Category: Government

Texas Now Requires New Charter Schools to Ensure They Won’t Teach Critical Race Theory

The Texas Education Agency confirmed this week it now requires new charter schools to submit a “statement of assurance” that the school will follow so-called “critical race theory” laws before opening its doors to the public.

Last year, Texas lawmakers passed two laws designed to limit how teachers could discuss issues of race in the classroom. The state’s current law, Senate Bill 3, replaced an earlier measure, House Bill 3979. Both have been labeled by conservatives as anti-critical race theory laws although the term is not included in either law.

Continue reading “”

This ‘trans’ thing is a bunch of mentally ill people, the ‘athletes’ of which couldn’t make the cut with whatever sport they want to compete in on the male side, and found a way to cover up their lack of ability.

South Dakota governor signs 2022’s first trans athlete ban into law
Gov. Kristi Noem had previously issued executive orders banning trans girls and women from competing on female sports teams in the state.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem signed a bill Thursday that bans transgender girls and women from playing on female sports teams, making the state the first this year — and the 10th nationwide — to enact such a bill into law.

“This bill has been an important priority for a lot of the people behind me,” Noem said as she signed the bill at a news conference, “and I appreciate all of their hard work in making sure that girls will always have the opportunity to play in girls sports in South Dakota and have an opportunity for a level playing field, for fairness, that gives them the chance to experience success.”

Noem vetoed a similar bill in March because she said the legislation wouldn’t survive legal challenges. Later that month, she issued two executive orders that restricted participation on female sports teams to those assigned female at birth.

Continue reading “”

1,The new law imposes unnecessary burdens on lawful gun owners and are unlikely to save taxpayers a single dollar, much less save a single life.

2,The law’s burdens on San Jose gun owners aren’t justified by the rare times when insurance might cover an incident of gun violence.

3,If San Jose officials are serious about reducing gun violence and lowering associated financial costs, there are plenty of better solutions.

8 Problems With San Jose’s Gun Insurance Mandate and Gun Ownership Tax

Lawful gun ownership in San Jose, California, is about to become more expensive and onerous after the City Council passed a measure imposing two unprecedented burdens on the possession of firearms inside city limits.

Beginning later this year, San Jose’s lawful gun owners will be required to maintain “a homeowner’s, renter’s, or gun liability insurance policy … specifically covering losses or damages resulting from any negligent or accidental use” of their firearms.

Gun owners also must pay an annual “Gun Harm Reduction Fee”—an as-yet undetermined amount that officials suggest will be roughly $25 a year.

City officials claim these are necessary steps that will save lives by incentivizing responsible gun ownership practices while making gun owners foot the bill for the financial costs of gun violence.

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

In reality, the new law imposes unnecessary burdens on lawful gun owners and are unlikely to save taxpayers a single dollar, much less save a single life.

Here are eight major problems with San Jose’s latest gun control push:

1. Enforcement Nearly Impossible

The new ordinance doesn’t require gun owners to certify that they’ve obtained coverage or paid the annual fee.

Unless the city plans on conducting door-to-door compliance checks, it will face a nearly impossible task of ensuring widespread compliance with what is essentially an honor system.

2. Insurance Policies Don’t Exist

Currently, the only independent liability insurance for gun owners is self-defense insurance, which covers the costs for any criminal or civil proceedings resulting from a gun owner’s intentional defensive use of a firearm.

These plans don’t cover civil liability for cases of negligence or accidental shootings, as required by the San Jose ordinance.

This means gun owners will have to rely exclusively on personal liability provisions in their homeowner’s or renter’s insurance plans, or pay hundreds of dollars for a personal liability umbrella plan. Even then, such plans rarely include specific provisions covering liability for gun-related injuries.

3. Insignificant Coverage

Even in a best-case scenario where gun liability insurance is widely available and the requirement is widely enforced, these insurance plans will cover only a miniscule fraction of gun deaths and injuries occurring inside San Jose.

Most acts of gun violence involve criminal or intentionally wrongful acts, which California law prohibits insurance companies from covering. Importantly, this would exclude coverage not just for homicide and assault, but also for gun suicides, which comprise 60% of all gun deaths.

Additionally, while the new law purports to make gun owners responsible for any harm inflicted by lost or stolen firearms unless the guns were first reported as lost or stolen, homeowner’s and renter’s insurance policies cover acts committed only by the insured person while on the insured property.

