Ukrainian gun-rights advocates are searching for greater support from American gun owners two months into their fight against Russia’s invasion.
Maryan Zablotskyy, a member of Urakaine’s legislature, visited Washington, D.C. on Wednesday to rally support for his country’s fight. He met with gun-rights activists and Capitol Hill insiders, according to The Washington Times. He said he’s hoping to cultivate relationships with people who can help arm his countrymen.
“I want to work more closely with the American government and gun owners so that maybe some of them can share their weapons to Ukrainians, at least to the regions that have been most affected by violence,” Zablotskyy told the paper.
He was also looking for advice on reforming Ukraine’s gun laws to make it easier for civilians to own guns. The country’s legislature passed a law expanding access to firearms and enshrining a right to self-defense in the immediate lead-up to the invasion. As Russian tanks began to roll into the country, the government handed out rifles en mass to any civilians willing to take up arms.
Even Ukrainian lawmakers began taking up arms when the capital city of Kyiv was threatened.
Still, Zablotskyy estimated only about two percent of Ukrainians own guns, and most of those are not rifles useful for resisting an invading army. He hopes to bring more rifles from the United States into the country. He also said the gun laws remain too strict.
“I received a firearm myself in Ukraine, but again, it was stipulated that after ten days or the war ends, I have to surrender it back to the government,” he told The Times.
He said there is now “overwhelming support” for expanding gun rights in the wake of the invasion. Ukrainians have mobilized hundreds of thousands of volunteer fighters to bolster their forces since the war began. Armed civilians have played a significant role in key fights throughout the country, including defending a strategically-important bridge town outside the capital.
Zablotskyy argued the war crimes carried out by Russian soldiers against civilians in Bucha, Ukraine would have been impossible if the population had been armed.
“I’m pretty sure that no massacre would ever have happened if residents of Bucha had firearms,” he told the paper. “They had zero. So, I want to arm those regions that have been most affected who understand the need for arms.”
A repeated ploy of the gun control movement is to loudly proclaim law-abiding Second Amendment supporters are using “scare tactics” while opposing proposed gun control.
U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), the “Honey Pot Congressman,” isn’t new to this charade. His record is one of support for strict gun control. That includes a failed presidential campaign playing second fiddle to Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke to carry the gun control water.
Rep. Swalwell published an op-ed in Newsweek and deployed the ruse.
“For decades, one of the most tried and true scare tactics by the gun lobby is that the government—specifically Democrats—are coming for your guns,” the Congressman wrote. “These misinformation campaigns have been used for years to scare law-abiding Americans into thinking they are going to be put under government surveillance to confiscate their guns.”
Lies About Lies
The thrust of Rep. Swalwell’s anti-Second Amendment screed is that President Joe Biden isn’t interested in confiscating lawfully-owned firearms.
“Let’s be crystal clear—the Biden administration has no secret plan to take away your guns,” he claimed.
He’s right, though – President Biden’s gun control plans aren’t secret. They’re very public and repeated often.
President Biden has on multiple occasions called the lawful firearm industry “the enemy.” A major selling point of his gun control agenda is that he claims he’s, “the only one to have taken on the industry and won.” “I’ve done it before and I’ll do it again,” he’s said.
The president was speaking about his ability to pass a ban on Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs), which he incorrectly and pejoratively terms as “assault weapons.” President Biden, in the 1990s, when he was in the U.S. Senate, voted to ban America’s most popular selling centerfire semiautomatic rifle. He continues to push for a new ban today on the commonly-owned firearm. He claims the ban will drive down crime, but data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says the, “Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)…did not reduce crime rates.” In fact, when the ban expired, violent crime rates continued to drop even as MSR ownership skyrocketed to more than 20 million rifles in circulation.
The president has also repeated his favorite lie that the firearm industry is “the only outfit in the country that is immune,” from liability. This lie has been fact-checked into oblivion, with media saying, “Gun manufacturers can certainly be sued…Biden is wrong to say gun manufacturers are alone.”
The president lies about his wishes to ban certain lawfully-manufactured and legally-purchased firearms, as well as his wishes to shut down an entire industry that supports the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights. That would certainly qualify as, “taking away guns.”
Twisting Truth
Rep. Swalwell would ban MSRs as well and he’s not alone. He’d go even further, telling Fox News’s Tucker Carlson he’d implement a forced government buyback scheme of the firearms and even, “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.” Rep. Swalwell went so far as to absurdly suggest if Americans still refused to give up their firearms to a government confiscation scheme, the U.S. government would use nukes against holdouts.
Rep. Swalwell would make confiscation easier, if he had his way, by requiring a national firearm registry. That’s the only way a universal background check could work, a policy that both Rep. Swalwell and President Biden support. Universal background checks (UBCs) are unenforceable without mandatory registration – which is illegal under the 1986 Gun Control Act and 1993 Brady Act.
In his op-ed, Rep. Swalwell says claims about a national gun registry are “conspiracy theories,” and that, “The simple truth is that a gun registry does not exist and is not even being contemplated to illegally track law-abiding individuals who exercise their Second Amendment rights.” He even twists one of my tweets to suggest the firearm industry agrees with his bogus claims.
It’s true – the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) does not currently maintain a searchable national firearm registry. It does, however, keep an Out-of-business Records (OBR) database to trace firearms when they are used in a crime. That collection of records doesn’t allow anyone to run a search for how many and what kind of firearms are owned by any one individual.
