Category: RKBA

Bloomberg Tries To Control Others Because He Can’t Control Himself

He’s an arrogant snob, but we already knew that.

There used to be a social stigma against believing and behaving as if one is entitled to tell perfect strangers how to speak, what to do, or how to live.

Sadly, that stigma is all but gone today. More people than ever are willing to use the force of government to compel their fellow citizens to comply with their own changing set of mandates.

I am fascinated by the causes that have compelled so many Americans to lose perspective on this fundamental principle of freedom.

Take Michael Bloomberg, please! What drives this man with the freedom to enjoy his wealth in 65 billion different ways, to spend his time trying to curtail the freedoms and choices of others, even down to the size soda they drink and the amount of salt they ought to be allowed to sprinkle on their spinach?

Coloradans know all too well that the former New York Mayor and Democratic Presidential Candidate spent boatloads of cash pushing state legislators to clamp down on their God-given right to defend themselves and their families. He has pushed freedom-sucking and blatantly biased “Red Flag” bills in numerous other states around the country.

Mayor Busybody simply can’t stop telling others what to do. It seems to be an obsession with him—or maybe, a compulsion too. I gained insight into this when I returned to a New York Times article from 2009 that described Bloomberg’s eating habits.

“He dumps salt on almost everything, even saltine crackers. He devours burnt bacon and peanut butter sandwiches. He has a weakness for hot dogs, cheeseburgers, and fried chicken, washing them down with a glass of merlot. And his snack of choice? Cheez-Its.”

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is about control. Controlling one’s out-of-control thoughts, feelings and behavior by attempting to control his external environment. Consciously or unconsciously, those afflicted do this in vain, to the point where they feel unable to control the compulsion as well (as in excessive hand-washing).

Most sufferers aren’t dangerous unless they have 65 billion dollars and a God-complex.

The Times went on to report this delicious insight:

“…he (Bloomberg) is known to grab food off the plates of aides and, occasionally, even strangers. (“Delicious,” he declared recently, after swiping a piece of fried calamari from an unsuspecting diner in Staten Island.)”

Behavior like this exhibits a staggering and extreme lack of boundaries. The Times seems to only snicker at this, but it’s painfully clear that Bloomberg has great difficulty respecting the basic boundaries of civil society. No wonder it’s so easy for him to help himself to your freedoms and your choices, when he can’t stop helping himself to your calamari.

As a rule of thumb, the most flawed and arrogant people are most likely to believe they know what’s best for everyone else and should be allowed to trample on our freedoms. Those who are secure and comfortable in their own skin do not have a need to control others. They have the basic self-confidence to tolerate and even enjoy the uncertainty of others’ choices and behavior. They reserve more extreme action for times in which there has been the actual commission of a crime.

These cultural underpinnings of freedom have been essential to what is America. Socialists have been systematically unraveling these norms in a big way. They have not only been more open about their ideology, they have been working feverishly to put it into practice and prepare more Americans to accept it.

How can we put an end to the presumptuousness of these troubled, would-be tyrants? First, we can return the stigma attached to telling other adults what to do and how to live.
 We can once again elevate the notion that the right to think one’s own thoughts, make one’s own choices, and live one’s own life is sacrosanct, regardless of how flawed, unpopular or even offensive those choices might be.

The imperative of Liberty requires that the individual take responsibility for his own successes and failures so he can learn from his mistakes. In protecting others’ freedoms, he protects his own. We used to know this but it has been unlearned.

As for Michael Bloomberg, he has begun to help our side more than he could have imagined. His off-the-scale ignorance and arrogance was hilariously exposed in his first Democrat primary debate.

If we play our cards right, Bloomberg could help us take a “Big Gulp” toward returning a sensible social stigma of proclaiming oneself as lord and master over the rest of us.

It’s a reasonable strategy, and it shouldn’t cost 65 billion dollars.

Guns and behavior

Dear elected representative, I am Angie from TC High and we are learning more about guns and school shootings and speaking our opinions about it and I guess we are now writing to you. So I gotta start somewhere.

This gun situation needs to be brought up more in schools, anywhere it can influence a person to not do this type of thing. I remember in middle school we talked a lot about opioids and discussed almost every day. And have checkups on kids psychologically and do more studies to see the red flags for this behavior.

But don’t take away guns. It’s not the guns killing people; it’s the people killing people. The Second Amendment says we have a right to keep and bear arms so you can’t really take away our guns. Help the people who are thinking of doing this thing. We have to keep America safe if we want to have better lives and a better future.

Angie Maddasion

Traverse City

Below the Radar: Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- We have been discussing a number of bills introduced in Congress that are often below the radar of Second Amendment supporters for various reasons. Sometimes, they are not given a lot of press. Other times, they simply seem insignificant. They may not even target our rights directly.

