Category: RKBA

Rep Lauren Boebert Trolls Democrats with Video About Her Glock

Will Utah become the next state to drop concealed carry permit?

A Utah lawmaker is furthering his bid to make Utah the next state to allow concealed carrying of firearms without a permit.

And in case that doesn’t work, another lawmaker is looking to suspend that permit requirement amid a declared state of emergency — whether that be for an earthquake, a flood and, yes, a pandemic.

Rep. Walt Brooks, R-St. George, is sponsoring HB60 in the Utah Legislature’s upcoming 2021 general session, set to begin Jan. 19. The bill’s language mirrors legislation he filed in the final days of the 2020 session, which would remove the state’s requirement for law-abiding Utahns over the age of 21 to have a permit to lawfully carry a concealed firearm.

“Every single person has the right to protect themselves,” Brooks said, arguing that right should extend to people uncomfortable with openly carrying firearms. “It’s allowing a law-abiding citizen to be allowed (to put their gun) under their jacket or a wife to put it in her purse.”

Currently, 16 states allow concealed carrying of firearms without a permit: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, North Dakota (residents only) and Wyoming (residents only). Four others allow permitless concealed carry with certain limitations: Illinois, Montana, New Mexico and Washington.

Continue reading “”

The Biggest Threats To 2A Rights In 2021

We’ve finally put 2020 in the rear view mirror, but unfortunately there’s more rough road ahead for those of us engaged in the fight to protect our Second Amendment rights. From an anti-gun administration ready to seize power in just a few weeks to gun control advocacy groups that will spend millions of dollars this year on legal lawfare aimed at turning our rights into privileges, the coming months will challenge gun owners and gun rights activists on a number of fronts.

Despite the dozens of Republicans in Congress who have vowed to challenge the results of the Electoral College on January 6th and the last minute lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are almost certain to be sworn in later this month. Biden’s already indicated he plans to use executive actions and the power of the regulatory state to target both legal gun owners and the firearms industry, and if Democrats capture both of the Georgia senate seats up for grabs next Tuesday, there’s potential for anti-gun legislation to make it through Congress as well.

I think Biden’s plan to ban and “buy back” so-called assault weapons and ammunition magazines is still going to face long odds in the short term, even if Democrats have control over both chambers of Congress. Legislation to mandate background checks on all private transfers of firearms, however, could get enough support from Republicans like Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania that even with the legislative filibuster in place a bill could squeak out of both the House and Senate if gun owners aren’t mobilized in opposition.

Continue reading “”

The preceding gets this:

This is the same kind of historical revisionism that tries to paint the 2nd Amendment as some slave patrol scheme in the vein of the Aptly named Dr. Bogus whose revisionist history “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment” includes Section 1, part K literally titled: “The Absence of Direct Evidence”.

Advocates of such false history also try to misconstrue the statements of Patrick Henry before the Ratifying Convention in Virginia from June 5th, 1788.

You can read the full speech here.

You’ll see none of what Bogus suggest regarding the 2nd Amendment being for slavery present there.

All the Judicial, Statutory, and Historic evidence from the 17th Century to Modern day supports the individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to militia service.

Being a direct descendant of the English colonies American law is based off of the English model. Our earliest documents from the Mayflower compact to the Constitution itself share a lineage with the Magna Carta. Even the American Bill of Rights being modeled after the English Bill of Rights.

The individual right, unconnected to militia service, preexists the United States and the Constitution. This right is firmly based in English law.

In 1689 The British Bill of Rights gave all protestants the right to keep and bear arms.

“The English right was a right of individuals, not conditioned on militia service…The English right to arms emerged in 1689, and in the century thereafter courts, Blackstone, and other authorities recognized it. They recognized a personal, individual right.” – CATO Brief on DC v Heller

Prior to the debates on the US Constitution, or its ratification, multiple states built the individual right to keep and bear arms, unconnected to militia service, in their own state constitutions.

“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State” – chapter 1, Section XV, Constitution of Vermont – July 8, 1777.

“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state” – A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Section XIII, Constitution of Pennsylvania – September 28, 1776.

Later the debates that would literally become the American Bill of Rights also include the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

“And that the said Constitution never be constructed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press, or the rights of the conscience; or prevent of people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceful and orderly manner, the federal legislature for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers, or possessions.” – Debates and proceedings in the Convention of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788. Page 86-87.

