Category: RKBA

Are Gun Grabbers or Gun Owners Empathic and Distrustful?

Both sides of the gun debate feel that their position is correct. Both sides agree that horrible people do horrible things. Both sides of the debate want to stop that. That small point of agreement is where progress in the debate usually ends. I think both sides are empathic and distrustful but they are paying attention to very different things. A way to get farther in the debate is to ask a deeper question.

The anti-gun side says that the bad guys would become better guys if they were disarmed, and that the other side loves guns more than they love people. The self-defense side replies that gun-control disarms far more victims than criminals. They note that disarmed bad guys are still bad guys, and the vast majority of violent crimes are committed with fists, clubs, and knives rather than guns.

The pro-gun side of the debate says that the victims of violent crime would be less victimized if they were allowed an armed defense. The anti-gun side of the debate answers that guns are just tools of violence and violence is never an optimal solution.

Neither side changes their opinion because the argument never touches their core beliefs. I want us to join in the debate by asking a more fundamental question; can we be trusted with violence?

Most of us need to do some homework before we can put an answer together. Let’s look at the question piece at a time.

Can you judge when violence is justified? Have you studied enough to make that decision in a short amount of time? Can you recognize when violence is not only justified but a necessary evil that avoids a greater evil? Taken to the obvious limit, can you use a lethal tool to kill another person?

Those are difficult questions, but this isn’t a philosophy course where we have a semester to debate each answer. The hard part about the questions is that we will answer on our own in a very limited amount of time. We have neither the time to ask, nor is there an informed authority who knows our situation in enough detail to give us accurate and useful answers about what to do.

Continue reading “”

Anti-Gun Politicians Lie About Violent Crime Because Telling the Truth Is Politically Costly

Last month, a man murdered his three daughters, ages 9, 10 and 13 in Sacramento, California. He also murdered the court-ordered chaperone who was supervising their visit. The murderer then shot himself. He used a modern rifle.

Democrat Governor Gavin Newsome called it, “Another senseless act of gun violence in America – In a church with kids inside – Our hearts go out to the victims, their families and their communities.”

Democrat State Attorney General Robert Bonta said, “We need to enforce more of the laws that we have. The rise in violent crime throughout the country is almost entirely because of guns.”

Of course they said that. They have to blame “the gun” because to speak the truth about what happened would offend of too many of the Democrats’ special interests. Here is some of what these Democrat officials couldn’t say out loud.

  • Democrat politicians couldn’t tell us the murderer was an illegal immigrant who overstayed his visa five years ago.
  • They couldn’t tell us that the murderer had an active restraining order that made him a prohibited possessor, and his possession of a firearm illegal. They left out that in legal documents the murderer swore he didn’t have any firearms.
  • They didn’t tell us that the murderer’s ex-girlfriend said he had mental health issues and had threatened her with violence and threatened to take his own life.
  • Democrats politicians didn’t tell us that the murderer was under a detainer request from Immigration and Customs Enforcement so that he could be deported.
  • They can’t say that the murderer was arrested and in police custody only five days ago for driving under the influence, resisting arrest, and assaulting police and medical staff who tried to help him.
  • Democrat politicians have to ignore that 85 percent of violent crimes don’t involve a firearm.

Democrats can’t speak these truths because those admissions would upset the special interests that keep these politicians in power.

Continue reading “”

Analysis: Biden’s Aggression Elevates Gun Politics Before the Election

Will gun control become a top election issue?

It didn’t seem likely for a while. The high visibility of pressing concerns like 40-year high inflation rates, a burgeoning humanitarian crisis in the ongoing war in Ukraine, and domestic culture warring over education policy have been at the top of most Americans’ minds.

But actions taken by President Joe Biden this week may very well have foisted the issue of guns back onto the radar of voters going into November’s midterm elections. Largely at the behest of a sustained pressure campaign from gun-control groups, President Biden announced his new nominee to head the ATF on Monday. He also announced the accelerated release of the final ATF rule banning “ghost gun” kits.

