Category: Politics

2024 Republican Platform Drops Gun-Rights Promises

In its first official platform since 2016, the Grand Old Party (GOP) slashed all mention of its gun policy positions.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) Platform Committee voted 84-to-18 on Monday to adopt the new 2024 platform language after skipping the process entirely in 2020. The finalized document leans into former President Donald Trump’s “America First” outlook and parrots many of his stances on issues ranging from immigration to trade. However, it also minimized the party’s emphasis on gun policy compared to its previous platform.

The entire platform discusses gun rights just once, in a preamble statement about the party’s dedication to defending “our fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms.” The final product omits any discussion of tangible gun policy ideas.

The Republican Party platform’s downplaying of Second Amendment issues comes as the gun-rights movement finds itself in a precarious position politically. As guns have become increasingly polarized along party lines, gun-rights supporters have found themselves reliant on Republicans for political support. President Joe Biden has made gun control a fixture of his tenure in office and is already campaigning on even more sweeping proposals, including a ban on sales of the popular AR-15, in a potential second term. At the same time, while the GOP’s current standard-bearer has continued to seek the support of the National Rifle Association and make promises in speeches to the group, he has been fickle on gun policy at times. His felony convictions also mean he can no longer legally own or possess firearms.

Continue reading “”

Aren’t Gun Rights a Valid Presidential Debate Topic?

While Thursday night’s presidential debate was agonizing for many Americans to watch, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump did address some important issues ranging from our porous southern border to abortion to the downward spiraling economy.

What was glaringly absent, however, was any discussion of gun control and the Second Amendment-protected right to keep and bear arms.

Call me cynical, but I believe that was by design. CNN, which hosted the debate, is a media standard bearer for all things gun control. In fact, the network hasn’t seen a restrictive gun proposal that it hasn’t embraced. And both Biden and Trump have spoken out often on the matter, just like they have on other issues, leaving little doubt where they stand on the right to bear arms.

So why weren’t there any questions asked on this issue that is so important to many American citizens? I believe it was because CNN and others in the gun-ban community know they are on the wrong side of the issue. And with Biden’s diminished mental capacity, the network and whoever helped it choose questions for the debate simply were afraid of what ignorant things the president might say about firearms.

Perhaps they thought he might spout off one of the standard soundbites he has used multiple times in the past. Phrases like, “Deer don’t wear Kevlar vests,” (duh!) and, “Nobody could own a cannon during the Civil War period,” (an outright lie) don’t engender a lot of trust in a leader. And such answers would likely have drawn a quick—and probably humorous—response from Trump.

Perhaps CNN was worried he would say something about “military-grade assault weapons” when talking about common semi-automatic rifles, or even that the firearm industry is the “only industry in America that has immunity”—both well-debunked falsehoods. Or maybe they thought he’d revert to the old chestnuts that you don’t need: “20, 30, 40, 50 clips in a weapon”, “magazines that can hold multiple bullets in them” or a “magazine with 100 clips in it.”

Fact is, Biden is quite possibly the most anti-gun president in history, as well as arguably the worst. Of course, we’ve chronicled his anti-gun schemes many, many times here at TTAG.

He wants to ban common guns and magazines, let gun companies be sued into oblivion for criminal use of their legally made and marketed products and make a background check mandatory even for private gun sales between family and friends. His ATF has made things so difficult for gun dealers that many have left the business to avoid persecution, and he even created a so-called White House Office for Gun Violence Prevention to help enable anti-gun state legislators to push his gun-ban schemes at the state level.

While I can’t say Trump was the most pro-gun president in history, except for the ill-conceived bump stock ban, he was a pretty good friend to gun owners. And his federal judicial nominations at the circuit court level and to the U.S. Supreme Court have enabled many Second Amendment victories that we wouldn’t have won with a Democrat in the White House instead of Trump.

His recent speech at the NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits in Dallas gives us some food for thought.

