Category: Politics

Eric S. Raymond

Ken Paxton’s victory in Texas has, I think, interesting implications for the national political scene.

Coming on top of a string of similar events, this is very bad news for anybody who wants to think MAGA is declining in influence or Trump is a spent force.

I’m not MAGA – I’m too libertarian and insufficiently populist to fit – so I can analyze this without my wishes interfering with my vision.

There have been a lot of very determined attempts to fragment the MAGA base and attempt to drive a wedge between them and the Trumpster. I see this on X and other social media – lots of indignant blithering about Israel and the Iran war that seems very light on substance and very heavy on attempting to fracture the Republican coalition.

I don’t think it’s working. Tonight is evidence that Trump’s endorsement matters, and the base is not kindly disposed towards any Republican pol who’s perceived as not being on his team.

Perform your strategic calculations accordingly.

Protect Minnesota’s Executive Director gave an interview to the Star Tribune.

She had something to say about you.

“People who vote on gun rights are a very, very small percentage of the population, and they’re already aligned with the right side of the electorate.”

She’s not worried about you. She’s not worried about your rights.

In her view, you’re already written off; too small a group to matter, too predictable to bother with.

That’s the mentality behind every gun control bill they pushed this session.

They lost. You won. And we’re going to remind her what a “very, very small percentage” can do in November.

Prove her wrong. Join us at https://gunowners.mn/join

Tennessee Legislation Expanding Castle Doctrine Protections Awaits Governor’s Approval

The Tennessee Conservative [By Paula Gomes] –

Legislation that lowers the standard for use of deadly force on private property, expanding Castle Doctrine protections, is awaiting Governor Bill Lee’s approval.

Tennessee lawmakers passed HB1802/SB1847, sponsored by Representative Kip Capley (R-Summertown-District 71) and Senator Joey Hensley (R-Hohenwald-District 28), after intense debate.

The legislation allows for the use of deadly force if a person “reasonably believes deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or aggravated cruelty to animals” in the event the person using deadly force cannot protect their property any other way or if the use of force by other means would expose them or someone else to risk of death, serious bodily injury or grave sexual abuse.

Shooting someone in the back is not justified under the bill’s protections and Tennessee’s current self-defense standards are not erased by the legislation, still requiring a threat involving serious bodily injury or death.

To fall under self-defense statutes, an amendment clarified that in using deadly force, a person must not be engaged in conduct that would constitute a felony or Class A misdemeanor, such as inviting someone onto your property to sell you illegal drugs, and is present where they lawfully reside.

When the bill passed in the Senate, it did not include the House amendment and had to be returned for concurrence, but the legislation is ready for Lee to take action on, and is slated to take effect July 1st, 2026.

Don’t Expect the Persistent Mismatch Between Perception and Reality to Affect Gun Policy or Politics.

Semi-automatic long guns, such as the AR-15, have been a hot topic of political rhetoric for decades now. And for those same decades, those same firearms have remained statistically under-represented in violent crime, while remaining wildly mischaracterized in policy debates and lawmaking.

NRA-ILA undoubtedly sounds like a broken record reiterating,  again and again, this non-wavering fact, especially in the face of introduced and re-introduced “assault weapons” bans and reliable demonization of semi-automatic long guns by the media. However, NRA-ILA’s repeated emphasis reflects a critical and consistent assertion of fact, which is that rifles, of all types, account for a very small fraction of homicides nationwide, as once again confirmed by the most recent available data.

Last week, Pew Research Center published their updated research on “[w]hat the data says [sic] about gun deaths in the U.S.” The relevant statistics were collected and synthesized from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), among other sources.

Under the subtitle of: “Which types of firearms are most commonly used in gun murders in the U.S.?” the FBI found that in 2024:

Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” were involved in 3% of these deaths.
Shotguns were involved in 1%.

An important distinction should be noted that of the 3%, semi-automatic firearms such as AR-15s are an even smaller subset of the general term “rifles.” The same goes for “shotguns” that gun control advocates [mis]characterize as “assault weapons;” they are a smaller fraction of the 1%.

There has long been a detrimental mismatch between perception, proportion, and actual data that has distorted firearm policy discussions. Not only has it drawn attention away from clear factors most strongly associated with violent crime, but it has also continued to be a disservice to efforts to craft evidence-based policies meant to keep citizens safe.

