Category: RKBA

PRESIDENT BIDEN CALLS LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS ‘THE RESISTANCE’

President Joe Biden traveled to New York City for a media event to try and show America he’s doing something about rampant crime. Instead, he blamed the Second Amendment and lawful gun owners, said nothing about holding criminals to account and repeated the same tired lies about the firearm industry he keeps at the ready – lies “fact-checked” as being false each time he’s previously recited them.

It makes no difference to the president. He’s not even trying anymore. To President Biden and national gun control groups the problem is always the gun and the law-abiding members of the industry. It’s never the criminal.

Continue reading “”

Georgia looking at enhanced weapons permits

In the state of Georgia, you’re required to have a permit to carry a firearm in any way. We’ve written a bunch about how constitutional carry is up for consideration, which is a good thing.

However, it’s far from the only pro-gun bill in the General Assembly, either.

One would basically recognize concealed carry bills from every other state. Frankly, if constitutional carry passes, that wouldn’t be overly useful.

Yet another bill would create enhanced permits here in the state.

The State General Assembly is working through multiple bills that could spell more relaxed gun control for Georgians and an even deeper partisan divide.

With the Governor’s support, State Republicans are pushing five different bills that make it easier for citizens to carry weapons.…

Then, there’s HB 903.

Though similar to the other constitutional carry bills, HB 903 takes it up a notch with the concept of an “enhanced carry permit.” Qualified adults wouldn’t need a concealed permit, but those who take a training course could take their weapons into even more places with this special license.

Representative Joseph Gullett, from Dallas, is behind it.

“I would say the constitution allows us to carry weapons and to have weapons. And I think the more accustomed you are, the more training you have, the more comfortable you are, I don’t think it’s a bad idea. I think it’s what the constitution is allowing us,” said Gullett.

Of course, anti-Second Amendment lawmakers in the state oppose this and all the other pro-gun measures.
Shocking, I know.
What I like about the bill is that it doesn’t undermine constitutional carry, but instead works with it and provides an avenue for carrying in more places.

Look, what I’d like to see is what anti-gun types would call “The Wild West.” Namely, everyone carrying whatever they want, wherever they want.

That’s not going to happen, though. Georgians may generally lean pro-gun, but they’ve grown up and comfortable with a certain level of restrictions on those rights. I’m not justifying it, just explaining it. As such, we’re never going to get there.

What does that have to do with enhanced permits? Simple. These permits help normalize the idea of guns in certain places they’re currently not allowed. That’ll be a huge benefit for a lot of people who regularly find themselves needing to go into such places but who would prefer not to have to disarm.

Over time, then maybe we can look at loosening the requirements for these permits until one day we can eliminate them entirely. But you have to start somewhere. We didn’t lose our rights overnight. We’re not getting them back overnight either.

So, we take what we can get, and I think the enhanced permits are a big step forward toward making that happen. As such, and as a Georgian, I fully support this measure and hope to see it pass. I’ll actually look forward to taking a training class in order to get a permit.

Never in a million years thought I’d say that, either.

Again, they’re so accommodating to provide pictures for positive ID

CT gooobernor says you can’t be tough on crime “if you’re weak on guns”

Most of the time, anti-gun politicians couch their real agenda with language designed to make them appear moderate; for every Beto O’Rourke bellowing “Hell yes we’re coming for your AR-15” there are a dozen Democrats proclaiming “I support the Second Amendment, but we need a few more commonsense gun safety regulations.”

It’s not that they really are moderate on the issue, of course. They’re simply trying to package their unappetizing ideology in a way that’s palatable to more people.

Every now and then, though, you’ll run across someone who’s willing to give the public a peek at what they really think about the Second Amendment, and put their authoritarian impulses on display for all the world to see. On Monday, it was Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont who made his desire to go after legal gun owners clear.

“We have more damn guns in this state than ever before,” Lamont said with more than a dozen advocates and lawmakers in the Capitol’s historic Hall of the Flags. “We have more legal guns, we have more illegal guns. You’re not tough on crime if you’re weak on guns.”

Got that? According to Lamont, in order to get tough on crime you’ve got to crack down on guns; and he made it clear that he doesn’t really give a damn if they’re legally possessed or not.

