Category: RKBA

Protecting Second Amendment rights from Washington

SOUTH DAKOTA GOVERNOR KRISTI NOEM:

The Constitution is specific when it comes to our right to defend ourselves. The words boldly declare, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The fact that I will defend that right is an important distinction between myself and politicians like President Joe Biden , who said from the White House in April of last year that, with regard to the Second Amendment, “no amendment, no amendment to the Constitution is absolute.” These are the words of a politician with plans to chip away at the Bill of Rights.

The Biden gun-grabbing agenda includes bans on certain firearms, gun buyback programs, lawsuits targeting gun manufacturers, and restrictions on private firearm transfers that fundamentally end gun shows. I am 100% against federal politicians restricting gun rights because I stand with our founders who wrote this country’s founding documents.

The Constitution recognizes an existing natural right of all people to be free from government oppression. It also allows personal protection through the right to keep and bear arms. I have stood strong to protect the rights of my people here in South Dakota. Those on the extreme Left have opposed my thoughtful approach to COVID-19 and condemned my refusal to infringe on the freedoms of our citizens. I kept our state open and did not impose unconstitutional mandates. This battle for our right to bear arms will require the same fortitude and determination.

Our outdoor heritage and hunting culture are popular in my state of South Dakota, yet they’re not so popular with politicians from states such as New York, California, and Delaware. Unlike so many other politicians, I am an actual hunter. My Grandma Dorris taught me how to hunt birds when I was a young girl, and my father was the one who took me big-game hunting. Our family has made so many memories enjoying and exercising our Second Amendment rights. I have never lost that love for the outdoors and hunting, and I have passed it on to my children. Hopefully soon, I will also enjoy this pastime with my brand new granddaughter, Miss Addie. Hunting is an important part of gun rights, yet we must never forget that these rights were protected in our Constitution for another reason, too. Our founders wisely included this language to also guard against tyranny, like we experienced from Great Britain at the founding of this great nation.

Politicians should be judged by their actions. The first bill I signed into law here in South Dakota was constitutional carry. A previous governor had vetoed it, but I wanted the people of South Dakota to know I would protect their Second Amendment rights. Earlier this month, I announced at my State of the State address that I am eliminating all fees associated with permits and federal background checks for gun sales. It won’t cost a penny to exercise your Second Amendment rights in South Dakota.

I recently received the “Courage Under Fire” award from the Safari Club International . I was honored when CEO Laird Hamberlin spoke on my behalf at the event and said, “No governor has fought more to protect our hunting traditions, and we cannot wait to recognize Gov. Noem as we celebrate SCI’s 50 Years of Freedom.” He cited my record for respecting “the rights of her people by trusting them to use personal responsibility to make the best decisions for themselves, their loved ones, and, in turn, their communities.” He thanked me by saying I have been “a leader in promoting hunting, public access, and conservation across her state.” I cite this because it is an award that should be shared with the people of South Dakota who are standing strong against oppressive ideas coming from Washington, D.C.

Conservatives in this country need only look to the states for leaders who have fiercely fought to protect their rights in the past. We will continue to protect Second Amendment rights, even if Democrats have total control of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. As governor of South Dakota, I have proven I will stand strong against any attempt by Biden or a woke Congress to take away fundamental rights from South Dakotans. And I am ready to defend our constitutional right to bear arms once again and always.

Kristi Noem is the governor of South Dakota.

Eric is nothing if not determined….. and patient.

Measure derided as the ‘Make Murder Legal Act’ killed in Missouri Senate committee

JEFFERSON CITY — A Missouri Senate panel on Thursday terminated a proposal one county prosecutor called the “Make Murder Legal Act.”

The official name of the measure is Senate Bill 666, which the sponsor, Sen. Eric Burlison, R-Battlefield, said he didn’t choose.

Members of the GOP-controlled Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee failed to advance the bill out of committee on Thursday.

Burlison, however, told the Post-Dispatch that he could bring the measure back as an amendment to other firearms legislation he’s sponsoring.

“There are multiple ways to pass language,” Burlison said.

The legislation would’ve established a presumption that a defendant acted reasonably in self-defense when they use force against another person.

“I refer to it as the ‘Make Murder Legal Act,’” Stoddard County Prosecuting Attorney Russ Oliver, a Republican representing the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said in a Senate committee hearing last week.

