Latest news with #2ndAmendment
Yahoo
31-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Jodey Arrington talks details about One Big Beautiful Bill Act at Summit in San Angelo
House Budget Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Lubbock, participated in the West Texas Legislative Summit on Tuesday, July 29. Arrington was interviewed by U.S. Rep. August Pfluger, R-San Angelo, about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The act, legislation authored by Arrington, delivers investment in border security and national defense, tax cuts for families and small businesses, a commitment to unlocking America's energy resources, and much more. "We started developing a plan to make sure that people's taxes are lower, American energy dominance can continue, make sure our farmers and ranchers have the price loss coverage adjustments," Pfluger said. "I believe this region is going to benefit massively from the legislation." Arrington talked about the behind-the-scenes of the bill at the annual summit. "This bill is a big beautiful win for West Texas," Arrington said. "It unleashes American energy dominance, delivers the largest tax cuts to small businesses and working families, secures the border, strengthens our military, defends the 2nd Amendment, bolsters rural healthcare, supports family farms, and accomplishes all this while delivering the largest spending reduction in American history by two-fold." Arrington spoke about the savings that America garnered and where the country is in debt and deficits. "We cut 1.5 trillion dollars in wasteful spending in the people's government - that hasn't happened ever," he said. "Here's the most unfair thing about it all, that 36 trillion in debt, that 2 trillion we had to borrow, pay a 7 trillion dollar federal budget, that 1 trillion in interest just to service the debt, will be a tax on our children. They're going to pay this one way or another. When we increase deficit spending, we're just deferring the tax on our children. This is the first significant step to get us back on track. We are breaking this cycle where we're borrowing and spending faster than we're growing the economy." Arrington also spoke on other topics within the bill, including agriculture, health care, oil and gas, the border and more. "This country has gotten upside down and it's time to turn it right side up," he said. "It's time to get us back on the path of reasonableness, common sense and taxpayer stewardship." Arrington commended Pfluger for his work in his position. "I wouldn't have been able to do the things that I needed to do to lock in all these policies if it weren't for my wingman August Pfluger," he said. "It worked out perfectly because you sent us the right guy to represent West Texas. "God bless America, our best days are ahead of us." More: Bare hands on food: San Angelo weekly restaurant inspections More: San Angelo READS, pop-up event happening Friday This article originally appeared on San Angelo Standard-Times: Jodey Arrington, August Pfluger discuss One Big Beautiful Bill Act Solve the daily Crossword
CBS News
25-07-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Federal court strikes down California ammo background checks, sparking gun safety debate
Gun control efforts in California took a big hit on Thursday as the 9th Circuit Court struck down a state law requiring background checks to buy ammunition. While some say this is a step back for gun safety, others believe this is part of common-sense gun laws. The 2015 mass shooting at a San Bernardino County office killed 16 people, including both shooters who carried out the attack. The next year, California voters supported Proposition 63, which required background checks for those buying ammunition. "To me, it's peculiar," said John Donohue, a Stanford Law Professor. "It really is a peculiar feature that these two federal judges are striking down the will of the people as well as the will of the California legislature." Professor Donohue feels the law made sense since roughly 400,000 guns were stolen last year. "Guns are stolen all the time because gun owners leave them in unlocked cars very often," he said. "So, if you can at least pose a restraint when the bad guy goes to get the ammunition, you're screening out people who the law says should not be having access to firearms." Gun owner Bradley Stolfi from Cloverdale disagrees. He says he supports common-sense gun laws. He shared his thoughts with us when background checks on ammunition were first signed into law. "I think every firearm should require a background check, and it should be thorough," Stolfi said. Stolfi equates a background check for a firearm to getting a driver's license. He says once people pass that process, drivers are no longer required to get background checks every time they fuel up. He does, though, advocate for stricter training to become a gun owner since guns and ammunition have evolved since the 2nd Amendment was drafted more than 230 years ago. "I don't see any need for any magazine to be able to hold more than 10," he said. "That's going to get me in a lot of trouble with guys I know, but that's what I think." While the 9th Circuit Court's decision will most likely be appealed, Professor Donohue wonders about the broader impact the decision will have on gun ownership. He says this might give gun lobbyists ammunition to attack background checks for firearm purchases. "Certainly, there has been an effort that has gotten support from the US Supreme Court to be very, very aggressive in implementing the Second Amendment in these types of challenges," said Professor Donohue. "Many things that I thought would not have been struck down have in fact been struck down."