The American Bill of Rights itself was a compromise between the federalist and anti-federalist created for the express purpose of protecting individual rights.

“In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that.  With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of  a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress  comes into session.  The concession was  undoubtedly  necessary to secure the Constitution’s hard-fought ratification.  Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.”

In Madison’s own words:

“I think we should obtain the confidence of our fellow citizens, in proportion as we fortify the rights of the people against the encroachments of the government,” Madison said in his address to Congress in June 1789.

Madison’s first draft of the second Amendment is even more clear.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Ironically it was changed because the founders feared someone would try to misconstrue a clause to deny the right of the people.

“Mr. Gerry — This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the Constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms.” – House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 17, Aug. 1789

Please note Mr. Gerry clearly refers to this as the right of the people.

This is also why we have the 9th Amendment.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Article I Section 8 had already established and addressed the militia and the military making the incorrect collective militia misinterpretation redundant.

Supreme Court cases like US v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, DC v. Heller, and even the Dredd Scott decision specifically call out the individual right to keep and bear arms, unconnected to militia service.

This is further evidenced by State Constitutions including the Right to keep and bear arms from the Colonial Period to Modern Day.

“The Constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press. in the structure of our legislatures we think experience has proved the benefit of subjecting questions to two separate bodies of deliberants; …” – Thomas Jefferson’s letter to John Cartwright, on June 5th, 1824

Cornell is being purposefully mendacious.

 

Cornell’s article was a republished one on Yahoo.
Of interest is the last informational paragraph which notes:

As a researcher at the John Glenn School of Public Policy at Ohio State, Cornell was the lead investigator on a project that was funded by a grant from the Joyce Foundation to research the history of gun regulation. Part of the research cited in this essay was done under that grant.

The Joyce Foundation is well known as a rabid antigun group. Cornell is known for it too. With such open bias, why should anyone expect any other ‘results’?

Anti-Gunners Attempt To Re-Write 2A History

What did the Founding Fathers think about our right to keep and bear arms? According to historian Saul Cornell, founders like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison would be far more likely to side with Everytown for Gun Safety than the National Rifle Association if they were alive today, because in Cornell’s view, the early republic was chock full of restrictions on gun owners.
In a new piece at The Conversation, Cornell lays out five types of gun laws that he says the Founders wholeheartedly embraces, starting with gun registration laws.
Today American gun rights advocates typically oppose any form of registration – even though such schemes are common in every other industrial democracy – and typically argue that registration violates the Second Amendment. This claim is also hard to square with the history of the nation’s founding. All of the colonies – apart from Quaker-dominated Pennsylvania, the one colony in which religious pacifists blocked the creation of a militia – enrolled local citizens, white men between the ages of 16-60 in state-regulated militias. The colonies and then the newly independent states kept track of these privately owned weapons required for militia service. Men could be fined if they reported to a muster without a well-maintained weapon in working condition.
What Cornell is describing isn’t a registration of privately owned firearms, and he provides no evidence whatsoever that the various colonies actually kept track of the rifles and muskets owned by militia members. Cornell is correct when he says that those mustering for militia service could face fines if their firearm wasn’t well maintained, but that has nothing to do with any sort of registration or list of guns in the hands of private citizens.
Next, Cornell claims that the Founders loved the idea of restricting the right to carry. For this argument, Cornell reaches way back to English common law and claims that there was no “general right of armed travel” at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment. Were there any actual bans on traveling while armed? Cornell doesn’t cite any specific examples, though he is correct when he points out that by the mid-1800s many states had either banned or limited the practice of carrying concealed. What he doesn’t point out is that by attempting the manner of carrying arms, those same lawmakers were tacitly acknowledging a more general right to carry.
The Fordham University historian also argues that the Founders would also have been opposed to “stand your ground” laws, even though the Castle Doctrine had been a part of common law for centuries by that point.
The use of deadly force was justified only in the home, where retreat was not required under the so-called castle doctrine, or the idea that “a man’s home is his castle.” The emergence of a more aggressive view of the right of self-defense in public, standing your ground, emerged slowly in the decades after the Civil War.
I’m honestly not sure where Cornell gets the idea that deadly force was only justifiable in the home. I can think of one very famous case from the 1770s where that wasn’t the case. Most of the British soldiers who opened fire on a crowd of angry Bostonians who were throwing chunks of ice and razor-sharp oyster shells at them on March 5th, 1770 were ultimately found not guilty of murder because a jury found that they were acting in self-defense (two others were convicted of manslaughter).
Cornell goes on to claim that the Founders were on board with storage laws, based solely off of a 1786 ordinance in Boston that required guns had to be kept unloaded. His last assertion is that “the notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd. Indeed, the Constitution itself defines such an act as treason.”
To wage an offensive war against the United States is indeed treason, as defined by Article III of the Constitution. To take up arms in defense of a tyrannical federal government, on the other hand, was most certainly acknowledged as a right of the people by the Founding Fathers. Here’s James Madison writing in Federalist 46.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
Saul Cornell has likely forgotten more history than I’ll ever know, but he’s off-base in asserting that the Founding Fathers embraced the idea of restricting the right to keep and bear arms. There’s simply no evidence to support the idea that the laws pushed by gun control activists today, like bans on commonly-owned firearms or magazines; gun licensing; gun rationing; or bans on carrying firearms would have found favor with the Founders or the early Americans who argued against ratifying the Constitution until a Bill of Rights was included and the pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms was protected.

