On February 20th, the Senate Committee on Insurance, Financial Services, Government Oversight and Courts will hear Senate Bill 822 to improve the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their loved ones in churches.
Senate Bill 822 affirms that law-abiding adults with a license to carry firearms for self-defense may do so in places of worship unless the property is specifically posted to prohibit carry. This ensures that such decisions involving security are left up to individual places of worship rather than the government mandating a one-size-fits-all solution. So-called “gun-free zones” simply disarm law-abiding citizens and leave them defenseless against criminals who ignore arbitrary boundaries.
Grassroots efforts across Michigan to enact local ordinances or resolutions protecting 2nd Amendment rights are growing. The Jackson County Board of Commissioners is the latest local governmental unit in Michigan to approve a resolution supporting 2nd Amendment rights.
The commissioners were first presented with the proposal early last month. The resolution supports the county Sheriff and Prosecutor in efforts to refuse to enforce unconstitutional firearms restrictions against any citizen. The original resolution presented to the full Jackson County Board of Commissioners originally declared the county a 2nd Amendment “sanctuary” County. But some board members thought that would make people connect it to so-called sanctuary cities nationwide that use that term to indicate protection for illegal aliens. So the board opted to go with the characterization of “2nd Amendment refuge county” instead.
13 Michigan counties have approved similar resolutions. Some county boards have rejected the approach, saying it is only symbolic and carries no weight. Supporters say there’s nothing wrong with being symbolic and making a statement in support of 2nd Amendment rights.
Read More: 2nd Amendment Protection gains Momentum In Michigan | https://wbckfm.com/2nd-amendment-protection-gains-momentum-in-michigan/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral
I had read several blogs where the authors were degrading the efforts and warning people that the planned demonstration at the Virginia capitol was not just useless, but would actually be counterproductive to the cause.
Several comments to that they were either ‘taking counsel of their fears’, or, since they weren’t in control of the protest process, they wouldn’t be able to take any credit.
Even in the face of the evidence above, some of these naysayers are unable to acknowledge they were wrong and take responsibility for their wrong headed beliefs.
So, I consider them the same as Thomas Paine who called them “Sunshine Patriots” who actually were simply afraid of putting it on the line for what they supposedly believe in.
During a CNN town hall on Wednesday, a survivor of the Las Vegas shooting asked Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) how she would prevent gun violence without provoking the “gun debate.”
“My state is a pretty big hunting state and so I look at these proposals and say, ‘Do they hurt my uncle Dick in the deer stand?’ And they don’t,” Klobuchar responded with a smile.
She stated a Fox News poll from last summer showed that the majority of hunters approve of universal background checks.
“Let’s think about the reason why we don’t have them. I think the first thing is that there are a lot of politicians out there that are afraid of the NRA and I saw this first hand after the Parkland shooting because I’ve been working on legislation that would make things safer. One of the bills that I’ve always led is to close the ‘boyfriend loophole,’ that basically says that if someone has been convicted of domestic abuse, then they cannot go out and get an assault weapon,” the Minnesota senator explained as the audience applauded. “They cannot go out and buy a gun.”
According to Klobuchar, there are three bills that are currently sitting on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s desk waiting to be taken to the Senate floor. She was specifically referring to the House’s two gun control bills that would develop universal background checks and close the so-called “Charleston loophole.” The other bill she said would close the so-called “boyfriend loophole.”
“Why aren’t these [bills] passing? Well, the NRA wields so much clout right now with some of these Republicans that we basically need to shake things up,” she said.
After Parkland, Klobuchar said she sat across the table from President Donald Trump and counted the number of times he said he wanted to pass universal background checks (her final count being nine). She said after Trump met with leaders from the NRA, he “folded,” something that she promises she won’t do.
What’s interesting is Klobuchar said Congress could have put a ban on bump stocks, which would have been helpful in preventing the Las Vegas shooting.
“We can put in the assault weapon ban, background checks, magazine limits, all of these things,” she explained. “And I think the public is with us.”
On paper, some of the proposals sound great. There are problems though.
Universal Background Checks
Whenever someone purchases a firearm from a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL), the buyer has to go through a background check. That is standard procedure and already part of the law. Universal background checks are supposed to make it impossible for criminals to get their hands on firearms. Sounds great but universal background checks do nothing but expand a flawed system. Right now, convictions are missing from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) because not all law enforcement agencies send that information to the FBI.
Back in November, Attorney General William Barr released the first-ever semi-annual report on the Fix NICS Act, which Congress passed in 2018. The head of each federal department or agency is required to submit convictions to the Attorney General twice a year. Convictions that took place from January 1 to June 30 have to be submitted by July 31. Convictions that took place between July 1 and December 31 are to be submitted by January 31 of the following year.
That report showed the Fix NICS Act is making an impact, with over six million convictions added to the three national databases used during background checks. That’s a 6.2 percent increase.
The “Charleston Loophole”
Gun control advocates use the term “Charleston Loophole” to described how the gunman who shot up a church obtained his firearm. A reporting error allowed the gunman to obtain the firearm, although he had previously been arrested for drug possession. By law, Dylann Roof was a prohibited possessor. He should have failed the background check but flaws in the system allowed him to obtain the gun.
