Well Regulated: Joe Biden’s gun control proposals

Well Regulated will return to its normal schedule soon, but for this edition (which will also be published in the pre-election printing of The Cornell Review) Well Regulated will be responding to Joe Biden’s “Plan to End Our Gun Violence Epidemic” from his website. This article will analyze his claims step-by-step, providing commentary and criticism. By the time the article is finished, it should be clear that a Joe Biden presidency presents a clear and present danger to every American’s right to keep and bear arms. If Joe Biden wins the presidency, then the following policies are what the nation will be subjected to. These policies are extreme, unconstitutional, and would not reduce deaths in the United States. After reading the following analysis, it should be clear that a vote for Joe Biden would spell doom for the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Fifth Amendment.  The future of our nation, its fundamental freedoms, and everything it represents are at stake.

**The following section features the titles used by the Biden campaign (in bold), with analysis and description afterward. Due to formatting restrictions online, sections and subsections have been assigned numbers/letters.** Continue reading “”

Triggered: Church shooting heroes rip Biden gun control as ‘insane.’

The heroes of two Texas church shootings who used their own legal arms to take out the gunmen are warning that Democrat Joe Biden’s “insane” gun control plans will hurt public safety, raise billions in taxes, and force millions to give up their weapons.

“If it was Hunter Biden and your wife and family sitting in those pews at that church, would you still not want me to have this gun to protect them with?” asked Stephen Willeford, who on Nov. 5, 2017, used his AR-15 to stop a shooting at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, that killed two dozen.


“The fact is, the only thing that will keep us safe in times of evil are our guns. Evil will always exist,” added Jack Wilson, who, with his pistol, stopped the fatal shooting Dec. 29, 2019, at the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas.

They are featured in a new National Rifle Association video that decries the Biden gun proposals that include taxes on gun parts, rifles, and a potential ban of some weapons. Both are NRA members, and the group has endorsed President Trump.

“Biden’s dream is to leave us all defenseless against criminals,” said Wilson. “I put a terrorist down in a matter of seconds with this gun, and it’s not even a weapon of war or whatever that means. You know what Joe told me? That I shouldn’t have been armed in that church,” he added in the video that shows Biden criticizing the use of the weapon.

The duo also raises two key issues worrisome to gun owners — taxes on guns and a ban of online purchases. And they note that Biden has promised to put anti-gun advocate Beto O’Rourke in charge of gun policy and let gun control advocate Sen. Kamala Harris lead the charge.

“All of this is nuts,” said Willeford.

2A Groups Praise Barrett Confirmation, Prep SCOTUS Challenges

Second Amendment organizations are hailing the confirmation of Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett as a huge step towards the Court once again taking up a case dealing with the right to keep and bear arms. We discussed a few of the Second Amendment-related cases percolating in the judicial system in a post this morning, but on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, we dig a little deeper into the issue with the Second Amendment Foundation’s executive vice president and founder, Alan Gottlieb.

Gottlieb says that Barrett being on the bench at the Supreme Court should provide the votes necessary to start hearing Second Amendment cases once again, and he says that everything from bans on so-called assault weapons and high capacity magazines to the right to carry to the restoration of rights is currently being litigated in lower courts.

Gottlieb’s not alone in his optimism that Barrett’s confirmation will breathe new life into Second Amendment cases at the Supreme Court. The Firearms Policy Coalition’s president Brandon Combs is chomping at the bit to get before the Court.

“FPC’s legal team, the largest and most impactful of its kind in the nation, is already hard at work on some of the most important Second Amendment lawsuits in the country, and is actively preparing dozens more,” said Combs. “As Justice Thomas has explained, the Second Amendment is not a second-class right. We are eager to see the Supreme Court grant certiorari in an appropriate case, reaffirm that the Constitution’s text means exactly what it says, and once more clarify that recalcitrant lower courts cannot continue to apply the interest balancing tiered scrutiny the Court expressly rejected in Heller.”

Continue reading “”

I’ll give this a ‘maybe’. The bureaucraps have a lot of power concerning imports of guns, which seems to be the issue from the linked article below. Just maybe, some people are overthinking this.

ATF Creating Pistol Brace Ban Through the Back Door

An estimated 700,000 owners and users of a popular shooting accessory in the U.S. may soon be left in the dark as to whether their makeshift pistols are legal thanks to a non-public change in federal policy.

