Category: RKBA

CCRKBA, SAF HOSTING FREE ONLINE GRASSROOTS TRAINING SESSIONS

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the Second Amendment Foundation will co-host a FREE online Grassroots Activism Summit on three consecutive evenings, each timed for a separate U.S. time zone, though users can choose which session they would like to join, on Zoom.

The programs will air Tuesday, May 26 (Eastern), Wednesday, May 27 (Central) and Thursday, May 28 (Pacific). Each session begins at 7 p.m. in the respective time zones. Each program will be live, with recurring material.

This FREE program will feature Glen Caroline, who recently joined CCRKBA and SAF as Director of External Affairs. He spent 29 years at NRA, primarily as NRA’s Managing Director of Grassroots Programs & Campaign Field Operations. Also appearing are SAF founder and CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, and Andrew Gottlieb, SAF Director of Outreach.

The program is titled “Grassroots Activism in the COVID Environment.” The session runs approximately one hour and will discuss steps local activists can take to enhance your defense of the Second Amendment in our current pandemic situation. The sessions are FREE.

Pre-registration is required.

To register for the Tuesday, May 26 evening program, Click Here.

To register for the Wednesday, May 27 evening program, Click Here.

To register for the Thursday, May 28 evening program, Click Here.

“We’re encouraging all Second Amendment activists to sign up, participate and learn new strategies to help us win in the months and years ahead, and make the Second Amendment great again,” Gottlieb said. “We look forward to greeting all of you.”

TWENTY-SEVEN WORDS PROTECT GUN RIGHTS, NOT HUNTING

U.S. Sen Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) joined Everytown for Gun Safety’s vice presidential webinar forum where she trotted out her yarn about gun laws and Uncle Dick in the deer stand.

It’s time we get Uncle Dick down from there. First of all, deer season has been over for months; now, he’s just poaching. Second and most importantly, these gun control laws that politicians banter about have nothing to do with hunting. It’s time to make our elected officials read and understand the U.S. Constitution they swore to defend – including the Bill of Rights – and live up to the words that are written.

Hunting is certainly a beloved recreational activity by a large percentage of gun owners. For some, this might even be their reason for owning a gun. They are a means by which to harvest wild game and put food in the freezer and on the table. In 22 states, the right to hunt and fish is explicitly protected, but the idea that the Second Amendment has anything to do with hunting is a red herring and is completely false.

Not About Hunting

The hunting misnomer is a favorite of the gun control politicians. Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked hunting as he unilaterally banned modern sporting rifles throughout all of Canada. “You don’t need an AR-15 to bring down a deer,” he said.

To be fair, Canada doesn’t have a constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms. The United States does, however. It’s simple. It’s short, just 27 words. The Supreme Court held that it applies as a right of individual Americans – not the government, and nowhere in that short sentence does it once say anything at all about hunting.

Not once. Not even a hint. No innuendo. Nothing tongue-in-cheek. It’s so clear, even a politician can understand it. Or should at least. Never underestimate a politician, though, and Sen. Klobuchar wasn’t the first.

New York’s Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo bellowed at all Americans, “It’s simple, no one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer…” That was as he jammed through the New York SAFE Act, a sweeping set of gun control laws in a midnight vote. New York’s SAFE Act was passed with no hearings, no testimony, no time for opponents to exercise their First Amendment rights and make a case to their legislators.

Campaign Reload

Former Vice President Joe Biden conflated the meaning of the Second Amendment in an interview with Field and Stream’s Anthony Licata in 2013. Licata asked him directly what the Second Amendment means. Biden agreed it is an individual right, adding, “But it also has ruled that it is constitutional to own a gun individually for purposes of sporting, hunting, and/or self-defense.”

In that same interview, Biden said he believes the government has a right to limit the firearms an individual can own, specifically, modern sporting rifles. He claimed the rifle was not protected because it’s not usual. “If you have to go up into the Poconos and go bear hunting or deer hunting with that weapon, and you need a clip that has 30 rounds in it, then you shouldn’t be hunting,”  Biden said.

But there are nearly 18 million modern sporting rifles in circulation today.  They are used legally every day for home defense, recreational shooting and, yes, even hunting.

Biden’s misapplication of Supreme Court rulings and his hyperbolic rhetoric continued. He goaded gun owners on the campaign trail comparing rifles to fighter jets and rocket launchers. He did this even as he argued for DNA-enabled technology for firearms, nationwide gun registries and exposing the firearm industry to harassing litigation that would threaten the entire industry.

What’s Not Said

What Biden, Sen. Klobuchar and the rest of the candidates that dropped along the campaign trail never talked about was the criminal. They didn’t talk about actually attempting to reduce crime. They never spoke about soaring crime in areas where there is the strictest gun control. Chicago, Philadelphia and Baltimore are all examples of cities that press for more gun control, but whose politicians refuse to address crime or the criminals perpetrating those crimes. During the coronavirus crisis, prisoners were turned out of jails, including murderers. Police were ordered to stop arresting for certain criminal charges. The results were growing crime rates.

Here’s what else the politicians refuse to address: these gun control laws they foist on law-abiding Americans do nothing to address crime because criminals don’t follow the law. Department of Justice surveys of prison inmates show, time and again, criminals overwhelmingly obtain firearms through theft and the black market. Universal background check laws, waiting periods, registration schemes and a list of other gun control ideas are only observed by law-abiding citizens. Felons bent on criminally misusing firearms don’t fill out background check forms in dark alleys. They don’t submit their names to the FBI to have them say they can’t posses a gun.

Politicians also ignore that gun ownership is increasing even as crime has steadily declined. Nearly 19 million Americans have concealed carry permits in the United States today. It increased by 1.4 million people in 2019. That doesn’t account for the 18 states where citizens have a constitutional right to carry a firearm for personal protection.

Gun control politicians hover and nod approvingly around Biden when he berates voters who question his gun control platform shouting at them, “You’re full of sh*t!” They believe the Second Amendment is a problem to be fixed. At campaign fundraisers, they speak of it only as a loophole or a privilege that should be reserved for a select few. They don’t see it as a right to be respected and defended. It’s a cancer. If they can excise it, cut it out, isolate it, it will wither and die.

The first step for these folks is to get America to believe that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with a God-given right. Instead, say it’s about hunting. After all, that requires a license.

When the question answers itself.
What does it mean when they have to twist facts to promote their agenda?

Everytown Ignores Its Own Data to Get Attention

Everytown for Gun Safety produced an “analysis” that sought to tie an “‘alarming’ spike” in fatal firearms-related accidents involving children to the recent surge in firearms purchases across the country. Their point is predicated on the deliberate exclusion and misuse of their own data – they used the tragic deaths of children to push their anti-gun agenda. Their own historical data disproves their claim.

Shannon Watts spoke to CBS News about this analysis and said: “‘We know that there are risks to having guns in the home, and with the surge in gun sales in the last two months, it could create more opportunity for kids to gain access to guns and unintentionally hurt themselves or someone else,’ said Shannon Watts, founder of Everytown’s anti-gun violence volunteer network Moms Demand Action. ‘The numbers show there’s been an increase in these horrible shooting tragedies during the time the pandemic was at its peak.’”

Watts and Bloomberg must be desperate to spin the recent increase in gun sales into a negative. The Everytown research division put together this analysis by comparing the number of fatal accidents involving children and teens (up to age 17) as either the victim or the accidental perpetrator in March and April 2020 to the average number of children and teens involved in fatal firearms-related accidents in the same months for 2017 through 2019. They say that there were 21 such deaths in March and April 2020, and that the average number of such deaths in the same months for 2017 through 2019 is 15.

Watts wants you to think that those additional deaths should be attributed to the increase in gun sales because the 2020 total is higher than the average for the previous three years.

Every accidental death of a child is a tragedy, no matter the means, but Everytown is using these tragedies (and some misinformation) to further their political agenda.

