A new ABC News/Washington Post poll released Tuesday from among more than 1,000 U.S. adults found that Americans overall are less supportive of new gun control legislations than they were just three years ago. People between the ages of 18-29 saw the sharpest decline in backing for new weapons laws, with fewer than half now saying new legislation is needed to reduce the risk of future mass shootings or to block “red flag” buyers.

In April 2018, the last time the ABC/Washington Post survey was conducted on this issue, 65 percent of these young Americans said they support gun control laws. That percentage is now 45.

Benjamin Fearnow
April 28, 2021
Americans Under 30 Have Rapidly Turned Against Gun Control Laws, Poll Finds
[It frequently takes a while but reality does have a way of making itself known.

And what’s with this name, “Fearnow”? Apparently it’s real.—Joe]

A major point of disagreement among Second Amendment supporters was how to approach the problem. One group claimed anything but full and complete recognition of Second Amendment rights was futile and counter-productive. The argument was: any lesser legislation, moving incrementally toward full Second Amendment rights, would only legitimize infringements on those rights. They were/are the “All or Nothing” group. Some called/call themselves “principled”.

The other group of Second Amendment supporters argued Second Amendment rights could be restored bit by bit. Pass legislation first, for a permit system. Keep reforming and improving the permit system. Reduce requirements, reduce fees, reduce “gun free zones”.  Keep on incrementally improving the law, until Second Amendment rights were fully restored. They were/are the “Incrementalists”.  In the middle 1990’s it was not clear if either approach would be effective. 

Twenty years later, it was clear. Incrementalism worked.

Dean Weingarten
May 3, 2021
Restoring Second Amendment Rights: Incrementalism vs All or Nothing
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Even though the Supreme Court left open the option of regulation to combat the dangers of gun violence in Heller, it is this Court’s opinion that the FOID Card Act goes too far. The Act makes criminals out of law-abiding citizens who are attempting to protect their lives within their homes.

After analyzing all the evidence in this matter, this Court finds that FOID Card Act is NOT substantially related to an important government interest as applied to the Defendant in this case. In addition, the Court finds that any fee associated with the exercising the core fundamental Constitutional right of armed self-defense with the confines of one’s home violates the Second Amendment.

T. Scott Webb
White County Resident Circuit Judge
April 26, 2021
People of the State of Illinois v. Vivian Claudine Brown
[This case started on March 18, 2017. It has taken over four years for this case to get this far. It went to the state Supreme Court once already and may will go back up again. Why aren’t these delays considered unconstitutional?

See also Illinois Circuit Judge T. Scott Webb ruled against Illinois’ Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card requirement on Tuesday and ILL. JUDGE RULES FOID CARD REQUIREMENT UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR GUNS IN HOME.—Joe]

The Supreme Court today granted certiorari in the case NYS Rifle and Pistol Association V. Superintendent of NYS Police (No. 20-843)

The case will be heard in the fall term of the court later this year with a ruling expected in the spring of 2022. The Independent Firearm Owners Association will file an Amicus brief in the proceedings.

The issues raised are straightforward. Does an individual right of self protection with a handgun extend beyond the property of the owner? “Can a government which cannot protect its citizens deny them the means to protect themselves?” asked Peter Sullivan, former NYS Assemblyman from Westchester, NY and Board Member of the IFOA.

Firearm owners have been asking this question for a generation in NYS ever since the police have denied carry licenses to ordinary law abiding citizens for no reason, while granting them to wealthy, powerful, and politically connected “big shots”. (Mayor Lindsay, Donald Trump, Eleanor Roosevelt, & Howard Stern)

The issue raised in this case is not about training or other restrictions before issuing licenses, but of fairness and equal rights. “Either the government trusts its citizens or it does not, they can’t have it both ways”, concluded Richard Feldman, President of the IFOA.

Independent Firearms Owners Association
April 26, 2021
Media release via email.
[See also:

• SCOTUS Just Agreed To Hear a Major New Second Amendment Case
• SAF HAILS HIGH COURT ACCEPTANCE OF NEW YORK SECOND AMENDMENT CASE
• Supreme Court Grants Cert in Second Amendment Concealed Carry Case
• Supreme Court Grants Cert Petition in FPC-Supported Case Challenging New York Carry Restrictions
• Court to take up major gun-rights case

This is a really big deal in more than one way.

The first is that there is a good chance this will overturn all the “may issue” concealed carry laws. It even has the potential (a big stretch with the SCOTUS rewording of the question being asked) of overturn all licensing requirement for carrying a firearm.

The second important point I want to make is that court review of concealed carry licensing should have taken place and been settled law shortly after the Sullivan Act was passed in 1911. That it is happening 110 years later tell us something is very broken with our legal system.—Joe]