Category: RKBA

Kamala Harris’s Long-Running Disinformation Campaign on Guns.

Kamala Harris is the most anti-gun candidate who has ever been as close as she is to becoming president. And she has been less than forthcoming on her specific views on firearms and the Second Amendment. It doesn’t help that she has avoided any meaningful interaction from the media where she can be pressed to explain her positions. What few appearances she has made have been absolute disasters, even though they have all been with compliant Harris supporters who have handled the candidate with kid gloves.

Without any clearly explained positions coming from Harris for her current campaign, we can only rely on her history of firearm-related statements and the few vague comments she or her campaign surrogates have made as she seeks to usurp the job currently held by Joe Biden.

To be perfectly honest, when it comes to firearms and the Second Amendment, Kamala Harris is running a campaign of disinformation, obfuscation, and lies; a campaign supported by compliant “journalists” and sham organizations manufactured to help obliterate our rights as gun owners.

While Harris has tried to claim she supports the Second Amendment, she has yet to demonstrate that with either words or deeds over a career where she has drawn paychecks from only one employer: Taxpayers.

We’ve noted several times that, as a candidate for president during the 2020 election cycle, Harris stated that she didn’t want to just ban semi-automatic firearms, but also wanted to confiscate those firearms already owned by law-abiding citizens. She is now trying to hide from that past. She wants gun owners to now believe confiscation is no longer part of her plan, but we simply do not believe her.

Sadly, although not surprisingly, many members of the media are more than happy to give Harris cover on her new claim that she does not want to confiscate firearms. The ironically misnamed website FactCheck.org tried to give her cover, claiming NRA “misleadingly claims that Harris will ‘ban law-abiding citizens from owning’ guns and ‘seize your legally owned guns.’ Her proposal would not ban all guns or seize any guns.”

But NRA has not said Harris wants to “ban all guns.” She very well may, but what we have said, and what Harris has said, is she wants to ban what she calls “assault weapons.” These are guns—and some of the most popular guns sold in America—so, yes, she wants to ban law-abiding citizens from owning these guns, as well as others.

Continue reading “”

Judge Refuses to Block Concealed Carry on Public Transportation

A United States District Court judge refused to stay an injunction against an Illinois law blocking the carrying of firearms on public transportation.

Last month, in a case brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that the Illinois law banning firearms from being carried on public transportation by concealed carry holders was unconstitutional. The judge granted an injunction to the plaintiffs, blocking the enforcement of the law. Illinois vowed to appeal the judge’s ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Illinois would then ask U.S. District Court Judge Iain D. Johnston to stay his ruling pending an appeal by the defendants to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The state tried to appeal to the judge’s emotions by citing a recent shooting on public transportation, but this move would backfire. Only days after the judge’s decision, a person shot and killed someone on local public transit. The state tried to exploit the situation to prove how dangerous public transportation is without its restrictive laws against carrying concealed firearms.

The judges asked the defendants if the person who did the shooting was a concealed permit holder. The state could not answer the judge’s simple question. The judge was unhappy with the state’s lack of knowledge and read them the riot act. If the shooter didn’t have a concealed carry permit, he would have been in violation of the law, no matter if the judge sided with the state and never issued an injunction. The shooter turned out not to be a concealed firearms permit holder. Instead of the judge being swayed by the state’s argument to issue a stay, it seemed to make the Trump appointee even more determined not to give into the state’s demands.

Illinois tried to argue about interest balancing and why it should get a stay. Interest balancing weighs the rights of the people against the wishes of the state. Illinois tried to argue that “public safety” outweighed an individual right to bear arms. In the past, states would use this defense to push back against lawsuits filed by pro-gun organizations. States stopped using the tactic after the Supreme Court’s Bruen opinion. In that case, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas said that the “Second Amendment is not a second-class right.” SCOTUS stated that courts could not use interest balancing in determining if a law was constitutional. Only the history, tradition, and original text of the Second Amendment from the founding era can be used by the courts to decide if a gun law is constitutional.

The Illinois law was a response to the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. It seemed like the state, through its argument for a stay, was once again thumbing its nose at the high court and its conservative majority. Even if a district judge is a liberal who disagrees with the opinion of SCOTUS, they are still bound by its ruling because the District Court is inferior to the Supreme Court.

