New proposed bill introduces gun training for some Illinois politicians

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. (WCCU) — Two Illinois state senators recently reintroduced a state bill that would require some Illinois politicians to undergo gun safety training.

State Senator Neil Anderson, (R) IL 47th, reintroduced Senate Bill 2106, and State Senator Andrew Chesney, (R) IL 45th, has since co-sponsored the bill.

The bill would mandate any member of the General Assembly who wants to introduce a bill “pertaining to a firearm” to complete firearm training requirements under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, range safety officer training, and a basic knowledge test of firearms.

Chesney says that their goal with this bill is to have those from a different perspective understand what they are trying to regulate.

“What we’ve seen when it involves second amendment regulations is that those that are proposing this don’t normally have the training to regulate it,” said Chesney. “So you start to see things that in our view are unconstitutional and maybe out of step with perhaps how the majority of people feel on the particular topic.”

Anderson said he actually introduced this bill four years ago, but re-submitted it recently as he’s seen a lot of gun misinformation.

“My ask with this legislation is that if you’re going to introduce a piece of anti-gun legislation, you should at least have the equivalent of a conceal carry permit to show that you have some knowledge of firearms,” explained Anderson.

Although Anderson doesn’t suspect this bill will pass, he hopes its introduction will bring “more common sense” to the firearm conversation.

Who Are the Real Extremists?
America’s vast lawful gun culture is the norm today, as it has long been, not the infringement inherent in gun-control activists’ dystopian worldview.

In December of 2022, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) confirmed that the state of Florida will soon improve the concealed-carry permitting system it has had in place since 1987 by adopting constitutional carry as well. In so doing, Florida would become the 26th state to get out of the way of the peoples’ right to “bear arms.” If this happens, in just a few decades, the United States will have gone from having one state with a permitless carry system in place (Vermont) to having a majority of states with permitless carry systems in place.

To those who follow this area of the law, the news that Florida is moving to add itself to the constitutional-carry list should be entirely unsurprising. Historically, Florida has often been a trailblazer in pursuit of the restoration of the Second Amendment, but, in this case, it has fallen behind the times. Indeed, to take a look at a map of constitutional-carry states is to notice that Florida is effectively surrounded. In the last few years, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia and have all made the switch, and they were preceded by so many other states that it is now possible to drive from Georgia to Arizona (via Montana) without ever leaving a state that hasn’t eliminated its permitting requirement.

But here’s a peculiar thing: If, for whatever reason, you were to have followed Florida’s wholly unexceptional plan solely via the mainstream press, you’d have a hard time learning any of this. Instead, you’d “know” all sorts of other things—things that, on closer inspection, turn out to be flatly false. Specifically, you’d end up thinking that Florida’s decision represented a dramatic departure from the norm. You’d end up thinking that Florida’s governor—and its legislature—were full of wild-eyed extremists. You’d end up thinking that states that abolish their permitting requirement become more dangerous as a result. Hell, if you availed yourself of the more-hysterical coverage, you might even end up worried that there were bound to be shootouts in the streets as a result of this change.

Don’t take my word for it; try it yourself. Pick up your phone, type the words “Florida constitutional carry” into Google and peruse the news articles that come up. Note the language that is used as a matter of routine: “extreme,” “dangerous,” “unsafe,” “radical.” Count the number of times that the uninformed opinion of the author is laundered through the phrase “experts say.” Observe the non-sequiturs and the lies; in particular, note the pretense that constitutional carry means that criminals are able to carry firearms with impunity, or that all regulations have been abolished. Consider how many times you are informed, as an aside, that the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted, or that it was never supposed to apply to individuals in the first instance. It’s remarkable.

It’s typical, too. Increasingly, stories about gun laws in America resemble dispatches from an alternate universe—one in which the Second Amendment does not mean what it says; in which the advent of “shall-issue” concealed carry never happened; in which permitless carry remains a fringe and untested idea; in which the massive increase in the number of concealed carriers coincided with an increase, rather than a precipitous drop, in crime; in which gun ownership remains the preserve of a handful of white men; and in which states such as Texas and Georgia, rather than states such as California and New York, are the outliers.