So regardless of who San Jose deems responsible, if the gun owner has a typical homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policy, that policy simply wouldn’t cover, for example, harm inflicted by a thief who stole the gun or by the gun owner during an off-property hunting accident.

Nor do these policies cover harm inflicted on an insured party, as when a gunowner accidentally shoots himself or a household member while cleaning his gun.

This leaves coverage limited to the narrow circumstances in which an insured gun owner, while on his or her own property, accidentally or negligently harms a third party with a firearm.

This type of gun violence is relatively rare.

According to a report that the city itself relied on to support the mandate, San Jose averages only two “unintentional/undetermined” gun deaths a year, amounting to only 3.4% of all annual gun deaths.

At the same time, the city with a population over 1 million averages 25 annual nonfatal hospital inpatient admissions and 59 annual emergency room visits without hospitalization due to “unintentional/undetermined” gun injuries.

Even if most of these deaths and injuries are truly “unintentional,” as opposed to merely “undetermined,” it’s impossible to know how many were committed with lawfully possessed guns in circumstances that would be covered with traditional homeowner’s or renter’s liability policies.

And, of course, no insurance policy would cover situations involving unlawfully possessed guns.

The law’s burdens on San Jose gun owners aren’t justified by the rare times when insurance might cover an incident of gun violence.

4.  Payouts Don’t Reduce Taxpayer Burden

San Jose officials repeatedly defended their gun insurance mandate by lamenting the financial cost of gun violence on the city’s emergency response services and insisting that gun owners should pick up the tab for gun violence.

And yet, mandating gun liability insurance does nothing to alleviate the cost to taxpayers. In the rare instances where insurance policies might cover gun injuries, the payouts wouldn’t go to the city or to its emergency responders.

Instead, the payments would be directed toward the victim’s medical bills (a cost only sometimes and indirectly borne by taxpayers if the victim is uninsured or on state-subsidized insurance) and any potential civil damages for lost wages or pain and suffering (a cost never borne by taxpayers).

5.  Mandate Won’t Save Lives

Just as the insurance mandate is unlikely to save taxpayer money, it’s equally unlikely to save lives by deterring future acts of gun violence.

California has the most stringent gun laws in the nation. If gun owners aren’t deterred from negligent, reckless, or unsafe conduct by the state’s existing criminal sanctions or impositions of civil liability, why would they be deterred by the risk of increased insurance premiums?

Perhaps worse, gun liability insurance for negligence may create perverse disincentives for gun owners, who no longer risk financial ruin for careless conduct that harms others.

6. Unconstitutional Tax

San Jose refers to the new fee imposed on gun owners as a “Gun Harm Reduction Fee,” but it’s nothing less than an unconstitutional tax on the exercise of an enumerated right.

The Supreme Court has struck down similar laws, reasoning that “a state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal Constitution.”

This is precisely what San Jose’s fee does—require gun owners to pay an annual sum of money to exercise their Second Amendment rights inside the city.

7. Misplaced Blame

Lawful gun owners aren’t the driving force behind gun violence, and yet San Jose has singled them out to pay for gun violence.

Law-abiding citizens shouldn’t be saddled with the blame (or the bill) for criminal actions they didn’t commit, encourage, or facilitate.

8.  Legitimate Solutions Ignored

If San Jose officials are serious about reducing gun violence and lowering associated financial costs, there are plenty of better solutions.

The city could focus its energy on enforcing existing gun laws—perhaps, for example, by disarming its share of the 23,000 Californians who state authorities know possess guns despite being prohibited persons.

It could make these unlawful gun owners and others who commit gun crimes pay by imposing fees and restitution to the state as part of criminal sentencing.

The city also could increase the size of its police force to deal with chronic understaffing and workload problems that inhibit officers’ ability to enforce the law.

Instead of opting for these rational and straightforward steps, however, the city apparently has defaulted to what’s become an all-too-common tactic in gun control politics—passing unserious laws that burden lawful gun ownership without addressing any of the real problems.

 

West Virginia: House Passes Keep, Bear, and Drive with Arms Act

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Yesterday, the House of Delegates passed House Bill 4048, the WV Keep, Bear, and Drive with Arms Act. It now goes to the Senate for further consideration.

