Category: RKBA

Self-serving or not, Newsom’s 28th Amendment is a threat to the rights of all

Last week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom garnered national attention by proposing his vision for a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Unsurprising given Newsom’s policy goals for the Golden State, the proposed amendment would advance Newsom’s gun control dreams nationwide. While it’s unlikely Newsom can gather the support necessary to make his dream a reality in the near-term, that doesn’t mean we should ignore the dangers of his narrative.

On June 8, Newsom issued a press release outlining his specific vision for a new constitutional amendment that he describes as “common sense gun safety measures that Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and gun owners overwhelmingly support.” The proposed amendment would write four key tenets of Newsom’s gun control religion into our federal system of government: (1) raising the minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21; (2) mandating (so-called) “universal background checks”; (3) instituting a waiting period for all gun purchases; and (4) barring “civilian purchase of assault weapons.”

It would be exceedingly challenging today for Newsom to actually achieve his goal. Article V of the U.S. Constitution sets forth the procedure necessary to amend the Constitution. First, two-thirds of Congress or two-thirds of the states have to propose an amendment (with agreed upon language). Then, three fourths of states have to ratify that amendment for it to become effective. Given only 10 states and Washington D.C. have any form of ban on so-called “assault weapons” or any form of waiting period, while 27 states have enacted some iteration of free/constitutional/permitless carry, it is clear that there isn’t currently much appetite for Newsom’s particular brand of gun control across the country.

Setting that aside, Newsom’s rhetoric is still dangerous for a couple reasons. First, while Newsom’s campaign is, at face value, a poorly disguised political stunt and fundraising effort for his political ambitions, it continues to paint gun control as “popular” and those standing in its way as responsible for violence. Newsom quite literally called those opposing his proposed amendment “Merchants of Death.” This rhetoric continues to push gun control activists’ twisting of language to psychologically manipulate the public and advance the activists’ cause. It aims to shift public perception until enough people will assent to the authoritarian regulation of all individual’s natural rights.

Second, and to that point, Newsom’s proposed amendment carries with it the implication that, if enough people agree, the government should have the power to infringe on the People’s natural right to self-defense and to possess the tools necessary to effectuate that defense. The idea that the People’s rights can be put up to a decision of a popular vote is offensive and immoral. The entire purpose of our system of government was to protect the rights of the few from the many. Yet, today, we’ve strayed far from that original vision. Newsom’s proposed amendment is evidence of just that.

Not only is Newsom’s proposal an admission that he is losing his battle for civilian disarmament, and that he knows the Constitution and the Second Amendment stand in the way of his authoritarian utopia, but it also reveals just how far our Nation has strayed from its aspirations of individual liberty, choosing instead to grow the leviathan that is government.

Natural rights are not mere political talking points, nor are those who cherish them second class citizens, subject to the whimsy of polling results or political fads. The People should never weaken in their resolve to protect those rights that once one generation loses, future generations may never know.

Whether Newsom’s proposed amendment is likely or not in the immediate future, one thing remains constant—all those who cherish individual rights must treat each trespass exactly for what it is, a bridge to the next trespass.

Cody J. Wisniewski (@TheWizardofLawz) is a senior attorney for constitutional litigation with FPC Action Foundation where he regularly represents Firearms Policy Coalition.

Biden Spent Billions to Prosecute 31 People

It’s already saving lives. There are fewer deaths occurring,

Joe Biden
President United States of America
June 16, 2023
The US passed a landmark gun deal one year ago. Is it working?

Really? How does he know? The FBI crime numbers cannot be trusted.

And from the same article:

The event comes as available data suggests the U.S. is seeing a year-over-year decline in murders nationwide. At the same time, mass shootings appear to be accelerating.

And the numbers they do claim are very telling:

At least 31 people have been charged in 17 cases under new federal straw purchasing and trafficking criminal offenses, data from federal prosecutors through April shows.

31?!!! And strawman purchases were already illegal. Out of probably 15 to 20 million sales they charged 31 people under, what they claim, is a new law. And they think this is success?