The truth is within the data that Everytown scraped (on which their analysis is based). There were, according to Everytown’s data, 21 deaths resulting from a firearms-related accident involving children or teens. The average for March-April over the last three years is, in fact, 15.  Why use an average, and why use three years of data when five is available? Let’s look at the annual totals for March-April, according to Everytown’s data:

Sadly, the 21 fatalities in 2020 is not the peak for the March-April period according to Everytown’s data. It is tied for second with the year 2016. Everytown focuses on averages to avoid the year-to-year comparison that shows that the 21 fatal accidents in 2020 is similar to – and even lower than – other years in their own data. The time period used for their average was deliberately chosen because it gives the smallest average possible. The victims of these tragic accidents from 2015 through 2020 range in age from 1 to 28 years old, with the age of one victim unknown to Everytown.

Everytown’s deliberate misrepresentation of their own data is disgusting. These are people – including young children – who lost their lives in tragic ways. Everytown is treating them as a means to an end.

No one wants children to be hurt or killed. The NRA developed the Eddie Eagle program to teach kids to stop, don’t touch, run away, and tell a grown-up if they come across a firearm. More than 30 million children have participated in this program since 1988. The firearms industry trade group NSSF developed Project Child Safe in 1999 and has distributed more than 38 million cable locks and safety kits to gun owners.

Everything with Shannon Watts and Everytown comes back to their desire to strip away the gun rights of law-abiding Americans. Why else make a baseless and inaccurate claim that is obviously designed to score political points by pulling emotional levers?

These children and teens deserve better than to be weaponized by Shannon Watts and Everytown.

Why Gun Rights Are Essential In a World of Uncertainty and Scarcity
Firearms are the most practical and effective way for the average American to secure his or her life, liberty, and property.

A common joke in the American gun community goes something like this:

Q: Why do you carry a gun?

A: Because carrying a cop is too heavy.

This humorous quip should not detract from the fact that many individuals in the United States (including me) own and carry a firearm for purely pragmatic reasons. The simplest case for the right to keep and bear arms can be summarized in one sentence: You are ultimately responsible for your own safety and security.

This sobering pill can be difficult for many people to swallow but that’s reality. Evil exists in this world. Under the right circumstances, people can and will do unspeakable things to each other as any student of history or psychology will know. Those fortunate to live in gated communities and can afford armed security are often oblivious that most other people do not enjoy the same luxuries.

Many violent crimes take place and are over in a matter of seconds (and stopped in seconds that prevent the worst). As another popular saying goes, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” In the United States, depending where you live, police response time ranges from nine minutes to over an hour. Right now, one in five New York police officers are currently out sick due to COVID-19. Police in multiple states have announced they will no longer respond to theft, burglary, and break-ins. Given the current climate, it’s not unreasonable to assume police will take much longer to arrive, if they do at all, should someone dial 911.

Furthermore, Americans need to understand there is no legal obligation for the police to protect you, which is affirmed by the Supreme Court and multiple lower courts. (See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Warren v. District of Columbia, and Lozito v. New York City). Should the police fail to arrive or protect you when needed, you can’t even sue for neglect.

Thus, given the legal and logistical realities, taking the initiative to protect yourself should be as sensible as any other proactive measure such as having a fire extinguisher in the home or jumper cables ready in the back of the car. Should disaster strike, preparedness will make all the difference in the world. Protecting your one and only life deserves no less preparation and investment, especially in our increasingly complex and uncertain world.

Americans are fortunate to live in a country with mostly stable institutions. But there are vivid examples when segments of society break down, many in not-too-distant memory. In widespread civil disturbances such as the 1992 LA riots or the aftermaths of Hurricane Katrina, Florence, and Harvey, the authorities were overwhelmed and unscrupulous individuals took advantage of the chaos to prey on others.

Going by sheer numbers, almost all of us will encounter at least one black swan in our lifetime. The current COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath are already the most trying times on the lives and livelihoods of Americans since the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the financial crisis of 2008-2009.

Should an even deadlier natural or man-made catastrophe take place, if the authorities haven’t been incapacitated, displaced, or destroyed completely, whatever personnel and resources are left will be prioritized to protect high-ranking government officials, their inner-circle, and critical government facilities and infrastructure.

The economist Thomas Sowell reminds us, “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it.” Security also happens to be a scarce resource. There’s simply not enough boots on the ground that can guarantee all 300 million Americans will be protected at all times from all threats. In every emergency, tough decisions will have to be made. From what we know about past and present “continuity of government” plans, ruling elites will be evacuated to a secure bunker in some undisclosed location while John Q. Public will be left to fend for himself.

Every American schoolchild is taught that everyone is equal before the law. Given this fundamental axiom, it’s not unfair to demand that the average American citizen have access to the same means of security and protection that government officials—who are our servants, not overlords—insist on having for themselves (while using taxpayer money). Under the American political system, the right of self-defense cannot be limited to only a privileged few. No one, regardless of their socioeconomic status, can deny fundamental rights to others.

The right to life is closely intertwined with the right of self-preservation. John Locke, a major influence on the philosophical foundations of the US Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, described the right of self-preservation as a “fundamental law of nature” in his Second Treatise of Civil Government:

The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common-law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

The political philosophy of John Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers contributed a unique element to American political theory: Fundamental rights do not come from the government. Human beings possess them already simply by virtue of being free and that includes a pre-existing, natural right of self-defense and self-preservation. As the Declaration of Independence memorably emphasizes, these natural rights are “unalienable” which means they cannot be taken or given away. They are permanent and apply in all times and all places to all human beings, with or without the Second Amendment or any other statutory pronouncement.

“Self-evident truths” and similar conclusions are found in other schools of thought. The ethical intuitionist philosopher Michael Huemer also highlights an interlocking relationship between the right of self-defense and the right to own a gun:

It is possible for a right to be both fundamental and derivative. Derivative rights are usually related to fundamental rights as means to the protection or enforcement of the latter, though this need not be the only way in which a right may be derivative. I claim that the right to own a gun is both fundamental and derivative; however, it is in its derivative aspect—as derived from the right of self-defense—that it is most important.

Even without the existence of absolute rights (which Huemer declines to acknowledge for guns or any other right), he nevertheless persuasively argues:

  1. There is a strong prima facie right to own a gun
  2. Prohibiting private gun ownership constitutes both a major interference in gun owners’ plans for their own lives as well as a significant violation of their right of self-defense

Using a memorable thought experiment, Huemer shows how gun control laws that prevent a person from accessing or exercising the means of self-defense is akin to a criminal accomplice who holds a victim down while the actual murderer carries out the foul deed. By preventing the victim from escaping or exercising his right to self-defense, the accomplice’s action is still “if not equivalent to murder, something close to murder in degree of wrongness, even though he neither kills nor injures the victim.” In a follow-up thought experiment, Huemer adds:

…except that the victim has a gun by the bed, which he would, if able, use to defend himself from the killer. As the killer enters the bedroom, the victim reaches for the gun. The accomplice grabs the gun and runs away, with the result that the killer then stabs his victim to death.

Most reasonable individuals will intuitively recognize what the accomplice did was morally wrong. In both scenarios, the accomplice’s actions purposely prevented the victim from defending himself. If gun control laws have the same effect, it logically follows that they are “about equally serious as a violation of the right of self-defense.”

Fortunately for Americans, most of us still have access to a wide range of choices when it comes to self-defense. While it is understandable to be reluctant to pick up a gun, it is worth mentioning alternatives such as martial arts, tasers, and pepper spray are often severely limited by range, efficiency, or effectiveness.

Even if she is proficient in martial arts (which requires years of training), a 5-foot, 100-pound woman will be overwhelmed if she faces multiple attackers who weigh twice as much. On the other hand, she can ably defend herself with an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, which is a popular weapon for many Americans, including women, because of its light weight, low recoil, accuracy, reliability, ergonomics, and ease of customization to fit any shooter regardless of size and stature.

Compared to other options, firearms are the most practical and effective way for the average American to secure his or her life, liberty, and property. As I emphasized in a previous essay:

From the colonists winning independence from Great Britain to African-Americans vindicating their civil rights, the role of the gun is inseparable from American identity. The gun is the ultimate multipurpose tool that empowers its user with the means to put food on the table, as well as preserve one’s life, whether against common street criminals or government tyranny.

