Category: RKBA

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.

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.

Dangerous, Threatening Rhetoric is the Tactic of Tyrants

Only tyrants threaten the use of force against their own people. On Wednesday, President Biden remarked,  “If you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”

This is reminiscent of California’s infamous Chinese-spy-bedding Congressman, Eric Swalwell’s threats via Twitter back in 2018, when he said about a hypothetical war against gun owners, “And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes….”

Both references to nuclear weapons is designed to do one thing: to intimidate America’s  armed populace.

 

Drilling down, the core question is why do these politicians distrust the people with the arms the Constitution guarantees their right to keep and bear? What are they doing, or planning, that makes civilian disarmament a priority? If civilian gun ownership isn’t a threat, why are lawful gun owners constantly conflated with criminals, scapegoated for crimes they didn’t commit, and their rights under incessant, incremental attack?

The reason is the power of an armed civilian populace is not to be underestimated, and they know it.

All men have the potential to be tyrants. As Aristotle warned . . .

The three aims of the tyrant are, one, the humiliation of his subjects; he knows that a mean-spirited man will not conspire against anybody; two, the creation of mistrust among them; for a tyrant is not to be overthrown until men begin to have confidence in one another — and this is the reason why tyrants are at war with the good; they are under the idea that their power is endangered by them, not only because they will not be ruled despotically, but also because they are too loyal to one another and to other men, and do not inform against one another or against other men — three, the tyrant desires that all his subjects shall be incapable of action, for no one attempts what is impossible and they will not attempt to overthrow a tyranny if they are powerless.

Wednesday’s speech was a prime example of attempts to humiliate, foment mistrust, and lay the foundation for plans to render popular action ineffective, just as Aristotle described. Biden’s ham-handed remarks about the government’s arsenal of F15s and nuclear weapons were intended to mock and humiliate anyone who believes she is free citizen, not a subject. Anyone who believes her life if worth defending against those who wish her harm. Anyone who subscribes to the historic values enshrined in our Constitution.

The second tactic was intimidation, the use of divisive language, stoking fear and mistrust amongst our fellow citizens by scapegoating gun owners. He all but blamed us for higher crime rates rather than looking at other, more politically inconvenient factors such as defunding, demonizing, and demoralizing police forces throughout the nation.

Biden tried to stoke fear of modern sporting rifles, of which there are about 20 million in common use in the United States. Attempting to ban them over arbitrary, mostly cosmetic features defies all logic. If it wasn’t so clearly tyrannical, it would almost be humorous.

Finally, Aristotle recognized that tyrants desire to render their subjects incapable of acting. In Biden’s case, through civilian disarmament. How would one actually accomplish this? Enter Biden’s ATF Director nominee and current gun control lobbyist, David Chipman. The man refused to identify what constitutes and “assault weapon” because he knows it will be far more convenient to let that definition be whatever the tyrants want or need it to be.

In the end, Biden’s speech was embarrassing and his empty threats pathetic. America’s gun owners will not be intimidated. If gun-grabbing politicians didn’t fear the people, they wouldn’t spend so much time, energy, resources, and linguistic wrangling attacking Second Amendment rights.

We rest easy knowing our constitutional foundations, and the pre-existing rights codified therein, have brought us to this. Not to disappoint the President, but we know that the Supreme Court has already ruled that we have an individual right to possess arms in common use. That’s a feature, not a bug as this very moment was thoughtfully crafted and designed by the Framers. Our duty and responsibility is to uphold the Constitution.

 

If You Want to Support Women’s Rights, Then Support their Right to Defend Themselves

I remember what it felt like the first time I had my sense of newly built security ripped from me. I had just turned 19. I was so young. I was just a kid. Like most young people, I never thought that it could happen to me.

At the time I was in the military, living off base in Missouri with a female roommate. After about a week of noticing things were “off” in the house (the back door would be unlocked, then open physically, etc.) I brought it up at work.

Some of my co-workers said I was working too much. They even suggested I go speak to someone in mental health… but I kept listening to my gut instincts as I have done my entire life. That ultimately is what ended up keeping me safe.

Shortly after informing my work about what was happening in our house. The break-in happened. The local police got involved, the base got involved… everyone knew. As a result, my commander ordered us back on base because that was all he could do to keep us safe.

My roommate and I had been targeted and as a result, the only way to avoid us being put directly in danger was to be ordered onto a military installation with 24/7 security.

Soon after, I received orders to move down to Florida. I had gotten married and thought after moving I’d feel safer.

