Category: RKBA

This judge has it backwards and I’d say purposefully. The goobermint has to submit evidence that the weapons are not in common use for self defense, (impossible by the way, so that’s why the judge pretzeled it)  not the plaintiffs

Federal judge upholds Conn.’s assault weapons ban for 2nd time in a month

For the second time in less than a month, a federal judge has upheld Connecticut’s assault weapons ban by denying an injunction seeking a temporary halt to the enforcement of the ban as part of a lawsuit challenging the state’s gun laws.

In a 14-page ruling issued earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton said the assault weapons banned by the state are not “commonly” used for self-defense, which would classify the firearms as protected under the Second Amendment.

“Plaintiffs are correct that the Second Amendment provides them with the freedom to choose a firearm . . . ‘that is not dangerous and unusual’ and that is normally used for self-defense,” Arterton said. “However, until they submit evidence that supports a finding that the assault weapons in the challenged statutes meet those requirements, they cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits of their Second Amendment claim.”

She had denied a similar injunction requested by the National Association for Gun Rights, which is also suing state officials to revoke the ban, on Aug. 3. Her ruling this week marks the third time since June that Arterton has upheld the state’s assault weapons ban.

Attorney Cameron Atkinson, one of three lawyers representing the plaintiffs, three people including two former state correction officers and two gun rights advocacy groups, said they will appeal the most recent ruling.

“The District Court did exactly what the Supreme Court told it not to do (in other rulings),” Atkinson said Wednesday. “We’re very confident that the ruling will be reversed on appeal.”

Continue reading “”

Frequently debunked crackpots claim the AR is worthless for self-defense
The Trace teams up with the Gun Violence Archive and hilarity ensues.

When the young paste-eaters at Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun propaganda factory, known as the Trace, team up with the stodgy window-lickers at the Gun Violence Archive to produce a story about the utility of the AR platform as a modern self-defense tool, it’s hard not to get too excited.

It’s like watching two freight trains headed toward each other on the same track. You know the results are going to be cataclysmic. None of these halfwits have ever heard a shot fired, much less one fired in anger, or especially one fired to good effect. They know less about what makes a reliable home-defense weapon than I do about man-buns, skinny jeans or avocado toast.

We have debunked the Trace and the Gun Violence Archive so often it’s getting old. The kids at the Trace masquerade as legitimate journalists when in fact they’re nothing more than highly paid anti-gun activists. The GVA purports to track gun crimes and maintain a list of mass shootings, but their data is collected from media and even social media sources, and their stats are so inflated they’d have you believe a mass shooting occurs nearly every time someone draws from a holster. When the two anti-gun nonprofits combine for a story, it’s bound to be something as bereft of facts as it is poorly written, and to that standard their most recent collaboration does not disappoint.

A story published Tuesday asks: “How Often Are AR-Style Rifles Used for Self-Defense? Supporters of AR-15s, often used in mass shootings and racist attacks, say they’re important for self-defense. Our analysis of Gun Violence Archive data suggests otherwise.”

The story was written by one of the Trace’s senior fabulists, Jennifer Mascia, who is “currently the lead writer of the Ask the Trace series and tracks news developments on the gun beat.” Mascia has also led the Trace’s hilarious we’re journalists, not activists, propaganda campaign on social media.

Mascia claims her story was a response to a reader’s question: “Many gun owners claim to buy assault-style rifles for defense. So how many documented cases are out there where someone actually defended themselves with an assault-style rifle?”

Mascia reportedly searched the GVA’s data for “assault weapon,” which she said the GVA defines as “AR-15, AK-47, and all variants defined by law enforcement.” Of course, there’s no mention whether the weapons were capable of select-fire and therefore actual assault weapons. She started with 190 incidents, which she whittled down for various reasons. The results: “That left 51 incidents over a nine-and-a-half-year span in which legal gun owners brandished or used an AR-style rifle to defend life or property. That averages out to around five per year.”

To be clear, I trust Mascia’s findings about as much as I trust the GVA data that produced the results. The whole story is GIGO — garbage in, garbage out.

It is noteworthy that the firearms “expert” whom Mascia found to further beclown herself — who wrote in a CNN story that the AR is the last gun he’d recommend for self-defense — is none other than former Washington D.C. police officer Michael Fanone. He’s the officer who cried a lot before the January 6 Commission — the one with the beard who cried a lot, if that helps jog your memory.

“I’m more familiar with the gun than most people: I own one. And one thing I know for sure is that this weapon doesn’t belong in the hands of the average civilian,” Fanone wrote of the AR platform in the CNN story.