“What we are doing with this bill is … basically saying the 6,500 assaults that are committed every single year in Missouri — that every single one of those are automatically presumed to be self-defense,” Oliver said.

Burlison said the claims are overblown.

Continue reading “”

I think 25,000,000+ AR ‘style’ rifles can be termed  “in ‘common use™’”
Now where have I read ‘common use’ before…Oh! Oh! Oh! Mistah Cahtahr!
I’ll take Caetano V Massachusetts for $500, Alex
So, guns in ‘common use’ are especially protected by 2nd amendment restrictions on goobermint?
Who Da Thunk It!

Common Use: Academic Survey Shows Over 30% Of Gun Owners Have Owned AR Style Rifles

Wake Forest sociology professor David Yamane is an active analyst of America’s gun culture and runs the Gun Curious blog. He also teaches a course in the sociology of guns. In his latest Light Over Heat video, Dr. Yamane calls attention to a survey done last year by Georgetown Professor William English.

From the survey’s abstract . . .

This report summarizes the findings of a national survey of firearms ownership and use conducted between February 17th and March 23rd, 2021 by the professional survey firm Centiment. This survey, which is part of a larger book project, aims to provide the most comprehensive assessment of firearms ownership and use patterns in America to date. This online survey was administered to a representative sample of approximately fifty-four thousand U.S. residents aged 18 and over, and it identified 16,708 gun owners who were, in turn, asked in-depth questions about their ownership and their use of firearms, including defensive uses of firearms.

English is also the author of a paper last year titled The Right to Carry Has Not Increased Crime: Improving an Old Debate Through Better Data on Permit Growth Over Time.

In the 2021 national survey, English set out to, among other things, determine exactly how prevalent AR-pattern rifle and “high capacity” magazine ownership really is among America’s gun owners. That’s not merely an academic question as the Heller decision established the “common use” standard for firearms that can’t be regulated out of existence by hoplophobic politicians.

What exactly constitutes “common use” is, of course, an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin, you-know-it-when-you-see-it style subjective legal question. But as Professor Yamane notes, Professor English’s survey found that just over 30% of gun owners report ownership (past or present) of an AR-15 style rifle. He also found almost half of gun owners surveyed report owning “high capacity” magazines, those that hold over 10 rounds of ammunition.

Yamane isn’t an attorney and neither are we. But English’s survey has turned up AR ownership by roughly 25 million (higher than the number usually quoted) and “high capacity” magazine ownership by close to 50 million gun owners (which seems low to us).

As Yamane puts it . . .

If we look at one-third to half of gun owners, I would say that ownership of AR-15-style rifles and high or standard capacity magazines is fairly common empirically.

We couldn’t have said it better ourselves. Whether you’re a fan of the “common use” standard or not, that’s the law of the land right now. And data such as these demonstrate — quite clearly — that any efforts to limit magazine capacity and ban scary-looking firearms are, by any measure, unconstitutional. That’s hopefully something that the Supreme Court’s pending decision in the New York case and others will help to further clarify.

See Professor English’s full 2021 National Firearms Survey results here.

IIRC, this is similar to Maryland’s law where you can possess magazines, you just can’t sell them in the state, and that means you can buy all you want when out of state and bring them back.
I’m not going to ‘fisk’ the release, but if the mentioned – noted anti-gun – Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health “study” and  – also noted anti-gun – Violence Policy Center, doesn’t set off your ‘Fraud!” alarm, nothing will.
And the last:
“There is currently no split or controversy in the federal courts of appeal on this issue. The United States Supreme Court has allowed appeals court decisions upholding these laws to stand.”
is – at best – disingenuous propaganda, as the 9th Circuit Court just recently overturned a District Court decision that ruled the California magazine ban was unconstitutional and this case hasn’t reached the Supreme Court for consideration yet. If that isn’t a ‘controversy’, I don’t know what is. So, the Washington State Attorney General merely confirmed he’s just another lying politician.

Washington [state] Senate passes legislation to ban sale of high-capacity magazines in historic vote

OLYMPIA — Today, the Washington state Senate passed Attorney General Request legislation sponsored by Sen. Marko Liias, D-Lynnwood, banning the sale of high-capacity magazines in Washington by a 28-20 vote. The bill prohibits the sale of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. This is the sixth session the Attorney General has proposed this legislation. Today’s vote marks the first time a limit on magazine capacity has passed a chamber of the Washington Legislature.