“Let there be no doubt, the survival of our Second Amendment is very much on the ballot,” Trump told the crowd gathered there. “We need the [Second Amendment] for safety. Because you know the bad guys are not giving up their guns…

“The NRA has stood with me from the very beginning. And with your vote I will stand strong for your rights and liberties.”

In the end, questions about gun control, like questions about nearly anything else, would have been losing questions for the sitting president. And while the debate was a pretty fair one, CNN chose to avoid asking Biden about his gun policies because it likely would have made him look even worse.

That omission is a true tragedy in a day and time when advocates of freedom constantly battle at all levels of government to retain our right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. Many people I know are one-issue voters. And that issue—a very important one to many people—wasn’t even discussed Thursday night.

Take a minute to get through the accent. I wouldn’t say ‘education’ per se is the problem. An indoctrination of a partisan agenda feeding the normal fallen human condition is.

What if democracy is merely the politic or superstructure of a particular cultural stage? Simple mass literacy in that case, continuing advances in teaching and learning in secondary and post-secondary levels will necessarily upset democracy in the places where it first appeared. Secondary education and especially higher education will introduce the notion of inequality into the mental and ideological organization of developed societies. After a brief period of hesitation and scruples the more highly educated end up believing they are truly superior.

In developed countries, a new class is emerging that comprises roughly 20% of the population in terms of sheer numbers, but controls about half of each nation’s wealth. This new class has more and more trouble putting up with the constraints of universal suffrage. It is a surprising return to the world of Aristotle, in which oligarchy may replace democracy at the very moment when democracy is beginning to take hold in Eurasia, it is weakening in those places where it was born.

These are indeed curious democracies, in which the political system pits elitism against populism and vice-versa. And although universal suffrage persists in theory, the elites of right and left close ranks to block any reorientation of economic policies that would lead to greater equality.

The common understanding among the elite, reflection of a common superior language among them prevents any correcting of the political system facade when universal suffrage would suggest the possibility of crisis.

Emmanuel Todd, After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order, (2001)

ANTI-GUN POLITICIANS DISPARAGE SCOTUS AS SECOND AMENDMENT CASES, ELECTION LOOMS

There’s a troubling trend by certain politicians to salt the ground at the U.S. Supreme Court before more significant firearm-related cases can be argued and decided. Politicians are disparaging the justices in an attempt to politicize the Court and delegitimize decisions even before arguments are heard. It’s unfolding in the cruelest ways, and it threatens the separation of powers between the three co-equal branches of government – the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches.

It is also a reminder that November’s presidential election carries with it added significance for the future of the Judiciary.

Just last week, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected a request by U.S. Senate Democrats to meet to talk about Supreme Court ethics and a ginned-up controversy over Justice Samuel Alito flying flags outside his homes in Alexandria, Va., and Long Island Beach, N.J. The first incident stemmed from a 2021 dispute with a neighbor who personally targeted Justice Alito’s wife, Martha-Ann, seemingly as a form of protesting the violence of Jan. 6. Mrs. Alito made the sole decision to fly an inverted flag at their Virginia residence in response to a neighbor’s pointed attacks. More manufactured controversy stemmed from Mrs. Alito flying an “Appeal to Heaven” flag at their New Jersey residence in 2023, despite San Francisco’s City Hall flying a similar flag, only to quietly take it down last month after the media uproar.

Justice Alito responded to Senate Democrats’ demands that he recuse from cases involving Jan. 6 based on these contrived controversies. He explained, in part, that a “reasonable person who is not motivated by political or ideological considerations or a desire to affect the outcome of Supreme Court cases” would not conclude that he needed to recuse. But the harassment campaign against the Supreme Court will certainly continue. This latest attempt is a reminder that the Court will be a factor in the upcoming election and the future of Second Amendment rights for law-abiding citizens.

Former President Donald Trump campaigned in 2016 with a promise to nominate justices “first and foremost, based on constitutional principles, with input from highly respected conservatives and Republican Party leadership.”

