Category: RKBA

Do Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapons Laws Still Reduce Crime?

A review of the literature studying the effect of right-to-carry laws shows that the weight of evidence indicates that such laws reduced violent crime.

However, more recent studies, using more recent data, tend to find that these laws cause increases in various kinds of violent crime, raising the possibility that circumstances have changed since 2000, causing these laws to become detrimental.

We suggest that these recent studies, which do not use all the available data, are seriously compromised because they compare states that only recently have adopted right-to-carry laws with states that have had these laws for many years, instead of comparing against states with more restrictive laws.

Early adopting states experienced relatively large reductions in crime corresponding to large increases in the number of right-to-carry permits. Late adopting states passed rules making it difficult to obtain permits and exercise the right to carry concealed weapons. Ignoring the fact that these late adopting states with stricter rules on obtaining permits issue relatively few permits can produce perverse results where coefficients imply an increase in crime even though the opposite is true.

We demonstrate this effect with a simple statistical test.

SSRN-id3850436

And then there were 25

Gov. Kemp signs bill allowing concealed carry of handguns without a license

Standing outside Gable Sporting Goods in Douglasville, where Gov. Brian Kemp said he bought his daughter Lucy’s first handgun, the governor signed a bill that allows Georgians to carry concealed handguns without first getting a license from the state.

Making good on a 2018 campaign promise, Kemp signed Senate Bill 319, referred to by backers as “constitutional carry.”

SB 319 allows a “lawful weapons carrier” to carry a concealed handgun everywhere license holders currently are allowed — meaning guns would still be prohibited in places such as the secured areas of airports or government buildings that have security at the entrance, including the state Capitol.

A lawful weapons carrier is defined as anyone who is now lawfully allowed to have a gun. The bill went into effect upon his signature.

Continue reading “”

Nebraska concealed carry handgun bill comes short of votes

LINCOLN — In a surprise, state lawmakers failed to muster enough votes Monday to advance a concealed carry handgun bill, called “constitutional carry” by some.

The vote to invoke cloture was 31-9, two short of what’s needed to stop a filibuster and advance a bill. It was also four fewer senators than the number who supported advancement of the bill from first-round debate.

“To say that I’m disappointed is an understatement,” said State Sen. Tom Brewer of Gordon, who has made passing the bill a priority during his six years in office.

25 other states

At least 25 other states have passed such laws. In Nebraska, it would have allowed people to carry a concealed weapon without obtaining a $100 state permit, undergoing a criminal background check and passing a gun safety class.

Brewer had worked for several weeks to negotiate a compromise to Legislative Bill 773 with the Omaha police union and police department, which had expressed concern about the bill watering down existing gun control ordinances in the state’s largest city and complicating their job of reducing gun violence.

The compromise amendment would have left in place an Omaha ordinance that requires registration of handguns. It also would have allowed for the continued prosecution of the crime of “carrying a concealed handgun” if a concealed gun was used in a long list of “covered offenses,” from robbery and kidnapping, to cockfighting and disorderly conduct.

NRA urged ‘no’ vote

But the powerful National Rifle Association urged a “no” vote against the amendment, calling it “a discriminatory attempt to place Omaha’s extreme firearm registration requirement into state law.”

Senators failed to pass the compromise amendment on a 13-29 vote — 12 fewer “yes” votes than needed.

The defeat pushed the Omaha Police Officers Association from neutral on the bill to oppose and sparked a debate over whether voting for LB 773 was a vote against law enforcement.

Continue reading “”

Once more, into the fray……….
I think they shouldn’t be regulated as a firearm at all, but getting them off the NFA is a compromise I can live with, for the time being. It would mean that a person would be able to make their own, because, even with this new ‘ghost gun’ regulatory crap, there’s nothing, except state laws, that would stop that.

Hyde-Smith cosponsors bill to reclassify suppressors with regular firearms

U.S. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), of Brookhaven, announced Monday she has cosponsored legislation to reform the regulation of suppressors and make them more available to help preserve the hearing of sportsmen and their hunting dogs.

The Hearing Protection Act (S.2050) would reclassify suppressors to regulate them like a regular firearm.  U.S. Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) authored the measure.

“Eliminating a lot of the red tape that restricts access to suppressors could help hunters and sport shooters in Mississippi avoid permanent hearing damage,” Hyde-Smith said.  “The Hearing Protection Act would make commonsense improvements to make it easier for responsible, law-abiding Americans to enjoy their Second Amendment rights and protect their hearing.”

Regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA), suppressors are subject to additional burdens that often exceed those imposed by more liberal European nations that actually require their use to reduce hearing-related injuries.

