Category: RKBA

Mobile Co. lawmaker believes he’ll be able to get rid of pistol permit requirements in AL

Representative Shane Stringer (R-Citronelle) says you shouldn’t have to purchase a permit to carry a concealed gun because the Second Amendment guarantees your right to do so. His “Constitutional carry” proposal would eliminate pistol permit requirements in Alabama.

“Alabama is already an open carry state. You can walk outside your house with a gun on your side, as long as it’s open. If it’s wintertime, and you put a coat over it, you need a permit,” said Stringer.

Stringer says he’s been working with other lawmakers and believes he has enough support to pass his plan and get rid of pistol permit requirements next session. He says many lawmakers were swayed because the state is now in the process of creating a prohibited person database. It will list people who are ineligible to possess a firearm due to state or federal convictions or mental health illness adjudicated by a court.

Continue reading “”

Comment O’ The Day
“…what is needed is a change in the behavior of gun owners.”
No, what is needed is a change in the behavior of criminals who commit 90%+ of the non-suicide shootings in the U.S. Law-abiding gun owners are just that, law-abiding. We are not the ones responsible for the cost of “gun violence”.

Miss Bland thinks: ‘Let’s use high taxes to make it harder to exercise a right’.
Taking notes, right?
And I don’t think she remembers that there was a rebellion over depriving rights through high taxes that ended up being a revolution. Of course, modern education seems to be purposefully lacking in U.S. History and Civics

The Second Amendment, Taxes, And Gun Control

Americans may be divided over the necessity and efficacy of gun control, but it is hard for anyone to deny that the healthcare costs for victims of gun violence are substantial.

State and local governments must spend a significant amount of tax dollars for law enforcement, ambulance services, and more, which can cut deeply into the budget and leave less money for other important government services.

When a state or locality proposes a new tax on firearms and ammunition to recoup some of the costs resulting from gun violence, the opposition argues the measure constitutes a violation of the Second Amendment. The question is whether that is true.

Continue reading “”

Warning; Obscene language

BLUF:
Basically guys, all the outrage over this trial is because the left is terrified of losing another tool in their toolbox. They love lawless mobs terrorizing you and wrecking your stuff. They love having you too scared of the system to stand up to their dirtbags.

FISKING ONE OF THE MANY DUMB HOT TAKES ON THE RITTENHOUSE CASE

In the aftermath of the Rittenhouse trial there are a bunch of posts like this floating around social media. They all work off the same talking points so they are basically interchangeable. These are all being shared to bamboozle the gullible and shore up the dedicated idiots. I picked this one because of how many lies and distortions it packed into one post.

Continue reading “”

The Rittenhouse Trial Underscores the Left’s Determination to Eliminate the Natural Right of Self-Defense

The American left’s determination to conduct a media-inspired political trial of Kyle Rittenhouse had as its objective the ultimate disarming of Americans and the elimination of the Second Amendment.  While Kyle Rittenhouse was listed as the defendant, it was the right of self-defense that was on trial.

To what extent does man have a natural or God-given right to self-defense and protection of himself and his property?  This question has been bandied about for thousands of years and that issue, not guns (which are an instrument of self-defense), is at the heart of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The United States is the only nation in the annals of mankind to be established on the basis of a political and social philosophy centered on natural, or God-given, rights.
Among these are self-defense and property.  Property rights are the bedrock of the American political system; without that foundation, there is no freedom.

The Founders held that property rights encompass not just physical property but also one’s life, labor, speech, and livelihood, as individuals own their own lives; therefore, they must own the products of that life which can be traded in free exchange with others.  Further, as there is a natural right of self-preservation, man has the right and duty to defend himself against transgressors, including the state, that would deny, abrogate, or unlawfully seize his property.

Continue reading “”

Governor Parson can be as ‘open to adjustments’ as he wants, but that counts for little as the legislature passes changes to laws, not him.

Police Propose Changes To Missouri’s 2A Preservation Act

Even before Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act took effect, there were a lot of grumbles from some law enforcement in the state who felt that the new law was going to set them up to be sued if they cooperated with federal agents in taking down criminal suspects who might be armed with a gun. SAPA, as it’s commonly called, not only prohibits state and local law enforcement from cooperating with the feds in enforcing any unconstitutional gun control laws, but provides an avenue by which officers can be individually sued for doing so.

