RKBA – Page 113 – MILESFORTIS

South Dakota: Three Pro-Gun Bills Signed by Governor Noem

Last week, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem signed a trio of pro-gun measures that strengthen our right to self-defense in the Mount Rushmore State. These measures will go into effect on July 1, 2022.

Senate Bill 195 clarifies South Dakota’s current Stand your Ground law by establishing that the burden of proof, by clear and convincing evidence, lies on the party seeking to overcome the immunity provided under this law. This measure clarifies the burden of proof and who bears the burden of proof in Stand your Ground self-defense cases.

House Bill 1162 updates the definition of “loaded firearm” under South Dakota law to designate that a firearm is considered loaded only if a round is chambered. This update provides easier methods of storing firearms in an “unloaded” manner, while still maintaining utility in self-defense situations when seconds matter.

Senate Bill 212, as amended on the Senate Floor, reduces the cost of South Dakota carry permits to $0. SB 212 allows those who wish to use South Dakota’s reciprocity agreements with other states, to do so and not be heavily burdened by what is essentially a tax on their right to self-defense.

What The Next Long-Term Fights Will Be for the Second Amendment

Second Amendment supporters have come a long way over the years. In 1982, California was having a referendum on whether to ban handguns. Now, there is a good chance that its “discretionary” carry permit scheme will be gone. There could also be a chance the Supreme Court could also wipe out semiauto and magazine bans in the near future.

Second Amendment supporters now need to answer some new questions. They are:

“What’s next?”
“How do we accomplish that objective?”
It goes without saying that financial deplatforming is the immediate threat to our Second Amendment rights, along with addressing Silicon Valley’s censorship. But what comes after that? Second Amendment supporters need to figure that out.

There will be good news. Favorable rulings in NYSRPA v. Bruen and the semiauto ban cases will make the courts a good venue to challenge other infringements. The real question will be the pace where court rulings take out anti-Second Amendment laws, and that could very well depend on how John Roberts goes.

As we discussed earlier, given the current makeup of the court, if Roberts is in the majority, he will designate who writes the opinion. But if he doesn’t, then it would be Clarence Thomas who would get to decide who writes the opinion. The retirement of Stephen Breyer will not change the balance, but his nominated replacement, Ketanji Brown-Jackson, may not be as effective an opponent as Breyer was.

The victories, though, will prompt outrage. If you think calls to pack the court are bad now, wait until massive parts of the agenda that anti-Second Amendment extremists have pushed get declared unconstitutional. Second Amendment supporters may need to look to winning general elections in order to defend against court-packing.

Despite the need to defend against efforts to pack the court, there will be changes – and the need – to take the offensive on the legislative front. For instance, it may be time to figure out how to either roll back who is prohibited or to find a way for people to remove themselves from being prohibited.

In one sense, Second Amendment supporters may be on the first steps of the path to do just that with the NICS Denial Notification Act. One thing we will need to do in order to reverse a number of dubious categories of “prohibited persons” is going to be getting the hard data on what exactly, people are denied for.

In fact, many of the battles we will face now will be slow and grueling in many ways. Oftentimes, the biggest wins at the federal level will be about what doesn’t happen. The most important victories will be the ones where Second Amendment supporters defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists via the ballot box at the federal, state, and local levels.

Indiana: Gov. Holcomb Signs Constitutional Carry

Today, Governor Eric Holcomb signed House Bill 1296, constitutional carry, into law. The General Assembly previously passed HB 1296 on March 8th. This makes Indiana the 24th constitutional carry state, and the third to join that group in 2022, following Ohio and Alabama.

Indiana already offers free lifetime carry permits, so constitutional carry ensures that law-abiding citizens who are already eligible to obtain a carry permit can access their right-to-carry without government red tape and delays. Constitutional carry will go into effect on July 1st, 2022.

All those first time gun buyers are now buying rifles because of Ukraine.

War in Ukraine helps boost gun sales in some U.S. cities

TUCSON, Ariz. (KGUN) — Gun shops say sales of guns and ammunition are going up.

At Diamondback Shooting Sports, Ben Anderson says there’s no single explanation for the jump.

