OPINION: The true intent of the Democrats’ anti-militia bill is to infringe on firearm training
This bill paints a target on the back of every law-abiding gun owner.

As a law-abiding citizen of this great country, I can form my own militia if I so choose, appoint myself colonel, enlist my friends as privates or PFCs, and we can run around the woods until we all keel over from heatstroke or heart attacks — whatever comes first. It’s all perfectly legal, at least for now.

We have the right to criticize our government. We can sit around the campfire at our secret militia base nursing our sore muscles and fire ant bites and talk about how Joe walks like a penguin, or how it would take Kamala a good 20 minutes just to tell you you’re on fire. It’s all perfectly legal and protected speech, at least for now.

We have the right to train with our firearms. We can draw from a holster, shoot while moving, practice CQB and send as much lead downrange as our bank accounts will allow. It’s all perfectly legal conduct, at least for now.

However, a new bill making its way through Congress known as the “Preventing Private Paramilitary Activity Act of 2024,” would make all of this illegal or at least suspicious enough to draw scrutiny from the feds. More importantly, it would paint a target on the back of every single American gun owner, which is the actual intent of this ill-conceived and extremely unconstitutional legislation.

To be clear, if Joe Biden ever signs this bill, the second he puts down his crayon the feds will flock to local gun ranges in numbers that will make it nearly impossible for actual members to find a place just to park. This bill would give them license to investigate anyone who trains with a gun in order to determine whether they’re a militia member — and don’t think for a second that they won’t.

The FBI recently investigated law-abiding Americans whose sole transgression was shopping at a Cabela’s or a DICK’s Sporting Goods. Evidently, the FBI, the country’s so-called premier law enforcement agency, wasn’t aware DICK’s stopped selling guns and ammunition eons ago. Nowadays, the most dangerous thing on their shelves is a pickleball paddle.

When the Framers wrote the Second Amendment, militia membership was not only encouraged, it was required. All able-bodied men were instructed to own a firearm, powder and shot and to keep them clean and serviceable in the event they were ever needed. Now, under the guise that it might be militia-related, a handful of lawmakers are trying to criminalize firearm training — especially anything tactical. In my humble opinion, it is just another step toward their ultimate goal of total civilian disarmament.

Continue reading “”

SloJoe couldn’t executive order his way out of wet paper bag on this subject

Biden Pushes For More Gun Control

President Joe Biden is coming for your guns— if you needed any more of a reason to vote him out of office.

On Thursday, the White House announced that Biden would use executive action to further restrict law-abiding American citizen’s right to the Second Amendment.

However, this time, the president’s actions will be designed to take action against gun storage.

Biden’s executive action will “promote safe storage of firearms that implement President Biden’s Executive Order on promoting safe gun storage in order to reduce gun violence and make our communities safer,” according to a White House statement.

In the 14-page document that outlines how gun owners can store their weapons to prevent children or others in the home from accessing them, the White House claims that safe storage of firearms can reduce “school shootings, youth suicides, unintentional shootings, and theft of firearms.”

The Biden Department of Justice is expected to release guidelines in a nationwide letter to school principals. The note urges school staff to talk to parents of school children about gun storage safety, providing them with a communication template school leaders can use when talking with parents about firearm storage.

The president has been promoting gun control since day one of his presidency. Rather than addressing the underlying problems when it comes to gun violence, Biden has politically pushed divisive measures that could damage American’s right to keep and bear arms while, at the same time, failing to make the nation safer.

In the past, Biden has said he wants to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and to require background checks for all gun sales. He also has said he is eager to take on the National Rifle Association.

“Only three percent of gun-related homicides every year are committed by rifles of any kind,” Amy Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, said. “They are far, far less dangerous if you’re just looking merely at how criminals use guns. What is actually used in the vast majority of gun deaths and gun crimes is not these guns. So again, even if you get past these constitutional issues, is this even a policy that’s going to make Americans meaningfully safer? And the answer is no. Frankly, it’s not designed that way. It’s designed as this political pushback against scary-looking guns.”

In stark contrast, Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, is currently facing three federal gun charges that accuse him of possessing a gun as a drug user and lying on a federal form when he bought it.

As Hunter Biden heads to trial, he must lean heavily on the Second Amendment to avoid prosecution. Ironically, at the same time, his presidential father is taking drastic steps to diminish 2A. Biden is expected to make gun safety a focus of his re-election campaign this year.

