Category: RKBA

Baumann: Four egregious gun-control lies straight from Biden’s mouth

During a Thursday press conference on “gun violence,” President Joe Biden regurgitated numerous lies about firearms and the Second Amendment.

CLAIM: No Amendment is absolute.

“…making sure the people who are not allowed to have a gun don’t get a gun in the first place. And again, any of the press, any of the press listening, this doesn’t violate anybody’s Second Amendment right,” Biden said. “There’s no violation of a Second Amendment right. We talk like there’s no amendment that’s absolute.”

FACT: The Founding Fathers wrote “shall not be infringed” in the Second Amendment, making the 2A an absolute right.

CLAIM: Gun regulations existed when the Second Amendment was added.

“When the amendment was passed, it didn’t say anybody could own a gun and any kind of gun and any kind of weapon,” the president said.

FACT: Limitations on the Second Amendment came down the road, first through legislation and then decided at the Supreme Court.

CLAIM: Citizens were barred from owning cannons.

“You couldn’t buy a cannon when this amendment was passed and there’s no reason you should be able to buy certain assault weapons, but that’s another issue,” Biden said.

FACT: Americans had the ability to purchase cannons when the Second Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights.

Americans can still purchase and own cannons, although the National Firearms Act makes that extremely expensive and virtually impossible for the average person.

CLAIM: Magazine capacity determines if a firearm is a “weapon of war.”

 “…a magazine with 40 rounds is a weapon of war,” Biden said.

 FACT: The number of rounds a magazine holds doesn’t change its functionality. A semi-automatic pistol or rifle could hold five rounds or 50 rounds. It still functions the same, with one round fired with one pull of the trigger.

Anti-gunners use these claims because they don’t know the difference between full-auto and semi-auto. This makes them sound more educated on firearms basics – and their proposed legislation – when they’re not.

Propaganda O’ The Day

Biden’s DOJ announces new crackdown on home-built firearms

Joe Biden’s Justice Department is launching a National Ghost Gun Enforcement Initiative, which they say will crack down on home-build firearms, which they call “ghost guns.”

To be clear, Americans have been making firearms in their homes since before there was a United States of America. Home-built firearms remain perfectly legal in most free states.

Today’s announcement states that the DOJ will bring federal charges against those who use home-built firearms in the commission of a crime.

The DOJ’s press release claims that “local law enforcement reported 1,750 suspected ghost guns in 2016, and that number had grown to 8,712 by 2020, according to DOJ statistics.”

These statistics have not been borne out in conversations Armed American News has had with senior local law enforcement officials.

US Attorney General Merrick Garland said Thursday the “ghost gun” initiative is but one anti-gun measure his department will be undertaking to target “community violence.”

“Garland is directing U.S. attorneys to prioritize federal prosecutions of those who illegally sell or transfer firearms that are used in violent crimes, and the department is announcing a new initiative seeking to curb drug-related violence and overdose deaths by partnering with local law enforcement,” according to the press release.

Gun Buying Advice For Women, From a Woman

I used to be vehemently opposed to firearms because of the way my mom’s negative view of them influenced me as I grew up. It wasn’t until around 19 years old that my boyfriend at the time gave me my first introduction to firearms. He was very patient and taught me the basics of how to shoot. I loved it. I no longer felt negatively towards firearms, but I never really got into them, either. I honestly didn’t see a reason to. I didn’t feel I needed one for protection and didn’t have a desire to go shooting for fun or to hunt. It just wasn’t who I was at the time. It wasn’t until I met my now-husband that I got heavily into firearms. It was as if I had discovered a part of my true calling.

Continue reading “”

1,The new law imposes unnecessary burdens on lawful gun owners and are unlikely to save taxpayers a single dollar, much less save a single life.

2,The law’s burdens on San Jose gun owners aren’t justified by the rare times when insurance might cover an incident of gun violence.

3,If San Jose officials are serious about reducing gun violence and lowering associated financial costs, there are plenty of better solutions.

8 Problems With San Jose’s Gun Insurance Mandate and Gun Ownership Tax

Lawful gun ownership in San Jose, California, is about to become more expensive and onerous after the City Council passed a measure imposing two unprecedented burdens on the possession of firearms inside city limits.

Beginning later this year, San Jose’s lawful gun owners will be required to maintain “a homeowner’s, renter’s, or gun liability insurance policy … specifically covering losses or damages resulting from any negligent or accidental use” of their firearms.

