Category: Goobermint

Colorado town scales back gun control proposals

I’m a fan of preemption. In fact, I wish we had federal preemption when it comes to gun control laws, though there’s no chance of that happening anytime soon.

In Colorado, they don’t have it. They used to but don’t anymore, which is causing a bit of a problem, to say the least.

But public outcry forced one city to at least scale back its attempts at gun control.

The Edgewater City Council has significantly scaled back — at least for now — most of what it planned to consider in way of new gun rights restrictions being encouraged by an anti-gun advocacy group, after dozens of residents and others emailed and showed up at an April 19 work session to express their displeasure on possible ordinances targeting gun owners.

Edgewater is a metro-area home rule city of just over 5,000 people bordered by Denver to the east, Lakewood to the south and west, and Wheat Ridge to the north.

The potential ordinances that the council decided to continue discussion on were:

• Prohibiting open carry of guns city-wide.
• Prohibiting licensed concealed carry in city-owned buildings and parks.
• Prohibiting licensed conceal carry in daycare centers and preschools.
• Banning so-called “ghost guns,” a name given by anti-gun activists to guns made by individuals, but that do not have serial numbers.
• Setting a waiting period for buying a firearm of 3-10 days.
• Dealer regulations with an effective date grandfathering in Edgewater’s one gun dealer.
• Mandatory reporting requirement for lost or stolen guns, which is already covered under state law.

The initial proposal included a local assault weapon ban and a ban on 50-caliber ammunition as well as “armor-piercing” ammo.

Local officials claim reporting of the earlier proposals was “misinformation” despite the information coming from the city’s website.

I guess the city is promoting the fake news and everyone else is wrong for taking them at their word.

Anyway, they got pushback. That’s a very good thing, especially since not everyone who spoke up is on the right politically.

Numerous Edgewater residents spoke out at the April 16 meeting against the proposed measures, with some saying they don’t expect the council to listen, nor do they believe the items taken off the list will remain off the list.

“I’ve watched our city council make laws restricting the freedom of the law abiding in line with progressive political philosophy for a long time,” said resident Larry Welshon. “In this case they are gutting the Second Amendment through incremental disassembly. I’d be delighted to be wrong, but past history proves this council is progressive.”

Welshon reminded the council that in a survey conducted by the city in 2021, only 47 percent of residents believe the council acts in their best interests.

But not all who spoke out against the ordinances could be considered conservative in their viewpoint.

“I am about as liberal as the day is long,” said resident Randy Novack, who said he was a neighbor to one of the council members whom he agrees with most times. “However, I’ve been shooting since I was a kid.”

So it’s not just that the council is progressive, but they’re anti-gun despite some self-described liberals in the city not being anti-Second Amendment.

That’s quite fascinating.

It’s also why preemption is such an issue. Edgewater, Colorado is a city of fewer than 6,000 people. It’s not difficult to imagine someone passing through such a city and running afoul of at least one of these anti-Second Amendment proposals, especially if this is just the beginning as some believe.

Suddenly, someone who intends to abide by the law may well find themselves facing criminal charges. Preemption helps to mitigate much of this.

Of course, since Colorado decided to drink the gun control Kool-Aid, this is the kind of thing we’re going to keep seeing from them.

And people in places like Edgewater, which borders Denver, are ultimately going to pay the price for this particular flavor of stupidity.

The one saving grace, though, is that the people of these cities still get a say and they’re not afraid to tell their community leaders to back off.

Now they just need to shut down the rest of these proposals that will accomplish absolutely nothing.

This was ruled on by the Supreme Court way back in 1968 in Haynes v U.S.

---

Excluding Criminals from Gun Checks is Bad
Biden/Harris Gun Plan Omits Criminals. New Plan Only Affects Innocent People

Mass media has overlooked, or failed to recognize, that the core of the Biden administration’s announced plan for so-called “gun control” would overlook criminals and the arsenals they have already. Strict laws to stop this have been passed, but enforcement tools, budget and most crucial a crime-stop attitude is missing. The Administration has adopted a take-guns-from-the-innocent mindset. For crime control, we must move past defund-the-police, police-are-oppressors and guns-are-evil mindset now in the curriculum. Biden and his team must recognize that if courts and cops don’t enforce the laws, disarming the public will only make things worse.

The recent focus on newly vilified so-called “ghost guns” is a perfect case in point. Murders, primarily in disadvantaged neighborhoods, are in the tens of thousands. Where’s the media? At a rose garden presser attacking a new gun concept. The murderers walk free. Meanwhile newshounds take the bait and assault homemade firearms—constitutionally protected property. This is sleight of hand by leadership, ignoring crime control and scapegoating arms—that criminals basically don’t use! “Gun control” doesn’t stop criminal behavior, it lets it thrive.

