Category: Goobermint

Well, they are violating resident’s constitutional rights

Redwood City leaders discussing legal options as possible lawsuit against ban on gun retail looms
A gun rights advocacy group is accusing the city of violating its residents’ constitutional rights

A gun rights foundation has warned it may take legal action against Redwood City if city officials don’t reverse a recently approved moratorium on gun retail.

Just four days after the council unanimously voted to establish a moratorium on stores selling firearms or ammunition for an initial 45 days, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), a Washington-based firearm advocacy nonprofit, sent a letter to the city, advising the city to remove the temporary ban or face litigation.

“Should Redwood City continue to deprive its residents of the ability to acquire arms and ammunition through an indeterminate moratorium on firearms and ammunition retailers from opening a business, SAF will examine all legal remedies available to it, its members, and those who may be affected by the City’s flagrant disregard of its citizens’ constitutional rights,” Executive Director Adam Kraut wrote in the letter dated Oct. 28.

According to the city, the urgency ordinance came after two separate gun retailers inquired about business permits in the city, which currently has no such retailers nor any special regulations on firearms sales.

The ban went into effect immediately after the council vote and could be extended for a total of two years.

Continue reading “”

Underfunding? New York can’t teach kids to read on $30,000 a year

Federal Judge Strikes Down Biden Student-Loan ‘Forgiveness.’

A federal judge in Texas on Thursday blocked President Biden’s student-loan “forgiveness” plan in response to a lawsuit from the Job Creators Network Foundation (JCNF).

The conservative advocacy group filed a suit in October arguing that the Biden administration violated federal procedures by not allowing borrowers to provide public comment before the program was unveiled.

Judge Mark Pittman of the Northern District of Texas called the plan an “unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s legislative power” and noted the program failed to go through standard regulatory processes.

“No one can plausibly deny that it is either one of the largest delegations of legislative power to the executive branch, or one of the largest exercises of legislative power without congressional authority in the history of the United States,” Pittman wrote in a 26-page opinion.

Continue reading “”

How midterm elections could impact the firearms industry — or not

As midterm election results continue to roll in, Americans are still waiting to find out which party will control the House or the Senate and whether they might be impacted by how the chips fall.

But firearms industry insiders and Second Amendment advocates say the results of the federal elections will have little to no impact on them at all, regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans win either chamber.

Gary Ramey, CEO of Liberty Ammunition, says the House and Senate outcomes will not significantly impact the sale of ammunition or firearms.

“Ammo and firearms are purchased by consumers with personal safety concerns,” Ramey told FOX Business. “Rhetoric from the left won’t affect that.”

Delta Defense director of government affairs Katie Pointer-Baney agrees, noting that the millions of new gun owners include folks of all political stripes.

“The firearm industry as a whole has seen tremendous growth over the past few years because of this crime wave that has gripped the country — and, of course, as people feel more unsafe,” Pointer-Baney says. “The defunding of law enforcement, all this kind of confluence of issues (mean) more people are taking on the responsibility of protecting themselves and their loved ones, and using a firearm is a most efficient tool to do so.”

Amid crime wave, gun shop owner Ross Osias ‘constantly’ sees first-time buyers

“Honestly, I don’t think that’s changing, even if Republicans take control,” she added. “I think it’s sort of like we’re not going back.”

The NRA says it is committed to its mission no matter what, too.

“The NRA remains steadfast in its efforts to protect and promote the Second Amendment regardless of which party is in power,” spokesperson Amy Hunter said in a statement. “The 2022 midterm elections are no different. While the nation awaits the full results, we will continue to work tirelessly to defend the rights of law-abiding Americans as anti-gun politicians have proven time and time again they will stop at nothing to advance their gun control agenda.”

Regardless of how federal control plays out, the results of state and local races might affect business.

Ramey says there will be an increase in ammunition sales in states that elect so-called “soft-on-crime candidates” and that he has already seen an increase in business in those states that he expects to continue.

He noted that while Second Amendment fears exist, states have moved toward supporting constitutional carry — and the industry tends to see growth on personal safety fears and state actions.

“Our biggest business cheerleader is President Biden,” Ramey said. “Every time the President or a Democrat makes outlandish comments, our business picks up.”