Gun owners also must pay an annual “Gun Harm Reduction Fee”—an as-yet undetermined amount that officials suggest will be roughly $25 a year.

City officials claim these are necessary steps that will save lives by incentivizing responsible gun ownership practices while making gun owners foot the bill for the financial costs of gun violence.

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

In reality, the new law imposes unnecessary burdens on lawful gun owners and are unlikely to save taxpayers a single dollar, much less save a single life.

Here are eight major problems with San Jose’s latest gun control push:

1. Enforcement Nearly Impossible

The new ordinance doesn’t require gun owners to certify that they’ve obtained coverage or paid the annual fee.

Unless the city plans on conducting door-to-door compliance checks, it will face a nearly impossible task of ensuring widespread compliance with what is essentially an honor system.

2. Insurance Policies Don’t Exist

Currently, the only independent liability insurance for gun owners is self-defense insurance, which covers the costs for any criminal or civil proceedings resulting from a gun owner’s intentional defensive use of a firearm.

These plans don’t cover civil liability for cases of negligence or accidental shootings, as required by the San Jose ordinance.

This means gun owners will have to rely exclusively on personal liability provisions in their homeowner’s or renter’s insurance plans, or pay hundreds of dollars for a personal liability umbrella plan. Even then, such plans rarely include specific provisions covering liability for gun-related injuries.

3. Insignificant Coverage

Even in a best-case scenario where gun liability insurance is widely available and the requirement is widely enforced, these insurance plans will cover only a miniscule fraction of gun deaths and injuries occurring inside San Jose.

Most acts of gun violence involve criminal or intentionally wrongful acts, which California law prohibits insurance companies from covering. Importantly, this would exclude coverage not just for homicide and assault, but also for gun suicides, which comprise 60% of all gun deaths.

Additionally, while the new law purports to make gun owners responsible for any harm inflicted by lost or stolen firearms unless the guns were first reported as lost or stolen, homeowner’s and renter’s insurance policies cover acts committed only by the insured person while on the insured property.

So regardless of who San Jose deems responsible, if the gun owner has a typical homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policy, that policy simply wouldn’t cover, for example, harm inflicted by a thief who stole the gun or by the gun owner during an off-property hunting accident.

Nor do these policies cover harm inflicted on an insured party, as when a gunowner accidentally shoots himself or a household member while cleaning his gun.

This leaves coverage limited to the narrow circumstances in which an insured gun owner, while on his or her own property, accidentally or negligently harms a third party with a firearm.

This type of gun violence is relatively rare.

According to a report that the city itself relied on to support the mandate, San Jose averages only two “unintentional/undetermined” gun deaths a year, amounting to only 3.4% of all annual gun deaths.

At the same time, the city with a population over 1 million averages 25 annual nonfatal hospital inpatient admissions and 59 annual emergency room visits without hospitalization due to “unintentional/undetermined” gun injuries.

Even if most of these deaths and injuries are truly “unintentional,” as opposed to merely “undetermined,” it’s impossible to know how many were committed with lawfully possessed guns in circumstances that would be covered with traditional homeowner’s or renter’s liability policies.

And, of course, no insurance policy would cover situations involving unlawfully possessed guns.

The law’s burdens on San Jose gun owners aren’t justified by the rare times when insurance might cover an incident of gun violence.

4.  Payouts Don’t Reduce Taxpayer Burden

San Jose officials repeatedly defended their gun insurance mandate by lamenting the financial cost of gun violence on the city’s emergency response services and insisting that gun owners should pick up the tab for gun violence.

And yet, mandating gun liability insurance does nothing to alleviate the cost to taxpayers. In the rare instances where insurance policies might cover gun injuries, the payouts wouldn’t go to the city or to its emergency responders.

Instead, the payments would be directed toward the victim’s medical bills (a cost only sometimes and indirectly borne by taxpayers if the victim is uninsured or on state-subsidized insurance) and any potential civil damages for lost wages or pain and suffering (a cost never borne by taxpayers).

5.  Mandate Won’t Save Lives

Just as the insurance mandate is unlikely to save taxpayer money, it’s equally unlikely to save lives by deterring future acts of gun violence.

California has the most stringent gun laws in the nation. If gun owners aren’t deterred from negligent, reckless, or unsafe conduct by the state’s existing criminal sanctions or impositions of civil liability, why would they be deterred by the risk of increased insurance premiums?

