Category: RKBA

Well, the people that voted for the proggie politicians who came up with this law are the expatriates from states that were turned into cesspools by the proggie politicians they voted for there.

It Just Got Harder for Law-Abiding Citizens to Buy a Gun in Colorado

“There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people were not ‘brainwashed’ about gun ownership and had been well armed. … Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag, half-starved group of Jews took 10 handguns and made asses out of the Nazis.” — Theodore Haas, Dachau survivor.

When tragedy strikes, it’s human nature to look for ways to prevent the same thing from happening in the future. For example, the March 2021 shooting at a King Soopers in Boulder, prompted lawmakers to introduce and pass three new gun laws in Colorado.

Indeed, one of those laws, HB21-1298 “Expand Firearm Transfer Background Check Requirements,” went into effect on June 29, and is specifically designed to “address the epidemic of gun violence we have seen in Colorado,” said bill sponsor Sen. Julie Gonzales, D-Denver.

Continue reading “”

For me, there’s 2 reasons.
1, Reciprocity, as mentioned, for states that don’t have unpermitted carry.
2, Our state lets cities ban open carry , which includes ‘flashing’ (unintended displays) unless a person has a CC permit, then they can open carry, which is weird, but it’s the way the law was written.

3 Reasons You Should Still Have a Carry Permit in a Constitutional Carry State

Governor Greg Abbott recently signed HB 1927, also known as Texas constitutional carry, into law during a ceremony on the grounds of the Alamo, making Texas the 21st state to allow some form of permitless handgun carry. Similar legislation is being advanced in multiple states across the country, and it’s safe to say that the idea of constitutional carry has gained significant traction.

When you consider that as of 2003, Vermont was the only state where you didn’t need some form of permit or license to carry a concealed handgun on your person, it’s clear that the political landscape, at least on the state level, has changed significantly. But even if you live in a state with constitutional carry (or one that is about to), having a permit is still in your best interest.

Continue reading “”

55% of Republicans ‘Back Potential Use of Force to Preserve American Way of Life’

A stunning George Washington University poll conducted in June revealed that “Over half of Republicans (55%) supported the possible use of force to preserve the ‘traditional American way of life,’” while also finding that 47 percent of Republicans think there may be a time when “patriotic Americans have to take the law into their own hands.”

Another finding listed in the survey is that Republicans are far less likely (21%) than Democrats (83%) to say that “changing the nation’s gun laws is very or somewhat important.”

As reported by The Hill, “support for principles like free and fair elections, free speech and peaceful protest were nearly unanimous among Democratic and Republican voters.”

However, The Hill also noted, “Republicans were significantly less likely to have a strong amount of faith in local and state elections. Eighty-five percent of Democrats expressed trust in local election officials, with 76 percent saying the same of state officials, compared to 63 percent and 44 percent, respectively, for GOP voters.”

What this survey actually accomplished was to show the continuing, and perhaps widening divide between Democrats and Republicans on gun rights, and how political partisans disagree in their understanding of what the Second Amendment is really about. As grassroots gun rights activists repeatedly remind one another on social media, it’s “not about duck hunting.”

Continue reading “”

In case anyone still hadn’t realized just how disingenuous, dishonest and/or mentally defective the gun-grabbers are,  Mr Noir presents……….

When even the proggie editors at the LA Times print this……..

As violent crimes surge, Californians’ faith in gun control slips in new poll

SACRAMENTO —  Amid a surge in shootings this year, a majority of California voters say that they believe gun control laws are effective in reducing violent crime, but confidence in them has slipped, according to a new UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times.The poll released Thursday found that 56% of the state’s voters surveyed believe stronger laws restricting the sale and possession of guns help make their communities safer, but the number is down from 60% who felt that way three years ago.

The poll also found that 57% of California voters say it is more important to place greater controls on gun ownership than it is to protect Americans’ rights to own guns under the 2nd Amendment, but that number is down from 64% who felt that way in 2018.