Contrast the manner in which the press habitually treats the gun laws of, say, Illinois or New Jersey, to how they treat the gun laws of, say, Arizona or Maine. If one were to take these various descriptions at face value, one would be forgiven for concluding that Illinois and New Jersey were “normal,” while Arizona and Maine represented outliers. But that is entirely false. Continue reading “”

Murphy Leads 47 Senators to Reintroduce Background Check Expansion Act

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) led 47 senators, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) on Thursday in reintroducing the Background Check Expansion Act to expand federal background checks to all gun sales. Although more than 90 percent of Americans support comprehensive background checks, under current federal law, unlicensed or private sellers are not required to conduct a background check prior to transferring a firearm. Research indicates that as many as a quarter of all gun sales in the United States may occur without a background check. U.S. Representatives Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) introduced the companion legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Background Check Expansion Act will require background checks for the sale or transfer of all firearms. This requirement extends to all unlicensed sellers, whether they do business online, at gun shows, or out of their home. Exceptions to the Background Check Expansion Act include transfers between law enforcement officers, temporarily loaning firearms for hunting and sporting events, providing firearms as gifts to immediate family members, transferring a firearm as part of an inheritance, or temporarily transferring a firearm for immediate self-defense.

Continue reading “”

North Carolina: Pro-2A Measures Pass House, State Senate

The North Carolina Senate voted 29-19 to pass Senate Bill 41, a bill that recognizes law-abiding citizens’ right to self-defense while attending a church with a school attached and, also, repeals the redundant permit-to-purchase system. The House passed, House Bill 49, a similar pro-self-defense bill to Senate Bill 41, by a vote of 77-43. Garnishing bipartisan support in the House for the self-defense bill indicates a potential override of any veto by Governor Roy Cooper, who vetoed similar legislation in 2021 and 2020.

NRA-ILA thanks the Senate leadership of Senator Danny Britt, Senator Jim Perry, Senator Warren Daniel, Senator Phil Berger, and others for fighting to protect the rights of North Carolina’s law-abiding citizens.  Also, on the House side, NRA-ILA thanks Speaker Tim Moore and Representative Jeff McNeely for their tireless efforts to advance Second Amendment freedom in the Tar Heel State.

Senate Bill 41 enables law-abiding citizens who hold a concealed handgun permit to carry a handgun to defend themselves and their loved ones when attending religious worship taking place on private property that is both a school and a place of worship, if it does not prohibit firearms. This empowers private property owners to set their own security policy, rather than the state imposing a one-size-fits-all solution. In 2019, an armed citizen in Texas defended his church against an individual. This worshiper, Jack Wilson, was able to take action because of similar NRA-backed legislation in Texas

The permit-to-purchase system was created before modern, computerized background checks existed. The federal NICS checks that licensed firearms dealers conduct are often completed in minutes. Repealing the permit-to-purchase a firearm ensures that law-abiding citizens can exercise their Second Amendment rights without this unnecessary obstacle and fee that is also a burden on law-enforcement resources.

North Carolina House passes gun bill with bipartisan support

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina House Republicans and some Democrats passed a previously vetoed gun bill Wednesday that opponents warn could endanger children and teachers.

The House voted 77-43 to approve the measure, which would let people with concealed weapons permits carry openly or under clothing while attending religious services at locations where private or charter schools also meet.

Six Democrats joined all Republicans in voting for it, indicating a potential override of any veto by Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, who blocked an identical bill in 2021.

Republican lawmakers and several clergy members testified this week that the houses of worship in question do not have an equal opportunity to protect congregants, compared with churches that do not house schools and are not affected by blanket prohibitions.

Supporters said gun-free religious sites could be easy targets for violent attacks, citing recent incidents of shooters targeting congregations.

Rep. Jeff McNeely, an Iredell County Republican and the bill’s primary sponsor, said the proposal would fix a loophole preventing some churchgoers from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

“They should be able to protect their selves like all other parishioners do at other churches who do not have schools on their grounds,” he said.

Under the bill, guns would not be permitted on campus during school hours or when students are present for extracurricular activities. Houses of worship could opt out by posting signs banning guns from the property.

Democratic opponents of the measure said gun owners might not understand those restrictions or could accidentally leave their weapons on campus.

“What I don’t want to see happen is a lawful gun owner leaving their gun in the classroom on a Sunday after church and that gun being found by a student on a Monday,” Rep. Terry Brown Jr., a Mecklenburg County Democrat, said during floor debate.

Another previously vetoed House bill that could receive a floor vote this week would eliminate a longstanding requirement that handgun buyers first obtain a permit from their county sheriff.