Since SAPA took effect back in September, a handful of agencies have suspended all cooperation with federal authorities for fear of running afoul of the law. The law was also the subject of litigation by the city of St. Louis and a couple of counties, but a judge rejected a request to block the law from taking force. And while I don’t believe that the law as written should stop police from working with their federal counterparts, and plenty of agencies continue to do so, the Missouri Police Chiefs Association is now officially asking lawmakers to make some changes.

In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Star, the MPCA proposes specifying that the law would only apply to new federal gun restrictions approved after this past August, and that it doesn’t apply to suspects whom police encounter committing a crime.

It also proposes clarifying which weapons-related federal crimes local police are allowed to help enforce. The current law allows them to help enforce gun restrictions that are similar to those in Missouri law, as long as those charges are “merely ancillary” to another criminal charge — wording that police groups have called vague.

“It is our desire to protect the rights of ALL Missourians while protecting officers from frivolous civil litigation related to the continued joint endeavors with our federal partners,” the association wrote. “We look forward to working with you and your fellow lawmakers to address some clarifications in the law and eliminate those unintended consequences without derailing the intent of SAPA.”

MPCA director Robert Shockey, who is Arnold police chief, declined to be interviewed about the requests.

I haven’t seen a copy of the letter, so I can only base my opinion off of the report by the Kansas City Star, but the first two requests don’t seem to be unreasonable. I do have some concerns about the MPCA wanting to “clarify” which gun-related federal crimes can be enforced by law enforcement, though. First, if SAPA is only going to apply to federal gun laws that were passed after August of 2021, then there’s no need to clarify anything. Beyond that, though, does the phrase “merely ancillary” really need clarification? If an agency is cooperating with, say, a federal drug task force and a gun is discovered in the course of that drug investigation, then the gun charge is an ancillary one. If the feds are going after someone specifically for violating a new federal gun control law or regulation that isn’t mirrored in Missouri state law, local police can’t help. It’s really not that complicated.

Even if some of these complaints by police are overstated, I expect that they’re finding some receptive ears among lawmakers. SAPA original sponsor Rep. Jared Taylor has said he’s not in favor of any changes, but Gov. Mike Parson has indicated that he’s open to “adjustments” if necessary.

I don’t think there’s any chance of the law being repealed outright, but whether or not the changes would make the law better or merely water it down is going to be the topic of much debate in Jefferson City in the months ahead, and I wouldn’t be shocked to see at least some minor revisions agreed to next session.

David French’s Irrational Fear of Guns is No Reason to Outlaw Open Carry.

Instead of asking why a then-17 year-old was there helping to guard a business and putting out fires, the question should be why the governor didn’t call out the Guard in the same way he is before this verdict. The question should be how elected officials failed to protect the community they represented and made a teenager feel like he needed to go and offer what protection he could as a substitute. My grandfather was Kyle Rittenhouse’s age when he signed up to serve on the USS Alabama in WWII. Men a year older can openly bear arms to fight overseas but not to defend their own communities when rioters are allowed to turn a town into a war zone?

Rittenhouse had every right to be in Kenosha. His father lives there. His grandmother lives there. He works there. His rifle was there too, (not driven across state lines) despite media’s best intentions to turn Rittenhouse’s short 20 minute drive from his mom’s house in Antioch to Kenosha into the modern journey of Odysseus. In fact, you might argue Rittenhouse had more of a reason to be in Kenosha than the rioters from California or Oregon.

It makes no sense that [David] French is arguing against open carry by citing the case of a teenager (the court determined he was legally open-carrying a rifle) who can’t carry concealed because a) how do you carry a rifle concealed and b) he’s too young to purchase and carry a handgun, much less carry it concealed.

No law-abiding person should feel persuaded to forfeit their rights because someone harbors an irrational fear of the inanimate object they possess. A person’s comfort level doesn’t determine the extent to which a right can be exercised. If you dislike open carry then carry concealed, but no one has the right to determine for others how they may lawfully carry.

