Category: Politics

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.”

Hmmmm. Didn’t know they had one. Oops! I been a baaaad boy.

The Second Amendment Isn’t Only Guns: Virginia’s Switch Blade Ban Died Today.

Knife Rights’ Virginia Switchblade Ban Repeal Bill, SB 758, is effective today (July 1). The possession, carry, sale, purchase and manufacture of automatic (switchblade) knives will be legal in the state.

NOTE: The concealed carry knife bans in Virginia, including of switchblade (automatic) knives, will still remain in effect: “If any person carries about his person, hidden from common observation, (i) any dirk, bowie knife, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, machete, razor, … or (v) any weapon of like kind as those enumerated in this subsection…”

Holding a Virginia Concealed Handgun Permit doesn’t allow concealed carry of an automatic (switchblade) knife.

Knife Rights will never stop until all archaic knife restrictions in Virginia are repealed.

With the repeal in Virginia, only five states remain with a complete ban on civilian possession of switchblade (automatic) knives. Knife Rights has led the effort to repeal switchblade bans or restrictions in 19 states, starting with New Hampshire in 2010. Repeals have since been enacted in Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

Altogether, Knife Rights’ efforts have resulted in 39 bills repealing knife bans in 25 states and over 150 cities and towns since 2010.

Poll finds opposition to SCOTUS’ Second Amendment ruling

The reason the Supreme Court is appointed for a lifetime term is so they won’t have to consider public sentiment on controversial issues like, say, guns. Once they’re confirmed, they can’t be removed simply because their findings aren’t popular.

Yet that won’t stop some from looking to see how people feel about rulings made by the Court.

In a recent poll, there appear to be some interesting takes regarding guns.

The Monmouth poll shows just what restrictions people favor, including 60 percent saying they support a national gun registry, as one example.

It also found 83 percent support, to some degree, universal background checks.

Now, in the past, I’ve been critical of how these questions are asked, but Monmouth phrased it as, “Do you support or oppose requiring comprehensive background checks for all gun purchasers, including private sales between two individuals?”

That, at least, removes any ambiguity, so while I oppose the policy, I can at least accept the number.

The poll also argues that most disagree with the Bruen decision.

They asked respondents, “Do you agree or disagree that individual states should be allowed to limit who can carry a concealed handgun by requiring permit applicants to demonstrate that they need the weapon for their work or for protection?”

It found that 56 percent agree that states should be able.

On this, though, there is some ambiguity. The problem is that the phrase “for protection” isn’t quite how things worked. You had to show a specific reason why you needed to be able to protect yourself, as opposed to everyone else.

I suspect at least some of that 56 percent are supportive of a more general idea of “for protection” than the now overturned law allowed.

But not all of the poll’s findings are distinctly anti-gun.

Meanwhile, they also found that 63 percent feel that the law will either make them safer or have no impact on public safety, with just three percent saying they don’t know.

As for the subject of mass shootings, Monmouth asked, “Do you think the number of recent mass shootings in the U.S. is due more to the ease of getting guns or due more to a mental health crisis in the country?”

55 percent said it was the result of a mental health crisis compared to just 33 percent who blamed easy access to firearms, with 9 percent saying it was both.

The poll also looked at why those who admitted to having a gun decided to have one, with “personal safety” and “protect my property” both being a major reason for most of the respondents.

“[D]efend again possible government tyranny” was only a major reason for 28 percent. Yet it was noted as a minor reason for another 23 percent.

So what does any of this mean?

Well, for one thing, we haven’t done a good enough job educating the general populace about the benefits of firearm ownership, nor of the fact that gun control simply does not work. We also haven’t done a very good job of educating people about the importance of their rights as a whole. Far too many are apparently willing to deal their rights away for the illusion of safety, not recognizing that the illusion masks something far more sinister.

We all–and I’m looking at myself–need to do better about that.