House Bill 2048 affirms that it is lawful to possess loaded and/or uncased rifles and shotguns in vehicles “unless rebutted by the totality of circumstances” that unlawful hunting is occurring. This ensures that law-abiding citizens may carry the firearms of their choice, in the manner of their choice, with them in vehicles.

Gov. Noem announces legislation to cut fees on business incorporations, concealed carry permits

PIERRE, S.D. – On Thursday Governor Kristi Noem announced a single legislation intended to eliminate taxes and fees associated with business incorporations and concealed carry permits in South Dakota.

The bill would eliminate all fees associated with starting or renewing a domestic business with the Secretary of State in South Dakota. It would also eliminates all fees for concealed carry permits in the state…….

“So, don’t be surprised if people continue to pour out of heavy lockdown, high-tax states like New York and head to brighter pastures.”
Okay, as long as they don’t bring along the proggie politics which caused the problems they’re fleeing from.

Only Four States Have Regained All the Jobs Lost Since the Pandemic. They’re All Run By Republicans.

The U.S. has a long way to go before our economy fully recovers from the damage inflicted by the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In all, we’re still roughly 3.6 million jobs short of our pre-pandemic employment levels at the national level. But the state of the recovery varies quite a bit at the state level—with four states now having fully recovered all the jobs they lost since the pandemic began.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Texas, Arizona, Utah, and Idaho have all regained their February 2020 employment levels. This graph from the Journal shows how these states are overperforming the national recovery:

What do these four states all have in common? Well, for one thing, they’re all run by Republicans, and had less-harsh COVID-19 restrictions than many blue states.

“The states—all Republican controlled—also have had relatively relaxed Covid-19 restrictions during the pandemic, which economists say softened the blow on their economies,” the Journal notes.

Arizona is a prime example.

Arizona rapidly returned to its prior peak of employment because compared to the nation we didn’t fall as far,” University of Arizona economist George Hammond said. “One big reason is because the stay-at-home order in Arizona wasn’t very restrictive.”

The takeaway here becomes even more clear when you zoom out. Red states have tended to have consistently lower unemployment rates throughout the recovery to date than blue states, because they tended to have less harsh restrictions on their economies.

Trade-offs are real. But what makes this even worse is that it’s dubious whether the harsh lockdown measures and restrictions even helped stop the spread of COVID-19. Many studies have found no correlation between the strictness of lockdowns and COVID-19 outcomes.

Such drastic infringements on peoples’ liberty wouldn’t necessarily be justified regardless. But to immolate Americans’ economic fortunes and not even achieve improved public health outcomes just adds more insult to injury.

So, don’t be surprised if people continue to pour out of heavy lockdown, high-tax states like New York and head to brighter pastures.

 

Glenn Youngkin Defends Ban on ‘Racially Divisive’ Critical Race Theory in Virginia

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin defended his decision to outlaw critical race theory in public schools — slamming the controversial philosophy as “racially divisive.”

Youngkin made the remarks following a decision to issue an executive order banning school lessons that define racism as an institutional problem deeply embedded in American society.

“There’s not a course called critical race theory,” Youngkin said on “Fox News Sunday.”………………….

‘Trust but verify‘ works for me.

BLUF:
“One thing I’ve learned is the Second Amendment is one of the most important amendments and you look at all my voting record. Listen, you watch this Congress itself—we believe in the Constitution,” McCarthy said.

Exclusive — Kevin McCarthy Pledges as Speaker He Will Not Consider Amnesty or Gun Control Legislation

House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview taped in December that the House would not consider any legislation that grants amnesty to illegal aliens if he becomes the speaker next year.

“We know first and foremost one of our greatest strengths is the rule of law, so you have to have an immigration system based upon the rule of law. You have to secure the border. The immigration system is broken and we’re going to fix it. Yes,” McCarthy replied when asked if he could pledge no amnesty would be considered under his leadership.

“Yes,” he reaffirmed when pressed again.

Continue reading “”

Game Over? Manchin Approval Soars as He Stands Ground.

The biggest news I’ve seen today hasn’t gotten nearly the attention it deserves. It is when Senator Joe Manchin told a Fox News reporter that he has had no conversations with the Biden administration since his last interview with Fox News:

“There’s been no conversations after I made my statement. I think it’s basically, you know, and I was very clear. I just feel as strongly today as I did then. I’m really not going to talk about Build Back Better anymore, because I think I’ve been very clear on that. There is no negotiations going on at this time.”