If a person attempts to purchase a firearm and the background check is not completed in three days, the FFL has the right to complete the sale, although they’re not required to do so. Roof’s background check was delayed and the firearm was ultimately transferred to him five days after the initial check. Removing the three day grace period wouldn’t have changed the reporting error that resulted in him obtaining the gun he used to commit his heinous crime.
The “Boyfriend Loophole”
The “boyfriend loophole” is one of the most interesting claims. People like Klobuchar say a domestic abuser can obtain a firearm if they’ve been convicted of a domestic violence, as long as they’re not currently or formally legally married to their partner. That claim is a flat out lie.
Anyone convicted of a misdemeanor or felony domestic violence is a prohibited possessor. It’s already a law on the books. They’re not allowed to own a firearm. There is no loophole.
Anti-gunners love to say it’s the NRA’s fault that “common-sense gun safety laws” aren’t in place. The truth is this: the NRA has clout because it’s made up of five million members. Those members are average, everyday Americans. They rely on their Second Amendment rights for self-defense and to provide food for their families. The NRA advocates on behalf of gun owners across the nation. And guess what? Just because Republicans side with the gun rights group doesn’t mean that they’re being bought off or are scared of the organization. It means they value the Second Amendment, the very amendment that so many of their constituents cherish.
A study released by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health declares there is no evidence “assault weapon” bans lead to a lower “incidence of fatal mass shootings.”
A study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found expanding background checks does nothing to lower the mass shooting rate.
Researchers did claim licensing requirements like those in Connecticut help reduce the number of mass shootings, but their study omitted the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School in which 26 were killed at the school and another victim was killed in a private home.
In other words, a study which claims licensing reduces instances of mass shootings omitted one of the most often cited mass shootings in U.S. history, even though that shooting occurred in a licensing state.
Moreover, John Hopkins’ criteria for licensing laws allowed them to bypass Illinois which, in turn, allowed them to sidestep the never ending gun crime of Chicago.
But the study was clear there is no evidence tying “assault weapons” to a lower incidence of mass shootings.
Firearm Purchaser Licensing Laws Linked to Fewer Fatal Mass Shootings
BANS ON LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINES WERE ALSO ASSOCIATED WITH FEWER FATAL MASS SHOOTINGS AND FATALITIES
Firearm purchaser licensing laws that require an in-person application or fingerprinting are associated with an estimated 56 percent fewer fatal mass shootings in states that have them, according to a new study by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
The study analyzed fatal mass shootings in 45 states between 1984 and 2017 and the association between the rates of those shootings and the presence of various firearm laws.
The study was published in a February 2020 special issue on mass violence in the U.S. in the journal Criminology & Public Policy.
The researchers also found evidence that laws banning large-capacity magazines, defined as those that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, were associated with significant reductions in the rate of fatal mass shootings with four or more fatalities and the number killed in those shootings. >>>>The size and precision of the estimated effects of LCM bans varied across many statistical analyses presented in study.<<<<
(in other words, our evidence depends on our point of view because the numbers really don’t add up)
“After each horrible mass shooting, there are always policy debates on how they can be prevented,” says lead author Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and Bloomberg Professor of American Health in Violence Prevention. “One side often calls for expanding background checks to private purchasers, and the other usually calls for fewer restrictions on civilian gun carrying. Our findings indicate that neither of those prescriptions are associated with lower rates of fatal mass shootings. What does appear to work to reduce mass shootings are licensing laws and laws banning large-capacity magazines.”
(But later on down the page they admit that magazine laws have to be ‘controlled for’ – in other words numerically skewed to fit a preconceived idea – …so the above is a lie, right??)
In their analyses, researchers identified 604 mass shootings involving four or more victim fatalities; a total of 2,976 victims were killed in these incidents. Approximately 28 percent (842) of victim fatalities were from domestic-related shootings, 61 percent (2,057) were from non-domestic related shootings, and it was unclear among the remaining 11 percent (77) of victims whether the shooting was domestic-related. Most mass shootings had four to six victim fatalities.
As for licensing, federal law requires licensed firearm dealers—but not private sellers—to initiate a background check before the purchase of a gun. Firearm purchaser licensing laws require even more: a direct application to a law enforcement agency that conducts background checks, often aided by fingerprint-based identity verification of the applicant. Under such laws, a license or permit to purchase is needed for sales by private individuals as well as licensed firearm dealers. Nine states—Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina—and the District of Columbia currently have some form of firearm purchaser or owner licensing laws.
Previous research shows that firearm purchaser licensing laws are associated with reductions in rates of firearm homicides and suicides.
(Did they conveniently forget Chicago?)
For the study, the researchers analyzed data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, a database of homicide records voluntarily reported to the FBI by local law enforcement agencies, from 1984 to 2017. Data for Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Montana were excluded due to significant gaps in reporting.
(What are these ‘significant gaps’? Is it that the stats from these states don’t jibe with the anticipated outcome…hmm?)
