Category: RKBA

Well – they’ve got  crap-for-brains to begin with, so ignoring truth is not ‘second nature’ but first nature for them.

BLUF:
They can look at contrary evidence clear in the face and just pretend it doesn’t exist, reject it out of hand simply because it goes against their preconceived notions that gun control is good.

You’re never going to talk sense into these people. You generally can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

How anti-gunners ignore inconvenient facts

When it comes to a discussion of guns in America, there will always be something of a divide. Those who want to regulate almost anything will always want to regulate guns and those who do not wish to be ruled will argue against such regulations.

It’s really not a difficult dichotomy to comprehend, all things considered.

Currently, with violent crime raging, anti-gun folks are pushing hard and using the violence to justify any and all demands.

Take this bit regarding Iowa.

In 2018, the Center for American Progress and Progress Iowa wrote an issue brief warning that, while gun violence in Iowa remained relatively low compared with other states, efforts in the Legislature to weaken the state’s gun laws threatened the safety of Iowa communities. Unfortunately, Iowa lawmakers did not heed this warning and in 2021 continued to undermine gun safety in the state by repealing two crucial measures that have helped keep gun violence in Iowa at comparatively low levels: 1) the law requiring a permit, and therefore a background check, prior to every handgun sale and 2) the law requiring a permit to carry loaded, concealed handguns in the community.

At the same time, similar to trends in other states, the coronavirus pandemic has been accompanied by an increase in gun deaths in Iowa: According to early data from the Iowa Department of Public Health, gun-related deaths reached an all-time high in 2020, with an estimated 353 people killed. Once again, it is crucial that policymakers in Iowa take the issue of gun violence seriously and resist efforts to further weaken the state’s gun laws.

Now, on the surface, if you knew nothing else about guns or gun control, it would be easy to look at this plea and think that maybe it’s a good idea.

The problem is, it isn’t.

Now, 2020 was a nasty year for violent crime all across the nation. That includes states that have long favored gun control policies such as California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, and so on.

2021 was a slightly different animal, but not by much.

Chicago saw the highest homicide rate it had seen in 25 years. Los Angeles had the highest it had seen in 15 years.

So clearly, it was rough for a lot of places.

However, we also saw violent crime go down in a couple of large cities. Dallas saw a decline. So did Miami.

So what’s the difference between these four cities? The two where homicides went up were in anti-gun states while the two where it went down were in pro-gun states.

Now, I’ll be the first to concede that this is just a data point and far from conclusive evidence. However, if fewer restrictions on guns result in greater violent crime as the anti-Second Amendment types claim, then shouldn’t Dallas and Miami have seen the worst violent crime compared to Chicago and Los Angeles?

What happens is that anti-Second Amendment folks don’t want to look at that. They prefer to ignore inconvenient truths whenever possible.

Gun-controlled states are having issues while non-gun-controlled states are having fewer problems. This isn’t opinion. This is a fact, one based on the actual numbers.

But you’ll never get an anti-Second Amendment type to acknowledge it. Instead, they’ll just pretend those facts don’t exist, all while pushing the next bit of gun control to strike their fancy. They’ll ignore it, all while pretending that those who oppose gun control want to do nothing to address violent crime.

The term is cognitive dissonance. They can look at contrary evidence clear in the face and just pretend it doesn’t exist, reject it out of hand simply because it goes against their preconceived notions that gun control is good.

You’re never going to talk sense into these people. You generally can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

The gun grabbers used to continually squeal that there would be ‘Wild West Pimp Style Shootout Blood Flowing In The Streets!™’ when concealed carry permit laws were being passed during the last 30+ years.
Now that that has been shown to be absolute BS, they’re trying the same old playbook out with permitless carry.
It’s all they have, and everyone should know by now, from the lack of that ‘Wild West Pimp Style Shootout Blood Flowing In The Streets!™’ in the states that have passed permitless carry, that it’s still absolute BS

The weakest argument yet against Constitutional Carry?

Ohio lawmakers have approved two separate Constitutional Carry bills in recent weeks, but neither have received the final votes needed to be sent to Gov. Mike DeWine for his signature, and while the bills are still sitting in the state capitol building opponents have been trying to muster up enough last-minute opposition to derail the legislation from becoming law.

There’ve been no shortage of op-eds and opinion pieces proclaiming that Ohio will become the “Wild, Wild West” or descend into a dystopian hellscape if the state no longer requires a government-issued permission slip before legal gun owners can lawfully carry, but one of the weakest arguments I’ve run across came from retired attorney former law professor Doug Rogers, who seems to believe that the state’s current laws are actually preventing criminals from illegally carrying a gun.

The Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio testified that Senate Bill 215 will “create a threat to officer safety.”

Hamilton County Sheriff Charmaine McGuffey testified: “Allowing virtually anyone in Ohio to conceal weapons on their person without training or background checks will make Ohio less safe.”

The Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association testified, “There must be a minimum training requirement for someone … with the awesome right of carrying a weapon that can deprive another person of their life.”

Ohio already allows for the open carrying of firearms without a license or training, and there’s no minimum training requirement to own a firearm either. How is carrying a firearm concealed so much different from openly carrying one? While I strongly encourage every gun owner to continually train with their gun, mandating an official training course before one can exercise a constitutionally-protected right is an undue burden on the right itself.

Rogers goes on to complain about several other aspects of the bill, including language that clarifies when someone who’s legally armed needs to inform a law enforcement officer of that fact.

Finally, the senate bill would further endanger police by: (1) eliminating the current responsibility of a civilian carrying a concealed handgun stopped by the police to promptly notify police that he is carrying a concealed firearm; and (2) switching the duty to the police officer to ask if that civilian is carrying a concealed weapon.

The Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police said, “To remove the duty to notify is setting us all up for confrontation and potentially tragic failure.”

I’d argue that the current ambiguous language is even more likely to lead to confrontation and potential tragedy. With the clear standard outlined in the permitless carry legislation, an officer can simply ask an individual if they’re carrying a firearm when they initiate the stop. I think that’s a much better solution than leaving it up to the gun owner to “promptly” (a term which isn’t defined in state law) notify police themselves.

There are 21 states with permitless carry laws on the books, and police departments in every one of them have figured out how to continue to do their job and arrest violent criminals after the law took effect. No state has ever gone back and repealed its Constitutional Carry statute, which also says quite a bit about how the law actually works in practice.

Rogers wraps up his lame argument by calling on the legislature to reject Constitutional carry “because it is anti-police and anti-public safety,” which is an outright lie. There’s nothing anti-police about a pro-civil rights piece of legislation. There’s nothing anti-public safety about ensuring that legal gun owners can publicly protect themselves. Frankly, there’s no good reason why Ohio shouldn’t join the 21 other states that have already adopted Constitutional Carry. The bills are there and now’s the time for lawmakers in Columbus to move this legislation across the finish line and send it to the governor for his signature.

‘Just call the police’: The Insufferable White Privilege of Gun Control Advocates

The concept of privilege gets a bad rap in many circles, and understandably so. Many have taken it way too far, using it as a means of bullying their political opponents into submission. But while the excesses of this rhetoric are certainly problematic, I don’t think we should do away with the concept entirely. Behind all the moral grandstanding lies a kernel of truth, one that can provide some valuable insights if applied correctly.

The principle, essentially, is that certain people have unearned advantages, and those advantages can shape how they see the world. Affluence, for instance, can make someone blind to the needs of the poor. Likewise, those with an above average aptitude, intelligence, or physical appearance might find it difficult to relate to those who were not equally endowed with those gifts.

The problem with this blindness is that it can easily lead to hubris, that is, unwarranted self-confidence. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of privilege is thinking we know the best course of action for a given situation when we really don’t.

The classic example of this is the story of a famous French queen who, upon hearing that the peasants had no bread, simply replied, “then let them eat cake.” She was so unfamiliar with their circumstances that the solution she dismissively prescribed was positively laughable. Another example of privilege was when the lockdown elite told us to “just stay home,” seemingly oblivious to the fact that staying home is simply unfeasible for many working class people.

Now, progressives think they’re pretty good at pointing out places where privilege is leading to blindness and hubris (indeed, they often see privilege even where it doesn’t exist). But there’s one occurrence of privilege that always seems to get a pass, and that is the privilege associated with gun control.

Continue reading “”

‘Trust but verify‘ works for me.

BLUF:
“One thing I’ve learned is the Second Amendment is one of the most important amendments and you look at all my voting record. Listen, you watch this Congress itself—we believe in the Constitution,” McCarthy said.

Exclusive — Kevin McCarthy Pledges as Speaker He Will Not Consider Amnesty or Gun Control Legislation

House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview taped in December that the House would not consider any legislation that grants amnesty to illegal aliens if he becomes the speaker next year.

“We know first and foremost one of our greatest strengths is the rule of law, so you have to have an immigration system based upon the rule of law. You have to secure the border. The immigration system is broken and we’re going to fix it. Yes,” McCarthy replied when asked if he could pledge no amnesty would be considered under his leadership.

