Category: Politics

No Compromise Alliance of GOA Sends A Letter To The Senate

On Friday, a group of Gun Owners of America (GOA) industry partners known as the No Compromise Alliance sent a letter to Congress opposing the proposed so-called “assault weapons” ban (H.R. 1808) and the repeal of Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (H.R. 2814).

The coalition consists of Fort Scott Munitions, Classic Firearms, Rifle Dynamics, Alpha Omega Kydex Holster, T.Rex Arms, Kahr Firearms Group, Wolfpack Armory, Freedom Ordnance MFG, and Foxtrot Mike Products. The letter was sent to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Minority Whip John Thun (R-SD).

The letter urges the Senate to oppose two bills currently expected to pass the U.S. House of Representatives and head to the Senate. The first bill is the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022 (H.R. 1808). The proposed law will ban commonly owned semi-automatic firearms for mostly cosmetic features. The ban targets the popular AR-15, known as the modern American musket, and AK pattern guns that Rifle Dynamics produces. It would also limit magazine size to ten rounds. The bill refers to any magazine that can hold more than ten rounds as “high compacity.” One of the most concerning parts of the anti-gun House bill would ban guns that have a fully automatic version. Since Glock makes the automatic Glock 18, the Glock 17, the most popular handgun in the world, could be banned by the new proposed “assault weapons” ban.

The second bill is the Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act of 2022 (H.R. 2814). That bill would repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This proposed law would allow anyone to sue firearms manufacturers for any reason. Congress passed the PLCAA to protect the firearms industry from litigation from anti-gun groups trying to bankrupt the gun industry.

Continue reading “”

Bloomberg gathers anti-gun mayors to plan post-Bruen moves

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has made it his life’s mission to essentially erode the Second Amendment to the point that it means nothing.

Standing in his way, however, is that whole pesky “constitutionality” thing.

The Bruen decision was undoubtedly a major setback for the former mayor and his anti-gun allies. Now, as NSSF’s Larry Keane notes, it seems they’re getting together to plan their next step in attacking our rights.

Democratic mayors from the largest cities aren’t going to stand idly by and allow the U.S. Supreme Court to reaffirm Americans’ Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) is the gun control kitchen cabinet of billionaire Michael Bloomberg, ever on his quest to deny God-given rights to law-abiding Americans even while he enjoys them. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen, Bloomberg summoned his coterie to New York City.

Reporting for Duty

The cattle call included a who’s-who of gun control mayors. Many have defunded their police departments, restricted gun rights and some have already been rebuffed by courts for misguided local policies.

Baltimore Democratic Mayor Brandon Scott joined the meeting, as did St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones, Little Rock, Ark., Mayor Frank Scott and Buffalo, N.Y.,  Mayor Byron Brown. Kansas City’s Mayor Quinton Lucas attended too – he was just named “Gun Sense Lawmaker of the Year” by Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety for his participation in a scheme by mayors to sue gun manufacturers.

Their focus seems to be to use “public nuisance” lawsuits to try and punish gun manufacturers for the actions of third parties.

Likely emboldened by the Remington lawsuit’s results, we’re going to see a lot more such lawsuits, but what they’re forgetting is that this wasn’t Remington who settled. This was an insurance company with no stake in the Second Amendment.

A lot of gun companies will fight such lawsuits and challenge these efforts right to the Supreme Court.

Do Bloomberg and company like their chances there?

If so, they’re more masochistic than I gave them credit for.

But until the Court smacks them down, they can do a lot of damage to the firearm industry. Pro-gun legislatures may want to look at how they may be able to curtail such actions by the anti-Second Amendment mayors marching to Bloomberg’s tune. Otherwise, the damage could become incalculable over the long term.

See, the purpose of the lawsuits isn’t to get restitution for some wrong. It’s extortion. The Bloomberg Bunch are basically saying, “You do things our way or we sue you into oblivion.”

After all, Michael Bloomberg has deep pockets, no heirs to worry about, so he can throw his billions at little more than just this. That’s something most gun manufacturers can’t afford to deal with.

And that’s the point.

They’re threatening these companies to either comply or die. If I did that to you, it’s basically extortion and I’d be thrown in prison for it, as I should be.

Yet Bloomberg’s efforts are considered perfectly legal.

Which means we need to dig in and fight back. After all, if Bloomberg gets his way in this, there won’t be any guns to buy, which essentially renders the Second Amendment irrelevant.

Are permits to purchase the next anti-gun domino to fall?

“May issue” concealed carry laws are out, thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, but they’re not the laws that are likely to be implicated by the Court’s opinion. We’ve already seen SCOTUS vacate lower court decisions upholding bans on so-called assault weapons and “large capacity” magazines, and Bruen has been referenced in new challenges to the “sensitive places” and “good moral character” or “suitability” concealed carry restrictions slapped on the books in blue states like California, New York, and New Jersey in recent weeks as well.