About 30 percent of all firearm traces involve searching OBR data. The most recent ATF trace data shows that the average time between when a firearm was originally sold lawfully after a background check and before it was recovered by law enforcement has been close to 10 years as recently as 2017. Searching very old records rarely yields actionable intelligence to law enforcement. That’s why NSSF has long supported requiring ATF to purge records that are older than 20 years to save taxpayer money and to use those dollars to put more agents on the streets to stop crime from occurring in the first place.
Rep. Swalwell knowingly took the tweet out of context in order to lie again about what would be required if a universal background check were to be adopted.
President Biden is clearly doing the bidding of his gun control donors. After repeating his lies about the firearm industry and what his policies would do to law-abiding Americans, there is no doubt that President Biden would indeed go after lawful gun owners and dismantle the industry that provides for the exercise of the Second Amendment. Rep. Swalwell is simply carrying the president’s gun control water because he would do the same exact thing.
Donald Trump Jr. was the pro-gun voice in his father’s White House. While the president often spoke pro-gun words, there were many who said it was his son who gave them to him.
I’m glad there was someone there who could give the elder Trump some guidance on that sort of thing.
Now, though, it seems the younger Trump has decided to take his pro-gun work to a different level.
Donald Trump Jr. is launching a new gun rights group that he says will be a vehicle for fighting against Democratic gun control efforts.
Fox News Digital has learned that Trump Jr. will be launching the Second Amendment Task Force and will serve as the chairman of the group as it works to protect Americans’ right to bear arms.
“The Second Amendment is the whole ballgame; it’s the freedom that protects all of our other freedoms. Unfortunately the Biden Administration and Democrats in Congress are hellbent on eroding our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, whether it’s nominating radical gun-grabbers to senior positions in the executive branch or pushing anti-gun legislation,” Trump Jr. told Fox News Digital. “The Second Amendment Task Force is entirely devoted to ensuring the Left is never successful in disarming American citizens.”
The Second Amendment Task Force is the first advocacy group that Trump has launched and been directly involved with. The group plans to make a push in the upcoming midterm elections this year, especially in the voter registration sphere.
OK. Um…why a new group?
Don’t get me wrong, I have no issue with the mission in and of itself. Voter registration isn’t a bad thing, though I suspect gun owners are far more likely to be registered to vote than the general public.
No, my question is more about why form a completely different gun rights organization when there are already a number in existence. If you’re not a fan of the NRA, then there are Gun Owners of America, Firearm Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, and a number of others.
I can’t imagine many who wouldn’t want Donald Trump Jr. on their board of directors and would be more than willing to listen to him regarding areas he believes the Second Amendment community is underserving.
So, again, why?
My concern is that there’s only so much support for any cause. A new organization will dilute the pool and potentially provide fewer resources for everyone. If Trump thinks someone isn’t doing what they should and he wants to push them out of the picture, then so be it. That’s the beauty of the free market and all that.
Yet the problem is that we don’t know that. We don’t know why he’s forming a gun-rights group right now, and I’m curious as to the answer.
Will I lose sleep over it? Probably not. However, I’ll also be paying attention to what they do going forward to see just how they’re fitting into the Second Amendment ecosystem. Who knows, maybe he’ll attract new voices to Second Amendment activism and increase the pool of resources for everyone. If so, that’ll be a huge win.
It should be interesting to see how everything unfolds.
As gun-controllers exploit a California mass shooting, even mainstream media are expressing skepticism.
In the wake of the recent shootout in Sacramento — now thought to be a gang battle involving at least five shooters — gun-control zealots are determined to take away the people’s rights and give them more of what doesn’t work.
California has more gun laws than any other, yet state lawmakers are still exploring new ways to disarm peaceable residents and leave them at the mercy of criminals. Meanwhile, President Biden has already taken advantage of the tragedy, calling on Congress to pass the same laws that didn’t stop the carnage in California.
Surprisingly, even the mainstream press, which tends to be favorable toward gun control, has shown skepticism.
It was reported on April 19 that “several bills” to further restrict guns in California have “gained momentum from recent mass shootings,” especially the April 3 Sacramento massacre. Predictably, many of these bills have no connection to that incident. Instead, they’re items from the wish list of anti-gun groups: enabling lawsuits against gun manufacturers, further burdening lawful firearm dealers, restricting gun marketing, and “targeting ghost guns.” Less predictably, NPR, notorious for left-wing anti-gun bias, would question the value of passing more gun-control laws in California.
Following the Sacramento massacre, NPR reported on “at least 24 more bills” to restrict guns in California. The piece had a borderline-snarky headline that a gun-rights advocate could have written: “After the Sacramento shooting, the state with the most gun laws may soon get more.” In many ways, the piece itself was typical NPR. But it also contained flashes of realism.
“Even when states make it harder to get guns, gun violence still occurs all too often,” reporter Laurel Wamsley noted. “In a state that already has more gun restrictions than anywhere else in the U.S., how much further can the law go?” As Wamsley pointed out, the violence-plagued state already gets Giffords’s highest rating for gun control.
NPR wasn’t alone in raising questions. Amazingly, the Trace — an outlet dedicated to gun-control advocacy — seemed skeptical about the California push. Its April 4 Daily Bulletin was headlined by the Sacramento shooting. It concluded, as the bulletin often does, with a statistic: “107 — the number of gun control laws on the books in California, more than any other state.” The same day, the Trace reported that the Sacramento shooting “likely involved” an already-illegal gun modification.
An even clearer note of skepticism came from Politico, reporting on President Biden’s reaction to the Sacramento shootout.