Senate Bill 5078 prohibits the sale, attempted sale and distribution of high-capacity magazines. It does not prohibit the possession of high-capacity magazines. The bill now heads to the House for consideration.

Continue reading “”

Letters to the Editor: You don’t have to shoot someone to use a gun defensively

To the editor: Dr. Steven J. Sainsbury pushes the absurd claim there are only 2,000 defensive gun uses per year. (“Thinking of buying a gun for self-defense? Don’t do it,” Opinion, Jan. 31)

The claim overwhelmingly relies on counting defensive gun uses reported in news articles, but that is a dramatic undercount because the vast majority of successful self-defense cases don’t make the news. Ninety-five percent of defensive gun uses involve merely brandishing a gun, and less than 1% involve the attacker being killed or wounded.

But most news stories only report on cases where attackers are killed and brandishings are ignored.

Seventeen national surveys find an average of 2 million defensive gun uses per year. The U.S. Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey puts it at around 100,000. Both show the 2,000 claim to be ridiculous.

Finally, the article labels me as a “gun rights advocate,” not a researcher who has held academic positions at the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Chicago, Stanford and Yale. I have also been a senior advisor for research at the U.S. Department of Justice.

John R. Lott Jr., Missoula, Mt.

This would have been an addition, a further restriction on RKBA by adding ‘dating partners’ to the original list of relationships that the ‘Lautenberg amendment’ added to the list of people who be permanently prohibited from lawfully possessing a gun. In other words, more gun control.

Lawmakers rolling out Violence Against Women Act without ‘controversial’ provision

A bipartisan group of lawmakers announced on Wednesday that it had reached an agreement on legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that forgoes a key provision that drew opposition from gun rights advocates.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Ala.) was joined by co-authors Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) in announcing the legislation at a press conference on Wednesday.

Actress Angelina Jolie, who has been working with lawmakers to promote the legislative effort, was also in attendance with other advocates, along with Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), who have also been involved in the push.

If passed, it would mark the first time in nearly a decade that the bill has been reauthorized — a move advocates have said is necessary to update the legislation to adequately meet the needs of those it is designed to protect.

“Together, we drafted a bill that preserves the good work of the last reauthorization bill in 2013,” Feinstein said, adding the bill will strengthen “existing programs to support survivors and to prevent and to respond to domestic violence, and that’s dating violence and sexual assault and stalking.”

Feinstein said the legislation will seek to enhance and expand services “for survivors of domestic violence, including survivors in rural communities, LGBT survivors,” as well as survivors with disabilities, and strengthen the criminal justice response to domestic violence.

However, Feinstein added that the bill “is not perfect” and will not address the so-called boyfriend loophole, despite recent efforts by the lawmakers to have it included in the legislation.

In late December, lawmakers unveiled a framework for their reauthorization proposal that outlined a provision advocates said would partially close the loophole by prohibiting individuals convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence against a dating partner from possessing or purchasing firearms or ammunition. Similar restrictions apply to spouses or formerly married partners under current law.

The move marked the latest attempt by lawmakers to go after the loophole in recent years, after previous efforts were attacked by gun rights groups and Republicans as unnecessary “gun control,” though proponents have said it would save lives.

“The boyfriend loophole is a play straight from the Biden gun control agenda. It’s just gun control,” Aidan Johnson, director of federal affairs at Gun Owners of America, said in an interview last month opposing the provision.

Continue reading “”

5th-graders learn to shoot guns by using school gym as target range

A school district in Wyoming posted pictures of 5th and 6th grade students shooting targets with air rifles in a school gym.

A school district in Wyoming recently used a gymnasium as a shooting range, training fifth and sixth grade students in marksmanship during PE. Hot Springs County School District #1, in the small town of Thermopolis, shared photos of the sharpshooting session in a Feb. 2 Facebook post, and it quickly caught the attention of thousands.

McClatchy News has obtained a screengrab of the Facebook post, which is no longer publicly available. In the pictures, the children are seen aiming air rifles across the gym at a set of targets propped up against the bleachers with what appears to be plywood.