S.2050 would:

  • Reclassify suppressors to regulate them like traditional firearms;
  • Remove NFA jurisdiction over suppressors;
  • Replace the overly-burdensome federal transfer process with an instantaneous National Instant Criminal Background Check System background check, making the purchasing and transfer process for suppressors equal to the process for a rifle or shotgun;
  • Tax suppressors under the Pittman-Robertson Act instead of the costly NFA, putting more funding into state wildlife conservation agencies.

The Hearing Protection Act would not change any laws in states that already prevent suppressors, nor does it get rid of the requirement of a background check.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, American Suppressor Association, Gun Owners of America, and National Rifle Association support this legislation.

It’s not about deer hunting and they all know it, all too well.

It’s part what’s in the article, and part this:
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party [which is the Chinese goobermint] commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party. —Mao Tse Tung 1938
They want the ability to ‘command’ restricted as much as possible.

 

They want to protect the criminals from you

We must ban the guns says the leader of the party that unleashed violent, murderous mobs on American citizens to win an election and let convinced criminals out of prison because of a cough.

The fastest growing demographics of gun owners are women and minorities in urban areas who have come under siege from criminals due to COVID and Social Justice bail reform policies that let criminals go free.

Gun control will not reduce crime.

It will hinder these new demographics of fire time gun owners from buying effective tools of self defense.

Leftist, as part of their dimmer switch of violence, understand how crime and criminals can be used as effective tools of political coercion and enforcement.

Armed citizens cannot be allowed to defend themselves from criminals or the political use of criminals is voided, so the obvious solution is to disarm the law abiding citizens, not re-arrest the criminals.

Again, this is about inflicting pain on the people for trying to lives lives of self reliance.

Nebraska Constitutional Carry Set for a Monday Vote!

Next Monday, the Nebraska Senate is poised to vote on important Constitutional Carry legislation, Legislative Bill 773!  The measure is still progressing through a series of votes before it officially passes out of the Senate to the Governor’s desk.  That is why it is more important than ever that you immediately contact your State Senator and ask them to SUPPORT Legislative Bill 773 without further amendments!

Half of the Nation has now enacted some form of Constitutional Carry.  Nebraska can lead the charge for the second half to do so as well.  However, an attempt is being made to add Amendment 2106 to this important self-defense measure, which codifies Omaha’s firearm registration, stigmatizes firearms by increasing penalties for non-violent offenses, and makes “failure to inform” a felony.

The point of Constitutional carry is to make it easy and affordable for everyone to exercise their right to self-defense.  Amendment 2106 is a discriminatory attempt to place Omaha’s extreme firearm registration requirement into state law, only affecting Nebraskan’s in Omaha.  Your NRA-ILA stands staunchly in opposition to these additions to LB 773.

Legislative Bill 773 recognizes that a law-abiding adult who is legally allowed to carry a concealed firearm, can do so without first having to obtain government permission.  This ensures that citizens have the right to self-defense without government red tape or delays.  Additionally, this legislation maintains the existing concealed handgun license system, so citizens who still wish to obtain a permit may do so.

Alabama lawmakers pass bill meant to block Biden orders

Alabama is a very pro-gun state. They just passed constitutional carry earlier this year, for example, and it seems lawmakers there aren’t interested in resting on their laurels. They’re still trying to make pro-Second Amendment moves.

In fact, they just passed another law that’s bound to rustle the proverbial jimmies of the gun control crowd.

Alabama lawmakers have passed a bill intended to block state and local officials from enforcing executive orders by the president that restrict ownership or use of firearms.

The bill by Sen. Gerald Allen, R-Tuscaloosa, is called the Alabama Second Amendment Protection Act.

Allen and other Republican lawmakers have proposed similar bills since President Biden took office last year.

Democrats opposed the bill, questioning the purpose and practicality of the bill and citing the Supremacy Clause, which holds that federal law generally supersedes state law.

Rep. David Standridge, R-Hayden, the House sponsor of the bill, said people in Alabama are concerned about the possibility of presidential orders on firearms.

Standridge has said he believes states can decide whether state and local police enforce presidential orders. That state authority does not apply to federal officers, he has said.

And Standridge makes a valid point. After all, the law doesn’t dictate what laws are in effect within the state of Alabama’s borders, only what state and local law enforcement do with regard to those laws.

This will probably spark a legal challenge much like how Missouri’s SAPA did, but there are differences between the two measures.

