The Supreme Court Is Preparing to Make Every State’s Gun Laws Look Like Texas’

“When in trouble or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout”
SnowflakeSlate’s whining and pearl necklace clutching on display

In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that cities and states may not abridge “the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense.” It has not heard a Second Amendment case since, leaving most lower courts to assume that the right to bear arms applies “in the home,” as the justices ruled. But on Tuesday, the court agreed to review a New York City law that limits gun owners’ ability to transport their guns outside the home. And it appears quite likely that the new conservative majority will, for the very first time, extend the Second Amendment beyond the front door and out into the streets, unleashing lower courts to strike down long-standing restrictions on the public carrying of firearms.

The case at hand, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York, is an ideal vehicle for gun-rights activists. Since 2008’s D.C. v. Heller and 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago, groups like the National Rifle Association have urged the courts to create a constitutional right to public carry. The goal is to prohibit the government from barring “concealed carry” and “open carry” of firearms, allowing most Americans to possess a gun in public, whether it’s hidden or flaunted. Results have been mixed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found a right to concealed carry outside the home. So did the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, by contrast, found no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed handgun in public. And the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has split the baby, upholding limitations on concealed carry while invalidating restrictions on open carry.

Despite this circuit split, the Supreme Court has declined to take a public-carry case and resolve the matter once and for all. The main reason appeared to be Justice Anthony Kennedy, who compelled Justice Antonin Scalia to add limiting language to the Heller decision establishing an individual right to bear arms. Given Kennedy’s wobbly support of gun rights, the conservative justices avoided taking a case that might result in a 5–4 decision upholding public-carry bans. Now Kennedy is gone, replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a gun-rights enthusiast who takes a breathtakingly expansive view of the Second Amendment. With a firmly pro-gun majority in place, the conservative justices finally seem ready to supercharge Heller.
There are compelling interests bolstering the New York City law as well as public-carry bans more broadly.

New York State Rifle may well mark their first step into the breach. The case involves a New York City measure that forbids residents from removing their firearms from their homes, unless they’re taking them to an “authorized small arms range” or “shooting club” within city limits. (There are seven such facilities, including at least one in each borough.) Several residents challenged the law’s constitutionality, arguing that the Second Amendment protects their right to carry guns to other shooting ranges, competitions, and second homes outside the city. In 2018, the Second Circuit upheld the rule, noting that it does not “substantially affect the exercise of core Second Amendment rights”—self-defense with a firearm in the home. Now the justices will evaluate that decision and, I suspect, reverse it.

The case thus marks an effort to inch the Supreme Court toward establishing a right to public carry without forcing the justices to tear down hundreds of laws in a single, sweeping ruling. For a decade, gun advocates have been stymied by the language in Heller and McDonaldexpressly limiting the Second Amendment to firearms “in the home.” The conservative justices, however, will probably use New York State Rifle to blur that line. If Americans have a constitutional right to take their guns to and from a firing range of their choice, after all, why shouldn’t they be allowed to transport them while traveling elsewhere? If the Constitution safeguards their ability to bring a firearm to and from their second home, why shouldn’t it also protect their right to carry a gun while running errands or visiting friends?

Gun control, teacher groups threaten legal action against DeVos over possible firearms funding
The Education Department could face a legal challenge if it moves forward with a plan allowing states to spend federal funds on guns for school employees.

I’ve got a phone number for the crybabies.

A coalition of prominent gun control, teacher and civil rights groups is threatening legal action against the Department of Education if it moves forward with a controversial proposal that would allow states to spend federal funds on guns for school personnel.

“We are extraordinarily concerned with this dangerous, and what we believe to be unlawful, proposal under consideration to supply teachers with federal funds to buy gun for their classrooms, instead of books and school supplies,” said Giffords Law Center chief counsel Adam Skaggs, whose group, which was co-founded by shooting victim and former Rep. Gabby Giffords, is taking the lead on the potential suit.

Other members of the coalition are the American Federation of Teachers, the second-largest teachers’ union; the Southern Poverty Law Center; and Democracy Forward, a nonpartisan legal group targeting executive branch overreach.