One piece of legislation under the “not a lot of press” category is S 1519, the Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act of 2019. This is legislation introduced by two Second Amendment champions, Senators Charles Grassley of Iowa and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.

Unlike a lot of the other legislation we have covered, this bill is much more comprehensive. In it, we have fixes to the National Instant Check System, we have something close to the FOPA improvement for travelers introduced by Senator Daines, we have efforts to tackle straw purchases, the expansion of Project Exile, and a host of other provisions that represent significant improvements for those who exercise their Second Amendment rights – or who might wish to do so.

According to a release by Senator Grassley’s office, he and Senator Cruz have been pushing this bill since 2013. That year, when these provisions were introduced as an alternative to anti-Second Amendment legislation favored by the Obama Administration, these provisions secured 52 votes in the Senate, being defeated by a filibuster carried out by anti-Second Amendment extremists.

“Our bill takes necessary steps to ensure that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not infringed and takes commonsense actions to prioritize school safety, punish and deter bad actors, and improve record submissions to NICS. Senator Cruz and I have worked diligently on this bill in the past, and I look forward to this continued partnership,” Grassley said in the release.

In a statement released by his office, Senator Cruz said, “Our bill seeks to increase support for school safety funding, ensure agencies accurately submit records to the NICS, and develop a federal task force to prosecute criminals who illegally purchase a firearm. I urge my Senate colleagues to take a stand with the people of our country and to vote in support of this legislation to stop criminals from getting guns once and for all.”

One other benefit of this bill is that it would not be hard to add additional pro-Second Amendment provisions to it – like Lindsey Graham’s Federal Firearms Licensee Protection Act of 2019, the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act, or HR 5301 by Kevin Hern. Those would make this bill even better than it already is.

Second Amendment supporters should contact their Representative and Senators and politely ask that they support S 1519, as well as amendments that would add HR 5301, the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act, and the Federal Firearms Licensee Protection Act to this bill. They also should take the time to thank Senators Grassley and Cruz for their efforts over the last seven years to advance this legislation. This legislation would mark a huge step towards the protection of our rights if signed into law.

Dems Compete To Out Anti-Gun Each Other In SC Debate

Tuesday night’s Democratic debate featured a single question about gun control, but at least we got a chance to hear from all of the candidates. Unfortunately, every one of them tried to outdo the next in terms of their support for sweeping gun laws that would criminalize the exercise of our right to keep and bear arms.

Joe Biden was first out of the gate, and talked about how he was able to pass the Clinton Gun Ban in 1994 before he took a swipe at Bernie Sanders for voting for the Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act. Biden’s gaffes have been coming fast and furious as of late, and he bizarrely claimed that 150 million Americans have been killed by guns since 2007.  Biden finished by issuing a threat to gun manufacturers that he will come for them if he’s elected. This has been part of his stump speech for at least the past few days, and every time, he looks into the camera and points his finger. It’s such a scripted line, but the Democrat audience in South Carolina ate it up.

Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, completely changed the subject from gun control to her desire to get rid of the filibuster in the Senate, which she said is needed in order to pass gun control. The thing is, she never got back to the gun control bills she wanted to pass, but spent her entire time rambling about removing the filibuster in order to pass any number of her proposals.

When Bernie Sanders had the opportunity to respond, he swiped back at Joe Biden by noting he had voted for terrible trade agreements. The crowd in South Carolina didn’t like that, and booed Sanders for his dodge. Sanders said the point was that every politician makes a bad vote every now and then, and said his vote in support of the PLCAA was simply that; a bad vote. Sanders proudly touted his “D-” rating from the NRA. Right now, he said, we need to expand background checks, close gun show loophole, and do what Americans, not the NRA, wants.

Bloomberg, who earlier in the debate slipped and talked about having “bought” the congressional seats of dozens of Democrats in the 2018 elections, said that he “has a 6-million person organization” that has put background check laws on the books in twenty states (of course he didn’t talk about the fact that those new laws haven’t led to fewer crimes.

Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar stuck to her theme for the night, that Democrats need a midwesterner to win the nation’s midsection in November. She claimed that she was the only one on stage who won in Republican congressional districts while being for the assault weapons ban, hoping to portray herself as a moderate who can bring independents and some Republicans into the Democratic fold, at least on Election Day. And then she brought up her Uncle Dick in the deer stand, which she has done every single time she’s been asked about firearms in a debate setting. At this point, I’m starting to get worried for the guy. It sounds like he’s been up there for months, and it also sounds like Amy Klobuchar doesn’t know any other gun owners besides her uncle who lives in a tree stand.

Buttigieg also stuck to the same talking points he brings up when he’s asked about gun control; namely that anything that even resembles the weapon of war he carried in Afghanistan shouldn’t be sold in this country. And, as always, none of the moderators bothered to ask him a follow up question: if you don’t think modern sporting rifles should be sold in the United States, what do you think should happen to the roughly 18-million rifles in private hands?