Frankly, though, I’m not interested in hearing criticism of this measure from anyone who supports sanctuary measures at the state level for illegal immigrants. After all, this is fundamentally no different than those laws, really. The only difference is what is being tolerated.

Of course, for far too many anti-gun jihadists, guns are different. The rules are different and they should be free to enact whatever legislation they want, at least in their minds.

The thing is, that’s not how it works. Any tactic you try is fair game for someone else to give a go. Sure, what works in one policy arena may not work in another, but you can’t pretend to be offended when someone gives it a go.

So, Alabama did.

Now we’ll just have to wait for what the courts say. I suspect we’ll see similar arguments to what we’ll see in Missouri, but in the end, it doesn’t matter.

Even a decision that comes down against the Second Amendment will ultimately hurt the Democrats who are pushing this stuff. Instead of just winning for gun control, they’ll manage to epitomize the statement, “Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.”

However, truth be told, I don’t see that happening. Laws aren’t being nullified and insisting police enforce federal executive orders amounts to an unfunded mandate, which is problematic as well.

In the end, I suspect the law will fly and I suspect we’ll see a number of other states pass similar measures in short order.

Biden’s call for gun control smacked down by reality

President Joe Biden, like many gun control advocates, wasted no time at all in calling for Congress to enact new legislation in the wake of the latest shooting in Sacramento. In their minds, another mass shooting could only mean gun control was needed and needed swiftly.

However, as we now know, reality slapped the president in the face.

In the immediate aftermath of a mass shooting in Sacramento, California, that killed six and injured 15, President Joe Biden echoed a familiar sentiment among Democrats: “We must do more than mourn; we must act.”

Of course, Biden was specifically calling for further restrictions on Americans’ second amendment rights as an answer to the country’s ongoing surge in violent crime.

“We also continue to call on Congress to act,” the president said in a statement. “Ban ghost guns. Require background checks for all gun sales. Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Repeal gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability.”

But new revelations from law enforcement quickly discredited Democrats’ broad claims that gun regulations would have prevented the deadly incident. Instead, it appeared that, if anything, a tougher stance from law enforcement was due.

First, news broke that one of the suspects in the shooting, 27-year-old Smiley Martin, is a dangerous career criminal who was granted early release from prison only weeks before the shootout occurred — in spite of pleading and warning from the county’s district attorney. The other suspect, 26-year-old Dandrae Martin, also has a criminal record.

Then on Wednesday, police in Sacramento reported that at least five suspects and “two groups of men” were involved in the shooting. They added that it had become “increasingly clear that gang violence is at the center of this tragedy.”

See, this is what they get for jumping and calling for regulations before we know anything.

Don’t get me wrong, even if this had been exactly what Biden and his crowd thought it was, I’d still oppose gun control, but at least we’d be looking at things that had some degree of bearing on what happened.

Instead, we get the same blanket pronouncements and the advancement of still more gun control policies that have been on the table for a while–all of which exist in California, it should be noted.

Biden and others pushed that narrative, confident that it wouldn’t be challenged, which was idiotic. This is California, which has all the gun control laws they’re talking about, and what good did it do?

I mean, one of the shooters had a weapon that was illegally modified to be full-auto–that violates federal law as well.

Didn’t help, now did it?

Time and time again, gun control jihadists do this. They jump at the opportunity to push their agenda without waiting for all the facts.

Usually, they screw up things like calling for an assault weapon ban, saying how it’s needed to stop a mass shooting like the one that just transpired, only for us to learn the shooter used a handgun. Things like that.

This time, though, it’s not even a mass shooting as we tend to think of it. It was gang warfare and at least one of the shooters was free because of policies explicitly backed by Democrats.

It’s kind of hard to make pronouncements about how Republicans are making people unsafe when one of the alleged killers is only free because of Democrats.

President Biden would have done well to simply offer his sympathies to the families of those killed, then said we need to wait and learn exactly what happened before we try and figure out how to address it. However, that’s not his MO and it never has been.

Which is why reality treated Biden like he was Chris Rock and he’d just joked about Reality’s wife’s hair.

Missouri Self-Defense Bill Advances from Senate General Laws [Committee]

….the Senate General Laws Committee voted 4-1 to pass House Bill 1462, to reduce areas where law-abiding citizens are left defenseless. It will now advance to the full Senate for further consideration. Please contact Senate President Dave Schatz and the Senate Majority Floor Leader Caleb Rowden, and ask them to schedule HB 1462 to be heard on the floor.

