Category: Politics

Yep. He’s a politician all right. He was against it, until it became law, then realizing which way the wind was blowing, he’s now for it. The only question about politicians is whether or not they’re ‘honest’ which means ‘they stay bought’.

Lee County Sheriff’s Take on Concealed Carry Bill

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed a new measure into law on March 11 that will change the way gun owners carry their guns.

No longer will citizens be required to obtain a concealed carry permit.

House Bill 272, The Constitutional Carry Bill, no longer requires citizens to have a permit but also changed the language regarding penalties for unlawful carry.

“Unlike states who are doing everything in their power to make it harder for law abiding citizens, Alabama is reaffirming our commitment to defending our Second Amendment rights,” Ivey said. “I have always stood up for the rights of law abiding gunowners, and I am proud to do that again today.”

HB 272 trickles down in Alabama to all levels, including Lee County. Sheriff Jay Jones approached the Lee County Commission in November, before Ivey signed the bill, asking commissioners to continue a requirement for purchasing concealed carry pistol permits.

“It’s about pro-community safety,” he said in November. “… The current law that’s in place [requires] a person to obtain, by a fee, a pistol permit, to carry a handgun, concealed on about their person or even more importantly, in their vehicle, as they go about their business. And it’s the business of some that I would like to address.

“The tool allows us when we encounter people, who, are generally up to no good quite frankly, in possession of a weapon because they’re not going to get a permit … Criminals aren’t going to go to the trouble of getting a permit. And we depend on that. Because as a result of that, we can confront them when we encounter them without one in a vehicle and are able, in many cases, to relieve them of those weapons, which many times, are stolen.”

At the time, three citizens spoke against Jones’ request, however, the commission voted in favor of his resolution.

Three commissioners voted in favor, while District 5 Commissioner Richard LaGrand abstained.

“You know, Jay, if this is something that helps you and the three gentlemen back there with you in law enforcement, if it helps y’all do your job, I would encourage the commission to support this,” said District 4 Commissioner Robert Ham. “And I think what I just heard is that it did.”

Now that HB272 has been signed into law, however, Jones said he supports Ivey’s efforts for Second Amendment Rights.

“[I] agree that Alabama should be strong in affirming the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” he said in a statement to The Observer. “Whether the purpose is for protection of self and family or to engage in hunting or sporting activities, the right to acquire and own a firearm is fundamental. As a Sheriff, I support citizens exercising this right and encourage the concept of responsibility by acquiring the knowledge and skills to safely handle and maintain a firearm.”

His concerns, however, are still in place, he said.

“Law enforcement professionals at all levels remain concerned that a tool utilized by our peace officers around Alabama has been removed,” Jones said. “These concerns are based on experience and knowledge gained by those who keep our communities safe every day. We will remain vigilant and our hope is that our concerns do not come to fruition when the law takes effect next year.”

“I WILL NOT COMPLY”
WASHINGTON LAWMAKERS PASS MAG CAPACITY LIMITS AS CLICHES FLY

Nothing makes less sense than politicians who know zip about firearms, to say nothing of personal protection, passing laws that put restrictions on guns used by armed citizens to defend themselves, their families and in an emergency, their neighbors.

Not only does a magazine ban affect rifles, it also will create problems
for people who own pistols such as this Sig Sauer P229 Elite with its greater capacity.

Washington lawmakers recently passed such a law, and to suggest it stinks would be excessively civil. According to the affected gun owners whose remarks I’ve read on social media, the Evergreen State is taking on a shade of brown, and it’s got nothing to do with fall colors.

Long story short, the legislation prohibits the import, sale, trade or manufacture of a “large capacity magazine,” which is defined as an “ammunition-feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition…” As one might guess, this set off a buying frenzy, because—and here’s the puzzling part—any such magazines owned prior to the July 1 effective date will be “grandfathered in.” That is, the owners can keep them.

I can hear you all wondering, “How are they going to enforce this?” Magazines don’t have serial numbers, and if somebody has a garage full of them, how would anyone prove that individual didn’t have all of those magazines six months ago?

I happen to own a trio of 25-round magazines for my Ruger 10/22, which—believe it or not—falls within the initiative-adopted definition of a “semi-automatic assault rifle.”

It is imperative for you folks in other states to remember Washington is considered something of a “test tube” state by the gun prohibition lobby. It used to be California, but the Pacific Northwest has become the new petri dish for all manner of gun control nonsense to see what can be passed, and what can’t. What is tried in Washington this year might be coming to a state legislature near you next year.

Outbreak of Clichés

As noted earlier, nothing makes less sense … except perhaps for how some people react on social media to a gun restriction anywhere in the United States.