In fact, one of Lamont’s proposals for this year is all about making it easier for police to stop and question those carrying a firearm, even if there’s no suspicion of criminal activity. For Lamont and his fellow Democrats, simply exercising your Second Amendment right to bear arms should be reason enough for law enforcement to suspect a crime.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
The lie is that mandatory training saves lives.
The truth is it costs lives.
Gun-control laws often disarm minorities, women, and the poor.
The lie is that mandatory firearms storage saves lives.
The truth is it costs lives.
The lie is that gun-laws disarm criminals.
The truth is that gun-control laws disarm law-abiding victims.
That tells me that one purpose of gun-control is to impose higher costs on gun owners rather than to save lives.
The lie is that guns cause violence.
The truth is that criminals cause violence and government officials have failed to control violent criminals.

Painful Lies and Boring Facts About Being Armed

I’m in a rut. I read the endless stream of gun-control proposals and I have the same reaction time after time. Gun-control advocates promise us safety in return for further restricting the ability of ordinary citizens to go armed. Those excuses would be laughable if they didn’t cost so many lives. It is easier for us to recognize the false-claims of gun-control if we have a sense of proportion and perspective. Then we can see it is a step backwards when we create a larger problem as we work to solve a smaller one. If we actually want to save lives then we have to see the big picture and do no harm.

Ordinary citizens defend themselves with a gun several thousand times a day. Our armed defense stops tens of thousands of robberies, assaults, and rapes. It saves thousands of lives a year. Many thousands. Despite that immense virtue, nothing is perfect. We are human so there are problems with armed defense.

Gun-control runs into problems precisely because armed defense saves so many lives. To change our laws and save a few more lives tomorrow, we can’t reduce the many lives we save each day. It is hard to pass a gun-control law that will do no harm. Let me give you an example to make that clear.

Each week I analyze how ordinary people defended themselves with a firearm. I advocate for instruction, training, and practice. I encourage people to plan for lethal and non-lethal defense. We talk about avoidance and de-escalation all the time. Sure, I want gun owners to be trained, but I have perspective.

Week after week we see criminals break into a home. Grandma grabs her gun and says she is armed. The robber runs away because grandma wasn’t the victim he expected. The great news is that eight-times-out-of-ten the bad guys runs away before we have to fire a shot. I don’t see where mandatory safety training could make this self-defense situation significantly safer or more effective. 8-out-of-10 times it is already good enough.

Proportions are crucial. Firearms accidents are rare but criminal attacks are common. Yes, I ask gun owners to take training, but I know that costs money, takes time, and demands energy. Disarming ordinary citizens until they take training means that more good people will be disarmed. Maybe mandatory training saved a few people from firearms accidents but we condemned more of them to be the unarmed victims of violent crime. The unarmed victims will have to surrender or go against a criminal attacker with their bare hands. Criminals plan their attacks to beat an unarmed victim. I don’t want that, and few of us do.

Continue reading “”

Filed, of course, by a demoncrap representative name of Brad Witt (again nice they provide a photograph for positive ID)

 The bill text doesn’t – yet – specify the minimum value of each ‘luxury good’ to have the 3% tax applied, but I’ll wager the price of a gun will be “any price”.

 

Oregon bill increases tax on luxury items to help those in need

A new House Bill aimed at helping some of the state’s most vulnerable will receive a public hearing next week.

HB 4079, known as the Oregon Freedom Pilot Program, would increase taxes on luxury items. The money collected would be given out to low-income pregnant women and adults who have aged out of the foster youth program. Those who qualify would receive $750 a month for up to three years, but only if they agree to the requirements of completing a financial literacy class and letting purchases made with the $750 be tracked for analytical purposes.

“We believe those two accountability measures are going to lead to success, not only for the individuals that we enroll in the program but the program itself, as well as the taxpaying public” said Rep. Brad Witt, demoncrap-Clatskanie. “What will be required here, is that folks that choose to participate in the program and want to avail themselves to the $750 monthly payment, be required to take a financial education course and also to agree that their purchases will be monitored by an independent third party anonymously. That way we can then have a system of constant improvement on the financial literacy course, knowing what it is that we need to be instructing folks on to achieve the best results that we possibly can out of the program.”

The $750 would come on a debit card. Witt says there are no restrictions on what that money can be spent on.

Taxes would be increased to 3% on items deemed a luxury. Examples outlined in the bill include airplanes, expensive watercrafts, high-end cars, jewelry>>>>> and guns<<<<<. Witt says once each item goes over a certain price, it will be taxed.