Los Angeles Times
24-07-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
9th Circuit upholds block on background checks for California ammunition buyers
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that California's policy of background checks for bullet-buyers violates the 2nd Amendment, effectively killing a 2016 ballot measure meant to strengthen the state's notoriously stringent gun laws. Writing for two of the three judges on the appellate panel, Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta said the law 'meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms' guaranteed by the constitution, by forcing California gun owners to re-authorize before each ammunition purchase. 'The right to keep and bear arms incorporates the right to operate them, which requires ammunition,' the judge wrote. The ruling is the latest blow to statewide efforts to regulate guns. Both the 9th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court have significantly restricted gun control measures in just the last decade. Two of the three controlling cases Ikuta cited in her decision were handed down in the last three years. Thursday's ruling drew primarily from a 2022 Supreme Court decision that sharply limited gun control measures passed by individual states, finding that such laws must be 'consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.' California had attempted to sidestep that test in part by pointing to Reconstruction-era loyalty oaths some Americans were required to make before buying guns. But that didn't sway the panel. 'The problem of ensuring that citizens are loyal to the United States by requiring a one-time loyalty oath is not analogous to California's recurring ammunition background check rules,' Ikuta wrote. 'These laws are not relevant.' Judge Jay Bybee disagreed. 'California, which has administered the scheme since 2019, has shown that the vast majority of its checks cost one dollar and impose less than one minute of delay,' the judge wrote in his dissent. 'The majority has broken with our precedent and flouted the Supreme Court's guidance.' Data from the California Department of Justice's Bureau of Firearms shows the program approved 89% of purchases, most within about three minutes. It rejected slightly more than 10% on technicalities that were later resolved, and fewer than one percent because the buyer was banned. Although the 2022 case had 'ushered in a new era for Second Amendment jurisprudence,' Bybee wrote, it didn't preclude the bullet-background check scheme. 'We have repeatedly rejected the majority's boundless interpretation of the Second Amendment,' Bybee wrote. 'It is difficult to imagine a regulation on the acquisition of ammunition or firearms that would not 'meaningfully constrain' the right to keep and bear arms under the majority's new general applicability standard.' It was not immediately clear if the ruling would lift restrictions in place for the last six years. California leaders have not yet said whether they would appeal the decision. Gun rights activists were thrilled by the news. 'Today's ruling is a major step forward for the Second Amendment and the rights of every law-abiding citizen,'said Dan Wolgin, CEO of Ammunition Depot, one of the plaintiffs in the case.
Reuters
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Gun group sues to end US Postal Service's ban on mailing handguns
July 15 (Reuters) - A gun rights lobbying group is suing the U.S. Postal Service in a bid to overturn its nearly 100-year-old ban on mailing handguns, arguing that the law wasn't contemplated when the country's founders drafted the 2nd Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation filed the lawsuit, opens new tab on Monday in federal court in Pennsylvania, seeking to bar enforcement of the law, which makes it a felony to mail pistols, revolvers and other firearms that can be concealed on a person. The lawsuit also seeks an order declaring the law violates the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms. Pennsylvania resident Bonita Shreve sued along with the group, claiming the law is preventing her from mailing a handgun to her father in another part of the state. The ban comes with a fine of up to $250,000, a prison sentence of up to two years, or both, according to the statute. Erich Pratt, the senior vice president of Gun Owners of America, said in a statement that the group is 'committed to ending all anti-gun 'rules for me, but not for thee,' in any form they may take.' A spokesperson for the U.S. Postal Service said it is agency policy not to comment on pending litigation. The lawsuit is the latest to challenge a law regulating guns and gun ownership brought after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2022 that expanded gun rights. In that case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the 6-3 conservative majority established a new test for assessing modern firearms laws, holding that modern gun restrictions were required to be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." The lawsuit against the U.S. Postal Service said that although the service itself has existed since 1775, the nation's founders did not contemplate a rule like the 1927 law banning the mailing of handguns. The law was enacted during a purported crime wave in the 1920s that some blamed on mail-order gun sales, according to the lawsuit. A number of laws regulating guns have been successfully challenged in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling. In January, the U.S. Appellate Court for the Fifth Circuit held that a U.S. government ban on federally licensed firearms dealers selling handguns to adults under the age of 21 is unconstitutional. Last year, the same appellate court held that a federal law prohibiting users of illegal drugs from owning firearms was unconstitutional as applied to the case of a marijuana user. The case is Shreve v. U.S. Postal Service, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, No. 3:25-cv-00214. For Shreve: Gilbert Ambler of Ambler Law Offices; and Stephen Stamboulieh of Stamboulieh Law For USPS: Not yet available
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
WA joins 15 states suing over deregulation of rapid-fire gun devices
This story was originally published on Washington is joining a multi-state lawsuit targeting a specific type of gun trigger. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown announced on Monday that he's joining 15 other attorneys general in suing the Trump Administration and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) over their plans to allow the sale of forced reset triggers. 'Communities are less safe with these mass-shooting devices in circulation,' Brown said in a statement. 'Essentially deregulating them is another example of this administration being driven by extreme ideology rather than commonsense.' Forced reset triggers are devices that allow semi-automatic rifles to be fired more rapidly. The suit says returning the devices to market violates federal law, arguing they turn regular guns into machine guns. The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently settled with the maker of the triggers, Rare Breed Triggers, resolving previous lawsuits brought by the Biden Administration. The agreement states Rare Breed Tiggers 'will not develop or design FRTs for use in any handgun.' It also requires the ATF to return the triggers 'that it has seized or taken as a result of a voluntary surrender.' 'This Department of Justice believes that the 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right,' Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement. 'And we are glad to end a needless cycle of litigation with a settlement that will enhance public safety.' The federal lawsuit announced on Monday was filed in the state of Maryland. Attorney General Brown is joining New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Colorado, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia. Read more of Aaron Granillo's stories here.
