Category: RKBA

Increase in Home Defense Shootings Affirms Self-Defense Right

Recent days have seen an uptick in self-defense shootings involving burglaries or home invasions, leading to the inescapable conclusion that gun-buying over the past 15 months is not working out so well for people who break into other peoples’ homes.

Down in Orlando, Fla., the police were called to a home in the Lake Como neighborhood to find a man identified as David Havens, 53, who allegedly broke into a home while a teenage girl was there alone. The homeowner arrived in time to confront the suspect and a shot was fired. The suspect was wounded but it was not life-threatening. According to a published report, the homeowner will not face criminal charges.

An incident making lots of headlines occurred in Modesto, Calif., where Rodney Lee Martin encountered an armed homeowner, and after a rapid exchange of gunfire, the 41-year-old Martin’s misadventure came to a sudden end.

According to Fox News, when deputies from the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department arrived, they found Martin lying dead with a stolen firearm. The homeowner had been alerted by an alarm company and rushed home to encounter Martin, who opened fire. The unidentified homeowner returned fire.

It was the second self-defense shooting within one week in the Modesto area. The earlier incident involved a suspect identified as Pearl Fierro, 32, who reportedly smashed through a sliding glass door at the home of an elderly couple. According to a published report, Fierro threatened to kill the couple, but “a woman who lived in the home” apparently gave several warnings before shooting Fierro.

The dead suspect was found in one of the couple’s automobiles.

Down in Harris County, Texas an unidentified intruder was fatally shot when he picked the wrong house to invade. The homeowner and his wife were there when the suspect broke through their back door. As the suspect approached the husband, he grabbed his gun and fired, killing the man.

In Gig Harbor, Wash., an intoxicated intruder reportedly smashed a window to get inside a home where the homeowner first called 911 and then armed himself. A sheriff’s dispatcher was able to hear the intruder screaming, and as he advanced up a staircase and got into a scuffle, the homeowner fired. The 48-year-old intruder fell mortally wounded. The investigation revealed the suspect had a relative living nearby and theorized the man may have been trying to get to that address.

Authorities across the country are trying to deal with a spike in violent crime in recent months. Some believe crime is on the upswing because so many police agencies are apparently cutting manpower or have lost officers due to lack of support from city officials.

In reaction, private citizens have been buying guns at record levels. In that environment, some on social media have suggested that criminals find some other occupation.

But the bottom line appears to be the stark reminder that self-defense is a human right, and that fighting back is once again a popular concept, and the Second Amendment makes it possible.

President, congresswoman take aim at regulating untraceable ‘ghost guns’

WASHINGTON — With gun violence surging across the country, the Biden administration and a Florida congresswoman are launching a new push to crack down on so-called ghost guns, untraceable firearms that can be made at home.

“Really any type of equipment that can help you finish a gun part, we develop software to help you do that,” said Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed.

The company Wilson founded sells ready-to-assemble gun kits and publishes open-source designs for guns that can be made with 3D printers — allowing Americans to obtain untraceable guns without a background check. Wilson believes everyone in America has a right to build guns at home.

“It’s always been legal under federal law, but in the last 10 years it’s become a lot more controversial because it has never been easier,” Wilson said in an interview with Spectrum News.

The Biden administration is proposing to expand federal regulation of firearms to include do-it-yourself guns. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is seeking to update the legal definition of a firearm, in an effort to crack down on kits to manufacture untraceable guns.

“The regulations are intended to stop companies like mine,” Wilson explained.

Continue reading “”

More than 7,000 Hoosiers apply for free lifetime gun permits

It would appear Indiana’s lifetime gun permits are in demand, now that they’re free.

The Indiana State Police firearms licensing website experienced a “high number” of applicants that stopped many in their tracks as they attempted to apply for a lifetime gun permit Thursday.

On July 1, the lifetime license to carry a handgun became free.

“Due to a high number of current applicants, we must limit the number of individuals applying at one time. Please try again later.”

Many, though, we successfully able to apply for the free permits. Indiana State Police told WANE 15 that 7,054 lifetime permit applications were submitted Thursday.

If you’re still having trouble applying for a free lifetime gun permit, state police said in a statement Thursday to just be patient.

“Today is the first day where Indiana Hoosiers can now go online and apply for a free lifetime permit to carry a handgun. As expected, the Indiana State Police is receiving a large influx of applications being submitted on this first day. With the increased number of applications that are being submitted, the Indiana State Police is asking for the public’s patience and understanding, as we diligently continue to work through such a large quantity of applications.”

