Category: RKBA

Call your senators and representatives at 202-224-3121 and let them know that you won’t abide by any vote for gun control, no matter how “reasonable” they think it might be.

Tell Weak Republican Legislators to Just Say NO to Biden’s Gun Control!

As the Biden administration and the new, Democratic-controlled Congress settle into their respective roles, discussions about gun control laws are shifting from theory to reality, and GunVoters need to be aware and prepared, and they need to keep holding the feet of their elected servants to the fire on these issues.

As I have said previously, it’s very likely that President Biden will use Executive Orders to limit and restrict firearms and firearm accessories in various ways, but it’s likely that he’ll wait until he gets his attorney general pick in place first.

That pick is Judge Merrick Garland. Republicans and supposed “pro-gun” Democrats, should strongly oppose his confirmation, if for no other reason than Garland’s disingenuous and evasive answers during Senate hearings regarding his thoughts on possible gun control laws and their enforcement.

On the legislative front, we’ve all heard about the outrageous, blatantly unconstitutional gun control proposals put forward by Rep. Shiela Jackson Lee (D-TX), Bobby Rush (D-IL), Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), and others.

These proposals call for bans on certain types of guns, certain sizes of magazines, registration of guns and gun owners, and other draconian measures. Their proposals are the same warmed-over hash of gun control and prior restraint we’ve seen from that side for most of the past century. They generate a lot of noise and tend to capture a lot of attention, but the reality is that they have very little chance of being passed out of the US Senate. Democrats hold a majority based solely on Vice President Kamala Harris’s tie-breaking vote. These bills will require more than a simple majority for passage, though, so while they serve as good reminders of what Democrats would pass if they could get away with it, they don’t pose an immediate threat.

The most significant threats are those few that are seen as less extreme, such as HR 8, banning private firearm transfers, and HR 1446, extending the NICS delay period from 3 to 10 business days. Both of these bills are holding hearings as this column goes to press. HR 8 has 232 cosponsors, which includes the entirety of the Democratic contingent in the House, along with 5 Republicans. HR 1446 currently has 91 cosponsors, all Democrats.

There’s also a dangerous “Red Flag” proposal, which would help fund state efforts to institute Extreme Risk Protection Orders, confiscating firearms from people with nothing more than a pretense at due process.

The current version of this dangerous proposal was introduced by nominal Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. It currently has only 3 cosponsors – 1 Republican, 1 Democrat, and 1 Independent.

These bills are not just direct threats to gun owner rights, they also constitute a serious threat to Republican hopes of ever regaining majorities in the House and Senate.

Continue reading “”

Gun Control Laws Result In Police Selling Guns To Public

California Provides Multiple Examples
In Mexico, one of the most common sources of firearms, both for criminals and for people who simply want to protect themselves, are police officers.  Obtaining firearms legally is nearly impossible, creating a money making opportunity for cops, who can easily buy firearms and resell them.

Ironically, the same thing is happening in the state of California.  For decades, California has required an increasing list of features of handguns placed on the “approved list” of handguns that may be sold in the state.  Originally, this was done to drive to cost of handguns up, so that poor minorities could not afford them – and yes, the Democratic authors and supporters of the bill actually said this.  More recently, the state has required “micro-stamping” of fired cases – something that no gun maker has been able to accomplish.  This has resulted in an ever shrinking list of guns legally available for retail sale in the state.

There are, however, two legal sources of pistols not on the approved list.  The first is private purchase from an average resident who either bought the gun before the law took effect, or before the handgun was dropped from the list, or before moving into the state.  The second is police officers – who can but any handgun they wish. Private citizens can sell their guns privately to anyone able to pass a background check.  Police used to be able to do so in the same way, although this has changed in recent years.  The idea was that if a cop bought a gun and did not like it, they could sell it privately, buy something else and not be in violation of state laws.