The other billionaire on stage, Tom Steyer, was the last to answer, and he said that the real problem is that corporations have bought Washington, D.C., and that specifically, “gun manufacturers own the Senate,” which begs the question: Does Bloomberg then own the House of Representatives? Steyer didn’t bring up any specific gun control proposals, but said he believes that term limits need to be imposed on Congress, and Democrats need to win big in November to have the mandate needed to pass gun control laws.

If you notice, there really wasn’t much discussion about any of the actual proposals from any of the candidates, which are arguably the most anti-gun campaign platforms in our nation’s history. Some candidates didn’t even bother to mention any of their gun control plans, much less attempt a somewhat deep dive in the minute that they had to answer the question.

Gun owners didn’t learn anything new in Thursday night’s debate, but they definitely got a reminder of what’s at stake in the November elections. No matter which candidate on stage ends up as the eventual nominee, the future of our right to keep and bear arms depends on them losing on Election Day.

11-year-old girl brings loaded AR-15 to gun legislation hearing in Idaho

Ohh the Horror! Eek! Gasp! Pearl-Clutch!
See? BS! Goes apoplectic. The Idaho legislators simply yawn.

An 11-year-old girl appeared Monday at a legislative hearing in Idaho, toting a loaded AR-15 assault weapon. Bailey Nielsen was with her grandfather, who is supporting a proposal that would allow visitors to Idaho who can legally possess firearms to carry a concealed handgun within city limits.

Charles Nielsen addressed the committee that voted to send the legislation to the full House as his granddaughter stood at his side with the weapon slung over her right shoulder. She did not speak.

“Bailey is carrying a loaded AR-15,” Charles Nielsen told lawmakers. “People live in fear, terrified of that which they do not understand. She’s been shooting since she was 5 years old. She got her first deer with this weapon at 9. She carries it responsibly. She knows how not to put her finger on the trigger. We live in fear in a society that is fed fear on a daily basis.”

He said Bailey was an example of someone who could responsibly handle a gun, and lawmakers should extend that to non-residents.

“When they come to Idaho, they should be able to carry concealed, because they carry responsibly,” he said. “They’re law-abiding citizens. It’s the criminal we have to worry about.”

There was no notable reaction among lawmakers to the girl carrying the AR-15, and none asked Charlie Nielsen any questions after he testified. Guns are not an uncommon sight in the Statehouse when gun legislation is being debated, particularly handguns on belt holsters. Long rifles such as AR-15s also appear occasionally.

Some Idaho lawmakers are known to carry concealed weapons in the Statehouse. State Police patrol the Statehouse, and one and sometimes two are typically present at committee meetings where emotions can become strong.

Republican Rep. Christy Zito, who is proposing the measure opposed by the three Democrats on the House State Affairs Committee, said the legislation is intended to clear up confusion about state gun laws. Backers also say it will give people the ability to defend themselves if needed.

Idaho residents 18 and older are allowed to carry a concealed handgun within city limits in Idaho without a permit or training following a new law that went into place last summer. The legislation would extend that to any legal resident of the United States or a U.S. armed services member.

Why Democratic presidential candidates’ obsession with banning guns is not the answer

With less than a month to go until voting is held in Super Tuesday primaries, Democratic presidential candidates may want to consider how their positions on gun control will affect their chances at the ballot, particularly in Virginia. At a minimum, they can expect a grilling on the topic during any campaigning in the Commonwealth.

The evidence from the peaceful, non-partisan Second Amendment protest in Richmond strongly suggests that voters there are passionate, vocal and well-informed on the issue. And you can bet the national audience will be listening intently as they answer difficult questions not much raised elsewhere so far in their campaigns for president.

For example: What are these politicians trying to achieve with their gun control legislation? Perhaps it is to stop mass shootings (certainly a worthy goal), but 9 out of 10 mass shootings take place in “gun free” zones. Perhaps it is to reduce crime, but Virginia already has the fourth lowest violent crime rate in the nation — some 40 percent below the national average — so additional firearms restrictions seem unlikely to be of benefit.

In fact the only safer states are Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire — all of which have gun laws as lenient or more so than Virginia at the moment, while neighboring D.C., Maryland, North Carolina and Tennessee all have higher violent crime rates. And Virginia’s violent crime and murder rates have fallen consistently over the last 20 years, while at the same time the population has grown by 10 percent and gun ownership by almost 50 percent. This would strongly suggest that tighter gun control brings no benefits but plenty of problems, and there is much additional data to suggest this holds true across the nation.

