Category: Politics

San Francisco Backs Down, Tables Bill That Would Make Most of the City a ‘Sensitive Place,’ Ban Concealed Carry

From the CCRKBA . . .

The San Francisco County Board of Supervisors has backed down on a proposed ordinance that would make much of the city into a “gun-free zone” after the Second Amendment Foundation and California Rifle & Pistol Association promised legal action.

The proposal was championed by Supervisor Catherine Stefani, who essentially tabled the motion indefinitely, after bemoaning the 2023 Supreme Court Bruen decision, which is giving gun control proponents fits, while jarring the San Francisco Police Department to start issuing carry permits. She referenced, perhaps as a face-saving maneuver, proposed state legislation that may be adopted later this summer by lawmakers in Sacramento, as a reason to stand down on the proposed ordinance.

“This happened after CRPA and SAF sent a letter to the Board of Supervisors explaining why the planned ordinance would be unconstitutional,” said CRPA President Chuck Michel, a longtime practicing attorney and gun rights authority in California. “It is truly unfortunate that San Francisco politicians refuse to respect the Second Amendment and can’t accept the new legal reality that people have a Second Amendment right to carry a firearm in public.”

“As soon as we were advised of this proposal,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “we took action. This is not the first time we’ve had to stop extremist gun control in San Francisco. We successfully sued the city twice over attempted handgun bans, and won both times. We’re prepared to do it again, but our letter to the Board of Supervisors evidently has made that unnecessary.”

“Our warning to the Board of Supervisors was direct and left little room for doubt about our intentions,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The letter clearly explained why the proposal was bad policy, and would result in another SAF-CRPA victory. We also reminded the Board it should wait to see whether the state legislation is adopted and how it fares under litigation. That appears to have had the desired impact.”

Appears someone has decided to play political hardball right back in the demoncrap’s faces.

House passes resolution to remove Ilhan Omar from Foreign Affairs Committee

The Republican-led House of Representatives voted on Thursday to pass a resolution to remove Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar from the powerful House Foreign Affairs Committee.

House Republicans have argued Omar should not serve on the committee in light of past statements she has made related to Israel that in some cases been criticized by members of both parties as antisemitic. Democrats have criticized the push to oust Omar, arguing it amounts to an act of political revenge and that the Minnesota Democrat has been held accountable for her past remarks. The party-line vote was 218 to 211. GOP Rep. David Joyce of Ohio voted “present.”

Omar was defiant in a floor speech ahead of the vote. “My leadership and voice will not be diminished if I am not on this committee for one term. My voice will get louder and stronger,” she said.

“So take your vote or not – I am here to stay, and I am here to be a voice against harms around the world and advocate for a better world,” the congresswoman said.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries accused Republicans of seeking “political revenge.”

“I will move immediately to seat Rep. Omar on the House Budget Committee where she will defend Democratic values against right-wing extremism,” Jeffries tweeted after the House vote.

The action by House Republicans comes after House Speaker Kevin McCarthy officially denied seats on the House Intelligence Committee to Democratic Reps. Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff, the former chairman of the panel – a decision that was condemned by Democrats.

McCarthy vowed last year that if Republicans won back the House majority, he would strip Schiff, Swalwell and Omar of committee assignments, arguing that Democrats created a “new standard” when they held the majority by removing Republican Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Paul Gosar of Arizona from committees for violent rhetoric and posts.

St. Louis mayor trying to backtrack from gun control texts

St. Louis is, like a lot of larger cities, pretty anti-gun.

They can’t do as much about it as they’d like there, but that’s because Missouri has preemption, and that handcuffs city leaders a fair bit. Officials there are still willing to pass what gun control they can.

But, as we’ve pointed out more than once, gun control isn’t really the answer.

It seems the mayor of St. Louis agreed, though she’s backtracking now.

St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones’ office is in damage control mode after someone at City Hall released thousands of text messages from her personal cell phone, some of which raise questions about her views on gun laws.

The messages were released earlier this week under an open records request.

“Chicago has strict gun laws as well but that doesn’t deter gun violence,” Jones texted in a group chat to her father Virvus Jones and advisor Richard Callow on March 21. “It’s about investing in the people.”

On the surface, the mayor’s private remarks appear to contradict some of her public statements calling for stricter gun control laws in Missouri.…

The mayor’s office issued a statement through one of her spokesmen on Friday afternoon seeking to clarify her position.

“Gun laws are just one part of the solution,” Jones spokesman Nick Desideri said. “There’s a difference between deterring behavior and making it harder to get firearms and weaponry; for example, there’s no doubt that gun laws in the blue region around Newark help reduce violence as opposed to here.”

In her private text messages, the mayor also made a reference to prolonged community investment delivering a significant reduction in violence in Newark, New Jersey.

