Well, he is constantly absurd and appalling, so……….


Biden’s Gun Schemes Illustrate the Foolishness of Firearms Regulations
Rules range from absurd to appalling without respect for civil liberties or basic logic.

As expected, the Biden administration released proposed new rules for pistol braces and model legislation for “red flag” laws that make it easier to confiscate privately owned firearms. Also as expected, the proposals are ludicrous. On the one hand, they are pointless and nitpicky rules that are ultimately unenforceable, and on the other hand they are dangerous end-runs around due process that threaten fundamental rights. Taken together, they illustrate the unserious nature of gun regulations which are crafted more to appeal to political audiences than to achieve positive results.

The silliness inherent in this sort of rulemaking is apparent from the Department of Justice’s announcement of “a notice of proposed rulemaking that makes clear that when individuals use accessories to convert pistols into short-barreled rifles, they must comply with the heightened regulations on those dangerous and easily concealable weapons.”

For those new to this controversy, stabilizing braces were developed to help disabled veterans more accurately shoot pistols (usually those built around AR-15 receivers) one-handed. The “problem” is that many resemble shoulder stocks and can be used in that role. By no means does an attachment that lets a pistol be fired from the shoulder make it especially “dangerous and easily concealable.” Instead, it makes it less concealable since it has a brace sticking off the back. Braces do render pistols more accurate, which could be interpreted as dangerous if you’re upset by shooters hitting where they aim.

Continue reading “”

The gun revolution

That was then.

This is now.

 

 

Without firing a shot (except at the firing range), Americans have won a revolution — state by state.

Texas is the latest to join the freedom coalition. The Texas Tribune reported to its dismay, “Texans can carry handguns without a license or training starting Sept. 1, after Gov. Greg Abbott on Wednesday signed the permitless carry bill into law………..

That is a big victory in Texas, and another notch on the gun handle nationally. 35 years ago, it was illegal in 16 states (including Texas) for a civilian to carry a concealed weapon. Only Vermont did not require a pistol permit.

Working through the slow process of going state to state to change the law, the revolution happened.

Continue reading “”

Is There A New Split Emerging At SCOTUS?

We’ve seen some surprisingly harmonious decisions from the Supreme Court over the past couple of weeks, including a 9-0 decision in favor of religious liberty and a 7-2 verdict rejecting a challenge to the Affordable Care Act for lack of standing handed down on Thursday. Behind that newfound comity, however, is conflict… at least according to POLITICO, which suggests in a new piece that the Court isn’t split 6-3 between conservative and progressive justices, but is actually split 3-3-3; with a “moderate” conservative bloc developing alongside the three liberal justices and three stalwart conservatives.

Some liberal legal commentators noted that the most carefully dissected rhetorical sparring is now taking place among members of the new six-justice conservative majority, with the three remaining liberal justices often left as mere spectators.

“We’re arguing about the battles among the conservatives and when that coalition breaks and where it goes,” lamented Harvard Law School lecturer Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge. “It’s a dramatic difference from only two or three years ago.”

Leading the charge from the right in both cases Thursday was Justice Samuel Alito, who penned caustic opinions taking his colleagues to task for issuing narrow rulings that seemed to him to be aimed at defusing political tensions rather than interpreting the law.

“After receiving more than 2,500 pages of briefing and after more than a half-year of post-argument cogitation, the Court has emitted a wisp of a decision that leaves religious liberty in a confused and vulnerable state. Those who count on this Court to stand up for the First Amendment have every right to be disappointed—as am I,” Alito wrote in the foster-care case, notwithstanding the Catholic charity’s unanimous victory.

In the Obamacare dispute, Alito sarcastically accused the majority of repeatedly indulging in flights of legal sophistry to avoid the politically unpalatable step of striking down the landmark health care law.

