Category: Politics

Okay. This is him entering the race for POTUS in ’28.

FL Gov. DeSantis Comes Out Swinging for 2A in ‘State of State’ Address

The governor’s full address

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis came out swinging in defense of the Second Amendment during his annual State of the State address Tuesday before the Legislature, declaring, “We need to be a strong Second Amendment state.”

Florida leads the way in licensed concealed carry, but in recent years, in the aftermath of the tragic 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, the state adopted some laws which DeSantis would like to see rolled back.

He also proposed offering a “Second Amendment Summer” sales tax “holiday” on the purchase of “firearms, ammo and accoutrements.”

“I know a lot of people in the state will appreciate that,” said DeSantis, a Republican who likely still has an eye on running one day for the presidency.

In remarks certain to make gun prohibitionists bristle, DeSantis told Sunshine State lawmakers in Tallahassee, “The free state of Florida has not exactly led the way on protecting Second Amendment rights. We have some of the more weak laws on the country compared to our other states who consider themselves conservative.

“I would ask you to protect people’s Second Amendment rights,” the governor said. “Look back in instances where legislation may have been passed in recent years, such as shifting the burden on red flag laws, such as taking away the right of young adults to purchase firearms, such as limiting somebody’s ability to both keep and to bear arms as our Constitution does.”

Continue reading “”

Thomas Jefferson had some things to say about goobermint gone tyrant:

When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.

When once a Republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.

and last, but not in anyway least:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

Rep. Jamie Rankin Beclowned Himself in Opening Remarks at Gun Hearing

Rep. Jamie Rankin isn’t going to be on the Christmas card list of any gun rights group you care to name. He’s a vehement anti-gunner and that’s where his bread is buttered. That’s not going to change.

Which is fine, I suppose. He’s in the minority right now, so all he can do is bloviate and then sit there and be impotent in his gun rights animosity.

But bloviate he shall, and he did.

In opening remarks in a subcommittee meeting on Tuesday, Rankin decided to display his burning stupid for the entire world to see, then sent out a press release with his remarks.

Awfully swell of him, really.

The problem is that my Republican colleagues have completely deformed the Second Amendment. They say it gives you the right to overthrow the government. Our former colleague, Matt Gaetz often claimed that the Second Amendment “is about maintaining within the citizenry the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government, if that becomes necessary.”

This purported right to overthrow the government means that the people must enjoy access to munitions equivalent to that of the government’s arsenal. As our colleague, Representative Chip Roy, argues, the Second Amendment was “designed purposefully to empower the people to resist the force of tyranny used against them.” And my friend Representative Lauren Boebert says that the Second Amendment has “nothing to do with hunting, unless you’re talking about hunting tyrants, maybe.”

Despite all of this pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric about how the Constitution provides a right of civil insurrection, the actual Constitution, in a half-dozen different places, treats “insurrection” and “rebellion” not as protected rights but as serious and dangerous offenses against our government and our people.

And yet, our Founding Fathers also made it very clear that when the government became tyrannical, it was the duty of the people to throw off the chains of oppression and fight back, not just with words but with weapons.

I mean, they’d just engaged in their own rebellion, their own insurrection, and thrown off those precise chains. They knew that no government could be created that couldn’t, in time, come to oppress the people. They wanted to prevent that, which includes the right to keep and bear arms.

Continue reading “”

After ATF Abuse, a New Bill in Congress Would Finally Give the Tiahrt Amendment Teeth.

The Tiahrt amendment — AKA the Tiahrt “rider” — became law in 2003. Among other things, it prohibits ATF from releasing law firearm data to anyone outside of law enforcement. There’s only one problem with the Tiahrt amendment …it has no teeth. In other words, there’s no penalty for ATF violating the law, which they did as part of Biden’s war on guns.

When not proclaiming the gun industry an enemy of the people, semi-sentient Joe campaigned on repealing Tiahrt. Fortunately, he failed in that effort, but it didn’t stop his weaponized ATF from blithely ignoring the law and releasing trace data last year as part of a media and gun control industry effort to name and shame gun dealers that had lawfully sold guns used in crimes, smearing them as enabling “gun violence.”

Now, however, there’s an effort afoot in Congress to give anti-gun un-elected bureaucrats pause before violating the Tiahrt amendment. Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana has introduced a bill that would fine violators, enable gun dealers to sue them as well, and remove sovereign immunity from the firearm regulatory agency if they decide to ignore the law again in the future.

The NSSF is cheering on the move . . .