For now, Illinois will remain enjoined from enforcing its concealed carry ban on public transportation. The state is expected to go to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the judge’s ruling. This case taught lawyers everywhere that emotions cannot persuade some judges and that those judges will stand firmly behind the Constitutional rights of Americans.

That’s because the Chief was in violation of State Law.

Florida police chief learns hard lesson, un-bans guns and ammo
Okeechobee police chief receiving criticism from across the country.

by Lee Williams

Donald C. Hagan, the Chief of the Okeechobee, Florida Police Department, doesn’t appear to be enjoying his time on the national stage.

Hagan had to take some time off, his spokesman said Monday, because he is receiving personal attacks from across the country. As reported Monday, Hagan rocketed to infamy for signing an illegal city ordinance that banned firearm and ammunition sales as well as firearm possession just days before Hurricane Helene made landfall.

“The chief is not in,” a police receptionist said Tuesday morning. She directed calls to Okeechobee Police Major Bettye Taylor, who issued a statement Monday trying to clarify and explain her boss’ actions. Instead, it only muddied the waters.

“The Emergency Ordinance commenced immediately upon the declaration by the Police Chief and was thereafter terminated by the Police Chief on or about 9:51 pm on the same date it was issued.

The Emergency Ordinance was terminated for two primary reasons. One is that, fortunately, Hurricane Helene did not have a substantial impact on the City and its residents.

Secondly, a provision prohibiting the sale of firearms and ammunition was inadvertently included in the Emergency Ordinance. Upon discovering this, the City and Police Chief acted expeditiously to terminate the Emergency Ordinance,” Major Taylor wrote.

In other words, the part of the ordinance that banned the sale of guns and ammunition and prohibited firearm possession in public by anyone other than law enforcement or members of the military, was “inadvertently included” in the ordinance.

As you can imagine, neither Major Taylor nor her boss returned calls or emails Tuesday seeking to clarify how or why they banned guns and ammo sales inadvertently.

In her statement, Taylor also sought to reassure the town’s residents — as well as the legions of law-abiding gun owners who are following the story across the country — that the ban caused no harm.

“At no time did the City, or the Police Chief, contemplate, nor take any action, to prohibit, confiscate or otherwise regulate firearms or ammunition,” she wrote.

This, however, is not exactly true. The ordinance the chief signed clearly prohibited the “sale of, or offer to sell, with or without compensation, any ammunition or gun or other firearm of any size or description. The intentional display, by or in any store or shop, of any ammunition or gun or other firearm of any size or description. The intentional possession in a public place of a firearm by any person, except a duly authorized law enforcement official or any person in military service acing in the official performance of their duty.”

Continue reading “”

BLUF
The States’ Brief ends with the truism that policy concerns can’t trump statutory text. “Left with little in the way of textual support, many of ATF’s amici argue that this Court should depart from the statute’s plain meaning because excluding ‘ghost guns’ from the GCA’s scope would purportedly have dire consequences.” But that’s a matter for Congress, not the agency or the Court.

Second Amendment Roundup: Follow ATF into a Political Briar Patch?

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next week, on October 8, in Garland v. VanDerStok, the challenge to the radical expansion of the regulatory definition of “firearm” in the Gun Control Act (GCA). Neither Congress nor the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ever touched that statutory definition passed by Congress in 1968. And both left the non-controversial regulatory definition of “firearm frame or receiver” undisturbed since 1968. But suddenly in 2022 ATF promulgated a Final Rule redefining those terms to include materials, tools, and information that a person with knowledge and skill can use to fabricate a firearm or a frame or receiver.

One of the most hard-hitting amici briefs filed in support of the challengers to the regulation is the brief of the States of West Virginia and 26 other States. ATF, the brief argues, “is a political briar patch because of its rulemaking authority.” That characterization is from a law review article with the parodistic title “Almost Heaven, West Virginia?: The Country Road to Take Firearm Regulation Back Home to Congress and the States.” That play on words brings together John Denver’s “Take Me Home, Country Roads” with the major question doctrine set forth in West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022). If that rule of law applies to anything, it applies to ATF’s recent the regulatory rampage.

