Category: RKBA

The Constitution and Supreme Court set a high bar for gun control

On February 14, President Biden marked the third anniversary of the deadly shooting incident at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, with an announcement that he is calling on Congress to enact “commonsense gun law reforms.”

As always, the details matter. The president defined “commonsense” as a requirement for background checks on all gun sales, a ban on “assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,” and an end to “immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.”
The U.S. Supreme Court held in 2008, in the District of Columbia v. Heller decision, that the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” is an individual right that is not contingent on service in “a well-regulated militia.” That means the U.S. Constitution limits the federal government’s power to pass laws restricting that right.

Exactly where are the limits? That’s always a matter of interpretation. The Heller opinion, written by the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, held that the District’s law prohibiting the possession of handguns was over the line, as was its law requiring residents to keep their lawfully owned, registered long guns “unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device” unless the guns were located in a place of business or in use for lawful recreational activities.

Scalia wrote that the handgun ban “amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society” for the “lawful purpose” of “the inherent right of self-defense.” Under any standard that the court has used, he wrote, “banning from the home ‘the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of one’s home and family,’ would fail constitutional muster.”

So if the president’s definition of “assault weapon” and “weapons of war” includes commonly owned firearms and magazines, it’s likely that new laws banning these or seeking to create new legal liability for their manufacturers will be found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, should these laws be challenged.

And there’s no doubt that such laws would be challenged. After Biden’s statement was released, the Firearms Policy Coalition responded, denouncing what it called “unconstitutional and immoral policies including bans on common semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines.” A number of lawsuits over various state laws related to firearms ownership are already working their way toward the high court.

The Heller decision was 5-4, with Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer in the minority.
Former President Donald Trump campaigned as a staunch defender of Second Amendment rights, and it would not be surprising, to say the least, if the three justices he appointed to the high court share that view to some extent. Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett likely have created a solid majority to strike down broad bans on semiautomatic weapons and laws that flatly prohibit law-abiding citizens from exercising the right to carry a gun. In Scalia’s words, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”

That won’t stop the Democratic majorities in Congress, together with the president, from enacting doomed laws, or from sending fundraising letters attacking their opponents. It’s always about the next election. It remains a fact that constitutional rights cannot be overridden by a majority vote, except on the Supreme Court.

TV Shows Push Gun Control Myths — in Sync With Biden

Last week, the Biden administration promised gun control groups that it will soon roll out a massive push for limits on firearm purchases and other measures. President Biden reiterated that promise on Sunday. And the television networks aren’t waiting to lay the groundwork for this effort.

CBS is in a full-court press for gun control on its evening entertainment television shows. The bad guys are always white supremacists who use machine guns — supposedly AR-15s — to commit mass public shootings. Criminals in Mexico supposedly get machine guns from the United States. A father’s desire to protect his family only leads to tragedy when his daughter gets into the gun safe and uses the weapon in a mass public shooting. And guns in the home pose a danger for children. Gun registration is necessary for solving crime.

NBC isn’t to be left out, showing a woman who tried but failed to use a gun to protect herself. Instead, her gun was taken from her and used to kill a police officer. The lesson is that owning a gun will only bring you grief.

And that’s just in the first six weeks of the year. Every show gives an inaccurate impression about firearms, thereby helping in this push for gun restrictions. It’s as though these shows were written by Michael Bloomberg’s gun control organizations. Indeed, the networks are working with these groups. A member of  Moms Demand Action recently wrote a Washington Post op-ed headlined: “Guns are white supremacy’s deadliest weapon. We must disarm hate.” So it isn’t too surprising that show after show portrays neo-Nazis using machine guns to commit mass public shootings. CBS’s “SWAT,” “FBI: Most Wanted,” “FBI,” and” Bull” all push this theme. They often refer explicitly to these guns as AR-15s. Others, such as “Magnum PI” and “NCIS LA,” constantly show criminals using machine guns.