It’s the same all over, whether in New Jersey, Oregon, California, and Massachusetts; pick a state with a new gun control law and I guarantee you will hear or see the following:

“I will not comply!” pops up first, frequently followed by “I had this tragic boating accident.” What may have been amusing a dozen years ago has lost its oomph. Besides, trying to be clever to get around a dumb gun law can end badly, and such claims are juvenile at best.

At this writing, plaintiffs in a federal case challenging California’s “high capacity” magazine ban had filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court for review of their case, known as Duncan v. Bonta. They won twice, at trial and then on appeal to a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, but then the court held an en banc re-hearing with 11 judges, and they reversed.

So, since Washington is also in the Ninth Circuit, we’ll all probably see authorities in that state pushing hard to prevent the high court from reviewing the Duncan case. It is time for the Supremes to take such a case to further define the parameters of the Second Amendment. Let’s hope they are very broad.

Just for edification, the 10-round limit applies to pistol magazines as well as those for rifles. Suddenly, owners of striker- fired Glocks,  Springfields,  Smith & Wessons, SIG SAUERs and other popular pistol brands and models are paying attention. It’s not just guys with rifles who are being targeted. Handgunners are in the crosshairs as well.

I inquired with a couple of pals at the National Shooting Sports Foundation about the origin of the “magic” 10-round limit. Whose idea was that? Neither of my contacts was certain, but it appears to have originated with someone in the gun control lobby, once again demonstrating a lack of firearms understanding evidently rampant among that bunch.

Comment(s) O’ The Day

this is what happens when we source everything to the “experts”

No. This is what happens when you ask simple questions of someone who is so deeply dishonest that all they see is a trap.

Kamala Harris Has Deep Thoughts On “The Significance of the Passage of Time”
“So when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time…there is such great significance to the passage of time.”

Kamala Harris has thoughts. Deep thoughts.

“The significance of the passage of time, right? The significance of the passage of time. So when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time…there is such great significance to the passage of time.”

The full video is here, it’s not out of context.

As soon as I saw the clip, I thought of this clip from Animal House:

 

What The Next Long-Term Fights Will Be for the Second Amendment

Second Amendment supporters have come a long way over the years. In 1982, California was having a referendum on whether to ban handguns. Now, there is a good chance that its “discretionary” carry permit scheme will be gone. There could also be a chance the Supreme Court could also wipe out semiauto and magazine bans in the near future.

Second Amendment supporters now need to answer some new questions. They are:

“What’s next?”
“How do we accomplish that objective?”
It goes without saying that financial deplatforming is the immediate threat to our Second Amendment rights, along with addressing Silicon Valley’s censorship. But what comes after that? Second Amendment supporters need to figure that out.

There will be good news. Favorable rulings in NYSRPA v. Bruen and the semiauto ban cases will make the courts a good venue to challenge other infringements. The real question will be the pace where court rulings take out anti-Second Amendment laws, and that could very well depend on how John Roberts goes.

As we discussed earlier, given the current makeup of the court, if Roberts is in the majority, he will designate who writes the opinion. But if he doesn’t, then it would be Clarence Thomas who would get to decide who writes the opinion. The retirement of Stephen Breyer will not change the balance, but his nominated replacement, Ketanji Brown-Jackson, may not be as effective an opponent as Breyer was.

The victories, though, will prompt outrage. If you think calls to pack the court are bad now, wait until massive parts of the agenda that anti-Second Amendment extremists have pushed get declared unconstitutional. Second Amendment supporters may need to look to winning general elections in order to defend against court-packing.

Despite the need to defend against efforts to pack the court, there will be changes – and the need – to take the offensive on the legislative front. For instance, it may be time to figure out how to either roll back who is prohibited or to find a way for people to remove themselves from being prohibited.

In one sense, Second Amendment supporters may be on the first steps of the path to do just that with the NICS Denial Notification Act. One thing we will need to do in order to reverse a number of dubious categories of “prohibited persons” is going to be getting the hard data on what exactly, people are denied for.

In fact, many of the battles we will face now will be slow and grueling in many ways. Oftentimes, the biggest wins at the federal level will be about what doesn’t happen. The most important victories will be the ones where Second Amendment supporters defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists via the ballot box at the federal, state, and local levels.

 

The End of the Climate Change Legend

For many years now, there has been a spirited debate about whether climate change is science, religion or even perhaps a secret route to socialism. That question remains unanswered, but we’ve now discovered with certainty that climate change is a political albatross around the neck of the Democratic Party.