The Supplementary Homicide Reports collects information on the number of victims, weapon(s) used, circumstances or motive, and the relationship between the offender and the first victim. Shootings connected to gang or illegal drug-related activities were excluded from the analyses.
Due to voluntary reporting policies, the FBI’s database did not include several high-profile mass shootings, including the 2012 Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting, 2012 Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooting, and the 2017 Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting. The researchers addressed these gaps by using data from Stanford University’s Stanford Mass Shootings in America database and the Gun Violence Archive to identify 33 additional fatal mass shootings.
In their study, the researchers made a comprehensive list of all the mass shootings between 1984 and 2017 and categorized the events based on whether the shooter had a domestic relationship (family or intimate partner) to one of the victims. The researchers’ analyses estimated the independent association between annual rates of fatal mass shootings in states and the presence of various state and federal gun laws, while controlling for differences in demographics, social and economic conditions, alcohol consumption, deaths from drug overdoses, and national trends in fatal mass shootings.
Types of firearm laws examined in the study included regulation of civilian concealed carry; extensions of background check requirements at the point of sale for private transfers; prohibitions for non-felony violence, including restraining orders for domestic violence; assault weapon bans; and large-capacity magazine bans.
The study also examined purchaser licensing laws that required in-person application to a law enforcement agency or other fingerprint-based identification of applicants, regardless of whether the sale was by a licensed gun dealer or a private seller. Seven states—Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York—and the District of Columbia currently meet that criteria and were analyzed in the study. Three additional states—Missouri, Michigan, and Nebraska—were also included in the analyses based on their purchaser licensing laws; during the study period, these states repealed all or part of their licensing requirements.
The study did not find significant associations between the incidence of fatal mass shootings and concealed carry laws, comprehensive background check laws without licensing requirements, or firearm prohibitions for violent misdemeanor convictions and domestic violence restraining orders. Although researchers did not find a clear association between firearm restrictions for domestic abusers and reduced fatal mass shootings, other research has shown these laws do reduce intimate partner homicides.
In addition, the study did not find an independent association between assault weapon bans and the incidence of fatal mass shootings after controlling for the effects of bans on large-capacity magazines.
“Evidence Concerning the Regulation of Firearms Design, Sale, and Carrying on Fatal Mass Shootings in the United States” was written by Daniel W. Webster, Alexander McCourt, Cassandra K. Crifasi, Marisa D. Booty, and Elizabeth A. Stuart.
The study was supported by The Joyce Foundation and Dr. Webster’s professorship funded by the Bloomberg American Health Initiative.
(The Joyce Foundation…That right there is the tip off. TJF is and always has been one of the more rabid anti-gun/anti-self defense entities in the U.S. Just another scrap piece of proselytizing from the controllers.)
- You can never have too much ammo. It’s amazing how quickly one or two people can shoot through 100 rounds or more in a single target practice.
- If you’re smart, your firearms will be common calibers. It will be easier to find ammo and easier to get replacement parts.
- If you’re even smarter, you’ll own firearms that are of popular makes and models. It will be easier to find a gunsmith capable of making repairs and handling customized requests.
- Unless you’re at the range every day, it’s hard to get too much practice. If the range masters know you by name, that’s a good sign that you’re getting enough practice!
- It’s a mistake to limit your practice to shooting at a piece of paper under optimal conditions. Take classes that will challenge your shooting skills in high-pressure scenarios. Until the adrenaline is really pumping and your brain feels scrambled, you’ll never know how you’ll respond in a life or death situation. (Note: The first time I was firing a gun under pressure, I got so rattled that I was using my non-dominant eye. I was fortunate that any shots hit my target!)
- A shotgun should be at or near the top of your list when it comes to firearms for home defense. Your choices are the 12 gauge, 20 gauge and the 410. Once you’ve made your decision, get to the range and practice, practice, practice. When it comes to stopping power, a shotgun can’t be beat. According to the study, 50 percent of women with firearms have at least one shotgun and 56 percent have a semiautomatic pistol.
- Don’t fall into the trap of buying the smallest gun at the store. Believe it or not, a larger gun will be more comfortable and will shoot more accurately. Read my reviews of the Sig Sauer Mosquito, Walther P22 and Ruger Mark III.
- Learn how to clean your own gun. Learn how to completely dismantle it (field strip), clean each part, and put it back together.
- Your safety is your responsibility. Not your husband’s, nor the police, nor your kids.
- A gun isn’t the end-all when it comes to personal or home security. Think in terms of layers: Situational awareness, home security systems, a watchdog, cacti or rose bushes along the back fence. It all adds up to more peace of mind and less dependence on any one strategy.
- If a gun isn’t possible or desirable in your circumstances, come up with Plan B. One of my friends keeps a baseball bat near the front seat of her minivan. Another always has the most powerful pepper spray on the market in her purse, and yet another keeps an 18″ length of steel rebar wedged between the driver’s seat of her car and the middle console. Whatever your choice, always be aware of the location of your weapon, practice using it, and be comfortable with the thought that one day you may have to use it.