Continue reading “”

Report: Chris Murphy to Put Forward Background Check Bill for Biden

This is the loon who killed 8 and wounded 13 (including Gabby ‘Chatty Cathy’ Giffords) in Casas Adobes, Arizona, back in January 2011.

Report: Chris Murphy to Put Forward Universal Gun Background Checks for Biden

In coming weeks Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) reportedly plans to put forward the universal background check legislation President Biden wants to sign.

The Hill reports Murphy reacted to Biden’s February 14, 2021, call for universal background checks by making clear he will put such legislation forward.

Murphy said:

President Biden and his administration are clearly committed to signing commonsense gun violence prevention legislation into law and taking executive action to save lives and make our communities safer. Two years ago, we got pretty darn close to striking a bipartisan deal to expand background checks that I believe would have passed on the floor if [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell put it up for a vote.

Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) is expected to introduce similar legislation in the House, but made clear he is waiting for the most opportune time to put it forward: “The White House is definitely committed to gun violence prevention and Mike’s top priority on this issue is the Bipartisan Background Checks Act. We are still actively working with leadership and advocates on timing of that bill.”

On January 24, 2021, Breitbart News pointed out universal background checks are unenforceable without a gun registry. This is because such checks are an expansion of the retail point-of-sale checks that have been in place since 1993. Under the ‘universal’ label, retail checks would be applicable to private points of sale as well, covering the sale of 5-shot revolver between lifelong neighbors.

The only way the government can know that a neighbor is not not selling a gun to a neighbor without a background check is to know where every gun is at all times, including information on who owns it.

States Push Back Against Biden Gun Control Scheme
Studies have long indicated that concealed carry permit holders are the most law-abiding of population segments, even more so than law enforcement

While the Biden administration and the Democrat-controlled legislature are putting forth their gun control agendas, states are passing legislation that provides more choice for gun owners, regardless of what happens federally. These include permitless carry legislation and declarations of sanctuary state and county status.

To be clear, gun control advocacy organizations spent big to help get Biden elected, as well as members of Congress. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s organization Every Town for Gun Safety spent over $600 million in support of Biden, and other gun control groups spent in the 6 and 7 figures between the presidential race and other federal races. The gun control agenda is not a surprise, as the donors look for payback.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
That leads to some basic questions every “true believer” gun-grabber ought to be asked:

  • Since you demand what you call “safe storage laws” and since a child, in this case, was able to access and use a firearm, regardless of the outcome, why wouldn’t you say the grandmother should be prosecuted?
  • Would you rather see educated children watch their younger siblings get murdered with pitchforks than able to stop maniacs by using a gun?
  • If you were being robbed, assaulted, and shot at by murderous home invaders, who would you rather have come to your defense, the armed 12-year-old in this story, or “grown-up man” David Hogg?

DGU By Minor Raises Questions for Phony ‘Gun Safety’ Prohibitionists

“A North Carolina man died on Saturday after he broke into the home of a 73-year-old woman and was fatally shot by her 12-year-old grandson who was trying to defend her,” the Daily Mail reports.

“Two masked robbers entered the home of Linda Ellis in Goldsboro at around 1am on Saturday, where they demanded money and shot the grandmother in the leg. Ellis’ grandson fired back at the two intruders in self-defense and they fled.”

Good for the boy. He was able to keep his head and act, and fortunately, he had something to act with. And by the home invaders initiating fire, they put to the lie the naïve advice of all who counsel “Just give them what they want.” By shooting the grandmother, they made that more than clear. Only one thing stood in the way of that happening.

20 years ago I wrote about another 12-year-old who saved his grandmother from armed predators who were trying to rob her store and, according to news reports, holding a gun to her head. As I asked at the time:

Do you think the scenario may have played out differently had the wonks at Handgun Control, Inc., been heeded? What do you think the outcome would have been had the grandmother kept her gun unloaded, locked up, and separated from its ammunition, or if she had installed a trigger lock? What about if her firearm was a personalized “smart gun” that no one but herself could fire? And had these “safety methods” resulted in the death of this valiant boy and his grandmother, would HCI have exploited this to call for yet more gun control?