Given the political volatility of the “gun control” issue, Congress has historically been torn between constituents who support the Second Amendment and those who wish to criminalize various forms of acquisition and possession of firearms. Because that the issue is a “major question,” Congress writes gun statutes carefully and narrowly in a manner that leaves nothing to chance. As the States’ Brief says:

Given the sensitivity of this work, one might at least expect ATF to tread carefully before purporting to regulate in unexpected and aggressive new ways. But recently, it hasn’t. ATF has instead seemed determined to stretch the words found in statutes like the GCA and NFA [National Firearm Act] to reach conduct never anticipated by the lawmakers who passed them. This case, concerning ATF’s efforts to regulate gun kits and other forms of private firearms assembly under the guise of calling them “frames or receivers” subject to the GCA, is just the latest example of that effort.

This is not the first, and it won’t be the last, overreach by ATF. As the States’ Brief continues, “many of the Amici States here have been compelled to step in and sue ATF multiple times over the past few years just to return the agency to its actual area of authority.” Thus, “when the Court encounters another ATF regulation offering a purportedly creative solution to a long-standing problem, it should be wary.”

Continue reading “”

House Oversight Committee Subpoenas White House, ATF Over Chicago’s Glock Lawsuit

House Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-OH) has issued congressional subpoenas to White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention Director Stefanie Feldman and ATF Director Steve Dettelbach seeking information about any role the office and agency had in Chicago’s lawsuit against gunmaker Glock.

Comer initially requested Dettelbach and Feldman provide the committee with any pertinent communication between the White House/ATF and Glock back in June, but according to the congressman the Biden administration hasn’t turned over a single document. In fact, in his letter informing Feldman of the subpoena, Comer says Deputy Counsel to the President Rachel F. Cotton responded to the Oversight Committee in early July with a letter that “did not even reference the Committee’s request for documents.” Instead, Comer says Cotton “impugned the motives of the Committee,” stating “[t]he House Majority . . . [is] doing the gun lobby’s bidding by launching a baseless political attack on the Biden Administration under the guise of an ‘investigation.’”

If that were the case, it would be easy enough for the White House and ATF to disprove the claims of collusion by whistleblowers. So why is the White House stonewalling the inquiry into communications between the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, ATF, and Glock officials? As Comer reminded Dettelbach in his subpoena request:

The Committee has learned that on December 20, 2023, the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention met privately with representatives from Glock, during which the Administration requested that Glock change their pistol designs so that it would be harder to illegally modify Glock pistols to shoot continuously with a single trigger pull.

On March 19, 2024, the City of Chicago filed suit in state court against Glock. Everytown Law, the litigation arm of Everytown for Gun Safety, is listed as counsel for the plaintiff. The day the suit was filed, John Feinblatt, President of Everytown for Gun Safety, posted on his X account “Today Everytown Law + the City of Chicago announced a historic lawsuit against Glock Inc. to hold them accountable for the unconscionable decision to continue selling its easily modified pistols even though it could fix the problem.”

Later in the post, Mr. Feinblatt said “[f]ederal Officials recently contacted Glock to discuss implementing new ways to modify Glock pistols to make it harder for Glock switches to be installed. Rather than help, Glock falsely insisted there is nothing they can do.”

Because the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention’s meeting with Glock was private, Mr. Feinblatt appears to have had insider information regarding your office’s meeting with Glock, which raises questions about whether your office colluded with Everytown for Gun Safety to initiate their lawsuit against Glock.

Chicago is seeking a court-ordered ban on the sale of Glock pistols to city residents “and Illinois gun stores that serve the Chicago market”, while Joe Biden recently used an executive order to set up an Emerging Firearms Threats Task Force that’s supposed to issue a report and an interagency plan to deal with machine gun conversion devices, which are already illegal under federal law.

Retired ATF Deputy Assistant Director Pete Forcelli previously told Bearing Arms that the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention had pushed Dettelbach to have the ATF reclassify Glocks as machine guns under the NFA, but Dettelbach has so far resisted the move. Chicago’s lawsuit, along with the task force established by Biden, seem designed to give the ATF another push towards reclassifying some of the most popular handguns on the market as machine guns after the November elections have taken place.