- Don’t listen to celebrities and politicians who go on hysterical anti-gun rants. Remember, they can afford armed bodyguards and state-of-the-art home security systems. (Interesting that it’s okay if their bodyguards are armed but they don’t think law-abiding citizens should be able to own and carry guns.) I am my kids’ armed bodyguard.
- Practice rapid firing when you’re at the range. If your life, or that of your children’s, is ever on the line, and your only choice is to draw your gun, your best tactic will be multiple, rapid shots at the bad guy(s).
- Don’t assume you will only ever have to deal with a single bad guy. Just like roaches, bad guys stick together. You may very well be confronted with several all at once. Keep that in mind.
- There’s a reason why experts prefer to keep their sidearms concealed. Open carry is okay if you’re trying to impress people, but it also makes you a target. According to the study by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, more than 42 percent of women with guns have a concealed carry permit.
- Your life should never depend on a gun you’re afraid to shoot. If the recoil is too powerful, if the trigger pull is too heavy, if firing it hurts your hand, do not plan on using that gun as a defensive weapon. Sell it. Give it away, but whatever you do, have a gun you are comfortable with and actually enjoy shooting. If that life or death moment should ever come, there cannot be even a moment’s hesitation due to fear of using your gun.
- If you choose to carry your handgun concealed, practice drawing it from its holster or from its concealed location. And then practice another hundred times.
- It’s a really good idea to keep an extra loaded magazine in your purse, the glove compartment, wherever it will be safe and easily accessible.
- You just might be able to easily handle a larger caliber of handgun than you think at first. Don’t underestimate your ability.
- Nothing beats not being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
- Be willing to back down in a confrontation or willing to run or call for help. Your goal is to survive, not show off to the world your awesome marksmanship skills.
- Every gun-nut has his/her own opinion about the best make, model, caliber, shooting stance, etc. Be willing to listen but keep in mind that they are just opinions.
- Don’t get overly cocky just because you have a firearm in the house, your purse, or have a certificate from your shooting range for completing an advanced course. Law enforcement officers miss their target in a shooting confrontation about 70% of the time. Think about that.
I find it quite strange that the Bill of Rights is so easily dismissed–by those who have NO idea as to its origins and purpose–It sure as hell WASN’T, given to us so we could hunt but rather so that our Government could not turn into a bunch of tyrants–more important now than it was then!
One thing is for sure Americans will never lose their guns, furthermore, the latest data shows numbers that will make liberals cry.
In the year of the impeachment trial more guns were bought than any other year in U.S. history.
The Washington Times reported that 28.3 million checks were run on the FBI’s National Instant Check System last year. That included over 2.9 million in December, the month House Democrats voted to impeach the president on a party-line vote.
According to FBI data on NICS checks, the previous record for a year was 27.5 million in 2016.
Did the Democrats’ push to impeach the president boost firearms sales?
Well, certainly is a huge factor but also other events are responsible for this surge in firearms sales.
The fact the U.S. House of Representatives was controlled by anti-Second Amendment Democrats, who passed a number of gun control measures.
Another is the fact that virtually every major Democratic candidate proposed sweeping new gun restrictions.
Gun-rights advocates and other extremists act like every attempt to create sane and logical regulations on guns is a fascist assault on their freedom. But a quick look at other nations shows this to be untrue.
Luckily our country is not doing the same mistake and we are not giving away our gun!
The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry trade association, released the 2017 Firearms Production Report to members. The report compiles the most up to date information based on data sourced from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF’s) Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Export Reports (AFMER).
The estimated total number of firearms in civilian possession from 1986-2018 is 422.9 million, according to data reported in the ATF’s Firearms Commerce Report in the United States 2019 report and including the preliminary 2018 Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Exportation Report (AFMER) figures.
17,740,000 Modern Sporting Rifles are in private ownership today.
More than half (54%) of all rifles produced in 2017 were modern sporting rifles.
In 2017, 7,901,218 total firearms were produced and imported. Of those, 4,411,923 were pistols and revolvers, 2,821,945 were rifles and 667,350 were shotguns.
An interim 2018 estimate showed a total 7,660,772 total firearms were produced and imported. Of those 4,277,971 were pistols and revolvers, 2,846,757 were rifles and 535,994 were shotguns.
Firearms-ammunition manufacturing accounted for nearly 12,000 employees producing over $4.1 billion in goods shipped in 2017. An estimated 8.1 billion rounds, of all calibers and gauges, were produced in 2018 for the U.S. market.
“These figures show the industry that America has a strong desire to continue to purchase firearms for lawful purposes,” said Joe Bartozzi, President of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. “The Modern Sporting Rifle continues to be the most popular centerfire rifle sold in America today and is clearly a commonly-owned firearm with more than 17 million in legal private ownership today. The continued popularity of handguns demonstrates a strong interest by Americans to protect themselves and their homes, and to participate in the recreational shooting sports.”
This Act is known and may be cited as the “Louisiana Constitutional Carry Act of 2020
Abstract: Exempts certain persons from the crime of illegal carrying of weapons, and
removes the requirement that a person possess a permit issued by the state of La. in
order to carry a concealed handgun in the state of La.
