Sheila Jackson Lee virtue signalling…again.
Category: RKBA
The Flawed Thinking Behind Biden’s Gun Control Bill
“The coming years will decide the survival of our Second Amendment,” President Trump warned before the election.
Trump was right.
During the 2020 campaign, Joe Biden promised a long list of gun control regulations. There is a reason that Michael Bloomberg spent $125 million helping Biden in Florida and something over $600 million nationally in the general election.
The agenda includes: classifying many semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than 10 bullets as Class 3 weapons (which can require nine months or more for approval and a $200 fee), national gun licensing, “red flag” laws that let judges take away people’s guns without a hearing, background checks on the private transfer of guns, and bans on some semi-automatic firearms that happen to look like military weapons.
The first gun control bill that Biden will push in his first 100 days would make gun makers and sellers civilly liable for misuse of guns they sell. That means people could sue manufacturers whenever a crime, accident, or suicide occurs with a gun. We aren’t talking about cases where there was a product liability issue or where laws are violated, such as selling a gun without a valid background check. While it isn’t stated, the goal is to put the gun makers out of business.
Can you imagine what would happen to the car or other products if similar rules were to apply? Some 4.5 million Americans are injured each year in car accidents, and 40,000 die. When accidents occurred because a driver wasn’t paying attention or was driving recklessly, it makes no sense to sue Ford for lost wages, medical costs, and pain and suffering. Criminals also frequently use cars when they commit crimes. Why should car companies be liable for that?
Computers are used to plan crimes, hack into private servers, and steal intellectual property. If Apple were held liable, it would very quickly be drowning in lawsuits. If the company even survived, its products would become much more expensive in order to cover the new legal fees.
Guns aren’t any different. Far less than 1% of guns are ever used in crimes, suicides or accidents, and when they are, it’s virtually always the result of the user’s actions. Many other products, such as motorcycles, have much higher probabilities of causing harm. The death rate per motorcycle is 0.05%; the date rate for guns is 0.008%. The latter includes murder, accidental deaths and suicides. Guns are also used defensively about 2 million times in the average year, according to the FBI. Will government reward gun makers when their products are used to save lives?
My own research has found that increased gun ownership is associated with less crime, not more. Poor people in the highest crime areas benefit the most from owning guns, and gun maker liability would be sure to make guns unaffordable for these individuals.
Iowa is one of the few states left that have constitutions that don’t address RKBA. I don’t know why, other than probably the idea the right would ever be challenged didn’t even enter their thoughts.
Iowa Legislature approves putting pro-gun constitutional amendment in front of voters
The Iowa Legislature has approved a proposed pro-gun amendment to the Iowa Constitution for the second time, paving the way for it to appear on Iowans’ ballots in 2022.
The Senate approved the resolution Thursday afternoon in a 29-18 vote along party lines after about two hours of debate. Hours later, the House voted 58-41, also along party lines, to pass the same measure. Both chambers are controlled by Republicans. Every Republican present voted in favor of the amendment, while every Democrat was opposed.
Thursday’s vote means that after years of work by Republican lawmakers — and a mistake by the Iowa Secretary of State’s office in 2018 that required them to start over — Iowans will have a chance to vote for or against the proposal themselves next year.
Kansas Eyes Allowing Concealed Carry for People Under 21
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas gun rights supporters are pushing to lower the age for concealed carry of firearms from 21 to 18.
Wichita Republican Rep. Blake Carpenter and a Kansas State Rifle Association lobbyist on Wednesday told the House Federal and State Affairs Committee that it’s already legal in Kansas for those 18 to 21 to carry firearms openly in Kansas.
“The second they put on a coat or they put on a jacket — now they are breaking the law,” said rifle association lobbyist Jason Watkins.
The bill would create a provisional permit for those 18 to 21, issued by the state attorney general. Permit holders would have to complete a background check and undergo gun safety training.