House Bill 1462 repeals arbitrary “gun-free zones” that do nothing to hinder criminals, while leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless. It removes the prohibition on law-abiding citizens carrying firearms for self-defense on public transit property and in vehicles. This ensures that citizens with varying commutes throughout their day, and of various economic means, are able to exercise their Second Amendment rights and defend themselves.

The bill also repeals the prohibition in state law against carrying firearms for self-defense in places of worship. This empowers private property owners to make such decisions regarding security on their own, rather than the government mandating a one-size-fits-all solution.

Observation O’ The Day

I don’t think a surge in gun ownership and a political shift away from gun-control was what George Soros had in mind when he urged the Philly District Attorney to release criminals back on the street. Things don’t always go as planned. By the way, there is an impeachment effort to remove the Philly District Attorney, the same attorney that Soros funded. –Rob Morse

Philadelphia gun permit applications continue to increase amid crime wave
Data shows permit applications increased 539% from 2020 to 2021.

PHILADELPHIA (WPVI) — Gun shop owners continue to see an increase in gun sales, particularly when it comes to new gun owners and people applying for gun permits for the first time.
Sebastian Stelmach is the co-owner of Double Tap Shooting Range and Gun Store in Philadelphia’s Holmesburg neighborhood.

Stelmach says they saw a huge increase in sales of guns and ammunition during the pandemic.

“Ever since then, it’s been going up with more gun sales, new shooters, you name it,” said Stelmach.

He says his customers, including new ones, say they are motivated to buy guns out of concern for their personal protection.

“There’s been a big increase in violence throughout the city — so a lot of robberies, carjackings going on. The first thing they ask is, ‘I need a weapon for protection.’ Honestly, it’s been a lot of women, single moms,” said Stelmach.

The Action News Data Journalism team looked at the numbers and found the Philadelphia Police Department’s gun permit unit saw nearly six and a half times as many gun permit applications received in 2021 as in 2020 — a 539% increase.So far this year, they have already seen more applications than all of 2020 and are on pace to exceed last year’s number.

Continue reading “”

California’s gun restrictions are a failure

IN SUMMARY

California has the nation’s most restrictive gun laws but they have failed to stem the increase in gun ownership, the availability of illegal guns by criminals or gun violence.

Inevitably, last weekend’s horrendous fusillade of bullets on a downtown Sacramento street that left six people dead and at least a dozen wounded generated demands for new gun controls in state that already has the nation’s most restrictive firearms laws.

However, if anything, what happened just two blocks from the state Capitol underscores the folly of believing that “gun violence” can be meaningfully reduced by trying to choke off the supply of firearms – any more than the prohibition of liquor or the war on drugs succeeded.

The state’s gun laws have hassled law-abiding hunters and gun hobbyists and some are in danger of being declared unconstitutional. However, Californians already own more than 20 million rifles, shotguns and handguns and are buying hundreds of thousands more each year.

Nor have these laws prevented the lawless from obtaining weapons via theft, smuggling from other states or the illicit manufacture of untraceable “ghost guns.” Indeed, state restrictions have made the black market even more lucrative, mirroring the side effects of Prohibition and the decades-long drug war.

Initial evidence indicates that those who fired more than 100 rounds in a street crowded with bar and nightclub patrons probably were violating one or more gun laws. The two brothers that police arrested and are suspected of involvement in the mass shooting were charged with illegal possession of weapons – one for possession of an illegal fully automatic firearm.

So why, if California’s much-vaunted gun control laws have failed to choke off the supply of legal and illegal weapons, do politicians continue to claim that enacting even more will have an effect?

Some may believe it, the evidence notwithstanding, while others want to appear to be doing something about a problem because they don’t have any other answers. And those who propose and enact new gun laws are often woefully ignorant about guns or even existing laws.

In the aftermath of the shooting, Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg lamented to a radio interviewer about California’s difficulty in reducing the number of guns, saying, “You just have to go to a gun show in Reno to buy an assault weapon without a background check and come right back to California.”

Advocates of more laws often cite a “gun show loophole” but it’s a myth. Under federal law, one must be a resident of Nevada and undergo a federal background check to legally buy a gun in Reno.

Moreover, while California professes to have banned “assault weapons,” the state’s definition of them involves cosmetic features, rather than their lethality. Perfectly legal semi-automatic rifles that lack those features are available for sale everywhere in the state.

The newest effort at gun control in California, backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, would authorize personal lawsuits against the manufacturers and sellers of illegal assault rifles or ghost guns, mirroring a new Texas law allowing suits against those who perform abortions.

