Category: RKBA

Then there was 25

Constitutional Carry Passes In Georgia, Gov. Kemp Will Sign

The Georgia Legislature has passed legislation to allow the carrying of firearms without a permit, bringing the number of “constitutional carry” states to 25, and setting the stage for a political confrontation over the right to bear arms in states clinging to permit systems.

Gov. Brian Kemp says he will sign it. The legislation was backed by the National Rifle Association, which issued a statement Friday.

“The NRA paved the way for constitutional carry by first leading the charge for right-to-carry nearly 40 years ago,” said Wayne LaPierre, CEO and executive vice president. “Today, every state, and the District of Columbia, provides for the carrying of a firearm for self-defense outside the home in some form, and half the nation recognizes the Second Amendment protects law-abiding citizens’ right to self-defense as an inherent and inalienable right. NRA members have led this extraordinary brick-by-brick effort in building and expanding America’s self-defense laws and we are not done!”

“This is a monumental moment for the Second Amendment, NRA members and gun owners nationwide,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “Half the country now rightfully recognizes the fundamental right to carry a firearm for self-defense as enshrined in our Constitution – as opposed to a government privilege that citizens must ask permission to exercise. Passing this essential legislation has been a priority for the NRA for many years, and we’re thrilled to celebrate this huge success.”

Continue reading “”

Alabama SAPA

Alabama Senate passes bill to prohibit state enforcement of federal gun control measures

The Alabama Senate on Thursday passed legislation to prevent state law enforcement from recognizing federally-enacted regulation of firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition.

Sponsored by State Sen. Gerald Allen (R-Tuscaloosa), the “Alabama Second Amendment Preservation Act” notes that “the federal government has no authority to force a state or its officers to participate in implementing or enforcing its acts.”

In a statement applauding the bill’s passage, Allen declared that progressive gun control measures pose “a serious threat” to the citizenry’s Second Amendment rights.

“Any Democrat gun control order poses a serious threat to the Second Amendment rights of the people of Alabama, and it is important that we take steps to prevent this from ever happening in our state,” proclaimed Allen. “The Second Amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon, and this bill is about safeguarding our God-given rights to protect our families and homes.”

“As an elected official, I will do everything in my power to preserve the rights of Alabamians, especially those granted by the Second Amendment, and I will always push back on any proposals that seek to limit the freedoms bestowed upon us,” added the senator. “This is a huge victory for the people of Alabama and preserving our Second Amendment rights.”

Senate President Pro Tem Greg Reed (R-Jasper) commended Allen for his work in passing the legislation. The Senate leader also spoke to the Senate GOP Caucus’ efforts this legislative session in advancing legislation to protect Alabamians’ Second Amendment rights.

“The Alabama State Senate has made it crystal clear this session that the Second Amendment shall not be infringed upon in our state,” advised Reed. “Senator Gerald Allen has been a fearless champion for Alabamians’ Second Amendment rights, and I am honored to stand alongside him and our Senate colleagues in fighting against federal overreach by the Biden Administration. We will always protect Alabamians’ personal liberties, the Constitution, and the right to defend our families.”

The Second Amendment Preservation Act now heads to the Alabama House of Representatives for consideration.

Georgia House Republicans approve ‘constitutional carry’ bill to allow guns without a permit

A “Constitutional Carry Act” that Gov. Brian Kemp pledged his support for during his 2018 gubernatorial campaign was passed by Georgia Republican legislators on Wednesday.

Georgia is expected to soon become the latest state where people can carry firearms in public without a license.

On Wednesday, House Republicans passed Senate Bill 319, permit-less carry legislation that’s a top priority for state and national gun rights groups that argue carrying guns is a constitutional right that shouldn’t require permission from the government.

Many gun rights organizations have stepped up their campaign to roll back gun restrictions, claiming that liberal politicians and progressive groups like Moms Demand Action will trample gun owners with gun regulation lobbying.

Wednesday’s 100-67 party-line vote marks the second time this month that the House advanced a bill ending licensing requirements for handguns. House Bill 1358, an identical bill, had already cleared the House and is now in the Senate chamber.

Continue reading “”

So this jerk of a professor feels that if you can’t successfully stop all of the assailants attacking you with a “low capacity” mag then you deserve to die for your lack of “marksmanship training”

How gun control proponents might win over some Second Amendment advocates

The writer is a is a professor of psychology at Elon University.

I’m no expert on firearms engineering or policy, just a concerned citizen who has spent my lifetime around knowledgeable and responsible gun owners.

From this personal experience, one thing is clear to me: A considerable number of proponents of gun control seem to know very little about the firearms they seek to regulate and so often sound ignorant when discussing gun control.

Those in favor of expansive gun rights are keenly aware of this lack of understanding, making it difficult for Second Amendment advocates to take serious proposals to further regulate guns.

It’s time to stop obsessing over the nebulous term “assault weapon” and the cosmetic features that qualify a firearm as an “assault weapon.”

There is one functional feature of many “assault weapons” that, if regulated, could substantially reduce injuries and fatalities during mass-shootings — high-capacity magazines. A ban on such magazines would be a meaningful step to reduce the potential damage a firearm can cause in a mass shooting scenario.