Either action taken on its own would be enough to raise the political stakes. Gun control by executive fiat is a policy route that draws the ire of gun owners and energizes gun-control advocates. But combining that announcement with the another attempt to successfully confirm a permanent ATF director takes the political stakes up a notch.

Getting a permanent ATF director confirmed is a tough battle in any political environment, as evidenced by the fact that only one director has been confirmed since 2006. The Trump administration was not even successful in confirming a nominee despite Republican control of the Senate at the time.

But the failure of David Chipman’s nomination to the ATF director role was perhaps the most high-profile political loss for Biden thus far in an administration that has seen its fair share of contentious confirmation battles. The fact that the Biden administration would return to that well after burning so much political capital in vain last time around suggests a commitment to making gun control a key selling point for his party.

Dettelbach may not have the same political baggage as his ill-fated predecessor. Chipman was a professional gun-control advocate employed by Giffords prior to his nomination. He also had a history of making controversial and derisive statements about the industry and gun owners he would be in charge of regulating at the ATF. Plus, serious concerns about his character while working as a federal agent were uncovered after his nomination.

Dettelbach supports many of the same gun restrictions Chipman did. He was endorsed by the gun-control groups during his failed 2018 AG campaign, but has never directly worked for them like Chipman did. He has used heated rhetoric to question the integrity of Ohio’s elections. But much of his background is still unexplored to this point.

The renewed push for a permanent ATF director is likely part of the White House’s attempt to dissuade voter concerns over rising crime. Dettelbach’s background as a prosecutor and the bipartisan support he has received thus far from other prosecutors and law enforcement officials provides some support for that idea.

However, Dettelbach is on record as supporting contentious gun-control policies like “assault weapons” bans and universal background check mandates. His backing of those policies will undoubtedly raise the salience of gun politics alongside crime concerns in his upcoming confirmation battle.

The president is taking a political risk by announcing another gun-control advocate to lead the agency charged with regulating the firearms industry while releasing controversial new gun regulations. It isn’t immediately clear this nominee will fare better than the last in terms of securing the support of moderates in the Senate, and another tense confirmation fight this close to election season could be a political liability for Democrats. At the same time, his final “ghost gun” kit ban has already mobilized Republican political opposition, and the forthcoming pistol brace ban–which will directly impact millions of Americans–will only add more fuel to that fire.

The President’s handling of gun policy has been underwater for nearly a year. Now, Democrats as a party are polling behind Republicans on guns too.

As election season draws nearer, it’s unclear how enthusiastic moderate Democrats from vulnerable states will be to vote for an ATF candidate with an established history of support for gun restrictions.

But it is clear that the President has set in motion the potential for gun politics to be a motivating issue for voters just months away from a midterm election poised to deliver serious Republican gains. How will voters react?

More Gun Control Is Not the Solution, Most Voters Say

In the wake of Tuesday’s mass shooting on a Brooklyn subway train, most voters don’t think more control laws will prevent such incidents.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 51% of Likely U.S. Voters don’t think stricter gun control laws would help prevent shootings like the one Tuesday that left 29 people injured in Brooklyn. Thirty-eight percent (38%) think stricter gun control laws would help prevent mass shootings, while another 11% are not sure. These findings are virtually identical to a March 2021 survey, when President Joe Biden called for new gun control measures in the aftermath of two mass shootings. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The survey of 1,000 U.S. Likely Voters was conducted on April 12-13, 2022 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Why not just say it plainly? Biden is a bald faced liar, and always has been.

Biden Is Truth-Challenged When It Comes to the Second Amendment (and Much Else)

Since taking office, Joe Biden has been busy weaponizing the federal government against Americans who make or desire to purchase firearms. Naturally, he defends this by trotting out false claims about the Second Amendment. A favorite of his is the statement that when the Second Amendment was adopted, people couldn’t buy a cannon.