“No one can fail to be impressed by the lengths to which this Court has been willing to go to defend the ACA against all threats,” Alito wrote. “A penalty is a tax. The United States is a State. And 18 States who bear costly burdens under the ACA cannot even get a foot in the door to raise a constitutional challenge. Fans of judicial inventiveness will applaud once again. But I must respectfully dissent.”

Some court-watchers say that Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Associate Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, are adopting narrow decisions that may address the specific question before the Court but fail to reckon with the underlying issues involved in these cases. Justice Alito certainly felt that SCOTUS didn’t go far enough with the “wisp of a decision” in Fulton v. Philadelphia, arguing that the Court’s opinion can be easily circumvented by the city of Philadelphia in the future.

If, in fact, this emerging split between the six conservatives on the Court is real, what kind of impact could it have on the upcoming case challenging New York’s “may-issue” carry laws? Is there any evidence that the Roberts wing of the Court may already be trying to narrow the case and the impact of the ultimate outcome of the case?

In short; maybe.

Continue reading “”

Thousands Flood ATF With Comments Over Rule Change That Could Land Millions of Americans in Legal Trouble

Stephen Gutowski of The Reload has been covering the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ attempt to ban pistol braces. There’s no wiggle room. No grandfather clause. They’re trying to make them illegal, thus turning millions of Americans into felons for exercising their constitutional right to own firearms. Some 10-40 million Americans have firearms with these stabilizing pistol braces. It’s a backdoor ban. Biden doesn’t have the legislative majorities to pass what he wants to pass, so his people are looking at the existing regulations, tweaking them, and they found a big one here. This new ATF regulation is potentially the largest gun registration and confiscation scheme in American history.

Notice of the rule change has garnered over 30,000 comments in less than a week. Gutowski sifted through some of the good ones while noticing that the anti-gun left seems a bit lackadaisical about this move. You’d think they get their people mobilized. They haven’t. Nothing. It’s been dead silence. It’s not formal legislation, but it’s a test run for what they want to do with firearms in America. Here is what The Reload found:

In only five days, the rule change has received nearly 37,000 comments. That’s tens of thousands more comments than most proposals ever get and the two other proposals in the Federal Register’s “popular documents” section have just 143 and 8 comments respectively. The comments on the brace ban were also overwhelmingly negative with people accusing the administration of overstepping its authority and putting millions of Americans in legal jeopardy. The Reload reviewed dozens of comments and couldn’t find any in support of the rule change.

“This is the most arbitrary set of rules I’ve ever heard of,” said Jack Ort, “and you’ll just make millions of normal Americans into felons despite a complete lack of evidence that these braces are a problem.”

The backlash could jeopardize the proposal if it grows big enough. The Trump Administration withdrew a similar proposal in 2020 after an outcry from gun makers and gun owners. The Obama Administration pulled a proposal to ban a kind of ammunition commonly used in AR-15s after it received more than 300,000 public comments opposing it.

[…]

“The ATF’s attempt to provide clarity around what does and does not constitute a pistol brace is vague,” he said. “Using words like ‘intent’ (which is near impossible to prove in a court of law) in the points scoring system essentially renders it unenforceable.”

Others accused the agency of trying to legislate instead of interpreting existing law. Peter Fittante said the ATF is “trying to make laws by rule making” and bypassing Congress. An anonymous commenter took it a step further.

“The change of this law, which has precedent established, without legislation or judicial oversight is not only unconstitutional, but abjectly immoral,” the person said.

[…]

Disabled gun owners also argued the braces, which were designed to help the disabled shoot certain guns more easily, were vital to them.

“The newly proposed arbitrary and confusing rules on braces directly affects me and tens of thousands of other disabled Americans,” James Miller said. “Because of a combination of spinal stenosis and lupus, I have trouble holding a full sized rifle. Using an arm brace on what is termed a pistol but is the exact same firearm as one with a full sized stock makes it possible for me to continue to exercise my Constitutionally protected right to hunt and compete in shooting sports.”