UTAH HOUSE PASSES PERMITLESS CARRY
With Republicans comfortably in the driver’s seat and Gov. Spencer Cox in support, the Utah state House on Tuesday gave a big thumbs up to a permitless carry bill.
The measure, HB60, found an easy 54-19 approval largely along party lines in a move that sends it to the Utah Senate for further consideration. The proposal, sponsored by Rep. Walt Brooks (R), is expected to receive similar treatment in that chamber.
“This bill helps protect the rights of self-defense for every Utahan,” said Brooks. “The perception of this law implies a significant change, but the reality is it’s very a small change. You can carry a gun in your home, on your property, in your car, and open carry, but if you cover that open carry gun with your jacket, you’re now breaking the law.”
While keeping the current Concealed Firearm Permit system in place, HB60 simply recognizes the right of a law-abiding adult in the state to carry a concealed firearm without first having to get such a permit. Often described as constitutional carry, over a dozen states have moved to similar laws since 2010.
Letter to the Editor: We must resist any attempt to weaken 2nd Amendment
Jan 27, 2021
To the editor,
In recent times, gun regulations have been spoken of quite frequently.
I see the point of gun regulation proponents quite frequently, and I empathize with their stories. However much I understand, I disagree with their idea. In my opinion, the most important thing in America is our right to bear arms.
Some people say that the Second Amendment was created exclusively to uphold militias. They argue that the police force is this militia. When you break it down, that is a foolish understanding of the amendment.
The Bill of Rights was established to give rights to the people and to limit the government. The question is would it really make sense for the government to give itself the right to have guns. Ultimately that makes no sense.
So, we have now established that the Second Amendment is established for the people to bear arms. Once we get to this point, many people say that it is only for hunting and self-defense. Once again, upon further examination, this can be concluded as false.
The Second Amendment was established swiftly after the American Revolution. The thought of a revolution was fresh on everyone’s mind. It is entirely reasonable then that they would plant the tools for independence should the event arise again.
So, it can be clearly stated that our right to bear arms in the U.S. has been infringed far past its extended existence. My end point is that we should not stand for gun control any longer.
There is a saying that says “give them an inch and they will take a mile.” This applies especially to the government. We must not give them an inch, or they will take a mile.
Therefore, we must resist so that we may have a more-free future.
Duncan Lamb
Franklin
[Well Regulated] The truth about confiscation
During my freshman year at Cornell in 2018, I presented the pro-gun position on a panel discussion put together by the Roosevelt Institute. All of my fellow panelists held some degree of anti-gun sentiment, ranging from the position that there should be more stringent background check mandates, to a professor who, after I explained that the overwhelming majority of firearms sold today are semi-automatic, asked “Why not ban those?”
The reason I am sharing this anecdote is that during the discussion I made the claim that if given the order to confiscate firearms, the police and military would not comply. At the time I presented some statistics on the number of such state agents vs the number of armed civilians and other factors that would make confiscation as we often envision it impossible.
The same professor as above asked if there was no possibility of confiscation, then why was I opposed to stricter gun laws. Of course, I made an effort to explain the reasons for firearm ownership to him, but that moment has gnawed at me for a while. It is not just because people who hold such strong opinions on the subject have very little knowledge on it (I talked further with one of the people on the panel, and while I won’t mention their name, they did not have any understanding of even the most basic aspects of how any firearms or firearms accessories functioned), but rather that it forced me to readdress a preconception I had held for some time.
Before going further, when we discuss confiscation in the firearms community, it often generates images of police going door to door and searching for weapons. Under normal circumstances, this wouldn’t happen in the United States of America. Bear in mind that this is not for a lack of motivation. Cuomo, Newsom, and their ilk would surely like nothing more than to crush the boot of the state even further down on the people’s neck. As this column has discussed before, those in power are far more clever than we often give them credit for, and they know that such action would spur a domestic conflict. Instead, they will take our guns slowly and carefully, so that not too many people are imprisoned or raided at once, and the public at large won’t worry. Alternatively, they will find an opportunity to exploit crises.