“Especially when he talks about bullet speed or taking out a lung,” Ramey added of Biden. “That’s what self-defense ammo is supposed to have and do. We appreciate his support.”

Do what?

Chinese government operates police stations on US soil.

I’m the son of a cop.

My father was a police officer throughout my entire childhood, only retiring when I was in adulthood. He then went on to serve a time as a police chief in a small, neighboring town.

One thing he never did, though, was serve as part of a law-enforcement effort overseas.

That happens, of course. The FBI, for example, conducts investigations all over the world, as do postal inspectors. Yet there are rules that must be followed when that happens.

China, however, appears to have opened what amount to police stations all over the world, including in the United States.

The U.S. government must immediately investigate and shutter the recently discovered overseas Chinese government police station in New York City for potential violation of U.S. laws, several experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

In 2022, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) established secret police stations in over 100 cities around the world to conduct intimidation and harassment operations against overseas Chinese, human rights organization Safeguard Defenders revealed in a September report.

While other countries have announced probes into the alleged police stations, the location within American Changle Association — a Chinatown community organization in New York City — continues to operate outside legal boundaries and should be shut down, experts told the DCNF.

“This is a disgrace. How in God’s name could they openly have these communist police stations in our country?” Beau Dietl, a retired NYPD detective and current head of Beau Dietl & Associates private investigation firm, told the DCNF.

But what do these police stations actually do?

After all, some possibilities are benign and others aren’t. Unsurprisingly, the official explanation isn’t all that terrifying.

The police stations, designated as “110 Overseas” — in reference to China’s emergency telephone number — bill themselves as purportedly helping overseas Chinese obtain driver’s licenses, manage dispute resolution and resolve vaguely defined “difficult problems,” according to Chinese media.

Oh, well, that’s not so bad, right?

It’s the next paragraph of the report that bothers me.

However, they also conduct “foreign strike operations” against individuals who run afoul of the CCP through intimidation, blackmail and forcible arrest, according to Safeguard Defenders. The Chinese government claims these operations aim to crack down on drug smuggling and telecommunications fraud.

The problem is, they’re doing a whole lot more than that.

The truth of the matter is that if this were about drug smuggling or fraud, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies would likely be thrilled to help. After all, a lot of nasty stuff comes into the US from China, so helping put a stop to that would benefit American law enforcement a great deal. Reciprocating just makes sense.

But that’s not really what these 110 Overseas stations are really doing.

We know that the Chinese government does a lot of awful things. That includes threatening the families of Chinese nationals currently in the United States, to say nothing of having literal concentration camps.

This is not a government we can trust.

Yet it seems that despite a letter from at least 10 members of Congress asking Attorney General Merrick Garland to do something about these stations, nothing has come of it.

Other nations have started investigations, but not the Biden administration.

Look, I have no issue with there being someone to help Chinese immigrants navigate American bureaucracy. Even if it’s not as bad as Chinese bureaucracy—and while I can’t say for certain, nothing about China’s history suggests we’re worse—it’s still different. Someone helping work through that is a good thing.

But why would Chinese law enforcement be involved, anyway? That’s something for their version of a state department, not the cops. Not on foreign soil, at least.

Which is how you know what you’re seeing is absolute BS.

And yet, our government does nothing. They sit there and allow this kind of thing to happen. If there weren’t enough reasons to criticize the Biden administration, this would be enough all on its own.

Imagine a president letting the USSR do this kind of stuff during the Cold War. You probably can’t, because even left-leaning Democrats knew better. Yet we have fallen from those heights as a nation. We’re allowing a brutal and tyrannical government to exert its power on our soil and doing nothing about it.

Frankly, if we lose our status as a superpower, we deserve to see it happen at this point.

Latest New York Gun-Carry Law Ruled Unconstitutional Too

A federal judge has found the bulk of the gun-carry law New York instituted in response to the Supreme Court striking down its previous law also violates the Second Amendment.

On Monday, Judge Glenn Suddaby of the Northern District of New York issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law’s most controversial provisions. He also refused to issue a stay on his decision to enjoin what he described as a “patently unconstitutional” law, which means the state will not be able to enforce the impacted rules unless and until a higher court intervenes.

