Category: Government

Tenney introduces legislation to exempt firearms from bankruptcy proceedings

Press Release, U.S. Rep. Claudia Tenney

WASHINGTON, DC – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-24) today introduced the Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act. This bill would exempt $3,000 worth of firearms from bankruptcy proceedings, allowing Americans to maintain their Second Amendment rights through tough financial times.

Current bankruptcy law allows debtors to maintain items to support a base quality of life, including a primary residency, car, clothing, household appliances, and even musical instruments.

But there is no current exemption for a firearm that can be used for self-defense, a constitutional right. This important piece of legislation ensures that Americans can keep their firearms to defend themselves, no matter their financial state.

“No American should ever have to sacrifice their constitutional rights because of their financial situation,” said Congresswoman Tenney. “The Second Amendment is a constitutional right for all Americans, even those experiencing financial hardship. I am honored to lead this important legislation that protects the rights of gun owners everywhere, no matter their financial situation.”

Additional co-sponsors include Rep. Paul Gosar (AZ-9), Rep. Randy Weber (TX-14), and Rep. Doug Lamborn (CO-5).

Close to Missouri’s SAPA with some pretty stiff penalties for violating it.

Second Amendment Preservation Act would limit enforcement of federal gun laws in Nebraska

LINCOLN, Neb. (KLKN) – The Second Amendment Preservation Act, which would nullify some federal gun laws in Nebraska, got a hearing Thursday before a legislative committee.

If the bill is passed, law enforcement would be prohibited from enforcing federal firearm laws if they conflict with Nebraska law.

Sen. Steve Halloran, who introduced the bill, said that Nebraska’s own constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms and that this bill would keep those rights from being infringed upon.

Other states have passed similar legislation, and supporters say the bill would help keep the federal government from controlling the guns of citizens in Nebraska.

“The people of Nebraska depend on us to uphold and protect their constitutional rights, which is why LB 194 is necessary,” Halloran said. “At this time, 14 other states have passed legislation, making them a Second Amendment sanctuary state, and it is time for Nebraska to be included.”

Several sheriff’s offices from across the state have said they will stand up to federal overreach and attempts to regulate gun ownership.

Opponents say it would be harder to hold police accountable when they enforce some laws but not others.

Representatives of both the Omaha and Lincoln police departments spoke at the hearing, saying the legislation would create a number of complications for law enforcement and how they work with the federal government.

“We believe LB 194 in its current construct would have unintended consequences, the result of which would negatively impact community safety, more specifically gun violence,” said Matt Franken, vice president of the Lincoln Police Union.

Omaha Police Sgt. Michael Todd Kozelichki said the bill leaves more questions than answers for local law enforcement and their federal partners on what exactly they can enforce.

“LB 194 handcuffs the cooperation between local and federal law enforcement more than it handcuffs the criminals who are out there committing violent crimes,” he said.

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders will BAN drag shows in the state to ‘protect kids’ – after already putting limits on teaching critical race theory in classrooms

  • Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders will sign a bill banning drag shows from areas accessible by minors in order to ‘protect kids’
  • The bill would ultimately do away with drag storytime performances, which sees drag queens reading to students for free at public libraries
  • It’s Sanders’ latest move amid the US culture wars after she issued limits on teaching critical race theory in schools

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders is set to ban drag shows in order to ‘protect’ children after already cracking down on critical race theory in schools.

Sanders and her supporters said the bill, which would re-define drag shows as ‘adult-oriented performances,’ is meant to protect social values as it bans the shows from public areas with children despite outcry from the LGBTQ community.

Alexa Henning, a spokeswoman for the governor, said the bill was not aimed at ‘banning anything,’ but rather about ‘protecting kids’ from ‘sexually explicit drag shows.’

‘Only in the radical left’s woke dystopia is it not appropriate to protect kids,’ Henning told The Washington Post.