Well, gun control has always had racism as its major component, so……..
Gun Control Group Has a Racist Take on Black and Brown Gun Owners
The Violence Policy Center (VPC) on Monday released a 39-page report about the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the gun industry as a whole. The gun control group takes issue with the NSSF and NRA “targeting” blacks and Latinos as first-time gun owners.
Gov. Abbott says during keynote that he wants to make Texas a ‘Second Amendment Sanctuary State’
Abbott said he wants to ensure that no government officials can take Texan’s guns
Q: Why would liberals be upset about me having an AR-15?
A: They assume you would use it on them.
Q: But why do they assume that? I would only use it in self-defense.
A: Yes.
Q: But … Oh.
A: Yes.
Here is a short Film about the life, death and beyond of Phillip A Luty. The Author of Expedient Homemade Firearms; 9mm Submachine Gun.
Washington: Vague Carry Ban and Rehashed Mag Ban Introduced and Scheduled for Hearings Next Week
Next week, anti-gun legislation, Senate Bill 5078 and Senate Bill 5038, are scheduled for hearings in the Senate Law and Justice Committee. New year, same old tired attempts to further wring your right to self-defense away from you. Please contact committee members and ask them to OPPOSE anti-gun legislation, SB 5078 and SB 5038.
On Monday, January 25, the committee will consider Senate Bill 5078, a measure that will ban the manufacture, possession, sale, transfer, etc. of magazines that “are capable of holding” or hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. This includes conversion kits or parts from which any such magazine may be assembled. These so called “high capacity” magazines are in fact standard equipment for commonly-owned firearms that many Americans legally and effectively use for an entire range of legitimate purposes, such as self-defense or competition. Those who own non-compliant magazines prior to the ban are only allowed to possess them on their own property and in other limited instances such as at licensed shooting ranges or while hunting. Prohibited magazines have to be transported unloaded and locked separately from firearms and stored at home locked, making them unavailable for self-defense. Any violation of this measure is a gross misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of 364 days in jail and/or a fine of up to $5,000.
Gun Laws Don’t Stop the Killing
A recent report looks to see if laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms might have effects on homicides and suicides not caused by guns. They found no increase or decrease in non-gun homicides associated with changes in gun related homicides, and the data regarding suicides were too sparse to be useful. Their report was based on examining a series of earlier studies.
To the authors’ credit, they noted that some experts describe a substitution effect, that is, a person not killed by a firearm may instead be killed by some other form of violence. They cite several previous studies finding that those not suiciding by shooting are likely to do so by other means, and that homicides not committed by shooting will probably occur by other means.
There are however a number of problems with the publication. The authors seem to see all homicides as bad, and never mention justifiable homicides. These often involve self-defense, or appropriate actions by police or bystanders to protect the innocent. The researchers seem to assume that any reduction in homicides is desirable, ignoring the injuries, arsons and assaults prevented by the appropriate use of force.
A recent DRGO contributor noted the existence of many dozens of peer-reviewed academic studies conducted by a wide range of authors suggesting that widespread gun ownership deters crime. He pointed as well to a specific instance in which children died needlessly because security officers were unarmed. In this school shooting, in which many children lost their lives, the justifiable homicide of the shooter would have avoided heartbreak for families and prevented the school career of many teenagers from ending in a mournful trip to a cemetery.
Academics have found evidence that Right-to-Carry laws deter violent crime, including rapes and murders, and also lower burglary rates, while restrictions on concealed carry laws may increase the number of people who are murdered. Having a firearm is especially important for women, who are typically smaller and not as strong as those who attack them—being armed can compensate for this difference. Reports of homeowners using guns to defend against intruders are reported daily. Since intruders are often young men, it’s common that the occupant of a household are less physically powerful, and thus a justifiable homicide by a firearm prevents death or injury at the hands of a criminal.
