Category: RKBA

Bid to block Illinois’ new assault weapons ban now before federal appeals court

CHICAGO – The federal appeals court in Chicago has its first opportunity to weigh in on Illinois’ controversial assault weapons ban, as challenges to the law continue to advance.

Naperville gunshop owner Robert Bevis asked the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for an injunction against the law late Tuesday. He wants the order in place while he appeals a recent ruling from U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall who found the law to be “constitutionally sound.”

Bevis asked that the injunction, if granted, apply to everyone affected by the state law.

The case appears to be the first to challenge the ban in the federal appellate court. The 7th Circuit now has the opportunity to block the measure signed by Gov. JB Pritzker on Jan. 10 — which immediately banned the sale of military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines — or to side with Kendall.

The court could also resolve Bevis’ request on other grounds.

An appellate court has upheld a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against Illinois’ assault weapons ban, and expanded it to cover the entire state.

Kendall ruled last month that “because assault weapons are particularly dangerous weapons … their regulation accords with history and tradition.” But Bevis’ lawyers have accused Kendall of error. Under previous Supreme Court rulings, they said weapons must be found to be “dangerous and unusual” in order to be banned.

“An arm that is commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes is, by definition, not unusual,” they wrote in their court filing Tuesday. “Thus, such an arm cannot be both dangerous and unusual and therefore it cannot be subjected to a categorical ban.”

They told the 7th Circuit the matter “is not a close case.”

McHenry County’s State’s Attorney Patrick Kenneally requested an emergency restraining order to block the law from taking effect in McHenry County.

It’s unclear how quickly the appeals court might rule. But Bevis’ lawyers insist his business has suffered since the assault weapons ban went into effect. They wrote that 85% of the firearms sold by his business, Law Weapons & Supply, are banned by the state law and a similar Naperville ordinance.

“Cash reserves have been depleted, and as a result, [Law Weapons & Supply] has had to lay off employees and ask Bevis’ family to work without pay,” Bevis’ lawyers wrote. “Bevis has extended his personal credit, missed personal payments like home and car payments, maxed his credit limits, and taken out loans to pay the monthly bills.”

They wrote that Law Weapons & Supply will not be able to abide by its property and equipment leases “if these bans remain in effect any longer.”

“In short, [Law Weapons & Supply] will be put out of business if these laws are enforced,” they wrote.

Bevis’ lawsuit is one of several challenges filed in state and federal courts since Pritzker signed the law. Four federal challenges have been consolidated in southern Illinois’ federal court, where state lawyers recently argued the weapons restricted by the new law aren’t commonly used for self-defense.

“By design and in practice, they exist for offensive infliction of mass casualties,” they argued in a recent brief.

Meanwhile, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed this week to give accelerated consideration to issues that have been raised in state court. The move was prompted by an order last week by a Macon County judge.

That judge followed the lead of earlier Illinois appellate court rulings and found that the assault weapons ban violates the state constitution’s equal protection and special legislation clauses.

Useless law that won’t stop anything.

Bill to help stop minors from accessing firearms heads to NM governor
The bill was named after Bennie Hargove, a middle school student whose classmate fatally shot him in 2021 using his father’s gun

Gun safety legislation is on its way to the governor’s desk for a signature.

Bennie’s Bill, which would make it a crime for allowing a firearm to be accessible to a minor, passed with concurrence through the House by a vote of 34-28 on Wednesday evening.

The bill was named after Bennie Hargove, a middle school student whose classmate fatally shot him in 2021 using his father’s gun.

This bill would make it a misdemeanor for anyone to negligently have a firearm be accessible to a minor, and a fourth-degree felony if the minor who uses the gun significantly harms another person or themself.

There’s a list of exceptions, including if the gun was kept in a locked container, securely stored or in an inaccessible location; if a firearm was used in self-defense; or in the case of an illegal entry on someone’s property.

A Senate amendment included in the bill that passed from Sen. Steven Neville (R-Aztec) last week added an exception that would allow a minor to use a firearm for hunting, recreationally or any other lawful purpose.

Rep. Stefani Lord (R-Sandia Park) asked repeated questions about the extent and technicalities of this clause.

Rep. Pamelya Herndon (D-Albuquerque), the bill’s sponsor, went back and forth with her colleague about the amendment before she said Neville could better explain the proposal.

However, Sen. Neville wasn’t present at the House floor meeting.