He says the war in Ukraine has boosted sales of the ammunition AK-47 rifles use because those rifles and similar models are being used in the war. That makes people who own AK style rifles in the U.S. worried the ammunition they use could become scarce.

High demand and supply chain shortages have led to shortages of some other types of ammunition too.

Anderson says the pandemic prompted some people to buy guns and they may be adding additional weapons now.

“A lot of times now where we had the big rush of first time gun owners during the COVID times, and now what we’re seeing is those individuals that purchased a pistol or a rifle or a shotgun are now coming back in for that alternate firearm,” Anderson said. “So if they purchased a pistol, they’re here for a shotgun, if they purchased a rifle, they’re here for a pistol etc.”

Anderson says gun sales tend to rise when the President’s a Democrat because gun owners worry gun controls will be tightened and gun sales tend to fall when a Republican is in office.

He says Diamondback offers firearms training and self defense training that does not involve guns and demand for that training’s been steady for about three years.

Are Ukraine’s armed citizens making a difference?

One of the go-to arguments of gun control advocates who try to portray our Second Amendment as an outdated anachronism is that armed citizens just wouldn’t stand a chance against the might of a modern military force bristling with tanks, missiles, and even nuclear weapons (looking at you, Eric Swalwell).

The armed citizens of Ukraine, however, are helping to put that argument to rest. So far the nation has defied expectations and has continued to to resist the Russian invasion, repelling many of the attacks against the country’s biggest cities, and the country’s Territorial Defense Force, which includes many individuals who were simply private citizens a couple of weeks ago, is having an impact, according to Ukrainian officials.

“In the city itself, the territorial defense detachments are working quite effectively,” Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to the Ukrainian presidential chief of staff, said in a statement Saturday morning. “It turned out that people are coming out, defending their homes. It wasn’t expected by analysts of the Russian General Staff.”

I don’t think it was expected even for some of those who’ve shown up to volunteer, many of whom may never have thought about defending their country with a gun until last week but who are now heading down to their nearest recruitment center.

Men from their 20s to late 50s, from a range of backgrounds, showed up. Igor, 37, an economist for an online retailing company, who didn’t want his last name published for safety reasons, stood in line for his gun. He spoke at barely a whisper and his lips trembled. The dull thud of bombs or artillery could be heard in the distance.

“I never served in the army or with the police or anything,” he said. He said he hoped to be able to figure it out. He was worried, he said. “But people who are really afraid are sitting at home. They aren’t out here now.”

“Everybody in our country needs to defend — women, girls, everybody,” said Denis Matash, 33, the manager of Milk, a Kyiv nightclub, standing in line with about 50 other men at the recruitment center. “I don’t think they understand where they came,” he said of the Russians. “Look at what is happening here.”

Grigory Mamchur, 40, who works as a male strip dancer at the Milk nightclub, part of the now shuttered but once booming nightlife scene in Kyiv, was also in line for a Kalashnikov.

“There wasn’t even anything to think about,” Mr. Mamchur said. “We will defend the country however we can. This could be our last chance.”

The Territorial Defense Force and the private citizens who are taking up arms against their country’s invaders can’t thwart the Russian military on their own, but they can and have made life hell for Russian troops. In addition, the massive mobilization of civilian volunteers serves as a psychological boost for Ukrainians and is helping to obliterate the argument made by Vladimir Putin that the Ukrainian campaign is about “liberating” a grateful populace from their democratically-elected overlords.

Continue reading “”

Activist claims buybacks are about caring, not safety

Gun buybacks are annoying. For one thing, no one is buying anything back. They’re buying guns so they can be destroyed. That’s it.

Then there are the problems with the “no questions asked” policies that make it likely that some criminals will use such events as an opportunity to dispose of weapons that could tie them to various crimes.

Oh, and lest I forget, we have ample evidence that buybacks simply don’t work.

But for one activist, that doesn’t matter.

A member of the Hampton Roads Black Caucus in Virginia said it didn’t matter if gun buybacks were ineffective because they needed to show the community that they “care enough” to have a gun buyback.…

A study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that gun buyback programs are ineffective for many reasons. Among participants from mostly low-crime areas, gift cards that are being offered aren’t enough of an incentive, and the weapons that are brought “tend to be older and less well-functioning than the average firearm.”

