Why a national gun registry would not reduce crime

On Aug. 19^th, Louisville, Kentucky Metro Chief of Police Erica Shields flashed her tyrannical instincts on local television.

Chief Shields’ sanctimonious comments perfectly illustrate an attitude that habitually pops up throughout the gun rights debate: It is your responsibility, the anti-gunners believe, to surrender your civil rights and other legal protections to make enforcing the law easier.

Commenting to a local news channel Shields said that anyone who does not support a new national digital firearms registry is not pro law enforcement, and that all such people “are giving law enforcement the middle finger.”

Her poorly thought-out statement assumes more than a good investigator would dare. The following disclaimer is on the ATF’s website regarding their firearms tracing: “Firearms are normally traced to the first retail seller, and sources reported for firearms traced do not necessarily represent the sources or methods by which firearms in general are acquired for use in crime.”

Tracing fireams

The ATF clearly acknowledges that firearms tracing produces mixed results, because firearms both voluntarily and involuntarily change hands – a fact that would confound a digital registry as much as the current system.

The logistical challenges of tying a name and serial number together for every firearm in the country is astronomical.

It’s also unclear what impact ATF traces have on convictions. Do ATF firearm traces substantially help convict murderers? There is very little data to support that assumption, or the legal validity of a trace report in a court of law.

The idea that a comprehensive digital database of gun owners would affect violent crime is nothing but speculation.

However, we do have recent examples of how local law enforcement and federal agents abuse the data they’ve collected on private citizen’s gun purchases.

While we have no fact-based reasons to believe a gun registry would benefit public safety, we can be certain it would create opportunities for more misconduct.

Policing a free society is necessarily difficult. And our justice system is adversarial for very important reasons.

We can’t have both fast and easy solutions, and real justice. We need law enforcement officials who will do the hard work and not cut corners at the expense of our civil rights.

How “sensitive area” battle is shaping up in New York

In the Bruen decision, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said that there were a handful of places where guns could be constitutionally banned. He called these “sensitive areas” and they include places like courthouses, jails, and things of that sort.

On one level, it makes sense. These are places where some are more inclined to be violent. Plus, they’re easily secured so that virtually no one is able to bring a gun in. In other words, they use metal detectors, not signs on the door.

However, in so doing, the term “sensitive area” is getting used to justify a whole lot of restrictions. In fact, the battle over them in New York is just starting to fire up.

“Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a ‘sensitive place’ simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department,” wrote Thomas.

While New York politicians have yet to declare Manhattan a gun-free zone, they have pushed back against the ruling. In a long list of new “sensitive places,” state legislators named parks, which by definition includes the biggest park in the lower 48, the Adirondack Park in upstate New York. Interestingly, the Adirondack Park is home to about 130,000 residents—all of whom will effectively see their Second Amendment rights erased when the law takes effect on Sept. 1.

This law is in direct conflict with NYSRPA. When the U.S. Supreme Court recently confirmed the right of Americans to “bear” arms in this case, it didn’t do so in some mealy-mouthed manner that indicated the ruling was a difficult decision or was uncertain in any way.…

For residents of the Adirondack Park, which is about half private land and half publicly owned, the law puts them in a dilemma. Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, the state NRA affiliate, said he has received “hundreds of calls” about the ban from residents of the Adirondacks who are confused and frustrated.

Of course, Adirondack Park is only one of the battlegrounds. In fact, the above-linked piece goes on to quote a Democratic lawmaker who takes issue with this particular measure and how it impacts these good folks.

However, I’m going to go a step further and note that while Thomas explicitly wrote that the entire island of Manhattan couldn’t be declared a sensitive area, what has actually transpired there is just a step shy of precisely that.

For example, a large number of areas are declared sensitive areas, for one thing. Then there’s the idea of carrying on private property.

Now, in many states, business owners can put a sign up to serve notice that the building is gun-free. I know it’s not popular, but I’m actually fine with this because property rights are also a thing that needs to be respected. If a business owner doesn’t want guns on their property, they’re free to do so.

However, in New York, the default is that guns aren’t permitted.

While that’s fine for anti-gun businesses, it also means those ambivalent on the subject of concealed carry are, in effect, determined to be essentially the same as sensitive areas. Since most people try to actively avoid politics, the default for these folks is likely to be that ambivalence.

So, in effect, the majority of the island of Manhattan–and the rest of the state, really–has been essentially declared a sensitive area.

Yes, I support businesses being able to declare themselves gun-free–why would I want to spend money with companies who don’t support my fundamental rights–the default position on something like that should be toward freedom.

What New York did looks to have gone beyond what Justice Thomas intended.

The battle over what actually can constitute a sensitive area has just started. It’s going to be rough going for a lot of people, too, unfortunately, before it’s all settled.

Gun control not a “resource” to stop mass shootings

If the idea of being involved in a mass shooting, even if that involvement is just knowing one of the victims, is a personal nightmare of yours, you’re probably right to be concerned. They’re awful and the pain of having someone taken from your life like that hurts beyond words.