NBC News reported this week that Education Secretary Betsy DeVos began deliberating the controversial move earlier this year after Texas and Oklahoma asked the agency if schools could buy weapons using federal funds known as Student Support and Academic Enrichment grants, which are part of Title IV funding. The Education Department is still weighing the issue and “no decision is imminent,” a senior administration official told NBC.

Hardline U.S. ‘gundamentalists’ pressure NRA from within.

Like that’s bad or something?
What a maroon.

Its rise has rattled the NRA leadership and threatens the association’s ability to hold on to moderate supporters and to make compromises that might help fend off tougher gun control measures, according to some of the two dozen gun-rights activists, policy experts and gun-control advocates interviewed for this story.

“Generally, they have a disproportionately huge amount of power in the gun-rights movement,” said Richard Feldman, a former NRA lobbyist.

The NRA has faced divisions before. An internal revolt at the 1977 meeting in Cincinnati turned the polite, sport-shooting organization into a bare-knuckled political lobby that today claims five million members and is closely aligned with the Republican Party, funding pro-gun politicians. The NRA, which spent $30 million to support Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, is often viewed by gun-control advocates as implacably opposed to tighter gun laws.

The NRA leadership has put up obstacles to Kraut’s election, both with bylaws that make it harder for candidates not put forward by the nominating committee to get elected to the board, and by enlisting a senior member to campaign against him.

Democrats Don’t Fear Brett Kavanaugh, They Fear The Constitution

….

Normalizing the idea that the Constitution should be subservient to the fleeting will of politics or progressive conceptions of “justice” goes back to Barack Obama, who in 2008 promised to nominate justices who shared “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” The Left hailed this position as proof of a thoughtful and moral temperament, when in reality it’s an ideological position that allows judges to arbitrarily create law and subordinate their constitutional duty to their personal worldview.

Of course there are a number of legitimate debates about how we should interpret the Constitution. Of course all justices aren’t political on all issues, nor are all conservatives pure. But it’s the Left that now embraces relativistic arguments about the intent and purpose of the Constitution.

I wish the Supreme Court were less important. But right now, it’s one of the only institutions preserving constitutional order. And it’s why the Left is about to go nuts again.

Oh, I truly hope so.

Actually he’s “pretty good” but not the perfect specimen we would like to have

Judge Kavanaugh’s Record on Second Amendment/Gun Rights

In follow-on litigation to the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on the Second Amendment in D.C. v. Heller, a D.C. Circuit panel majority, consisting of two Republican appointees, upheld the District of Columbia’s ban on possession of most semi-automatic rifles and its registration requirement for all guns in D.C. Judge Kavanaugh dissented (in Heller v. D.C. (2011)). An excerpt from his dissent:

In Heller, the Supreme Court held that handguns – the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic – are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens. There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semiautomatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses. Moreover, semiautomatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles are. It follows from Heller’s protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.’s ban on them is unconstitutional. (By contrast, fully automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned and may continue to be banned after Heller.)

(Actually he’s wrong. The ‘real’ ban on new manufacture for non-governmental possession was only enacted in 1986 and the first restriction – a tax on making and transfer – was enacted in 1934. Where he got ‘traditionally’ escapes me. )

D.C.’s registration requirement, which is significantly more stringent than any other federal or state gun law in the United States, is likewise unconstitutional. Heller and later McDonald said that regulations on the sale, possession, or use of guns are permissible if they are within the class of traditional, “longstanding” gun regulations in the United States. Registration of all lawfully possessed guns – as distinct from licensing of gun owners or mandatory recordkeeping by gun sellers – has not traditionally been required in the United States and even today remains highly unusual. Under Heller’s history- and tradition-based test, D.C.’s registration requirement is therefore unconstitutional.

Thomas Hardiman, possible Supreme Court nominee, seen as ‘Second Amendment extremist’

Poor babies

Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who has written extensively about gun laws, said that if Hardiman’s views were law, gun restrictions in states such as California, New York and New Jersey would be struck down, potentially leading to a vast expansion in legal gun ownership.