Justice Thomas referenced such shenanigans in the Bruen decision itself.
To be clear, even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for
historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster. For example, courts can use analogies to “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” to determine whether modern regulations are constitutionally permissible. Id., at 626. That said, respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.

and (at the end of footnote 9)
….because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.

May just be me, but I read that as Justice Thomas slyly daring New York, and other states, to enact crap-for-brains laws like this.

Another J6 Trump ‘Bombshell’ Outed as a Hoax!

On Tuesday, the liberal media soiled themselves over the so-called bombshell story that on January 6, 2021, President Trump grabbed the steering wheel of the presidential limo and then lunged at a Secret Service agent because he wanted to join the protesters at the Capitol.

The story came courtesy of Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows.

“So when the president had gotten into the vehicle with [Secret Service agent] Bobby [Engel], he thought that they were going up to the Capitol. And when Bobby had relayed to him, ‘We’re not, we don’t have the assets to do it, it’s not secure, we’re going back to the West Wing,’ the president had a very strong and very angry response to that.

Tony described him as being irate. The president said to him something to the effect of, ‘I’m the f—ing president, take me up to the Capitol now.’ To which Bobby responded, ‘Sir, we have to go back to the West Wing.’ He then reached up front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm, he said, ‘Sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. We’re going back to the West Wing, we’re not going to the Capitol.’ Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel.”

Any reasonable person would conclude this story was dubious. The liberal media, however, not so much. CNN gleefully described it as a bombshell, yet, like so many other Trump bombshells, it appears this incident didn’t happen at all, and is yet another hoax to add to the pile of bogus anti-Trump stories.

According to Peter Alexander, the chief White House correspondent for NBC News, sources close to the Secret Service dispute the story.

“A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel,” Alexander tweeted Tuesday evening.

 

Trump’s former acting director of national intelligence, Richard Grenell, slammed the committee for allowing this testimony to go unchallenged.

“So a junior staffer was pressured by @Liz_Cheney to lie under oath,” he tweeted. “Why wasn’t there a single committee member asking her if she had proof? This performance collapsed in an hour.”

“The DC media is corrupt and sick,” he concluded.

 

Soon after Alexander revealed that his sources challenged the story, Hutchinson’s lawyer, Jody Hunt, quickly attempted to walk back her testimony.

“Ms. Hutchinson testified, under oath, and recounted what she was told,” Hunt tweeted. “Those with knowledge of the episode also should testify under oath.”

 

How many more bogus bombshells are we going to get from these hearings?

Democrats Hate Every Second Amendment Victory Because It Challenges Their Monopoly On Power

Democrats hate the Second Amendment for the same reasons they hate free speech and fair elections: They want a monopoly on violence, words, and power.

When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s gun licensing scheme as unconstitutional last week, outraged leftists freaked out and started calling for the end of the judicial branch as we know it.

“It has become necessary to dissolve the Supreme Court of the United States,” far-left sports commentator Keith Olbermann tweeted. Other verified Twitter users claimed that, as a result of the ruling affirming Americans’ Second Amendment rights, the highest court in the land is “illegitimate,” “thoroughly corrupt,” and “mass shooters” wearing robes.

The law was accurately ruled unconstitutional, plain and simple, but that’s not good enough for leftists who despise the fact that Americans can and will defend themselves.

Why do Democrats despise the Second Amendment so much that they want to effectively banish a branch of the government over it? Because it strips them of their ability to control everything and accumulate power.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
They could have taken their victories and shut up, but they couldn’t. They had to push and push and push and push until they finally ended up in court. They can’t stop because their rage comes from the vast, burning nihilistic emptiness inside them that no amount of expanded abortion rights or “pride” months or drag queen story hours or transgressive love stories in Disney cartoons can ever satisfy.

….in the end, that’s what they really want. An end to their restlessness and their war against their own savage gods. All we want, by contrast, is to be left alone with a culture we love and prize and wish to pass on to our children. But they want to take us with them because, as we all know, misery loves company. Either we’ll learn to care, or they’ll die trying. Because in their world, right now, everything’s coming up guns and Roeses, and they can’t have that, not now, not ever.