“I’m actually trying to get honest answers so when I go home and explain this, I want to make sure that none of our parents are committing a crime,” Lord said. “I don’t want that to happen.”

Lord asked if she should just wait for Neville to come to the House floor. In response, House Speaker Javier Martinez (D-Albuquerque) told someone to call Neville.

Martinez recommended that Lord continue with her questions and reminded the representatives that the bill still has to be signed by the governor and will take several months to even become law.

“We’ve got plenty of time to get a one-pager from the senator as to the technical aspects of this amendment,” Martinez said.

Bruen’s “chaos” is a much-needed correction

Ahead of four decisions on California gun laws that are expected to soon be released by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, the Los Angeles Times is advancing the narrative that the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision is sowing “chaos” in the courts. But as we discuss on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, upending the untenable status quo is a good thing, particular given how the judiciary has abused “interest balancing” tests to regularly uphold infringements on a fundamental right.

Reporter Kevin Rector’s coverage of how the courts have dealt with the Supreme Court’s edict that those interest balancing tests are inappropriate is clearly slanted; not only in the front-page story itself, but he promoted his piece on social media.

Yes, SCOTUS has rejected the interest-balancing tests that many lower courts adopted after the Heller decision in 2008, but as Justice Clarence Thomas made clear in Bruen, that was never the appropriate test when it comes to gun control laws”

Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.

What Rector (and the vast majority of the sources he spoke to) object to is the fact that the Court’s explicit instructions to discard those interest-balancing tests in favor of a text, history, and tradition test puts laws like California’s ban on so-called assault weapons on shaky legal ground. No longer can the courts decide that even though a particular gun control law intrudes on the Second Amendment rights of citizens, it’s okay because the government has an interest in promoting public safety. Now those laws must be justified through the historical record; something that is going to be difficult given that the gun control movement is a fairly modern creation.

“This new ‘history and tradition’ test that the Supreme Court established last June is wreaking havoc on America’s gun laws,” said Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor who focuses on 2nd Amendment law. “Instead of having a reasonable debate over whether a ban on assault weapons is good policy or not, we have to debate whether a ban on assault weapons has historical antecedents.”

With all due respect to Winkler, the courts aren’t the right venue for a “reasonable debate” on the policy of a gun ban. Legislators can and will continue to debate banning “assault weapons”, but it’s up to the judiciary to determine if those laws are constitutionally sound. And as much as the law professor complains that Bruen is wreaking havoc on gun laws, I’d argue that when appellate courts like the Ninth Circuit refuse to ever find a gun control law unconstitutional the judiciary is wreaking havoc on a fundamental civil right.

The Bruen decision will not lead to every gun control law being overturned, as disappointing as that might be for Second Amendment advocates. Heck, the Court said that “shall issue” concealed carry regimes are presumptively constitutional, and the justices pointed to places like schools, legislative assemblies, and polling places as locations that could likely be labeled “sensitive places” without much legal trouble. But the Court’s opinion should also take an “assault weapons” ban and many other modern inventions of the gun control lobby off the table, at least if judges are willing to abide by what SCOTUS had to say.

As we’ve seen in places like Oregon, though, some judges are still finding new and creative ways to uphold gun control laws by stretching the boundaries of an historical analogue beyond credulity. Bruen may have put the lower courts on notice, but as valuable a course correction on Second Amendment jurisprudence as it might be, it can’t and won’t be the last word for the Court on our right to keep and bear arms.

New Mexico: Waiting Period and Firearms Industry Lawsuit Bills on Deck Again in Senate Committee on Wednesday!

House Bill 101 (Semi-Auto Ban & Magazine Limit Bill NOT on House Judiciary Committee Agenda for Wednesday)

On Wednesday, March 8, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold public hearings on two extreme measures that target law-abiding citizens and the firearms industry:

Senate Bill 427 by Sen. Joseph Cervantes (D-Las Cruces), imposes a 14-day waiting period on all firearm purchases, with an exception for concealed handgun licensees. Like House Bill 100, this measure will add nothing to the existing FBI background check process and will only delay your ability to exercise your Second Amendment right to defend yourself, your family and your property. This would make for the longest firearms purchase waiting period in the entire country!  For more information on this proposal, click here.