Even during the actual ten-year federal “assault weapon” ban signed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, two federally funded studies said the exact same thing as we repeat today; then, as now, so-called “assault weapons” were and are rarely used to commit violent crime. A study conducted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 1997 acknowledged, “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.”

A subsequent study done in 2004, also by DOJ, came to a similar conclusion, determining that “AWs [assault weapons] and LCMs [large capacity magazines] were used in only a minority of gun crimes prior to the 1994 federal ban,”  and, “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

The current circulation and ownership numbers of AR-15s and similar rifles are debated and predictably underreported by the media but may reach over thirty million, according to National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) research. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense, hunting, competitions, and target shooting.

Of course, whenever one of these 30 million guns happens to be used in a highly publicized crime, consumers of mass media will be told that the platform represents a “weapon of war” and the “choice of mass shooters.” In fact, it is neither. The AR-15s available at your local gun shop are not designed for automatic fire, as are military rifles, and they are not even the preeminent firearm used in mass shootings, where handguns still predominate.

High profile incidents will continue to receive intense media coverage creating impressions that AR-15s and similar firearms are somehow a primary driver of everyday violent crime. They simply are not, but media cannot be trusted to “zoom out” to understand proper context and truthfully report. This failure continues to skew not just gun control priorities but also public safety outcomes.

These latest data summaries on gun deaths have more to say on firearm-related mortality than just what sorts of firearms are involved. Indeed, the issue of death by gunfire, including homicide and suicide, is of complex sociological origins that deserve a much more robust analysis than the focus group tested talking points of firearm prohibitionists.

But one fact remains simple and unchanged in the face of the endure and growing popularity of semi-automatic long guns like the AR-15: when it comes to firearm-related homicide, they represent a minuscule fraction of crime guns.

I mean, I’ll take what I can can get, but how about Short Barreled Shotguns and Any Other Weapons too, huh?

House Appropriations 2027 Funding Bill Ends Suppressor, Short Barrel Rifle Registration

You may recall that language in the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) removed registration for suppressors and SBRs early on, but that language was later removed, resulting only in the removal of the $200 tax stamp fee.

House Appropriations Committee member Rep. Andrew Clyde (R) responded by showing that the tax was the basis for registration and that now, with the tax gone, the registration should be gone as well. But the registration of suppressors and SBRs has continued since the OBBB took effect, and the GOP-led House Appropriations Committee is trying to end it.

On Wednesday Clyde posted to X, “I secured a measure in the OBBB to zero out NFA taxes for short-barreled firearms and suppressors. $0 tax = Zero registration. Yet the DOJ is currently defending this NFA registration. While litigation is ongoing, your tax dollars shouldn’t fund invalidated NFA requirements.”

Moreover, Gun Owners of America noted that the 2027 funding bill not only deregulates suppressors and SBRs, but also defunds regulatory gun controls instituted by the ATF during the Biden administration.

The funding bill defunds “Biden export restrictions,” among other things.

Virginia Governor Gets Bad News on Background Check Bill

Since the Virginia General Assembly approved a revised version of the bill last week, there’s been a whole lot of confusion about Virginia’s HB 1525, which raises the age to purchase handguns from 18 to 21 and requires the Virginia State Police to resume conducting background checks on private sales. Governor Abigail Spanberger’s amended version contained language that declared the act an emergency, which would allow it to take effect immediately, but the legislature did not approve the changes with a 4/5ths vote, which is supposedly what’s required in order for that “emergency” provision to be adopted.

The Virginia legislative website lists the effective date for HB 1525 as July 1, but the Virginia State Police put out a notice on Tuesday that declared the law is already in effect. That was the good news for Spanberger.

The bad news? The VSP won’t be resuming background checks on private sales of firearms anytime soon… at least not without a court order.

Gun Owners of America and VCDL had threatened to seek contempt charges against the head of the VSP if they abided by Spanberger’s edict, and it looks like the VSP didn’t see that as an idle threat.