In his gun-grabbing response — basically a rehash of old material — Biden called on Congress to “ban ghost guns,” “require background checks for all gun sales,” “ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,” and “repeal gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability.”
Despite all that, this bozo Hassan can’t imagine free speech being the real reason.
From reading some the comments to various threads about the buyout it is very clear that many people are vehemently opposed to free speech. They come close to predicting the end of the world if people are allowed to spread “disinformation, conspiracy theories, and hate speech.”
This is incredibly willful ignorance or, more likely in many cases, deliberate evil.
The “end of the world” is much more likely to occur if we don’t have free speech. The suppression of free speech is the mark of authoritarianism. It enables corruption, gulags, and genocide.
This is why we have the 2nd Amendment. It protects the 1st Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say that
Let’s not buy into misconceptions about the 2nd Amendment when advancing Gov. Lamont’s gun control proposals.
What might those misconceptions be?
Public perception and debate only changed a little more than a generation ago. Until recently, this has been the overwhelming consensus among Americans and in the courts. Ever since the aftermath of the War of 1812 (when veterans returned home from war with their firearms) the federal government has regulated and restricted the right to bear arms, and did so without political controversy.
According to “A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control,” by Saul Cornell and Nathan DeDino, during the decades after the Revolutionary War, the sale of firearms was forbidden to Catholics, slaves, indentured servants, and Native Americans.
He went there: Gun control is good because there is no individual right to arms, and we used to disarm Catholics, slave, and Indians.
Holy s[…].
Say… since slavery was legal then, does he want to re-institute that as well?
Moving on.
In U.S. v Miller in 1936, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the National Firearms Act, (which was passed after the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre). In that case, the Court ruled unanimously that the 2nd Amendment pertains to militias and not to individual rights.
Aside from the chronological error (MILLER was 1939, which gives you an idea of how well Robinson studied this issue), MILLER was about the status of the defendant’s sawed-off shotgun, not individual RKBA. Specifically, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear militarily useful arms, and that no evidence was presented showing that the military used short-barreled shotguns; thus, registration of a non-militarily useful arm could be required. No such evidence was presented because the defendant had died, and with no one to pay their bills, his attorneys didn’t show up to argue the case. (And keep that “militarily useful part in mind.)
But in 2008, in District of Columbia v Heller, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, ruling that the 2nd Amendment did create an individual right to bear arms. That is – literally – the first time the high court took this position.
No. The Court found that the Second Amendment protects a preexisting right.
Nor was this the first time that SCOTUS had found the Second to be an individual right. The Supreme Court has ruled that way since at least 1857 (hint: SCOTUS ruled against Dred Scott because if he was a free man, he would have a right to bear arms just like anyone else). If Robinson had bother reading the HELLER decision, he might have noticed that Scalia cited numerous prior precedents for an individual right.
Robinson has a little list of further infringements that he wants CT Governor Lamont to impose.
Close the loopholes in assault weapons laws
Remember that “militarily useful” part of MILLER? If “assault weapons” are nasty, military-style arms, then MILLER (and HELLER) already found that we have an individual right to them. Shall we go there; in court, I mean?
Make domestic violence convictions an automatic disqualifier for obtaining a gun permit
Well, that seems a little redundant, since a domestic violence conviction already makes possession of a firearm a crime. Doubly redundant since CGS § 29-28(b) also mentions that no permit may be issued to anyone prohibited under 18 USC 922.
I’m a fan of preemption. In fact, I wish we had federal preemption when it comes to gun control laws, though there’s no chance of that happening anytime soon.
In Colorado, they don’t have it. They used to but don’t anymore, which is causing a bit of a problem, to say the least.
The Edgewater City Council has significantly scaled back — at least for now — most of what it planned to consider in way of new gun rights restrictions being encouraged by an anti-gun advocacy group, after dozens of residents and others emailed and showed up at an April 19 work session to express their displeasure on possible ordinances targeting gun owners.
Edgewater is a metro-area home rule city of just over 5,000 people bordered by Denver to the east, Lakewood to the south and west, and Wheat Ridge to the north.
The potential ordinances that the council decided to continue discussion on were:
Prohibiting open carry of guns city-wide.
Prohibiting licensed concealed carry in city-owned buildings and parks.
Prohibiting licensed conceal carry in daycare centers and preschools.
Banning so-called “ghost guns,” a name given by anti-gun activists to guns made by individuals, but that do not have serial numbers.
Setting a waiting period for buying a firearm of 3-10 days.
Dealer regulations with an effective date grandfathering in Edgewater’s one gun dealer.
Mandatory reporting requirement for lost or stolen guns, which is already covered under state law.
The initial proposal included a local assault weapon ban and a ban on 50-caliber ammunition as well as “armor-piercing” ammo.
Local officials claim reporting of the earlier proposals was “misinformation” despite the information coming from the city’s website.
I guess the city is promoting the fake news and everyone else is wrong for taking them at their word.
Anyway, they got pushback. That’s a very good thing, especially since not everyone who spoke up is on the right politically.
Numerous Edgewater residents spoke out at the April 16 meeting against the proposed measures, with some saying they don’t expect the council to listen, nor do they believe the items taken off the list will remain off the list.
“I’ve watched our city council make laws restricting the freedom of the law abiding in line with progressive political philosophy for a long time,” said resident Larry Welshon. “In this case they are gutting the Second Amendment through incremental disassembly. I’d be delighted to be wrong, but past history proves this council is progressive.”
Welshon reminded the council that in a survey conducted by the city in 2021, only 47 percent of residents believe the council acts in their best interests.