Often a child’s introduction to the world of firearms, air rifles generally use gas stored in a small canister to propel a BB or pellet out of the barrel at relatively high speed. While far less lethal than true firearms, they can cause serious harm in some circumstances. “All students passed their safety test and have been sharpening their skills,” the post said.

As of the morning of Feb. 8, the post had garnered 13,000 reactions and 5,700 comments and had been shared over 60,000 times. For perspective, the population of Thermopolis is around 2,700.

“This is what America needs more of,” one comment read.
“Education and responsible firearm ownership.”
“This is so awesome! Probably one of the safest schools in the country too,” a commenter wrote.
“I need to find a school like this for my son once he’s old enough!”
“CA masks their kids, Wyoming teaches marksmanship,” said another.

Of the nearly 6,000 comments, most are in support of the district.

Well, he’s a politician which means he’s a professional liar.

Beto’s about-face on AR-15s: “I’m not interested in taking anything from anyone”

Virtually every poll in the state of Texas shows Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke’s gubernatorial campaign is in serious trouble, but the biggest sign that the Democrat is failing to make inroads with Texas voters came on Tuesday, as O’Rourke was stumping for votes in Tyler.

Here we are in 2022, and suddenly O’Rourke has a very different message for Texas voters.

Speaking to reporters, O’Rourke also took a question about his controversial stance on guns and remarks made in 2019 about taking away AR-15s and AK-47s.

“I’m not interested in taking anything from anyone. What I want to make sure that we do is defend the Second Amendment,” he said. “I want to make sure that we protect our fellow Texans far better than we’re doing right now. And that we listen to law enforcement, which Greg Abbott refused to do. He turned his back on them when he signed that permitless carry bill that endangers the lives of law enforcement in a state that’s seen more cops and sheriff’s deputies gunned down than in any other.”

So the guy who said he was coming for our guns now claims he wants to defend the Second Amendment, yet in the same breath declares that protecting our right to keep and bear arms means criminalizing carrying a gun without a government permission slip? Does he actually think anyone is going to buy his supposed newfound respect for the Second Amendment when he keeps belittling it?

Continue reading “”

I Was Anti-Gun And A Pregnant Mother When Home Invaders Broke Into My House

(SOFREP invites reader submissions for publication. Today we offer you this harrowing story from one of our members named Marcie who writes about how a home invasion while she was pregnant and home alone with her other child changed her entire worldview when it came to gun ownership.)

Few people would look at me now and think that, but yes, I used to believe that guns were a danger to society.

The media likes to show us gun violence all the time, with the insinuation that it’s the gun, not the person, who did the crime. Rarely do they show you examples of guns being used in self-defense. Most people who promote gun control live in quiet neighborhoods where residents see guns as almost alien.

But if you have ever lived in a dangerous place, then you know the importance of guns. That’s what happened to me when I moved to Tolleson, Arizona, two years ago.

I moved there to live with my husband, who is a firefighter. After moving, my husband needed to leave town for training. So I was left home alone, pregnant with our child. I didn’t mind too much, as I thought it would be a little staycation. I couldn’t go anywhere, anyway, since our clunker of a car was in the shop.

In hindsight, I should have known that no car being at our home for an extended period made the wrong people think that both of us were gone. Sure enough, that happened. When two thieves broke into my home through the kitchen door, it happened so suddenly that I had no plan of action. My heart racing, I ran into the bathroom where I thought it was safe and took out my phone.

I frantically started to call 911. However, my phone could not get through to a responder. The bathroom was a dead zone for phone service where I lived. However, my phone was connected to my WiFi. I contacted my sister on Facebook, and she managed to call 911.

As I waited for the police to come, my heart continued to race. What if the police did not respond in time? There are many cases of the police taking too long to respond to a situation that requires immediate action, as many factors can delay response time.

As I heard the thieves rustling around the house, I wondered what they would do. Steal my TV or jewelry? That was replaceable. However, what if they found me and did something horrifying to my unborn child and me?

All these worries soon subsided, luckily, as the police did arrive in only a few minutes. After seeing the police approach my door, the thieves immediately ran away, their pockets empty. One bystander told me the thieves were armed as I was filing a report. Once again, those thoughts about what the thieves could have done to me immediately raced to my head.

It was at that point I realized I needed to arm myself. Since then, I have never left home without a pistol. I have to protect myself, my husband, and our two-year-old daughter. Chances are, you have someone you want to save. I recommend arming yourself as well with an easy-to-access pistol.