Constitutional-law scholars and advocates on both sides of the gun debate say that Hardiman — who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit and maintains chambers in Pittsburgh — holds a more expansive view of the Second Amendment than the Supreme Court has articulated to date. His nomination and confirmation would push the court to the right, they say, making it more likely that justices would agree to hear cases challenging gun laws — and perhaps to strike them down. (yippee!!)

“He believes the government has very little leeway in regulating guns. He thinks the only types of gun-control laws that are constitutionally permissible are ones that existed at the founding,” said Winkler, author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.”He described Hardiman as a “Second Amendment extremist.”

Goodbye Justice Kennedy And Goodbye Gun Control

the HuffPo “gets it”. Ohhh the humanity.

The news that Justice Anthony Kennedy has retired from the Supreme Court is sending liberals and progressives into a panic. Kennedy has of course been the key swing vote in abortion and gay rights cases. Whether those cases will withstand a new Supreme Court with five core conservatives is a serious question. But there is another area of Supreme Court jurisprudence that may also be dramatically affected by Kennedy’s retirement: the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court has only ruled in favor of an individual right to own guns in two decisions, and in neither one did Kennedy write his own opinion. He did, however, make up one of the five votes in both 2008’s D.C. v. Heller, and 2010’s McDonald v. City of Chicago. Both cases invalidated complete bans on possessing handguns in each city. The Supreme Court has not, however, returned to the Second Amendment since McDonald was decided, despite thousands of lower court cases wrestling with the balance between the right to keep and bear arms and public safety.

On the same day in 2014, the court refused to review three cases involving laws regulating the selling of guns to people across state lines as well as a Texas law prohibiting 18- to 20-year-olds from carrying guns in public. The justices have also declined to review cases upholding permitting procedures regulating guns in public in Maryland, New York and New Jersey, among many other laws and cases.

Justice Clarence Thomas has not been quiet about his anger over the court’s refusal to hear any new Second Amendment cases. In a dissent from the court’s refusal to hear a case challenging California’s 10-day waiting period for gun sales, he wrote that the Second Amendment is a “disfavored right” and the Supreme Court’s “constitutional orphan.” Furthermore, he said that the lower court’s sustaining of the waiting period was “symptomatic of the lower courts’ general failure to afford the Second Amendment the respect due an enumerated constitutional right.”

There has been a lot of speculation about why the five court conservatives, including Kennedy, have not reviewed any of the lower court cases upholding various gun restrictions. The most common theory is that neither the four conservatives other than Kennedy, nor the four liberals, knew how Kennedy was going to vote.

Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor, and author of one of the most important books ever written on the Second Amendment, Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, speculated in 2014 that among the other justices that “there must be some concern about the way Kennedy is going to go” in future gun cases. Well, that concern is now moot.

Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name pulled from library award over ‘stereotypical attitudes’ in her popular books.

Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name is set to be removed from a major children’s book award after concerns were raised about the “Little House on the Prairie” author’s depiction of certain races in the early-to-mid 20th century.

The Association of Library Service to Children’s (ALSC) board voted unanimously on Saturday to rename the “Laura Ingalls Wilder Award” as the “Children’s Literature Legacy Award.”

The association, which took the vote at its board meeting in New Orleans, said the vote “was greeted by a standing ovation by the audience in attendance.”

Wilder is best known for her “Little House on the Prairie” novels, which the ALSC has stated “includes expressions of stereotypical attitudes inconsistent with ALSC’s core values” based on Wilder’s portrayal of black people and Native Americans.

The first award was given to Wilder in 1954. The ALSC, which is based in Chicago, says her work continues to be published and read but her “legacy is complex” and “not universally embraced.”

Civilians own 85% of world’s 1bn firearms, survey reveals

Well, bless those little Englishmen’s hearts.

(gasp!) Horrors!

Nearly 40% of all guns are in hands of US citizens, according to report that says rich countries hold more weapons than poorer nations

Latest statistics show the proliferation of privately owned guns is on the rise, with wealthy countries outstripping developing and war-torn countries.