In these uncertain times, both the pragmatic and philosophical case for gun rights are as strong as ever.

Many Americans, especially minorities, have realized the need for self-protection in times of social upheaval and breakdown. It is unfortunate that it took a tragedy as extreme as the COVID-19 pandemic to remind people that we should never take peace, prosperity, and freedom for granted. But millions have now taken the first steps to defend themselves and their loved ones. They should know they are in good company.

From what I’ve witnessed firsthand and experienced to date, the American gun community is strongly supportive and always welcoming towards first-time gun owners and anyone remotely curious about firearms regardless of their background. (See our plethora of welcome and orientation videos for newcomers brought in by the recent gun-buying surge). Our country’s gun culture and people’s civic virtue reinforce each other. In the spirit of Tocqueville, civil society has stepped up in the COVID-19 pandemic and demonstrated exemplary acts of charity. It’s only natural that the gun community is also actively participating by sharing knowledge with their fellow Americans and ensuring new gun owners are comfortably onboarded.

I am confident these new gun owners will learn how to handle their weapons responsibly, discover the joys of shooting, and become future staunch defenders of the Second Amendment (and hopefully the rest of the Bill of Rights as well). Our past is full of inspiring examples of Americans emerging stronger and freer after overcoming crises that tear the fabric of society and test our ideals. In these “times that try men’s souls,” let us not forget the precious legacy bequeathed to us.

THE 2A ACID TEST
HOW TO MAKE A FOOL OUT OF A “GUN SAFETY ADVOCATE”

Earlier this year, there were two occasions when this correspondent wound up in broadcast discussions with gun prohibitionists trying to pass themselves off as “gun safety advocates.”

In one of those encounters, it seemed necessary to remind the listening audience there was one certified firearms instructor in the room and it wasn’t the other person who was representing a Seattle-based gun prohibition lobbying group.
Take this as a learning experience because the elections are on the horizon, you’re a voter with an opportunity to question candidates and you might wind up in a debate with some gun grabber who claims to be an authority on gun safety or a member of some so-called “gun safety” organization. This is when you can put them on the spot and they will unintentionally help you do it.

NRA Certified firearms instructors have a card identifying them as such. Mine has been protected with a laminated plastic cover. A friend who used to be a lobbyist was also an instructor and he habitually pulled out his instructor’s card to ask opponents, “Do you have one of these? If you don’t, you probably shouldn’t be here talking about gun safety.”

If you can’t say you’re a certified instructor, the next best thing is to challenge these anti-gunners to recite the four rules of gun safety as set down by the late Col. Jeff Cooper, the “Father of the Modern Technique.” The founder of the American Pistol Institute, now known as the Gunsite Academy, Cooper kept it simple and his rules have withstood the test of time:

• Treat all guns as if they are always loaded.
• Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
• Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot.
• Be sure of your target and what lies beyond it.

There may be a moment of silence, possibly a blank stare as your opponent’s try to figure out who Cooper was and maybe offer a remark about “not being the point” before they scramble to change the subject. This is when you’ve got them. They can’t answer directly since they don’t know. Whatever else is said after this point, just keep reminding your opponent — and anyone else listening — your question wasn’t answered.

These self-appointed arbiters of firearms etiquette don’t really know anything about guns or safety, other than they don’t like them and don’t want anyone to have them. It’s up to you to set it in concrete so people remember it. You’re the expert, not them.

If or when one of these people claims to be a gun owner, it’s easy to make them stammer by asking, “Oh, how many guns do you own?” Or better still, “How many guns have you owned? If you sold one or two to someone else, did you require the buyer to go through a background check?”

It’s not unfair to ask when was the last time they went to the range to practice? Have you taken a gun safety course? The same questions apply to anyone running for local public office.

‘Oh, Where Do You Offer Classes?’

If you’re in a discussion with somebody who says he or she is a member of a “gun safety” group, stop them cold by asking, “Oh, where do you hold classes on gun safety?”

When they respond, “We don’t really hold classes,” (and they will) this is the moment to remind them they’ve got no business preaching gun safety if they’re not teaching gun safety.

This same strategy applies to meeting candidates because the next eight weeks should provide plenty of opportunities to attend at least one of these sessions. Any candidate who claims to support “gun safety” legislation should be challenged to recite Cooper’s Four Rules.

Here’s another way to make these people look foolish: Offer to take them shooting. If they’ve claimed to be gun owners, invite them to bring their own firearms.

In one of those encounters, it seemed necessary to remind the listening audience there was one certified firearms instructor in the room and it wasn’t the other person who was representing a Seattle-based gun prohibition lobbying group.
Take this as a learning experience because the elections are on the horizon, you’re a voter with an opportunity to question candidates and you might wind up in a debate with some gun grabber who claims to be an authority on gun safety or a member of some so-called “gun safety” organization. This is when you can put them on the spot and they will unintentionally help you do it.

NRA Certified firearms instructors have a card identifying them as such. Mine has been protected with a laminated plastic cover. A friend who used to be a lobbyist was also an instructor and he habitually pulled out his instructor’s card to ask opponents, “Do you have one of these? If you don’t, you probably shouldn’t be here talking about gun safety.”

If you can’t say you’re a certified instructor, the next best thing is to challenge these anti-gunners to recite the four rules of gun safety as set down by the late Col. Jeff Cooper, the “Father of the Modern Technique.” The founder of the American Pistol Institute, now known as the Gunsite Academy, Cooper kept it simple and his rules have withstood the test of time:

• Treat all guns as if they are always loaded.
• Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
• Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot.
• Be sure of your target and what lies beyond it.

There may be a moment of silence, possibly a blank stare as your opponent’s try to figure out who Cooper was and maybe offer a remark about “not being the point” before they scramble to change the subject. This is when you’ve got them. They can’t answer directly since they don’t know. Whatever else is said after this point, just keep reminding your opponent — and anyone else listening — your question wasn’t answered.

These self-appointed arbiters of firearms etiquette don’t really know anything about guns or safety, other than they don’t like them and don’t want anyone to have them. It’s up to you to set it in concrete so people remember it. You’re the expert, not them.

If or when one of these people claims to be a gun owner, it’s easy to make them stammer by asking, “Oh, how many guns do you own?” Or better still, “How many guns have you owned? If you sold one or two to someone else, did you require the buyer to go through a background check?”

It’s not unfair to ask when was the last time they went to the range to practice? Have you taken a gun safety course? The same questions apply to anyone running for local public office.

‘Oh, Where Do You Offer Classes?’

If you’re in a discussion with somebody who says he or she is a member of a “gun safety” group, stop them cold by asking, “Oh, where do you hold classes on gun safety?”

When they respond, “We don’t really hold classes,” (and they will) this is the moment to remind them they’ve got no business preaching gun safety if they’re not teaching gun safety.

This same strategy applies to meeting candidates because the next eight weeks should provide plenty of opportunities to attend at least one of these sessions. Any candidate who claims to support “gun safety” legislation should be challenged to recite Cooper’s Four Rules.

Here’s another way to make these people look foolish: Offer to take them shooting. If they’ve claimed to be gun owners, invite them to bring their own firearms.

‘Do You Take Money From …?’

A couple of years ago, as a private citizen and constituent, I attended a public forum with three local legislators. A woman in the audience demanded to know if the Republican state representative had taken money from the National Rifle Association.

It’s a fair question, but the savvy activist should immediately counter by asking whether the politician or candidate has accepted contributions from Everytown for Gun Safety or a regional or local gun control group. We discussed this last month………

O-K-L-A-H-O-M-A     Oklahoma!!!!     O. K. !

Steagall Wins Passage of Nation’s First Anti-Red Flag Bill

OKLAHOMA CITY – State Rep. Jay Steagall, R-Yukon, on Friday won passage of the nation’s first anti-red flag bill in the Oklahoma House of Representatives with a vote of 77-14.