— Dana Loesch in Kyle Rittenhouse Isn’t a Villain and There Is Nothing Wrong with Open Carry

Defeat the Lies of Gun Control with Facts

MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace went on a rant that targeted conservative media and the Second Amendment. It’s one that Second Amendment supporters should pay some heed to, even though Wallace these days is little more than a Beltway version of Regina George.

Wallace may be a NeverTrump “mean girl” these days, but she also was – at least putatively – a one-time Second Amendment supporter (and she worked for a President who appointed two of the five justices in the Heller majority). She also was a White House communications director, and as much as we may want to dismiss her, dummies don’t become White House communications directors. People who show loyalty and competence usually get that job.

This is why her claim that America has a gun crisis needs to be taken on, forcefully. Like David Frum’s lie about responsible gun ownership and the phony bologna claims about the origins of the Second Amendment from Carol Anderson (via the ACLU), we must push back. These lies are not small potatoes.

How do we fight back? With the facts.

Some of these facts come from looking over the latest FBI stats. In 2020, a total of 455 homicides were carried out with rifles, with another 203 carried out by shotguns. To put that into perspective, “personal weapons” (hands, fists, feet, etc.) killed 662 people or more than rifles and shotguns of all types combined. Handguns and “firearms, type not stated” were used in 8,209 and 4,863 homicides, respectively.

There are roughly 150 million handguns in the United States, according to an NRA-ILA Fact Sheet. That means in 2020, .0054 percent of handguns were used in homicides or one in 18,272.627603. It should be noted that since the landmark Heller ruling in 2008, the Supreme Court has held that handgun bans are unconstitutional.

The next fact that Wallace ignores is that we know what has caused the latest upswing in violent crime: No prosecuting the violent offenders. Take some of the outrageous decisions from Chicago, for instance, or for the prosecutors whose campaigns George Soros has funded. Even if authorities can’t get murder charges perhaps some of the rarely-used provisions of 18 USC 922 and 18 USC 924 could make a dent. The problem is, these aren’t used, and similar state-level provisions also aren’t used.

Second Amendment supporters can debate the wisdom of various gun laws, but the laws that Project Exile enforced can and would make a huge difference in the places that are seeing the worst of violent crime. Part of the way dishonest hacks and anti-Second Amendment extremists will sell the false notion of a ”gun crisis” (especially in the “public health” arena) is to point to murder rates and violent crime.

The ultimate task for Second Amendment supporters is to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local level – not to mention in corporate boardrooms and elsewhere. However, to do that, they need to not only prove claims of a “gun crisis” are phony, they need to show that the solution to the real crisis is not found in attacking the Second Amendment.

SAF: SURVEY SHOWS PUBLIC TRUSTS GOP MORE THAN DEMS ON GUNS

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today pointed to a new Morning Consult/Politico survey finding that the public trusts Republicans more than Democrats on gun policy as an acknowledgement that Americans are rejecting the Democrats’ radical gun control agenda.

The survey of almost 2,000 registered voters was conducted Nov. 5-7 and revealed that in the top five areas of concern—national security, the economy, gun policy, immigration and jobs—polling results show Democrats trailing.

“These survey results are revealing, especially on firearms policies,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “After years of failed gun control policies, the public has finally concluded that Democrats have only worked to disarm law-abiding citizens and make us more vulnerable to criminal attack. Policies advertised as keeping guns out of the hands of criminals have actually only been tough on their intended victims.

“The survey found that 46 percent of all American voters think Republicans do a better job on gun policy, while 39 percent still cling to the notion Democrats have the right approach, but a significant 15 percent are still in the middle,” he continued. “When the survey numbers focus on important suburban voters, the numbers get even worse. Forty-seven percent of voters in the suburbs believe Republicans are better on gun policy, while only 37 percent support Democrat schemes, and 16 percent remain undecided.

“The ten percent margin in the suburbs is extremely important for the upcoming 2022 midterm elections,” Gottlieb said. “That is where almost all the swing congressional districts are. This could cost the Democrats between 40 and 60 seats in the House.”

SAF has run more than 1,000 national TV spots on over 24 cable networks, along with radio advertising and millions of impressions on the Internet have helped educate the public on gun policy and the survey reflects the impact.