More examples can be found – if one is inclined to look for them. These took me all of a minute to find:

Continue reading “”

Guns: Boiling the frog has begun

By V. Paul Reynolds

Those hunters I know, who supported the Biden Presidency, told me not to worry, that no matter how hard the progressive bloc pushed for anti-gun legislation, it would never happen. Americans, regardless of their political party affiliations, would never stand for gun confiscation, or any significant usurpation of their Second Amendment rights.

Don’t be so sure. Elections, as they say, do have consequences. When it comes to gun rights, the analogy applies: the frog is being slipped ever so slowly but surely into the boiling water. It may never know what is happening until it’s too late.

The anti-gun activists have learned not to launch direct assaults on the Second Amendment. They have been skillful at sugar-coating the language and conducting gauzy flank maneuvers that can be deceptive and misleading to those citizens not paying close attention.

Political pundits agree that Joe Biden, despite his reputation as a moderate, has indicated in his first days in office by his flurry of executive orders that he is being heavily influenced by the radical left wing of his party.

Here are some of the likely components of the Biden Administration’s gun safety platform:

* Repeal legal immunity that prevent gun manufacturer’s from being sued
* Ban of semi-automatic firearms
* National gun registry
* Ban on high-capacity magazines
* Buyback of “assault” guns
* Limit on gun purchases
* $300 Federal tax on each gun purchased

Without question, this represents the most sweeping and potentially unconstitutional anti-gun agenda in American history.

According to John Floyd, a gun writer for the Northwoods Sporting Journal, “The vast majority of his (Biden’s) positions are adopted from radical anti-gun groups such as March for Our Lives, The Giffords Law Center, The Trace and Everytown for Gun Safety – all innocuously named, but all pushing policies in direct contradiction to the rights of United States gun owners.”

The irony, of course, is that this country’s gun ownership per capita is higher than it has ever been, and during the past year, first-gun purchases have gone through the roof.

So, these Second Amendment issues may well be, in the days ahead, the central focus as a deeply divided country struggles for common ground.

Biden Gun Ban Not The Only Threat In Congress

With President Joe Biden calling on Congress to enact his gun ban along with universal background checks and the repeal of the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, the Second Amendment Foundation’s Alan Gottlieb says that Democrats’ are moving forward with an agenda that puts the right to keep and bear arms at risk. Gottlieb joins me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to discuss the president’s call to disarm and how the 2A community is responding.

Biden’s statement on the third anniversary of the shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida was long on rhetoric and short on facts, billing the gun control battle as a generational fight pitting young Americans against their elders, while ignoring the constitutional and pragmatic objections to his anti-gun agenda.

The Parkland students and so many other young people across the country who have experienced gun violence are carrying forward the history of the American journey. It is a history written by young people in each generation who challenged prevailing dogma to demand a simple truth: we can do better. And we will.

This Administration will not wait for the next mass shooting to heed that call. We will take action to end our epidemic of gun violence and make our schools and communities safer. Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets. We owe it to all those we’ve lost and to all those left behind to grieve to make a change. The time to act is now.

As Gottlieb argues, taken in totality Biden’s gun control agenda amounts to a full-scale attack on the right to keep and bear arms; banning some of the most commonly-owned firearms and magazines in the United States, imposing a background check law that could criminalize ordinary transfers of firearms between family and friends, and giving the green light to junk lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.

But Gottlieb notes that these aren’t the only bad ideas offered by anti-gun Democrats. There’s HB 127, which would impose insurance mandates on all gun owners, establish a publicly searchable database of gun owners, and require gun owners to undergo psychological testing before they could receive permission from the federal government to purchase a firearm.