The decline in confidence in gun laws is a response to what people are seeing in their communities, said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Berkeley IGS Poll.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
Anti-gun researches will continue to use flawed methodology and bad data as long as a fawning media and gun control establishment continue to fuel any “research” with the “right” conclusion

How Anti-Gun Research Works

The objective world mistrusts most gun policy research because it’s clear the objective is to produce an anti-gun outcome rather than honest analysis. Politicians and professional activists claim the mantle of evidence but will ignore any findings that threaten their anti-gun agenda.

Anti-gun politicians continue to advocate for policies that the very researchers they champion have contradicted, if not found to be ineffective. Researchers and activists cherry-pick data, but they also cherry-pick which findings to use – even from a single study. Can you imagine if the same low threshold for credibility was applied to pro-gun findings?

Let’s try an exercise. Vermont – one of the safest states in the nation, one that had Permitless Carry for centuries – enacted a magazine capacity restriction in 2018. Let’s look at the violent crime rate in Vermont and the U.S using data from the FBI’s Crime Data Explorer. The national violent crime rate decreased from 2018 to 2019 but the rate in Vermont increased – and even increased more than it had from 2017 to 2018.

Continue reading “”

Despite what SloJoe says, you actually might need a gun that holds 20 rounds, and several more full magazines, because you might need to defend yourself against a mob.

When the ‘Fact-Checker’ gets it right back at them

PolitiFact Claims Joe Biden ‘Doesn’t Want to Ban Handguns,’ But Here Are His Actual Words.

Joe Biden has been pretty clear about his desire to ban handguns.

During his CNN town hall last week, Biden was asked, “So, how will you address gun violence, from a federal point of view, to actually bring about change and make our local cities safer?”

In his response, Biden told the woman who asked the question: “The idea you need a weapon that can have the ability to fire 20, 30, 40, 50, 120 shots from that weapon — whether it’s a — whether it’s a 9-millimeter pistol or whether it’s a rifle — is ridiculous. I’m continuing to push to eliminate the sale of those things…”

In response to the tweet from House Republicans declaring that Biden “says he wants to ban handguns,” PolitiFact claims “the clip doesn’t back up the GOP tweet, and the full transcript goes further to sink this claim.”

PolitiFact claims that the numbers cited by Biden “apply to assault-style firearms and high-capacity magazines. As recently as June, when Biden rolled out his strategy to bring down murders, he said he wants to ban both.”

“Experts disagree over what is or isn’t an assault weapon. States set different thresholds for what qualifies as a high-capacity magazine,” PolitiFact continued, before adding, “But regardless of the definition, neither term includes all handguns.”

Did anyone say Biden wants to ban all handguns? Nope. Yet, PolitiFact unwittingly admitted in its analysis that some handguns would be affected by Biden’s gun control proposal. So, does Biden want to ban handguns? He’s publicly indicated that he wants to ban some. There’s no doubt about that.

Yet, PolitiFact rated the claim that Biden wants to ban handguns as “False.” In fairness, they could have gotten away with rating the claim “Half True” because one could argue that the House GOP’s wording wasn’t clear, but they didn’t take Biden’s words out of context. They even showed the video of Biden’s response to the question. Biden may not have said he wanted to ban all handguns, but he clearly said he wants to ban some. Yet, PolitiFact disingenuously rated the claim false, which seems to imply that Biden never said he wanted to ban any handguns at all.

Gun Owners of America (GOA):

Here is why the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism’s new “militia” database likely includes you–a gun owner who believes gun control is unconstitutional:

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
For those intending to watch ABC News’ “One Nation Under Fire,” they would do well to remember that what is being presented is propaganda, not reality. It will be another part of the effort to separate gun owners from their firearms, turn local police departments into mere appendages of a national police force, and prepare the nation for the imposition of the left-wing Marxist agenda.

ABC News’ “One Nation Under Fire” Will Promote the Lie About Gun Violence in the U.S.

ABC News is launching another attack on gun rights, starting Sunday. Its project, called “One Nation Under Fire”, will join with ABC affiliates across the country as well as with Good Morning America and GMA3. Variety, which made the announcement, breathlessly rejoiced that “various ABC-owned stations may also contribute their own reports on findings in their area of coverage.”