He’s taken to task for that assertion in this Truth about Guns post. 

Since he first made that statement, it has been refuted several times, such as in this article by Robert Wright.

Does Biden know or care? Of course not. The truth or falsity of a claim doesn’t matter, only advancing his agenda.

Even if it were true that the Second Amendment doesn’t allow anyone to buy a cannon, that would not logically lead to his conclusion that the feds should prevent buying all kinds of other firearms. Neither truth nor logic are of any concern to Biden.

If you’d like to be well armed to argue with Bidenistas over the meaning of the Second Amendment, I suggest reading America, Guns, and Freedom by Miguel Faria.

The Brooklyn Subway Attack Just Unraveled the Gun Control Argument Presented in NYSRPA v. Bruen.

The attack that occurred in New York City subway yesterday is proof positive that gun control, as envisioned by the Gun Control Industry and like-minded politicians, simply does not work. Honest, hard-working people were going about their day in Brooklyn, headed to work. Thanks to the intransigence of their local and state governments, these people were completely disarmed, left to the mercy of someone who’d planned his attack to do the most damage possible.

“First responders” were too late to do anything about the shooting. They always are.

As a former police officer, I know the sad truth. We virtually always respond to events after the fact. We rarely prevent them from occurring. What stops bad people from doing terrible things is good people. Good people who are there, at the scene, and armed.

New York City’s Mayor, Eric Adams, a former NYPD officer, knows this, but like so many before him, he chooses to ignore it. Instead, he spews the same old media-friendly prescriptions of increasing the number of police in NYC’s Subways. It’s all just security theater that will continue to leave the city’s residents vulnerable to the rising crime and violence that have plagued the city.

 

Subway crime is hardly unusual. From February 21 to February 27 alone, 55 subway crimes were reported. That’s compared to 18 in 2021. NYC had a 205.6% jump in crime. New Yorkers can actually track the crime that’s afflicting their city on the NYPD’s own website.

Subway crimes stats increased 72.4% for the most recent 28-day period, and 72.8% year-to-date compared to the same time last year, the data shows. Hate crimes have jumped up 200% and the total crime index jumped up 47%.

This has become the new norm for the city’s straphangers.

 

The irony of this is thick. In her arguments last year before the Supreme Court against lifting New York’s “may issue” concealed carry permitting system — which, in practice, is a no-issue system, except for the rich and powerful — New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood cited the city’s subway system as an example of why legal concealed carry by average citizens must continue to be banned.

Here’s how her exchange with Justice Samuel Alito went . . .

Continue reading “”

UNREGULATED “GHOST GUNS”

I think it’s high time for manufacturers of unfinished frames to start suing the heck out of Everytown for Gun Safety.

But gun safety advocacy groups, like Everytown for Gun Safety, which pushed the federal government for years to take action on ghost guns, applauded Biden’s moves and insisted that both Dettelbach’s appointment and the finalized rule will help combat gun violence.

“Ghost guns look like a gun, they shoot like a gun, and they kill like a gun, but up until now they haven’t been regulated like a gun,” said John Feinblatt, Everytown’s president. (link)

Feinblatt isn’t stupid. He isn’t ignorant. He isn’t mistaken.

He is a liar.

Privately manufactured firearms are firearms, and are regulated as such. A prohibited person may not build one. A prohibited person may not possess one. They may not be manufactured with the intent to sell, only for personal use. All that before the Biden administration’s new rule.

Certainly the Department of Justice and ATF are aware of that.

Seven men charged with guns trafficking in Inland Empire, ‘ghost guns’ among 30 firearms seized
Seven men have been arrested and charged with multiple federal firearms- and drug-related offenses as part of a federal investigation that recovered seven automatic weapons among a haul of so-called ghost guns, officials said Tuesday.
[…]
Most of the guns were privately made firearms bearing no serial numbers or identifying marks, commonly referred to as “ghost guns.”
[…]
Damon Moore, aka “Damage,” 27, of Bellflower was charged with engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license, being a prohibited person in possession of a gun, and distribution of methamphetamine.