Speaking of pistol, what’s my favorite? As a woman, I wanted something easily concealable that I could fire at a moment’s notice. I wanted something powerful yet easy to use for a more petite frame.

Upon research, I chose the SIG Sauer P365. This 9mm pistol is a little under 6 inches wide and slightly above 4 inches tall, making it perfect for concealing. Despite its small frame, it holds ten rounds and packs quite a wallop. Any woman can use it to even the odds if a thief enters their home. With its small trigger, it doesn’t matter how small you are. You can fight back.

That’s my story. Since having a gun, I’ve felt safer, and I’ve found a new hobby to enjoy. If you’ve been interested in owning a firearm, now is the time to do so. I hope this article helped you learn where I’m coming from when advocating for guns.

PRESIDENT BIDEN CALLS LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS ‘THE RESISTANCE’

President Joe Biden traveled to New York City for a media event to try and show America he’s doing something about rampant crime. Instead, he blamed the Second Amendment and lawful gun owners, said nothing about holding criminals to account and repeated the same tired lies about the firearm industry he keeps at the ready – lies “fact-checked” as being false each time he’s previously recited them.

It makes no difference to the president. He’s not even trying anymore. To President Biden and national gun control groups the problem is always the gun and the law-abiding members of the industry. It’s never the criminal.

Continue reading “”

Georgia looking at enhanced weapons permits

In the state of Georgia, you’re required to have a permit to carry a firearm in any way. We’ve written a bunch about how constitutional carry is up for consideration, which is a good thing.

However, it’s far from the only pro-gun bill in the General Assembly, either.

One would basically recognize concealed carry bills from every other state. Frankly, if constitutional carry passes, that wouldn’t be overly useful.

Yet another bill would create enhanced permits here in the state.

The State General Assembly is working through multiple bills that could spell more relaxed gun control for Georgians and an even deeper partisan divide.

With the Governor’s support, State Republicans are pushing five different bills that make it easier for citizens to carry weapons.…

Then, there’s HB 903.

Though similar to the other constitutional carry bills, HB 903 takes it up a notch with the concept of an “enhanced carry permit.” Qualified adults wouldn’t need a concealed permit, but those who take a training course could take their weapons into even more places with this special license.

Representative Joseph Gullett, from Dallas, is behind it.

“I would say the constitution allows us to carry weapons and to have weapons. And I think the more accustomed you are, the more training you have, the more comfortable you are, I don’t think it’s a bad idea. I think it’s what the constitution is allowing us,” said Gullett.

Of course, anti-Second Amendment lawmakers in the state oppose this and all the other pro-gun measures.
Shocking, I know.
What I like about the bill is that it doesn’t undermine constitutional carry, but instead works with it and provides an avenue for carrying in more places.

Look, what I’d like to see is what anti-gun types would call “The Wild West.” Namely, everyone carrying whatever they want, wherever they want.

That’s not going to happen, though. Georgians may generally lean pro-gun, but they’ve grown up and comfortable with a certain level of restrictions on those rights. I’m not justifying it, just explaining it. As such, we’re never going to get there.

What does that have to do with enhanced permits? Simple. These permits help normalize the idea of guns in certain places they’re currently not allowed. That’ll be a huge benefit for a lot of people who regularly find themselves needing to go into such places but who would prefer not to have to disarm.

Over time, then maybe we can look at loosening the requirements for these permits until one day we can eliminate them entirely. But you have to start somewhere. We didn’t lose our rights overnight. We’re not getting them back overnight either.

So, we take what we can get, and I think the enhanced permits are a big step forward toward making that happen. As such, and as a Georgian, I fully support this measure and hope to see it pass. I’ll actually look forward to taking a training class in order to get a permit.

Never in a million years thought I’d say that, either.

Again, they’re so accommodating to provide pictures for positive ID

CT gooobernor says you can’t be tough on crime “if you’re weak on guns”

Most of the time, anti-gun politicians couch their real agenda with language designed to make them appear moderate; for every Beto O’Rourke bellowing “Hell yes we’re coming for your AR-15” there are a dozen Democrats proclaiming “I support the Second Amendment, but we need a few more commonsense gun safety regulations.”

It’s not that they really are moderate on the issue, of course. They’re simply trying to package their unappetizing ideology in a way that’s palatable to more people.