Senate Bill 1081, The Anti-Red Flag Act, authored in the state Senate by Sen. Nathan Dahm, R-Broken Arrow, formerly won passage in that chamber with a vote of 34-9. It now moves to the governor for his consideration to be signed into law.

“This bill would stop any action from the federal government or even from local or state authorities that would infringe on the Second Amendment rights of our citizens,” Steagall said.

Steagall said the measure is necessary as a growing number of states have adopted such laws and federal legislative proposals have offered grants to compel states, counties or municipalities to enact policies that would allow a court or other entity to confiscate firearms or restrict gun access to otherwise law-abiding citizens deemed to be an imminent danger.

“People already endure background checks, age regulations and other measures that serve as a check on whether they are deemed eligible to own or operate a firearm,” Steagall said. “Giving the government even more power over this decision is a flagrant violation of several rights guaranteed us under the United States Constitution. I find it impossible for any red-flag law to respect due process or the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. I have taken the oath to protect our Constitution seven times throughout my 22 years of service and nine deployments in the military, an oath that I take very seriously. I will not stand idly by and let this freedom be stripped from us.”

Meet the gun safety instructor holding ‘office hours’ on Zoom
Gun rights advocates are promoting safety training in response to record-breaking numbers of arms sales amid Covid-19

On a recent afternoon in San Jose, California, Chuck Rossi held up his AR-15 in front of his computer camera, talking through how to hold the weapon safely, and how to load it with ammunition.

“AR-15s are modular. They’re like Legos for men,” Rossi said. The man on the other side of the Zoom call chuckled.

Rossi is an activist turned safety instructor, one of the many gun owners across the country who are using Zoom or social media to teach new gun owners how to use their weapons.

The coronavirus pandemic has driven record-breaking numbers of gun sales in the United States, as gun sellers have succeeded in being categorized as “essential businesses”. At least anecdotally, many of the millions of guns sold during the pandemic have gone to first-time gun buyers, sparking concerns about potential increases in domestic violence, gun accidents and child gun deaths. Gun control advocates say the panic-buying during a time of anxiety, uncertainty and economic distress has also made gun suicide a particular concern.

In response, gun rights advocates have focused on safety training, with some offering free sessions to make sure new gun owners understand how to operate their weapons – and feel welcomed to the gun community.

Rossi was an early Facebook employee who left the company in 2018, and still lives in San Jose. He co-founded Open Source Defense, a Silicon Valley gun rights group. The group’s founders live across the country, but many of them are current or former tech workers. Between 20% and 30% of Americans say they personally own a gun, a number that has fallen for decades, and the group aims to grow the base of American gun owners by being friendly, digitally savvy and “zero percent” focused on culture wars. Zoom “office hours” for new owners is one of their initiatives.

When he signed up for a Zoom gun safety session, one new gun owner, a 40-year-old tech company worker from San Jose, said he expected he would be chatting with “some hillbilly NRA guy”.

“Is he even going to be nice to me?” the tech worker, who is black, wondered. Instead he got Rossi, who works in the same industry and lives in the same town. Just a few years ago, the new gun owner, who asked that his name not be used, said he was someone who had believed that AR-15s should be banned.

In early March, as concerns about coronavirus grew, his company told employees not to worry, that “the government has it under control, there’s going to be a vaccine.” Then he went to grocery store, “and there was nothing” so he had to go to his parent’s house to get toilet paper.

He starting thinking about stories of civil unrest during the Los Angeles riots or Hurricane Katrina and said he worried about desperate people, hungry people, who might see homes in his nice San Jose neighborhood as soft targets.

“People take from those who have,” he said. How likely was it that he would ever be a target? “One in a million,” he said. “I consider it an extreme impossibility. But why not be prepared?” In mid-March he went to buy self-defense weapons: a handgun and, because shotguns were sold out, an AR-15, which retails for about $1,000.

The new gun owner’s parents were appalled, and worried about the safety of his young children, ages three and one. His mother tried to get his brother to intervene. Instead, his brother bought himself three guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

The new gun buyer said the Zoom session was part of his attempt to be responsible. Rossi, hefting his own high-end AR-15, recapped the principles of gun safety: always keep the weapon’s muzzle pointed in a safe direction. Keep your finger off the trigger until you’re ready to fire. Be aware of what might be behind the target you’re shooting at. Treat every gun as if it’s loaded.

They did some troubleshooting: what should he do if an ammunition round got jammed inside his gun? How long would his military-surplus ammo be usable? Ammo didn’t go bad, Rossi said. He was still “shooting rounds” from the second world war and “surplus from the Korean war”.

While “white Americans tend to be more vocal about their gun ownership”, the new owner said, being a black gun owner didn’t feel special. But it came with different concerns. He was more afraid a police officer might shoot him than that someone else might attack him on the street; he would “never” carry a gun in public.

If he ever had to call the police to his home, he said, he would emphasize: “The black guy with the gun is the homeowner.” Owning guns had already shifted some of his political opinions. He said he still supported limits on larger-capacity ammunition magazines. But when he bought his guns, he said, he had to wait 10 days to get them. “That was an eternity to me,” he said. “Are these really common sense gun laws?”

Rossi was encouraged to hear this, and said he’d try to persuade the new gun owner about why he actually needed larger-capacity magazines next. The two men made a plan to go shooting in person as soon as possible.

The Truth About 3-D Printed Guns and Criminal Gun Usage

Gun control activists have found a new target to go after: 3-D printed guns.

Why? It’s an easy scapegoat to lay blame on, just like every proposed gun control policy mulled before Congress and state legislatures.

This effort is attributed to two things: the reintroduction of Senator Richard Blumenthal’s (D-CT) “Untraceable Firearms Act,” and a recent ‘60 Minutes’ CBS report claiming criminals overwhelmingly prefer them when committing crimes. The former, if passed, would ban the manufacture and sale of “ghost guns.”

Giffords, a gun control organization operated by former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords (D-AZ), just launched a campaign against these firearms. Unsurprisingly, the organization and its senior policy advisor, David Chipman, are spreading misinformation about them.

In a recent blog post titled Ghost Guns Are Specifically Designed for Criminals, the retired Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) special agent claimed, “These days, we’re seeing an alarming new trend among criminals and firearm traffickers: ghost guns. Not enough people are talking about this growing threat, and that’s got to change.”

He added,“Why do criminals love ghost guns? That’s a no-brainer. It makes their jobs easier.”

Congressional Democrats, Giffords, and ‘60 Minutes’ are intentionally deceiving the public about 3-D guns. Let’s explore the facts about them and their alleged primary use in gun crimes.

No Evidence 3-D Guns Predominantly Used in Crime

While “ghost guns” were recently trafficked and used in last year’s Saugus school shooting, there’s no evidence suggesting they’re a criminal’s to-go gun.

For example, a January 2019 survey from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) found criminals didn’t readily use “ghost guns” in perpetrated crimes. The survey, Source And Use Of Firearms Involved In Crimes: Survey Of Prison Inmates, 2016, concluded of the 287,400 prisoners surveyed who possessed guns during their offense 56 percent had stolen them, 6 percent had found the firearms at the scene of the crime, 43 percent obtained it from the black market or illegal means while 25 percent were gifted the guns by family members or friends. A mere 7 percent of respondents surveyed had purchased guns from federal firearms license dealers (FFL).

According to a 2016 Chicago Inmate Survey of Gun Access and Use (CIS) from University of Chicago Crime Lab, Windy City criminals primarily obtained firearms from strangers (34.4%), theft (31.7%), friends/family (26.7%), gangs (22.6%), straw purchases (20.8%), and on the street (19.7%).

Even the ATF officer featured in the ‘60 Minutes’ special, Thomas Chittum, couldn’t say the number of “ghost guns” used in crimes. In fact, he admitted they constitute a minority of guns involved:

Bill Whitaker:  How many of these guns are on the streets, you have no idea?

Thomas Chittum: Uh, no, I have no idea.

Bill Whitaker: And how many crimes are being committed by these guns, you have no idea?