Keep in mind that there are three parts to HB 1525; a ban on those under 18 from possessing handguns and “assault firearms” except under limited circumstances, the ban on handgun and “assault firearm” sales to adults under the age of 21, and the edict to the VSP to start enforcing the enjoined universal background check law. The only portion of the law that the state police say will not be enforced is the section of law regarding background checks on private sales of firearms, and as far as the agency is concerned it’s now against the law for a 20-year-old to purchase an AR-15 in Virginia, even through a private sale.

Of course, as of July 1 it will be illegal for any adult over the age of 21 to purchase an AR-15 too. The sale ban wasn’t the primary motivation for HB 1525. It was the restoration of the state’s universal background check law, and the VSP just said that isn’t happening until a judge tells the agency it can resume enforcement.

So what will that take? The case cited by VSP has concluded, with then-Attorney General Jason Miyares declining to appeal the decision. Current AG Jay Jones attempted to intervene before he took office, but the Virginia Court of Appeals shut down that effort fairly quickly.

According to Virginia law:

Any court wherein an injunction has been awarded may at any time when such injunction is in force dissolve the same after reasonable notice to the adverse party, or to his attorney of record, in which notice shall be set forth the grounds upon which such dissolution will be asked, unless such grounds be set forth in an answer previously filed in the case by the party giving such notice.

Note the word “may” there. It sounds to me like Jones can ask the Lynchburg circuit judge to lift the injunction, but Judge F. Patrick Yeatts is under no obligation to abide by that request. It’s unclear whether the plaintiffs would be allowed to reply to that request or whether Yeatts could ask for additional briefings or even hold another round of oral arguments, but in any case the decision is left to the court that granted (or upheld) an injunction. This particular statute doesn’t even say that Yeatts’ decision could be appealed, though that might be covered in another part of Virginia’s statutes.

As I predicted last week, the issue of Virginia’s universal background check law is almost certainly headed back to the courts. I have no idea what the ultimate outcome will be, but at least in the short term Spanberger’s attempt to get around this court order has officially failed.

Bearing arms: Shifting views among gun owners on a foundational right

Reporter Patrik Jonsson has been writing about guns for 15 years. As the Monitor’s beat reporter in the American Southeast, Patrik has covered gun violence and gun rights; coffee shops banning firearms and stand-your-ground-law advocates using them; mass shootings and the National Rifle Association, and whether the gun itself has become a “sacred object” in America.

In this week’s magazine, he writes about a new twist in what has become one of this country’s most emotional, and debated, issues: a growing liberal embrace not just of guns themselves, but of an approach to the Second Amendment long associated with the conservative right.

“I’ve covered so many angles on the Second Amendment,” Patrik told me. “I’ve done stories about liberal gun owners, I did a story about women gun owners, I did a story about the complications of being a Black gun owner.” But Patrik started noticing something new after the killing of Alex Pretti, an intensive care nurse fatally shot by federal agents in Minnesota earlier this year.

Why We Wrote This

The Monitor’s longtime Georgia bureau chief, Patrik Jonsson, noticed a shift in thought among gun owners: a mistrust of government on the political left.

During the COVID-19 pandemic and a wave of Black Lives Matter protests, Patrik explains, a growing number and diversity of Americans started turning to firearms in hopes of defending themselves from criminals. This, according to scholars, was an expansion of what is sometimes called “Gun Culture 2.0” – a perception of guns as being primarily for self-protection rather than for hunting or military use.

(Previously, those on the left were more likely to identify with gun control advocates, who point to research showing that firearms in the home increase the risk of violence there.)

After Minnesota, though, Patrik found a growing, cross-partisan belief that guns are necessary not just to protect oneself from criminals, but also from the government.

Mr. Pretti had been carrying a licensed handgun – a fact used by some government officials to at first justify his shooting and later raised by citizens across the political spectrum worried about federal overreach.

“What happened after Alex Pretti … was this simmering sense on the left that, ‘Maybe the folks on the right were correct? What if the state falls into the wrong hands?’” Patrik told me.

“if the state falls into the wrong hands” he says

Judge Alex Kozinski –
The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”

He started to look for data, he says, and found early indications that thought might be shifting.

“This is at the heart of the story – this rethinking of the Second Amendment on the left and what that means,” Patrik says.