“Yes,” he reaffirmed when pressed again.

Continue reading “”

Rep. Anthony Sabatini: You Shouldn’t Need Government Permission to Carry a Firearm

Florida state Rep. Anthony Sabatini (R) spoke with Breitbart News during Turning Point USA’s Americafest and stressed that Americans “should not have to ask the government for a permit” to carry a gun for self-defense.

Sabatini indicated that being required to get a permit and “pay money” to carry a gun makes no sense.

He said, “I’ve been filing constitutional carry for a couple of years now, but you have some of these soft, RINO Republicans who’ve stood in the way. Thankfully, with our great governor … Ron DeSantis (R) saying that he would sign the bill … I think you’re going to see a lot more momentum behind constitutional carry, which is House Bill 103.”

Sabatini added, “Nearly half of our country is already under this proper state of laws. It’s constitutional; it’s called constitutional carry for a reason. It’s the only gun laws that squares well with the Constitution.”

He suggested that constitutional carry sends a message to would-be criminals as well: “If you know that people can carry and defend themselves without government permission, you’re going to be less likely to be an aggressor toward that person.”

On December 19, 2021, Breitbart News noted a South Florida Sun-Sentinel report that DeSantis has already made clear he will sign constitutional carry if it reaches his desk.

The Sentinel observed that Florida Gun Rights’ Matt Collins posted a video online asking DeSantis, “If constitutional carry made your desk, would you sign it?”

DeSantis responded, “Of course.”

Sabatini’s constitutional carry legislation would also legalize the open carry of handguns in Florida.

On May 20, 2021, Breitbart News pointed out that South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) signed legislation making his state the 46th open carry state in the Union.

Cracking a Code: Gun Control ‘Brainchild of Privileged Liberals’

Writing for the Foundation for Economic Education, Patrick Carroll may have just cracked a code, and he leans on one of the founders of the modern Second Amendment movement—the late Don Kates—to conclude the gun control crusade began and is perpetuated by a privileged class disconnected from the realities of living in communities where crime is a real problem.

Carroll points to a couple of paragraphs from a 1977 Kates article appearing in the Cato Institute’s Inquiry magazine in which Kates observed, “Gun prohibition is the brainchild of white middle-class liberals who are oblivious to the situation of poor and minority people living in areas where the police have given up on crime control. Such liberals weren’t upset about marijuana laws, either, in the fifties when the busts were confined to the ghettos. Secure in well-policed suburbs or high-security apartments guarded by Pinkertons (whom no one proposes to disarm), the oblivious liberal derides gun ownership as ‘an anachronism from the Old West.’”

Yet a Gallup survey released in November showed that “88 percent of gun owners cite crime protection as a reason they own a gun.”

This appears especially true in minority communities, where crime is a far more pressing problem then it is in a gated community.

Fox News has been exploring the rise in gun sales in Beverly Hills in recent months. Early Monday, Fox News interviewed Russell Stuart, owner of Beverly Hills Guns, who explained, “Although that is a part of my living, I get no pleasure whatsoever by having a 60-, 70-year-old woman walk into my store … who looks terrified, and say, ‘I have never liked guns. In fact, I’ve even hated guns. I would have never considered buying one. But I’m so afraid for my life.”

Carroll, who is an Editorial Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education and has a degree in chemical engineering from the University of Waterloo, observed this about gun control proponents, “(D)on’t assume you know what’s best for someone if you haven’t walked a mile in their shoes.”

Which brings us around to an Op-Ed in the Wisconsin State Journal by Jon Donohue, a law professor at Stanford University, who raises concerns about a potential ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that, he says, “may create a federal constitutional right to carry guns outside the home.”

Gun rights advocates and Second Amendment scholars might argue the high court wouldn’t “create” a right because it already exists and is protected by the amendment, which recognizes the right “to bear arms” as well as keep them.

Donohue is worried about a decision that would expand “the Second Amendment beyond its current scope of a right to possess a gun in the home…”

As Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and founder of the Second Amendment Foundation has frequently observed, a right limited to the confines of one’s home is no right at all. Rights go with you through the front door and into the public space.

A report from the Post Millennial about a recent Trafalgar Group survey shows 76.8 percent of Americans “regardless of political party affiliation, believe that ‘American society and culture is in a state of decay.’”

“When viewed by political party affiliation,” the Post Millennial reported, “all parties had a majority that said the country is in a state of decline. 61 percent of Democrats, 85.9 percent of Republicans, and 81.8 percent of those identifying as no party or ‘other’ said American society and culture are in decline.”