There is no legitimate sporting or self-defense need for someone with proper marksmanship training to possess a 10-plus round magazine.

Creating a regulatory environment where the possession, sale and manufacture of such magazines could be phased out over time would be a substantial advancement from a harm-reduction standpoint. It could include a multi-year plan where low-capacity magazines would be made widely available to law-abiding gun owners before anything was banned outright.

Common-sense gun regulations (such as extensive owner training, licensing, and perhaps the registration of all firearms) that treat guns and shooting the same way we treat motor vehicles and driving are worthy of significant discussion. But this dialogue becomes challenged when the proponents of such regulation are fixated on the form of particular firearms, rather than their function.

Mat Gendle, Elon

Ukraine war reintroduces U.S. politicians to the Second Amendment
Ukrainian police should burn their gun registration records now

Will Russian President Vladimir Putin’s military overrun Ukraine like Adolf Hitler’s army overran France in 1940, or will Kyiv become Mr. Putin’s Stalingrad? Ukraine’s armed population could play an increasingly decisive role, from house-to-house fighting in the cities to guerilla strikes in the countryside. In the United States, Second Amendment supporters see Ukrainian resistance as exemplifying the virtues of an armed citizenry, while detractors are aghast at the implications.

On Feb. 23, as Russian troops stood poised to attack, the Ukrainian Parliament (Verkhovna Rada) passed a law granting citizens the right to carry firearms for self-defense outside their homes. Ukrainians could buy AR-15 and AK-47 semi-automatic rifles.

When Russia launched its attack on Ukraine the following day, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — who previously resisted liberalizing firearm laws — directed that any citizen who wanted to defend the country would be given a weapon. More than 25,000 automatic rifles reportedly were distributed in Kyiv alone.

Ukrainians obviously have no wish to be part of Mother Russia. In the “Holodomor,” the Soviet-induced famine of 1932-33, Stalin exterminated 7 to 12 million Ukrainians. Many thought the Germans would be liberators when they attacked in 1941, only to find that the Nazis regarded all Slavs as “Untermensch” (subhuman). Some would fight against both the Nazis and the Reds. The Ukrainian Insurgent Army continued to fight the Communists until 1950.

When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, Ukraine inherited Soviet restrictions on gun ownership, including strict licensing and registration requirements. Ukraine reported in 1997 that 722,739 civilians had registered firearms. According to GunPolicy.org, that left “uncounted a national stockpile of 1.5 million to 5.5 million undocumented, illicit small arms.” Illicit? When the state denies the right to have arms, subjects will do what is necessary to defend themselves. Should Mr. Putin win the current aggression, those with registered guns will be hunted down. Hunting down “undocumented” gun owners won’t be so easy.

As late as 2018, there were 892,854 registered firearms in Ukraine, compared to an estimated 3.5 million “illegal” firearms. This is the same pattern in states like California and New York, where laws requiring the registration of so-called “assault weapons” are largely ignored.

Ukraine has been the only European nation with no actual firearm statutes, though the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in 1998 — seven years after independence — issued Order No. 622, which gave government officials discretion to decide who could obtain or carry firearms. Under this corrupt practice, officials gave hundreds of thousands of firearms to their friends in the elite.

Despite this aberration, Ukraine had been gravitating toward Western values and away from Russian domination. In 2013, Ukraine’s oldest law journal, the Law of Ukraine, published an issue on the U.S. Bill of Rights. Having read my book, “The Founders’ Second Amendment,” the editor invited me to contribute an article on the subject. George Mason University Law Prof. Joyce Lee Malcolm, author of “To Keep and Bear Arms,” also was featured.

Support was growing for liberalized gun laws at that time. The Ukrainian Gun Owners Association and some political parties were demanding action. My article highlighted the right to arms as the mark of a free people. Referring to “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation,” James Madison wrote that the European monarchies “are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

In this period, Mr. Putin was promoting agitation over Crimea. On Feb. 22, 2014, the Rada ousted President Viktor Yanukovych, a long-time Soviet apparatchik who fled to Russia. The Rada then elected Oleksandr Turchynov as its chair, who immediately proposed a constitutional amendment that included the following three clauses.

First, military training was required for all able-bodied citizens.

Second, everyone had the right to defend their constitutional rights against the usurpation of power or encroachment on the sovereignty of Ukraine.

And third: “Every citizen of Ukraine has the right to possess firearms to protect his life and health, house and property, the life and health of others, constitutional rights and freedoms in case of usurpation of power, and encroachments on the constitutional order, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.”

That broad language expressed the ideals held by our Founders, which found more concise expression in the Second Amendment. The Ukrainians seem to have improved on James Madison’s draftsmanship.

Mr. Putin did not recognize the legitimacy of the new government, and four days later, on Feb. 26, 2014, Russian troops invaded Crimea. Mr. Turchynov, who was also acting prime minister and commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, fought back against Russian surrogates engaged in terrorist activities. Still, Ukrainian forces were no match for the Russians and their toadies.

Mr. Putin hasn’t forgotten. Just days ago, amid the current invasion, Pravda called for bringing Mr. Turchynov to justice for his supposed “war crimes.”