Continue reading “”

Sen. Hawley’s Insider Trading Bill Returns To Congress Under New Title ‘PELOSI Act.’

U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) reintroduced his 2022 insider trading bill Tuesday that would ban lawmakers and their spouses from holding and trading individual stocks and force political figures to return profits to American citizens under a new title dubbed the “PELOSI Act.”

The Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act comes just over a year after Hawley introduced the original bill, in which he accuses politicians of somehow outperforming the stock market every year they hold office.

This time around, the senator’s updated version takes a jab at California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who many Republican lawmakers had slammed after her husband, Paul Pelosi, sold up to $5 million worth of shares in Nvidia, a California company that produces semiconductors, just before the House voted on a bill surrounding the domestic chip manufacturing industry.

“For too long, politicians in Washington have taken advantage of the economic system they write the rules for, turning profits for themselves at the expense of the American people,” Hawley said in a news release.

In addition to prohibiting members of Congress from taking advantage of the market and wielding their power and privilege over American citizens, The PELOSI Act would also ban said politicians from holding diversified mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, or exempt U.S. Treasury bonds.

Six months upon assuming office, the bill would require new congressional members to divest or place prohibited holdings in a blind trust — to remain there while they are serving the American people.

Spouses of American politicians in Congress would also have to forfeit any investment profits back to the American people through the U.S. Treasury.

Violation of the Act could result in losing the ability to deduct the losses of those investments on their income taxes and other additional fines.

Earlier this month, Business Insider reported at least 78 congressional members, Democrats and Republicans alike, had violated a 2012 law known as the STOCK Act — Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act — which lawmakers designed to combat insider trading among lawmakers and force public servants to disclose their personal financial dealings, including any stock trade made by themselves, a spouse, or a dependent child.

Still, according to the report, lawmakers allegedly broke the law, citing ignorance, clerical issues, and accounting mistakes.

“As members of Congress, both Senators and Representatives are tasked with providing oversight of the same companies they invest in, yet they continually buy and sell stocks, outperforming the market time and again,” Hawley said. “While Wall Street and Big Tech work hand-in-hand with elected officials to enrich each other, hardworking Americans pay the price.”

Missouri AG prioritizing Biden social media collusion lawsuit, defending Second Amendment law

(The Center Square) – A lawsuit against President Joe Biden’s administration for alleged collusion with social media companies and defending Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act are priorities for Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey.

Litigation in both cases began while Republican U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt was serving as Missouri’s attorney general. After the State of the State address on Wednesday, Bailey, who was appointed in November to replace Schmitt, said depositions in the social media collusion case are leading toward an injunction.

“We have documentary evidence, we have testimonial evidence and we intend to seek more evidence in the coming weeks,” Bailey said in an interview with The Center Square. “We’re on an expedited discovery timeline. At some point, we’re going to get into a procedural posture where we’re going to ask for an injunction to prevent further coercion and collusion from the federal government and prevent Biden and his team from censoring speech.”

Missouri v. Biden was filed by Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry in May and they were granted a motion for discovery to expedite a possible preliminary injunction in July. In addition to releasing documents in the case, they released the transcript of a deposition of Dr. Anthony Fauci, Biden’s chief medical advisor who recently retired.

Last week, Bailey released emails from White House Digital Director Robert Flaherty and other associates to major social media platforms. It included an email from Flaherty to Facebook asking why a video by Tucker Carlson on COVID-19 vaccines didn’t violate the social media platform’s standards.

“What we’ve demonstrated and what we believe is going on is censorship because it’s unelected federal bureaucrats targeting specific speech that they disfavor and asking that it be removed from big-tech social media platforms,” Bailey said. “That’s the problem. It stifles free, fair and open debate and it undermines our First Amendment. There should be marketplace of ideas that is free from government censorship.”

Bailey said defending the Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act in lawsuits also will be a priority. The city of Arnold filed a lawsuit and St. Louis city and county and Jackson County filed a separate suit seeking to overturn the law. Both lawsuits claim the law restricts local police cooperating with federal law enforcement on gun violations.