“[A]lthough the Court in no way suggests that America lacks a historical tradition of firearm-licensing schemes, it finds (based on the current briefing of the parties) that America lacks a historical tradition of firearm-licensing schemes conferring open-ended discretion on licensing officers,” Judge Suddaby wrote.

The ruling found the state could not force gun-carry permit applicants to turn over information on their family members or their social media accounts. It stops the state from subjectively denying applicants based on whether officials believe they have a “good moral character.” And it prevents them from banning anyone, including those with permits, from carrying a gun at restaurants that serve alcohol, theaters, protests, places of worship, banquet halls or conference centers, parks, areas at airports or clinics before security checkpoints, and public buses. Suddaby also ruled the state’s attempt to prohibit gun carry on all private property unless explicitly allowed by the owner, including private businesses open to the public, by default was unconstitutional.

The decision brings New York’s gun-carry restrictions closer in line with the rest of the country. It also represents the latest setback for New York’s new gun law and Governor Kathy Hochul (D.), who backed it as a rebuke to the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen. A second federal judge has already blocked the law’s church-carry prohibition in the Western District, and a group of armed Jewish worshipers is challenging it in the Southern District. The law’s constitutionality took center stage in the recent debate between Hochul and challenger Lee Zeldin (R.) as polls show a much tighter-than-expected contest.

Gun Owners of America, one of the plaintiffs in the case, celebrated the decision as a rebuke of Hochul and the law.

“Just like we warned politicians after the Bruen decision, fall in line, or we will force you to,” Erich Pratt, the group’s senior vice president, said in a statement. “We are excited to see Kathy Hochul finally served a plate of humble pie, and we are fully prepared to continue the fight should she again attempt to disarm the citizens of her state at a time when her party’s policies are only escalating the danger that everyday citizens face.”

The news from the decision wasn’t all bad for Hochul, though. Judge Suddaby removed her as a defendant in the case and allowed the subway ban to remain in effect because he found plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue her or the train ban. He also allowed the state’s strict training requirements to remain in place despite expressing concern about the potential cost of complying with it.

A spokesperson for the office of Attorney General Letitia James (D.), which is representing the state in the case, said “we are reviewing and considering our options.” The state previously appealed the judge’s decision to issue a temporary restraining order against the law that shared many of the same conclusions in his preliminary injunction.

Judge Suddaby’s lengthy ruling, clocking in at 184 pages, examines the historical evidence offered for each of New York’s regulations at length. Suddaby even describes how he performed his own research for potential historical matches for some of the provisions when the state failed to offer them. For instance, the judge said the state offered no comparison for its social media reporting requirement, and what his research found did not help their case.

“Rather, the Court has mostly found only instances in which this demand was (properly) made of convicted sex offenders while registering for a Sex Offender Registry,” he wrote. “Suffice it to say, the need to regulate convicted sex offenders has not been shown to be analogous to the need to regulate applicants for a concealed-carry license.”

Suddaby is also often unsubtle in his critique of the attempts to identify historical analogues the state did make.

“For the sake of brevity, the Court will not expound on why it finds that barring some people from openly carrying rifles on other people’s farms and lands in 19th century America is hardly analogous to barring all license holders from carrying concealed handguns in virtually every commercial building now,” he wrote. “Even if the way the historical and modern regulations burdened one’s Second Amendment right were the same, the State Defendants’ attempt to analogize these six laws to Section 5 of the CCIA would stumble over the second of the Supreme Court’s two ‘central’ metrics: ‘why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self defense.’”

He further argued the state’s attempt to ban is a  “thinly disguised version of the sort of impermissible ‘sensitive location’ regulation that the Supreme Court considered and rejected in NYSRPA.” He said the state’s provision banning licensed individuals from carrying at any public protest was doubly unconstitutional, creating a “paradox” implicating both the First and Second Amendments.

“[T]he Court finds itself in a paradox created by a regulation that prevents a license holder from possessing a handgun while gathering with individuals to collectively express their right to protest the regulation by possessing handguns,” he wrote. “Levity aside, the Court does not understand how barring Plaintiff Terrille from carrying concealed at a gun show at a Polish Community Center would further this regulation’s purpose of avoiding the ‘destr[uction] [of] the exercise of [someone else’s] constitutionally-protected rights.’ The Court could be wrong but it will hazard a guess that the Center probably does not lease space to opposing expressive groups at the same time.”