Weren’t We Always Extremists?
But over the years, I’ve had to disentangle my pride in my family’s work ethic and character, which so closely align with the American ideals I was taught and still vigorously believe in, from our government itself.

When we said, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,’ the reality is that this principle had been self-evident to practically no one throughout thousands of years of history. When we said that all men are ‘endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,’ it got people’s attention, and suddenly others began to agree. When we said humans are entitled to ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,’ it became a violation to impede such things. But make no mistake. These notions were not mainstream when our founders threw down the gauntlet with the Declaration of Independence.”………….

I always find it odd that America alone is criticized for injustices such as slavery, racism, inequality, and civil rights violations. It’s as if the vast majority of people are truly under the impression these injustices only ever happened here. In truth, the entirety of human history is marred by these evils, and in many places, you’ll find much worse conditions for civil liberties to this day………….

Applying Sun Tzu’s axioms, knowing what your enemy is up to is half the battle.

We thank this author, and the authors of the articles for self identifying and providing such excellent evidentiary material.

Does Expanding Gun Access Threaten US Stability?

Commentators have pointed to the recent uptick in gun violence to push for looser gun laws and greater access to weapons for self-defense.

But the authors of an essay collection published by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law argue that expanding access to guns will undermine safety, stability and democracy in the U.S.

Titled “Protests, Insurrection and the Second Amendment,” the 13 essays “probe the complicated relationship between guns and race, policing, domestic violence, and republican government,” writes Brennan Center fellow Eric Ruben.

The Crime Report spoke with the authors of three essays: Stanford University Law Professor John J. Donohue, Duke University Law Professor Darrell A. H. Miller and Cornell University Law Professor Sherry F. Colb.

The full collection — which includes contributions from 14 scholars — is available here.

Iowa ‘constitutional carry’ law goes into effect

Effective July 1, Iowa no longer requires certain residents to have a permit to acquire or permit to carry [or] to purchase handguns from federally licensed firearms dealers.

Instead, those who apply without permits need to undergo the National Instant Criminal Background Check System background check for each purchase. They must be at least 21 years old unless they possess a professional permit to carry a firearm while working in an occupation that requires it, according to the bill, HB756. A June 24 fiscal note on the bill listed several other factors that would make an individual ineligible to possess a pistol or revolver. The bill, which Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law April 2, also expands the group of individuals able to carry firearms on school property, as outlined in the fiscal note.

The fiscal note said decriminalizing the acquisition of a pistol or revolver without a permit or going armed with a dangerous weapon may decrease costs to the justice system by $2.2 million to $4.7 million annually and expanding the group of individuals allowed to carry a firearm on school grounds may decrease expenditures for the correctional system by between $30,800 to $54,000 annually. Costs per conviction for possession by a minor on school grounds of a taser may increase from $40 to $350. The cost per conviction for possession of loaded firearm or dangerous weapon or a violation of Iowa Code section 724.15 may increase from $410 to $7,500.

“I think it is a great day for freedom in Iowa,” Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, told The Center Square. “While strenuous background checks remain and will likely increase under the new law, Iowans will no longer have to get a permission slip from government and pay a fee for a permit to practice their constitutional right of self-defense.”

Holt added: “I believe that gun rights groups will spend a great deal of time educating the public on the new law in the months to come, which is very important.”

Holt said, over the long term he expects many Iowans will continue to get the optional permit for reciprocity purposes with other states. This means Iowans do not have to get a background check every time they purchase a firearm, since a permit is valid for five years and does not require additional background checks.

“The omnibus firearms bill we passed, which includes a number of provisions including Constitutional Carry, allowing off-duty law enforcement officers to carry their firearms in our public schools, increasing the availability of handgun safety training, and allowing EMTs with tactical teams to get a professional permit to carry, will make all Iowans safer,” Holt said……………….

 

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis Signs Bill Allowing Congregants to Carry for Church Defense

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed legislation Tuesday allowing worshipers with concealed permits to carry firearms on their persons for church, synagogue, and mosque defense.

WFLA reported that the bill, HB 259, applies to concealed carry permit holders and it took effect immediately upon being signed.

ABC 7 noted the HB 259 also covers churches and other places of worship that have schools. Until now, there has been a prohibition on carry at such churches and/or places of worship because of the school grounds.

