Louisiana lawmakers advance bill allowing concealed carry without permit

Republican state Senators in Louisiana advanced legislation Thursday that allows adults 18 years and older to carry concealed weapons without a permit.

The Senate approved that bill, along with another that would provide a level of immunity from civil liability for a person who uses a concealed gun to shoot a person in self-defense, The Associated Press reported.

The bills were passed during a special session that was called to address violent crime in the state. They now head to the House, where the GOP is in the majority.

State Sen. Blake Miguez, the sponsor of the bill, S.B. 1, thanked his fellow Senate Republicans for passing his bill in a unanimous vote.

“This important legislation will bring stronger #2 self-defense rights to Louisiana similar to those enjoyed by citizens in neighboring states,” he posted on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R) has signaled he intends to sign the bills if they reach his desk, the AP reported.

The state currently requires holders of concealed carry permits to be fingerprinted and pay a fee, which advocates of the bill say is unconstitutional, per the AP.

According to the U.S. Concealed Carry Association, 27 states allow people to carry a concealed weapon without having a permit.

In another post online, Miguez said the bill will “empower” citizens with “the means to protect themselves and their families from violent criminals.”

While Miguez and other Republicans argue they should be able to conceal carry weapons without a permit to protect themselves from criminals, Democrats say it could lead to more gun violence, the AP noted.

The special session began Monday and will address the state’s crime issues. In 2021, Louisiana had the highest violent crime rate in the country, Landry said in a speech Monday.

The Kansas City Category Error

Influential people with anti-gun views often want to “wade into the debate” after a big shooting. They’d have us believe that they are apolitical people who were above or outside of the debate, but because something that happened was so terrible, it merits them taking the highly unusual step and perhaps enduring some personal sacrifice.

But, if you do a quick search, most of the celebrities who act like this have a history of doing it. The truth is, they’re part of the anti-gun movement, they do this after every high-profile shooting and they’ll do it again.

Want some solid proof? Just look at the talking points. If they were a fresh voice entering the debate, they’d bring some fresh ideas with them. But, they say the same thing all of the other celebrities do. So, it makes sense to point out that they’re being disingenuous so that people can see that they’re faking it.

But, after the Kansas City Super Bowl parade shooting, there’s another valuable point to be made: These “I’m not normally political” celebs don’t want to talk about the factual circumstances of the shooting itself.

The fact is, this was a gang shooting, not a mass shooting. While every life lost is a tragedy, we can’t treat all deaths by bullet the same way if we want to productively solve the problem. Laws that might prevent suicide differ from laws that might dissuade criminals and laws that could dissuade a suicidal mass shooter. When we try to “one size fits all” the problem, we don’t arrive at useful conclusions.

Continue reading “”

Louisiana lawmakers, Governor Jeff Landry want more gun rights for self defense to deter crime

Louisiana’s Legislature is likely to expand gun rights for law-abiding citizens during a three-week Special Session called by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry designed to crack down on crime that begins at the Capitol Monday.

Two bills have been filed to allow adults 18 and older to carry concealed handguns without the training or permits that are required now. A third has been filed that would provide a level of immunity from civil liability for someone who uses a concealed handgun to shoot a person in self defense.

Previous efforts to expand concealed carry either stalled in the Senate or were vetoed by former Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards, but Landry included the issue in his Special Session order, signaling his support.

“I want my four granddaughters to be able to put a pistol in their purses to protect them from murders and rapists,” McCormick said in an interview with USA Today Network. “I feel confident with this governor and Legislature we will see a (concealed carry) bill passed.”

Erath Republican Sen. Blake Miguez, a world class competition pistol shooter, is also carrying permitless concealed carry legislation with Senate Bill 1 and the legislation to provide immunity for concealed carry shooters with Senate Bill 2.

“Government is not here to place barriers to our constitutional rights,” Miguez told USA Today Network. “Criminals already carry concealed handguns without government permission.”

When asked how expanding concealed carry rights would reduce crime, both lawmakers said it would give criminals pause.

“It fights crime by allowing innocent individuals to defend themselves, putting them on equal footing with vicious criminals,” Miguez said.

“When criminals don’t know if you’re carrying it makes them more cautious,” McCormick said.

Supporters of the legislation refer to it as “constitutional carry” because they believe the Second Amendment already grants that right. Louisiana allows for constitutional carry now but requires a permit and training.

“It puts law-abiding citizens on equal footing with criminals,” Kelby Seanor of the National Rifle Association has said. “It removes the burden to exercise a constitutional right.”

But opponents, like those from Moms Demand Action and the Louisiana Chiefs of Police who testified against the bill last year, said concealed carry without the training and permits required now make the streets more dangerous for citizens and police.