From that came Justice Neil Gorsuch, who President Trump described as “very much in the mold of” the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination followed, and was marked by a tumultuous confirmation hearing that included uncorroborated, decades-old allegations. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination and confirmation followed in 2020, giving President Trump three additional originalist justices on the bench to serve alongside Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Alito.

Since President Joe Biden took office, he nominated Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson who was confirmed in 2022. With the 2024 election looming, President Biden is making promises to nominate his own brand of jurist to the Supreme Court.

Continue reading “”

Cynical Publius Profile picture

I am hoping there are still a few rational Democrats in existence, so I am writing this post in hopes reason will pull them back from the abyss they are about to throw the United States into.

The following statements are indisputable, verifiable facts:

1. The criminal prosecution of the leading Presidential candidate of the opposition party is a wholly unprecedented event that violates all American political norms.

2. In recorded world history, literally every time a nation’s ruling political party acts against prevailing political norms and imprisons or kills the leadership of its major political opponent, the history books record such action as tyrannical despotism.

Think about it, just as examples—Ancient Greece and Socrates; Ancient Rome and Julius Caesar; the French Reign of Terror; Russia, Lenin and the Romanovs; Stalin and his purges; every other Soviet premier and the Gulag; Nazi Germany (enough said); the British Raj and Gandhi; Mao’s Cultural Revolution; Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel and the Warsaw Pact versions of Poland and the Czech Republic; South Africa and Nelson Mandela; Vladimir Putin and everyone who ever opposes him; the list goes on and on and on. History records EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE of this phenomenon as the embodiment of abject evil and tyranny.

3. When tyrants imprison their opponents, they always justify the action as being necessary and lawful. Always. Without exception. Additionally, when that happens, there are MILLIONS of citizens who believe in good faith that their leaders’ actions are justified. Average Germans in 1933, average Russians in 1917 and average Chinese in 1970 all GENUINELY BELIEVED that they were the good guys and the actions of their leaders were entirely justified.

These are facts.
Indisputable.
Undeniable.

Here’s another set of facts: in the USA in 2024, the ruling party is seeking to imprison the leader of the opposition party, acting against historical political norms; the leadership doing this believes its actions are necessary and lawful; and average American Democrats believe fervently that the actions of their leaders are entirely justified. The parallels to historic tyranny are powerful, precise and alarming.

Democrats, please consider these facts. I implore you to reconsider your actions. You are not the good guys. Instead, you are the average German of 1933 or the average Chinese citizen of 1970. I warn you now:

History is about to mark you as yet another despicable entry in the pantheon of evil tyranny.

Step back from the abyss. There is still time.

Jury is chosen in Hunter Biden’s federal firearms case and opening statements are set for Tuesday

WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) — A jury was seated Monday in the federal gun case against President Joe Biden’s son Hunter, after prospective panelists were questioned about their thoughts on gun rights and drug addiction while the first lady watched from the front row of the courtroom.

Opening statements were set to begin Tuesday after the jurors — six men and six women plus four women serving as alternates — were instructed by Judge Maryellen Noreika not to talk or read about the case.

Hunter Biden has been charged in Delaware with three felonies stemming from a 2018 firearm purchase when he was, according to his memoir, in the throes of a crack addiction. He has been accused of lying to a federally licensed gun dealer, making a false claim on the application by saying he was not a drug user and illegally having the gun for 11 days.

The case is going to trial following the collapse of a plea deal that would have avoided the spectacle of a trial so close to the 2024 election. Hunter Biden has pleaded not guilty and has argued he’s being unfairly targeted by the Justice Department, after Republicans decried the now-defunct plea deal as special treatment for the Democratic president’s son.

Continue reading “”

What’s Next for Trump? The Facts, and Ways This Could Play Out.

The jury is in. Former president Donald Trump has been convicted on all 34 counts of falsifying business records.

If you thought this country was divided before, we could likely see upheaval like never before. With many seeing this trial as politically motivated by the left to take him off the ballot, what happens next?

First off, he can still run for president.

The Constitution states a candidate must be at least 35 years old, a natural-born U.S. citizen, and a resident in the country for at least 14 years. There is nothing noted about criminal charges.