Also Wednesday, a House judiciary committee advanced a bipartisan proposal that would launch a two-year education campaign on safe firearms storage and also distribute free gun locks. It now heads to the Rules Committee.

In the Senate, three identical companion bills were combined Tuesday into a single piece of legislation that is expected to reach the floor this week. It is unclear whether the Senate will take up the stand-alone bill passed by the House or move forward with its combined proposal.

 

BLUF
Until gun-control activists and Democrat politicians are willing to get tough on violent criminals that use firearms I’ll be waiting, along with millions of law-abiding Americans, for that conversation that Representative Slotkin promises.  And I’ll be praying this nightmare will stop.

Right on script, gun control activists use Michigan State University attack to further their agenda

An almost unthinkable tragedy unfolded on the campus of Michigan State University last night. Shots rang out on campus as a 43-year old man (Bearing Arms is not naming the alleged perpetrator), believed to have no affiliation with the university, walked onto campus and as of the publishing of this article, killed 3 students and wounded 5. We make no apology for our prayers for these victims and their families. For them, a nightmare has just begun. As they awaken from that nightmare, they will want to know what happened and why.

The investigation is underway, the killer left a note near his lifeless body, a victim of his own cowardice, he took his life moments after the massacre.

 

As if an off-camera director of this nightmare yelled “action!”, gun control activists and Democrat politicians have already come out for calls to stop these campus attacks. Last night, before much was known about the attack, the assailant or the victims, perennial grifter Shannon Watts was already doing a fundraising dance on the memories of the victims. Her tweet tirade included this call for more gun control and an appeal to text her organization to join with them and joining them means acquiescing to their never-ending fundraising pleas.

Democratic Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin was justifiably angry. In a press conference with members of law enforcement and Michigan Governor Whitmer she said, “I am filled with rage.” She continued, “you either care about protecting kids, or you don’t…Please don’t tell me you care about the safety of children if you are not willing to have a conversation about keeping them safe in a place that should be a sanctuary.”

Unfortunately, it’s Democrats who refuse to engage in conversation, preferring it would seem to pass unconstitutional gun control measures, in defiance of recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, and despite mounting evidence that the gun control measures they back, would have little to no impact on these attacks or in reducing overall gun violence. Why won’t they have an impact? Because they target law-abiding Americans, not the criminals responsible for most gun crimes.

Continue reading “”

Why all of a sudden this comes out now? The demoncrap PTB are stabbing SloJoe in the back to so he can be forced to not run for re-election. so Goobernor Newsome can.

Jim Biden admitted he was hired to negotiate with Saudis over a secret $140 million deal ‘because of his position and relationship’ to his VP brother Joe — who would be ‘instrumental to the deal,’ bombshell affidavit claims.

President Biden’s brother was hired to engage in secret negotiations with the Saudi government on behalf of a US construction company because of his relationship with the then vice president, legal documents claim.

Jim Biden was selected because Saudi Arabia ‘would not dare stiff the brother of the Vice-President who would be instrumental to the deal,’  bombshell affidavits obtained by DailyMail.com allege.

Joe’s younger brother Jim, 73, was at the center of a $140 million settlement negotiation between Hill International and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 2012.

According to the documents, Jim told a former senior US Treasury official working as a private investigator that he was hired to negotiate with the Saudis ‘because of his position and relationship’ to VP Joe Biden – who led delegations to Saudi Arabia at the time.

Continue reading “”

Will Oklahoma lawmakers increase firearm access? More than 100 bills are seeking just that

One bill would allow guns in parked cars on school property. Another wants to expand access to a firearm while on a boat. And one proposal would increase the area in which a person can reasonably discharge their gun in self-defense.

Four years after Oklahoma’s Republican Legislature approved “permitless carry,” removing any training or licensing requirements to handle a firearm, lawmakers have filed more than 100 bills to expand gun access even further.

With a history of being the first to pass some pro-firearm laws, including the nation’s first ban on “red flag” laws in 2020, Oklahoma’s Legislature often provides a glimpse of what gun-related policies will be a focus for gun rights groups across the nation.

“We try to be ahead of the curve in Oklahoma,” said Don Spencer, leader of the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association, a local organization that aggressively pushes for pro-gun laws.

“Right now, the big focus is on pushing back on federal government overreach or getting ahead of it, which I think you will see a lot more of.”

House Bill 1002 would allow county sheriffs to arrest federal employees who enforce laws that are “counter” to the Second Amendment, while House Bill 2643 would make Oklahoma-made firearms exempt from federal gun laws.

