Category: RKBA

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

The Second Amendment and the Sovereignty of a Nation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

Columbia, SC to roll back gun control amid state threats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the nature of gun control changing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arizona campus carry advocate motivated by childhood in Communist country

Can you imagine if Cambodia had the Second Amendment?’

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

An Opportunity Second Amendment Supporters Must Not Waste

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DeWine signs bill allowing ‘constitutional carry’ in Ohio.

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

Below The Radar: Stopping the Fraudulent Sales of Firearms Act

Second Amendment supporters often have to make difficult decisions. Not in the sense of Glock vs. Colt vs. Springfield Armory, but more along the lines of how to address a given piece of anti-Second Amendment legislation.

Take for instance the Stopping the Fraudulent Sales of Firearms Act, known as S 3776 and HR 6997. The legislation purports to prohibit the importation, sale, or manufacture of firearms “by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.”

On the face of it, this seems unobjectionable. Nobody wants to be sold a firearm on the basis of misrepresentation or a false promise, right? But there are red flags when Second Amendment supporters think things through some more.

For starters, the Senate bill is sponsored by Dianne Feinstein, a long-standing enemy of our Second Amendment rights. So that is a red flag right there. Her co-sponsors include Cory Booker and Richard Blumenthal, also committed opponents of the Second Amendment.

Aside from who sponsors it, there is one other question: Who decides what constitutes “false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises?”

This is a big deal on multiple fronts. Remember how the CDC is getting back into the gun-control business? They worry that it will be used to justify censorship by Silicon Valley is big, but this legislation could add another threat.

Suppose some anti-Second Amendment extremist decides that those who advertise firearms for self-defense are making ““false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises?” That now becomes a new way to hit someone with a five-year jail term and a felony conviction.

This also is a way to “legalize” suits like the one brought against Remington over Sandy Hook. Never mind that the rifle used was stolen (after the shooter killed the rightful owner), the claim from the suit was centered around the advertising. In other words, prove there was “false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises” in the advertising, and all of the sudden, it becomes easier to sue gun manufacturers.

This is a dangerous end run around the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Again, we need to remember what Feinstein said so long ago on 60 Minutes. She wants an Australia-style ban, but if she can’t have it, she’ll figure out what she can get legislatively (see the Age 21 Act). Or she’ll enable other attacks outside the legislative process.

What makes it doubly hard is that this bill seems very reasonable, so Second Amendment supporters have to be very careful about the optics while opposing it. After all, nobody wants to support those who sell anything (including firearms) with “false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.”

Second Amendment supporters need to contact their Representative and Senators and politely urge them to oppose the Stopping the Fraudulent Sales of Firearms Act. Then. They need to work to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists via the ballot box this November.

This is how ridiculous weapon laws are in Merry Olde Englande

Why do laws that restore rights take so long to come into effect, but laws that restrict rights, quite often go into effect immediately?

Virginia Switchblade Ban Repeal Bill Signed!

Knife Rights’ Virginia Switchblade Ban Repeal Bill, SB 758, that passed with broad bipartisan support, has been signed into law by Governor Glenn Youngkin. We sincerely appreciate Gov. Youngkin signing this bill after nearly 5 years of effort to repeal the ban.

NOTE: Repeal does not become effective until July 1st. Until that date, possession of automatic knives remains illegal in Virginia.

NOTE: The concealed carry knife bans in Virginia, including of switchblade (automatic) knives, will still remain in effect: “If any person carries about his person, hidden from common observation, (i) any dirk, bowie knife, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, machete, razor, … or (v) any weapon of like kind as those enumerated in this subsection…”

Knife Rights will never stop until all archaic knife restrictions in Virginia are repealed.

Our sincere thanks and congratulations to sponsor Senator Todd Pillion for his efforts that have resulted in the repeal of Virginia’s longstanding irrational switchblade ban.

With the repeal in Virginia, only five states remain with a complete ban on civilian possession of switchblade (automatic) knives. Knife Rights has led the effort to repeal switchblade bans or restrictions in 19 states, starting with New Hampshire in 2010. Repeals have since been enacted in Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin and now in Virginia.

Altogether, Knife Rights’ efforts have resulted in 36 bills enacted repealing knife bans in 25 states and over 150 cities and towns since 2010.