Denials stemming from enhanced background checks for people under 21 blocked more than 130 firearm purchases between November and April, Peter Carr, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, previously told USA TODAY.

How many of those 130 blocked purchases resulted in an increase in public safety? And how many of those block purchases resulted in a decrease in public safety?

And at what cost?

It created a $750 million funding pot to incentivize states to create “red flag laws,” closed the “boyfriend loophole” by adding convicted domestic violence abusers in dating relationships to the national criminal background check system, clarified the definition of a “federally licensed firearm dealer,” made it a federal crime to traffic in firearms, stiffened penalties for “straw purchases” made on behalf of people who aren’t allowed to own guns and enhanced background checks for buyers under 21.

The law also appropriated billions in funding for schools and mental health services. That includes $150 million for a national 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, $250 million for states and territories to enhance community mental health services, $500 million to increase the number of school-based mental health providers and $500 million to train school counselors, social workers and psychologists. It also set aside $250 million in funding for community-based violence prevention initiatives.

Billions were spent to prosecute 31 people and block sales to 130 people who, almost for certain, were not a threat to anyone.

And this is even with them playing their game by their rules instead of based on whether what they are doing is a violation of the Second Amendment, which it is.

They lie, they deceive, and they ignore the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

Keeping that nice cushy seat on the .gov gravy train means a lot more to a politician than almost anything else.

Key Republican won’t help Dems force gun control vote

Earlier this week, I wrote about how House Democrats intended to push a vote on gun control despite leadership having no interest in scheduling one.

To do that, they’ve got to have a few Republicans cross the lines and side with them while having literally every Democrat in the House hold the line.

It seems they’ve hit a bit of a snag, though.

One of the Republicans they were likely counting on has decided he wants no part of this plan.

A rare House Republican who supports stricter gun measures said he won’t back a Democratic effort to end-run Speaker Kevin McCarthy and force a vote on a trio of bills to implement those restrictions.

“At some point we need to start thinking about getting things done rather than sending messages across the floor of the House,” Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., said in an interview Thursday.

“It’s a very intellectually dishonest way of proceeding when you don’t have any strategy” to pass the bills through the Senate, he said.…

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., unveiled the strategy to try to go around McCarthy, R-Calif., at a Democratic meeting this week, two sources said.

Fitzpatrick was one of Democrats’ few, if only, natural allies to get a majority of the House to support the move. His opposition deals a major blow to the push, which will require at least a half-dozen House Republicans to sign the discharge petition to force a vote.

So why would Fitzpatrick not join in this. After all, one of the measures being pushed is one he co-authored. Wouldn’t he like to see it pass?

Fitzpatrick says he wants to focus on building support for the measure itself, but I think there’s more to it than that.

While he likes gun control, he’s still part of the Republican Party. He knows good and well that helping with an end-around the House leadership like this might get this bill passed, but it’ll also make it less likely he’ll have the party’s support at various points down the road.

You know, like re-election?

He may want gun control, but I’m sure there are a lot of other things he’d like to do that would be a lot harder if he goes against his leadership.

Yet with Fitzpatrick out, the odds of gathering the other Republicans needed to push gun control votes aren’t looking good. He was, perhaps, their best shot. With him gone, it’s unlikely they’ll get enough others to cross party lines and join them.

As I said earlier this week, though, that’s probably good news for vulnerable Democrats. A lot of them don’t want to raise much of a stink on gun control because they know it might not play particularly well back home. They’ll be good foot soldiers for the party, but it may put a spotlight on them they’d rather not be in.

People like Reps. Hakeem Jefferies and Lucy McBath haven’t thought that through.

Then again, they apparently figure they’re safe, so screw everyone else.

Either way, it looks like this effort isn’t going to happen and that’s likely good news for gun rights.

However, even if it had, those measures would still have had to go to the Senate where they’d be filibustered into oblivion. This really isn’t about gun control and never was. It was about trying to hurt Republicans in purple districts because they think gun control is a winning issue.

