Category: Politics

GOP Lawmakers Introduce Bills to Make North Carolina 30th Constitutional Carry State

Republican lawmakers have introduced legislation to make North Carolina the 30th constitutional carry state in the union.

The Daily Tar Heel reported that both bills–HB 5 and SB 50–“would allow U.S. citizens with no felonies and no mental illness-related charges, over the age of 18, to conceal carry a weapon.”

The House bill also contains language that would “allow elected officials to conceal carry weapons in legislative buildings and offices in Raleigh.”

It is interesting to note that at least one NC state Senator who opposed constitutional carry during the 2023-24 session is a sponsor on the carry legislation now.

South Carolina became the 29th constitutional carry state on March 7, 2024, just two days after Gov. Jeff Landry (R-LA) signed legislation making Louisiana the 28th constitutional carry state.

Democrats Learn the Hard Way That David Hogg Is a Shameless Grifter

It’s been less than two weeks since conservatives cheered when the Democratic National Committee was dumb enough to elect David Hogg as the token white male vice chair. Well, we got the first laugh, and it looks like we’re going to get the last laugh because Hogg is already causing headaches for the Democratic National Committee, with insiders accusing him of exploiting his new role for personal gain.

Just two weeks into his tenure as a DNC vice chair, Hogg has been using the party’s contact lists to send out donation requests for his own political action committee, Leaders We Deserve PAC, which pays him over $100,000 a year, according to Federal Election Commission records.

“David Hogg — talk about living up to your name. A trough of DNC dollars all for him and he doesn’t seem to give an oink,” a top Democrat told The New York Post.

Many of us predicted disaster for the Democrats for electing Hogg, but who knew he was basically running to grift for his organization?

But alas, that’s just what he’s done.

“David Hogg here: I was just elected DNC Vice Chair! This is a huge win for our movement to make the Democratic Party more reflective of our base: youthful, energetic, and ready to win,” reads one of at least eight texts he blasted out to the DNC’s vast database of phone numbers.

Hogg co-founded “Leaders We Deserve” in August 2023 with the stated goal of electing young progressives to Congress and state legislatures across the country. It also provided him a six-figure income job right out of college.

Since the PAC was founded, Hogg has pocketed more than $175,000, records show, with more than $20,000 in salary payments coming in December alone, the most recent month for which public data is available.

While it’s not officially against the rules, personal PAC fundraising — instead of fundraising for the DNC — has rubbed some party brass the wrong way.

“It’s especially important for all Democratic national officials to focus on raising support for the party and not using their position to raise money for themselves or their personal political PACS,” groused a second senior Democratic Party official. “It’s a stunning lack of judgment that is concerning to many people.”

The 24-year-old came to public prominence as a survivor of the February 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, which left 17 people dead.

Hogg’s appointment to the party’s vice chair job at just 24 makes him arguably the most powerful Zoomer in the United States, but at least some members of the party were alarmed by his lack of experience and a long history of social media posts supporting far-left positions like defund the police and abolishing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

“I mean it’s just very frustrating to be in a party in desperate need of increased accountability for our struggling leadership, and watch someone who is never held accountable ascend to leadership,” Cameron Kasky, a fellow Stoneman Douglas survivor, told the New York Post.

How stupid do Democrats feel now?

Missouri GOP bills aim to loosen more gun laws.

Prosecutors say they would ‘make murder legal’

One of the measures, Senate Bill 74, would bar cities and counties from imposing their own open carry firearm restrictions. Another includes a provision that someone who kills another person with a gun in self-defense would be presumed to be acting reasonably, removing the burden of proof.

A Missouri Senate committee is considering two bills that would repeal limitations on the carry and use of firearms.

Senate Bill 74, sponsored by Stone County Republican Sen. Brad Hudson, would bar cities and counties from imposing their own open carry restrictions.

If passed, the bill would be in conflict with local laws in municipalities including St. Louis. The St. Louis Board of Aldermen voted to prohibit people without concealed carry permits from openly carrying firearms in 2023. [By the way, that restriction is the ONLY one that state law allows]

Mary Gross, a volunteer for Moms Demand Action, was among those who testified in opposition to the bill at a hearing Monday. Gross said that the bill would interfere with local autonomy, and that cities such as St. Louis face different challenges and should be able to make their own rules.