My guess is that the White House and ATF will stonewall Comer’s subpoena just as they ignored his initial request for information. But if Kamala Harris wins election next month, don’t be surprised if the candidate who says she’s not taking anyone’s guns away suddenly decides that its time to make the sale of Glocks (and perhaps all other striker-fired pistols as well) off-limits to the civilian market; essentially imposing a ban on the sale of commonly-owned semi-automatic handguns through ATF regulation.

NICS Background Checks for Gun Sales Up in September 2024

Last month saw a measurable bump in the number of background checks for likely gun sales compared to the same month in 2023.

The figure of 2,072,550 checks conducted through the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System last month is a 1.8-percent increase from the FBI NICS figure of 2,035,410 in September 2023.

When adjusted by removing figures for gun permit checks and rechecks by states that use NICS for that purpose, the latest total stands at 1,156,223, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade group for the U.S. gun industry. This number remains 1.3 percent higher than the September 2023 NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 1,141,847.

Of note, last month continues the unbroken 62-month streak that NICS has logged over 1 million adjusted background checks in a single month.

Industry insiders see last month’s figures of over 1.1 million background checks for the sale of a firearm at retail as a strong indicator of a vibrant demand for lawful firearm ownership, especially speeding toward a presidential election.

“The Vice Presidential debate offered a substantive examination of why Americans – by the millions each month – continue to lawfully purchase firearms,” said Mark Oliva, NSSF’s director of public affairs. “Americans are concerned for their safety and the safety of their loved ones. They refused to be painted with the broad brush that gun control proponents use to paint them in the same patterns as criminals. The fact is, Americans face a stark difference in the two tickets when it comes to respecting their Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. America is demonstrating, month after month, that lawful gun ownership matters.”

The true number of guns sold nationwide is likely far higher than the 1.1 million noted by NSSF. It should be noted that NICS numbers do not include private gun sales in most states or in cases where a carry permit is used as an alternative to the background check requirements of the 1994 Brady law, which allows the transfer of a firearm over the counter by a federal firearms license holder without first performing a NICS check. Further, it doesn’t capture personally made firearms.

Latest ‘Ghost Gun’ Claims Have Tons of Problems

Ages ago, I owned an AK-47 clone. I built it from a kit I purchased along with a less than 80 percent receiver I bought, then took it to a build party with some friends and got a great gun out of the deal as well as a fun day.

This was long before so-called ghost guns were the scourge of the world. No one had even heard the term and a few years later, when we did, we laughed at it and for good reason.

Now, though, the term is everywhere. What’s more, rules got put in place–without Congress, it should be noted–to supposedly stem the tide.

And it seems that we’re getting some mixed signals on the efficacy of those restrictions.

Continue reading “”

Second Amendment Roundup: Textualism and ATF’s Redefinition of “Firearm”
The statutory history of the Gun Control Act cuts in favor of the VanDerStok respondents.

This is my second installment preceding the upcoming October 8 argument in Garland v. VanDerStok, a challenge to the regulatory redefinition of the term “firearm” in the Gun Control Act.  By expanding the statutory definition, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) in its 2022 Final Rule purports to criminalize numerous innocent acts that Congress never made illegal.

Until the new rule, a kit with partially-machined raw material that can be fabricated into a firearm was not considered to have reached a stage that it is a “firearm.”  To prevent Americans from making their own firearms from such material, which has always been and remains lawful, the bugbear term “ghost guns” was recently coined.  In its VanDerStok brief, the government argues that “anyone with basic tools and rudimentary skills” can “assemble a fully functional firearm” from such kits “in as little as twenty minutes.”

As explained in my last post, that is refuted by none other than the former Acting Chief of ATF’s Firearm Technology Branch, Rick Vasquez, who reviewed and approved hundreds of classifications about whether certain items are “firearms.”  As he explained in his amicus brief, fabrication of a firearm from these kits is a complex process requiring skill and special tools beyond the capacity of the average person.