The network must have liked the cut of his jib. Fanone is now a CNN contributor and hawking a new book: “Hold the Line: The Insurrection and One Cop’s Battle for America’s Soul.” (Nancy Pelosi highly recommended it.)

Since he’s so afraid of the AR platform, I can’t help but wonder what weapon Fanone, or for that matter, Mascia, would recommend for home defense. If I had to guess, it probably has two barrels, a wooden stock and exposed hammers.

I’m somewhat familiar with the AR myself, which is why I trust it to defend my hearth and home. It’s light, accurate and deadly, which is exactly the point, and something we should stop making allowances for.

Despite the exhortations of Bloomberg’s activists or crybaby ex-cops, an AR is exactly what I want when The Bad Man comes a-calling.

Violent Crime! Our Personal Safety Depends Upon Ourselves

Fewer than half of crimes in the U.S. are reported IMG Pew Research

The “deterrent value” of law enforcement is at an all-time low!

Less than half of crimes of violence in the USA are never “solved.” Of the ones that are “solved” or “cleared,” few arrests and successful prosecutions ever result.

Less than twenty percent of property crimes are ever “solved.”

Owing to the foregoing, the majority of felonies, even forcible felonies, are never reported (what’s the point?) and thus never show up on any statistics. Thus, as dismal as the crime statistics we actually have, real figures are vastly worse!

Low arrest rates are a direct result of “passionless policing” by critically under-staffed, non-supported police departments, combined with unenthusiastic prosecution by liberal, pro-criminal prosecutors, as well as mayors and city council members.

Accordingly, among VCAs (violent criminal actors) in most metro areas, there is scant risk associated with physically victimizing others, at least risk represented by law enforcement. The real risk to VCAs (particularly drug traffickers) is from the violence visited upon them by other VCAs during territorial disputes.

And, of course, there is always the risk of running into an armed “victim,” as frightened Americans continue to buy guns at increasing rates every month.

As citizens, our personal safety depends almost exclusively upon ourselves. We are no longer “protected” by police in the way we used to be, and may never be again!

Lifestyles need to be tweaked accordingly….

Mass Shootings Have ‘No Correlation to Gun Laws,’ says Report

U.S.A. — Washington, D.C.—a jurisdiction with some of the strictest gun control laws in the country—leads the nation with “the highest rate of mass shootings per capita,” according to a report in the Daily Mail, citing new research released this week by medical researchers in Colorado.

Here’s how the Daily Mail headlined its story: “America’s mass shooting hotspots revealed: First of its kind study breaks down thousands of massacres by state – and there’s NO correlation between gun control laws.”

The study is published in JAMA Network Open, and it relies on data from the Gun Violence Archive, a database often criticized by the firearms community. The work was done by researchers at the University of Colorado: Leslie M. Barnard, MPH, Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health; Erin Wright-Kelly, DrPH, MA, Injury and Violence Prevention Center, Colorado School of Public Health, and Marian E. Betz, MD, MPH, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.

The report may cool some jets in the gun control community, which has maintained that states with the most guns and “lax” laws have the highest number of shootings. But here’s what the report says:

“The rate of mass shootings per 1,000,000 people was highest in the District of Columbia (10.4 shootings), followed by much lower rates in Louisiana (4.2 mass shootings) and Illinois (3.6 mass shootings), the states with the next 2 highest rates (Table).”

Translation: Gun laws do not appear to have an impact, since the District of Columbia and the state of Illinois have restrictive laws, while Louisiana is far less restrictive.

Continue reading “”

Per the usual way the courts have dealt in the past with this burr under their saddle, by the time they can delay no longer, the plaintiff’s will have reached 21 years old, and dust off their hands as they dismiss the case as moot.

Fraser v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (3:22-cv-00410) District Court, E.D. Virginia

gov.uscourts.vaed.524643.77.0_1

 

ORDER that the DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A STAY OF INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL (ECF No. 63 ) is granted. The FINAL ORDER OF INJUNCTION (ECF No. 81 ) and the FINAL ORDER OF DECLARATORY RELIEF (ECF No. 82 ) are STAYED pending appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and oral argument would not aid the decisional process. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 8/30/2023 at 4:56 p.m. (jenjones, ) (Entered: 08/30/2023)

The Virginia federal judge found that the federal ban on handgun sales to those under the age of 21 is unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment, per Bruen’s  “History and Tradition” test.
The judge issued a nationwide injunction against the law, but stayed the order while the government appeals to the Circuit court.

21-and-up gun law to remain blocked as federal lawsuit plays out

DENVER (KDVR) — Colorado’s new law blocking all gun sales to anyone under age 21 remains on hold while a legal challenge continues to play out in court.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners argues the law is a Second Amendment violation and is challenging its constitutionality in federal court.