WVEC asked Jones to respond to the findings of the study.

“Regardless of what the statistics say, we want to put some attention and show that we care enough and make time to do the program,” Jones said.

Well, that’s it.

That’s the stupidest BS I’m likely to read today. Well done, Mr. Jones. I’m impressed. That’s a level of stupid I didn’t expect to see so relatively early in the day.

Continue reading “”

Black Firearm Owners: Gun Control Hurts Our Communities

Jessica Luckett got her first gun at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and it opened her eyes to the various laws and policies governing legal firearms ownership.
She works remotely for a nonprofit and lives alone in a West Pullman townhouse on the southern tip of Chicago. She often visits family and friends in Englewood, a high-crime neighborhood on the South Side where she grew up.

For Illinois residents to own a gun, they must get a firearm owner’s identification card, which is a months-long process.
Then, to carry the gun outside the home for self-defense, a concealed carry license is needed, which Luckett acquired.
Yet, through friends at a women’s gun club, she learned that other states observe very different gun laws. Most don’t ask for a firearm owner’s identification card and some don’t even ask for a concealed carry license.
“Why do we have an amendment that says right to bear arms, yet all states are so different?” she asked. “The amendment is for the entire United States, it is not for one state or another.”

She also questions the push for various gun control measures at the federal, state, and local levels, often by lawmakers from her party, the Democrats.
“It is taking away our Second Amendment right to bear arms, and I believe we should be able to protect ourselves,” she said.

Like Luckett, many first-time black gun owners are on a similar discovery journey, looking more closely at the narratives and policies affecting their newly embraced Second Amendment rights, according to Philip Smith, president of the National African American Gun Association.
During the pandemic-era gun sales boom, 21 million sales-related background checks were conducted in 2020, according to an estimate by Firearm Industry and Trade Association.
African Americans and first-time gun buyers were the groups that registered the biggest jumps.

Continue reading “”

Der Grëtchënführër™ strikes again (as if this wasn’t expected)

Governor vetoes Theis bill protecting Second Amendment rights
Would have guaranteed issue of concealed pistol licenses during emergencies
LANSING, Mich. — Sen. Lana Theis’ legislation that would have ensured the issuance and renewal of concealed pistol licenses during declared emergencies was vetoed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer on Friday.

“This is a disappointing day for gun owners,” said Theis, R-Brighton. “The Second Amendment is clear that the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but that is exactly what Gov. Gretchen Whitmer did today.

“People must be able to defend their life and property even, and especially, in times of emergency. State law is clear that county clerks shall issue concealed pistol licenses to those who are qualified, and my bill would have ensured that this essential service would continue regardless of any declared emergency.

“While I am disappointed with Whitmer’s veto, I cannot say that I am shocked. She has never supported gun owners and she likely never will. I hope responsible gun owners will continue their efforts to protect this right. I certainly will.”

Theis fielded numerous complaints throughout the COVID-19 pandemic that county clerks across the state refused or delayed issuing or renewing concealed pistol licenses, infringing on law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

Senate Bill 11 would have required county clerks to continue to issue and renew concealed pistol licenses regardless of any shutdown issued by executive order or public health order. County clerks and law enforcement would have also been required to continue providing the fingerprinting services necessary to obtain a new concealed pistol license.

Additionally, the bill would have enabled the Michigan State Police to provide personal identification numbers to concealed pistol license holders, so they may renew their licenses online during any declared emergency.

Law profs claim lack of gun control fueling “small arms race”

Generally speaking, I really love my job. I get to talk to interesting people, cover an issue that I’m passionate about, and can maybe even make a difference every once in awhile in terms of keeping bad laws off the books and putting good laws in place.

One of the few downsides, however, is having to subject myself to a lot of the dumb arguments made by the gun control lobby and their allies in the media and academia. The latest? A new paper by two law professors at the University of Oklahoma and the University of Houston who claim that a lack of gun control laws is fueling what they call a “small arms race” across the country.

On November 19, 2021, Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of homicide charges stemming from his killing of two people—Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum—at a protest of police violence in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Rittenhouse had armed himself and traveled to the protest, purportedly to defend Kenoshans’ property against looting.