Believe me, I know.

In North Carolina, a sheriff decided to stop playing around and decided school resource officers will have AR-15s to use to protect students and staff. To say some don’t like that is an understatement.

In the Charlotte Observer, one columnist put his opposition into words.

Madison County, one county over from where I live in Asheville, garnered national headlines recently with an announcement that every school in the N.C. county will be outfitted with AR-15s this school year.

This initiative embodies how many on the right today bend over backward to suggest anything but gun control as the salve for gun violence.

Madison County Sheriff Buddy Harwood wrote on Facebook, “to exhaust every resource we’ve got to ensure that our kids are safe, that when they go to school, they can learn…and they can go the playground and play, and not worry about some thug who’s going to come out onto the playground and open up on them with some type of AR-15, shotgun, pistol, whatever.”

Only Harwood didn’t exhaust every resource. If he’d done that, he would’ve been advocating for meaningful gun control — a shooter can’t open fire with an AR-15 if they can’t purchase one.

Well, that last paragraph is possibly one of the dumbest ever written in the English language.

First, understand that there are an estimated 20 million or more AR-15s currently in circulation. Does the author think that a new law will magically make them unobtainable for the average citizen? I’m sorry, that ship has long since set sail.

Further, it’s not like the AR-15 is the only weapon used to commit a mass shooting. In fact, handguns are far more commonly used for such horrific acts.

Yet an AR-15 would allow deputies to engage handgun-armed would-be mass shooters at greater range, meaning they could save lives that much sooner without having to close to handgun range. Or, if such a killer has a rifle of some type, he can at least meet them on equal ground.

Moving on…

Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban in 1994, outlawing AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles. As reported by NPR, mass shootings were down in the decade that followed, compared to the decade before (1984-1994) and the one after (2004-2014). Assault weapon bans work.

Except the study referenced used an odd definition of “mass shooting;” one that also happened to reduce tilt the findings more in the favor of the desired outcome. That NPR didn’t critically look at that study isn’t overly surprising.

But the author is starting to approach his point:

Harwood represents a bigger problem: the refusal of law enforcement in North Carolina to lead the gun control conversation.

There we go.

The problem is that Harwood and other North Carolina law enforcement officials aren’t pushing his preferred politics. Yet there are valid reasons for this.

For one, Harwood is an elected official, which means his politics are more likely to reflect the beliefs of his constituents. He’s not going to push a “gun control conversation” in a pro-gun county unless he’s looking to retire without having to announce it.

Second, it wasn’t that long ago when people like the author were screaming about defunding the police, and now they’re upset that the cops don’t seem to be on their side?

The truth of the matter is that a lot of law enforcement see what happens when good people are disarmed. They can’t stop criminals from getting guns, regardless of the laws on the books. They’ve seen how those laws completely fail every time they arrest a known felon and find a firearm on them. So, they often come to recognize that gun control isn’t going to do the trick.

They fail to push the author’s agenda simply because they know it to be a complete failure of an idea.

Putting AR-15 in the hands of school resource officers isn’t just a good idea, it’s the only sane one.

Gun bill modeled on ‘Strong Ohio’

Aug. 20—An attempt to revive some of the “Strong Ohio” proposals against gun violence, stalled in the General Assembly since 2019, faces a timeline that’s hard to meet.
State Sen. Matt Dolan, R-Chagrin Falls, announced Senate Bill 357 this week…….

Dolan’s bill has five major provisions:

—A “red flag” law in which a judge can allow police to temporarily take the guns of someone suffering a “severe mental health condition,” at risk of harming themself or others.

—Requiring anyone age 18 to 21 who wants to buy a gun that can fire more than one shot before reloading to get a cosigner at least 25 years old for the purchase. Dolan said there is an exemption for young people in the military or police.

—A written statement from a county sheriff would be needed for private gun sales, except transfers between relatives, confirming the buyer is legally eligible to own guns.

—Improving background checks by requiring information on gun buyers to be entered in law enforcement databases by the end of the following business day.

—Using $85 million from the federal American Rescue Plan Act to help hospitals and colleges train more mental health workers, and another $90 million in ARPA funds to build mental health crisis centers for people who need treatment but are now being sent to jails.

Both incumbent Republican Gov. Mike DeWine and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Nan Whaley, former mayor of Dayton, indicated their approval of SB 357.

Its provisions resemble some in the “Strong Ohio” bill that DeWine introduced in 2019 after the mass shooting in Dayton’s Oregon District. DeWine’s press secretary noted that similarity, while Whaley called Dolan’s bill a “good first step.”

The Buckeye Firearms Association denounced the bill as “‘Strong Ohio’ by another name.” The group has already opposed its major provisions, BFA Executive Director Dean Rieck said.

Some still cling to idea of Second Amendment and militias

The Second Amendment reads: [no, it does not read that way. I wish these authors would not be so ignorant]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the ~~people’s right~~ right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[FIFY- fixed it for you]

We also know that our Founding Fathers were fearful of a standing army, having seen that army used as a tool of oppression. As such, they favored citizen soldiers, much like how the Greek city-states maintained their armies.