So, what will ABC News be using as its source to back up the attack? False data from the Gun Violence Archive, long considered to be biased in favor of more gun regulations and controls.

Said Pierre Thomas, ABC News’ chief justice correspondent, “We hope this is going to give us a better sense of who, what, where and why and that people will walk away from this with a much better sense of what’s happening.” That would include, of course, according to Variety, “solutions that might help reduce gun violence.”

Those watching to the end will no doubt have their opinions formed in the cauldron of canards, misinformation, and distortions served up by Gun Violence Archive.

Continue reading “”

‘Thinking’?
He’s brain dead, Jim.

Biden’s Wishful Thinking On Gun Control Reveals Its Weakness

It shouldn’t really come as a surprise that Joe Biden would like to ban semi-automatic handguns as well as modern sporting rifles, though it is somewhat shocking that Biden would admit his desire in front of a live television audience. Maybe the president forgot where he was, or perhaps he figured if he revealed his big secret on CNN few people would be watching and paying attention, but either way, Biden’s remarks are getting a lot of traction in conservative media today.

I’m the only guy that ever got passed legislation, when I was a senator, to make sure we eliminated assault weapons. The idea you need a weapon that can have the ability to fire 20, 30, 40, 50, 120 shots from that weapon, whether — whether it’s a .9 millimeter pistol or whether it’s a rifle, is ridiculous.

I’m continuing to push to eliminate the sale of those things. But I’m not likely to get that done in the near term. So here’s what I’ve done. The people who, in fact, are using those weapons are acquiring them illegally. Illegally.

And so what happens is, I’ve got the ATF… Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms, I have them increased their budget, increased their capacity along with the Justice Department, to go after the gun shops that are not abiding by the law and doing background checks. For real.

Biden’s right that he’s not likely to get a gun ban “done” in the near term. He’s also apparently forgotten that the Supreme Court has said that bans on classes of firearms like handguns violates the Constitution. Maybe he should read up on the Heller decision and skip his afternoon nap today. Even before the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns, however, the vast majority of the country never considered taking such a step. D.C. banned handguns in 1976, the same year voters in Massachusetts rejected a statewide ban on pistols. Chicago and a couple of its suburbs imposed their own handgun ban in the early 1980s, but the idea never really caught on in even the most Democrat-dominated cities.

The president isn’t just out of step with most Americans in his anti-gun extremism, he’s lying to them by demonizing federal firearms licensees and blaming them for the actions of criminals.

Continue reading “”

Gainesville Spree Shooter Used Stolen Guns

The media tells us mass shootings are on the rise, that such shootings are happening several times a day. We just can’t keep up with all of these shootings. This, we’re told, is evidence that we need more gun control. However, what about the number of these shooters using stolen guns?

See, I ask because I wrote about a shooting in Tucson over the weekend where the shooter was a felon and couldn’t legally own a firearm. That weapon was most likely a stolen firearm bought off the black market. We don’t know for certain about that yet.

We do know about a shooting in Gainesville, Florida, though.

Shortly after five teens were shot during a party at Gainesville’s American Legion hall June 24, the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office recovered a gun used in the shooting.
It had been stolen in Alachua, yet another filched weapon to be used in the ongoing gun violence committed by teens or young adults.
“These kids can’t go into a gun dealer, put their ID on a table and say ‘I want to buy that gun.’ And felons cannot possess guns. Because of that, they have to get them illegitimately,” Gainesville Police Chief Tony Jones said. “We know several guns were used (in the American Legion shooting). They could be out on the street now.”……..…
Everytown For Gun Safety, a nonprofit gun control advocacy group, reports on its website that theft does play a sizable role. It cites several studies.
“Gun thefts often divert guns into an underground market where people with dangerous histories are easily able to obtain firearms without restriction,” Everytown states. “That is why stolen guns are often recovered at crime scenes, including at the scenes of homicides and other violent crimes.”
Gainesville attorney Robert Rush, who is representing one of the children wounded at the American Legion, said his experience shows that stolen guns are often used in crimes and often get resold or passed around to be used in other crimes — an observation backed up by police.
Rush said he has found data that a stolen gun will be used in a homicide within a year — which has been borne out in cases he has taken on.