If “ghost guns” are, as Everytown Liar-In-Chief claims, unregulated, exactly what US Code were these men charged under, eh? Looks like a truckload of 18 U.S. Code § 922 and 18 U.S. Code § 923 violations, but Feinblatt says it ain’t so; not too swift for an attorney. Maybe the Catholic University of America should demand his law degree back.

And a question for real attorneys: Is it a reportable ethics violation for an attorney to deliberately misrepresent laws?

I’m a bit curious about why the AP’s “Lead Justice Dept. & federal law enforcement reporter” let a demonstrably false statement like that go unchallenged. It raises the question of whether he’s an ignorant idiot, or just a fluffer for the victim-disarmament industry. (Rhetorical, of course; it’s AP.)

Bill seeks to preserve gun rights for modern nomads

I’ve known a few people who sold most of their stuff, bought an RV, and spend their time traveling the country. They established a P.O. box somewhere so they could get regular mail and hit the open road, circling back occasionally to pick up anything that might be there.

However, for these people, one thing they’ve been forced to give up is their gun rights to some degree. They can keep their guns, of course, unless there’s some other reason they couldn’t, but if they want to buy a new one? Then they have a problem.

After all, the ATF requires a home address, not a P.O. box.

A new bill, however, seeks to change that.

WASHINGTON– U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) introduced the Traveler’s Gun Rights Act. This bill would update federal law to account for various residency-related issues facing full-time Recreational Vehicle (RV) travelers, individuals with multiple physical residences, active-duty military personnel, and military spouses. Companion legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.).

“The Traveler’s Gun Rights Act removes an unfair prohibition facing Americans with unique living situations,” said Rounds. “This legislation will make certain that law-abiding citizens do not face a burdensome roadblock when trying to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

“An address is an address – individuals who rely on a P.O. Box as their primary mailing address shouldn’t have their right to possess a firearm compromised,” said Johnson. “Our bill fixes that problem.”

So far, 17 senators have signed on to their version of the bill and 28 representatives have co-sponsored the House version.

Frankly, I like what I see. Not just because a part of me would love to live such a nomadic existence–at least, I would if I didn’t have kids–but because, frankly, it’s stupid.

Once upon a time, people who were nomadic usually didn’t have the best of circumstances. Or they were retired. There were relatively few of them looking to buy guns while living such a lifestyle.

However, in this digital age, people can live anywhere and work anywhere that has an internet connection. They’re not tethered to a house like they used to be. They can work freelance or from Fortune 500 companies. It’s a new age, folks.

As such, there are going to be those who decide to buy a firearm while they’re traveling the highways and byways of this great land. Yet under current law, they can’t legally do so.

There’s simply no reason for that.

At the end of the day, people have a right to travel and live how they want to live and travel. They’re not required to have a house with a white picket fence, all so they can exercise their right to free speech or freedom of religion, so why would we require something like that so they can exercise their right to keep and bear arms?

The answer is that we shouldn’t.

Unfortunately, I don’t think this bill has a prayer of passing at this point. After the midterms, depending on how strong a majority the GOP ends up with–they’ll need a supermajority–maybe. Otherwise? Well, it’s a nice idea that should pass, but won’t.

Kemp’s pro-gun retort to challenger Perdue is glorious

Gov. Brian Kemp has signed constitutional carry into law. It’s now in effect here in the state of Georgia, which means your’s truly doesn’t need a permit anymore unless I leave the state and want reciprocity.

And since the two states I generally travel to are also constitutional carry states…

Anyway, I appreciate what Kemp did, but the truth is that we’d have liked to have seen it happen much sooner. I think everyone feels that way.

Yet, political realities are what they are.