“Consider the county where the bill sponsor lives, Stone County, has a population density of 70 people per square mile,” Gross said. “St. Louis city has a population density of 5,000 people per square mile.”

The other measure, Senate Bill 147, contains a wide array of changes, including making someone who uses a gun in self-defense immune to prosecution or civil action.
Continue reading “”

Bill In Congress Would Outlaw Gun Taxes, Insurance Requirements.

We’ve chronicled over the past few years how anti-gun politicians in some liberal states have attempted—sometimes successfully—to bolster their state budget on the backs of lawful gun and ammunition purchasers. In fact, California now levies an 11% excise tax on guns and ammunition, and  Colorado residents must pay an extra 6.5% tax on guns, ammo and accessories.

Other states and municipalities have attempted to pass legislation requiring gun owners to purchase expensive liability insurance policies for firearms they own. In fact, in 2022, San Jose, California, passed a statute forcing gun owners to pay an annual fee and purchase liability insurance to cover damages from accidental or negligent use of their firearms.

Now, a Texas Congressman is attempting to put an end to the trend of punishing gun owners for exercising a constitutional right. On February 4, U.S. Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, introduced the “No User Fee For Gun Owners Act,” which would prohibit any state or local government from requiring insurance, taxes, user fees or similar burdensome charges as a condition for the continued ownership of firearms, pistols or revolvers.

Continue reading “”

Gun Rights Activists Need to Use All of the Tools of Federalism at Their Disposal.

At first glance, gun owners have every reason to be optimistic about their prospects of passing pro-gun reforms at the federal level with a Republican trifecta in Washington, DC. President Donald Trump, in particular, won the popular vote and the electoral college—the latter in a decisive manner— with a clear mandate to govern.

Trump did not shy away from the gun issue on the campaign trail, and contrary to what the fearmongers in Gun Control, Inc. say, running on an unapologetic pro-Second Amendment platform is not an electoral loser.

That said, cautious optimism must always be exercised. Republicans, especially those in the thrall of the establishment gun lobbies, are notorious for letting gun owners down and selling out to the DC swamp. This requires activists to watch their representatives like hawks and hold them accountable.

Beyond federal activism, gun rights activists must be ready to broaden their political horizons. The federal level may not always yield the results they desire. As a result, gun owners will have to fight Gun Control, Inc. through creative means.

Continue reading “”

Missouri Democrats Cry Foul as Governor Addresses Crime Without Gun Control

Given the pro-2A majorities in Missouri’s House and Senate, there’s virtually no chance that the scant number of Democrats elected to the legislature are going to be able to pass their extensive gun control agenda. The big question this year is what, if any, bills strengthening the right to keep and bear arms will make it to Gov. Mike Kehoe’s desk.

Still, that’s not stopping some Kansas City and St. Louis-area lawmakers from complaining about Kehoe’s plan to address violent crime and its lack of anti-gun initiatives.

Continue reading “”

Missouri Republican Launches Second Attempt at Second Amendment Preservation Act

The first version of Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act remains on hold thanks to a court challenge launched by Merrick Garland and the Biden administration, but a Show Me State Republican is hoping that a revised SAPA bill will soon take its place.

The original Second Amendment Preservation Act took effect in 2021, and in addition to prohibiting state and local law enforcement from cooperating with the feds on enforcing federal gun control statutes, essentially nullified those federal gun laws across Missouri.

After DOJ filed suit, a U.S. District Court judge struck down the statute, arguing that it was unconstitutional ‘interposit[ion]’ on the federal goverment by essentially trying to nullify federal law in Missouri. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes’s decision last August, holding that SAPA violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“Because the (Second Amendment Preservation) Act purports to invalidate federal law in violation of the Supremacy Clause, we affirm the (district court’s) judgment,” Chief Judge Steven Colloton, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in the unanimous opinion.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed the lawsuit challenging the law arguing it has undermined federal drug and weapons investigations. Late last year, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request by Attorney General Andrew Bailey to allow Missouri to enforce the Second Amendment Preservation Act while its appeal is ongoing.

Bailey has since appealed the Eighth Circuit decision to the Supreme Court, and a response from Donald Trump’s DOJ is due in about a month. There’s a good chance that the DOJ won’t continue litigating against SAPA, but in the meantime state Sen. Rick Brattin has introduced a revised SAPA bill that he believes can withstand a court challenge.