In other words, even Everytown agrees that stolen guns represent the lion’s share of the problem. However, as I noted with the Tuscon story on Tuesday, the media uses statistics like those found at the Gun Violence Archive and presents those uncritically, as if they tell the whole story. However, many of those so-called mass shootings aren’t. They’re criminal shootings like this and they use stolen guns.

Meanwhile, some will try and use those statistics to justify more gun control when even Everytown admits that many of these firearms are stolen from lawful and law-abiding gun owners.

Remember that when the subject comes up.

The truth of the matter is that the majority of crimes are committed with firearms that were obtained illegally. That’s why so many of us are skeptical of the idea that gun control will somehow impact criminals rather than us, the law-abiding gun owners and gun buyers. After all, it never has before, so why would it now?

Even when talking about the supposed hundreds of mass shootings reported in the media, gun control didn’t stop many of those, as we can see here.

The LA Times Gets It Wrong on Gun Rights

The Los Angeles Times had an editorial yesterday whose title pretty much says it all: “18-Year-Olds Shouldn’t Have the Right to Buy Guns.”

So, let me see if I correctly understand the Times’s position. An 18-year-old woman is walking down a dark street at night. She is accosted by a much bigger, stronger man who violently grabs her. He is armed with a gun and threatens to kill her if she resists. She isn’t armed because of the Times‘s gun-control law that prohibits 18-year-olds, including women, from buying guns. He proceeds to tear her clothes off and rape her. Hoping that she won’t be killed, she submits to the rape. 

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, in its editorial the Times failed to answer an important question: How is that 18-year-old woman supposed to defend herself against that rapist?  

What the Times is essentially advocating is a law that prevents people from defending themselves against rapists and murderers. That 18-year-old woman might not be physically strong enough to resist that rapist, but with one Glock 19 that she pulls out of her purse, things are now equalized. Now it doesn’t matter how much bigger and stronger her rapist is. She can stop him from raping her with just one bullet fired into his abdomen.

Why shouldn’t that 18-year-old woman have the right to defend herself against that rapist? Why should she be required to submit to the rape or else be murdered?

The Times writes:

True, the right to puff on cigarettes or drink alcohol is not written into the U.S. Constitution. But neither is a guarantee that the right to bear arms goes with being a particular age.

Lamentably, those two sentences reflect a woeful lack of understanding of people’s rights and the Constitution. Rights don’t come from the Constitution. They preexist both the Constitution and the federal government that the Constitution called into existence. 

Remember: We just celebrated the Fourth of July, the day on which the Declaration of Independence was published in 1776. That document expressed the revolutionary truth that people’s rights come from nature and God, not from government and not from some document that calls government into existence.

The Constitution never purported to establish people’s rights. It simply called into existence a government whose powers were limited to those few powers that were enumerated in the Constitution itself. If a power wasn’t enumerated, it could not be exercised.

Extremely leery about this new government, the American people demanded the enactment of the Bill of Rights, which expressly protects the citizenry from the federal government. Contrary to popular belief, however, especially in the mainstream press, people’s rights also don’t come from the Bill of Rights. The First and Second Amendments, for example, do not give people the rights of free speech, religious liberty, freedom of assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms. Instead, they prohibit the federal government from infringing on these fundamental rights. 

In fact, what many in the mainstream press fail to recognize is that if the Bill of Rights had never been enacted, people would still have the rights of free speech, religious liberty, freedom of assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms. That’s because people’s natural, God-given rights preexist government.

Oddly, in its editorial the Times didn’t advocate a minimum age of 21 for military service. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the military permit 18-year-old men to handle guns and even orders them to use automatic weapons to kill people in faraway lands who have never committed any act of violence against the United States? Why does the Times trust those 18-year-olds with guns and not private 18-year-olds?