State Sen. Joe Gruters (R-Sarasota), who sponsored the bill, said: “There are always threats. And all we’re doing is giving them, those religious institutions, the ability and the right to be able to say ‘yes,’ if we choose.”

“We’re going to allow concealed permit holders — it’s not the wild, wild West — we’re giving one of the safest subgroups in our society the ability to carry,” he continued.

State Sen. Gary Farmer (D-Lighthouse Point) opposed HB 259, arguing it is built on the “fallacy” that a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy.

Farmer said, “There hasn’t been any Dirty Harry or John McClane or Rambo that’s come to the defense of anyone in any of these mass shootings.”

Here are a few examples of good guys with guns stopping bad guys during the past seven years alone:

Breitbart News reported that a concealed carry permit holder shot and killed an alleged Tulsa, Oklahoma, attacker on March 27, 2020, thwarting a mass shooting in the process.

On December 29, 2019, the Associated Press reported that a man opened fire on a Texas church congregation and was shot and killed seconds later by an armed congregant. Video from the incident showed congregant Jack Wilson shooting the attacker while other congregants closed in, guns drawn, to help end the attack as well. ABC News quoted Texas Department of Public Safety Deputy Director Joeff Williams saying, “The citizens who were inside that church undoubtedly saved 242 other parishioners. That might get swept aside in this whole conversation about active shooter response, and God know law enforcement has done a whole bunch of work to make our response better.”

On August 7, 2018, Fox News reported that a concealed carry permit holder was there to “save countless lives” when a gunman with bad intentions opened fire on a back to school event in Titusville, Florida. Fox 32 quoted Titusville police Sgt. William Amos saying, “Based on the information that we’ve gathered. This person stepped in and saved a lot of people’s lives.”

Breitbart News explained that an Uber driver with a concealed carry permit stopped a mass shooting in Chicago on April 17, 2015. The Chicago Tribune reported the permit holder was in his car when he saw a gunman open fire on a “group of people.” The permit holder pulled his own gun and shot multiple rounds, striking the attacker three times and ending the mass shooting in the process.

Breitbart News also noted that a concealed carry permit holder stopped a March 22, 2015, mass shooting in a Philadelphia barber shop. NBC Philadelphia reported that the gunman was shooting at “customers and barbers” when the permit holder intervened, shooting the attacker in the chest and ending the threat.

ABC News observed that Richard Plotts opened fire in a psychologist’s office July 24, 2014, and his shooting spree was stopped by an armed doctor. Plotts was convicted for opening fire in Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital in Darby Borough, Pennsylvania. Delaware County District Attorney Jack Whelan noted that Dr. Lee Silverman, the armed psychologist who ended Plotts’ attack, helped prevent Plotts from reloading his gun to continue firing.

More recently, on May 17, 2021, Breitbart pointed to a good guy who used a hunting rifle to foil an alleged mass shooting in Fort Smith, Arkansas.

H.Res.388 – Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that President Biden’s gun policies are unconstitutional and should never be approved.

117th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 388

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that President Biden’s gun policies are unconstitutional and should never be approved.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 12, 2021
Mr. DesJarlais (for himself, Mr. Norman, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Steube, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Budd, Mrs. Harshbarger, Mr. Brooks, Mr. Perry, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Keller, Mr. Rose, Mr. Aderholt, and Mrs. Miller of Illinois) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that President Biden’s gun policies are unconstitutional and should never be approved.

Whereas the right of the people to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution as the Second Amendment;

Whereas our Nation’s Founders believed this right to be fundamental for Americans to protect themselves and the state of freedom;

Whereas President Biden has directly attacked this right by issuing numerous Executive orders and calling for stricter gun control policies;

Whereas President Biden’s Executive actions on pistol-braced firearms are an unconstitutional attack on Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights;

Whereas President Biden’s Executive actions on homemade firearms, such as 3D printed firearm files or unfinished receiver blanks, are an unconstitutional attack on Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights;

Whereas President Biden has called for Congress to pass unconstitutional laws requiring background checks on all firearm transfers, unconstitutionally banning “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines”, and holding law-abiding gun manufacturers liable for the acts of criminals;

Whereas President Biden’s gun restriction proposals would effectively ban commonly owned firearms and magazines used for lawful purposes;

Whereas President Biden’s gun restriction proposals would criminalize private firearm transfers; and

Whereas President Biden’s gun restriction proposals would seek to hold gun manufacturers and dealers civilly liable, encouraging abuse of the court system to drive them out of business through meritless litigation: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—

(1) it should be the policy of the United States to strengthen the Second Amendment rights of Americans and prevent the potential erosion of these rights; and

(2) Congress should never stop fighting to protect the Second Amendment.