Present law (R.S. 14:95) prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm, provides for criminal
penalties, and provides for certain exceptions to the offense.
Proposed law creates an exception to this prohibition for any person who did not illegally
obtain nor manufacture the firearm and who is not prohibited from possessing a firearm
under any state or federal law.
The Second Amendment Sanctuary movement has come to Pennsylvania, and with the growing support among citizens there’s growing backlash among the press. The latest to try to take down the movement are the editors of the York Dispatch, who seem awfully upset about something they say is meaningless and purely symbolic.
in yet another example of the privileged majority feigning minority victimhood, gun owners in rural communities nationwide are buying into the so-called “Second Amendment Sanctuary” movement. This despite the fact that:
• There are more guns than people in the United States.
• More than 45% of the world’s civilian firearms are owned by Americans.
• Even as 2019 saw a record number of mass shootings — more than 400 — Congress continues to ignore the issue of gun safety.
• The most recent substantial federal law regarding firearms — signed by President George W. Bush in 2005 — protected gun manufacturers from being sued by victims of gun violence.
Still, just the suggestion of something as mildly inconvenient — and widely popular — as, say, universal background checks for gun purchases elicits howls of opposition and, now, arguments for special protections for gun owners.
Actually, my main argument against universal background checks isn’t that they’re unconstitutional, it’s that they’re completely ineffective at reducing violent crime or even increasing the number of background checks performed. In order to even attempt to be effective, universal background check laws need a gun registry, and that’s where the constitutionality of the law comes in to play for me. I live in a state where anti-gun lawmakers just tried to turn me into a felon for keeping my AR-15, and then told me I’d be allowed to keep it as long as I registered it with the state police. I don’t think it’s crazy to believe that these same lawmakers would love to use a list of gun owners to eventually confiscate their firearms, or at least declare them felons for continuing to own them.
The Dispatch‘s editorial board is really steamed that West Mannheim Township, Pennsylvania will be considering a Second Amendment Sanctuary ordinance on Tuesday that states no town funds will be used to “interfere with a gun owner’s rights” (in the words of a Dispatch reporter). The editorial board calls it a “vague and troubling broad assertion.”
“The level of short-bus syndrome in these types of people is unparalleled.”
A brawl broke out at a Bernie Sanders rally in Colorado on Sunday when a supporter of the Vermont senator confronted another man for wearing a T-shirt that read “Black Guns Matter,” a report said.
The man sporting the shirt, who is black, told CBS Denver that he was recording the presidential hopeful at the Colorado Convention Center when another rally attendee called him “racist” because of his shirt.
“He had a problem with the shirt I was wearing,” the man, who was not identified, told the news station.
“I was recording the event, he walks up and calls me a racist. But I thought, ‘What’s he know about black lives, about discrimination, or, for that matter, the representation of the shirt.’”
At some point during the confrontation, the two men began wrestling and the scuffle spilled over a metal barrier that separated the crowd from the stage, video captured by the news channel shows.
The Bernie bro told CBS Denver that the fight escalated when he heard the other man booing Sanders.
The Sanders supporter, who told the station his name is Tyler, claimed the T-shirt-wearing man knocked his cellphone out of his hand and attacked him.
He then retaliated and wrestled with him as the senator spoke, he told the station.
But the man wearing the shirt — who says he agrees with Sanders on some policies, but not on gun control — said he was shocked at being physically confronted at a political rally.
“I think it’s really a sad thing at a Bernie rally, when someone has a difference of opinion, that someone would be treated like that,” he told CBS Denver.
“I thought it really would be a lot more inclusive than that. It’s not a safe place to express differences.”
He added: “I would expect that sort of thing at a Trump rally.”
We enter 2020 secure in the knowledge that the Texas Legislature has our back on gun rights. If you want proof, look no further than the 10 bills that went into effect last year.
The law now gives you a defense of “mistake.” Everyone knows that it is fairly easy to miss a posted sign that states handguns are prohibited on a premises. Under the old law, the lawful handgun carrier could be prosecuted for such a mistake. Now, the handgun carrier has a defense if he or she promptly leaves after being told that handguns are forbidden on the premises.
Has your landlord been giving you trouble about your lawfully possessed firearm?
That is a remnant of the past. Landlords and condominium regimes can no longer prohibit tenants, owners and their guests from possessing lawful firearms and ammunition in apartments, condominiums and manufactured houses, nor can they prohibit transporting the firearms and ammo between their unit and their vehicles.
Some schools still have a lot to learn. Handgun license holders have always been allowed to store firearms and ammo out of sight in a locked vehicle in a school parking lot, but some schools were putting additional rules in place. Those rules are no longer permitted.Is there anything more irritating than having to leave your handguns behind during a mandatory evacuation just because you do not have a permit to carry? Apparently not. As long as you are not prohibited by law from carrying a handgun, you can now carry it while evacuating or reentering an area within 168 hours after the area was declared a state of disaster.
A few misguided government agencies were not wild about the idea of legal handgun carry in their buildings, so they put up the premises notices.