Russia’s military annexation of Crimea brought the reform efforts to a halt, and the proposed constitutional amendment was not acted on. Only when the current invasion appeared imminent did the Rada enact a liberalized gun law, and the government handed out countless firearms to citizens.

When Nazi Germany overran France in 1940, Nazi military officials posted notices that all who failed to turn in their firearms within 24 hours would be executed. French police had gun registration records, making it convenient for the Germans to find the “legal” gun owners. But many Frenchmen had not registered their guns and, despite daily reports of executions, hid them. The arms would be used by the Resistance.

I can’t be sure if Mr. Putin’s invaders have been posting similar notices, but now would be a good time for Ukrainian police to burn their gun registration records. Those who never registered won’t have that specific worry.

While the 2014 constitutional amendment was not adopted, many Ukrainians now possess arms for the very purpose our Second Amendment was enacted: so citizens can protect their freedom, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of their country, and their lives and those of their families and countrymen.

So, next time you hear U.S. politicians propose restrictions on Second Amendment rights, you’ll know what to tell them: Remember Ukraine.

Florida Gov. DeSantis has called a special session that will include Constitutional Carry

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced Tuesday he has called a special legislative session to be held next month, during which lawmakers could bring up other legislative issues, including constitutional carry.

“I would love to have property insurance, I would love to have data privacy, I would love to have constitutional carry,” DeSantis said Tuesday. “I will ask the legislative leaders, ‘Is there something that you can get across the finish line?’ And I will encourage them to do that.”

A joint statement sent by Senate President Wilton Simpson and House Speaker Chris Sprowls said the special session could start April 19.

Currently, 24 states allow law-abiding residents to carry concealed firearms without government fees or permits.

“The power of Gun Control compels you!” Vermont legislates superstition in hospital gun ban

For the longest time, Vermont stood as a curious exception among states with Democrat- dominated governments, having practically no gun control laws. Constitutional carry was the tradition since the founding of the state and was sometimes called Vermont Carry in the Second Amendment community.

That sadly changed in 2018 when a swathe of new laws like (unenforceable) background checks for private sales, “high-capacity” magazine ban, a bump stock ban, red flag laws, and raising the age requirement were passed, proving to the Second Amendment community that no state is safe from the rapacious Gun Grab Lobby even if it has a centuries-long tradition of unimpeded gun ownership and low violence rates going back to the founding era.

Continuing the assault on the Second Amendment, the Vermont legislature passed a new bill which was signed into law by Republican Governor Phil Scott last week. This new law extends the background check “default proceed” duration from 3 days to 7 days, allowing the government to further delay the exercise of Second Amendment rights when the “instant” background check system doesn’t instantly return a clear answer.

Continue reading “”

On “permitless carry” vs “Constitutional Carry”

Recently a student of mine and reader of Bearing Arms reached out and asked me a question about permitless carry. With more and more states joining the ranks of those that don’t require any papers in order to exercise a constitutional right, the terms “permitless” and “Constitutional” get tossed around a lot.

The question he posed was rather simple:

My question is why do you use “permit-less carry” and not “Constitutional carry”?

Bringing this topic up is not to vilify, call out, or argue over semantics with any of my fellow writers, content creators, or advocates. But rather to at least put out there what the most accepted definitions and understandings are of the different terms.

FYI “Permit-less” is permitless. Regardless of different spell checkers.

Truth be told, the guy that asked me the question very much so reminds me of a dynamic I saw a friend of mine was in during his early 20’s. He worked at a fancy wine store after doing some time at the liquor department at a supermarket. He read Sideways because the store was pushing the book through some promotion and wanted to embrace wine snobbery the best he could. Embrace he did (and pretty much still does today, kudos!).  Most relevant and similar to the person who asked me the question, he became the type of guy that would talk about Champagne.

Picture a bunch of people celebrating and someone declares “Get the Champagne” in a gleeful exclamation. Scene in that one guy that has to step in and say “Actually, that’s sparkling wine. Since it does not come from the Champagne province of France you can’t call it Champagne.”

My answer to the question about permitless carry was a quick one talking about what it really looks like if a state or jurisdiction actually followed the Constitution. In essence, that would mean very few, if any, infringements (requirements, prohibitions, etc.) on our right to keep and bear arms. The response I garnered in reply was being told that some content creator (not any Salem Media contractors or personalities) I know prefers “Constitutional carry” over permitless. I’m like “Great. That YouTuber uses that term. I generally don’t.”

But, ya know what? That really did tick me off. This is a teachable moment though, perhaps for both of us.

Words and terms do have meanings. Personally, I try to describe things the best I can, as accurately as possible (often with too many words). Even the most astute writers won’t please all people all the time. I was once accused by a reader, who took the time to write to me, of being “woke”, and caving to progressive ideologies because I used non-gendered pronouns to describe another person. The person I was describing in the article was an anonymous source. Call me old fashioned, or maybe too cautious, but I assumed the anonymous person should also have their gender masked as well. That explanation was not good enough for a followup response or even a “thanks”. Haters gonna hate.

In the spirit of meaning, we need to define what these two dynamics are the best we can. The United States Concealed Carry Association defines these two terms in a very specific way (the accompanying video on their page is worth a watch).