However, more than a few cops have seen a money making opportunity.  They bought guns using their police exemption and then sold them privately.  They were typically careful to conduct the sale through a dealer with a background check as required by state law.  However, in many cases, the state found out – and although they may have been in the clear as far as state laws were concerned, they still were in violation of federal law.  Since they were buying guns with the intent of reselling them, they were “in the business of selling firearms” without the required federal firearms license (FFL).  The state simply contacted the feds and they brought charges.

I would point out that if these cops had not been concerned about following state laws, and had simply sold the guns without a background check, it would have been much, much harder to catch them.  This is exactly what happens every day in Mexico.  It is also what likely is happening right now in California, to at least some degree.

As a pastor, I worked with many people in recovery from drug addiction.  I never once had an addict tell me, “I wanted to get high, I had money to buy drugs, but could not find anyone to sell them to me.”  Not one.  I don’t like drugs – I don’t even touch alcohol – but I have to conclude that drug laws do not keep people from getting drugs.  Instead, they corrupt our police and turn otherwise law abiding people into criminals.  Why should we think that gun bans will be any different?

Gun bans around the world have exactly the same effect – and we are beginning to see it happen right here in America.  Passing more gun bans will only make it much worse.   Supply will rise to meet demand.  Guns will be smuggled in from other countries, diverted from the military, made in underground factories and yes, diverted and sold by police.

Rev. R. Vincent Warde

[Virginia Goobernor] Northam Signs Concealed Carry Training Bill, Effective Immediately

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- March 11th, Governor Ralph Northam signed House Bill 2310. The measure allows individuals who completed online firearms training prior to January 1st, 2021, but were prohibited from appearing in person at their circuit court clerk’s office due to COVID restrictions, to apply for a concealed handgun permit through April 30th, 2021.

This bill went into law immediately upon Gov. Northam’s signature. Individuals who previously contacted their clerk are eligible and should keep their documentation. Again, the provisions of this bill only apply through April 30th, 2021.

 

Feinstein’s biannual regurgitation:

To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.

 

When the name of your bill directly contradicts the wording of the constitution you’ve probably made a mistake somewhere.

Let’s use this same description for any other bill dealing with any right, especially an enumerated right.

“To regulate raids, to ensure that the right against unreasonable search and seizure is not unlimited, and for other purposes.”

“To regulate detentions, to ensure the right against cruel and unusual punishment is not unlimited, and for other purposes.”

Plug in any other right and it sounds insane but there are people that view the description of this bill as a positive. That should be hair raising to anyone that knows history and appreciates their rights.

Pro-gun sheriff refuses to meet with anti-gun group

Hoffman recently sent a letter to Sarasota’s Brady Bunch chapter refusing their request for a meeting — and then he told them why.

Enjoy!

Dear Mr. McLain and Ms. Rescigno,

Thank you for your recent request to meet. I am very familiar with the bradyunited.org 12- point platform and I have fundamental differences regarding nearly every objective of Brady.  I am a member of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the 2nd Amendment Foundation, in addition to being a Life Member of the NRA.  I have been a law enforcement officer in this state for over 32 years, eight years of which were as an Assistant State Attorney, and I am satisfied that the laws on the books in Florida sufficiently protect this community from gun violence.

In Sarasota County we have worked diligently over the past decade prosecuting part one crimes, including gun crimes.  We have reduced part 1 crimes by 52% since 2009.  This reduction represents the largest part 1 crime reduction in the state of Florida for law enforcement agencies serving populations of 100,000 or more.

We made these strides without infringing on our citizen’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms, more succinctly stated, we went after criminals, not lawful gun owners.  “Gun safety” is often cloaked in language that essentially bans certain guns, ammunition or magazine capacities while criticizing award winning programs like Eddie Eagle.  Calling certain firearms “weapons of war” and “assault weapons” while limiting how many rounds a citizen can carry for self-protection or creating gun registries is a non-starter for me.