Every now and then, though, you’ll run across someone who’s willing to give the public a peek at what they really think about the Second Amendment, and put their authoritarian impulses on display for all the world to see. On Monday, it was Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont who made his desire to go after legal gun owners clear.

“We have more damn guns in this state than ever before,” Lamont said with more than a dozen advocates and lawmakers in the Capitol’s historic Hall of the Flags. “We have more legal guns, we have more illegal guns. You’re not tough on crime if you’re weak on guns.”

Got that? According to Lamont, in order to get tough on crime you’ve got to crack down on guns; and he made it clear that he doesn’t really give a damn if they’re legally possessed or not.

In fact, one of Lamont’s proposals for this year is all about making it easier for police to stop and question those carrying a firearm, even if there’s no suspicion of criminal activity. For Lamont and his fellow Democrats, simply exercising your Second Amendment right to bear arms should be reason enough for law enforcement to suspect a crime.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
The lie is that mandatory training saves lives.
The truth is it costs lives.
Gun-control laws often disarm minorities, women, and the poor.
The lie is that mandatory firearms storage saves lives.
The truth is it costs lives.
The lie is that gun-laws disarm criminals.
The truth is that gun-control laws disarm law-abiding victims.
That tells me that one purpose of gun-control is to impose higher costs on gun owners rather than to save lives.
The lie is that guns cause violence.
The truth is that criminals cause violence and government officials have failed to control violent criminals.

Painful Lies and Boring Facts About Being Armed

I’m in a rut. I read the endless stream of gun-control proposals and I have the same reaction time after time. Gun-control advocates promise us safety in return for further restricting the ability of ordinary citizens to go armed. Those excuses would be laughable if they didn’t cost so many lives. It is easier for us to recognize the false-claims of gun-control if we have a sense of proportion and perspective. Then we can see it is a step backwards when we create a larger problem as we work to solve a smaller one. If we actually want to save lives then we have to see the big picture and do no harm.

Ordinary citizens defend themselves with a gun several thousand times a day. Our armed defense stops tens of thousands of robberies, assaults, and rapes. It saves thousands of lives a year. Many thousands. Despite that immense virtue, nothing is perfect. We are human so there are problems with armed defense.

Gun-control runs into problems precisely because armed defense saves so many lives. To change our laws and save a few more lives tomorrow, we can’t reduce the many lives we save each day. It is hard to pass a gun-control law that will do no harm. Let me give you an example to make that clear.

Each week I analyze how ordinary people defended themselves with a firearm. I advocate for instruction, training, and practice. I encourage people to plan for lethal and non-lethal defense. We talk about avoidance and de-escalation all the time. Sure, I want gun owners to be trained, but I have perspective.

Week after week we see criminals break into a home. Grandma grabs her gun and says she is armed. The robber runs away because grandma wasn’t the victim he expected. The great news is that eight-times-out-of-ten the bad guys runs away before we have to fire a shot. I don’t see where mandatory safety training could make this self-defense situation significantly safer or more effective. 8-out-of-10 times it is already good enough.

Proportions are crucial. Firearms accidents are rare but criminal attacks are common. Yes, I ask gun owners to take training, but I know that costs money, takes time, and demands energy. Disarming ordinary citizens until they take training means that more good people will be disarmed. Maybe mandatory training saved a few people from firearms accidents but we condemned more of them to be the unarmed victims of violent crime. The unarmed victims will have to surrender or go against a criminal attacker with their bare hands. Criminals plan their attacks to beat an unarmed victim. I don’t want that, and few of us do.

Continue reading “”

Filed, of course, by a demoncrap representative name of Brad Witt (again nice they provide a photograph for positive ID)

 The bill text doesn’t – yet – specify the minimum value of each ‘luxury good’ to have the 3% tax applied, but I’ll wager the price of a gun will be “any price”.

 

Oregon bill increases tax on luxury items to help those in need

A new House Bill aimed at helping some of the state’s most vulnerable will receive a public hearing next week.

HB 4079, known as the Oregon Freedom Pilot Program, would increase taxes on luxury items. The money collected would be given out to low-income pregnant women and adults who have aged out of the foster youth program. Those who qualify would receive $750 a month for up to three years, but only if they agree to the requirements of completing a financial literacy class and letting purchases made with the $750 be tracked for analytical purposes.