[Well Regulated] The pit in my stomach

On December 23, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) withdrew its letter on brace classification from the Federal Register. Many in the firearms world were quick to herald this as a victory for gun rights, an example of the people making their voice heard, and a government agency backing off.

While this is the preferable interpretation of the withdrawal to have, something in my gut tells me that this was not a victory at all. Consider that this letter was provoked by several congressmen sending a letter to the ATF asking for specification as to what constituted the legal characteristics of a stabilizing brace.

It was then withdrawn after another letter (this time signed by 90 representatives) was sent in opposition to the ATF’s “clarification”. Anyone with even a modicum of firearms knowledge could tell by reading the ATF’s list of “objective features” that the verbiage was imprecise and sloppy at best, and maliciously vague at worst. But for such an opinion letter to be issued and then abandoned in a week, with less than a month until the inauguration, does not instill in me any confidence of actual progress being made in favor of gun rights.

In November, the firearms community was made aware that the Biden transition team had met with ATF director Lombardo, and discussed their top two gun control priorities: braces, and 80% receivers. Which is more likely, that the ATF suddenly changed their minds and realized the error of their ways, or that they’re willing to wait a few weeks to implement regulations on gun owners? In firearm circles, the analogy of boiling a frog alive is often brought up: you place a frog into cool water and turn the temperature up very slowly so that it doesn’t realize it needs to jump out.

Continue reading “”

The good news about guns in America

Once upon a time, as a Democrat who grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area, I was such an anti-gun fanatic that I donated to the Brady Campaign. Thankfully, I saw the light after Hurricane Katrina (when seconds counted, the police were days away), and have made up for my past bad judgment by being an NRA member, using my writing abilities to promote the Second Amendment, and helping the bottom line at several local gun stores. That’s why it gladdens my heart to tell you one of the good things about 2020: It was a banner year for gun sales!

When it comes to guns, the anti-gun crowd lacks imagination. To them, guns exist for one purpose: To murder people or, occasionally, to kill people accidentally. If you take away guns, they “reason,” you will take away murder and accidental deaths.

People with a deeper and more nuanced understanding support the Second Amendment because they understand that guns don’t commit murders or cause accidents. They are tools and lack agency. People who want to murder someone will commit murder with or without guns. And people who are careless can always kill someone else with everyday objects (e.g., cars, wine bottles, etc.).

While guns lack agency, they confer empowering agency on the people who hold them. Having a gun allows people to oppose oppressive government, as happened during the American Revolution. Guns give women the ability to fight back against predators bigger and stronger than they are. Guns allow people to defend themselves and their property when the civil government collapses, as happened after Hurricane Katrina. Guns allow ordinary people to make crime too costly for criminals. Guns allow good people to take down the bad guys quickly in what can otherwise become a mass shooting situation. Guns give those far from grocery stores the ability to feed themselves. And as sports enthusiasts know, guns are fun when used safely and appropriately.

Guns work in a society that has more good people than bad. And despite the “if it bleeds it leads” approach that has characterized the American media for more than 100 years, and that has escalated appallingly in the last 20 years, most Americans are good people. They are infinitely more likely to defend each other than to kill each other.