You already know this, folks. The rule change does nothing to enhance safety. It has nothing to do with law and order. It’s a gun grab test. There is no benefit to this rule change other than the government taking another spin in trampling civil rights. Gutowski did ask the ATF about their rule change. They couldn’t really answer them and told him to place them in the comments section. That’s how you know this rule is trash.

Governor Parsons has already stated he will pardon them


McCloskeys Plead Guilty To Misdemeanor Charges In Gun Case

The legal saga of Mark and Patricia McCloskey took a surprising turn on Thursday when the couple pled guilty to misdemeanor charges of harassment and assault, agreeing to forfeit the firearms they displayed as a crowd of protesters tromped through their gated community last summer.

Gov. Brad Parson had previously vowed to pardon the couple if they were convicted on charges of unlawful use of a weapon, and the McCloskeys had previously said through their attorney that they weren’t interested in accepting pre-trial diversion in lieu of a trial, which makes the news of their guilty plea a bit of a shock.

After the court hearing on Thursday, Mark McCloskey, who’s running for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by retiring Sen. Roy Blunt, was unrepentant about the incident last June.

“I’d do it again,” he said from the courthouse steps in downtown St. Louis. “Any time the mob approaches me, I’ll do what I can to put them in imminent threat of physical injury because that’s what kept them from destroying my house and my family.”

The McCloskeys’ defense lawyer, Joel Schwartz, said after the hearing the couple had hoped to raise money by donating Mark’s rifle to charity, but acknowledged that it was an unusual request.

Because the charges are misdemeanors, the McCloskeys do not face the possibility of losing their law licenses and can continue to own firearms.

On the courthouse steps after the hearing, special prosecutor Richard Callahan said the misdemeanor plea was reasonable noting the McCloskeys called the police, no shots were fired and no one was hurt.

“But I think that their conduct was a little unreasonable in the end,” he said. “I don’t think people should view this case as some type of betrayal or assault on the Second Amendment. We still have the Second Amendment rights. It’s just that the Second Amendment does not permit unreasonable conduct.”

 

Continue reading “”

Stanford Study: Most Mass Shooters Have Undiagnosed Psychiatric Illnesses
Over half of the perpetrators were found to have schizophrenia, with psychotic symptoms including the belief they were receiving messages from demons and seeing hallucinations ordering them to “kill, burn or destroy.”

Researchers from the Stanford University School of Medicine have published a study that reveals most of the perpetrators of mass shootings in America are people with undiagnosed psychiatric disorders.

The study focused on 115 assailants of shootings committed between 1982 and 2019, and then narrowed that number down to ones who survived.

“We found that most mass shooters in our study experienced undiagnosed and unmedicated psychiatric illness,” the researchers noted.

Describing the findings as “striking,” the study notes that symptoms of clinical psychiatric disorders were identified in almost all the shooters, 32 out of 35.

Over half of the perpetrators, 18, were found to have schizophrenia, with psychotic symptoms including the belief they were receiving messages from demons and seeing hallucinations ordering them to “kill, burn or destroy.”

A further 10 of the shooters were diagnosed as bipolar, delusional and suffering from personality disorders.

The study also noted that “None were medicated or received other treatment prior to the crime.”

To make the diagnoses, the study focused on the records of forensic psychiatrists and court proceedings, in addition to writings and social media posts made by the shooters.

Researchers also found that in 20 mass shooting cases where the perpetrators died, at least eight had schizophrenia, seven had other diagnoses, and five had unknown mental illnesses.

While concluding that diagnosis and treatment of mental illness could have “decreased violence,” the study notes that “Psychiatric research… on the nature and the incidence of mental illness among mass shooters, however, remains largely understudied.”

“Most of the cases of domestic mass murders possibly might have been prevented had the assailant… been more consistently assisted to receive a correct diagnosis… followed by psychiatric medication treatment… to save lives,” the study suggests.