Those bills have not yet been scheduled for a committee hearing, but they would likely face legal challenges if passed into law.

The politics of pushing back on federal firearm restrictions are already in play in some parts of the state, including in Oklahoma and Logan counties where sheriffs recently said they would not enforce U.S. Department of Justice rulings against some gun accessories.

Continue reading “”

Virginia: House Subcommittee Voted Down Senate Anti-Gun Bills

Last week, the House Judiciary Subcommittee killed the remaining anti-Second Amendment bills. Despite efforts from the anti-gun majority in the Senate to restrict your rights, no gun control bills have advanced. The following bills were voted down by the Subcommittee:

Senate Bill 918 bans selling or carrying many firearms and magazines that law-abiding citizens commonly own for legitimate purposes, such as self-defense, competition, and recreation, with no exemption for carry permit holders.

Senate Bill 1139 requires anyone with firearms in the same residence as a minor under 18 years of age, to store them unloaded in locked containers, and store ammunition in separate locked containers. Loaded firearms may only be stored in “biometric storage device[s].” There is an exemption for firearms carried on or about the person.

Senate Bill 1181 essentially ends the centuries-old practice of manufacturing firearms for personal use by restricting certain unregulated components commonly used by hobbyists to make their own firearms, far beyond what federal law requires.

Senate Bill 1382 bans many commonly-owned firearms and magazines. Owners of banned firearms and magazines that are at least 21 years of age may continue to keep them, but they cannot sell them. Also, SB 1382 discriminates against young adults aged 18-20 by prohibiting them from purchasing many types of commonly-owned firearms.

BLUF:
Congress is not likely to ban anything, leaving Biden and his anti-gun allies frustrated, while gun rights organizations, including SAF and CCRKBA continue using the Bruen doctrine to push back against restrictive gun control laws, which history may ultimately show should never have been passed in the first place.

CBS Report Details ‘Bruen’ Impact on Restrictive Gun Control Schemes

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- A lengthy CBS News report on the impact of last summer’s Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen indicates lingering angst among gun control proponents now faced with the daunting challenge of justifying restrictive gun laws when they may not be “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

In the first paragraph, CBS acknowledges, “the new legal test laid out by Justice Clarence Thomas in his majority opinion has reshaped the legal landscape for firearms laws and led to uncertainty over whether measures that aim to curb gun violence can survive legal scrutiny.”

  • SAF filed a federal lawsuit challenging the recently-signed Illinois gun ban legislation, alleging it to be unconstitutional and asserting the state has criminalized “a common and important means of self-defense.” The case is known as Harrel v. Raoul.
  • SAF filed an amended complaint in its challenge of New Jersey’s revised gun permit law, adding one plaintiff and expanding its scope on so-called “sensitive places.” The case is now known as Koons v. Platkin. The case was previously known as Koons v. Reynolds. SAF was already granted a temporary restraining order by U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bumb in Camden in that case.
  • SAF and its partners in a federal case challenging the federal prohibition on handgun sales to young adults ages 18-20 filed a reply brief supporting their motion for summary judgment in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. SAF is joined in this case by the West Virginia Citizens Defense League and two private citizens Benjamin Weekley and Steven Brown. The case is known as Brown v. ATF.

Continue reading “”

New Mexico House narrowly passes firearm storage bill

SANTA FE — Bennie Hargrove’s twin sisters started middle school afraid to get out of the car.

Their older brother, then 13, was shot and killed 1 1/2 years ago by a Washington Middle School classmate, police say, who’d taken a handgun from home.

The family’s story was among those shared Thursday as New Mexico lawmakers passed a bill that would make it a crime, in some circumstances, to store a firearm in a way that allows a child to get it.

The House endorsed the legislation on a 37-32 vote, sending it to the Senate. Some Democrats crossed party lines to join Republicans against the bill.

“This bill is about keeping children safe,” Rep. Pamelya Herndon, D-Albuquerque, said, alluding to Bennie’s death. “We had two minors. One had access to a gun and one is dead.”

The measure triggered a combative three-hour debate in the House as Republican legislators contended the bill inappropriately targeted law-abiding gun owners. They also expressed frustration as Herndon wouldn’t offer a “yes” or “no” answer to some questions.

Rep. Stefani Lord, R-Sandia Park, said the language in the bill was too vague to give gun owners an understanding of what conduct would be illegal. She added that it could endanger someone who needs quick access to a firearm for protection.