Perhaps part of that decline involves not knowing the difference between a right and a regulated privilege. Carroll’s article appears to address this dilemma.

BLUF:
……as violent crime soared in the 1990s, states expanded gun rights in the form of concealed carry, driving violent crime down.
I’m sorry, but unless you have an answer for that, I don’t really care what you have to say
And when it comes to the Rittenhouse case, the only takeaway is that when you’re faced with a violent mob, you need all the firepower you can manage.

There are no gun control lessons out of Rittenhouse trial

Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty of murder by a jury. Even before that, though, we know he was innocent of all charges because we watched the whole thing unfold on video. We knew he was innocent.

Now, though, Rittenhouse is a free man, but some are using his situation to try and advance gun control.

No, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Yet this isn’t the first op-ed I’ve seen that tried to make that case.

As the country awaits a U.S. Supreme Court decision in a New York state case that may create a federal constitutional right to carry guns outside the home, what lessons can the nation draw from the recent acquittal in Wisconsin of Kyle Rittenhouse and the convictions in the murder of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia?

The obvious first lesson is that no one would be dead, maimed or going to prison if the men in these cases had not possessed firearms or had just left their weapons at home. The man Rittenhouse maimed learned that his self-proclaimed constant gun carrying not only did not protect him or others, but simply added him to the victim count when he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse.

No, we didn’t learn any such lesson.

Continue reading “”

Female gun ownership on the rise, femme fatales to anti-2A messaging

Gun ownership in the United States has been on the rise the last two years in a big way. The pages of Bearing Arms has explored this more than once. Left of center pundits might peg this rise as a one-off, or perhaps try to blame the uptick in violent crime on the newly minted gun owners, but the fact of the matter is that these numbers are troubling and damming to the “hell yes we’re going to take your AR-15” crowd. After all, why would someone with a brandy new firearm, just indoctrinated into the world of firearm ownership want to give up a newfound way of life? I’m not so quixotic to think that with the millions of new firearm owners we now have millions of new advocates running balls out, but this rise in legal and responsible gun ownership is a good thing. With that comes the rise in the number of females taking up arms.

Commie mommy groups must be cringing and shaking in corners as they learn they don’t actually have the market cornered on what all women want for the world and or their children. After sifting through the emotional arguments they make, right out of their playbook (don’t focus on the facts, exploit the emotions) many people, including women, including moms, have come to the realization that self-defense is their responsibility and have embraced that independent to the core rugged individualism that makes most of what America is today what it is. There are new momma bears out there and they’re committed to not being victims.

A recent study points to these numbers. From one report:

The number of women who own a gun is on the rise. A recent study from Harvard University shows that 42% of gun owners in the country are women. That’s a 14% rise over the last five years. The same study found nearly 3.5 million women became gun owners between January 2019 and April 2021.

“It’s a responsibility. It’s a huge responsibility,” said Amanda Suffecool.

Suffecool calls herself an “accidental activist.” A firearms instructor and radio host, Suffecool is also an advocate for gun rights in America.

“Unfortunately, the world is not the warm, fuzzy place it used to be,” said Candy Petticord.

Petticord is also a firearms instructor and a mom of 12. She started shooting five years ago.

Suffecool is more than an “accidental activist”. She’s taken the ball of civil liberties and self-reliance and has run with it, dedicated to go for a win. Beyond being an instructor, and the radio host of the nationally syndicated Eye on The Target Radio show, she also is the founder of REALIZE Firearms Awareness Coalition, a not-for-profit dedicated to educating citizens on the historical intent of the Second Amendment.

Continue reading “”

SAF LAUNCHES HUGE TV EFFORT WARNING OF ‘UNPRECEDENTED ASSAULT’ ON 2A RIGHTS

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today announced a huge new TV effort launching the week of Jan. 3 to warn America of a coming attack on Second Amendment rights.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said the foundation’s message will be broadcast 220 times during the first week on more than 20 cable television networks.

“The well-financed gun prohibition movement is poised to strike in an effort to make up for lost time due to Joe Biden’s failure to get the gun prohibition agenda through during his first year in office,” Gottlieb said. “We’re expecting an unprecedented assault on Second Amendment rights heading into the new year. Anti-gunners will grasp at straws to grab every headline they can, and make no mistake, they are determined to help Biden go after your rights in 2022.

“That’s why we’re kicking off the New Year with a record number of pro-gun rights TV spots in a single week,” he added. “The threat to our Second Amendment rights cannot be over-stated. The billionaire-backed gun ban lobby is fearful of a gun rights ruling from the Supreme Court this summer, and a power flip at the mid-term elections, so they will be pushing Biden and their allies on Capitol Hill and in several states to get things done now, before they lose the political muscle to push their agenda.”