 

Biden Lost the Public on Gun Control, He’ll Lose on the Issue

The road to President Biden’s plan to address the uptick in violent crime by enacting sweeping gun control measures is filled with immovable roadblocks and deep potholes.

They come in the form of Middle America’s distaste for more gun control — even by a group long believed to be in the hip pocket of the Democratic Party.

The results of a Rasmussen Reports survey released Monday indicated a growing resistance to the necessity of enacting new gun control legislation, such as the proposals that the Biden administration is promoting.

Only 33% support new gun control legislation, while a majority, 52%, believe the government should instead enforce more strictly those gun control laws that already exist.

Fifteen percent weren’t sure.

The poll also indicated that 54% of respondents agreed that America’s “founders explicitly wanted an armed citizenry to keep potentially tyrannical governments in check.”

Nearly a third of the respondents, 32%, strongly agreed.

Only 26% disagreed, while 20% weren’t sure.

This is reflected by the spike in legal sales of firearms from federally licensed gun dealers — most of it prompted by the uptick in violent crime.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
……expect to see concerted efforts by the Harris-Biden Administration, to implement executive actions, albeit as a “temporary fix” to restrict the possession of semiautomatic weapons. This is being coordinated with efforts by the Democrat-controlled Congress to shoehorn semiautomatic weapons into the NFA, or, perhaps, to enact new stand-alone legislation, or to enact a ban on possession of semiautomatic firearms through obscure means, by placing a gun ban in some larger omnibus bill.

Whatever transpires, the American people should be prepared for a very rocky ride in the months ahead as the economy continues to deteriorate, as social volatility and unrest in society crank up, and as the Second Amendment undergoes an assault in a manner heretofore not seen.

WHY IS IT THAT THE HARRIS-BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS REALLY WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS?

PART ONE

GUN OWNERS; TRUMP SUPPORTERS; ANTI-MARXISTS; ANTI-GLOBALISTS—ARE THESE THE HARRIS-BIDEN “DOMESTIC TERRORISTS?”

The propagandists for the Democrat Party-controlled Government are nothing if not expert in the art of subterfuge, deflection, artifice, and duplicity. Turning the Bill of Rights on its head, they claim the Country will be better off once the American people just accept constraints on the exercise of their fundamental rights and liberties.

But for whom would the Country be better off: for the American people or for the Neoliberal Globalists, along with their cousin Marxists, who intend to dismantle a free Constitutional Republic and merge the skeletal remains of the United States into something truly obscene: a transnational new governmental world order akin to the European Union?

Already Biden has made overtures to Brussels, resurrecting the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or “T-TIP,” an arrangement that had stalled under the Trump Administration as did the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP.

The true, if unstated, purpose of the G-7 Summit was to reassure Brussels that the U.S. was back on track to complete the agenda commenced in earnest thirty years ago—an agenda that had been making substantial headway under Obama, and that would continue under Hillary Clinton. But that agenda came to a screeching halt when Trump was elected U.S. President, to the surprise and shock and consternation of Neoliberal Globalists and Marxists both inside the Country and outside it, and no less to the chagrin of China, as well.

But with the mentally debilitated, and easily manipulated Joe Biden firmly ensconced in the Oval Office, the Globalist and Marxist agenda could get back on track. The EU would get what it wants from the U.S.; China would get what it wants from the U.S.; even Russia got what it wanted. And who was left out of the mix? The American people, of course.

But then, the Harris-Biden Administration and their cohorts in the Democrat Party controlled Congress, together with the seditious Press and social media and information technology titans haven’t bothered to ask the American people for their perspective on any of this. They really don’t care. They have effectively shunted Trump aside and they are treating tens of millions of American dissenters as potential “Domestic Terrorists” who refuse to go along with the game plan. The Globalists and Marxists will suffer no dissident thought or action. They are intent on stamping out all dissent. And this portends something serious on the horizon for the well-being of the Country and for the well-being of the American people.

WITH A RADICAL DEMOCRAT PARTY-CONTROLLED GOVERNMENT AND A BELEAGUERED, BESIEGED, WEAK REPUBLICAN CONTINGENT IN CONGRESS, AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN BOXED INTO A CORNER AND MUST TAKE MATTERS INTO THEIR OWN HANDS TO REGAIN CONTROL OF THEIR COUNTRY?