A judge already blocked the gun-buying restrictions from going into effect in August while the court case plays out. Gov. Jared Polis asked the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to block that ruling, but the court declined.

“Today, two Obama-appointed judges agreed with us that our plaintiffs do have standing and that our likelihood of success on the merits is strong,” Taylor Rhodes, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, said in part in a statement.

For now, the law will remain blocked until the case is heard in court.

Coloradans under 21 could still buy rifles

While federal law requires buyers to be at least 21 years old to buy a handgun, Coloradans under age 21 can still buy rifles. If upheld, Senate Bill 23-169 would block all gun sales to anyone in Colorado under age 21.

A spokesperson for Polis’ office released a statement after the Tuesday ruling.

“People will remain very confused because of this injunction because since 1968, federal law has required Coloradans to be 21 years old to purchase a pistol, but a loophole allows kids under age 21 to legally buy a rifle instead. This new law approved by the legislature closes that loophole and Governor Polis hopes that the courts agree with him that the law is fully consistent with the Second Amendment and reduces confusion. The Governor is working towards his goal of making Colorado one of the ten safest states in the country and the same age requirements for pistols and rifles would help support responsible gun ownership.”

CONOR CAHILL, PRESS SECRETARY FOR COLORADO GOV. JARED POLIS

The Rocky Mountain Gun Owners lawsuit names two Coloradans plaintiffs in the case, each older than 18 but younger than 21 and who said they want to buy a gun for self-defense.

The gun group’s arguments have hinged on the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

In that case, the court ruled Americans have a right to carry guns in public for self-defense. The case also set a standard that courts must look at history to decide the constitutionality of gun laws.

Despite Democrats’ Fearmongering On Firearms, A Majority Of Americans Own Guns Or Want To Own Guns

A majority of Americans are happy or prospective gun owners who keep firearms around to protect themselves, Pew Research found in its latest poll.

The poll, which surveyed 5,115 U.S. adults in June, found that, contrary to Democrats’ anti-gun rhetoric, Americans across all demographics enjoy exercising their Second Amendment rights by personally owning guns or living with someone who does.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans either already live in a household with a gun or have expressed interest in buying a gun in the future. Considering the U.S. is experiencing the highest personal gun ownership uptick since 2011, even those who aren’t firearm owners yet could be soon.

When Pew measured Americans’ attitudes towards guns in 2017, only 67 percent of firearm owners said they had guns for protection. After years of soaring gun sales due to rising crime and the summer 2020 riots, 72 percent of American gun owners now say protection is the primary reason they keep firearms around.Overall, 81 percent of gun owners say owning a firearm makes them feel safer. A majority of non-gun owners, 57 percent, say they also feel safer if someone in their household owns a gun.

“Gun owners express overwhelmingly positive sentiments about owning a gun, with sizable majorities saying it makes them feel safer and that they enjoy having a gun,” Pew noted.

Safety is likely one of the reasons gun ownership among women specifically has climbed in recent years. In 2017, only 22 percent of women said they personally owned a gun. Now, 25 percent of females have a firearm of their own.

Gun ownership, Pew found, is still higher among rural, Republican voters than among urbanites and Democrats. The latter groups, however, saw increases in gun ownership in the last five years. Between 2017 and now, firearm ownership among urban dwellers jumped 1 percent.

Approximately 4 percent more blue voters say they have guns now than they did in 2017. Six percent more Democrats have guns in their household in 2023 than they did in 2017.

Pew tried to overshadow their robust gun ownership report by highlighting that 61 percent of Americans think it is too easy to get a gun in the U.S. What the poll did not specify is exactly how law-abiding Americans feel about leftist-led legislation that seeks to restrict their Second Amendment rights.

Despite the fact that deadly mass shootings increased during Congress’ 1994 ban on “assault weapons,” Democrats, led by President Joe Biden, desperately want another ban on the most popular semi-automatic rifles on the market.

“The idea we still allow semi-automatic weapons to be purchased is sick,” Biden said in November 2022. “It has no socially redeeming value. Zero. None. Not a single solitary rationale for it except profit for the gun manufacturers.”

There are a myriad of problems with blue politicians’ unconstitutional gun-grab policies. One such problem is that if Democrats pass a federal ban on AR-15s, they would be depriving Americans of the ability to protect themselves in the they choose.

D.C. to pay $5.1 million settlement after judge finds Second Amendment violations

D.C. will pay $5.1 million as part of a class-action settlement with gun owners who were arrested under laws that have since been found to violate the Second Amendment, according to the settlement agreement.