The acquittal sparked substantial public outrage about the state of gun laws and about the legitimacy of the criminal justice system more generally.

In a similar case, Travis McMichael, Gregory McMichael, and William Bryan were charged with murdering Ahmaud Arbery in Brunswick, Georgia. There, the defendants believed that Arbery was engaged in criminal activity and pursued him with a gun.

When Arbery took action to protect himself, Travis McMichael shot and killed him. Here too, many were concerned that an acquittal would lead to greater vigilantism. And while the jury ultimately convicted, Georgia law would have also allowed acquittal in a similar or even identical case.

Such cases have raised public concern that certain states’ gun-use and self-defense laws effectively invite malicious individuals—including vigilantes and white supremacists—to kill with impunity.

Funny how both the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse and the conviction of the McMichaels and William Bryan are both evidence of the need for more gun control laws, according to the professors. I’m particularly amused by the statement that Georgia law could have led to an acquittal, because that’s how the law works in virtually every criminal case that goes to trial. Juries have the option of finding defendants guilty or not guilty, and the fact that they choose between those verdicts based on the evidence presented isn’t in and of itself a sign that we need more or less laws.

Continue reading “”

Beyond Stand Your Ground: Second Amendment Immunity Defense is the Next Legal Frontier

Lee Williams;

Florida’s Stand Your Ground statute and similar laws in other states can offer immunity from prosecution when someone uses deadly force to defend themselves, and affords them quick access to an appellate review if the case doesn’t go their way.

In other words, if a defendant involved in a defensive shooting invokes a Stand Your Ground defense, their case can be dismissed before a trial even begins if it is proven they are entitled to statutory immunity, or appellate judges can be brought in quickly to make sure the case gets handled correctly.

When a defendant files a Stand Your Ground motion, their case is put on hold. Prosecution is halted. The trial court must hold a “Stand Your Ground” hearing – a sort of mini trial – to determine whether the defendant’s use of force meets the standards for Stand Your Ground immunity.

At this point, the burden shifts to the prosecutors, who must then prove by “clear and convincing evidence” why the defendant is not entitled to immunity from prosecution.

After this mini trial, the judge can either dismiss the charges or allow the case to go forward. However, if the charges are not dismissed, the defendant can file a Writ of Prohibition, which quickly bumps the case up to an appellate court for review. This writ can save the time it normally takes to get to the appellate level — usually as much as 18-months to two years — because it allows the defendant to forego a jury trial, sentencing and other delays and present their case directly to the appellate judges, who can affirm or deny their writ.

Stand Your Ground was created to protect people from unjust, malicious or politically motivated prosecutions after they acted in self-defense. By shifting the burden of proof to the state and by making an appeal quick and easy, the law has become a powerful tool, which some believe should be expanded to include other statutes involving Second Amendment rights.

“We need a Second Amendment immunity defense for anything involving the lawful possession of a firearm,” said former Florida prosecutor Lisa Chittaro. “It should mirror Stand Your Ground statutes, but it needs to be broader. It should allow defense attorneys to ask the court to find immunity under the protections of the Second Amendment quickly and efficiently and if they don’t, it should provide a quick route to the appellate level without having to go through the entire court process, which can take years.”

Chittaro pointed to several types of criminal cases that should be covered by Second Amendment immunity. Most involve arrests stemming from gun-free zones, such as schools, sporting events and airports. Many of them lack knowledge – a major factor in a criminal case – much less actual intent to commit a crime.

“If a parent picks up their child from school and they forgot their firearm and someone sees it and complains, they should be covered by Second Amendment immunity,” she said. “The same goes for other gun-free-zone prosecutions where there was no knowledge or intent.”

The problem with most of the prosecutions resulting from arrests in prohibited places, is that police and prosecutors often forget that Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. A trial judge and/or appellate court should review these cases to determine specifically if it involved this constitutionally protected right, or if the defendant knowingly and with intent committed a crime. Besides, in many states, the list of prohibited places grows every time their legislature meets. This is lawfare – pure and simple.