It isn’t surprising that gun safety groups, who are outspokenly against the Second Amendment and have close ties to the Biden White House, have been silent on the issue.

What’s Behind the Lack of Compliance With Illinois Gun Registration Mandate?

Yesterday we covered the latest figures on registered “assault weapons” released by the Illinois State Police, which shows a continued and widespread non-compliance with the Protect Illinois Communities Act. We’re following up that post on today’s Bearing Arms Cam & Co with Dan Eldridge, the owner of Maxon Shooter’s Supplies and Indoor Range in Des Plaines, Illinois. Dan’s been taking a look at the newest data as well, and has plenty to say about the lack of affidavits filed with the Illinois State Police both ahead of and after the January 1 deadline.

According to his calculations, if roughly 1-in-5 Illinois gun owners possess one of the now-banned firearms, then less than 5 percent of them have complied with the state’s requirement that they submit an affidavit to that effect with the Illinois State Police. Eldridge says there’s certainly civil disobedience taking place, but he believes some of the non-compliance stems from uncertainty and ignorance about the law.

“The state police produced a number of documents that are supposed to guide people through the process; should this be registered, should this not be registered. But it’s incomplete and full of flaws,” Eldridge explained.

“They also didn’t promulgate this law very well. They have everybody’s mailing address on the FOID card. They could have sent a letter with an explainer saying this is the law and you have to do this, this, and this.

They didn’t figure out the ‘this, this, and this’ particularly well, but more than that, there are people out there who own guns who aren’t as plugged in to gun rights as you and I and your audience are.

They’re going about their lives, and who would expect that his or her turkey gun needs to be registered? Who would expect that their kid’s 10/22 rifle needs to be registered? So there’s that aspect of ignorance of the law as well.”

Dan and I both agree that non-compliance, for whatever reason, appears to be highest in downstate locations like Pope and Pike counties, where just 0.4 percent of all FOID holders have submitted affidavits. But even in places like Cook County fewer than 1 percent of FOID card holders have submitted affidavits, and the counties with the highest rates of compliance, like McLean and Lake counties, have seen less than 2 percent of FOID holders file affidavits with the state police.

Eldridge pointed out that Cook County has had its own “assault weapons” ban in place for years, which has probably cut down on the number of FOID holders who possess one of those items. But he also notes that the universe of guns banned under PICA is much bigger than the county-level bans, so even in the Chicagoland area it appears there’s a large amount of non-compliance with the registration mandate. Again, not every FOID card holder has a gun that must be registered, but there’s simply no way that the number of gun owners who fall under the provisions of the Protect Illinois Communities Act is anywhere close to the paltry number of affidavits on file.

One of the primary reasons why gun owners may be holding off is that they’re hoping the law will be overturned. Keeping track of the multiple lawsuits that have been filed can be a challenge all its own, but Eldridge says the case brought by the Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, along with three other lawsuits, are on a fast-track before U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn, and he’s hoping that we’ll have a good decision from the judge as early as mid-April.

If the state appeals to the Seventh Circuit and no undue delays take place in the appellate court issuing its own opinion, Eldridge says he’s hopeful that the Supreme Court could grant cert for the term that begins in October of this year. Given that many downstate sheriffs and some state’s attorneys have said they have no plans on enforcing the law, it wouldn’t surprise me if many gun owners in those locales have decided there’s more potential reward than risk in not complying with the state’s demand to register firearms the legislature has made illegal.

In fact, attorneys for the state of Illinois are now contending that the risk of prosecution for failing to register is basically non-existent. In arguing to dismiss a Fifth Amendment claim against PICA, the attorney general’s office recently declared that no gun owner needs to worry about their right to avoid self-incrimination by registering after the deadline has passed.

In their response to a Fifth Amendment challenge to the state’s gun ban and registry in the Southern District of Illinois federal court, attorneys for the state say the right against self-incrimination isn’t violated by the registry.

The state’s lawyers argue the registration is a “voluntary benefit that exempts owners of certain” firearms from “otherwise applicable criminal penalties.” They also argue the “government has no authority to impose” penalties on those that don’t register and the idea someone would be prosecuted for what they file is “not real.”

“[T]he fanciful chain of events they have dreamed up has no serious chance of coming to fruition,” the filing said.