One of the avenues the candidates are all pursuing is to ban certain types of gun, which they have labelled as Assault Weapons. This despite the fact that the federal Assault Weapons ban of 1994-2004 showed no benefits and, on a thorough examination of the data, may even have increased the criminal use of such weapons. Any such policies would not affect automatic weapons, which are very tightly controlled at federal level. Instead they seem to be centered on AR-15 style rifles, despite the fact that rifles tend to be used in less than 5 percent of all criminal shootings, and would do nothing to limit criminal access to the handguns which feature in over 95 percent of shootings.

And a ban, which would affect around 1,000,000 Virginians and over 45,000,000 Americans by requiring surrender, confiscation and/or registration, is not limited to AR-15 style weapons (and one must wonder if they choose the features of such weapons because they incorrectly believe that AR stands for either Assault Rifle or perhaps Army Rifle instead of the Armalite Rifle company who originally designed it specifically for hunting) but any rifle with any single one of a number of similar features. Such a ban would therefore affect vastly more than just AR-15 style rifles.

In the wake of horrifying mass shootings such as the Virginia Beach and Virginia Tech shootings such a ban might seem reasonable to many, but in addition to the points made above, it would also fail to address additional substantial legal problems. For example the Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion that Second Amendment protections extend to weapons “in common use for lawful purposes.” With the sheer quantity of AR-15 style firearms involved, this most popular of rifle styles can certainly be considered to be “in common use for lawful purposes.” So what is the point in proposing policies which may be neither constitutionally permissible nor enforceable?

Such facts might lead town hall participants to ask Democratic presidential candidates how many law-abiding citizens they are prepared to criminalize and demean in their pursuit of gun control? Do they seriously intend to make felons of millions of residents of the Republic? How many casualties are they prepared to inflict on ordinary folks (and law enforcement) who would see themselves as standing up for their constitutional rights and might forcibly resist any attempts at confiscation? How many criminals (or criminally insane) would such legislation deter? And, perhaps most importantly, what benefit would actually derive from a ban on assault firearms?

It might be that what these politicians truly fear themselves is encapsulated in these questions. It may be symptomatic that Gov. Northam’s declaration of a state of emergency to ban guns around the Virginia Capitol on Lobby Day the other week (thus statistically increasing the risks to the crowds and despite much historical evidence of peaceful gun lobbying to the contrary) was because of his own fear of guns in the hands of angry citizens who might refuse to submit to his agenda. It could be that what politicians who advocate gun control truly fear is not violent crime or mass shootings but a future well-armed rejection of their own legislative over-reach.

Secession fever spikes in five states as conservatives seek to escape blue rule.

You’ve got Oregonians seeking to cascade into Idaho, Virginians who identify as West Virginians, Illinoians fighting to escape Chicago, Californians dreaming of starting a 51st state, and New Yorkers who think three states are better than one.

Separation fever is sweeping the nation as quixotic but tenacious bands of frustrated rural dwellers, suburbanites and conservatives seek to break free from states with legislatures increasingly controlled by liberal big cities and metropolitan strongholds.

“Oregon is controlled by the northwest portion of the state, Portland to Eugene. That’s urban land, and their decisions are not really representing rural Oregon,” said Mike McCarter, president of Move Oregon’s Border for a Greater Idaho. “They have their agenda and they’re moving forward with it, and they’re not listening to us.”

In Virginia, the newly elected Democratic majority’s progressive legislation on issues such as gun rights has spurred “Vexit,” or “Virginia exit,” a campaign to merge right-tilting rural counties into neighboring West Virginia that organizers say has the potential to catch fire nationwide.

“To be honest, if this works — you’ve got a lot of red areas in this country that are totally dominated by a blue metropolis,” said Vexit2020 leader Rick Boyer, a former member of the Campbell County Board of Supervisors. “If it works in Virginia, there’s no reason it can’t reshape the political map.”

Such campaigns can only be described longshots — no state has split off since West Virginia was carved from Virginia in 1863 — but the growing interest comes as those living outside cities wrestle with the consequences of the 1964 Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v. Sims.

The ruling established the principle of “one man, one vote,” effectively eliminating state legislative districts apportioned by county or geography instead of population, which hobbled in the influence of smaller and rural communities.

Illinois state Rep. Brad Halbrook, who has introduced a resolution to spin off Chicago and declare it the 51st state, said that “downstate voices are simply not being heard because we’ve been forced into this democracy that’s concentrated power into a small geographical area of the state.”

“Sen. Everett Dirksen said that with Reynolds v. Sims, the major metropolitan areas, the large population centers, are going to control the rest of the state, and that’s what’s happened with Illinois, California, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, New York,” the Republican Halbrook said.

Violent Crime Rate Continues to Drop as AR-15 Ownership Rises

Despite some claims to the contrary, the United States is in a solid decline in the violent crime rate over the last couple of years. According to some preliminary data sourced from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, violent crime rates have dropped in the first half of 2019 when compared to the first half of 2018. This is a trend that has continued with consistency since 2017.