The pro-gun control website The Trace reports that anti-gun activists are also worried that another subjective and arbitrary gun control law on the books in a handful of states is also in danger thanks to the Bruen decision: permits to purchase a firearm.

Of the 14 states that have such a policy, three — Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York — are may-issue, giving authorities the discretion to deny applicants a license in the interest of public safety, again based on criteria beyond basic requirements. Such criteria includes arrests that don’t result in convictions and other documented instances of violent behavior, including domestic violence. Now that the court has struck down may-issue for concealed carry, these last vestiges of the policy may be ripe for a court challenge as well, legal experts say.

“I wouldn’t be surprised, given the similarity,” said Alexander McCourt, an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health. In many permit-to-purchase states, the handgun purchasing permit and concealed carry permit processes are one and the same, involving some of the same paperwork and evaluated by the same issuing authority, McCourt said. Several permit-to-purchase states also require handgun safety training, fingerprints, photographs, proof of residence, and waiting periods to own or buy a gun, just as they do for concealed carry permits. “There’s just a lot of parallels,” he said.

Issuing authorities in some of the permit-to-purchase states without may-issue still wield the discretion to deny permits, in the form of suitability and character requirements. In North Carolina, where purchase permits are required for handguns only, some sheriffs require applicants to be of “good moral character.” It’s unclear exactly how issuing authorities determine this, but it’s not “arbitrary discretion,” McCourt said. “They have to at least articulate a reason that could then be appealed and challenged.” McCourt expects suitability and character requirements to be challenged in court, as well.

As well they should. As The Trace acknowledges (somewhat surprisingly, I have to say), the only real historical analogues to the current permit to purchase laws are some 19th Century statutes that were put in place specifically to prevent black Americans from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

Continue reading “”

Democrats shocked… Shocked! To learn that gun companies charge money for firearms

Today the House Committee on Oversight and Reform held the first in a series of hearings designed to support efforts to enact new gun control laws. Invited to testify at the hearing were the CEOs of a number of prominent firearms manufacturing companies, including Daniel Defense, Smith & Wesson, Sig Sauer and others.

If you find yourself wondering what these CEOs have to do with this ongoing process, you’re not alone, but most of them agreed to show up. Ahead of the hearing, the committee released a lengthy statement penned by Democratic Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney. In it, she indicated that they would be releasing their findings from an “investigation” into the sales reports of the various companies as if it was really all that difficult to find their sales records.

Maloney announced what she clearly seemed to think was a shocking statistic. The combined companies racked up more than one billion dollars in sales of certain styles of semiautomatic long rifles that Democrats refer to as “assault weapons.” Oh, and they advertise their products. You’re shocked, I know. Here are a couple of excerpts from Maloney’s letter.

“How much are the lives of America’s children, teachers, parents, and families worth to gun manufacturers? My Committee’s investigation has revealed that the country’s major gun manufacturers have collected more than $1 billion in revenue from selling military-style assault weapons to civilians.

These companies are selling the weapon of choice for mass murderers who terrorize young children at school, hunt down worshippers at churches and synagogues, and slaughter families on the Fourth of July. In short, the gun industry is profiting off the blood of innocent Americans.

“My Committee has found that the business practices of these gun manufacturers are deeply disturbing, exploitative, and reckless. These companies use aggressive marketing tactics to target young people—especially young men—and some even evoke symbols of white supremacy. Yet we found that none of these companies bothers to keep track of the death and destruction caused by their products.

Maloney is obviously just trying to gin up anger against the firearms industry in hopes of forcing a vote on more gun control legislation. But let’s take a moment and look at the three major complaints she raises in the letter. One can only hope that she doesn’t come across this article and read it because I would hate to see her become even more traumatized than she clearly already is.

First, she notes that the various firearms companies have “collected” more than one billion dollars selling these rifles. (I love the use of the word “collected” to create some sort of sinister connotation.) To her credit, Maloney is absolutely correct. These companies do charge money for their products. The reason they “collect” so much for these various “Bushmaster” style rifles is that they are some of the most popular models in the country. But while the mass shootings draw a lot of media attention, it’s also worthwhile to point out to the congresswoman that the FBI has told us year after year after year that long rifles of any type are the least common type of firearms used in the commission of crimes, including murder. More people are killed on average every year by murderers using blunt objects, knives, or even their bare hands. Moving on.

She complains about the advertising themes that the firearms manufacturers employ when trying to boost sales. Again, she is correct. These companies produce advertisements to attract customers. In not one single ad we’ve ever seen have any of them suggested that these products should be used to kill human beings, though it’s clear that such a thing might happen if you are forced to defend yourself and/or your family from a home intruder. They are most commonly used for hunting or target shooting. This is another nonsensical “accusation.”

Her final complaint is that none of the gun companies are “bothering” to keep track of the number of people killed by people using these products. Really? How shocking. You’re telling us that civilian manufacturers of firearms are not in the business of collecting crime data from law enforcement agencies? Of course, if they did “bother” to do that, assuming they could legally extract the information from law enforcement agencies all around the country, they would discover that the number is minuscule compared to deaths caused by handguns, knives, and baseball bats, as I mentioned above. Perhaps they should start including that data in their advertising.

