Category: RKBA

Just how many defensive gun uses are there each year?

Gun control will be a hot topic for a very long time. However, one area that doesn’t get discussed nearly enough is the total number of defensive gun uses.

While the media spends a lot of time talking about how many people die from gunshots each and every year–typically conflating suicides with homicides–in an effort to advance a gun control agenda, they ignore the many times law-abiding citizens use firearms defensively every year.

But just how many defensive gun uses are there?

How often are firearms used defensively in the United States? According to the most-recent study, about 1.6 million times annually. Over a lifetime, about a third of gun owners will use a firearm defensively at least once. This recent data is broadly consistent with decades of social-science research.

The first pollster to ask about defensive gun use (DGU) was the Field Poll in California in 1976. Over the subsequent 18 years, polling companies such as Gallup, Hart and Tarrance, as well as scholars and media, conducted their own surveys of DGU. They reported results as low as 764,000 annually (Tarrance, 1994) and as high as 3.6 million (Los Angeles Times, 1994).

In 1993, Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck conducted a survey that was much more methodologically sophisticated than all the above polls. Kleck included safeguards designed to weed out respondents who might misdescribe a DGU story. Kleck and his coauthor Marc Gertz found a midpoint estimate of 2.5 million DGUs annually, with a possible range of 2 to 3 million. Their study is described in the Kleck and Gertz article, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun,” in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology (1995), which is available on the web, and is further described in Kleck’s 1997 book Targeting Guns. The book and the article also examine all previous surveys.

Oh, but some claim, Kleck’s work has been debunked.

Has it, though?

The same journal issue that published the Kleck & Gertz study also published a response by Marvin Wolfgang. He had long been the most-influential criminologist in the English-speaking world, and he was past president of the American Society of Criminology. Wolfgang wrote: “I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country … . I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns … .

Nonetheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear … . The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.”

Wolfgang isn’t exactly an NRA supporter.

Of course, most of us have long known these numbers. We knew how many millions of defensive gun uses there are each year. It well outstrips the number of lives claimed by gunshot wounds, that’s for sure.

However, it’s interesting how even the smallest estimates for defensive gun use outstrip those numbers as well. Literally no credible study shows otherwise. Even the more heavily biased studies that put defensive gun uses at 100,000 each year still argue there are twice as many lives saved by guns than taken.

Why is the media ignoring this reality?

We all know why. They can claim they are simply neutral parties in the debate all they want, but they always seem to miss this. Even if they report the studies themselves, they never seem to make it into later stories about guns and gun control.

But the number of gun deaths always does.

Funny how that shakes out, isn’t it?

Politics vs. Reality: Iron Sharpening Iron ~ or Not

There’s nothing ambiguous or convoluted about it, and it hasn’t been re-written or redefined by “the gun lobby” in recent years, as our opponents like to suggest. Writers going all the way back to the founding have supported our interpretation that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” means what it says and is enforceable against the states as a fundamental right.

I think we can all agree on this, so where’s the problem?

Just because we agree on the basics, doesn’t mean we all agree on the details. Some will loudly proclaim that the right to arms is absolute and limitless. They advocate for no limits whatsoever on any sort of armament whatsoever, from machine guns to missiles, to nukes. If it’s an armament, they say, then it’s covered by the Second Amendment. Others draw a line at typical, man-portable arms commonly found in an Infantry squad, while others draw a wavering line at the typical arms of an average, individual Infantry soldier, sometimes excluding “crew-served” weapons systems or man-portable missiles.

It used to be pretty common to run into “gunnies” who would argue against civilian possession of any full-auto or other NFA items, and some who would defend laws against those “ugly, black guns.” Thankfully most of those folks have now realized their error, but there are still folks who see themselves as on our side, who draw lines and/or limits that you and I would strongly disagree with.

That doesn’t make them evil. It just makes them wrong, misinformed, ignorant, or even possibly, more thoughtful and better educated than you and me. We can’t rule out that possibility until we’ve thoroughly studied their position and their rationale for holding that position. Then there’s the Supreme Court’s tortured definition of the right applying only to arms that are “in common use” among the populace while failing to account for future innovations and the decades of restrictions that kept certain arms and accessories out of “common use.”

Beyond the debate over how far, or not, the Second Amendment extends, there are debates within the community over whether certain, specific policy proposals are justifiable under the Second Amendment, or whether the “obvious good” (as some people see things) of certain policies might outweigh the constraints of the amendment. Then there’s the issue of incrementalism. Some among us will argue that repealing or reforming a portion of a bad law, is still supporting the erroneous foundation the law was originally based upon. For example, under this argument, support for legislation to remove suppressors from the NFA and treat them as firearms under the GCA, would be a traitorous compromise, because, they say, it is unconstitutional to regulate suppressors at all. This sort of “principled opposition” represents a minority, but it’s enough to throw a monkey wrench into efforts to undo restrictions piece-by-piece, the way most of those restrictions came about.