Guns N’ Roeses.

It has long been a dictum of mine that, as far as the progressive Left is concerned, “they never stop, they never sleep, they never quit.” After their twin defeats at the Supreme Court last week, regarding two of their most sensitive issues (both of which derive from their devotion to cultural suicide, which is their principal objective), don’t expect them to give up easily. They subscribe to their version of Islamism or the Brezhnev Doctrine: once they’ve conquered moral or physical tparerritory, it can never go back to the way it was. They see themselves as the heroes of their own movies, good red-diaper babies constantly battling the forces of revanchism and irrendentism, which are you. The idea that they’re the bad guy never occurs to them:

These are, after all, the same people who refused to accept George W. Bush’s narrow presidential victory in 2000 (“selected, not elected”); refused to accept Bush’s win over John Kerry in 2004; rained hellfire and brimstone down on poor Sarah Palin, whose only crime was a surfeit of motherhood, and snarlingly turned on her running mate and their erstwhile favorite maverick, John McCain in 2008; and went bonkers over the surprise victory of Donald Trump in 2016, thus triggering the entire “Russian collusion” hoax that started with Hillary Clinton and eventually came to embrace the FBI, the intelligence community, the media, and the judicial system.

Continue reading “”

Why the abortion hysteria?

The extent to which liberals have gone bananas over the Dobbs case is a phenomenon that demands explanation. Most liberals, after all, understand that the Court has not banned abortion, or in fact placed any limits on it whatsoever. It has simply remitted the issue of abortion to the political sphere where it was prior to 1973, and where it always has belonged, thus ending a half century of usurpation by the Court.

Moreover, abortion laws in the U.S. have been extremely liberal compared with most countries–almost every country other than North Korea, in fact. This chart shows in striking fashion how liberal our laws have been compared with Europe’s:

One of the many ironies of post-Dobbs hysteria was French President Emmanuel Macron denouncing the decision, even though the Mississippi statute that the Court upheld was more permissive, more liberal, than France’s own abortion law.

Most liberals no doubt understand that they now will have to take their case to the voters, and that when the dust settles, American abortion laws will look pretty much like Europe’s. And some states will be extremely permissive–New York, for one, may legalize infanticide, which the states are perfectly free to do. So, once again–why the hysteria?

I think several elements are at work here, but the most basic is that liberals (Democrats) do not want to take the issue of abortion to the voters. They do not want to have to make their case. They do not want to have to argue and persuade. Rather, they want all views opposed to their own to be banned and unheard. Delegitimized.

This is perhaps the dominant fact of 21st Century politics. Liberals don’t want to debate, they don’t want to persuade. They want to censor. They want some higher authority, whether the Supreme Court, Twitter, or corporate America, to declare all views but theirs out of bounds. They don’t want to participate in democratic politics, they want to rule by fiat. For all their wailing about “our democracy,” the last thing liberals want is the actual give and take of a democracy, which usually entails compromise.

I think that is the key reason for the Left’s hysteria over Dobbs. For liberals, having to argue, to persuade, to run for office, to participate in the messy work of democracy where you don’t always win, is a step backward. They had everything going their way, and now…this.

Viewed in that light, I think the demonstrations, insurrections, encouragement of assassination of Supreme Court Justices, and arson at Christian maternity centers are understandable.

NSSF STATEMENT ON THE BIPARTISAN SAFER COMMUNITIES ACT

NEWTOWN, Conn.— NSSF®, the firearm industry trade association, has carefully examined the proposed Bipartisan Safer Communities Act legislation. NSSF appreciates the good faith effort by U.S. Senate negotiators to arrive at a proposal that would meaningfully address criminal violence all too frequently occurring in our communities. NSSF is encouraged by portions of the proposal, but we have important concerns about other aspects of the bill that impact our industry and the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.