Can he pardon himself?

No. Because it is a state conviction, he will not be able to pardon himself as president. Presidents only have jurisdiction over federal convictions.

Can any state take him off the ballot?

They did try, but no. The 14th Amendment, which was passed after the Civil War, states that no one who has participated in an insurrection may run for the presidency. While some states have tried to claim this against Trump regarding Jan. 6th, they have been unsuccessful in proving it. He will still be on the ballot, as long as he is the Republican nominee.

How can he serve as president if he is also serving a criminal sentence?

It is expected that due to his age and this being his first conviction, he will not serve prison time. He may be given probation, which would mean he would have to ask permission every time he leaves the state of New York. If sentenced to time in prison, which would undoubtedly be frowned upon as a politically motivated move, he could still actually legally serve as president from behind bars. (Can you believe I just said those words?)

If he is sentenced to prison and wins the election, Trump’s attorneys might argue that sitting presidents can’t be imprisoned, just as Trump has argued that sitting presidents can’t be indicted.

The 25th Amendment also states that the vice president may take over responsibilities temporarily when the president is unable to perform them. Some have speculated that this could come into play if he has to delegate from behind bars.

What about his appeal?

Trump’s team will assuredly appeal. They will have 30 days from the New York verdict to file a notice of appeal and six months to file the full appeal. It is expected any appeals filed will not be resolved before the November election. It is possible that an appeals court would agree to stay Trump’s sentence until after the appeal is adjudicated.

What does this mean?

Regardless of what people think of Trump, most agree this went too far. Time will tell, but already we are seeing a surge in support for the former president. Reports have come in that his donation site crashed momentarily from extremely high traffic.

Those who accused Trump of being a dictator and trying to undermine our country’s laws now have weaponized our judicial system to take out an opponent they weren’t confident could be beat in the polls. The Democrats have started a dangerous war, and the losers are the people of this country. Election interference must not be tolerated. Trump will not give up so easily. We are witnessing another historic moment in our nation’s history. The next months could change everything.

Jonathan Turley Has a Lot to Say About the Trump Verdict

Legal expert Jonathan Turley reacted with strong words to the guilty verdict of former President Donald Trump, who was convicted on all 34 counts at his New York hush money trial after only two days of jury deliberations spanning over nine hours.

“I obviously disagree with this verdict as do many others,” Turley tweeted, saying that he believes that the case will be reversed “eventually” either at the state or federal level. “However,” the George Washington University Law School professor added, “this was the worst expectation for a trial in Manhattan. I am saddened by the result more for the New York legal system than the former president. I had hoped that the jurors might redeem the integrity of a system that has been used for political purposes.”

In an appearance on Fox News, Turley described the strange circumstances surrounding the conviction’s announcement.

Turley, who was there at the time of the verdict’s reading, called it “one of the most bizarre moments” he ever experienced in the courtroom. Judge Juan Merchan had just said the jury had not yet reached a decision and that they’d be dismissed for the day.

Continue reading “”

Cynical Publius

I get the sense that a lot of people across the entire political spectrum do not fully understand one of the very most basic reasons why the US federal government is such a tyrannical soup sandwich, so I thought I would write a quick primer.

The US Constitution limits the power of the federal government vis-a-vis the states (or the People). To the extent the federal government has certain enumerated powers, it is up to Congress to make laws, and it is up to the President to enforce them. (Yes, I know that it is a very simplified explanation, but it’s basically true.)

Certain federal agencies housed in the Executive Branch have existed almost from the nation’s founding, but these related solely and directly to the President’s Constitutionally-enumerated powers, thus the War Department (for example) was necessary. However, starting with the establishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887, we began to see Congress abdicating some of its lawmaking powers to federal agencies.

Through the following decades, with the desire of the so-called “progressives” to establish rule by “experts,” that abdication of Congressional law-making responsibilities went on warp drive, through Woodrow Wilson, through FDR and even through Richard Nixon, as numerous new federal agencies came into being.

