Only later in the day did she learn the good Samaritan was dead.

Speaking about it was difficult for Codi.

“I wanted to do this because I wanted people to know what he did especially… his sister or anyone of his family members that it was the bravest, most selfless thing that I’ve ever witnessed in my life.”

Cohen also wants it made clear what he saw from a man he knew as a regular customer was heroic.

“We want to thank and recognize John as we believe that his actions saved more lives from being taken. He needs to be recognized by Arvada and all the citizens of Colorado for his brave and selfless actions.”

Groszkiewicz feels a bond with Hurley.
“He will forever be in my heart for what he did because, like I said, we don’t know what would have happened to any of us… He risked everything that he possibly could to go out there and for us and it’s the most selfless, bravest thing I’ve ever witnessed.”

2nd Amendment Sanctuary States – Missouri Joins the Growing List

First there was illegal alien sanctuary cities. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The Left first established illegal alien sanctuary cities. From that, it was learned we could establish 2nd Amendment sanctuary states. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

  • Missouri – Missouri passes Second Amendment Preservation Act
  • WisconsinAssembly passes ‘Second Amendment sanctuary’ bill
  • TennesseeGovernor’s signature makes Tennessee a Second Amendment sanctuary

Proclaimed 2nd Amendment Sanctuary States To Date:

  • Alaska
  • Arizona
  • Arkansas
  • Idaho
  • Kansas
  • Missouri
  • Montana
  • Nebraska
  • North Dakota
  • Oklahoma
  • South Carolina
  • Tennessee
  • West Virginia
  • Wyoming

Where does Florida stand?

42 out of 67 counties, 3 cities, and 1 town have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary (or other pro-Second Amendment) resolutions.

In 2013, all 67 sheriffs in Florida had signed a letter saying that they will not enforce laws that violate the Constitution or infringe on the rights of the people to own firearms


Amended June 14, 2021, 3:20 PM: Op-Ed: Constitution Killers, Part 6 – Constitutional Cities, Counties, and Sheriffs

Florida 6-year-old shot by gun “owned” by 15-year-old

Florida 6-year-old grazed by bullet after 4-year-old relative fires gun

June 09, 2021 : By JAMI GANZ -NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Who are we to judge? However, by all appearances the author does not want to hold the 15-year-old accountable. The article should have more correctly stated: “The firearm was illegally in the possession of a 15-year-old family friend.” In the state of Florida, a 15-year-old cannot legally own or be in possession of a firearm.

A Florida child was grazed by a bullet after a 4-year-old relative fired a gun at the kids’ home, according to authorities.

Tampa Police said the bullet grazed the leg of the 6-year-old, who did not sustain serious injuries but was hospitalized, the Tampa Bay Times reported Tuesday.

Authorities said the firearm was hidden under a sofa at the residence and “appears” to belong to a 15-year-old family friend, according to the outlet.

Andrew Warren, State Attorney for Hillsborough County, in which Tampa is located, took to Twitter to weigh in on the incident.

“My anger-fueled tirade on gun safety & the gun violence epidemic does not lend itself to 280 characters. So I’ll just say thank God he’s alive,” tweeted Warren.

Police said that no one else was injured in the shooting, according to the paper.

Whether any adults were home when the shooting unfolded was not detailed in a media release referred to by the outlet.

At least 369 unintended shootings by children occurred in the U.S. last year, leading to 142 deaths and 242 injuries, according to statistics from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The site and AAP recommend that while guns should not be kept in homes with children, if firearms are present, they should be stored in a safe or lock box.

Boynton Beach, Florida gun buyback program collects 127 firearms

Police say the buyback was a huge success.

Boynton Beach gun buyback program

By: Jon Shainman – 2021-06-05

BOYNTON BEACH, Fla. — A gun buyback program was held Saturday in Boynton Beach.

It required the combined efforts of the police, the community, and the church.

With the 4th of July approaching, Minister Dominic Murray knows what that means.

“You’re going to hear fireworks, you’re going to hear gunshots,” he said.

The police presence Saturday at the Boynton Beach Church of God House of Kingdom Worship was not there to mark a crime scene, but to partner up in a crime-fighting effort.

For the first time, Boynton Beach police held a gun buyback program.