Every prosecution stemming from an arrest in a prohibited place should begin with an acknowledgement of the defendant’s Second Amendment rights, especially since gun-free zones infringe upon these rights. If a case involves absentmindedness, and not knowledge or the specific intent to commit a crime, judges need to toss them out. It is, after all, what the Framers had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment.

The Iowa governor says gun control is not the answer.

Reynolds says strict gun control is not the answer after drive-by shooting

DES MOINES, Iowa — Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds had a message Wednesday on the deadly drive-by shooting outside of East High School last week.

At an event Wednesday, Reynolds called the shooting a heartbreaking tragedy but argued stricter gun laws are not the answer.

“The tragedy is our educational system is letting these kids down. They should have been in school. We should be figuring out resources to help them stay there,” Reynolds said.

Instead, she says the focus should be on keeping kids in the classroom.

“Let’s figure out how we get these kids in school, get them the education they need and set them up to be successful. Not set them up for jail or a life of crime. And so that’s where we’re going to continue to focus. We have gun laws. We have laws on the books right now for guns, and those weren’t accessed legally,” Reynolds said.

Des Moines police haven’t determined how the teens got the guns, but say they were possessed illegally because they were minors.

Fifteen-year-old Jose Lopez was killed in the shooting on March 7.

Two teenage girls were injured and remain hospitalized. Four of the suspects that are charged as adults have their first court appearance on Friday. However, one of them will not physically be in court because he entered a written appearance.

Iowa Democrats criticized Reynolds for placing blame on public schools.

House Minority Leader Jennifer Konfrst released a statement saying, “Iowans know the real tragedy is that a 15-year-old has died and two remain in the hospital. Instead of using our Iowa values to bring us together, Reynolds is using this tragedy to vilify teachers and drive Iowans apart.”

Des Moines Schools Superintendent Tom Ahart said Monday, “It’s unfortunate that our state and our country have become a place where firearms are far too easily accessible. We remain committed to protecting our students and staff, but real change to gun laws and access would go a long way to help us.”

A well written article, but she still makes the – unfortunately near usual – ignorant error about the 2nd amendment. The right to keep and the right to bear arms, as defined by the Supreme Court as 2 separate but intertwined rights, were not given by the amendment! The amendment was a restriction on goobermint from infringing on rights that preexisted even the U.S.

The Second Amendment and the Sovereignty of a Nation

As the world watches the Ukrainian people bravely fight for their sovereignty against Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of their country, I am reminded of the importance of the Second Amendment enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

The right to bear arms has been viciously attacked in the past few decades as an archaic vestige of a bygone era. However, as many Ukrainians take up arms for the first time in their lives, it serves as a stark reminder of why our Second Amendment rights at home are critical for the survival of our nation.

Many Americans are familiar with the Second Amendment and how its foundation -as described by our nation’s Founding Fathers – was to grant citizens the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Usually, this understanding is only applied in the case of a tyrannical U.S. government; however, Ukraine has proven that the right to bear arms can be fundamental in protecting the sovereignty of a nation against a hostile foreign government.

While the value of the Second Amendment is disputed within American society, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has—in a dramatic reversal of his initial stance against the legalization of weapons—reversed his policy in the face of Russian aggression. Zelensky recently not only called on ordinary Ukrainians to take up arms in the defense of their nation, but concurrently stated that the Ukrainian government would issue weapons to any citizen who requested one.

Though a judicious decision by Zelensky, many Ukrainians—in preparation before the conflict—had limited experience with firearms. For example, in viral images weeks before the invasion, Ukrainians were seen wielding wooden rifles in an attempt to gain as much training as possible with firearms. While honorable, this deficit in knowledge across the agrarian nation, has no doubt harmed their readiness against the Russian forces.

While the Russo-Ukrainian conflict provides a fresh example of why Americans’ right to bear arms is so critical, there are other examples here in the United States of Americans taking up arms in order to defend their rights. For example, look no further than the Deacons for Defense and Justice. Founded in 1964, the group of Black World War II veterans armed themselves to defend against the Ku Klux Klan as black Americans marched for civil rights against the Jim Crow South. These American patriots looked tyranny in the face and took up arms in the name of liberty and justice. From the Deacons for Defense and Justice to the Battle of Athens, Tennessee, Americans have used the Second Amendment to protect against those who sought to oppress a population.