“It’s not fair to the survivors of domestic violence who fear for their life,” Lord said.

Rep. Bill Rehm, an Albuquerque Republican and retired law enforcement officer, said the bill is particularly problematic for police officers. He said he “didn’t put up my gun” after coming home from work but that his children knew never to touch it.

“For us to legislate how the rest of the responsible citizens of the city must act because of an irresponsible person is not good policy,” Rehm said.

The proposal, House Bill 9, would make it a crime to store a firearm in a way that negligently disregards the ability of a minor to access it.

Criminal charges could be brought only if the minor later brandishes or displays the firearm in a threatening way or uses it to kill or injure someone.

It includes some exceptions to intended to protect good-faith efforts to safely store a firearm.

Adult gun owners, for example, couldn’t be charged if they’d stored the firearm in a secure container or other place a reasonable person would believe is secure; the firearm was locked and inoperable; the minor broke into the home; or the gun was used in self-defense.

Continue reading “”

MARYLAND LAWMAKERS WANT SCI-FI TECHNOLOGY TO TRACK YOUR GUNS IN REAL TIME


By Larry Keane

Someone needs to figure out what in the wide world of dystopian Buck Rogers in the 25th Century sci-fi fantasy world is going on in Maryland’s legislature. Antigun lawmakers there are advancing legislation that would require firearm manufacturers to attach RFID trackers to each and every firearm so government officials could track their whereabouts at all times.

Not only is this a clear invasion of privacy rights and Constitutional protections against illegal search-and-seizure, this is an idea that’s not even technologically possible. This is the stuff of Hollywood – and antigun politicians that don’t understand the first thing about firearms or manufacturing processes.

Maryland’s Delegate Pam Queen introduced HB 704, a bill titled, “Firearms – Tracking Technology.” The bill’s description reads:

Prohibiting a person from engaging in a certain bulk firearm transfer unless each firearm that is part of the transfer contains a certain embedded tracker; requiring a seller or other transferor who engages in a bulk firearm transfer to transmit to the Secretary of State Police certain information; providing that a violation of the Act is a civil offense and subject to a fine of up to $2500; and requiring the Secretary to establish a certain database to store information about each bulk firearm transfer in the State.

The “embedded tracker” would be required to be fixed to the firearm frame or receiver, emit unique tracking information and not be readily capable of being removed, disabled or destroyed without rendering the firearm inoperable or destroying the frame or receiver. To be clear, Delegate Queen would require that embedded tracker to emit this unique information to Maryland’s State Police for permanent storage in a state-run database. Anyone not complying with this is subject to $2,500 in fines.

Big Brother Would Watch

What this bill does would be nothing short of state authorities peering into an individual’s gun safe. The state would also know when and where a firearm would be moved – whether that’s for hunting, a day at the range target shooting or when and where an individual is legally carrying a firearm for licensed concealed carry. This bill would require firearm manufacturers to create and include these trackers on firearms. Those exercising their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms would be required to forfeit their Fourth Amendment Constitutional right to privacy and their right protecting them from illegal search-and-seizure, since the state would automatically collect and store this information in real time. This legislation would also call into question Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment protections of Due Process, since it requires the government to collect information on Americans simply exercising their Second Amendment rights. And this legislation would have a chilling effect on the exercise of Second Amendment rights as Marylanders would be less likely to lawfully purchase a firearm to avoid the invasion of privacy.

That’s not even taking into consideration the technological hurdles that would be required to meet this requirement. Makers of so-called smart guns,” or authorized-user technology that is supposed to allow owners to fire guns through the use of RFID emitters, fingerprint recognition or passcodes or other technology, haven’t been able to produce a safe and reliable model. The Obama administration made this a priority and the Department of Justice (DOJ) couldn’t identify a working prototype that was capable of testing.

Impossible Technology

Continue reading “”

WHAT YOU DIDN’T HEAR IN THE STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH ABOUT CRATERING GUN CONTROL SUPPORT

Those tuning in to watch President Biden’s State of the Union address saw and heard a few things when he entered the U.S. House of Representatives to address Congress and the nation. There is a new Speaker of the House – Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). He was seated next to Vice President Kamala Harris, a visual reminder of the divided government. Military generals and U.S. Supreme Court justices were in attendance, along with Members of Congress and senators.