We are thankful the Senate proposal provides significant resources for mental health treatment and services. Most of the horrendous tragedies that have befallen our communities have involved unaddressed mental health issues. We are also heartened the proposal provides necessary resources to help enhance school security to help protect the most vulnerable.

NSSF supports the effort to strengthen federal criminal law to address straw purchasing and firearms trafficking. We have led the effort to stop the illegal straw purchasing firearms and trafficking. For over two decades, NSSF has partnered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in the Don’t Lie for the Other GuyTM campaign that helps educate retailers on how to detect and prevent such transactions and to educate the public that it is a serious crime.

Through our #FixNICS® initiative and support for the Cornyn-Murphy bipartisan FixNICS Act named after our program, NSSF has been the leading voice working to ensure our background check system provides timely and accurate information to retailers to ensure they do not sell firearms to prohibited persons. We strongly encourage all states to provide disqualifying juvenile records into the system so that it works as intended.

We support requiring those who are in the business of selling firearms for profit be licensed under federal law. However, the proposed legislation fails to provide clear and needed guidance to our industry – particularly those who would be newly licensed – as to what conduct constitutes a willful violation warranting a revocation of their license. This is especially important given the Department of Justice’s “zero tolerance” policy and the over 500 percent increase in license revocation proceedings that have occurred under this administration.

While NSSF understands the need for law enforcement to intervene in circumstances when someone is an imminent threat to themselves or others, we have steadfastly maintained that if that intervention involves removing a person’s firearms there must be strong Due Process protections in place. Current “extreme risk protective orders” that exist in 19 states do not come close to providing adequate due process protections when the government deprives someone of their fundamental Constitutional rights. We cannot support the use of taxpayer funds to implement more such unconstitutional laws without specific and iron clad assurances Due Process rights will be protected.

“There are several provisions of this legislative package that NSSF could support including providing more resources for mental health services and school security. However, the ambiguity over state records, the lack of clear definitions, and unaddressed due process concerns prevent us from supporting this legislative package as presented,” said Joseph Bartozzi, NSSF President and Chief Executive Officer.

NSSF encourages the Senate to continue its negotiations to arrive at a package that will provide real solutions to make our communities safer.

Well, the Senate passed it with 15 Republican stunnedtaters voting for it.

Senate easily passes bipartisan gun control bill, sending it to the House

The US Senate approved a historic bipartisan gun control bill Thursday night following two recent horrific mass shootings, marking the most comprehensive piece of gun reform legislation passed by federal lawmakers in nearly three decades.

The $13 billion measure was approved 65-33 and received enough Republican support to avoid a filibuster, a compromise that seemed far-fetched before a pair of 18-year-old gunmen used assault weapons to commit mass shootings at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas and a Buffalo grocery store last month.

The rampages spurred weeks of closed door negotiations between a group of Democrats and Republicans, and 15 GOP senators ultimately crossed party lines to support the bill.

The measure toughens background checks for gun buyers under 21 and provides financial incentives for states to create mental health programs and implement “red flag” laws that would keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

It also cracks down on straw purchases of weapons, and closes the “boyfriend loophole” by banning people convicted of domestic abuse from owning a gun. The current law does not apply to abusers who are no longer married or living with their partner.

The bill was the strongest piece of gun legislation since the 1994 assault weapons ban, which expired ten years later. There were five active shooter situations in the US in 2004 compared to 61 last year, according to the FBI.

Democrats had sought much stricter restrictions, including an outright ban on assault rifles and requiring people to be 21 before they can buy semi-automatic weapons, however the once unthinkable bipartisan compromise was hailed by lawmakers in both parties as a clear message to the American people.

“This is not a cure-all for the all the ways gun violence affects our nation,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. “But it is a long overdue step in the right direction. Passing this gun safety bill is truly significant, and it’s going to save lives,” the New York Democrat said.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged the Second Amendment rights prioritized by much of his base while touting the bill.

The bill is the most comprehensive piece of gun reform legislation passed by federal lawmakers in nearly three decades.