Despite that, it’s a point of contention in the GOP primary where the governor’s challenger, former U.S. Senator David Perdue has taken issue with it not being done earlier

“I think that’s great,” said David Perdue. “It’s too bad it took four years to get it done and it’s too bad it took me getting in the race for them to get any energy to get that done, but I’m glad it’s getting done.”

Now, understand that it would have passed last year were it not for House Speaker David Ralston deciding the bill shouldn’t advance because of the mass shooting in Atlanta. I don’t really see how you can put that on Kemp.

However, Kemp had a response to Perdue’s criticism.

“Well, you had to get the votes in the legislature,” Gov. Kemp explained.  “But look, he was in the United States Senate for six years.  I don’t ever remember him pushing this bill up there.  It’d be great if they did that at the federal level.  We wouldn’t have to do it with all the states.”

OK, I don’t care who you are, that’s amazing.

Look, even though I live in Georgia, I don’t have a dog in this particular fight. I’m skeptical of Perdue’s claims that he’s the only one who can beat Stacey Abrams when he couldn’t even beat career candidate Jon Ossoff while Kemp actually did beat Abrams.

Yet either is preferable over an anti-gun Abrams.

However, Perdue’s attacks on Kemp for not doing something earlier seem more than a little bizarre considering Kemp actually got it done.

The governor is also right about how great it would be to have a law like this at the federal level. It would be absolutely amazing. Then even California and New Jersey residents could enjoy the benefits of constitutional carry.

Look, I’m not doubting both of these two men support the Second Amendment. I also know that it’s a primary and they’re going to fight it out.

However, I can’t help but feel like Perdue is counting on Georgia gun rights advocates to buy into this idea that Kemp could have just snapped his fingers at any time and made constitutional carry happen. It’s like he’s counting on the ignorance of a segment of the base he’s desperately courting, and I don’t like that at all.

Yet the governor flipped the script on him in a way that works for me.

Frankly, I can’t find Perdue  sponsoring any pro-gun legislation during his time in the Senate. As such, he probably needs to sit the gun arguments out

The DC Project, Women for Gun Rights, a nationwide grassroots organization of women dedicated to safeguarding the Second Amendment, today released a new video titled, We’re on Offense Now.

Jody Lyneé Madeira
Professor of Law and Louis F. Niezer Faculty Fellow, Co-Director, Center for Law, Society & Culture, University of Indiana, Bloomington.

It is – again – so thoughtful of them to provide such definite means of positive identification.

“The ways in which we talk about the Second Amendment are also changing, becoming more uncompromising. Many advocates hang their arguments upon the feeble nail of “shall not be infringed,” and maintain that that phrase literally means what it says – that the right to bear arms is absolute, that it cannot be compromised, that it encompasses all or means nothing.

‘[F]eeble nail‘? ‘means what it says‘? If she thinks so little of one enumerated right, what might she think about other rights?

A New Call to Arms: Rewriting Second Amendment Threats

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 7901 et seq., has nearly banished the specter of civil liability for covered gun industry entities. PLCAA was predicated on the claim that gun industry actors, including firearm manufacturers and sellers, were under siege from baseless lawsuits founded on novel legal theories. Prior to its passage, several state courts had held that these entities could be held responsible for knowingly or recklessly distributing their products through sketchy sellers, essentially turning a blind eye to business practices that contributed to gun violence.

In addition to its legal consequences, however, PLCAA had other social and cultural effects. It has helped to establish and reinforce a new narrative supporting contemporary gun rights state legislation. The claim that the firearms industry is under siege has now morphed into the assertion that the Second Amendment itself is under assault, that firearms are disfavored, and that those who own, carry, or use firearms are targets of discrimination.

The breadth and assumptions of PLCAA have also influenced recent state gun rights legislative advocacy, incentivizing measures like permitless carry. To personalize the narrative of gun rights “under siege,” gun rights advocates mobilize citizens to testify in legislatures across the country about how state law schemes infringe on their Second Amendment rights. Many of these laws have been on the books for years but were not questioned until recently. Nearly all are based on traditional doctrinal premises such as home rule and the “longstanding regulations” and “sensitive places” distinctions substantiated in Heller. For example, several state legislatures have assumed the mantle of regulating firearms and ammunition, lifting it from the shoulders of municipalities and cities.