Although the terms constitutional carry, permitless carry and unrestricted carry are often used interchangeably, definitions of the terms differ.

Constitutional carry: Constitutional carry means that the state’s law does not prohibit citizens who can legally possess a firearm from carrying handguns, (openly and/or in a concealed manner) thus no state permit is required. Sometimes, constitutional carry may be conditional such as in those states that have no laws prohibiting the open carry of a handgun but which require a permit to carry the handgun concealed.

Permitless carry: Permitless carry includes constitutional carry states as well as states where an individual must meet certain qualifications, e.g., no DUIs in the last 10 years, in order to legally carry (Tennessee). Some states are fully unrestricted, meaning no permit is required for open or concealed carry. Others allow the open carry of a firearm/or handgun without a permit but require a permit for concealment.

The analogy would be that all Constitutional carry states are permitless, but not all permitless carry states are Constitutional. All men are humans, but not all humans are men.

US LawShield has their own way of discussing the nuance of the definitions.

Constitutional carry refers to the legal carrying of a handgun without a license or permit.

Stated differently, in a constitutional carry state, if you can legally possess a handgun, you can legally carry that handgun without the need for a license or permit. Keep in mind, even though constitutional carry states allow for permitless carry, age, location, and residency restrictions may still apply.

Those “age, location, and residency restrictions” are what separate these two terms.

Tennessee was mentioned as one state that has certain restrictions which would classify it as “permitless” v “Constitutional”, as does Maine. There are areas which one must have a permit in order to carry concealed in Maine, such as State Parks and Acadia. Handgunlaw.us covers Maine, noting:

The following locations are off limits to those carrying under Permitless Carry in Maine. You have to have a Maine permit or a resident permit from a state Maine honors to carry in the below listed areas.

  • Acadia National Park (Permit required; (12 M.R.S. 209 §756)
  • State Parks (Permit required; open carry not permitted; (12 M.R.S. 220 §1803) (7)
  • Regular archery hunting-deer only (Permit required; (12 M.R.S. 915 §11403)
  • Employees’ vehicles on work premises (Permit required; vehicle must be locked and firearm  must not be visible; (26 M.R.S. 7 §600)
  • Allagash Wilderness Waterway (Park Rule 2.19D) Open Carry Not Allowed.

The reason I’ll personally use the term “permitless” over “Constitutional carry” is simply because I don’t know all the laws in all the states that are permitless. I’d rather be inclusive and accurate by describing the lack of a scheme as being permitless, instead of being super technical and accurate by drilling down the classification to “Constitutional carry”. The risk of being wrong or inaccurate is too high in my opinion, even if having just a casual conversation on the subject.

This is not to say that I’m going to go out of my way (or that I advocate for people doing the same) to correct or undermine someone that uses one term over the other. Or someone that uses the terms synonymously. I’m just stating the why I use the term that I do.

This is not my Champagne. My Champagne is calling magazines clips and .45 Colts .45 Long Colts. That’s a whole other fun debate we can have another day.

As freedom marches on in the United States, and more and more states adopt the policy of not needing a license to carry, just keep in mind, like a good sweepstakes, some restrictions may apply. The headlines may read Constitutional, but the devil would really be in the details of the law. Besides, true “Constitutional carry” would mean every man, woman, child, felon, criminal, addict, mentally defective person, etc. would be allowed to carry a firearm. No?

17 Inconvenient Facts For the Gun-Control Movement

Imagine if you only read The Washington Post and only watched MSNBC and like-minded media outlets. If you did that, you might be deceived into thinking America is a regular Wild West Show of daily mass shootings. You might think guns themselves are evil and that crime is the fault of people who legally own firearms. You might even believe that an American citizen could simply go online and buy a machine gun, as former President Barack Obama (D) once told us. You might also think that suppressors are the tools of assassins, and that semi-automatic rifles with pistol grips are commonly used by criminals. Perhaps you’d even surmise that President Joe Biden (D) was making a good point when he suggested a ban on pistols chambered in 9 mm.

At best, many of these gun-control narratives are simply based on ignorance of firearms. At their worst, a considerable percentage of the mainstream media’s storylines regarding the Second Amendment are outright falsehoods meant to convince people to vote away their freedom.

Every issue of America’s 1st Freedom is filled with sourced facts and honest perspectives designed to arm citizens with the truth, but sometimes these kinds of list articles are needed to refute the shotgun patterns of anti-Second Amendment propaganda coming from the mainstream media and gun-control groups.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
Veteran pollster Jim McLaughlin observed, “Unfortunately, Americans are seeing first hand through Vladimir Putin’s brutal, military invasion of the Ukraine the importance of our cherished Second Amendment rights. The brave Ukrainian citizens have been able to thwart Putin’s military aggression by arming themselves against the Russian invaders. Americans clearly associate the importance of their Second Amendment rights with maintaining a safe, free and democratic nation.”

‘Strong 2A Support Due to Ukraine Invasion’: McLaughlin Survey

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine one month ago has stirred strong support for the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, according to the results of a new survey by McLaughlin & Associates, the nationally-known polling firm.