International Sportsman reported in June on a long-anticipated move by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to crack down on a loophole that allows owners of AR-15s, AK-47s, and other automatic and semi-automatic rifles to modify their rifles into pistols by use of what’s known in the industry as a “pistol brace.”

Now it appears, based on several sources, the ATF is making that move on the downlow — a loophole to close another loophole (see analysis below).

To recap the situation: In 2012 the pistol brace was introduced to the firearms market as a temporary buttstock solution. It proved effective for those wishing to avoid the otherwise-required federal paperwork, or who prefer a way to legally conceal automatic and semiautomatic firearms. The popularity of pistol braces soared and became a favorite among gun owners with disabilities who find it difficult to handle and fire a rifle of conventional length.

ATF wavered for years on exactly how to approach this innovation. From our June article:

ATF has maintained for years that 26 inches is the maximum length for a concealable firearm. Barrels, according to ATF’s rules, must be 16 inches or longer with a buttstock, or it falls under the National Firearms Act (NFA) restrictions for automatic guns. Without a buttstock, an AR-15 pistol (for example) may have any barrel-length.

The introduction of the pistol brace in 2012 created a loophole in the law — being not necessarily a buttstock but at the same time functioning as one. When Sig Sauer unveiled their new SB15 Pistol Stabilizing Brace, it was intended to be strapped around the forearm, improving stability when firing. Many pistol owners saw an opportunity to instead use the brace like a stock, pressing it up into the shoulder and using it as a cheek rest like with a rifle.

This led to a string of ATF rulings. In 2014, ATF nixed “shouldering braces,” arguing a brace effectively turns a pistol into a short-barreled rifle. The bureau doubled down in 2015 at the end of the Barack Obama presidency, clarifying “illegal shouldering.”

At the onset of the Trump Administration, however, the ATF reversed much of its stance and allowed for the use of braces in “situational,” “sporadic,” and “incidental” uses.

In June, U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz sounded the alarm that the ATF was poised to begin regulating pistol braces without the purview of Congress or even the White House. Gaetz, while praising the Donald Trump Administration for its many defenses of the Second Amendment, also pointed out that the same administration banned “bump stocks” to answer a swell of criticism stemming from gun control activists. He urged constituents to contact their Congressmen and Senators in response, as many gun-rights advocacy groups have done.

So far, the ATF has not messaged on any changes to its interpretation of what constitutes a pistol, though firearms enthusiasts are already spreading the word.

The Military Arms Channel, referring to a post from regulatory legal firm Wiley Rein LLPcriticized the yet-unspoken change coming from ATF.

“… [I]t is something you should take very seriously because of recent actions by the BATF that will affect any owner of AR15 pistols, AK pistols, HK pistols, etc.,” the blog noted via its primary Facebook Page. “Yes, this means your Saint AR pistol or your Draco. That’s exactly what the ATF is targeting.”


Continue reading “”

“Our final analysis finds that race, gender, political ideas, ideology does not matter” in determining gun ownership, Khubchandani said. “What matters is, have you been threatened? Have you been exposed to violence? Do you know someone who was threatened, and therefore, by default, does that make you a little more protective about your own self and your family?”

Health Care Workers Help Drive Gun Surge, New Study Says

When the coronavirus hit American shores, nurses and doctors stocked up on guns, a new study reports.

Researchers at New Mexico State University and the University of Toledo found that being a health care provider was one of the strongest predictors of buying a firearm during the first few weeks of the coronavirus pandemic. Sixty-seven percent of people who reported buying a gun during the pandemic also reported being health care professionals.

“One of the things we should see, in my limited view, is these are people who are civilians who are not criminals and they have seen a lot of unrest in the past six months,” New Mexico State University professor Jagdish Khubchandani told the Washington Free Beacon. “And they want to be on the front foot with their own safety.”

Khubchandani said this surprising finding becomes more understandable when considered alongside the study’s other main finding: Gun-ownership demographics as a whole have shifted during the pandemic.

Gun buyers were more likely to be younger, more urban, more female, and less white. As the gun-owning demographic diversifies, then, it starts to look more like the demographics of health care, one of the country’s largest industries.

“America now has more job opportunities in health care,” Khubchandani said. “Almost 15 percent of Americans today have a job in health care. And as that demographic has changed, so has the gun-owning demographic, and they’ve intersected.”