Thomas Chittum: Well, not with precision. They still represent a minority of the firearms that are being used in crimes. But we do see that they’re increasing significantly and rapidly.

3D Printed Guns are Already Highly-Regulated

‘60 Minutes’ also claimed, “…federal gun law only regulates a part, called a frame or a lower receiver.”

That’s simply incorrect.

In order to manufacture and sell these custom built firearms, one must obtain a special license from the ATF. Their website states, “Any person “engaged in the business” as a manufacturer must obtain a license from ATF.”

Washington Free Beacon’s Stephen Gutowski tweeted this in response to the CBS report, “To be clear, it is currently not legal for prohibited persons (like convicted felons) to build their own firearms. Nor is it legal to sell guns you’ve manufactured yourself unless you have a license. It is legal for the law-abiding people to build their own guns for personal use.”

Law-Abiding Americans Have Been Building Guns Since USA’s Inception

The concept of custom-building firearms, most recently with popular semi-automatic Armalite Rifles (AR-15s), isn’t new. In fact, people have been designing and modifying firearms for personal use essentially since our nation’s inception.

Per ATF rules, “An individual may generally make a firearm for personal use.”

Criminals using “ghost guns” in crimes are generally prohibited possessors who shouldn’t be in possession of them in the first place. How does regulating these firearms in question, which already have strident restrictions placed on them, any further deter criminals? It won’t.

3-D Printed Technology is Expensive and Not Easy to Acquire

It’s very hard for individuals—let alone criminals—to obtain 3-D printed guns. They don’t come cheap nor are they easy to procure and possess.

In an op-ed for 3DPrint.com, a self-described leading authority on 3-D printed technology, Scott J. Gruenald wrote, “…making a 3D printed gun is not easy, it is not quick, it is not cheap and it does not result in especially dangerous or deadly weapons. Not only is it cheaper to just buy a real gun in the United States, but it is also probably a lot faster to go buy one, even with any state-mandated waiting periods.”

Conclusion

Criminals will use whatever tool is at their disposal—be it a 3-D printed AR-15, handgun, or knife—to inflict pain onto their victims. Unfortunately for gun controllers, none of their beloved laws or bills have deterred criminals from committing ghastly acts. In fact, they have invited more crime.

It’s time for our opponents finally to get serious about tackling criminal misuse of firearms, not scapegoat 3D printed firearms.

BLOOMBERG LOOKS TO BUY MORE SEATS

Gun control politicians just can’t seem to wean themselves off their addiction to Bloomberg money.

Everytown for Gun Safety, which is funded by antigun billionaire Michael Bloomberg, announced it will spend $13 million to flip federal and state level election seats currently held by pro-Second Amendment policymakers in Texas and Arizona. Brady Campaign’s Brady PAC announced it will sink funds into the effort, at a half a million dollars.

It’s Bloomberg’s continued effort to campaign to bring the New York-style gun control agenda he adores to every state. He did it in Virginia and he’s looking to repeat. If gun control isn’t passed, he’ll just buy the legislatures.

Bloomberg is only living up to his word. He admitted as much during a presidential townhall, that he bought congressional seats in 2018. The failed 2020 Democratic presidential candidate has demonstrated his hypocrisy on Second Amendment rights and who deserves them. Voters demonstrably rejected him, but he’s not going away.

Bloomberg and his pet project gun control groups Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action pledged to spend millions to help ensure former Vice President Joe Biden leads the most antigun presidential ticket in history, hoping to flip state legislatures along the way.

Shiny Lone Star
Voters in the Lone Star state heard an earful of the Bloomberg groups’ antigun narrative before and roundly rejected it. Texans approve of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and another popular statewide elected, Attorney General Ken Paxton, when they came through for thousands of Texas small businesses and employees. Gov. Abbott deemed firearm retailers “essential” during the coronavirus pandemic, allowing them to stay open for business. AG Paxton prevented counties and cities from enacting their own restrictions on gun stores.

Don’t forget former Texas U.S. Rep. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke’s (D-Texas) disastrous failures running for the U.S. Senate in 2018 on a gun confiscation platform against Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). He crashed and burned only to turn his efforts to the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. His gun-grabbing pronouncements fell flat nationally, but impressed presumed Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

Flipping the Lone Star state will be a tall order for Bloomberg and his buddies.

Arizona Closer, And President Trump Helps Gun Owners
Also on Everytown’s radar is Arizona, where the group has earmarked $5 million. The Republican-controlled state legislatures are both closer in margins than Texas, with pro-Second Amendment legislators holding a two-seat advantage in the state House of Representatives and a four-seat advantage in the state Senate.

Signs point to a tough reelection ahead for Republican U.S. Sen Martha McSally against Democratic challenger Mark Kelly, husband of former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), co-Founder of Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence, another gun control group. Voters will undoubtedly be fired up and President Donald J. Trump carried the Grand Canyon state by four points in 2016. Republican Gov. Doug Ducey isn’t on the ballot, remaining in office past November in case a veto check is needed ahead.

Trying to Pull a 2019 Virginia
The gun control groups are trying to replicate the playbook from Virginia last year, where the off-year elections swung the Commonwealth’s legislature to Democrat majorities for the first time in two decades. Bloomberg dumped $2.5 million in that effort. The result was a wave of gun control policies signed by Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam. But positive signs showed for pro-Second Amendment voters for elections ahead as tens of thousands of lawful gun owners peacefully protested the legislature’s overreach at the capitol in Richmond. Courts ruled Gov. Northam overstepped his authority by closing some firearm businesses.

No one knows how 2020 will shake out with former Vice President Joe Biden likely leading the most antigun ticket in history. But Virginia’s 2019 elections did not see President Trump on the ballot and he’s been a staunch Second Amendment supporter and stood by firearm retailers and workers throughout the coronavirus pandemic. He will be a loud supportive voice ahead.

One thing’s certain, voters are tuning in and hundreds of thousands are now first-time firearm owners. NSSF launched the #GUNVOTE online resource so voters know exactly where candidates stand on firearm issues and what they’ve said in the past. It’s a valuable resource for Americans to make sure they don’t risk their rights at the ballot box.

I just saw this

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 3 Bags Full!

Trump’s Army Secretary Nominee on Guns: Citizens Should Have Same Weapons as Government

President Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of the army, state lawmaker Mark Green, is under fire for comments he’s made on gay rights, Muslims and guns, once suggesting that Americans should be able to own any weapon the federal government has, even an aircraft carrier.

“The Second Amendment, while it allows citizens to protect themselves from other citizens, goes well beyond just allowing us to defend ourselves from a criminal,” he said.

Green continued: “From a practical standpoint, with the purpose being to protect people from tyranny and secure a free state, the citizenry should be allowed to maintain whatever weapon the federal government has. If they can have an aircraft carrier, I ought to be able to have an aircraft carrier.”

About a month ago, Trump nominated Green to lead the Army, after his first nominee—billionaire investor Vincent Viola—withdrew in February from consideration because of his business ties. The president’s pick for Navy secretary, Philip Bilden, also removed his name from consideration.

Why Regulating ‘Ghost Guns’ Isn’t Practical

Lately, people are up in arms about “ghost guns.” You know, those homemade firearms that use less than 80 percent receivers or are 3D printed and then assembled with other parts people bought off the internet. Millions of such weapons are probably built every year, but a handful gets used from criminal acts.

As a result, we have people calling for restrictions on these weapons.

Now, I could go on about the constitutionality of such measures, but the people who I need to reach simply won’t care. They don’t care about constitutional arguments. Oh, they may say they care about the Constitution and may even mean it, but on guns, they’re willing to accept some level of infringement and it doesn’t matter if I call it rationalizing or anything else.

So instead, I’m going to address this piece from a different perspective.

Despite state and national laws aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons and individuals with identified mental issues, truly questionable thinking on the part of the powers that be at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Department of Justice, to which ATF officials report, allows what the ATF terms hunks of metal or polymer to be transformed into real guns.