Senate Bill 428 by Sen. Joseph Cervantes (D-Las Cruces) creates a hostile climate for lawful firearm-related industries and transactions by facilitating an increasing amount of litigation and claims, with vastly increased liability exposure and civil penalties, for even minor suspected violations of the terms of an FFL or the law as the basis for Unfair Trade Practices Act proceedings. For more information on this bill, click here. This legislation was significantly amended in committee; we will report back to you on the impact these changes have on the bill and what action items need to be taken on the measure.

* Make plans to attend the committee hearing via zoom or in-person. The committee will meet at 1:30pm or upon adjournment of the Senate in Room 321 of the Roundhouse.  For public participation and to register for Zoom send an email to SJC.Zoom@nmlegis.gov. Include the bill number, that you’re an opponent and if you will be attending in person or via zoom. To attend meeting via Zoom click the following link:

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81502543362.
Meeting ID: 815 0254 3362
Zoom Call: 1-253-205-0468.

Kentucky: Campus Self-Defense Goes to House Floor

Today, the House Veterans, Military Affairs, and Public Protection voted 16-3 to pass House Bill 542 with a committee substitute, to ensure that law-abiding adults are not stripped of their right to self-defense when they cross an arbitrary boundary onto a college campus. It now goes to the House floor for further consideration. Please contact your state representative and ask them to SUPPORT HB 542.

House Bill 542 PHS 1 prohibits colleges, universities, and post-secondary education facilities from restricting Second Amendment rights. Current state law does not prohibit law-abiding adults from carrying defensive firearms on campus, but institution policy may lead to expulsion or termination of employment. Adults who are officially licensed to carry a firearm for self-defense should not be prevented from doing so just because they seek higher education.

Again, please contact your state representative and ask them to SUPPORT HB 542.

Missouri: Committee Hearing Public Transit Self-Defense

On Wednesday, the House Emerging Issues Committee will hear House Bill 282, to ensure law-abiding citizens may carry firearms for self-defense on public transit. Please click here to file witness forms to support HB 282. 

In addition, please contact committee members and ask them to SUPPORT HB 282.

House Bill 282 removes the prohibition on law-abiding citizens carrying firearms for self-defense on public transit property and in vehicles. In addition, it allows law-abiding citizens to transport unloaded or non-functioning firearms on buses. This repeals an arbitrary “gun-free zone” that does nothing to hinder criminals while leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless, and it ensures that citizens with varying commutes throughout their day, and of various economic means, are able to exercise their Second Amendment rights and defend themselves.

Again, please file witness forms and contact committee members and ask them to SUPPORT HB 282.

When Freedom is Treated as a Felony

Many of the best jokes have a grain of truth about them, and so it is with the old line that, when you stop to think about it, gun control is rather easy to achieve. First, you make it illegal for anyone who is crazy to own a gun. Second, you assume that anyone who wants to own a gun must be crazy. And, presto, there you have it! Gun control!

Alas, since the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Bruen, this joke has come to accurately describe the approach that has been taken by many of the states at which the decision was primarily aimed. Having been told in no uncertain terms that they are no longer permitted to prevent law-abiding Americans from legally carrying firearms, states such as New York and New Jersey got busy trying to find other ways to disarm the public. In particular, New York and New Jersey have been engaged in an attempt to define what counts as a “sensitive place” so broadly that the concept has ended up covering virtually everywhere that a concealed carrier might plausibly go.

Or, to render it in familiar terms: First, you make it illegal to carry a gun in a “sensitive” place. Second, you assume that all places are “sensitive.” And, presto, there you have it! A near-total prohibition on the right to bear arms.

Think that this is an exaggeration? Think again. In Bruen, the majority noted that, historically, Americans were presumptively permitted to carry firearms in “locations frequented by the general community,” providing that they were not engaged in an attempt to breach the peace or injure others. Certainly, there were exceptions to this rule—exceptions that include legislative assemblies, polling places and courthouses. But, as the Court concluded, the fact that a handful of special cases has always existed does not mean that the government has carte blanche to ban firearms wherever it wishes. “Expanding the category of ‘sensitive places’ simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement,” the majority in Bruen ruled, “defines the category of ‘sensitive places’ far too broadly,” and, in practice, “would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense.”

Which, of course, is exactly what New York has attempted to do. Among the places that the state legislature has tried to turn into “gun-free zones” are Times Square, all public parks, the subway, all public transportation and all restaurants, bars, theaters, libraries and more. New Jersey followed New York by banning carry in all parks, beaches, movie theaters, schools, colleges, cemeteries, government buildings and restaurants that serve alcohol; also, like New York, they also prohibited concealed carry in any private establishment that doesn’t explicitly tell people they can carry on the premises.