Khubchandani pointed to two recent surveys finding that between a quarter and half of physicians own guns. He also noted recent real-world examples of health care professionals lining up at gun shops to purchase guns. Continue reading “”

U.S. voters agree on one thing: They’d feel better owning a gun

CHANTILLY, Va. — Like many Americans, two women a thousand miles apart are each anxious about the uncertain state of the nation. Their reasons are altogether different. But they have found common ground, and a sense of certainty, in a recent purchase: a gun.

Ann-Marie Saccurato traced her purchase to the night she was eating dinner at a sidewalk restaurant not long ago in Delray Beach, Florida, when a Black Lives Matter march passed, and her mind began to wander

It takes only one person to incite a riot when emotions are high, she remembers thinking. What if police are overpowered and can’t control the crowd?

Ashley Johnson, in Austin, Texas, worries about the images she’s seen in past weeks of armed militias showing up to rallies and making plans to kidnap governors. The outcome of the election, she thinks, will be devastating for some people regardless of the winner.

“Maybe I’m just looking at the news too much, but there are hints of civil war depending on who wins,” Johnson said. “It’s a lot to process.”

In the U.S., spikes in gun purchases are often driven by fear. But in past years that anxiety has centered on concerns that politicians will pass stricter gun controls. Mass shootings often prompt more gun sales for that reason, as do elections of liberal Democrats. Continue reading “”

Top Gun-Control Group Ducks Guns in Election Ad
Brady PAC focuses on health care, not gun control, to boost Dems

A top gun-control group has blanketed Virginia airwaves with a new ad, but its missive is missing one key word: guns.

Brady PAC, which advocates for increased gun control, released an ad attacking Virginia Republican congressional candidate Nick Freitas on health care policy. The ad, for which Brady and the House Majority PAC paid, does not mention gun issues at all.

Brady’s turn away from gun-control messaging comes after Everytown, the largest gun-control group in the country, also abandoned the issue in election ads.

The change provides further evidence that Democrats and liberal interest groups do not view gun control as a winning issue in 2020—a year that has seen record gun sales and an influx of new gun owners.

George Mason University law professor Joyce Malcolm told the Washington Free Beacon that gun-control groups have lost faith in their core message and believe focusing on other issues is the best way to get their allies elected.

“The gun-control issue is a loser at this point,” she said. “So, the gun-control groups are pushing the health care issue in hopes of helping the election of Joe Biden.”

Biden’s pledge to take away “assault weapons” and support for a variety of strict new gun-control proposals are key reasons the groups support him, Malcolm said.

“If Biden wins, the gun-control folks expect to be in the driver’s seat,” Malcolm said. Continue reading “”

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”— Sun Tzu

So, here’s to knowing the enemy. And as you can see from his first words, you can figure out what sacred cow of his is actually being gored.

The author tapdances around the large body of work surrounding not just the 2nd amendment, but the entire bill of rights. Not just the intent, but the actual framing of the bill of rights is entirely about constraining the federal government from doing certain things. It would be odd if the 2nd amendment was the only one that had specific constraints on people; let alone the fact that you have to torture the text to arrive at that meaning.

His logic is extremely clouded by his bias. The operative clause ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ” is not contingent upon the descriptor.

A well regulated (kept in proper working order) militia (both the organized and unorganized variants) being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people (not the militia) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The second amendment describes the purpose of arms, why they are to be kept, so that an unorganized militia of the people can be mustered to provide for the common defense, which includes self-defense.

An unregulated militia will be of poor form and will lack training and suitable armaments necessary to provide for the common defense, or ideally self-defense.

The part – ‘the right of the people’ – would specifically state ‘militia’ and not ‘people’ if it had specified that militia were to keep and bear arms, and not the people. The framers specifically said the right of the people for a reason, it’s not up for debate.

To keep (possess) in their own arms in their homes or elsewhere, to bear on their persons.

Amy Coney Barrett and the Second Amendment: Why her “expansive view” is utter BS

“Pro-life” Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who will almost certainly be seated on the Supreme Court this week, seems to have no problem putting guns in the hands of individual Americans who want to buy them — every Tom, Dick and Kyle. She reportedly takes “an expansive view” of the Second Amendment, writing in her only ruling on gun regulation that it should not be considered “a second-class amendment.”

A number of groups advocating gun control and gun safety, including Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action, and the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, expressed their deep concerns with Barrett’s nomination in a recent letter sent to leading members of Congress.

The 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller expanded the meaning of the Second Amendment far beyond militias — regulated or not. And that 5-4 majority opinion was written by Barrett’s mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia.