I represent many citizens in this county who have businesses related to the firearms industry and who protect their family and property with firearms your organization seeks to ban. I cannot support that.

Thank you for reaching out but I will respectfully decline your offer.

Sheriff Kurt A. Hoffman

Kurt A. Hoffman
Sheriff
FBI National Academy Graduate 2014
6010 Cattleridge Blvd. Sarasota, Florida 34232

He’s just another (and I quote):
“I firmly believe in the right to keep and bear arms…But”
RINO hypocrite

GOP Congressman Tries To Explain Vote In Favor Of Gun Control

Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois was one of eight Republicans in the U.S. House to vote in favor of H.R. 8 on Thursday, leading to calls from some Second Amendment organizations and activists to primary the GOP congressman when and if he runs for re-election next year. After casting his vote in favor of so-called universal background checks, Kinzinger issued a press release characterizing his vote as a “change for the greater good.”

“I firmly believe in the right to keep and bear arms, legally. I’m also a strong advocate for conceal carry, and have permits myself to do so. But we have a violence problem in this country and it cannot be ignored. Following the shootings in Dayton, Ohio and El Paso, Texas in August 2019, I said publicly that should the H.R. 8 legislation come before the House again, I would vote in its favor. And today, I did just that.

It’s important to address some of the misinformation about this bill. The language stipulates that it will not, in fact, authorize the creation of a national firearms registry. The requirement for transfers of firearms through a licensed dealer does not apply to law enforcement agencies and officers on duty, to family loaning or gifting to members of their family, if loaned for use at a shooting range or hunting, or in the case of an imminent threat (including domestic violence). I say this because I know my vote today will undoubtedly cause some anguish.

Speaking of misinformation, Kinzinger is actually spreading, rather than dispelling, some bad info about the bill. Take his claim that the requirement does not apply to “family loaning or gifting to members of their family,” for example. It’s true that under H.R. 8, a father could give a gun to his daughter without going through a background check. It’s even possible for a nephew to sell a gun to his aunt without having to go to a gun store. If, on the other hand, he were to sell that same gun to his aunt’s daughter, the background check requirement would kick in. Why? Because reasons, that’s why.

Continue reading “”

Why More Gun Control Laws Will Not Produce More Positive Results

Our Gun Control Laws Are Already Producing The Maximum Positive Effect Possible, More Laws Aimed At Law Abiding Buyers Will Not Help – And Will Actually Hurt!

The law of diminishing returns applies to almost everything.  Taking twice as much medication will not always produce twice the effect.  Doubling the number of employees will not always result in twice as much production or sales.  In fact, in both examples, there is a point at which adding more medication or employees will not produce any increase at all.  The medication increase may fail because the body can only be stimulated to a certain point at which it reaches the maximum possible effect.  Increasing the number of employees will only increase production as long as there is space and equipment for the additional employees to work.  The law of diminishing returns not only says that returns will reduce as the “solution” is increased – it says that at a certain point, increasing what was a positive action in the beginning will produce no effect at all or even make things worse.

We have reached that point with gun control laws in the United States.  The reason is simple: The most that regulation of the legal market in guns can do is push criminals into the illegal market and we are already at this point.  Consider this study done by the US Department of Justice and released in January 2019:

When a criminal, or an otherwise law abiding citizen, is unable to obtain a gun through legal channels, they face a choice: Decide not to buy a gun, or find a black market dealer or other illegal source.  That’s why regulation of the legal gun market reaches a point where more laws will produce no more effect.

Continue reading “”

Bill expanding New Mexico’s ‘red-flag’ gun law fizzles

A controversial bill to expand New Mexico’s so-called red-flag gun law appears to be a victim of more pressing priorities in this year’s 60-day legislative session.

“For all intents and purposes, it’s gone, unless something really radical changes,” one of the sponsors, Rep. Daymon Ely, D-Corrales, said Wednesday. “But there are just too many other priorities this time.”

Ely said he hopes to bring the measure back during the Legislature’s 30-day legislative session next year.