The Left’s spiritual devotion to climate change has been speeding the Democrats over a political cliff this fall with likely unprecedented losses this November. The zero fossil fuels suicide pact was always an economic and political loser. More than 70% of all the energy we produce and consume in America derives from oil, gas and coal. President Joe Biden’s war on these fuel sources was sure to cause severe shortages and $5 a gallon gasoline at the pump. Didn’t Democrats learn their lesson in 1980 when Ronald Reagan won a landslide election against Jimmy Carter that surging inflation and gas prices is a surefire way to infuriate voters?

While Biden keeps saying he is doing “everything I can to lower gas prices,” he’s speaking out of both sides of his mouth — because if your goal is to get people to stop using something, raising its price is a pretty good way to accomplish that. If prices go to $10 or $15 a gallon, you can clear the highways of trucks and cars altogether, and what a wonderful world it will be.

Democrats were so enamored with their Green New Deal delusion that they failed to understand that most people aren’t as hyper-obsessed with climate change as they are. A new poll sponsored by my group, Committee to Unleash Prosperity, found that people are much more concerned about inflation and high gas prices than climate change. Moreover, the poll found that respondents’ average amount they would be willing to pay for the climate change agenda was $55 a year. Sorry, that’s the extra cost we are already spending with two fill-ups at the gas station.

Then there is the increasingly unavoidable reality that the green energy sources they fantasize about are decades away from being technologically feasible to replace old-fashioned oil, gas and coal. Even the Energy Department predicts that even with the trend toward renewable energy, by 2035, we will still be heavily reliant on oil, gas and coal for electricity production, home heating and transportation fuels.

Elon Musk, the leading champion of electric cars, reminded Biden in a recent tweet that in the real world rather than in la-la land, we are going to need oil and gas for many years to come. Today 3% of cars on the road are electric, and 95% use gas or diesel.

This brings us to yet another fatal flaw of the climate change movement. The Biden administration and its radical green allies can’t explain why getting our energy from Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia makes more sense than Texas, Oklahoma and Alaska.

This strategy is especially pinheaded because the war on oil, gas and coal production is a big loser for the environment and increases global greenhouse gas emissions. That is because America has the strictest environmental standards. Shifting oil and gas production to Russia or Iran and shifting coal production to China and India is causing far more air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Chinese President Xi Jinping is busy trying to take over the world economy, and the last thing he or the ruling class in Beijing cares about is climate change.

Finally, Democrats should have learned from the green energy catastrophe of Western Europe. A decade ago, the French, Germans, Italians and others in the European Union moved to a renewable energy future. They slashed much of their oil, gas and coal production, shut down nuclear plants (why?) and subsidized the building of wind turbines and solar panels. It nearly bankrupted Germany as energy prices soared and factories left Europe for America and Asia. A decade later, France is back to building nuclear plants, and Germany is burning more coal than ever before and importing natural gas from Russia. Europe recently redefined natural gas and nuclear power as “clean energy.”

Going green wrecked their economies and submerged these countries deeper into the red. Unfortunately, Americans weren’t paying any attention to that failed experiment. So now Biden is repeating it. The result is likely to be the same. The Democrats’ radical climate change agenda isn’t greening the planet, and it is bankrupting our country. Voters know exactly whom to blame.

Interesting article

BLUF:
The news is full not only of stories about the New York Times fessing up, sort of, about the contents of Hunter’s laptop, but also of stories about how Hunter is likely to be indicted for tax fraud. In one sense, that is not news. I wrote about it at the end of 2020 when Hunter announced, sotto voce, that he had been informed that he was being investigated by the tax authorities. But in another sense, I suspect, that news, like the revelation from the New York Times that, what do you know, all that stuff about Hunter’s laptop was on the level, like Joe Biden’s bizarre suggestion a couple of days ago that “everybody knows somebody” who has taken nude pictures of some lover and then used them to “blackmail” the person—all that has a different valence now that the Biden Administration is seriously underwater and there are no lifelines in evidence.

The issue is never the issue. I suspect that Joe Biden is being prepped for ejection. Exactly how it will happen I do not yet know. But he is on the threshold, or possibly has even passed the threshold, where he could appear to govern. His minders understand this. They must be the ones to replace him, otherwise they themselves risk being replaced, which would be intolerable. As I say, it’s not entirely clear yet how the defenestration will take place. Obviously, Kamala will have to be dealt with first, and she will be. Look for some ground softening stories such as the Times just served up about the laptop. They won’t be long in coming

Biden’s Handlers Are Preparing to Eject Him (and Kamala)

I sense a disturbance in the force. In fact, I’ve been feeling the tremors for a while. Back in January, I wrote a column for American Greatness called “The Coming Dethronement of Joe Biden.” In it, I noted that Biden’s appalling performance as president would sooner or later—and probably sooner, given the ostentatious nature of his multifaceted failure—lead to his removal as president.