It’s kind of admirable that these CEOs were willing to travel to Washington and sit through all of this nonsense with a straight face. The Democrats in Congress are once again putting on yet another circus to try to distract the country from the disastrous state of the country at the moment and the failures of their own policies. But it’s a midterm election year so we probably should have expected this.

When the congresscritterz return from their august vacay, they’ll be at the start of campaign season where their interests will be in not doing controversial things that might have a negative effect on their re-election campaigns. Don’t hold your breath, but I think Peelousy and her demoncrap lackeys have missed the window to get this to a vote.

House Democrats give up on passing “assault weapons” ban… at least for now

In an embarrassing defeat for the gun control lobby, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pulled the plug on the attempt to pass an “assault weapons” ban ahead of the August recess after failing to come up with the necessary votes, though POLITICO reports Democrats could try to revive the bill once lawmakers return after Labor Day.

According to the POLITICO report infighting between the Democrats’ progressive and “moderate” caucus led to the bill being pulled; not necessarily because of the gun ban itself, but because of progressives’ balking at a bill that would have increased funding for law enforcement.

Pelosi confirmed those plans to reporters Wednesday, acknowledging that the caucus has always planned to return when, or if, the Senate is able to complete work on a sweeping prescription drug and health care funding package: “The recognition that we have to come back … has made our plans a little bit different.”

The package of bills was intended to satisfy moderates — with measures to invest in local policing — as well as progressives, with the first vote to ban semi-automatic weapons since 1994. But other factions in the caucus, including the CBC, said they were skeptical of the timing of the policing legislation with only months remaining until the midterms. Progressives, too, demanded more safeguards placed on the grants to law enforcement organizations.

“We have a broad-based caucus that has multiple interests,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said as he left a closed-door meeting Wednesday morning. “The overwhelming majority want to make sure that people understand we want safe communities.”

Instead, the House will pivot its attention to a “big cat” public safety bill, a “Tiger King”-inspired bill from activist Carole Baskin, along with other noncontroversial legislation. Those will be the last votes for at least a week, as the House heads on its August recess and awaits Senate action on the drug pricing and health care bill.

Pelosi was hoping that “moderates” would support the gun ban bill while the progressive wing would bite their tongue and vote for the bill that would give more money to local law enforcement, but instead it sounds like the progressives weren’t willing to go along, which led to at least even more moderates balking at voting to ban the most commonly-sold rifles in the country. What remains unclear, for the moment anyway, is whether Democrats ever had the votes for their gun ban. I’m not convinced that’s the case even though Democrats are spinning the sidelining of the bill as an intra-party disagreement over policing.

Moderate Democrats have pushed for months for floor votes to show their commitment to supporting local police, after a scourge of GOP attack ads last cycle portrayed their party as anti-cop and soft on crime. Those attacks, according to Democrats’ own campaign arm, were “alarmingly potent” in key swing districts, and many battleground members believe it cost the party seats in the last election — which narrowed their House majority as they expected to expand it.

As the package of bills moved closer to the floor, however, progressives and Black Democrats raised alarm bells that the party shouldn’t be supporting more cash and support for policing programs without any kind of new accountability standards. The debate became highly nuanced: A bipartisan bill to increase the hiring and pay of police officers, particularly in local areas, became a bigger conversation about the role of policing.

“The debate is not about the function of policing. It’s about the definition of policing. And I think that that’s been the hard part,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), a senior progressive.

I’m sure that there are a number of Democrats in purple districts who are breathing a sigh of relief that they don’t have to cast a vote on criminalizing the sale and purchase of most semi-automatic rifles as well as many models of shotguns and handguns, and I would be surprised if Nancy Pelosi really does decide to revisit the issue after Democrats return to D.C. after their August recess. It’s possible, of course, but if that’s going to happen she’s gonna have to convince the sizable number of progressives in the House to vote to increase funding for police and persuade the much smaller number of moderates to cast a high profile vote in favor of a sweeping gun ban just weeks before Americans start casting their votes in the midterms. If Pelosi couldn’t get that done in late July, I don’t see how it’s going to be any easier even closer to Election Day.

House Democrats target firearms industry in Oversight hearing

Democrats are once again making gun control their topic of the day in the House of Representatives today. Not only is Rep. David Cicillini’s bill to ban so-called assault weapons scheduled for a vote in the House Rules Committee (along with legislation that would repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act), the House Oversight Committee is holding a hearing on “gun violence”, with a focus on how the firearms industry markets its products.

The hearing, which kicks off at 10 a.m. ET will feature the CEOs of several major gun manufacturers, as well as the anti-gun grandstanding from politicians like Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York, who chairs the committee.