“It’s a calendar management problem,” he said of the bill’s likely demise this year.

House Bill 193 sought to amend New Mexico’s Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order Act by adding law enforcement officers to the list of people who could seek a court order to temporarily take firearms from a person considered a threat, among other changes.

Under current law, police officers may only seek a court order if it is requested by a family member, a school official, an employer or someone who has had a “continuing personal relationship” with a person considered a threat to themselves or others. The change would allow an officer to seek a court order based on his or her own observations, “absent receipt of credible information from a reporting party.”

Continue reading “”

Guns-in-schools bill passes [Idaho] House on 52-18 vote…

The Idaho House backed Rep. Chad Christensen’s guns-in-schools bill on a 52-18 vote this morning, sending it to senators for consideration. The bill, HB 122, allows school employees who have enhanced concealed-carry permits to carry concealed guns at school, whether or not the local school board approves. “I know in the past this has been an issue about local control,” Christensen, R-Iona, told the House. “This is a 2nd Amendment issue, and for me, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t stop at the door of a school.”

He noted that the Idaho Sheriffs Association, state chiefs of police, and schools all oppose the bill, but said one sheriff from Caribou County, which is in his district, “fully supports” it. “This is a bill about school safety and our children,” Christensen said. “The firearm is a tool, simple as that, and the fear of this tool is, I don’t get it, it’s just a tool, to help our children, to save lives.”

This bill also would forbid schools from posting “Gun-Free School Zone” signs. House Education Chair Lance Clow, R-Twin Falls, asked Christensen if the bill would allow the general public to carry guns at schools; Christensen said no. So Clow questioned including that provision. “To me, that’s a sign that we’re telling the public, ‘Don’t bring your guns in to the school,’” he said.

Continue reading “”

With House Passage, What’s Next For Background Check Bills?

Now that the House, as expected, has approved a pair of gun control bills dealing with background checks on firearm transfers, the measures are headed over to the Senate. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co we delve into Wednesday’s floor debate on H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446 as well as taking a look at the prospects for passage of the gun control bills on the Senate side of the Capitol.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, wasting little time and taking advantage of the opportunity to preen in front of the cameras, said shortly after the House vote that he plans on bringing both bills to the floor of the Senate.

“In the past, when they sent it over to us last time, it went into [fomer Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell’s legislative graveyard,” Schumer said during a press conference Thursday. “The legislative graveyard is over. H.R. 8 will be on the floor of the Senate, and we will see where everybody stands. No more hopes and prayers, thoughts and prayers. A vote is what we need, a vote, not thoughts and prayers.”

“Certainly hundreds of thousands — maybe millions — of people walking the streets today because we passed [the 1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act] would be dead,” Schumer, who authored the Brady Act requiring background checks on all U.S. firearm buyers, said during the briefing.

He continued: “But when we passed the law, little did we know, it had some loopholes in it that we didn’t know at the time. We didn’t know there would be an internet, so we didn’t prohibit internet sales without a background check.”

That’s an incredibly dumb comment for a couple of reasons. First, the Internet was actually a thing back in 1994, though we were restricted to dial-up back then.

The issue isn’t online sales of firearms, because every retail gun sale already has to go through a background check, whether online or in-person. What Schumer is really talking about are private transfers of firearms, and those too were a thing back in the 1990s.

Continue reading “”

Washington State: Pair of Anti-Gun Bills Fail to Pass Before Legislative Deadline

[On Tuesday], two anti-gun measures were not brought up on the floor before the official deadline to pass. Senate Bill 5078 and House Bill 1283 failed to get passed out of their chamber of origin and are considered dead for the session.

Senate Bill 5078, bans the manufacture, possession, sale, transfer, etc., of magazines that “are capable of holding”, or hold more than, 17 rounds of ammunition (the substituted bill increased the restricted count from 10 to 17). 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.