That’s all it ever was and don’t fool yourself into thinking otherwise.

And, frankly, it went out the window. Maybe Fitzpatrick realized it and simply refused to play that particular game.

Committee approves proposal to regulate Marion County firearms, but state law has to change first

Proposal to control access to guns in Marion County

On Wednesday, the City-County Council’s Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee approved a proposal that would regulate gun access in Marion County. Nine council members voted in favor of the measure, and four against.

The proposal’s first provision would create a ban on the sale of assault-style weapons such as AR-15s. A second would increase the minimum age to purchase a weapon from 18 to 21. The third would end permitless carry of handguns.

Last month, Hogsett announced that one of his office’s top priorities during the next legislative session would be convincing the General Assembly to change state law surrounding gun regulation.

Currently, individuals do not need a permit to carry a firearm in Indiana. Indiana has a preemption statute that prevents local governments from regulating firearms.

Multiple council members said Wednesday that Indianapolis should be able to enforce its own laws on firearms.

“I implore our state legislature to remove this ban and allow our city to rule for the benefit of our people,” said Democratic council member Dan Boots.

Republican council members like Joshua Bain voted against the proposal.

”We’re going to continue to blame guns, other tools like that, for what is ultimately a spiritual issue that’s affecting our society,” he said.

But IMPD Chief Randal Taylor, who supports the measure, said more concrete solutions are needed.

“I’ve always said that I would much rather someone decide not to shoot someone, work on someone’s heart, and not do these crimes in the first place,” Taylor said at the meeting. “And I’m still all for that. However, we don’t seem to be winning that battle right now.”

Progressive Judge Says Commerce Clause Overrides the Bill of Rights

U.S.A. — At least one judge in the Third Circuit believes the Commerce Clause overrides the Bill of Rights. In a recent decision of The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in the case Range v Lombardo, on June 6, 2023, the en banc court ruled some felony convictions are not sufficient to restrict Second Amendment rights, based on the historical record. Eleven of 15 judges concurred with the majority opinion. Four judges dissented.

Judge Roth makes a strong case, based on Progressive philosophy, the Commerce Clause overrides the Bill of Rights. She gives the usual litany of Progressive “arguments”: Things have changed since the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The federal government has to have more power than the Bill of Rights allows. That was then. This is now. Here is part of the dissent from Judge Roth of the Third Circuit P. 96 of 107 :

In Bruen, the Supreme Court considered whether a regulation issued by a state government was a facially constitutional exercise of its traditional police power.

Range presents a distinguishable question: Whether a federal statute, which the Supreme Court has upheld as a valid exercise of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, 2 is constitutional as applied to him.

The parties and the Majority conflate these spheres of authority and fail to address binding precedents affirming Congress’s power to regulate the possession of firearms in interstate commerce. Because Range lacks standing under the applicable Commerce Clause jurisprudence, I respectfully dissent.

Judge Roth explicitly states the modern expansion of the commerce clause, to include virtually all activity that has any effect on commerce, overrides the Bill of Rights because the scope of modern commerce is far greater than commerce at the founding.

This case involves the Second Amendment. Roth’s logic as easily applies to the First Amendment and others. Virtually all First Amendment usage involves items that have a connection to interstate commerce – printing presses, telephones, computers, satellites, fiber optic cables, etc. Church pews are made of wood shipped across state lines, paid for by credit cards recognized by interstate banks. Nearly all homes affect interstate commerce. Under the expansive interpretation, the federal government could regulate all use and sale of homes and inspect them at any time, in spite of the Fourth Amendment. Under the expansive, Progressive interpretation, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are swallowed up. Virtually all of life is encompassed by the absurd extension of the Commerce Clause created by Progressive judges.

Most of what Judge Roth writes about modern times applied to commerce at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

Continue reading “”

Gavin Newsom’s campaign to repeal the Second Amendment

Whatever else Gov. Gavin Newsom ’s (D-CA) campaign for a 28th Amendment gets wrong about guns, at least it implicitly admits that the Democratic Party’s gun control wish list is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment .

After all, why propose an amendment if the Constitution doesn’t forbid what you want to accomplish?

Leaving Newsom’s admission aside, however, his 28th Amendment would accomplish nothing, at least nothing good. At worst, it would lay the legal groundwork for confiscating every gun in the United States.

Newsom has offered no text for his amendment, only four “principles” he wants written into it. This allows him to propose “barring civilian purchase of assault weapons” without ever having to define exactly what an “assault weapon” is.

Define it too narrowly and gun manufacturers will create new models that skirt the definition. Define it too broadly by saying it is “any semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine,” for example, and you outlaw almost half the handguns in the nation. If the text of Newsom’s 28th Amendment is ever written, he’ll have to choose. The first option renders his amendment useless; the second would mean it never gets the votes to become law.

Not all of Newsom’s principles are so vague. Raising the legal age to buy a firearm from 18 to 21 is an easy bright line to enforce, but there isn’t any evidence that it would reduce gun crimes at all. But how can we raise the age to 21 when people may vote when three years younger than that?

Newsom’s third principle calls for a “reasonable waiting period for all gun purchases.” What is “reasonable” is not defined. We know from existing state waiting periods that they reduce gun suicides for those over 55, but they have no effect on gun homicide rates overall.

Finally, Newsom calls for “universal background checks” for gun purchases. But all commercial gun purchases are subject to universal background checks already. What Newsom is really calling for here is background checks for all private firearm transfers. Anytime anyone transfers gun ownership, from father to son, for example, or from neighbor to neighbor, Newsom wants the federal government to know about it.

Some states have tried this, and compliance is nonexistent. It is estimated that only 3.5% of private transfers in Oregon, for example, complied with that state’s universal background check law. The only way to achieve anything approaching effective compliance would be for the federal government to create a national gun registry and force all owners to register their firearms with the feds. That is the Democrats’ real goal with a universal background check system: a new government database that knows who owns every gun in the country and where they live.

Newsom’s gun grabbing pitch is predicated on the suggestion that mass shootings are a rational security threat and that the public, after “another few dozen of these in the next year or two,” will accept repealing the Second Amendment.

But mass shootings make up just 1% of all gun deaths each year. If Newsom wants to do something about gun violence, he should attack the George Soros district attorneys in his state and across the country who refuse to prosecute minorities charged with gun possession crimes. Democrats need to focus on enforcing existing gun laws before they try to create new ones.

How We Protect Our Children At School

What does it mean to protect our children at school? For the past decade, I’ve been following a program that protects school children from celebrity-seeking mass-murderers. This program teaches school staff to be first responders who provide both armed defense and medical first aid. We’ve learned a lot over the past decade, but there are still unanswered questions.

Protecting our children at school actually covers a lot of ground. Being “at school” is really a shorthand way of saying we want to protect the children when they are out of their parents care. That includes when they are off campus and on the school bus before school starts. It includes the school events after the last class period ends. We want to protect our children from the ball field to the classroom and into the parking lot.

Once you see the scope of the problem, you realize why a single uniformed School Resource Officer is only the beginning of a safety plan. One defender, no matter how well-trained or effective, can’t be everywhere all the time.

First responders must be near the children because we don’t want to give a murderer time to kill. That means an armed defender has to be within a few hundred feet of every child. The number of defenders that we want depends on the size of the campus and the layout of the buildings. A one-room school house takes fewer defenders than a sprawling K-12 campus.

Continue reading “”

Maine Democrats fail in initial try to push gun control through House

AUGUSTA, Maine — The Maine House of Representatives defeated a measure Tuesday to enshrine a 72-hour waiting period before gun purchases.

Maine sticks out nationally as a Democratic-controlled state with a strong hunting culture that combines loose gun laws and  high levels of gun ownership with lower levels of gun mortality, although federal data from 2021 showed the latter was the highest in New England. Voters in 2016 rejected a referendum on mandatory background checks on private gun sales.