Little did they expect the debate that we would see since then over a single sentence. Unfortunately, the debate continues.

What’s more, we get pieces like this one for LA Progressive subtitled, “Most constitutional experts argue that the Second Amendment protects the right of State militias to bear arms. Not private militias or individuals.”

Now, I’m not sure how they figure most constitutional experts agree with them unless they dismiss anyone who doesn’t as a constitutional expert, but it doesn’t get any better moving forward.

Why does the United States have more civilian gun deaths than the entire rest of the world combined? Is it because people in the US are more violent? NO.

Except, we don’t. Not even close.

If you look at a list of civilian gun fatalities by nation, you’ll find a lot of places whose numbers are far worse than ours, especially if you look at the per capita figures.

Further, are Americans more violent? The author dismisses this out of hand, yet a look at non-gun homicides compared to total rates from places like Europe suggests that yeah, we might just be.

And now look at all of this and we’ve only gotten to the subtitle and the first paragraph. You know this is going to be a disaster.

However, it should be noted that most constitutional experts argue that the Second Amendment protects the right of State militias to bear arms. Not private militias or individuals. Be that as it may, exactly what “well regulated Militias” did [redacting mass killers’ names]

I’m sorry, but that line of “reasoning” is just absolutely insane.

First, why would the government need to protect the “right” of the government to have guns? Yes, it’s different levels of government, but it’s still government.

Further, why is it that throughout the Constitution, when the Founding Fathers wanted to specify the states, they said “the states” in every other instance but this one? And that every other place protecting a right of the people, it meant actual individuals everywhere but here?

On ever level, this argument is absolutely insane. “But militia!” they scream.

Sure, but look at the Second Amendment for a moment. What exactly in the rest of it suggests that the right to keep and bear arms should be infringed for everyone but the militia? Even if the right is to be taken as protecting state militias versus private ones, where in the Second Amendment does it preserve the right just for those state militias?

After all, it says “the ~~people’s right~~ right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

So what gives? Well, it seems some parties are more interested in manipulating the text of the Second Amendment to mean anything they want it to mean, and they expect the American people to swallow it whole.

Sorry, that’s not our style.

Obviously, we haven’t delved too deeply into this piece, but why should we? It’s already clear they can’t be reasoned out of this position because they haven’t shown they reasoned themselves into it. They’re simply trying to play games and hoping people are too stupid to see what they’re doing.

Well, we do.

Giffords Says This is Gun Safety Week, So Let’s Talk ACTUAL Gun Safety

If you follow the big gun control orgs’ accounts on social media, chances are you’ve already come across a post like this one . . .

That’s right, the Giffords civilian disarmament operation has unilaterally declared this Gun Owners for Safety Week and are using it to push their message of gun control under the guise of “gun safety” and “standing up to the gun lobby.”

So, in the spirit of Gun Owners For Safety Week, I think we need to amplify responsible gun ownership, too. That’s always a good idea. If you aren’t already familiar with them, here are the four rules of gun safety that every gun owner should know and practice.

But we all know that groups like Giffords aren’t really concerned about actual firearm safety as much as as they are control those who own guns. Even if every single armed citizen was the very model of gun safety, never doing anything even remotely questionable and only using firearms outside of a range for and clear-cut cases of self defense, that still wouldn’t satisfy them.

That’s why they’re pumping messages like this one . . .

The real goal here, of course, is to push and pass restrictive laws — think: universal background checks, gun owners licensing, waiting periods and “safe storage” mandates — to the point where lawfully-possessed guns aren’t only mostly useless for armed self-defense, but are utterly worthless against a tyrannical government, too.

Reducing their usefulness as defensive tools against the kind of criminals the average citizen is likely to encounter is just a happy side effect of their real objective: making life safer for illiberal governments and their enforcers.

But they know we know this. They’re not trying to change our minds here. They want the general public — the majority who don’t know much about the issues surrounding firearms and gun rights — to rethink what “safety” is. Instead of being about the practices an individual should adopt for basic firearm safety, they want people to think that “gun safety” comes from the imposition of “commonsense” gun control laws.

They want John and Jane Q. Public to think that gun owners don’t give a damn about safety, when precisely the opposite is the truth. We all started out dumb about guns at some point and were corrected by a parent, an instructor, a range safety officer, or a mentor. Some of us have had worse experiences that woke us up. But the general public hasn’t had that experience. They don’t know (and don’t want others to know) how seriously safety is taken as a normal part of the gun culture.

That’s why a lack of basic, fundamental gun safety practices isn’t tolerated in the gun-owning community.