Additionally, Gottlieb says he believes that the Biden administration will soon unveil executive orders dealing with gun control, including an attempt to force the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to re-define firearms to include unfinished frames and receivers. Not only would that turn existing law on its head, it could open up huge legal risks to any hobbyist who has built their own firearm from scratch.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is also speaking out about Biden’s call for Congress to start work on his anti-gun agenda. The firearms industry trade group says that Biden’s plan targets legal gun owners instead of dealing with the reality of violent crime.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
I want to clear up a possible misunderstanding. I’m convinced that gun control leaves us at risk. I know you might feel differently and I beg you to hear me out. I think gun control laws put our children in danger, but that isn’t because I’m different than you are; it is because I’ve seen things you might not have seen. I’ve looked into the eyes of the police officer who ran toward the sound of gunfire to save kids. That officer arrived too late. I’ve listened to a victim who was shot by a mass murderer and survived. They both begged us to keep the kids safe until the police arrived. That is exactly what the investigators said after the attack in Parkland, Florida.

It is time we listened.. before it is too late.

‘I looked at the video, and we could have stopped him if someone inside the school had a gun.’

The Lessons We Didn’t Learn from Mass Murder

February 14th is the third anniversary of the attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkwood, Florida. If you’re like me, it is uncomfortable to stir that painful memory. I’ve studied that attack because it would be worse to see it repeated simply because we didn’t learn a difficult lesson. You might not remember, but the attack at Columbine High School was almost 22 years ago. The attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School more than 8 years ago. That is plenty of time for us to act so our children are protected. I have an uncomfortable prediction about the next mass murder. The next attack will be at a place that politicians told us was safe because law-abiding people like us were disarmed. It is time we looked harder.

Continue reading “”

Armed passengers? New push underway in Missouri to allow concealed carry on public transportation

JEFFERSON CITY — Concealed-carry permit holders would be able to legally board MetroLink trains and buses with their firearms if a proposal Missouri lawmakers are weighing becomes law.

The Senate General Laws Committee heard legislation Tuesday by Sen. Bob Onder, R-Lake Saint Louis, that would allow guns on trains and buses amid continued security concerns regarding the region’s mass transit systems. The measure wouldn’t apply to Amtrak.

The hearing this week followed the fatal shooting of security guard James Cook on Jan. 31 at the Delmar MetroLink station. Eight days later, the Bi-State Development Agency, which oversees MetroLink, voted 7-2 against rearming security guards.

Opponents of rearming guards said the matter required more discussion; members disputed whether it was legal for guards to carry guns. Officials took steps to improve security last year, including increasing police presence on the trains.
GOP lawmakers have made similar efforts to allow the public to carry concealed weapons on public transit for years, to no avail.

Democrats have mostly opposed the measures, but state Sen. Steven Roberts, D-St. Louis, said Friday he would consider supporting the bill as written — if GOP proponents maintain limiting who could carry guns to concealed-carry permit holders…………..

Utah: Governor Cox Signs Permitless Carry Legislation!

****

The fledgling governor had previously said he supported the legislation, a departure from his predecessor. Former Gov. Gary Herbert had blocked legislation to do away with the concealed carry permit for years with a veto and, later, a promise of veto.

The measure, sponsored by Rep. Walt Brooks, R-St. George, and Sen. David Hinkins, R-Orangeville, takes effect May 5………….

Attacks on Second Amendment Trigger Tyranny

The election swept in a legion of Second Amendment foes. Americans can expect them to take James Madison’s statement that disarming the people is “the best and most effective way to enslave them” as less of a warning and more of a directive.

During the campaign, Joe Biden was asked by CNN’s Anderson Cooper if a Biden administration would mean “they are going to come for my guns,” and Biden responded, “Bingo.”

Continue reading “”

Indiana looks to scrap carry permits for handguns, allow ‘constitutional carry’

(The Center Square) – Sixteen other states have done it. And Indiana now looks ready to join them in getting rid of the requirement that a person have a license in order to carry a loaded weapon on them or in their vehicle.

Earlier this week, the House of Representatives held a hearing to consider allowing what’s called “constitutional carry.”