So first of all, good for Senator Manchin for holding his ground. Second, I told you. The guy is not going to cave. I fully expect him in the next couple days to tell us all that he intends to save America and kill the bill. I’m just waiting for that.

This high tax, high spend, woke monstrosity is going nowhere. All these phony baloney political writers who say otherwise are wrong. Like the Axios report yesterday that breathlessly said that Mr. Manchin is really negotiating on a child tax credit.

Blah, blah, blah. No he’s not. That was a Democratic leak. Pure baloney, and Axios should know better than to fall for that stuff. Unless, of course, they’re pushing their own little woke, “BBB,” big government socialist agenda. Is that what they want? Really? I thought they were independent journalists.

The point I’m making is that not only has Joe Manchin been heroic, he has also been loyally representing the voters of West Virginia. Some recent polling shows that West Virginians oppose the big government socialism bill.

Nearly two thirds of them believe the bill would lead to higher costs for gas and groceries. Senator Manchin’s job approval has gone up seven points to 59 percent. He’s doing the lord’s work.

And he offered a deal to Chuck Schumer last summer, and Mr. Schumer dissed him.

Continue reading “”

It appears that West -By God- Virginia has a Second Amendment Protection Act law not unlike Missouri and a few other states.

AG offers guidance on handling gun law conflicts

CHARLESTON — A state law passed early in 2021 regarding federal gun laws now has related policy guidelines.

House Bill 2694 stipulates that state gun laws will trump federal gun laws and no West Virginia law enforcement agency on any level “shall participate in enforcement efforts focused on federal gun control measures when those laws conflict with state laws regarding firearms.”

“The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution,” Attorney General Morrisey said Thursday when announcing the guidelines. “Yet, there is a deep concern on the part of many Americans that the federal government will try to encroach on our Constitutional rights through presidential executive orders or through acts of Congress. The publication of this guidance will help our state’s law enforcement understand what they can and cannot do in this respect under West Virginia statute.”

Morrisey said enforcement of federal firearms laws is a federal responsibility, not the responsibility of West Virginia law enforcement agencies when federal gun laws are in conflict with state Code.

For example, he said, a West Virginia state or local law enforcement agency, department or officer “may not assist federal authorities in executing an arrest warrant just for violation of federal gun laws when the person to be arrested may lawfully possess such firearms, firearms accessories or ammunition under state law.”

The new law also provides that no member of state or local law enforcement may be required to act in a law enforcement capacity to enforce a federal statute, executive order, agency order, rule or regulation determined by the West Virginia Attorney General to infringe upon citizens’ Second Amendment rights, Morrisey said.

Law enforcement officers are also protected and cannot be terminated or decertified for refusing to enforce a “federal statute, executive order, agency order, rule or regulation determined by the West Virginia Attorney General to infringe upon citizens’ Second Amendment rights.”

“This guidance from the Attorney General on HB 2694 will help protect West Virginia from new federal gun control schemes, and ensure our law enforcement officers are immune from retaliation for defending the Second Amendment rights of all West Virginians,” Kevin Patrick, vice president of the West Virginia Citizens Defense League, said in the announcement.

West Virginia Sheriffs Association Executive Director Rodney Miller said the move is fully supported.

“Law enforcement across West Virginia wholeheartedly supports the Second Amendment and lawful possession of firearms by our citizens and are happy to have joined the Legislature, the Attorney General and concerned gun groups in this effort to ensure that responsible firearm ownership is defended without question,” he said. “We, as citizens of this state, are concerned with overreach that could deny all of us the ability to lawfully possess firearms and utilize them as proud Mountaineers have always done responsibly.”

The policy guidance is posted on the Attorney General’s website (https://bit.ly/3zagUlE) and is being sent to state and local law enforcement agencies.

GO TIDE

Several gun rights bills filed before 2022 legislative session

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (WAFF) – Alabama lawmakers will be back in Montgomery in less than a month for the 2022 legislative session and there are already several bills pre-filed by lawmakers with many dealing with gun rights.

Conceal carry without a permit

A third of the pre-filed bills deal with needing a concealed carry permit to carry. Senate Bill 1, sponsored by Senator Gerald Allen, would allow Alabamians to carry or possess a firearm in certain areas. Some of these areas are wildlife management areas and private property.