The legislation, Senate Bill 1327, is just a stunt – one of Newsom’s periodic jabs at a rival state. Those who could be sued under the bill are already committing criminal acts in California and a federal law prohibits suits against manufacturers of legal firearms, including the “assault weapons” that California and a few other states purport – but fail – to outlaw.

The bottom line is this: Actor Alec Baldwin’s claims notwithstanding, guns don’t fire on their own. Someone must accidentally or purposely pull the trigger and that should be the focus of efforts to reduce violence – such as more vigorous enforcement of laws banning gun possession by felons and those under court order.

On to the Senate

Missouri House Bill 1462 passes 101-40, allowing people with legally concealed firearms on public transit.

Yesterday House Bill 1462 passed 101- 40 in the Missouri House. The bill heads to the Senate, where the NRA-ILA hopes the General Laws Committee hears it.

The bill states that law-abiding citizens with valid concealed carry permits will be able to conceal and carry firearms in previously prohibited places such as public transit and churches.

The NRA-ILA website reaches out to its readers by saying this regarding the bill:

“House Bill 1462 repeals arbitrary “gun-free zones” that do nothing to hinder criminals, while leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless. It removes the prohibition on law-abiding citizens carrying firearms for self-defense on public transit property and in vehicles. This ensures that citizens with varying commutes throughout their day, and of various economic means, are able to exercise their Second Amendment rights and defend themselves.”
The United States Second Amendment “Right to Bear Arms” is historically a hot subject between the Democrats and Republicans.

The war in Ukraine brings alive the purpose of private citizens bearing arms. Ukraine is the only country in Europe where firearms are unregulated by statute.

Ukraine has been at war since Russia invaded its borders in February of this year. The Ukrainians surprised the world with their tenacity and Ukrainian pride.

At first, being dubbed the underdogs, the Ukrainian people seemed doomed. Surprising the entire world they turned it around, and it appears Russia is starting to withdraw with the spirits of their troops broken.

When the war started, Ukrainian President Zelensky, more of a suit and tie type, responded to offers to get him out of the country safely with:

“I don’t need a ride. I need ammunition!”
Donning camo and firearms, he and most of his government, including women and members of parliament, learned to shoot and fight on the fly. The citizens of Ukraine joined their government and persevered.

The mass devastation and casualties in Ukraine, along with the horrific scenes being left behind of citizens tortured and murdered as Russians retreat, are indicative of what can and will happen. This is why people feel it is necessary to always be in a position to protect yourself.

Many say anti-gun laws protect criminals because criminals don’t file for permits. They acquire guns on the black market. Criminals are armed on public transit, just illegally. Citizens deprived of their Second Amendment rights become victims of criminals with illicitly obtained firearms.

Missourians must know the happenings in the Missouri General Assembly. Your officials can’t speak on your behalf if they are unaware of your opinion.

Change comes from involvement, and involvement is easier than you think. Click this link to email your senator your thoughts on Bill 1462.

What are your thoughts on Missouri gun laws?

If You Can’t Ban It, Overregulate It: Democrats War on Guns Continues

In 2020, my husband and I took a concealed carry course at Magnum Shooting Center in Colorado Springs. The class itself was approximately four hours and covered a number of topics related to gun ownership and safety. After the classroom instruction, we spent an hour on the range.

What surprised me about this course was that a fair portion of it included instruction on Colorado laws, and specifically, what to do if I were ever in a situation when I needed to discharge my weapon (answer, get a lawyer).

Indeed, even in cases of clear self-defense, legally owning a gun and using it to protect yourself can ruin you financially if the person you shot decides to come after you in court. What’s more, this happens regularly. Someone shoots a would-be perpetrator in self-defense, and the assailant turns around and presses charges.

If the above sounds outrageous to you, you’re not alone. But, owning a gun and using it for protection is not as straightforward as you might think. That’s because while Colorado Democrats in the General Assembly can’t outright ban gun ownership thanks to the Second Amendment, they’ve made fair progress toward making gun ownership impractical. And while Republicans are trying to safeguard Second Amendment rights, they’re facing an uphill battle. Here’s what just happened in the Colorado House of Representatives and why it matters to the overall picture of gun ownership.

Restricting Constitutional Carry

Colorado is currently considered an open carry state. That means if you’re legally allowed to possess a firearm, you can open carry it as long as it’s not in a restricted area. However, in 2021, Democratic lawmakers successfully passed Senate Bill 21-256, allowing local governments and municipalities the right to enact any gun law or regulation it wants, as long as that rule is not less restrictive than current Colorado law.

That means places like Boulder can now legally ban open carry of firearms even though open carry is legal under Colorado’s state law. And indeed, that’s what’s happening. So far, Denver is the only area to prohibit open carry, but liberal places like Boulder will follow.