Continue reading “”

The Spread of Constitutional Carry Has Dealt the Moms and Everytown Their Biggest ‘L’ Yet.

A little over a year ago, I wrote about the amazing progress constitutional carry had made, though not without a number of failed efforts. The total at the time was 18 states, something that seemed unimaginable just a few years earlier. It wasn’t long ago that there were still fights to move no-issue states into the may-issue column, and may-issue states to shall-issue. No-issue is now ostensibly down to just a single state.

In other words, in the not-so-olden days, being able to carry, even with a permit, was a fight. Now an amazing amount of headway has been. With Indiana’s governor signing constitutional carry into law this week, we’re up to 24 states, making constitutional carry the most common model in the United States (it now far outnumbers shall-issue, may-issue, and no carry).

About this time last year, though, things didn’t quite look as optimistic. Yes, a few states, including “better late than never” Texas, had barely passed permitless carry laws. But Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown civilian disarmament subsidiary was only too happy to gloat about defeating constitutional carry bills in 15 states . . .

 

Now, a year later, things aren’t nearly as much fun for Everytown. We “gun extremists” managed to get the legislatures and the governors of ten of those fifteen states to pass constitutional carry either later last year, or this year. And, the legislative season isn’t over. Georgia seems poised to be next, and others may yet follow this year.

Continue reading “”

First-time ‘Pandemic Gun Buyers’™ support gun rights just as much, if not more than pre-pandemic gun owners

One in Five American Households Purchased a Gun During the Pandemic

Survey: First-time gun purchasers during the pandemic were more likely to be younger and People of Color, compared to pre-pandemic U.S. gun owners, but they share similar views on gun control.

CHICAGO, March 24, 2022 – Eighteen percent of U.S. households purchased a gun since the start of the pandemic (March 2020–March 2022), according to new survey data from NORC at the University of Chicago, increasing the percentage of U.S. adults living in a household with a gun to 46%. Over this period, one in 20 adults in America (5%) purchased a gun for the first time.

According to the FBI, an average of 13 million guns were sold legally in the U.S. each year between 2010 and 2019, increasing to about 20 million annual gun sales in both 2020 and 2021.

[large images linked]

Pandemic Gun Buyers Compared to Pre-Pandemic Gun Owners by Select Characteristics

“Increasing gun sales during the pandemic were driven in nearly equal parts by people purchasing a gun for the first time and existing gun owners purchasing additional firearms,” said John Roman of NORC at the University of Chicago. “New gun owners during the pandemic were much more likely to be younger and People of Color compared to pre-pandemic gun owners in America.”

Despite demographic differences between first-time and pre-pandemic U.S. gun owners, NORC’s experts found that the two groups have similar views on gun-control policies. Both first-time and pre-pandemic U.S. gun owners support more permissive gun policies than non-gun owners. These included policies such as expanding concealed carry, shortening waiting periods before gun purchases, and allowing teachers and school officials to carry guns in schools.

Support for Permissive Gun Policies

“First-time gun buyers’ attitudes toward gun control look remarkably similar to those of the pre-pandemic U.S. gun owner,” said John Roman. “Whether they bought a gun because of existing beliefs about gun control—or owning a gun changed their policy views—is unknown, but it is notable that the policy positions of new gun owners are so different from non-gun owners.”

Continue reading “”

The lies the media refuses to call out

The media isn’t exactly friendly towards gun ownership. We all know this, so I’m not exactly breaking news here.

However, they will still occasionally take issue with outright lies, even if they ultimately agree with the position.

There are some lies they won’t bother to call out, and this is one of them:

What is known about the links among gun prevalence, gun purchasing trends and gun violence?

We’ve known for a long time that the more access there is to firearms in a society, the more firearm violence there is likely to be. It’s been shown in comparisons of societies and U.S. states with different levels of firearm ownership.

During the pandemic, as purchasing picked up across the country, we learned there was – at least early on – a relationship between an increase in gun purchases above expected levels and a later increase in violence above expected levels.

As 2020 went on, that signal was lost, except for domestic violence, because many other things were contributing to increases in violence.

We’ve known no such thing about access to firearms.

We’ve been told that such a link exists, but when you look at the studies that claim this, you can see serious problems with every single one of them.

For example, when comparing societies or even different states, it’s impossible to truly control for other variables that may somehow impact violent crime. While the prevalence of guns may exist, so do numerous other factors that can easily contribute to the problem.

Issues like jobs, education, population density, and a host of other factors all have been argued to contribute to crime. So why wouldn’t they also be a factor where guns are easily accessible?

That’s a question the media never answers.

Nor do they seem to consider why this knowledge is so unquestionable despite crime skyrocketing someplace like Los Angeles, which doesn’t have easy access to firearms?

It’s because the media simply doesn’t care about the truth.

They’ve pushed the gun control narrative with every fiber of their being. They’ll have a gun-control advocate on the primetime talk shows to calmly discuss their point of view, but gun rights advocates are often paired with another gun-control activist so they can debate the issue, tilting the balance so people are really getting inundated with one side.

Media personalities have to know what they’re doing, just like they have to know that this idea that we know definitively that increased access to guns somehow makes violent crime higher is bogus.