Brattin told the Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee at Monday’s hearing on the bill that the new version is a “reshuffling” of the bill to put it in accordance with the parameters of the Eighth Court’s ruling. The new version presents updated language in the bill’s statement of purpose and removes explicit references to federal agencies, centering the bill instead on state and local offices.

“This isn’t coming and reinventing the wheel,” Brattin said. “This is just clarifying and making it in line with what the Eighth Courts have done.”
Aaron Dorr, a member of the Missouri Firearms Coalition and staunch advocate of the original law, emphasized that the bill was still necessary under the Trump administration regardless of its pro-gun platform.

Dorr also emphasized that the new version had been updated to reflect the concerns of police.
Lewis County Sheriff David Parrish rebutted Dorr’s claim: “This type of legislation will create major obstacles for our officers and deputies throughout the state.”

Columbia resident Kristin Bowen testified in opposition backed by the Missouri chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.
She cited Missouri’s ranking as one of the states with the highest rate of firearm-related deaths. She also referenced the growing rate of suicide via firearm and gun-related homicides in the state.

“It’s a priority for me,” said Sen. Travis Fitzwater, a Republican from Holts Summit and chairman of The Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety. “This committee will probably take action on (the bill) quickly.”

If Brattin’s bill attempts to nullify federal law, then it’s going to run into the same constitutional issues as the original Second Amendment Preservation Act. If, on the other hand, the bill merely prohibits local and state law enforcement agencies from enforcing federal gun laws it’s going to be on firmer constitutional grounds.

Even if that is the case, expect a lot of resistance to SAPA from law enforcement and officials in Missouri’s largest cities, who argue that the law would hinder interagency task forces and exacerbate violent crime.

So long as the bill passes constitutional muster I don’t have an issue with it, though I do think there are bigger priorities for Missouri lawmakers when it comes to our Second Amendment rights, like repealing the state’s ban on lawful carry on public transportation. That, to me anyway, would have a more immediate and positive impact on gun owners than a revised SAPA statute.

I’ve read other pundits making the same point. The demoncrap zeal to try to bury Trump backfired. If he would have been left alone and won a 2nd term (which the standard is that they’re usually not much more than nothingburgers), he would be gone now – with who knows who would be in office. Now, it’s his 2nd ‘first term’ and he’s really “rarin’ to go”.
And please excuse some language.

The Left Gave Us Trump 2.0: And they’re not going to like it one bit.

My New York Post column, which should be online tomorrow, opens with this quote from Marc Andreessen:

I go on from there to talk about how Trump is following my earlier advice to “move fast and break things” in spades, and how that’s affecting all sorts of stuff, including general attitudes.

Well, if you follow me here, you probably don’t need to be told how fast Trump is moving. But I have a few other thoughts here that didn’t fit the column. The main point is that the Democrats’ over-the-top rule-breaking, norm-busting attacks on Trump have backfired bigly. I like to use the Tolkien quote, “oft evil will shall evil mar,” and that happened here for sure.

A second consecutive Trump term would have been better, from my perspective, than Biden’s sham administration, obviously. But it certainly would have been better for the Democrats than this second non-consecutive term. Trump spent the past four years not only planning his comeback, but planning what he would do after his comeback.

In his first term he was too busy running to plan, and he was naïve about how Washington and the federal government – and the Republican Party – actually work. Not so much anymore. I’ve seen people – to continue the Tolkien reference – compare him to Gandalf the White coming back after battling the Balrog, and that’s not a bad analogy.

Then there’s this one, which pretty much sums up what I’m saying here. Like Sulla, he’s been taking names, and he has a list.

And there’s this:

It really is. Trump could get carried away with this stuff at some point, but at present he seems to be settling all family business in a very measured way. Where the opening months of the first Trump Administration were confused – Omarosa in the White House? – this time around he’s realized that personnel is policy, and he’s clearly done a lot of thinking about who his personnel will be. And it’s no coincidence that he’s put a lot of people who were victims of various government agencies in charge of those same agencies. Not much danger of them going native, I think.