Your legislators were not amused. They passed a law providing for a 15-day notice to remove the signs.
Foster parents now have the right to possess and store lawfully permitted firearms and ammunition in the foster home. Some restrictions apply.
What are we to do with local governments who think they know better than the great State of Texas? Sigh. The law now clarifies that municipalities cannot adopt regulations that attempt to modify state law regarding firearms, knives, ammunition and the like.
It is now law that a business cannot be sued because it fails to prohibit legal handgun carry on its premises.
Any law that places a restriction on property owners’ associations is a good law. The legislature tossed their right to restrict you from lawful possession, storage or transport of a firearm or ammunition.
And for the grand finale – this was recently in the news and deserves special mention. A place of worship is now treated the same as any other private property for purposes of deciding whether a license holder may carry on premises.
This week, several anti-gun bills received floor votes and passed out of their respective chambers. Additionally, two bills have now been pulled from the House Rules Committee and are eligible for a vote at any time. Please contact your Representative and ask them to oppose House Bills 2240 and 2623!
The following two bills have been pulled from Rules Committee and are awaiting a floor vote:
House Bill 2240 bans the manufacture, possession, sale, transfer, etc. of magazines that hold more than fifteen rounds of ammunition. This bill is strongly supported by the Governor and the Attorney General. These so called “high capacity” magazines are in fact standard equipment for commonly-owned firearms that many Americans legally and effectively use for an entire range of legitimate purposes, such as self-defense or competition. Those who own non-compliant magazines prior to the ban are only allowed to possess them on their own property and in other limited instances such as at licensed shooting ranges or while hunting. Restricted magazines have to be transported unloaded and locked separately from firearms and stored at home locked, making them unavailable for self-defense. Anti-gun legislators are attempting to bring HB 2240 up for a floor vote on Sunday.
House Bill 2623 prohibits an individual from possessing firearms if they are convicted of the misdemeanor crime of unlawful aiming or discharge of a firearm. This poorly conceived legislation even applies to airguns and slingshots and has no exception for an individual aiming or discharging a firearm for self-defense purposes in a location that would have otherwise not been authorized.
The following bills received a floor vote and passed out of their respective chambers:
Senate Bill 5434 passed by a 27-20 vote. It increases prohibited areas where law-abiding citizens cannot possess firearms, including CPL holders carrying for self-defense. The bill extended “gun-free zones” to public parks, libraries, and child care centers before being amended to only apply to child care centers. In addition to leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless against criminals who ignore arbitrary boundaries, the bill requires child care centers to publicly indicate they are “gun-free zones” by posting signs outside the facilities.
House Bill 2622 passed by a 56-42 vote. It modifies Washington’s existing firearm surrender provisions for individuals subject to a court order. This bill compels a respondent to appear and provide proof on how and to what extent they complied with the surrender order. This is a serious encroachment on the right against compelled self-incrimination in any criminal, civil, or other government proceedings. Failure to appear results in the individual being in contempt of court, thereby putting the individual in a no-win situation.
House Bill 2305 passed by a 55-42 vote. It imposes a mandatory firearm prohibition for respondents of a Vulnerable Adult Protective Order. This order, which removes someone’s Second Amendment rights for up to 5 years, requires no criminal convictions or even charges. Due process limits restrictions on constitutional rights to only serious convictions and adjudications that provide procedural protections to the accused, which results in more reliable proceedings. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms should not be treated as a second-class right and should only be restricted when sufficient protections are in place.
Additionally, the House voted to pass House Bill 2467 by a vote of 66-32. HB 2467 directs Washington State Patrol to create a centralized state system for all firearm transfers to allow firearm dealers to submit information electronically and receive feedback instantaneously. This bill was introduced by a bipartisan group of legislators who have recognized that background checks in Washington have imposed excessive delays on gun owners. Background checks for handgun transfers are done in an archaic manner by mail to local law enforcement, who are tasked with manually checking databases. CPL holders previously were able to avoid the archaic check for handguns and instead were allowed to go through the federal NICS as a courtesy, which provided instant feedback. That exemption ceased in July, 2019. The enactment of I-1639 also added transfers of semi-automatic rifles to this system, with the addition of an $18 fee. Though this archaic background check has a ten day waiting period to allow for completion, these factors, along with I-594 requiring background checks on all transfers, has resulted in ever increasing strain on this system, creating delays that drag out up to 30 days. Unfortunately, there will be a fee attached to the background check, which has been capped at $18 per transaction.
Billionaire media mogul Michael Bloomberg’s presidential run helped gun-rights groups light a fire under owners of firearms who grew somewhat complacent in the era of President Trump.
Gun groups ranging from the National Rifle Association to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership are whipping up their members with dire warnings about a potential President Bloomberg.
A former mayor of New York City who leapfrogged to the top-tier in the Democratic presidential race, Mr. Bloomberg has a long record of challenging the Second Amendment from his get-tough policies as mayor to bankrolling a massive gun control advocacy organization.