I should have added that it wasn’t Biden’s performance per se that would lead to his downfall. The problem, rather, was the way his performance was undermining his—and therefore his minders’ and puppetmasters’—political power. As Saul Alinsky, community organizer to the stars, noted, the “issue is never the issue.” Accordingly, the people who put Joe Biden in power—I cannot name them, but I know they are the same people who keep him in power—do not care about inflation, rising gas and food prices, COVID lockdowns or mask mandates, the porousness of our Southern border, the threat of war with Russia, or the myriad other issues that worry ordinary voters. I am quite certain, in fact, that the word “voters” brings a vaguely contemptuous smile to their faces.

They are not troubled by the suffering of the people, indeed, they approve of a certain amount of suffering. Suffering produces dependency; and dependency, in turn, is like an insurance policy for those who cater to it: the bureaucrats who fill the troughs that feed the populace. The point, of course, was never to end the dependency but to manage in such a way as to perpetuate and expand it. Joe Biden is an errand boy, a figurehead, in the metabolism of this great (not to say Great Society) act of political legerdemain.

Continue reading “”

The DeSantis Doctrine.

You gotta hand it to a guy who convinces Democrats to die on the hill of defending perverted groomers talking about sex with little school kids. It’s on-brand for their fellow travelers at The Lincoln Project, but you would think that Democrats actually want to win elections. But no – they want to make the schools safe for pedos, and they don’t care who knows it. But they’ll care plenty in November when parents around the country come out and vote for The Party of Not Hitting on Der Kinder.

Donald Trump has his record of achievement – economic success and peace abroad. But Ron DeSantis has the DeSantis Doctrine, sort of like the Monroe Doctrine, except instead of keeping shady foreigners out of our hemisphere, the DeSantis Doctrine keeps woke fascists out of our lives.

It was DeSantis who started the fire that burned the pyre of Democrat hopes and dreams they jumped onto in their campaign against the Florida anti-grooming statute. But that’s only his latest fight with the elite. DeSantis has been laying down the law in Florida, literally, and in a way even Donald Trump never did. At some level, Donald Trump still has some residual respect for the trappings of the elite. He’s impressed by name universities and huge corporations, and for all his much-justified complaining, he still cavorts with institutions that hate him, like the NYT. He’s not yet completely done with the institutions, but DeSantis is. DeSantis is all honey badger, laying waste and making the rubble bounce.

Continue reading “”

Seems like some politicians are more concerned with ‘civility’ than doing their job of ‘securing rights’ of the people.

Wyoming Senate takes a stand on civility

At some point during the Wyoming Legislature’s just-completed budget session, one representative walked up to another and asked why his cohort had to be so mean.

Rep. Bob Wharff (R-Evanston) was on the receiving end of that question, posed by Rep. Cyrus Western (R-Big Horn), and he recollected the exchange to WyoFile. The representative from Evanston stood his ground.

“I told him, ‘The problem is, we are fighting a battle, we are at war,’” Wharff recalled. “These people are attacking our Second Amendment rights. If we don’t stand up and push back — and I honestly believe this — if we don’t defend our Second Amendment rights, all our other rights go out.”

Continue reading “”

Is the nature of gun control changing?

When you spend a lot of time studying gun control, it gets to be easy to see the same old patterns pop up time and time again. I see the same bogus statistics, the same BS arguments, the same tired rhetoric over and over again.

However, it seems that some believe that the nature of gun control in this country is starting to change.

In late January 2022, the city of San Jose, California was the first US city to require gun owners to purchase liability insurance. A recent trend in Democratic-leaning cities has led to a slew of similar laws being discussed by other cities. San Jose’s law may encourage them to wait before they join the trend. Critics of the San Jose law point to its lack of enforcement or penalties for gun owners who fail to purchase insurance and a $25 fee levied against gun owners that may prove unconstitutional. Sam Liccardo, the mayor of San Jose, suggested that the insurance mandate would encourage gun owners to have gun safes, use trigger locks, and enroll in gun safety classes, likely to reduce their hypothetical insurance bill. Gun insurance remains a nebulous, theoretical concept, so it’s unclear whether insurance agencies will offer financial incentives for gun owners to be responsible. …

San Jose’s recent gun insurance mandate has been making waves on social media, but it doesn’t tell the whole story when it comes to the evolution of laws surrounding our personal security. Not only are states like Ohio loosening restrictions on responsible gun owners, but states like Tennessee and Washington are experimenting with less restrictive, more incentive-based programs that encourage responsible ownership without burdening owners or infringing on their rights. The success of the Tennessee and Washington programs may pave the way for other innovative measures in the future. They serve as proof that you don’t have to restrict rights in order to steer citizens in a more responsible direction and keep everyone safe.

