Category: Politics

Which is the same question asked of them for many years:
What makes you believe that another law will suddenly make a criminal stop violating all the other laws they’ve been violating?
Since it won’t, as demonstrated by past performance of the criminal element from the dawn of history to date, what they want isn’t about stopping criminals from committing crimes, but controlling the populace.

---

A Simple Question For Democrats About Universal Background Checks

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her anti-gun allies are moving forward with votes on a pair of gun control bills dealing with background checks for firearm purchases, armed with a new poll showing broad support from the electorate when it comes to requiring background checks on all sales of firearms. A new Morning Consult poll finds that 84-percent of respondents backed the idea when they were asked, though I suspect that if the question had been worded a little differently we might have seen a very different result.

Do 84-percent of Americans think a person should go to federal prison if they transfer a firearm to their neighbor who’s afraid of her abusive ex showing up at her door? Do 84-percent of Americans think that it should be crime to sell a gun to your cousin without a background check, but legal for you to sell a gun to your aunt without one? I highly doubt it, but that’s exactly what H.R. 8 would require if it were to become law.

We’re gonna hear a lot of talk from Democrats in the next few days about the popularity of universal background checks, but the fact is that most Americans simply don’t know about the details of the Democrats’ proposals and how they could impact legal gun owners.

Beyond the polling, however, I have a serious question for the supporters of H.R. 8, and I hope that Republicans in the House press their anti-gun colleagues for an answer.

How will this bill prevent any illicit private transfer of a firearm? 

Democrats claim that H.R. 8 will stop criminals from getting a gun, but have you noticed that they never actually explain how the bill will do that?

“If you are a criminal, you are a felon, you are deranged, well by God you shouldn’t have access to a weapon, that’s what this bill does. It has the support of about 90% of Americans,” Illinois Democratic Rep. Cheri Bustos said.

Bustos says one bill would close the so-called “gun show loophole” by making it illegal for unlicensed persons to transfer firearms to someone else without a background check.

Most criminals don’t get their guns through legal means in the first place, and the bill doesn’t change the fact that convicted felons and those adjudicated as “mentally defective” cannot legally buy or possess a firearm. So how exactly does this bill prevent access to a gun from those not allowed to own one?

Simply put, it doesn’t. At best it allows for a criminal charge after the fact, but even then prosecutors would face significant challenges. They’d first have to find the gun in question, trace it back to the illicit purchaser, who would then have to provide evidence that the gun was purchased without a background check from a private seller after the universal background check bill became law.

In the year after Washington State approved a universal background check measure of its own, there were a total of ten arrests and two convictions of individuals who attempted to purchase a gun when they were prohibited from doing so, but it looks like both of those convictions came as the result of background checks performed on retail sales of guns, not private transfers.

New Mexico also approved universal background checks back in 2019, and in the first year that the law was on the books there were zero arrests for conducing a private gun sale without going through a background check. Are we really supposed to believe that criminals in the Land of Enchantment simply stopped all black market sales, or does it make more sense that criminals simply continued to ignore this law just as they ignore the laws against, say, home invasion or armed robbery?

Democrats maintain that H.R. 8 will prevent criminals from getting their hands on a gun, but I’ve never heard them explain how the legislation will do that. Something tells me that we won’t get any such explanation during the debate of H.R. 8 either, but every pro-2A House member should call them out for their obfuscation and demand that they tell the American people the truth about this bill; it won’t and can’t prevent a single illicit private transfer of a firearm, and is utterly useless as a public safety strategy.

South Dakota: Two Pro-Gun Bills Head to the Governor’s Desk for Signature

Wednesday, March 3rd the South Dakota House gave final approval to a pair of pro-gun measures, Senate Bill 100 and Senate Bill 111.  These two important bills now head to the desk of Governor Kristi Noem for her signature.  Please contact Governor Kristi Noem and ask her to sign Senate Bills 100 and 111 into law.

Senate Bill 100 provides protections for gun stores, ranges, or any other entity that engages in the lawful selling or servicing of firearms, components, or accessories. SB 100 also prevents the prohibition, regulation, or seizure of citizens’ Second Amendment rights during a declared State of Emergency.

Senate Bill 111 reduces the cost for some types of concealed carry permits.

Dems Tell Manchin: Nuke Filibuster If You Want Background Checks

I take absolutely no joy in saying this, but my job is to tell it like it is and not try to blow sunshine up anyone’s backside: the gun control bills that are expected to start moving in the House this week are almost guaranteed to be approved and sent to the U.S. Senate. H.R. 8, which would impose a one-year federal prison sentence on gun owners who transferred a firearm without first going through a background check, and H.R. 1446, which would allow the FBI to delay transfers done through an FFL for ten days (and indefinitely in some circumstances) as opposed to the three-day limit currently allowed by law, aren’t going to get out the House with wide margins, but bills only need a bare majority to pass there.

It’s the Senate where things are going to get tricky for gun control legislation, since 60 votes are going to be necessary in order for the bills to pass. Joe Manchin seems adamant that he’s not going to provide the final vote necessary to nuke the legislative filibuster, but the Left is doing its best to remind Manchin that if he doesn’t, there’s no guarantee that the universal background check bill will get to Biden’s desk.