To spread that message even further, we need to be reminding people of three things:

What actual gun safety really is
That we take it seriously
That passing laws can’t make bad owners or criminals into good ones

What Real Gun Safety Is

Real gun safety doesn’t come from collective action. It doesn’t come from laws. It doesn’t come from firearms design (assuming the design isn’t seriously defective). It doesn’t come from your gun shop, or even from a firearms instructor. Ultimately, gun safety lies in the hands of the individual holding a gun. Everyone else can do everything right, but if you as the owner don’t adopt safe practices, none of that matters one little bit.

negligent unintentional discharge training range — Courtesy Jeff Gonzales

That’s why, long ago, various groups of firearm owners and gun-carrying professionals came up with safety rules which we’re all expected to know and practice. While the exact wording differs, the Four Rules cover things really well . . .

“The Four Rules of Gun Safety”

If you take any basic class given by a reputable instructor, you will start off with gun safety before ever going to the range. Beyond what’s contained in the Four Rules (or the NRA’s 3 rules, if that’s what you learned), there are other safety considerations to know including . . . .

The gun needs to be safe to operate
You need to know how to use it safely
Use the correct ammo
Wear eye and ear protection
Never use alcohol or drugs while shooting
Keep guns away from unauthorized people (children, thieves, etc.)
Range safety procedures and rules

As a community, we take these rules seriously. To be told by gun control advocacy operations — of all people — that they’re the ones who really care about firearm safety is not only false, it’s downright insulting. We need to make sure everyone hears this.

Biden invites gun control groups to White House to help “heal the soul of a nation”

Makes sense. After all, nothing promotes unity like demonizing 80-100 million gun owners and threatening to turn them into criminals if they don’t register or turn their AR-15s over to the government, right?

Next month Joe Biden’s going to be hosting a “United We Stand Summit” that’s ostensibly about the “corrosive effects” of threats of violence on our political system and public life; an event that White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claims will be “important opportunity for Americans of all races, religions, regions, political affiliations, and walks of life to take up that cause together.” If you don’t believe in gun-controlling our way to “unity”, however, expect your invite to get lost in the mail.

Biden will deliver a keynote speech at the gathering, which the White House says will include civil rights groups, faith leaders, business executives, law enforcement, gun violence prevention advocates, former members of violent hate groups, the victims of extremist violence and cultural figures. The White House emphasized that it also intends to bring together Democrats and Republicans, as well as political leaders on the federal, state and local levels to unite against hate-motivated violence.

You know, there are plenty of new gun owners out there who specifically bought a firearm because they’re worried about being the victim of “extremist violence” who might also have a thing or two to say about the idiocy of trying to reduce violence by preventing people from defending themselves, but Biden and his allies have no interest in hearing from those folks. In fact, for an event that’s ostensibly about promoting unity, it sure seems awfully divisive in nature.

Sindy Benavides, the CEO of League of United Latin American Citizens, said the genesis of the summit came after the Buffalo massacre, as her organization along with the Anti-Defamation League, the National Action Network and other groups wanted to press the Biden administration to more directly tackle extremist threats.

“As civil rights organizations, social justice organizations, we fight every day against this, and we wanted to make sure to acknowledge that government needs to have a leading role in addressing right-wing extremism,” she said.

… Benavides said Biden holding the summit would help galvanize the country to address the threats of hate-inspired violence but also said she hoped for “long-term solutions” to emerge from the summit.

“What’s important to us is addressing mental health, gun control reform, addressing misinformation, disinformation and malinformation,” she said. “We want policy makers to focus on common sense solutions so we don’t see this type of violence in our communities. And we want to see the implementation of policies that reduce violence.”

Sounds like less of a summit and more like a pep rally for Democrats to me; a day where Biden and his closest allies can portray Republicans as “right wing extremists” and push for more divisive gun control laws ahead of the midterms.

The divides in this country are obviously growing deeper by the day, but this event is likely to flame those tensions instead of alleviating them. I truly hope I’m wrong, but given the blatantly partisan nature of this “unity summit,” it’s hard to predict otherwise.

Why More Americans Are Becoming First-Time Gun Owners
Many Americans are turning to firearm ownership for many different reasons – much of it having nothing to do with politics but a need to protect themselves.

Why Is Gun Ownership Up? Expert Analysis and Some Personal Stories: Following the start of the global novel coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic in early 2020, firearms sales steadily picked up. By the end of the year, 2020 had seen the strongest sales of guns in the history of the United States. It was driven significantly by many “first-time” buyers – those who had never previously owned a firearm.

According to data from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearms industry trade association, there were some five million first-time gun buyers in 2020 – while other statistics put the number significantly higher. What is also notable is that in the months that have followed, many of those individuals have become repeat customers, with nearly 23 percent of retailers reporting that those new owners made a second firearm purchase in 2021.

The impact of the pandemic, followed by summer 2020’s wave of violent protests that coincided with calls to “defund the police” and then the election of Joe Biden to the White House, can’t be overstated. By comparison, just 2.4 million Americans became new gun owners in 2019.

Sales Remain Strong in 2022

As the country settles into a “post-pandemic” new normal, firearm sales have fallen this year, but still remain above pre-pandemic levels. Gun sales this past spring saw year-over-year declines, yet are outpacing 2019 and all years prior. More significantly, the trend was reversed in June, which had the first year-over-year increase of 2022 – with firearm sales up 7.7 percent compared to June 2021.