Then why impose a deadline or make possession of an unregistered firearm a criminal offense in the first place? “Allow us to keep this law because we promise we won’t enforce it” is an odd argument to make, and not one that Judge McGlynn is likely to find persuasive. For now, both the gun registry and the gun and magazine ban at the heart of PICA remain in place, but compliance with the registry remains an outlier among Illinois gun owners.

This makes no sense whatsoever, but then most goobermint doesn’t


State: ‘Government has no authority’ to impose penalties for not registering banned guns
Data shows 5,900 registered banned guns in Illinois after Jan. 1

(The Center Square) – The state of Illinois says “government has no authority” to impose criminal penalties for those not registering banned firearms.

Illinois State Police have updated the gun ban registration numbers to include those who registered after the Jan. 1 deadline. On top of the 29,357 individuals who registered before the deadline, 5,867 have registered since. The total of those registering before and after the deadline of 35,224 is 1.46% of the state’s more than 2.4 million Firearm Owners ID card holders.

Also updated is a list of how many individuals registered banned items per county. Cook County had the highest numbers of those registering at 6,364. Pope County had the fewest at five.

Lawsuits against the gun ban and registry continue in state and federal court.

In their response to a Fifth Amendment challenge to the state’s gun ban and registry in the Southern District of Illinois federal court, attorneys for the state say the right against self-incrimination isn’t violated by the registry.

The state’s lawyers argue the registration is a “voluntary benefit that exempts owners of certain” firearms from “otherwise applicable criminal penalties.” They also argue the “government has no authority to impose” penalties on those that don’t register and the idea someone would be prosecuted for what they file is “not real.”

“[T]he fanciful chain of events they have dreamed up has no serious chance of coming to fruition,” the filing said.

The filing is part of the ongoing litigation that plaintiffs’ attorney Thomas Maag predicts will get to the merits of the issues in the months ahead.

“It was clear from what [Judge Stephen McGlynn] said that he said that the lawyers should not plan on missing any breaks over the summer,” Maag told The Center Square. “That the judge wants to have a trial on the merits before June.”

Separately in state court last week, an Effingham County judge denied attorney Thomas DeVore’s attempt to reinstate his gun ban challenges that were vacated last year after the Illinois Supreme Court sided with the state in the case brought by state Rep. Dan Caulkins, R-Decatur.

DeVore said he’s taken the case to the appellate court.

“The judge just kicked the can down the road, he didn’t stop this case,” DeVore told The Center Square. “And the Illinois Supreme Court in their ruling in Caulkins did one good thing, is they gave me a roadmap on how I can win the arguments on equal protection.”

DeVore contends the state saying exempt classes of people, like active duty and retired police, security and prison guards, have specialized training is a “legal fiction.”

“If you break them down, you will find that almost none of them have a duty to protect the public order and the training,” he said.

All preliminary attempts in state and federal court at blocking the law from being implemented have not resulted in the law being overturned. It’s expected the issue will be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Business Insider: Very Dangerous to ‘Indoctrinate’ Young Americans That They Can Lawfully Possess a Firearm.

Get woke, go broke and learn to code. Such is the hard lesson over at Sports Illustrated after the announcement that all of their writers will soon become unemployed and the publication’s future remains “uncertain.”  Enter Business Insider.  nstead of writing about issues germane to commerce and ways to operate businesses more effectively and profitably, BI’s crack team of future coders have gone another direction.

Their latest pearl-clutching screed laments the dangers of teaching America’s young people that they have the God-given right to own a gun for lawful purposes, including self-defense.  Why, it’s almost as if BI interns took a press release from the “Brady” gun control org and decided to post it as headline news on their website.

Shudder.

From Business Insider:

The NRA wants your kid to love guns: programs promote 2nd Amendment absolutism to Kindergarteners on up

For the National Rifle Association, no American is too young to join in their absolutist defense of the Second Amendment — and that includes Kindergarteners.

Continue reading “”

Image

Sordid Lessons from Uvalde School Shooting; Justice Department Cites “Cascading Failures.”