Proposed gun registries for specialty firearms cannot even address the “guns-on-the-streets” narrative. There are no guns “on the streets,” ghost-like or otherwise. Guns are in criminal hands, from lack of attention. Armed street criminals cannot legally possess guns in the first place, you cannot expect them to register.

Mandating it would require them to self-incriminate, a blatant violation of the 5th Amendment—criminals cannot be forced to use any proposed ghost registry. The new plan is mainly a way to compel more government databases—small requirements, with illegal compulsion, inching up to massive bans. Mass media should make this clear if they’re doing their job but they aren’t. Mass media wants you registered, and it shows. Even logic dictates this glaring flaw in the proposal—if you could require people banned from guns to register, you could just round them up and their illegally held firearms.

 

What is he so afeared of?

---

Maryland AG Asks Supremes to Deny Review of Gun Ban Challenge

Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh has filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that a challenge to the state ban on so-called “assault weapons” be denied review, arguing that such firearms have been used in several mass shootings, according to a report in The Daily Record.

Frosh may be facing a daunting task because 25 of his colleagues—attorneys general from literally half of all the states in the nation—have already submitted an amicus brief to the high court, supporting the petition for review from plaintiffs in the case. It is one of several amicus briefs submitted in the case, but because of its nature, it may be one of the most influential.

The case is known as Dominic Bianchi et al. v. Brian E. Frosh et al., No. 21-902. Plaintiffs include the Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Firearms Policy Coalition, Field Traders gun shop in Anne Arundel County and three private citizens.

According to the Daily Record, Frosh was “chief sponsor of the 2013 Firearm Safety Act and shepherded the bill” through the state Senate, when he served in that body as a state senator. Therefore, he has what might be considered a special interest in preventing the legislation from being overturned, because it was his legislation. The law bans 45 “assault-style weapons, including the AR-15,” the newspaper noted.

In his argument, the newspaper said, Frosh cited several attacks involving semi-auto rifles including Sandy Hook Elementary, the Pulse nightclub attack in Orlando, the Las Vegas music festival attack and the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.

There was a signal from the Supreme Court that it could be giving serious consideration to accepting the case for review in January when the court asked Frosh to respond to the plaintiff’s petition for review. Initially, Frosh’s office did not offer a response.

This is the second time the Maryland ban has been challenged, but that was when the court did not have a strong conservative majority. The majority will not change with the seating later this year of Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace retiring Associate Justice Stephen Breyer.

The support shown for this case has impressed SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.

“When the possession of commonly-owned firearms by private citizens is criminalized, it is imperative for good, like-minded people to stand together and defend constitutional rights,” Gottlieb observed. “The support we are receiving in this case is both humbling and reassuring. We are hopeful the Supreme Court grants our petition for review. Banning the possession and transport of a whole class of commonly-owned firearms is an affront to the Second Amendment that cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.”

Grassley To Biden: Stop Blaming Lawful Gun Owners For Democrat-Caused Crime Wave
ATF Nominee, So-Called Ghost Gun Rule & Onerous New Requirements on FFLs Impose Burdens on Americans, Do Nothing to Solve Spike in Violent Crime

BUTLER COUNTY, IOWA – Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote to President Joe Biden to urge that the administration turn away from partisan, anti-gun rhetoric toward policies and nominees that will actually address the rise in violent crime. Grassley also raised serious concerns with the recently announced nomination of Steven Dettelbach to serve as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

“A director must, at a minimum, demonstrate that he or she respects the Second Amendment rights of Americans and can deal fairly with the firearms industry,” Grassley wrote. “…but even a cursory review of [Dettelbach’s] statements about gun ownership demonstrate a lack of awareness of the circumstances surrounding legal gun acquisition, or outright favoritism of expansive gun control.”

Grassley goes on to highlight specific instances of Dettelbach’s troubling record of comments and affiliations with anti-Second Amendment groups, including one occasion on which he apparently used a debunked statistic to push for gun control.

“The ATF Director’s roles should include having an appreciation for the role that firearms play in the lives of Americans, as well as serving as a credible, effective liaison with the firearm business community. In this light, Mr. Dettelbach’s writings and social media activism are concerning and serve to undermine his ability to carry out those important roles,” Grassley emphasized.

Continue reading “”

Anti-Gun Politicians Lie About Violent Crime Because Telling the Truth Is Politically Costly

Last month, a man murdered his three daughters, ages 9, 10 and 13 in Sacramento, California. He also murdered the court-ordered chaperone who was supervising their visit. The murderer then shot himself. He used a modern rifle.

Democrat Governor Gavin Newsome called it, “Another senseless act of gun violence in America – In a church with kids inside – Our hearts go out to the victims, their families and their communities.”