Despite ongoing pressure being put on gun owners by various anti-gun organizations, the rate of ownership has continued to rise. In particular, the amount of “sporting rifle” ownership has continued to grow rapidly. Some would have you think that an increase of sporting rifle ownership would lead to higher violent crime rates, however, data shows this is simply not the case.

 

Violent Crime Rate Continues to Drop as AR-15 Ownership Rises

Violent Crime Rate Continues to Drop as AR-15 Ownership Rises

 

When looked at through an objective lens, firearms manufacturers and owners are some of the most scrutinized and tested in regards to following the laws and regulations of the land. Both the firearms and ammunition industries have to work with and ultimately cooperate with not only federal agencies but local law enforcement agencies as well to maintain compliance standards.

Violent Crime Rate Continues to Drop as AR-15 Ownership Rises

Violent Crime Rate Continues to Drop as AR-15 Ownership Rises

On that note, as a whole, firearms commerce in the United States has continued to increase since 2013 according to the  Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives. Firearms in the American market are more prevalent than ever despite the declining violent crime rate.

As shown by the above graph, beginning in 2008 and continuing through 2013 there was a sharp rise in the manufacturing of all firearms as a whole. Of significant note, Pistols and Rifles accounted for the majority of the firearms made, which would include AR-15’s or “sporting rifles”. What’s even more interesting is the drastic record-breaking 11,497,441 firearms manufactured in 2016.

To further back up the notion that an increase in firearms would not be responsible for an increase in violent crime, John Hopkins University just concluded a study that shows that there is no evidence to suggest that “Assault Weapon” bans would reduce mass shooting events.

 

Over half of NC counties have passed 2nd Amendment resolutions

RALEIGH — As of the end of the first week of February, 60 of North Carolina’s 100 counties have passed some form of Second Amendment resolution affirming the right of citizens to bear arms. That number is over four times the total from the end of January when only 12 counties had passed such a measure.

Brunswick, Carteret, Lee and Lenoir are the most recent to join the movement.

The Franklin County Commission passed their resolution on Feb. 3, stating the county will protect the rights of its citizens to keep and bear arms and oppose any unconstitutional means to restrict such rights.

Onslow County commissioners met on Feb. 10 and unanimously adopted a Second Amendment resolution. By the recommendation from the county’s attorney, the Onslow resolution does not declare the county specifically to be a “sanctuary.”

Onslow Chairman Jack Bright said that they passed this resolution to let legislators know how their citizens felt after watching the introduction of laws restricting gun rights in Virginia.

On Feb. 11, Madison commissioners voted 4-0 to pass a resolution that declares Madison County to be a “Second Amendment Sanctuary.” The next day, on Feb. 12, Martin County commissioners unanimously passed a similar resolution.

Iredell County’s Board of Commissioners discussed the topic in January and unanimously passed a resolution at its meeting in early February, as did commissioners in Bladen, Columbus and Johnston counties.

The Columbus resolution was supported by Rep. Brendan Jones (R-Columbus) at the county commissioner’s January meeting.

In a letter to the commissioners, Jones said, “Recent gun control efforts by those around the country, however, have led various counties and towns to take a proactive stance to ensure there is no infringement upon this constitutional right. As a result, passing or enacting a resolution of this kind would work to oppose restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.”

Gun control efforts in other areas of the country are headed to North Carolina soon, starting with a major gun control group dropping a large amount of cash to push for more restrictions on guns in the state.

Everytown for Gun Safety PAC poured around $2.5 million in Virginia during 2019 to influence gun control legislation, and the group plans to spend at least $250,000 in North Carolina this year.

Everytown was founded and is largely financed by Democratic presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

Members of Everytown include Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense, Students Demand Action, and Mayors against Illegal Guns, which is an organization also co-founded by Bloomberg.

The group’s first expenditure will be a video ad on Facebook titled “North Carolina: On Notice.” The ad claims 1,300 people die by gun violence each year in the state but that number is problematic due to the conflation of overall gun deaths with criminal activities involving firearms.

The Everytown Facebook ad uses numbers mainly from the Center for Disease Control’s 2017 data showing North Carolina had 1,430 deaths in attributable to firearms, however, that total includes suicides and accidental shootings.

According to the FBI, the number of homicides that took place in North Carolina involving a firearm in 2017 was 292, or just 20% of the number Everytown uses.

Counties with large urban centers like Guilford, Mecklenburg, New Hanover and Wake have yet to take up such measures.

Dara Demi, communications director for Wake County government, told NSJ, “The Wake County Board of Commissioners has not discussed this issue to date during its formal meetings, and it is not currently on the agenda for any future meetings.”

According to General Assembly Senate Republicans, in North Carolina counties adopting Second Amendment resolutions, 76% of Democrats on county boards voted to support sanctuary policy.