Fast, informative and written just for locals. Get The 7 DMV newsletter in your inbox every weekday morning.
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth gave preliminary approval to the settlement agreement on Monday following years of litigation. Lamberth had previously ruled in September 2021 that D.C. arrested, jailed, prosecuted and seized guns from six people “based on an unconstitutional set of laws” and violated their Second Amendment rights.

The laws — a ban on carrying handguns outside the home and others that effectively banned nonresidents from carrying guns at all in D.C. — have since been struck down in federal court. They were part of a “gun control regime that completely banned carrying handguns in public,” Lamberth wrote in the 2021 ruling.

Now, D.C. will pay a total of $300,000 to the six plaintiffs and $1.9 million in attorneys fees, with the majority of the rest of the money set aside for more than 3,000 people estimated to qualify for the class-action.

Continue reading “”

David Hemenway Given Platform to Mislead on Guns by Obscure Online Outlet

David Hemenway, a Professor of Health Policy at Harvard University’s Injury Control Research Center, has been a proud proponent of anti-gun “research” for many years. Rather than relying on criminologists and experts in law enforcement to diminish violent crime where firearms are used, Hemenway long-ago jumped on the anti-gun bandwagon of trying to frame the discussion about gun-control from an approach of addressing it as a “public health” issue—as if there is some sort of vaccine that could be developed to stop violent criminals from being violent criminals.

One might consider him simply misguided, or perhaps he has just bought into what many on the far left do whenever faced with something they wish to control; frame it as a “public health” crisis.

But with Hemenway, it may be that he just hates guns and law-abiding gun owners, and all of his “research” he claims supports his radical theories is guided predominantly by confirmation bias. And who better to offer support for the theory that this particular anti-gun researcher just hates guns and gun owners than Hemenway himself?

A recent interview with Hemenway was posted by the online outlet Undark, a relatively obscure digital magazine with ties to any number of media outlets that hold extreme anti-gun views. Publishing partners include outlets that have shown anti-gun bias such as HuffPost, Mother Jones, NPR, Salon, and Slate. It should come as no surprise that Undark would give Hemenway a platform for his anti-gun views.

Continue reading “”

Montana leads 18 states in court to strike down Maryland ‘buffer zones’ gun law

EXCLUSIVE — Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R-MT) filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit over a Maryland county law he says is defying the Supreme Court’s landmark Second Amendment test by establishing “unconstitutional” gun-free buffer zones.

A group of 18 attorneys general led by Knudsen filed the brief Monday at the Virginia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, asking the court to side with plaintiffs who say it is “practically impossible” to carry a gun for personal defense in Maryland’s most populous county, Montgomery County, due to a restrictive gun control law passed in late November.

When asked why Montana sought to intervene over a Maryland county law, Knudsen told the Washington Examiner that the Second Amendment is one of his “personal passion issues.”

“I’m a hunter. I’m a reloader. I’m a competitive shooter. I’m a bit of a gun nut — so I keep a pretty close eye on these things,” Knudsen said. “And I firmly believe that as some of these states go, if left unchallenged, we’ll see this kind of nonsense regulation and, frankly, unconstitutional laws being attempted in other places, not just in Maryland.”

Montana’s assistant solicitor general wrote in the brief first provided to the Washington Examiner that Section 57 of Montgomery County Code “prohibits the sale, transfer, or possession of firearms ‘[i]n or within 100 yards of a place of public assembly.'”

Continue reading “”

Kamala Harris Pushes Gun Control That Wouldn’t Have Prevented Jacksonville Shooting

Vice President Kamala Harris reacted to Saturday’s shooting in Jacksonville, Florida, by pushing gun control that would not have prevented the attack.

Harris released a statement Sunday noting the shooting was racially motivated and will be investigated “as a possible hate crime and act of domestic violent extremism.”

She closed her statement by saying, “Every person in every community in America should have the freedom to live safe from gun violence. And Congress must help secure that freedom by banning assault weapons and passing other commonsense gun safety legislation.”

It should be noted that Jacksonville Sheriff T.K. Waters pointed out the shooter was armed with two guns, a Glock pistol and an AR-15 style rifle. If the rifle had been denied him, he would still have had the pistol and the attack would not be hindered.

Additionally, universal background checks constitute another piece of “commonsense gun safety legislation” that Democrats are pushing. But the Jacksonville shooter bought his guns “legally,” which indicates he passed background checks for them at retail.

Moreover, Florida has a red flag law, which is often pushed by Democrats as a way to prevent shootings. But the Washington Post noted Waters saying, “There was no criminal arrest history. There is nothing we could have done to stop [the shooting suspect] from owning a rifle or a handgun. There were no red flags.”