A second consecutive Trump term would have delayed the advance of the left/Democrat agenda, and pushed it back in some minor ways, but would probably have ultimately been no more than a bump in the road for that agenda. This Trump term will likely burn it down.

It helps, of course, that most of that agenda was always heavily unpopular. Open borders poll badly with almost every constituency except elites. Likewise affirmative action. Likewise the entire Trans agenda, etc., etc. These things were kept in place basically through bullying: Calling anyone who opposed them a racist and using the power of the media, and leftist institutions, to punish them.

But they squandered that power going after Trump, blowing the media’s credibility and wrecking the moral and intellectual authority of institutions like universities and corporations. (Covid policy, which was a part of the anti-Trump campaign, made that much worse). It wasn’t enough to keep him out this time, and it’s nowhere near enough to effectively oppose him now. And they also gave him a motive to be ruthless in going after both their agenda and their institutions.

Oft evil will shall evil mar. It’s funny how that works. I’ve been depressed about the state of things in the past, but miracles keep happening, as this guy notes:

It seems that God really does watch over fools, drunkards, and the United States of America. Thank God.

But, you know, the Lord also helps those who help themselves. There’ll be plenty of work for all of us in the coming years. Be grateful to be in a position to make a difference, and do it.

Trump Skips Guns in Flurry of Day One Executive Orders

Gun policy did not factor into the new President’s immediate priorities.

Shortly after President Donald Trump officially swore in for his second term on Monday, he quickly signed dozens of sweeping executive orders to walk back several Biden-era policies and fulfill multiple prominent campaign promises. His actions included declaring a “national energy emergency,” a bid to end birthright citizenship, withdrawal from the World Health Organization and Paris Climate Agreement, a full pardon for roughly 1,500 January 6th defendants, and more.

Left out of the policy blitz was anything having to do with advancing gun-rights priorities or rescinding the Biden Administration’s gun-control policy achievements. The Trump Administration also left the Second Amendment and gun policy off of its revamped “priorities” page on the White House website.

The omission of any gun policy action comes despite the President pledging speedy reversals of former President Biden’s executive orders to gun-rights supporters on the campaign trail earlier this year.

“Every single Biden attack on gun owners and manufacturers will be terminated my very first week back in office,” Trump told a crowd of NRA members at the group’s Great American Outdoor Show last February.

His decision not to do so on day one places him on the clock to make good on those promises to gun voters the same way he did to immigration hawks and other key MAGA constituencies. If he chooses not to, it could be another sign that guns are low in the pecking order amongst the second Trump Administration’s prerogatives.

For instance, though some of the President’s Day One executive orders were sweeping representations of longstanding Trumpian concerns, others were relative novelties, including directives to rename the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska’s Denali mountain and promote beautiful architecture. 

At the same time, some of the moves Trump pledged to gun-rights advocates were already accomplished by the time he got to the Oval Office on Monday. During a speech at the NRA annual meeting last May, he promised NRA members he would fire Steven Dettelbach, Biden’s chosen director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), on “day one.” Before he could do so, however, Dettelbach preemptively tendered his resignation effective January 18.

Others may be happening without any formal publicity. Shortly after his reelection in November, the National Shooting Sports Foundation called on Trump to dismantle the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, an executive body created by his predecessor to promote gun-control measures. Though he did not issue any public directive on the matter, the office’s website appears to have been taken offline shortly after his inauguration. Although, many other sections of the White House website also appear to be down and it’s unclear what the status of the office is today.

The Trump White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Still, the President appears yet to have taken action to spur some of the more far-reaching instances of rolling back Biden’s gun policies. These more closely-watched options could include orders directing the ATF to rescind agency regulations that banned so-called ghost gun kits, reclassified pistols equipped with stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles, and expanded criteria for who must be federally licensed to sell used guns adopted under the prior administration that have rankled gun-rights advocates and resulted in prolonged courtroom fights. 

While the road to rescinding those rules will likely be long and bumpy, initiating the process could be as simple as a stroke of the President’s pen–in the same way they were first set into motion.

Congressman Ben Cline Reintroduces Hearing Protection Act

Washington, January 15, 2025

Today, Congressman Ben Cline (R-VA) reintroduced the Hearing Protection Act (HPA). This legislation reduces the overly burdensome barriers required to purchase a firearm suppressor to ease access for law-abiding citizens simply trying to obtain the hearing protection they need.