Continue reading “”

Second Amendment will be Nullified if ‘Common Use’ is Restricted to ‘Popularity’

“The Second Amendment protects modern weapons,” Judge Roger T. Benitez observed in his landmark Miller v. Bonta ruling striking down California’s so-called “assault weapons” ban. He was citing Caetano v. Massachusetts, a 2016 United States Supreme Court decision vacating a woman’s conviction for carrying a stun gun for self-defense.

“The Court has held that ‘the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,’” the High Court, citing the Heller case, unanimously held. “In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining ‘whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.’”

Aside from the obvious, no-nonsense assertions of Founding-era voices such as Tench Coxe (“every terrible implement of the soldier”) and James Madison (see “militia” observations in Federalist No. 46), it helps to understand another gun-grabber lie, that the Founders only had single-shot muskets and couldn’t have imagined technological advancements leading to more lethal weaponry.

Firearms technology from long before their time included Fourteenth Century multiple-barreled volley guns and a design by Leonardo DaVinci for a rotating triple-barrel breech-loading cannon. The Founding Era had already seen pepperbox revolvers, Kentucky/Pennsylvania rifles, cartridges to combine shot and powder, the British breech-loading Ferguson rifle, the 11-cylinder crank-operated Puckle gun, and the Girandoni air rifle, capable of firing 22 .46 caliber balls and that had actually been used by the Austrian army 11 years before the Bill of Rights was ratified. And the above is by no means an exhaustive list.

The Founders were enlightened men, schooled in classical, political, and legal history, aware of current developments (and in cases like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, innovators and inventors themselves), and visionaries with eyes toward the future, and to “secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty to … Posterity.”

Oblivious to that, Constitutional and historical illiterates, like the head of the oxymoronically named “Texas Gun Sense,” are getting ink spreading astonishingly ignorant assertions like “There weren’t automatic weapons or 100-round magazine capacities in the guns 100 years ago.” And, like useful idiots, they’re making such moronic pronouncements for Chinese communist propagandists (who want Americans disarmed and live Chairman Mao’s maxim that “Political power grows from the barrel of a gun”).

That’s bad enough, but the grabbers then bring those arguments into court cases and equally corrupt judges then create “settled law.”  As the Brady Center argued in a brief supporting the State of Maryland’s semiauto and magazine ban:

“Suppose, for example, that a new, unregulated and highly lethal weapon were developed before a statute was enacted. When first offered for sale, the weapon would not be protected because it would not be in common use. However, under Plaintiffs’ theory, if sales of the weapon grew explosively over the next year, prior to any legislation, then the weapon would, within that short time frame, become constitutionally protected, even though a ban would have been permissible had the legislature acted just a few months earlier. Such an approach makes little sense.”

That’s the crux—if new developments in weaponry can be denied to We the People, then it’s just a matter of time before the disparity between what the government has and what the people have will be as wide as if we were relegated to Brown Bess muskets and flintlocks against modern infantry. Unless “in common use at the time” is held to mean by soldiers in the field, with real “weapons of war,” as opposed to a sporting arms popularity contest,  the Second Amendment will be nullified as a last-resort defense against foreign and domestic tyranny.

To argue otherwise is to argue the Founders thought sending an outmatched yeomanry to their slaughter was “necessary to the security of a free State.” That’s insane.

Continue reading “”

Legislation proposed to make Ky. Second Amendment sanctuary state

FRANKFORT, Ky. (KT) – Kentucky would become a Second Amendment sanctuary state if legislation being proposed for the 2022 General Assembly is enacted.

The measure, which will be sponsored by Rep. Josh Bray, R-Mt. Vernon, would bar state and local law enforcement agencies from enforcing federal restrictions on the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. It would also prohibit local governments and other public agencies from allocating public resources or money in the enforcement of federal firearm bans. It includes firearms themselves, ammunition and firearm accessories.

“President Biden has declared gun control a priority for his administration, and we know that if he doesn’t get what he wants from Congress, he will abuse his executive authority through rulemaking,” said Bray, who represents all of Garrard and Rockcastle counties and a portion of Madison County. “This sends a clear message that Kentucky is a Second Amendment sanctuary and that there is no question we will defend the Second Amendment against any attempt to infringe upon it.”

Continue reading “”

NAACP concerned about Biden’s gun control plan

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) — President Joe Biden recently announced a plan to reduce gun violence and other crimes nationwide, but leaders in the Black community think it could do more harm than good.

