Category: RKBA

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.

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 “”

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 “”

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.

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 “”

Biden, Harris Use Sandy Hook to Call for ‘Gun Reforms,’ Meaning Control

Using the anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris on Monday called for “gun reforms” to honor the victims of the 2012 shooting that left 20 youngsters and six adults dead.

It’s what Second Amendment activists call “camo speak” for more gun control. Anti-gun Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal chimed in, according to Fox News, declaring the Sandy Hook victims should be honored with “positive action” and he expects the incoming Biden administration will “redouble the efforts against gun violence.”

Biden’s legitimacy as the next president got a boost from Republican Senate Majority Mitch McConnell, who congratulated the former vice president by declaring the Electoral College “has spoken.” The Drudge Report blared this headline: “Season Finale: McConnell Finishes Trump.”

Biden and Harris insist they want “common sense” gun “reforms,” according to the Associated Press. It all translates to the same thing, according to grassroots gun rights activists: More restrictions on law-abiding citizens that will ultimately not prevent a single violent crime involving a firearm.

Sandy Hook was the work of a single mentally-deranged individual, Adam Lanza. Prior to the shooting, Lanza murdered his mother, took her guns from a safe and headed to the school in her car. While a Connecticut news organ, The Day, editorialized for additional gun controls, a reader who signed in as Keith J. Robbins reacted.

“The Day again gives lip service to the mental health issue, the actual reason for all the incidents mentioned was a failure by the liberal mental health system,” Robbins wrote. “Newtown happened because a parent enabled a child to commit murder, she paid the ultimate price for her failure. The child should have been institutionalized, as has been documented multiple times…The Day fails to address the continued carnage in Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia and we are beginning to see it in New York, those communities have extensive gun laws and continue to be run by democrats. As we see emboldened criminals, because of a lax if non-existence criminal justice system, the Second Amendment becomes more prevalent for law abiding citizens.”

The Day wants to extend the background check period from three to ten days. It wants so-called “universal background checks” for all gun transfers, except between family members—a mandate that would not have prevented Sandy Hook, since Lanza killed his mother and used her guns—and a ban on so-called “assault rifles” and original capacity magazines.

The Day editorial claims these are “some sensible reforms that are popular with the American public, including many gun owners.”

The only thing that could derail Biden’s gun control schemes would be a Republican victory in the two Senate races slated Jan. 5 in Georgia. If incumbent Senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler retain their seats, the GOP will remain in control of the Senate and provide a barrier.

Eating Our Own: The Fine (Not So) Young Cannibals of the Gun Industry

Whether through articles or posts on social media the gun industry has an unfortunate tendency to readily and joyously eat its own. Toss a proverbial hot topic into the ring and suddenly it’s lions versus Christians with the lone Christian being represented by some poor guy who was “just saying.”

It’s a topic worth addressing even though it will cause more even kvetching and whining in the comment section (commonly-shared saying among writers: never read the comment section). Addressing this topic at all is likely to be called “whining”, “playing the victim card”, or – my personal favorite – “virtue signaling.”

There’s also the opposite end of the spectrum. There we have those who loudly proclaim we as an industry are being divided by the use of “divisive” speech. This often involves the originator of the discussion having asked a question or somehow challenged the status quo. You don’t dare rock the boat, because that makes you “part of the problem.”

What follows are my two cents. They’re sentiments I like to believe are shared by most of us here at TTAG. If my bluntness about this state of affairs offends you, sorry, but I’m not sorry. Continue reading “”

Gun-control activists need to stop demonizing John Lott

The recent reaction of Griffin Dix to the appointment of John Lott as an adviser to the DOJ Office of Justice Program reflects the continued inability of the gun-control advocacy community to address the fundamental issues that prevent us from making an effective response to the problem of gun violence.

Lott’s book “More Guns, Less Crime” has become a flashpoint for arguments on both sides of the gun debate. On the one hand, the book is celebrated by the pro-gun lobby as a justification for ‘stand your ground’ laws and other legal rationales for armed self-defense. On the other hand, the book is condemned by gun-control activists as error-filled propaganda that promotes the false idea that guns are an effective response to fears about personal safety and threats of crime. As a long-time member of the Brady Campaign, Griffin Dix obviously belongs to the latter group. Continue reading “”

Everytown Encourages Biden to Pursue Unlawful Executive Gun Controls

According to the December 10 report from the New York Times, Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun organization Everytown for Gun Safety is pushing Joe Biden to enact a raft of gun control by executive fiat. As much as Everytown and their would-be autocrat benefactor might wish, the U.S. Presidency is not a dictatorship. The executive actions Everytown contemplates implicate the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners and are not moored in a credible reading of federal statute.

The article noted that the group has targeted three areas for executive action. Everytown is urging Biden to further restrict the private transfer of firearms between non-dealers, force Federal Firearms Licensees (gun dealers or FFLs) to notify the FBI whenever they complete a firearms transfer following the FBI’s failure to complete a background check within three days, and further regulate unfinished firearm frames and receivers – sometimes referred to as 80 percent frames or receivers. Continue reading “”

Confirmed: left leaning gun grabbers suffer from mental illness

“Believe the science” they always say. Ok.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341609819_Mental_Illness_and_the_Left

It has been claimed that left-wingers or liberals (US sense) tend to more often suffer from mental illness than right-wingers or conservatives. This potential link was investigated using the General Social Survey cumulative cross-sectional dataset (1972-2018). A search of the available variables resulted in 5 items measuring one’s own mental illness (e.g., ”Do you have any emotional or mental disability?”). All of these items were weakly associated with left-wing political ideology as measured by self-report, with especially high rates seen for the “extremely liberal” group. These results mostly held up in regressions that adjusted for age, sex, and race. For the variable with the most data (n = 11,338), the difference in the mental illness measure between “extremely liberal” and “extremely conservative” was 0.39 d. Temporal analysis showed that the relationship between mental illness, happiness, and political ideology has existed in the GSS data since the 1970s and still existed in the 2010s. Within-study meta-analysis of all the results found that extreme liberals had a 150% increased rate of mental illness compared to moderates. The finding of increased mental illness among left-wingers is congruent with numerous findings based on related constructs, such as positive relationships between conservatism, religiousness and health in general.