The mention to Tennessee references the measure that would waive sale tax on things like gun safes.

Unfortunately, though, the Washington measure is their mandatory storage law, which is an infringement on gun owners’ rights.

But does the overall point remain? Are gun control laws shifting to be less invasive on people’s rights? I’m afraid I can’t agree.

While Tennessee took a positive tact, Washington’s law still boils down to telling people what they must do in their own homes. We’ve continued to see gun control-supporting lawmakers pushing through more and more regulations.

Hell, we just had gun control pass at the federal level that includes a lot of problematic language.

The truth is that gun control isn’t so much shifting as expanding. They’re still trying to ban so-called assault weapons, push universal background checks, and expand the definition of domestic violence so they can deny gun rights to legions of additional people. They’re just doing a lot of other stuff.

In fact, the part about this claim that bothers me the most is that Tennessee’s measure is so not gun control that it shouldn’t be compared with some of these other measures.

An Opportunity Second Amendment Supporters Must Not Waste

It’s time for Second Amendment supporters to channel Rahm Emanuel for a moment. In fact, there is a chance to hoist the one-time Obama Chief of Staff, who urged people to “never let a crisis go to waste,” on his own petard.

Right now, if you believe polling by the Wall Street Journal, Second Amendment supporters could deliver a metaphorical death blow to the hopes of anti-Second Amendment extremists over the next few years. However, it will take a lot of hard work to make that happen, and time may not be entirely on our side.

About 20 years ago, the political home of anti-Second Amendment extremism made a bet. They thought that there was a demographic doomsday coming for their opposition. However, that bet has not quite worked out for them over the long haul. Yes, Obama did win in a landslide in 2008, and won re-election solidly in 2012 (with an assist from the IRS targeting the Tea Party), but in the decade since 2012… how have things worked out?

We’ve discussed some of the signs that their bet on demographics isn’t working out the way they hoped. The lessons from last year’s Virginia gubernatorial election should give Second Amendment supporters and pro-Second Amendment organizations a blueprint for how to carry out the outreach.

This outreach is important. As things stand right now, for many of those who voted Youngkin in 2021 (and those of a similar mind across the country), support for the Second Amendment became a “non-dealbreaker” in the face of the current situation. While that might be sufficient for the short-term, would it not be better to make support for the Second Amendment a positive among those voters who currently consider it a “non-dealbreaker” in the face of a crisis?

Blowing the opportunity that Gun Culture 2.0 is presenting would be to repeat the very mistake that those in charge of the political home of anti-Second Amendment extremism made. We know that anti-Second Amendment extremist organizations like the Brady Campaign have had regrettable levels of success in dividing gun owners, often by hijacking the concept of “responsible” gun ownership. Reclaiming that term from anti-Second Amendment extremists is crucial to defeating their “divide and conquer” strategy.

Most important, though is to be willing to reach out to the new gun owners. Like any beginner in a new sport, they will need instruction and help from those who have more experience. The process of welcoming them should start from the moment they are at their first visit to an FFL and it should have no endpoint.

There are big tasks up ahead. Second Amendment supporters have to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local levels via the ballot box this November and in 2024. The process starts today by not wasting the opportunity that Biden’s blunders are giving us.

Below The Radar: Stopping the Fraudulent Sales of Firearms Act

Second Amendment supporters often have to make difficult decisions. Not in the sense of Glock vs. Colt vs. Springfield Armory, but more along the lines of how to address a given piece of anti-Second Amendment legislation.

Take for instance the Stopping the Fraudulent Sales of Firearms Act, known as S 3776 and HR 6997. The legislation purports to prohibit the importation, sale, or manufacture of firearms “by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.”

On the face of it, this seems unobjectionable. Nobody wants to be sold a firearm on the basis of misrepresentation or a false promise, right? But there are red flags when Second Amendment supporters think things through some more.

For starters, the Senate bill is sponsored by Dianne Feinstein, a long-standing enemy of our Second Amendment rights. So that is a red flag right there. Her co-sponsors include Cory Booker and Richard Blumenthal, also committed opponents of the Second Amendment.

Aside from who sponsors it, there is one other question: Who decides what constitutes “false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises?”