This is why the Second Amendment is so important for the security of the American people and the prosperity of the United States. From Ukraine to within our own shores, a legally armed citizenry can serve as a deterrent to a wide array of potential threats. Many Americans recognize this and have taken the time to get proper firearms training as, according to one study, over 60 percent of American gun owners have formal training.

So, while some Americans continue to debate the value of the Second Amendment, let us not forget the people around the world who have no such rights and cannot defend themselves against an oppressive government. Let us not take for granted the gift of our Founding Fathers that has allowed millions of Americans the right to self-defense and a formal education on how to properly use arms.

The United States stands as one of only three nations in the world that has enshrined the right of its citizenry to bear arms, and the significance of this rare clause in the U.S. Constitution has enabled us to become the beacon of the free world. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine should serve as a reminder of the blessings we in the United States take for granted, and buttress American support for our Second Amendment rights for the sake of the sovereignty of our great nation.

License-to-Carry Applications Have Skyrocketed In Philly — Even More Than You’d Think
“When I saw how high the numbers were, I had to call our stats department to make sure they were right,” a Philadelphia Police Department representative told us.

It didn’t surprise me a bit to learn that license-to-carry applications in Philadelphia have risen over the past year. First, you have the constant reports of shootings, carjackings and other violent crimes in the city. Second, the Philadelphia Police Department made it dramatically easier to apply for a license to carry, starting in January 2021. But I wasn’t exactly ready for just how big this increase has been. And neither was the Philadelphia Police Department, it seems.

“When I saw how high the numbers were, I had to call our stats department to make sure they were right,” police department spokesperson Jasmine Reilly told me after I requested the data.

From 2017 through 2020, the number of license-to-carry applications in Philadelphia held about steady, ranging between 11,049 and 11,814 applications each year. But in 2021, 70,789 people applied for licenses to carry guns.

In other words, license-to-carry applications more than sextupled last year. And in January of this year, the number of applications continued its upward trajectory. (The Pennsylvania State Police publish an annual report showing the number of licenses issued in the counties surrounding Philadelphia as well as in the rest of the state, but a spokesperson for PSP says that data isn’t yet available for 2021.)

Wake Forest University sociologist David Yamane, author of the 2021 book Concealed Carry Revolution, says there’s a well-established trend over the past few decades of gun culture in America shifting from guns for sport, like hunting and target shooting, to guns for personal defense. “This trend has accelerated during the pandemic and other events of the last two years,” he says, adding that licenses to carry surged right along with gun ownership. “But this increase in Philadelphia is exceptional.”

Continue reading “”

Columbia, SC to roll back gun control amid state threats

Some cities think they should pass gun control measures regardless of what rules the state may have in place. In South Carolina, for example, they have preemption. That means cities are forbidden from trying to have local gun control in place. Columbia, South Carolina seemed to think that rule didn’t apply to them.

Now, they’re trying to roll back the gun control measures they passed so they don’t lose state funding.

Columbia will move forward with repealing a series of gun-control measures after bowing from a court fight with S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson and not wanting a fight with state lawmakers who have the power to fund much-needed city projects.

Columbia, with the backing of then-Mayor Steve Benjamin, passed a series of gun ordinances in 2019 making it illegal to possess firearms within 1,000 feet of a school; allowing gun seizures from people under an extreme risk protection order, commonly known as a “red flag” law; and a rule that added buildings where homemade firearms known as “ghost guns” are constructed to be subject to the city’s nuisance laws.

Wilson sued the city in 2020, arguing that state law preempted local authority on the gun regulations. A Richland County judge sided with Wilson in 2021.

The City Council gave initial approval March 15 to roll back the gun rules in a split vote. Mayor Daniel Rickenmann and council members Aditi Bussells, Howard Duvall and Joe Taylor voted to repeal. Council members Tina Herbert, Ed McDowell and Will Brennan voted against taking the ordinances off of the books.

It seems some of the City Council objected to the idea that they lost the court case. Of course, they did.