One thing to remember, South Benders once elected Pete ButtJudge™ as their mayor. If that doesn’t tell you the proggie political bent of the majority there, nothing else will

Police, South Bend leaders urge veto of bill eliminating gun permits

South Bend, Ind. — “This is choosing extreme ideology over common sense,” James Mueller (D), Mayor South Bend.

South Bend leaders are raising major concerns over a controversial bill that could be signed into law by Governor Eric Holcomb. The bill will no longer require someone to have a permit for their handgun.

Mayor James Mueller, Police Chief Scott Ruskowski, Prosecutor Ken Cotter, and community activist Isaac Hunt all spoke out today believing this bill would make South Bend more dangerous.

Continue reading “”

The problem is that the Michigan Goobernor is still none other than DerGrëtchënFührer herslef, and I can’t see her signing a bill into law that would diminish goobermint power.

Michigan: House Passes Pro-Gun Bills

Yesterday, the House passed House Bills 5187 and 5188, to ensure that Second Amendment rights remain protected during a state of emergency, and House Bill 4003, to reduce the penalty for law-abiding citizens who forget to renew their Concealed Pistol License in certain instances. They will now go to the Senate for further consideration. Please contact your state senator and ask them to SUPPORT House Bills 5187, 5188, and 4003.

House Bill 5187 and House Bill 5188 passed by votes of 61-40 and 62-39 respectively. They prohibit the state government from restricting the lawful carrying of firearms and ammunition, seizing firearms or ammunition, restricting firearm businesses and shooting ranges, and restricting hunting and fishing activities during a declared state of emergency, or as an emergency response to an epidemic. Further, the legislation provides legal recourse for people who experience unjust infringements.

During the state of emergency in 2020 for COVID-19, Governor Gretchen Whitmer issued an executive order for all nonessential businesses and activities to cease, which purposefully referenced an outdated list of such industries, rather than the most updated federal guidelines that designated firearm and ammunition retailers as essential. In addition, many anti-gun officials around the country, at both state and local levels of government, took the opportunity to unilaterally suspend Second Amendment rights by actively shutting down gun stores and ranges. HB 5187 and HB 5188 protect the exercise of a constitutional right from such politically motivated attacks and ensure that citizens have those rights when they need them most.

House Bill 4003 passed by a vote of 74-27. It reduces the offense of carrying a handgun on an expired CPL from a felony, under current law, to a civil fine of $330, as long as it’s within one year of expiration and the person is still legally eligible for a CPL. Permanently stripping Second Amendment rights from an otherwise law-abiding citizen who forgets to renew their CPL does not improve public safety.

Don’t let the ‘perfect’ be the enemy of the good. The gun grabbers got us where we are today by winning step by step, and we’re winning by using the same process, because it does work.

SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT
Bill passes House, but not all gun rights supporters approve

CHEYENNE — A bill reinforcing individuals’ Second Amendment rights passed on a 43-15 vote in third reading in the Wyoming House Wednesday.

Despite gaining approval of the majority of the House, the bill divided gun-rights-supporting representatives, with several saying it did not go far enough to protect individuals’ rights.

Senate File 102, or the Second Amendment Protection Act, prohibits the enforcement of federal regulations of firearms by local law enforcement. The bill says if the federal government ever restricts firearms, law enforcement would be violating state law if they confiscated weapons from local gun owners.

Those who violate this section would face a harsh penalty. Any officer guilty of the misdemeanor will face imprisonment for up to one year, a fine of $2,000 or both.

Several legislators expressed concerns the bill “didn’t have teeth” and argued law enforcement couldn’t be trusted to protect citizens’ second amendment rights.

Continue reading “”

Permitless Carry Homicide Increase Claim Refuted by Cited Study

“A Republican permitless carry gun law will bring Ohio more death,” writer Craig Calcaterra asserts in a Tuesday Columbus Alive article. “Researchers have found that states with permitless carry laws have experienced an 11 percent increase in handgun homicide rates after enactment.”

The topic could not be timelier. At this writing, the legislature has passed Senate Bill 215 up to Governor Mike DeWine and it is awaiting his signature, his veto, or his silence, in which case it becomes law after 10 days without his participation.