These laws are too clever by half. The U.S. Supreme Court has long frowned on attempts to prevent Americans from exercising their constitutional rights by attacking those rights indirectly, and there is no reason to assume that it would regard the abuse of “sensitive places” laws any differently. Just as it is not legal for a state to impose special taxes on ink and paper in an attempt to circumvent the protections included within the First Amendment, so it cannot be acceptable for a state to hand out concealed-carry permits in compliance with the law, but make it impossible for those permits to be practically used. Whether they like it or not, New York, New Jersey and any other holdouts will—unless the courts also opt to ignore the plain wording of the Second Amendment—be brought into line with the U.S. Constitution. The only choice before them now is whether they will do it voluntarily, or be ordered into compliance by a judge.

The most ridiculous “I’m a gun owner, but” ever?

The gun prohibition lobby loves to claim that the vast majority of gun owners support their “reasonable” infringements on an inherent individual right, to the point that they even create their own astroturf groups like “Gun Owners for Safety” and the now-defunct American Hunters and Shooters Association.

The whole point of these outfits is to advance that narrative, and one of the most common tactics is the “I’m a gun owner, but” argument. You’ve seen it countless times. “I’m a gun owner, but I support ‘commonsense measures’ like”:

  • making it a criminal offense to possess commonly-owned firearms and magazines
  • prohibiting lawful concealed carry almost everywhere in public
  • making it more expensive to purchase, possess, and even train with a firearm
  • holding firearms manufacturers liable for the actions of violent criminals

I’m reasonably sure that attorney and columnist Mario Nicolais would be in favor of each and every one of those things, because his own “I’m a gun owner, but” narrative goes much further. Writing at the Colorado Sun, Nicolais says he’s a gun owner, but he wants the state to tell him to turn ’em in.

As I have written, the Colorado Republican Party is dead. While I am sure the ghosts of 2013 recall elections still haunt some Democrats, the fear of the next child dead from a gunshot wound should scare them more. They are not going to lose their majorities in the next decade, if ever. They may even solidify them if they take even more direct action.

That means getting assault-style guns off the streets. It means cracking down hard on handguns. It means going after ghost guns and criminals who resort to violence.

I happen to be a gun owner. But I have also run through a Las Vegas casino afraid of an active shooter, texted with my wife as she hid huddled inside a classroom as a gunman walked outside, and paid attention as an officer married to a high school friend has recovered after being shot in the neck by an assailant.

I would hand over my gun if the legislature took action.

Why wait for the legislature to do something? If Mario Nicolais doesn’t want to own a gun, no one is stopping him from selling it or even melting it down to turn into a garden trowel or something like that.

Continue reading “”

New Bill Seeks Automatic Transfer of NFA Items After 90 Days

Idaho Republican Senator James Risch introduced the ATF Transparency Act on Thursday to combat long delays and mistakes in processing National Firearms Act (NFA) items by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

The bill would take the ATF’s stated goal of 90 days to issue tax stamps and change it to a hard deadline. The ATF recently introduced eForms to help cut down on delays, and for a while, the wait times dropped, but according to the latest data from NFA wait time trackers, like the one provided by Silencer Shop, the average wait time is back to nine months.

The new bill will make the ATF automatically issue the tax stamp after 90 days, regardless if the process is complete.

Proponents of the bill cited the increase in NFA applications expected after the new ATF rule designating most braced pistols as short-barreled rifles (SBRs). Owners of SBRs are required to seek a tax stamp from the ATF. The ATF will issue a tax forbearance on the $200 for the stamp for braced pistols.

Continue reading “”

No-permit concealed carry advances in Nebraska Legislature

After years of trying to pass a bill to allow people to carry concealed guns in Nebraska without a permit, conservative lawmakers are on the cusp of doing so, thanks in part to the defection of two Democratic Omaha senators — the only Black lawmakers in the body — who cited racial disparity in enforcing gun laws in their districts.

After three days of debate, lawmakers voted 36-12 Friday to advance the bill. It must survive two more rounds of debate to pass.

While the bill would not usurp the federal requirement for a background check to buy a gun, it would allow people to carry guns hidden in their clothing or vehicle without having to pay for a government permit or take a now-required gun safety course. It also would override stricter gun laws in the state’s cities, including in the state’s largest city of Omaha, which requires a conceal carry license for anyone carrying a gun in a car — even if the gun is in open view.