How Big Are Our Virtues?

This is as serious as it gets. It is scandalous when millions of us are put at risk by bad government policy. Likewise, it is vitally important to recognize when we’re doing the right thing and saving thousands of lives every day. This is hard to understand because some of the problem is political, but some of the difficulty is simply the size of our virtue. How can we begin to understand that millions of us prevented serious injury and saved a huge number of lives every year?

Ordinary citizens like us legally use a firearm in self-defense about 2.8-million times a year. Sure, that is a number, but how big is that really?

This is a matter of life and death and society takes it very seriously. In the simplest terms, we are not allowed to use a firearm, or even threaten to use a firearm, unless an innocent victim faces the most serious threats. We are expected to use less violent tools when we face less dangerous threats. We’re only allowed to defend ourselves with a gun when it is the safest thing to do, yet we were forced to use a firearm in self-defense over 76-hundred times a day. That says a lot about how often ordinary citizens were thrown into very dangerous situations.

How frequent is armed defense?

As background information, the FBI said violent criminals committed these 1.2 million crimes in 2019-

  • Aggravated assaults- 821,182
  • Robberies- 267,988
  • Rapes- 139,815
  • Murders- 16,425

 

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
Leftists will always blame the gun, not the shooters, because the end goal is to get your gat.

KDJ’s ‘Gun Myth’ Fact Check: Liberals vs. Americans, Part 2: Mass Shootings.

As the United Police States of America continues to shred the Constitution into confetti, I thought I’d continue with analysis of more of the applesauce the left is spewing as “gun myths” as they try to dismantle our Second Amendment rights.

A certain brilliant radio talk show host posits that Democrats keep criminals on the streets for two reasons:

  • Crime causes chaos, which communism needs to successfully spread across the country.
  • Higher gun-related crime statistics are used to justify saying, “We need to abolish guns.”

In other words, leftists encourage criminals to break the law and then use the crime stats as a means of taking guns from We the People. Mass shootings are especially tasty crimes for gun grabbers.

FACT-O-RAMA! A mass shooting is defined as four or more people shot, not including the shooter(s), in a fluid situation. Meaning, If I blaze up a Denny’s and shoot three people, go home, take a nap, catch the 3:10 showing of “Barbie,” and shoot three more in the theatre, this is not a mass shooting.

Let’s take a look at what the leftoids at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) are saying about mass shootings:

MYTH: IN MOST MASS SHOOTINGS, PERPETRATORS DO NOT KNOW THE PEOPLE THEY KILL.

FACT: Nearly 70% of mass shootings involve domestic violence, Lisa Geller, MPH, state affairs advisor for the Center, told 12 News in Arizona.

In a study published in 2021, Geller and colleagues found that in over 68% of mass shootings, the perpetrator killed at least one partner or family member and had a history of domestic violence.

The JHU crowd conveniently changed an “or” to an “and” to create a lie.

JHU wrote (emphasis added): “Geller and colleagues found that in over 68% of mass shootings, the perpetrator killed at least one partner or family member and had a history of domestic violence.” But when I looked at their source, I found this: “We found that 59.1% of mass shootings between 2014 and 2019 were DV (domestic violence)-related and in 68.2% of mass shootings, the perpetrator either killed at least one partner or family member or had a history of DV.”

Yes, it’s safe to assume that a wacko who perforates his own family probably has a history of domestic violence.

Also, the research JHU is using involves “Fatal mass shootings, defined as four or more people killed by gunfire, excluding the perpetrator,” whereas the aforementioned myth refers to mass shootings. What’s the difference between a mass shooting and a “fatal” mass shooting?” Four (or more) dead people.

Continue reading “”

Biden campaign co-chair uses gun control to deflect

In the past, we’ve seen a couple of politicians get themselves out of some hot water by declaring an intention to focus on pushing gun control.

They make the announcement and the controversy around them seems to evaporate almost overnight.

That doesn’t work so much for President Joe Biden.

After all, this isn’t exactly a new push from him.

However, that isn’t going to stop his campaign co-chair from trying to use the tactic to deflect questions about his age.

President Biden‘s 2024 campaign co-chair CedricRichmond pivoted to talk about gun control when asked Sunday about the 80-year-old president’s age presenting challenges at the ballot box.

“While they continue to talk about age, we’ll continue to talk about the fact that they’re not talking about banning assault weapons, while they’re banning books but they’re not protecting our children in schools,” Mr. Richmond said on ABC’s “This Week.” “The fact that none of them raised their hand to talk about climate as a real issue when we see fires in Maui, we see hurricanes hitting California, we see the destruction of wildfires. But they’re not talking about that.”