Over those decades, more and more law-making authority was delegated to those federal agencies, most of which were housed in the Executive Branch and responsive to the President, thus greatly expanding the President’s powers beyond the original Constitutional intent.

Over time, even the powers of the third branch—the Judicial Branch—were co-opted into the Executive Branch as these administrative agencies were given the power to create their own courts, thus ruling on disputes regarding and enforcement of the very laws they made.

Penultimately, we have reached the point today where the Executive Branch has subsumed many of the Constitutional authorities of the Legislative and Judicial Branches, creating the tyrannical federal government we see today—one run by life-tenured, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who rule first and foremost for the growth and protection of their own agencies.

Now Donald Trump wants to undo much of this. He wants to unwind this cabal of extra-Constitutional power, and he wants to do so by taking that power OUT OF THE VERY BRANCH HE WILL RUN and return that power to the Constitutional authorities where it belongs. This effort to unwind the power in the Executive Branch is what worries Fascist Democrats when they talk about Trump “destroying democracy,” and it’s why they call him a “dictator.”

(Which is hilarious, since Trump would be the very first “dictator” in world history whose primary purpose is to reduce his own power, thereby enhancing democracy.)

So hopefully that makes things more clear. I left a lot out and simplified some very complex issues, but I think this covers things at the most basic level. If you want to know more, Google the following:

1. Administrative Procedure Act.
2. “Abolishing the Administrative Procedure Act.”
3. Chevron v. NRDC.
4. INS v. Chadha.
5. Wickard v. Filburn

Have a patriotic day please.

TPTB are apparently running scared and are getting their knives out for SloJoe.

ABC, AP, CBS, NBC All Join Heritage, Judicial Watch in FOIA Request for DOJ to Release Biden’s Special Counsel Interview

A large group of news outlets have joined with Judicial Watch and the Heritage Foundation to sue Biden’s Department of Justice for the release of the audio of special counsel Robert Hur’s interview with Joe Biden in the investigation into classified documents found at the president’s residence and office.

Among those suing the department under the Freedom of Information Act for the release are ABC News, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insider, NBC News, Reuters, Univision, and the Washington Post.

The outlets are seeking all audio and video recordings of Hur’s five-hour interview with Biden. Biden has asserted executive privilege over the recordings.

“These recordings will help the public evaluate Hur’s decision not to charge Biden and to close the investigation into classified documents found at Biden’s former office and private residence,” the suit stated.

Continue reading “”

7 cuts in 43 seconds of speaking and the longest they could get was 10 seconds. You have to wonder how many takes had to be made to get this campaign ad patched together

Yes, it would be nice, but this is the usual ‘grandstanding’ that even if it makes it through the house wouldn’t make it past a demoncrap filibuster, and even less a POTUS veto. And everyone knows it.

Republicans Introduce ‘RIFLE Act’ To Remove NFA $200 Tax

A group of 13 Republican U.S. Senators led by Tom Cotton of Arkansas has introduced legislation to remove the $200 tax imposed on firearms and suppressors regulated under the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA).

In an official announcement, Cotton’s office listed the following facts:

  • The 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) regulates short-barreled shotguns and rifles, fully automatic firearms, suppressors, and a catchall category of explosives. In addition to background checks and registration, NFA regulated items have a $200 tax.
  • The ATF has acknowledged the tax was intended “to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions” of firearms. The $200 tax, unchanged since 1934, is equivalent to $4,648 in today’s dollars.
  • Since 2018, ownership of NFA regulated items have grown by more than 250% as more sportsmen, shooters and firearm enthusiasts exercise their Second Amendment right.
  • The RIFLE Act does not modify the current checks and registration; it solely removes the federally mandated financial burden on law-abiding gun owners.
  • The legislation is endorsed by the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Continue reading “”

Well, it is political Kabuki Theater, but it’s better than summer reruns…

Joe Biden Faces Impeachment Calls After Threatening to Withhold Weapons From Israel

Republicans are calling for immediate disciplinary action against President Joe Biden after he threatened to withhold ammunition from Israel. 