But not all who spoke out against the ordinances could be considered conservative in their viewpoint.
“I am about as liberal as the day is long,” said resident Randy Novack, who said he was a neighbor to one of the council members whom he agrees with most times. “However, I’ve been shooting since I was a kid.”
So it’s not just that the council is progressive, but they’re anti-gun despite some self-described liberals in the city not being anti-Second Amendment.
That’s quite fascinating.
It’s also why preemption is such an issue. Edgewater, Colorado is a city of fewer than 6,000 people. It’s not difficult to imagine someone passing through such a city and running afoul of at least one of these anti-Second Amendment proposals, especially if this is just the beginning as some believe.
Suddenly, someone who intends to abide by the law may well find themselves facing criminal charges. Preemption helps to mitigate much of this.
Of course, since Colorado decided to drink the gun control Kool-Aid, this is the kind of thing we’re going to keep seeing from them.
And people in places like Edgewater, which borders Denver, are ultimately going to pay the price for this particular flavor of stupidity.
The one saving grace, though, is that the people of these cities still get a say and they’re not afraid to tell their community leaders to back off.
Now they just need to shut down the rest of these proposals that will accomplish absolutely nothing.
On April 21, 2022, the Tennessee House voted 64 to 28 to pass HB 1735. A similar bill in the Senate is known as SB 2291. The bill is an incremental step toward restoring Second Amendment rights to young adults. The bill requires the department of safety to issue an enhanced handgun carry permit to people who are at least 18 years of age, and meet the other requirements which apply to people 21 and older. Previously, the minimum age was 21. From legiscan.com, bill text:
(b) Except as provided in subsection (r), any resident of Tennessee who is a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident, as defined by § 55-50-102, may apply to the department of safety for an enhanced handgun carry permit. If the applicant is at least eighteen (18) years of age and is not prohibited from possessing a firearm in this state pursuant to § 39-17-1307(b), 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), or any other state or federal law, and the applicant otherwise meets all of the requirements of this section, the department shall issue a permit to the applicant.
In a compromise, the bill prohibits people aged 18 to 20, who have the enhanced permit, from transporting or storing firearms at all sorts of schools; then grants exceptions to those with military connections, as listed in the bill:
(e) Notwithstanding subsection (a), this section does not apply to a person who is under twenty-one (21) years of age and transports or stores a firearm or firearm ammunition in the person’s motor vehicle while on or utilizing a public or private parking area that is located on any public or private school campus, grounds, recreation area, athletic field or any other property owned, operated, or while in use by any board of education, school, college or university board of trustees, regents or directors for the administration of any public or private educational institution, unless the person:
(1) Is at least eighteen (18) years of age; and
(2)
(A) Is an honorably discharged or retired veteran of the United States armed forces;
(B) Is an honorably discharged member of the army national guard, the army reserve, the navy reserve, the marine corps reserve, the air national guard, the air force reserve, or the coast guard reserve, who has successfully completed a basic training program; or
(C) Is a member of the United States armed forces on active duty status or is a current member of the army national guard, the army reserve, the navy reserve, the marine corps reserve, the air national guard, the air force reserve, or the coast guard reserve, who has successfully completed a basic training program.
SECTION 5. This act takes effect July 1, 2022,
The Tennessee legislature has only a few more days to pass the reform bill if they are going to. The legislative session ends on May 7, 2022. The Senate has a large majority of Republicans, 27 to 6. If the bill passes the Judiciary Committee and is voted on in the Senate, it will likely be sent to Governor Bill Lee for his signature. It is not certain that Governor Lee would sign the bill, but it seems likely. He signed the Constitutional Carry bill a year ago in 2021.
WKRN characterized HB 1735 as giving “18-year-olds the right to carry a gun.” From whnt.com:
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) – If you’re 18, it is unlawful to smoke or drink before turning 21, but Tennessee House lawmakers want to give 18-year-olds the right to carry a gun.
Opponents say the bill would increase gun crimes and self-harm, but supporters say it’s a constitutional right all adults should have. HB 1735 lowers the age from 21 to 18 to lawfully carry a handgun openly or concealed.
As shown in the actual bill, the legislation does not “give” anyone anything. It simply allows 18 to 20-year-olds the opportunity to apply for an enhanced carry permit.
Wayne Shaw seemed to have all the conservative credentials needed to win reelection to his state Senate seat in Oklahoma two years ago. The mild-mannered pastor with deep ties to the community had a solidly conservative voting record during his eight years in office.
But when Shaw, as chair of the Senate Public Safety Committee, declined to hear a bill to allow people to carry guns into bars, he drew the ire of an unemployed truck driver who was passionate about gun rights.
The angry gun advocate, Don Spencer, belonged to a local pro-firearms group. In short order, he and his friends recruited a Republican challenger for Shaw, held a fundraiser in his district and helped defeat the incumbent in the primary.
“I’m not opposed to guns,” said Shaw, who was stunned by the development. “But that (guns in bars) is a good way of throwing gasoline on a fire.”
Spencer’s feat is an example of a phenomenon in red states where the Republican Party is moving farther and farther to the right: The most potent political forces aren’t always the long-established organizations that have groomed candidates and advanced legislation for decades. In the current climate, little-known outsiders, even without pedigree or money, can become powerbrokers quickly if connected to incendiary issues like guns or abortion. And almost any officeholder can become vulnerable.
Whatever the topic of the day is, there are some who will think they’re experts in it. While people have a right to their opinions and a right to voice them, I’m always amused by how idiotic some of the takes actually are.
