RKBA – Page 114 – MILESFORTIS

“If you caucus with gun grabbers, you are a gun grabber.”

(No. And you can barely trust “Pro-Gun” Republicans)

From time to time, the topic comes up in which we are tasked with deciding if a Democrat deserves our vote based primarily on their support of the 2nd Amendment. I was in a discussion about this topic and realized that there’s a major problem with this. Often, we hear Democrats announce that they are “gun-owners” and/or “hunters” prior to some sort of anti-gun statement.

I have my doubts as to whether their “gun ownership” amounts to much more than a dusty old war rifle that grandpa left in the attic and their implication to be “one of us” is often a tactic used to gain some sort of “authority” in a gun-control debate, but let’s look at this from a practical perspective. If I were to support a Democrat who claims to be “pro-gun,” (whether that be a Senator, Representative or even the President,) what other policies am I inadvertently supporting, and how high on the hierarchical scale of values are gun rights for this person?

Show me a Democrat who claims they don’t support universal background checks, red flag laws, magazine capacity restrictions, waiting periods, 21-year-old age requirements, semi-automatic rifle bans, bump-stock bans, suppressor bans, forced reset trigger bans & suing manufacturers out of business, and I will show you a liar.

What makes them a Democrat? Isn’t the very reason they vote on the left, to support the policies of those on the left? How many more left-wing policies do you want your children and grandchildren to be burdened with? Is it likely that they will actually go against their party on gun rights when you need them to? Have you ever seen that happen, and in the rare case it might, where else are they compromising your values? Some strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment are willing to support a Democrat who claims to support gun rights. Is this because they believe we are converting them? Good luck with that. The real question is, what else are we getting in that dysfunctional social package?

In an announcement on April, 11, 2022, on “ghost guns,” Joe Biden revealed this exact hypocrisy when he called firearms dealers “merchants of death,” yelled and screamed about “weapons of war” and then went on to say, “and by the way. It’s gonna sound bizarre. I support the 2nd Amendment.”

When we support a so-called “pro 2nd Amendment Democrat,” are we also supporting their position on open borders, abortion, CRT, bisexual bathrooms, “sex-ed” for Kindergarteners, the termination of oil drilling in America, the green new deal, ESG, the early release of prisoners, bail reform, never-ending medical mandates, the defunding of our police departments, welfare dependency and the overall forfeiture of our basic ability to make our own decisions? Because if so, I’m out.

So why are any of us being asked to put at risk, and most likely compromise, traditional American values and Conservative beliefs, just to get a “2A-friendly” vote in Congress by some politician who claims to support our gun rights? (Which by the way, probably wouldn’t happen when it comes down to actual voting behavior due to massive Congressional pressure from their peers.) Could it be Democrats recognize how strong the 2nd Amendment is and how protective of it, most Americans are? Could presenting a so-called “pro-gun Democrat,” be a way of coercing Republicans into unwittingly compromising at the voting booth with the hopes of saving our 2nd Amendment?

Sorry. The 2nd Amendment is not up for debate or compromise.

When I hear people suggesting that I should support a Democrat because they are “pro-gun,” I smell a rat. I have a problem trusting most Republicans with the 2nd Amendment. Now you’re asking me to vote for a Democrat? I don’t think so.

As Crime Grows, Biden’s Radical War On Self-Defense Is Alienating Voters

President Joe Biden’s unpopular gun control moves are doing little to appease his gun control donor class. Worse, those same moves are distancing him from voters that clearly see crime as a central issue and gun ownership as a right to be protected.

Among the unpopular policy positions dragging down his presidency is his myopic focus on gun control instead of crime control. The Biden White House has pursued the most far-reaching and radical gun control agenda of any president, previously naming a gun control lobbyist to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) whose nomination was defeated when not even all Senate Democrats could support the nominee.