“The American people want their constitutional rights protected and their kids to be safe in school,” the Kentucky Republican said. “They want both of those things at once, and that is just what the bill before the Senate will have accomplished.”

Texas Republican John Cornyn and Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy were among four lawmakers instrumental in hashing out the bill.

“I don’t believe in doing nothing in the face of what we saw in Uvalde,” Cornyn said.

Murphy referenced the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, which failed to prompt meaningful legislation in Washington.

He said Thursday’s bill would save thousands of lives and “prove to a weary American public that democracy is not so broken that it is unable to rise to the moment.”

The legislation is likely to face stronger Republican opposition in the House, where Republican Whip Steve Scalise called the bill “an effort to slowly chip away at law-abiding citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, said her legislative body would move quickly to advance the measure.

“First thing tomorrow morning, the Rules Committee will meet to advance this life-saving legislation to the Floor,” she said.

If passed, the bill would be sent to the White House.

“Our kids in schools and our communities will be safer because of this legislation. I call on Congress to finish the job and get this bill to my desk,” President Joe Biden said.

The National Rifle Association, a powerful gun lobby, had said the bill “falls short on every level.”

“This legislation can be abused to restrict lawful gun purchases, infringe upon the rights of law-abiding Americans and use federal dollars to fund gun control measures being adopted by state and local politicians,” it said in a statement Tuesday.

The measure passed in the Senate on the same day the Supreme Court struck down restrictions on the carrying of concealed firearms as unconstitutional.

Did Feinstein Just Sabotage The New Gun Bill?

I don’t know whether to condemn Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) or praise her. She has filed a bill as an amendment to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that would raise the age to purchase many semi-auto rifles, pistols, or shotguns to 21. The impact of this amendment could cause the carefully crafted “compromise” (sic) to fall apart.

From her press release:

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today filed the Age 21 Act as an amendment to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the gun violence prevention bill pending before the Senate. The amendment would raise the minimum age to purchase assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines from 18 to 21.

Senator Feinstein reintroduced the Age 21 Act on May 19, five days after the massacre at a Buffalo supermarket and five days before the school shooting in Uvalde, each of which involved an 18-year-old who legally purchased an assault rifle.

 “The Senate gun safety bill is a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t address the major problem of teenagers owning weapons of war,” said Senator Feinstein. “It makes no sense that it’s illegal for someone under 21 to buy a handgun or even a beer, yet can legally buy an assault weapon.  My amendment is a commonsense fix with broad public support that should receive bipartisan backing and I hope that it’s allowed a vote.”

Reading through the amendment, something as innocuous as a semi-auto shotgun such as the Mossberg 940 Pro Waterfowl Snow Goose edition would be forbidden to anyone under 21. The reasoning, according to the amendment, is that it has a tubular magazine that holds more than 5 rounds. Likewise, a turkey shotgun that had a pistol grip would be forbidden. On pistols, if you wanted to have a threaded barrel for a suppressor to protect your hearing, sorry but young ears need to be damaged is the message this amendment sends.

I really think these sorts of amendments could cause the whole thing to fall apart and force the Republicans to walk away. It is one thing to say you want to do careful background checks taking into account juvenile records for those under 21 and a whole another thing to ban a whole category of firearms to them. I don’t think a Manchin or Sinema could get by with voting for such a bill that included that along with the other stuff.

I do notice that Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) is not one of the co-sponsors of her original bill nor is Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

Meet the 14 GOP Senators Who Voted to Advance ‘Gun Safety’ Bill.

On Tuesday night, the Senate voted to advance a “gun safety” bill in response to shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, N.Y. (the media has conveniently forgotten the shooting at a church in Laguna Woods, Calif., that took place between the other two shootings but didn’t fit The Narrative™ for the gun-control crowd).

The Hill framed the vote as the moment when the Senate “broke through nearly 30 years of stalemate on gun control legislation.”