Ultimately, Suddaby ruled many of the provisions in New York’s law are “unreasonably disproportionate to the burdensomeness of [their] historical analogues” and is filed with “unprecedented constitutional violations.”

BLUF
It all makes perfect sense if you just assume that Biden is prepared to say whatever he thinks the current audience wants to hear, no matter how contradictory to his previous statements and how factually inaccurate, with complete confidence that the mainstream media will cover for him.

Understanding Biden Administration Energy Policy.

Politicians have long been known for having a loose relationship with the truth. Generally, that takes the form of exaggeration or hyperbole. But the latest craze among Democrats is just making flatly contradictory statements.
In this category, it’s hard to top the performance of Pennsylvania Senate candidate John Fetterman on Saturday night, when he uttered this immortal quote: I run on Roe v Wade. I celebrate the demise of Roe v. Wade. That’s the choice that we have between us, in front of us.”
Video at the link if you don’t believe it. Clearly, Fetterman is not all there mentally.

But how different is that, really, from Joe Biden on energy policy? The main difference that I can find is that there does not appear to be an example where Biden has so clearly contradicted himself in consecutive sentences uttered to the same audience on the same night. But his various statements on energy policy are at least as contradictory as Fetterman’s on abortion. Consider a few from Category A and Category B.
Category A.

  • Biden at a February 2020 rally: “We are going to get rid of fossil fuels. . . . That’s okay. These guys are okay. They want to do the same thing I want to do. They want to phase out fossil fuels, and we’re going to phase out fossil fuels.”
  • Biden at a March 15, 2020 CNN debate with Bernie Sanders: “No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period. [It] ends.”
  • Biden Executive Order, January 27, 2021: “The United States and the world face a profound climate crisis. We have a narrow moment to pursue action at home and abroad in order to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of that crisis and to seize the opportunity that tackling climate change presents.”
  • White House press release, April 22, 2021: “Today, President Biden will announce a new target for the United States to achieve a 50-52 percent reduction from 2005 levels in economy-wide net greenhouse gas pollution in 2030. . . . On Day One, President Biden fulfilled his promise to rejoin the Paris Agreement and set a course for the United States to tackle the climate crisis at home and abroad, reaching net zero emissions economy-wide by no later than 2050. As part of re-entering the Paris Agreement, he also launched a whole-of-government process, organized through his National Climate Task Force, to establish this new 2030 emissions target.”<
  • List of section headings from Report at RealClearEnergy by Joseph Toomey dated September 2022, listing major Biden Administration energy initiatives: “Canceling the Keystone XL Pipeline; Halting Lease Sales in Alaska’s ANWR; Placing a Moratorium on Drilling on Federal Lands; Rejoining the Paris Climate Accord; Proposing Energy-Inhibiting Budgets; Canceling Oil and Gas Drilling Leases; Initiating Punitive Government Investigations; Restricting Permian Basin Drilling Using Ozone Rules; Imposing Stricter Methane Emissions Rules.”

Category B.

  • Biden remarks at White House, October 19, 2022: “[W]e need to responsibly increase American oil production without delaying or deferring our transition to clean energy. [Ed – very Fettermanesque there] Let me — let’s debunk some myths here. My administration has not stopped or slowed U.S. oil production; quite the opposite.
  • Biden remarks in upstate New York, October 27, 2022: “Today . . . we’re in a much better place [than when I took office]. . . . [G]as prices are declining. We’re down $1.25 since the peak this summer, and they’ve been falling for the last three weeks at well — as well. That’s adding up to real savings for families. Today, the most common price of gas in America is $3.39 — down from over $5 when I took office.”

CNN, of all places, called out that last line in a big fact check of recent Biden whoppers (of which there are many):
Biden’s claim that the most common gas price when he took office was more than $5 is not even close to accurate. The most common price for a gallon of regular gas on the day he was inaugurated, January 20, 2021, was $2.39, according to data provided to CNN by Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy. In other words, Biden made it sound like gas prices had fallen significantly during his presidency when they had actually increased significantly.