Louisiana is already an “open carry” state, which means people can carry visible firearms without a permit or training.

Twenty-seven states already permit a form of concealed carry without permits, including all of Louisiana’s neighbors.

And then it’ll be who’d be allowed to exercise the rights protected by the other articles in the Bill of Rights…..


Figliuzzi: More Caution Needed on Who’s Allowed to Exercise 2nd Amendment

MSNBC contributor Frank Figliuzzi commented on the shooting at the Kansas City Chiefs parade, noting similar recent incidents of gun violence disrupting places of worship and celebrations.

While the perpetrators may have legally possessed the guns used, he argued this is insufficient and society should more carefully assess who is allowed to exercise gun ownership rights.

“It’s early, but it’s never too early to talk about the role of weapons in our society. We just last weekend were reporting on a shooting at a megachurch in Houston, people going to their place of worship and that being interrupted by gunfire and a fatality. Here we are with a joyous occasion in Kansas City, and the same thing happens,” Figliuzzi said.

Figliuzzi said the media often washes its hands of these issues if the guns were legally possessed, without further examining if those individuals should have actually had access to firearms given what is known about them.

“Too often I think what the media finds is eventually a finding that perhaps that, ‘Oh, well, the perpetrators had lawful possession of those guns. Okay.’ And then they kind of wash their hands of it without a further analysis,” he said.

“Does that mean it’s okay? Does that mean that those people should have had those guns even though they might have possessed them lawfully? What do we know about them that would have caused us to do this better in terms of assessing and vetting people for gun ownership? What can we change?” he pressed.

He stressed constitutional rights should not be taken away, but that American society needs to more carefully vet who it allows to bear arms, in order to better prevent these types of tragedies from occurring.

“That’s where we seem to fall down as a society. Not that we take constitutional rights away from people, but rather that we be more careful about who it is that we allow to exercise those rights in our society,” Figliuzzi said.

FBI Reportedly Harvesting Publicly Available “Weapon” Info

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is initiating Project Tyr, an effort in its infancy to employ Amazon’s artificial intelligence-driven Rekognition cloud service to identify firearms—among other things—and the people associated with them. According to the bureau’s description (on the last page) the software “… offers pre trained and customizable computer vision (CV) capabilities to extract information and insights from lawfully acquired images and videos. Currently in initiation phase to customize to review and identify items containing nudity, weapons, explosives, and other identifying information.”

The news came as a shock to a digital community primarily concerned about privacy and inaccurate facial recognition. Amazon placed a moratorium on law enforcement’s use of Rekognition’s facial recognition software in June 2020, extended the moratorium in 2021 and released a statement explaining the latest FBI effort will only use the program’s other assets.

“Rekognition is an image and video analysis service that has many non-facial analysis and comparison features,” Amazon spokesperson Duncan Neasham explained to FedScoop, the outlet that broke the news on January 25. “Nothing in the Department of Justice’s disclosure indicates the FBI is violating the moratorium in any way.”

The initiative may be fueled, in part, by the number of convicted felons willing to post photos of themselves on social media while holding a gun and/or clearly stating ownership. That violation of the law has helped re-incarcerate criminals in FloridaIndianaIowaMassachusettsNebraska and dozens, if not hundreds, of others in the last year alone.

Identifying those instances falls well within the FBI’s website stated goal to, “… protect the American people and uphold the U.S. Constitution.” Today, its team of roughly 35,000 relies heavily on the latest forensic and investigative technology and routinely explores innovative new techniques, including this one. Precisely how it will harness Rekognition or the baseline used in the search for firearms—and whether that information is cataloged—has yet to be announced.

The Federal Government is not alone in its reliance on sometimes controversial software, however. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the New York City Police Department, for example, has been using facial recognition since 2011, can put 19 drones in the air, has video monitoring for loitering and more. For a look at systems employed by your city, county and state the organization has a free and easy-to-use Atlas of Surveillance online.

 

How Joe Biden’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention is directing the war on guns

The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention has become a significant threat to our guns and our civil rights.

When the office was unveiled in September 2023, President Joe Biden said it would, “centralize, accelerate, and intensify our work to save more lives more quickly. That’s what it was designed to do. It will drive and coordinate a government and nationwide effort to reduce gun violence.”

The office wields tremendous power but operates in secrecy, without oversight. It has no website. Its budget has never been made public. Its staffing levels are not known. Only three actual members have ever been identified — the director and two deputy directors. All three are radical anti-gun zealots. One has a long association with former President Barack Obama.

Neither Biden nor Vice President Kamala Harris, who oversees the office — at least officially — has ever clearly articulated what the office is supposed to do, other than “reduce gun violence” and “build on historic actions taken by President Biden to end gun violence.”