I was wrong. In fact, things got worse. Even at home, I didn’t feel safe. I had no way of defending myself. When it got dark outside, I’d go around making sure every door and window was locked. I couldn’t even sleep through the night. I had regressed to an almost child-like state of being afraid of the dark. I felt weak, afraid, even violated.

My husband was getting ready to deploy, so he was gone most of the time. I bought a big dog, but that didn’t help. I was suffering from a form of trauma, and it was a major problem.

But then a friend, a technical sergeant, explained to me what a concealed-carry permit was — and it changed my life forever.

In the military and law enforcement, guns are a tool that we all learn to use that allows us to defend ourselves. There is a misconception in parts of our society that label guns as “dangerous, evil weapons for destruction,” but that wasn’t my experience.

I quickly applied for my concealed carry and I was (until recently) able to sleep through the night again. I felt at that time that I could defend myself. I finally felt like myself — a young woman able to live her life to the fullest.

It was a wonderful transformation — one that I expanded on recently in an episode of my podcast, “Luna Talks with Anna Paulina.”

With my sense of security restored, I felt I had to share my story. I wanted people, especially women, to know they had an alternative way of dealing with fear and trauma. Little did I know this endeavor would cause such backlash, especially on social media.

My civilian friends didn’t understand why I needed a gun, even though I went through a traumatic experience. And these women’s clothing companies with which I was working wanted to cut ties with me after I began posting online about my story and using firearms.

The strangest response was people saying they didn’t want me to be political. I didn’t think I was being political. To me, the Second Amendment isn’t a political issue. It’s a matter of basic protection. I was simply sharing experiences to get people to realize that self-defense is an option. Was I not exhibiting the ultimate support for women by empowering them to feel safe and secure?

Yet I was being called a “terrorist” and “a baby killer.” But I didn’t care. I knew there were people out there who would benefit from my story.

This issue is especially relevant after COVID-19. According to the National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice, incidents of domestic violence spiked more than 8 percent nationwide in 2020 following lockdown orders. And mind you, these were just the reported incidents; so many victims don’t come forward.

What I went through was only a fraction of what many women endure. According to the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network, one out of every six American women have been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. What a sad and horrifying statistic.

Yet self-defense for women isn’t promoted in mainstream society — especially not in our schools — and there’s often a stigma around firearms (I know firsthand from the demonization I endured).

But if we truly want to empower women to be victors, not victims, shouldn’t we teach women how to defend themselves? Shouldn’t we demonstrate for girls how to feel secure and confident in a cruel world? Isn’t that a better long-term strategy than, say, decrying the patriarchy during a college seminar?

So, let me conclude with this: Thank God for the Second Amendment.

I want to pass this message on to people everywhere — especially women and victims of domestic violence. Because if we truly want to help, we should be empowering them, not hindering their God-given right to self-defense.

A Biden minion blames America’s crime spike on the NRA.
Well, I’ve never yet found a demoncrap that made sense anyway, so…

What a Top Biden Staffer Said About the NRA and the Spike in Crime Makes No Sense

As Katie wrote yesterday, the Biden gun grab is coming. They’re prepping it. They’re doing a test-run with this regulation tweak on pistol stabilizers that will place 10-40 million law-abiding Americans in legal jeopardy. These people did nothing wrong, but the firearms they own must be registered, disassembled, or turned over to authorities to avoid legal action. It will be the largest gun confiscation and registration effort ever. And now, Biden announced new initiatives for gun dealers concerning background checks. It’s not new, by the way. It’s already illegal to conduct straw purchases, falsify your background check form, and knowingly sell to criminals or other prohibited persons.

And now, top Biden adviser Cedric Richmond went on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” to blame the National Rifle Association (NRA) for the spike in violent crime. Well, first, he picked the right network because MSNBC is only meant to stroke the fragile egos of liberal America. It does well to keep their moral superiority complex well fed. Second, he said that the NRA has governed the country for too long. Uh, what? As Chris Martin of America Rising notes, Democrats control the White House and both chambers of Congress. What the hell is he talking about?

It’s the same old tired game. With the NRA in serious legal and financial trouble, Richmond is doing his part to drive the stake into the heart of the nation’s oldest civil rights organization.

Just look in the mirror, man. Your party’s embracing of defunding the police, passing disastrous bail reforms, and letting hundreds of rioters, looters, and arsonists from last summer go is what’s causing this crime spike. You’re telling them they’ll get away with it. This isn’t hard, sir. When a major party decides to adopt a pro-crime stance, mayhem will ensue in the areas this party dominates politically, which would be the cities.

 

Biden’s Gun Control Speech Was A Mistake

Joe Biden had one real goal in Wednesday’s speech announcing a five-point plan to address the rising violent crime rate in many American cities; reassure voters that Democrats have a strategy that will reduce the increasing lawlessness and reverse the spike in crime that began last year.