“You won’t find a clearer example of the internal fractures facing the Democratic Party. Even elected officials are bucking the extreme urban-focused agenda the Democratic Party elites are pushing,” Senators Tom McInnis (R-Richmond) and Brent Jackson (R-Sampson) said in a press release.

Washington State Magazine Ban Fails Crossover Deadline

February 19th at 5:00PM was the deadline for bills to advance from their chamber of origin. Bills to ban standard capacity magazines and increase the red tape to obtain a CPL did not receive a floor vote and are likely defeated for the session. A bill to reform Washington’s onerous background check system passed the House. Unfortunately, several anti-gun bills did clear this deadline and will also continue in the legislative process.

House Bill 2240 and Senate Bill 6077 ban the manufacture, possession, sale, transfer, etc. of magazines that hold more than fifteen and ten rounds of ammunition respectively.

Wisconsin Church Self-Defense Bill Hearing

On February 20th, the Senate Committee on Insurance, Financial Services, Government Oversight and Courts will hear Senate Bill 822 to improve the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their loved ones in churches.

Senate Bill 822 affirms that law-abiding adults with a license to carry firearms for self-defense may do so in places of worship unless the property is specifically posted to prohibit carry. This ensures that such decisions involving security are left up to individual places of worship rather than the government mandating a one-size-fits-all solution. So-called “gun-free zones” simply disarm law-abiding citizens and leave them defenseless against criminals who ignore arbitrary boundaries.

2nd Amendment Protection Gains Momentum In Michigan

Grassroots efforts across Michigan to enact local ordinances or resolutions protecting 2nd Amendment rights are growing. The Jackson County Board of Commissioners is the latest local governmental unit in Michigan to approve a resolution supporting 2nd Amendment rights.

The commissioners were first presented with the proposal early last month. The resolution supports the county Sheriff and Prosecutor in efforts to refuse to enforce unconstitutional firearms restrictions against any citizen. The original resolution presented to the full Jackson County Board of Commissioners originally declared the county a 2nd Amendment “sanctuary” County. But some board members thought that would make people connect it to so-called sanctuary cities nationwide that use that term to indicate protection for illegal aliens. So the board opted to go with the characterization of  “2nd Amendment refuge county” instead.

13 Michigan counties have approved similar resolutions. Some county boards have rejected the approach, saying it is only symbolic and carries no weight. Supporters say there’s nothing wrong with being symbolic and making a statement in support of 2nd Amendment rights.

Read More: 2nd Amendment Protection gains Momentum In Michigan | https://wbckfm.com/2nd-amendment-protection-gains-momentum-in-michigan/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral

No Evidence ‘Assault Weapon’ Bans Reduce Mass Shootings

A study released by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health declares there is no evidence “assault weapon” bans lead to a lower “incidence of fatal mass shootings.”

Expanded Background Checks Don’t Lower Mass Shooting Rate

A study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found expanding background checks does nothing to lower the mass shooting rate.

Researchers did claim licensing requirements like those in Connecticut help reduce the number of mass shootings, but their study omitted the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School in which 26 were killed at the school and another victim was killed in a private home.

In other words, a study which claims licensing reduces instances of mass shootings omitted one of the most often cited mass shootings in U.S. history, even though that shooting occurred in a licensing state.

Moreover, John Hopkins’ criteria for licensing laws allowed them to bypass Illinois which, in turn, allowed them to sidestep the never ending gun crime of Chicago.

But the study was clear there is no evidence tying “assault weapons” to a lower incidence of mass shootings.

Johns Hopkins Study:

Firearm Purchaser Licensing Laws Linked to Fewer Fatal Mass Shootings
BANS ON LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINES WERE ALSO ASSOCIATED WITH FEWER FATAL MASS SHOOTINGS AND FATALITIES
Firearm purchaser licensing laws that require an in-person application or fingerprinting are associated with an estimated 56 percent fewer fatal mass shootings in states that have them, according to a new study by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

The study analyzed fatal mass shootings in 45 states between 1984 and 2017 and the association between the rates of those shootings and the presence of various firearm laws.

The study was published in a February 2020 special issue on mass violence in the U.S. in the journal Criminology & Public Policy.

The researchers also found evidence that laws banning large-capacity magazines, defined as those that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, were associated with significant reductions in the rate of fatal mass shootings with four or more fatalities and the number killed in those shootings. >>>>The size and precision of the estimated effects of LCM bans varied across many statistical analyses presented in study.<<<<

(in other words, our evidence depends on our point of view because the numbers really don’t add up)

“After each horrible mass shooting, there are always policy debates on how they can be prevented,” says lead author Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and Bloomberg Professor of American Health in Violence Prevention. “One side often calls for expanding background checks to private purchasers, and the other usually calls for fewer restrictions on civilian gun carrying. Our findings indicate that neither of those prescriptions are associated with lower rates of fatal mass shootings. What does appear to work to reduce mass shootings are licensing laws and laws banning large-capacity magazines.”