These hunks of metal and polymer are sold in kits that, with relatively little work on the part of the owner, are transformed into real guns. They are referred to as “ghost guns” because they are not marked with a manufacturer’s serial number and do not require a background check prior to purchase.

The frame of handguns and the receiver or action of rifles and shotguns created by licensed manufacturers must be marked with a unique serial number. Those purchasing such a firearm must complete a background check designed to keep guns out of the hands of those who, by law, should not have them.

Since the ghost guns are not finished by the company manufacturing them, instead requiring the final manufacturing operations to be completed by the buyer, they are not considered firearms under federal law.

OK, so, instead of addressing the constitutionality of this, let’s address the practicality.

First, let’s discuss the “relatively little work” required to turn a less than 80 percent receiver into a functional one. After all, these are the words of someone who has never actually tried it. I have taken a less than 80 percent receiver and built an AK-pattern rifle with it. Yes, I used a kit for the rest of the parts, but the receiver was kind of intimidating. I only got it finished because I had the help of a gunsmith at a build party.

The “relatively little work” isn’t necessarily intuitive or easy, especially for people who aren’t particularly handy. Even then, there’s a fair bit of either work or tooling involved, often both. To call it “relatively little work” is to not understand how much work is actually involved.

Keep in mind that a good fifth of the manufacturing of these weapons is incomplete. Would many people be willing to do a fifth of the manufacturing of a car or a home? Of course not. That’s a lot of work, and it’s not really all that different.

Now that we’ve established that there is a fair bit of work required to make one of these, let’s also acknowledge the fact that those who are willing to put that much work in may well be willing to put in even more. This is especially true of criminals who can’t legally purchase completed receivers or firearms.

Let’s be honest, though. That line of less than 80 percent counting as an incomplete receiver may be arbitrary, but so would any other line. And a line has to exist. An AR-15 receiver can be milled from a block of aluminum. Are we going to start declaring any block of metal an AR-15 receiver? If you do, you’re going to have a huge problem with manufacturers who use those same metal blocks to build other things not related to the firearm industry. I don’t think they’d enjoy having the ATF up their posteriors.

Hell, I’ve seen someone take a shovel and build an AK receiver. Are we going to regulate shovels or other bits of sheet metal because they can be built into AK-47s?

As someone who has a few sheets of steel lying around my workshop for non-gun projects, I sure as hell hope not.

It’s easy for someone writing to say that the ATF should regulate “ghost guns,” but the problem is that there’s no practical way to do it. Sure, the ATF could redefine at what point a receiver becomes a firearm, but that will likely push people to build guns complying with the new rules. It wouldn’t actually stop anyone.

Oh, but the kits! Remember how the writer argued that weapons could be completed with kits? He’s right, they can.

But, on the flip side, all those same components can be purchased separately. You don’t need a kit. In fact, a lot of people don’t buy kits to complete their firearms because they want to be particular about each part.

Those same parts, I might add, are used to repair or upgrade existing weapons. If you think people will fight over ghost guns, imagine what happens when you try to regulate people’s repair parts and treat them as firearms. Further, all of those parts were manufactured. That means an enterprising individual can manufacture them all by their lonesome.

That’s the big takeaway here. Nothing you can regulate on this issue will prevent criminals from continuing to do this. Nothing at all. Remember, if they’re doing it now because they can’t buy guns, you’re not going to regulate them out of practice. The best you can hope to do is make it more of a pain, but so long as there is a market–and there will be–some will continue to build these weapons to meet that market’s demands.

It’s easy to say something needs to be regulated, but it helps to at least understand what you’re talking about well enough to know if such regulations are even practical or if they will only impact law-abiding citizens. This writer, clearly, doesn’t.

CCRKBA SAYS GARCIA VICTORY WAS WARNING TO ANTI-GUN LOBBY

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today congratulated Republican Congressman-elect Mike Garcia for winning election over anti-gun-rights Democrat Christy Smith, and said the victory should serve as a warning to the gun prohibition lobby that their big bucks spending effort to fill Congress with anti-gunners is in trouble.

“There is a message in Mike Garcia’s victory,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “You can be a conservative, pro-Second Amendment candidate and win in California, a state dominated politically by anti-gun Democrats, in the legislature and governor’s office in Sacramento, and within the delegation to Capitol Hill.

“Smith’s campaign was supported by the gun control lobby,” he continued, “but dollars don’t vote, people do. And people are getting tired of far-left politics that trample on fundamental rights, especially the Second Amendment.

“Evidently,” Gottlieb observed, “the gun control crowd learned nothing from Michael Bloomberg’s disastrous presidential campaign, which revolved around his extremist gun control agenda. He spent more than $300 million and finished last, and that was among Democrat primary voters, nobody else. Now Bloomberg’s Everytown is planning to spend $60 million to flip Congress and state legislatures this fall, electing more anti-gunners.

“Garcia won on a campaign promoting American values, including the Second Amendment,” he added. “Those ideals seem foreign to the gun ban bunch, which thinks the constitution is for sale to people with the most money. Garcia’s victory this week proves otherwise, and it’s a warning that gun control is not the winning proposition far-left Democrats think it is.

“Garcia’s victory is also a message to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, that her party’s gun grabbing agenda could cost them the House this fall,” Gottlieb stated. “She couldn’t even protect a Democrat seat in her own state, which should raise alarms with vulnerable Democrats in other districts all over the country.

“And Joe Biden should also be worried,” Gottlieb concluded, “because his anti-gun-rights agenda is not going to play well in the critical battleground states, where voters are tired of being attacked by politicians like Biden who want to take away their rights.”

MI: Capitol Commission to Discuss Firearms in the Capitol on Monday!

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)-On Monday, May 11 at 11 am, the Michigan Capitol Commission will meet to discuss the possession of firearms in the Capitol and on Capitol Square.  While the meeting notice does not state the Commission will consider banning firearms specifically, this will likely drive the discussion.  Please contact the members of the Commission and respectfully urge them not to prohibit the exercise of a constitutionally protected right by law-abiding citizens on property open to the public.

Michigan law on this matter is clear.  Local units of government are prohibited from restricting firearm possession in public.  Michigan’s firearm preemption law states in full:

“[a] local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols, other firearms, or pneumatic guns, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.”

Again, please contact members of the Michigan Capitol Commission before the Monday meeting and respectfully urge them to recognize the right of law-abiding gun owners to carry a firearm for self-defense and to oppose any restriction on the carrying of firearms in the Capitol or on Capitol Square.

May 11 meeting  agenda: http://capitol.michigan.gov/Content/Files/AgendaMay112020.pdf

Capitol Commission Contact information  can be found here: http://capitol.michigan.gov/ContactCommission

 

The Long-Term Failures Of Violence Prevention Programs

As a Second Amendment supporter, I tend to believe that the answers to solving the issue of violence in our inner cities aren’t gun control. Obviously, I’m biased to a significant degree, but my bias is based on observation. After all, look at the 10 safest states and the 10 most dangerous states. You have gun-controlled states in both lists and you have gun-friendly states in both lists as well.

That suggests the issue is a bit more complicated than something that can be solved with a simplistic answer like gun control.

However, it also seems that popular gun violence reduction programs aren’t producing the long-term results proponents hope for.

In 2018, Portland started to rethink how it addresses gun violence. The police bureau sent representatives to Oakland, California, to observe Ceasefire, that city’s gun violence prevention program. Oakland’s program, which targets social services at people most likely to commit violence, is credited with dramatically reducing Bay Area gun violence.

“That is something that we’re using as a foundation to try to build something similar to that here in Portland,” Shearer said in an interview with Guns & America.

Cities across the country — from Baltimore to South Bend, Indiana and Stockton, California — have adopted similar models. And while these programs often have an impact in the year or two after launch, long-term reductions in gun violence can be fleeting.

Ceasefire is based on the idea that even in cities with high homicide rates, the number of people committing acts of violence is actually very low.

“About 70% of all gun violence includes people who are in their 20s to early 30s who has significant criminal justice histories, seven or more arrests, who are part of some sort of crew or clique or gang,” said David Muhammad, executive director of the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, a nonprofit that helps cities implement gun violence reduction programs like Oakland’s.