“We believe those two accountability measures are going to lead to success, not only for the individuals that we enroll in the program but the program itself, as well as the taxpaying public” said Rep. Brad Witt, demoncrap-Clatskanie. “What will be required here, is that folks that choose to participate in the program and want to avail themselves to the $750 monthly payment, be required to take a financial education course and also to agree that their purchases will be monitored by an independent third party anonymously. That way we can then have a system of constant improvement on the financial literacy course, knowing what it is that we need to be instructing folks on to achieve the best results that we possibly can out of the program.”

The $750 would come on a debit card. Witt says there are no restrictions on what that money can be spent on.

Taxes would be increased to 3% on items deemed a luxury. Examples outlined in the bill include airplanes, expensive watercrafts, high-end cars, jewelry>>>>> and guns<<<<<. Witt says once each item goes over a certain price, it will be taxed.

“Jewelry would be a $20,000 threshold; we have a $15,000 threshold for items like snowmobiles,” said Witt. “Each item, the threshold pricing point was determined by what is the average cost of that item in the marketplace and we tried to get it at the very high end of that market to make sure it was luxury and not an everyday purchase price.”

HB 4079 will be heard on Tuesday in the Human Services Committee. KATU reached out to Oregon House Republicans about the bill. No one was available for an interview or to provide a statement on Friday, but a spokesperson says this bill is something they are paying attention to.

Witt says if it passes, this bill will make Oregon the first state in the country to provide such legislation.

The Perfect Label to Destroy Gun-Grabbing Democrats’ Credibility

It is a basic principle of psychological warfare and propaganda that the assignment of a name that sticks to somebody or something can make or break that person or entity.  A fictional example from the Game of Thrones series exemplifies this.  If you’re a slave in Meereen, and somebody called the “Mother of Dragons” and “Breaker of Chains” is outside your masters’ walls with an army, you’ll probably pick up anything you can use as a weapon to join a slave revolt.  If we look at a real historical example, serfs who had previously been willing to do almost anything to avoid service in the Russian Army, including knocking out their front teeth so they could not bite open musket cartridges, were eager to follow Aleksandr V. Suvorov, also known as “The Russian Hannibal.”  He took good care of his soldiers and tended to win lopsided victories with minimal losses to his own side.

Suppose instead that you’re a German soldier during the Second World War, and the Allies have named your general, Fedor von Bock, “Der Sterber” (“Let’s go get killed”) because he said the greatest thing a German soldier could do is die for Germany.  You’d probably want to surrender at the earliest opportunity, especially if you also learned that General Patton had meanwhile told his soldiers that the idea of war is to make the enemy (i.e., you) die for his country.  When your general and the opposing general have the same agenda, you have a real problem.

“Tricky Dick” stuck similarly to Richard Nixon, but not enough to keep him from becoming president in 1968.  We now have “Krazy Kamala” Harris, and “President Houseplant” (courtesy of conservative talk show host Ben Shapiro) Biden.  I came up, meanwhile, with “Hamas-American Bund” to equate the entire anti-Israel boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement to Hitler’s useful idiots of the late 1930s.

Call Them Firearm Quacks or Anti-Gun Quacks

Supporters of the Second Amendment have depicted their adversaries as “gun-grabbers,” but swing voters who do not own guns, much less hoplophobes who would probably like all the guns to be grabbed, do not care about “our” Second Amendment rights.  Everybody, however, has nothing but contempt for medical quacks — fake doctors who take desperate patients’ money and deliver worse than useless remedies in return. A quack is worse than a fraud, who merely steals money; the quack’s remedies are harmful and divert the patient from life-saving medical treatment until it is too late.

Continue reading “”

“The democrats defund the police, fail to prosecute criminals, and then tell us they are going to increase restrictions on firearms. This isn’t stupidity or ignorance. This is evil”--Joe Huffman

Biden’s ‘guns first’ approach to violent crime ignores basic facts
Over 92% of violent crimes in America do not involve firearms

With violent crime increasing over the last two years, Americans want a solution. But President Joe Biden constantly frames violent crime as only a gun problem. Again, it was the sole focus of Biden’s speech in New York City on Thursday. Even when he mentions police or prosecutors, it was in terms of enforcing gun control laws.