It might be useful to look back on that ruling to take another look at the “textualist” approach to reading statutes and the “originalist” approach to reading constitutional questions, and to learn what one might then expect of a Justice Barrett.

There are a number of things one might find admirable about Barrett. She was a seriously engaged student at all levels of her education, taking an English degree at Rhodes College and graduating at the top of her law school class at Notre Dame. She’s a mother (of seven) who manages to work in a demanding career. At her gym, she’s apparently known for her commitment to doing pull-ups, for gosh sakes.

Barrett is also a self-proclaimed “textualist” or “originalist” when she looks at statutes or the Constitution. In rendering decisions as a judge, she says she believes in adhering to precedent but also in closely reading the text of an enacted statute or the Constitution, seeking the reasonable meaning of that text, in the context of what most people at the time it was written would consider it to be. Continue reading “”

The Biden-Harris Antipathy toward Guns Portends Trouble for Law Enforcement
Thankfully, under our system of federalism, state legislatures can ward off such executive overreach.

It comes as no surprise former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Kamala Harris are campaigning on promises “to end our gun-violence epidemic.” The leftward drift of the Democratic Party on most policy questions, including lawful firearm ownership, has been made explicit in its 2020 party platform. The presidential nominee’s campaign “issues page” takes it several steps further, promising to pass or incentivize all manner of gun restrictions.

In addition to the lack of evidence supporting these initiatives and their dubious constitutionality they all share one principal problem: The federal government — the helm of which Joe Biden seeks to occupy — has very little authority in this domain. In order to accomplish these policy aims, state and local law-enforcement agencies would need to be pressed into service.

Biden has already had his wrist slapped in this regard. His website touts his “shepherding” of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Among other provisions, the bill required that local chief law enforcement officers (CLEOs) perform background checks on prospective firearm purchasers.

Jay Printz, sheriff of Ravalli County, Mont., brought suit against the United States, stating that the federal government had no authority to compel state and local officials to execute federal law. In Printz v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, holding that despite the increasingly expansive interpretation of the “necessary and proper” clause, Congress cannot enjoin state officials to do its bidding. As a result, the mandate was subsequently ejected from the Brady Bill.

Harris’s understanding of the Second Amendment within our system of federalism is even more stunted. As the attorney general of California, she signed on to an amicus brief claiming that governments have complete authority to wholly ban handguns — an assertion that has been repeatedly rejected by courts and historians alike. During her presidential run in 2019, she promised to enact her preferred elements of gun control via executive orders, none of which were within the realm of executive control. Paradoxically, she is seeking to leave the one body that could enact substantive reform without so much as ceremonially filing legislation to do what she is promising. Continue reading “”

Washington State Firearm Confiscation Law Found Unconstitutional

The case is State v. Zachary James Marshall, available here.

Earlier this year, in a ruling of first impression in Washington State, the Kitsap County District Court decided that the state’s compulsory “firearm surrender” laws violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the analogous provisions in the state constitution. “In our constitutional system of government, individuals have rights that the government and its agents (including courts) must respect. Among those rights are the right to be free from compelled self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, and their counterparts under Washington’s constitution.”

To appreciate the ruling, it is necessary to understand the underlying statutory framework. Washington State courts issuing certain protection orders in a civil or criminal case have the authority, or are required, to also order that the restrained person retrieve and “immediately surrender” to law enforcement all firearms and dangerous weapons that the person possesses or has control over, as well as any concealed pistol license (CPL). As soon as the order is issued, the restrained person becomes prohibited from possessing, acquiring or accessing firearms and weapons, and is ineligible for a CPL.

Within five days of the order, a restrained person must file with the court a written proof of surrender in a prescribed form, under oath (or alternatively, a declaration that he or she has no guns, weapons or CPL to surrender). The state law directs, further, that the court must “verify timely and complete compliance with orders to surrender weapons” by holding a compliance hearing as soon as possible. At this hearing (or any other hearing where compliance with the order to surrender weapons is addressed), the law demands that the restrained person attend and provide testimony under oath verifying their compliance.

If there is cause to believe that a restrained person is not in compliance, a court may issue a surrender search warrant to search any “locations where the firearms and dangerous weapons are reasonably believed to be” and confiscate this property.