Perhaps worse, gun liability insurance for negligence may create perverse disincentives for gun owners, who no longer risk financial ruin for careless conduct that harms others.

6. Unconstitutional Tax

San Jose refers to the new fee imposed on gun owners as a “Gun Harm Reduction Fee,” but it’s nothing less than an unconstitutional tax on the exercise of an enumerated right.

The Supreme Court has struck down similar laws, reasoning that “a state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal Constitution.”

This is precisely what San Jose’s fee does—require gun owners to pay an annual sum of money to exercise their Second Amendment rights inside the city.

7. Misplaced Blame

Lawful gun owners aren’t the driving force behind gun violence, and yet San Jose has singled them out to pay for gun violence.

Law-abiding citizens shouldn’t be saddled with the blame (or the bill) for criminal actions they didn’t commit, encourage, or facilitate.

8.  Legitimate Solutions Ignored

If San Jose officials are serious about reducing gun violence and lowering associated financial costs, there are plenty of better solutions.

The city could focus its energy on enforcing existing gun laws—perhaps, for example, by disarming its share of the 23,000 Californians who state authorities know possess guns despite being prohibited persons.

It could make these unlawful gun owners and others who commit gun crimes pay by imposing fees and restitution to the state as part of criminal sentencing.

The city also could increase the size of its police force to deal with chronic understaffing and workload problems that inhibit officers’ ability to enforce the law.

Instead of opting for these rational and straightforward steps, however, the city apparently has defaulted to what’s become an all-too-common tactic in gun control politics—passing unserious laws that burden lawful gun ownership without addressing any of the real problems.

 

CCRKBA: KING COUNTY, WA GUN MURDERS, SHOOTINGS PROVE ANTI-GUNNERS LIED

BELLEVUE, WA – Monday’s “Shots Fired” report from the King County (WA) Prosecutor’s Office on the number of gun-related homicides and injuries last year is more proof that gun control laws and anti-rights initiatives adopted over the past few years in Washington State have been abject failures, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today in reaction.

“Proponents of these laws, and especially the gun control initiatives passed in recent years, sold the public a bill of goods, and now everybody knows it,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Voters were told in 2014 that Initiative 594 would reduce gun-related violence, and today’s data proves they were misled. Four years later, the Seattle-based gun prohibition lobby promised Initiative 1639 would prevent gun-related homicides, and they lied again. In Olympia, anti-gun politicians are pushing more gun restrictions right now, with the same promises.

“The billionaire-backed gun prohibition lobby and their allies in Olympia claim that so-called ‘gun violence’ is an epidemic,” he said. “Frankly, the intellectual dishonesty of the gun control crowd is the real public health crisis.”

King County authorities reported Monday that 88 people were murdered and another 372 were wounded in shootings last year. Law enforcement agencies in the county reported a startling 1,405 shooting incidents, surpassing the 1,025 posted in 2020.

Gottlieb opposed both initiatives, and he has been an outspoken critic of other gun laws pushed through the Legislature. CCRKBA’s national headquarters are in Bellevue, just east of Seattle. A check of the FBI annual Uniform Crime Reports shows the number of murders in Washington, and especially Seattle, have gone steadily upwards since the current gun control crusade started eight years ago.

“We warned the public these gun control schemes were wishful thinking at best,” Gottlieb said. “The data provides all the evidence necessary to say anti-gun-rights initiatives and legislation have amounted to snake oil, giving the public a false sense of security while their rights are being steadily eroded.

“Instead of pushing more restrictions like they’re doing right now,” he said, “it is time for gun control zealots to admit they’ve been wrong all along. Extremist gun control has failed miserably for Evergreen State citizens, and the rising body counts prove it.”

West Virginia: House Passes Keep, Bear, and Drive with Arms Act

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Yesterday, the House of Delegates passed House Bill 4048, the WV Keep, Bear, and Drive with Arms Act. It now goes to the Senate for further consideration.

House Bill 2048 affirms that it is lawful to possess loaded and/or uncased rifles and shotguns in vehicles “unless rebutted by the totality of circumstances” that unlawful hunting is occurring. This ensures that law-abiding citizens may carry the firearms of their choice, in the manner of their choice, with them in vehicles.

When religious freedom and gun laws tangle

Last week, there was an interesting case. An Amish man was arrested for being an illegal firearm dealer. The Amish aren’t generally known for such things, which is what made it interesting.