“The June 2022 data are of interest in that they reflect this calendar year’s first year-over-year increase in firearms unit sales,” explained Small Arms Analytics (SAAF) chief economist Jurgen Brauer. “This increase possibly was due to the discussion regarding additional federal firearms legislation that some customers may have viewed as detrimental to their interests even as the industry as a whole has been not wholly unsupportive of the final bill signed into law by President Biden.”

The passage of new gun safety legislation, the first in nearly 30 years, likely spurred the spike in sales earlier this summer. Moreover, according to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), there have now been 36 straight months of sales in excess of one million units.

More First-Time Buyers

Gun sales have continued to remain strong in 2022, and a driving factor is once again those first-time buyers – who are increasingly more diverse than ever.

Instead of the “redneck” firearms enthusiasts – which is how gun control groups have long painted Americans who support the Second Amendment – new data found that in 2021, some 33 percent of first-time gun buyers were women, while the number of African Americans purchasing firearms increased by 44 percent, and Hispanic Americans who purchased a firearm jumped by 40 percent.

“Gun owners no longer fit into the tiny little boxes gun control groups wish to put us in,” said NSSF director of public affairs Mark Olivia. “Today’s gun owner is younger, more urban, and more representative of the different demographic groups we see across America.”

Clearly, more Americans are exercising their Second Amendment rights, something President Biden and the gun control groups will eventually have to accept.

What Two First-Time Gun Owners Told 19FortyFive

We reached out to several new gun owners to get their perspectives on why they made the decision they did. Two new owners agreed to speak to us on the condition they not be named and that we respect their right to privacy and not share any identifying information.

Smith & Wesson Model 610. Image: Smith & Wesson.

One new gun owner based in Maryland explained he purchased a simple .38 revolver to protect his convenience store, which was robbed twice in the last year. “I was tired of working so hard to only have my profits stolen from me,” explained the shopkeeper, a third-generation small business owner. “I hate guns to be honest, but I need to protect my countless hours of hard work and provide for my family. They need to know I will come home every night to them. A firearm makes me feel I can do that.”

Another store owner, operating a small deli in Ithaca, New York, explained to 19FortyFive that she purchased a firearm for her home and business for self-defense. “The riots and chaos of 2020 really have me very concerned. My choice to purchase a gun does not have anything to do with politics – I am a registered Democrat, to be honest. I just want to feel safe.”

Two Carry Permits Confirmed Issued in New Jersey

New Jersey – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Garden State is known for being an anti-civil rights wasteland. Firearm possession in the state is by exemption or permits. Up until recently, the permitting regulating the possession of handguns and pistols was an out-of-reach unicorn. Handgun and pistol owners had to largely rely on exemptions of the law, as NJ Rev Stat § 2C:39-5 b (2021) states one must first obtain a permit to carry prior to possessing a handgun. However, now in our post NYSRPA v. Bruen world, obtaining a permit to carry is possible.

Social media sites have been buzzing with people applying, allegedly getting denied, and also some rumors of permits to carry actually getting issued. To say a lot of rumors have been abound would be an understatement.

There’s plenty of counterproductive talks, such as people “in the know” going off when the uninitiated refer to the New Jersey permit to carry as a “CCW” or a concealed carry permit. The fact that NJ makes no distinction between open or concealed carry and said permit is referred to as a “permit to carry” is not cause for berating those that quickly refer to the permit as a CCW or a concealed carry permit. A collective sigh of relief should be exhaled by all persons in this fight, and while some kind of corrective rudder is not a bad thing, let’s not act like we don’t know what people are talking about.

There’s also been a ton of counterproductive talks about what is required to rope and wrangle one of these one-horned horses in the land of one thousand diners. I have spoken to two verified permit-to-carry recipients in New Jersey and want to share that information.

The first thing we should divert our attention to is a document on the New Jersey State Police website called: “Permit To Carry Instructions“. While the document is not necessarily the best, it does outline the needed steps to take to apply for a permit to carry in New Jersey. It’s important to note that New Jersey, at this time, also does not make a distinction between resident and non-resident permits. Non-residents are to apply to the closest State Police barracks that are not on a toll road to where the applicant would be entering the state.

The first recipient of a New Jersey permits to carry that I spoke to was Jamie DeAngelis. DeAngelis lives in Warren County, in Hackettstown, New Jersey. DeAngelis told me that he dropped off his completed application on July 26th at his police department. The local range where DeAngelis shoots, RTSP in Randolph, he said, had the complete process of what to do from beginning to end on their web page.

Continue reading “”

Concealed Carry Referendum Nixed In Kenosha County

Voters in Kenosha County this November won’t be asked whether holders of concealed carry permits should be allowed to bring guns into most county-owned buildings. Although the county board repealed a long-standing ban earlier this summer, Supervisor Jeff Gentz proposed that the voters be allowed to weigh in after the fact anyway. His proposal was defeated in committee Tuesday night. Then later at a meeting of the County Board, a move to suspend the rules to allow the full board to vote on the referendum idea failed to get the necessary two-thirds majority.