In response to the above, Representative Ron Hanks (Republican, D-60) introduced House Bill 22-1033, “Constitutional Carry of a Handgun.” If it’d passed, HB 1033 would allow anyone 21 years or older who is legally permitted to own a handgun, to also be permitted to carry that weapon concealed without a concealed carry permit. In other words, if you’re 21 or older and you legally own a gun, you wouldn’t have to attend a class and then get a permit to carry that gun under your jacket. More importantly, HB 1033 would’ve repealed part of SB 256. It stated, “The bill repeals local government authority to regulate open or concealed carry of a handgun, including repealing the authority of special districts and the governing boards of institutions of higher education, as applicable.”

After Hanks introduced HB 1033 to the House, it was assigned to the House Committee on Public & Behavioral Health and Human Services. And on Feb. 8, after less than three hours of deliberation, Democrats voted to postpone HB 1033 indefinitely on a party-line vote.

Republicans’ Hands are Tied

Over the past year, The Maverick Observer has detailed how Democrats in the Colorado General Assembly have worked to increase barriers to gun ownership. And with recent bills like HB 22-1086 successfully making their way through the legislative process (link to be included once my article is published), 2022 will end with even more bureaucratic red tape. Make no mistake, the end goal is to overregulate guns into obscurity.

Republican lawmakers like Hanks have tried to push back on these measures, but because Democrats make up a majority in both the House and Senate, and Colorado has a Democratic Governor, these efforts have almost zero chance of passing and are, essentially, dead on arrival.

If the above concerns you, you can take a number of actions. First, contact your representatives and tell them how you feel about the continued encroachments to your Second Amendment rights. Second, sign up to testify either for or against bills making their way through the legislative process. And third — and arguably the only way to enact change given the current makeup in the General Assembly — vote in November for representatives who support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

That’s ironic.
“This doesn’t work, so we need more of it!”
California gun laws didn’t stop a shooting that happened in California.

Dianne Feinstein Calls for Federal Adoption of California Gun Laws in Wake of California Shooting

Federalizing California’s laws is the answer to preventing future mass shootings like the one that happened in California this weekend, according to one of the state’s senators.

Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) called for a collection of new federal gun laws in response to a shootout in Sacramento, California, on Sunday morning, which left six dead and a dozen injured. She said Congress should adopt universal background checks, bans on “assault weapons” and “ghost guns,” as well as an ammunition magazine capacity limit to prevent similar future killings.

“Congress knows what steps must be taken to stop these mass shootings, we just have to act,” Feinstein said in a press release.

However, all of the policies Feinstein advocated for are already law in California. The state has among the strictest gun laws in the country. It has long required background checks on private sales of used guns, banned a continually expanding list of “assault weapons,” limited the capacity of ammunition magazines to ten rounds, and outlawed unserialized firearms.

Feinstein admitted many of the details of the shooting were “still being investigated” when she issued her statement. Police hadn’t apprehended any suspects when she weighed in on a solution. Details remain limited on what happened during the shooting, but reports indicate shots were fired after an early-morning fight outside a nightclub in a crowded downtown area of the city. Three suspects with serious criminal records have now been apprehended, according to Sacramento Police,

Federal law precludes at least two of the men from possessing firearms due to their previous convictions. Additionally, one of the men has been charged with illegal possession of a machinegun, another federal crime.

Feinstein was not the only one to call for new federal gun laws in response to the shooting. President Joe Biden (D.) advocated for many of the same policies during his comments on the killings.

“We also continue to call on Congress to act,” Biden said on Sunday. “Ban ghost guns. Require background checks for all gun sales. Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.”

The refrain has become a common response from gun-control advocates in the wake of high-profile shootings. They often argue while California’s gun laws are strong, looser laws in neighboring states undermine those policies. Advocates say federal gun laws are required to ensure criminals cannot obtain banned guns or accessories across state lines and then illegally transport them back into California.

“Of course, this isn’t an isolated event,” Feinstein said. “It’s the latest in an epidemic of gun violence that continues to plague our country. Enough is enough. We can no longer ignore gun violence in our communities.”

However, there are no reports the suspects in Sacramento’s shooting obtained their guns from outside the state. They would have been breaking federal law by obtaining them regardless given their criminal histories.

Sacramento Police are asking anyone with more information on the shooting to contact them at (916) 808-5471 or the Sacramento Valley Crime Stoppers at (916) 443-HELP (4357). They are offering a reward of up to $1,000 for information, and callers may remain anonymous.