This is especially true when it comes to “ghost guns.”
I put the words in quotes because, well, most of the people who sling the term want to use it because it sounds scary. Most don’t really understand much of anything about the topic at hand, only the talking points politicians and activists sling around.
In it, it shows that Page doesn’t get a lot himself.
An often-repeated story about W.C. Fields holds that as he approached the end of his life, a friend was surprised to find him reading a Bible.
“Looking for loopholes, m’boy,” he reportedly explained. “Looking for loopholes.”
That scene comes to mind these days as I hear the standard response given by the National Rifle Association, the Gun Owners of America and other gun rights groups to even the most modest attempts to inject a little sanity into our nation’s gun laws.
The latest example of loophole-seeking has emerged in the recent pandemic of “ghost guns.” I’m not talking about the spirits of deceased firearms. “Ghost guns,” as many have been learning, is a street nickname for home-assembled firearms. Their parts can be 3D printed or ordered over the internet and constructed at home like Ikea furniture to produce a full-fledged gun.
The bad news is in their illegality. Buyers of unfinished parts or components have not been required to undergo a background check, and their weapons have no serial numbers, which makes them virtually impossible for police to trace.
Except most guns used by criminals are virtually impossible for police to trace…at least, to trace in any meaningful way that helps to solve a crime. Most guns are illegally acquired in the first place, meaning the trace gives them a name and an address of someone who bought the gun, but they’re not the criminal.
With all this talk about tracing, you’d think crimes couldn’t be solved without it. Yet more than half of all firearms are stolen.
Now, Mr. Page, tell me how tracing will help?
But as stupid as that comment is, Mr. Page ramps it up to 11 with this nonsense:
BLUF:
The concept that an openly armed person is a provocation to attack appears to flow from a simple premise on the left: A person doing something a leftist does not like is a provocation to attack them. It is part of the broader philosophical abandonment of the rule of law.
Evidence for this theory exists in the left’s theory of speech from any opponent. Speech from an opponent is considered to be violent, and worthy of attack. Violence, from the left, on the other hand, is considered to be speech………..
Defining open carry of weapons as a legal provocation is Orwellian word manipulation.
In the law of self-defense of almost all states, If a person is attacked, and reasonably fears for their life, they may legally defend themselves with deadly force. A small minority of states require a person to retreat from the situation if they can do so in complete safety.
In all states of which I am aware, a person may not use deadly force in self-defense, if they provoked the attack with the intent of using deadly force.
It is not legal to start a fight so the person who started the fight can kill someone who they provoked.
Mere possession of an openly carried weapon is not a legal provocation to attack.
The Left has been floating the idea that mere possession of a weapon is a provocation. They contend the sight of someone in possession of a weapon is sufficient provocation for a person to attack the person who possesses the weapon.
This creates a bizarre world where mere open possession of a weapon is sufficient to justify a deadly attack on the possessor. Apply this to the police. They almost always carry a deadly weapon, openly.
This concept is contrary to common sense and the experience of thousands of years.
Mass media has overlooked, or failed to recognize, that the core of the Biden administration’s announced plan for so-called “gun control” would overlook criminals and the arsenals they have already. Strict laws to stop this have been passed, but enforcement tools, budget and most crucial a crime-stop attitude is missing. The Administration has adopted a take-guns-from-the-innocent mindset. For crime control, we must move past defund-the-police, police-are-oppressors and guns-are-evil mindset now in the curriculum. Biden and his team must recognize that if courts and cops don’t enforce the laws, disarming the public will only make things worse.
The recent focus on newly vilified so-called “ghost guns” is a perfect case in point. Murders, primarily in disadvantaged neighborhoods, are in the tens of thousands. Where’s the media? At a rose garden presser attacking a new gun concept. The murderers walk free. Meanwhile newshounds take the bait and assault homemade firearms—constitutionally protected property. This is sleight of hand by leadership, ignoring crime control and scapegoating arms—that criminals basically don’t use! “Gun control” doesn’t stop criminal behavior, it lets it thrive.
Proposed gun registries for specialty firearms cannot even address the “guns-on-the-streets” narrative. There are no guns “on the streets,” ghost-like or otherwise. Guns are in criminal hands, from lack of attention. Armed street criminals cannot legally possess guns in the first place, you cannot expect them to register.
Mandating it would require them to self-incriminate, a blatant violation of the 5th Amendment—criminals cannot be forced to use any proposed ghost registry. The new plan is mainly a way to compel more government databases—small requirements, with illegal compulsion, inching up to massive bans. Mass media should make this clear if they’re doing their job but they aren’t. Mass media wants you registered, and it shows. Even logic dictates this glaring flaw in the proposal—if you could require people banned from guns to register, you could just round them up and their illegally held firearms.
“If you caucus with gun grabbers, youare a gun grabber.”
(No. And you can barely trust “Pro-Gun” Republicans)
From time to time, the topic comes up in which we are tasked with deciding if a Democrat deserves our vote based primarily on their support of the 2nd Amendment. I was in a discussion about this topic and realized that there’s a major problem with this. Often, we hear Democrats announce that they are “gun-owners” and/or “hunters” prior to some sort of anti-gun statement.
I have my doubts as to whether their “gun ownership” amounts to much more than a dusty old war rifle that grandpa left in the attic and their implication to be “one of us” is often a tactic used to gain some sort of “authority” in a gun-control debate, but let’s look at this from a practical perspective. If I were to support a Democrat who claims to be “pro-gun,” (whether that be a Senator, Representative or even the President,) what other policies am I inadvertently supporting, and how high on the hierarchical scale of values are gun rights for this person?