Continue reading “”

And with that increase in sales, also goes an increase in ammo sales.

Americans Bought Approximately 21 Million Guns in 2020, Sales up 73%

At this point in December it is already apparent Americans bought approximately 21 million guns this year, an increase of 73 percent over the number purchased in 2019.

ABC News quotes figures from The Trace to report the estimated 21 million guns sold and claims the buying surge is the result of a “perfect storm” consisting of “the pandemic, economic recession, civil unrest and a divisive presidential election.”

They spoke to a mother of three named Trish Beaudet, who explained she has never owned a gun before but is now buying one for herself and one for her 25-year-old daughter.

Beaudet said, “I’ve never owned a gun. I’ve never wanted a gun. I’ve never had a gun in my home.”

She then pointed to the chaos in the streets and on the news, lamenting:

It really bothers me when I watched things on the news, when you talk about the riots, and the looting, and the violence that’s happening. Pulling a gun is the last thing I ever want to do, but I want to know that if I need to protect myself, my family, my, you know, my children, that I can do that.

Continue reading “”

Goobernor Northam, Backs Away From Virginia Gun Ban Plans

……………..

Backing away from an assault weapons ban–for now

At the start of 2020, Northam’s package of gun control bills garnered national attention as thousands stormed the state capitol in protest. Ultimately, Senate Democrats rejected the most controversial of them all: a ban on the new sale of assault-style weapons and the possession of high-capacity magazines.

At the time, Northam’s office assured the bill would be back in 2021. Yet going into his last regular legislative session as governor, the chief sponsor of the bill is deferring action.

Del. Mark Levine (D-Alexandria) told 8News that he’s not planning to introduce the ban in 2021 because it’s too big of a lift during a shortened session that will largely be held online. He doesn’t expect any of his Democratic colleagues to introduce it either, though it can’t be ruled out. Continue reading “”

There is a reason I refer to them as demoncraps

Why Working With Democrats On Guns Is Impossible

Right now, political division is extremely high. I don’t want to say it’s at an all-time high because, well, there was that little tiff back in the 1860s that suggests it might have been a tad worse back then. I mean, 620,000 American lives lost is a bit worse than the rioting we’ve seen in the last few years.

Yet, anyone with eyes can see that it’s still pretty bad.

Many are issuing calls for unity, for us coming together and working with one another. Of course, this comes after four years of #resistance and all that, but whatever.

The problem is, when you don’t really understand why some divisions exist, it’s easy to make light of the issues. Take this one, for example.

If your dog won’t stop chewing on the furniture and you work with it to chew its toys are you suddenly on the level of your dog for still allowing the chewing?? Of course not! This is literally how simple and idiotic the arguments that happen on Capitol Hill are. Let’s take gun rights for example:

Democrats don’t want to see people get killed. Republicans don’t want people’s rights infringed on. So suddenly, any Republican who supports any kind of gun legislation wants to take everyone’s guns and any Democrat who wants to compromise is a murder-permitting disgrace.

This also works the other way though too. This means that Democrats now must signal that they are okay with taking guns and that Republicans must signal that they don’t support gun laws. Which, of course, further contributes to the polarization because now each side has a reason to fear that extreme because it’s real now.

Not only that but, if anyone on our side is working with the other side, they must have switched viewpoints because there’s only two and they’re so different. Get the picture?

Sure, if you look at it through a microscope, it appears that way.

When you understand the subject in totality, though, not so much.

See, when we say that anti-gunners want to take away our gun rights, it’s not based on fearmongering or a misunderstanding of their position, but a firm understanding of history. Continue reading “”

Kevin Sorbo: Irony of ‘Men with Guns’ Calling for Gun Bans Proves the Need for the Second Amendment

Actor Kevin Sorbo is stressing that Americans need to understand that the irony of “men with guns” taking Americans’ guns justifies the existence of the Second Amendment.

“If you don’t see the irony of a gun ban being enforced by men with guns, then you fail to understand why the 2nd amendment was written in the first place,” Sorbo tweeted

The Hercules and Andromeda star used an earlier tweet to signal that his “gun ban” observation was a response to President-Elect Joe Biden’s gun control push.