Continue reading “”

GOA SLAMS NYC MAYOR’S LOUSY ‘TOUGH-ON-CRIME’ STRATEGY AMID THE CITY’S SKYROCKETING CRIME AND SUBWAY SHOOTING

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 12, 2022

Washington, D.C. – Gun Owners of America (GOA) slams New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ failed “tough-on-crime” policies amid today’s NYC subway shooting and the skyrocketing crime that increased 14.5 percent from 2021.

This past November, the Supreme Court heard the case NYSRPA v. Bruen which questioned whether the state of New York’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on this case sometime before the end of June.

New York State Police told the Supreme Court that citizens do not need to carry guns on the subway since there are transit police. Mayor Adams also recently increased police presence on the subway to no avail.

Aidan Johnston, GOA’s Director of Federal Affairs, commented:

“Increased police presence cannot stop every tragedy. Once again, NYC’s gun control demonstrated that it has no impact.

“You are your own first responder. We need to empower individuals to defend themselves and exercise their right to bear arms—especially in public places.

“Only by taking up arms and shooting back can Americans restore public safety and take control out of the hands of violent criminals.”

GOA spokesmen are available for interviews. Gun Owners of America, and its sister organization Gun Owners Foundation, are nonprofits dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. For more information, visit GOA’s Press Center.

Do Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapons Laws Still Reduce Crime?

A review of the literature studying the effect of right-to-carry laws shows that the weight of evidence indicates that such laws reduced violent crime.

However, more recent studies, using more recent data, tend to find that these laws cause increases in various kinds of violent crime, raising the possibility that circumstances have changed since 2000, causing these laws to become detrimental.

We suggest that these recent studies, which do not use all the available data, are seriously compromised because they compare states that only recently have adopted right-to-carry laws with states that have had these laws for many years, instead of comparing against states with more restrictive laws.

Early adopting states experienced relatively large reductions in crime corresponding to large increases in the number of right-to-carry permits. Late adopting states passed rules making it difficult to obtain permits and exercise the right to carry concealed weapons. Ignoring the fact that these late adopting states with stricter rules on obtaining permits issue relatively few permits can produce perverse results where coefficients imply an increase in crime even though the opposite is true.

We demonstrate this effect with a simple statistical test.

SSRN-id3850436

And then there were 25

Gov. Kemp signs bill allowing concealed carry of handguns without a license

Standing outside Gable Sporting Goods in Douglasville, where Gov. Brian Kemp said he bought his daughter Lucy’s first handgun, the governor signed a bill that allows Georgians to carry concealed handguns without first getting a license from the state.

Making good on a 2018 campaign promise, Kemp signed Senate Bill 319, referred to by backers as “constitutional carry.”

SB 319 allows a “lawful weapons carrier” to carry a concealed handgun everywhere license holders currently are allowed — meaning guns would still be prohibited in places such as the secured areas of airports or government buildings that have security at the entrance, including the state Capitol.

A lawful weapons carrier is defined as anyone who is now lawfully allowed to have a gun. The bill went into effect upon his signature.

Continue reading “”

Nebraska concealed carry handgun bill comes short of votes

LINCOLN — In a surprise, state lawmakers failed to muster enough votes Monday to advance a concealed carry handgun bill, called “constitutional carry” by some.

The vote to invoke cloture was 31-9, two short of what’s needed to stop a filibuster and advance a bill. It was also four fewer senators than the number who supported advancement of the bill from first-round debate.

“To say that I’m disappointed is an understatement,” said State Sen. Tom Brewer of Gordon, who has made passing the bill a priority during his six years in office.