In this post I’ll trace the statutory history of the term “firearm” to gain insight into its meaning.  The Gun Control Act defines “firearm” as “(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon….”  18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3).  An ATF regulation on the books from 1968 to 2022 defined a “frame or receiver” as “that part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock and firing mechanism,” i.e., the main part of a firearm to which the barrel and stock attach.

Continue reading “”

Second Amendment Roundup: VanDerStok Tests Limits of Yet Another ATF Rule
The Supreme Court is set to decide whether the agency may expand criminal liability under the Gun Control Act.

On October 8, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Garland v. VanDerStok, a challenge to the Final Rule of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) from 2022 redefining and drastically expanding the meaning of the terms “firearm” and “firearm frame or receiver.”  This is the first of several posts in which I’d like to highlight some of the enlightening amici curiae briefs that have been filed in support of the respondents who challenged the rule.

Continue reading “”

No Second Amendment, No First: God, Guns, and the Government

 

Today’s Left endlessly preaches the evils of “gun violence.” It is a message increasingly echoed from the nation’s pulpits, presented as common-sense decency and virtue. Calls for “radical non-violence” are routinely endowed with the imprimatur of religious doctrine.

But what if such teachings were misguided, even damaging? What if the potential of a citizenry to exercise force against violent criminals and tyrannical governments is not just compatible with church teaching, but flows from the very heart of Biblical faith and reason? What if the freedoms we treasure are intimately tied to the power to resist violent coercion?

This is the long-overdue case John Zmirak makes with stunning clarity and conviction in No Second Amendment, No First. A Yale-educated journalist and former college professor, Zmirak shows how the right of self-defense against authoritarian government was affirmed in both the Old and New Testaments, is implied in Natural Law, and has been part of Church tradition over the centuries.

Continue reading “”

Defensive Gun Use Statistics:
America’s Life-Saving Gun Incidents (2024)

The Second Amendment limits the government’s power over the people’s right to keep and bear arms for the defense of our nation. However, Americans uniquely have the right to defend our lives with the most effective tools available.

A widely disputed topic between gun advocates and anti-Second Amendment advocates is the number of defensive gun uses (DGUs) each year. Fortunately, we have data to better understand the effect armed civilians have on criminality.

The following section covers everything we know about defensive gun use in the U.S.

Report Highlights:

  • Reports consistently show that there are between 60,000 and 2,500,000 defensive gun uses per year.
  • There are an average of 1,820,000 defensive gun uses per year compared to 1,100,000 reported crimes.
  • Only 2.07 million civilians regularly carry a firearm for defense.
  • Civilians are 85% more likely to use a firearm for defense than to be murdered by one.
  • The average distance in a defensive gun use shooting is three yards.

Continue reading “”

Biden-Harris Admin. Releases ‘One Year Report’ on Gun Violence Prevention Office

The White House on Monday released a one-year progress report on the activities of the Biden-Harris administration’s highly-touted Office of Gun Violence Prevention (OGVP), and predictably the report claims, “Lives are being saved, but there is still so much more to do.”

“At the direction of President Biden and Vice President Harris, the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention and the entire Biden-Harris Administration will continue to do the work of reducing gun violence and supporting survivors every day,” the report states.

The report may be read here.

Among the accomplishments listed are:

  • Expanding Gun Background Checks and Making Clear the Gun Show Loophole Does Not Exist
  • Enhancing Gun Background Checks for Individuals Under Age 21
  • Enforcing Gun Trafficking and Straw Purchasing Laws
  • Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of Abusive Dating Partners
  • Implementing State Red Flag Laws
  • Establishing the Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center
  • Identifying Stolen Guns
  • Investing in Youth Mental Health
  • Investing in Safer Communities

There does not appear to be anything specifically aimed at arresting and prosecuting criminals who commit the crimes, except for this: “The Department has now charged more than 600 defendants using BSCA’s new gun trafficking and straw purchasing laws. In November 2023, the U.S. Sentencing Commission finalized new sentencing guidelines that responded to the directive in BSCA (Bipartisan Safer Communities Act) to increase certain firearms penalties for straw purchasing, trafficking in firearms, and organized crime affiliation, and consider a decrease to account for straw purchasers with mitigating circumstances (e.g., any domestic violence survivor history).”