(But later on down the page they admit that magazine laws have to be ‘controlled for’  – in other words numerically skewed to fit a preconceived idea – …so the above is a lie, right??)

In their analyses, researchers identified 604 mass shootings involving four or more victim fatalities; a total of 2,976 victims were killed in these incidents. Approximately 28 percent (842) of victim fatalities were from domestic-related shootings, 61 percent (2,057) were from non-domestic related shootings, and it was unclear among the remaining 11 percent (77) of victims whether the shooting was domestic-related. Most mass shootings had four to six victim fatalities.

As for licensing, federal law requires licensed firearm dealers—but not private sellers—to initiate a background check before the purchase of a gun. Firearm purchaser licensing laws require even more: a direct application to a law enforcement agency that conducts background checks, often aided by fingerprint-based identity verification of the applicant. Under such laws, a license or permit to purchase is needed for sales by private individuals as well as licensed firearm dealers. Nine states—Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina—and the District of Columbia currently have some form of firearm purchaser or owner licensing laws.

Previous research shows that firearm purchaser licensing laws are associated with reductions in rates of firearm homicides and suicides.

(Did they conveniently forget Chicago?) 

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, a database of homicide records voluntarily reported to the FBI by local law enforcement agencies, from 1984 to 2017. Data for Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Montana were excluded due to significant gaps in reporting.

(What are these ‘significant gaps’? Is it that the stats from these states don’t jibe with the anticipated outcome…hmm?)

The Supplementary Homicide Reports collects information on the number of victims, weapon(s) used, circumstances or motive, and the relationship between the offender and the first victim. Shootings connected to gang or illegal drug-related activities were excluded from the analyses.

Due to voluntary reporting policies, the FBI’s database did not include several high-profile mass shootings, including the 2012 Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting, 2012 Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooting, and the 2017 Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting. The researchers addressed these gaps by using data from Stanford University’s Stanford Mass Shootings in America database and the Gun Violence Archive to identify 33 additional fatal mass shootings.

In their study, the researchers made a comprehensive list of all the mass shootings between 1984 and 2017 and categorized the events based on whether the shooter had a domestic relationship (family or intimate partner) to one of the victims. The researchers’ analyses estimated the independent association between annual rates of fatal mass shootings in states and the presence of various state and federal gun laws, while controlling for differences in demographics, social and economic conditions, alcohol consumption, deaths from drug overdoses, and national trends in fatal mass shootings.

Types of firearm laws examined in the study included regulation of civilian concealed carry; extensions of background check requirements at the point of sale for private transfers; prohibitions for non-felony violence, including restraining orders for domestic violence; assault weapon bans; and large-capacity magazine bans.

The study also examined purchaser licensing laws that required in-person application to a law enforcement agency or other fingerprint-based identification of applicants, regardless of whether the sale was by a licensed gun dealer or a private seller. Seven states—Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York—and the District of Columbia currently meet that criteria and were analyzed in the study. Three additional states—Missouri, Michigan, and Nebraska—were also included in the analyses based on their purchaser licensing laws; during the study period, these states repealed all or part of their licensing requirements.

The study did not find significant associations between the incidence of fatal mass shootings and concealed carry laws, comprehensive background check laws without licensing requirements, or firearm prohibitions for violent misdemeanor convictions and domestic violence restraining orders. Although researchers did not find a clear association between firearm restrictions for domestic abusers and reduced fatal mass shootings, other research has shown these laws do reduce intimate partner homicides.

In addition, the study did not find an independent association between assault weapon bans and the incidence of fatal mass shootings after controlling for the effects of bans on large-capacity magazines.

“Evidence Concerning the Regulation of Firearms Design, Sale, and Carrying on Fatal Mass Shootings in the United States” was written by Daniel W. Webster, Alexander McCourt, Cassandra K. Crifasi, Marisa D. Booty, and Elizabeth A. Stuart.

The study was supported by The Joyce Foundation and Dr. Webster’s professorship funded by the Bloomberg American Health Initiative.

(The Joyce Foundation…That right there is the tip off. TJF is and always has been one of the more rabid anti-gun/anti-self defense entities in the U.S. Just another scrap piece of proselytizing from the controllers.)