WHEN SECONDS COUNT, THE POLICE ARE MINUTES AWAY JUST NOT COMING

The U.S. Department of Justice released its findings yesterday on the May 2022 school shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, which left nineteen children and two teachers dead and another 17 wounded. The report, “Critical Incident Review Active Shooter at Robb Elementary School,” found what it called “cascading failures of leadership, decision-making, tactics, policy and training” also using terms such as “critical failure,” “breakdown,” demonstrations upon leadership “of no urgency,” policy “training deficiencies” and more on the part of mostly local law enforcement officials. The word “failure” appeared dozens of times throughout the report.

The report noted that law enforcement officers were on the scene within 3 minutes of the first 911 call, yet the threat was not eliminated until more than an hour later.

The central issue was found to be a failure by law enforcement to treat the scene as an active shooter situation upon arrival. Specifically, first-on-the-scene responders, including the commanding officer reportedly shifted the response to that of a barricaded shooter…despite 911 dispatchers relaying they had received calls from children inside the classroom four minutes after officers arrived. Leadership also failed to establish a clear command structure, leaving many arriving support officers confused and without clear orders. 

Officials received intense criticism in the aftermath of the attack, with more than 75 minutes passing after the initial police response and before action was taken against the shooter, during which multiple calls by students were made to 911.

Former Uvalde Acting Police Chief Mariano Pargas and Uvalde school district Police Chief Pete Arredondo, neither who are still on their jobs, is where much of the initial blame has been placed as they were both ultimately in charge. Indeed, many families of the victims and within the community of Uvalde want officials who were responsible for the botched response to face criminal charges, according to the Texas Tribune. According to the Associated Press, local officials are still “weighing whether to bring charges.”

What added more pain and disgust to the situation for many Americans at the time of the massacre was the scene of police officers, who we now know went from “active shooter” mode to dealing with what they simply were communicating as a “barricade situation,” keeping understandably panicked parents—some getting text messages and calls from their children inside the school—from entering to save their children.

To review the complete 610-page Justice Dept. report, click here.

U.S. House Judiciary Committee approves South Dakota firearm legislation

RAPID CITY, S.D. (KOTA) – On Thursday, two bills submitted by South Dakota Representative Dusty Johnson passed out of the House Judiciary Committee. The bills focus on the Second Amendment and the right to own a firearm.

To be able to purchase a firearm in the United States, you need to have an identification card such as a driver’s license, passport, or military ID. However, Tribal IDs are not currently accepted, and because of this, Representative Johnson re-introduced the Tribal Firearm Access Act, which would classify a Tribal ID as a valid form of identification for the purchase of firearms.

“They should be able to use that same government-issued photo ID to be able to go through purchasing a gun. They still have to go through the background check, they still have to go through the same process with a federal firearms dealer. But it makes it clear that having a tribal ID is just as good as having a state-issued driver’s license for the purchasing of firearms,” stated Rep. Johnson.

Also Thursday, the Travelers Gun Rights Act was passed out of the same committee. The bill, also introduced by Johnson, would allow firearm access for those who don’t have a permanent physical address.

“In many states to be considered a resident, you have to have lived in a permanent residence for quite a period of time, a year is not unusual, and you have to be considered that resident before you can purchase a firearm. That isn’t fair to military spouses. People who travel all over the country following that military member. It’s also going to make it that much easier for RV-ers, people who don’t have a permanent address that they’re at day in and day out, they’re out on the road, to also be able to exercise their second amendment rights,” Johnson continued.

Senator Mike Rounds also supported the Traveler’s Gun Rights Act. The next step for both bills is the full House.

3 Gun Rights Cases Before the Supreme Court You Should Know About

Both sides of the Second Amendment debate will be watching the U.S. Supreme Court closely in 2024 as it applies the standards from previous decisions to new high-profile cases.

In the 2022 New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, the Supreme Court ruled that, to be constitutional, new gun laws must match the plain text of the Constitution and the “history and tradition” of the United States.
“The test that … applies today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority in June 2022.

One of the first major post-Bruen cases, United States v. Rahimi has court watchers curious about how Bruen will be applied. The high court heard oral arguments on Rahimi on Nov. 7, 2023.

Federal law currently bars those who are under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns. The Supreme Court in the Rahimi case will decide if it stays or goes.

Gun control advocates say the “text and tradition” standard of the Bruen decision, if applied in Rahimi, would allow violent abusers access to guns, resulting in the deaths of domestic violence victims.