The report further notes the Biden-Harris administration has helped states and cities “establish and strengthen their own Offices of Violence Prevention.” This past May, the White House hosted a gathering of more than 80 leaders from city and local offices of violence prevention in over 50 cities, the report says.

There is also mention of the administration’s effort to assist state lawmakers in their effort to advance legislation to combat gun violence. This translates to pushing more gun control at the state level.

“At least 17 states have enacted new legislation, including a safe storage law in California, a gun dealer accountability law in Washington, a victims compensation law in Maryland, a ghost gun ban in Vermont, a background check expansion in Maine, and a permit to purchase law in Delaware,” the report states.

The report gives a strong indication of what Harris will do if she wins in November. Essentially the brakes will be off and the concern is that the effort, and maybe the authority, of the OGVP will expand.

Minnesota Update: Eighth Circuit Court Strikes Down Minnesota’s Firearm Carry Age Restrictions

The U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mandate on September 20, officially shutting down the Minnesota Attorney General’s efforts to preserve the state’s ban on firearm carry for individuals aged 18 to 20. The decision follows a legal challenge backed by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC).

The challenge was brought forward by plaintiffs Kristin Worth, Austin Dye, and Axel Anderson, who argued that Minnesota’s restrictions on carrying firearms for adults under 21 violated their Second Amendment rights. In April 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Menendez ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but delayed an injunction against the law pending appeal.

In July, a three-judge panel from the Eighth Circuit had unanimously affirmed the lower court’s ruling. Circuit Court Judge William Benton, who wrote the opinion, noted that the language of the Second Amendment does not specify an age limit. He highlighted that while the Founders included age restrictions in other areas, such as running for political office, no such limits were placed on the right to bear arms.

“In other words, the Founders considered age and knew how to set age requirements but placed no such restrictions on rights, including those protected by the Second Amendment,” Benton wrote in the decision.

Following the panel’s ruling, Minnesota sought to have the case reheard, either by the same three-judge panel or by the full bench of the Eighth Circuit. The appeals court rejected both requests in an August 21 order, effectively setting the stage for the mandate that was issued on Friday.

With the mandate now in place, Minnesota must either revise its laws to comply with the court’s decision or appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Minnesota Attorney General’s office has not yet commented on whether it plans to pursue further legal action.

Following the mandate, the FPC celebrated the decision on social media.

“This formalizes our victory, and the ban is now officially dead,” the FPC wrote in a post. “If it wishes to continue defending its tyranny, Minnesota must take its tears to SCOTUS.”

The ruling represents a significant win for gun rights advocates in Minnesota, marking the end of a long legal battle over age-based firearm restrictions. For now, the state’s law barring 18- to 20-year-olds from carrying firearms is effectively nullified, pending any potential appeal to the nation’s highest court.

You’d think they’d wait until after the election.
Two way to take this
1 They’re so confident Harris is going to win that they’re arrogant
2 Biden is -again- stabbing Harris in the back for getting dumped.

President Biden plans to sign new executive actions aimed at reducing gun violence
The White House will announce the new measures in the coming weeks, as officials mark the first anniversary of the creation of the Office of Gun Violence Prevention

The White House will soon announce new executive actions aimed at further reducing gun violence in America, Scripps News has learned, just as the one-year mark since the formation of the Office of Gun Violence Prevention approaches.

Senior administration officials have pointed to the creation of the first-of-its-kind office, led by Vice President Kamala Harris, as a landmark moment for President Joe Biden, for whom the issue of gun violence has been a decades-long focus.

“We know that people are still dying every day in this country due to gun violence,” Stefanie Feldman, director of OGVP, told Scripps News in an interview Friday. “Sometimes it makes national headlines. Sometimes it doesn’t. President Biden and Vice President Harris are committed to continuing their long legacy of leadership on this work.”

Feldman said the new executive actions will be announced “in the weeks ahead” but declined to elaborate on specifics, noting only that some pertain to the continued implementation of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act while others are “wholly new.”

“[Biden and Harris] really asked us to address all angles of this issue, to address not only mass shootings but suicide by firearm, accidental shootings [and] community violence,” Feldman noted.