Gottlieb pointed to the election results in Virginia, which signaled a “new direction in the Old Dominion.” Commonwealth voters filled all statewide offices with Republicans, and put the House back in GOP control following two disastrous years.

“I anticipate Virginia gun owners will press the new administration and legislative majority to quickly undo the policies adopted by Ralph Northam and his cronies in 2020,” Gottlieb predicted. “Those policies, specifically the destruction of state preemption which guarantees uniformity of gun laws statewide, and the one-handgun-per-month purchase restriction, penalize honest citizens and do nothing to reduce violent crime.

“Democrats may have forgotten that right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Constitution,” he concluded. “Rights are not up to a public vote, but people who attempt to infringe on those rights certainly are. Voters made that clear in Virginia and are poised to do it again in November 2022.”

 

NSSF PRAISES SENATE BIPARTISAN OUTDOOR RECREATION ACT

NEWTOWN, Conn. — The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®), the firearm industry trade association, praised the introduction of the bipartisan Outdoor Recreation Act. This legislation, introduced by U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), would increase and improve outdoor recreation opportunities across the nation while improving infrastructure and driving economic growth in rural communities.

“The National Shooting Sports Foundation commends Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Sen. Joe Manchin and Ranking Member Sen. John Barrasso for introducing this vitally important outdoor recreation package,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “In particular, NSSF appreciates the bipartisan measures included in this legislation that would require the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to ensure that both agencies have at least one qualifying recreational shooting range in each National Forest and BLM district. Recreational shooting is tied to approximately 85 percent of the Pittman-Robertson excise taxes currently being paid by firearm and ammunition manufacturers, making it a major driving contributor to wildlife conservation. This legislation would ensure that recreational marksmanship can be practiced in accessible and safe environments while also benefiting conservation.”

Senator Manchin explained in a press release that the Outdoor Recreation Act would support outdoor recreation economies and provide an economic boost to local communities while preserving public lands for future generations. Sen. Barrasso added that the bill not only establishes public access to shooting ranges on USFS and BLM lands, but also ensures access to public lands and modernizes campgrounds.

Specifically, the legislation would direct the Forest Service to issue guidance for recreational climbing in designated Wilderness Areas and require the Forest Service and BLM to designate many new shooting ranges on National Forests and BLM land.

William A. Jacobson-
My appearance on Chicago’s Morning Answer:
“if you can’t defend yourself in those circumstances and the full weight of the state and the full weight of the media is going to come down on you, then we are in a really bad place”

 

Free States Must Defend the Right to Self-Defense

The jury is still out as I write this; I wish I could be confident that our justice system will provide what it promises and that the unjustly accused will leave the courthouse wearing a smile instead of handcuffs. Kyle Rittenhouse, who went into the void created by the cowardly leftist officials who refused to protect decent citizens from the militarized wing of the Democrat Party, might well be convicted.

He got dragged through a legal nightmare, and if that’s all that happens to him, then that’s the best-case scenario. Us lawyers understand that evidence and law are not what determine jury verdicts; they are merely factors in a much bigger picture. Instead of facing life in prison, Kyle ought to get a medal for taking out several degenerates, including a promising potential Lincoln Project intern.

If you are looking for justice, you won’t necessarily find it in a courthouse.

Continue reading “”

While they’re being simplistic when it comes to actual ‘use of force’ and do the standard clueless journalist bit about confusing “Self Defense” with “Stand Your Ground”,  at least they’re acknowledging that self defense and concealed carry are ‘normal’.

Amid crime surge in Seattle, some take steps to defend themselves

Reports of violent crime this year in Seattle have already surpassed the historic high number that were reported in the city last year.

It is perhaps not a coincidence then that more people are turning to ways to defend themselves and opting to stand their ground.

From self-defense classes to skyrocketing gun sales, more people are looking for ways to defend themselves amid concerns that they are on their own when it comes to random street crime.

Just a few weeks ago, Morgan Zion, who lives in Seattle, could be heard on cellphone video standing her ground from an attacker.

“I hate to be the person who says, ‘Oh Seattle has gotten so much worse,'” she said. “But it has.”