They know and they don’t care.

They like these kinds of lies because they can hold up those flawed studies and say they’re only spitting facts, trusting that most people wouldn’t understand why those studies are complete and utter BS. They’re hoping you’re too stupid to learn how to read a study, learn to find the flaws in a given study, then criticize it for being what it is, an attempt to push a narrative.

Frankly, I’m kind of sick of seeing this nonsense from our media. The thing is, I don’t expect to ever see them do better, either.

No, only the proggies in Oklahoma are ‘tired’.
I think they’re tired of their losing streak.

Propaganda O’ The Day

Advocate: Oklahomans tired of lawmakers catering to gun lobby

Public Radio Tulsa | By Elizabeth Caldwell elizabeth_caldwell.jpg

(Again, nice for the author to provide positive ID for future use )

A bill allowing people to carry guns at state fairs and into government buildings is paused in the state legislature.

Don Spencer of the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association said he “worked” on HB 4138 and he’s very excited about it. He published a video on Saturday boasting to his club that one intent of the proposed law was to let people carry rifles into traditionally quiet places.

“The concern was that when we have this bill passed, the question was, would a person be able to carry an AR-15 rifle into a library? My answer was yes,” said Spencer.

Spencer said as a concession the bill was altered to allow concealed handguns in libraries. But he reassured his club it was just a first step.

“Remember folks, 2012, we couldn’t even see guns in Oklahoma. In ten years we’re going from not just seeing them to no license required.”

Beth Furnish of Moms Demand Action said legislators betray Oklahomans when they pass laws for lobbies instead of citizens.

“Oklahomans started paying attention to what our lawmakers were doing after they passed permitless carry, which was opposed by a strong majority of Oklahomans, even gun owners and Republicans. Oklahomans are getting tired of our lawmakers passing the wish list of the gun lobby,” said Furnish.

HB 4138 was written by Sen. Warren Hamilton of McCurtain and Rep. Sean Roberts of Hominy. A long list of coauthors has also been added.

It was not heard in the House before deadline Thursday. Neither Roberts nor Hamilton responded to requests for comment on their plans for their bill.

Clear Thinking About Taxing Guns

We are strange creatures. We see the world and build mental models of how the world works. Soon, those models become more significant to us than reality itself. That is dangerous when so much of our “experience” is from the news and entertainment media. We think our tiny screens show us what is really happening. We want to be carful about what we put into our heads.

Here in the USA, there are over a million violent crimes a year. The vast majority of them do not involve the criminal using a gun. At the same time, honest citizens like us defend ourselves with a firearm over a million times. Each year criminals also kill a few thousand people with a firearm. Mass murderers kill a few hundred of us. That isn’t what we see on our small screens.

The media inverts those proportions. We might think that mass murder is common and armed defense is rare. That lets special interests with a political agenda play on our distorted view of reality. That distortion is dangerous for all of us.

Three states recently passed constitutional carry legislation. That means that people who legally own a gun are allowed to carry their gun in public without asking for a permit and paying a tax. The new law won’t change how armed criminals behave since criminals who were not allowed to own a gun were already carrying their guns illegally. Breaking the law is what criminals do every day. Our gun laws disarmed the people who obey the law, and now we’ve reduced those infringements on honest people in three more states.

Now that constitutional carry passed, more law-abiding citizens will carry a legally owned firearm in public and at home. That makes life harder for criminals since the thugs don’t know if their intended victims are armed. The criminal’s uncertainty makes all of us safer. We are safer if we choose to carry a personal firearm and if we choose to go unarmed.

I studied the effects of concealed carry licensing across the United States. As you’d expect, fewer of us get our license to carry as that license becomes more expensive and more time consuming. What surprised and pleased me was that more of us take firearms training when the costs of a license go down.

That sounds counter intuitive from one point of view. If we drop the state mandate to take a firearms training class then more of us will take a class? I see why you could be skeptical.

Now consider another perspective. The state not only required a class, but they taxed us if we wanted to have a carry permit. No one would be surprised if more of us got firearms training if the state gave us a few hundred dollars. That is what happens when licensing fees decrease. We were able to spend our safety budget on firearms training rather than on paying state taxes and fees. We’re wealthier because the state isn’t taxing us as much, and now we can afford to take more firearms safety training.

That isn’t what the anti-gun Democrat politicians told us would happen. They said that blood would flow in the streets. They say the same thing each time a state considers removing the taxes and regulations on honest people who want to defend themselves with a personal firearm.

Whether we believe the politicians or not depends on the models of human behavior we carry in our heads.

Ask yourself if these anti-gun politicians were right. Did disarming the law-abiding victims make us safer? We already have over 23 thousand firearms regulations. In contrast, there were 21 states that already allowed ordinary citizens to carry a firearm in public without a permit. When you listen to the news and hear stories of violent crime, are those stories from states where honest citizens are armed or from states where honest citizens have been disarmed? Does the disarmament model actually make us safer?

It is nearly impossible to get a carry permit in parts of California, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and in Maryland. Cities like Los Angeles, New York City, Springfield, Camden, and Baltimore are some of our most violent cities. If disarming honest citizens made us safer then we should see the results on the nightly news. What do you see?