It was the first time a hearing has been held on such a bill, and the first sign in years the Republican supermajority in the Indiana General Assembly is getting behind permit-less carry.

Numerous county sheriffs testified in support of the bill.

Continue reading “”

New “Gun Trafficking” Bill Could Cripple Legal Firearms Market

Democrat Illinois Representative Bobby Rush has sponsored a bill — already referred to the House Judiciary Committee — that would criminalize many previously acceptable practices.

So purchasing a gun on consignment at your local gun store, or — while not named — on sites such as GunBroker could be defined as a straw purchase, which in turn could effectively kill the online firearms market, never mind that any state-to-state transfer must already occur between licensed FFLs, and necessarily requires a background check before the firearm can be picked up. Nor can you pawn the thing if you’re a little short of cash.

Firearms have always been something of an investment, rarely losing value and always easy to convert to cash if you must. This bill could very well end that longstanding practice.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation has several concerns as well. Communications Director Mark Oliva said the general prohibition language against purchasing a firearm on “behalf of another” is particularly troubling:

The way it is drafted now says the bill would punish innocent conduct in the case of a lawful purchaser who is not prohibited when that person buys a firearm “on behalf of” another person who is also not prohibited.

In essence, the bill would make it illegal for an entity like a Boy Scouts or Future Farmers of America marksmanship programs to buy a rimfire .22 to use in a rifle marksmanship program or a rancher to buy a firearm for a ranch hand to use against predators.

“(ii) (I) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child;

It would also puts restrictions on just how many you can buy or sell as well.

“(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to—

“(1) ship, transport, transfer, cause to be transported, or otherwise dispose of 2 or more firearms to another person … if the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the use, carrying, or possession of a firearm by the transferee would be in violation of, or would result in a violation of, any Federal law punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding 1 year;

“(2) receive from another person 2 or more firearms … if the recipient knows or has reasonable cause to believe that such receipt would be in violation of, or would result in a violation of, any Federal law punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding 1 year.

Unless you’re already a co-conspirator, exactly how are you going to know if the “transferee’s” possession of a firearm “would result in a violation of” federal law?

Not only can this stuff lead to a prison term of up to 25 years — the previous prison terms for violations were “not more than 5 years”, but it now includes “forfeiture and fines.”

Ҥ 934. Forfeiture and fines

“(a) (1) Any person convicted of a violation of section 932 or 933 shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law—

“(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and

“(B) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.

Section 924(h) currently reads “Whoever knowingly transfers a firearm, knowing that such firearm will be used to commit a crime of violence (as defined in subsection (c)(3)) or drug trafficking crime (as defined in subsection (c)(2)) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both.”

H.R. 30, if passed, would replace the entire section, amending it to read:

(h) (1) Whoever knowingly receives or transfers a firearm or ammunition, or attempts or conspires to do so, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such firearm or ammunition will be used to commit a crime of violence (as defined in subsection (c)(3)), a drug trafficking crime (as defined in subsection (c)(2)), or a crime under the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (21 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), or section 212(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(C)) shall be imprisoned not more than 25 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both.

Oliva said NSSF’s legal team was also concerned about one section removes exceptions for gifts.

HR 30 removes three exceptions and only includes a gift to a recipient who provided no service or tangible thing of value to acquire the firearm, or winner of an organized raffle, contest, or auction. So, that would be a cause for concern particularly for someone who chooses to gift a firearm as gratuity to a hunting guide, a bonus to an employee – as would be the case when someone retires and they are given a firearm as a gift – or an honorarium.

Like I said earlier. Jackson-Lee’s idiot bill was simply to make this idiot bill look more ‘reasonable.

Carolyn Maloney unveils gun safety legislation package

House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday unveiled a legislative package of five bills focused on gun safety.

Maloney introduced the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act, which would make gun trafficking a felony and make straw purchasing — when someone buys a gun for another person who is ineligible — a felony as opposed to a misdemeanor.