Biden’s “historic actions” are well known and include calls for red flag laws; universal background checks, which would open the door to firearm registration; banning popular semi-automatic firearms and standard capacity magazines; revoking licenses of gun dealers for minor clerical errors; and pushing Congress to pass laws that would force gun owners to comply with firearm storage regulations, which would likely be followed by mandatory home inspections to insure compliance.

Using open-source and other data, the Second Amendment Foundation examined the office’s key personnel, budget and operations. The findings reveal a Star Chamber of sorts, designed to come up with ways to chip away at the Second Amendment and then push them out to the states, without any scrutiny from Congress, the courts or the public.

“For the first time in the history of the United States a president has created an office within the White House solely to find ways to circumvent and violate the Constitution,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “And do not forget that taxpayer dollars are supporting this abomination. We are paying the Biden-Harris administration to violate our civil rights.”

Continue reading “”

Gun Control and Government Corruption Collide in Chicago Suburb

Police in Dolton, Illinois could soon be walking their beat instead of cruising the streets of the Chicago suburb after a bank moved to repossess much of the police department’s fleet of vehicles for non-payment. According to KS StateBank, the village is behind on its payments to the tune of $76,000, and the bank has been unable to reach anyone at City Hall who could rectify the problem.

Burt Odelson, the legislative counsel for the Village of Dolton Board of Trustees, says the board authorized the payments last May, and he and others are pinning the blame for the snafu on Dolton’s anti-gun mayor Tiffany Henyard.

As questions over unpaid bills have come to light in recent months, WGN Investigates previously uncovered exorbitant spending on lavish trips and experiences by Henyard, which included a trip to Las Vegas that cost more than $12,000 and fell in the same month the loan payment on the village vehicles was due.

… Village of Dolton trustees have gone head-to-head with Henyard at village meetings, calling for transparency, so residents know where taxpayer dollars are going.

“The residents of Dolton deserve to know how the money is being spent,” trustee Brittney Norwood told WGN-TV Thursday.

The board of trustees is in charge of overseeing finances, but some said Henyard has restricted them from access to village financial records, leaving them mostly in the dark. On top of that, several trustees told WGN News Thursday they recently heard from several vendors who claimed they were hired by the mayor for work and never paid for their services. The village is in millions in debt, and did not approve of those expenses, Norwood told WGN.

There’ve been questions about Henyard’s spending for years now. Back in 2021, Second Amendment advocate John Boch detailed that the mayor of the village was doling out hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for a team of officers to serve as her personal security detail, even as she was calling on lawmakers to pass more gun control laws that would make it harder for Dolton residents to protect themselves. The three officers, which accounted for almost 1/10th of the entire police force, cost taxpayers about $100,000 a year each, even though they were tasked almost exclusively with shadowing the small-town mayor.

To put that into perspective, that’s the same number of bodyguards that protect Birmingham, Alabama’s mayor but that city has almost ten times the population of Dolton.

At the same time, Mayor Henyard’s armed personal security detail affords her far more protection than the residents of her city enjoy. One of her first acts after taking office involved organizing an “anti-violence” march. She was joined at that march by anti-gun activist and accused pedophile Father Michael Pfleger.

Henyard was actually recalled by residents in 2022, but the recall election was ruled invalid by state courts and she’s remained in office ever since. With the next mayoral election not scheduled until 2025, there’s no telling how much of a financial hole the village will find itself between now and next November, but it sounds like it’s a distinct possibility that the Dolton Police Department is going to be crippled by the repossession of much of its fleet. I’m guessing that Henyard will ensure that there’s still money to pay for her team of bodyguards or hire convicted child sex offenders for positions that require them to enter residents’ homes, but everyone else who lives in the village is going to be impacted by the financial mismanagement at City Hall.

It’s pretty clear given her anti-gun activism that Henyard doesn’t want those folks to be able to protect themselves with a firearm, and based on the complaints from the trustees and their attorneys it might not be long before Dolton PD isn’t in a position to serve and protect the community at large either. What are they supposed to do to keep themselves and their families safe? I guess the obvious answer is “run for mayor”, since it sounds like Henyard is the one person in Dolton who’s guaranteed to be protected by armed individuals who are still legally allowed to purchase and possess so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines for the mayor’s defense.

Soon to be followed by demand for book titles owned and what religion is practiced……..


California Democrats Introduce Bill That Would Force Homeowners and Renters to Disclose Number of Firearms to Insurance Companies, Government

For years, California Democrats have been hostile to gun owners. California Democrats frequently attempt to erode Second Amendment rights in the state.