“The Supreme Court must reverse this dangerous [Bruen] ruling,” Janet Carter, senior director of issues and appeals at Everytown Law, wrote on the Everytown for Gun Safety website. “Domestic abusers do not have—and should not have—the constitutional right to possess a firearm.”
Gun rights advocates say the Rahimi case has been mischaracterized as an attempt to arm violent criminals when it’s really about protecting society without preemptively suspending constitutional rights.

“It’s going to answer one issue, which is, do we as a country have a historical tradition of disarming people that we believe to be dangerous?” William Kirk, a Washington state-based lawyer who specializes in the Second Amendment, told The Epoch Times.

Continue reading “”

Op-Ed: HB 114 – Destruction Of State Firearm Industry Act

This dangerous legislation, prefiled at the Roundhouse by Los Alamos State Representative Christine Chandler, targets the already heavily regulated firearm industry with potential litigation intended to make it impossible to remain in business in New Mexico.

This specific, aggressive targeting of the singular industry necessary for the citizens to exercise a constitutionally protected right weaponizes the civil justice system and will create a vacuum into which unlicensed and unregulated persons and entities will likely step.

Bad actors in ANY industry who engage in unconscionable, unfair, or deceptive trade practices are already held to account by the state’s existing Unfair Trade Practices Act. Federally licensed firearm manufacturers and retailers who violate gun laws commit federal felonies and face prison time, heavy fines, and revocation of their license by the ATF. So why is HB 114 being filed?

HB 114 creates new civil violations associated with “false advertising” and actions that “negatively impact public health, safety, or welfare” that apply only to the firearm industry. Activist attorneys general, district attorneys, and gun control organizations are explicitly authorized to litigate against members of the firearm industry and drive them out of business. HB 114 provides a template for destruction that can and will be used against any industry disfavored by certain elected officials and progressive interest groups.

In the interim joint legislative hearings leading up to the 2024 session, in which the bill author participated, lawmakers repeatedly stated that they wanted to target unlawful manufacturers and sellers of illegal firearms and firearm products.  HB 114 sweeps up lawful and legitimate firearm industry members in a web of subjective, vague civil law that applies only to them and no other industry.

Continue reading “”

MONUMENTAL DECISION: THIRD CIRCUIT RULES THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT APPLIES THOSE 18 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER

Today, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince secured a major victory for Second Amendment jurisprudence in Lara, et al. v. Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police, docket no. 21-1832, where the Third Circuit held that Pennsylvania’s banning of 18-to-21-year-olds from carrying firearms outside of their homes during a state of emergency is unconstitutional.

In so holding, the Third Circuit declared

The words “the people” in the Second Amendment presumptively encompass all adult Americans, including 18-to-20-year-olds, and we are aware of no founding-era law that supports disarming people in that age group.

In that vein, the court went on to emphasize that

It is undisputed that 18-to-20-year-olds are among “the people” for other constitutional rights such as the right to vote (U.S. Const. art. I, § 2; id. amend. XVII), freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, government petitions (id. amend. I), and the right against unreasonable government searches and seizures (id. amend. IV)…and there is no reason to adopt an inconsistent reading of “the people.”

In turning to whether the relevant historical timeframe is 1791 (ratification of the Second Amendment) or 1868 (ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment), the court declared

[That] to maintain consistency in our interpretation of constitutional provisions, we hold that the Second Amendment should be understood according to its public meaning in 1791.

In turning to the statutory sections at issue, the court acknowledged that

[t]aken together, §§ 6106, 6107, and 6109 – when combined with a state or municipal emergency declaration – have the practical effect of preventing most 18-to-20-year-old adult Pennsylvanians from carrying firearms

and that “that the Commissioner cannot point us to a single founding-era statute imposing restrictions on the freedom of 18-to-20-year-olds to carry guns.”

Accordingly, the Third Circuit remanded the issue with “instructions to enter an injunction forbidding the Commissioner from arresting law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds who openly carry firearms during a state of emergency declared by the Commonwealth.”

I’m sensing a trend


After Media-Brutalized Gun Freedom Law, Violent Crime Drops In Florida

When Florida became the 26th state to adopt constitutional carry, corporate media and Democrats lost their minds.

None of the requirements for how citizens obtained guns in the Sunshine State changed when Florida House Bill 543 became law July 1, 2023. That didn’t stop the anti-gun press, which were not welcome at the signing, from claiming that permitless concealed carry would exacerbate shootings.