Instead, the big takeaway from his rambling and semi-coherent remarks was his off-topic warning to Americans that if they want to take on the government, they’ll need F-15s and nuclear weapons. An address that was supposed to show that the president was focused on violent crime turned into a half-hearted stump speech for gun control, and maybe cannon control as well.

Recent polls have shown that Biden isn’t trusted to handle the crime issue, and I can’t imagine that yesterday’s disastrous turn at the podium made voters feel any better.

Polls signal growing unease over crime, a potential liability for Biden and Democrats in next year’s midterm elections. A Yahoo News/YouGov poll released in May found that nearly 50% of respondents said crime is a very big problem in the U.S. About 36% of respondents at least somewhat approved of Biden’s handling of crime, while 44% at least somewhat disapproved.

Republicans have accused the president of being soft on crime, saying he has not done enough to rebut some liberals who call for cutting spending on police departments. Biden has repeatedly said he does not favor defunding the police.

It’s true that Biden announced that cities can use hundreds of billions of dollars in COVID relief funds to spend on law enforcement efforts, but the officer shortage in many cities can’t simply be blamed on budget issues. Instead, as the New York Times reported a few days ago, officers are retiring, resigning, and joining suburban agencies because of the hostility towards law enforcement shown by many Democratic politicians and elected officials in cities from coast-to-coast.

“We have lost about one-third of our staff to resignation and retirement,” said Chief David Zack of the Asheville Police Department in North Carolina — more than 80 officers out of a full complement of 238. “Certainly with the way that police have been portrayed and vilified in some cases, they have decided that it is not the life for them.”

Those reductions in Ashville echo a nationwide trend. A survey of about 200 police departments indicates that retirements were up by 45 percent and resignations by 18 percent in the period between April 2020 and April 2021, when compared with the preceding 12 months. The percentage of officers who left tended to be larger for departments in big or medium-size cities, according to the Police Executive Research Forum, a Washington policy institute that will release full data next week.

“It is an evolving crisis,” said Chuck Wexler, the organization’s executive director.

Biden could have engaged in a full-throated attack on the Defund the Police movement, but he can’t risk alienating the Democrats’ base, so instead he pilloried gun owners. He could have issued a stark warning to violent criminals that the Department of Justice is going to be coming after them, but instead he warned “rogue gun dealers” that the ATF will have a zero tolerance policy on violations of agency rules and regulations.

A speech that was ostensibly designed to make Americans feel better about Biden’s handling of violent crime instead left many of us scratching our heads. Even Biden defenders like Geraldo Rivera were less than impressed by the president’s remarks.

“Compassion aside, where was the passion? That speech was as laid back as the program he is proposing,” said Rivera.

The longtime journalist, who has reported on violent crime and other major issues throughout his career, said that Biden’s allocation of resources toward summertime social programs for urban and endangered youth and stemming illegal firearm sales will not go far toward solving the problem.

“This is the civil rights issue of our time, murder has become the leading cause of death, if this is not an emergency, what is it?” he later asked.

Now, Geraldo is wrong about murder being the leading cause of death in the United States (heart disease, cancer, COVID-19, accidents, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and suicides are each responsible for far more deaths than homicide), but he’s right that Biden’s speech was “laid back.” I’d actually call it somnambulate, but seeing Sleepy Joe at the podium isn’t exactly a new phenomenon either.

The biggest problem for Biden is that he can’t actually acknowledge why we’re seeing a rise in violent crime. Biden wants to blame legal gun owners and federally licensed firearm dealers, when we know that the vast majority of gun owners will never commit a violent crime and that criminals are getting their guns on the illicit market or through family and friends. The White House refers to an 18-month increase in violent crime, when we all know that shootings and homicides really increased a year ago, after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis and the riots and destruction that followed in many cities.

Biden’s address on Wednesday may have checked a box, but I doubt it moved the needle in terms of public opinion on his handling of violent crime. By continuing to call for more restrictions on legal gun owners at a time when millions of Americans are embracing their Second Amendment rights for the very first time and his unwillingness to get tough on those actually responsible for violent acts, the only people Biden really reassured were his gun control allies. When it comes to everyone else, Biden would have been better off politically saying nothing at all.

BLUF:

In my humble opinion, the Biden/Harris administration, the legacy media and the folks at The Trace and other anti-rights groups are scared witless by the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement…..
As the movement grows — and it is growing by leaps and bounds — we will see more attacks from politicians, which will then be parroted by their staunch supporters in the legacy media, assuming, that is, they can break a reporter loose from their hard-hitting, investigative coverage of Joe Biden’s ice cream cone du jour.