In a detailed report, weapons watchdog the Small Arms Survey has researched the numbers of guns across 230 countries.

Examining the ownership of revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles, carbines, assault rifles and sub- and light machine guns, held by civilian, military and law-enforcement groups, their latest report shows there are now estimated to be more than 1bn firearms in the world – an increase of 17% over the past 10 years.

The majority of the arms, 85% (857m), are estimated to be held by civilians (including individuals, private security firms, non-state armed groups and gangs); while law enforcement agencies own 2% (23m) and military stockpiles account for 13% (133m).

Disney is considerably more repulsive than Roseanne:
Of course her tweet was in bad taste. So what?

Oh my God!  Someone said something you don’t like!  Cancel his (or her) show!  Pronounce anathema upon him (or her).  Topple the statues, chisel off the names, enact the machinery of  damnatio memoriae!

Apparently that’s what’s happening as I write to Roseanne Barr, the actress who had the dual temerity to 1) revive her eponymous television show in an intermittently pro-Trump modality and 2) emit a tabasco tweet about the horrible Valerie Jarrett, President Obama’s chief counsellor.

Are you ready? Are you sitting down?  Are the children in another room? Here’s the tweet: “Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj.”

Uh oh.  Was the tweet in bad taste? Indubitably. Was it racist? Yep. Was it the worst thing ever in the history of civilization? According to ABC, which hosted her new, extremely popular show, the answer appears to be, Yes: nothing so awful has ever besmirched the escutcheon of humanity. “Roseanne’s Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show.” Thus Channing Dungey, president of ABC Entertainment.

“Abhorrent.” “Repugnant.” “Inconsistent with our values.”

It would be an interesting exercise to look into the “values” of ABC Entertainment.

Controversial video of boy, four, rapidly loading and pulling the trigger on a rifle at NRA convention goes viral

I had ‘Pepper’ Martz shooting my Uzi when he was 6.

A controversial video of a four-year-old boy rapidly changing the clip on a rifle and pulling the trigger at the NRA convention this weekend has gone viral.

The footage was taken on Saturday at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas where tens of thousands of Second Amendment enthusiasts gathered.

In the video, a four-year-old called Maverick proudly showed off his skills to hunter and gun advocate Kendall Jones at the Bergara rifle stand where he demonstrated on an unloaded gun.

Jones described him as ‘parenting done right’ and applauded his efforts as ‘adorable’.

NRA Names Oliver North Next President

(DALLAS, TX) – Lt. Colonel Oliver North, USMC (Ret.) will become President of the National Rifle Association of America within a few weeks, a process the NRA Board of Directors initiated this morning.

“This is the most exciting news for our members since Charlton Heston became President of our Association,” said NRA Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre. “Oliver North is a legendary warrior for American freedom, a gifted communicator and skilled leader. In these times, I can think of no one better suited to serve as our President.”

North said he was eager to take on this new role as soon as his business affairs were put in order. North is retiring from Fox News, effective immediately. “I am honored to have been selected by the NRA Board to soon serve as this great organization’s President,” North said. “I appreciate the board initiating a process that affords me a few weeks to set my affairs in order, and I am eager to hit the ground running as the new NRA President.”

Clergy reject Missouri bill on concealed guns in churches

Wouldn’t do for them to come around a certain church I know. The SnowFlakes might have a case of the vapors and piddle on the floor. And you can guess who they’ll call if they need any assistance with acrim who decides their church is ‘next’. Guys with guns we call Cops.

A group of religious leaders is condemning a Missouri bill to permit people to carry concealed firearms in church without permission from clergy, with St. Louis’ Catholic archbishop threatening to sue if the bill is signed into law.

The bill would “broaden Second Amendment rights at the expense of the First Amendment right of religious liberty,” said Archbishop Robert J. Carlson.

Earlier this month, a group representing Jewish, Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist and other traditions held a news conference to oppose Missouri House Bill 1936, which would allow residents to carry a concealed firearm on most private properties — including houses of worship — unless there is specific signage saying otherwise.