“Americans who enjoy hunting and target shooting should be able to do so safely and legally without facing burdensome government regulations,” said Rep. Cline. “The Hearing Protection Act will reclassify suppressors, making it easier for law-abiding gun owners to protect their hearing while enjoying recreational activities. It’s time to ensure that our Second Amendment rights are upheld, allowing responsible citizens to enjoy their freedoms without unnecessary obstacles.”

Congressman Cline was joined by Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX), Rep. Ron Estes (R-KS), Rep. Riley Moore (R-WV), Rep. Aaron Bean (R-FL), Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-NY), Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX), Rep. Barry Moore (R-AL), Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX), Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT), Rep. GT Thompson (R-PA), Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA), Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC), Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL), Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA), Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), Rep. Michael Bost (R-IL), Rep. Jack Bergman (R-MI), Rep. Brad Finstad (R-MN), Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA), Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO), Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN), Rep. Fulcher (R-ID), Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Rep. John McGuire (R-VA), Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL), Rep. Addison McDowell (R-NC), Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN), Rep. David Kustoff (R-TN), Rep. William Timmons (R-SC), Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), Rep. Jeff Crank (R-CO), Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK), Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR), Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX), and Rep. Celeste Maloy (R-UT) as original cosponsors.

The Hearing Protection Act is supported by the American Suppressor Association (ASA), the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF), and the Academy of Doctors of Audiology (ADA).

“The Hearing Protection Act is the epitome of commonsense legislation. Law-abiding citizens should not have to pay a tax to protect their hearing when they exercise their Second Amendment rights. The American Suppressor Association applauds Rep. Cline for his leadership and willingness to fight for the rights of gunowners across the United States,” said Knox Williams, ASA President and Executive Director. 

“Congressman Cline’s Hearing Protection Act will have the federal government recognize firearm suppressors for what they are. These are accessories to a firearm that make recreational shooting and hunting a safer experience,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel.  “These safety devices reduce the report of a firearm to a level that won’t cause instant and permanent hearing damage. Despite Hollywood’s depictions, they do not mask the sound of a firearm. The focus should be on removing barriers to safe and responsible use of firearms and dedicating resources to ensuring firearms are safeguarded from those who should never possess them. Strict regulatory control of firearm accessories, and the parts of those accessories that have no bearing on the function of a firearm, is unnecessary and not the wisest use of federal resources. NSSF thanks Congressman Cline for his leadership for ensuring safe and responsible use of firearms and dedicating necessary resources where they are most needed.”

“Onerous and unnecessary government regulation shouldn’t prevent America’s hunters and recreational shooters from protecting their hearing while exercising their constitutionally protected freedoms,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of NRA-ILA.  “Suppressors do not silence firearms, but they are proven to reduce the severity of hearing loss. On behalf of our millions of members, NRA thanks Representative Ben Cline for introducing the Hearing Protection Act.”

“The Hearing Protection Act has been a longstanding priority for the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF), and we are excited to see this legislation reintroduced. Suppressors are one of the fastest growing and most popular accessories for sportsmen and women, unfortunately, current law makes acquiring suppressors an overly burdensome process, which would be addressed by this legislation. CSF thanks Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus Member Rep. Ben Cline for introducing this legislation, and we look forward to working with him in the 119th Congress to improve the suppressor purchasing process,” said CSF President and CEO Jeff Crane. 

Read the full text of the bill here.

 

Congressman Ben Cline represents the Sixth Congressional District of Virginia. He previously was an attorney in private practice and served both as an assistant prosecutor and Member of the Virginia House of Delegates. Cline and his wife, Elizabeth, live in Botetourt County with their two children.

President Trump Can Lead in Fight Against State-Level 2nd Amendment Infringements

“Karina’s Bill, Named For Little Village Mom Slain By Husband, Heads To Pritzker’s Desk,” Block Club Chicago reported Thursday. “The proposed legislation would clarify the process for confiscating a person’s gun when they are served an order of protection during instances of domestic violence.” (Note: Signing the bill into law has not happened yet at this writing. It may be a done deal when this is posted.)

“The bill [passed] the House with an 80-33 vote and the Senate in a 43-10 vote,” Chicago’s WGN9 reports.  “Pritzker said Wednesday he intends to sign it, calling it ‘the right idea’ and ‘the right thing to do.’”