A bill in the Democrat-controlled California State Assembly that was introduced on February 16th, would force homeowners and renters to disclose information about firearms they own. Assembly member Mike Gipson, and State Senator Catherine Blakespear are the two leading California Democrat lawmakers pushing this legislation.

Section 2086 will be an addition to the Insurance Code pertaining to AB-3067.

The questions include information as to the number of firearms in the home, the method of storage, and how many firearms are stored in vehicles on the property. The questions include whether or not the firearms are in locked containers or not.

FPC Notches Win In Georgia Young Adult Carry Ban Challenge

The Firearms Policy Coalition recently won a small victory in the ongoing war against Georgia’s ban on concealed carry for young adults.

On Monday, a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that dismissed a lawsuit challenging Georgia’s law banning 18- to 20-year-old citizens from carrying a firearm for self-defense.

In the case Baughcum v. Jackson, the court countered findings by the district court that ruled the individuals represented in the lawsuit didn’t have standing.

“We are confident that the case is not moot—at least as to one of the individual plaintiffs and the FPC,” the ruling stated. “Although Meyer and Long have turned twenty-one while this case has been pending, Baughcum is still twenty. So, his claim (and thus the FPC’s claim based on his membership in the organization) is not moot. Moreover, the FPC is a large membership organization and says it has other eighteen-to twenty-one-year-old members in Georgia, such that it continues to have associational standing to litigate this suit.”

FPC filed the suit on behalf of the three young adults. Since the case was filed, two of them have turned 21, making them eligible to apply for a concealed carry permit under Georgia law.

Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC Action Foundation vice president and general counsel, and counsel for FPC, said his organization was happy to receive the good news from the circuit court.

“We’re pleased that the Eleventh Circuit has agreed with FPC and the individual Plaintiffs that our challenge to Georgia’s unconstitutional age restriction can proceed,” Wisniewski said after the ruling. “The defendants have sought to avoid the actual constitutional issues underlying this case by attempting to distract the Court with theories about why we couldn’t bring this challenge. Now that the Eleventh Circuit has settled that question, we can proceed with what really matters—vindicating the rights of 18- to 20-year-old adults in Georgia.”

When it comes to Constitutionally protected rights, about the only one that is infringed upon for 18- to 20-year-old Americans is the right to keep and bear arms. With the 2022 Supreme Court Bruen decision upholding the right of citizens to carry firearms outside the home, states depriving adults aged 18 to 20 of this right are almost certainly running afoul of the Second Amendment.

This battle for young Americans’ right to keep and bear arms has a lengthy history, yet not much real progress has been made. In fact, in the courtroom the matter has repeatedly taken one step forward, then two steps back—usually after the process is dragged out long enough that the plaintiffs turn 21 and their rights are no longer infringed.

any excuse….


Proposed legislation on two gun law changes scrapped in Missouri after parade shooting

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Legislation that would allow firearms in churches and other places of worship with a concealed carry permit will be scrapped in this year’s Missouri legislative session.

In addition, proposed legislation that would provide a sales tax exemption for firearms and ammunition sales also will not get a vote during the session.

Sales tax opponents claim “that this bill is intended to preserve our second amendment rights. Taxation on firearms and ammunition is an infringement on our right to bear arms. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to tax firearms and ammunition. This bill specifies that firearms and ammunition sold in this state are exempt from state and local sales tax.”

Opponents of the sales tax exemption claim “sales tax on firearms and ammunition is very important for funding necessities like public infrastructure and city services. Opponents further stated that this is not an infringement on a constitutional right, but is merely a tax on a product. Opponents stated that they would be opposed to any sales tax reduction.”

Rep. Jonathan Patterson, Republican Majority Floor Leader. said in a statement that “while I do think both proposals are worthy of debate, they have no path to becoming law at this point. “Now is not the appropriate time to be taking up those bills and therefore they will not be brought up this session.”

This comes after the mass shooting at Wednesday’s after the Chiefs Champions Victory Parade and rally at Union Station.

The gunfire killed well-known DJ Lisa Lopez-Galvan and wounded more than 20 others.

Two juveniles have been charged in connection with the shootings.

“The juveniles are currently detained in secure detention at the Juvenile Detention Center on gun related and resisting arrest charges,” according to a statement from the 16th Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri – Jackson County Family Court Division. “It is anticipated that additional charges are expected in the future as the investigation by the Kansas City Police Department continues.”

In addition, Jose Castillo, was charged in Jackson County Court with unlawful possession of a firearm.

Castillo is set for a bond hearing on Feb. 26.