“Jewelry would be a $20,000 threshold; we have a $15,000 threshold for items like snowmobiles,” said Witt. “Each item, the threshold pricing point was determined by what is the average cost of that item in the marketplace and we tried to get it at the very high end of that market to make sure it was luxury and not an everyday purchase price.”

HB 4079 will be heard on Tuesday in the Human Services Committee. KATU reached out to Oregon House Republicans about the bill. No one was available for an interview or to provide a statement on Friday, but a spokesperson says this bill is something they are paying attention to.

Witt says if it passes, this bill will make Oregon the first state in the country to provide such legislation.

The Perfect Label to Destroy Gun-Grabbing Democrats’ Credibility

It is a basic principle of psychological warfare and propaganda that the assignment of a name that sticks to somebody or something can make or break that person or entity.  A fictional example from the Game of Thrones series exemplifies this.  If you’re a slave in Meereen, and somebody called the “Mother of Dragons” and “Breaker of Chains” is outside your masters’ walls with an army, you’ll probably pick up anything you can use as a weapon to join a slave revolt.  If we look at a real historical example, serfs who had previously been willing to do almost anything to avoid service in the Russian Army, including knocking out their front teeth so they could not bite open musket cartridges, were eager to follow Aleksandr V. Suvorov, also known as “The Russian Hannibal.”  He took good care of his soldiers and tended to win lopsided victories with minimal losses to his own side.

Suppose instead that you’re a German soldier during the Second World War, and the Allies have named your general, Fedor von Bock, “Der Sterber” (“Let’s go get killed”) because he said the greatest thing a German soldier could do is die for Germany.  You’d probably want to surrender at the earliest opportunity, especially if you also learned that General Patton had meanwhile told his soldiers that the idea of war is to make the enemy (i.e., you) die for his country.  When your general and the opposing general have the same agenda, you have a real problem.

“Tricky Dick” stuck similarly to Richard Nixon, but not enough to keep him from becoming president in 1968.  We now have “Krazy Kamala” Harris, and “President Houseplant” (courtesy of conservative talk show host Ben Shapiro) Biden.  I came up, meanwhile, with “Hamas-American Bund” to equate the entire anti-Israel boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement to Hitler’s useful idiots of the late 1930s.

Call Them Firearm Quacks or Anti-Gun Quacks

Supporters of the Second Amendment have depicted their adversaries as “gun-grabbers,” but swing voters who do not own guns, much less hoplophobes who would probably like all the guns to be grabbed, do not care about “our” Second Amendment rights.  Everybody, however, has nothing but contempt for medical quacks — fake doctors who take desperate patients’ money and deliver worse than useless remedies in return. A quack is worse than a fraud, who merely steals money; the quack’s remedies are harmful and divert the patient from life-saving medical treatment until it is too late.

Continue reading “”

“The democrats defund the police, fail to prosecute criminals, and then tell us they are going to increase restrictions on firearms. This isn’t stupidity or ignorance. This is evil”--Joe Huffman

Biden’s ‘guns first’ approach to violent crime ignores basic facts
Over 92% of violent crimes in America do not involve firearms

With violent crime increasing over the last two years, Americans want a solution. But President Joe Biden constantly frames violent crime as only a gun problem. Again, it was the sole focus of Biden’s speech in New York City on Thursday. Even when he mentions police or prosecutors, it was in terms of enforcing gun control laws.

But this “guns first” approach ignores a basic fact – over 92% of violent crimes in America do not involve firearms. And while Biden blames guns for the increase in violent crime, the latest data show that gun crimes fell dramatically.

Biden’s proposal yesterday to “work to take those shooters off the streets as quickly as possible” is great, but with over 92% of violent crime not involving guns, why not promise to do this for all violent criminals?

Andy McCarthy: What Biden can and cannot do about crime

The U.S. Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey, in the latest year available (2020), shows that there were 4,558,150 rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults, and the FBI reports 21,570 murders. Of those, 350,460 rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults (see Table 8) and 13,620 murders involved firearms. Adding those numbers up, 7.9% of violent crimes used guns.

Relying on public health researchers, Democrats blame increasing gun sales as the cause. But while violent crime reported to police rose 5% in 2020, you can’t blame that increase on guns because gun crimes actually fell by 27%. The National Crime Victimization Survey also finds a similar 27% drop.