I won’t rehash the bill here; instead, I’ll refer to my colleague Stephen Kruiser, who pointed out the worst features of the 80-page legislation:

There are two HUGE problems with this legislation, especially for conservatives: it legitimizes both federal intervention in state matters and “red flag” laws. The latter is particularly problematic because implementation is rife with gray areas, no matter how many stipulations are in place. As I have been fond of saying, once red-flag laws are on the books, we’re on the most slippery of slippery slopes. One day people are raising legitimate concerns, the next we have people reporting the neighbor who just rubs them the wrong way.

Those facts didn’t stop the measure from passing by a vote of 64-34. Every single one of the Democrats voted in favor of advancing the bill, which means that 14 Republicans went along with it. Here they are:

Some of those names are the usual suspects, the ones who are going to “go rogue” and vote with the Dems on other issues too.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the guy whose constituents booed him over his support for compromise legislation, ran point on the negotiations with Democrats at the behest of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

The Hill reports the negotiations in a way that makes them sound just as sinister as compromising with Democrats to violate the Second Amendment should: “McConnell tapped Cornyn to lead the negotiations for Republicans shortly after a bipartisan group of senators met in Murphy’s basement to begin talks in hopes of finding a way to respond to the Buffalo and Uvalde shootings.”

One of the most remarkable things about this list is that, while the usual squishes (Collins, Murkowski, Romney) appear on it, none of them have a low rating with the National Rifle Association. In fact, Collins rates a B with the NRA, while the rest have an A (Portman, Romney, Blunt, Cassidy, Graham, Tillis, Capito, Ernst, Murkowski) or an A+ (Cornyn, McConnell, Burr, Young) rating from the NRA.

Of the “GOP Gun Control 14,” as Off the Press calls them, only Murkowski and Young are facing re-election in 2022. Blunt, Burr, and Portman aren’t running for another term, so the vast majority of these senators have nothing to lose this election cycle.

Gun rights groups aren’t happy, needless to say.

“Once again, so-called ‘conservative’ Senators are making clear they believe that the rights of American citizens can be compromised away,” Erich Pratt of Gun Owners of America said in a statement. “Let me be clear, they have NO AUTHORITY to compromise with our rights, and we will not tolerate legislators who are willing to turn gun owners into second-class citizens.”

“We will oppose this gun control legislation because it falls short at every level,” read a statement from the NRA. “It does little to truly address violent crime while opening the door to unnecessary burdens on the exercise of Second Amendment freedom by law-abiding gun owners. This bill leaves too much discretion in the hands of government officials and also contains undefined and overbroad provisions – inviting interference with our constitutional freedoms.”

Stephen Gutowski reports at The Reload:

“Since the shooting, my office has received tens of thousands of calls, letters, and emails with a singular message: Do something,” Senator John Cornyn (R., Texas), a negotiator from the Republican side, said in a floor speech. “Not do nothing. But do something. I think we’ve found some areas where there is some space for compromise”

“Today, we finalized bipartisan, commonsense legislation to protect America’s children, keep our schools safe, and reduce the threat of violence across our country,” Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D., Ariz.), a key coalition member from the Democratic side, said in a statement. “Our legislation will save lives and will not infringe on any law-abiding American’s Second Amendment rights.”

Gutowski also points out that the vote to advance the bill suggests that the votes are there to pass the bill before Congress goes on its Independence Day break.

a synopsis of the new federal gun control law

Section 12001

The bill amends all of the prohibited categories (18 USC 922(d)(1 through 9)) to include actions taken against such person while they were a juvenile (that is, you got convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year’s incarceration as a juvenile, you would be barred from gun ownership).

The bill modifies the above by saying the adjudication as mentally defective or involuntary treatment under section (d)(4) had to be when the person was 16 years old or older.

This would be “retroactive” that is if you were convicted of a juvenile offense in 1992, but you are now 45 years old, you would become ineligible to possess firearms when this bill is enacted, and would have to dispose of any firearms you have, or your possession would be illegal as of the effective date of this law. The bill does not limit it to only applying to juvenile offenses or adjudications that happen after this bill is enacted.