Kentucky Legislature Overrides Governor’s Vetoes on Two Pro-Second Amendment Bills

Key Takeaways

  • Kentucky General Assembly overrode Governor Beshear’s vetoes on two pro-Second Amendment bills, restoring liability protections and enabling concealed carry for adults aged 18-20.
  • House Bill 78, the PLCAA Clarification Act, protects the firearms industry from civil lawsuits linked to criminal misuse of their products.
  • House Bill 312 allows provisional concealed carry licenses for adults between 18 and 20, who can later apply for standard licenses.
  • Supporters argue that the veto overrides affirm constitutional rights and combat unjust age discrimination in carrying firearms.
  • The legislation signals to anti-rights advocates the need to stop blaming the firearms industry for crimes.

FRANKFORT, KY — The Kentucky General Assembly voted to override Governor Andy Beshear’s vetoes of two pro-Second Amendment bills this week, restoring liability protections for the firearms industry and opening a path for law-abiding adults between the ages of 18 and 20 to carry concealed.

The two bills — House Bill 78 and House Bill 312 — had each passed with wide legislative support before the Democratic governor sent them back. Kentucky lawmakers returned to Frankfort and voted to override both.

HB 78: Protecting the Firearms Industry from Frivolous Lawsuits

House Bill 78, known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms (PLCAA) Clarification Act of 2026, establishes legal protections for firearm and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, and retailers against civil lawsuits arising from the criminal or unlawful misuse of their products. The bill builds on protections already provided by the federal PLCAA, which some courts have failed to apply as Congress intended.

Kentucky’s House of Representatives voted 80 to 19 to override the veto. The Senate voted 31 to 6.

State-level PLCAA measures have become increasingly necessary. A number of antigun states have enacted laws designed to circumvent the federal PLCAA and allow the very sort of frivolous lawsuits the federal law bars. The NSSF has described this coordinated effort as a wave of lawfare aimed at financially crippling the firearms industry.

NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane addressed the governor’s reasoning directly. “Governor Beshear acknowledged when he vetoed this bill that this legislation would prevent frivolous and harassing lawsuits for violence committed by criminals,” Keane said. He added that Beshear chose to side with gun control special interest groups that want to use the courts to accomplish what they cannot accomplish through legislation.

Keane put the issue plainly. “Members of the firearm industry are no more responsible for the actions of criminals than Kentucky’s bourbon distillers are responsible for drunk driving deaths,” he said.

HB 312: Concealed Carry Licenses for Adults Ages 18 to 20

House Bill 312 authorizes the Kentucky State Police to issue provisional concealed carry licenses to adults between the ages of 18 and 20. Those who receive a provisional license can later apply for a standard license through their county sheriff or through the KSP online system. The bill passed both chambers before Gov. Beshear vetoed it.

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said the governor was practicing age discrimination by denying full rights of citizenship to young adults who can serve in the military, start businesses, get married, and run for office.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) had called on the legislature to act after the veto. “We are both delighted and proud of the Kentucky legislators who returned to Frankfort for these important votes,” Gottlieb said.

What This Means

Gottlieb said the Kentucky override should be seen as a signal to anti-rights advocates to stop blaming an entire lawful industry for the country’s violent crime problem and to stop restricting the rights of an entire age class.

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right. It does not begin at age 21, and it does not end because a criminal misused a product. Kentucky’s legislature affirmed both of those principles this week. The firearms industry can do business without being punished for crimes it did not commit, and law-abiding young adults in Kentucky can now pursue their right to carry for personal protection.

There Are No ‘Moderate’ Democrats When it Comes to Gun Rights.

Virginia’s Gov. Abigail Spanberger is determined to make her mark in the Old Dominion. She campaigned for office as a moderate Democrat, but Virginians are learning quickly that they’ve been hoodwinked. The reaction is astounding.

A recent poll conducted by George Mason University and The Washington Post found that Gov. Spanberger earned the highest disapproval rating from Virginians of any governor since 1994. Forty-six percent of Virginians disapprove of Gov. Spanberger’s job performance, just three months into the job. To put that into perspective, Gov. Spanberger won by 15 points in her race against former Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears. Her performance is also a glaring contrast to former Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s 53-39 job approval rating at the same point in his administration, according to Fox News.