“Newark, NJ has the same size population, same size police force, and similar racial demographics, yet had 50 murders in 2022,” the mayor wrote. “I visited these programs first hand and I know that they work. We just need the will….”

First, there is doubt that the gun laws around Newark had any impact on the violent crime rate versus other interventions attempted there.

We can say this because, frankly, the rest of New Jersey has tons of gun control and still has plenty of high-crime areas. If gun control were even part of the solution, we wouldn’t be seeing that.

It seems that Jones really wants these community intervention programs but because of her party affiliation, she has to spout the gun control line. That’s a shame, too, because I happen to think these community interventions could do wonders for St. Louis.

Guns are not the problem and gun control is not the answer.

The problem has always been people, which is why even our non-gun homicide rate is higher than many other nations’ total murder rates.

The interventions would probably work and Jones really should stick with her instincts here and stop pushing for gun control.

Republicans are pointing out the hypocrisy here, and they’re right to do so. Jones knows gun control doesn’t work, but she’s pushing for it anyway.

A lot of pro-gun people have long figured Democrats knew this anyway and still wanted gun control despite this fact. This is just another data point showing those folks may have a point.

Yes, he’s always been stupid. Now he’s also senile

Joe Biden Is Not Senile — He’s Stupid.
Now people chalk up to age what we all knew way back was IQ.

Joe Biden, like Forrest Gump, is not a smart man. His latest Ron Burgundy moment comes as Exhibit 1,322b.

On Monday, he quoted a woman calling high-speed internet “the best thing that has happened to rural America since the Rural Electrification Act brought electricity to farms in the 30s and 40s.” When he finished reading that off a teleprompter, he read the words: “End of quote.”

When you lead the No. 1 news team in San Diego, this sort of thing can lead to job loss, beard growth, alcoholism, depression, and drinking milk from the carton on a hot day. But Joe Biden merely serves as president of the United States. And Monday’s teleprompter snafu does not come as the first, anyhow. Must one repeat the line about “repeat the line”?

From dressing protectors as the Easter Bunny to screening “journalist” questions in advance, there seems no easy solution. Certainly going off teleprompter without a safety net strikes his on-edge handlers as no solution at all.

Earlier this month, for instance, the president startled League of Conservation Voters by announcing, “We have plans to build a railroad from the Pacific all the way across the Indian Ocean.”

Hmmm.

Why not sail a boat all the way across the Indian Ocean instead? Aviation exists as an option, too. Biden may or may not have traveled more than 1 million miles on Amtrak. But that’s not good reason to cover ocean with track. And what happens upon the occasional derailment?

If only he had added an “e” to potato or failed to cite a publication he read regularly — perhaps then the press, Saturday Night Live, and every late-night comic would have associated him with his gaffes forever. As it stands, the notion of building a railroad across the ocean does not indict one as a dullard the way misspelling a word does.

A few days before floating the idea of a transoceanic railway, the president, in non sequitur fashion, punctuated remarks with “God save the queen.”

Not just June but every month one could pen a column on all the president’s blunders. Still, books, not columns, remain the appropriate format in which to document the president’s gaffes.

They fuel speculation about his fitness for office that implicitly revolve around his age. Even Chuck Todd on this past weekend’s Meet the Press raised to Sen. Amy Klobuchar the question of the president’s mental and physical fitness for office.

Is it possible that the same man unfit for office at 80 was also unfit for it at 45? If so, it means that stupidity, not senility, disqualifies him from high office.

Consider Joe Biden at 45.

When a voter asked about his academic credentials, Biden showed not just a massive inferiority complex but a tiny brain. “I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you do, I suspect,” he said in New Hampshire. “I went to law school on a full academic scholarship, the only one in my class to have a full academic scholarship.” He went on to boast about his “three degrees,” how he “ended up in the top half of my class” in law school, and how he won “outstanding student” in the political science department.

None of it was true. All of it was checkable. Unlike, say, Bill Clinton, Biden did not understand that even politicians required the good sense about what lies to tell and which ones to avoid telling. Biden seemed to tell his lies on impulse because of a bruise to his ego and not out of any Machiavellian reason.

During that same presidential run, he infamously expropriated British Labour Party Leader Neil Kinnock’s life story. Again, the lies seemed quite disprovable not only because whether Biden came from a family of coal miners struck as either true or false but because Kinnock ran against Margaret Thatcher for prime minister two years earlier largely on that tale. He delivered the speech on his life not in Cameroon or some other distant place, but in the U.K., which witnessed television commercials showing Kinnock telling the story of his life that Biden adopted, verbatim at times, as his shortly thereafter.

This required recklessness. It also required a degree of stupidity. How does one think one could get away with that?