Typically, Muhammad says, people who commit gun violence have been victims of gun violence themselves, or someone close to them has been a recent victim. Intervene with this small group directly by providing social services or an alternative to violence, the theory goes, and you can have a major impact on gun violence. At least in the short term.

“Ceasefire is about immediately reducing gun violence,” Muhammad said. “And the type of community transformation that is desperately needed is a very long-term prospect.”

Now, this approach actually makes a fair bit of sense. You target people who are most likely to end up committing violent crimes and offer them alternatives to the kind of lifestyle. The idea is to stop violence at its source.

It should work, right? Well, it has and it hasn’t. Maybe.

The problem is that it’s hard to see any long-term results from these programs. It doesn’t help that some communities stop funding the program once violence decreases, thus allowing it to flourish once again.

To me, that suggests the solution isn’t really a solution, but a band-aid. It’s not really getting to the root of the problem, it’s simply hiding the problem like a toupee.

In some cases, though, it doesn’t even do that.

Elsewhere in the country, in city after city, declines in the near term evaporated over time.

In 2014, the first-year South Bend had a program in place, homicides dropped from 78 to 66. The next year, that number ticked back up to 85, down to 81 in 2016 and in 2017 was over 100.

Detroit, where city leaders have credited Ceasefire with reducing violent crime, started rolling out its program to police precincts in 2015. That year it had 295 homicides. Since then homicides have bounced up to 302, down to 261, and back up to 272, according to FBI data. Meanwhile, the city’s population shrank by 1%, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

Those aren’t the other places, either. Stockton, CA has been heralded as a success after the program did wonders there. Then they cut off funding and the number of murders returned. Now, the average number of homicides is pretty much right were it was to begin with.

So what gives?

Clearly, there are a lot of theories, some of which are going to be dismissed by many typical Bearing Arms readers outright. I know I rolled my eyes when I read this:

“The whole approach is, ‘This is a problem person,’” said Aaron Roussell, an associate professor of sociology at Portland State University. “Not ‘We have systematically and intentionally underfunded these communities and we refuse to deal with issues of race and classism that actually keep these places marginalized.’”

…

But Roussell said the focus on data can distract from deeper societal issues that cause violence in the first place.

“It’s a weird idea that you just want less crime in poor neighborhoods,” he said. “They don’t want to change anything else about the world, but you want to just bring that down. Because it’s basically a series of crimes that made those neighborhoods poor to begin with and we don’t ever deal with that.”

Roussell attributes many of those dips noted before as potentially being cyclical variations rather than evidence they worked.

Like I said, it’s hard not to eye-roll at this kind of thing, but Roussell may actually be onto something. These high-violence neighborhoods are typically places that most folks otherwise don’t care about. They wouldn’t care about them now if folks there would just behave. No one really does seem to care about changing anything else about those neighborhoods. They just want the crime to go away.

And yet, what do we do?

Programs like Ceasefire seek to address these neighborhoods and the individuals most likely to become violent criminals which should, by extension the neighborhoods in question. Yet it’s not working.

Roussell would seem to say that racism and classism are to blame, but I find that a simplistic answer yet again for a complex problem. Or, more specifically, adding a couple of complex issues as the cause for another complex issue is simplistic.

So what’s the answer?

I honestly don’t know. What I do know is that we need to figure it out because people are being killed and that’s being used to justify infringing on the civil liberties of others. That shouldn’t be tolerated by anyone, regardless of what neighborhoods they live in.

Louisiana: House Committee to Hear Pro-Second Amendment Bills Next Week

Next Wednesday at 1:00pm, the House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee is scheduled to hear four pro-gun bills that will benefit law-abiding gun owners in the Sportsman’s Paradise.

House Bill 746 allows those who lawfully possess a firearm to carry concealed for self-defense during a mandatory evacuation under a declared state of emergency or disaster.

House Bill 781 establishes that firearms and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, suppliers, and retailers are “Essential Businesses” that shall not be prohibited from conducting business during a declared disaster or emergency.  HB 781 further prevents law-abiding gun owners’ rights from being infringed during proclaimed curfews.

House Bill 140 prevents local authorities and municipalities from imposing restrictions to prohibit the possession of a firearm.  Preemption legislation is designed to stop municipalities from creating a patchwork of different laws that turn a law-abiding citizen into a criminal for simply crossing a jurisdictional line.

House Bill 334 authorizes a concealed handgun permit holder to carry a concealed handgun in a church, synagogue, mosque, or other similar place of worship.

Gun legislation added to massive public safety bill

Debate on a public safety omnibus bill that reached the [Missouri] House floor Tuesday focused heavily on gun legislation, as lawmakers proposed amendments that focus on preserving Second Amendment rights and eliminating many “gun-free zones” in Missouri.

As the penultimate week of the 2020 legislative session ramped up, lawmakers continued the end-of-session trend of adding as many amendments to bills as possible in the hopes that some of their legislation will become law.

Along with the gun amendments, many other changes to Senate Bill 600, a public safety omnibus bill, were proposed. These amendments covered a wide range of topics, including reducing Fentanyl trafficking, permitting EMTs in Missouri to honor out-of-state Do Not Resuscitate orders, allowing Missourians to kill feral hogs and more. But the proposed gun legislation sparked the most heated debate among lawmakers.

Second Amendment Preservation Act

A bill known as the Second Amendment Preservation Act, which had a whopping 86 co-sponsors, was the fourth amendment proposed to the public safety bill. The bill didn’t make it to the floor on its own, but Rep. Jered Taylor, R-Republic, said the omnibus public safety bill was “the perfect vehicle” to get it made into law.

“This bill is a pro-law enforcement bill that protects law enforcement by not requiring them to enforce federal gun laws,” Taylor said. “They still could be enforced by federal agents; we just wouldn’t be doing it on a state level.”

Rep. Lane Roberts, R-Joplin, was one of two Republicans who said they have strong support for the Second Amendment with hesitations about the bill, which also proposed penalties for police officers who decide to enforce federal gun laws.

“You will note that (the bill) creates an untenable position for police officers. It creates a conflict with their oath of office, and it essentially throws them under the bus and makes them the whipping children for this issue,” Roberts said.

Roberts also took issue with the penalties officers can face if they uphold federal gun laws.

“They can be civilly sued. They can be personally liable. They lose their license. They can be prohibited from being a police officer for the rest of their natural-born days,” Roberts said. “What has that got to do with protection of the Second Amendment?”

He also noted that asking local law enforcement not to enforce federal laws could create tensions with the federal agencies Missourians rely on and need to cooperate with.

Taylor responded by pointing out that he had dozens of co-sponsors on the bill and that current and former law enforcement officers have testified in support of the bill in the past.

“You know, the guys on the streets — the ones who are actually enforcing the laws — who would be forced to be the ones to go do the knocking and the seizure of AR-15s and AK-47s,” Taylor said. “They’re the ones that I’m trying to protect. And they’re the ones that say, ‘Absolutely, we need this.’”

Rep. Sara Walsh, R-Ashland, spoke in strong support of the bill, saying constituents have come up to her in the grocery store asking her to support it.

As the debate on the Second Amendment Preservation Act amendment came to a close, Rep. Tony Lovasco, R-O’Fallon, added an amendment to the amendment that legalized the possession of brass knuckles. As a whole, the new amendment was adopted.

Eliminating gun-free zones

Taylor also proposed an amendment to the public safety bill that would eliminate many of Missouri’s “gun-free zones,” or allow private property owners to determine whether to allow guns on the premises.

Gun-free zones are areas where firearms are prohibited with or without a permit. The bill would remove some areas from that category, including churches, bars and amusement parks. Those institutions could decide their own policies.

Taylor said mass shootings often happen in gun-free zones because people know they can carry out an attack without being stopped in a rapid fashion.

“There’s not going to be anyone there to be able to defend themselves or their family if the need were to arise,” Taylor said. He added that it takes law enforcement time to respond and said the gun-free zones make people “easy targets.”