House Speaker Rachel Talbot Ross, D-Portland, is proposing a similar law this year. The waiting period bill from Rep. Margaret Craven, D-Lewiston, which would have Maine join seven states with similar laws, was a test to see whether the party could display unity on the fraught issue.

But Republicans and a small number of Democrats defeated the waiting period bill in a 73-69 vote on Tuesday evening. It goes to the Senate for additional votes. Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, has taken a dim view of gun control recently.

Continue reading “”

Defense Distributed Once Again Proves Gun Control Obsolete With A 0% Pistol

Defense Distributed Once Again Proves Gun Control Obsolete With A 0% Pistol

AUSTIN, Texas — In 2013, Cody Wilson printed the Liberator. The Liberator was the first 3D-printed firearm. His goal was simple. It was to make all gun control obsolete.

Survey: 54% of Protestant Churches Rely on Armed Congregants

U.S.A. — A stunning survey that revealed more than half of Protestant churches across the country rely on “armed congregants as part of their security plan” has just recently been reported by Lifeway Research, even though the poll was taken last September.

The revelation comes 3 ½ years after a gunman opened fire at the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas, only to be shot dead by armed parishioner Jack Wilson just a few seconds later. The shooting, which was live streamed at the time—the video warped across social media—shows at least a half-dozen armed citizens in the church sanctuary with drawn guns after Wilson fired the single shot that stopped killer Keith Thomas Kinnunen before he could wreak more havoc.

At the time, Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, ripped into anti-gunners.

“The gun control crowd has been predictably silent,” Gottlieb said following the December 2019 incident, “because the use of firearms by private citizens in defense of themselves and others—especially a large crowd of worshippers in a church—just doesn’t fit the extremist gun control narrative.”

He even had some blistering remarks for then-presidential candidate Joe Biden and fellow Democrats for their “deafening silence.”

However, Biden had been critical of Texas gun laws in September of that year, which earned the Delaware Democrat plenty of scorn from gun rights advocates, including Gottlieb. At the time, Biden contended the relaxed Texas gun law was “irrational.” The December shooting demonstrated otherwise as Wilson and other armed churchgoers were able to immediately react.

But the Lifeway Research report, now coming to light nearly nine months after it was conducted, has some other revelations that might elicit silence from the gun control crowd.

As noted by Fox News, “Approximately 81% of churches — or four in five pastors — said they have at least one security measure to prevent potential attacks.”

Continue reading “”

Governor Abbott Signs Key Pro-Second Amendment Bills into Law!

Over the weekend, Governor Greg Abbott (R) signed important legislation protecting the privacy rights of lawful firearms purchasers and strengthening the state firearms preemption law. Both measures will take effect on September 1, 2023:

House Bill 2837, by Rep. Matt Schaefer (R-Tyler), prohibits financial institutions and credit card companies from requiring licensed dealers to use a firearms-specific merchant category code (MCC) to categorize retail gun purchases, rather than using a general merchandise retailer code or a sporting goods retailer code. It protects the privacy rights of lawful purchasers of firearms or ammunition by preventing payment card processing systems from collecting and misusing this data to surveil, report or disclose these legal transactions.

Gun control advocates successfully pressured activist banks on the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to create a unique MCC for licensed gun dealers. Now, they are pushing lawmakers to require credit card companies to use these MCCs to gather data on and track lawful firearms and ammunition purchases. Since the federal government is prohibited by law from creating and maintaining a registry of gun owners, they are attempting to outsource this effort to the private financial sector.

HB 2837 ensures that this will not happen in the Lone Star State! Texas joins Florida, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, and West Virginia in taking swift action this year to enact laws protecting lawful gun purchasers’ privacy when using credit cards at firearm retailers.