It is a crime to fail to comply with a surrender order, and the offender may also face sanctions for contempt of court. A separate state law makes it a felony for the person to possess a firearm during any period of time that the person was subject to that court order. Noncompliance by an out-of-custody pretrial defendant would also be a violation of release conditions, resulting in revocation of those conditions and confinement until trial.

The challenge to this law arose out of misdemeanor charges for fourth degree assault, the lowest level of assault, brought against Zachary James Marshall. Marshall has no previous criminal history and there is no indication in the ruling that Marshall had used or threatened to use a firearm or other dangerous weapon during the alleged assault. Continue reading “”

The Double Standard About Gun Ownership

While looking at gun-related stories earlier, I came across one that asked people of different faiths if the American interest in firearms was idolatry. Now, as a Christian myself, I was curious to find what people thought.

I had my ideas of what I’d find, of course, but one of the responses just outright infuriated me.

See, while most of those they talked to about it recognized that there’s no actual worship of firearms, one person both failed to answer the actual question and managed to show just how idiotic they were on the topic itself. It was kind of impressive, really.

David Gardiner – Buddhist

David Gardiner is an associate professor in the Colorado College Religion Department, specializing in Buddhism and religions of China and Japan, and is co-founder and director of BodhiMind Center.

I believe the relationship many Americans have with guns is pathological. Not all gun owners idolize their possession, but those who do suffer from insecurity, paranoia, susceptibility to conspiracy theories, likely racism and other disorders. Similarly, some idolize the power of the military and police to keep our world and communities safe. Missing is a consensus to care for one another just as we care for ourselves. We have a violence fetish in America that profoundly damages our individual and collective well-being. As some bible scholars say, perhaps one source is the image of the angry, retributive God of the Hebrew bible that remains strong in our Christianity, despite Jesus’ teaching to turn the other cheek, to practice forgiveness. Regardless, we need to grow.

Now, first, I’m always amused when a non-Christian seems to try to lecture Christians in how to Christian correctly. Usually it’s atheists that try to do it, at least in my experience, but a Buddhist doing it doesn’t surprise me.

However, what really pisses me off is the first sentence in his response. “I believe the relationship many Americans have with guns is pathological,” Gardiner said.

Just how is it pathological? Our relationship with firearms, even if you’re susceptible to conspiracy theories or what have you, is not a pathology. Maybe the susceptibility is, but the relationship with guns? Hardly. Continue reading “”

Study Reports Record Number of Carry Permits in U.S.

A study issued by Crime Prevention Research Center on Sept. 21 reported that the number of concealed carry permits nationwide is now up to 19.48 million, a 34-percent increase compared to 2016’s figure. The continued upswing is particularly noteworthy when the number of states that no longer require law-abiding citizens to secure the license is now up to 17.

Roughly 7.6 percent of Americans have a carry permit, according to its findings. Slightly more than 26 percent of them are female and the number of new women outpaced men by 101.2 percent. There are now five states with more than 1 million people with carry permits. They are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Texas. Per capita, by qualified adult resident, 28.5 percent of the Alabamans have a license—the top figure in the nation. Indiana claims second-place honors with 18.7 percent and Iowa trails in third.

The cost is even going down. John R Lott and Rujun Wang, the report’s authors wrote, “A lot of changes in fees are occurring this year. Arkansas just reduced its fee from $142.11 to $91.9 and Washington from $48 to $36. Indiana’s 5-year license to carry has become fee exempt since July 1, 2020, while Tennessee’s 8-year license fee has dropped from $100 to $65, effective from January 1, 2020. West Virginia also reduced $75 fee for a LCDW to $25, starting on June 1, 2020.”

The number of people with carry permits in 1999 totaled 2.7 million. The figure rose to 11.1 million by 2014, but pales by comparison to this year’s record-setting 19.48 million.

“At the same time that there has been an exponential growth in permits, there has been a general linear decline in murder and violent crime rates,” the co-authors wrote. “Murder rates fell from 5.7 to 5.0 per 100,000, a 12-percent drop. Overall violent crime fell by 29 percent. Meanwhile, the percentage of adults with permits soared by five-fold.”

This was when a bureaucrap could decide on their own, without adjudication that a person could be deprived of the exercise of a right.

Joe Biden Proposes Reviving Obama Social Security Gun Ban

Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden’s gun control proposals could mean reviving the Obama gun ban that barred certain Social Security recipients from buying firearms.