“The Second Amendment is what makes all of the other (amendments) possible,” Bailey said. “It prevents enforcement of federal firearm regulations that exceed or violate the Second Amendment. We need to be going after criminals and not guns, first and foremost. I think most law enforcement officers in the state of Missouri agree with that. If we spent more time going after the criminals and not the guns, we will have safer streets.”

Bailey said the Missouri law is aligned with the principles of the authors of the U.S. Constitution.

“The founders understood that, number one, our rights come from God and not men,” Bailey said. “The federal constitution was a floor, not a ceiling, and the states could be guarantors of individual liberties. So the state legislature wants to expand upon the foundational rights codified in the Second Amendment and they have authority to do that. It’s about federalism and individual liberty.”

New Hampshire Bill Would Take on Federal Gun Control; Past, Present, and Future

CONCORD, N.H. (Jan. 15, 2023) – A bill introduced in the New Hampshire House would end state enforcement of a wide range of federal gun control measures; past, present and future. The passage of this bill would take an important step toward nullifying federal acts in practice and effect that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.

Rep. Tom Mannion (R) introduced House Bill 474 (HB474) on Jan. 11. Titled “Protection of Natural Right to Property and Self-defense,” the legislation would ban any entity or person, including any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any past, present or future federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

The bill is similar to the Missouri Second Amendment Protection Act (SAPA) enacted in 2021.

Mannion said he was building on the momentum created by a bill passed last year that took a small step toward banning state and local enforcement of federal control. Mannion called that bill a “foot-in-the-door” and said he was “adding teeth to this law.”

DETAILS OF THE LEGISLATION

The bill includes a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” including:

  • Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services.
  • Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition.
  • Any registration or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition.
  • Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, use, or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens.
  • Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

The proposed law defines a “law-abiding citizen” as “a person who is not otherwise precluded under state law from possessing a firearm.”

Continue reading “”

Murphy Introduces Bill to Protect 2nd Amendment Rights for Military Families

January 13, 2023

Press Release

Washington, D.C. – Today, Rep. Greg Murphy, M.D. (NC-03) introduced legislation to protect military families’ constitutional rights. The Protect Our Military Families’ 2nd Amendment Rights Act (H.R. 341) guarantees Second Amendment rights to the spouse of a service member. This is the first piece of legislation introduced by Rep. Murphy in the 118th Congress.

“When I was elected to Congress, I made a promise to protect my constituents’ constitutional rights and support our service members and their families. This legislation does both,” said Rep. Murphy. “Far too often, military families are forgotten when Congress addresses issues that impact our warfighters. The Protect Our Military Families’ 2nd Amendment Rights Act goes a long way in ensuring the spouses of our service members are afforded the same constitutional rights as those in uniform. I am proud to always support our outstanding military families and am hopeful this essential piece of legislation will finally see the light of day in a Republican majority.”

Summary of H.R. 341

Under current law, active-duty service members of the United States Armed Forces may purchase firearms at their assigned duty station with proper documentation. However, their spouses are not granted this same constitutional right.

This bill would amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to provide that a member of the Armed Forces and the spouse of that member shall have the same rights regarding the receipt of firearms at the location of any duty station of the member.

The Protect Our Military Families’ 2nd Amendment Rights Act was previously introduced in the 117th Congress by Congressman Murphy.

This bill is cosponsored by Reps. Dan Crenshaw, Mike Kelly, Byron Donalds, John Rutherford, Rick Crawford, Michael Cloud, Elise Stefanik, Paul Gosar, Dusty Johnson, Ashley Hinson, Scott Franklin, and Randy Weber.

Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act introduced

We’re dealing with a revolving door justice system in the United States. Progressive jurisdictions just bounce perpetrators and predators back and forth from the back of police cars, to holding cells, and all too often back onto the street. A bill just introduced in the House of Representatives aims to require prosecutors to prosecute certain crimes. Republican Representative Nicole Malliotakis introduced H.R.27 – Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act on January 9, 2023.

This bill requires certain state and local prosecutors to report data on criminal referrals and outcomes of cases involving murder or non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, arson, or any offense involving the illegal use or possession of a firearm.

The reporting requirement applies to state and local prosecutors in a jurisdiction with 380,000 or more persons that receives funding under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program. The report must contain data on

  • cases referred for prosecution,
  • cases declined for prosecution,
  • cases resulting in a plea agreement with the defendant,
  • cases initiated against defendants with previous arrests or convictions, and
  • defendants charged who were released or eligible for bail.

This measure might not solve all our problems in the criminal justice system, however it will help combat the practice of supporting prosecutors who vow to outside entities they’ll allow chaos to ensue in their jurisdictions. Accountability might be achieved.

The text of the bill indicates an extensive list of original cosponsors, and at this time there are 23 total.

Ms. Malliotakis (for herself, Mr. Reschenthaler, Ms. Stefanik, Ms. Van Duyne, Mr. Newhouse, Mr. Johnson of Louisiana, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Issa, Mr. Stauber, Mr. Calvert, Mrs. Lesko, Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania, Mrs. Spartz, Mr. Webster of Florida, Mrs. Cammack, Mr. McClintock, Mrs. Greene of Georgia, and Mr. Moylan) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

One of the features built into the bill is that once all the prosecutors and district attorneys report to the Attorney General, the Attorney General is required to create a report that’ll be publically available.

(3) SUBMISSION TO JUDICIARY COMMITTEES.—The Attorney General shall submit the information received under this subsection to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and shall publish such information on a publicly viewable website.

Having such information reported on will arm the population, as well as those who wish to truthfully report on such statistics, with information on potential bad actors. While some of these positions are elected and others appointed, having the data for all to see can affect both categories of persons. If the bill had provisions in it that would have a little teeth, that would be nice, but we’ll just have to deal with scrutiny via public opinion as a punitive measure.

This is the first bill of 2023 that I’m reporting on. There’s already a big pile that are worthy of bringing up. We’re dealing with a rather lame duck session. The House Speaker can mutter all he wants about promises kept, but we’d be fooling ourselves if we purported that any of these pro-liberty bills or pro commonsense ones will pass both chambers, and find their way to the Resolute Desk. Are we in a better position than we were a few weeks ago? Absolutely. But as far as legislation goes, we’re going to be best situated to hold the line. Given the make-up, we’ll have to be ready for further executive overreach.

Nebraska senator confident permitless carry bill will pass

One wouldn’t picture Nebraska as being anti-gun. Then again, it’s not really. It’s just not as pro-gun as some might imagine.

That’s because, like many places, a couple of urban areas have a lot more say in matters than they should. Just enough to block permitless carry from passing last year, as a matter of fact.

Well, the lawmaker behind that bill is back with it again, only this time, he thinks it will pass.

he new legislative session is just weeks away, and one state lawmaker believes that some controversial bills have a good chance at passing.

Sen. Tom Brewer said that includes his gun rights bill, which would bring permitless concealed carry to Nebraska.

The proposal fell just two votes short of the 33 needed to overcome a filibuster last legislative session.

Brewer said in a column last week that November’s election made the Nebraska Legislature slightly more conservative, so there are finally enough votes to advance several priorities.

After the last session, Brewer told Channel 8 in June that this bill would be his top priority going into the next session.

“The very first bill that I will drop in the next session will be constitutional carry,” he said. “What the decision today has done has helped us to better shine a light on why it’s important, and to take away some of the concerns folks had about legalities.”

Constitutional carry, permitless carry, they both amount to the same thing. They mean that law-abiding citizens don’t have to ask for government permission to carry a firearm.

And they should pass it.