Continue reading “”

Support For Handgun Ban Hits Record Low As Gun Violence, Sales Soar During Pandemic, Poll Finds

Americans’ support for a complete ban on handguns is the lowest on record, according to a new Gallup poll, part of a wider dip in support for stricter gun control measures as gun sales, violent crime and gun violence soared during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Less than one in five (19%) Americans supported a complete ban on handguns in the U.S., except for police and authorized persons, according to the poll of 823 adults living in all 50 states, conducted between October 1 and 19.

It’s the lowest level of support since Gallup began polling the issue in 1980 and down six points from last year, the poll found.

While no political party surveyed indicated majority support for a ban on handguns, Gallup found marked political differences—40% of Democrats were in favor compared to just 14% of Independents and 6% of Republicans—with the overall drop in support “largely attributable to political independents,” which has fallen 16 points since 2019.

A slim majority of Americans support stricter gun control laws—52%—the poll found, the lowest point since 2014 and down from 67% in 2018 after the Parkland, Florida school shooting.

Political differences are more stark regarding support for stricter gun laws, Gallup found, and near unanimous support from Democrats (91%) contrasts with less than half (45%) of Independents and fewer than a quarter (24%) of Republicans.

While more Democrats and Republicans supported stricter gun control laws this year—rising 6 and 2 points, respectively—a 15-point drop in support from Independents, coupled with a 14-point drop among Republicans the year before, drove the overall level of support down.

KEY BACKGROUND

Last year was one of the deadliest for gun violence in decades, with violent crime rising for the first time in four years. Gun sales hit an all-time high during the pandemic and nearly 23 million were sold during 2020 alone, a two-thirds jump from the year before. While sales have dropped in 2021, they remain well above pre-pandemic levels, and researchers are divided over whether the surge is responsible for the increase in violence.

BIG NUMBER

31%. That’s how many American adults say they own a gun, according to Gallup. While this figure has remained unchanged in decades, the reasons people give for doing so have. Some 88% said they own a gun to protect themselves against crime, up from 67% in 2005. Protection supplanted target shooting (70%) as the dominant reason for owning a gun, Gallup found, which gained four points since 2005. The number of Americans citing hunting as a reason for owning a gun (56%) dropped two points from 2005.

Unless demoncrap goobernor Wolf has an ephiphany, my guess is he vetoes this, but that’s politics.

Bill to Make Pennsylvania 22nd Constitutional Carry State Heads to Gov. Wolf

Legislation that would make Pennsylvania the 22nd constitutional carry state passed the state house yesterday and is heading to Gov. Tom Wolf’s (D) desk.

The Associated Press reports that the legislation would do away with any municipal-level permit requirement for open carry and end the statewide requirement that law-abiding citizens get a permit in order to conceal carry.

ABC 27 describes the legislation, House Bill 565, as “polarizing.” Republicans support the bill, Democrats largely oppose it.

House Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff (R) commented on HB565, saying, “The legislation to assert Pennsylvanian’s constitutional right to carry firearms without a permit protects the Second Amendment and Article 1, sec. 21 state constitutional rights of legal gun owners. The bill changes nothing regarding who can legally own a gun and takes nothing away from law enforcement from going after those owning and using guns illegally.”

State rep. Jordan Harris (D) voiced opposition to the bill.

Harris said, “We’re wasting time on a piece of legislation that’s gonna be vetoed. We know there’s no votes to override the governor’s veto, we’re literally wasting time when Pennsylvanians have sent us here to address the issues that are of the utmost importance to them and I personally believe this is not one of them.”

The other 21 states with constitutional carry are: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

That’s Not How Research Works

The NRA calling research papers “anti-gun” may sometimes come across as dismissive or reflexive, or both. Some researchers work to keep their papers sterile, no matter their findings. Others grant themselves leeway to be more bombastic, particularly when it comes to developing theories that explain their findings. Researchers from the University of Central Missouri and the University of Alabama at Birmingham posted a paper online that makes their anti-gun slant abundantly clear through both their text and their model specifications.

David B. Johnson and Joshua J. Robinson posted their paper, “Gun Dealer Density and its Effect on Homicide,” online earlier this month. It has not been peer-reviewed or published in a journal. Johnson and Robinson make several emotional, hyperbolic claims about gun ownership and gun dealers that would likely not be accepted if written in a research paper turned in by a student. The variables excluded from their preferred models initially suggest unfamiliarity with crime data or research, but the use of some variables in later models shows the exclusion was by design. The variables that were included in their preferred model suggest problems with specificity and the exaggeration of small changes in rates shows a commitment to their narrative over sincere analysis.