This week the White House also released a new report showcasing the work of the OGVP in its first year, organized by the four key responsibilities of the office, including implementing the Safer Communities Act, coordinating support for gun violence survivors, identifying possible executive actions to be taken and expanding partner coalitions with states and localities throughout the country.

Passed in 2022 on a bipartisan basis, the Safer Communities Act was the first gun control law approved by Congress in nearly three decades and included additional funding for mental health and red flag programs, expanded background checks for gun sales and cracked down on illegal trafficking efforts.

In 2024, the gun background check system helped block more than 4,600 gun sales to people convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, according to the report. To date, the Department of Justice has charged more than 500 defendants with violating provisions under the law, and the expanded background check provision has kept guns out of the hands of nearly 900 young people who shouldn’t have them, federal officials said.

On the implementation front, Feldman argued that, though the entirety of the legislation is already in effect, “there’s a big difference between implementing something and really squeezing out all the possible benefits that you can.”

She pointed to some state laws that protect individual privacy as obstacles preventing law enforcement officials from adequately responding to background checks, and said her office was currently working with state legislators to push for changes that would lift such restrictions.

The office has also worked to coordinate with state and local partners, including suggesting legislative changes at the state level. At least 17 states have passed new gun-related legislation over the past year and three — Maryland, Pennsylvania and New Mexico — formed their own offices, the report noted.

As for supporting survivors of gun violence and coordinating with partner coalitions, the organizer of one such group praised the work of OGVP in an interview with Scripps News.

Tony Montalto, whose daughter Gina was killed in the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida – the deadliest mass shooting at a high school in U.S. history – now serves as president of “Stand with Parkland,” a group advocating for gun and public safety reform. Montalto said his group met with the OGVP “two or three times” since the office was stood up a year ago.

RELATED STORY | Gun violence in the US: How will the candidates handle a top issue for voters?

“We’re very pleased at the pragmatic approach that they’re taking in terms of increasing the ability to prevent gun violence in our country,” Montalto said. “These officials came down and walked through the halls of the scene of the Parkland shooting with our families. The Vice President was there with officials from the Office of Gun Violence Prevention and they sat down and they spoke with all the families that were available that day, listening to what we can do, talking about policies, procedures and additional laws that will help make everyone in this country safer from the threat of gun violence.”

Data from the Gun Violence Archive indicates that the number of mass shootings this year has decreased by 20 percent compared to the same period last year, the White House report noted, and is on track to be at the lowest level since 2019. Violent crime overall was down significantly as well, something the White House has touted as historic.

“After the prior administration saw a historic increase in homicides, this administration has seen a historic decrease in homicides, and that has only accelerated this year,” Feldman said.

In an election year, the Harris campaign has frequently highlighted the issue of gun violence on the campaign trail, contrasting her administration’s approach with how former President Donald Trump has handled the issue.

“I’m in favor of the second amendment. And I’m in favor of assault weapons bans. Universal background checks, red flag laws. And these are just common sense,” Harris said during a campaign event on Thursday, echoing a sentiment she shared when announcing the creation of the OGVP a year ago.

RELATED STORY | Surgeon general declares gun violence a public health crisis in America

But, with about four months left in office, Biden administration officials are working to take advantage of the remaining time while preparing for the next administration.

“What any president does with the structure of the White House or the Office is up to them, but what we’re focused on is what we can do in the next four months,” Feldman said. “President Biden, Vice President Harris, have the next four months to do all they can to save lives, and that’s exactly what they’ve asked the office to carry out.”

Montalto said he hoped that the work of OGVP would continue regardless of who wins in November.

“We do hope that this office survives any change in the White House, and that whoever gets elected as our next president realizes the value of having a pragmatic and practical group working towards the prevention of gun violence for all U.S. citizens,” he said

Legal Showdown Looms Over Suppressor Bans & 2nd Amendment Rights: Carlin Anderson vs. Kwame Raoul

Editor’s Note: Judge Stephen McGlynn is currently presiding over several consolidated cases challenging Illinois’ “assault weapons” ban, including Harrel v. Raoul, Barnett v. Raoul, Langley v. Kelly, and Foster v. Raoul. These cases collectively question the constitutionality of the state’s restrictions on firearms and large-capacity magazines under the Second Amendment.