Chief among those headwinds are two issues that the firearm industry is tracking very closely. First, Gov. Spanberger is expected to sign into law SB 749, which would unconstitutionally ban the purchase of Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs), or the AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles — the most common rifle in America — as well as semiautomatic shotguns used for hunting and home defense and many pistols and standard capacity magazines. Gov. Spanberger is also considering a bill, HB21, that would attempt to circumvent the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to allow frivolous lawsuits against firearm industry members for the criminal misuse of firearms by remote third parties.

Add to that, Gov. Spanberger is backing a referendum effort to gerrymander the Congressional districts in Virginia that would bring a new hyper-partisan Virginia congressional delegation to Congress. If successful, it would change Virginia’s 11 Congressional districts that are currently comprised of six Democrats and five Republicans to 10 Democrats and just one Republican.

Continue reading “”

Matt Van Swol at it again:

WE CAN LAUNCH 4 HUMAN BEINGS OFF INTO THE EMPTY VOID OF SPACE TO TRAVEL A QUARTER-MILLION MILES TO SHOOT PHOTOS OF THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON…

…BUT WE CANNOT GET 60 PEOPLE IN BUILDING IN DC TO PASS A BILL THAT SAYS YOU SHOULD PROVE YOU’RE A CITIZEN TO VOTE.

I figured the demoncrap would

Gov. Beshear vetoes bill seeking to lower age for concealed carry permit

FRANKFORT, Ky. —
A bill that would have lowered the age to obtain a concealed carry permit in Kentucky has been vetoed by Gov. Andy Beshear.

Beshear announced Thursday he vetoed House Bill 312.

The bill sought to lower the age to get a concealed carry permit from 21 to 18.

He vetoed it alongside House Bill 78, which sought to “establish liability protections for manufacturers and sellers of firearms against specified legal actions arising from criminal or unlawful use of firearms or ammunition.”

“Three years ago, a senseless act of gun violence took the life of my friend Tommy and four others. Tonight, at an event honoring Tommy and his impact, I vetoed House Bills 78 and 312,” Beshear wrote in a post on X. “While I believe in the second amendment, these pieces of legislation would allow minors under the age of 21 to carry concealed deadly weapons and protect firearm manufacturers and sellers from liability for gun violence. We must take steps to protect our people and allow them to seek justice for deadly acts like those families have suffered from. Vetoing these bills was the right thing to do.”

While Beshear vetoed the two bills, lawmakers can override them once they reconvene on April 14-15.

Of course the current governor of Kentucky is a demoncrap, so we’ll see if he vetoes it.

HB 312 allowing adults under 21 to bear arms sent to governor

FRANKFORT – Members of the General Assembly voted to approve HB 312. This bill, sponsored by State Representative Savannah Maddox of Dry Ridge, is a straightforward but important statutory update that would allow eligible, law-abiding Kentucky adults between the ages of 18 and 20 to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

“This measure recognizes that many responsible young adults already legally vote, sign contracts, join the military, serve in combat, start a family, own a business, and work in law enforcement fields, yet under current law, these adults are prohibited from carrying a firearm concealed for self-defense,” Maddox said. “This creates a dangerous inconsistency. If we recognize their adulthood and the responsibilities that come with it in every other area, we can’t deny them the ability to protect themselves and their loved ones.”

HB 312 would allow law-abiding Kentuckians age 18 to 20 years-of-age to obtain a provisional concealed carry license, which has the same requirements as Kentucky’s standard concealed carry license: background check, training, and proficiency in handling and operating a firearm.

“This bill strikes the right balance between individual liberty and personal responsibility by ensuring that young adults who choose to carry a firearm do so through a clear, lawful process,” Maddox said. “The Second Amendment is clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Adults 20 and under are very much part of the people. State law should recognize those rights equally.”

The measure would align Kentucky with 25 other states that recognize that law-abiding citizens age 18 to 20 have a constitutional right to carry concealed for self-defense.

“I believe in constitutional carry for all law-abiding American adults. This bill is a good faith step forward that meets in the middle and gives young adults a lawful path to exercise their rights,” said State Senator Aaron Reed, R-Shelbyville, who carried the bill in the Senate. “This matters because every adult deserves a right to defend themselves, especially our daughters, who today are often left without that clear protection.”