“With more than 300 mass shootings in the United States so far this year, and gun violence now the leading cause of death of children in America, it is clear that we are in a public health epidemic,” said Chairwoman Maloney. “Our hearing will examine the role of gun manufacturers in flooding our communities with weapons of war and fueling America’s gun violence crisis. It is long past time for the gun industry to be held accountable for the carnage they enable and profit from.”

Perhaps not coincidentally, Maloney and Rep. Jerry Nadler (who chairs the Judiciary Committee that approved the “assault weapons” ban bill last week) are fighting for the same congressional seat thanks to New York’s redistricting map. Now the two Democrats can each boast of going after gun makers while they’re campaigning in the deep blue environs of NY-12.

As Maloney’s diatribe indicates, Democrats on the Oversight Committee will be trying to advance the narrative that the firearms industry has intentionally fueled violence through its marketing and advertising. We’ve seen some of their allies set the scene for today’s hearing, including former Kimber executive-turned-gun control activist Ryan Busse, who recently penned a piece at the Atlantic claiming that up until the mid 2000s, the firearms industry’s marketing was fine and dandy, but after the expiration of the AWB of 1994, the industry nefariously pivoted towards a more tactical mindset instead of its traditional focus on hunting and self-defense.

By 2016, Daniel Defense marketing was working so well that it won a coveted spot on the cover of Popular Mechanics magazine. The company’s press release proclaimed that the placement of its rifle in the “Tough Guys” issue was a “major accomplishment” because it would help Daniel Defense reach a “more mainstream audience.”

Like many other firearms companies, Daniel Defense also sought placement of its products in movies and video games. This Facebook post from 2019 alerts followers to the appearance of one of its DDM4 V7 rifles in the new Call of Duty: Modern Warfare game. The DDM4 V7 was used by the 18-year-old gamer turned shooter in Uvalde, Texas.

Yeah, this is the kind of “evidence” that will be offered up at today’s show hearing to try to prove that the firearms industry is intentionally targeting cowardly killers like the 18-year old in Uvalde.

Marty Daniels of Daniel Defense is one of the CEOs invited to testify at the Oversight hearing, along with Smith & Wesson’s Mark Smith and Ruger’s Christopher Killoy. Busse himself will also be testifying at the hearing at the invitation of Democrats on the panel, along with Gun Owners of America’s Antonia Okafor and Kelly Sampson of the gun control group Brady. We’ll have more updates on the hearing later today, but I’m not expecting much to come out of this other than anti-gun Democrats like Maloney preening for the cameras and scapegoating the firearms industry for the actions of criminals and deranged killers.

Yep, it’s true! They’re coming for your guns.

Democrat Rep. David N “Spare Me The B——- about Constitutional Rights” Cicilline and others have said the quiet part out loud: they want to ban almost all semi-automatic weapons in common use.

If you wondered why the nation’s socialist news cabal American Pravda suddenly decided to drop the terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” from their propaganda lexicon, your answer was soon forthcoming in their triumphant announcement of their next onslaught against your sensible civil rights: “Democrats push for 1st semi-automatic gun ban in 20 years.”

In a tyrannical two-for-one special, not only have the enemies of liberty of the fascist far left admitted that the whole point of this was to ban weapons in common use, but they’re also tacitly defying the United States Supreme Court ruling District of Columbia v. Heller.

This video from pro-freedom patriot Colion Noir gives a good rundown on the facts in this case.

Most damning is this exchange between Dan Bishop (R) and chairman of the Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler (D) in a congressional committee meeting during the markup of the bill on July 20, 2022:

Bishop: Is there anyone on the other side that would dispute that this bill would ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today?

Nadler: Yeah, that’s the point of the bill.

Bishop: To clarify, Mr. Chairman, you’re saying it is the point of the bill to ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today?

Nadler: Yes, the problem is they are in common use

If we’ve heard it once, we’ve heard a thousand times: all they want is “commonsense,” “sensible,” or “reasonable” gun control.  Except they never define those terms — on purpose.

Well, now we know what they mean.  They want to ban almost everything aside from a few “manually operated” firearms.

The most important section of the bill is section 2, the “Definitions,” which sets out the scope of what the bill covers.  After wading through the text that modifies the relevant federal code, we get to this part:

Continue reading “”

House Democrats’ ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Prohibits Semiautomatic Pistols Too

The “assault weapons” ban legislation that passed the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday not only prohibits AR-15s and AK-47s, but numerous semiautomatic pistols and shotguns as well.

The legislation, H.R. 1808, is sponsored by Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI).

On July 15, 2022, Breitbart News warned that H.R. 1808 bans the manufacture and sale of at least 45 specific AR-15 rifles , including, “Bushmaster ACR, Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster MOE series, Bushmaster XM15, Chiappa Firearms MFour rifles, Colt Match Target rifles, CORE Rifle Systems CORE15 rifles, Daniel Defense M4A1 rifles, Devil Dog Arms 15 Series rifles,” as well as the Diamondback DB15 rifles.