Continue reading “”

Does Gun Control Save Lives or Cost Lives?

The world is violent. Lots of people think that we should pass more laws to make the world safer and less violent. It sounds obvious that we could reduce the number of criminals who use weapons by passing more gun-control laws. We’re not the first ones to think of that. We have thousands of gun-control regulations on the books already. I’ve been looking at the subject of gun-control and personal safety for a decade. I think gun-control laws put us at risk. The reasons are complex and not necessarily obvious.

Let’s be clear what is not under discussion here. We’re not talking about rights. Some people say they have a right to “be safe”. Some people say they have a right to “self-defense”. What you have a right to do may not have anything to do with how laws actually work in practice. Let’s look at what we already know.

We know that criminals commit violent crimes with a firearm about 510 times a day. That data is from 2019. That is the last year where the FBI has data from all 50 states.

Isn’t it obvious that we need more laws to stop those criminals? Shouldn’t we pass another law even if it only stopped a single crime? Isn’t that the least we should do?

I like that you obey the law and you think other people obey the law too. The problem of violent crime is more complex. There is more violent crime, much more than I’ve mentioned so far.  There are also lots of gun-control laws. Last, and certainly not least, honest citizens stop a lot of violent crimes because the intended victim had a gun of their own. Each of those factors has a vital influence on what gun-control laws can actually accomplish.

While it is true that criminals use guns to commit crimes, criminals also commit crimes without using a gun. In fact, that’s closer to the rule than the exception. Only one-out-of six violent criminals used a firearm (15 percent). That means that taking guns from every criminal would still leave us with a lot of non-gun crime. The remaining five-out-of-six violent criminals would still commit their acts of violence. And that assumes the currently-armed criminal will suddenly become peaceful if we took away his gun. That isn’t very realistic. Taking the gun away from a violent criminal doesn’t turn him into a nice person who obeys the law.

But we have to do something. We can’t just let armed criminals hurt people. Why shouldn’t we pass more laws?

Those are good questions, but what makes you think we haven’t “done something” already? We have over 23-thousand firearms regulations on the books today. And anti-gun politicians pass more gun-control laws every week. We should certainly be safe by now if ink-on-paper was all it took to stop crime. We’ve tried that approach tens-of-thousands of times.

OK, maybe those gun-control laws didn’t work.  We just need to write ones that will.

Let’s think this through a little more before we propose more laws. Life is more complex than what we see on the news. Bad guys are not the only ones who use guns. Good guys use guns too, a lot. Honest citizens legally use their firearms between 1.6 and 2.5-million times a year to stop violent crime or to prevent great bodily injury. That is over 4,500-times-a-day that honest citizens use a gun to save lives in the United States. Four-out-of-ten households have a gun today. One-out-of-a-dozen citizens are legally carrying a concealed firearm in public every day.

That is hard to believe. Why don’t I know that? How do I know you’re telling me the truth if the news didn’t show those stories?

Those are good questions. Those are brilliant questions. The answer will take more than a minute.

Continue reading “”

Study: 27 of the 30 Cities with Highest Murder Rate Are Democrat Run

A study published by the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Judicial and Legal Studies shows that 27 of the 30 cities with the highest murder rates are controlled by Democrats.

FOX News noted that the study indicates “27….[of the 30 cities] have Democratic mayors. Within those cities, there are at least 14 “rogue prosecutors” either backed or inspired by billionaire Democrat supporter George Soros.”

The Daily Signal reported that the authors of the study–Charles Stimson, Zack Smith, and Kevin D. Dayaratna–noted, “Those on the Left know that their soft-on-crime policies have wreaked havoc in the cities where they have implemented those policies.”

Stimson, Smith, and Dayaratna added:

It is not hard to understand why ‘reforms’ such as ending cash bail, defunding the police, refusing to prosecute entire categories of crimes, letting thousands of convicted felons out of prison early, significantly cutting the prison population, and other ‘progressive’ ideas have led to massive spikes in crime—particularly violent crime, including murder—in the communities where those on the Left have implemented them.

The study undercuts Hillary Clinton’s claim that Republicans’ emphasis on crime and violence in Democrat-run cities was not valid.