SAF will broadcast its 60-second message on several networks including CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business, Newsmax TV, One America News Network, Destination America, Bloomberg, BBC America, Discovery Channel, American Heroes Channel, SYFY (Science Fiction), TLC (The Learning Channel), TruTV, DirecTV, The Weather Channel, HLN, Dish TV, and CNBC.

“There is no time to waste,” Gottlieb cautioned. “We’re going to hit the ground running in order to grab the high ground and block the momentum of an anti-rights movement determined to smash the right to keep and bear arms. We’ll be asking viewers to call a special toll-free telephone number – (888) 762-0221 – to help in this battle, because once you lose your rights, you will never get them back.”

Defending Armed Self-Defense
It’s easy for many people to see the harm that guns are involved in every day in America, but much harder for them to see the harm that gun prohibition causes.

Gun control laws are wrong because they violate the right to self-defense. Gun control laws are wrong because they were historically crafted with discriminatory intent and create racially disparate outcomes today.

These are two distinct arguments against laws that limit private gun ownership. Libertarians, typically among the staunchest of fans of self-defense and self-determination, have tended to focus on the first. But the second is also important, both on its own merits and because it helps people otherwise concerned about discrimination understand why it is inconsistent to support such laws.

One can make the rights argument a couple of different ways. The first is to start from the belief, shared by many, that human beings are endowed by their Creator (or nature, or their shared humanity, or the universe, or even cultural patrimony) with certain inalienable rights, the right to self-defense among them. Once that is established, protections for those who wish to buy, keep, and use the tools of self-defense, including guns, follow close behind.

The Founders, not ones to pussyfoot around, put keeping and bearing arms right there in the Bill of Rights (although there, as in so many other places in the founding documents, one last pass by an especially pedantic copy editor could have saved the nation in general and the Supreme Court in particular quite a bit of trouble). The Founders were, at best, imperfect scribes of whatever rights people might in fact possess. But they did an astonishingly good job of capturing a laundry list of rights that the state ought not abridge, and they got them written down rather clearly and in short order, all things considered.

One need not be convinced of the existence of God-given rights to conclude that the harsher forms of gun control are unacceptable and unjust rights violations. “I contend that individuals have a prima facie right to own firearms, that this right is weighty and protects important interests,” the philosopher Michael Huemer wrote in one of the more famous modern arguments against such restrictions. While “the right to own a gun is both fundamental and derivative,” he suggests, “it is in its derivative aspect—as derived from the right of self-defense—that it is most important.”

Continue reading “”

Facts and Fantasies about Guns and Gun-Control

The gun-control lobby started it. Then, the legacy media joined in and told us that guns and gun owners were dangerous. Their solution is to register and regulate guns and gun owners. They claim their gun-control will somehow, someday, take the guns out of the hands of criminals. If you only read their words then you might be persuaded. Let’s fill in the facts that the gun-prohibitionists left out. Gun-control laws do more harm than good.

armed defenders save lives

Honest gun owners use a firearm to stop a violent crime about 1.7 million times a year. That is a little over 45-hundred defensive-guns-uses a day. That massive benefit overshadows all the other problems we have with the criminal use of firearms. Legally justified armed defense is dozens of times more frequent than the suicides and accidents we see with firearms. It is hard to overestimate the importance of armed defense. Disarming honest gun owners in the hope of disarming criminals is a disaster since armed citizens do so much good.

Continue reading “”

Maybe instead of ‘aspire’, they can all go ‘expire’.

A Year In, President Biden’s Bold Gun Reform Agenda Remains Largely Aspirational
Gun reform advocates who supported Biden have been frustrated by the president’s failure to get any significant reform legislation through a Democratic Congress…………..

Leaders of major gun reform groups predicted that his first year in office, with Democrats also controlling Congress, would be an unprecedented period of progress. Now Democrats are expected to take losses in the House and Senate midterm elections — and Biden could be running out of time. (yippee!)

Of Course Violence against Government Can Be Justified

The media have been making a big deal over a Washington Post/University of Maryland poll which finds that 34 percent of Americans believe violence can be justified against the government. It’s a poll meant to feed the hysteria over the Capitol Hill riot and embarrass Republicans into supporting “voting rights” bills and so on.

Despite the framing of most reaction stories, the question wasn’t about January 6. It was: “Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to take violent action against the government, or is it never justified?”

