Exposing the Misrepresentations

In recent years, the debate over firearm-related deaths has reached a fever pitch, with many on the left pushing narratives that often distort the reality of the situation. While it is crucial to address any form of violence or death, the selective outrage and misrepresentation of data can lead to misguided policies that fail to address the true causes of harm in our communities. Let's delve into some hard facts from the CDC to set the record straight and highlight a glaring issue that often escapes the same level of scrutiny: the fentanyl crisis.

Firearm-Related Deaths: The Real Numbers

According to the CDC Fatal and Nonfatal Injury Reports [1] from 2020 to 2022 in Arizona, the numbers for firearm-related deaths among individuals aged under 1 to 17 are as follows:

• Suicide Firearm Deaths: 14
• Unintentional Firearm Deaths: 7

That's a total of 21 firearm-related deaths over a three-year period. While each of these deaths is a tragic loss, the numbers are far lower than what some political narratives would have you believe. The constant portrayal of an epidemic of firearm-related deaths in youth is not supported by these statistics.

The Overlooked Crisis: Fentanyl Deaths

In stark contrast, let's examine the data on drug poisoning deaths, specifically from fentanyl, within the same demographic and time frame:

• Ages 0-4: 29 deaths
• Ages 10-14: 18 deaths
• Ages 15-19: 249 deaths

That's a total of 296 fentanyl-related deaths among Arizona's youth from 2020 to 2022. Moreover, the years of potential life lost due to these deaths amount to a staggering 14,684 years. This data highlights a crisis that is claiming far more young lives than firearm-related incidents, yet it often receives less attention in the public discourse.

Political Inaction and Misplaced Focus

Despite these alarming numbers, many Democratic legislators in Arizona have been reluctant to support stringent measures against fentanyl dealers. This reluctance stands in stark contrast to their vigorous campaigns against firearm ownership. The reality is that while firearms are often a focal point of political debates, the fentanyl epidemic is silently ravaging our communities, particularly affecting our youth.

It's time for a balanced and fact-based approach to policy-making. Misrepresenting data on firearm-related deaths only serves to divert attention from more pressing issues like the fentanyl crisis. Lawmakers must prioritize the genuine threats to public safety and health, which means holding fentanyl dealers accountable and implementing effective strategies to combat this devastating epidemic.

By focusing on the facts and addressing the most significant dangers facing our communities, we can create policies that truly protect our youth and save lives. It's not about diminishing the importance of any loss of life but about recognizing where the real threats lie and taking decisive action to combat them.

I won't even begin to talk about the 82 children who have drowned in backyard pools either. But no one takes that serious enough. 

Teach your kids that firearms are NOT toys. Teach them to swim at a very young age just in case and always keep an eye on them around water. And have the talk with them about drugs. 

Be good to one another. 

 

---

[1] CDC Fatal and Nonfatal Injury Reports https://wisqars.cdc.gov/reports

 

33 anti-firearm Congressional officeholders DEMAND ...

Congress has questions[1] about the Department of Justice (DOJ) National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center. Some pointed out that it is not authorized[2] by Congress, and U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is launching an investigation[3].

The Department of Justice (DOJ) National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center is a part of the DOJ that focuses on Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs). ERPOs, also known as "Red Flag" laws, are state laws that provide a legal process for temporarily removing firearms from individuals deemed to be at a high risk of harming themselves or others.

The Resource Center's role is to provide information, support, and resources for states, law enforcement agencies, and communities that are implementing or considering the implementation of ERPO laws. The center may offer resources such as best practice guides, research on the effectiveness of ERPOs, training materials for law enforcement, and other relevant information.

It's important to note that the center itself doesn't have the authority to enforce ERPO laws or directly intervene in cases; instead, it functions as a support and informational resource.

Thirty-three antigun U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives wrote[4] to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen demanding the agency force financial institutions and payment card processors to use a firearm retailer-specific Merchant Category Code (MCC).

If you didn’t already know, a Merchant Category Code (MCC) is a four-digit number assigned to a business by credit card companies. It's used to classify the business by the type of goods or services it provides. The legislators are demanding for a unique MCC for firearm retailers. This could potentially allow for greater oversight and regulation of firearm sales, as well as provide a clearer picture of the financial transactions occurring within the firearm industry. Another list the government is building.

Are you surprised that Arizona Congressman Raúl M. Grijalva is one of the 33 anti-firearm legislators in Congress? 