Show me a Democrat who claims they don’t support universal background checks, red flag laws, magazine capacity restrictions, waiting periods, 21-year-old age requirements, semi-automatic rifle bans, bump-stock bans, suppressor bans, forced reset trigger bans & suing manufacturers out of business, and I will show you a liar.
What makes them a Democrat? Isn’t the very reason they vote on the left, to support the policies of those on the left? How many more left-wing policies do you want your children and grandchildren to be burdened with? Is it likely that they will actually go against their party on gun rights when you need them to? Have you ever seen that happen, and in the rare case it might, where else are they compromising your values? Some strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment are willing to support a Democrat who claims to support gun rights. Is this because they believe we are converting them? Good luck with that. The real question is, what else are we getting in that dysfunctional social package?
In an announcement on April, 11, 2022, on “ghost guns,” Joe Biden revealed this exact hypocrisy when he called firearms dealers “merchants of death,” yelled and screamed about “weapons of war” and then went on to say, “and by the way. It’s gonna sound bizarre. I support the 2nd Amendment.”
When we support a so-called “pro 2nd Amendment Democrat,” are we also supporting their position on open borders, abortion, CRT, bisexual bathrooms, “sex-ed” for Kindergarteners, the termination of oil drilling in America, the green new deal, ESG, the early release of prisoners, bail reform, never-ending medical mandates, the defunding of our police departments, welfare dependency and the overall forfeiture of our basic ability to make our own decisions? Because if so, I’m out.
So why are any of us being asked to put at risk, and most likely compromise, traditional American values and Conservative beliefs, just to get a “2A-friendly” vote in Congress by some politician who claims to support our gun rights? (Which by the way, probably wouldn’t happen when it comes down to actual voting behavior due to massive Congressional pressure from their peers.) Could it be Democrats recognize how strong the 2nd Amendment is and how protective of it, most Americans are? Could presenting a so-called “pro-gun Democrat,” be a way of coercing Republicans into unwittingly compromising at the voting booth with the hopes of saving our 2nd Amendment?
Sorry. The 2nd Amendment is not up for debate or compromise.
When I hear people suggesting that I should support a Democrat because they are “pro-gun,” I smell a rat. I have a problem trusting most Republicans with the 2nd Amendment. Now you’re asking me to vote for a Democrat? I don’t think so.
President Joe Biden’s unpopular gun control moves are doing little to appease his gun control donor class. Worse, those same moves are distancing him from voters that clearly see crime as a central issue and gun ownership as a right to be protected.
Among the unpopular policy positions dragging down his presidency is his myopic focus on gun control instead of crime control. The Biden White House has pursued the most far-reaching and radical gun control agenda of any president, previously naming a gun control lobbyist to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) whose nomination was defeated when not even all Senate Democrats could support the nominee.
Biden has since nominated Steve Dettelbach, who once campaigned for public office on a gun control platform. President Biden is also circumventing Congress’s authority to write laws by issuing an administrative rule to redefine frames and receivers and ban arm braces on AR-style pistols and instituting a top-down policy of “zero tolerance” inspections that would revoke licenses of firearm retailers instead of working with small business owners to correct minor clerical errors.
On top of that, President Biden is facing two additional factors not working in his favor on gun control and lawful gun ownership. Gun control groups are livid that President Biden hasn’t delivered their goal of disarming the American population. He was rated just a “D+” by gun control groups exasperated that he hasn’t ruled like a dictator to unilaterally ban entire classes of firearms and delivered a laundry list of gun control “must-haves,” including a Cabinet-adjacent position that’s outside of Senate confirmation to push even more gun control policies.
Voters Are Worried About Criminals, Not Legal Gun Owners
Buying your kid a Browning t-shirt could soon be impossible, at least if you live in California. Democrat Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan has introduced a bill that is starting to get some attention in the state legislature, and it poses a clear threat to the First Amendment rights of Second Amendment supporters.
In Bauer-Kahan’s view, AB 2571 “seeks to restrict the malicious and manipulative firearms marketing geared towards children and youth,” but a perusal of the text shows her real aim is to crack down on parents who aim to educate their kids about safe and responsible gun ownership.
According to the current language of the measure, the proposed law would “prohibit a person or entity that publishes materials directed to minors in this state in any medium from marketing or advertising firearms in that material, as specified, and would prohibit a person or entity that publishes a marketing or advertising communication from publishing or disseminating marketing or advertising for firearms that is attractive to minors, as specified.”
What makes a particular communication “attractive to minors”? The bill is open-ended, but includes things like using cartoon characters to promote firearms or firearms products; offering firearm brand name merchandise, such as hats, t-shirts, or stuffed animals, for minors; or even offering firearms or firearms accessories with colors or designs that are specifically designed to appeal to minors.
Violations of the law could result in a $25,000 fine, which is clearly an attempt to chill pro-Second Amendment speech.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Mark Oliva tells Bearing Arms that it’s clear that state lawmakers “aren’t satisfied” with curtailing Second Amendment rights and now trying to infringe on the First Amendment as well.
“Commercial speech is still protected speech,” says Oliva, adding, “California’s bought-and-paid for gun control politicians might find it disagreeable that parents actually teach their children safe and responsible firearm ownership, but that is a reality, albeit one they are attempting to erase. Advertising images of parents and youths hunting together would be illegal. Youth hunting clothing branded with firearm and ammunition maker logos would be banned. The bill authors know this is a clear violation of First Amendment rights, but they give no consideration to fundamental rights when it comes to advancing a gun control agenda.”