Virginia Illustrates Insidious Anti-Gun Threat

I’ve joked before that Virginia’s politics swing back and forth like an unlatched screen door in a hurricane. From red to blue to red to blue, all so fast it makes your head spin.

But last year’s elections opened the door for a lot of troubling things in Virginia, up to and including their redistricting plan that seeks to essentially wipe out Republican representation from the state, and with it, support for gun rights. Sure, there’s one district, but only because there was no way to gerrymander the state badly enough to make it solid blue.

However, Virginia reveals an insidious threat because the state is too purple to suddenly swing this far left.

Progressive groups are behind a wave of tougher restrictions on firearms, wielding a quiet power that Second Amendment proponents worry could unravel gun rights in friendly territory.

Earlier this month, Virginia lawmakers sent a spate of gun bills tightening firearms restrictions to Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s (D-VA) desk. It’s a development fueled by Moms Demand Action, and one that one of the country’s most prominent pro-gun rights organizations fears foreshadows things to come in other purple states.

“Virginia is a purple state, and so having this sweeping, massive gun control package in the state that’s got a lot of gun owners, to see that happen and happen so rapidly should really be alarming to everybody in this country,” National Rifle Association’s Director of Public Affairs, Justin Davis, told the Washington Examiner.

“It’s really just a blueprint of what’s to come in this country. This is a trial balloon for the midterm elections,” he said. “They’re seeing what they can pass in a purple state? What is the backlash from that? And how do people react?”…

Davis said many such state races can be “so easily” flipped with small “injections“ of cash. Due to progressive activism, every state is “ripe for flipping at any time,” he said.

“To think that the stuff they’re pushing here is happening in Virginia should wake up every single purple state in the country, any place that is, it was in the realm of what a ‘moderate state’ is that there’s a very well-trained, very concerted effort to get progressives elected positions,” Davis said. “There are people who literally look at these races, race by race, and say, ‘How do we make sure that we can flip this for a broader scale, to flip this state to pass these same leftist laws?’”

Groups like Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety are specifically named for injecting a significant amount of cash into the race, and the truth of the matter is that these groups will run ads that feature policies other than gun control, usually pretty progressive ones.

So what happens is that for a few million dollars, they can push a candidate who might not appear all that bad in the grand scheme of things–remember, Spanberger tried to position herself as a moderate, and a lot of people listened–only to take office and start trying to run the table with things like gun control.

Virginia is a purple state, but the current agenda in Richmond looks like something you’d expect in California.

No, it doesn’t help that Virginia governors can only serve a single term at a time, thus meaning they never have to worry about re-election. That means they can trot out their agenda on day one, and other than the midterms, there’s nothing stopping them from going as far left or right as they’d like. In this case, it means trotting out the most ridiculous anti-gun agenda you’re ever going to see in any part of the South.

This is something we need to be on guard against and work to counter if we don’t want to see our rights destroyed at the state level.

How SBRs and SBSs Got Trapped in the NFA’s 1934 Gun Control Scheme

The story of how short-barreled rifles (SBRs) and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) ended up regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 is one of the clearest examples of unnecessary federal overreach, bureaucratic accident, and enduring infringement on Second Amendment rights. What began as a panicked response to 1930s gangster violence morphed into a permanent regulatory trap that punishes law-abiding Americans for owning common, useful firearms, configurations that have legitimate sporting, defensive, and historical purposes, while doing virtually nothing to stop actual crime.

In the early 1930s, America was gripped by sensational headlines about organized crime: the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, Bonnie and Clyde’s exploits, and Al Capone’s Thompson submachine guns. Politicians and the media hyped “gangster weapons,” with sawed-off shotguns singled out as tools of the underworld. Attorney General Homer Cummings and the Justice Department pushed for federal action, but they knew an outright ban on firearms would likely violate the Second Amendment. Instead, they cleverly used Congress’s taxing power to create a de facto prohibition through heavy fees, registration, and paperwork.

The initial bill, H.R. 9066, was far broader than the bill that passed. It targeted machine guns, silencers, short-barreled shotguns and rifles (under 18 inches), handguns, pistols, and revolvers.