What Gun Restriction Would Biden Pass That Isn’t Already the Law in California?

“We must do more than mourn — we must act,” President Joe Biden said on Sunday’s shoot-out in downtown Sacramento that killed six. Biden called on Congress to ban ghost guns, pass “universal” background checks, ban assault weapons, and repeated the lie that gun manufacturers have special immunity from liability.

California already has “universal” background checks. It has “red flag” laws and domestic-violence gun confiscation (often, without any real due process). It has an assault-weapon and magazine ban, deputizing citizens to enforce them. California has safe-storage laws and a ghost-gun ban. The state has a firearm-sales record and the strictest gun-dealer regulation in the nation. It empowers local authorities to further regulate firearms but not to deregulate. It has raised the allowable age even to buy a shotgun or rifle from 18 to 21. In most municipalities, concealed-carry permits are almost impossible to get.

California is home to 111 laws — not counting the thousands passed in cities and counties — that restrict “the manner and space in which firearms can be used,” according to Boston University School of Public Health. “California has the strongest gun laws in the United States and has been a trailblazer for gun safety for the past 30 years,” says Giffords Law Center. The only thing California hasn’t done is outright ban semi-automatic weapons, which is where all these incremental restrictions are meant to lead.

The Hypocrisy of Gun Control Elitists

In 2020, then-presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg was asked how he could continue to demand gun control while being protected by private guards equipped with the same firearms and magazines that he wanted to ban others from owning. “Does your life matter more than mine or my family’s or these people’s?” Bloomberg’s response, in essence, was that he was not an ordinary person. He was a celebrity and billionaire who received more threats than most people: “That just happens when you are the mayor of New York City or you are very wealthy.”

At the same time, another big-city Democrat politician known for pushing gun control on the lower orders was being shielded by a small army of police officers, presumably at the taxpayers’ expense. The Chicago Sun-Times recently disclosed that a special police security detail, Unit 544, was created two years ago to protect Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, her home and office, and to “oversee her personal bodyguard detail.” The special unit consists of approximately 71 officers, in addition to the mayor’s existing “separate personal bodyguard detail” of 20 officers.

Both cities – ex-Mayor Bloomberg’s New York City and Lightfoot’s Chicago – are experiencing horrific surges in violent crime. The most recent “CompStat” report from the NYPD indicates rapes, robberies, felony assaults, burglaries, grand larceny, and auto thefts have all increased significantly as compared to the same time last year, and the Chicago Police Department’s (CPD) own “CompStat” contains the same dismal message.

While privileged politicians float above this wave of criminality, untroubled by threats to person or property, less exalted individuals are forced to rely on whatever police resources may be available or become their own version of Unit 544.

Last week in Chicago, for instance, a 70-year-old Uber driver, threatened by robbers who then carjacked his vehicle, had to wait 75 minutes before police could respond. Police assigned to serve the area had been drastically reduced to 261 officers, the “lowest monthly staffing level for the district since at least August 2017,” so no one was available to take the assignment until the next shift began. The problem isn’t restricted to that police district: overall, more than 660 CPD officers retired in 2021, almost double the number of retirees in 2018, and recruiting of new officers dropped during the pandemic. Carjacking reports, meanwhile, have set a new monthly record as of February 2022, up 390% from February 2019.

The impact on public safety is what makes Lightfoot’s private defense force of almost 100 officers all the more outrageous. In 2020, residents had already complained that patrol officers in areas close to Lightfoot’s home were redeployed to the mayor’s residence. It’s at odds with the mayor’s oft-used theme of “all hands on deck” to address public safety using a “coordinated and collective effort,” if scores of the deckhands are used for what amounts to private security work. And Lightfoot herself can’t pretend that police resources aren’t affected, because the creation of Unit 544 coincided with her proposal to cut the CPD budget by $80 million as part of addressing a pandemic–related citywide budget shortfall.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Lightfoot asserts her special police detail became necessary because in 2020, there was “a significant amount of protests all over the city, and some of them targeted [] my house.” (News reports from 2020 indicate that the protests included, ironically, calls to remove police from schools, for reforms to the CPD, and to defund the police.) A 2020 news report quotes Lightfoot defending, as well, the closing off of residential streets around her home to activists, because of threats to her safety. “[T]he situation can’t be compared to protests at former mayor Rahm Emanuel’s home given the pandemic… This is a different time – like no other.”

John Catanzara, president of Chicago’s Fraternal Order of Police, observes that “[w]hile murders are soaring, while districts are barebones for manpower, all that matters [to Lightfoot] is protecting her castle.”