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) suggested that Biden should be impeached for caving to pro-Hamas agitators and halting the shipment of offensive weapons to Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in an attempt to prevent the Jewish state from attacking the terrorist group in Rafah.

Several GOP lawmakers, including Cotton, say Biden deliberately did it as a “political decision” ahead of the 2024 presidential election. 

“The House has no choice but to impeach Biden based on the Trump-Ukraine precedent of withholding foreign aid to help with reelection,” Cotton wrote on X. “Only with Biden, it’s true.”

In response to Rep. Cory Mills (R-FL) drafting impeachment articles against the president, Kash Patel, former DoD Chief of Staff, drew comparisons of Biden’s botched withdrawal from Afghanistan to his threatening to cut off aid to Israel. 

He noted that Biden’s reckless actions have abandoned the nation’s allies that have resulted in the release of terrorists. 

Continue reading “”

Emmer Introduces Legislation to Protect Ammunition Supply Chain

April 18, 2024

Washington, D.C. – Today, in an effort to bolster America’s national security, Congressman Tom Emmer (MN-06) introduced the Ammunition Supply Chain Act. The legislation aims to ensure the resilience and efficiency of our nation’s ammunition manufacturing supply chain. Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) introduced companion legislation in the United States Senate.

The Ammunition Supply Chain Act requires the Secretary of the Army to provide a comprehensive report to Congress on the supply chain of ammunition manufacturing. The report will include information on sourcing raw materials used in ammunition production, examining weaknesses in the existing supply chain and the global demand for ammunition, and providing strategies for fostering public-private partnerships.

“As threats to our nation’s security evolve, it is more important than ever to take proactive measures to secure our ammunition supply chain. This is not only about enhancing our military readiness but also supporting American manufacturing and ensuring law-abiding Minnesotans and Americans can exercise their Second Amendment rights,” Congressman Emmer said. 

“This administration creates as many ridiculous hurdles as possible to restrict law-abiding gun owners’ access to affordable guns and ammunition,” said Senator Risch. “The Ammunition Supply Chain Act forces transparency from the Biden administration about the status of our domestic ammunition supply chain. This is vital to protect our right to bear arms and to ensure our military has the ammunition it needs to protect our country.”

Background

Due to a rise in the use of ammunition and artillery in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, countries around the world are battling shortages of key materials needed for ammunition production, resulting in domestic ammunition prices skyrocketing, limiting millions of Americans’ ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Congressman Emmer has consistently championed and defended American’s Second Amendment rights. He recently introduced legislation to provide recourse for law-abiding Americans who were improperly denied the ability to legally purchase a firearm. Furthermore, Emmer staunchly opposed the Biden Administration’s crackdowns on stabilizing braces in 2023.

The Ammunition Supply Chain Act is cosponsored by Representatives Pete Stauber, Brad Finstad, Michelle Fischbach, Rick Crawford and Bruce Westerman.

The legislation is supported by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and Vista Outdoor.

Full text of the bill is available here.

Louisiana Preemption Bill Passes Senate, 28-11, on to House

The Louisiana legislature is in the process of strengthening the current state preemption law regarding weapons and the right to keep and bear arms. Local governments seeking to push gun control have been clever about finding ways to restrict people’s right to keep and bear arms in ways not foreseen by previous preemption laws.  For example, in Iowa, the Dubuque City Council voted to create a zoning ordinance to prohibit otherwise legitimate gun sales. In Montana, the city government of Missoula, dominated by the University of Montana, voted to require government approval of all firearm sales in the city.  In response, state legislatures are strengthening preemption bills to prevent such abuses.

Several changes are being proposed in the preemption statute for the State of Louisiana. The differences between the present law and the proposed bill are shown on the Louisiana Legislature website.

Present law limits a political subdivision’s authority to enact certain ordinances or regulations involving firearms. In this regard, present law prohibits a governing authority of a political subdivision from enacting any ordinance or regulation that is more restrictive than state law concerning the sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transfer, transportation,license, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or components of firearms or ammunition.