The $200 transfer tax (equivalent to roughly $4,800–$5,000 today) was designed to be prohibitive, pricing ordinary citizens out while supposedly tracking criminals. To close an obvious loophole, drafters added short-barreled rifles and shotguns: if handguns were taxed and registered, a criminal (or citizen) could simply buy a cheap rifle or shotgun and saw it down to handgun-like concealability, bypassing the rules entirely.

Continue reading “”

GOA:
WV: Setting the Record Straight on SB 1071

In recent days, West Virginia Senate President Randy Smith released a public statement regarding SB 1071, the Public Defense and Provisioning Act. His comments have created confusion about the bill’s drafting, legality, and level of expert review.

It is essential that West Virginians have the full and accurate factual record. Many of the claims made about SB 1071 do not reflect the truth, and the following information provides a clear, fact-driven response based on verifiable legal authorities and documented expert analysis.

A Bill with Momentum — and an Unexpected Intervention

The fight for modern firearms equality began in early February. West Virginia made national history when it became the first state in America to introduce legislation authorizing the lawful sale of post-1986 machine guns under the federal carve-out in 18 U.S.C.922(o)(2)(A).

SB 1071 immediately ignited excitement among legislators, industry leaders, and grassroots supporters. Other states quickly took notice—several have already copied West Virginia’s language, and more are preparing to introduce their own versions.

A flash poll conducted by Gun Owners of America showed overwhelming enthusiasm among West Virginians, with 94 percent saying their out-of-state family and friends would be more likely to move to West Virginia if this bill became law. The momentum was real, and the nation was watching.

SB 1071 was introduced by Senator Chris Rose, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the committee advanced the bill with overwhelming support. But immediately after that vote, the bill seemed to vanish.

Chairman Tom Willis, who had reported the bill out of Judiciary, was himself confused about why it had not moved to the Finance Committee as expected. This unusual stall prompted West Virginians across the state to begin calling their Senators, demanding Sen. Chris Rose (left), sponsor of SB 1071, stands with Senate President Randy Smith.
answers about what had happened to a bill that had just passed committee with overwhelming support.

In response to the growing public concern, Senate President Randy Smith publicly stated that he personally made the decision to halt SB 1071, clarifying that the choice did not come from Chairman Willis or the Judiciary Committee. This admission dramatically shifted the understanding of events. What many initially believed to be procedural delay within Judiciary now appeared to be a direct intervention from Senate leadership.

Additionally, several advocates and legal experts have raised serious concerns that President Smith may have been relying on information provided by an outside individual who strongly opposed SB 1071 and may have misrepresented key legal facts about the bill.

According to these observers, this misinformation appears to have played a significant role in shaping the Senate President’s decision—ultimately stopping a bill that had strong public support, clear legislative interest, and validation from some of the most respected constitutional attorneys in the country.

This context is essential for understanding how SB 1071 was derailed and why an accurate factual record matters as West Virginians evaluate what happened and determine the path forward.

Continue reading “”

Georgia Senate Passes SB572 to Strengthen Self-Defense Protections and Expand Civil Immunity for Lawful Use of Force

Key Takeaways

  • Georgia Senate passed SB572 to strengthen legal protections for self-defense use of force.
  • The bill introduces a presumption that defensive force is reasonable under specific legal conditions.
  • SB572 maintains existing limits on self-defense claims and expands protections against civil lawsuits.
  • The legislation allows evidence of abuse in self-defense cases and clarifies immunity from criminal prosecution.
  • Next, SB572 will move to the Georgia House; if passed, it will become law.

ATLANTA, GA – The Georgia Senate has passed legislation that would strengthen legal protections for people who use force in defense of themselves or others.

Senate Bill 572 passed the Georgia Senate on March 6 by a vote of 30 to 23. The measure has now moved to the Georgia House of Representatives. It received its first and second readings on March 9 and March 10 and is currently pending before the House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee.

The bill was sponsored by Senators Brian Strickland, Jason Anavitarte, Randy Robertson, Steven McNeel, Bo Hatchett, and Blake Tillery. The legislation proposes several changes to Georgia law related to justification defenses, immunity from prosecution, and civil liability following a defensive use of force.

Below is a breakdown of the major provisions included in the bill.

Continue reading “”