It’s that Omaha law that spurred Omaha Sens. Justin Wayne and Terrell McKinney to break party ranks and support the bill.

“How many young African American and Latino kinds are affected by Omaha’s gun laws?” asked Wayne on the Senate floor. Young Black people in Omaha are often charged with gun possession violations when a gun that’s not theirs is found in a car they’re riding in, Wayne said.

The practice, known in law enforcement circles as “bumping up,” disproportionally affects people of color, he said.

“When they’re talking about bumping up kids in Omaha, they’re not talking about kids in Bennington,” Wayne said, referring to the overwhelmingly white bedroom community north of Omaha. “They’re not talking about kids in western Nebraska.”

McKinney said the creation of early gun control laws in the U.S. “was out of fear of Black people.”

“I’m not going to sit here and not try to fight for my community,” he said. “The police don’t care about Black people.”

Sen. Tom Brewer of Gordon — the bill’s conservative sponsor who has tried since 2017 to pass it — backed McKinney’s comments, citing colonial American laws that criminalized arming Native Americans. Brewer is an Oglala Lakota Tribe member and Nebraska’s only Native American lawmaker.

Currently, 25 other states have so-called constitutional carry laws that allow people to carry concealed guns without a permit. Last month, the Republican-controlled South Carolina House voted to pass that state’s own constitutional carry bill.

The Nebraska bill is opposed by the cities of Omaha and Lincoln, where the majority of gun violence occurs, and their police chiefs, who have said the measure will make their cities less safe.

Nebraska already allows gun owners to carry firearms in public view, as long as they don’t have a criminal record that bars them from possessing one and aren’t in a place — including churches, courthouses and private businesses — where guns are prohibited. To legally conceal the gun, Nebraskans are required to submit to a Nebraska State Patrol background check, get fingerprinted and take a gun safety course at their own expense.

Most bills need 33 votes to pass in Nebraska’s unique one-house Legislature. There are currently 17 Democratic lawmakers in the officially nonpartisan body — enough to successfully filibuster most bills if they all vote together.

But two other Democrats joined Wayne and McKinney in voting for the permitless conceal carry bill, including Omaha Sen. Mike McDonnell, a former Omaha firefighter union president who switched to support the measure after the Omaha police union pulled its objection to the bill. Democratic Sen. Lynne Walz, of Fremont, abstained from voting.

A spokesperson for Republican Gov. Jim Pillen’s office said Friday that the governor supports the bill and would sign it into law if it passes.

The ATF’s pistol brace ban

Since the Federal Register published the ATF’s final rule to restrict stabilizing pistol braces on January 31, dozens of states as well as many private organizations have launched legal battles against the ATF, claiming that the new rule is unconstitutional.  Luckily, the recent overturn of the “bump stock ban” sets a strong legal precedent to quickly overturn the new stabilizing brace restriction.

A pistol brace is an accessory that was originally designed to facilitate for disabled veterans the ability to effectively operate a pistol with one hand.  According to the ATF’s final rule, the additional surface area provided by a stabilizing pistol brace now classifies these firearms as a short-barreled rifle (SBR), which requires them to be registered and for new purchases to face a long waiting period and additional tax under the National Firearms Act (NFA).  This arbitrary policy shift infringes upon the rights of law-abiding citizens by reclassifying an accessory that had been previously legal and unrestricted.

With the creation of the new rule, the ATF essentially usurped the power to create a new law that deviates from existing law and precedent.  If left unchecked, this regulation sets a dangerous precedent that could develop into many or all federal agencies ruling through bureaucratic mandates with little regard for the Constitution, congressional authority, and legal due process.

A similar executive ruling — the “bump stock ban” — was overturned in January 2023 by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which concluded that the administrative fiat used by the ATF under the Trump administration circumvented Congress and did not follow the legal procedures to become a law.  The same style of administrative fiat was used to tighten regulations on stabilizing pistol braces.  The overturn of the bump stock ban may open the door for legal precedent to shoot down the new pistol brace rule.
A group of disabled veterans represented by the Wisconsin Institute For Law & Liberty (WILL) filed a lawsuit against the ATF on the grounds that the new rule violates the Second Amendment and the separation of powers, which prohibit agencies from creating laws through bureaucratic fiat in a process lacking congressional authorization and oversight.  The lawsuit also claims that each plaintiff utilizes stabilizing braces as a necessity to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights due to his disability.