Let’s start at the beginning of this 32-page paper – a count that excludes the abstract, references, and appendices. In the first paragraph, Johnson and Robinson utilize the tragedy at Sandy Hook to categorize the difference in the number of “gun-related deaths” per year between the individual years 2000 and 2019. The authors make no mention of the fact that most “gun-related deaths” are self-inflicted, or that the population of the U.S. grew by about 50 million people between those years. They also forgot to mention that the homicide rate was lower from 2009 through 2014 than it was in 2000 but that’s a detail that doesn’t promote gun-grabbing.

As is the state of existing research: “Much of the literature on firearms – particularly concerning its connection to homicide and crime – is full of null and mixed results.” Johnson and Robinson set out to resolve that unacceptable problem, which just must be the result of a misunderstanding of the relationship between gun availability and homicides, by “creating” a new metric: the number of federal firearm licensees per mile. They do not differentiate between types of FFLs or volume of sales, so a small home-based FFL that transfers a few guns a year is treated the same as a large-volume retailer like Cabela’s.

Instead, they correlate the number of FFLs per mile with the number of NICS checks. NICS checks, readers may know, are the background checks dealers are required by law to run before a sale. The authors correlated required background checks with those required to run background checks. Groundbreaking.

To validate their measure of gun dealer density, they compare metrics using heat maps. Theirs is the only metric that shows north-central Colorado with a high density, and it includes several communities that suffered mass murder attacks, so theirs must be the best. These professors actually used a small number of rare, high-profile incidents to validate a measure they’re using in an analysis spanning decades and the entire contiguous United States. That isn’t a validation – it’s a confirmation of bias.

Alaska and Hawaii are excluded for some reason. Oh, and any year prior to 2003 is also excluded. Their key variable is lagged, for some reason. The authors claim that NICS data is available from 2004 on, but the FBI has data from November 1998 through the present readily available. Also readily available are variables known to be associated with crime in generals and homicides specifically – variables like law enforcement resources, arrest rate, crime itself, poverty rate, unemployment rate, and alcohol consumption.

They tout the effect of gun density they supposedly found, but this model found that homicide increases as income increases and decreases as the percent of men in a population increases.

Those are backwards. Think about it. Men commit most homicides, and crime is known to be associated with lower incomes or poverty. It does not make sense for there to be less homicide as there are more men in a community or there to be more homicide as income increases.

Those are the results of the choice the researchers made, and they clearly made those choices to find a connection between firearms and a negative outcome.

They got what they wanted, but it’s a sadly transparent effort.

The authors seem to believe that “secondary markets” in places like Chicago contribute to violent acts, despite all guns sold by an FFL requiring a background check whether the gun is new or used. They also think that the ATF-reported “time to crime” that shows criminals use a firearm, on average, more than 10 years after it was legally sold, is irrelevant because gun dealers “regularly sell used guns.” Dealers are required to run a NICS check on used guns, too, and criminals don’t buy their guns from dealers. Johnson and Robinson are aware of this research, but it doesn’t support an anti-gun narrative so it’s discounted.

Comments on this paper could easily fill more space than we have. We’ll leave readers with this statement from the authors: “The decrease in the percentage of corporate retailers in these communities also may indicate an increase in the percentage of nearby dealers willing to bend or break federal gun laws.”

That’s not a good way for FFLs to stay in business – and nothing invites ATF and FBI scrutiny quite like breaking federal law.

The researchers may be well aware of that fact and willing to ignore it. They’ve certainly demonstrated their willingness to ignore reality throughout their paper.

I briefly commented on this awhile back.
This is a better look into the flaws of the underlying ‘research’.

Fatal Flaw In Ph.D. Thesis On Second Amendment Suppressing First Amendment

The Atlantic has been on an anti-Second Amendment tear lately. After a couple of pieces by David Frum, which I’ve addressed before, they have an article (Archived) that employs the newfangled theory that the Second Amendment somehow threatens the First Amendment. We saw this in the ACLU amicus brief in the NYSRPA v. Bruen case, which Cam addressed recently.