Of course, it is completely reasonable for Lightfoot to take lawful measures to protect herself and her family, the same as anyone else, but her situation is arguably no more dire nor compelling than the crisis of crime faced by every other Chicago resident today.

The problem is that the mayor, and others like her, are the same anti-gun advocates who see no contradiction between demanding ever more pointless restrictions on the ability of constituents to legally access firearms for self-defense, and ensuring their own safety with assigned police bodyguards and armed security. Ordinary citizens don’t need guns because the police will protect them – even if crime climbs to levels not seen in decades and there’s upward of an hour’s wait on a 911 call.

These people would have you believe that this isn’t gun control elitism in action – it’s just that they aren’t like you and me. After all, if you don’t have bread you can always eat cake.

About that “GOP states have higher murder rates” study

I debated long and hard about giving this “study” from the moderate Democratic group Third Way even a paragraph’s worth of attention because of how shamelessly unscientific it is, but I’ve seen enough chatter about it online that I feel like I can’t ignore the problems I have with it, especially since I’m sure that gun control activists will be pointing to what Third Way has to say as evidence for the need for more gun control laws.

Let’s start with the premise for the “study,” which Third Way calls “The Red State Murder Problem” even though their own summary demonstrates that’s not exactly the issue.

  • The rate of murders in the US has gone up at an alarming rate. But, despite a media narrative to the contrary, this is a problem that afflicts Republican-run cities and states as much or more than the Democratic bastions.

In other words, what Third Way’s research shows is that the increase in violent crime beginning in 2020 was seen across the board. I don’t think there’s any disagreement on that, though it should be noted that there were also areas of the country that saw declines in homicides in 2020, including blue-state Baltimore and red-state Oklahoma City. In fact, here are the cities with the biggest increases and decreases in homicides in 2020, as reported by the anti-gun outfit Everytown for Gun Safety. Let’s start with the cities that saw the biggest murder spikes.

  1. In seven cities, the gun homicide rate at least doubled in 2020 compared to 2019: Lubbock, TX; Des Moines, IA; Fresno, CA; Vallejo, CA; Trenton, NJ; Columbus, OH; Syracuse, NY; and Milwaukee, WI.

By the way, those crack researchers at Everytown say there were seven cities where the gun homicide rate doubled, but I count eight cities up there. Third Way looked at states that voted for Trump vs. states that voted for Biden in 2020 as their “red/blue” metric, which in this case means that cities in three Trump states had double digit increases in the gun homicide rate, compared to five cities in Biden states. This completely cuts against Third Way’s hypothesis about the increase in homicides being a red state problem, but it gets even worse from there.

Continue reading “”

Like True Commies, the Democrats Create Crime Then Use Crime Stats to Take Our Guns

This Crime Wave Brought to You by Democrats

Democrats love mass shootings. It’s their best chance at taking away our guns. We saw it happen in Australia back in 1996 when some wackjob killed 35 people and Australians HANDED OVER THEIR firearms — 700,000 or so to be exact, because, you know, safety, I guess…?

As you have probably heard, a mass shooting in Sacramento, Calif., left six people dead and 15 more wounded. The story isn’t getting a ton of traction because the shooter is most likely not Muslim or white. The media loves when the shooter is a Muslim because terror attacks keep people focused on the news. Lefty media will drag out a mass shooting when the shooter is white because it backs up the lie that most mass shooters are angry, drooling white guys in NRA hats.

That’s right, a lie. As I’ve reported, 67% of mass shooters are black. Most people don’t realize that fact because the Pravda press perpetuates the myth that mass shooters are white dudes who got fired from Denny’s. When people hear “mass shooting,” they assume a white guy flipped out and blazed up a McDonald’s. Democrats want you to believe that. Sure, you heard about the Sacramento shooting, but did you hear about the 11 people who were shot the day before at rapper Big Boogie’s concert in Texas? I didn’t until just now. I’ve never even heard of Big Boogie. I wonder why the media ignored that story? Awww, we know! Let’s put it this way, no MAGA hats were recovered at the crime scene.

FACT-O-RAMA! Stalin, Castro, Mao, and Pol Pot took guns away from their people before slaughtering them. Biden wants to take your guns too. Why? Because he’s a communist and that’s what commies do.

This is how it works: the Democrats let criminals out of jail and then got rid of bail laws to keep them out. They defunded police departments nationwide. Criminals do what criminals do: they shoot people. When there is a mass shooting, Democrats say, “Look! Another mass shooting! Let’s take guns from law-abiding people!”

Continue reading “”