DeWine has been a mixed bag for gun owners. At one time was called “a principled statesman” by the Brady Campaign, until he decided NRA’s endorsement worked better for his political ambitions. But recently he’s been making noises about distancing himself from that and going back to supporting gun laws like the so-called STRONG Act.

As expected, he’s being hammered by both sides, with the major, well-funded gun-grab groups and influential lobbyists like the Fraternal Order of Police getting the lion’s share of sympathetic headlines. Prominent among those is the aforementioned Columbus Alive article, especially influential because the outlet is part of the powerful Gannett Publications empire with its far-reaching USA Today network, and because Columbus is Ohio’s state capital, and politicians take note of what’s being said about them in the media.

An 11 percent increase in handgun homicides attributable to permitless carry is significant enough to make anyone sit up and take notice. If the figures bear out, gun owners can expect a governor (who at times appears to be working up the guts to chicken out) to set his speechwriters to work on excuses. And making that claim, right under the headline, is certainly an attention grabber.

“[P]ublic health researchers have found that states with permitless carry laws have experienced an 11 percent increase in handgun homicide rates after their enactment,” the article elaborates, providing a link to an August 2017 American Journal of Public Health abstract titled “Easiness of Legal Access to Concealed Firearm Permits and Homicide Rates in the United States.”

The curious thing is, I couldn’t find their subhead-“worthy” assertion substantiated. Perhaps readers here can check my work by following my methodology and see if they get different results.

First, I read the abstract. Nothing.

Then I decided to do a word search, starting with (since it’s the percentage quoted) the number “11.” That returned 18 results, for dates, footnotes, and stuff, with the only one coming close to relevancy being a claim that “firearm homicide rates … were 11.7% higher in ‘shall issue’ states.”

That’s very different from permitless carry. It also recalls a noteworthy deceptiveness of relying exclusively on rates over numbers:

“For example, in 1880 Dodge City, one person out of 996 was killed. However, 100 years later in Miami, 515 people out of 1.5 million were killed. Although more people were murdered in Miami, statistically speaking the city has a lower homicide rate — just 32.7, compared to the 100.4 of Dodge City in the 1880s.”

Relying on that abstract observation also neglects a significant and fundamental admission that it makes:

“At least 10 national studies have examined the relationship between shall-issue concealed-carry laws and firearm-related or total homicide rates at the state level. In 2 studies, shall-issue laws were found to decrease homicide rates. In 2 studies, these laws were found to increase homicide rates. Six studies reported no clear impact of shall-issue laws on homicide rates.”

That’s hardly “settled science,” and note it (unsurprisingly) makes no mention of the other side of the coin, lives saved by armed citizens.

Continue reading “”

Gun Banners Struggling To Find Relevance In A World Prepping For War

When all is said and done, the conflict in Ukraine, will have been responsible for putting more guns into civilian hands than Barack Obama and Joe Biden combined.

For the American gun-ban industry, these world events hit at a particularly difficult period of time. Make no mistake, they still get up every morning, have a cup of coffee, and then decide how best to strip you of your constitutional rights.

But nowadays, it’s not as easy for them to find someone who is willing to listen to their inane pleas. They’re desperate for an audience – any audience – so they have changed-up the way they message their anti-gun campaigns. They’ve resorted to quick-hits – single messages of short duration – so when one fizzles, they can quickly pivot to another, all to keep their donors mollified and their money flowing in.

Things were not always this way. Before the plague, Gabby Giffords or Shannon Watts had only to snap their fingers and they’d get the lead story for an entire news cycle. Michael Bloomberg actually wrote his own headlines. The Trace – the propaganda arm of his anti-gun empire – successfully embedded its paid anti-gun activists into newsrooms across the country. It was a major coup for the diminutive demagogue. His stooges in the mainstream media still haven’t realized how badly they were hoodwinked and used. But COVID, the lockdowns, and a series of violent riots across the country put an end to all of this.

When Americans saw their neighborhoods going up in flames, more than 5 million bought firearms and apparently a lot of ammunition.

Continue reading “”

[Michigan] State House Passes LaFave’s Firearms Transport Bill

The state House today passed Rep. Beau LaFave’s plan to expand the rights of gun owners to transport their firearm unmolested while on private property.