You would still not be able to carry a firearm in police and other law enforcement buildings, as well as, inside a prison or other detention centers. However, it is not a violation if someone has a firearm locked in their vehicle at a sheriff’s office that issues permits.

Another bill, House Bill 44, covers the same thing as Senate Bill 1 and is sponsored by 39 republican state representatives, including Speaker of the House Representative Mac McCutcheon.

House Bill 6 and Senate Bill 12 would allow people to carry, or have in their vehicle, a pistol or other concealed firearms without a permit. The bill would also remove the presumption of intent to commit a violent crime if someone has a firearm without a permit. This means if a person is just carrying a pistol, holstered or secured, in a public place, it is not illegal under these bills.

These bills are sponsored by Senator Tim Melson of Florence and representatives Shane Stringer and Proncey Robertson.

Bills on federal regulation

Not only are politicians looking inward at state laws but they are also looking out to the federal government.

Senate Bill 2 and House Bill 7 would both create the Alabama Second Amendment Preservation Act. This act would prohibit state law enforcement from enforcing any federal law, or other legislation, regarding the regulation of firearms, firearm accessories or ammo.

The bills would also set up penalties for whatever agency violates the proposed bill. The penalty for a first offense is a class C misdemeanor with a fine no less than $500 or more than $5,000. For all other offenses, it is a class B misdemeanor with a fine no less than $1,000 or more than $7,000.

Under Senate Bill 2, a state political subdivision will also not receive grant funds if it adopts a rule or other policy which violates this act. They would be denied those funds the following fiscal year of the conviction.

The bills are sponsored by Senator Gerald Allen and representatives James Hanes and Arnold Mooney.

A different bill, House Bill 13, would prohibit state law enforcement from enforcing any federal bill or other legislation pertaining to the regulation of firearms, firearm accessories or ammo, just like Senate Bill 2. However, this only pertains to those made and sold in Alabama.

Under existing constitution law, Congress is given the authority to regulate interstate commerce. This bill would provide that firearms, ammo and firearm accessories that are made in the state and are only traded within the state are not subject to federal law or regulation.

The 2022 Alabama Legislation Session begins on January 11, 2022.

As Inflation Soars Biden Explains How the Fed Chairman Will Work to Combat…Climate Change

Speaking from the fake White House set in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building Monday afternoon, President Joe Biden announced he will renominate Jerome Powell to lead the Federal Reserve.

While limiting his remarks about runaway inflation, Biden explained how Powell will use his position at the monetary agency to combat climate change.

Biden’s description of how Powell will manage the Federal Reserve to work in the left’s climate change goals is indicative of his administration’s broader plans for the economy.

Last week Saule Omarova, Biden’s nominee to be the Treasury Department Comptroller, testified in front of the Senate Banking Committee. She was heavily scrutinized by Republicans and Democrats over her statements calling for the oil and gas industries to be bankrupted in order to meet climate change goals.

If confirmed, Omarova would be in charge of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The OCC “charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks, federal savings associations, and federal branches and agencies of foreign banks.”

 

And on the local front:

Violations of Missouri ‘Sunshine Law’ can result in some pretty heft fines. For the people who continually say ‘We don’t teach CRT!” they sure do a lot of complaining about people wanting proof.

Missouri Attorney General Sues Springfield School District Over Refusal To Turn Over Critical Race Training Records.

Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed suit against Springfield Public Schools for violating the state’s sunshine laws, saying SPS failed to provide documents his office requested after parents complained of lessons and curriculum based on Critical Race Theory (CRT).

On November 16, 2021, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed suit against Springfield Public Schools for violating the state’s sunshine laws. Schmitt says Springfield failed to provide documents his office requested after parents complained of lessons and curriculum based on Critical Race Theory (CRT).

In a press release announcing the action, the AG’s office said, in part:

Upon questioning by the Attorney General’s Office, Springfield Public Schools admitted that they’ve provided equity training to students in the GO CAPS program for the past three school years. In May of 2021, Springfield Public Schools reported that it had formed a “Culturally Relevant Curriculum Review” and adopted a Culturally Responsible Scorecard to implement a social justice evaluation of core curriculum, including math.

After the Springfield Public Schools School Board limited public comments and Springfield Public Schools announced that they would not release training materials to the public, the Attorney General’s Office filed a Sunshine Law request on behalf of concerned parents to find out exactly how frequently critical race theory and antiracism materials and teachings were supplied or taught to students.