Fifteen years ago, then-Sen. Claire McCaskill conceded, “My friend Joe Biden has a tendency to talk forever and sometimes say stuff that’s kind of stupid.”

Now people chalk up to age what we all knew back then was IQ. There’s no fool like an old fool.

Colorado offers a stark Second Amendment warning to the six fast-growing states in the South

It’s no secret that pro-freedom policies unleash human potential and lead to the creation of wealth and prosperity. The migration of people inevitably follows freedom. The world saw that last century: East Germans risked getting machine-gunned to escape communism to the West. Cubans built make-shift rafts to sail through shark-infested waters to freedom. Even in a generally free country like the United States, the same pattern holds true with domestic migration to freer states.

Bloomberg recently reported on the sheer magnitude of domestic migration of people and capital:

A $100 Billion Wealth Migration Tilts US Economy’s Center of Gravity South

Some 2.2 million people moved to the Southeast in just over two years. That’s roughly the population of Houston.

Drive along the 240-mile stretch of the Atlantic coast from Charleston, South Carolina, through the grassy marsh land of southern Georgia and down into northern Florida, and you’ll see one of the most profound economic shifts in the US today.[…]

More broadly, the entire South from here, north to Kentucky and west to Texas is where businesses are moving to, jobs are being created and homes are being bought. […]

The numbers tell the story. For the first time, six fast-growing states in the South — Florida, Texas, Georgia, the Carolinas and Tennessee — are contributing more to the national GDP than the Northeast, with its Washington-New York-Boston corridor, in government figures going back to the 1990s. […]

A flood of transplants helped steer about $100 billion in new income to the Southeast in 2020 and 2021 alone, while the Northeast bled out about $60 billion, based on an analysis of recently published Internal Revenue Service data.

The Southeast accounted for more than two-thirds of all job growth across the US since early 2020, almost doubling its pre-pandemic share. And it was home to 10 of the 15 fastest-growing American large cities.[…]

“You could throw a dart anywhere at a map of the South and hit somewhere booming,” said Mark Vitner, a retired longtime economist for Wells Fargo who now heads his own economic consultancy, Piedmont Crescent Capital, in Charlotte, North Carolina.[…]

“We now have more employees in Texas than New York state. It shouldn’t have been that way,” JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon said to Bloomberg TV on a swing through the South earlier this year.

As Walter Wriston, former CEO of Citicorp said, “Capital goes where it is welcome and stays where it is well treated.” A combination of good economic policies and the lack of reflexive hatred of businesses and their owners brought them to the South, and the results are there for everyone to see. Setting aside Bloomberg’s concern trolling about “inequality,” which is just as prevalent in the Northeast, the takeaway is that the people like living in the South. As Charleston County Republican Maurice Washington said:

“They don’t want to raise their kids in places like New York and California. You get a lot of that,” Washington said.

This growth pattern is great, but migration comes with its own risk.

Continue reading “”

This special session is truly nefarious. A special session in Tennessee is a separate single-topic debate. It’s a sneaky way to bring Red Flag law legislation to the floor of the full body of representatives, wherein a regular session, it would die in committee as has happened in the past. If this were the regular Tennessee session, a Red Flag law would be a non-starter.

There will be intense pressure and truckloads of outside money from national-level organizations and governments. This is a terrible and underhanded sneak attack by a governor to undermine the rights of the people of Tennessee. He’s always been a squish on gun rights and can never be trusted. Expect to see wailing mothers and crying children saying everybody must compromise and shred the Constitution because of one deranged sodomite pervert who should have been locked away in a mental facility.
– Herschel Smith

Local GOP pushes legislators to support 2nd Amendment during upcoming special session

Gov. Bill Lee has called for a special legislative session this August “to pursue thoughtful, practical measures that strengthen the safety of Tennesseans, preserve Second Amendment rights, prioritize due process protections, support law enforcement, and address mental health.”

The Montgomery County Tennessee Republican Party (MCTNGOP) stands with our Republican elected officials in maintaining their duty to uphold, preserve and protect the Tennessee State Constitution and the US Constitution with all the rights contained therein, and uphold the Republican Party values contained within the Republican Party platform.

With a primary focus of this session on possible gun control measures, and even discussions entertaining versions of a red flag law, the MCTNGOP unequivocally opposes any legislation
or Republican member of the state Legislature who would seek to defy the duties and responsibilities to their constituents and constitutions, especially regarding our inalienable Second Amendment right.

The MCTNGOP continues its recruitment and elections of candidates that support the US and Tennessee State constitutions, and the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms that expressly “shall not be infringed” that truly is a foundational pillar of American liberty. Those officials or candidates not in alignment with our shared Republican values will not obtain the support of the MCTNGOP. We look forward to watching our committed civil servants in the Legislature stand on their conservative values to support, protect and safeguard the liberty and freedoms we enjoy as Tennesseans.