Women With Firearms: 23 Truths You Should Know

  1. You can never have too much ammo. It’s amazing how quickly one or two people can shoot through 100 rounds or more in a single target practice.
  2. If you’re smart, your firearms will be common calibers. It will be easier to find ammo and easier to get replacement parts.
  3. If you’re even smarter, you’ll own firearms that are of popular makes and models. It will be easier to find a gunsmith capable of making repairs and handling customized requests.
  4. Unless you’re at the range every day, it’s hard to get too much practice. If the range masters know you by name, that’s a good sign that you’re getting enough practice!
  5. It’s a mistake to limit your practice to shooting at a piece of paper under optimal conditions. Take classes that will challenge your shooting skills in high-pressure scenarios. Until the adrenaline is really pumping and your brain feels scrambled, you’ll never know how you’ll respond in a life or death situation. (Note: The first time I was firing a gun under pressure, I got so rattled that I was using my non-dominant eye.  I was fortunate that any shots hit my target!)
  6. A shotgun should be at or near the top of your list when it comes to firearms for home defense. Your choices are the 12 gauge, 20 gauge and the 410. Once you’ve made your decision, get to the range and practice, practice, practice. When it comes to stopping power, a shotgun can’t be beat. According to the study, 50 percent of women with firearms have at least one shotgun and 56 percent have a semiautomatic pistol.
  7. Don’t fall into the trap of buying the smallest gun at the store. Believe it or not, a larger gun will be more comfortable and will shoot more accurately. Read my reviews of the Sig Sauer Mosquito, Walther P22 and Ruger Mark III.
  8. Learn how to clean your own gun. Learn how to completely dismantle it (field strip), clean each part, and put it back together.
  9. Your safety is your responsibility. Not your husband’s, nor the police, nor your kids.
  10. A gun isn’t the end-all when it comes to personal or home security. Think in terms of layers: Situational awareness, home security systems, a watchdog, cacti or rose bushes along the back fence. It all adds up to more peace of mind and less dependence on any one strategy.
  11. If a gun isn’t possible or desirable in your circumstances, come up with Plan B. One of my friends keeps a baseball bat near the front seat of her minivan. Another always has the most powerful pepper spray on the market in her purse, and yet another keeps an 18″ length of steel rebar wedged between the driver’s seat of her car and the middle console. Whatever your choice, always be aware of the location of your weapon, practice using it, and be comfortable with the thought that one day you may have to use it.
  12. Don’t listen to celebrities and politicians who go on hysterical anti-gun rants. Remember, they can afford armed bodyguards and state-of-the-art home security systems. (Interesting that it’s okay if their bodyguards are armed but they don’t think law-abiding citizens should be able to own and carry guns.) I am my kids’ armed bodyguard.
  13. Practice rapid firing when you’re at the range. If your life, or that of your children’s, is ever on the line, and your only choice is to draw your gun, your best tactic will be multiple, rapid shots at the bad guy(s).
  14. Don’t assume you will only ever have to deal with a single bad guy. Just like roaches, bad guys stick together. You may very well be confronted with several all at once. Keep that in mind.
  15. There’s a reason why experts prefer to keep their sidearms concealed. Open carry is okay if you’re trying to impress people, but it also makes you a target. According to the study by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, more than 42 percent of women with guns have a concealed carry permit.
  16. Your life should never depend on a gun you’re afraid to shoot. If the recoil is too powerful, if the trigger pull is too heavy, if firing it hurts your hand, do not plan on using that gun as a defensive weapon. Sell it. Give it away, but whatever you do, have a gun you are comfortable with and actually enjoy shooting. If that life or death moment should ever come, there cannot be even a moment’s hesitation due to fear of using your gun.
  17. If you choose to carry your handgun concealed, practice drawing it from its holster or from its concealed location. And then practice another hundred times.
  18. It’s a really good idea to keep an extra loaded magazine in your purse, the glove compartment, wherever it will be safe and easily accessible.
  19. You just might be able to easily handle a larger caliber of handgun than you think at first. Don’t underestimate your ability.
  20. Nothing beats not being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
  21. Be willing to back down in a confrontation or willing to run or call for help. Your goal is to survive, not show off to the world your awesome marksmanship skills.
  22. Every gun-nut has his/her own opinion about the best make, model, caliber, shooting stance, etc. Be willing to listen but keep in mind that they are just opinions.
  23. Don’t get overly cocky just because you have a firearm in the house, your purse, or have a certificate from your shooting range for completing an advanced course. Law enforcement officers miss their target in a shooting confrontation about 70% of the time. Think about that.

 

Louisiana House Bill 72 (Prefiled Legislation)

This Act is known and may be cited as the “Louisiana Constitutional Carry Act of 2020

Abstract: Exempts certain persons from the crime of illegal carrying of weapons, and
removes the requirement that a person possess a permit issued by the state of La. in
order to carry a concealed handgun in the state of La.
Present law (R.S. 14:95) prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm, provides for criminal
penalties, and provides for certain exceptions to the offense.
Proposed law creates an exception to this prohibition for any person who did not illegally
obtain nor manufacture the firearm and who is not prohibited from possessing a firearm
under any state or federal law.