The Social Security gun ban was an Obama-era policy which targeted benefit recipients who needed help managing their finances. On July 18, 2015, the Los Angeles Times reported that the ban would be sweeping; that it would cover those who are unable to manage their own affairs for a multitude of reasons–from “subnormal intelligence or mental illness” to “incompetency,” an unspecified “condition,” or “disease.”

Breitbart News reported that the policy was finalized by the Obama Social Security Administration on December 19, 2016, weeks after Donald Trump won the presidential election, and just over a month before he was to be sworn into office.

Republicans focused on repealing the ban early in the Trump presidency. On February 12, 2017, Breitbart News reported that Duke University psychiatry and behavioral science professor Jeffrey Swanson believed Congress was right to repeal Barack Obama’s Social Security gun ban. Swanson suggested the ban targeted the “vulnerable” rather than the dangerous.

Swanson used a Washington Post column to explain the ban, saying, “Social Security beneficiaries with psychiatric disabilities who are assigned a money manager for their disability benefits would be reported to the FBI’s background check database as people ineligible to purchase firearms.” He noted that “the mental health conditions in question might range from moderate intellectual disabilities to depression, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia,” and then pointed to academic work showing that “the vast majority of mentally ill individuals” are not violent or suicidal.

On February 28, 2017, Trump signed legislation to do away with the ban.

Biden’s campaign website indicates that, if elected, he will revive the ban that targeted certain Social Security recipients.

The website says:

Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. In 2016, the Obama-Biden Administration finalized a rule to make sure the Social Security Administration (SSA) sends to the background check system records that it holds of individuals who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms because they have been adjudicated by the SSA as unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons. But one of the first actions Donald Trump took as president was to reverse this rule. President Biden will enact legislation to codify this policy.

I remember reading somewhere that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written at an ‘8th Grade’ level of reading comprehension on purpose. No flowery prose, or high arcane language. It was written so that the plain meaning could be easily understood buy the  -at the time- average, normally educated person without the need for a judge or student of law to provide a translation. It’s to our fault that we’ve let lawyers and judges, many with their own political agendas decide what the clear words of our founding documents ‘really mean’.


A Simple Reading of the Law is What Scares Gun-Control Activists

Gun-control extremists oppose Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it is moving forward. Barrett is scheduled to get an up or down vote in the U.S. Senate next week. Gun-control activists are opposed to Judge Barrett because her track record is that of a judge who respects the law.

In 2018, as a circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Barrett heard, and gave her opinion on, the Second Amendment case Kanter v. Barr (7th Cir. 2019).

“I spent a lot of time in that opinion looking at the history of the Second Amendment and looking at the Supreme Court’s cases,” Barrett told the U.S. Senators during the committee hearing. “So, the way in which I would approach the review of gun regulation is in that same way: to look very carefully at the text, to look carefully at what the original meaning was.”

When Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) asked Barrett to further explain how she might determine the original meaning of the Second Amendment, Barrett said, the “original public meaning, not the intent of any particular drafter” is what ultimately matters.

“The law is what the people understand it to be, not what goes on in any individual legislator’s mind,” Barrett said. “I respect you, Senator Lee, but what passes both houses, that’s the law, not any private intentions you have.”

In her prepared statement for the first day of her hearings, Barrett wrote: “It was the content of [former] Justice Scalia’s reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward: A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results that he did not like.”

After Barrett said there is a gun in her home, she was asked if she could “fairly” decide a Second Amendment case. Barrett said, “Yes.”

“Judges can’t wake up one day and say I have an agenda—I like guns; I hate guns; I like abortion; I hate abortion and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world,” she said. “You have to wait for cases and controversies, which is the language of the Constitution, to wind their way through the process.”

The fact that she would read the Second Amendment as it is written is so terrifying to gun-control activists—people who want to read it out of the U.S. Constitution—that 31 anti-gun groups recently sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), “urging them against rushing to confirm a Supreme Court nominee with such radical Second Amendment views,” Mother Jones reported.

“Simply put: pushing through a nominee who may support the adoption of a radically dangerous interpretation of the Second Amendment would undermine the will and safety, health and well-being of all American people, including the constituents you represent,” the letter stated.

It says much about the extremism of these groups (which includes Everytown, Moms Demand Action and the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence) that they feel the clear and obvious right to self-defense protected by the Second Amendment is a “dangerous interpretation.

Thankfully, it appears Judge Barrett in no way shares this extremist view.