Critics will claim that constitutional carry will benefit bad guys. Some have started trying to frame it as “criminal carry.” What they miss is that the bad guys are already carrying guns. It’s only the law-abiding being hamstrung by permit requirements, which in Nebraska includes mandatory training for a carry permit.

That creates still more delays, all while the bad guys are just ignoring the law.

So permitless carry doesn’t empower anyone but the law-abiding.

It’s my sincere hope that Nebraska passes his measure. No one should have to take a particular class in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right, and the Second Amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms.

Permitless carry is just a step in the right direction, to be sure.

But do they have the votes? That remains to be seen. I’m not as familiar with the politics of the state as I’d like to be before speculating on it, but falling just a couple of votes shy last year is a promising sign this year. If they can get those two votes, then permitless carry is a done deal in the state and the people of Nebraska will no longer be required to jump through hoops just to get a carry permit.

Especially since there’s little evidence that training requirements yield any actual benefits except to make anti-gunners feel better.

Then again, screw poor people who want to defend themselves, right?

This guy is Gov DeSantis’ deputy press secretary, so, no joke.

Key House Republican says gun rights bills will be on 2023 to-do list

Key backers of the gun rights amendment Iowa voters have just added to Iowa’s Constitution say they’ll introduce a series of gun-related proposals in the 2023 Iowa Legislature. House Republican Leader Matt Windschitl of Missouri Valley has been involved in gun-related issues since he was elected to the House in 2006.

“There are multiple different things we’ve been trying to get done to restore freedoms in Iowa and we’ve not been able to get across the finish line on some of those things,” Windschitl said this afternoon. “I’m not at a point right now where I’m going to discuss publicly what all of those items are, but you can expect us, after this victory, and restore freedoms to Iowans that never should have been taken away.”

Windschitl and others gathered in the statehouse this  afternoon for a ceremony to mark passage of the amendment.

“Iowans now have the best protections for their fundamental right to keep and bear arms of any state in the nation,” Windschitl said.

The amendment got a majority of votes in 97 of Iowa’s 99 counties.

“Iowans have made their voice loud and clear,” Windschitl said. “Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.”

That last sentence is the state motto, adopted in 1847, the year after Iowa was recognized as a state. Secretary of State Paul Pate said the gun rights amendment was added to the state constitution on December 1st when statewide election results were certified.

“On November 8, Iowans voted overwhelmingly to amend the Constitution, enshrining in it the right to bear arms,” Pate said. “In fact, 65% of Iowans supported the adoption. Congratulations to all of you for your hard work and the efforts to secure its passage.”

Richard Rogers of the Iowa Firearms Coalition lobbied for the amendment as well as recent state laws on the use of weapons and gun permits.

“However, each and every improvement in the law was subject to being reversed, or worse, by the next or any future legislature,” Rogers said during the ceremony. “Now, with the ratification of this freedom amendment, as we call it, such a course will be much more difficult.”

This is the 49th amendment added to Iowa’s Constitution. It goes beyond the wording of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and says Iowa courts must evaluate any lawsuits challenging Iowa gun laws by the toughest legal standard.

Some of our neighbors to the North ……..

Canadian Provinces Refuse to Assist in Trudeau’s Gun Grab

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau banned some 1,500 makes and models of military-grade “assault-style” weapons in Canada in May of 2020, shortly after the mass killings in Novia Scotia. That ban ended licensed gun owners being allowed to sell, transport, import, or use these sorts of weapons in Canada.

At that time, Public Safety Minister Bill Blair said, “As of today, the market for assault weapons in Canada is closed. Enough is enough…. Banning assault-style firearms will save Canadian lives.”

Now, Trudeau and Canada’s Liberal government are preparing to launch the mandatory buyback of the outlawed weapons, and several provinces and territories say they won’t assist in the process.

“The most strident opponents, including the United Conservative Party government in Alberta, are suggesting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police [RCMP] ‘refuse to participate,’” reported The Washington Post.