So, as you can see, it’s not just gun control that Richmond tried to invoke to stave off criticism that Biden might just be too old to do the job.

Of course, the truth of the matter is that so-called assault weapons is something very different than the president’s age.

A new assault weapon ban isn’t really going to happen, in part because enough people understand that the issue with mass shootings isn’t because of AR-15s but with people who seem to think killing people wholesale sounds like a swell time.

In contrast, the books being “banned,” in many cases actually aren’t being banned, they’re simply being removed from curriculums or, if they are being removed, there’s a good reason. I’ve seen pages from a couple of notable examples that were pretty sexually explicit, after all.

Meanwhile, we have a president who can barely piece together two coherent sentences as a general rule, who seemingly falls asleep during important events, and who can’t seem to remember that his one son died of cancer rather than being killed in Iraq.

Granted, that last may just be a case of lying, but I’m not sure that makes anything better.

Bringing up his age is certainly valid, and even 69 percent of Democrats think he’s too old.

So why try to pivot to gun control? Because, frankly, that’s all the Biden campaign has at this point. They need to deflect from the very real concern over Biden’s mental faculties. When more than two-thirds of his own party think he’s too old to do the job, there’s a huge problem and they know it.

But they’re hoping the media will focus on the gun control angle instead because it worked with former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and his blackface controversy and with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his brownface controversy.

Both declared they would push for gun control and all was forgiven.

With Biden, though, there’s no reason to think he can step up any anti-gun efforts, that he could get them through Congress even if he did, or that with his age being what it is, he’d remember anyway.

That doesn’t mean the media won’t try, but they won’t make those concerns disappear by pretending they don’t exist.

Well, guns in the hands of the uncontrolled populace scare the pants off all politicians. Mao’s axiom being correct; ‘Political Power grows from the barrel of a gun.’

What to Make of GOP Presidential Candidates’ Silence on Guns

Amidst a wide-ranging and, at times, quarrelsome debate between the Republican presidential hopefuls on Wednesday, the eight candidates on the stage broached several topics important to Republican primary voters, from abortion to immigration. However, gun policy and the Second Amendment were notably absent.

The omission of a central tenet of Republican politics is curious for a number of reasons, not least of which is that the candidates were directly asked about the topic in the regular course of the debate.

Continue reading “”

among others, the mayors of Kansas City and St Lousy are also in for a rude awakening, or so the Missouri Attorney General has said.

OHIO COURT, PHILADELPHIA SUBURBS SHOW IMPORTANCE OF PREEMPTION LAWS

Neighboring states of Ohio and Pennsylvania are offering lessons in real time of what happens when gun control politicians ignore laws and create barriers for the firearm industry. Gun control politicians, acting on behalf of gun control activists, create havoc and disarray when they foist their own restrictive gun control policies that aren’t in step with state law.

Ohio’s Tenth District Court of Appeals overturned a lower court’s decision to grant an injunction that allowed the City of Columbus to enact their own gun control laws. The appeals court found that Columbus’ attempt to block the state from enforcing uniform laws for firearms was incorrectly granted, since it was sought years after the challenge and after Columbus enacted their own ordinances that barred standard capacity magazines and firearm storage mandates.

Ohio is one of 42 states that have what is called a “preemption” law. That means authority to enact laws that regulate firearms resides with the state legislature and not local municipalities. Those laws protect from cities and towns creating a patchwork of gun control laws that would ensnare state citizens traveling throughout the state.

“The court’s ruling assures that all Ohioans must abide by the same law, state law, when it comes to firearms,” said Ohio’s Attorney General Dave Yost in a press release following the court’s ruling. “Just like we argued in court, firearms owners statewide should have to follow the same rules.”

When It’s Gun Control, Though…
It’s a law gun control advocates ignore when it is convenient. When it comes to enforcing overreaching gun control laws, gun control politicians demand strict adherence and strict enforcement.

Oregon passed their Measure 114 that outlaws standard capacity magazines and requires police to maintain an electronic, searchable firearm permit database, provide additional hands-on firearm training and fingerprint applicants for firearm purchase permits, at least five county sheriffs said they wouldn’t enforce the gun control law, calling it a violation of Second Amendment rights. NSSF is challenging that law in federal court.

Oregon’s Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum had previous dust-ups over Second Amendment issue with county sheriffs and cited a state law requiring them to arrest and imprison “all persons who break the peace, or attempt to break it, and all persons guilty of public offenses.”