“Everywhere there are guns. I have nothing against guns. It’s just people and what they use the guns for,” said Rev. Chiquita Jones.

Functional firearms could be returned with no questions asked.

$100 gift cards were offered in exchange for handguns, and $200 gift cards were offered for shotguns.

As for the church location, that was done for a reason.

“A church is where everybody is to come together and feel safe here,” said Minister Murray.

Church leaders say it’s an effort to continue to build bridges between law enforcement and the community.

“We’re here for them. We’re not against police officers. I’ve got law enforcement in my family,” said Pastor Kenneth Jones.

Police say the buyback was a huge success.

127 firearms were collected and $18,000 in gift cards were distributed.

“I want the community to be peaceful. We come together as one,” Rev. Jones said.


Boynton Beach police to offer gun buyback event for first time in department history

May 2021 – Gun Sales Surge Continues

The number of firearm sales checks represents the second-highest May on record, following only the massive firearm-buying surge experienced in May 2020.

Gun Sales Surge Continues with Diverse Interest in Firearms

MONDAY, JUNE 7, 2021

Strong gun sales continued in May, with FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System data showing nearly 1.3 million background checks were conducted pursuant to firearms sales last month. Moreover, the FBI conducted a total of 3.2 million firearm-related background checks of all types – including checks for NICS exempt firearm permits that allow holders to purchase firearms without an additional background check for the next five years. The number of firearm sales checks represents the second-highest May on record, following only the massive firearm-buying surge experienced in May 2020.

Since the surge in gun-buying began at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, those in the firearms industry and even the reluctant news media have made two important observations: (1) The increase in gun purchasing included many first-time gun buyers; (2) Those purchasing firearms did not conform to stereotypes about the “typical” American gun owner

In February, firearm industry trade group the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) released data on the firearm sales increase based on a survey of Federal Firearm Licensees (gun dealers). A press release explained “NSSF estimates that 40 percent of those gun sales were for first-time gun buyers, totaling 8.4 million new gun owners in the United States in 2020.” The item went on to note, “Firearm ownership is also increasingly diverse as sales among women accounted for 40 percent of all sales, and purchases by African Americans increased by 56 percent compared to 2019.

In the early months of the pandemic, the legacy press was forced to cover the increase in gun sales and the diversity of those choosing to exercise their Second Amendment rights

In March 2020, the San Francisco Chronicle shared the story of Petaluma, Calif. gun shop owner Gabriel Vaughn, who told the paper “about 90% of his customers in recent days have been first-time gun buyers.” That same week, the New York Times reported that “Some dealers said an unusually high proportion of sales have been to first-time gun buyers.”

On May 29, the New York Times added to the growing understanding of America’s ongoing and diverse gun-buying surge by reporting on new data from a survey conducted by Northeastern University and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. While the figures reported were not quite the same as those presented by NSSF, the information painted a picture of a growing and diverse group of gun owners.

Summarizing the findings, the Times explained,

about a fifth of all Americans who bought guns last year were first-time gun owners. And the data, which has not been previously released, showed that new owners were less likely than usual to be male and white. Half were women, a fifth were Black and a fifth were Hispanic.

Adding an anecdote, the New York Times noted,

Many gun store workers reported that last year set records for sales and also that they noticed different types of buyers walking in the door. Thomas Harris, a former law enforcement officer who works at the gun counter at Sportsman’s Warehouse in Roanoke, Va., said that around March last year, the customers he would speak with began to include more white-collar workers, such as people from insurance firms and software companies. He said many of the buyers were not conservative and most had never handled a gun.

With even the gun confiscation proponents at New York Times acknowledging the diverse face of gun ownership in America, anti-gun activists and politicians should take note. The ugly prejudices and stereotypes they share and employ to attack the gun community do not comport to reality and their bigoted campaign becomes more transparent all the time.

Supreme Court: Police Cannot Search Homes Without Warrants in the Name of ‘Community Caretaking’

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an exception to the Fourth Amendment for “community caretaking” does not allow police to enter and search a home without a warrant.

SCOTUS Rules Police Cannot Search Homes Without Warrants in the Name of ‘Community Caretaking’

MAY 17, 2021

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday that an exception to the Fourth Amendment for “community caretaking” does not allow police to enter and search a home without a warrant.