The reason he sold guns to people was that the Amish don’t believe in having their photographs taken. As a result, they don’t have picture IDs, which makes it difficult for them to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

However, some in Lancaster County are unsympathetic:

As Nephin reported, “Federal laws require photo identification when purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. The Amish contend their religious beliefs prevent them from being photographed, so they cannot buy a firearm from a licensed dealer. However, private sellers don’t have to require the buyer to present photo identification.”

We mean no disrespect to the Amish faith and its beliefs and practices regarding photography. But we’ve long maintained that all firearms sales — including sales of long guns — ought to be handled by licensed dealers and be subject to background checks. (Pennsylvania law requires background checks on handgun sales, but not on private sales of long guns by unlicensed sellers.)

Now, the editorial goes on to advocate for universal background checks and all that, but I want to note something else.

In particular, how little the editorial board of this publication values religious freedom.

Oh, they make some platitudes about respecting the Amish’s beliefs, but then immediately take a big, steaming dump on them by essentially saying they believe the Amish shouldn’t get to exercise both their religious freedom and their right to keep and bear arms.

Now, understand that it wasn’t that long ago when everyone was up in arms about a woman who the state of Florida wouldn’t let get a driver’s license with a veil. Others have lashed out over laws preventing women from wearing a hijab in their license photos.

In those cases, religious freedom was paramount, even though the courts have routinely classified driving as a privilege, not a right.

Yet keeping and bearing arms is a right, one explicitly protected by the United States Constitution. How can demanding a photo ID from people who don’t believe in having their pictures taken not run afoul?

Of course, we must remember that to people like this, the Second Amendment is a second-class right. Apparently, religious freedom is as well.

Continue reading “”

Where You Used to go Armed in New York

There is a bill in the New York Assembly that makes most destinations into “gun-free” zones. I call it the “Prohibited Places” bill and you need to know the back story for this to make any sense at all.. even for the politicians.

It never made sense for honest citizens.

First, there is an important case before the US Supreme Court called NYSRPA v Bruen. That case asserts that New York State required ordinary people to get a permit to carry a firearm in public, and then denied those permits to ordinary citizens. It sounds like New York Democrats are conceding that they infringed on the right of self-defense and will lose the Bruen case. Maybe a liberal justice on the Supreme Court already gave them the text of that decision.

That brings us to Bill A8684 before the New York Assembly which “Prohibits firearms in certain locations, including but not limited to all forms of public transportation, large gatherings, and food and drink establishments.”

Since New York Democrats will soon have to issue carry permits, they want to make everywhere a gun free zone for everyone.

Continue reading “”

One More Time: It’s Not ‘Gun Violence’ It’s Gang Violence.

Every time you hear a politician or a media personality mention “gun violence,” you should mentally translate that phrase to “gang violence.” Not only that, but ask yourself if that politician or media outlet has an agenda by mislabeling gang violence as something entirely different.

Obviously politicians who have enabled the “criminal justice reforms” that have directly resulted in the out-of-control increases in violent crime across America don’t want to talk about criminals and gangs. In fact, California’s Gov. Newsom even went so far as to actuall apologize for using the word “gang” when describing the organized groups of criminals who commit crimes (otherwise known as ‘gangs’).

Rather than correctly identify those who commit the majority of violent crimes in this country, countless failed and inept politicians like the Land of Lincoln’s Governor J.B. Pritzker and Murder City, USA’s Mayor Lori Lightfoot instead blame law-abiding gun owners.

They continue to promote more gun control laws and more government spending to redirect peoples’ attention away from the failures of their feckless policies and misplaced spending priorities.

As for the media, there’s a reason the great majority of Americans don’t trust them any more. Nine percent of Americans now have “a great deal” of trust in what they hear in the media. To put that into perspective, roughly four percent of the population think lizard people “control our societies by gaining political power.”

Too many of today’s media members are nothing more than Democrat party operatives with bylines who dutifully spout leftist talking points. They willfully ignore stories that are bad for their political allies and their agenda. Or they cover them…with a pillow. Until they stop moving.

At the same time, they’re quick to castigate law-abiding gun owners for the actions of actual criminals, terrorists, and lunatics who commit crimes with firearms.

The next time you see some politician or candidate talking about the problem of so-called “gun violence,” call them out on it. Pols usually squirm if you make them address the real issue that drives the majority violent crime in cities: gangs.

In centers of corruption like Chicago, they may aggressively deflect the discussion away from gangs because a lot of gangs in places like Chi-town have some very cozy relationships with local elected officials to provide votes in exchange for the politicians avoiding discussions about gang-related crimes.