We would also like to remind our community that the GOP wholeheartedly supports and endorses the constitutional right of peaceful protest but in no way endorses violence. We look forward to watching our community express their thoughts and feelings on the matters to be considered during this upcoming special session, and encourage all to contact our office, their elected representatives, and have conversations with other community members throughout this process.

Meet the U.S. Senate’s Gun-Control Caucus

It is real American political theater to think of all the members of the U.S. Senate’s new gun-control caucus, which formally named itself the “Gun Violence Prevention Caucus,” sitting around a table in some hidden-away chamber in the Dirksen Senate Office Building plotting their many gun-control schemes—and, as you’ll see, they do have quite the list. This, after all, is how Hollywood has often treated the pro-freedom side.

Indeed, the members of this little gun-control cabal, as this was going to print, are a who’s who of senators who want to strip this civil right from we the people. They are Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.).

Closed-door meetings and quiet handshakes do take place as one senator promises to co-sponsor another’s bill if that senator will vote for their proposed legislation (or if they won’t oppose some measure). And there are legislative tactics congressional leadership can use to rush legislation with little debate or, in some cases, to temporarily conceal what is in a bill—such is why Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) once famously (as it was an honest disclosure) gaffed when she referred to Obamacare: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Also, with certain types of legislation, riders and earmarks can be attached at the last minute that might have nothing to do with what that legislation is supposed to do.

Still, this gun-control caucus will have a hard time secretly moving any of its agenda items forward, as the American process of writing, debating and passing major legislation through both chambers of Congress invites a lot of attention and discussion—and some of the people watching are your NRA-ILA lobbyists.

With all of that said, why did these anti-Second Amendment senators form a gun-control caucus?

Politics. Such a caucus allows them to gather for the cameras as they virtue-signal about their stated desire to “reduce gun violence,” as if guns are violent critters that need to be neutered or outright disposed of. These gun-control-caucus members know that much of the mainstream media will further their narratives without questioning the specifics. They also know they can use talking points related to such proposed legislation to fundraise and to make the claim to their voters that they’re trying to do something—and they can then add that the NRA, yes, your freedom-loving association, just won’t let them push it over on the American people.

Such is also why much of the proposed legislation on this gun-control caucus’ list have disingenuous titles. And it’s why all of these legislative ideas are worded with misleading explanations.

This caucus’ ideas include the Age 21 Act (legislation that would strip away the constitutional rights of law-abiding, legal adults), a new Assault Weapons Ban (an idea that blames guns instead of criminals for crimes), the Crime Gun Tracing Modernization Act (an act that would create a national gun-owner database), Ethan’s Law (legislation to empower federal agents to go into citizens’ homes to enforce gun-storage mandates), the Protecting Kids from Gun Marketing Act (legislation to empower the Federal Trade Commission to censor advertising from firearms companies and groups) and much more.

Also, as this was going to print, this gun-control caucus said they planned to introduce the 3D Printed Gun Safety Act, the Accountability for Online Firearms Marketplaces Act, the Background Check Completion Act, the Federal Firearm Licensing Act, the Gun Violence Prevention Through Financial Intelligence Act, the Keeping Gun Dealers Honest Act and much more. Explanations of what these bills would contain are thin, but, given the past positions of these caucus members, it isn’t hard to fill in the gun-control details.

Now, for a moment, imagine if a Second Amendment-supporting caucus in the U.S. Senate were to come up with its own list. They could have The Individual Freedom Act (a national reciprocity bill), the Civil-Rights Act for Self-Preservation (a bill to ensure the disenfranchised get their Second Amendment freedom, too), the Right to Stop Evildoers Act (an end to “gun-free” zones) … well okay, all of those ideas aren’t deceptive in the least; they are honest, so the comparison to the gun-control legislation really doesn’t hold up.

The point is, these senators have created a gun-control caucus to provide fuel for even more agenda-driven gun-control coverage from mainstream-news outlets. Instead of targeting the actual problem—the criminals who use guns to harm others—this gun-control caucus is yet another political tool designed to blame America’s 100-million-plus gun owners for the actions of criminals.

This, then, is not a “Gun Violence Prevention Caucus,” as they call themselves, as that would be a caucus focused on legislation that goes after violent criminals; this is, rather, a gun-control caucus focused solely on disempowering average Americans.

 

 

Bu bu bu bu but all those scientists can’t be wrong!

Regarding Consensus Science

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
― Michael Crichton

Keeping that nice cushy seat on the .gov gravy train means a lot more to a politician than almost anything else.