President Biden banged the usual drum demanding to renew the Assault Weapons Ban. That’s the law he along with U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) ushered in in 1994 and President Bill Clinton signed into law that banned the sale of Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs). That ban expired in 2004 and the semiautomatic rifle has since become the most-popular selling centerfire rifle in America – with over 24.4 million in circulation today.

President Biden scolded Congress for not sending him legislation to renew this unconstitutional ban on these commonly-owned commonly-used rifles. Never mind that the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in the HellerMcDonald and Bruen decisions that any such ban is unconstitutional.

What President Biden didn’t tell the American public – and won’t – is what the rest of America is saying about any proposed ban. Over half the country doesn’t want it, according to a recent poll by ABC News/Washington Post.

Continue reading “”

Democrat Conniptions Continue in Wake of SCOTUS Second Amendment Decision

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary I keep by my desk defines “conniption” as “a fit of rage or hysterics.” To illustrate more clearly what a “conniption” means in modern parlance, a picture of Gavin Newsom, the Democrat Governor of California, should accompany the definition. It is he and his anti-Second Amendment colleagues in other deep blue states who are having recurring conniptions over the June 2022 Supreme Court decision commonly known as Bruen.

That decision, which arose factually in New York but applies to the entire country, declared that the Second Amendment means what it says, and that it is to be interpreted according to the historical context in which it was written and ratified in the late 18th Century.

What exactly is it that sends these public officials, who regularly profess devotion to other civil liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, up the wall?

At its core, it’s all about control.

Under the century-old New York “Sullivan Act” law that the six-member Bruen majority struck down last June, local officials had enjoyed virtually absolute control to decide which citizens were deemed worthy to be permitted to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense. That power was deemed “arbitrary” by the High Court’s majority and therefore fatally defective as a limitation on an individual’s fundamental right to “keep and bear arms” expressly guaranteed by the Second Amendment against being thus “infringed.”

For decades California, New Jersey, Hawaii, and a handful of other firearms-averse states had permitted officials to exercise similar control over citizens within their jurisdiction.

Bruen swept away such noxious power and established – finally – what should have been obvious to public officials all along; namely, that playing word games, such as forcing a citizen to show “proper cause” and a “special need” before being allowed to exercise a fundamental right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, is not what our Founders intended and is not consistent with any reasoned and historically premised interpretation of the Second Amendment.

In clear defiance of the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, New York’s legislature quickly passed, and Governor Kathy Hochul signed legislation that did precisely what the Supreme Court just days before had ruled unconstitutional. This left virtually every New Yorker desiring to be able to carry a firearm for self-defense still unable to do so.

AR-15 ban, waiting period advance at New Mexico Capitol

SANTA FE — A proposal to ban AR-15-style rifles in New Mexico began moving through the Roundhouse on Tuesday as Democratic legislators pursue aggressive new gun-control measures intended to address mass shootings and other crime.

On a series of party-line votes, members of a House committee advanced legislation to establish a two-week waiting period for firearm purchases and prohibit the sale and possession of certain semiautomatic rifles and handguns.

The ban would go into effect in March 2024, with some exemptions for people who already have the prohibited firearms.

Republican lawmakers and other opponents who crammed into a packed committee room to testify on the proposals said the restrictions would interfere with the rights of law-abiding citizens and do nothing to deter crime.

Supporters showed up in force, too, and a crowd filled the hallway as people waited for a seat.

Continue reading “”

GOP Senators Offer ‘SHORT’ Act to Stop Gun Owner ‘Harassment’

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Seventeen U.S. Senators recently introduced legislation aimed at removing the guts of the National Firearms Act—taxation, registration and regulatory requirements—and they are calling it the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act.

Sponsored by Sens. Roger Marshall (KS) John Kennedy (LA), John Barrasso (WY), John Boozman (AR), Ted Budd (NC), Mike Crapo (ID), Ted Cruz (TX), Steve Daines (MT), Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS), Mike Lee (UT), Cynthia Lummis (WY), Markwayne Mullin (OK), Rand Paul (KY), Mike Risch (ID), Mike Rounds (SD), Rick Scott (FL), John Thune (SD), and Tommy Tuberville (AL), the six-page measure may have a short life span—it probably will not get out of the Senate with Democrats in control—but it might raise a few eyebrows and some important political issues.

In a report from KIDO Radio in Boise, Crapo and Risch both took nasty swipes at the Biden administration.

“This Administration’s vendetta against lawful gun ownership is a gross violation of Constitutional rights. A federal gun registry has no place in America, yet this Administration is forcing millions of law-abiding Americans to either register these commonly owned firearms or become felons,” Risch said.