In response, Springfield Public Schools provided a fee estimate that demanded an initial deposit of $37,000. The lawsuit alleges, “Springfield Public Schools violated § 610.026.2 [the Sunshine Law] by demanding a deposit for items or services other than copies as a precondition to making public records available to the Attorney General’s Office.”

Schmitt also put together a lengthy thread on twitter sharing details his office had learned about the teacher trainings.

Continue reading “”

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves Calls for Elimination of Critical Race Theory in Budget Proposal

Republican Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves released his Fiscal Year 2023 budget proposal on Monday, recommending that the teaching of critical race theory be eliminated from taxpayer-funded schools.

Under a section in the budget proposal titled “Improving Education,” Reeves headlined a section “Eliminate Critical Race Theory” and outlined how he believed the teaching to be a “vicious lie.”

Continue reading “”

On track for the next permitless carry state?

Ohio House committee passes bill allowing for concealed carry of guns without training

COLUMBUS, Ohio — An Ohio House committee passed legislation Thursday that would allow most Ohioans who are 21 years of age and up to lawfully carry a concealed firearm.

Current law allows Ohioans to carry concealed weapons after completing eight hours of training and submitting an application to their county sheriff, who conducts a background check. House Bill 227, if passed, would remove the training and application requirements for anyone who is of age and not prohibited from carrying a weapon by state or federal law.

Over each of the last six years, about 3,900 concealed carry permits on average were either suspended, revoked or denied, according to data from the Ohio Attorney General.

The legislation would also remove Ohioans’ duty under current law to notify police officers that they’re carrying a weapon if they’re stopped in traffic. HB 227 only requires them to notify officers about the weapon if they’re asked.

Passing “permitless carry,” as the legislation is commonly referred to, would forward a steady march of loosening Ohio’s gun laws. Ohio’s concealed carry program launched in 2004 and required 12 hours of training at the time. In 2006, lawmakers passed a bill blocking cities from passing gun control laws stricter than those of the state at large. Republicans passed a “stand your ground” bill last year that removes the legal duty to first seek retreat from a confrontation before responding with deadly force.

The push toward permitless carry comes as gun violence hits record highs. In 2021 so far, 694 people have been killed and nearly 1,600 have been injured in shootings in Ohio, according to data from the Gun Violence Archive, which tracks media reports of shootings around the U.S.

The legislation passed without much fanfare from Ohio’s House Government Oversight Committee. House Majority Leader Bill Seitz, R-Green Twp., said he was convinced of the need to pass the legislation by gun lobbyists from the National Rifle Association and the Buckeye Firearms Association.

Rep. Tim Ginter, a Salem Republican who also works as an ordained minister, mentioned that the legislation clarifies that people can carry concealed weapons in a house of worship, as many of his parishioners do.

“If you attend the church that I pastor, just be aware that there’s probably a lot of people in there with handguns,” he said.

House Democrats on the committee opposed the legislation. They tried, without success, to amend two anti-gun violence provisions into the bill. One would require background checks to purchase firearms at gun shows and from private sellers. Another would allow judges, if petitioned by family or law enforcement, to temporarily seize weapons from people experiencing mental health crises.

Rep. Paula Hicks-Hudson, the ranking Democrat on the committee, called the legislation “short-sighted” and divisive.

“This extreme legislation doesn’t make Ohio any more gun friendly,” she said. “Instead, it makes it a lot less safe for all of us, including gun owners.”

The gun lobby has been pushing for permitless carry in Ohio for at least 10 to 15 years, according to Buckeye Firearms Association’s top lobbyist Rob Sexton. In an interview, he framed the issue around the constitutional right to bear arms and downplayed the existence of a relationship between loosened gun laws and gun violence.

“The law has been liberalized over the last 15 years toward the goal of fully realizing what the Constitution says, and we still haven’t seen the corresponding bad behavior by regular, law abiding gun owners,” he said. “So no, I don’t believe this change will make that happen either.”

In Ohio, the state supreme court holds that the constitutional right to bear arms does not guarantee the right to carry a concealed weapon.

“There is no constitutional right to bear concealed weapons,” wrote Justice Paul Pfeifer in a 2003 majority opinion.

The U.S. Supreme Court is also set to hear oral arguments Nov. 3 on the constitutionality of a New York law restricting concealed carrying of weapons in the state.