Biden has since nominated Steve Dettelbach, who once campaigned for public office on a gun control platform. President Biden is also circumventing Congress’s authority to write laws by issuing an administrative rule to redefine frames and receivers and ban arm braces on AR-style pistols and instituting a top-down policy of “zero tolerance” inspections that would revoke licenses of firearm retailers instead of working with small business owners to correct minor clerical errors.

On top of that, President Biden is facing two additional factors not working in his favor on gun control and lawful gun ownership. Gun control groups are livid that President Biden hasn’t delivered their goal of disarming the American population. He was rated just a “D+” by gun control groups exasperated that he hasn’t ruled like a dictator to unilaterally ban entire classes of firearms and delivered a laundry list of gun control “must-haves,” including a Cabinet-adjacent position that’s outside of Senate confirmation to push even more gun control policies.

Voters Are Worried About Criminals, Not Legal Gun Owners

Continue reading “”

California bill targets First Amendment rights of Second Amendment supporters

Buying your kid a Browning t-shirt could soon be impossible, at least if you live in California. Democrat Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan has introduced a bill that is starting to get some attention in the state legislature, and it poses a clear threat to the First Amendment rights of Second Amendment supporters.

In Bauer-Kahan’s view, AB 2571 “seeks to restrict the malicious and manipulative firearms marketing geared towards children and youth,” but a perusal of the text shows her real aim is to crack down on parents who aim to educate their kids about safe and responsible gun ownership.

According to the current language of the measure, the proposed law would “prohibit a person or entity that publishes materials directed to minors in this state in any medium from marketing or advertising firearms in that material, as specified, and would prohibit a person or entity that publishes a marketing or advertising communication from publishing or disseminating marketing or advertising for firearms that is attractive to minors, as specified.”

What makes a particular communication “attractive to minors”? The bill is open-ended, but includes things like using cartoon characters to promote firearms or firearms products; offering firearm brand name merchandise, such as hats, t-shirts, or stuffed animals, for minors; or even offering firearms or firearms accessories with colors or designs that are specifically designed to appeal to minors.

Violations of the law could result in a $25,000 fine, which is clearly an attempt to chill pro-Second Amendment speech.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Mark Oliva tells Bearing Arms that it’s clear that state lawmakers “aren’t satisfied” with curtailing Second Amendment rights and now trying to infringe on the First Amendment as well.

“Commercial speech is still protected speech,” says Oliva, adding, “California’s bought-and-paid for gun control politicians might find it disagreeable that parents actually teach their children safe and responsible firearm ownership, but that is a reality, albeit one they are attempting to erase. Advertising images of parents and youths hunting together would be illegal. Youth hunting clothing branded with firearm and ammunition maker logos would be banned. The bill authors know this is a clear violation of First Amendment rights, but they give no consideration to fundamental rights when it comes to advancing a gun control agenda.”

Why would they, honestly? Most California Democrats don’t view the Second Amendment as a fundamental right that must be protected. At best they see it as an anachronism that has no place in 21st Century America, and far too many of them see our right to keep and bear arms as an evil that must be eradicated. They don’t see AB 2571 as the censorious pile of rat droppings that it is. No, they honestly believe they’re protecting innocent children from the evil and twisted firearms industry.. not to mention the deplorable gun-owning dupes those kids might have as parents.

Here’s my question for Rebecca Bauer-Kahan and other backers of this bill: even if gun companies were marketing their products to minors (which I don’t think is actually the case), shouldn’t all of the gun control laws on the books in California prevent minors from getting their hands on a gun? I mean, minors can’t legally purchase firearms or ammunition in the state, and there are background check requirements for all gun transfers and ammunition purchases. If California’s gun control laws work as well as Democrats say they do, then why do they believe this bill is necessary?

Sadly, I know the answer. This legislation isn’t about preventing minors from illegally acquiring firearms. It’s about demonizing the firearms industry.

I would love to say that this bill is going nowhere, but it already has the backing of Gov. Gavin Newsom and appears to be gaining some traction in the state Assembly, where it was referred to the Judiciary Committee on Monday. The time for California gun owners to speak out is now. I don’t know that even a wave of opposition from gun owners across the state will be enough to derail the bill in the legislature, but it’s the first step in what’s likely to be a long campaign to defend our First Amendment right to support the Second Amendment.