The National Association for Gun Rights alerted its members on social media to Mr. Bloomberg’s $300 million campaign to “DESTROY the Second Amendment,” calling on them to unite and stop “his anti-gun agenda.”
“Our members are motivated by Mike Bloomberg and have been for a while,” said Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights. “He is a billionaire and one of his main focuses has been spending his own personal money to destroy the Second Amendment. And he has been relatively successful. All of the groups on the left rely on his money.”
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s sweeping gun, magazine, and suppressor ban was defeated in the state senate’s Judiciary Committee Monday morning in front of a crowd of gun owners and Second Amendment supporters. Four Democrats joined every Republican on the committee in rejecting HB961, which had narrowly advanced out of the House of Delegates just before a legislative deadline last week.
Committee chairman John Edwards joined fellow Democrats Chap Petersen, Creigh Deeds, Scott Surovell, and every Republican on the committee to send the bill to the Virginia Crime Commission for further study, which kills the bill’s chances for this legislative session.
The gun ban bill was the first on the docket for the Judiciary Committee, and GOP members grilled bill sponsor Del. Mark Levine over his definition of an “assault weapon,” the arbitrary ban on ammunition magazines that can hold more than twelve rounds, and other aspects of the legislation.
“This weapons restriction is clearly constitutional,” claimed Levine, noting that in a challenge to a similar ban in Maryland, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that so-called assault weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment. What Levine didn’t say is that the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t taken up a case dealing with semi-automatic long guns.
Gov. Northam’s director of public safety, Brian Moran, also claimed the bill would pass constitutional muster by citing the Kolbe case as well, calling the guns that would be banned under HB961 “weapons of war.” According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the guns that would have been banned under the bill are the most commonly manufactured rifles in the United States today, and the U.S. Supreme Court has said that arms that are in common use for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment.
Levine also claimed that HB961 didn’t “infringe on anyone’s rights,” though it absolutely would have infringed on the rights of those Virginians who would seek to purchase one of these firearms, magazines, or suppressors after the ban went into effect. Additionally, any owner of a magazine defined as “high capacity” would have been guilty of a misdemeanor if they continued to possess the magazines they currently own.
While the gun, magazine, and suppressor bill is dead for this legislative session, it will almost surely be back again next year, and in the meantime Gov. Northam will likely get a chance to sign several gun control bills, including measures that would roll back the state’s firearm preemption law, change training requirements for concealed carry licensees, and more.
Voicing refusal to comply with new gun laws has historical precedent
The utterly American history of ‘We will not comply’
On Jan. 20, as Americans remembered civil rights hero Martin Luther King Jr., an estimated 10,000 people peacefully rallied in Richmond, Virginia, to protest the recent introduction of highly contentious gun control bills into the state Legislature.
Motivated in part by the “Second Amendment Sanctuary” movement that has seen more than 100 Virginia counties and cities pass measures denouncing—and in some cases, preemptively refusing to enforce—constitutionally suspect gun laws, some Virginians at the rally began chants of “We will not comply.”
Many gun control advocates have denounced these chants (and the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement itself) as undemocratic and anti-American. While this reaction was predictable, voicing a collective refusal to comply with laws perceived as unconstitutional or unjust is a fundamental part of American democratic discourse.
In fact, the mantra “We will not comply” helped set the stage for America as it exists today.
In 1765, the British Parliament passed the Stamp Act, which imposed a tax on nearly every piece of paper used by the American colonists. The colonists considered this a direct tax on them without the approval of the colonial legislatures—a flagrant violation of longstanding legal precedent and an affront to their rights as Englishmen.
Threats of noncompliance and public protests so troubled Parliament that the act was repealed before ever being put into effect.
Thus began nearly two decades of actual and threatened colonial noncompliance with British laws that increasingly threatened the rights and liberties of the colonists. This included widespread noncompliance with laws that severely curtailed the ability of colonists to keep and bear arms.
Americans routinely circumvented or ignored bans on the importation of firearms and powder, and eventually resorted to armed defensive action against British attempts to confiscate guns and powder stores from colonial communities.
Noncompliance with federal laws mandating the return of escaped slaves was rampant throughout northern states prior to the Civil War. In 1850, the Vermont Legislature went so far as to pass a law effectively requiring state judicial and law enforcement officers to act in direct opposition to the federal Fugitive Slave Law.
Even in jurisdictions that did not act officially act to condone noncompliance, individual noncompliance with federal slave laws was nonetheless widespread. Moreover, a generally lax approach to local enforcement in the North raised the ire of Southern states, where calls abounded for the federal government to send in military units to ensure adequate enforcement.
Importantly, many abolitionists refused to keep their intentions quiet—they, too, were vocal about their refusal to comply with laws they considered both unconstitutional and morally unjust.
“We will not comply” was very much a general refrain of the now-beloved abolitionist movement.
Noncompliance permeated democratic discourse throughout the 20th century, as well. Some of the most revered figures of the civil rights era were actually brought to the national spotlight by acts of noncompliance.
Rosa Parks refused to comply with a city ordinance mandating segregated buses that would force her to the back of the bus. Hundreds refused to comply with state laws by engaging in sit-ins. King spent periods in jail for his repeated refusals to comply with court orders.