Manchin nevertheless remains as intransigent as ever on the filibuster question in general. Asked on the Hill this past Monday about the circumstances under which he’d reconsider his support for it, he yelled “Never.” “Jesus Christ!” he said to reporters. “What don’t you understand about ‘never’?” And Manchin has already seen and made peace with Republicans in the Senate killing background check expansions twice this decade—once in 2013 and once in 2015. It should be said that these failures give lie to the idea, promoted by Manchin and others, that the filibuster facilitates bipartisanship. On both occasions, checks actually won the support of a bipartisan coalition of senators, and Manchin’s bill might have passed in 2013 with a bipartisan 54-vote majority were it not for the filibuster and its 60-vote threshold. Instead of Congress passing a policy supported by the vast majority of the American people and offered up by cooperative and cordial members of both parties, Congress passed nothing.

It is likely that this will happen again. Asked about the BCEA’s chances on CNN recently, Pat Toomey was pessimistic. “It’s theoretically possible,” he said, “but I’m not aware of a significant change in heart.” Absent that change in heart, all gun legislation will be doomed—not just background checks but the rest of the proposals for Congress that President Biden ran on, including a new assault weapons ban, a ban on online gun and parts sales, and the repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun manufacturers from lawsuits over the use of their guns in criminal activity. Biden wasn’t the most ambitious of the primary candidates on gun policy, but his proposals would still be the most sweeping gun control measures implemented since Biden helped pass the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the original Federal Assault Weapons Ban as a senator in the early 1990s.

Kansas House passes bill to lower concealed carry age to 18

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — A bill to lower the legal age to carry concealed firearms in Kansas from 21 to 18 won final passage Thursday in the Kansas House.

The state House approved the bill on a 85-38 vote, sending it to the Senate. The bill’s support came mostly from Republicans, who say that those under 21 are eligible to vote and serve in the military. Opponents say those under 21 are less mature and more prone to risk-taking.

People as young as 18 can already carry firearms in the open in Kansas. The legislation would require those under 21 to complete a background check and undergo safety training to carry concealed firearms, which is currently required for those 21 and older.

Continue reading “”

We Now Know the First Gun Control Move Congressional Democrats Are Making

Democrats have had a few legislative priorities since they took control of both Congress and the White House. Their number one focus has been on the “American Rescue Plan,” President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill. But their next policy focus is shifting towards imposing stricter gun control laws.

According to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), Democrats are planning to pursue “enhanced background checks” as early as next week.

🚨BREAKING: Sources in DC report that Congress will be voting on Biden’s extreme gun control legislation as early as next week.

Possible that they will bypass committee process.

Stay tuned, NRA members.

— NRA (@NRA) March 1, 2021

Continue reading “”

New House Bill Would Expand List of ‘Prohibited Persons’

Not all gun control attempts are as blatant as Democrat Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s manifold (and yearly) insanity.

Indeed, most look positively reasonable — at least if you only read the title.

Such is H.R. 882, the “Keeping Guns from High-Risk Individuals Act” introduced by Rep. Robin L. Kelly, (D-Illinois).

Introduced in early February, text of the bill was just released, and is hair-raising, particularly if one digs a bit deeper, than the simple language.

In short, Kelly’s bill is a huge expansion of the criteria used to prohibit persons from legally owning a firearm under federal law, which right now includes those convicted of a felony or a domestic violence misdemeanor, and those adjudicated as mentally ill.

H.R. 882 would amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to include anyone who:

… in the most recent 10-year period, has been convicted in any court (emphasis added) of a crime of violence (as defined in section 16);

“(11) has not attained 25 years of age, (emphasis added) and has been adjudicated by any court as having committed an offense that would have been a crime of violence (as defined in section 16) if committed by an adult;

“(12) in any period of 3 consecutive years in the most recent 10-year period, has been convicted in any court, on 2 separate occasions, of an offense that has, as an element, the possession or distribution of, or the intent to possess or distribute, alcohol or a controlled substance (as so defined); or

“(13) has been convicted in any court (emphasis added) of stalking.”

Now 18 U.S. Code section 16 is disturbingly vague, and simply defines a “crime of violence” as:

(a)an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or prop­erty of another, (emphasis added) or

(b)any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

Clearly, no one could argue against keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals right?

Much will be dependent — should this pass — on how Section 16 is interpreted, and on the relevant case law, but as written if you got in a bar fight when you were 21, and were charged with simple battery (generally a misdemeanor) or even threatened violence (assault in many jurisdictions, also a misdemeanor) — or were a young idiot and did a little vandalism —  you would suddenly be ineligible to own a firearm for the rest of your life.

Note too, this says “any court,” not just federal court.

Kelly’s legislation would create an entirely new class of federally-prohibited persons — those who have been “convicted of a crime of violence,” even if no violence actually took place.

Look, no one wants firearms in the hands of violent felons, but this bill doesn’t prevent that. Anyone convicted of a felony is already a prohibited person.

This expands the list of “prohibited persons” to include those convicted of misdemeanors, not just felonies.

It’s clear that the goal of Kelly’s legislation isn’t about reducing gun violence (not that any of these proposed bills are), it’s all about reducing the number of people who can legally own a firearm.

Iowa Permitless Carry Self Defense Package Bill Introduced

House Study Bill 254 allows a law-abiding adult to carry a concealed firearm, without first needing to obtain government permission. This ensures that citizens have their right to self-defense without government red tape or delays. In addition, it also adds the option for law-abiding citizens to pass a federal background check to acquire a handgun without obtaining a Permit to Acquire, ensures that public housing cannot deny Second Amendment rights to tenants, ensures that local governments cannot restrict lawful carrying of firearms, expands the types of training accepted for a Permit to Carry Weapons, and other Second Amendment provisions.