The debate on the amendment was heated at times, but, ultimately, the elimination of gun-free zones amendment was also adopted into the public safety omnibus bill.

Maryland Governor Vetoes Ban on Private Rifle, Shotgun Sales

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) vetoed legislation Thursday that would have banned the private sale of rifles and shotguns throughout the state……..

Together, SB 208 and HB 4 would have criminalized not only sales, but also actions “such as loans and gifts between friends, neighbors, or fellow hunters.”The two bills would have also resulted in a scenario in which law-abiding long gun owners would have had to pay a fee to the state — to cover the cost of paperwork — in order to sell a gun to a neighbor or a lifelong friend.

Hogan released a statement with his veto wherein he stressed that he had shown openness to signing legislation that promised to help curtail the burgeoning violence in Baltimore and specifically called for the passage of Violent Firearm Offenders Act of 2020, the Witness Intimidation Prevention Act, and the Judicial Transparency Act.

He noted that the Senate acted on his request, but the House did not. Instead, an ad hoc approach to crime was taken, and that approach included the gun controls contained in SB 208 and HB 4.

Laws concerning possession are a form of ‘prior restraint’ and as we have seen, are useless. It’s not what you’ve got that should matter, it’s what you do with what you’ve got that should.

MISSOURI HOUSE PASSES AMENDMENT LEGALIZING BRASS KNUCKLES

Lawmakers approved an amendment to a current law that if passed by Senate and signed into law, would legalize knuckles, more commonly known as ‘brass knuckles’.

The amendment that was passed is part of a larger Public Safety bill, that will be voted on by the House Chamber in the future.

It was first introduced in January by Republican Representative Tony Lovasco.

Documents from the House Session on May 5 says if signed into law, people with concealed carry permits, a valid concealed carry endorsement issued before August 28, 2013, or a concealed carry endorsement or permit issues by another state in their name can legally carry knuckles, with similar exceptions to those who are permitted to carry a firearm.

KTTS News reached out to Rep. Lovasco and this was his response.

The measure was added as an amendment during the perfection process of an omnibus “public safety” bill (SB 600). My amendment removes criminal penalties for possession of “knuckles”, and regulates the carry of them in a similar way to concealed firearms.

The amendment was accepted by the House, however SB 600 as a whole has not yet received a final vote from the chamber.

As to why I offered the amendment, I did so because it’s absurd to me that the mere possession of a piece of metal with some holes in it could result in criminal charges. There are plenty of existing statues that properly prohibit the inappropriate use of these products, and banning them entirely is unproductive and outside the proper role of government.

Regarding the timing, I brought it up during a discussion on another amendment dealing with federal gun laws and the place that personal defense has within the “public safety” category the bill was ostensibly about. Unfortunately, the omnibus SB 600 also contains measures contrary to criminal justice reform and limited government principles and that I cannot support. My effort to add decriminalization of knuckles to the bill was an effort to minimally improve a very troubled piece of legislation.”
–Rep. Tony Lovasco, District 64

Felon Lives Matter

Cutting violent felons loose while simultaneously disarming law-abiding citizens sounds like an over-the-top BabylonBee parody. It’s actually a fairly standard leftist fantasy, and I can only imagine their frisson at seeing it come true. Leapfrog compassion* for the incarcerated dovetails nicely with the cops’ preference to bust up lemonade stands rather than confront dangerous criminals.

This phenomenon is well-understood as anarcho-tyranny, but we feel like a snappier moniker is needed. This is not quite a Darwin Award, since the murderous toll of such policies is never paid by those enacting them. So yeah, anarcho-tyranny. Oh, and pitchforks.

* As in: leaping right over the gated community walls.

Just to point out the gun control script that leaked a while back.
It’s all about how they should use emotion and manipulate terminology and facts
Again, apply Sun Tzu advice:
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.”

Just a few significant parts of this. Peruse the whole file at your convenience.

PREVENTING GUN VIOLENCE THROUGH EFFECTIVE MESSAGING

POWERFUL FACTS AND IMAGES
1. Alarming facts open the door to action. And powerful stories put feeling and emotional energy behind those facts.

2. It’s not helpful to try to drown your audience in a flurry of facts and statistics. It is far more effective to zero in on a handful of simple facts that are both compelling and memorable.

3. Here are some of the facts that met that test in the research:

There are no background checks or ID requirements in most states for private sales, including private sales at gun shows.

There are virtually no restrictions on the type of weapons available for purchase in America, including assault weapons and ammunition magazines that store up to 100 bullets and can shoot 20 rounds in 10 seconds.

Police and law enforcement officers are more at risk, due to the availability and power of new weapons.
Reinforcing example: Police forces in places like Chicago and Miami are outfitting officers with assault weapons so that they aren’t outgunned by criminals.

4. It’s not just about words. Powerful and emotionally-engaging images are vitally important reinforcers of strong messages. For example, intimidating images of military-style weapons help bring to life the point that we are dealing with a different situation than in earlier times.

OVERALL MESSAGING GUIDANCE
KEY MESSAGING PRINCIPLES

#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL
FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.
It’s critical that you ground your messaging around gun violence prevention by making that emotional connection. Don’t skip past emotional arguments and lapse into a passionless public policy voice. And don’t make the gun violence debate seem as if it is a political “food fight” between two interest groups.
There is a reason why the NRA falls silent at times of high-profile gun violence incidents. The last thing they want is an American conversation centered on the terrible toll that gun violence takes on people’s lives.

#2: TELL STORIES WITH IMAGES AND FEELINGS.
Our first task is to draw a vivid portrait and make an emotional connection. We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence. Compelling facts should be used to back up that emotional narrative, not as a substitute for it.
WARNING: Don’t break the power and undermine the value of emotionally powerful images and feelings by appearing squeamish or apologetic in presenting them

#3: CLAIM MORAL AUTHORITY AND THE MANTLE OF FREEDOM.
We should emphasize that one fundamental freedom every American should have is the freedom to be safe in our homes and neighborhoods – freedom to live our lives without the constant threat of gun violence hanging over our heads.
The NRA likes to talk about its work as the defense of American freedom. Recognize that, depending on the audience, both sides of the debate have the opportunity to claim moral authority. But, don’t yield that ground. Fight for it by emphasizing that a reckless disregard for the gun violence that plagues so many people’s lives is morally bankrupt and doesn’t have anything to do with protecting freedom.

#4: EMPHASIZE THAT EXTRAORDINARILY DANGEROUS, MILITARY-STYLE WEAPONS ARE NOW WITHIN EASY REACH ACROSS AMERICA.
We have to make clear to people that this isn’t a conversation about your grandfather’s hunting rifle. The fact that military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are routinely available to people in most states is alarming – and surprising – news to many Americans.

#5: EMPHASIZE THAT AMERICA HAS WEAK GUN LAWS AND DON’T ASSUME THAT PEOPLE KNOW THAT.
It is important to emphasize that current laws allow easy access to guns for criminals, mentally unstable people, and even terrorists. Generally speaking, the public makes the assumption that our nation’s gun laws are much stronger than is actually the case.
The truth is, it is far worse than most people think. And when they learn what is really true about our gun laws, it raises serious concerns.

#6: CHALLENGE THE NRA ON YOUR TERMS, NOT THEIRS.
We will discuss the NRA in more detail in the next section. But, at the very outset, it is important to emphasize two critical points:
•
Whether to spend much time talking about the NRA depends upon whether we are talking to our base (where an NRA focus is often worthwhile) or broader audiences (where an NRA focus is far less likely to be helpful).
•
Even with the base, we need to always connect our comments to the NRA’s role in exposing people to needless violence.
Simply “taking on” the NRA as if “defeating the NRA” is our mission never serves our interests. Pointing out the direct link between laws the NRA promotes or blocks and the tragic human impact of gun violence is almost always more effective.
It’s effective to emphasize that the vast majority of NRA members are law-abiding gun owners who agree with common sense laws to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people—the NRA’s officials and lobbyists are the problem.