 

 

---

[1] Congress rings alarm bells about gun control over DOJ’s ‘National Extreme Risk’ center - Washington Examiner https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/2935564/congress-rings-alarm-bells-about-gun-control-over-dojs-national-extreme-risk-center/  

[2] Biden's Federal 'Red Flag' Center Defies The Constitution (thefederalist.com) https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/27/bidens-federal-red-flag-center-defies-the-constitution-in-more-ways-than-one/

[3] Rep. Jim Jordan Opens Investigation into Biden's Red Flag Law Center (breitbart.com) https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2024/03/28/rep-jim-jordan-launches-investigation-into-biden-administrations-red-flag-law-center/

[4] https://www.nssf.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024.03.27MCCletter.pdf

Mexico's Misguided Lawsuit Against Arizona Gun Dealers

Despite a recent ruling allowing Mexico's lawsuit against several Arizona gun dealers to proceed, our association firmly stands behind these law-abiding businesses. Mexico's allegations that these companies contributed to cartel violence through negligent sales practices are both misguided and lack substantive evidence.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act[1] (PLCAA) has long shielded the firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits seeking to assign blame for the criminal misuse of legally sold products. While the judge found Mexico's unjust enrichment claims met the bare minimum to avoid dismissal under PLCAA for now, this is merely the first hurdle in a lengthy legal battle.

As this case moves forward, Mexico will face an uphill challenge in proving their assertions that these dealers knowingly supplied firearms to straw purchasers and traffickers. Our Arizona businesses have stringent protocols to comply with all federal, state, and local regulations designed to prevent such illicit transactions. Ultimately, it is the criminal actors - not legitimate gun sellers - who bear full responsibility for how firearms are unlawfully obtained and misused.

The dismissal of Mexico's more extreme claims is a positive sign that the court recognizes the shortcomings in attempting to scapegoat the gun industry for the nation's internal issues with cartel violence and lax border security. As the Tucson Sentinel reported, "the burden of proof rests on Mexico to establish a direct link between the actions of the dealers and specific instances of harm," which will be exceedingly difficult given the multitude of factors involved.[2]

Furthermore, we must question the impartiality of groups like the Global Action on Gun Violence, who have already proclaimed this ruling as a step towards holding gun companies responsible before any evidence has been presented or analyzed. The DISCOVERY phase has not even begun. Such premature accolades from anti-gun advocates should give us pause.

The Arizona Firearms Industry Trade Association[3] will continue supporting these upstanding Arizona businesses as this case progresses through the discovery phase and towards trial. We are confident that a full and fair examination of the facts will ultimately absolve these dealers of any wrongdoing related to Mexico's cartel violence epidemic. The solution lies in effective enforcement and accountability for criminal enterprises - not misguided attempts to undermine the lawful American firearms industry.

 

 

---

[1] 15 USC Ch. 105: PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS - House. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title15/chapter105&edition=prelim.

[2] "Mexico's lawsuit vs. Arizona gun dealers survives legal challenge." 25 Mar. 2024, https://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/032524_mx_gun_lawsuit/mexicos-lawsuit-vs-arizona-gun-dealers-survives-legal-challenge/.

[3] Arizona Firearms Industry Trade Association, Inc.. https://azfita.com/.

Rescheduling Marijuana Would Leave Federal Firearms Prohibition Untouched

In recent developments, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)[1] has suggested reclassifying[2] marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)[3]. While this recommendation appears to signal progress in the treatment of marijuana under federal law, particularly for medical research and state-licensed marijuana enterprises, it does not fully address other significant legal ramifications, notably the federal prohibition of firearms possession for marijuana users. This article aims to examine the legal implications of rescheduling marijuana with a focus on its interplay with Second Amendment rights.

The Current State of Marijuana Classification

At present, marijuana is categorized as a Schedule I substance, putting it alongside substances like heroin and LSD, which are considered to have high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use[4]. This categorization has hindered medical research and imposed an unfair financial burden on state-licensed marijuana businesses due to the tax code's restrictions on such businesses. The HHS's recommendation to reschedule marijuana to Schedule III would ameliorate these issues, as substances under this category are acknowledged to have moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence and are recognized for their medical use[5].

The Unresolved Issue of Federal Firearms Prohibition

While rescheduling might seem like a substantial step forward, it falls short in solving certain complications. One such issue is the continued criminalization of marijuana users who also possess firearms. Under federal law, marijuana users are deemed "unlawful users," and owning a firearm could lead to federal felony charges, irrespective of state laws allowing marijuana use[6]. Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III does not change this prohibition, a significant gap in aligning federal and state regulations on both Second Amendment rights and marijuana usage.