The point is, there are a wide variety of beliefs and opinions among, even very dedicated Second Amendment advocates, and disagreements are unavoidable.

The critical question though, is how do we handle those disagreements?

Continue reading “”

Hmm. I’ve never been ‘reasonable’, and I’ve never been sorry about that either.

Sorry, but gun owners are done being “reasonable”

As gun owners, we often find ourselves as something of a political football. We’re the group that has the most at stake when it comes to many gun control laws.

By and large, we don’t support them. After all, we know that it’s not as easy to buy a gun as it’s often portrayed in the media and we know how criminals actually get their guns.

Many people know that we don’t support these laws. That doesn’t stop them from thinking we should.

I’m not even sure why this is an issue that continues to be debated, argued and defended. Background checks and time limits are not taking away anyone’s rights. To own muskets and flintlock pistols is your right. Even a dueling pistol could be tucked away should the need arise to awaken at dawn for a meeting with your wife’s lover in a field. This event would need to be planned and witnessed, with the winner going to prison of course.

I can’t imagine gun owners not being appalled by what has occurred repeatedly at the hands of the irresponsible few. It seems to me the responsible gun owners would support stricter controls knowing that, if the gun violence continues to play out, severe gun laws will be inevitable for all.

Taking guns out of the hands of unstable and violent shooters would save some of the 38,000 Americans who die from gun violence every year in the United States. That’s worth more than a thought and a prayer.

And yet, how would you take guns “out of the hands of unstable and violent shooters” universally? We already have numerous laws on the books at both the federal level and state level that are meant to do just that, and yet, nothing.

But then again, the author can’t imagine gun owners not being appalled at what happens. Well, we are appalled. No rational human being could look at something like a murder and not be appalled.

Where she goes off the rails is the idea that we should somehow support stricter gun control because of it.

The truth is that we were reasonable in 1934 and in 1968. We set aside our rights for the greater good and gun owners watched as the gun they bought at a hardware store in 1930 become a heavily restricted weapon that they had to get permission to buy. They saw laws passed in 1968 not only not reduce violent crime but seemingly encouraged it to skyrocket.

Time and time again, we played nice. We gave a little ground so that we would seem reasonable. Now we have background checks when we go to buy a gun and we’re told that simply isn’t enough.

Well, you know what? We’re done being “reasonable.”

We’re finished with it because none of this is reasonable. No one wants to stamp out advocacy for communism, despite all the unmitigated evil that philosophy has illustrated and the untold suffering it has dropped on the human race, all because free speech matters. Yet we’re supposed to step aside and allow our right to keep and bear arms to be ripped to shreds in the name of appearing reasonable?

This from someone who still equates the Second Amendment to muskets?

And where’s the fact that none of this stuff has actually worked? We watched gun control be passed at state levels for decades as violent crime soared, yet when gun laws started being liberalized, we saw the rates decline. While correlation doesn’t equal causation, the truth is that if the lack of gun laws caused crime to increase, we should have seen the opposite.

We didn’t.

The truth is that this demand that gun owners acquiesce to every demand by gun control advocates is what is truly unreasonable and we’re done. We’ve long been finished.

Well, Whaddya Know… Stats Validate What Gun Owners Have Been Saying For Years

A common narrative from anti-gun activists asserts that more guns equal more crime. But those of us who own guns have known this storyline to be false all along. It never made sense, and now we have data to prove it.

According to a recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, there is a direct correlation between gun ownership and crime, but that correlation doesn’t align with the storyline from the “guns are bad” crowd. In fact, shocker… it shows just the opposite.

The NBER analysis used Tennessee’s database for handgun carry permit holders, and then cross-referenced that data with crime statistics in those zip codes. It was determined that once information from the database was publicized, in areas where gun ownership was highest, burglaries were correspondingly lower. Conversely, in areas with relatively low gun ownership, burglaries were considerably higher:

“Our analysis suggests a post-publicization relative decrease – both in absolute and in percentage terms – in burglaries in zip codes with higher numbers of gun permits, relative to zip codes with median numbers of permits, and a post-publicization relative increase in zip codes with fewer gun permits: our estimates suggest an 18% relative decrease of burglaries in those zip codes with the largest number of gun permits.”

Well, who could have guessed such a sharp contrast? Anyone with half a brain, that’s who.

If a criminal is considering what areas and homes they want to target, there are a few factors they will weigh. Certainly, a burglar is going to want to focus on a residence that will have valuable belongings which they can take, but the first thing they’re going to assess is their own well-being. It’s human nature.

A house or apartment with a big Rottweiler or Dobermann Pincer? That could certainly deter a burglar. The same can be said regarding a residence with a sophisticated security system. Burglars certainly want to avoid getting bitten by a big dog or having police arrive at the scene of a burglary while it’s in progress. But as much as criminals dislike dog bites and jail time, what deters them most is the prospect of getting their heads blown off in an attempted burglary.