Rep. Stefanik backs new bill protecting gun rights in bankruptcy situations

WASHINGTON, D.C. (WWTI) — Local lawmakers are voicing their support in new legislation aiming to protect second amendment rights.

On April 11, the Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2022 (H.R. 7493) was introduced to Congress by House Republications to amend Title 11 of the United States code pertaining to a federal bankruptcy law.

According to lawmakers, if passed, this legislation would modify the federal bankruptcy law to allow an individual debtor to exempt one or more firearms from their bankruptcy estate. These firearms could have up to a total maximum value of $3,000.

Congresswoman Elise Stefanik cosponsored this legislation and said it would “ensure an individual’s right to self-defense is not stripped due to financial hardships.”

“I am proud to sponsor legislation to ensure gun owners can always maintain their Constitutional right to bear arms. The government should not be allowed to take advantage of lawful gun owners who have declared bankruptcy,” Stefanik said in a press release.

Stefanik added that the bill also labels firearms as household goods that are not subject to liens. This would be a claim against assets used as a collateral to satisfy a debt in bankruptcy situations.

The full legislation can be read below:

Protecting-Gun-Owners-in-Bankruptcy-Act-of-2022

LAPD chief blames guns for California’s gun control failures

California has the toughest state-level gun control laws in the nation. They heavily restrict pretty much every category of firearm imaginable and they’re constantly looking at how they can further restrict them.

And yet, cities in the state aren’t necessarily safer than anywhere else in the nation.

Despite that, the chief of the LAPD blames…wait for it…guns.

Thirty-four people were shot in Los Angeles last week, a bloody spike in what is already shaping up to be a violent month and year in the City of Angels, according to authorities.

The bulk of the shootings — 23 — of them occurred in a “remarkably small area” of the Los Angeles Police Department’s 77th Street and Southeast divisions, Chief Michel Moore told the Los Angeles Police Commission Tuesday. Moore called last week a “troubling week,” in a year when violent crime has increased 7.1% year-to-date. So far this year, the LAPD has responded to 575 more violent crimes than this time last year.

Barely halfway through the month, 70 people have already been shot in Los Angeles, up from 55 during the same period last year. There have been 107 homicides so far in 2022, while at this point in 2021 there were 109. While the number has decreased slightly in 2022, Moore said it represents a 37% increase over a two-year period. Overall, violent crime — aggravated assaults, street robberies, and commercial robberies — have climbed 15.2 percent over a two-year period.…

“The problem that we have throughout Los Angeles is too many guns in too many hands,” Moore said, reiterating a belief he frequently shares with the commission. The added enforcement in the 77th Street Division resulted in 16 gun arrests involving 20 firearms, including “a number of assault rifles,” Moore said.

So, the issue is guns in the most heavily gun-controlled state in the nation?

Sounds to me an awful lot like all the copious amounts of gun control has managed to accomplish is just make the state more hostile toward law-abiding gun owners, rather than actually do much to curb gun possession by violent criminals.

This isn’t much different than the gang heyday of the 1990s when LA was the epicenter of criminal culture. Since then, the state has passed tons of gun control, ostensibly to impact those same criminals.

As we can see, it worked like a charm.

Look, I get the desire to do something. I also get that people think the problem is the wrong people having guns. I’m not going to argue about armed criminals. But the laws on the books were designed to stop precisely them from having them, yet it doesn’t appear to have accomplished a blasted thing. Meanwhile, Californians who want to comply with the law are treated like criminals for even wanting a firearm.

It’s just not right.

Then again, it’s never been right to restrict the rights of the ordinary citizen because of the actions of a handful of criminals. Yet when the LAPD chief talks about too many guns in too many hands rather than the wrong hands, what do you think he’s proposing? Is he acknowledging that gun control has failed the state, or do you think he’s suggesting more of the same?