Continue reading “”

Will Gestapo Joe Make a Hard Run at Gun Owners Right Away?

………It’s imperative to prepare for the system shock of an administration that has the potential to be such a nightmare that conservatives will be longing for the relatively happy days of the Obama administration. Biden is bringing back a lot of the flacks from the Lightbringer Era, and they all seem to be itchy to get working on unfinished business from the first go-round. In fact, you could say that a lot of them are probably looking at this as Obama’s third term. It’s not like the empty vessel Biden is possessed of any great original vision, and he is a pathological plagiarist.”

Continue reading “”

Here’s A List Of Biden’s Pro-Gun Control Cabinet Picks

At least five of  Joe Biden’s reported cabinet picks have expressed pro-gun control views in past statements, a Daily Caller News Foundation review has found.

Biden, who is set to be inaugurated on Jan. 20, has said he plans to end the sale of so-called “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines” in addition to instituting red flag legislation and ending liability protections for gun manufacturers and sellers, according to his campaign website. The former vice president’s gun control plan, coupled with his slew of cabinet picks that seem to share his views on the issue, has pro-Second Amendment groups on edge. Continue reading “”

Actually I don’t think we do need more research on gun control (unless perhaps it’s about which stance;  Isosceles, Weaver, Chapman, Center Axis Relock really works) .
Just me but “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” works fine.
If I recall correctly, someone once observed that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were purposely written in the common language of the day without all the flowery legalese so loved by the Lawyer class.

Maybe it’s not what guns people should or shouldn’t have. Maybe it’s what people do with the guns they have that we be concerned about

We need honest debate and rigorous research on gun control

a “time bomb under President-elect Biden’s doormat.” The time-bomb wasn’t a bogus dossier, FBI agents lying in order to spy on Biden’s campaign, or a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden. It was, rather, the appointment of renowned but controversial researcher John R. Lott Jr. as a senior advisor for research and statistics at the Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice.

Lott has had a long career as a researcher at some of America’s most respected universities: from Yale to UCLA to Wharton to the University of Chicago and until recently, he was the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, which I now lead. But he is best known for his controversial thesis on a hot button issue, encapsulated well in his University of Chicago Press book: “More Guns, Less Crime.”

Dix wrote that the news of Lott’s appointment made his “blood run cold” because Lott’s thesis had been “found to be false” by Stanford Law Professor John Donohue and his colleagues. But whether or not he realized it, Dix’s citation actually showcases the need for much more credible and robust research into the effect of gun control policies.

Dix noted that Donahue and his colleagues concluded that Lott’s thesis was “without credible statistical support,” and that — contrary to Lott — right-to-carry gun laws were actually associated with higher rates of murder, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, etc.

If that were the final word, we could leave it at that. But it’s not. Continue reading “”

Gun Groups Take Concealed Carry to the Supreme Court

New York State doesn’t recognize a right to carry a handgun in public. To get a concealed-carry permit, applicants must show they have an unusually strong need for self-defense, not just a normal and healthy desire to keep themselves safe. The state also bans the open carry of handguns entirely. There’s a “circuit split” among the nation’s courts as to whether such strict restrictions are kosher.

The New York State Pistol and Rifle Association and the National Rifle Association are asking the Supreme Court to step in. And now would be a good time for the Court to better enforce the Second Amendment, a project it began with Heller and McDonald more than a decade ago.

I’ll have more to say about this case if the Court takes it, but here are a few things I’m interested in when it comes to gun-carrying and the Second Amendment. Continue reading “”

Ohio Legislature sends ‘Stand your ground’ gun law to Gov. Mike DeWine

COLUMBUS, Ohio (FOX19) – The Ohio House has passed a controversial change to the state’s current “stand your ground” law that eliminates “duty to retreat” before using force in self-defense.

House Republicans added the “stand your ground” language Thursday into a last-minute floor amendment to Senate Bill 175, which grants civil immunity to churches and other nonprofits where shootings occur.

The mostly-party line vote passed 52-31.

Under current law, Ohioans are permitted to use deadly force in self-defense as long as they aren’t the aggressor, believe they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and are in their home or vehicle.

The amendment also removes the “home or vehicle” requirement. Now, Ohioans only need to be where they are legally allowed.

The change must now be approved by the Senate before going to Gov. Mike DeWine for final approval.