“Following mass shootings, DeSantis signs permitless carry bill,” one NBC News headline complained. In the article, the producer of “The Rachel Maddow Show” sneered at Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for trading what he dubbed “modest gun safeguards” for an “extreme” and “controversial” law.

Forbes also amplified rhetoric from gun control groups including Giffords claiming the pro-Second Amendment law is “dangerous” and “will drive gun violence up and further jeopardize the safety of our families and communities.”

Even President Joe Biden’s White House joined the dogpile on DeSantis and Florida Republicans for daring to reinforce their constituents’ constitutional rights.

“It is shameful that so soon after another tragic school shooting, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law a permitless concealed carry bill behind closed doors, which eliminates the need to get a license to carry a concealed weapon,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre wrote. “This is the opposite of commonsense gun safety. The people of Florida — who have paid a steep price for state and Congressional inaction on guns from Parkland to Pulse Nightclub to Pine Hills — deserve better.”

Now, more than six months after the law’s adoption, evidence contradicts Democrats’ fearmongering that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry a loaded gun for self-defense would result in more “senseless tragedies.”

Since the legalization of constitutional carry in July 2023, Florida’s biggest cities saw a significant decrease in violent crimes, including shootings. In Jacksonville, murders and homicides dropped 6 percent in 2023 from the previous year.

Continue reading “”

Comment O’ The Day

It turns out that not interfering with people’s constitutional rights and allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals who don’t care about gun laws (you know, because they’re criminals) makes criminals think twice before attempting to victimize them.

BLUF
As stated, the policy recommendations presented by the authors are merely longstanding goals of the gun-ban industry, which would help propel them toward their ultimate goal of total civilian disarmament. The only difference is that now their policy recommendations are presented as necessary to “address the dangers of armed insurrectionism.”

Johns Hopkins: More Gun Control Needed to Prevent Second Civil War

By Lee Williams

recent report by the Center for Gun Violence Solutions, which is part of Johns Hopkins (Michael) Bloomberg School of Public Health, conflates private gun ownership with armed insurrection in order to advocate for expanded gun control.

The 32-page study, which is titled “Defending Democracy: Addressing the Danger of Armed Insurrection,” not only revisits and revises the Jan. 6th protest — even though no protesters were armed and the only casualty was 35-year-old Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt, who was shot and killed by Capitol Police — it resurrects actual armed insurrections from American history, such as Shays’ Rebellion of 1786, the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791 and the American Civil War.

The three authors, who are all attorneys with a history of paid anti-gun activism, clumsily raise the insurrection boogeyman to push for additional regulations for carrying firearms, tactical training prohibitions, additional gun-free zones, expanded Red Flag laws and the repeal of state preemption statutes, which has long been a major goal of the gun ban industry. Preemption laws prevent local jurisdictions from enacting their own gun-control regulations, which would result in a patchwork of gun-free zones.

Their authors’ warped message is to be expected, especially when you consider the biased nature of their backgrounds, their sponsors, their sources and Michael Bloomberg’s school itself. (If you type “gun violence” into the school’s internal search engine it will yield more than 1,000 results.)

Continue reading “”

If This Is an Anti-Gunner’s ‘Modest’ Proposal…

I cringe anytime I see someone offer up a “modest proposal” on guns, but it takes a second.

My initial reaction is hope that we’ll see satire like in Thomas Swift’s “Modest Proposal” that suggested addressing poverty by having the poor eat babies. It was a poke meant to shock people, so I tend to hope we’ll see something like that.

But that’s over very quickly. It’s over because, frankly, it’s almost never anything like that.

Instead, what we have is a gun control advocate who is offering up what he or she believes to be a very modest proposal regarding firearms but are complete non-starters as far as most Second Amendment advocates go.

Kind of like this one

I would like to suggest a simple two-part solution for gun violence in the United States.

First, we must make it more difficult to own guns.

Taxes and national pricing regulations could be used to increase the cost of guns. Regulations could be enacted that charge tariffs to gun manufacturers and retailers based on the real costs of guns to society. Estimates are that gun violence costs our country over $500 billion dollars a year, including costs to victims, cost to police, courts, and the criminal justice system, lost wages and spending, losses to quality of life, etc. And much of these costs are born by government agencies and thus are paid for by all taxpayers. These costs could inform a tariff added to the price of guns manufactured and/sold in the United States.