As for the media, do the math. If they’re trumpeting talking points like “gun violence,” they’re probably gaslighting you about other topics too. Look deeper to see what else they’re lying to you about.

Guns are dangerous only when they’re not in proper working order. Otherwise, they’re inanimate objects that are unable to do anything on their own.

Is the Gun Dangerous, or is it the Criminal?

The world is fascinatingly complex yet important truths are often simple. We shouldn’t take that too far since most simple answers are wrong or incomplete. That tension helps make life so interesting as we try to understand the world around us. For example, here is a simple description of a complex problem. We saw violent crime increase in the last few years. Should we try to keep violent criminals away from guns, or should we try to keep violent criminals away from us? Is the tool dangerous or is the person dangerous? Let’s look at both ideas and see if there are any simple answers to be found.

When we look for simple solutions we see that criminals use guns to commit violence. That sounds like the case is closed but there is more evidence to uncover. If we keep looking then we find that innocent victims also use firearms to stop violence. That means the answers are not black and white but shades of gray.

When we look at all firearms we see that a vanishingly small fraction of the guns owned by civilians were used in violent crime each year (1 in 1400). Now we look deeper and find out that honest citizens used a firearm for self-defense over 1.6 million times a year. That is more people than live in New Hampshire or Hawaii. Each year, more people use a firearm for self-defense than the population of Wyoming and Vermont combined. Armed defense is common.

Proportions matter when we’re looking at shades of gray. We use a firearm for self-defense six times more often than a firearm is used in violent crime (5.98). Good guys with guns save lives. That is both simple and true.

Is safety that simple?

Despite the facts that guns overwhelmingly stop crime, New York State passed a law to lets the public sue gun manufacturers because criminals used a “dangerous” gun that the manufacturers released into the public. That obviously misses the target of reducing crime. Either those New York lawmakers missed the facts or they didn’t care about honest citizens who defend themselves. Politics is obviously complex.

When we look at how criminals behaved, we see that most violent crimes (85%) didn’t involve a firearm at all. Said another way, if we would magically disarm everyone, that wouldn’t hamper the vast majority of violent criminals. Instead, disarming the innocent victims makes it easier for the criminals and would lead to more violence.

Young men commit most violent crimes. Young men are stronger than old men, and far stronger and faster than most women. Disarming women and the elderly makes them much more vulnerable to violent criminals.

Few of us want that. Disarming the good guys hurts honest citizens who want to protect their family. That isn’t an abstract theory, but common practice as we use a gun for self defense over a million times a year.

Let’s step away from the soundbites. Look at human nature instead and think of the people you know. Some of the people you know are completely trustworthy while others are not. Some resist any temptation while others can’t be trusted with a penny. We are not all the same.

When it comes violence, some of us are a danger to others and most of us are not. It is the person who is a danger to others, not the tools they use. Again, that is both simple and true.

Violent criminals are not like us. Most of us will never commit a violent crime, yet we know that a few people will victimize others. Most murders are committed by a few hit men in drug gangs. 64 percent of felons who served time for a violent crime were re-arrested. 41 percent of violent criminals were later re-convicted of subsequent crimes. 34 percent of them were re-incarcerated. Some people practice a life of violent crime.

Firearms manufacturers built a product that we overwhelmingly use to save lives. If we’re looking for people who increase the risks for all of us, then let’s sue New York politicians, judges, and prosecutors who put dangerous recidivist criminals back on our streets.

Gov. Noem announces legislation to cut fees on business incorporations, concealed carry permits

PIERRE, S.D. – On Thursday Governor Kristi Noem announced a single legislation intended to eliminate taxes and fees associated with business incorporations and concealed carry permits in South Dakota.

The bill would eliminate all fees associated with starting or renewing a domestic business with the Secretary of State in South Dakota. It would also eliminates all fees for concealed carry permits in the state…….

Video ~ China’s Foreign Ministry on Americans’ Second Amendment rights: “That’s the freedom the US advocates — freedom to shoot other people.”

 

The old line from a James Bond movie is;
Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action
Paul will affirm that I don’t believe in ‘coincidence’, and I allow for ‘happenstance’ only in very limited instances.
From that, take what you will about what is termed ‘mistakes’ here.