Richelle O’Connor, an activist with Moms Demand Action, said the outcomes of the policy are simple: More people with guns they aren’t trained how to use equals more gun violence.

“If more guns made us safe, then we would be the safest country in the industrialized nation, and we are not,” she said.

After the hearing, Moms Demand Action issued a news release citing two studies linking permitless carry laws to increases in violent crime. A 2018 working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research authored by researchers from Stanford and Columbia universities found states with permitless carry laws experience roughly 15% higher rates of violent crime 10 years after adoption than they otherwise would have. Other research published in the American Journal for Public Health found that permitless carry laws were associated with 11% increases in handgun homicide rates.

Twenty-one states allow inhabitants (residents only in North Dakota) to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, according to a count from the U.S Concealed Carry Association. This includes neighboring states of West Virginia and Kentucky.

Permitless carry bills are advancing in other conservative-controlled statehouses around the U.S. including Wisconsin and Alabama and recently passed in Tennessee and Texas.

Just the Beginning: Ten Afghan Evacuees Detained as National Security Risks.

The Biden administration is giving America gifts that will keep on giving for generations to come, and one of the foremost of these gifts is the newly-arrived group of Afghan evacuees: 70,000 are now in the U.S., and the total number is expected to exceed 124,000 before long. One of Biden’s handlers, unnamed in a Wednesday Wall Street Journal report, has admitted that ten of these evacuees have already been detained as risks to national security. Only ten out of 70,000 isn’t bad, right? Sure. But Biden’s handlers’ catastrophic mishandling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan makes it virtually certain that there will be many more.

The reasons for this are clear. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas noted in late September that 60,000 Afghans had been brought to the United States by that time, including nearly 8,000 who were American citizens or residents of the country, and 1,800 had Special Immigrant Visas (SIV) issued to them for aiding the U.S. military in Afghanistan.

What about the rest? Mayorkas explained:

Of the over 60,000 individuals who have been brought into the United States [from Afghanistan]—and I will give you approximate figures and I will verify them, approximately 7 percent have been United States citizens. Approximately 6 percent have been lawful permanent residents. Approximately 3 percent have been individuals who are in receipt of the Special Immigrant Visas. The balance of that population are individuals whose applications have not yet been processed for approval who may qualify as SIVs and have not yet applied, who qualify or would qualify—I should say—as P-1 or P-2 refugees who have been employed by the United States government in Afghanistan and are otherwise vulnerable Afghan nationals, such as journalists, human rights advocates, et cetera.

The upshot of this is that over eighty percent of the Afghan evacuees were neither American citizens nor SIV holders. So who are they? No one knows. Certainly Biden’s handlers don’t. Congressman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) recently discovered that 12,000 of the Afghans who were sent to Camp As Sayliyah in Qatar and then went on to the U.S. were not just “individuals whose applications have not yet been processed for approval,” as Mayorkas put it, but had no identification at all. Issa stated: “They came with nothing. No Afghan I.D., no I.D. of any sorts. Those people were all forwarded on to the U.S., and that’s quite an admission. So many people had no I.D. whatsoever and yet find themselves in the United States today based on what they said.”

This is no reason to be concerned, say Biden’s handlers. Another (or maybe the same one quoted before) unnamed “senior official” in the Biden administration assured the Wall Street Journal that “the use of biometric and biographic data was a robust screening strategy, as the U.S. had decades to build up databases of information related to national security threats and crime. The official said it was sufficient to address the lack of paperwork or other identifying information.” The official downplayed any risk: “In the case of Afghanistan, we had quite a lot [of data] because we’ve spent almost 20 years in the country. It was actually a particularly rich set of information in those various databases.”

National Security Council spokesperson Emily Horne added: “The fact that some have been flagged by our counterterrorism, intelligence, or law enforcement professionals for additional screening shows our system is working. Many of the same people criticizing us for bringing in Afghans were on TV calling for us to evacuate as many Afghans as possible in August.”

There are, as you no doubt already realize, not a few flies in this ointment. The Journal also noted that “federal officials interviewed at U.S. bases overseas stated to Republican aides that they didn’t have any training in identifying fraudulent Afghan documents, raising concerns about the validity of documents that were used.” As a result, several Afghans were able to board a flight in Mazar-e-Sharif with fraudulent documents. They were caught, but how many others weren’t? “There were several people who were traveling with fake passports,” the Biden wonk admitted. However, relax: “They did not have Taliban affiliation.”