Why would they, honestly? Most California Democrats don’t view the Second Amendment as a fundamental right that must be protected. At best they see it as an anachronism that has no place in 21st Century America, and far too many of them see our right to keep and bear arms as an evil that must be eradicated. They don’t see AB 2571 as the censorious pile of rat droppings that it is. No, they honestly believe they’re protecting innocent children from the evil and twisted firearms industry.. not to mention the deplorable gun-owning dupes those kids might have as parents.
Here’s my question for Rebecca Bauer-Kahan and other backers of this bill: even if gun companies were marketing their products to minors (which I don’t think is actually the case), shouldn’t all of the gun control laws on the books in California prevent minors from getting their hands on a gun? I mean, minors can’t legally purchase firearms or ammunition in the state, and there are background check requirements for all gun transfers and ammunition purchases. If California’s gun control laws work as well as Democrats say they do, then why do they believe this bill is necessary?
Sadly, I know the answer. This legislation isn’t about preventing minors from illegally acquiring firearms. It’s about demonizing the firearms industry.
I would love to say that this bill is going nowhere, but it already has the backing of Gov. Gavin Newsom and appears to be gaining some traction in the state Assembly, where it was referred to the Judiciary Committee on Monday. The time for California gun owners to speak out is now. I don’t know that even a wave of opposition from gun owners across the state will be enough to derail the bill in the legislature, but it’s the first step in what’s likely to be a long campaign to defend our First Amendment right to support the Second Amendment.
WASHINGTON, D.C. (WWTI) — Local lawmakers are voicing their support in new legislation aiming to protect second amendment rights.
On April 11, the Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2022 (H.R. 7493) was introduced to Congress by House Republications to amend Title 11 of the United States code pertaining to a federal bankruptcy law.
According to lawmakers, if passed, this legislation would modify the federal bankruptcy law to allow an individual debtor to exempt one or more firearms from their bankruptcy estate. These firearms could have up to a total maximum value of $3,000.
Congresswoman Elise Stefanik cosponsored this legislation and said it would “ensure an individual’s right to self-defense is not stripped due to financial hardships.”
“I am proud to sponsor legislation to ensure gun owners can always maintain their Constitutional right to bear arms. The government should not be allowed to take advantage of lawful gun owners who have declared bankruptcy,” Stefanik said in a press release.
Stefanik added that the bill also labels firearms as household goods that are not subject to liens. This would be a claim against assets used as a collateral to satisfy a debt in bankruptcy situations.
California has the toughest state-level gun control laws in the nation. They heavily restrict pretty much every category of firearm imaginable and they’re constantly looking at how they can further restrict them.
And yet, cities in the state aren’t necessarily safer than anywhere else in the nation.
Thirty-four people were shot in Los Angeles last week, a bloody spike in what is already shaping up to be a violent month and year in the City of Angels, according to authorities.
The bulk of the shootings — 23 — of them occurred in a “remarkably small area” of the Los Angeles Police Department’s 77th Street and Southeast divisions, Chief Michel Moore told the Los Angeles Police Commission Tuesday. Moore called last week a “troubling week,” in a year when violent crime has increased 7.1% year-to-date. So far this year, the LAPD has responded to 575 more violent crimes than this time last year.
Barely halfway through the month, 70 people have already been shot in Los Angeles, up from 55 during the same period last year. There have been 107 homicides so far in 2022, while at this point in 2021 there were 109. While the number has decreased slightly in 2022, Moore said it represents a 37% increase over a two-year period. Overall, violent crime — aggravated assaults, street robberies, and commercial robberies — have climbed 15.2 percent over a two-year period.…
“The problem that we have throughout Los Angeles is too many guns in too many hands,” Moore said, reiterating a belief he frequently shares with the commission. The added enforcement in the 77th Street Division resulted in 16 gun arrests involving 20 firearms, including “a number of assault rifles,” Moore said.
So, the issue is guns in the most heavily gun-controlled state in the nation?
Sounds to me an awful lot like all the copious amounts of gun control has managed to accomplish is just make the state more hostile toward law-abiding gun owners, rather than actually do much to curb gun possession by violent criminals.
This isn’t much different than the gang heyday of the 1990s when LA was the epicenter of criminal culture. Since then, the state has passed tons of gun control, ostensibly to impact those same criminals.
As we can see, it worked like a charm.
Look, I get the desire to do something. I also get that people think the problem is the wrong people having guns. I’m not going to argue about armed criminals. But the laws on the books were designed to stop precisely them from having them, yet it doesn’t appear to have accomplished a blasted thing. Meanwhile, Californians who want to comply with the law are treated like criminals for even wanting a firearm.
It’s just not right.
Then again, it’s never been right to restrict the rights of the ordinary citizen because of the actions of a handful of criminals. Yet when the LAPD chief talks about too many guns in too many hands rather than the wrong hands, what do you think he’s proposing? Is he acknowledging that gun control has failed the state, or do you think he’s suggesting more of the same?
Well, since he says the problem is “too many hands” and nothing about criminals in possession, it’s clear where he stands on the issue.
It’s also clear that more of the same isn’t going to make things better.
Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh has filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that a challenge to the state ban on so-called “assault weapons” be denied review, arguing that such firearms have been used in several mass shootings, according to a report in The Daily Record.