The “community caretaking” exception originated from a 1973 case, Cady v. Dombrowski, in which an officer took a gun out of an impounded car without a warrant. The Supreme Court ruled at the time that police can conduct such warrantless searches if they are performing “community caretaking functions” in a “reasonable” manner.

Monday’s ruling, in the case Caniglia v. Strom, centered on whether that exception also justifies warrantless searches of homes. In a 9-0 ruling, the court decided that it does not.

While Cady recognized that police perform “many civil tasks” in modern society, the “recognition that these tasks exist” is not “an open-ended license to perform them anywhere,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion. “The Fourth Amendment protects ‘[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,’” he continued.

(As Justice Samuel Alito noted in his concurrence, Monday’s ruling does not apply to another Fourth Amendment exception known as the “exigent circumstances” exception, which allows police to enter homes without a warrant to help “an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury.’”)

“Perhaps not coincidentally, the Court’s unanimous ruling comes at a time of national debate over whether we should dial back the scope of police activities and only use them for actual law-enforcement purposes,” said Clark Neily, senior vice president for criminal justice at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, which had filed a brief urging the court to agreed with Caniglia. “This represents a welcome, albeit unusual, refusal on the justices’ part to give the government greater leeway in conducting warrantless searches of people’s homes and personal effects.”

The suit was filed by a Rhode Island man, Edward Caniglia, after police officers searched his home and seized two handguns without a warrant in 2015. During an argument with his wife, Caniglia had placed a handgun on the dining room table and asked her to “shoot [him] and get it over with.” His wife left and spent the night elsewhere, and after not being able to reach him the next day, called the police. The police found Caniglia on his porch; he denied he was suicidal but agreed to go to the hospital for psychiatric evaluation “on the condition that the officers would not confiscate his firearms,” according to Monday’s opinion.

The police did so anyway after he left.

Caniglia later sued the officers, arguing that the search and seizure violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The officers argued that their actions were legal because they believed Caniglia was suicidal. The District Court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the police, ruling that the search counted as “community caretaking”—and that Cady had extended to both cars and homes.

A nonpartisan coalition of civil liberty advocates had worried that a similar Supreme Court ruling could have created a potentially dangerous precedent. The American Civil Liberties Union and the American Conservative Union Foundation had joined the Cato Institute to file a joint brief urging the court to keep the community caretaking exception “confined to its historic vehicle-related origins” and reject a broader standard that “would give police free rein to enter the home without probable cause or a warrant.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court did just that, ruling that neither “the holding nor logic” of Cady justified the police’s actions.

What has the NRA done for me lately?

Supreme Court to Hear Case on Right to Carry Concealed Guns for Self-Defense

The U.S. Supreme Court stepped back into the heated debate over gun rights on Monday, agreeing to hear a challenge backed by the National Rifle Association to New York state’s restrictions on people carrying concealed handguns in public in a case that could further undermine firearms control efforts nationally.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-hear-major-case-carrying-handguns-public-2021-04-26/

FLORIDA – Bill allowing guns in churches heads to Governor for signatureApril 29, 2021

TALLAHASSEE — A proposal that would let people with concealed-weapons licenses pack heat at churches or other religious institutions that share properties with schools is heading to Gov. Ron DeSantis.

https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2021/04/29/florida-lawmakers-give-boost-to-guns-at-church/?slreturn=20210329125529

Florida Legislature Strengthens Firearms Preemption Enforcement Bill Passed – Bill awaits Governor’s signature

Florida law that prohibits local ordinances on guns and ammunition just got stronger

Currently, Florida law forbids local governments from passing any policies about the “purchase, sale, transfer, taxation, manufacture, ownership, possession, storage, and transportation” of guns or ammunition. The entire gun policy area is left up to the state. If local officials violate this law by enacting a gun policy, they are subject to a $5,000 court fine — and the law allows citizens or gun groups to sue the local governments for their attorney’s fees up to $100,000 in damages.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article251004194.html

DeSantis signs ‘anti-riot’ legislation in Polk County

“It was promised and it was delivered,” DeSantis said after signing the bill.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2021/04/19/desantis-signs-anti-riot-legislation-in-polk-county/