We all want to stop violent criminals. Some people decided that guns were bad so they passed laws that disarmed the people who obey the law. I think that model of human behavior is incomplete. I like it when the good guys can defend themselves. That happens over a million times a year. I think that model of human behavior gives us better results than disarming the victims.

There is a bit of good news that we don’t see reported yet. We are not all the same. Some of us were able to pay the thousand-dollar tax in order to protect our families with a firearm. Many of us couldn’t afford that much. Removing some of the fees and regulations on armed defense means that more of us can now afford a gun and self-defense training. More of us will be armed at home and in public. Fewer of us will be unarmed victims. More poor people can defend themselves from violent criminals.

That helps the people who need help the most. I like that, and so do most of you.

Constitutional Carry in Indiana

Finally, after a dozen years of trying during which it died in House or Senate committees time and time again, constitutional carry legislation was signed into law by Governor Eric Holcomb yesterday. [the 21st]

The permit repeal, called “constitutional carry” by gun-rights supporters in reference to the Second Amendment, was criticized by major law enforcement groups who argued eliminating the permit system would endanger officers by stripping them of a screening tool for quickly identifying dangerous people who shouldn’t have guns.

Twenty-one other states already allow residents to carry handguns without permit — and Ohio’s Republican governor signed a similar bill last week.

Indiana State Police Superintendent Doug Carter joined leaders of the state’s Fraternal Order of Police, police chiefs association and county prosecutors association in speaking out against the change.

Carter, wearing his state police uniform, stood in the back of the Senate chamber as the bill was being debated. He said after the vote that approval of the measure “does not support law enforcement — period.”

That bit of performative BS from Superintendent Carter was just gratuitous. “Bad guys might carry a gun without a permit!” is just an idiotic argument. Bad guys already carry guns without permits, because they’re bad guys. They don’t care about gun carry permits any more than they care about robbery or murder permits. That’s how you know they’re the bad guys. The permit process, no matter how streamlined, is only an impediment to lawful citizens who’d like a chance to shoot back.

With Ohio and Alabama having passed constitutional carry laws this year as well, that brings the total number of states with permitless carry to twenty-four, just one shy of half the country. Remember when it was just “Vermont Carry”? Heck, when this blog was started back in 2005 there was just Vermont and Alaska; Arizona didn’t become the third state until 2010, and that’s when the floodgates really opened.

Soon you’ll be able to drive from Mobile to Coeur d’Alene, Cleveland to Brownsville, Tucson to Bismark, or Harpers Ferry to El Paso, all with no permission slip for your blaster.

Yep. He’s a politician all right. He was against it, until it became law, then realizing which way the wind was blowing, he’s now for it. The only question about politicians is whether or not they’re ‘honest’ which means ‘they stay bought’.

Lee County Sheriff’s Take on Concealed Carry Bill

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed a new measure into law on March 11 that will change the way gun owners carry their guns.

No longer will citizens be required to obtain a concealed carry permit.

House Bill 272, The Constitutional Carry Bill, no longer requires citizens to have a permit but also changed the language regarding penalties for unlawful carry.

“Unlike states who are doing everything in their power to make it harder for law abiding citizens, Alabama is reaffirming our commitment to defending our Second Amendment rights,” Ivey said. “I have always stood up for the rights of law abiding gunowners, and I am proud to do that again today.”

HB 272 trickles down in Alabama to all levels, including Lee County. Sheriff Jay Jones approached the Lee County Commission in November, before Ivey signed the bill, asking commissioners to continue a requirement for purchasing concealed carry pistol permits.

“It’s about pro-community safety,” he said in November. “… The current law that’s in place [requires] a person to obtain, by a fee, a pistol permit, to carry a handgun, concealed on about their person or even more importantly, in their vehicle, as they go about their business. And it’s the business of some that I would like to address.

“The tool allows us when we encounter people, who, are generally up to no good quite frankly, in possession of a weapon because they’re not going to get a permit … Criminals aren’t going to go to the trouble of getting a permit. And we depend on that. Because as a result of that, we can confront them when we encounter them without one in a vehicle and are able, in many cases, to relieve them of those weapons, which many times, are stolen.”

At the time, three citizens spoke against Jones’ request, however, the commission voted in favor of his resolution.

Three commissioners voted in favor, while District 5 Commissioner Richard LaGrand abstained.

“You know, Jay, if this is something that helps you and the three gentlemen back there with you in law enforcement, if it helps y’all do your job, I would encourage the commission to support this,” said District 4 Commissioner Robert Ham. “And I think what I just heard is that it did.”

Now that HB272 has been signed into law, however, Jones said he supports Ivey’s efforts for Second Amendment Rights.

“[I] agree that Alabama should be strong in affirming the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” he said in a statement to The Observer. “Whether the purpose is for protection of self and family or to engage in hunting or sporting activities, the right to acquire and own a firearm is fundamental. As a Sheriff, I support citizens exercising this right and encourage the concept of responsibility by acquiring the knowledge and skills to safely handle and maintain a firearm.”

His concerns, however, are still in place, he said.