 

UNCONSTITUTIONAL
WHY THIS WORD IS SHOWING UP MORE IN COURT RULINGS

Just before I sat down to write this week’s installment, a federal district judge in central Florida handed down a 42-page ruling, posted online by Reuters, which declared the long-running ban on carrying firearms inside post offices is a Second Amendment violation.

U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, a Donald Trump appointee (see, elections do matter!) put it bluntly, which seems to be a hallmark among conservative judges now unraveling a lot of truly egregious legislation and regulations adopted over the years that have restricted your rights. Here’s part of what she said:

“First, nothing in Supreme Court dicta establishes that the United States may ban firearms in all government buildings. Second, the scope of the Second Amendment right is a legal question, not a factual one, and I need not hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve it. Instead, the government bears the burden to identify historical evidence supporting its challenged regulation. Finally, I explain why the United States errs in arguing that its proprietorship of federal land and buildings excludes vast swathes of the country from the protection of the Second Amendment.”

Elsewhere, Judge Mizelle observed, “Possessing a firearm in a federal facility is an activity that falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment … Thus, the United States must show that a ban on firearms in ordinary post offices is consistent with our nation’s founding-era tradition of firearms regulation.”

Of course, the ruling will be appealed, probably before you read this. But it is now on the record that one more federal restriction on the right to bear arms has been ruled unconstitutional by yet another judge.

California’s long-standing ban on so-called “assault rifles” and “high-capacity

magazines” has been ruled unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez.

This isn’t new, but it is interesting and, in some ways, entertaining. Out in San Diego, California, U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez has made something of a habit declaring Golden State gun control laws unconstitutional. He’s done it with the state’s ban on so-called “large-capacity magazines” and so-called “assault weapons.”

Judge Benitez has gotten so far under Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom’s thin skin that the governor has attacked him personally. When Benitez struck down the magazine ban, Newsom posted a rant on his official website calling the judge an “idealogue.”

Judge Benitez last fall ruled the state’s decades-old “assault weapons” ban is unconstitutional. California lawmakers were an unhappy lot.

When Judge Cormac Carney more recently struck down the California “sensitive places” gun ban, calling it “repugnant” to the Second Amendment, Newsom issued a statement to the California media.

“Defying common sense, this ruling outrageously calls California’s data-backed gun safety efforts ‘repugnant,’” Newsom told the Los Angeles Times. “What is repugnant is this ruling, which greenlights the proliferation of guns in our hospitals, libraries, and children’s playgrounds — spaces which should be safe for all.”

Judge Carney’s decision was a big win for the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and California Rifle & Pistol Association, and their partners in the federal lawsuit challenging the “sensitive places” law.

Judges Benitez and Carney are both George W. Bush appointees.

West Virginia Ruling

Back in December, U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas S. Kleeh with the Northern District of West Virginia declared a federal law prohibiting handgun sales to 18-20-year-olds is “facially unconstitutional.” He granted a summary judgment in another case brought by SAF, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year.

Another District Court judge, in West Virginia, has ruled that the federal

law prohibiting handgun sales to young adults is “facially unconstitutional.”

In his 40-page decision, Judge Kleeh wrote, “(B)ecause Plaintiffs’ conduct – the purchase of handguns – ‘fall[s] [within] the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command’ and the challenged statutes and regulations are not ‘consistent with the Nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation,’ the Court FINDS 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) facially unconstitutional and as applied to Plaintiffs.”

Judge Kleeh is a Donald Trump appointee.

So, What’s Going On?

Much of this drama can be attributed to language in the Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In that decision, authored for the majority by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, the high court set down new guidelines for deciding Second Amendment cases.

 

Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, official portrait, public domain.

This excerpt from the Thomas opinion probably sums it up: “In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.

Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’”

Continue reading “”

 To Trust the People with Arms: The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment.

In 2007, for the first time in nearly seventy years, the Supreme Court decided to hear a case involving the Second Amendment. The resulting decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) was the first time the Court declared a firearms restriction to be unconstitutional on the basis of the Second Amendment.

It was followed two years later by a similar decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago, and in 2022, the Court further expanded its support for Second Amendment rights in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen—a decision whose far-reaching implications are still being unraveled.

To Trust the People with Arms explores the remarkable and complex legal history of how the right to bear arms was widely accepted during the nation’s founding, was near extinction in the late twentieth century, and is now experiencing a rebirth in the Supreme Court in the twenty-first century.

Continue reading “”

Concealed Carry Crime Stats 2024: The Impact of Permitless Carry on Crime in the U.S.