Moreover, it bans the manufacture and sale of all AR-pistols, and thirteen are specifically listed: “American Spirit AR–15 pistol, Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol, Chiappa Firearms M4 Pistol GEN II, CORE Rifle Systems CORE15 Roscoe pistol, Daniel Defense MK18 pistol, DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol, DPMS AR–15 pistol, Jesse James Nomad AR–15 pistol, Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol, Osprey Armament MK–18 pistol, POF USA AR pistols, Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol,” and the “Uselton Arms Air-Lite M–4 pistol.”

But the language of H.R. 1808 also makes clear the legislation bans numerous semiautomatic pistols as well.

The ban applies to semiautomatic pistols with detachable magazines and threaded barrels. Because of the popularity of suppressors for hearing protection, nearly every semiautomatic pistol manufacturer makes pistol models with threaded barrels. This means an untold number of semiautomatic pistols would be banned by H.R. 1808.

Also, any semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds would be banned, as would any semiautomatic shotgun with a fixed magazine holding more than five rounds.

H.R. 1808 also bans semiautomatic shotguns that accept detachable magazines and have a pistol grip.

BLUF
The only way to address gun violence is to do so head-on, with legislation that will actually protect our school children and encourage safe and responsible firearms ownership. We urge Congress to consider a more effective approach, such as hardening schools, allowing teachers to carry firearms in schools, and passing laws that support responsible gun ownership. The safety of all Americans depends on it.

Preventing responsible gun ownership will not make America safer

It has been an important few weeks for the public’s Second Amendment rights. In the first major gun rights decision since 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right to carry a concealed firearm by striking down a New York state law that made it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon outside their home legally, and wrongfully required individuals to demonstrate a “special need” for self-protection to qualify for a carry license. This was a major victory that will affect at least six other states with similar restrictive licensing requirements, also known as “may issue” laws.

Unfortunately, Congress took advantage of the recent school shooting tragedy in Uvalde, Texas, to pass gun control legislation even though that meant ignoring most voters who believe more gun control is not the path forward . The result is the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the first package of gun control legislation in decades.

While this bill makes significant and encouraging investments in school safety programs and our nation’s mental health system, it doesn’t fundamentally address the root causes of gun violence, and it even goes so far as to award taxpayer dollars to states that implement red flag laws.

Unsuspecting and well-meaning citizens might think these “pre-crime” laws, which would allow law enforcement to take away the firearms of someone deemed psychologically unfit to carry one, are a good idea. But in practice, they would target citizens before a crime has even been committed and deprive people of their right to due process.

But it hasn’t stopped there. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris recently campaigned for a ban of assault-style weapons, which are most commonly used for hunting, and high-capacity magazines. Biden’s White House has also proposed enacting storage restrictions and banning “ghost guns,” among other things.

All this despite the fact that Biden is on record saying that he “never believed that additional gun control or federal registration of guns would reduce crime.”

Continue reading “”

Sporty times

Rep. Lee Zeldin attacked at Perinton campaign stop

PERINTON, N.Y. (WROC) — Congressman Lee Zeldin was attacked at a campaign event in Perinton Thursday night. Zeldin is the Republican candidate for governor in New York State.

Witnesses say Zeldin was giving a speech about bail reform at the VFW on Macedon Center Road when a man got on stage, started yelling, “wrestled with him a bit, and pulled a blade out.”

The alleged attacker was suppressed by AMVETS national Director Joe Chenelly. The Monroe County Sheriff’s Office said he was taken into custody.

A witness who was with Zeldin after the attack said Zeldin was not hurt, and took the stage again when it was over.

Gun industry sounds off on House gun ban, ATF chief, and more

It’s a busy time for the firearms industry at the moment, and I’m pleased that National Shooting Sports Foundation senior vice president and general counsel Larry Keane could spend a some quality time with Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co today to hit on a number of different topics ranging from the House Democrats’ push for an “assault weapons” ban to the new installation of anti-gun politician and former U.S. Attorney Steve Dettelbach as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives….