Key Republican won’t help Dems force gun control vote

Earlier this week, I wrote about how House Democrats intended to push a vote on gun control despite leadership having no interest in scheduling one.

To do that, they’ve got to have a few Republicans cross the lines and side with them while having literally every Democrat in the House hold the line.

It seems they’ve hit a bit of a snag, though.

One of the Republicans they were likely counting on has decided he wants no part of this plan.

A rare House Republican who supports stricter gun measures said he won’t back a Democratic effort to end-run Speaker Kevin McCarthy and force a vote on a trio of bills to implement those restrictions.

“At some point we need to start thinking about getting things done rather than sending messages across the floor of the House,” Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., said in an interview Thursday.

“It’s a very intellectually dishonest way of proceeding when you don’t have any strategy” to pass the bills through the Senate, he said.…

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., unveiled the strategy to try to go around McCarthy, R-Calif., at a Democratic meeting this week, two sources said.

Fitzpatrick was one of Democrats’ few, if only, natural allies to get a majority of the House to support the move. His opposition deals a major blow to the push, which will require at least a half-dozen House Republicans to sign the discharge petition to force a vote.

So why would Fitzpatrick not join in this. After all, one of the measures being pushed is one he co-authored. Wouldn’t he like to see it pass?

Fitzpatrick says he wants to focus on building support for the measure itself, but I think there’s more to it than that.

While he likes gun control, he’s still part of the Republican Party. He knows good and well that helping with an end-around the House leadership like this might get this bill passed, but it’ll also make it less likely he’ll have the party’s support at various points down the road.

You know, like re-election?

He may want gun control, but I’m sure there are a lot of other things he’d like to do that would be a lot harder if he goes against his leadership.

Yet with Fitzpatrick out, the odds of gathering the other Republicans needed to push gun control votes aren’t looking good. He was, perhaps, their best shot. With him gone, it’s unlikely they’ll get enough others to cross party lines and join them.

As I said earlier this week, though, that’s probably good news for vulnerable Democrats. A lot of them don’t want to raise much of a stink on gun control because they know it might not play particularly well back home. They’ll be good foot soldiers for the party, but it may put a spotlight on them they’d rather not be in.

People like Reps. Hakeem Jefferies and Lucy McBath haven’t thought that through.

Then again, they apparently figure they’re safe, so screw everyone else.

Either way, it looks like this effort isn’t going to happen and that’s likely good news for gun rights.

However, even if it had, those measures would still have had to go to the Senate where they’d be filibustered into oblivion. This really isn’t about gun control and never was. It was about trying to hurt Republicans in purple districts because they think gun control is a winning issue.

That’s all it ever was and don’t fool yourself into thinking otherwise.

And, frankly, it went out the window. Maybe Fitzpatrick realized it and simply refused to play that particular game.

State Senator Tells Parents to Flee His Own State Amid Bill That Would Take Kids Away From Non-’Affirming’ Parents.

A California state senator told a gathered crowd of parents at the California Senate Judicial Committee to flee the state on June 13 during a hearing on a bill which would put parents who don’t affirm their child’s “gender transition” in danger of child abuse charges.

Sen. Scott Wilk, R-Santa Clarita, is one of the two lone Republicans on California’s Senate Judiciary Committee, and he has served in the California Legislature for 11 years. He was also the lone voice warning against language in AB 957, which a Democratic senator had amended on June 5 to rewrite the California Family Code to list “gender affirmation” alongside a child’s need for “health, safety, and welfare.”

Abigail Martinez shared the heartbreaking story of losing her daughter to transgenderism.

 

Now They’re REALLY Serious: Biden Taps VP Harris to Lead Administration’s Gun Control Messaging

President Joe Biden made an announcement he hopes will excite the gun control activists for his 2024 reelection bid. The president is calling in his Big Gun to “lead the messaging” on his gun control accomplishments to generate buzz.

Media reported the president assigned Vice President Kamala Harris, widely panned as “one of the worst VPs in history,” to be the “leading voice” on gun control and charged her with making those issues front and center for the campaign.

Election Day 2024 is “just” about 500 days away.

Continue reading “”

[California) SENATE PASSES BILL TO EFFECTIVELY BAN NEW PISTOL SALES IN CALIFORNIA

A measure that greatly expands the mandate for firearms technology that isn’t on the market won easy approval in the California state Senate last week.

California Sen. Catherine Blakespear’s SB 452 passed on a 29-10 vote on May 24 and goes to the state Assembly for further consideration. The Encinitas Democrat argues that the bill “simply puts to use readily available technology to help law enforcement catch criminals” by banning all sales or transfers of any semiautomatic pistol after July 2027 unless it has been verified as having a microstamping-enabled action.