The National Rifle Association-Institute for Legislative Action, in conjunction with a coalition of 25 states and many other organizations, launched its lawsuit on February 9, against the Biden Administration’s ATF, arguing that the ATF’s “pistol brace ban” is an egregious overstep of its authority and a gross misuse of executive fiat.  According to the ATF website, the ATF’s role in firearms is to “enforce the federal firearms laws,” but this does not give the agency authority to rewrite them.  This is a clear abuse of power by the ATF.

While these lawsuits are pending, Republicans in Washington are doing everything they can to reverse not only this ruling, but past overreach by the ATF as well.  Senators Marshall (R-Kan.) and Kennedy (R-La.) have formally introduced the “Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today” Act, or SHORT Act for short.  This bill aims to remove some short-barreled rifles, shotguns, and other weapons from the daunting grasp of the NFA.  Notably, this bill would also require the ATF to destroy any records related to registration, transfer, or manufacture of firearms removed from the NFA by the bill.

The SHORT Act adds supplementary pressure to the arguments surrounding the new rule on pistol braces.  For advocates of freedom, the ideal outcome would be the overturn of the pistol brace rule and the SHORT Act becoming law.  This would remove immediate threats to Second Amendment rights, and the destruction of registration records would put many at ease over fear of future confiscation and outlawing of NFA firearms.

The ATF’s pistol brace ban illegally redefined federal firearms law through a usurpation of congressional authority, and subsequently infringes upon the rights of disabled individuals as well as the millions of firearms owners who legally purchased their firearms and pistol brace accessories.  The ban should be immediately overturned.

Kostas Moros

Few baseless claims are more frustrating than the idea that anyone who cares about the right to keep and bear arms “doesn’t care about people being murdered” and that we somehow support mass shooters.

No, we hate those vile lowlifes so much that we want them to be promptly shot in the head when their rampage begins, and not ten minutes later when the police arrive and the harm is already done.

There have been many examples of armed good Samaritans either preventing mass shootings entirely, or cutting short ones that would have hurt or killed many more people. Unfortunately, too many states preemptively disarm good samaritans by either making CCW permits hard to get, or by allowing “gun free zones” to proliferate, where killers know they are unlikely to meet armed resistance.

Also too often, the media does not cover prevented mass shootings with anywhere near the same attention as they do completed atrocities. That’s a shame, given we know that a big chunk of mass shooters are obsessed with becoming infamous. They need to be made aware that their vision of twisted glory can commonly end with Dicken-style humiliation.

Stop fearing them. Instead, it’s long past time we make these dirtbags afraid.

Gun Registration is for Confiscation

Quote of the Day

If we had gun registration, if we were able to track purchases, they have a technology that every bullet could be stamped like a fingerprint, if we had an ATF that wasn’t defunded, we would be able to enforce gun laws more effectively and we would be able to solve gun crimes more effectively.

Jon Stewart
March 3, 2023
Jon Stewart Brutally Confronts Republican Lawmaker Over Gun Deaths

“If”.

The object of the first two “if” statements is false and will continue to be false for a long time in the future, if not for a century or more. And I can see a plausible future where the ATF is, at least, not just underfunded, from Stewarts view, but stripped of the letter ‘A’ in its name.

And how many crimes have been solved using gun registration in Hawaii or Canada?* The numbers I have heard have been zero and one. So, what color is the sky in Stewarts universe?

Or, a better question, what is the nature of his evil intent? The only reason for gun registration is confiscation.

However the best question is, will he continue to waste oxygen on this and related topics after judges strike down any law that hint at registration. We already have a gun serial number law struck down. How does Stewart think registration is possible with no serial numbers?

* Gun Violence Research, GVPedia, claims it is MYTH: Firearm registries never helped solve a crime. But it is very telling they dance around the question without ever answering it affirmatively:

Continue reading “”

MSU professor illustrates problem with gun control advocates

The state of Michigan was likely to adopt gun control either this year or next regardless of any other factor. The shooting at Michigan State University, however, simply provided a handy pretext for anti-gun voices to rally around.

A prime example is one professor who issued his own call for gun control recently.

Marco Díaz-Muñoz, an assistant professor at Michigan State University whose classroom was attacked by a gunman, encouraged Michigan lawmakers Thursday to do the “right thing” and the “humane thing” by enacting new gun control measures.