House Bill 1283 could cause the lawful open carry of a firearm to become a felony offense. While the substitute measure removes certain language from the original measure that triggered the felony charge if an individual “felt threatened,” the substance of the bill remains the same.

Schumer pledges Senate vote on gun bill passed by House: ‘No more … thoughts and prayers

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on Thursday vowed that the Senate would vote on the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021, which passed the House Thursday in a 227-203 vote.

A prior version of the H.R. 8 bill, which would require background checks for all U.S. firearm purchases, passed the House in 2019 but did not receive 60 votes in the Senate to clear the filibuster.

“In the past, when they sent it over to us last time, it went into [former Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell’s legislative graveyard,” Schumer said during a press conference Thursday. “The legislative graveyard is over. H.R. 8 will be on the floor of the Senate, and we will see where everybody stands. No more hopes and prayers, thoughts and prayers. A vote is what we need, a vote, not thoughts and prayers.”

The House also passed H.R. 1446, the Enhanced Background Check Act, by a 219-210 vote Thursday. That bill would extend the amount of time to complete a federal background check before a gun purchase is approved.

Continue reading “”

It’s good to see others with large venues getting onboard with the knowledge that gun use for self defense strongly outweighs their use by criminals.

These 11 Examples of Defensive Gun Use Undermine Push for More Gun Control

March is Women’s History Month, yet Congress appears ready to celebrate in the worst way possible by creating more barriers for women who seek to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

While COVID-19-related bills have taken up much of the national spotlight, several gun control bills are primed for passage this week in the House. This is hardly surprising, given that just last month, President Joe Biden called on Congress to enact a plethora of new federal gun legislation.

Unfortunately, however, none of these proposals is meaningfully directed at the root causes of gun violence. Many gun control advocates have fooled themselves—and far too many others—into believing that we create safer communities by placing increasingly burdensome restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

The reality, however, is that firearms are used far more often for lawful purposes than they are used to commit acts of criminal violence.

Almost every major study on the issue found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times a year, according to a 2013 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We have good reason to believe that many of these defensive gun uses aren’t reported to police, much less make the local or national news.

For this reason, The Daily Signal each month publishes an article highlighting some of the previous month’s many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missed—or that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read accounts from 2019 and 2020 here.)

The examples below represent only a small portion of the news stories on defensive gun use that we found in February. You may explore more by using The Heritage Foundation’s interactive Defensive Gun Use Database.

Continue reading “”

Which is the same question asked of them for many years:
What makes you believe that another law will suddenly make a criminal stop violating all the other laws they’ve been violating?
Since it won’t, as demonstrated by past performance of the criminal element from the dawn of history to date, what they want isn’t about stopping criminals from committing crimes, but controlling the populace.

A Simple Question For Democrats About Universal Background Checks

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her anti-gun allies are moving forward with votes on a pair of gun control bills dealing with background checks for firearm purchases, armed with a new poll showing broad support from the electorate when it comes to requiring background checks on all sales of firearms. A new Morning Consult poll finds that 84-percent of respondents backed the idea when they were asked, though I suspect that if the question had been worded a little differently we might have seen a very different result.

Do 84-percent of Americans think a person should go to federal prison if they transfer a firearm to their neighbor who’s afraid of her abusive ex showing up at her door? Do 84-percent of Americans think that it should be crime to sell a gun to your cousin without a background check, but legal for you to sell a gun to your aunt without one? I highly doubt it, but that’s exactly what H.R. 8 would require if it were to become law.

We’re gonna hear a lot of talk from Democrats in the next few days about the popularity of universal background checks, but the fact is that most Americans simply don’t know about the details of the Democrats’ proposals and how they could impact legal gun owners.

Beyond the polling, however, I have a serious question for the supporters of H.R. 8, and I hope that Republicans in the House press their anti-gun colleagues for an answer.

How will this bill prevent any illicit private transfer of a firearm? 