Continue reading “”

Kostas Moros

Moms demand recently published a defense of AB 1333, saying its “right wing extremists” attacking it. Wrong. No rational person wants some antigun prosecutor second-guessing whether you “could have run away” when you are attacked by some criminal and are forced to shoot.
If I am out with my toddler and a lunatic comes at us with a knife or other imminent deadly threat, I should not have to waste several moments (while under an adrenaline rush) calculating if I have a chance to escape before shooting to defend my little girl and myself.
That’s what “duty to retreat” does. It is outright evil. California has always had a Stand Your Ground defense and it’s never been a problem. California’s Stand Your Ground jury instruction already doesn’t allow for a viable self-defense claim if you provoked the attack. The antigunner’s claimed fear is not a thing. They just hate the right to bear arms and hate that more people in California can now exercise it thanks to Bruen.
@Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur have the decency to scrap this monstrous bill. Haven’t California’s voters made it clear they are done with you catering to criminals? If this passes, I say we get a proposition submitted to enshrine SYG into the CA constitution. I think that would pass even in this blue state.
This is already true under current law! SYG still requires that you reasonably bellieve you are facing an imminent deadly threat. All the legal elements of self-defense must still be there, or its criminal homicide. It just makes it so you arent obligated to try and flee first. And again, you don’t want Soros-backed prosecutors second-guessing what was “truly necessary”.
Read all of the Moms Demand’s nonsense here if you want. 

Zelensky goes to town
He behaved like a spoiled child, talking over Trump and Vance

If the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, were on my Christmas list, I think I might give him a copy of Thucydides’ history of the Peloponnesian War. I’d mark that bit in book five we call “The Melian Dialogue.”  It tells the story of how Athens confronts the tiny island of Melos, a neutral ally of Sparta. Athens demands that the island surrender its neutrality. The leaders of Melos resist. Athens delivers an ultimatum: surrender or be destroyed.

The Melians offer a number of arguments about why they should not be forced to capitulate. Athens is not being fair, the Melians have right on their side, et cetera. In perhaps the most famous bit of the episode, the Athenians explain that “the right, as the world goes, is only in question between equal power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

This was not, perhaps, a shining moment for the Athenians. But it does have the virtue of being a true description of the way the world actually works. Machiavelli, who knew a thing or two about that subject, would have understood. I am not sure that Volodymyr Zelensky does.

In his extraordinary performance with Donald Trump, J.D. Vance and others in front of the press in the Oval Office today, he behaved like a spoiled child, talking over Trump and Vance, shouting and essentially telling them that Ukraine was the aggrieved party in the war with Russia and that he was not interested in a ceasefire.

Continue reading “”

The Approach Trump Had in the Zelensky Meeting Is One Democrats Can’t Wrap Their Head Around.

The meeting between President Donald Trump, VP J.D. Vance, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was nothing short of explosive, fantastic, and satisfying. So much so that America collectively need a smoke afterward.

The Democrats, however, seem to think Trump just beheaded a statue of Apollo and now the gods will be wrathful.

But besides watching an entitled brat of a world leader get raked over the coals by the guy from The Apprentice and a hillbilly millennial, Zelensky’s strategy was a head scratcher. Perhaps he was so used to American politicians who were willing to lay themselves down into puddles, so Zelensky wasn’t ready to talk to two dudes who don’t feel the need to perform for the media, which Vance seemed hyper-aware of, and pointed that out to Zelensky.

Perhaps he thought America owed him one, and thus his smug attitude, but as Bonchie noted in his article, this wasn’t wise: 

Trump has never accepted the idea that Ukraine is doing the United States a favor by fighting Russia as a way of justifying unlimited aid. Perhaps Joe Biden found that argument persuasive, but Joe Biden is not in office anymore. Russia is not going to invade the United States or any NATO country (if for no other reason than a lack of capability), and using that as a type of blackmail for support was never going to play. 

And herein we find the trump card that Trump had on Zelensky… you know, besides the money the world’s most successful beggar came to get.

Trump’s negotiation strategy vastly differs from many other American leaders, especially those on the Democrat side of the aisle. Despite Trump’s reputation as a rough-around-the-edges man whose political charm is far divorced from what people expect after watching The West Wing too much, he is a master negotiator.

Even when it comes to our enemies, Trump is not going to negotiate from a position of bad faith. He sees everything as a businessman would. There are no friends or foes while at the table, just good deals and bad deals.

I thought The Federalist CEO Sean Davis put this very well in a post he made on X:

Trump doesn’t bad mouth anyone who comes to the negotiating table in good faith. Ever. It’s a near-cardinal rule of negotiations for him, and a major reason he’s been such a successful dealmaker. 

If you refuse to negotiate, he will trash you. If you lie or negotiate in bad faith, he will trash you. He has zero interest in allowing empty moralizing to get in the way of a deal that he wants.  

He has done this his entire career, in business and in politics, and it’s fascinating to me how many people who think of themselves as smart and savvy are incapable of seeing or understanding this dynamic.

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But alas, that’s just what he’s done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How stupid do Democrats feel now?

Missouri GOP bills aim to loosen more gun laws.

Prosecutors say they would ‘make murder legal’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill In Congress Would Outlaw Gun Taxes, Insurance Requirements.

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

Missouri Democrats Cry Foul as Governor Addresses Crime Without Gun Control

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

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

Continue reading “”

Missouri Republican Launches Second Attempt at Second Amendment Preservation Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And there’s this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump Skips Guns in Flurry of Day One Executive Orders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congressman Ben Cline Reintroduces Hearing Protection Act

Washington, January 15, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the full text of the bill here.

 

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

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

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

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

Is it? Either?

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

How?

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

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

Per a 2023 Block Club Chicago article recounting the murders:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And as I proposed in a November Firearms News column:

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

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

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

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

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

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