An overwhelming majority of citizens who spoke during public comments before the vote supported the referendum. Jodi Muerhoff noted that the committee members who voted against the referendum were some of the same supervisors who earlier this summer voted to put a ‘second amendment sanctuary’ question on the ballot. Another speaker accused those who supported the referendum of “whining.”

Recent pitch for gun control relies on faulty data

State Rep. Emily Kinkead, D-Pittsburgh, and state Sen. Art Haywood, D-Philadelphia, are sponsoring bills in the state House and Senate respectively to require Pennsylvanians who wish to purchase firearms first apply for and secure a permit from a law enforcement agency.

We are skeptical that this proposal complies with the Supreme Court’s decisions — including one decided just this summer about New York state’s onorous and frequently arbitrary permit requirements — that protect the right of Americans to keep and to bear arms.

We are even more skeptical it complies with the state’s Constitution, which leaves even less ambiguity about the right of Pennsylvanians to arm themselves.

And in voicing our skepticism we must also note that Kinkead is advocating for the law using specious data.

As political reporter Bradley Vasoli detailed, a claim by Gov. Tom Wolf echoed by Kinkead that Pennsylvania sees a mass shooting “every 10 days” relies on an uncommon definition of mass shooting, under which about two-thirds of the “mass shootings” are incidents without a single fatality.

Twenty-three shootings combined without one death.

Kinkead also echoed an argument by Haywood that Missouri saw its gun-related killings increase after a similar law was repealed in 2007. But what neither Kinkead or Haywood acknowledged and what Vasoli and Second Amendment rights advocate John R. Lott noted in examining this claim is that while gun-related killings increased 17 percent in a five-year stretch after the repeal, they were already increasing before the repeal. In fact, before the repeal they had increased by nearly 30 percent.

When considering legislation that affects a deeply cherished right of our region, we need legislators that respect our U.S. and state constitutions. We also need legislators that respect all the facts and not cherry-picked numbers or contorted definitions.

Gun control is not the solution to gun violence in America. Here’s why
Gun control is a false hope. There are better ways we need to approach the gun violence issue in America.

After recently perusing the advertisements in my mid 1960s Boy Scout Handbook, I noticed a number of ads for semiautomatic .22 caliber rifles for hunting and shooting fun. These ads illustrate our country’s longstanding and popular tradition of gun ownership and usage.

Like it or not, we are a gun-nut nation. This is exemplified in our laws, our history, our foods, our criminality and our popular culture. First person shooter video games proliferate like rabbits.

We do like our guns, but we also hate and fear them — and with good reason. Guns are serious tools, potentially dangerous and deadly to users as well as others through carelessness.

Guns are double-edged—able to be used for good and bad, hence their association with criminality. For more than a century we have tried to control for the criminal aspects of guns, but with varying levels of success.

Failed gun control attempts

Control has landed athwart competing interests of custom and culture as well as law. As with many issues in American history and life, lines are drawn fairly hard and evenly.

Some issues with guns, like school shootings, call for immediate solutions. Yet we dither and have been doing so for decades. One consistent attempt has been to try to ban assault rifles.

Currently in the wake of recent shootings, this has become the go-to solution for many as it has been in the past.

But this is not the solution to this problem.

We tried this before from 1994-2004, and yet saw no end during that time period in mass shootings. Recently many have vilified a particular assault rifle, and wish to ban the AR-15 rifle.

Some, such as the great pundit Whoopi Goldberg or the great gun expert President Biden, have claimed the only purpose for this rifle is just to kill people. But when introduced to the American public in 1963 it was marketed as a great rifle for camping, hunting and collecting, much like the Boy Scout rifles of the 1960s.

Newsflash, all guns can be used to kill people. Years ago a student shot up his school using a relative’s target pistol. What if we do ban assault rifles, or just the AR-15 in particular?

Will mass shootings decline? No.

Most mass shootings, upwards of 65%, are committed with pistols. Few are committed with assault rifles. Sadly, since most of these mass shootings are committed at close range, the Boy Scout rifles advertised in the 1960s handbook are just as deadly.

Supposedly, the small .22 caliber bullet has been responsible for more American civilian deaths than any other caliber.

Gun control is not the solution to school shootings. We cannot magically wave away 400 million guns, some 20 million of which are assault rifles.

What is the solution then?
Simply, and sadly, we have to recognize the reality of things as they are now and harden the schools; bullet-proof glass at the main entrance and controlled access; metal detectors; and make sure all other doors lock from the inside and are locked always.

More armed personnel, police and some teachers, in the schools. For society as a whole, more people need to carry concealed. Gun control is a false hope.

They’re ‘Doing Something’ to Our Kids

What happens when you can no longer trust the people responsible for keeping your kids safe? What happens when the “Do Something” crowd only does the wrong thing?

In news that probably sounds familiar to you wherever you live, Salem-Keizer (OR) Public Schools has approved a resolution that further prohibits firearms on school grounds – at all times. Passing in a 4-3 vote, which seems like a very small decision-making group for a district of 65 schools and over 42,000 students.