Democrats claim that H.R. 8 will stop criminals from getting a gun, but have you noticed that they never actually explain how the bill will do that?

“If you are a criminal, you are a felon, you are deranged, well by God you shouldn’t have access to a weapon, that’s what this bill does. It has the support of about 90% of Americans,” Illinois Democratic Rep. Cheri Bustos said.

Bustos says one bill would close the so-called “gun show loophole” by making it illegal for unlicensed persons to transfer firearms to someone else without a background check.

Most criminals don’t get their guns through legal means in the first place, and the bill doesn’t change the fact that convicted felons and those adjudicated as “mentally defective” cannot legally buy or possess a firearm. So how exactly does this bill prevent access to a gun from those not allowed to own one?

Simply put, it doesn’t. At best it allows for a criminal charge after the fact, but even then prosecutors would face significant challenges. They’d first have to find the gun in question, trace it back to the illicit purchaser, who would then have to provide evidence that the gun was purchased without a background check from a private seller after the universal background check bill became law.

In the year after Washington State approved a universal background check measure of its own, there were a total of ten arrests and two convictions of individuals who attempted to purchase a gun when they were prohibited from doing so, but it looks like both of those convictions came as the result of background checks performed on retail sales of guns, not private transfers.

New Mexico also approved universal background checks back in 2019, and in the first year that the law was on the books there were zero arrests for conducing a private gun sale without going through a background check. Are we really supposed to believe that criminals in the Land of Enchantment simply stopped all black market sales, or does it make more sense that criminals simply continued to ignore this law just as they ignore the laws against, say, home invasion or armed robbery?

Democrats maintain that H.R. 8 will prevent criminals from getting their hands on a gun, but I’ve never heard them explain how the legislation will do that. Something tells me that we won’t get any such explanation during the debate of H.R. 8 either, but every pro-2A House member should call them out for their obfuscation and demand that they tell the American people the truth about this bill; it won’t and can’t prevent a single illicit private transfer of a firearm, and is utterly useless as a public safety strategy.

Another Anti-Gun Extremist Promoted for Biden’s Cabinet

President Biden’s nominee to serve as United States Secretary of the Interior, U.S. Representative Deb Haaland (D-NM), is yet another cog Biden hopes to fit into his administration’s anti-gun machine. Perhaps it would be more newsworthy if we only reported on Biden nominees that don’t support gutting the Second Amendment, but then we might have nothing to say.

Continue reading “”

 

 

 

Isn’t it interesting how no 2nd amendment advocate claims this about the 1st amendment?

BLUF:
The Second Amendment is not in conflict with the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, or any of our other rights protected by the Constitution, and our rights don’t have to be exercised one at a time. We don’t give up our Fourth Amendment rights when we peaceably assemble, so why should we lose our Second Amendment rights when we gather in support or opposition to a piece of legislation or governmental action?

Well, the obvious answer is that we shouldn’t have to give up our Second Amendment rights in order to exercise our right of free speech, public assembly, and private worship. Unfortunately, that’s the world that gun control activists want, and it’s one reason why you’re seeing the rise of Second Amendment sanctuaries around the country; a grassroots response to the creeping authoritarianism of gun control.

New Anti-Gun Argument: 2A Getting In The Way Of Other Rights

The Second Amendment has long been treated as a second-class right by gun control activists and even some unarmed Americans who simply aren’t as concerned about protecting a right that they’re not currently exercising. Unfortunately for those opposed to the right to keep and bear arms, 2020 was a banner year for new gun owners with an estimated 8.5-million Americans purchasing a firearm for the very first time.

As you can imagine, gun control activists are not happy about these developments, and their opposition to exercise of our Second Amendment rights is leading some down a dangerous road; arguing that we must restrict the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect other civil rights.

Law professors Joseph Blocher of Duke and Reva Seigel of Yale make that case in a new piece at The Atlantic, proclaiming that we need more gun control laws to protect “citizens’ equal freedoms to speak, assemble, worship, and vote without fear.”