Democrat State Attorney General Robert Bonta said, “We need to enforce more of the laws that we have. The rise in violent crime throughout the country is almost entirely because of guns.”

Of course they said that. They have to blame “the gun” because to speak the truth about what happened would offend of too many of the Democrats’ special interests. Here is some of what these Democrat officials couldn’t say out loud.

• Democrat politicians couldn’t tell us the murderer was an illegal immigrant who overstayed his visa five years ago.
• They couldn’t tell us that the murderer had an active restraining order that made him a prohibited possessor, and his possession of a firearm illegal. They left out that in legal documents the murderer swore he didn’t have any firearms.
• They didn’t tell us that the murderer’s ex-girlfriend said he had mental health issues and had threatened her with violence and threatened to take his own life.
• Democrats politicians didn’t tell us that the murderer was under a detainer request from Immigration and Customs Enforcement so that he could be deported.
• They can’t say that the murderer was arrested and in police custody only five days ago for driving under the influence, resisting arrest, and assaulting police and medical staff who tried to help him.
• Democrat politicians have to ignore that 85 percent of violent crimes don’t involve a firearm.

Democrats can’t speak these truths because those admissions would upset the special interests that keep these politicians in power.

Continue reading “”

Analysis: Biden’s Aggression Elevates Gun Politics Before the Election

Will gun control become a top election issue?

It didn’t seem likely for a while. The high visibility of pressing concerns like 40-year high inflation rates, a burgeoning humanitarian crisis in the ongoing war in Ukraine, and domestic culture warring over education policy have been at the top of most Americans’ minds.

But actions taken by President Joe Biden this week may very well have foisted the issue of guns back onto the radar of voters going into November’s midterm elections. Largely at the behest of a sustained pressure campaign from gun-control groups, President Biden announced his new nominee to head the ATF on Monday. He also announced the accelerated release of the final ATF rule banning “ghost gun” kits.

Either action taken on its own would be enough to raise the political stakes. Gun control by executive fiat is a policy route that draws the ire of gun owners and energizes gun-control advocates. But combining that announcement with the another attempt to successfully confirm a permanent ATF director takes the political stakes up a notch.

Getting a permanent ATF director confirmed is a tough battle in any political environment, as evidenced by the fact that only one director has been confirmed since 2006. The Trump administration was not even successful in confirming a nominee despite Republican control of the Senate at the time.

But the failure of David Chipman’s nomination to the ATF director role was perhaps the most high-profile political loss for Biden thus far in an administration that has seen its fair share of contentious confirmation battles. The fact that the Biden administration would return to that well after burning so much political capital in vain last time around suggests a commitment to making gun control a key selling point for his party.

Dettelbach may not have the same political baggage as his ill-fated predecessor. Chipman was a professional gun-control advocate employed by Giffords prior to his nomination. He also had a history of making controversial and derisive statements about the industry and gun owners he would be in charge of regulating at the ATF. Plus, serious concerns about his character while working as a federal agent were uncovered after his nomination.

Dettelbach supports many of the same gun restrictions Chipman did. He was endorsed by the gun-control groups during his failed 2018 AG campaign, but has never directly worked for them like Chipman did. He has used heated rhetoric to question the integrity of Ohio’s elections. But much of his background is still unexplored to this point.

The renewed push for a permanent ATF director is likely part of the White House’s attempt to dissuade voter concerns over rising crime. Dettelbach’s background as a prosecutor and the bipartisan support he has received thus far from other prosecutors and law enforcement officials provides some support for that idea.

However, Dettelbach is on record as supporting contentious gun-control policies like “assault weapons” bans and universal background check mandates. His backing of those policies will undoubtedly raise the salience of gun politics alongside crime concerns in his upcoming confirmation battle.

The president is taking a political risk by announcing another gun-control advocate to lead the agency charged with regulating the firearms industry while releasing controversial new gun regulations. It isn’t immediately clear this nominee will fare better than the last in terms of securing the support of moderates in the Senate, and another tense confirmation fight this close to election season could be a political liability for Democrats. At the same time, his final “ghost gun” kit ban has already mobilized Republican political opposition, and the forthcoming pistol brace ban–which will directly impact millions of Americans–will only add more fuel to that fire.

The President’s handling of gun policy has been underwater for nearly a year. Now, Democrats as a party are polling behind Republicans on guns too.

As election season draws nearer, it’s unclear how enthusiastic moderate Democrats from vulnerable states will be to vote for an ATF candidate with an established history of support for gun restrictions.

But it is clear that the President has set in motion the potential for gun politics to be a motivating issue for voters just months away from a midterm election poised to deliver serious Republican gains. How will voters react?