Second, we could treat guns more like cars; that is make it a bit cumbersome and difficult to own and operate one. We could enact a registration system for guns that would require folks to possess a gun owner’s license before they could purchase or own a gun. To get such a license, people would have to be a certain age (30?), pay a substantial annual fee, and pass an annual gun training course and exam.

Of course, the course and exam would also change a substantial fee to participants, and buying the resultant permit would also be costly. In addition, owners could be required to answer a tedious and complicated gun ownership application and present their gun and ammunition to the “Department of Firearms Ownership,” DFO, for inspection. DFO offices could be very understaffed, very bureaucratic, and very difficult to visit and use. In addition, there would be substantial fines assigned to people who violate any of these rules and, of course, their guns and ammunition would be confiscated.

In other words, let’s make buying and owning a gun very expensive, bureaucratic, and time-consuming process in the United States. And, as an added benefit, the taxes and fees collected in the gun owner licensing and registration process could be used to cover some of the costs created by gun violence and could be directed to public health education programs concerned with the problem of gun violence.

If this is a modest proposal, I’d just love to see what he considers extreme.

Yet this is also particularly telling, at least to me, as to why there will never be any common ground on gun control.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
The study just says what Second Amendment advocates have long asserted: Law-abiding gun owners are not the problem when it comes to gun crimes.

Ohio Just Disproved a Gun-Control Talking Point

DAVE YOST is Ohio’s 51st attorney general.

Critics believed constitutional carry in the state would increase crime. They were wrong.

The mayor stood, frowning and grim, flanked by uniformed police officers. Another horrific gun crime had occurred — and it was all the fault of the state legislators who had recently repealed the law requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon, what proponents call “constitutional carry.”

“The Republican-led legislature in Columbus passed SB 215 and across this state from Cleveland to Columbus to Cincinnati, you see an uptick in shootings across our state. . . . It’s important that we hold them accountable for passing dangerous gun laws in our state,” the mayor said, his angry voice rising above the roar of nearby freeway traffic.

“The most reckless and . . . careless gun policy in the state’s history,” the mayor said.

“It’s creating an arms race where people don’t feel safe unless they have a gun. So guns beget more guns, which, unfortunately, makes us all unsafe,” the mayor said.

But which mayor? The first quote was from Mayor Justin Bibb of Cleveland. The second one is from Mayor Andrew Ginther of Columbus. The arms-race quote was from Aftab Pureval, mayor of Cincinnati, on National Public Radio.

Ohio’s three biggest cities — they all got in with the same message: It’s not our fault; it’s the new state law.

There was only one problem: It wasn’t true.

My office commissioned a study with Bowling Green State University to examine gun crime in Ohio’s eight largest cities the year before the law changed — June 13, 2022 — and the year afterward. The conclusion: Eliminating concealed-carry licenses had no impact on gun crimes, and in six of the eight cities, gun crimes actually declined.

I honestly did not know what the data would show, but a study seemingly would be useful for the ongoing debate either way. The numbers could have increased — gun crime, like any other crime, has multiple causes. And it wouldn’t have been surprising if the numbers had stayed the same, because a great deal of the action taken by government seems to have marginal impacts, if any.

But the numbers went down.

In Parma, gun crimes dropped by a whopping 22 percent after constitutional carry; Akron and Toledo both saw declines of 18 percent; and Columbus logged a 12 percent reduction. Canton and Cleveland had single-digit percentage decreases. Cincinnati and Dayton both had single-digit percentage increases.

Over the entire eight-city sample, gun crime dropped by 8 percent. Shot Spotter technology, which detects the sound of a gunshot in a city, produced data that was consistent with the reported crimes where it was available.

Continue reading “”

Bruen Strikes Again: Ban on Guns in Post Offices Tossed Out, Ruled Unconstitutional

Thanks to a decision by a federal judge in Florida on Friday, American citizens who are legally carrying concealed sidearms can no longer be barred from carrying inside a United States Post Office — buildings that are a quasi-part of the federal government and, in effect, the property of the American people.

 A federal judge in Florida on Friday ruled that a U.S. law that bars people from possessing firearms in post offices is unconstitutional, citing a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling from 2022 that expanded gun rights.