She also introduced the Handgun Trigger Safety Act, which would incentivize the development of “smart-gun technology” that would only allow authorized gun owners to fire a gun. In addition, Maloney introduced the Firearm Risks Protection Act, which would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance.

House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday unveiled a legislative package of five bills focused on gun safety.

Maloney introduced the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act, which would make gun trafficking a felony and make straw purchasing — when someone buys a gun for another person who is ineligible — a felony as opposed to a misdemeanor.

She also introduced the Handgun Trigger Safety Act, which would incentivize the development of “smart-gun technology” that would only allow authorized gun owners to fire a gun. In addition, Maloney introduced the Firearm Risks Protection Act, which would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance.

ALAN GOTTLIEB TALKS GUN CONTROL, RISKS TO 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS

Guns.com: Let’s talk about 2021. Why is 2021 the most critical year for gun owners, possibly ever, to kind of band together here and fight some of this anti-gun legislation that we’ve been seeing?

Gottlieb: Unfortunately, 2021 has become the ultimate storm, the perfect storm against gun rights with the Biden administration in the White House. He’s had a long history of being anti-Second Amendment, and the House and Senate in control of Democrats who have already come out, basically, with a lot of anti-gun legislation. As well as, we’ve got the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee talking about, it’s a high priority for him to get anti-gun bills through the committee in the Senate so it gets to the Senate floor. If these get through the Senate and the House, there’s no doubt that the president will sign those bills, and the legislation they’re talking about, it is extremely dangerous to Second Amendment rights.

Continue reading “”

Any bill from the idgit Jackson-Lee should receive ‘significant scrutiny’.

Below The Radar – Gun Violence Reduction Resources Act of 2021

While a lot of attention is rightfully being paid to the threat posed by HR 127, the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act that we have covered earlier this month and in the last Congress, there are other bills targeting our Second Amendment rights. As of this writing, a search for the term “firearm” under legislation in the 117th Congress reveals 29 entries.

Not all of them are massive assaults on our rights. Some are relatively minor, or they seem neutral but the lead sponsor of the legislation means that they require significant scrutiny. One such bill is HR 121, the Gun Violence Reduction Resources Act of 2021. The lead sponsor is Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee, who also introduced HR 127.

According to the text of the legislation, the bill seeks to add 200 agents and investigators to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Now, that in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem is just how these agents will be used. 200 ATF agents, in the right places, could make a big difference in the violent crimes we see in cities like Chicago and Baltimore.

The problem is that Representative Jackson-Lee doesn’t intend for some common-sense ideas for how to use those agents, like following up on arrests of violent criminals in possession of firearms and using the provisions of 18 USC 922 and 18 USC 924 to get some lengthy prison terms for them.

Let’s just look at a few from 18 USC 922:

  • 18 USC 922(a)(6) makes it a federal crime to make any false statement or to present a false ID to a FFL. Penalty: 10 years in prison.
  • 18 USC 922(d) makes it a federal crime to provide a felon a firearm. Penalty: 10 years in prison.
  • 18 USC 922(g) makes it a federal crime for a felon to possess a firearm. Penalty: 10 years in prison.

Then there are these provisions from 18 USC 924:

  • 18 USC 924(b) provides for a 10-year sentence to ship, transport, or receive a firearm in interstate or foreign commerce if they know or have reason to believe a felony would be committed in that transaction.
  • 18 USC 942(h) provides for a 10-year sentence for anyone who provides a firearm knowing or having reason to believe it will be used in a crime of violence or drug-related crime.

In the findings, she mentions how many are killed, but doesn’t discuss the problem of violent criminals. Instead, the bill claims, “Millions of guns are sold every year in “no questions asked,” transactions and experts estimate that 40 percent of guns now sold in the United States are sold without a background check of the purchaser.”

In other words, these agents will be sent, often on wild goose chases, harassing FFLs who, in all likelihood, followed the law and did nothing wrong. The actual violators of the law won’t be touched – and there are significant provisions that could work to address those who run guns to violent criminals. Those provisions have been around for a long time and could work.