  • On the Democrats’ proposed ban on “assault weapons” (and magazines holding more than 15 rounds) approved by the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday – “We’ll see next week if they have the votes to move forward. I think it will be very, very close one way or the other. There are a very large number of Democrats sponsoring this bill, but whether they’ll continue to sponsor it or support it if it moves to the floor… we’ll see. There are a couple of Democrats on the bubble, and there are several Democrats in very competitive races who are reported to be very upset with Speaker Pelosi for pushing this issue when they’re in competitive races and they’re concerned that it will hurt their chances at re-election.”
  • On Steve Dettelbach taking over as ATF director – “When you have the president who calls the industry the ‘enemy’, when you have this ‘zero tolerance policy’ and you have (FFL license) revocations up 500% and the basis for those revocations have nothing to do with any risk to public safety, when you have closed inspections being re-opened after being closed for six months and then seeking to revoke six months later after saying [the violations] didn’t rise to that level, it’s very very troubling. So we’re really considered about this approach by the administration; instead of going after trigger-pullers and the bad people (and there are a lot of people who need to be locked up) going after law-abiding citizens and showing up unannounced at their doorstep and trying to coerce them into letting them into their house with no warrant, that’s troubling.
  • On the gun control lobby’s attempt to sue gun makers based on claims of deceptive marketing, including California’s new law banning marketing materials supposedly aimed at minors – “Look, this law in California is obviously unconstitutional. It obviously violates the First Amendment right to speech, the right to freedom of association, and it violates the Due Process clause because it says you know, ‘what’s attractive to a minor’; a vague and subjective standard. I feel like I’ve gone back in Mr. Peabody’s Wayback Machine to the 1990s because we’re hearing all the same arguments from the same gun control groups trying to file lawsuits against the industry. You know, the House Judiciary Committee also last night passed a bill to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment that prevents the disclosure of law enforcement-sensitive trace information outside of law enforcement because it puts law enforcement at risk…. they’re filing these complaints with the Federal Trade Commission… they have disdain for the Second Amendment, and they’re entitled to their opinion, but they’re not entitled to suppress the First Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, law-abiding companies to be able to advertise their products.”

    • House committee approves first assault weapons ban bill in decades
    The House Judiciary Committee approved the Assault Weapons Ban of 2021 in a 25-18 vote following an hours-long markup

    The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday moved a bill banning assault weapons forward but it’s unclear if the legislation has enough support to pass a floor vote.

    Democratic Reps. Jared Golden, D-Maine, and Henry Cuellar, D-Texas have said they won’t support the bill while Republican Reps. Chris Jacobs, R-N.Y., and Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., have said they are open to voting for a ban, according to The Hill. House Democrats have a four-vote margin.

    The Assault Weapons Ban of 2021 was advanced in a 25-18 vote but a date for a vote on the House floor has not been set.

    “As we have learned all too well in recent years, assault weapons — especially when combined with high-capacity magazines — are the weapon of choice for mass shootings,” committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said during the bill’s markup. “These military-style weapons are designed to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time. Quite simply, there is no place for them on our streets.”

    Ranking member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, argued the bill would take away upstanding gun owners’ rights.

    “Democrats know this legislation will not reduce violent crime or reduce the likelihood of mass shootings, but they are obsessed with attacking law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment liberties,” he said.

    Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said, “They’re coming for your guns.”

    The bill would make it a crime to “import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon (SAW) or large capacity ammunition feeding device,” according to the bill’s summary. A few exceptions would be made.

    It would not include any “firearm that is (1) manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action; (2) permanently inoperable; (3) an antique; or (4) a rifle or shotgun specifically identified by make and model.”

    The bill was first introduced in March of last year.

    Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., looks on during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill on July 14, 2022, in Washington, DC.
    Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., looks on during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill on July 14, 2022, in Washington, DC. (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

    The bill comes on the heels of the most sweeping gun control bill to pass the Senate in 30 years following a series of mass shootings, including an elementary school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, that left 19 students and two teachers dead.

    President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have also been calling for an assault weapons ban.

    “Assault weapons need to be banned,” Biden said last week at the White House while celebrating the signing of the bipartisan gun law. “They were banned. I led the fight in 1994. And then under pressure from the NRA and the gun manufacturers and others, that ban was lifted in 2004. In that 10 years it was law, mass shootings went down.”

    Former President Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban in 1994 that expired in 2004.

     

    Sen. Chris Murphy Strangely Silent After His ‘Good Guy With a Gun’ Theory Goes Down in Flames

    As we previously reported, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) appallingly declared in a tweet last Tuesday that the fact that it took the Uvalde police so long to respond to the horrific Robb Elementary School mass shooting “puts to bed, forever” the “good guy with a gun” scenario often cited by Second Amendment defenders in their arguments.

    “We’ve always known it was a gun industry created lie, designed to sell more guns,” he also wrote. “Now we just have the gut wrenching proof”:

    While the chilling 77-minute police response video from Uvalde was indeed gut-wrenching, it in no way proved Murphy’s point – in fact, it proved just the opposite for reasons I and thousands of others explained to him in response to his remarks.

    In the aftermath of the deadly Greenwood, Indiana mall mass shooting Sunday where three were killed and two were injured, Murphy has gone silent on his “good guy with a gun” theory – perhaps because Greenwood Police Chief James Ison noted in a press conference that the shooter was shot dead “almost as soon as he began” by a “good Samaritan,” a 22-year-old unidentified man who Ison said was “lawfully carrying” his firearm:

    “The real hero of the day is the citizen that was lawfully carrying a firearm in that food court and was able to stop that shooter almost as soon as he began,” Ison told reporters during a press conference on Sunday night.

    Greenwood Mayor Mark Myers also confirmed that the suspect was “shot by an armed individual,” whom he called a “good Samaritan.”