DeWine’s spokesman responded “Under review” when we asked him Friday morning what the governor thought.

Everytown Wants to Use Executive Actions to Gut the Second Amendment

Apparently, the people at Everytown for Gun Safety, the anti-Second Amendment zealots funded by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, believe the presidency is a sort of kingship, one where a president can write his or her own laws at will, even though these laws would clearly be contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

Recently, Everytown released a “roadmap” for the gun-control actions the group wants Joe Biden to take—“outlining ways the Biden administration can address gun violence through executive action,” to be precise—that would help gut the Second Amendment.

And these actions, as NRA-ILA noted, are illegal! Continue reading “”

THE BIDEN NATIONAL GUN VIOLENCE HEALTH CRISIS EMERGENCY BEGINS

President-elect Joe Biden didn’t take long in declaring a national health crisis to usher in emergency health epidemic gun control measures. With more than a month still left before he takes the Oath of Office, he laid the groundwork to seize on a “public health crisis” to push a gun grab.

He also did it on the anniversary of the horrific crimes committed in Newtown, Conn., eight years ago. For NSSF, this tragedy hits home. This is our community. We continue to grieve the loss of innocent lives at the hands of a heinous criminal. President-elect Joe Biden, and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, marked the grim anniversary with a ploy to enact the most bold and radical gun control agenda ever proposed.

President-elect Biden wrote a message that was addressed to the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook tragedy, but it was a signal for the nation. He wrote “… that gun violence is a national health crisis and we need to address…” and “… we will fight to end this scourge on our society and enact common sense reforms.”

Vice President-elect Harris echoed the call, tweeting, “To honor the lives lost in this terrible tragedy, it’s past time we implement common-sense gun safety reforms to keep our children safe.” Continue reading “”

News Media Fears Ammon Bundy May be Right

They’ve got the White House come January 21st, 2021.  They may pick up the United States Senate after a special election in Georgia.  They still hold the U.S. House of Representatives.  Then why do liberals still appear to be living in fear when it comes to their perceptions of people in fly over country?

One latest example comes out of a Nampa based newspaper.  You can click on a link here.  Political activist Ammon Bundy is recommending people prepare for rough times ahead.  He’s called a conservative activist by the writers of the story.  I’m not sure all of these labels are accurate.  He was more than willing to meet members of Black Lives Matter.  He was vilified by many old allies on the right.  Yet, he explained he wanted to know why they were taking to the streets.  It’s a fair question.  People who believe they’re aggrieved could solve at least some issues by having a dialogue.  Or it’s at least worth a try. Continue reading “”

This isn’t JEOPARDY!™. It’s not necessary to phrase this as a question.

BLUF:
When I see all these news stories and then listen to Feldman’s words, all I can think of is that Democrats are deliberately driving up gun violence so they can justify that “big, bold action” against guns. In that way, Operation Fast and Furious may have been a trial run for what Democrats now plan.

Are Democrats pulling an Operation Fast and Furious scam?

During Obama’s first term, his Attorney General, Eric Holder, implemented Operation Fast and Furious. The ostensible purpose was for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to catch straw purchasers who bought guns in America and sold them in Mexico. ATF blew it and taxpayer-funded guns vanished into Mexico. A secondary goal, though, was to try to convince Americans that guns are bad, to drive gun control laws. When I read about Democrats flooding cities with gun crime suspects, I wonder if they’re trying the same psychological trick again.

What caught my eye first was a New York Post report on the fact that almost 90% of gun crime suspects are back on New York’s streets:

Nearly 90 percent of suspects arrested on gun charges this year are back on the streets, which the NYPD says has fueled a historic spike in shootings that have left more than 1,756 dead or wounded.

About 3,345 of the 3,793 perps arrested between Jan. 1 and Nov. 30 for firearms crimes — 88 percent — were let go, according to department data. Just 450 remain in jail, the NYPD told The Post.

Some New York City Council members also want to order police to avoid any contact with homeless people, many of whom are deranged and violent.

In Los Angeles, the new Soros-funded District Attorney, George Gascón (who spent almost ten years growing up under Fidel Castro) is unilaterally doing away with serious punishments for violent gun crimes, virtually assuring that the criminals will be back on the street.

Then there was the news that New York’s shooting rate is heading for a 14-year-high:

Continue reading “”