Despite Blakespear’s assertions that microstamping, a process that etches unique identifiers on expended cartridge cases, is available, no such guns are in production.

Anywhere.

In 2013, Kamala Harris, then the California attorney general, put the state’s long-dormant microstamping requirement into effect, requiring new pistols certified for commercial sale be able to mark expended brass with a microscopic array of characters, which identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol upon firing.

Since then, the state’s roster of approved handguns has shrunk, with only legacy semi-autos – which were grandfathered – and revolvers currently listed. For example, the roster contains no approved Generation 4 or Generation 5 Glock handguns, all of which debuted after 2013. Likewise, the SIG P365, one of the most popular carry pistols in the country, cannot be found on the list.

Larry Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, one of the groups currently challenging the 2013 law, told Guns.com previously that the state is experiencing a “slow motion handgun ban as fewer and fewer models are allowed to be sold in the state. California is to handguns what Cuba is to cars; only old models are available.”

Blakespear’s legislation, backed by anti-gun groups such as Brady and Everytown, would effectively close off access to even these legacy guns by creating a separate and distinct restriction on the sale or transfer of any semi-automatic handgun by a licensed dealer unless it is capable of microstamping.

However, the state has seen its current law in troubled waters, with a case brought against it drawing heat from a federal court earlier this year. That court, in the case of Boland v Bonta, saw the California DOJ hit with a preliminary injunction as the case proceeds.

“The microstamping provision requires handguns to have a particular feature that is simply not commercially available or even feasible to implement on a mass scale,” U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney’s order reads.

Meanwhile, SB 482, which is co-sponsored by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, is now in the Assembly, where Dems hold an overwhelming 3/4 (62-18) majority.

Breaking: McCarthy gets debt-ceiling deal — with work requirements.

Utterly predictable, although it still came about 24 hours later than I expected. On a holiday weekend when people are paying the least attention, Joe Biden finally cut a deal with Kevin McCarthy to raise the debt ceiling and end a game of chicken that Biden and Democrats lost months ago. House Republicans didn’t get everything they wanted, but Biden and the Democrats didn’t get anything they wanted except to limit the embarrassment:

President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Saturday reached an agreement in principle to raise the debt limit for two years while cutting and capping some government spending over the same period, a breakthrough after a marathon set of crisis talks that has brought the nation within days of its first default in history. …

The deal would raise the borrowing limit, which is currently $31.4 trillion, for two years — enough to get past the next presidential election.

According to a person familiar with the agreement, it also would impose new work requirements for some recipients of government aid, including food stamps and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.
It would place new limits on how long certain recipients of food stamps — people under the age of 54, who do not have children — could benefit from the program. But it also would expand food stamp access for veterans and the homeless, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss details of the package.

The tentative deal also claws back some unspent money from a previous pandemic relief bill, and reduces by $10 billion — to $70 billion from $80 billion — new enforcement funding for the I.R.S. to crack down on tax cheats. It includes measures meant to speed environmental reviews of certain energy projects. And it includes an enforcement measure, meant to avert a government shutdown later this year, that would reduce funding caps for the military and veterans and Congress does not pass into law all 12 regularly scheduled appropriations bills by the end of the year.

The work requirements on safety-net programs will enrage Biden’s allies, not just on principle but also because it hands McCarthy a big win. Without it, McCarthy probably wouldn’t get more than a handful of his caucus to back him. As it is, the reductions in the cuts they already passed are not going to make the Republicans happy, even if they have to swallow it at the eleventh hour.

But come on … they won. Biden and Chuck Schumer lost this weeks ago, and now they just caved. It would not surprise me if the Democrats knew this was coming all along, and they merely waited for a holiday weekend to give them enough cover to pull the trigger.

As I said, utterly predictable. Just like the way we knew McCarthy would win, because — again — he won the moment he got the debt-ceiling hike through the House. He forced Biden and Schumer to negotiate on his terms, and he kept enough of them to matter. We’ll have more on the deal as it comes together, and as the media tries to spin it any other way.

Update: This is apparently what counts as a win for Biden:

Republicans had sought to repeal Biden’s efforts to waive $10,000 to $20,000 in debt for nearly all borrowers who took out student loans. But the provision was a nonstarter for Democrats. The budget agreement keeps Biden’s student loan relief in place, though the Supreme Court will have the ultimate say on the matter.

The Supreme Court is dominated 6-3 by conservatives, and those justices’ questions in oral arguments showed skepticism about the legality of Biden’s student loans plan. A decision is expected before the end of June.

That plan is going to die a very well-deserved death at the Supreme Court no matter what, on a number of grounds. McCarthy probably put it in the bid so that Biden could claim a concession from Republicans in the final deal.