So, in the scheme of things, HR 121 is not a bill Second Amendment supporters should back. Instead, they should contact their Representatives and Senators and politely urge their opposition to this bill, and to instead support legislation like the Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act, which actually addresses the misuse of firearms and does not infringe on our rights. Second Amendment supporters should also support the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action and Political Victory Fund to ensure that the current anti-Second Amendment regimes in the House, Senate, and White House are defeated at the ballot box as soon as possible.

Rutgers Cherry Picks States To Produce Justification For Gun Control

Since When Is Iowa, A Shall Issue Concealed Carry State, An Example Of Strict Gun Laws?

This Rutgers “study” is pure propaganda.  They chose New York as one example of a “strict gun laws” state, because it had a much lower crime rate during NYC’s “stop and frisk” policy – which just happened to coincide with the years of their study.  Unbelievably, they chose Iowa as a “strict gun laws” state!  Iowa is anything but such a state.  It does not license gun owners, nor register guns, nor have storage requirements.  Furthermore, Iowa is a “shall issue” concealed carry state that honors permits from many other states.  The worst thing one can say about the state is that it requires a permit to purchase a handgun.  Why did they bypass Illinois and pick Iowa?  Because Illinois has strict gun laws and an astronomical crime rate.

For the “lax gun laws” states, they chose Louisiana and Arkansas.  Having spent a great deal of time in the FBI’s online data site, I immediately recognized that these two states are outliers among 2nd Amendment friendly states, with high crime rates.  In fact, Louisiana has the highest crime state of the 40 plus 2A friendly states.

So, to sum up, Rutgers picked one of the best states with strict gun laws, that had stop and frisk and a state with fairly permissive gun laws as representing “strict gun laws” states.  They then picked the very worst state among the pro-2A states, along with one of the worst of these states to represent “lax gun laws” states.

It seems clear that Rutgers had the result in mind before they started…..

Las Vegas Sun Finally Releases Biden’s Anti-Gun Interview

Those who stay involved in the efforts to defend the Second Amendment have always known President Joe Biden is, to put it lightly, no friend to gun owners. During his campaign for the White House last year, the legacy media did everything they could to conceal that fact. The Las Vegas Sun recently revealed that it went so far as to bury an interview with candidate Biden that showed not just his disdain for our right to keep and bear arms, but his utter lack of comprehension of reality.

The interview took place on January 11, 2020, and was published last week—more than one year later—with the paper noting they “felt the interview was worth publishing to give readers a better idea of where Biden will lead the country.” Perhaps it would have been more helpful to their readers to have published the information BEFORE the 2020 election, rather than after, so they actually knew the views of Biden when they cast their ballot for President.

Again, people reading this already knew how anti-gun Biden is, but many others did not. We always thought that one of the purposes of the media was to get information that may not be widely known out to the public, especially when that information may better inform voters about candidates they may be considering supporting.

When seeking the Democrat nomination, Biden and his fellow candidates did everything possible to try to position themselves as the most anti-gun candidate. But after securing the nomination, Biden stopped talking about his anti-gun agenda, and most in the media stopped mentioning it. The Biden-Trump debates didn’t bring up guns, and neither did the vice-presidential debate.

The failure to discuss such an important topic seems odd, considering the Sun’s contention that “public sentiment for (gun control) is growing and support for the NRA is weakening.” If that were true, wouldn’t it be important to note the stark difference between Biden—an avowed anti-gun politician with a decades-long record of opposing the Second Amendment—and Donald Trump—a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms?

The truth is, most Americans do not believe in Joe Biden’s agenda of targeting lawful gun owners, and the media knows it. That’s most likely the reason this Sun interview didn’t see the light of day until now.

It may also explain why anti-gun lobbying groups spent millions on electing candidates while rarely actually mentioning gun control until they got called out on it.

Continue reading “”