As reported by the Statesman Journal:

“Salem-Keizer school board members Tuesday approved a resolution further prohibiting weapons on campus, including concealed guns. The vote directs Superintendent Christy Perry to develop and enact administrative policy to implement this…

Staff and students were already not allowed to have concealed weapons in Salem-Keizer schools. The new resolution expands restrictions to include all concealed firearms carried by campus visitors, including parents, guardians, volunteers, guest speakers, organizations renting facilities and other community members.”

But school resource officers? Gone.

But private armed security? Unarmed.

But armed teachers? Nope.

What about local law enforcement? In one of those, do-you-really-need-to-say-this moments, Perry clarified that law enforcement will still be ALLOWED to open carry their firearms onto campus in the event of an emergency. Wow. Thanks.

Continue reading “”

ONCE AGAIN FOR THE GUN CONTROLLERS IN THE BACK:
IT’S THE CRIMINALS

New York’s gun laws are a mess. Antigun politicians passing them don’t have a clue. Worse yet, the people facing consequences are law-abiding New Yorkers.

They’re also the ones facing danger. Case in point – New York City’s Democratic Mayor Eric Adams recent reveal. The mayor told media, “When it comes to guns, this year, 2,386 people were arrested with a gun. Of those, approximately 1,921 are out on the street.

“This year, 165 people were arrested with a second gun charge,” Mayor Adams added. “Of those, 82 — out on the street. Not one arrest but two gun arrests — back out on the street.”

Does He Listen?

Mayor Adams won election on a “tough on crime” message. He said he would carry his own firearm and forego using the mayor’s personal security detail. “We cannot have a city where people are afraid to walk the streets,” he proclaimed early in his tenure.

He’s now singing a different tune. “How do you take a gun law seriously when the overwhelming numbers are back on the streets after carrying a gun?” he unironically asked media.

New Yorkers know criminals don’t take laws seriously. That’s why law-abiding New Yorkers have been screaming for years as gun control politicians in Albany impose stricter gun control laws on them, not criminals.

New Yorkers rejected restrictions and legally purchased firearms in record numbers, despite the state’s restrictive and burdensome process to obtain a handgun permit. Since 2020, nearly 1 million New Yorker’s have passed an FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verification to buy a firearm. Industry research continues to show “self-defense” is the number one reason buyers walk out of a retailer with a new purchase. That’s especially true of African American women, in New York City and across the country.

Soft on Criminals, Hard on Industry

New York’s backwards gun control laws are only half the problem. Soft-on-criminal prosecutors refusing to hold criminals accountable allow the cycle to continue. Notorious criminal sympathizer Chesa Boudin was given the boot and recalled as San Francisco’s District Attorney. Nearby Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon possibly faces a similar fate.

Manhattan’s District Attorney Alvin Bragg is cut of the same cloth. His office refuses to bring charges against repeat criminals, allowing them to walk back out on the streets and terrorize victims.

In New York, it’s not just about Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, Mayor Adams and DA Bragg’s collective failure to address crime and keep New Yorkers safe. Democratic Attorney General Leticia James joined to do her part to crush New Yorkers’ Second Amendment rights by suing gun companies for the crimes unrelated to the lawful sale of the firearm.

“There should be no more immunity for gun distributors bringing harm and havoc to New York,” AG James said.

Her premise is a lie, of course, exactly like those repeated ad nauseum by President Joe Biden and gun control pundits. They prefer deflecting blame on a lawful and Constitutionally-protected industry from those actually responsible for gun crimes. It’s the reason for the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). President Biden and others have repeatedly been fact-checked about their false claims.

New Yorkers wanting safer communities must feel like they’re in a madhouse. Their state’s highest elected officeholders dismiss criminals as the root of the problem. They then pass more flawed and unconstitutional laws, while refusing to hold criminals to account. The result is a circular blame game.

One thing New Yorkers can do to change the game in their favor is #GUNVOTE® this November. They can send a clear message to the antigun politicians in New York their rights – and their safety – aren’t a game.

The Post-Bruen New York and California Punitive Gun Control Laws are Clearly Unconstitutional

After Bruen, a notable noncomplier is New York Governor Kathy Hochul. She also follows in the footsteps of her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo. Both passed their big gun control bills by sending a “message of necessity”—a maneuver to prevent legislative hearings and to deprive legislators of time to read a bill before they vote on it. As the New York State Sheriffs’ Association explained:

The new firearms law language first saw the light of day on a Friday morning and was signed into law Friday afternoon. A parliamentary ruse was used to circumvent the requirement in our State Constitution that Legislators—and the public—must have three days to study and discuss proposed legislation before it can be taken up for a vote. The Legislature’s leadership claimed, and the Governor agreed, that it was a “necessity” to pass the Bill immediately, without waiting the Constitutionally required three days, even though the law would not take effect for two full months.