Part of the provincial government’s concern is that this gun confiscation program pushed by the Canadian federal minister in charge of the RCMP is unfunded. In a press release, Alberta’s provincial government stated that “Alberta taxpayers pay more than $750 million annually to fund the RCMP as our provincial police service. Alberta’s government expects that no tax dollars or police resources be wasted implementing a program that will not increase public safety…. Alberta is not legally obligated and has informed Ottawa it will not offer assistance.”

They also advised the commanding officer of the RCMP in Alberta that “pursuant to the Provincial Police Service Agreement (PPSA), the confiscation program is not an objective, priority or goal of the province or the provincial police service, nor is such deployment ‘appropriate to the effective and efficient delivery of police services.’ Consequently, the RCMP should refuse to participate.”

The release continued, “Despite taking this step, the federal government may still direct the RCMP to serve as confiscation agents. To prevent this from happening, Alberta will formally dispute any attempt to do so by invoking Article 23.0 of the PPSA.”

Continue reading “”

Governor wants money to arm teachers, staff inside Mississippi schools

JACKSON, Miss. — Gov. Tate Reeves said he wants Mississippi lawmakers to put up more money to put armed teachers and staff inside schools.

The governor released his 2024 Executive Budget recommendation Tuesday for the coming legislative session. Included in the recommendations is a program called the Mississippi School Safety Guardian Program, which Reeves said is in response to a rash of school shootings across the nation.

Under the proposal, teachers or staff members would be nominated by the school district to undergo a thorough training program on active shooter situations and issued a gun, holster and bullets. The Mississippi Department of Public Safety would train the selected staff members.

“While law enforcement is the best-case scenario, having someone who is on the scene trained with a firearm that could possibly stop a shooter before more lives are lost is a good thing to have,” said Public Safety Commissioner Sean Tindell.

The governor’s plan pays $500 a month to the personnel who are trained for the enhanced safety role.

Akemi Stout, president of the Jackson Federation of Teachers, doesn’t support the proposal.

“How can this be to be so important to arm educators? People are afraid of their guns, so imagine if there is an instant where there is an armed intruder in the school and that person freezes, or the gun is taken from them,” Stout said.

Supporters point to the Pearl High School shooting, where an assistant school principal retrieved his weapon from his car to stop the shooter.

Also included in the governor’s budget recommendations are eliminating the state income tax, advancing the “new pro-life agenda,” giving Mississippi children “a first-rate education,” lowering health care costs and building a “high-quality” workforce.

“Our ultimate aim is straightforward: to advance responsible policies that lay the foundation of a strong society and allow Mississippians to flourish,” Reeves said in a statement. “We will maximize freedom, we will protect your rights and safety, and we will build a future that every Mississippian can be proud of. In other words, my budget continues to put you – the taxpayer – first.”

Lawmakers return to the Capitol in January for the start of the session.

Texas Governor Declares Invasion at Border, Invokes Constitutional Powers in Historic Action

Frustrated by an unending crisis fueled by drug and human trafficking at the southern border, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday declared his state was under an invasion and invoked special powers granted under the U.S. and Texas constitutions.

Abbott’s decision came after three dozen counties in his state passed resolutions calling for the dramatic action. The Republican governor said the declaration allows him to send National Guard troops to the border, treat drug cartels as terrorist organizations and build his own border wall separate of the federal government

Abbott wrote in a letter to county officials the invocation of the constitutional powers was authorized by an executive order he signed back in July. His tweet Tuesday was the first time he publicly claimed he was invoking the invasion clauses of the U.S. and state constitutions.

Abbott previously garnered national headlines by busing thousands of illegal migrants to blue cities such as Chicago, New York and Washington D.C. But his new action Tuesday marked a major escalation that carries both political and legal consequences.