“This is an ongoing problem that is occurring not only in Grand Rapids, but in cities all across the country,” said Carlton T. Mayers, II, Esq., national policing reform consultant at Mayers, Strategic Solutions, LLC and policing reform advisor for NAACP Grand Rapids Branch. “It encourages over-policing of Black and brown communities, which ultimately results in the unnecessary harms and deaths of Black and brown people.”

Biden’s plan is suggesting cities use some of their COVID-19 relief funding to get the job done.

Mayers says the community should be involved in the decision before money is allocated.

Last year, leaders with the city of Grand Rapids debated using ShotSpotter technology in high crime neighborhoods. This would use microphones to detect gunshots in certain areas. The plan hasn’t been approved, but Gayle Harvey, the NAACP’s executive officer of external relations, worries this would target Black and brown communities before crimes even take place.

“How is that going to help, how is it going to continue to protect Black and brown people in those communities that it services because to the high end, those are the communities that it will be in,” said Harvey.

These two say getting the community together would be a better plan to brainstorm solutions moving forward.

“That is going to at least put in place a way that community members would have a say on how this technology is used, so that way it’s not used in a discriminatory fashion,” said Mayers.

Harvey says the NAACP has already been in touch with city officials and the police department in hopes of moving forward in a positive direction for everyone.

(Oklahoma State) Senator Dahm files bill to lower ‘constitutional carry’ age to 18

TULSA, Okla. (KTUL) — Broken Arrow Senator Nathan Dahm has filed a bill to lower the age for “constitutional carry” to 18 years old.

Dahm said Senate Bill 1093, which was intentionally filed on June 28 to honor Oklahoma’s Second Amendment Day, will “further expand the right of the people of Oklahoma to keep and bear arms.”

“The people have a Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms,” Dahm said in a news release. “Just as they have the right to vote starting at 18, they should not have to wait until turning 21 to exercise their right to self-defense.”

He said, since the age for voting in Oklahoma is 18, so should be the age for constitutionally carrying a firearm openly or concealed.

“The primary function and responsibility of government is to protect individual rights,” Dahm said. “This bill will allow people who currently can vote but currently can’t exercise their Second Amendment rights to have both rights protected for them.”

Gov. Kevin Stitt signed Senate Bill 631 on Apr. 26, 2021, making Oklahoma a Second Amendment sanctuary state.

“Oklahoma has made great gains in advancing our Second Amendment protections,” Dahm said. “That is largely thanks to important local groups like OK2A as well as national groups like NAGR who were both instrumental in getting Constitutional Carry passed. I look forward to continuing to work with each of them and others including the NRA and GOA to advance our rights and access to firearms.”

Oklahoma became the 15th state to approve constitutional carry in 2019.

Director of Communications for the National Association for Gun Rights Chris Stone released the following statement on SB1093:

The National Association for Gun Rights applauds Sen. Nathan Dahm for introducing this rights restoring bill. All law-abiding adults in Oklahoma should be protected under Oklahoma’s Constitutional Carry law. A 20-year-old single mom should not be forced to beg for governments permission to protect herself and her kids, and If you’re old enough to serve in America’s armed forces, you should be able to carry a firearm without first having to pay a tax.

The president of the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association, Don Spencer, also released a statement:

 Senator Dahm, recipient of the OK2A 2021 Minuteman Award, has been a champion for liberty during his tenure in the senate. OK2A will continue to work with Senator Dahm on this bill to return rights back to the citizens and those that are lawfully visiting the great State of Oklahoma.

Credit where credit is due. Politifact bears continual watching due to its leftist bent, but this time they got it right.

Joe Biden stated on June 23, 2021 in a White House announcement:

“The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own.”

Joe Biden gets history wrong on the Second Amendment limiting gun ownership

IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT

  • The Second Amendment limited governmental power, not the right of individuals to own a weapon.
  • Laws at the time that limited firearm ownership were primarily racist, aimed at controlling Black people and Native Americans.
  • The first national gun regulation law in 1934 did not rely on the Second Amendment.
See the sources for this fact-check

President Joe Biden’s plan to curb rising violence relies on several steps: more aid to local police departments, expanding job programs for young adults, more violence intervention programs, and tougher measures to shut down gun sellers who break federal laws.

“Rogue gun dealers feel like they can get away with selling guns to people who aren’t legally allowed to own them,” Biden said June 23. “There has always been the ability to limit — rationally limit the type of weapon that can be owned and who can own it.”