Great. But the number of evacuees who have already aroused suspicion is greater than the ten who have been flagged as national security risks. The Washington Post reported on September 10 that “the Department of Homeland Security flagged 44 Afghan evacuees as potential national security risks during the past two weeks as the government screened tens of thousands for resettlement in the United States.”

Not only is the potential for deception virtually limitless when dealing with people who have absolutely no identification; it also must be borne in mind that these people have come from a jihadi hotspot and that ISIS, which has a significant presence in Afghanistan, has repeatedly told its operatives in the West to affect Western clothing and a secular outward appearance in order to fool gullible security officials. And Biden’s security apparatus is so very eager to be fooled, it even denies the ideological and theological basis of Islamic jihad terrorism. How, then, can it vet for it? It can’t. And that means that these ten evacuees who have been detained are only the beginning.

 Texas Gov. Greg Abbott makes good on border security threat, authorizes state National Guard to make arrests of illegal aliens in historic first.

Earlier this fall, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, frustrated and angry at the Biden regime’s purposeful inaction on securing the border, stepped up and issued a threat: He will use his authority and empower his own personnel to start arresting illegal aliens in the absence of federal enforcement.

“By virtue of the power and authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas, I hereby order that the Texas National Guard assist DPS in enforcing Texas law by arresting lawbreakers at the border,” Abbott’s letter to  Texas Adjutant General Major Gen. Tracy Norris said in July, when he first issued the order.

USA Features News, which reported on the declaration at the time, added:

Last month, Abbott said during a summit to discuss border security that any migrants who criminally trespass into Texas or commit other offenses would be subject to arrest and jailed.

In addition, the GOP governor announced plans to build new sections of border wall so as to plug gaps left when President Joe Biden canceled federal wall construction begun under the Trump administration.

In arguing as to why National Guard members should be empowered to make arrests, Abbott noted in his letter that “more manpower is needed” to deal with the hundreds of thousands of migrants who have been crashing the Tex-Mex border since Joe Biden took the oath of office for a presidency that was stolen on his behalf.

In addition, Abbott explained that according to the Texas constitution, his powers as “Commander-in-Chief of the military forces” of the state grant him the authority to issue arrest powers to his Guard troops.

Abbott also “likewise recognizes that the governor can call on state military forces ‘to enforce state law’ and ‘to assist civil authorities in guarding [or] conveying prisoners,’” said the letter.

Continue reading “”

GOOD NEWS: Biden is finally building a border wall! Bad news: It’s just for the border of his $2 million beach house.

So many Americans have been holding out hope that maybe, possibly, Joe Biden might relent and build a border wall for the sake of national security. Well, the wait is over: He’s doing it!

Ohio Republicans pass bill to ban gun store closures during emergencies

Republicans in the Ohio Senate passed a bill 23 to 7 Wednesday that says local governments can’t close gun stores or confiscate firearms during riots or other states of emergency.

“During the COVID pandemic, it became evident that local, state and federal governments have sweeping powers when it came to emergencies,” Sen. Tim Schaffer, R -Lancaster, said.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine carved out an exemption for gun stores in his stay-at-home orders, but other states did not.

“Therefore this bill is critical to proactively define the limits of government’s power to further abuses,” Schaffer said.

Senate Bill 185 would also ban local governments from invalidating concealed carry licenses or closing down shooting ranges.

Current law allows local governments to prohibit the sale or transportation of “firearms or other dangerous weapons” such as crossbows and knives when suppressing a riot or “when there is a clear and present danger of a riot.”

SB 185 would eliminate that provision for everything except dynamite and other explosives.

And that’s a problem for Democrats like Sen. Cecil Thomas, a Democrat from Cincinnati’s Avondale neighborhood.

“You’re denying local governments the ability to protect their communities as they deem appropriate,” Thomas said.

Groups like the Ohio Municipal League opposed the bill in committing, saying it would violate the home rule authority of local governments.

“The Ohio Constitution grants Home Rule authority to municipalities in recognition that a government closest to the people governs best,” Ohio Municipal League Director Ken Scarrett said earlier this month. “Each city and village should be equipped to serve and protect the interests of their communities.”

SB 185 now heads to the Republican-controlled Ohio House for consideration.