On November 3, 2022, CNN quoted Clinton suggesting Republicans were “just trying to gin up all kinds of fear and anxiety in people.”

She added, “[The Republicans] are not dealing with it. They are not trying to tackle it. So I view it as an effort to scare voters.”

CT’s semi-automatic weapons ban at ‘very real risk’ of being lifted by lawsuit, Attorney General Tong says

HARTFORD — Attorney General William Tong warned Friday that Connecticut’s nearly three-decade-old ban on semi-automatic weapons is “at very real risk” of being lifted, at least temporarily, after one of several groups suing to overturn the law requested that the state be prevented from enforcing its ban while the case proceeds.

The motion for a preliminary injunction was filed Thursday by attorneys for the National Foundation for Gun Rights in a federal court in New Haven. The Colorado-based group is one of several plaintiffs that filed lawsuits against Connecticut’s semi-automatic weapons ban following a Supreme Court decision striking down New York’s gun-permit law, sparking a wave of litigation against other state bans.

“I don’t have to tell you how extraordinarily dangerous this is in this moment to see an immediate repeal of the semi-automatic weapons ban,” Tong said during a hastily assembled press conference on Friday, where he was joined by Gov. Ned Lamont. “We are going to fight tooth and nail, we’re going to throw everything we have at them to keep Connecticut families safe and to preserve our very strong gun laws.”

Tong’s office has yet to file its formal response to the group’s motion. He told reporters Friday that filing would be made “soon.”

In a statement Friday, NFGR President Dudley Brown defended the group’s lawsuit, saying “The day of reckoning for the State of Connecticut has come, and it’s time for them to answer to the Second Amendment for trampling the gun rights of their law-abiding citizens.”

“Our motion for preliminary injunction is simply saying that when rights are at stake, we cannot waste another day in allowing unconstitutional gun control to stand,” Brown said.

Continue reading “”

Another episode of ‘Joe went off teleprompter again! Rollout the walkback!

KJP Claims Biden’s Exact Words on Coal Are Being ‘Twisted’

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre released a statement Saturday afternoon in an effort to walk back President Joe Biden’s remarks Friday.

During a campaign stop in California, Biden said, “We’re gonna be shutting these plants down all across America, and having wind and solar.” Jean-Pierre claims Biden’s words, which have simply been quoted and replayed, are being “twisted.”

“The President’s remarks yesterday have been twisted to suggest a meaning that was not intended; he regrets it if anyone hearing these remarks took offense. The President was commenting on a fact of economics and technology: as it has been from its earliest days as an energy superpower, America is once again in the midst of an energy transition. Our goal as a nation is to combat climate change and increase our energy security by producing clean and efficient American energy,” the statement says. “He is determined to make sure that this transition helps all Americans in all parts of the country, with more jobs and better opportunities; it’s a commitment he has advanced since Day One. No one will be left behind.”

The statement comes just hours after Democratic Senator Joe Manchin blasted Biden’s remarks as “disgusting” and “outrageous.” He also demanded an apology.

“President Biden’s comments are not only outrageous and divorced from reality, they ignore the severe economic pain the American people are feeling because of rising energy costs. Comments like these are the reason the American people are losing trust in President Biden and instead believes he does not understand the need to have an all in energy policy that would keep our nation totally energy independent and secure. It seems his positions change depending on the audience and the politics of the day. Politicizing our nation’s energy policies would only bring higher prices and more pain for the American people,” Manchin released in a statement.

“Let me be clear, this is something the President has never said to me. Being cavalier about the loss of coal jobs for men and women in West Virginia and across the country who literally put their lives on the line to help build and power this country is offensive and disgusting,” he continued. “The President owes these incredible workers an immediate and public apology and it is time he learn a lesson that his words matter and have consequences.”

The demoncrap goal is to criminalize all political opposition

Northwest Body Counts Suggest Time for Change on Gun Control Is Here

It is familiar political ground in the Pacific Northwest, with rising homicide numbers providing strong evidence that gun controls in Washington have been an abject failure.