No, NPR, there aren’t 400 Second Amendment Sanctuary counties in the US — there are 1,930

Taxpayer funded National Public Radio tries to downplay and trivialize the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement, without letting the facts get in their way.

To be clear, there are 1,930 counties that have now become Second Amendment Sanctuaries, which is more than 61% of all the counties in the United States.

Of these counties, 1,137 made the decision to protect the Second Amendment on their own. The rest are located in the 15  states — the most recent being Texas — that declared themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries, according to Noah Davis of sanctuarycounties.com and its companion site constitutionalsanctuaries.com.

Davis has the most up-to-date maps and data available on the topic. He has tracked the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement since its inception in his home state of Virginia.

The fact more than 61% of the country has chosen to protect the Second Amendment rights of their citizens has largely been ignored by the legacy media. If they have bothered to do a story on sanctuaries at all, their goal has been to downplay if not belittle the movement. Of course, that, friends, is what we call spin.

Taxpayer subsidized National Public Radio is the latest to try to torpedo the movement, which is growing every single day.

On NPR’s June 21 edition of “Here & Now,” the host falsely states there are only 400 counties that have become Second Amendment Sanctuaries, not 1,930. This is a common error among the legacy media. Davis has said it stems from a story originally published more than a year ago by Bloomberg’s anti-gun propaganda factory — The Trace. The story keeps rebounding around the internet, even though the numbers have increased significantly, because of lazy reporting and shoddy research.

Continue reading “”

F-15S & NUCLEAR WEAPONS: BIDEN SHRUGS OFF 2A IN GUN CONTROL SPEECH

Just over a week before the country’s Independence Day celebrations, President Biden delivered a speech on gun control in which he ridiculed the meaning, feasibility, and intent of the Second Amendment.

In an event meant to be the kickoff for another round of anti-gun legislation and executive actions for an Administration just 155 days in the White House, Biden tried to frame the Constitutional gun rights argument to justify his proposed efforts.

“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. You couldn’t buy a cannon,” he said.

While the first part, about the Amendment “limiting the type of people,” is somewhat true– for example, the gun rights of enslaved and in some cases even freed blacks were often denied in the Southern States from the earliest days of the Constitution despite the Second Amendment– Biden fails the fact check on cannon ownership. As we have covered before, anyone with the desire and extra cash could acquire their own battery of fully functional cannon without any government paperwork or permission until 1968. 

With that being said, modern breechloading artillery is still available in the “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave,” provided it is registered with the federal government and properly taxed. Still, legacy artillery systems such as muzzleloading black powder field guns, do not require tax stamps.

Biden also went further into the woods against what the Second Amendment protects, arguing the enumerated right had something to do with hunting, although many in the gun rights community point out that Washington didn’t cross the Delaware to get to a duck blind.

“No one needs to have a weapon that can fire over 30, 40, 50, even up to 100 rounds unless you think the deer are wearing Kevlar vests or something,” he said, although magazine capacity restrictions have only been adopted in nine states– and have been recently found to be Constitutionally suspect by a federal court. Further, industry data suggests consumers in the U.S. own at least 230 million detachable magazines, with about half of those able to hold more than 10 cartridges, the traditional threshold for a “large-capacity magazine” in restricted states.

Then, Biden seemed to paint the Second Amendment’s potential check against tyranny, a concept that dates to the days of Constitutional framer James Madison, as ludicrous in the days of modern warfare, notwithstanding the realities of multi-domain modern insurgency.

“Those who say the blood of lib- — ‘the blood of patriots,’ you know, and all the stuff about how we’re going to have to move against the government. Well, the tree of liberty is not watered with the blood of patriots. What’s happened is that there have never been — if you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons,” he said.

The quote Biden ramblingly alluded to, drawn a 1787 letter from Founding Father Thomas Jefferson– author of The Declaration of Independence and later third U.S. President– to William Smith, John Adams’ secretary, can be argued to be directly related to the right to keep and bear arms and was penned at the time of Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts.

We have had 13 states independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.

It is not the first time that Biden trotted out the Jeffersonian quote in relation to his view on gun policy. In February 2020, while on the campaign trail for the Democratic nomination for President, he argued at a town hall event in New Hampshire that, “Those who say ‘the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots’ — a great line, well, guess what: The fact is, if you’re going to take on the government you need an F-15 with Hellfire Missiles. There is no way an AK-47 is going to take care of you.”

Mark McCloskey, Who Pulled Gun on St. Louis BLM Protesters, Shows Off New Rifle

Mark McCloskey shows off new gun.