The confusion was because the city planned to appeal, but withdrew the appeal the day of the vote. However, that wouldn’t have changed matters in the least. Preemption laws have been upheld time and time again, so there’s no reason to believe South Carolina’s preemption law would have been an exception.

This leads us to what state lawmakers were considering to push the city back on the straight and narrow.

State Rep. Kirkman Finlay, a Columbia Republican and member of the House budget-writing committee, said he urged a city lobbyist and some council members to outright repeal the rules after the deferred vote or risk jeopardizing his ability to secure backing for $170 million the city requested from lawmakers for a number of projects.

At the top of the list is a $35 million request to fix train crossings that can snarl traffic around downtown.…

Finlay has proposed a bill in the House that would allow the state to withhold money for municipalities that do not follow state law.

Frankly, it’s certainly an option that states should at least consider.

See, the problem with far too many preemption laws is that they lack any real teeth. A municipality can pass a gun control law and while it may be illegal, it can linger indefinitely for any number of reasons. Usually, it’s because private citizens lack standing to challenge such a measure unless they’ve been impacted–that often means “arrested”–and if the state opts not to do its job, you get quite the mess.

We’ve seen it happen in Pennsylvania, for example.

Threatening to withhold funding for various projects may be a good incentive to keep places like Columbia from trying to pass their own gun control measures.

Is the nature of gun control changing?

When you spend a lot of time studying gun control, it gets to be easy to see the same old patterns pop up time and time again. I see the same bogus statistics, the same BS arguments, the same tired rhetoric over and over again.

However, it seems that some believe that the nature of gun control in this country is starting to change.

In late January 2022, the city of San Jose, California was the first US city to require gun owners to purchase liability insurance. A recent trend in Democratic-leaning cities has led to a slew of similar laws being discussed by other cities. San Jose’s law may encourage them to wait before they join the trend. Critics of the San Jose law point to its lack of enforcement or penalties for gun owners who fail to purchase insurance and a $25 fee levied against gun owners that may prove unconstitutional. Sam Liccardo, the mayor of San Jose, suggested that the insurance mandate would encourage gun owners to have gun safes, use trigger locks, and enroll in gun safety classes, likely to reduce their hypothetical insurance bill. Gun insurance remains a nebulous, theoretical concept, so it’s unclear whether insurance agencies will offer financial incentives for gun owners to be responsible. …

San Jose’s recent gun insurance mandate has been making waves on social media, but it doesn’t tell the whole story when it comes to the evolution of laws surrounding our personal security. Not only are states like Ohio loosening restrictions on responsible gun owners, but states like Tennessee and Washington are experimenting with less restrictive, more incentive-based programs that encourage responsible ownership without burdening owners or infringing on their rights. The success of the Tennessee and Washington programs may pave the way for other innovative measures in the future. They serve as proof that you don’t have to restrict rights in order to steer citizens in a more responsible direction and keep everyone safe.

The mention to Tennessee references the measure that would waive sale tax on things like gun safes.

Unfortunately, though, the Washington measure is their mandatory storage law, which is an infringement on gun owners’ rights.

But does the overall point remain? Are gun control laws shifting to be less invasive on people’s rights? I’m afraid I can’t agree.

While Tennessee took a positive tact, Washington’s law still boils down to telling people what they must do in their own homes. We’ve continued to see gun control-supporting lawmakers pushing through more and more regulations.

Hell, we just had gun control pass at the federal level that includes a lot of problematic language.

The truth is that gun control isn’t so much shifting as expanding. They’re still trying to ban so-called assault weapons, push universal background checks, and expand the definition of domestic violence so they can deny gun rights to legions of additional people. They’re just doing a lot of other stuff.

In fact, the part about this claim that bothers me the most is that Tennessee’s measure is so not gun control that it shouldn’t be compared with some of these other measures.

I wonder why it is, you almost never find a gun control advocate who immigrated here from a nation controlled by a tyrannical goobermint?

Arizona campus carry advocate motivated by childhood in Communist country

Can you imagine if Cambodia had the Second Amendment?’

Legislation currently pending in Arizona would allow faculty members and students to “carry or possess” firearms while on campus, as long as they have their gun permits.

Young Americans for Liberty is supportive of the legislation because the libertarian organization believes it will help reduce crime on campus.