Ever? Of course it is. It’s a failure of our civic education that 100 percent of respondents didn’t answer yes. The ability to resist a tyrannical government is a foundational American idea. It was the justification for the founding revolution. It, not hunting or skeet shooting, is the core reason for existence of the Second Amendment — which, Joseph Story, an associate Supreme Court justice, said best, “offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers.”

Incidentally, the participants were asked to provide instances when violence against the state would be justified, and all of them are perfectly reasonable:

Government violates or takes away rights or freedoms/Oppresses people – 22 percent

Government no longer a democracy/ Becomes a dictatorship/Coup/ Military takes over – 15 percent

Government violates constitution — 13 percent

Government abuses power/Tyranny — 12 percent

Government is violent against citizens/Safety at risk – 11 percent

Contemporary liberals often view this form of rhetoric as an endorsement of treason because they view our rights as an arbitrary and malleable cluster of edicts handed down by the government. What sneering contemporary critics fail to comprehend is that the founding generation believed that those who would undermine the universal and inalienable liberties of the people laid out in the Constitution were traitors.

Now, I don’t believe there was any justification for the rioting on January 6. But if the Post was interested in extracting even marginally useful information, it would have asked if people thought there was a justification for January 6 violence, rather than a separate question about the veracity of the 2020 election followed by a broad question on violent resistance. Though a specific question almost certainly wouldn’t have brought back the intended result.

Trending Data Among Women First-Time Gun Owners

According to the NSSF, approximately 11 million Americans purchased their first firearm in the past 2 years, and it is estimated that half of them were women. A Girl & A Gun Women’s Shooting League (AG & AG) polled new members who were new gun owners to learn more about them. This article provides trending data among this demographic.

AG & AG offered the same survey to new members over the past two years. If a woman indicated she was a new shooter (acquiring a firearm within the past year), she was asked additional follow-up questions. The responses for the new-shooter specific questions totaled 1,176 women responses in 2020 and 1,706 in 2021, providing a good glimpse into general trends of this specific demographic.

Continue reading “”

It appears that West -By God- Virginia has a Second Amendment Protection Act law not unlike Missouri and a few other states.

AG offers guidance on handling gun law conflicts

CHARLESTON — A state law passed early in 2021 regarding federal gun laws now has related policy guidelines.

House Bill 2694 stipulates that state gun laws will trump federal gun laws and no West Virginia law enforcement agency on any level “shall participate in enforcement efforts focused on federal gun control measures when those laws conflict with state laws regarding firearms.”

“The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution,” Attorney General Morrisey said Thursday when announcing the guidelines. “Yet, there is a deep concern on the part of many Americans that the federal government will try to encroach on our Constitutional rights through presidential executive orders or through acts of Congress. The publication of this guidance will help our state’s law enforcement understand what they can and cannot do in this respect under West Virginia statute.”

Morrisey said enforcement of federal firearms laws is a federal responsibility, not the responsibility of West Virginia law enforcement agencies when federal gun laws are in conflict with state Code.

For example, he said, a West Virginia state or local law enforcement agency, department or officer “may not assist federal authorities in executing an arrest warrant just for violation of federal gun laws when the person to be arrested may lawfully possess such firearms, firearms accessories or ammunition under state law.”

The new law also provides that no member of state or local law enforcement may be required to act in a law enforcement capacity to enforce a federal statute, executive order, agency order, rule or regulation determined by the West Virginia Attorney General to infringe upon citizens’ Second Amendment rights, Morrisey said.

Law enforcement officers are also protected and cannot be terminated or decertified for refusing to enforce a “federal statute, executive order, agency order, rule or regulation determined by the West Virginia Attorney General to infringe upon citizens’ Second Amendment rights.”

“This guidance from the Attorney General on HB 2694 will help protect West Virginia from new federal gun control schemes, and ensure our law enforcement officers are immune from retaliation for defending the Second Amendment rights of all West Virginians,” Kevin Patrick, vice president of the West Virginia Citizens Defense League, said in the announcement.

West Virginia Sheriffs Association Executive Director Rodney Miller said the move is fully supported.

“Law enforcement across West Virginia wholeheartedly supports the Second Amendment and lawful possession of firearms by our citizens and are happy to have joined the Legislature, the Attorney General and concerned gun groups in this effort to ensure that responsible firearm ownership is defended without question,” he said. “We, as citizens of this state, are concerned with overreach that could deny all of us the ability to lawfully possess firearms and utilize them as proud Mountaineers have always done responsibly.”

The policy guidance is posted on the Attorney General’s website (https://bit.ly/3zagUlE) and is being sent to state and local law enforcement agencies.