This is a big deal on multiple fronts. Remember how the CDC is getting back into the gun-control business? They worry that it will be used to justify censorship by Silicon Valley is big, but this legislation could add another threat.

Suppose some anti-Second Amendment extremist decides that those who advertise firearms for self-defense are making ““false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises?” That now becomes a new way to hit someone with a five-year jail term and a felony conviction.

This also is a way to “legalize” suits like the one brought against Remington over Sandy Hook. Never mind that the rifle used was stolen (after the shooter killed the rightful owner), the claim from the suit was centered around the advertising. In other words, prove there was “false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises” in the advertising, and all of the sudden, it becomes easier to sue gun manufacturers.

This is a dangerous end run around the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Again, we need to remember what Feinstein said so long ago on 60 Minutes. She wants an Australia-style ban, but if she can’t have it, she’ll figure out what she can get legislatively (see the Age 21 Act). Or she’ll enable other attacks outside the legislative process.

What makes it doubly hard is that this bill seems very reasonable, so Second Amendment supporters have to be very careful about the optics while opposing it. After all, nobody wants to support those who sell anything (including firearms) with “false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.”

Second Amendment supporters need to contact their Representative and Senators and politely urge them to oppose the Stopping the Fraudulent Sales of Firearms Act. Then. They need to work to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists via the ballot box this November.

How do you know the numbers of Hispanic voters are increasingly seen as going Republican?
The lieberal media hauls out the broadest smear brush they can find.

The rise of white nationalist Hispanics.

Nick Fuentes, identified as a “white supremacist” in Justice Department filings, made headlines last week for hosting a white nationalist conference in Florida. His father is also half Mexican American.

Driving the news: Cuban American Enrique Tarrio, the former leader of the Proud Boys, a group the Anti-Defamation League calls an extremist group with a violent agenda, was arrested Tuesday and charged with conspiracy in connection to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

What they’re saying: Experts tell Axios far-right extremism within the Latino community stems from three sources: Hispanic Americans who identify as white; the spread of online misinformation; and lingering anti-Black, antisemitic views among U.S. Latinos that are rarely openly discussed.

Blah, blah, blah, blah…………

The problem is that the Michigan Goobernor is still none other than DerGrëtchënFührer herslef, and I can’t see her signing a bill into law that would diminish goobermint power.

Michigan: House Passes Pro-Gun Bills

Yesterday, the House passed House Bills 5187 and 5188, to ensure that Second Amendment rights remain protected during a state of emergency, and House Bill 4003, to reduce the penalty for law-abiding citizens who forget to renew their Concealed Pistol License in certain instances. They will now go to the Senate for further consideration. Please contact your state senator and ask them to SUPPORT House Bills 5187, 5188, and 4003.

House Bill 5187 and House Bill 5188 passed by votes of 61-40 and 62-39 respectively. They prohibit the state government from restricting the lawful carrying of firearms and ammunition, seizing firearms or ammunition, restricting firearm businesses and shooting ranges, and restricting hunting and fishing activities during a declared state of emergency, or as an emergency response to an epidemic. Further, the legislation provides legal recourse for people who experience unjust infringements.

During the state of emergency in 2020 for COVID-19, Governor Gretchen Whitmer issued an executive order for all nonessential businesses and activities to cease, which purposefully referenced an outdated list of such industries, rather than the most updated federal guidelines that designated firearm and ammunition retailers as essential. In addition, many anti-gun officials around the country, at both state and local levels of government, took the opportunity to unilaterally suspend Second Amendment rights by actively shutting down gun stores and ranges. HB 5187 and HB 5188 protect the exercise of a constitutional right from such politically motivated attacks and ensure that citizens have those rights when they need them most.

House Bill 4003 passed by a vote of 74-27. It reduces the offense of carrying a handgun on an expired CPL from a felony, under current law, to a civil fine of $330, as long as it’s within one year of expiration and the person is still legally eligible for a CPL. Permanently stripping Second Amendment rights from an otherwise law-abiding citizen who forgets to renew their CPL does not improve public safety.

[Michigan] State House Passes LaFave’s Firearms Transport Bill

The state House today passed Rep. Beau LaFave’s plan to expand the rights of gun owners to transport their firearm unmolested while on private property.

The bill would allow uncased firearms in any vehicle, including an ATV or UTV, on private land as long as they are accompanied by or have permission from the landowner or lessee.

“This is a huge win for Michiganders all over the state,” said LaFave, of Iron Mountain. “This will help keep individuals from being unnecessarily prosecuted. Right now, you can carry a loaded pistol in or upon a vehicle with a CPL, but getting caught with a .22 long rifle subjects you to three months in jail.”