Report Highlights

  • There are 26 states with permitless concealed carry freedoms
  • Washington, D.C., has the highest rate of firearm-related homicides even though it has strict carry laws
  • 83% of states with permitless concealed carry have a homicide rate at or below the national average
  • 45% of states with no permitless concealed carry laws have homicide rates above the national average
  • 3 out of 5 of the safest five states in the U.S. have permitless concealed carry
  • 2 out of 5 of the top five most dangerous states in the U.S. have permitless concealed carry, and 3 out of 5 require permits for concealed carry
  • 84% of states have a lower violent crime rate in 2022 than they did before permitless concealed carry

Concealed Carry Crime Stats

In 2024 there are several states with open carry and permitless concealed carry laws.

However, there isn’t a positive correlation between permitless carry and criminality.

The following sections explore crime rates and homicides in states with and without permitless concealed carry laws.

States with Concealed Carry vs. Permit Required

State laws vary widely regarding when and how citizens can carry a concealed firearm.

Twenty-six U.S. states have permitless concealed carry, and Mississippi has some limitations regarding which calibers and how citizens can carry without a permit. However, nineteen states and Washington D.C. require permits for concealed carry of firearms.

Does Concealed Carry Reduce Crime

One of the more pressing questions about crime in the U.S. is whether permitless concealed carry reduces violent crimes and homicides. Unfortunately, we don’t have the data to support a conclusion on the subject.

However, several states with permitless concealed carry have lower crime rates today than they did before the passage of these new laws. Moreover, you’ll find the states with the highest and lowest crime rates have varying concealed carry laws.

By definition, only twenty-six states allow citizens to conceal carry firearms without a permit. Other states implement restrictions on how one can carry a firearm, and others require training and permits for any carry (open or concealed).

Moreover, it’s important to note that permitless concealed carry laws do not make it easier to obtain a firearm. Although state laws vary, Federal laws restrict certain individuals from purchasing and possessing firearms nationwide (even if purchased from private sellers).

States with Concealed Carry vs Permit Required

There isn’t a strong correlation between concealed carry rights and crime.

Concealed Carry Reduces Crime Stats

Continue reading “”

Will the Clock Run Out on Grisham’s Anti-Gun Agenda?

We’re less than a week away from the 30-day legislative session coming to a close in New Mexico, and despite an onslaught of gun control bills backed by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and supported by most Democrat lawmakers, so far no anti-gun measures have been sent to her desk.

That’s almost certain to change in the next couple of days, with a 7-day waiting period bill poised for final passage in the state Senate, but it’s beginning to look like time might run out before the bulk of her anti-gun agenda is approved by lawmakers in both chambers.

“We’re getting late in the session; we only have a week to go,” Rep. Christine Chandler, D-Los Alamos, said in an interview Thursday. Chandler has her name on two gun bills — one to make it easier to take guns away from people who might threaten themselves or others, one to go after gun sellers whose weapons end up in the wrong hands — that have stalled and may not get restarted, she said. Both are in a holding pattern just outside the landing field known as the House floor.

It could be difficult to get either bill through the House and then over to the Senate for vetting and support, she said, for one reason: “They are going to be racing against the clock.”

That clock is ticking away, and those bills are among more than 750 pieces of legislation introduced in this year’s session. They are fighting for attention against a raft of bills that have nothing to do with crime or guns, including approving a budget for the coming fiscal year.

In short, it’s priority time, and a lot of things are going to be left stuck behind in the mud.

What you will see now, said Sen. Pete Campos, D-Las Vegas, is a focus on the budget and capital outlay bills, meaning “some of the other issues will fall by the wayside, and they won’t have a chance to make it.”

Still, he said he expects long Senate floor sessions Friday and Saturday in an effort to move some bills forward, including gun-related legislation.

“Gun safety and gun issues will take up quite a bit of time,” he said in an interview.

Rep. Gail Armstrong, R-Magdalena, also expressed optimism some crime bills can make it.

“I think we’ll be on the floor a lot, I think we can still do it,” she said.

On the other hand she, like most Republicans and some conservative Democrats, is less enamored of supporting any new gun laws that, as they see it, violate the right to bear arms.

“I don’t want any of the gun bills [to get through],” she said in an interview.

The Democrat-controlled House and Senate haven’t rejected any of Grisham’s gun control bills, though they did water down the waiting period from 14 business days to 7. Even if the legislature only sends a couple of 2A-infringing bills to the governor she can always call a special session and bring lawmakers back to Santa Fe to finish the job. And even with many of her anti-gun priorities stuck in a holding pattern, there’s no guarantee they’ll continue to be bottled up until the session is gaveled to a close.

Albuquerque pollster and political analyst Brian Sanderoff said at this point in the legislative game, if it becomes clear a bill does not have the support of the majority of the Legislature or the strong support of a committee chair, it will likely “die just because time is running out.”…

Sanderoff said it is premature to assume any bill cannot be driven to the finish line in the last week of the session. He said if Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, and Democratic lawmakers in both parties want a bill to succeed, “there is still time to get it through the legislative process.”