Finally, in its editorial the Times unfortunately failed to call for an end to the root cause of much of the violence in American society — the much-vaunted war on drugs that unfortunately much of the mainstream press continues to support, notwithstanding the massive violence it has been producing for some 50 years. Rather than prohibit 18-year-olds from defending themselves, why not end this horrific government program and then see if gun violence is still a major problem in America?

 

 

Veterans no longer required to pay fees for concealed carry

ONESBORO, Ark. (KAIT) – Veterans will now have an easier time getting their concealed carry license, thanks to a new law that goes into effect next week.

Beginning July 28, veterans and active-duty military will no longer have to pay fees to obtain their concealed carry license.

Logan Lee, the owner and head instructor at 141 Shooting Range, says he has taught several veterans over his career and believes that this decision from Arkansas lawmakers is a no-brainer.

“I feel like carrying a handgun is a God-given right protected by our Constitution,” Lee said. “And that’s what our service members do. They go out there and help preserve our government, our constitutional rights, and if we can make it a little easier for them; they already paid an awesome price for us, why not extend that olive branch out a little bit and let’s take away the fee for them.”

The law is one part of the Arkansas legislature’s effort to reinforce Second Amendment rights, paired with the new Stand Your Ground law that Governor Asa Hutchinson signed in May.

Lee also said that veterans still must go through background checks and the appropriate training but hopes it will help service members across the state.

Below The Radar: The PISTOL Act

A while back, we discussed the difference between the ideal and the achievable. It is a conundrum that many Second Amendment supporters have, whether it is legislation or candidates. Our enemies often have the same problem, so we can take some small comfort.

Just as Dianne Feinstein has introduced a fallback measure to the semiauto ban she really wants, the same approach is being taken with regards to the Biden-Harris regime’s attack on AR-15-type pistols (among others). We have discussed the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act on multiple occasions, and it is the ideal solution to address that attack.

However, as Second Amendment supporters have often learned, the ideal solution isn’t always possible.

In this case, removing short-barreled rifles from the purview of the National Firearms Act may not be possible at the present time. In fact, to be very blunt, seeing the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act become law in this Congress is a pipe dream, given who controls the committees and subcommittees.

This is not to say it’s a bad idea – introducing legislation and tracking the cosponsors is a good way to gauge what sort of support there is for efforts to restore our rights. That makes having a fall-back option a good idea. Enter HR 3823, the PISTOL Act.

What this bill, introduced by Representative Bob Good (R-VA), does is to maintain the status quo by stating that firearms like the AR-15 pistols with a stabilizing brace may not be placed under the National Firearms Act. This would end the present threat for the short term – provided that anti-Second Amendment extremists don’t increase their numbers in Congress.

This doesn’t come without trade-offs.

On the one hand, if the PISTOL Act were to be passed into law (say as an amendment to the appropriate appropriations bill), it may make it more difficult to pass the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act in the future. But given the realities that surround passing legislation, even taking a majority in the future won’t make passing the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act a given.

For one thing, the same filibuster that currently is preventing anti-Second Amendment extremists from packing the court and ramming through extreme legislation will be wielded by the likes of Chuck Schumer, Chris Murphy, Dianne Feinstein, and other anti-Second Amendment extremists to block pro-Second Amendment legislation. It cuts both ways, and before Second Amendment supporters contemplate nuking the filibuster to pass such improvements, remember that Harry Reid’s use of the “nuclear option” for nominations backfired to the tune of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett on SCOTUS.

The fact is, the PISTOL Act may be a suitable incremental measure in lieu of passing the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act, and Second Amendment supporters should contact their Senators and Representative and polite urge them to support this legislation. However, it is no substitute for defeating anti-Second Amendment extremists at the ballot box at the federal, state, and local levels.

BLUF:

I keep coming back to the idea that concentrating on rounding up the worst of the worst gangbangers would be much more efficient. By anybody’s count there are far fewer violent gang members operating in this country than there are guns. Would this get rid of all gun crime? No, but it would make a heck of a dent in it.

Take care of the demand problem and the supply side will surely slow.