U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump in Tampa, reached that conclusion in dismissing part of an indictment charging a postal worker with illegally possessing a gun in a federal facility.

If there is anywhere, honestly, that the Bill of Rights applies, it should be in federal buildings and federal installations. Oh, there’s an argument to be made for barring carry in the Capitol, the White House, in courthouses, and so on – but those are places that are already secured by armed law enforcement (when they aren’t throwing the doors open for “insurrectionists.”) The post offices, not so much. Most post office buildings are pretty small, often crowded, and until now, “gun-free” zones. In other words, target-rich environments for would-be mass shooters.

This ruling is another victory for pro-Second Amendment activists, and once more, we have NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen to thank for it.

Mizelle said that charge violated Emmanuel Ayala’s right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, saying “a blanket restriction on firearms possession in post offices is incongruent with the American tradition of firearms regulation.”

She declined to dismiss a separate charge for forcibly resisting arrest. Ayala’s lawyer and a U.S. Justice Department spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.

The decision marked the latest court decision declaring a gun restriction unconstitutional following the conservative-majority Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Things in the last year or two sure seem to be swinging in favor of the Second Amendment, although the pro-gun community should not take any time to rest on its laurels.

Now that this ruling is in place – assuming it goes nationwide and survives any possible appeal to the Supreme Court – it would be interesting to see it as a precedential springboard into other federal facilities, such as (especially) military bases. Military bases in particular should be removed from the federal “gun-free zone” list; military members are in the profession of arms, and they are charged with enormous responsibility. It’s common to have an 18-year-old soldier, when on duty, handling and firing a weapon as formidable as a .50 caliber machine gun, and yet is prohibited from possessing a personal firearm on base. That makes little sense; in light of several publicized incidents on military bases in recent years, it would make more sense to have every officer and non-commissioned officer issued a sidearm to be carried loaded at all times when in uniform.

Post offices, granted, are a different kettle of fish. But now, at least, this decision recognizes that the Second Amendment rights of the citizenry are not negated by some bureaucrat mandating that every such building be a free-fire zone for would-be mass shooters. Self-defense is a fundamental human right, and now that right has been confirmed yet again.

SCOTUS denies one appeal of assault weapons ban while another waits in the wings

SPRINGFIELD – The U.S. Supreme Court has denied one request to review the Illinois assault weapon ban, but many believe the court is more likely to take up another challenge to the law later this year.

The high court turned down a request by Republican State Rep. Dan Caulkins, of Decatur, to hear an appeal of the case he lost before the Illinois Supreme Court in August.

In his appeal, Caulkins argued that he was denied a fair hearing at the state supreme court because two of the state justices had received large campaign contributions from Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker, who signed the assault weapon ban into law.

Caulkins also claimed the law is unconstitutional because it allows some people to keep their assault weapons if they acquired those guns before the ban took effect.

The justices at the U.S. Supreme Court gave no reason for declining to hear Caulkins’ appeal. But many people expect the court to take up a separate challenge to the law from the National Association for Gun Rights, which argues more broadly that the ban violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the gun rights group in November. The group is expected to file its appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court within the next several weeks.

NM governor unveils bills that ban assault weapons, raise age to possess a gun

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham announced support for several bills that she said were aimed at gun violence — banning assault weapons, raising the age to possess a gun and extending the waiting period to take it home.

“We have a gun problem, ladies and gentleman, and we have a public safety problem,” she said Friday , surrounded by public safety officials, law enforcement and the bills’ sponsors. “We have a responsibility to our children, to families, communities to solve it, and I believe this package goes a long way to do just that.”

One bill would ban assault weapons statewide, another would raise the minimum age to buy a gun, from 18 to 21 years old, and extend the waiting period to take one home from three to 14 days.

The bills were just a few of dozens related to public safety that will come up in the legislative session, which begins Tuesday.

At least three of the gun initiatives Lujan Grisham highlighted Friday reflected failed legislation from the Legislature’s last session. House Bill 101, which would have prohibited people from possessing assault weapons; House Bill 100, which would have established a 14-day waiting period for guns; and Senate Bill 116, which would have made it illegal for anyone younger than 21 to purchase an automatic or semi-automatic firearm, all died in committee.

Continue reading “”