And, Biden said, that power was rooted in history.

“The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own,” Biden said. “You couldn’t buy a cannon.”

We reached out to the White House and received no comment, but Biden’s statement is not accurate history.

During the campaign, Biden made a similar claim about cannons in the Revolutionary War and who could own them. We rated that False.

This time, on top of that, Biden misrepresents what the Second Amendment says.

Second Amendment places no limits, experts say
The text of the Second Amendment is short: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds said the amendment’s few words speak for themselves.

“The Second Amendment places no limits on individual ownership of cannon, or any other arms,” Reynolds said.

There have been many court cases to resolve whether the amendment confers an individual right to bear arms. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it does.

Setting aside ongoing disagreements over that ruling, Fordham University law professor Nicholas Johnson said, “The amendment limited government action, not people.”

“The first federal gun control law does not appear until the 20th century,” Johnson said.

That law, the National Firearms Act, came in 1934 when machine guns were the weapon of choice of Prohibition Era gangsters. (The law was drafted before Prohibition ended in 1933.) When U.S. Attorney General Homer Cummings made the case for the law before the House Ways and Means Committee, he based it on the government’s power to tax and regulate interstate commerce, not the Second Amendment.

“If we made a statute absolutely forbidding any human being to have a machine gun, you might say there is some constitutional question involved,” Cummings said April 16, 1934. “But when you say ‘We will tax the machine gun’ and when you say that ‘the absence of a license showing payment of the tax has been made indicates that a crime has been perpetrated,’ you are easily within the law.”

The debate that framed the Second Amendment

From the way Biden put it, the Second Amendment regulated weapons. The more immediate driver in 1787 was the desire to keep the federal government in check.

The framers of the Constitution agreed that a federal government might need a standing army. But coming out from under one despot, they wanted to avoid creating another. This was something that Federalists and Anti-Federalists could agree on, wrote Valparaiso law professor David Vandercoy.

“Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population,” Vandercoy wrote in 1994.

Restricting weapons to control perceived threats

There were some state and local laws after the Second Amendment was adopted in 1792 that limited firearms.

The most sweeping ones barred Black people, free or enslaved, from owning them.

A 1792 Virginia law, for example, said, “No Negro or mulatto whatsoever shall keep or carry any gun, powder, shot, club or other weapon whatsoever.”

Historian Saul Cornell at Fordham found other laws aimed at controlling certain groups. Some banned gun ownership by people who backed the British. Others targeted Native Americans.

Cornell also pointed to a 1795 Massachusetts law that mainly targeted rioters but gave local authorities broad latitude to arrest people who carried firearms.

“The (National Rifle Association) will call out Biden, correctly, that there were no modern style gun control laws in the Founding era because there was little interpersonal gun violence among persons of European origin,” Cornell said. “Gun control groups will correctly say that a variety of robust regulations existed at the time of the Second Amendment and that the Founders feared anarchy as much as tyranny.”

Cornell argues that for about the first 50 years after passage of the Second Amendment, gun technology was limited. The issues of crime and safety that drive the modern debate, he said, didn’t begin to emerge until manufacturers began producing reliable, affordable guns in greater volume.

Our ruling

Biden said that from the start, the Second Amendment “limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own.”

The Second Amendment limited government power, not the rights of individuals. Laws at the time that limited firearm ownership were primarily racist, aimed at controlling Black people and Native Americans.

Broadly, gun regulation came decades after passage of the Second Amendment when gun technology changed. The first national gun regulation law did not rely on the Second Amendment.

We rate Biden’s claim False.

Can Louisiana’s GOP Override Governor’s Veto Of Constitutional Carry?

Theoretically, it might be possible. When permitless carry was approved by the Louisiana House and Senate, it did draw support from a few Democrats as well as the vast majority of Republicans. If the lawmakers stand firm in their support of the legislation, the votes are there to override Gov. John Bel Edwards’ recent veto of the bill. In order for that to happen, however, lawmakers would have to return to Baton Rouge for a special override session, and that might turn out to be the bigger challenge.

While common in other states, overriding a governor’s veto in Louisiana is rare. It’s only happened twice in the modern history of the state — and only when the lawmakers’ regular session was still underway. Legislators have never in the modern history of the state called themselves back into a veto override session after their regular session has adjourned.