In short, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not only not anachronistic — it’s crucial. If the police are defunded or forced to stand down, the only way to protect oneself and one’s property will be to exercise one’s right to armed self-defense.

The Second Amendment is as necessary today as it has ever been

In the summer of 2020, riots and looting broke out across the United States. In cities from Seattle to New York, police were ordered to stand down and let the riots and looting take their course. The lesson from these events is that you cannot rely on the police to protect your life and property from criminal aggression. And that makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms more important than ever.

The right to defend oneself with firearms against criminal aggression dates back to the days before the U.S. became independent of Great Britain. While that right was often successfully defended in the political process, it took until 2008, in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, for the Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment guarantees against the federal government an individual right to possess firearms and to use them for self-defense within the home. Still, that right has been hanging by a thread because four justices dissented.

The Heller dissenters argued that whatever the original intent of the Second Amendment, the right is obsolete in modern society. They claimed that, while armed self-defense may have been needed when the U.S. lacked the infrastructure needed to provide security for the citizenry, the existence of modern professionalized law enforcement eliminates the need for armed self-protection.

Two years later, multiple large American cities unsuccessfully urged the Supreme Court to allow local and state governments to disarm citizens in McDonald v. City of ChicagoThey argued that “in more urban areas that have the benefit of a concentrated and highly trained police force … the need for individuals to arm themselves for self-defense is less compelling.”

Seeking justice outside the courtroom

The riots of this summer undermine this claim. The country hadn’t seen such destructive violence in decades. For example, in Minneapolis, the killing of George Floyd sparked mayhem and lawlessness that resulted in two more deaths and at least $500 million in damage, the most destructive riots since 1992 in Los Angeles.

The chaos that followed Floyd’s killing touched off an unprecedented surge in Minneapolis crime the following month, including more than 1,500 shots-fired 911 calls — twice as many as the same period the year before. Homicides in Minneapolis went up 114%.

Second Amendment critics tell people to rely on the police for self-protection. Where were the police during this crisis? The mayor ordered them to stand down, leaving Minneapolis residents and business owners to their own devices. The same thing occurred during riots and looting in Chicago, Columbus, Louisville, and Portland. Continue reading “”

How The Left Tries To Trick Gun Owners Into Supporting Gun Control
Fake pro-gun groups like ‘Gun Owners for Safety’ are always smokescreens for the same, tired gun control agenda of Giffords, Brady, and others like them.

The Giffords Gun Control Group launched a new entity titled “Gun Owners for Safety” to spearhead the organization’s latest efforts to attack the Second Amendment. This group markets itself to American gun owners, who they claim are looking for “an alternative to the NRA … but [who] also want to reduce gun violence.” The past two decades, however, show that fake gun-rights groups like “Gun Owners for Safety” are always smokescreens for the same, tired gun control agenda of Giffords, the Brady Campaign, and others like them.

That agenda, which includes banning modern sporting rifles, is unpopular with gun owners and was conceived with zero input from the firearms industry. That industry has in fact proposed and implemented truly effective firearm safety proposals for decades.

Giffords Is No Friend of Gun Owners

Giffords’s latest iteration of a gun control group made up of gun owners is an obfuscation of facts. The group’s website landing page is a front. It hosts an image of a hunter plus a word salad that includes talk of gun ownership, common-sense gun laws, and reducing violence. It lists its principles as respect, devotion, and compassion, as if these traits are exclusive to those who favor the group’s gun control ideals.

Past this mirage is the truth. The so-called common-sense gun control ideas are really the radical proposals embraced by ideologues such as failed presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke. Giffords’ gun control measures would criminalize private firearm transfers, enact a national licensing scheme for Americans to exercise Second Amendment rights, enact mandatory home storage requirements the Supreme Court already struck down as unconstitutional, and ban, ban, ban.

Giffords seeks to outlaw the sale of precursor firearm parts for home-built hobbyists, which has always been legal, and to ban the most popular-selling centerfire rifle on the market, the modern sporting rifle. More than 18 million are in circulation. The group also wants to ban the standard-capacity magazines used in those rifles, which account for more than half of all the magazines in existence. If Giffords had its way, open and licensed concealed carry would also be gone, and the group would repeal laws that protect homeowners who are forced to defend their lives in their own homes.