25 other states

At least 25 other states have passed such laws. In Nebraska, it would have allowed people to carry a concealed weapon without obtaining a $100 state permit, undergoing a criminal background check and passing a gun safety class.

Brewer had worked for several weeks to negotiate a compromise to Legislative Bill 773 with the Omaha police union and police department, which had expressed concern about the bill watering down existing gun control ordinances in the state’s largest city and complicating their job of reducing gun violence.

The compromise amendment would have left in place an Omaha ordinance that requires registration of handguns. It also would have allowed for the continued prosecution of the crime of “carrying a concealed handgun” if a concealed gun was used in a long list of “covered offenses,” from robbery and kidnapping, to cockfighting and disorderly conduct.

NRA urged ‘no’ vote

But the powerful National Rifle Association urged a “no” vote against the amendment, calling it “a discriminatory attempt to place Omaha’s extreme firearm registration requirement into state law.”

Senators failed to pass the compromise amendment on a 13-29 vote — 12 fewer “yes” votes than needed.

The defeat pushed the Omaha Police Officers Association from neutral on the bill to oppose and sparked a debate over whether voting for LB 773 was a vote against law enforcement.

Continue reading “”

Once more, into the fray……….
I think they shouldn’t be regulated as a firearm at all, but getting them off the NFA is a compromise I can live with, for the time being. It would mean that a person would be able to make their own, because, even with this new ‘ghost gun’ regulatory crap, there’s nothing, except state laws, that would stop that.

Hyde-Smith cosponsors bill to reclassify suppressors with regular firearms

U.S. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), of Brookhaven, announced Monday she has cosponsored legislation to reform the regulation of suppressors and make them more available to help preserve the hearing of sportsmen and their hunting dogs.

The Hearing Protection Act (S.2050) would reclassify suppressors to regulate them like a regular firearm.  U.S. Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) authored the measure.

“Eliminating a lot of the red tape that restricts access to suppressors could help hunters and sport shooters in Mississippi avoid permanent hearing damage,” Hyde-Smith said.  “The Hearing Protection Act would make commonsense improvements to make it easier for responsible, law-abiding Americans to enjoy their Second Amendment rights and protect their hearing.”

Regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA), suppressors are subject to additional burdens that often exceed those imposed by more liberal European nations that actually require their use to reduce hearing-related injuries.

S.2050 would:

  • Reclassify suppressors to regulate them like traditional firearms;
  • Remove NFA jurisdiction over suppressors;
  • Replace the overly-burdensome federal transfer process with an instantaneous National Instant Criminal Background Check System background check, making the purchasing and transfer process for suppressors equal to the process for a rifle or shotgun;
  • Tax suppressors under the Pittman-Robertson Act instead of the costly NFA, putting more funding into state wildlife conservation agencies.

The Hearing Protection Act would not change any laws in states that already prevent suppressors, nor does it get rid of the requirement of a background check.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, American Suppressor Association, Gun Owners of America, and National Rifle Association support this legislation.

It’s not about deer hunting and they all know it, all too well.

It’s part what’s in the article, and part this:
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party [which is the Chinese goobermint] commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party. —Mao Tse Tung 1938
They want the ability to ‘command’ restricted as much as possible.

 

They want to protect the criminals from you

We must ban the guns says the leader of the party that unleashed violent, murderous mobs on American citizens to win an election and let convinced criminals out of prison because of a cough.

The fastest growing demographics of gun owners are women and minorities in urban areas who have come under siege from criminals due to COVID and Social Justice bail reform policies that let criminals go free.

Gun control will not reduce crime.

It will hinder these new demographics of fire time gun owners from buying effective tools of self defense.

Leftist, as part of their dimmer switch of violence, understand how crime and criminals can be used as effective tools of political coercion and enforcement.

Armed citizens cannot be allowed to defend themselves from criminals or the political use of criminals is voided, so the obvious solution is to disarm the law abiding citizens, not re-arrest the criminals.