Additionally, Judge McGlynn is overseeing Carlin Anderson vs. Kwame Raoul, referenced below, which challenges Illinois’ ban on suppressors. The outcome of this case holds significant implications for gun rights advocates nationwide, particularly regarding the legal status of suppressors as protected “arms.”

The ongoing battle for Second Amendment rights took center stage in the courtroom once again in the 2nd Amendment challenge to Illinois’ assault weapons ban.  However, as that case proceeds, Mark Smith notes some of the takeaways that may impact the upcoming case of Carlin Anderson vs. Kwame Raoul.

At the heart of the 2nd case, Carlin Anderson vs. Kwame Raoul is the legal conflict of Illinois’ ban on suppressors—a critical piece of legislation that has ignited passionate debates about its constitutionality. The implications of this case extend far beyond state lines, with the potential to set a precedent in suppressor regulation across the country. U.S. District Court Judge Stephen McGlynn’s courtroom has become a pivotal battleground in determining whether these firearms accessories, often demonized by big Hollywood and anti-gun advocates, fall under the protection of the Second Amendment.

Continue reading “”

Credit Where Due: VP Harris Finally Pressed By Media on Illegally Obtained Firearms

It was quite surprising to hear it when it happened but Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for president, was fact checked in real time about the real drivers of criminal gun violence. She was tripped up on her answer because the journalist pressing her wasn’t buying the vice president’s tired talking points.

It happened during an interview of the vice president at the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) after one of the questioners asked Vice President Harris about her gun control platform.

For those needing any reminding, the Biden-Harris administration has been the most fervently anti-gun administration in history. Vice President Harris, as the administration’s “gun czar,” has infamously instituted a “whole-of-government” attack on the firearm and ammunition industry and the Second Amendment. She is colluding with gun control groups – who literally operate out of her office. As President Joe Biden’s “gun czar,” Harris has continually failed to bring criminals to account for their crimes.

Vice President Kamala Harris tries to claim to voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia and other close-polling states that she “isn’t taking anyone’s guns away from them” while in the same breath calling for a ban and confiscation of an entire class of lawfully made and legally purchased firearms – the most popular rifle in America. That’s just about the extent of her “plan” to reduce criminal gun violence. But finally, she received pushback for specifics that voters deserve to hear.

Please Answer the Question

Whenever Vice President Kamala Harris has been asked about criminals committing gun crimes, her response is predictably always the same. She calls for more gun control on law-abiding Americans, lists a kitchen sink full of anti-Second Amendment talking points and blames Congress for inaction. This is despite the fact that for the first two years of the Biden-Harris administration, Democrats controlled both chambers in Congress and The White House. She never mentions that not even all Democrats in the U.S. Senate supported a bill to reinstate, and expanded, a so-called “assault weapons” ban. That doesn’t stop the vice president from repeating those calls. But the interviewers at the NABJ wanted more specifics from her.

“In cities like Philadelphia, handguns are responsible for most homicides and violent crime,” NPR’s Tonya Mosely began. “How will you address the issue of the use of handguns because a push for an assault weapons ban only addresses, um, a significant but small part of the problem?”

The vice president began her answer by repeating the talking point that she and her running mate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz were both gun owners. She claimed “we’re not trying to take anyone’s guns away from them. But we do need an assault weapons ban.” As she continued to filibuster her answer about how Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) need to be banned and universal background checks must be implemented, Mosely interrupted and pressed her further.

“Respectfully, we do understand that. But I’m asking specifically about handguns because many of those handguns aren’t purchased at places that run background checks. In many of those instances those handguns aren’t bought lawfully.”

The vice president was stumped. She had no response to the logical reasoning that the firearm industry continues to highlight when calls for gun control are made – that criminals do not follow the law. NSSF has reported on Department of Justice data that shows 90 percent of firearms used by criminals in the commission of their crime were obtained through illicit means and not at a firearm retailer. It’s also one of the main reasons why universal background checks won’t work. That and the fact that a national firearm registry is prohibited by law under the Gun Control Act of 1986 and the Brady Act of 1993.

Continue reading “”