The gun-toting St. Louis lawyer who pleaded guilty to pulling a gun on Black Lives Matter protesters is flaunting his new rifle.

Mark McCloskey picked up a brand new AR-15-style gun — after surrendering his old one last week as part of a plea deal with prosecutors.

“Checking out my new AR!” the controversial attorney, who is running for Senate, boasted on Twitter in two photos, one with his wife Patricia, giving the thumbs up inside a gun store.

The gun revolution

That was then.

This is now.

 

 

Without firing a shot (except at the firing range), Americans have won a revolution — state by state.

Texas is the latest to join the freedom coalition. The Texas Tribune reported to its dismay, “Texans can carry handguns without a license or training starting Sept. 1, after Gov. Greg Abbott on Wednesday signed the permitless carry bill into law………..

That is a big victory in Texas, and another notch on the gun handle nationally. 35 years ago, it was illegal in 16 states (including Texas) for a civilian to carry a concealed weapon. Only Vermont did not require a pistol permit.

Working through the slow process of going state to state to change the law, the revolution happened.

Continue reading “”

Stanford Study: Most Mass Shooters Have Undiagnosed Psychiatric Illnesses
Over half of the perpetrators were found to have schizophrenia, with psychotic symptoms including the belief they were receiving messages from demons and seeing hallucinations ordering them to “kill, burn or destroy.”

Researchers from the Stanford University School of Medicine have published a study that reveals most of the perpetrators of mass shootings in America are people with undiagnosed psychiatric disorders.

The study focused on 115 assailants of shootings committed between 1982 and 2019, and then narrowed that number down to ones who survived.

“We found that most mass shooters in our study experienced undiagnosed and unmedicated psychiatric illness,” the researchers noted.

Describing the findings as “striking,” the study notes that symptoms of clinical psychiatric disorders were identified in almost all the shooters, 32 out of 35.

Over half of the perpetrators, 18, were found to have schizophrenia, with psychotic symptoms including the belief they were receiving messages from demons and seeing hallucinations ordering them to “kill, burn or destroy.”

A further 10 of the shooters were diagnosed as bipolar, delusional and suffering from personality disorders.

The study also noted that “None were medicated or received other treatment prior to the crime.”

To make the diagnoses, the study focused on the records of forensic psychiatrists and court proceedings, in addition to writings and social media posts made by the shooters.

Researchers also found that in 20 mass shooting cases where the perpetrators died, at least eight had schizophrenia, seven had other diagnoses, and five had unknown mental illnesses.

While concluding that diagnosis and treatment of mental illness could have “decreased violence,” the study notes that “Psychiatric research… on the nature and the incidence of mental illness among mass shooters, however, remains largely understudied.”

“Most of the cases of domestic mass murders possibly might have been prevented had the assailant… been more consistently assisted to receive a correct diagnosis… followed by psychiatric medication treatment… to save lives,” the study suggests.

First shot: 141 House Republicans challenge ATF tax, registration of AR pistols

A majority of House Republicans are vowing to kill a new Biden plan to tax and regulate one of the nation’s most popular firearms for target practice and hunting, claiming it discriminates against disabled veterans and would make all owners “felons overnight.”

Led by Second Amendment advocate Rep. Richard Hudson, 141 Republicans (and likely more to come) are targeting a revived rule from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives backed by the Justice Department to turn AR-style pistols into expensive, hard to get guns.

In a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and acting ATF Director Marvin Richardson, Hudson wrote, “This proposed guidance is alarming and jeopardizes the rights of law-abiding gun owners and disabled combat veterans across the country.”

He was joined by 140 other Republicans, including the No. 2 and No. 3 GOP leaders, Reps. Steve Scalise and Elise Stefanik, and former leader Rep. Liz Cheney.

Continue reading “”

Does Louisiana have term limits?

Gov. Edwards expected to veto constitutional carry bill

BATON ROUGE, La. (WAFB) – Gov. John Bel Edwards is looking closely at a bill that would allow most people to be able to carry their firearms concealed without taking a training course but the bill’s chances of being signed into law are looking slim-to-none.

“My position on this has not changed,” said Edwards during a recent interview. “A law enforcement officer doesn’t want to discover someone with whom they’re engaging has a firearm for the first time while they are actually searching them and that leads a lot of problems.”

As a self-declared advocate for the Second Amendment, Edwards’s position on legal gun ownership has been firm. But SB 118, which would do away with requiring training, doesn’t appear to be sitting well with him. And with the likelihood of a veto of the bill coming soon, Sen. Jay Morris (R-West Monroe), says the fight will continue until the goal is achieved.

Continue reading “”