“Thus, a sheriff and deputies have a statutory duty to enforce state criminal laws,” AG Rosenblum wrote in a petition of earlier clashes with sheriffs over Second Amendment concerns.

New Mexico’s Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham clashed with sheriffs in her state in 2020 over “red flag” laws. The head of New Mexico Sheriffs’ Association, Tony Mace, wrote that the law didn’t take Due Process rights into consideration and some sheriffs said they wouldn’t enforce it. Gov. Grisham said sheriffs had no discretion in the matter.

“They cannot not enforce,” she said, according to a CNN report. “And if they really intend to do that, they should resign as a law enforcement officer and leader in that community.”

Zoned Out
The conflict over “home rule” and “self-determination” when it comes to passing a patchwork of gun control laws is playing out now in Lower Merion Township, a suburb of Philadelphia. NPR reported that the town passed a zoning ordinance that would put the only federal firearms licensee, Shot Tec, out of business. Shot Tec doesn’t carry an inventory of firearms. It’s a business that facilitates legal firearm transfers and provides firearm safety classes. Still, town officials want it gone.

Township Commissioner Mike McKeon said the local law is one about zoning and not gun control, yet told NPR, “we’re trying to make everyone feel safer.”

“What the township did is they made it less accessible for people to access their rights and for people to access things like gunsmithing, etc.,” said Shot Tec owner Grant Schmidt, noting his firearm business is the only one in Lower Merion Township.

That’s a sticking point because Pennsylvania has a firearm preemption law. This has been challenged numerous times and was most recently batted down after Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney attempted to ban firearms in city parks and recreation areas. The reason was on account of the state’s General Assembly has the exclusive legal authority to write those laws in the Commonwealth. Pittsburg officials learned that again last year after trying to write their own gun control laws.

The striking irony is that those politicians demanding to pass their own local gun laws aren’t calling for crackdowns on criminals. They’re only demanding that those who obey the law are stripped of their ability to lawfully purchase a firearm. They’re ignoring state law to press a gun control agenda. These are gun control platitudes that run roughshod on state law and ignores criminals that are the real menace to society.

The Slanted Findings of a Gun-Control “Study”

Everytown for Gun Safety is a Michael Bloomberg-funded gun-ban group that has never heard of an anti-gun proposal that it hasn’t supported. So, when Everytown recently joined with The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Polarization & Extremism Research & Innovation Lab to study “youth” and guns, it should come as no surprise that they “found” exactly what they were looking for.

The combined groups’ new “study,” titled “U.S. Youth Attitudes On Guns Report,” concluded that pro-gun youth are more likely to hold supremacist or racist views. “Evidence from this study suggests that pro-gun attitudes were associated with more extreme worldviews like male supremacist ideation and racial resentment,” the report stated.

Before we get into the nuts and bolts, let’s first take a look at an interesting aspect of the research. While it explicitly states “Youth” in the headline, the study participants ranged from 14 to 30 years old. Even the most-liberal definitions of “youth” tend to use the parameters of 14 to 24. While there is no consensus on what defines “youth” under law in the U.S., nearly every state, along with the federal government, considers the age at which one becomes an “adult” to be 18 years old. Some may debate including 18- to 24-year-olds among “youth,” but adding 25- through 30-year-olds to the study ensures it doesn’t have any validity concerning American “youth.”

Continue reading “”

Do Gun-Control Groups Care What Really Causes Mass Shootings? Everytown Lawsuit Says No

The Biden administration has already put nearly 2,000 gun sellers out of business in just two years. Just a few years ago, a lawsuit helped drive the 200-year-old Remington Arms into bankruptcy. But activists won’t stop suing gun shops and anyone else that comes close to the industry.

Last week, attorneys from Everytown Law, the legal arm of Michael Bloomberg’s gun-control group Everytown for Gun Safety, filed a lawsuit against a shop that sold the gun used in the fatal shooting of 10 people at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, in May 2022. The murderer is a racist who specifically targeted racial minorities. Everytown claims the attack “could have been prevented,” but in fact, the gun seller performed all of the proper background checks.

Others are also being sued, including the 18-year-old murderer’s parents and social media companies that allegedly “transformed and addicted” the murderer by allowing extremist content on their sites.

But the lessons from this shooting, like many other mass public shootings, are hiding in plain sight. One needs only to read the killer’s manifesto.

“Areas where CCW [carrying a concealed weapon] are outlawed or prohibited may be good areas of attack,” wrote the shooter. “Areas with strict gun laws are also great places of attack.”