Is it? Either?

Per Fox 32 Chicago, chief co-sponsor Rep. Abdelnasser Rashid calls it “a critical step towards protecting survivors of domestic violence and making our communities safer. Together, we will continue to push to end gun violence and ensure that everyone in Illinois can live free from fear in their own home.” And it’s “a pivotal victory,” Lt. Governor Julian Stratton chimes in.

How?

“Karina’s Bill will require firearms to be removed from an alleged abuser when a victim is granted an emergency order of protection,” she assures us.

“Alleged abuser?” So not only hasn’t the person been tried and convicted, but they may also not have even been charged yet? How is that remotely constitutional? Or effective?

Per a 2023 Block Club Chicago article recounting the murders:

“Jose Alvarez [The husband] sought mental health treatment but was put on a wait list… Alvarez owns a Glock 17 9mm-handgun and had a previously valid FOID card, but it was revoked with the order of protection, McCord said. McCord and Alvarez’s attorney said the order of protection was never served to him.”

It appears the state dropped the ball more than once. And ignored the basic truth that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian.

If there were actionable evidence and charges against Alvarez, he could have been afforded full due process, brought to trial, and convicted. But that requires work, and it’s much easier for a government that chafes at such bonds to just issue a blanket diktat that makes mere accusations sufficient “justification” to usurp more powers and ignore more rights.

And besides, you’ll note none of the proponents of such edicts do anything but deny the reality demonstrated by economist and author John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center, that “Murder isn’t a nationwide problem. It’s a problem in a small set of urban areas, and even in those counties, murders are concentrated in small areas inside them.”

How will the most dangerous offenders, the criminal population that does not obey gun laws or apply for FOID cards to identify themselves to the state, be affected by this new “law”? The answer is, they won’t be.

Instead, a net will be cast that will scoop up the innocent along with the guilty and do further injury to freedom. As colleague  Darwin Nercesian, News Field Editor for Firearms News (full disclosure, I am the magazine’s Political Field Editor) reports in his analysis of Karina’s Bill:

“To truly understand the depths of Democrat legislative depravity, let’s first look at the method by which the bill was passed… Just six minutes before the scheduled commencement of the Illinois Executive Committee, the bill was posted, having been stripped completely of its language after the enacting title and replaced with what is called ‘Karina’s Bill.’ The move, executed before the sitting ‘Lame Duck’ session, is called a striking amendment, which differs from a floor amendment proposed in a legislative chamber in that it removes everything after the title and inserts a whole new bill.”

“Karina’s Bill advocates for the use of ex parte hearings to obtain orders of protection, immediately triggering a warrant to confiscate the subject’s firearms and ammunition,” Nercesian notes, explaining “Ex parte… refers to a legal proceeding by which one party communicates directly with a judge without notice to or knowledge of the other party, removing the respondent’s ability to be represented or present their side of a case prior to being stripped of their rights and property.”

The assaults on freedom will “obliterat[e] the Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments,” Nercesian observes, noting the burden of regaining rights is on individuals victimized by the edict, which “holds agencies completely without liability for damage or destruction to property while it is in their custody.”

Recall how Donald Trump has in the past (in contrast to grandiose campaign promises to enthusiastic gun owners) entertained the prospects for all kinds of “gun control” and specifically advocated “Take the guns first, go through due process second.” Recall how his choice for attorney general, Pam Bondi, has, among other citizen disarmament mandates, been “one of Florida’s biggest proponents of red flag laws.” Nercesian therefore asks a key question:

“What are you going to do about it, President Trump?”

Some may wonder what he can do. After all, these are state laws, the president isn’t supposed to be a dictator, and federalism is supposed to limit how much power the national government can exert over the states. And don’t forget the Tenth Amendment, reserving power “to the States respectively, or to the people.”

First, states have agreed the Constitution is “the supreme Law of the Land” and “the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers… of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” They can no more legitimately violate the Second Amendment than they can any other right.

And as I proposed in a November Firearms News column:

“Imagine now the Department of Justice under an actual Second Amendment advocate, and what it could do fighting infringements and prohibitionist lawfare waged by states with unlimited tax war chests in tandem with Astroturf prohibitionist groups funded by antigun elites. Right now, the costs to defend against these innumerable assaults on all levels are borne by gun rights groups and members of mostly modest means who can only support a fraction of what is needed. That equation could be turned on its head.”