    “This person saved lives tonight,” Myers said in a statement late Sunday. “On behalf of the City of Greenwood, I am grateful for his quick action and heroism in this situation.”

     

    Continue reading “”

    Well, even though it’ll go nowhere, it is a nice gesture.

    Sen. Daines Introduces Bill To Give Gun Owners Freedom To Carry Across State Lines

    Republican Montana Sen. Steve Daines introduced legislation Monday that would allow for those who live in a concealed carry or Constitutional carry state to carry their concealed firearms in other states.

    The legislation, first obtained by the Daily Caller, is titled the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. The bill would ensure a Montana resident can legally conceal carry a gun into a state where the state’s own residents can conceal carry. This bill also allows for individuals with a state-issued concealed carry license to conceal a gun in any other state, as long as the permit holder follows the laws of that state.

    READ THE BILL HERE: 

     

    BLUF
    Republican voters deserve better than this. They deserve leadership in Washington that cares about more than just the next news cycle. Mass shootings are, unfortunately, inevitable until the nation gets ahold of the mental health crisis gripping isolated, depressed young men. The foolish decision to pretend as if passing some federal law would stop them has only backed Republicans further into the corner. Will any lessons be learned? Don’t count on it.

    Republicans Play the Fool After Compromising on ‘Gun Control’

    With the recent mass shooting in Highland Park that took the lives of seven people, a renewed call for “gun control” from Democrats has begun. That comes just weeks after Republicans lined up to sign on to a gun control bill (now passed into law) with the idea that doing so would provide common ground on the issue.

    As predicted, though, that didn’t even buy the GOP enough goodwill to make it through the next mass shooting, much less did it put the issue to bed for any length of time. Here’s what I wrote when Sen. John Cornyn was first announced to be negotiating with Democrats on gun control.

    Here’s the thing, though. When whatever red flag laws that get passed fail to stop the next mass shooter, the call to “do something” will only grow louder. And the next “something” will be an even further encroachment. I understand the desire to act in good faith and attempt to take some of the heat off, but Republicans have to understand that the Democrat push for gun confiscation and an “assault weapons” ban will not stop with whatever compromise legislation arises here.

    That leaves the obvious question for Republicans: Is it smart to give ground when the end goal of the Democrats is being telegraphed to you? I know my answer.

    In the case of the Highland Park shooter, he had every red flag imaginable and Illinois’ red flag law still failed to stop him from obtaining guns. That was always the problem with any GOP compromise on this issue. When you concede ground, all you are doing is providing gun control proponents fodder to say “See, your solutions didn’t work so we need to do it my way now.”

    I also shared similar thoughts on social media after the text of the then-bill was leaked.

    Continue reading “”

    NYS Sheriffs: New gun laws unconstitutional by creating rules impossible to follow

    New York State (WRGB) — Sheriffs from across New York State are coming out in force against gun laws passed by Governor Kathy Hochul (D-New York) and the state legislature, telling CBS 6 the governor violated the constitution in more than one way when passing new gun laws in a rush.

    Peter Kehoe is Executive Director of the New York State Sheriff’s Association, which represents all 58 sheriffs across New York State.

    Kehoe sat down with CBS 6’s Anne McCloy.

    They wanted to make a political statement so they introduced the bill in the morning, passed it in the afternoon and signed it in the evening which is unheard of,” Kehoe said.

    Anne: Did you have a chance to read the legislation before it went into law?
    Kehoe: Absolutely not, and no one else did either. I think a lot of people didn’t see it until it was passed including the lawmakers.

    Continue reading “”

    They’re also mistaken that the 2nd amendment ‘gives’ us rights.. Of course, even the Supreme Court, way back in the 1800s, properly recognized that it was a restriction, on the government, not the people!

    What Liberals Get Wrong About the Second Amendment

    Must we really respond to the “musket” argument again?Apparently so. It’s all the rage among Democrats right now.New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (Democrat) and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (Democrat) both think it’s quite brilliant to claim that, if we care what the framers of the Constitution meant, then the Second Amendment applies only to “muskets”!In The New York Times, a couple of professors (Democrats, but you knew that) asked: “Is a modern AR-15-style rifle relevantly similar to a Colonial musket? In what ways?” They liked their argument so much, the op-ed was titled, “A Supreme Court Head-Scratcher: Is a Colonial Musket ‘Analogous’ to an AR-15?“[Frantically waving my hand]: Yes, professors, it’s exactly analogous.The Second Amendment does not refer to “muskets”; it refers to “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” “Bear” means to carry, so any handheld firearm carried by the military can be carried by the people. Just as the musket was once carried by our military, the AR-15 is a handheld arm (technically, the less powerful version of the automatic M-16) carried by our military today. As soon as the U.S. military goes back to muskets, then muskets it is!

    But I’m not here to refute idiotic arguments. These guys may as well claim that the First Amendment protects only speech delivered in pamphlets and sermons, but nothing communicated on television, the internet, or with poster boards and Magic Markers.