This article goes one step further. It cites “research” by two parties to make broad claims about how open carry protests chill free speech. The crux of the article is as follows:

Some protests involving open carry firearms have resulted in violence. The presence of firearms at a protest causes some people to be scared. Due to this fear, they are unable to express their opinions freely. Therefore – you can guess where this is headed – open carry at protests must be ‘regulated’.

Lest we forget, this argument has already been employed in the Campus Carry debate, that concealed carrying of guns inside a classroom would somehow stifle discussions. There is no evidence that those fears materialized. Yet, that argument is being laundered and reused against open carry at public protests, with calls to “further study” the chilling effect of concealed carry.

The article states:

What most people do not realize is that the Second Amendment has become, in recent years, a threat to the First Amendment. People cannot freely exercise their speech rights when they fear for their lives. […] Diana Palmer, one of the authors of this article, conducted a study […] found that participants were far less likely to attend a protest, carry a sign, vocalize their views, or bring children to protests if they knew firearms would be present.

There are two underlying studies this article is based on. The first one is from Everytown/ACLED, and the second one is a Ph.D. dissertation by Diana Palmer, one of the authors of the article. Everytown’s research is shoddy; it has been taken apart thoroughly before. Their new “research” needs to be tackled, but I will focus on the Ph.D. dissertation, which you can download and look at yourself here.

The abstract of the dissertation states the following:

In this mixed-methods study, 1,205 participants were surveyed about their likelihood of engaging in First Amendment behaviors at a protest with and without firearms and asked to explain what factors they considered when selecting their answers. […] In the quantitative element of the study, differences in expressive behavior were analyzed in the condition with no firearms and the condition with firearms. The analysis showed that participants were less likely to engage in expressive behaviors when firearms were present.

The abstract only talks about public protest scenarios in which guns are either present or not present. I looked through the dissertation, and found that it lacks any questions on weapons that aren’t firearms. Participants were never asked what they would do if knives, swords, clubs, pepper spray, brass knuckles, bike locks, etc. would be present. Any chilling effect of non-firearms weapons on assembly is not considered in the dissertation.

Weapons aren’t the only things that people can react to negatively. Participants weren’t asked what they would do if there were head-to-toe incognito, masked protestors at an event. Anyone following the news knows that antifa mobs have been showing up at “protests” in all-black, covering their faces while violating journalists’ First Amendment right to record them. Likewise, would people show up to a protest if there were people wearing Klan hoods?

Another topic that wasn’t addressed is crowd density. Personally, I avoid crowds and wouldn’t be surprised if survey participants would factor in high crowd density as a deterrent… if they had been asked about it.

Lastly, the timing of a protest was not included in the surveys; there are people who avoid “protests” at 1 AM. Too bad the dissertation didn’t ask about that.

These are questions that should have been part of the research, and the Ph.D. advisor or members of the committee should have caught these misses. This is a fatal flaw, in my opinion, especially given what the dissertation lays out in conclusion:

The first recommendation is that the carrying of firearms at protests should be regulated separately from other forms of open carry.

Given all the important questions that were missed, I take objection to the singling out of open carry at protests. If it’s a matter of regulating open carry at protests with, say, having your gun unloaded, mag out, chamber flag in, that’s one thing. But I doubt that’s the sort of benign regulation the writers of The Atlantic piece are asking for.

Going back to the article in The Atlantic, the writers also want to study concealed carry:

Research thus far has focused on open display of firearms, but further study is needed to evaluate the public safety concerns that may still be present when protesters or counterprotesters bring concealed firearms to demonstrations.

Unfortunately, this looks like agenda-driven, or at a minimum, bias-distorted research to me. Watching the press amplify it is unfunny to say the least.

Permitless concealed carry on the move in Ohio

Ohio lawmakers could vote next week to relax gun laws

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WXIX) – Ohio lawmakers could vote as soon as next week to relax current gun laws by waiving training and permit requirements to carry concealed guns.

If passed into law, House Bill 227 would make a concealed weapons permit optional, including the mandatory eight hours of training, and eliminate the current requirement that people promptly notify police officers they are carrying a concealed weapon.