Florida case shows inherent flaw with red flag laws

Red flag laws are a particularly onerous piece of gun control legislation. While a number of states have such laws on the books, all of them have serious problems. Part of that is because they start from a presumption of guilt and then you have to essentially prove your innocence.

But there tend to be layers to problems, and red flag laws aren’t uniquely devoid of those, apparently.

Take this case from Florida recently highlighted by USA Carry:

A case in point. The Lakeland, FL police department petitioned for a Red Flag Risk Protection Order through the Florida Statute 790.401(3)(a) and (b), in May 2020. Under the Order, a man I will call “E.P.” (identity protected because it is an active case) was taken into custody and his firearms and ammunition were seized.

His Hearing on the Order was scheduled for June 12, 2020 “in the court facility located at 255 N. Broadway Ave., Bartow, FL.” This date and time were confirmed on June 3, 2020, by the police department’s attorney, and again in a court notice issued before June 12. So, E.P. arrived at the appointed date and place at 1:30 pm and waited until 3:00 pm. He testified that “he was not let into the courtroom, nor was he aware that the Hearing would take place virtually or how to attend.” The Hearing was held at a remote video conferencing event, without notice of this change to E.P.

At that hearing, the court determined, incorrectly, that E.P. had “elected not to attend” and entered a Red Flag Protection Order against him. He was prohibited from having custody or control of, or purchasing, possessing, receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for up to a year, and was required to surrender any and all guns or ammo not already in the custody of the police to law enforcement. E.P. appealed the Order on the basis that it was made without giving him the chance to appear or a notice that the proceedings would take place by means other than those designated in court documents. This non-legal layman understands that a Notice of Hearing must be issued by the court, received, and followed by involved parties about the specifics given.

From May of 2020, the Order was in effect, and not until August 13, 2021, was the Order invalidated. The Appellate Court ruled that E.P.’s Due Process rights were violated by the failure to notify him that the Final Hearing would take place virtually instead of in the court facility listed in the Order. His right to be heard was deprived and the Order was reversed in his favor. I also recognize that his Second Amendment rights were violated.

Note that E.P. spent much time and money to correct the mistakes made by the government court system and to restore his inalienable rights to his guns, ammo, and property… his Second Amendment and Due Process Rights.

Now, as the above-linked piece points out, for poorer people, this simply isn’t an option. E.P. was in a position to seek legal assistance, but a lot of people really just can’t do so. That means they’re stripped of their Second Amendment rights, sometimes because of a bureaucratic screw-up and not because they represent an actual danger to anyone.

E.P. did what he was supposed to, but the state didn’t. Yet because of their mistakes, he was ordered to surrender any and all firearms he might still possess, was denied the ability to even shoot a gun lawfully, and had to spend time and treasure fixing the issue.

Nothing about that is right and there are no repercussions for those who make such mistakes.

If this were the only issue with red flag laws, that would be enough, but it’s not. Red flag laws can be used by those with a grudge against the person, and we’ve seen attempts to do just that. How many have we not heard about?

This is especially troubling since red flag laws aren’t even needed. Those who represent a risk to themselves or others can be held for psychological evaluation for up to 72 hours as it is. Those planning a mass shooting can be arrested under existing laws as well.

There’s really no reason for red flag laws, and yet, here we are.

ANTI-GUNNERS IN THE GRASS

Something insidious is underfoot, a strategy so subtle it is likely going unnoticed in your own neighborhood, school district, small town, larger city and in your county.

If you don’t wake up and pay attention, you may instead wake up some morning to discover you slept through a takeover of your community. Now is the time to stop it.

Comrade Workman

For more than a year, I have been receiving emails from an organization calling itself the “National Democratic Training Committee” which seems to support every far-left item on the liberal agenda and every far-left politician. Buried down near the end of each of these messages is this ominous note: “Listen, there are 518,000 elected positions in this country. Imagine if Democrats fought for every race — no matter how small. Imagine a world where our values of compassion and dignity for all people are upheld on every school board, on every city council, and in every state legislature.”

Got your attention, yet? This group also includes a hard link to find out more about running for public office. Just click on “I want to run for office” and the Democratic Training Committee will start indoctrinating — oops, we mean “training” — you for what they hope will be a winning campaign.

To paraphrase their own message, “Imagine if puppets for this group won every race — no matter how small. Imagine a world where their values became law, overruling your values, from the level of school board up through the state legislature.”