This section also says that firearm transfers to persons under 21 years of age by a dealer may not be made after three days of no response from NICS, the way that current law works. Instead, as to persons under 21 years of age, NICS can extend the “pending” or non responsive response time to ten business days.

In addition to consulting the three Federal databases that NICS currently checks for a firearm background check, if the buyer is under 21, the bill says NICS is to contact the state, or local, repository of juvenile records, to see if the person has any juvenile adjudications that would disqualify the person.  These requirements for NICS to ask the state or local repositories sunset as of 9/30/2032.

The section also asks every State and every Federal agency reporting information to NICS to submit a report on records removed from the database and the reason why the records were removed.

Section 12002

This section rewrites the definition of being engaged in the business of dealing in firearms. Federal law requires persons “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms have a license. The new definition says that a person is engaged in the business if their purpose is “to predominantly earn a profit.” Formerly, profit had to be the “principal objective” of the seller.

Section 12003

This section allows grants made for criminal justice purposes to states, to also be used for red flag law enforcement. The bill says that such red flag laws have to meet whatever due process requirements the courts have found to be necessary.
The bill says that such programs need not provide indigent persons with counsel at government expense.

Section 12004

This section makes it unlawful to buy a firearm for another person knowing the other person is disqualified from buying a firearm under 18 USC 922(d), or that the other person is going to employ the firearm in connection to a felony crime, a drug trafficking crime or a terrorism crime, or that the other person is going to provide the firearm to a third person who will employ it as described.
The bill defines drug trafficking and terrorism.
The bill provides for a more enhanced penalty for drug trafficking and terrorism, up to 15 years incarceration if the person is buying for someone disqualified under 18 USC 922(d), and up to 25 years if buying for someone who the person knows will employ it for committing a felony, drug trafficking or terrorism.

This section also makes interstate sale of a firearm a crime if the seller knows the buyer intends to use the firearm for crime. It also makes receipt of such a firearm a crime. There is an enhanced penalty, up to 15 years, as compared to regular interstate sale of firearms by unlicensed persons, which is illegal under current law.

The section also has enhanced penalties for unlicensed or unpermitted import or export of firearms or ammunition to or from the U.S.

The section also says that the NICS system may be used for a FFL to conduct a background check on a current or prospective employee. Notice must be provided to the employee, and they have to consent to it.

The section requires the FBI to provide access to FFL holders to the database of stolen firearms maintained in the NCIC database, so they can see if a firearm in inventory is stolen. Checking would be voluntary. Not checking would not create civil liability.

Section 12005

This section creates a new firearm disability for persons convicted of a misdemeanor where the victim is someone the person was ‘dating’. It does not require any prior sexual, or even ‘cohabiting’ relations between the offender and the victim for the relationship to be a ‘dating relationship’.

The section says that in order for the disability to apply, the conviction must have occurred after this bill became law. It will not apply to convictions that happened before this bill became law.

The section says that if a person only has one such conviction as to a dating partner, and five years have elapsed with no other convictions for any crimes involving use or attempted use physical force or the threat of use of a deadly weapon (whether against a domestic partner or dating partner or not), then the dating partner conviction is no longer disqualifying for possession of firearms purposes.

However, convictions related to a domestic partner as a victim (as under existing law) are disqualifying forever, as under current law. And a dating partner conviction, and then a second misdemeanor crime where the victim is anyone, that involves physical force or a deadly weapon (as outlined above) is disqualifying forever.

The powers states have to expunge records and pardon offenders that remove firearm possession prohibitions are not affected

Quick take
There are two problems with this. It legitimizes both federal intervention in state matters and “red flag” laws. The latter is problematic because it’s a gray area, no matter how many stipulations are in place. One day people are raising legitimate concerns, the next we have people reporting the neighbor who just rubs them the wrong way.

The Senate gun control bill is finished ….sorta? ‘Discussion Draft’?

bipartisan_safer_communities_act_text