Well, since he says the problem is “too many hands” and nothing about criminals in possession, it’s clear where he stands on the issue.

It’s also clear that more of the same isn’t going to make things better.

What is he so afeared of?

Maryland AG Asks Supremes to Deny Review of Gun Ban Challenge

Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh has filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that a challenge to the state ban on so-called “assault weapons” be denied review, arguing that such firearms have been used in several mass shootings, according to a report in The Daily Record.

Frosh may be facing a daunting task because 25 of his colleagues—attorneys general from literally half of all the states in the nation—have already submitted an amicus brief to the high court, supporting the petition for review from plaintiffs in the case. It is one of several amicus briefs submitted in the case, but because of its nature, it may be one of the most influential.

The case is known as Dominic Bianchi et al. v. Brian E. Frosh et al., No. 21-902. Plaintiffs include the Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Firearms Policy Coalition, Field Traders gun shop in Anne Arundel County and three private citizens.

According to the Daily Record, Frosh was “chief sponsor of the 2013 Firearm Safety Act and shepherded the bill” through the state Senate, when he served in that body as a state senator. Therefore, he has what might be considered a special interest in preventing the legislation from being overturned, because it was his legislation. The law bans 45 “assault-style weapons, including the AR-15,” the newspaper noted.

In his argument, the newspaper said, Frosh cited several attacks involving semi-auto rifles including Sandy Hook Elementary, the Pulse nightclub attack in Orlando, the Las Vegas music festival attack and the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.

There was a signal from the Supreme Court that it could be giving serious consideration to accepting the case for review in January when the court asked Frosh to respond to the plaintiff’s petition for review. Initially, Frosh’s office did not offer a response.

This is the second time the Maryland ban has been challenged, but that was when the court did not have a strong conservative majority. The majority will not change with the seating later this year of Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace retiring Associate Justice Stephen Breyer.

The support shown for this case has impressed SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.

“When the possession of commonly-owned firearms by private citizens is criminalized, it is imperative for good, like-minded people to stand together and defend constitutional rights,” Gottlieb observed. “The support we are receiving in this case is both humbling and reassuring. We are hopeful the Supreme Court grants our petition for review. Banning the possession and transport of a whole class of commonly-owned firearms is an affront to the Second Amendment that cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.”

Grassley To Biden: Stop Blaming Lawful Gun Owners For Democrat-Caused Crime Wave
ATF Nominee, So-Called Ghost Gun Rule & Onerous New Requirements on FFLs Impose Burdens on Americans, Do Nothing to Solve Spike in Violent Crime

BUTLER COUNTY, IOWA – Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote to President Joe Biden to urge that the administration turn away from partisan, anti-gun rhetoric toward policies and nominees that will actually address the rise in violent crime. Grassley also raised serious concerns with the recently announced nomination of Steven Dettelbach to serve as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

“A director must, at a minimum, demonstrate that he or she respects the Second Amendment rights of Americans and can deal fairly with the firearms industry,” Grassley wrote. “…but even a cursory review of [Dettelbach’s] statements about gun ownership demonstrate a lack of awareness of the circumstances surrounding legal gun acquisition, or outright favoritism of expansive gun control.”

Grassley goes on to highlight specific instances of Dettelbach’s troubling record of comments and affiliations with anti-Second Amendment groups, including one occasion on which he apparently used a debunked statistic to push for gun control.

“The ATF Director’s roles should include having an appreciation for the role that firearms play in the lives of Americans, as well as serving as a credible, effective liaison with the firearm business community. In this light, Mr. Dettelbach’s writings and social media activism are concerning and serve to undermine his ability to carry out those important roles,” Grassley emphasized.

Continue reading “”

What the left gets wrong about ‘ghost guns’

The spike in crime has nothing to do with firearms enthusiasts building guns in their garages and home workshops.

Citing the need to curtail rising crime rates, President Joe Biden recently announced a final rule by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The chief objects of the president’s wrath are so-called “ghost guns” — a made-up, pejorative term that anti-gun leftists use to refer to homemade firearms.