    The Second Amendment is nearly the only prescriptive policy in a document that liberals have been trying to pump their nutty ideas into for 50 years. Unfortunately for them, there’s nothing in the Constitution about a right to dance naked in strip clubs, contraception, marriage or sticking a fork in a baby’s head.

    But on the right to bear arms, our Delphic framers were nearly Tolstoyian with their explosion of words: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” (An earlier draft of the amendment specifically defined “militia” as “composed of the body of the people,” but was rejected as redundant.)

    In the boldest affirmation of their worldview, the framers announced our natural, God-given right to self-defense — against the government, against criminals, and against assailants the government can’t or won’t stop. Free people prepared to defend themselves are the nucleus of the republic. It’s the most beautiful thing in the whole Constitution. Here, at last, the Founding Fathers told us something specific they want us to do: Teach the boys to shoot.

    The “right to bear muskets” crowd — protected by taxpayer-supported armed guards, or cordoned off from the public by phalanxes of security officers in the lobby of, for example, NBC’s television studios in Rockefeller Center, before they return to their homes in crime-free, lily-white neighborhoods — tell us to focus on the freakishly rare mass shooting.

    The highest estimates of mass shootings — including by gang warfare, drive-bys, drug wars and domestic murder-suicides — put the number of deaths at under 400 per year, or approximately the same number of Americans who drown in swimming pools every year. Four hundred, out of more than 20,000 murders annually.

    Which is why, despite the media’s best effort to terrify suburban moms about weirdos shooting at crowds, nearly half of Americans prefer self-reliance to the government taking away our guns and promising to protect us.

    In 2020, the Year of Our Floyd, gun sales went through the roof. The previous high for gun sales was in 2016, with about 16 million guns sold. But in 2020, as BLM tore through our cities, Americans bought 22.8 million guns. The following year saw the second-highest record for gun sales, at 19.9 million purchases.

    By now, 44% of Americans report living in a gun-owning household. Thirty-two percent say they personally own a gun.

    As much as I’d like to institutionalize the crazies — for their sake, as well as ours — the risks from bad faith actors at present are too high. With anti-gun zealots on the rampage and the U.S. attorney general siccing the FBI on parents who complain at local school board meetings, the most likely result would be marijuana-crazed schizophrenics continuing about their days unmolested, while gun owners get locked up.

    In any event, it appears that the lunatics aren’t heavily armed, anyway. Here’s a demographic breakdown of gun ownership in 2022, according to Gallup:

    Republicans 50%
    Democrats 18%
    Conservatives 45% (Oddly, Gallup calls them “self-identified conservatives,” as if Gallup would never use this cruel epithet without consent of the accused.)

    Liberals 15%
    Men 45%
    Women 19%
    Southerners 40%
    Eastern residents 21%

    Gallup left out one category. The subgroup most likely to own a whole buttload of guns, but not admit it: gang members and other recidivist felons protected by George Gascon and other Soros D.A.s.

    Being a rational people, Americans are more worried about those guys than the random rifle-bearing psycho in a woman’s dress.

    Hmmmm. Pritzker is wrong. I guarantee, with near metaphysical certitude, he knows he’s wrong too and is simply lying because he thinks that most people are too stupid to realize he’s lying.

    Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans…. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people  —Tench Coxe ( a member of the “second rank” of this nation’s Founders and a leading proponent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wrote prolifically about the right to keep and bear arms

    Illinois Democrat Gov. J.B. Pritzker: Founding Fathers Would Not Support ‘Constitutional Right to an Assault Weapon’

    Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) reacted to the Highland Park parade attack during a Monday press conference by suggesting America’s Founding Fathers would not support a “constitutional right to own an assault weapon.”

    Pritzker tweeted a video of his comments on the attack, saying, in part, “Our Founders carried muskets, not assault weapons, and I don’t think a single one of them would have said that you have a constitutional right to an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine.”

    In another portion of his comments Pritzker said, “It does not have to be this way, and yet we as a nation, well, we continue to allow this to happen. While we celebrate the Fourth of July just once a year, mass shootings have become … our weekly American tradition.”

    The muskets used by the Founding Fathers–the muskets they used to defeat the British military and secure freedom–were very much like the military-issue muskets British Redcoats used when shooting at colonists and members of George Washington’s forces.

    U.S. House candidate and former Navy SEAL Eli Crane reacted to Pritzker’s statement on muskets vs. “assault weapons” by telling Breitbart News, “The gap between the firepower of U.S. citizens and the military now is far greater than the gap that existed between colonists and the combination of regimented and ad hoc military forces that had just defeated Britain.

    “Think about it. The military has Predator drones–that can drop a Hellfire missile and erase your home without you even knowing it was above you–and they have nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers. Now compare that to what we’re allowed to own today. There’s just no comparison. The American people are greatly outgunned by the 21st century military, far more so than were the colonists in the 18th century.”