Frosh may be facing a daunting task because 25 of his colleagues—attorneys general from literally half of all the states in the nation—have already submitted an amicus brief to the high court, supporting the petition for review from plaintiffs in the case. It is one of several amicus briefs submitted in the case, but because of its nature, it may be one of the most influential.
The case is known as Dominic Bianchi et al. v. Brian E. Frosh et al., No. 21-902. Plaintiffs include the Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Firearms Policy Coalition, Field Traders gun shop in Anne Arundel County and three private citizens.
According to the Daily Record, Frosh was “chief sponsor of the 2013 Firearm Safety Act and shepherded the bill” through the state Senate, when he served in that body as a state senator. Therefore, he has what might be considered a special interest in preventing the legislation from being overturned, because it was his legislation. The law bans 45 “assault-style weapons, including the AR-15,” the newspaper noted.
In his argument, the newspaper said, Frosh cited several attacks involving semi-auto rifles including Sandy Hook Elementary, the Pulse nightclub attack in Orlando, the Las Vegas music festival attack and the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.
There was a signal from the Supreme Court that it could be giving serious consideration to accepting the case for review in January when the court asked Frosh to respond to the plaintiff’s petition for review. Initially, Frosh’s office did not offer a response.
This is the second time the Maryland ban has been challenged, but that was when the court did not have a strong conservative majority. The majority will not change with the seating later this year of Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace retiring Associate Justice Stephen Breyer.
The support shown for this case has impressed SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.
“When the possession of commonly-owned firearms by private citizens is criminalized, it is imperative for good, like-minded people to stand together and defend constitutional rights,” Gottlieb observed. “The support we are receiving in this case is both humbling and reassuring. We are hopeful the Supreme Court grants our petition for review. Banning the possession and transport of a whole class of commonly-owned firearms is an affront to the Second Amendment that cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.”
BUTLER COUNTY, IOWA – Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote to President Joe Biden to urge that the administration turn away from partisan, anti-gun rhetoric toward policies and nominees that will actually address the rise in violent crime. Grassley also raised serious concerns with the recently announced nomination of Steven Dettelbach to serve as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
“A director must, at a minimum, demonstrate that he or she respects the Second Amendment rights of Americans and can deal fairly with the firearms industry,” Grassley wrote. “…but even a cursory review of [Dettelbach’s] statements about gun ownership demonstrate a lack of awareness of the circumstances surrounding legal gun acquisition, or outright favoritism of expansive gun control.”
Grassley goes on to highlight specific instances of Dettelbach’s troubling record of comments and affiliations with anti-Second Amendment groups, including one occasion on which he apparently used a debunked statistic to push for gun control.
“The ATF Director’s roles should include having an appreciation for the role that firearms play in the lives of Americans, as well as serving as a credible, effective liaison with the firearm business community. In this light, Mr. Dettelbach’s writings and social media activism are concerning and serve to undermine his ability to carry out those important roles,” Grassley emphasized.
These guns have been legal and unregulated since the time of the Pilgrims. But long before the president’s announcement, Pennsylvania Democrats were already pushing six “ghost gun” bills that would make privately made firearms illegal.
So why isn’t the Biden administration trying to regulate those objects?
The answer is that this president is not as interested in protecting public safety as much as he wants to implement a radical gun control regime. The new ATF rule could incarcerate gun owners for committing nonviolent, highly technical violations of complex and unconstitutional laws while doing nothing about the rising number of crimes committed by real criminals.
Predictably, the murder rate, which had been on a downward trend for over 20 years, spiked. In fact, 12 Democratic-controlled cities from Philadelphia to Portland, Ore., broke homicide records last year. These are 12 cities where leaders have coddled criminals, yet inexplicably, did everything possible to discourage law-abiding individuals who merely wish to exercise their Second Amendment-protected rights. Philadelphia was no exception.
The spike in crime across our country is the result of the failed leadership and the social policies of left-wing radicals. It has nothing to do with firearms enthusiasts building guns in their garages and home workshops.
The anti-gun left may try to demonize these firearms by referring to them as “ghost guns.” But the fact remains that hundreds of thousands of honest gun owners today are making their own legal guns — and virtually none of these guns will be used in any crime.
The White House claims that serializing firearms is necessary to stop criminals, but in reality, there is no evidence that registering firearms — or stamping them with serial numbers — prevents crime. Virtually every gun used in a crime already has a serial number.
So why has Joe Biden declared war on legal gun owners? In a word: control.
Serialization is not designed to stop criminals. It’s intended to register the law-abiding, which history shows is the first step toward confiscation. And if you don’t think confiscation could ever occur in this country, just recall Beto O’Rourke yelling: “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47!”
The double standards by the anti-gun left are breathtaking. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro was at the Rose Garden ceremony, applauding the president’s restrictions on homemade firearms. Never mind that Shapiro’s office has been accused of illegally transferring a homemadegun to a television journalist preparing a story on the issue without conductinga background check; that would violate both state and federal law. Shapiro has denied any wrongdoing and claimed that the allegation was “ludicrous on its face.” The transfer was made to facilitate an NBC News report on a local supplier of P80 kits.
With the anti-gun left, we constantly see “rules for thee but not for me.” The Biden administration openly admitted that he ordered this “ghost gun” regulation because he “was having trouble getting [gun control] passed in the Congress.” That is lawless and anti-constitutional behavior. The president is not a king who can issue decrees on a whim.
In our system of government, Congress makes the laws. Gun Owners of America will be working with pro-gun representatives and senators to overrule this unconstitutional decree.