Continue reading “”

3D-Printed Freedom – Part 2

What is the actual material you are printing with? Filament. It comes in a roll, usually 1 kg, and is 1.75mm thick. It is what is extruded out of the nozzle onto the print bed and makes your object. Filament comes in many different materials.

The most common and inexpensive filament is poly lactic acid (PLA). Better yet is PLA+. Both of these are made from corn as a feedstock, and do not use petroleum as an input. So if supporting corn growers of America as opposed to oil companies is something that resonates with you, so much the better.

Of note, PLA is easy to work with on a printer, does not give off dangerous fumes when heated, and can actually be composted as a waste product, if done so in an industrial composting type facility (needs the high heat to break down). As a downside, it does degrade over time in direct sun, and can deform in high heat. Don’t go shooting a PLA printed firearm full auto, or leave it on the dash in your car in the summer with the windows up, as it may warp. PLA also comes from a variety of manufacturers with other materials incorporated, such as wood, ceramic, copper, glow-in-the-dark materials, and more. These other materials can contribute useful or aesthetic characteristics depending on what you are printing. There are also magnetic iron PLA filaments, and electrically-conductive PLA filaments. Nearly all of the firearm components I refer to have been developed and tested with PLA or PLA+, and those that are not will be noted in the print instructions when you download the file. Continue reading “”

3D-Printed Freedom – Part 1

The following article is intended for educational purposes only. It is not legal advice. State and local laws vary widely, so be sure to consult them before you buy, print, or build!

“The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it.” – Karl Marx

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Marxist, I just love the confused look that I get from my more “progressive” friends when I quote a little Marx at ’em, as they know I tend toward the libertarian perspective, but at least when it comes to the means of production, perhaps we can find some common ground. To wit, 3D Printing!

I admit, my concept of 3D printing was pretty hazy up until about a year ago, when a friend introduced me. I had imagined it to be strictly the province of movies and high tech prototyping labs and industry. I was wrong. At the consumer level, the price and quality of 3D printers has evolved to a level where even a cheapskate Luddite like me can afford a printer and, just as important, is capable of harnessing and possessing the means of production for less than $300 ready to go. This article is meant to give you the same introduction I benefited from, and the background and resources to investigate further whether this capability is something you can benefit from (of course it is!)

Production of what you may ask? Darn near anything you can imagine! During these days of pandemic and the associated disruption to supply chains, the ability to get desperately needed items from factories across the country and across the world has been demonstrated as fragile indeed. Hospitals and companies have turned to 3D printers to produce their needed components for ventilator circuit connectors, lab testing materials, PPE, and more. Continue reading “”

GUN OWNERS DEFEAT FEDERAL GUN CONFISCATION
Red Flag GCOs Removed from Defense Bill

While Nancy Pelosi was busy forcing Congress to vote on “Tiger King” legislation, banning the ownership of big cats, and legalizing marijuana nationwide, Gun Owners of America was busy successfully dealing the final blow to gun control.

Back in July, GOA alerted Congress when we discovered so-called “Red Flag” Gun Confiscation Orders (GCOs) buried deep in H.R. 6395, the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

But you didn’t hear this on the news. Back then, the world was busy debating whether we should rename US military bases.

The gun confiscation language lay buried on page 343 of 1427 of the NDAA.

Today, GOA is pleased to announce that this passage has been removed from the bill and that, at least for the time being, there will be no federal “Red Flag” GCOs for those subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

But this gun control could easily have snuck through Congress.

Since discovering the gun control, GOA’s team of lobbyists in Washington D.C. tracked the bill and worked hand in hand with Republican leadership, members of Congress, and the White House to ensure that this nasty gun control was removed.

Our work came to fruition late last week, when H.R. 6395’s Conference Report, discussing the results of the House-Senate negotiations, was published.

In that conference report on page 3872 of 4517 was our result.

Authority of military judges and military magistrates to issue military court protective orders

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 542) that would amend chapter 80 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize military magistrates and military judges to issue military court protective orders [against] a person subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The House recedes.

We had successfully blocked GCOs from the final bill and force House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to “recede” on her anti-gun policy goal.

Goodbye anti-gun §542!

In its place, §542 of the final bill now contains unrelated language regarding the Qualifications of Judges and Standard of Review for Courts of Criminal Appeals.

But, the fate of the 2021 NDAA is still up in the air.

Trump has threatened to veto the bill over Title 47 U.S.C. §230 reform and the renaming of military bases. However, this new Conference Report legislation is backed by a bipartisan and veto-proof majority.

We will keep you informed as this bill moves through the final legislative process.

Still, Gun Owners should celebrate the removal of gun control from this bill, as this represents only the first of many legislative battles to defeat gun control gun owners may face for the next four years.