Leak Shows People Being Added to Prohibited List Without Due Process

WASHINGTON, D.C. –-(Ammoland.com)-Can you be added to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) “Prohibited” list without being convicted of a crime? According to leaked documents received by AmmoLand News, the answer appears to be “yes.”

The document in question is called “Guidance for Requesting a Submission of the NICS Indices Unlawful User/Addicted of a Controlled Substance Files.” It lets law enforcement officials add suspects to the prohibited list even if the subject hasn’t been convicted of a drug charge. Most gun owners are not aware that they can lose their gun rights without a court convicting them of a drug crime. This expanded power brings up a concern that the ability to add a suspect to the NICS Indices violates a person’s right to due process.

The NICS Indices is a list of people prohibited by the FBI from purchasing a gun.

When a Federal Firearms License holder (FFL) runs a NICS background check on a gun buyer, the system runs the purchaser’s name against the NICS Indices. If the system comes back with a positive hit, the FBI’s system will deny the sale of the firearm. No other information is supplied to the FFL about the denial.

The form lets law enforcement add someone to the NICS Indices if the subject fails a drug test. The reporting officer doesn’t have to file charges against the person who fails the drug test. Many positive drug tests are false. In almost all cases, the person is not notified that the law enforcement agency has added them to the NICS Indices.

Continue reading “”

First shot: 141 House Republicans challenge ATF tax, registration of AR pistols

A majority of House Republicans are vowing to kill a new Biden plan to tax and regulate one of the nation’s most popular firearms for target practice and hunting, claiming it discriminates against disabled veterans and would make all owners “felons overnight.”

Led by Second Amendment advocate Rep. Richard Hudson, 141 Republicans (and likely more to come) are targeting a revived rule from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives backed by the Justice Department to turn AR-style pistols into expensive, hard to get guns.

In a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and acting ATF Director Marvin Richardson, Hudson wrote, “This proposed guidance is alarming and jeopardizes the rights of law-abiding gun owners and disabled combat veterans across the country.”

He was joined by 140 other Republicans, including the No. 2 and No. 3 GOP leaders, Reps. Steve Scalise and Elise Stefanik, and former leader Rep. Liz Cheney.

Continue reading “”

Meet Biden’s Gun-Control Team

While running for president, Joe Biden said repeatedly that he’d act as a check on the radicals within his own party. When he became president, however, Biden quickly invited those radicals to serve alongside him in his cabinet.

Despite his rhetoric of “inclusion,” there is not a single person on Biden’s team who is committed to protecting the Second Amendment—and, worse, there are many who not only favor draconian restrictions upon the right to bear arms, but who were selected precisely because they favor such infringements. Here, as elsewhere, our forty-sixth president is proving the old adage that where politics is concerned, there is little truth in advertising.

 

Continue reading “”

Does Louisiana have term limits?


Gov. Edwards expected to veto constitutional carry bill

BATON ROUGE, La. (WAFB) – Gov. John Bel Edwards is looking closely at a bill that would allow most people to be able to carry their firearms concealed without taking a training course but the bill’s chances of being signed into law are looking slim-to-none.

“My position on this has not changed,” said Edwards during a recent interview. “A law enforcement officer doesn’t want to discover someone with whom they’re engaging has a firearm for the first time while they are actually searching them and that leads a lot of problems.”

As a self-declared advocate for the Second Amendment, Edwards’s position on legal gun ownership has been firm. But SB 118, which would do away with requiring training, doesn’t appear to be sitting well with him. And with the likelihood of a veto of the bill coming soon, Sen. Jay Morris (R-West Monroe), says the fight will continue until the goal is achieved.

Continue reading “”

EPIC Failure ~ Short Barreled Rifles Were NOT Intended to be Regulated by NFA

In 1934, the Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) administration had been in office for one year. The Attorney General, Homer Cummings, was a strong proponent of national gun laws, which, he contended, could get around constitutional constraints by using the power to tax.