And that would include enforcing the Second Amendment against state infringements, exactly as precedent has been established against abridgments of other civil rights.

Or we could listen to NRA instead and “Take Action Now!” by politely asking Illinois Democrats not to vote for the bill.

Too late, they already have. So, the question now becomes “Will President Trump do anything about it?”

We’ll get a better answer after Inauguration Day. And the way to press for that is via the much-touted-during-the-campaign “Gun Owners for Trump.” If that was more than just a discardable PR vehicle, the named leaders would have the president’s ear to advise on bills, lawsuits, regulations, judicial and other federal nominees, and provide a conduit for gun owners to express their concerns.

Because there’s one thing that needs to be understood in no uncertain terms and we shouldn’t have to apologize for: Donald Trump and Republicans owe gun owners, and it’s time to collect.

We can hope this stick 3 years from now, making the 2028 race much more interesting as Newsom was pretty much considered to be a strong probable.

Palisades Fire Incinerates Future Career of Mayor Karen Bass, Gavin Newsom’s Presidential Aspirations.

have been following the progress of the Palisades fire and several others in the Los Angeles area since my initial post last night.

According to Watch Duty, the blaze charring Pacific Palisades now covers over 15,000 acres and is ZERO percent contained…just as the Santa Ana winds are about to begin peaking.

However, other significant wildfires are burning through the region as well. The Eaton Fire in the Altadena/Pasadena area has already destroyed 10,000 acres and claimed five lives. The Hurst Fire around Sylmar has already hit 700 acres. There is also ZERO percent containment for both of these blazes.

Of course, it is hard for understaffed firefighters to suppress wildfires when there is no water to quench them.

 

The lack of firefighting resources is just one of the long-term problems that contributed to the historic destruction of Los Angeles. The magnitude of destruction is so vast that any of our nation’s terrorist enemies would be delighted to claim responsibility for it.

However, the state and local leaders ultimately created all the conditions that resulted in a disaster that will likely outstrip Maui’s total devastation in our collective memories. I will note many of these problems have been discussed at Legal Insurrection whenever we have reviewed wildfires in California previously.

Continue reading “”

If the underlying laws and regulations are not also dealt with, the enforcement of them will simply fall to another bunch of bureaucraps.
Otherwise, it’s just another example of Political Kabuki Theater.

Rep. Lauren Boebert Introduces Bill to Abolish the ATF

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R) has introduced legislation to abolish the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).

The bill is H.R. 129 and it comes at a point when Republicans are just weeks away from holding the House, Senate and White House.

Newsweek noted Boebert’s push to do away with the agency is the latest in line of Republican pushes to see the agency undone.

For example, in November 2024, Rep. Eric Burlison (R) called for the agency to be abolished as well.

On November 25, 2024, Breitbart News reported that Burlison told FOX News the ATF is “a disaster.”

He said, “For several decades they’ve been a disaster agency [which has] been violating the Second Amendment.”

The ATF issued numerous rules during the Biden/Harris administration, one of which criminalized owners of legally purchased AR-pistol stabilizer braces. Another one of the ATF’s rules declared that 80 percent complete firearm frames are firearms and therefore can only be acquired via background checks. Yet another ATF rule circumvented Congress via new regulations against private gun sales.

On January 2, 2024, Breitbart News pointed out that Biden’s ATF director, Steven Dettelbach, tendered his resignation effective January 18, 2025, two days before Trump retakes the White House.

Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms chairman Alan Gottlieb cheered the resignation, saying, “That’s one less person Trump will have to fire after he takes office, and it is one less gun prohibition lobbyist on the government payroll.”

159 Democrats voted to value illegal aliens who commit crimes over you. Let that sink in.

Another BFA-backed bill headed to governor, provides civil immunity for self-defense for nonprofits

Another piece of legislation supported by Buckeye Firearms Association has passed both the Ohio House and Senate and is headed to the governor for his signature.

Senate Bill 32, sponsored by Sen. Tim Schaffer (R-Lancaster), provides civil immunity to a person who acts in self-defense and protects members and/or guests of a nonprofit under certain circumstances.