But Everytown ignores those quotes. Nor does the organization mention that the Buffalo mass murderer self-identified as an “eco-fascist national socialist” and a member of the “mild-moderate authoritarian left.” The shooter expressed concern that minority immigrants have too many children and will damage the environment. “The invaders are the ones overpopulating the world,” he wrote. “Kill the invaders, kill the overpopulation and by doing so save the environment.”

Continue reading “”

They’re coming for your guns

Leftist politicians rarely tell the truth. Their policies and ideals are so bad that they can’t, and they know it, thus the nonstop hyperbole, grandstanding, and projection. It’s infuriating that so many Americans either are unable to see this, thanks in part to a complicit MSM, or so blinded by their ideology that they choose to ignore the fact that they get endlessly played by those they keep electing.

As with any good totalitarian leftist regime, gun confiscation is at the top of the leftist wish list. It’s much easier to institute control and compliance over an unarmed citizenry than it is an armed one. They may deny it, but deep down, this is what they want. All you have to do is watch and listen to them.

You hear them use code words like “military-grade weapons” and “red flag laws.” Even our leftist administrative state is getting in on the action, as the ATF is now targeting gun dealers by denying more and more of their business licenses. It probably won’t be long until this administration starts mandating that banks curtail any financial dealings with gun manufacturers and dealers, just as it has with the fossil fuel industry. House bills are already written to pin blame on gun manufacturers for gun-related crimes. Once instituted, there is no way those business can survive the legal onslaught that would come their way. Leftists may not be able to repeal the 2nd Amendment, yet, but they can sure regulate their way around it.

This leftist playbook was recently revealed by progressive St. Louis mayor Tishaura Jones. Under her leadership, the city recently passed Bill 29, which repealed the city’s open carry law, but that wasn’t enough for her. Now she’s proposing more “commonsense gun legislation,” including but not limited to red flag laws, background checks, banning “military-grade” weapons, and prohibiting insurrectionists and those convicted of hate crimes from owning guns.

While I find red flag laws deeply concerning, as they blatantly infringe upon an individual’s right to bear arms simply via another’s accusation, the last two in the list really set the alarm bells off. Of course, Mayor Jones didn’t specifically say what constitutes a “military-grade weapon,” and I’m not going to put words into her mouth, but any time the government looks to limit something, it’s only getting started. Military-grade weapons, or “weapons of war,” is an extremely vague term that can mean whatever the government wants it to mean, which is exactly how the government wants it. All these people need to do is to open that door and stick their foot in it, and then, over time they’ll be able to step right through.

This brings me to Jones’s most disturbing statement: “prohibiting insurrectionists and those convicted of hate crimes” from owning guns. We’ve already seen how loose our federal government is when it comes to labeling citizens as “insurrectionists.” Would local leftist leaders be at all different? Of course not.

In fact, let’s take this a step farther. With our federal Justice Department labeling concerned parents voicing opinions at school board meetings as “domestic terrorists,” what would stop local authorities from targeting them as well? Or the fact that certain crimes against certain “oppressed” or “victim” groups, as determined by the administrative state, constitutes forgoing your 2nd Amendment rights, too? This is nothing but blatant political weaponization against “enemies” in the guise of “commonsense” gun laws, with the government picking and choosing the winners and losers. In the 17th century, they were called “witch hunts.”

The fact that Mayor Jones used the word “insurrectionists” was no accident. On the surface, who would argue with disarming insurrectionists, right? But to the left, “insurrectionists” refers to anybody leftists disagree with, as well as other code words like “fascists,” “MAGA,” and “terrorists.” This is the semantic word game that leftists love to play. They’ll pass laws that, on their surface, may appear sensible and provide a good sound bite, just for them to then use these laws to cudgel their opposition, while giving free passes to those who support them.

We all have to vehemently resist leftists’ assault on the 2nd Amendment, for there is absolutely no question as to what their end game is: the disarmament of the populace and the persecution of their adversaries.

Aside from the constitution, why are citizens allowed to purchase semi automatic rifles?

Because there is no “aside from the Constitution”. You have appreciated the American system opposite to how things work here.

You ask why we’re ‘allowed’ to do something? It doesn’t work that way. We Americans can say, do, own, buy, sell, possess whatever we want. We’re not ‘allowed’ anything. We need no ‘permission’. Read the whole Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and you’ll find nothing among the powers given to government, by the people, saying we must first seek to be allowed to do something.

This is the main difference of the American way where we are free citizens not government subjects. America has the ethos that anything not explicitly banned is allowed. Not that anything not explicitly allowed is banned.

To stop, ban, or restrict this freedom, a law, eventually found to be ‘constitutional’ if someone thinks it isn’t and takes it to court in our judicial system, must be passed in the legislative political process. Not the other way around.