The Sheriffs’ Association criticized “thoughtless, reactionary action, just to make a political statement,” and “the burdensome, costly, and unworkable nature of many of the new laws’ provisions.” “We do not support punitive licensing requirements that aim only to restrain and punish law-abiding citizens who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

Continue reading “”

We cannot compromise or negotiate the Second Amendment

In the more than two decades I’ve been involved in the Second Amendment community one thing has been constant. The public conversation around guns has always focused on the unkindest stereotypes of gun owners and the left’s self-serving caricature of those of us who defend the basic human right to security.

Because of the overall trajectory of the culture war, the debate surrounding guns and gun rights is now at a critical impasse and it’s no longer productive or genuine to approach the issue as if in a vacuum with no larger context.

Many people seem to struggle with objective facts and absolute reality. Postmodern thinking prevents some from accepting the fact that reality is something independent of the individual, and instead choose to believe reality is mercurial and optional. This fundamental fallacy is largely responsible for the widespread belief that there is actually a debate on the validity and scope of gun rights.

Regardless of our personal feelings or historical contempt for the law by elected officials, in the United States an individual’s right to be armed as they see fit is not actually in question. The issue was settled when the constitution was ratified, all subsequent federal restrictions are illegal and well outside the scope of legitimate political authority.

What we’re actually debating when discussing the gun issue is whether or not we should follow the constitution, ignore it, or manipulate it to meet the political needs of a given moment. The reason the founders included the Bill of Rights in the constitution was so that we wouldn’t be controlled by the beliefs and opinions of other people. They understood human nature and its flaws, and they knew basic human rights would suffer at the hands of neurotic people with a warped view of their own enlightenment and judgment.

Ignorant or sociopaths

The necessary pivot point in the public discourse on guns and gun rights is a sober recognition of the people involved. Gun control advocates vary from well-meaning people who are simply ignorant, to sociopaths with an unhealthy drive to make choices for other people and control the behavior of those around them.

The well-meaning but ignorant person may be swayed by well-crafted arguments, but sociopaths only incorporate outside information at their convenience and facts don’t intrude on their personal desires.

Individuals from any walk of life who led the proverbial charge on gun control are very problematic. They take the form of legislators introducing gun control bills, advocates who apply social pressure to manipulate government officials, or media and entertainment personalities who use their public influence to promote the restriction of personal freedom. In recent years we’ve seen these phenomena spread beyond controlling other’s guns to controlling speech, associations and even their personal health preferences.

An often-overlooked fact about social-control sociopaths is how progressively unsatisfied they are with compromise. People have falsely believed working and compromising with them would create peace, but feeding their negative impulses only strengthens their drive for more control.

The pro-gun culture needs to evolve to recognize supporters and authors of gun control for who they really are, the unstable element of humanity our society was constructed to contain and protect us from.

Collective controls

The belief that basic rights inherent to your humanity should be subject to collective or authoritarian controls is the nucleus all human evil is built around. The unabridged freedom to justly acquire sustenance, shelter and security is the primary criteria of a civilized society.

Controlling guns is not the path to peace and civility, a commitment to freedom and refusing to entertain the darkest impulses of human nature is. There is a direct relationship between the amount of contempt someone has for you and their perceived need to control you.

All gun control is always wrong under all circumstances, and the people working to implement it don’t simply represent different opinions. They’re bad faith actors with the objective of grooming our society for even greater levels of authoritarianism.

The people who advocate for your disarmament are your enemies, not your negotiating partners.

And she scolds the interviewer right back

NPR Scolds Mother Who Bought Gun for Protection in High-Crime City: ‘Why Not Just Call the Police?’

NPR reporter Scott Simon spoke with a mother who said she bought a gun for protection in Aurora, Colorado, and he asked her, “Why not just call the police?”

The mother, Misheika Gaddis, told Simon she bought a 9mm pistol because she is a single mom home alone at night with her eight-year-old son, and she is pregnant with another child as well.

Gaddis explained that she decided to buy the pistol–her first gun–because of the crime near her apartment and her experience of coming home from work to find people congregating near her door whom she did not know.

She said:

So there was a couple of nights where I’d come home, and there would be people in the hallway, like, really close to my door. And the way my apartment building is set up is if you don’t know anybody up there, you shouldn’t be upstairs. There were a couple of nights I felt like I probably needed some protection or probably should have let somebody know I was going in late. But I didn’t think about it until there were people standing way too close to my door.

Later in the interview, Gaddis noted: “I stay pretty close to a high school that actually had a shooting sometime this year. Then there’s someone that, like, rides through the neighborhood, and they just let off shots. You can hear gunshots every night.”

Simon asked her what would have to happen in order to spur her to grab the gun and use it in defense of herself and her son.

Gaddis responded by suggesting she would grab the gun if someone was kicking in her door or if she heard the little bell on the back of her apartment door ring.

Simon responded by asking, “Why not just call the police?”

Gaddis noted that she has had to call the police in the past and the dispatcher asked her so many questions that the time it took to answer the questions, in addition to the time it took police to arrive, was just too great. She stressed that the moments she spent waiting were time in which she was vulnerable.