Gun Control Groups Have Tried This Before Continue reading “”

Assault Weapons, Including The Bushmaster, Face Uncertain Future If Trump Loses

The future is uncertain for the AR-15, a tactical rifle known variously as an assault weapon, a black rifle, a modern sporting rifle or an MSR. While not everyone agrees on the name, everyone seems to agree that the stakes are high for their continued existence as a readily available firearm in America.

The Democratic contenders for the White House, former Vice President Joseph Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-California,) have set their sights on assault rifles, which have been used in the deadliest mass shootings in the U.S., including the massacres at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., in 2012, the Pulse nightclub in Orlando in 2016, the Harvest music festival in Las Vegas in 2017, and Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida in 2018.

President Trump opposes gun control and has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association. But if the Democrats win the election on Nov. 3, the Biden-Harris gun control policy would have a profound effect on the assault weapons that the gun industry prefers to call modern sporting rifles.

The Biden-Harris gun control policy would ban the manufacture of assault rifles. The policy would require that all existing assault rifles be registered under the National Firearms Act, which adds a $200 tax and lengthens the background check wait time from minutes to months. The government would buy back all assault weapons that are not registered under the NFA, a tier of gun control typically reserved for machine guns and silencers.

This is anathema to gun owners, who have long argued that Democrats are trying to take their guns away. The buyback would face logistic challenges because there are so many assault weapons. America is flooded with AR-15s, a user-friendly rifle originally developed for the U.S. military which debuted during the Vietnam War and has been used in every war since.

He estimates there are 94 million to 97 million gun owners in America, with a “civilian gun arsenal” totaling 578 million firearms. This includes some 10 million owners of 17 million to 20 million MSRs. Continue reading “”

Leaks Show Multiple Companies Targeted Over Pistol Braces & History of ATF Hostility

In 2019, According to sources at the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (BATF), the former Department Assistant Director of Enforcement Programs and Services, Curtis W Gilbert, discussed pistol braces at multiple meetings with other ATF employees. In his opinion, pistol braces, specifically the SB Tactical SBA4, are stocks.

He hinted that the ATF would take regulatory action against the devices designed to help disabled people use firearms.

The current Department Assistant Director of Enforcement Programs and Services Andrew Graham has also expressed hostility to pistol braces in internal ATF meetings with staff members. AmmoLand News sources believe that the ATF didn’t move on the pistol braces earlier because the agency didn’t think they had the political capital to regulate braces.

The ATF’s law enforcement side sent a cease and desist letter to Q, LLC, with the presidential election closing in next month. The agency targeted Q’s Honey Badger AR pistol equipped with a brace and a barrel less than 16 inches in length. The agency told Q that they believed that the AR pistol was a short-barreled rifle and violated the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Many believe that the ATF used its enforcement side of the Bureau because the Department of Justice blocked the agency’s industry side from making a move on the legality of pistol braces.

Q, LLC is the only company to go public that the ATF sent it a cease and desist letter over a firearm with a pistol brace. Multiple sources have confirmed that the ATF has served additional companies with similar cease and desist letters. The ATF believes that certain manufactures have pushed past the legal boundaries of what is considered a pistol brace.

While AmmoLand News was able to verify that the ATF has recently sent out letters to other manufacturers it has not obtained the names of the targeted companies. It is not clear if these companies have received their cease and desist letters or if they will get the same 60-day stay as Q, LLC. The ATF suspended the Honey Badger’s cease and desist letter for 60 days.

It seems ATF heads in Washington DC, do not like the increased public attention on the agency’s erratic actions on the pistol braces in question. When asked ATF agents and employees are not permitted to comment or answer questions on pistol braces’ legality.

The Whitehouse and the Department of Justice are well aware of the public outrage over the ATF’s arbitrary decision on the devices. Gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, and the Firearms Policy Coalition have put immense pressure on the federal government to reign in what they see as the rogue agency.


Sen. Tom Cotton: Confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. The Second Amendment is at stake

Gun owners know their rights are on the ballot this November. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, his running mate Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and the rest of the Democrats have committed to banning certain types of guns, restricting private gun sales, and even banning the sale of gun parts over the Internet.

The best way to protect the Second Amendment is by defeating Democrats at the ballot box this fall. The second-best way is by confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

Lawful gun ownership is our right as Americans but for many years the courts denied it. Activist judges treated the Second Amendment like a “second-class right,” to quote Justice Alito, ignoring its plain text or else contorting its meaning by claiming the Constitution only protected a vague right to own guns as part of a “well-regulated militia.”

Continue reading “”