Currently, concealed-carry permit holders in the state are required to obtain permission from people representing their religious organization before bringing concealed guns to such places.

Two state House of Representatives committees already approved the bill — along party lines — with Republicans voting in favor.

Study: ‘Christian Nationalism’ Played Significant Role in 2016 U.S. Elections

You don’t say.

The study, titled “Make America Christian Again: Christian Nationalism and Voting for Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election,” explores the key motivators that accounted for the Trump victory in November 2016.

Contrary to theories alleging racism, “Islamophobia,” sexism, xenophobia, or even economic disadvantage as the driving force behind Trump voters, a team of three researchers found that it was good, old-fashioned patriotism combined with sincere Christian belief that moved voters to reject Hillary Clinton and vote in Donald Trump.

People on the left have been so determined to paint Trump voters as white supremacists or xenophobic Neanderthals that they seem to have missed the core element fueling the 2016 electorate: a desire to reconnect with America’s Christian roots and the virtues that historically made the country great.

Woman calls cops on man playing with his kids at park because she was afraid of his pro-gun shirt

A Texas woman called the police on a man wearing an offensive and concerning T-shirt while playing with his children at a local playground.

What are the details of the shirt?
The shirt in question is a cop-designed, pro-Second Amendment T-shirt that features an AR-style weapon graphic and text that reads, “I’ll control my guns, you control your kids.”

The company, Warrior 12, conceives and creates pro-law enforcement and American patriotism apparel.

A description of the T-shirt can be seen on Warrior 12’s webpage, which states:

Gun control is a touchy subject in today’s day and age. The issue isn’t guns, it’s people. If parent’s [sic] could just learn to control their kids and take responsibility, we wouldn’t have all the issues we do today. Instead, it is much easier to point the finger at proud gun owning Americans and attack our 2nd Amendment rights.

And what are the details of the incident?
On Saturday, Blue Lives Matter reported that the man’s shirt was not only upsetting the woman, but reportedly others in the vicinity as well.

Troy Johnston was visiting a Benbrook, Texas, playground with his two daughters to play in late March.

Johnston, who was legally and openly carrying his firearm on a hip holster wore the above shirt to the father-daughter outing.

“I figured I might get some comments or looks,” Johnston told Blue Lives Matter. “[But] I was legally exercising my First and Second Amendment rights.”

A short while after Johnston and his daughters arrived, a man, along with his family reportedly, approached Johnston about his T-shirt.

The man reportedly told Johnston that, between his open carry and his T-shirt, a nearby woman was “fuming.”

“I thanked him for letting me know, and continued playing with my kids,” Johnson said, and he noted that shortly after, another family approached him.

This time, the second family wanted to read Johnston’s shirt, which was apparently creating waves in the park by this point.

The man from the second family reportedly told Johnston that the woman was contacting law enforcement over his shirt, adding that he personally “felt more secure knowing there was someone [in the park] that would protect them.”

What did the police say?
Blue Lives Matter reported that Benbrook Police Department Cpl. J. Reese said the woman did indeed call police on Johnston, and described him as a “suspicious person” who had a “gun holstered to his chest” and wearing the offensive T-shirt.

When Reese arrived at the park, he spoke with the woman, who said that Johnston was “was making other parents on the playground very uncomfortable with his T-shirt.”

“The subject did not act threatening to anyone, nor did he threaten anyone,” Reese noted, and later described Johnston as “polite.”

“She was not scared of the gun,” Reese added. “[She] was concerned about his T-shirt.”

According to Johnston, who “voluntarily identified himself” to Reese, he offered to show his gun permit to police.

“They didn’t ask,” Johnston told Blue Lives Matter.

Police said Johnston did nothing wrong and was able to leave the playground.

“I cannot believe how the media has convinced so many people that guns are scary,” he told the website. “This lady was having a literal panic attack.”

He added, “I love my shirt. I’ll probably order more just so I can wear them every day I’m off of work.”