The Justice Department crafted a bill to create the National Firearms Act of 1934.

It was a major piece of legislation, arguably the first time the Federal Government had significantly infringed on the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment.

Attorney General Cummings was asked to testify before the powerful Ways and Means Committee in the House, which was considering the bill.

In the original bill, the focus was on pistols and revolvers, short-barreled shotguns, concealable firearms, silencers, and machine guns. Short barreled rifles were not included.

This made sense. The media had hyped the dangers of gangsters roaming the nation and robbing banks, armed with pistols, machine guns, and sawed-off shotguns. These firearms were demonized as “gangster weapons“, much America’s most popular rifle the AR 15 is called an “assault weapon” and demonized under the misleading name today.

There was no demonization of short-barreled rifles. Such items were commonly used for hunting, offered by major manufacturers, usually as a special order. Both Winchester and Marlin made thousands of rifles with barrels less than 18 inches long. Quackenbush made many thousands of popular short-barreled “bicycle” rifles.

The committee transcripts from April 16, 1934, (embedded below) record how short-barreled rifles were added to the National Firearms Act.

Continue reading “”

The LA Times is Still Denying the Second Amendment

The Los Angeles Times editorial page is less a journalistic enterprise than it is a partisan grievance noticeboard. The editorial board’s descent into trivial activist messaging was on full display in a pair of recent pieces lamenting the federal judiciary’s recognition of the Second Amendment. In both, the editorial board denied the core rulings in the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago that recognized the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. In neither piece did the would-be jurists at the L.A. Times offer evidence or argument as to their incorrect position or why the legal analysis of self-important regime press agents should carry any weight whatsoever.

The first editorial was published on April 26 and titled, “The Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could mean more guns in public.” The item took issue with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to grant cert to NRA-backed case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett. The case challenges New York’s concealed carry licensing scheme and could prompt the Court to recognize that the right to keep and bear arms extends outside the home.

Lamenting the Court’s cert decision, the editorial board wrote,

The case the court accepted Monday (New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. Inc. vs. Corlett) follows the court’s controversial 2008 Heller decision, which for the first time enunciated a right to own a firearm in the home for self-protection, breaking with historic perceptions that the right was conferred only to members of state militias. From our perspective, it was an errant reading of the Constitution, but unfortunately the nation is stuck with it.

The second editorial was published June 7 and titled, “The judge is wrong: California’s assault-weapons ban must stand.” This piece complained about the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in Miller v. Bonta. The decision, by Judge Roger Benitez, found that California’s ban on commonly-owned semiautomatic firearms violated the Second Amendment.

Benitez’s ruling on the California ban was the result of a faithful interpretation of the Heller and McDonald decisions. We can be certain of this because Heller author Justice Antonin Scalia signed onto a dissent from the denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park, a case concerning a local ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, that stated as much. The dissent noted,

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.

Continue reading “”

I’ll take questions that have an affirmative answer for $500, Alex.


Urban Violence: A Problem of Dem Administrations?

ABC News is reporting that “At least four major U.S. cities were reeling from an onslaught of mass shootings over the weekend that left at least 38 people wounded, six dead and police officials alarmed that the surge in gun violence is a prelude to a bloody summer.

But is there more to the story, which mentions Austin, Cleveland, Chicago and Savannah?

What about the politics of the people running those cities? Liberty Park Press checked. All four have Democrat mayors. In Cleveland, Mayor Frank Jackson has already announced he will not seek another term.

Cleveland City Councilman Mike Polensek was quoted by WOIO News noting, “Gun confiscations are up 120%, and we are ten more homicides (as of yesterday) ahead of where we were last year –and last year, we were on our way to set a record number of homicides. It’s not acceptable.”

According to ABC News, “Austin Mayor Steve Adler tweeted that the mass-casualty shooting occurred even as police initiated multiple violence prevention programs intended to combat a recent increase in shootings in the Texas capital city.