“As the Biden Administration continues to seek creative methods of advancing their anti-gun agenda, Congress must be resolute and oppose all efforts to undermine Second Amendment rights,” Crapo added. “Burdening law-abiding Americans with additional firearm restrictions is not the answer to safeguarding the public.”

Continue reading “”

Yeah, that’d really cramp the style of the Holiday.

New Mexico: Radical Gun Restrictions on Deck in Committee Next Week: Magazine Limits, Waiting Periods, Semi-Auto, Suppressor & NFA Bans

On Monday, February 6, the New Mexico Senate Health & Public Affairs Committee will hold a public hearing on Senate Bill 171 by Sen. Bill Soules (D-Las Cruces), legislation that attempts to supersede federal law and make it a FELONY to manufacture, sell, transfer, or acquire a firearm sound suppressor and other National Firearms Act items, as well as certain semi-automatic pistols. Please contact members of the Senate Health & Public Affairs Committee and urge them to OPPOSE SB 171. Also, make plans to attend this hearing in-person, on Monday, at 1:30pm, in Room 311 of the State Capitol in Santa Fe, and testify against this misguided proposal. You may also participate in this hearing via Zoom or phone, but the best way to make sure your voice is heard (as the committee almost always decides to limit testimony) is to be present in the hearing room!

ZOOM WEBINAR: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/9124526531
or via telephone at 1 253 215 8782 Meeting ID: 912 452 653

On Tuesday, February 7, the New Mexico House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee will hold public hearings on three extreme gun control proposals:

House Bill 50 by Rep. Patricia Roybal Caballero (D-ABQ) makes it a FELONY to transfer or possess any standard capacity magazine capable of holding 10 or more rounds of ammunition. The 9-round limit would be the lowest in the nation and would effectively ban the use of some of the most popular pistols and rifles purchased and owned by law-abiding New Mexicans.

House Bill 100 by Rep. Andrea Romero (D-Santa Fe) expands New Mexico’s so-called “universal background check” law to include a mandatory 14-day waiting period on all firearm purchases. This criminal protection bill would delay your ability to exercise your Second Amendment right to defend yourself, your family and your property.

House Bill 101 by Rep. Andrea Romero (D-Santa Fe) bans the manufacture, possession, purchase, sale or transfer of countless commonly-owned semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns dubbed “assault weapons” under the act and standard capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Current owners would be required to move them out of state, sell them to a federal firearm licensed dealer or surrender them to a law enforcement agency prior to July 1, 2023 – or face FELONY charges.

Please contact members of the House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee and urge them to OPPOSE HB 50, HB 100 & HB 101. Also, make plans to attend this hearing in-person, on Tuesday, at 1:30pm, in Room 317 of the State Capitol in Santa Fe, and testify against this misguided proposal. You may also participate in this hearing via Zoom or phone, but the best way to make sure your voice is heard (as the committee almost always decides to limit testimony) is to be present in the hearing room!

Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89037370054 
Or One tap mobile: US: +13462487799,,89037370054# or +16694449171,,89037370054# 
Webinar ID: 890 3737 0054 

Move to restrict minors with guns gains traction in Missouri House

The legislation is House Bill 301.

JEFFERSON CITY — The gun-friendly Missouri House appears to be settling on one new firearm limit: restricting minors from possessing guns in public without adult supervision.

The limit was included in wide-ranging crime legislation by Rep. Lane Roberts, R-Joplin, following a recommendation by a bipartisan working group appointed by House Speaker Dean Plocher, R-Des Peres.

“Our state is pretty fanatical in our defense of the Second Amendment, and I certainly don’t want to diminish that, but this kind of conduct is not what the Second Amendment was meant to protect,” Roberts told the House Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee on Thursday.

The working group, made up of three Republicans and three Democrats, unanimously recommended legislation to prevent minors from carrying guns in public, along with several other measures aimed at public safety.

Democrats on the panel included Reps. Marlon Anderson and Donna Baringer of St. Louis, and Robert Sauls of Independence. Republicans included Roberts, as well as Reps. Ron Copeland of Salem and John Black of Marshfield.

A recommendation allowing for a special prosecutor for high-crime areas such as St. Louis has generated the most attention.

But minors in possession of firearms became an issue following the state’s passage of “constitutional carry” legislation in 2016.

Continue reading “”