These guns have been legal and unregulated since the time of the Pilgrims. But long before the president’s announcement, Pennsylvania Democrats were already pushing six “ghost gun” bills that would make privately made firearms illegal.

In the announcement of these regulations, Vice President Kamala Harris said that “ghost guns pose an especially grave threat to the safety of our communities.” That claim is demonstrably false.

According to the Department of Justice, privately made firearms were found at 692 homicide or attempted homicide crime scenes over a six-year period. That means that, at worst, out of more than 16,000 yearly murders, homemade guns are used in around 115 homicides per year. That’s far fewer murders than many common items that are easily found around one’s house — such as knives (1,476), hammers or blunt objects (397), or fists and feet (600).

So why isn’t the Biden administration trying to regulate those objects?

The answer is that this president is not as interested in protecting public safety as much as he wants to implement a radical gun control regime. The new ATF rule could incarcerate gun owners for committing nonviolent, highly technical violations of complex and unconstitutional laws while doing nothing about the rising number of crimes committed by real criminals.

For two years, the anti-gun left has looked the other way while rioters destroyed cities, attacked civilians, and assaulted law enforcement officers. The president’s allies in leftist cities — including Philadelphia — began releasing criminals early from jail and defunding the police where they were needed the most.

Predictably, the murder rate, which had been on a downward trend for over 20 years, spiked. In fact, 12 Democratic-controlled cities from Philadelphia to Portland, Ore., broke homicide records last year. These are 12 cities where leaders have coddled criminals, yet inexplicably, did everything possible to discourage law-abiding individuals who merely wish to exercise their Second Amendment-protected rights. Philadelphia was no exception.

The spike in crime across our country is the result of the failed leadership and the social policies of left-wing radicals. It has nothing to do with firearms enthusiasts building guns in their garages and home workshops.

The anti-gun left may try to demonize these firearms by referring to them as “ghost guns.” But the fact remains that hundreds of thousands of honest gun owners today are making their own legal guns — and virtually none of these guns will be used in any crime.

The White House claims that serializing firearms is necessary to stop criminals, but in reality, there is no evidence that registering firearms — or stamping them with serial numbers — prevents crime. Virtually every gun used in a crime already has a serial number.

So why has Joe Biden declared war on legal gun owners? In a word: control.

Serialization is not designed to stop criminals. It’s intended to register the law-abiding, which history shows is the first step toward confiscation. And if you don’t think confiscation could ever occur in this country, just recall Beto O’Rourke yelling: “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47!”

The double standards by the anti-gun left are breathtaking. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro was at the Rose Garden ceremony, applauding the president’s restrictions on homemade firearms. Never mind that Shapiro’s office has been accused of illegally transferring a homemade gun to a television journalist preparing a story on the issue without conducting a background check; that would violate both state and federal law. Shapiro has denied any wrongdoing and claimed that the allegation was “ludicrous on its face.” The transfer was made to facilitate an NBC News report on a local supplier of P80 kits.

With the anti-gun left, we constantly see “rules for thee but not for me.” The Biden administration openly admitted that he ordered this “ghost gun” regulation because he “was having trouble getting [gun control] passed in the Congress.” That is lawless and anti-constitutional behavior. The president is not a king who can issue decrees on a whim.

In our system of government, Congress makes the laws. Gun Owners of America will be working with pro-gun representatives and senators to overrule this unconstitutional decree.

Are Gun Grabbers or Gun Owners Empathic and Distrustful?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

Will gun control become a top election issue?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Gun Control Is Not the Solution, Most Voters Say

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

UNREGULATED “GHOST GUNS”

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

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

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

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

He is a liar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill seeks to preserve gun rights for modern nomads

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

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

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

A new bill, however, seeks to change that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There’s simply no reason for that.

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

The answer is that we shouldn’t.

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

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

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

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

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

Yet, political realities are what they are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet either is preferable over an anti-gun Abrams.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A New Call to Arms: Rewriting Second Amendment Threats

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 12, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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