Anything else?
The T-shirt’s original creator also faced heavy criticism for the shirt’s design in March.

The unnamed officer, who owns Warrior 12 clothing, said that he has been “flooded with hate messages” as a result of the shirt.

“I’ve been having people accuse me of being responsible for the school shootings, of having blood on my hands,” he said. “They are conflating a shirt about constitutional rights and personal responsibility with horrific acts of mass murder.

“Guns don’t cause violence,” the officer added. “If we can examine and work on the actual root causes of violence, then that’s when we’ll see a reduction in violent acts.”

Trump’s dangerous plot to weaponize the Supreme Court

No, this is the President cramming your proggie activism right back down your throat. Choke on ‘Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander’.

President Trump tweeted the other day about the call by retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens to repeal the Second Amendment. (A dumb idea, by the way: Won’t happen, isn’t necessary, wouldn’t work.)

This was Trump’s take: “THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER BE REPEALED! As much as Democrats would like to see this happen, and despite the words yesterday of former Supreme Court Justice Stevens, NO WAY. We need more Republicans in 2018 and must ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!”

 

The Second Amendment isn’t the problem

This is ‘walk back’ from Professor Tribe. He’s as adamant an ati-gunner as you’ll find. Justice Stevens’ openly admitting what is wanted has got the controller in a tizzy simply because they now have no cover. Don’t let anyone kid you, or try to convince you otherwise. The proggies want to disarm the American citizenry. They can’t be bargained with. They can’t be reasoned with. They don’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until we’re either subjugated or dead.

The NRA’s strongest rallying cry has been: “They’re coming for our beloved Second Amendment.” Enter Stevens, stage left, boldly calling for the amendment’s demise, thereby giving aid and comfort to the gun lobby’s favorite argument.

Michigan build-your-own AR-15 class provokes backlash

‘Vapors’
Be still my beating heart

MARSHALL, Mich. — A Michigan gun store owner shrugged off criticism and went ahead with a class that teaches people how to build their own AR-15 semi-automatic rifles like those used in many mass shootings, including last month’s massacre at a Florida high school.

Chris Walden, who owns Walden’s Firearms in nearby Battle Creek and taught Tuesday’s class, said postponing it until there isn’t a mass shooting in the United States could mean it would never happen.

“There’s always significant things going on and if we tried to weave that between whatever tragedy and anything else, I’m not sure we’d ever find a good time,” Walden said. “Now’s as good a time as any.”

It drew a protest of about 30 people who oppose the further spread of guns and called the timing insulting.

Broward board pushes for straw vote on assault rifle ban

Florida has state preemption of weapon laws in the state. So, we have nothing more than virtue signalling.

Voters in November could be asked to weigh in on whether they support an assault rifle ban — but the vote would not be binding.

A Broward board had considered a referendum to ban the weapons but on Friday bowed to legal advice against it. Instead, members will ask county commissioners to add a straw vote to the ballot.

The Charter Review Commission began considering a ban and other gun measures after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High shootings that killed 17 and wounded 17 at the Parkland school.

Board members were sympathetic to the students and others who had asked them to do what state and federal lawmakers have failed to do: Ban assault rifles and high-capacity gun magazines.

Give us a vote on assault rifle ban, Broward residents demand
But their hands were tied by state law that prohibits local governments from enacting gun restrictions. It includes stiff penalties for any local officials who violate the law, including being removed from office by the governor, facing fines of up to $5,000 and being sued for damages.

Trump DOJ wants to speed up sales and transfers of machine guns

Snowflake demoncraps clutch their necklaces, swoon and melt.

After last month’s school shooting in Parkland, Fla., that killed 17 people, President Donald Trump called for a ban on so-called bump stock devices that he said “turn legal weapons into machine guns.”

But at the same time, his administration is quietly pushing for millions more to allow the federal government to speed up approvals for the sale and transfer of actual machine guns.

It’s billed as part of the Trump administration strategy to reduce violent crime – although officials can’t say how – and it’s tucked into the Justice Department’s FY2019 budget request.