Abbott said his executive order had allowed him to:

  • Deploy the National Guard to the border to repel illegal immigrants, and the Texas Department of Public Safety to arrest and return illegal entrants to their home countries;
  • Build a border wall in multiple counties;
  • Deploy gun boats to secure the border;
  • Designate Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations;
  • Enter into a compact with other states to secure the border;
  • Enter into agreements with foreign powers to enhance border security;
  • And provide resources for border counties to increase their efforts to respond to the border invasion.

The Range Access Act Would Bolster Public Lands and Gun Rights

As more Americans purchase firearms, opportunities to access shooting ranges on public lands should be expanded. 

A newly-introduced House of Representatives bill aims to bolster public range access for new and returning recreational shooters.

Congressman Blake Moore (R-UT) introduced the timely Range Access Act to “require the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to ensure that each qualifying National Forest and BLM district” designate—at a minimum—one public recreational shooting range without charging a user fee. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which manages the USFS, states some ranges located on National Forest lands impose usage fees. 

“This legislation is an important step in expanding access to recreational shooting practice. Americans from coast to coast love spending time in the outdoors, and expanding our ability to recreate on and enjoy our public lands is one of my core focuses in Congress,” said Congressman Blake Moore in a press release. “The Range Access Act would establish free shooting ranges for sportsmen to safely participate in target practice while supporting our wildlife conservation and local economies.”

The legislation also received praise from the nation’s preeminent shooting sports and conservation organizations. 

“The National Shooting Sports Foundation commends Congressman Blake Moore for introducing this vitally important legislation to increase access for the public to practice marksmanship at safe recreational shooting ranges,” said Lawrence G. Keane, National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “This legislation, which would require the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to have at least one qualifying recreational shooting range in each National Forest and BLM district, is crucial to ensuring safe public recreational shooting. Congressman Moore’s bill would also benefit conservation by reducing pollution at non-dedicated ranges on federal public lands while also generating additional Pittman-Robertson revenue.”

Continue reading “”

When the reality of econuttery is finally realized, it gets the boot.

Wind Farm in Germany Is Being Taken Down for Expansion of Coal Mine

In the throes of an energy crisis, a German energy company is moving forward with plans to dismantle a wind farm adjacent to its coal mine in order to expand operations.

The removal of one of the wind farm’s eight wind turbines occurred last week, with two more coming down next year and the rest getting removed by the end of 2023.

Recognizing the “paradoxical” nature of the situation, Germany energy company RWE, which operates the Garzweiler coal mine, said it’s necessary.

“We realize this comes across as paradoxical,” RWE spokesperson Guido Steffen told the Guardian. “But that is as matters stand.”

The expansion comes in tandem with a plan to temporarily return three of RWE’s lignite-fired coal units to the market, a decision that was approved by Germany’s cabinet. The units were previously on standby.

“The three lignite units each have a capacity of 300 megawatts (MW). With their deployment, they contribute to strengthening the security of supply in Germany during the energy crisis and to saving natural gas in electricity generation,” RWE said in September.

“Originally, it was planned that the three reserve power plant units affected would be permanently shut down on September 30, 2022, and September 30, 2023, respectively,” RWE added.

Germany’s cabinet approved the decision to bring back the idled coal units to boost energy supplies, as energy imports remain hindered by the Russia-Ukraine War.  (Fox Business)

The ministry for economic and energy affairs of the state of North-Rhine Westphalia, meanwhile, is urging RWE to reconsider its plans.

“In the current situation, all potential for the use of renewable energy should be exhausted as much as possible and existing turbines should be in operation for as long as possible,” a spokesperson told the Guardian.

BARR: Hate Unconstitutional Gun Control? Make Friends With Your Sheriff

A number of sheriffs in upstate New York are declaring that their officers will not prioritize or “aggressively enforce” the state’s recently enacted, highly restrictive gun control law. These elected sheriffs have concluded quite correctly that the state’s new law is at odds with both the Constitution of the United States and with the most recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that declared New York’s previous and long-standing gun control law – the Sullivan Act – unconstitutional.