It’s far too early for gun owners to celebrate. Honestly, even after sine die Second Amendment supporters need to be wary, because a special session may very well be on the table. Grisham threatened to bring legislators back to Santa Fe to work on multiple gun control bills last year, but eventually backed down when it became clear that her agenda didn’t have the support to pass. I’m not sure the same political calculus exists this year, given that many of her suggested gun control measures have cleared legislative committees along party lines and without any objections from her fellow Democrats.

We’ll be talking more about what might happen in the waning days of this year’s session on Monday’s Bearing Arms Cam & Co, but right now the most important takeaway is that gun owners need to keep up the pressure on lawmakers to say “no” to Grisham’s gun control package and any other infringements on our right to keep and bear arms… or to at least keep those bills sidelined until the session draws to a close. We can deal with a special session if and when the governor calls for one, but for now the goal should be to get to sine die with the Second Amendment still intact.

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has reversed a lower court decision dismissing a Second Amendment challenge to Georgia’s law banning public carry by 18-20 year olds.

202213444

I can see a ‘Circuit Split’ sometime in the near future…..


Wyoming’s Appeals Court Upholds Law Barring Drug Users From Having Guns
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Wyoming, on Friday upheld a federal law barring drug users from possessing guns. Hunter Biden is charged under that same law in a federal court in Delaware.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Wyoming, on Friday upheld a federal law barring drug users from possessing guns.

The appeals court didn’t say that the statute, 18 USC 922(g)3, is altogether constitutional, just that a lower court judge was wrong to proclaim it unconstitutional in this case.

This decision comes after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals chipped away at the law in a separate case by saying it unconstitutionally denied a marijuana user’s Second Amendment rights. That case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden’s son, is charged with that same law in a Delaware federal court. His case is ongoing.

Continue reading “”

Judge blocks Omaha’s ban on guns in public places while lawsuit challenging it moves forward

OMAHA, Neb. — Nebraska’s largest city won’t be able to enforce its ban on guns on all public property, including parks and sidewalks, while a lawsuit challenging that restriction moves forward.
Douglas County District Judge LeAnne Srb issued a preliminary injunction Friday blocking that ban, but she refused to put Omaha’s restrictions on “ghost guns” and bump stocks on hold.

The Liberty Justice Center filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association arguing that the city restrictions violate a new state law passed last year that allows people to carry concealed guns across the state without a permit and without the need to complete a gun safety course. A similar lawsuit challenging gun restrictions in Lincoln remains pending.

“We are thrilled with the court’s decision to grant this injunction and uphold Nebraskans’ rights against executive overreach,” said Jacob Huebert, president of the Liberty Justice Center. “Under Nebraska law, local governments do not have the authority to regulate firearms — the right to bear arms is protected across the state.”

Just before gun owners filed these lawsuits, Nebraska Attorney General Michael Hilgers published an opinion stating that state law preempts executive orders from the mayors restricting guns.

Omaha City Attorney Matt Kuhse said “while it is unfortunate that the court enjoined the city’s ability to protect our public spaces, we will abide by this order.” But the city will continue to fight the lawsuit.

Counterpoint: More guns don’t equal more crime

There may be no tenet of faith so fundamental to the cult of gun control than the idea that more guns equate to more crime — a theory that was soundly disproven in 2023.

Just four years after the biggest recorded one-year spike in our nation’s homicide rate, it looks as if the United States may have just gone through the biggest one-year decline, an impossibility according to gun control activists.

There are millions more guns around than there were four years ago, yet the vast majority of cities reported fewer homicides than they did in 2020. That includes several cities where permitless carry recently took effect. Atlanta reported a 22 percent decline in murders. Toledo, Ohio, saw a 34 percent drop in the homicide rate, almost identical to the 33 percent decline in Oklahoma City.

The mayor of Miami boasted that the city had the fewest homicides since 1947, even though gun-control activists predicted the state’s permitless carry law would lead to more violence when Gov. Ron DeSantis signed it into law last year.

Those same advocates also asserted that the demise of “may issue” concealed carry laws, which required applicants to demonstrate a justifiable need to have a firearm in self-defense, would also lead to more dangerous cities. There’s no evidence that the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen had any detrimental effect on public safety last year.

Indeed, in the first full year that “shall issue” concealed carry was in place, Baltimore recorded fewer than 300 homicides for the first time in nearly a decade. At the same time, Los Angeles and New York saw 10 percent declines, even as more citizens were lawfully carrying firearms in self-defense.