Continue reading “”

Data shows there’s more diversity at a gun range than a university faculty lounge

“Gun-ownership in America is diversifying, because of safety fears,” says a headline over at The Economist. As those of us in the Second Amendment community have known for a while, the sociopolitical climate since the start of the pandemic – egregious criminal–coddling behavior by the state, releasing dangerous prisoners because of COVID, nationwide “fiery but mostly peaceful” riots, rising violent crime, looting / shoplifting, hate crimes, falling trust in law enforcement – contributed to a sudden surge in gun purchases by groups historically not inclined to own them. The Economist reported the following:

Of the 7.5m Americans who bought firearms for the first time between January 2019 and April 2021—as gun-buying surged nationwide—half were female, a fifth black and a fifth Hispanic, according to a recent study by Matthew Miller of Northeastern University and his co-authors.

The 7.5 million number may well be a low estimate; one estimate from the NSSF is that there were 8.4 million new gun owners in 2020 alone. As I’ve written before in these pages, adding up numbers for 2020 and the first half of 2021 points to a potential 11.6 million first-time gun owners. The team here at Bearing Arms has written a lot about growing diversity in the Second Amendment community. We see this not only in data collected nationally and over the long-term, but also experience it first-hand at gun ranges. (As an immigrant who grew up without guns and didn’t touch one well into his adult life, I’m living proof of this demographic shift myself.)

However, diversity is a whole lot more than ethnic bean counting or about the superficial differences – religion, sexual orientation, etc. – among us. What counts the most, in my opinion, is diversity of thought and opinion, and the ability to express those freely without the fear of retaliation or retribution. This is where I think gun owners are simply outstanding; respect for individual freedom, for not treading on someone else lest our freedoms be tread upon, appears to come naturally to lawful gun owners. There is some data on political diversity among gun owners. Anecdotally speaking, the gun owners at my local club cover the gamut from traditional blue-collar tradesmen to Ph.D. holders, from the MAGA coterie to Medicare-for-All supporters.

Contrast that with a typical university faculty lounge and the difference is night and day. There is hard data showing how limited diversity is among university faculty. They may look different, have different national origins or sexual orientations, but politically they are incredibly alike. There’s also plenty of publicly available data that shows how faculty donations to candidates for office is overwhelmingly left-wing. Consider these recent examples: 96% at Harvard University, 97% at Yale University, and 98% at Cornell University.

Continue reading “”

The Economist: Growing Diversity of Gun Owners Is ‘Bad for Gun-Control Advocates’

The Economist pointed to the growing diversity of gun owners in America and noted that it is “bad for gun-control advocates.”

According to The Economist, a study by of Northeastern University shows that of the millions of first time buyers between January 2019 and April 2021, “half were female, a fifth black and a fifth Hispanic.”

Moreover, The Economist noted that “the share of black adults who joined the gun-owning ranks, 5.3%, was more than twice that of white adults.”

The demographics are a marked shift from 2015, when first time gun buyers “skewed white and male.”

Gun ownership changes things, thus The Economist observed that people who own guns “are more politically active around gun issues than non-owners.”

The Biden Family’s arrogance and corruption are astounding. Joe Biden issued several new executive orders on gun control while his son, Hunter Biden, is accused of lying on his gun background check. https://t.co/2HDrArsSZa

— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) April 8, 2021

Therefore, a drop in gun control support at this point in American history is not altogether surprising. On November 17, 2021, Breitbart News pointed to Gallup’s findings that support for stricter gun control was at its lowest point since 2014.

Gallup’s findings are in line with The Economist’s opinion that the growing diversification of gun owners is “bad for gun-control advocates.”

The Tide Is Turning On Gun Control
After two consecutive years of record violence, some on the left may be rediscovering the importance of self-defense.

Contrary to popular misconceptions, the Second Amendment did not create a right to keep and bear arms. Rather, the Second Amendment acknowledges and seeks to protect the People’s natural right to self-defense and the tools required for the exercise of that right, which obviously include firearms. This is why the amendment speaks of “the right” to arms as something already in existence and not to be infringed—rather than as something newly conferred, a point recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court.

It should not be a polarized and partisan issue. Historically, the right of armed self-defense was understood and exercised by figures who were far from conservative or libertarian, from Eleanor Roosevelt and George Orwell to the Black Panthers and Malcolm X. In a dangerous world, they understood that one’s life should not be left to the mercy of an aggressor.

In light of 2021—a second consecutive year of record violence—are some on the left rediscovering the importance of self-defense? There’s reason to think so.

Continue reading “”