Carrying a Gun Is Part of Being a ‘Free American’

Breitbart News interviewed Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) at Turning Point USA’s Americafest and he told us carrying guns for self-defense is critical to the American experience because the founders placed such high value on life.

We asked Biggs, “Why is it important that I can own a gun, carry a gun, that your wife can own a gun, carry a gun, that my wife can do the same. Why is this important?”

He responded by pointing out two reasons, the first of which he described as the “philosophical reason.”

Biggs outlined, “The Founders said this is what we need to have to preserve a free form of government. Their position was, you need to be able to have this militia, this group of citizens, because you don’t want the government to be putting their thumb down on you, because they are just coming out of King George doing that, so that’s number one.”

He then explained: “The second thing is when you start talking about my wife or me or someone else, we’re talking about self-defense, and the first liberty is the right to life. So, if you can’t defense yourself against the bad guys you start looking like the 12 cities in America that have the highest homicide rate in their history.”

Biggs added, “You don’t want to look like that. You don’t want to look like Venezuela. You want to be a free American and the way to be free and reduce crime is to allow people to carry guns.”

Regarding Biggs’ reference of 12 cities that broke their annual homicide records in 2021, ABC News listed those 12 cities but omitted the fact that they are all Democrat-controlled.

The cities are:

  • Albuquerque, New Mexico
  • Austin, Texas
  • Baton Rouge, Louisiana
  • Columbus, Ohio
  • Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Louisville, Kentucky
  • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Portland, Oregon
  • Rochester, New York
  • St. Paul, Minnesota
  • Toledo, Ohio
  • Tucson, Arizona

Gun Rights 101: Firing Back Against Gun Control’s Biggest Lies Paperback – November 25, 2021

Being hailed as “the holy grail for Second Amendment supporters,” Gun Rights 101 offers Second Amendment supporters of all levels an easy to read guide to expand their gun rights knowledge and train themselves to confidently fireback against any gun grabber.

foreword was written by Lieutenant Colonel Allen B. West:

The history of the successful rise of tyranny, totalitarianism, and despotic rule always begins with a common action, disarming the people.

Our Founding Fathers learned an important lesson from April 19, 1775, Lexington Green. That lesson is, an armed individual is a citizen; an unarmed citizen is a subject.

Hence why the Second Amendment, in those first ten called the individual Bill of Rights, of our Constitution is the right of citizens to keep and
bear arms; a right that shall not be infringed.

Sadly, the totalitarians of the American progressive socialist left seek, like their global comrades, to undermine this right.

That’s why Tyler Yzaguirre’s book, Gun Rights 101, is vital for constitutional, liberty minded Americans. It’s a simple read that arms you with the knowledge to dispel the leftists’ talking points. If we are to preserve this Constitutional Republic for future generations, Tyler’s book enables such.

I recommend you read, study, and prepare yourself to defeat the leftists’ intent to relegate you being a subject.

“Gun Rights 101 is an excellent quick-reference primer and effective conversation starter.” – Cheryl Todd, DC Project

“Gun Rights 101… is a useful resource!” – Philip Van Cleave, Virginia Citizens Defense League

“Tyler’s endless passion for defending your freedoms is his life’s work and it has been printed in black and white for you to reference and learn from.” – Mitch Denham, Delaware Gun Rights Founder & President

Come and Take It: Canadians Aren’t Complying with New Gun Law

Well, good on ya, Canada. It seems the motto ‘come and take it’ isn’t unique to just Americans. Our neighbors to the north have a new gun law. It’s something that anti-gun liberals want here nationwide. All Canadians that owned firearms that have been included in the nation’s latest ban on so-called assault weapons must turn them over to authorities. The only problem is that they’re not doing it (via The Reload):

Few gun owners are turning in weapons recently been made illegal by the Canadian government.

That’s according to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). They said Canadians had only turned in 160 of the recently-outlawed firearms for destruction since the announcement of the ban.

“The Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) can confirm that, as of December 9, 2021, 18 firearms (formerly classified as restricted) affected by the May 1, 2020 Order in Council (OIC) have been deactivated,” Sgt. Caroline Duval, an RCMP spokesperson, told iPolitics on Friday. “In addition, there have been 142 OIC-affected firearms recorded as surrendered to a public agency for destruction since May 1, 2020.”

The announcement comes as the April 2022 deadline for the “assault weapon” confiscation order rapidly approaches. The Canadian government’s plan to collect the affected weapons has been rife with problems since it was announced. Consulting fees and enforcement planning have resulted in a bloated budget before even a single weapon has been “bought back,” and a concrete plan for the buyback program is yet to be finalized. It now appears affected gun owners are hesitant to give up their guns.