Meanwhile, some of the most gun-controlled locales in the country saw their violence grow worse last year while it remained stagnant in many others. For instance, the District of Columbia reported the most murders in more than two decades. Bridgeport and New Haven, Connecticut, saw double-digit increases in homicide, with New Haven’t murders spiking by almost 65 percent.

Seattle witnessed a 20 percent rise in the number of homicides, while the number of murders in Oakland, Calif., and San Francisco were almost unchanged from 2022.

The truth is that most U.S. cities had fewer murders last year regardless of the amount of gun-control laws in place. That shouldn’t come as a surprise given the local nature of violent crime, which is typically driven by fewer than 1 percent of a city’s population and who are already well-known to local police and the criminal justice system. The most effective crime-fighting strategies are those that target the most likely and prolific offenders, which means that gun-control laws aimed at legal gun owners are wildly off-target.

Those strategies vary wildly from city to city, just like their crime rates. And their effectiveness depends far more on the individuals guiding those programs than any legislation signed into law by a governor. Take Kansas City and St. Louis, which operate under the same Missouri gun laws but saw the number of homicides veer off in different directions last year, increasing by 7 percent in Kansas City while dropping by more than 20 percent in St. Louis.

Gun-control advocates may want to point at Kansas City’s woes while ignoring the progress made in St. Louis, but if we’re serious about improving public safety, we need an honest accounting of what’s working, what isn’t, and yes, what can be done without infringing on the fundamental right to armed self-defense. The data are telling us that more guns don’t equal more crime, but unfortunately, the gun control lobby and their allies in elected office don’t seem to be listening.

Financial Big Brother is Watching You
A brief note on an overlooked nightmare.

A few weeks ago, Ohio congressman and Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Jordan’s office released a letter to Noah Bishoff, the former director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, an arm of the Treasury Department. Jordan’s team was asking Bishoff for answers about why FinCEN had “distributed slides, prepared by a financial institution,” detailing how other private companies might use MCC transaction codes to “detect customers whose transactions may reflect ‘potential active shooters.’” The slide suggested the “financial company” was sorting for terms like “Trump” and “MAGA,” and watching for purchases of small arms and sporting goods, or purchases in places like pawn shops or Cabela’s, to identify financial threats.

Jordan’s letter to Bishoff went on:

According to this analysis, FinCEN warned financial institutions of “extremism” indicators that include “transportation charges, such as bus tickets, rental cars, or plane tickets, for travel to areas with no apparent purpose,” or “the purchase of books (including religious texts) and subscriptions to other media containing extremist views.”

During the Twitter Files, we searched for snapshots of the company’s denylist algorithms, i.e. whatever rules the platform was using to deamplify or remove users. We knew they had them, because they were alluded to often in documents (a report on the denylist is_Russian, which included Jill Stein and Julian Assange, was one example). However, we never found anything like the snapshot Jordan’s team just published:

The highlighted portion shows how algorithmic analysis works in financial surveillance. First compile a list of naughty behaviors, in the form of MCC codes for guns, sporting goods, and pawn shops. Then, create rules: $2,500 worth of transactions in the forbidden codes, or a number showing that more than 50% of the customer’s transactions are the wrong kind, might trigger a response. The Committee wasn’t able to specify what the responses were in this instance, but from previous experience covering anti-money-laundering (AML) techniques at banks like HSBC, a good guess would be generation of something like Suspcious Activity Reports, which can lead to a customer being debanked.

If Facebook, Twitter, and Google have already shown a tendency toward wide-scale monitoring of speech and the use of subtle levers to apply pressure on attitudes, financial companies can use records of transactions to penetrate individual behaviors far more deeply. Especially if enhanced by AI, a financial history can give almost any institution an immediate, unpleasantly accurate outline of anyone’s life, habits, and secrets. Worse, they can couple that picture with a powerful disciplinary lever, in the form of the threat of closed accounts or reduced access to payment services or credit. Jordan’s slide is a picture of the birth of the political credit score.

There’s more coming on this, and other articles forthcoming (readers who’ve noticed it’s been quiet around here will soon find out why). While the world falls to pieces over Tucker, Putin, and Ukraine, don’t overlook this horror movie. If banks and the Treasury are playing the same domestic spy game that Twitter and Facebook have been playing with the FBI, tales like the frozen finances of protesting Canadian truckers won’t be novelties for long. As is the case with speech, where huge populations have learned to internalize censorship rules almost overnight, we may soon have to learn the hard way that even though some behaviors aren’t illegal, they can still be punished with great effectiveness, in a Terminator-like world where computers won’t miss anything that moves.

What a crazy time we live in! See you from the Nevada caucus, and watch this space for other news soon.