“I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and an enthusiastic outdoorsman and hunter. But I simply cannot support carrying a concealed firearm without proper education and safety training — and I believe a majority of Louisianans agree with me,” Edwards said in a statement Friday. “Simply put, it is not too much to ask that a person who wishes to carry a concealed weapon in public be required to attend basic marksmanship and safety training so they understand the regulations associated with such an action.”

Senate Bill 118, sponsored by Sen. Jay Morris (R-West Monroe), would have amended Louisiana’s concealed carry permit law, which requires applicants to pass background checks and pass a nine-hour course that includes live-fire training in order to carry a concealed handgun in public spaces. Louisiana residents can already carry a gun openly in public — referred to as “open carry” — without any special permits as long as the firearm is in plain view.

I’m all in favor of anyone who owns a gun getting the training they need to feel comfortable and be proficient with that firearm, but let’s not pretend that a government mandate is the only or best way to make that happen. After all, there are nearly two dozen Constitutional Carry states, and in states like Arizona and Mississippi, which have had the law on the books for several years, there are still plenty of firearms instructors who are busy teaching classes that gun owners are choosing to take.

Continue reading “”

Study Finds Moms NOT More Likely To Back Gun Control

“If you were a mom, you’d feel differently. You’d back gun control!”

Have you ever heard this argument? Has someone literally tried to shame you into backing gun control by claiming that if you were a mother, you’d somehow have a completely different view of people’s rights?

I have, and I’m sure I’m not alone.

To be fair, there’s a lot of talk about moms in the gun control ranks. Moms Demand Action, for example–I know, I know, it sounds more like an adult website featuring older women than a gun control group, but it is. They’re not alone either. The Million Mom March, for example.

However, a recent study decided to take a look and see if motherhood actually affects one’s views on gun control.

When it comes to support for gun control policies, mothers are not significantly different than women without children, according to new research published in the Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. The findings indicate that parenthood doesn’t have a substantial impact on gun control views in the United States.

“I’ve always been interested in topics around gender and parenthood in American politics where I think, maybe, how a group or political dynamic is portrayed in the media may not actually reflect the underlying dynamic that well,” said study author Steven Greene (@HankGreene), a professor of political science at North Carolina State University.

“For example, 14 years ago, Laurel Elder and I co-wrote, ‘The Myth of “Security Moms” and “NASCAR Dads”: Parenthood, Political Stereotypes, and the 2004 Election.’ So much media and public attention around gun control has focused on moms (e.g., the Million Mom March) that we were anxious to explore this dynamic to see how much motherhood seemed to explain gun attitudes.…

The researchers had hypothesized that fatherhood would push men towards more conservative attitudes on gun control policies, while motherhood would push women towards more liberal attitudes. But after controlling for sociodemographic variables, there was little evidence that parenthood had much impact.

Mothers held more liberal views on guns control compared to the general population. But this appeared to be unrelated to motherhood. Women were more liberal than men in general on questions related to gun laws and regulations. But there was no evidence that mothers’ opinions on guns were more liberal compared to women without children. In fact, mothers were slightly more likely to support less restrictive gun laws.

However, what does this really change? Not a whole lot. The anti-gunners will continue to pretend they represent mothers in totality and we’ll continue to know better.

What this does, though, is provide an important data point.

See, what anti-gunners love to do–and they’re generally able to with the help of a complicit media–is try to paint a small group with some shared identity as speaking for the group in totality. In this example, moms.

They also do it with March For Our Lives.

Remember how there was all that hype, about how the younger generation was going to step up and save us. However, support for gun control is dropping among those under 30. March For Our Lives doesn’t represent young people, it represents March For Our Lives members.

The same is clearly true with groups like Moms Demand Action and moms across the country.

and on an earlier note:

Governor’s veto of concealed carry increases likelihood of historic veto session

Governor John Bel Edwards vetoes legislation granting the right to conceal carry a firearm without a permit for ages 21 and up. The bill had popular support in both chambers during the session. Edwards said while he supports Second Amendment rights, he believes conceal carry is a large responsibility and one should undergo proper training………

The veto of the concealed carry bill on the heels of a veto to ban transgender females from competing in women’s sports has increased the likelihood of the first-ever veto session to be called.

Morris said he’s optimistic a session will be called and conceal carry will become law in Louisiana.

“We may make a little bit of history here, but we’ll have to see, I don’t know yet but I’m hopeful because I think a lot of the legislation that did get vetoed are things that the citizens of Louisiana really want,” said Morris.

The measure received wide support during the session it passed in the Senate on a 27-9 vote and in the House 73-28.