“Law enforcement professionals at all levels remain concerned that a tool utilized by our peace officers around Alabama has been removed,” Jones said. “These concerns are based on experience and knowledge gained by those who keep our communities safe every day. We will remain vigilant and our hope is that our concerns do not come to fruition when the law takes effect next year.”

“I WILL NOT COMPLY”
WASHINGTON LAWMAKERS PASS MAG CAPACITY LIMITS AS CLICHES FLY

Nothing makes less sense than politicians who know zip about firearms, to say nothing of personal protection, passing laws that put restrictions on guns used by armed citizens to defend themselves, their families and in an emergency, their neighbors.

Not only does a magazine ban affect rifles, it also will create problems
for people who own pistols such as this Sig Sauer P229 Elite with its greater capacity.

Washington lawmakers recently passed such a law, and to suggest it stinks would be excessively civil. According to the affected gun owners whose remarks I’ve read on social media, the Evergreen State is taking on a shade of brown, and it’s got nothing to do with fall colors.

Long story short, the legislation prohibits the import, sale, trade or manufacture of a “large capacity magazine,” which is defined as an “ammunition-feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition…” As one might guess, this set off a buying frenzy, because—and here’s the puzzling part—any such magazines owned prior to the July 1 effective date will be “grandfathered in.” That is, the owners can keep them.

I can hear you all wondering, “How are they going to enforce this?” Magazines don’t have serial numbers, and if somebody has a garage full of them, how would anyone prove that individual didn’t have all of those magazines six months ago?

I happen to own a trio of 25-round magazines for my Ruger 10/22, which—believe it or not—falls within the initiative-adopted definition of a “semi-automatic assault rifle.”

It is imperative for you folks in other states to remember Washington is considered something of a “test tube” state by the gun prohibition lobby. It used to be California, but the Pacific Northwest has become the new petri dish for all manner of gun control nonsense to see what can be passed, and what can’t. What is tried in Washington this year might be coming to a state legislature near you next year.

Outbreak of Clichés

As noted earlier, nothing makes less sense … except perhaps for how some people react on social media to a gun restriction anywhere in the United States.

It’s the same all over, whether in New Jersey, Oregon, California, and Massachusetts; pick a state with a new gun control law and I guarantee you will hear or see the following:

“I will not comply!” pops up first, frequently followed by “I had this tragic boating accident.” What may have been amusing a dozen years ago has lost its oomph. Besides, trying to be clever to get around a dumb gun law can end badly, and such claims are juvenile at best.

At this writing, plaintiffs in a federal case challenging California’s “high capacity” magazine ban had filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court for review of their case, known as Duncan v. Bonta. They won twice, at trial and then on appeal to a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, but then the court held an en banc re-hearing with 11 judges, and they reversed.

So, since Washington is also in the Ninth Circuit, we’ll all probably see authorities in that state pushing hard to prevent the high court from reviewing the Duncan case. It is time for the Supremes to take such a case to further define the parameters of the Second Amendment. Let’s hope they are very broad.

Just for edification, the 10-round limit applies to pistol magazines as well as those for rifles. Suddenly, owners of striker- fired Glocks,  Springfields,  Smith & Wessons, SIG SAUERs and other popular pistol brands and models are paying attention. It’s not just guys with rifles who are being targeted. Handgunners are in the crosshairs as well.

I inquired with a couple of pals at the National Shooting Sports Foundation about the origin of the “magic” 10-round limit. Whose idea was that? Neither of my contacts was certain, but it appears to have originated with someone in the gun control lobby, once again demonstrating a lack of firearms understanding evidently rampant among that bunch.

The authors call the 2nd amendment “dangerous”, a violation of international law, and say right to carry laws cause “assassinations”

Dad calls people like this: ‘overeducated idiots’.

The SCOTUS decisions in the Heller, McDonald & Caetano cases show these ‘academics’ to be precisely that.

Can States Block or Heavily Restrict the Second Amendment Constitutional Right by Following the Design of Texas Bill 8?

Abstract

The second amendment regarding the right to bear arms is regarded as one of the most problematic provisions in the US Constitution. Despite its historical roots, “bearing” arms for personal self-defense might no longer be suitable for the 21st century in light of recent jurisprudence and sociology findings. Freedom and autonomy are the foundation upon which the bill of rights was drafted. The bill of rights offers protection for individuals against state interference by granting them, inter alia, the right to bear arms for self-defense, right against self-incrimination, and due process rights. Nonetheless, the Texas Senate Bill 8 was passed to limit the Roe v. Wade right to abortion only to the first six weeks of pregnancy – essentially obliterating Roe v. Wade. The Texas Senate Bill 8 design allowed it to withstand the initial consideration by the US Supreme Court. In this research we ask three interrelated questions. First, does the Second Amendment right constitute an afront to International Law’s right to life under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”) and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”)? If yes, can states adopt a design similar to Texas Bill 8 to ban or extensively regulate the second amendment right? Finally, what are the intrinsic differences between the right to bearing arms and the right to abortion? If they are intrinsically different, this research calls for examining each of them under a different scrutiny standard. In order to answer the last question, we assess two landmark cases regarding abortion and right to bear arms currently pending before the US Supreme Court, in an attempt to predict the future of those rights.