But the legislator behind the bill has a bigger concern too – preventing tyranny, like what he saw as a child during the Fall of Saigon during the Vietnam War.

The chief sponsor of House Bill 2447, Quang Nguyen, said he is motivated by his childhood in Vietnam.

“I came from a Communist country where people were actually killed at will,” he said. “Can you imagine if Cambodia had the Second Amendment? We wouldn’t have two million people killed by Pol Pot,” he said at the February 9 hearing.

The Republican legislator is also a concealed carry instructor and the president of the Arizona State Rifle and Pistol Association.

Continue reading “”

An Opportunity Second Amendment Supporters Must Not Waste

It’s time for Second Amendment supporters to channel Rahm Emanuel for a moment. In fact, there is a chance to hoist the one-time Obama Chief of Staff, who urged people to “never let a crisis go to waste,” on his own petard.

Right now, if you believe polling by the Wall Street Journal, Second Amendment supporters could deliver a metaphorical death blow to the hopes of anti-Second Amendment extremists over the next few years. However, it will take a lot of hard work to make that happen, and time may not be entirely on our side.

About 20 years ago, the political home of anti-Second Amendment extremism made a bet. They thought that there was a demographic doomsday coming for their opposition. However, that bet has not quite worked out for them over the long haul. Yes, Obama did win in a landslide in 2008, and won re-election solidly in 2012 (with an assist from the IRS targeting the Tea Party), but in the decade since 2012… how have things worked out?

We’ve discussed some of the signs that their bet on demographics isn’t working out the way they hoped. The lessons from last year’s Virginia gubernatorial election should give Second Amendment supporters and pro-Second Amendment organizations a blueprint for how to carry out the outreach.

This outreach is important. As things stand right now, for many of those who voted Youngkin in 2021 (and those of a similar mind across the country), support for the Second Amendment became a “non-dealbreaker” in the face of the current situation. While that might be sufficient for the short-term, would it not be better to make support for the Second Amendment a positive among those voters who currently consider it a “non-dealbreaker” in the face of a crisis?

Blowing the opportunity that Gun Culture 2.0 is presenting would be to repeat the very mistake that those in charge of the political home of anti-Second Amendment extremism made. We know that anti-Second Amendment extremist organizations like the Brady Campaign have had regrettable levels of success in dividing gun owners, often by hijacking the concept of “responsible” gun ownership. Reclaiming that term from anti-Second Amendment extremists is crucial to defeating their “divide and conquer” strategy.

Most important, though is to be willing to reach out to the new gun owners. Like any beginner in a new sport, they will need instruction and help from those who have more experience. The process of welcoming them should start from the moment they are at their first visit to an FFL and it should have no endpoint.

There are big tasks up ahead. Second Amendment supporters have to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local levels via the ballot box this November and in 2024. The process starts today by not wasting the opportunity that Biden’s blunders are giving us.

Took him long enough. He likely had his finger in the air and it took him this long to figure it out which way the wind was blowing.

Buckeye Firearms Association (BFA) summarized the new law in layman’s terms:

Obtaining a concealed handgun license will become optional, so if you are able to legally carry a concealed handgun with a license, you will also be able to carry without a license. The same rights and responsibilities apply in either case.
You will no longer have the duty to “promptly” notify every law enforcement officer during an official stop. Instead, you must disclose that you are carrying a concealed handgun only when an officer asks, unless you have already notified another officer.
If you choose to obtain a concealed handgun license, you will no longer be required to carry the license on your person.

DeWine signs bill allowing ‘constitutional carry’ in Ohio.

Ohioans will be able to carry concealed handguns without a permit, known as “constitutional carry.”

Gov. Mike DeWine on Monday signed into law Senate Bill 215, which passed the General Assembly on March 2 and was hailed by supporters as a historic Second Amendment victory.

The bill allows anyone at least 21 who is legally allowed to have a gun be able to carry a concealed handgun without a permit. It also removes the requirement for eight hours of gun safety training and potentially without a pre-purchase background check.

Also, if a driver is stopped by police, that person would not longer be required to inform officers of the concealed weapon unless specifically asked.

Continue reading “”