“This common-sense reform does not impact public safety,” LaFave said. “The bill simply decriminalizes a statute that makes criminals out of law-abiding citizens.”

Similar legislation passed the House with the support of LaFave in 2018. That law, now Public Act 272 of 2018, allowed a bow or crossbow to be transported without a case.

LaFave said: “Michiganders are entitled to their right to bear arms, more so on their own property than anywhere else. I remain committed to protecting the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. But let’s not forget, this is also a private property issue. Nobody should face three months of jail time for transporting firearms on their own property. This is a DNR regulation that does not help public safety, and the government has no business telling you what you can or cannot do on your own land with firearms, so long as you aren’t endangering the public.”

House Bill 4078 now heads to the Senate for further consideration.

Democrat Spending Bill Contains ‘Serious Expansion of Federal Gun Control’: Gun Rights Group

Democrats’ $1.5 trillion omnibus spending package, unveiled early Wednesday, includes provisions that constitute “a serious expansion of federal gun control” according to the National Association for Gun Rights.

Specifically, the omnibus bill includes the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

Though there is bipartisan consensus that violence against women is bad—more limited forms of the bill have passed through bipartisan votes since the first draft was introduced in 1994—more recent forms of the legislation have been controversial with Republicans for provisions relating to gun ownership.

Due to continued efforts by Democrats to include gun control measures in the legislation, the bill was last passed into law in 2013, and has faced steep opposition from pro-Second Amendment Republicans since then.

Currently, almost all firearm sales require a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Purchasers who are tagged as having a criminal background barring them from possessing a firearm are tagged in the system and are not allowed to carry out the purchase.

However, VAWA takes this system much further.

Under its provisions, the attorney general is required “to issue a notice to State, local, or Tribal law enforcement and prosecutors if an individual has attempted to purchase a firearm and been denied pursuant to the national instant criminal background check system.”

In other words, an attempt to buy a firearm while legally barred from owning one can be met with criminal investigation.

In a statement, the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) warned that this system is dangerous.

“Over 95 percent of all NICS denials are false positives, which means all local and state police would be required to investigate law-abiding citizens when they’re wrongly and unconstitutionally denied the right to purchase a firearm,” NAGR said.

“Make no mistake—the NICS denial reporting embedded inside the Violence Against Women Act constitutes a serious expansion of federal gun control,” said Dudley Brown, president of the NAGR. “Not only does it rapidly expand federal gun control policy, it would actually endanger women, not keep them safe.”

Continue reading “”

New Hampshire: House Expected to Vote on Two Gun Bills Tomorrow

Tomorrow Today the New Hampshire House is scheduled to consider pro-gun House Bill 1636, and anti-gun House Bill 1151. NRA Members and Second Amendment supporters are encouraged to contact their State Representative and ask them to SUPPORT House Bill 1636 and to OPPOSE House Bill 1151.

Pro-Gun Bill:

House Bill 1636: “ATV-Carry” allows the carry of a loaded firearm on an Off-Highway Recreation Vehicle (OHRV) or snowmobile. This legislation also helps to clean up the law from when Permitless Carry was passed and a snowmobile prohibition remained. If you can carry a gun in your vehicle, or on your person, you shouldn’t have to surrender your right to self-defense simply because you’re operating a snowmobile.

Anti-Gun Bills:

House Bill 1151: imposes a ban on the open carry of firearms at various public demonstrations, including parades, marches, rallies, etc. This arbitrary ban is simply anti-gun virtue signaling that only affects law-abiding citizens, dictating how they must exercise a constitutional right, while doing nothing to improve public safety

Missouri House approves plan to allow guns on public transit

JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri House approved legislation Wednesday that would allow people who have concealed weapons permits to carry their guns on public transportation.

The measure, which has been debated several times in recent years but has not become law, also would lower the age requirement from 19 to 18 years of age or older for a concealed carry permit.

The proposal also would remove the prohibition on the carrying of firearms in churches and other places of worship by a person with a valid concealed carry permit.

It advanced to the Senate on 101-40 vote.

Republicans who control the Legislature have worked to loosen restrictions on guns for years, resulting in Missouri being ranked 47th in the nation by the Giffords Law Center for gun safety. [an honor, I assure you]

In 2007, for example, lawmakers dumped a universal background-check law. In 2016, the Legislature repealed a law so that Missourians could carry concealed firearms without a permit in most places.

In 2021, the GOP-led General Assembly approved the Second Amendment Preservation Act, prohibiting police in Missouri from enforcing any federal firearms laws that aren’t mirrored in state law.

That law has triggered a lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice Department.