Seattle has recorded its 52nd homicide, and with two full months remaining in the year, there is no doubt the number will eventually exceed the 53 recorded two years ago. The city, as previously reported, is headquarters to the billionaire-backed gun prohibition lobbying group Alliance for Gun Responsibility. The organization has bankrolled two restrictive gun control initiatives since 2014, making it difficult for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights while demonstrably not accomplishing the promise of reduced gun-related violence and murder.

Down the road 175 miles, Portland is the tarnished gem of Oregon, with more than 80 slayings so far this year and an outlook for hitting a new record. It is against this backdrop Beaver State anti-gunners hope to pass next week a restrictive gun control measure—Ballot Measure 114—that will require a permit to purchase a firearm and add more restrictions including a training requirement.

At least one county sheriff—Brad Lohrey of Sherman County—told Fox News, “It is impossible for us to do what they’re asking us to do.”

In decades past, Seattle and Portland were known as laid-back growing metropolises, with far left politics and lots of tourist attractions. Nowadays, both cities are experiencing drug and gang epidemics, and crime is spiking because police manpower is down.

There may be change coming, in both states. Oregon appears on track to elect the first Republican governor in a generation. In Washington, there could be changes in the legislature and some changes in congressional representation as well. With changes in people, there will be changes in policy, but it all depends upon a strong turnout of gun owners and conservative voters across both states.

Gun politics is playing out in other regions. The Des Moines Register is editorializing against a proposed state constitutional amendment affirming the right to keep and bear arms. Iowa is one of a handful of states without such an amendment, and gun owners are seeking to change that.

But the newspaper is dead set against protecting the right at the state level, continuing a trend where the media uses the First Amendment to throttle the Second. It excoriates the June Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen for opening the door to both legal challenges and court corrections of infringements on the right to be armed. This suggests anti-gunners still haven’t accepted the explanation in Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion that the Second Amendment must be treated like all other rights.

For decades, gun control proponents have had it their way, with incremental imposition of restrictions on gun owners. Violent crime is increasing, not decreasing. Election Day could change that pattern, with a new Congress and power shifts at the state level, rejection of Oregon’s ballot measure and adoption of Iowa’s proposed amendment. At least, that is the perspective of Second Amendment activists who are hoping for a strong turnout of “gun voters” Nov. 8.

Editorial calling for magazine ban misses tons of points

The day I see a pro-gun editorial from the Chicago Sun-Times will likely be the day that sites like this aren’t needed anymore. It’ll mean that we’ve so completely and totally won the gun war that gun control will be relegated to the dustbin of history; a museum-piece idea dead and gone, sitting on a shelf like eugenics and phrenology.

But that’s not likely to happen anytime soon. Today, they’re pushing for state-wide gun control. In particular, they want a magazine ban restricting people to just 10 rounds.

A new gun threat is painting a larger target on everyone’s backs. Lawmakers should figure out how to curb it.

As Frank Main, Tom Schuba and Stephanie Zimmermann of the Sun-Times and Chip Mitchell of WBEZ reported in Sunday’s Sun-Times, extended-capacity magazines — which hold 10 or more bullets and can be used with handguns as well as rifles — have become more common despite bans in some places.

Moreover, a surging number of guns with illegal attachments called “switches” on the street, which convert guns from semi-automatic to automatic weapons, are being seized by the police department, according to the investigation.

A shooter with a semi-automatic gun needs to squeeze the trigger every time a shot is fired. A shooter with an automatic gun needs only to squeeze and hold the trigger, and the gun will continue to fire, causing far more damage.

When weapons with high-capacity magazines are converted to automatic and are easily obtainable, young people who carry guns will want them. But we can’t afford to have these murderous weapons even further embedded into the gun culture.

When combined with illegal devices that convert guns into fully automatic firearms, the large magazines can spread almost unimaginable devastation and death in a matter of moments.

Twelve states ban high-capacity magazines. Illinois should join them.

That’s right. Illinois needs a magazine ban because an illegal device that cannot be possessed lawfully anywhere in the nation is a thing.

Yet what tickles me the most is how little they’ve thought this through.

Sure, such magazines are restricted in many areas of Illinois, but the argument is that criminals just go to where they’re legal and buy them, so by restricting them statewide, that can’t happen.

Really?

This is the same city notorious for blaming Indiana for the guns in criminal hands, and they think somehow these folks who get guns from another state won’t be able to get magazines?