But this “guns first” approach ignores a basic fact – over 92% of violent crimes in America do not involve firearms. And while Biden blames guns for the increase in violent crime, the latest data show that gun crimes fell dramatically.

Biden’s proposal yesterday to “work to take those shooters off the streets as quickly as possible” is great, but with over 92% of violent crime not involving guns, why not promise to do this for all violent criminals?

Andy McCarthy: What Biden can and cannot do about crime

The U.S. Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey, in the latest year available (2020), shows that there were 4,558,150 rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults, and the FBI reports 21,570 murders. Of those, 350,460 rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults (see Table 8) and 13,620 murders involved firearms. Adding those numbers up, 7.9% of violent crimes used guns.

Relying on public health researchers, Democrats blame increasing gun sales as the cause. But while violent crime reported to police rose 5% in 2020, you can’t blame that increase on guns because gun crimes actually fell by 27%. The National Crime Victimization Survey also finds a similar 27% drop.

All this is consistent with academic research by myself and others showing that criminals are less likely to carry guns when civilians have them for protection. If a criminal pulls out a gun against an armed victim, he is more likely to be shot.

Gun ownership didn’t fuel the increase in crime over the last couple of years. Rather, people worried about violent crime and decided to arm themselves for self-protection.

It’s not hard to explain the increased violence. Many urban areas saw more than half of prison inmates released because of the pandemic, and the releases still continue. Newly convicted criminals weren’t going to prison. Nationwide, there were over 340,000 fewer inmates in jails and prisons in 2021 than in 2019. Cities cut police budgets and ordered officers to stand down in many places. New York City cut its police budget by $1 billion.

Continue reading “”

As often is the case with those who oppose this, Chief Gemboski is wrong about the 2nd amendment. It ‘gives’ nothing. It restricts goobermint as eloquently explained in the Bill Of Rights own preamble. Either they’re stupid, or purposely misleading, as the subject has been covered for many years, thus ignorance is no excuse.

Georgia Senate moves forward with proposed ‘constitutional carry’ gun law

SAVANNAH, Ga. (WTGS) — The Georgia Senate is moving forward with legislation that would concealed-carry licensing requirements for Georgia gun owners.

On Tuesday, 31 of Georgia’s 56 state senators co-sponsored the bill, which, if passed, will make Georgia the 21st “constitutional carry” state in the U.S.

Gary Glemboski, a retired Savannah police officer and Chief of Police at Hunter Army Airfield, said the second amendment is at the heart of this debate.

 “It basically says that you have the right to defend yourself, to protect yourself from harm. The second amendment gives us the right to own something that allows us to do that. Right now, in The State of Georgia, you have to get a concealed carry license from the county that you reside in. With constitutional carry, you won’t have to do that,” Glemboski explained.

Brett Curry, a professor of political science at Georgia Southern University, said the legal debate surrounds the government’s ability to limit personal rights.

“A right can be subject to limitations, you know, in terms of, the right to free speech isn’t going to allow someone to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, for example,” Curry said. However, Curry said this legislation would expand the state’s interpretation of the second amendment and would withstand a constitutional challenge. “If The Bill of Rights, including the right to bare arms, is the floor that you can’t go lower than, the state, here, is not trying to go through the floor,” Curry said, “It’s trying to actually ratchet up protection for the rights in question, as they see it.”

Background checks are one way that the government limits legal who can purchase a gun.

If passed, this legislation would mean that prospective gun owners still have to go through a federally mandated background check prior to purchasing a firearm, but they would not have to go to their county courthouse for a second background review and licensure. Glemboski said he doesn’t believe Georgia’s licensing process adds to gun owner safety.

“The way I understand it- it’s coming from basically the same database, the same information source, whether you’re purchasing your handgun or whether you’re doing a background check for a license,” Glemboski said.

Glemboski, also a firearms safety instructor, said he is a strong advocate of gun safety training. While Georgia’s neighbors, Florida and South Carolina, require between eight and 16 hours of training in order to obtain a license, Georgia doesn’t require any training.

Glemboski said a license to carry would be more meaningful if it had training requirements. “I wouldn’t want to give a 15-year-old or a 16-year-old a diver’s license without some type of driver’s training,” he said. “With firearms it’s the same thing, maybe even a little more serious because of the nature of what we’re dealing with.”