Continue reading “”

South Dakota: Two Pro-Gun Bills Head to the Governor’s Desk for Signature

Wednesday, March 3rd the South Dakota House gave final approval to a pair of pro-gun measures, Senate Bill 100 and Senate Bill 111.  These two important bills now head to the desk of Governor Kristi Noem for her signature.  Please contact Governor Kristi Noem and ask her to sign Senate Bills 100 and 111 into law.

Senate Bill 100 provides protections for gun stores, ranges, or any other entity that engages in the lawful selling or servicing of firearms, components, or accessories. SB 100 also prevents the prohibition, regulation, or seizure of citizens’ Second Amendment rights during a declared State of Emergency.

Senate Bill 111 reduces the cost for some types of concealed carry permits.

He just doesn’t want us to know what he thinks about it.
And because of that, we do know.

Garland Doesn’t Seem To Know Much About Anything During Questioning

When the Senate confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland to be Joe Biden’s pick for Attorney General kicked off, we quickly learned that there were a number of public policy topics that he’s “never given much thought to,” and didn’t have any opinions to share. Those included issues of illegal immigration and whether or not transgender athletes should be able to compete in girls’ and women’s sports. As the hearings continued, there emerged even more topics that Garland professes to not know very much about. This time the questions dealt with the Second Amendment and the limits of the President’s power to infringe on those rights via the pen and the phone. When Ted Cruz pressed him on some specifics, Garland claimed to be “unfamiliar” with the subject and said that he “cannot offer an opinion.” (Free Beacon)

President Joe Biden’s pick for the top law enforcement post in America told the Senate that he is uninformed about important gun issues, as he faces what could be a close confirmation vote.

Merrick Garland told Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) he was unfamiliar with key gun policy areas in written answers made public Wednesday night. He said he did not know enough about the topic to say whether Biden could unilaterally deny gun sales by permanently delaying background checks. He used the same explanation when asked if Biden could ban the sale of popular rifles like the AR-15—something Biden promised to make law during his campaign.

“I am unfamiliar with this issue and cannot offer an opinion on that question,” Garland said of the unilateral AR-15 ban.

These answers conflict with statements Garland made in February, suggesting that there were changes to gun control policy that Biden could make unilaterally without the need for new legislation from Congress. But now he’s saying that he really doesn’t know what, if any limits there are to the President’s powers in that regard. Just as a reminder, this guy has been on the bench on one of the most influential appeals courts in the country for decades and he came very close to making it onto the Supreme Court. And he hasn’t given any thought to the Second Amendment?

Garland similarly dodged a question about the death penalty. He said he had “developed concerns” over the procedure in recent years, but that was about it. We already know where Joe Biden stands on the subject and Garland will go along with whatever Biden says, so it seemed rather pointless to wiggle out of that one.

What Garland is doing here seems obvious. He doesn’t want to wade into any hot-button topics for fear of antagonizing the Senators from either party and giving some of them an excuse to not vote for him. He’s hardly the first cabinet nominee to play these games and he won’t be the last. But the guy is asking to be approved to be the chief law enforcement official in the country. If he’s really “never thought about” any of these questions and “doesn’t have an opinion” on them, how is he claiming to be qualified to do the job he’s asking for? That’s an awful lot of studying to have to do on day one to get up to speed.

Senator Tom Cotton (R – AR) has already begun pumping the brakes on Garland’s confirmation, insisting that more and better answers are needed. But it still doesn’t seem like he’ll be able to derail the confirmation entirely. Mitch McConnell has already said he plans to vote to confirm him and Chuck Grassley voted for him in committee. That’s really all he would need to avoid the optics of sending Kamala Harris down to break a tie to put him in at the Justice Department. But if these non-answers were to somehow convince both of them to vote no, we’d be back to waiting for Joe Manchin to make up his mind. This fight may not be quite over yet.