Ted Cruz wore a mask emblazoned with the Gonzales Flag’s “Come and Take It” logo to President Joe Biden’s inauguration Wednesday.
Citing Biden’s plans, local lawmaker renews plan to push back on federal gun laws
JEFFERSON CITY — A local lawmaker is once again pushing a bill to curb the reach of federal gun laws, and this time he says it can’t wait.
Sen. Eric Burlison, R-Battlefield, told a committee Tuesday his proposal to bar state and local law enforcement from enforcing federal gun laws stricter than Missouri’s is exactly what Missouri needs to keep new President Joe Biden’s gun control agenda in check.
City’s Carjacking Surge Shows No Sign Of Slowing, So Residents Are Buying Guns
HYDE PARK — Carjackings have been on the rise in Chicago for more than a year. After a 135 percent jump in 2020, the trend is continuing with 61 carjackings reported in the first 10 days of 2021.
As city officials and police scramble to address the issue with meetings, City Council hearings and community alerts, some Chicagoans are taking matters into their own hands against the advice of law enforcement: They’re applying for concealed carry permits.
Kelly Milan, a Northwestern graduate student, was carjacked Friday morning in Hyde Park in front of William H. Ray Elementary School.
About 8 a.m., the budding journalist drove her 2014 Jeep Cherokee to the school, 5631 S. Kimbark Ave., to interview students for the Hyde Park Herald.
“I got out of my car and locked my car and was in the middle of the street when I saw a running car in the middle of the street,” Milan said. “Immediately, I thought something bad was going to happen. Then, two guys got out of the car. One guy made eye contact with me and started running towards me. I just started saying ’No, no, no, no, no’ and I winced because he was running towards me and I thought he was going to take me down.
“Then I started saying, ‘Please don’t hurt me, please don’t hurt me.’ He said, ‘Where are your keys?’ and forcibly went through all my pockets. He grabbed my keys and my phone. The other guy was just leaning by the car, watching it.
“I was begging for my life. It was really, really terrifying. You never think you’re going to be a victim of a carjacking, let alone one outside an elementary school at 8 a.m., but here we are and it’s happening.”
Milan’s story is not unique. Carjackings shot up 135 percent in 2020, with 1,415 reported that year compared to 603 in 2019, according to the Chicago Police Department. So far in 2021, carjackings are on a pace to break last year’s record with 61 happening over the first 10 days of the year, up from 22 during the same period in 2020.
WA Legislature Eyeballs Bills to Ban ‘Assault Weapons’
Almost as predicted by opponents of anti-gun Initiative 1639, the measure that among other things invented a definition for a “semiautomatic assault rifle,” anti-gun Democrats in the Washington Legislature have introduced legislation to ban so-called “assault weapons.”
I-1639 defined “semi-auto assault rifles” as literally any self-loading rifle, regardless of caliber (including rimfires) that has ever been manufactured anywhere in the world. Under the more specific definitions found in Senate Bill 5217 and its companion measure, House Bill 1229—both introduced at the request of anti-gun Democrat Attorney General Bob Ferguson—rimfires do not appear to be included. But semi-auto centerfire rifles are, and it’s quite a list. The legislation would also prohibit folding stocks and other accessories.
Both bills are now in committee. The House version is in the House Committee on Civil Rights and the Judiciary. The Senate version is in the Law & Justice Committee.
Two years ago, following passage of I-1639, Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich told reporters the only reason to create the definition in state statute was to one day allow a move to ban such firearms.
I-1639 includes this definition:
“Semiautomatic assault rifle” means any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.
Montana: Senate Judiciary to Vote on Permitless Carry Legislation Tomorrow
Tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider Permitless Carry Legislation, House Bill 102. Please contact committee members and ask that they SUPPORT House Bill 102.
House Bill 102 will strengthen Montana’s self-defense laws by allowing law-abiding Montana gun owners to carry a firearm for self-defense throughout the state without first having to obtain a government-mandated permit to do so. Further, this bill will remove some of Montana’s “gun-free zones” from the list of prohibited places and stop the unnecessary disarming of Montanans as they go about their day-to-day lives.