Veto-proof majority in Louisiana House approves constitutional carry

So far this year we’ve seen two states adopt permitless or constitutional carry, not only with the support of lawmakers but with the backing of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen. If Louisiana is going to follow suit and become the 28th state to recognize the right to bear arms without a government-issued permission slip, however, legislators are going to have to overcome an anticipated veto by Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards, who previously killed a similar measure back in 2021.

We’re one step closer to that becoming reality today after the Louisiana House voted 70-29 on Tuesday in favor of HB 131, just enough to override Edwards’ veto… at least if no one changes their vote.

Continue reading “”

Barking mad Nebraska State Senator really wants you to know that she’s pro-trans.

I don’t know whether it is an overstatement to suggest people with “gender dysphoria” have a mental illness, or whether there is a social contagion at work (like the anorexia epidemic among young women a couple decades ago that ultimately faded out to a large extent), but scenes like this state legislator in Nebraska aren’t reassuring that there’s a rational defense of the trans-phenomenon. (Wonder what she will do when told that Trans World Airlines went bankrupt 30 years ago. Probably another screech about capitalism or something.)

This video is about one minute long, but it seems much longer.

Maine Democrat Wants Gun Control for “Abnormally Dangerous Assault Style Weapons” But She Doesn’t Know What That Means

In a public hearing by the Maine Legislature’s Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning, Rep. Rebecca Millett (D-Cape Elizabeth) struggled to clearly define the terms “abnormally dangerous” and “assault style weapons” in relation to her proposed bill to hold firearm manufacturers liable for damages inflicted by people who use their products.

WATCH: Rep. Rebecca Millet Crumbles Under Question From Rep. John Andrews

Rep. Millett’s LD 1696, “An Act to Create a Civil Cause of Action for Persons Suffering Damages Arising from the Sale of Abnormally Dangerous Firearms,” would allow firearm manufacturers to be held liable for the manufacturing, marketing, importing, wholesale or retail sale of a firearm that is considered “abnormally dangerous” and causes “unreasonable risk of harm to public health and safety” in Maine.

Millett began her testimony before the Judiciary Committee by saying that every industry other than firearm manufacturers are held accountable through civil liability. She gave the examples of toy manufacturers selling defective toys, and toxic fumes in buildings.

Millett went on to blame the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) for allowing firearm manufacturers to be knowingly irresponsible in their distribution of firearms and to “recklessly skirt” federal regulations.

The PLCAA is a federal law which prohibits civil liability actions from being brought against firearms and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers for damages resulting from crimes committed with their products.

Under the PLCAA, firearm manufacturers may still be held civilly responsible for damages caused by defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, or any other direct responsibility for the damages in question.

Millett said that her proposed bill would only apply to “abnormally dangerous” firearms, not those made for self-defense, hunting, or recreation.

Millett hopes that her bill will compel firearm manufacturers to stop selling to dealers who fuel the criminal market, and encourage basic safety measures among manufacturers and retailers.

However, upon taking questions from members of the Judiciary Committee, Millett struggled to answer seemingly basic questions about the terminology used in her proposed bill and claims made in her testimony.

When asked by Rep. John Andrews (R-Paris) to define “abnormally dangerous,” Millett said that any “assault style weapon” would fall under that category.

Rep. Andrews asked Millett to point to where in her proposed bill “assault style weapon” was defined, and Millett was unable to provide a definition.

Sen. Anne Carney (D-Cumberland), Senate Chair of the Judiciary Committee, asked Millett to provide a citation on the claim that firearms were flowing from manufacturers to criminal dealers. Millett was unable to provide a citation for this claim.

John Andrews asked Millett to give an example of any firearm manufacturer who does not go through the federally mandated process of selling firearms to federally licensed dealers. Millett was unable to give any examples of any firearm manufacturers violating federal law.

Continue reading “”

State 28? Constitutional Carry on the Move in Louisiana

Legislation to end a permitting requirement for concealed carry is on the move in Louisiana and would make the state the 28th to adopt constitutional carry as the law of the land.

Constitutional carry passed the Louisiana legislature two years ago and Breitbart News reported that Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) vetoed it June 4, 2021.
It is on the move again and WWLTV noted it would “[allow] any law-abiding gun owner over 18, to carry a concealed handgun in the state.”

On May 25, 2023, Biz New Orleans observed the constitutional carry legislation, sponsored by Rep. Danny McCormick (R), had passed out of committee. McCormick noted:

Louisiana is already an open carry state which allows law-abiding citizens to carry their firearms openly without mandatory training… Allowing those same law-abiding men and women to wear a jacket in colder weather or place their firearms in a purse while wearing a dress also would not cause chaos.

The same argument was made when constitutional carry was being debated in New Hampshire, when permitless open carry was legal but covering the gun with a jacket or sweatshirt was not.