“But this crisis requires a broader, coordinated response from all levels of government,” Adler said. “One thing is clear – greater access to firearms does not equal greater public safety.”

Last week in Orlando, Joe Biden was in town to observe the fifth anniversary of the Pulse nightclub mass shooting, during which he declared, “It is long past time we close the loopholes that allow gun buyers to bypass background checks in this country, and the Senate should start by passing the three House-passed bills which would do exactly that.”

But the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is firing back at Biden.

“Joe Biden told reporters it is time to close loopholes that allow gun buyers to bypass background checks, but it is well-documented that the Orlando mass killer had passed background checks when he legally purchased the rifle and pistol used in the attack,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Biden was either stupid, or intellectually dishonest with his remarks, and I’m livid the establishment media omitted this key fact in its reporting.”

Continue reading “”

More than half of the country is now a Second Amendment sanctuary – The Gun Writer

The growing national trend of preserving the Second Amendment through local and state legislation has been largely ignored by the legacy media

More than 55% of all U.S. counties are now Second Amendment sanctuaries, and the numbers continue to grow at a rapid pace.

A total of 1,753 of the country’s 3,144 counties — or 55.76% — have either declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries or are located in sanctuary states, according to Noah Davis of sanctuarycounties.com and its companion site constitutionalsanctuaries.com

Continue reading “”

The Second Amendment Isn’t Behind the Rising Crime Rate

In a tumultuous 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic locked down so much of America and the world, one thing that didn’t lock down was the murder rate.

According to the National Commission of COVID-19 and Criminal Justice, which was launched by the left-leaning Council on Criminal Justice, murders across America rose 30% in 2020 when compared to 2019. Based on a survey of 34 cities, they report that: “Homicide rates were higher during every month of 2020 relative to rates from the previous year.”

These gruesome numbers include a 43% rise in New York City in 2020—meaning 131 more murders occurred there than happened in 2019. The numbers were even worse in Chicago, which had a 55% jump (278 more murders) from the previous year.

Not surprisingly, many of those who want the Second Amendment obliterated blame record gun sales for the rise in the murder rate.

“More guns led to more violence,” claimed a story at vox.com. “There’s been a big surge in gun buying this year, seemingly in response to concerns about personal safety during a pandemic. And as the research has shown time and time again, more guns mean more gun violence.”

Of course, most people who follow the Second Amendment debate closely know that, in fact, more guns do not lead to more violence, as researcher John Lott proved back in 1998. Lott, who is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), found that states with the largest increases in gun ownership also tend to have the largest drops in violent-crime rates.

Continue reading “”

Feinstein Introduces Federal Extreme Risk Protective Order Bill

The matter of Fourth Amendment protections for firearm owners has yet to fully have its day in court. The promising outcome from Caniglia v. Strom on May 17, 2021 does point to gun owners having protection from firearm seizure when a warrant is absent. The Caniglia case was reported nearly a month ago by Cam Edwards, and in his correct estimation, it can have effects going forward concerning due process for those trapped up in such situations, and how the high court views them:

It’s encouraging to see the Supreme Court unanimously agree that Edward Caniglia’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when his firearms were seized without a warrant, but I suspect that a challenge to a state’s red flag laws would result in a much more divided opinion.

While this case didn’t directly involve a Second Amendment challenge, it’s also good to see that even the progressive wing of the Court concluded that the seizure of Caniglia’s legally-owned firearms infringed on his constitutional rights. It may not indicate a sea change from the liberal justices, but at least in this case they declined to treat the Second (and Fourth) Amendment as a second-class right.

While I agree with Edwards’s suspicion that “red flag” laws might yield a more divided opinion, this case will in my opinion have an impact on litigation against all of the unconstitutional seizure policies. In a concurring opinion, Justice Alito conceded the Caniglia case does not address “red flag” laws directly, but I’m sure the case will be cited in case documents filed in lower courts.

Continue reading “”