The difficulties experienced by the Canadian effort and a similar gun confiscation effort in New Zealand may impact the debate over implementing a similar policy in the United States. While gun-control advocates have shunned confiscation policies in the past, some Democrats have warmed to the idea of taking AR-15s and similar guns in recent years. Congressman Eric Swalwell (D., Calif.) wrote an op-ed in favor of confiscation in 2018. Vice President Kamala Harris said she supports a mandatory buyback scheme similar to Canada’s policy during a 2020 presidential primary forum hosted by gun-control group March for Our Lives. Beto O’Rourke garnered much attention when he declared, “hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47” during the same campaign. He has stuck with the policy since entering the 2022 Texas gubernatorial race despite the idea polling poorly.

It seems the only people who have willingly turned over their firearms are the Australians. As the publication noted, buybacks are hardly a guarantee—they mostly fail as well. These are also commonly owned firearms in the United States. Millions own AR-15 rifles for hunting, target practice, and for self-defense. There are millions of so-called high-capacity magazines as well which makes laws against those items illogical as well. Liberals deem a 15-round magazine to be high-capacity. It’s commonplace. In a year where the credibility around government authority has been shattered by serial abuse due to the COVID pandemic, I don’t blame anyone who is just finished complying with mandates.

New laws aren’t about gun owner’s responsibilities

It’s been said that all rights come with responsibilities, and it’s something I thoroughly agree with. You have a right to free speech, but a responsibility to use that responsibly. For gun owners, you have the right to keep and bear arms, but you have an obligation to exercise that responsibility.

This isn’t a controversial point of view, all things considered. Oh, we might debate what one’s responsibilities are as a firearm owner, but I think just about everyone agrees that they exist.

So when the editorial board of the Salt Lake Tribune wrote a headline saying, “The right to bear arms comes with responsibilities, the Editorial Board writes,” I didn’t worry too much.

Then I read it and realized they have a different view of responsibilities than I do.

There are no rights that do not come with responsibilities.

It is no threat to the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to expect people who own firearms to keep their weapons in such a way that they are not likely to fall into the hands of criminals, children or others who have no business bearing them.

As reported recently by The Salt Lake Tribune, Utah is seeing a troublesome surge in both the number of guns stolen and the number of homicides committed with guns. The former statistic jumped 48% from 2011 to 2020, while the latter number tripled. Gun sales are also up sharply and, while that’s not a crime, connecting the dots strongly suggests that many of the people who legally own firearms are not living up to the responsibility of keeping the community safe from their misuse.

There have been attempts in the Utah Legislature to make responsible gun ownership not just a civic responsibility but also a legal obligation. Sadly, but not surprisingly, every attempt to mandate that gun owners secure their arms, or to make giving or lending a gun to someone who later uses in it the commission of a crime something that a person can be sued for, is rejected on the flawed argument that it would impinge on the rights of gun owners.

Of course, the Tribune editorial board doesn’t see an issue with turning a responsibility into a legal obligation. I sure as hell do.

You see, for one thing, we don’t always agree on what’s a responsibility and what isn’t. For another, what makes sense for one person doesn’t make sense for another.

Firearm thefts are up, but how many of those thefts included guns with some kind of gun lock on them? Many gun owners use those simply because gun safes are big, heavy, and expensive. They’re not an option for a lot of people.

Besides, most mandatory storage laws actually accept the locks as being safely stored.

Yet those locks are relatively easy to defeat if one is given enough time.

See, it’s easy to blame gun owners for the problem and to try to push for some law to make them do what you think is right, but what none of those people ever bother to ask is why are you trying to punish the victims of these thefts, anyway?

Honestly, this idea that gun owners are responsible for gun thefts in some way just sounds an awful lot like telling a woman if she hadn’t been in that part of town dressed that way, she wouldn’t have been raped.

Now, I’m a proponent of securing your weapons when not in use. I actually do think it’s the responsible thing to do. But when it gets mandated, it no longer becomes something you can adjust due to your circumstances. You can’t leave a gun available for your responsible teenager to use to defend themselves from a home invasion. You can no longer keep them in various parts of your home in case you need one and can’t make it to where your weapon is secured.

It removes all ability of the gun owner to determine their own needs.

The truth of the matter is that this isn’t about responsibilities. That’s just a frame the Tribune thought to use in order to make their screed less objectionable. The problem for them is that we see through that kind of thing.

For them, our responsibilities are whatever they say they are and we either do it their way or we’re scum.

I’d say the scum are the people who think they get a say in what we do in our own homes.