Seems to me, she’s come to the same conclusion Bill Whittle did
“Maybe it’s not the guns. Maybe it’s the people holding the guns.”

Are guns really the problem?

The White House is launching a new assault to bring down the crime rate. As you’ve likely heard, crime, especially homicide, has exploded in many major hotspot cities over the past year or so. President Joe Biden says he knows what to do, he’s been at this for years and he’s got a plan ready to launch that includes several definitive steps.

“The first of those that work is stemming the flow of firearms used to commit violent crimes,” Biden told a group of reporters as he was about to go into a closed-door meeting with visiting police chiefs and city officials. “It includes cracking down and holding rogue gun dealers accountable for violating federal law.”

The new plan includes five new federal strike forces, agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATFE), which will embed with local police departments in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. Their mission is to disrupt gun trafficking coming into those major cities.

The president says he wants to “supercharge” the crime fighting effort, so he’s also urging communities to invest some of their portion of the $350 billion COVID-19 relief fund in policing and to establish more support programs, such as summer jobs for young people.

I wonder if during that closed-door White House meeting anyone broached the subject of the criminals holding those illegal guns the president wants rounded up.

The cold hard fact is this: There are some 470 million guns in civilian hands in the United States right now, with new ones — including untraceable, homemade ghost guns — being manufactured every day. Legal, registered gun sales are at record highs. If by some stretch of the imagination we could magically do away with all the guns belonging to criminals, what do you think might happen? Do you believe hardcore lawbreakers would simply shrug, walk away from their criminal life and go get a nine-to-five job? No. They would find other weapons with which to inflict their terror on innocent citizens. Knives, Molotov cocktails, scissors, an ax perhaps. Criminals aren’t just violent; they are deviously creative.

Continue reading “”

Learning to Deal With the Fact That Almost Half the Country Will Soon Have Constitutional Carry.

“I live in New York,” said James Digiuseppi who was visiting downtown Nashville. “In New York, people get searched when they go into a club.” 

Some visiting downtown Saturday said they were glad to see permitless carry become law in Tennessee.  

“I’ll be honest with you, I feel safer when I go into a restaurant or public place and I see open handguns and I know that people in there are carrying,” Springfield resident JK Graves said. “It’s how we grew up and that’s what makes Tennessee so great.” 

But security consultants like JC Shegog say the new law comes with added responsibility for businesses, especially ones with alcohol.

“They’re going to believe that it’s their right to have it wherever they go and they’re going to try to enter into these facilities,” Shegog said. “Some of these facilities have security and it just depends on the level of security that they have that will make the patrons safe or not.” 

— Nikki McGee in Some say new permitless carry law means greater responsibility for bars and restaurants

D.C.’s Problem Isn’t “Too Many Guns”

WUSA-TV’s Tony Perkins, like many in our nation’s capitol, says that the reason for the increase is simple; there are just too many guns out there.

It’s a complicated problem, but the obvious, overwhelming fact is there are too many guns on our streets. We are a trigger-happy culture.

No other country goes through this, and it’s not justifiable. Some say guns are needed to protect ourselves, but that is clearly not working.

There must be a wholesale change in our mindset when it comes to guns. If there isn’t, weekends like this last one will be the norm, and that’s not good.

When it comes to worldwide rates of violent crime, the United States is basically in the middle of the pack, and there are plenty of countries with much more restrictive gun control laws that have far higher violent crime rates. Beyond that, however, the disparity in violent crime is also seen here in the United States. Washington, D.C.’s violent crime and homicide rates, for instance, are much higher than those in neighboring northern Virginia, despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that Washington, D.C. has much more restrictive gun laws.

There are no gun stores in D.C. where folks can legally purchase a firearm. There are no ranges where gun owners can train or take classes. The percentage of residents who are legal gun owners is estimated to be just a small fraction of the city’s population, but making guns taboo hasn’t done a thing to make D.C. any safer, and it’s insane to pretend otherwise.

D.C.’s problem isn’t that it has “too many guns.” It has too many criminals, and too many people who feel emboldened to break the law because they don’t fear any consequences.

Continue reading “”