Hell, they’ll get them easier.

In Indiana, there are still federal requirements for the sale of firearms from a licensed dealer. Yet criminals commit a crime in order to obtain these guns so they can sell them to Chicago criminals.

Magazines have no such checks or requirements. Anyone can stroll into a gun store and buy a higher-capacity magazine in any state without even having to show an ID.

If federal regulations and Illinois state law can’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals, how does the Chicago Sun-Times think a magazine ban in the state will? Especially when all the rules on the planet aren’t keeping these people from getting full-auto switches.

And yes, magazines can be 3D printed, which makes a ban even more pointless.

But do you want to know who will get hosed over by a magazine ban? The law-abiding citizens who might well need more ammo capacity to combat the heavily armed criminals who will still get these magazines, switches, guns, and literally anything else they want.

Newspaper editorials are often used to advocate for various laws. However, this is a prime example of how those who sit on those editorial boards often don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.

“Watch me,” President Joe Biden told MSNBC’s Jonathan Capehart this week during one of the most awkward interviews in the history of American politics.

So we did. It was similar to watching John Fetterman, the stroke victim and Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania, bumble his way through a debate after his campaign allies in the media insisted he was fine.

“Am I don’t have the same pace?” the president asked Capehart during a discussion about his fitness for office. “Everything physically about me is still functioning well, so you know, and mentally too.” The evidence suggests otherwise.

Biden wandered around like a sluggish toddler chasing a butterfly, told a group of transgender activists about the Democratic Party’s plan to “overrule Dob,” meaning the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson, which struck down Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that Biden couldn’t remember. He expressed concern that the American “pleople” are “vuedejegguli,” and pledged to encourage economic “innervation.”

The commander in chief, who turns 80 next month, insisted (without evidence) that Vice President Kamala Harris was doing a “great” job. (Just 38 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Harris.) A Washington Free Beacon analysis determined that Biden, Harris, and Fetterman would combine to form a single human being of average competence and speaking ability.

Have a great weekend!

I seem to remember this thing called the 1st amendment…..

Lawmakers Call on Biden to Make it More Difficult for People to Download Gun Blueprints

Lawmakers in , led by Congressman Mike Thompson, penned a letter asking the  administration to hold manufacturers responsible for homemade ghost guns.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

Currently, it is relatively easy to buy gun parts, or make them at home with a 3D printer, and create an untraceable firearm. Ghost guns allow people to circumvent the background check requirement to own a gun.

“It is far too easy for anyone to download from the internet the computer code to 3D-print unserialized, untraceable, plastic ‘ghost guns,’” the letter said. “These 3D-printed weapons circumvent our system of gun safety rules and regulations, and pose a serious threat to public safety and national security.”

The question of banning the distribution of blueprints for 3D printed guns has been debated over the years, with much speculation that banning the sharing of blueprints is a  violation.

“President Biden can undo the Trump-era rule that has made the instructions for the 3D-printing of untraceable and deadly ‘ghost’ guns widely available online,” said Senator Markey. “The online distribution of these ghost gun blueprints only increases the risk of these weapons proliferating and poses a serious threat to public safety and national security. President Biden should fulfil his campaign promise and reverse the Trump administration’s weakening of these gun safety regulations.”

“They’re making firearms and they’re shooting and they’re killing people,” Thompson said.

“If you are a danger to yourself or to others, if you’re dangerously mentally ill, if you’re a criminal, you should not be able to get your mitts on a gun,” he added.

CBS13 asked Thompson about gun advocacy groups pushing back against manufacturers being held liable yet they did not commit the actual crimes.

“I have one word for these groups and that’s, ‘tough.’ We need these rules,” he responded.

Thompson is urging the Biden administration to tighten federal enforcement on these guns because he does not believe that such legislation would pass through Congress.

“Well, I’d like to see congress have the intestinal fortitude to pass legislation that would prohibit this nonsense from taking place. But as you know, as long as they have this 60-vote rule in the Senate, we’re never going to get a bill like that passed,” said Thompson.

Thompson wants the President to direct the ATF and DOJ to pass stricter rules that would hold manufacturers liable for ghost guns.