The bill would allow uncased firearms in any vehicle, including an ATV or UTV, on private land as long as they are accompanied by or have permission from the landowner or lessee.

“This is a huge win for Michiganders all over the state,” said LaFave, of Iron Mountain. “This will help keep individuals from being unnecessarily prosecuted. Right now, you can carry a loaded pistol in or upon a vehicle with a CPL, but getting caught with a .22 long rifle subjects you to three months in jail.”

“This common-sense reform does not impact public safety,” LaFave said. “The bill simply decriminalizes a statute that makes criminals out of law-abiding citizens.”

Similar legislation passed the House with the support of LaFave in 2018. That law, now Public Act 272 of 2018, allowed a bow or crossbow to be transported without a case.

LaFave said: “Michiganders are entitled to their right to bear arms, more so on their own property than anywhere else. I remain committed to protecting the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. But let’s not forget, this is also a private property issue. Nobody should face three months of jail time for transporting firearms on their own property. This is a DNR regulation that does not help public safety, and the government has no business telling you what you can or cannot do on your own land with firearms, so long as you aren’t endangering the public.”

House Bill 4078 now heads to the Senate for further consideration.

Democrat Spending Bill Contains ‘Serious Expansion of Federal Gun Control’: Gun Rights Group

Democrats’ $1.5 trillion omnibus spending package, unveiled early Wednesday, includes provisions that constitute “a serious expansion of federal gun control” according to the National Association for Gun Rights.

Specifically, the omnibus bill includes the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

Though there is bipartisan consensus that violence against women is bad—more limited forms of the bill have passed through bipartisan votes since the first draft was introduced in 1994—more recent forms of the legislation have been controversial with Republicans for provisions relating to gun ownership.

Due to continued efforts by Democrats to include gun control measures in the legislation, the bill was last passed into law in 2013, and has faced steep opposition from pro-Second Amendment Republicans since then.

Currently, almost all firearm sales require a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Purchasers who are tagged as having a criminal background barring them from possessing a firearm are tagged in the system and are not allowed to carry out the purchase.

However, VAWA takes this system much further.

Under its provisions, the attorney general is required “to issue a notice to State, local, or Tribal law enforcement and prosecutors if an individual has attempted to purchase a firearm and been denied pursuant to the national instant criminal background check system.”

In other words, an attempt to buy a firearm while legally barred from owning one can be met with criminal investigation.

In a statement, the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) warned that this system is dangerous.

“Over 95 percent of all NICS denials are false positives, which means all local and state police would be required to investigate law-abiding citizens when they’re wrongly and unconstitutionally denied the right to purchase a firearm,” NAGR said.

“Make no mistake—the NICS denial reporting embedded inside the Violence Against Women Act constitutes a serious expansion of federal gun control,” said Dudley Brown, president of the NAGR. “Not only does it rapidly expand federal gun control policy, it would actually endanger women, not keep them safe.”

Continue reading “”

Yes, If America Is Ever Invaded, You Must Take Up Arms and Fight
When asked whether they’d flee or fight an invading force, far too many Millennials and Gen-Zers give the wrong answer.

As part of a recent survey of attitudes toward Russia’s execrable invasion of Ukraine, the polling firm Quinnipiac asked Americans whether they would stay and fight if the United States were invaded by Russia. The results make sobering — and often disgraceful — reading. Sixty-eight percent of Republicans said that they would “stay and fight,” with 25 percent indicating that they’d run away.

Among independents, those numbers are 57–36. Among Democrats, they’re in negative territory, at 40–52. Among 50- to 64-year-old men and women, the stay/leave numbers are 66/28. Among 18- to 34-year-olds, they are 45/48. Or, to put it another way: A majority of the prime-aged Americans whom the United States would need were such a crisis to arise imagine that they would flee if that crisis ever came.

For shame.

Lest the excuse-makers try to find nuance where none exists, let us note for the record that this is the most elemental question that a free man can ever be asked. There are no caveats or complexities here, and there is barely any politics, either. If the United States were to be invaded by Russia, America’s defense of itself could not plausibly be construed as “imperialism” or as “interventionism” or as a “foreign war” or “conflict of choice.” Nor could skeptics, à la Rupert Brooke, meaningfully complain that they were being asked to fight and die in a “corner of a foreign field.”

Continue reading “”