Of course, America’s history with noncompliance and civil disobedience has also been complicated. Not all acts of noncompliance are later held to be meritorious. Many times, one side’s appeal to a higher law is another side’s accusation that the rule of law has been betrayed.
Noncompliance with school integration orders resulted in sometimes-violent standoffs among local, state, and federal agencies, and history has not treated these acts of noncompliance kindly.
Noncompliance with alcohol laws during the Prohibition era helped foster the rise of gangster violence (though, interestingly enough, widespread noncompliance was one of the major underlying factors leading to Prohibition’s eventual repeal).
During the Vietnam War, an estimated tens of thousands of young draft-eligible men faced severe criticism and legal consequences for refusing to comply with what they perceived to be an unjust draft system that would send them to fight in an unjust war.
But the fact that history judges some acts of noncompliance more harshly than others does not negate the reality of history itself. It merely reminds us that threats of noncompliance should not be undertaken lightly. They should be based on well-reasoned and principled appeals that will withstand the judgment of our descendants.
Threatening noncompliance is not unique to modern gun owners, nor unique to modern American discourse.
“We will not comply” is neither an undemocratic threat nor an un-American resolve.
It is a long-standing part of democratic discourse, and an utterly American promise to strive for compliance with a higher law.
My first impression is ‘No’.
We often find ourselves arguing statistics with anti-gun people. Let’s put the conversation into perspective. I will give you some statistics and I’ll also expose the anti-gun left’s real motives for gun control. First of all, don’t you think that if someone really wanted to save lives, they would focus their attention on an area where the most lives are lost? If you’ll notice, Anti-Gunners miss that piece of logic and gravitate toward any justification for gun control laws regardless of its inability to save lives.
The gun grabbers like to use the number of 30,000 to 40,000 gun-related deaths per year but if we take out suicides, which are 60% of those deaths and we take out law enforcement-related deaths, we’re left with about 14,880 gun-related homicides. Let me add something here. After seeing the results of Australia’s gun ban, we know that suicides do not go down in the absence of guns. People find other means; just in case there are some Anti-Gunners out there still trying to blame suicides on guns.
Here’s where it gets interesting.
The majority of those gun-related homicides are gang-related. So, let’s say we didn’t have the gang problem we have in this country. If we take out gang/gun murders the number of gun-related homicides shrinks to 2,976 per year in America. here’s another interesting fact that the anti-gun left doesn’t want you to know. The majority of gang-related violence occurs in Democrat-run cities across this country, which by the way are highly gun restricted and often allow violent Illegals safe harbor. Which means, the good people living within those cities are denied their right to protect themselves against the human violence that Democrats encourage with their bad policies. Now let’s compare 2,976 gun-related homicides to some other things that the anti-gun left could be working on if they really wanted to save lives.
- 2,976 gun-related homicides, consisting of many different causes. None of which are caused by “the gun.”
- 11,000 lives lost per year in America to drunk driving accidents.
- 47,000 lives lost per year in America due to suicide, (bipolar disorder and schizophrenia being two of the leading causes of suicide.) Not guns. Remember, take away the guns and that number doesn’t change.
- 330,000 lives are taken per year in America by people committing abortion. One of the biggest causes of preventable deaths in America is abortion. Didn’t the gun-grabbers say they wanted to save lives?
Now let me give you a piece of information that the anti-self-defense crowd doesn’t want you to know. How many lives do you think are saved every year because of guns?
- 2,500,000 lives are potentially saved every year in America because of guns. These are called Defensive Gun Uses (DGU’s). Now, this doesn’t necessarily mean good guys killing bad guys. This most often means just the mere presence of a gun deters a bad guy. 46% of those lives saved are women. This is from a study that was done by Gary Kleck, a Florida criminologist and backed by data from the CDC.
*[Data collected from Pew Research Center, FBI Statistics, Armed Resistance to Crime Report (Kleck/Gertz), Center for Medical Progress, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.]
Why do you think the gun grabbers never share this information? Some would argue that they don’t really care about saving lives as much as they care about disarming their fellow citizens and preventing them from independently protecting themselves and their families.
Gun control is a top-down method that puts the government in charge of the lives and safety of people under the guise of “public safety.” It’s the first step in stealing the freedom our founders fought for. The anti-gun left has already decided that they are willing to give up their freedom to government.
The problem is, they can’t have their government-controlled Utopian society unless everyone gets on board. Real Americans are clearly not getting on board. In fact, just the opposite is true. People across the country are fighting back as the left-wing ideology tries desperately to embed itself into traditional America. Gun control is a way of forcing you into dependence whether you like it or not.
We’re never going to cure the evil in the hearts of killers but thanks to our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of firearms, we can stop them.
So, to the gun grabbers, do you really want to save lives? Then get to work on the real causes of human-violence and help us restore our gun rights so good people can protect themselves. Help us save lives, rather than ending them before they get a chance to take their first breath.
The 2nd Amendment is not a privilege. It’s your right.