A Call for Full Descheduling

Given the medical applications and the safety profile of marijuana, many argue that the most straightforward solution would be full descheduling, thereby placing marijuana on par with substances like alcohol and tobacco. This change would not only advance medical research but also eliminate federal criminality for state-authorized marijuana merchants and users. However, full descheduling is not without its challenges. It would require a comprehensive framework, addressing age restrictions, product labeling, advertising, and public health implications.

Counterarguments and Further Considerations

Opponents of rescheduling argue that it could introduce new regulations or taxes that burden the marijuana industry. Additionally, full descheduling might lead to increased accessibility, potentially resulting in unintended public health consequences.[7] Ultimately, decisions surrounding marijuana classification require a nuanced approach, considering the complex interplay of legal, social, and public health factors.

 

In light of the HHS's recommendation, it is evident that the discourse around marijuana policy is shifting, even if incrementally. While the reclassification offers some respite, it fails to solve the issue of firearms prohibition for marijuana users, thereby perpetuating a conflict between state and federal laws. A more robust solution might lie in full descheduling, albeit with its own set of complexities that require thorough consideration and evaluation. EPIC Policy Group Associate Lobbyist, Allison Stein, is staying on top of this specific issue. We will keep you updated as any new information becomes available.

 

 

---

[1] https://www.hhs.gov/

[2] https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling

[3] https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/csa

[4] 21 U.S.C. § 812. (n.d.). Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/812

[5] Ibid.

[6] 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). (n.d.). Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

[7] The New Jim Crow. (n.d.). Shortform. Retrieved from https://www.shortform.com/app/book/the-new-jim-crow/preview

 

Fifth Circuit Says Lifetime Firearms Ban for Marijuana Users is Unconstitutional

In a recent landmark decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals[1] has ruled that imposing a lifetime gun ban on marijuana users is unconstitutional. The case of US v. Daniels[2] centered around Patrick Daniels, a Mississippi man who had been arrested and sentenced to prison for possessing firearms as an unlawful user of marijuana. The three-judge panel unanimously concluded that this conviction was inconsistent with the historical context and traditional understanding of gun regulation[3], ultimately violating the Second Amendment rights of citizens.

Judge Jerry E. Smith, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, authored the opinion[4] for the panel, asserting that while history and tradition may support limitations on an intoxicated person's right to bear arms, disarming a sober individual solely based on their past marijuana use is not justified. The panel argued that disallowing a nonviolent drug user from possessing firearms was a violation of their Second Amendment rights. The court specifically noted that the challenged statute, § 922(g)(3)[5], was unconstitutional as applied to Daniels.

This ruling contributes to the ongoing national discourse surrounding the scope and limits of the Second Amendment. Courts across the country are grappling with defining who exactly the Second Amendment protects and the circumstances under which a person can be legitimately disarmed. This decision emphasizes that while there may be valid concerns about the intersection of gun ownership and drug use, a more nuanced approach is needed to balance individual rights with public safety.

It's important to note that this decision does not challenge the broader federal prohibition on gun possession by drug users. Instead, it focuses on the specific scenario of nonviolent marijuana users being subjected to a lifetime gun ban.[6] The ruling provides an opportunity for reevaluation of how drug policy intersects with gun rights, particularly in the context of states that have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use.

As this case joins the ranks of recent legal developments reshaping the landscape of gun laws in the United States, it underscores the intricate relationship between individual liberties, constitutional rights, and evolving societal norms. This decision serves as a reminder that the interpretation of the Second Amendment continues to evolve, reflecting the changing dynamics of our society and the ongoing efforts to balance personal freedoms with public safety.

 

---

[1] https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/

[2] USA v. Daniels, No. 22-60596 (5th Cir. 2023) https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/22-60596/22-60596-2023-08-09.html

[3] N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2126 (2022)

[4] Ibid

[5] 18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

[6] That accords with the holding in Range v. Att’y General United States of America,

69 F.4th 96, 101–03 (3d Cir. 2023) (en banc), where the court held that a man convicted of

a false statement was part of “the people” and had Second Amendment rights, even though

he was not “law-abiding.” Range relied in part on then-Judge Barrett’s dissent in Kanter

v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437, 452 (7th Cir. 2019), in which she reasoned that “all people have the

right to keep and bear arms,” but “history and tradition support Congress’s power to strip

certain groups of that right.”