The primary sponsor of the bill is Republican lawmaker, Rep. Tom Brinkman of Mt. Lookout.

The other sponsor is a Republican from Delaware County, Rep. Kris Jordan of Ostrander.

“It’s our Second Amendment rights. Government is too restrictive. People deserve their rights,” Brinkman tells FOX19 NOW.

Continue reading “”

If more guns caused more crime, we would know it.

BLUF:
The violent crime rate fell by about 38 percent over two decades while the number of guns sold each year almost doubled. The implied number of gun owners also doubled. If anything, this data shows that firearms sales cause a decrease in violent crime.

Gun Ownership versus Crime in the US 2000-2019

I’ve seen analysis that relates guns and crime. In particular, the data looks at the growing number of firearms in civilian hands in the United States. It compares gun ownership with the rate of violent crime across the country. Unfortunately, that data is a few years old. It is easy to get raw numbers, but it is very hard to get good data. This is what I found.

Continue reading “”

So the leftist media have crap-for-brains….
Do I need to cue the meme again?

ABC News Touts Gun, Ammo Taxes To Fight “Gun Violence”

For the past several days, my colleague Tom Knighton has been covering the ABC News series “Rethinking Gun Violence” and doing a great job of pointing out the bias in the network’s reporting. I’m going to tag in and take on ABC’s latest report in the series, which is all about the supposedly wonderful benefits of taxing the exercise of a constitutional right; in this case, slapping additional taxes on the purchase of firearms and ammunition.

Here is how advocates argue that a tax could be used as one policy lever in a holistic approach to ameliorating gun violence — not with the goal of keeping people from buying guns, but rather to claw back revenue from industry profits to raise billions for American communities.

Does ABC News even understand how taxes work? Any additional tax imposed on the purchase of guns and ammunition doesn’t “claw back revenue” from gun makers. It simply takes more money out of the pocket of gun owners. And why should law-abiding gun owners be singled out for a special tax if the money is supposed to be used to increase public safety for all?

A particularly bloody summer in California this year led lawmakers to propose a tax on guns and ammo to generate revenue specifically to fund community-based prevention programs. AB1223, which would have added an excise tax of 10% on handgun sales and 11% on long guns, precursor parts and ammunition, fell four votes short of advancing by super majority in the state Assembly last summer, but it’s set to be re-introduced in January.

“This tax is for funding gun violence prevention programs,” California Assembly ember Marc Levine, a Democrat who helped draft the proposed legislation, told ABC News. “It’s something everyone can agree on.”

Everyone? I don’t think so. There are certainly plenty of gun owners who are opposed.

Republican opponents of the bill have argued it’s unconstitutional.

“It is a clear violation of the First Amendment,” Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, told ABC News. “It is unconstitutional to require an excise tax, insurance, any monetary requirement before someone exercises an enumerated constitutional right.”

And even some on the Left see this for what it is; a shameless attempt by anti-gun politicians and the gun control lobby to go after legal gun owners instead of actually focusing on violent criminals.

“Unfortunately we have very little information, very little data to work with — there have not been that many really high-quality studies trying to look at this issue,” Robert McClelland, a senior fellow in the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told ABC News. A tax like the one proposed in California “really punishes people who are high-volume users, who are going to tend to be target shooters or hunters.”

“I don’t know if those people are really the ones that are responsible for most gun violence, but that doesn’t sound likely,” he added. “So an ammunition tax seems like it’s misdirected.”

As for any potential decrease in sales resulting from a tax, according to McClelland, “People who are on the borderline between making a purchase and not making a purchase, to that extent, yes, you would see fewer purchases. I would expect a much larger effect to be people would would simply go to private sales for used handguns and used firearms.”

I’m sure the gun control lobby has an answer for that too. Maybe a ban on private sales or transfers altogether?

I can’t help but wonder what the bean-counters and even reporters at ABC News would think about a special tax on each and every broadcast; something like 10-11% of all the commercial revenue generated, with the proceeds being directed at efforts to combat online disinformation.

My guess is that the network brass would be hollering about unconstitutional attacks on a free press, but I’d be happy to test that hypothesis if any congresscritter would like to conduct an experiment.