Again, this is about inflicting pain on the people for trying to lives lives of self reliance.

Nebraska Constitutional Carry Set for a Monday Vote!

Next Monday, the Nebraska Senate is poised to vote on important Constitutional Carry legislation, Legislative Bill 773!  The measure is still progressing through a series of votes before it officially passes out of the Senate to the Governor’s desk.  That is why it is more important than ever that you immediately contact your State Senator and ask them to SUPPORT Legislative Bill 773 without further amendments!

Half of the Nation has now enacted some form of Constitutional Carry.  Nebraska can lead the charge for the second half to do so as well.  However, an attempt is being made to add Amendment 2106 to this important self-defense measure, which codifies Omaha’s firearm registration, stigmatizes firearms by increasing penalties for non-violent offenses, and makes “failure to inform” a felony.

The point of Constitutional carry is to make it easy and affordable for everyone to exercise their right to self-defense.  Amendment 2106 is a discriminatory attempt to place Omaha’s extreme firearm registration requirement into state law, only affecting Nebraskan’s in Omaha.  Your NRA-ILA stands staunchly in opposition to these additions to LB 773.

Legislative Bill 773 recognizes that a law-abiding adult who is legally allowed to carry a concealed firearm, can do so without first having to obtain government permission.  This ensures that citizens have the right to self-defense without government red tape or delays.  Additionally, this legislation maintains the existing concealed handgun license system, so citizens who still wish to obtain a permit may do so.

Alabama lawmakers pass bill meant to block Biden orders

Alabama is a very pro-gun state. They just passed constitutional carry earlier this year, for example, and it seems lawmakers there aren’t interested in resting on their laurels. They’re still trying to make pro-Second Amendment moves.

In fact, they just passed another law that’s bound to rustle the proverbial jimmies of the gun control crowd.

Alabama lawmakers have passed a bill intended to block state and local officials from enforcing executive orders by the president that restrict ownership or use of firearms.

The bill by Sen. Gerald Allen, R-Tuscaloosa, is called the Alabama Second Amendment Protection Act.

Allen and other Republican lawmakers have proposed similar bills since President Biden took office last year.

Democrats opposed the bill, questioning the purpose and practicality of the bill and citing the Supremacy Clause, which holds that federal law generally supersedes state law.

Rep. David Standridge, R-Hayden, the House sponsor of the bill, said people in Alabama are concerned about the possibility of presidential orders on firearms.

Standridge has said he believes states can decide whether state and local police enforce presidential orders. That state authority does not apply to federal officers, he has said.

And Standridge makes a valid point. After all, the law doesn’t dictate what laws are in effect within the state of Alabama’s borders, only what state and local law enforcement do with regard to those laws.

This will probably spark a legal challenge much like how Missouri’s SAPA did, but there are differences between the two measures.

Frankly, though, I’m not interested in hearing criticism of this measure from anyone who supports sanctuary measures at the state level for illegal immigrants. After all, this is fundamentally no different than those laws, really. The only difference is what is being tolerated.

Of course, for far too many anti-gun jihadists, guns are different. The rules are different and they should be free to enact whatever legislation they want, at least in their minds.

The thing is, that’s not how it works. Any tactic you try is fair game for someone else to give a go. Sure, what works in one policy arena may not work in another, but you can’t pretend to be offended when someone gives it a go.

So, Alabama did.

Now we’ll just have to wait for what the courts say. I suspect we’ll see similar arguments to what we’ll see in Missouri, but in the end, it doesn’t matter.

Even a decision that comes down against the Second Amendment will ultimately hurt the Democrats who are pushing this stuff. Instead of just winning for gun control, they’ll manage to epitomize the statement, “Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.”

However, truth be told, I don’t see that happening. Laws aren’t being nullified and insisting police enforce federal executive orders amounts to an unfunded mandate, which is problematic as well.

In the end, I suspect the law will fly and I suspect we’ll see a number of other states pass similar measures in short order.