The sheriffs’ actions have rekindled a recurring debate about the powers of the more than three thousand local sheriffs serving in every state except Alaska and Connecticut.

The United States has had elected sheriffs long before there was a “United States of America,” with the first one taking office in Virginia in 1652. Police departments, on the other hand, are a relatively new phenomenon. The first municipal police department was not established until 1838 in Boston, Massachusetts.

Unlike most county sheriffs, who hold their positions under their state constitutions, police chiefs answer only to local office holders who appointed them, not to the voters. It is this distinction that has caused a number of sheriffs in “Blue States” to earn the ire of the Left.

Two factors have exacerbated this enmity in recent years – increasingly restrictive gun control measures and abusive COVID mandates by Blue State governors and legislatures. Sheriffs who decline to prioritize enforcing such laws find themselves increasingly maligned by the Left, notwithstanding the fact that they are carrying out their sworn duty to support the federal and state constitutions, and in accord with the wishes of the voters they represent.

Consider Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva, who declared in 2021 that he would not force officers under his command to be vaccinated against COVID, as mandated by that county’s liberal Board of Supervisors.

Even more vexing to liberals, however, is the number of sheriffs who in recent years have refused to enforce what they consider unconstitutional infringements on the rights of citizens in their jurisdictions to exercise their Second Amendment rights in the face of Blue State gun control laws.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) berates these sheriffs who follow the Constitution of the United States as “radicalized” officials who do not themselves understand the Constitution. The recently discredited SPLC simply cannot bring itself to accept that elected law enforcement officials should be permitted to resist such government overreach.

However, these “constitutional sheriffs” are not alone in their views. Since the Supreme Court’s seminal Bruen decision in June that tossed New York’s Sullivan Act, similarly restrictive laws in other states have fallen. Even more to the point, some of the very restrictions in the legislation signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul just days after the Supreme Court rendered its opinion, as part of her attempt to undercut the High Court’s directive, were blocked last week by a federal judge in New York City.

With state and federal courts seeming to agree with sheriffs who decline to vigorously enforce laws they view as inconsistent with their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, especially as related to Second Amendment rights of citizens in their jurisdictions, it is becoming increasingly difficult for their detractors on the Left to argue with a straight face that the sheriffs are the outliers.

Three years ago, the gun control group founded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg — “Everytown for Gun Safety” — published a paper highly critical of sheriffs who declined to prioritize the gun control measures the organization championed. The title of the piece was, When Sheriffs Refuse to Follow the Law.

It is, however, becoming increasingly clear to citizens across the country that it is liberal, anti-gun public officials like Hochul who are not following the law, and that it is constitutional sheriffs who are the ones following it.

Arizona Defies CDC, Will Not Require COVID-19 Vaccine for Public School Students

Arizona will not require students to receive the COVID-19 vaccine in order to attend public schools in the state, the legislature announced in a statement.

The state’s Senate Majority Leadership Team, via an email press release, pointed to HB 2086, a now-signed law, that “clearly and explicitly states that COVID-19 vaccinations cannot be a requirement for school attendance in Arizona.”

Last week the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted unanimously to add the COVID-19 vaccine to the adult and childhood immunization schedules. The ACIP recommended the receipt of four shots in total, beginning at six-months-old.

Consequently, some states will now legally require that students receive the vaccine in compliance with CDC recommendations, but Arizona will not be among them. A majority of states use the ACIP vaccination schedule as a reference for their own laws. The CDC itself does not determine state policy on public school admissions in relation to vaccination status.

“This is just another example of how out of touch the federal government and its agencies are with everyday families. With Republicans currently in control of our state government, we can promise that we will never subject Arizonans to the requirement of an experimental vaccine that has raised questions over long-term health implications,” Republican Senate President Karen Fann said of the ACIP vote.