In a Legislative Update issued earlier today, California Governor Jerry Brown announced that he has signed Assembly Bill 1964 (Dickinson), a measure that will eliminate the “single shot” exemption to California’s Roster of “not unsafe” handguns. AB 1964’s changes to section 32100 of the California Penal Code, which will go into effect on January 1, 2015, will make it virtually impossible for law-abiding residents of the Golden State to acquire a “non-Roster” handgun in common use for lawful purposes, like self-defense.
Read the rest of the article: http://www.calffl.org/2014/07/gov-jerry-brown-signs-new-handgun-ban-ab-1964/
From the “Children’s Firearms Marketing Safety Act,” proposed by Rep. Robin Kelly:
[T]he Federal Trade Commission shall promulgate rules … to prohibit any person from marketing firearms to children [defined as anyone under 18]. Such rules shall include the following:
(1) A prohibition on the use of cartoon characters to promote firearms and firearm products.
(2) A prohibition on firearm brand name merchandise marketed for children (such as hats, t-shirts, and stuffed animals).
(3) A prohibition on the use of firearm marketing campaigns with the specific intent to appeal to children.
(4) A prohibition on the manufacturing of a gun with colors or designs that are specifically designed with the purpose to appeal to children.
(5) A prohibition on the manufacturing of a gun intended for use by children that does not clearly and conspicuously note the risk posed by the firearm by labeling somewhere visible on the firearm any of the following:
(A) “Real gun, not a toy.”.
(B) “Actual firearm the use of which may result in death or serious bodily injury.”.
(C) “Dangerous weapon”.
(D) Other similar language determined by the Federal Trade Commission.
Read the rest of the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/17/federal-bill-to-restrict-the-content-of-gun-advertising/
Saiga shotguns — specifically those manufactured by Izhmash & Kalashnikov — have been banned for importation per executive order 13662.
Read the full text of the brief and associated references for full details.
The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives would be eliminated under a bill in the works from U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.).
Citing ATF’s recent operational failures and its overlap with other federal law enforcement, Sensenbrenner is preparing a bill to dissolve the agency and have existing agencies in the U.S. Justice Department take on its duties.
“By absorbing the ATF into existing law enforcement entities, we can preserve the areas where the ATF adds value for substantially less taxpayer money,” Sensenbrenner said. “While searching for its mission, the ATF has been plagued by decades of high-profile blunders….We cannot afford to ignore clear changes that will greatly enhance the government’s efficiency.”
A new Government Accountability Office report on the ATF released Wednesday found an agency trying to redefine itself while struggling with high personnel turnover and problems tracking its own criminal investigations.
The GAO report is the latest in a series of documents and studies going back more than two decades that are critical of the agency’s overlap with other law enforcement. At least two of those reports have called for the ATF to be dissolved and its responsibility folded into other federal agencies. The ATF received $12 billion from Congress between 2003 and 2013.
ATF spokeswoman Ginger Colbrun declined to comment on Sensenbrenner’s proposal, saying she first needed to see a bill.
Abolishing the ATF is being considered on both sides of the political spectrum.
Read the rest of the article: http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/bill-by-jim-sensenbrenner-would-dissolve-federal-atf-agency-b99306932z1-266361761.html
Would this lead to it being a crime for a man to buy his wife a gun?
A divided Supreme Court sided with gun control groups and the Obama administration Monday, ruling that the federal government can strictly enforce laws that ban a “straw” purchaser from buying a gun for someone else.
The justices ruled 5-4 that the law applied to a Virginia man who bought a gun with the intention of transferring it to his uncle in Pennsylvania — even though the uncle is not prohibited from owning firearms.
The decision split the court along familiar ideological lines, though it has no direct bearing on the Second Amendment right to own guns. It settles a split among appeals courts over federal gun laws intended to prevent sham buyers from obtaining guns for the sole purpose of giving them to another person. The laws were part of Congress’ effort to make sure firearms did not get into the hands of unlawful recipients.
Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said the federal government’s elaborate system of background checks and record-keeping requirements help law enforcement investigate crimes by tracing guns to their buyers. Those provisions would mean little, she said, if a would-be gun buyer could evade them by simply getting another person to buy the gun and fill out the paperwork.
“Putting true numbskulls to one side, anyone purchasing a gun for criminal purposes would avoid leaving a paper trail by the simple expedient of hiring a straw,” Kagan said.
Her opinion was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often considered the court’s swing vote, as well as liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the language of the law does not support making it a crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner. He was joined by the court’s other conservatives — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Read the rest of the article: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/supreme-court-rules-straw-purchaser-law-24154799