All this is consistent with academic research by myself and others showing that criminals are less likely to carry guns when civilians have them for protection. If a criminal pulls out a gun against an armed victim, he is more likely to be shot.

Gun ownership didn’t fuel the increase in crime over the last couple of years. Rather, people worried about violent crime and decided to arm themselves for self-protection.

It’s not hard to explain the increased violence. Many urban areas saw more than half of prison inmates released because of the pandemic, and the releases still continue. Newly convicted criminals weren’t going to prison. Nationwide, there were over 340,000 fewer inmates in jails and prisons in 2021 than in 2019. Cities cut police budgets and ordered officers to stand down in many places. New York City cut its police budget by $1 billion.

Continue reading “”

As often is the case with those who oppose this, Chief Gemboski is wrong about the 2nd amendment. It ‘gives’ nothing. It restricts goobermint as eloquently explained in the Bill Of Rights own preamble. Either they’re stupid, or purposely misleading, as the subject has been covered for many years, thus ignorance is no excuse.

Georgia Senate moves forward with proposed ‘constitutional carry’ gun law

SAVANNAH, Ga. (WTGS) — The Georgia Senate is moving forward with legislation that would concealed-carry licensing requirements for Georgia gun owners.

On Tuesday, 31 of Georgia’s 56 state senators co-sponsored the bill, which, if passed, will make Georgia the 21st “constitutional carry” state in the U.S.

Gary Glemboski, a retired Savannah police officer and Chief of Police at Hunter Army Airfield, said the second amendment is at the heart of this debate.

 “It basically says that you have the right to defend yourself, to protect yourself from harm. The second amendment gives us the right to own something that allows us to do that. Right now, in The State of Georgia, you have to get a concealed carry license from the county that you reside in. With constitutional carry, you won’t have to do that,” Glemboski explained.

Brett Curry, a professor of political science at Georgia Southern University, said the legal debate surrounds the government’s ability to limit personal rights.

“A right can be subject to limitations, you know, in terms of, the right to free speech isn’t going to allow someone to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, for example,” Curry said. However, Curry said this legislation would expand the state’s interpretation of the second amendment and would withstand a constitutional challenge. “If The Bill of Rights, including the right to bare arms, is the floor that you can’t go lower than, the state, here, is not trying to go through the floor,” Curry said, “It’s trying to actually ratchet up protection for the rights in question, as they see it.”

Background checks are one way that the government limits legal who can purchase a gun.

If passed, this legislation would mean that prospective gun owners still have to go through a federally mandated background check prior to purchasing a firearm, but they would not have to go to their county courthouse for a second background review and licensure. Glemboski said he doesn’t believe Georgia’s licensing process adds to gun owner safety.

“The way I understand it- it’s coming from basically the same database, the same information source, whether you’re purchasing your handgun or whether you’re doing a background check for a license,” Glemboski said.

Glemboski, also a firearms safety instructor, said he is a strong advocate of gun safety training. While Georgia’s neighbors, Florida and South Carolina, require between eight and 16 hours of training in order to obtain a license, Georgia doesn’t require any training.

Glemboski said a license to carry would be more meaningful if it had training requirements. “I wouldn’t want to give a 15-year-old or a 16-year-old a diver’s license without some type of driver’s training,” he said. “With firearms it’s the same thing, maybe even a little more serious because of the nature of what we’re dealing with.”

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

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

CLAIM: No Amendment is absolute.

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

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

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

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

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

CLAIM: Citizens were barred from owning cannons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propaganda O’ The Day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gun Buying Advice For Women, From a Woman

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Enforcement Nearly Impossible

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

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

2. Insurance Policies Don’t Exist

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

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

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

3. Insignificant Coverage

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

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

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

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

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

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

This type of gun violence is relatively rare.

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

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

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

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

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

4.  Payouts Don’t Reduce Taxpayer Burden

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

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

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

5.  Mandate Won’t Save Lives

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

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

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

6. Unconstitutional Tax

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

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

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

7. Misplaced Blame

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

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

8.  Legitimate Solutions Ignored

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When religious freedom and gun laws tangle

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

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

However, some in Lancaster County are unsympathetic:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

Where You Used to go Armed in New York

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

It never made sense for honest citizens.

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the Gun Dangerous, or is it the Criminal?

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

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

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

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

Is safety that simple?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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