There are currently 27 constitutional carry states in the Union.

Those states are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
(Florida’s constitutional carry law takes effect July 1, 2023 and Nebraska’s constitutional carry law takes effect September 10, 2023.)

Gun control advocates disappointed in Texas

In the wake of far more shootings than I care to name, it’s unsurprising that there are some in Texas who want gun control. While I’m unconvinced that it’s a majority or, if it is, it’s a strong enough majority to matter, the media is going to give those people a lot of attention.

Which, of course, they did here.

It seems some parents from North Texas spoke about gun control with lawmakers, but are displeased at the results.

It was an early morning leaving Plano. And a late night returning there.

A group of about 40 mothers and fathers from across Collin County made the 440-mile round trip to Austin on Monday.

They were hoping for productive conversations about gun laws in Texas, nine days after eight people were killed and another seven were injured when a 33-year-old man armed with multiple guns and hundreds of rounds of ammunition opened fire at the Allen Premium Outlets mall…

“It’s depressing,” said Maury Marcus who lives in Plano. “I feel that there’s a partisan divide and the pro-gun faction has the upper hand.”

As she was leaving the Capitol rotunda, frustration was visible on Rekha Shenoy’s face.

“I don’t feel good, but I don’t want to give up. So that’s one thing I’m not doing – I’m not giving up,” Shenoy said.

The mass shooting in Allen was only the latest in Texas.

The Second Amendment shouldn’t be a partisan issue, but it has become one.

I get that these parents are concerned. They shouldn’t be, as I’ve noted previously, because, despite the media hysteria, actual mass shootings are pretty rare, all things concerned.

Yet that’s easy to say but harder for some to internalize. I understand it, but it doesn’t change reality.

So, they showed up and hoped their emotions would sway their audience. It didn’t.

The Democrats who already agreed with them still agreed with them. The Republicans who didn’t agree with them still didn’t.

That’s because if you were going to be swayed by emotions, you probably already were. Those who are going to decide safety is more important than freedom–and I don’t actually think those are contrary positions, but many do–already made that decision.

So people like this show up, let their emotions talk, then claim they weren’t listened to by pro-Second Amendment lawmakers. That’s because the only way to show a gun control advocate that you listened is by doing exactly what they want. You can’t listen and disagree. If you disagree, at least in their view, you didn’t listen.

Anyway, these parents left Austin disappointed. My hope is that they get used to it.

What happened in Allen was awful and I won’t sugarcoat it. However, if you think that wouldn’t have happened if he couldn’t get an AR-15, you’re deluding yourself. There was nothing done at that outlet mall that couldn’t have been done with some other firearm.

That’s why the focus has to be elsewhere. Gun control doesn’t provide us with answers. It simply covers the problem and lets people pretend they’re doing something.

Democrats’ Nightmares–African Americans See Racism in Democrat Attacks on Clarence Thomas.

An idea for a poll: Survey black Americans to see if they think racism is any way behind the three-decade-long, never-ending criticism of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

This shouldn’t be a controversial notion. Progressives and Democrats have long attributed racism to criticism of black government officials they like. Only last month, former White House chief-of-staff Ron Klain said racism is behind the criticism of Vice President Kamala Harris (of course along with sexism).

The left never tires of telling us how deeply racism infects the nation, that American institutions are embedded with systemic racism, that white people can’t recognize the unconscious racist attitudes they harbor about people of color, that white children develop racial bias as early as 4 years old, that racism permeates even math and science, that “white privilege” remains an ongoing injustice, and on and on.

With racism so deeply entrenched in American society, criticism of black politicians and government officials can be — even sometimes must be — based on race, according to progressive thinking.

That is, it applies when the criticism is aimed liberal office holders and public figures, according to the progressive narrative. You never heard that accusation when black conservatives are attacked.

That’s a double standard at the heart of liberal cries of racism.

But, if America is so deeply and intrinsically racist, as the far left never hesitates to remind us, why would any black official, including conservatives, be immune from race-based attacks?

Which brings us to the case of Justice Thomas.

Now it’s true that there is a bigger picture at work at the present. The most recent criticism of Justice Thomas comes amid a broad-based Democrat and left-wing assault on the Supreme Court, a full-scale, no-holds-barred campaign to delegitimize the nation’s highest court.

Like the segregationists of the 1950s and ’60s who sought to undermine the high court because of its rulings ending segregation in schools and public places, today’s progressives attack the independence and integrity of the court because they hate its prominent rulings, most notably the one returning the issue of abortion to the people to deal with through their state legislatures.

But the brunt of the anti-court blitz falls on Justice Thomas. And it’s just the latest example.

Continue reading “”