Responsible gun ownership is a good thing. Gun owners give criminals a serious reason to reconsider burglarizing someone’s home. Government officials thinking of becoming overly tyrannical must remember that they have an armed populace; and in some cases, that populace is heavily armed. Even foreign adversaries can be deterred by America’s gun-toting public, as was the case with both the Japanese in World War II and the Soviet Union years later.

It turns out that bad guys avoid messing with good guys who have guns.

By Jordan Case

Sen. Rick Brattin Amends Bill to Exempt Firearms and Ammunition from Sales Tax

JEFFERSON CITY —This week, State Sen. Rick Brattin, R-Harrisonville, successfully added language to House Bill 1606 exempting all purchases of firearms and ammunition from state and local sales tax in Missouri.

“Across our nation, there is a movement by anti-gun forces to tax guns out of existence,” said Sen. Brattin.  “We have to fight back against this and one way we can do that is stopping the unconstitutional taxing of our guns and ammunition. The Second Amendment is a basic constitutional right and there’s no reason any government should be taxing that right or putting up deliberate barriers to keep Missourians from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”

Senator Brattin was elected to the Missouri Senate in 2020 after previously serving four terms in the Missouri House of Representatives and two years as Cass County Auditor. He serves as Vice-Chair of the Education Committee and also serves on General Laws; Local Government and Elections; the Joint Committee on Government Accountability; and Seniors, Families, Veterans and Military Affairs. Senator Brattin lives in Harrisonville with his wife, Athena, and five children. They are members of Abundant Life Church in Lee’s Summit.

Gov. DeSantis predicts Florida will pass constitutional carry
The governor is sure the bill will pass, but he did not say when.

At a press conference Friday morning in Williston, Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis predicted the legislature will pass constitutional carry, but he didn’t say when.

“Well, the one thing I wanted the Legislature to do, and I think we will do it — I can’t tell you exactly when — but I’m pretty confident I will be able to sign a constitutional carry into law in the State of Florida,” DeSantis said.

DeSantis said it is just a matter of time, and he took a swipe at Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, who oversees Florida’s Concealed Weapon and Firearm Licensing program and is running to replace him as governor.

“We used to be a leader on the Second Amendment — there’s like 25 states that have already done it, and I think if you look now, you have a situation where the official in charge of these permits doesn’t support Second Amendment rights. So why would you want to subcontract your constitutional rights to a public official who rejects the very existence of those rights?” he said. “So, the Legislature will get it done. I can’t tell you if it’ll be next week, six months, but I can tell you that before I am done as governor, we will have a signature on that bill.”

There are several options DeSantis could use to prompt the legislature to consider a constitutional carry bill.

During the special session next month, which will address home insurance issues, he could issue a “communication from the governor” — a formal message to House and Senate leadership, telling them to consider constitutional carry during the special session.

After the special session ends, DeSantis could issue another proclamation calling the legislature back for another special session for the “sole and exclusive purpose” of considering constitutional carry.

Ukrainian Politician Calls for More Civilian-Owned Guns, Support From American Gun Owners

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.”

Eric Swalwell Deploys More Lies About the Lies He’s Been Telling About Gun Control for Years

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. forms gun rights group

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.

California Gun-Grabbers Are Scapegoating Lawful Gun Owners (Again)

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.”

Continue reading “”

Quote of the day—Ammal Hassan

Ammal Hassan
April 26, 2022
What The Hell Does Elon Want With Twitter Anyway?
Really? Musk has repeatedly said it’s because Twitter has been hostile to free speech. He has literally said:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519073003933515776

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1507777261654605828

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.

MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL Who’s the dumbest one of all?
I never expect much sense from victim-disarmers, but the CT Mirror’s Mark Robinson may have set a new low bar.

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.

Perhaps Robinson could spend some time perusing Connecticut General Statutes regarding firearms. Our Gun Culture Primer might help, too.

Until then, he should keep his mouth shut and avoiding proving himself an ignorant fool.

Colorado town scales back gun control proposals

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.

But public outcry forced one city to at least scale back its attempts at gun control.

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.

TN: House Passes 18-20 Year Old Adults Eligible for Carry Permit

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.

Across the nation, permit holders have shown themselves to be more law-abiding than police officers.

Pro-Gun Group’s Increasing Power and Influence Upsets All the Right People in Oklahoma.

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.

Continue reading “”

What journalist doesn’t get about “ghost guns”

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.

Take this story from the Las Vegas Review-Journal by Clarence Page titled, “What the right doesn’t get about ‘ghost guns’”

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:

Continue reading “”

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.

Is Carrying a Gun Provocation to be Attacked

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.

Continue reading “”

This was ruled on by the Supreme Court way back in 1968 in Haynes v U.S.

Excluding Criminals from Gun Checks is Bad
Biden/Harris Gun Plan Omits Criminals. New Plan Only Affects Innocent People

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.