Proposed law prohibits a governing authority from enforcing any ordinance, order, regulation, policy, procedure, rule or any other form of executive or legislative action more restrictive than state law concerning in any way the manufacture, sale, purchase, possession,carrying, storage, ownership, taxation, transfer, transportation, license, or registration of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms or ammunition, firearms accessories, knives,edged weapons, or any combination thereof.

The differences are significant. Present law limits a political subdivision’s authority to enact ordinances or regulations. The proposed bill prohibits all governmental authorities (except the state legislature) from enforcing a wider range of items, expanded beyond ordinances or regulations involving firearms to any ordinance, order, regulation, policy, procedure, rule or any other form of executive or legislative action. 

Continue reading “”

Any politician who tells you that a badly written law won’t be used in the worst way possible by some goobermint stooge, is lying to you.

MO Senate votes to protect homeschool access to guns to ease K-12 tax credit expansion

The Missouri Senate voted Wednesday night to ensure homeschool families are allowed to own firearms.

On a 27-4 vote, lawmakers approved legislation that originally was focused on cleaning up issues with Missouri’s virtual school program.

Sen. Andrew Koenig, R-Manchester, answers questions about his bill that would expand MOScholars during a committee meeting Wednesday Jan. 10, 2024.

But over the course of a five-hour recess in the Senate Wednesday, Republicans turned that legislation into a catch-all measure aimed at ensuring the House approves an even larger education bill approved by the Senate last month.

The bill approved Wednesday night was crafted to ease House concerns about a 153-page bill that passed the Senate to expand Missouri’s private school tax credit program and allowed charter schools in Boone County, along with other provisions aimed at bolstering public schools.

That bill’s sponsor, Republican state Sen. Andrew Koenig of Manchester, told The Independent he would prefer the House pass the Senate’s education bill without changes and send it to the governor’s desk. Any changes in the House would bring it back to the Senate for debate, putting its changes at risk.

After the Senate passed Koenig’s legislation last month, criticism began popping up on social media and in the Capitol about a myriad of issues — primarily that homeschooling families may face additional government oversight.

Despite assurances from gun-rights groups, one concern focused on the idea that homeschoolers’ inclusion in the private school scholarship program would result in home educators being subject to laws banning guns in schools.

The Missouri Firearms Coalition made a statement that it felt that gun-ownership was not threatened in the bill. And an attorney for Home School Legal Defense Association Scott Woodruff was adamant that he was not concerned about the provision.

“The idea (the bill)…. would make the criminal penalties of (state firearm code) apply to home schoolers with guns in their home is supported, at best, only by a long, thin string of assumptions and implications,” he wrote.

But House members were flooded with emails and social media messages expressing concerns, putting the bills’ chances of passing without being altered at risk.

Koenig said Wednesday that the ability to own a gun was not threatened by his bill.

“I don’t know that it was a problem, but this definitely makes it a lot stronger,” he said. “Anytime we can clarify something in statute, then we make sure that interpretation is stronger.”

The bill applies the existing homeschool statute to particular sections of state law — avoiding applying the definition of a “home school” to the state code that prohibits firearms on school grounds.

The legislation approved Wednesday night expanded beyond virtual schools to include changes such as connecting funding for K-12 tax-credit scholarships to state aid for public schools’ transportation. This is current state law, but Koenig’s bill separated the two.

The bill also exempts Warsaw School District from taking a vote to reauthorize the district’s current four-day school week. If Koenig’s bill passes, school districts that have switched to a four-day week in charter counties or cities with at least 30,000 residents will have to hold a vote to continue with an abbreviated week.

Similar provisions are included in amendments to Koenig’s bill filed by House members. Fifty-three amendments have already been filed on Koenig’s bill in the House.

House Majority Leader Jon Patterson, a Lee’s Summit Republican, told reporters on Monday that he would prefer to pass the Senate’s version of Koenig’s bill but there was not a guarantee to do so.