Díaz-Muñoz, 64, was teaching a class in Berkey Hall about Cuban cultural identity on Feb. 13 when the gunman opened fire, killing two students. For the entirety of the evening, the mass shooting on the university campus in East Lansing left three students dead and wounded five others.

It was the darkest event of Díaz-Muñoz’s life, he told members of the Michigan Senate’s Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety Committee.

“Before the tragic events at MSU, I was already a supporter of sensible gun control laws,” Díaz-Muñoz said. “However, my experience that night has strongly solidified my belief that gun control laws are an absolute necessity to stop the senseless killings that occur on a daily basis in this country.”

First, I have to ask, how many people think a college professor at a major university teaching “cultural identity” didn’t support gun control before the shooting happened? Show of hands.

Yeah, kind of what I thought.

Of course, he kind of admits that when he says it “solidified” his belief, but anyway, that’s not what I want to talk about anyway.

See, Díaz-Muñoz’s comments are predicated on something that gun control advocates have seemingly been basing all their rhetoric on for years.

It’s like they actually think we agree that gun control works.

There’s nothing in Díaz-Muñoz’s comments that suggests that he’s trying to convince anyone that regulation is the right course of action. Instead, it looks as if, in his mind, the matter is already settled.

Look, “everybody knows” is a terrible way to argue in favor of something. It’s a pretty good Leonard Cohen song, but a terrible way to argue.

Now, Díaz-Muñoz is just one example, but he’s far from the first.

Anti-gunners love to stomp and scream that we need to pass gun control, and that failing to do so will result in “senseless killings” and such, but there’s no real argument there. There’s nothing to convince those of us who disagree to change our minds.

Unless, of course, they actually think we believe gun control works and are refusing to embrace it because of other reasons.

And even if I thought gun control worked, I’d likely still oppose it because our rights cannot be set aside so easily.

Yet I don’t think it works. Quite the contrary, actually, I’ve seen ample evidence to believe it doesn’t. But the arguments never seem to address this. For many of them, it’s a foregone conclusion, a universal truth, that gun control stops mass shootings.

Never you mind about the two in California just days apart. Don’t talk about how it failed to stop either them or the Buffalo killer, as just a couple of examples. No, those are irrelevant and you shouldn’t fret about those cases.

Instead, you should just…what? Take their word? Take the word of seriously flawed and biased studies?

Well, we don’t. We’re unconvinced, and when Díaz-Muñoz simply demand that we capitulate and give up our rights for their peace of mind, well, we’re even less convinced.

But this is what the gun control side’s arguments typically are. They’re people stomping and screaming like spoiled children because we won’t do what they tell us to, and about the only reason I can find for them to do such is because they think their position is so self-evident that they don’t need to defend it.

They’re quite wrong.

IN SELF-DEFENSE
ARMED CITIZENS ARE FIGHTING BACK

There are now 25 states with so-called “Constitutional carry” and Florida appears to be approaching permitless carry, which translates to more citizens soon being able to carry defensive firearms without having to jump through the hoops of a licensing process.

There is another translation: Criminals, be careful … be very careful. In fact, now might be a good time to reconsider your career choices and see if the hardware store is hiring.

I routinely report on the number of active concealed pistol licenses in my home state of Washington, and following a slight end-of-year dip reported Jan. 3, the number has been steadily climbing. Last month, a whopping 698,186 active CPLs were reported by the state Department of Licensing.

Continue reading “”

Gov. DeSantis Says He’d Like Open Carry Added to Constitutional Carry Bill

On Thursday, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) told Gun Owners of America (GOA) that he would like to see open carry added to the constitutional carry legislation currently making its way through the Florida legislature.

GOA’s Luis Valdes asked DeSantis if he would support open carry being added to the constitutional carry legislation, the Tampa Bay Times reported.

DeSantis responded, “Yeah, absolutely.”

He added, “I don’t think they’re going to do it, but I would absolutely.”

The Times noted that DeSantis spokesman Bryan Griffin did not address the GOA recording but stressed that DeSantis hopes to sign constitutional carry into law.

Griffin also observed that DeSantis referenced constitutional carry in August 2022, which is when the governor noted, “It really requires the Legislature to get it to my desk.”

Breitbart News noted that constitutional carry legislation is currently on the move in Florida, Nebraska, and South Carolina. The legislation in Florida is focused on permitless concealed carry while the legislation in Nebraska and South Carolina focuses on open or concealed.

There are currently 25 constitutional carry states in the Union. Those 25 are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.