Once it takes effect, the new law:

  • Specifies that the immunities currently provided for nonprofit corporations for any of the following also apply to a for-profit corporation that leases its property to the nonprofit corporation or permits its property to be used by the nonprofit corporation for any purpose: Injury, death, or loss to person or property allegedly caused by or related to a concealed handgun licensee bringing a handgun onto the premises or to an event of the nonprofit corporation; injury, death, or loss to person or property allegedly caused by or related to a decision to permit a licensee to bring, or prohibit a licensee from bringing, a handgun onto the premises or to an event of the nonprofit corporation.
  • Generally grants civil immunity to a person for certain injuries allegedly caused by the person acting in self-defense or defense of another during the commission, or imminent commission, of an offense of violence to protect the members or guests of a nonprofit corporation under certain circumstances.
  • Specifies that a person who approaches or enters a nonprofit corporation’s premises or event with intent to commit an offense of violence is presumed liable for any injury, death, or loss to person or property resulting from an act of self-defense or defense of another against that person.

Earlier this month, the Ohio Senate voted to send amended Senate Bill 58 to Gov. Mike DeWine’s desk — legislation that would prohibit requiring firearm liability insurance or being required to pay a fee for the possession of a firearm, part of a firearm, its components, its ammunition, or a knife.

Senate Bill 148, which was amended into SB 58, prohibits financial institutions from tracking firearms purchases and to prohibit government entities from maintaining a registry of firearms or firearm owners.

Both SB 58, sponsored by Sens. Terry Johnson (R-McDermott) and Theresa Gavarone (R-Huron), and SB 148, sponsored by Sen. Terry Johnson, fight recent efforts by gun control advocates to make gun ownership more expensive and less private for law-abiding gun owners instead of cracking down on the actual criminal misuse of firearms.

BFA has supported all three bills since the beginning of the legislative session and has testified in both the House and Senate.

Buckeye Firearms Association thanks the House and Senate for passing these important bills and urges Gov. DeWine to sign them into law immediately. It is time to stop trying to punish and infringe the rights of ordinary, law-abiding gun owners for the acts of criminals.

BLUF
Only when we’ve plowed the soil of the Deep State with salt can we talk about a truce. But the damage personal damage we inflict over the next four years, in terms of jail time, bankruptcies, and legal judgments, must so terrify that second tier of Deep Staters that no matter what another batch of Democrat operatives cook up, they will refuse to get involved.

Op-Ed: Lawfare Will End When the Left Is Too Terrified to Contemplate Continuing It

Now that Donald Trump is headed to the White House, he has to make a decision vital to the Republic’s health. Over the last eight years, President Trump and his allies have been the subject of a non-stop stream of lawfare attacks designed to cripple him while he was president and later, after he peacefully turned over the reigns of power to the addled Joe Biden, to imprison him for what could have been the rest of his life.

The campaign to jail him was clearly a conspiracy involving Biden Attorney General Merrick Garland, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and Fulton County, GA, District Attorney Fani Willis. The extent to which the civil cases against him were coordinated with the criminal cases has never, as far as I know, been explored, but it is hard to imagine that it did not exist.

This use of the judicial system to attempt to impoverish and imprison political opponents is foreign to the United States and to its founding principles. The decision that Trump has to make is to either ignore the attacks calculated to ruin his life or should he be faithful to the promise he made at CPAC in March 2023 and seek retribution.

In 2016, I declared I am your voice. Today I add I am your Warrior, I am your Justice, and for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your Retribution.

Andy McCarthy, writing in National Review, makes the case that Trump should end lawfare by ending lawfare.

You don’t have to be an admirer of Bannon or Navarro to see these prosecutions as toxic partisan lawfare. Or to understand how, in the end, this helped Trump with voters

— not because Americans have affection for these men, but because the Democrats’ unabashed exploitation of the government’s law enforcement apparatus for their own political advantage was despotic and frightening.

It’s not the sort of thing that shouldn’t be done to our side; it’s a betrayal of justice that shouldn’t be done, period, full stop.

Other than being wrong, McCarthy argues that the actions of all public officials have the same immunity that the Supreme Court declared applied to President Trump; see BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules on Presidential Immunity.

Continue reading “”