Again, it is important that you please contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and ask them to SUPPORT House Bill 102.
Don’t neglect tedious arguments
This week’s column is quite short, but fear not, more lengthy analysis and discussion will be published in the near future. As the incoming president who has openly advocated for the implementation of horrific and unconstitutional gun laws prepares to take office, we can expect a renewed visibility of the gun control debate in American politics.
The legacy and new media establishments are not on our side, so if there is to be any progress in advancing a pro-gun narrative, it must be made by individuals. A recent video by Mrgunsngear discussed how the rise of social media has had a positive impact on sales of NFA items. Perhaps these sales were primarily to persons who would have been purchasing firearms regardless, but the point of the correlation is that speech, especially online, can still have real-world impacts.
I myself used to be deeply indoctrinated into the belief that all guns were bad, that gun owners were dangerous, and that the ownership of weapons should only be permitted after a lengthy and invasive process. How could I not be? My schools, the media, everyone, advanced the same narrative over and over until it became normalized. It was only through being able to hear others outside of those circles rebutting the arguments that had been drilled into my head that I was able to begin to change my perspective.
I also know from personal experience that some of the most frustrating conversations to have are with anti-gunners. As a general rule, those who oppose the right to keep and bear arms know nothing of firearms technology or history, very little of the philosophy of firearms ownership, and perhaps a few misleading statistics on the subject.
When debating with anti-gun individuals or those who claim to be “pro-Second Amendment, but…”, it is inevitable that there will be a repetition of the exact same arguments over and over. Oftentimes, you will not be able to win over someone deeply indoctrinated into the belief that citizens should be left defenseless and subject to the wills of common criminals and tyrants. However, winning over such opponents is not the purpose of debating, the purpose is winning over the audience.
Change is made on an individual level, and it is the onlookers capable of having their minds changed that are your target. On rare occasions, you might discuss the subject with someone open-minded who can be convinced that the government should not be infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, but even when you are not, it is crucial to press onward.
There are many who have surrendered to a defeatist perspective, coming to the conclusion that the cultural battle is lost, so we must simply place all of our eggs into the basket of legal action. While this position is understandable, it is also foolish and self-destructive. Those who wish to see us disarmed have pushed legislation incrementally over decades, infested cultural institutions, and refused to cease their onslaught despite the people’s protestations. Why should we be any less determined than them?
It is mind-numbing to repeat the same arguments over and over again, but it is necessary when so many have been brought to believe the same exact falsehoods. If we are unwilling to engage with those who repeat nonsensical talking points that they half-remembered from a John Oliver clip or a slogan by Moms Demand Action, then how can we ever hope to make progress in the restoration of our rights?
It is only through constant and repeated efforts to counter lies and ignorance that any minds will be changed. A properly devoted effort to advance our cause is essential for deradicalizing anti-gun zealots to the more modest position that all gun laws must be repealed. We the people are now, and always have been, our only hope to stand against tyranny.
The author takes a long time to observe that you can’t have a meaningful discussion with people who want to put you in a gulag.
Personally, I like talking this way:
How To Talk to Someone Who Wants To Put You In A Gulag
A few months ago, I was having a few beers with TAC managing editor Matt Purple, and we ended up pondering the great question of our times: why did people vote for Trump?
After tossing around the usual answers (a reaction against Hillary’s hawkishness, his carefully curated aura of success, post-industrial blue collar angst), Matt told me about an acquaintance of his whose vote for Trump was pure belligerence. His justification for his vote, as relayed to me by Matt, was something like: “Look around you. These people want us gone” (“us,” presumably, being straight, white, conservative, religious people). He knew Trump was a cad and a moron, but he didn’t care because Trump would fight for him. He wasn’t concerned about losing his privilege; he was concerned about losing his freedom and even his life.