Opponents of the latest move said they are concerned it could open the door for extremists to attack worshipers.

“I am not anti-gun. I just don’t want to see more hate crimes,” said Rep. Maggie Nurrenbern, D-Kansas City.

The legislation also includes a provision known as Blair’s Law, which would criminalize “celebratory gunfire.” It is named for Blair Shanahan Lane, who was struck in the neck by a bullet fired from more than a half-mile away.

The legislation is House Bill 1462.

“Second Amendment Protection Act” Clears [Wyoming] House By 43 – 15 Margin

A bill aimed at prohibiting Wyoming law enforcement officers from enforcing unconstitutional restrictions on Second Amendment rights won final approval from the House on Wednesday.

Representatives voted 43-15 to approve Senate File 102, the “Second Amendment Protection Act” in its final House review

Defenders of the bill debated opponents who maintained the bill should be killed because it was weaker than one considered and rejected earlier in the session.

“I, for one, would like my constituents to have something rather than nothing,” said Rep. John Bear, R-Gillette. “When we say it’s a weak bill, but we’re willing to go with no protection at all, which is weaker?”

SF102 would prohibit any Wyoming law enforcement agent from enforcing unconstitutional federal restrictions on the Second Amendment. If an unconstitutional federal rule was enforced, the enforcing officer could face one year in jail and a fine of up to $2,000.

The bill had been roundly criticized by backers of another gun rights bill, SF87, the “Second Amendment Preservation Act.” The bill, which failed to win introduction early in the session, would have allowed citizens to sue officials they felt were responsible for enforcing unconstitutional barriers to the Second Amendment, including increases in taxes and fees on ammunition.

Continue reading “”

New York House Republicans take aim at Democratic state lawmakers’ push for bullet tax

Top New York Republicans are out to shoot down a first-of-its-kind measure now making its way through the state Senate that would place a new tax on ammunition.

The measure, introduced late last month by a pair of Democrats, would place a tax of up to a nickel on each round of ammunition measuring .22 caliber or less. Revenue from the bill would fund gun violence research being conducted through the state Department of Health and the State University of New York.

If passed, the tax would be the first state levy on bullets in the nation. The Empire State’s GOP delegation to the U.S. House is no fan of what state lawmakers from the other party are doing and believe it could violate the U.S. Constitution — which is their purview.

“Albany’s far-left tax on ammunition is a direct attack on every gun owner in upstate New York and the North Country,” House Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik, a Republican, told the Washington Examiner on Tuesday. “In the face of Albany’s latest assault on our constitutional rights, I will always stand up for New Yorkers’ Second Amendment rights and against this outrageous tax proposal.”

GOP Rep. Claudia Tenney denounced the bill as “yet another attempt by far-left progressives in Albany to undermine the ability of upstate New Yorkers to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

“Downstate progressives are once again showing their disdain for our upstate values,” she added. “Instead of protecting our constitutional rights, New York Democrats want to legislate gun owners straight out of New York.”

Rep. Tom Reed, a Republican member of the centrist Problem Solvers Caucus, said Democrats are once again looking to punish law-abiding gun owners for violence committed by criminals.

“Rather than focusing on solving the root problem of gun violence, Democrats again want to focus on objects — once guns, now ammo,” Reed said. “Enough is enough.

“Let’s tackle issues of untreated mental illness, criminal propensities, and unchecked drug trafficking that are the true major drivers of gun violence,” he added.

Republican Rep. Andrew Garbarino, who served in the state Assembly before being elected to the U.S. House, denounced the proposal as a “punitive measure” that would “unfairly target law-abiding gun owners.”

“It’s outrageous, and I would urge my former colleagues in the state Legislature to reject it out of hand,” he said.

Even though the tax would only add between 2-5 cents to the price of a round, Rep. Chris Jacobs said it was ill-advised.

“Ammo prices are already higher than they have been in years,” Jacobs, a Republican, said. “Adding an additional tax will only be an additional barrier to law-abiding citizens practicing their Second Amendment rights.”

The bill’s sponsors, state Democratic Sen. Andrew Gounardes and Democratic Assemblywoman Pat Fahy, meanwhile, have argued that their bill is forward-thinking and would serve to prevent gun violence at a time of alarming spikes in crime in the Empire State.

“By taxing ammunition, we are fairly funding research that will help us build smart and effective policies,” Gounardes said last week.

“When we talk about gun violence prevention and community-based policies that help to interrupt cycles of violence, resources matter,” Fahy added, arguing that the bill was directing such resources “where they’re most effectively used and protecting more New Yorkers from the scourge of gun violence.”