House Bill 3137, by Rep. Carrie Isaac (R-Wimberley), expands the state firearms preemption law to prohibit municipalities or counties from requiring firearm owners to obtain liability insurance, preventing such costly, California-style local regulations from being imposed on law-abiding Texas gun owners in the future.   

Governor Abbott had already signed a third pro-Second Amendment measure into law back in May: House Bill 1760 by Rep. Cole Hefner (R-Mount Pleasant). The current prohibition in the Texas Penal Code on firearms possession at school-sponsored activities could be interpreted to include countless locations where school field trips, school organization fundraisers and after-school programs occur, including public and private venues that are not owned by, or under the control of, a school. HB 1760 makes it clear that License To Carry holders and permitless carriers in possession of otherwise legal firearms at these locations would not become felons simply because students are present on the same premises. The bill clarifies that it is only an offense to carry a firearm where school activities are taking place if they are being conducted on property that is owned or operated by a school. 

More than 17 Percent of U.S. Firearm Murders Occur in One State: Gun-Controlled California

More than 17 percent of the annual firearm murders in the United States occur in gun-controlled California, according to the most recent figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

PEW Research reported that CDC figures show 20,958 people were murdered with firearms in 2021.

The CDC’s state-by-state map shows that 3,576 of those murders occurred in California alone.

Ironically, California is the number one state in the U.S. for gun control, according to Mike Bloomberg-affiliated Everytown for Gun Safety.

California gun controls include universal background checks, an “assault weapons” ban, a 10-day waiting period, a red flag law, firearm registration requirements, a ban on campus carry for self-defense, a ban on K-12 teachers being armed for classroom defense, a limit on the number of guns a law-abiding citizen can purchase each month, and a background check requirement for ammunition purchases, among many other controls.

Yet California is also number one for “active shooter incidents,” according to FBI figures.

When California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) contrasts gun violence in his state with that of other states–especially red states–he does not mention California firearm homicides. Rather, he talks about homicide rates and claims a lower rate in California than in other states.

On Thursday, he took this approach with Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves (R):

By shifting the focus to rates, Newsom does not mention that Mississippi only had 962 firearm homicides compared to 3,576 such homicides in California.

More Coloradans carrying as concealed handgun permits climb above pre-pandemic levels.

DENVER — Despite the practice being targeted for restrictions by some municipalities, the number of Coloradans obtaining concealed handgun permits (CHPs) in 2022 still climbed above pre-pandemic levels.

Such local gun rights restrictions are possible after Gov. Jared Polis signed Senate Bill 256 in 2021. The new law unwound decades of state preemption and allows local governments to manage their own gun laws, but only so long as they are more restrictive than those at the state level, meaning the law only allows for a one-way ratcheting up rather than true local control.

To date several communities have been successful in passing laws prohibiting concealed carry in public-owned buildings or parks, including Denver, Boulder and Broomfield.  The City of Edgewater originally included such a ban in a broader package of potential ordinances but backed off after a large public outcry.

Such a patchwork of laws make it tough on gun owners to know where they can and can’t carry as they travel the state, and is one of the reasons the legislature originally passed preemption around gun laws.

However, except for a surge in permits issued in 2020 and 2021 at the height of the COVID lockdowns and in the wake of the George Floyd riots, the number of new Colorado residents who have chosen to go through the process to lawfully conceal a weapon is still rising.

According to recent data recently released by the County Sheriffs of Colorado, 27,031 new concealed carry permits were issued statewide in 2022, with another 26,622 existing permits renewed.  That is down from 2020 and 2021 when permits skyrocketed in Colorado and around the country, but it is 14 percent increase over 2019 (23,250) and a 6 percent increase over 2018 (25,643).

According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, just over 15 percent of the Colorado population 21 or older holds a carry permit.

Continue reading “”

Now They’re REALLY Serious: Biden Taps VP Harris to Lead Administration’s Gun Control Messaging

President Joe Biden made an announcement he hopes will excite the gun control activists for his 2024 reelection bid. The president is calling in his Big Gun to “lead the messaging” on his gun control accomplishments to generate buzz.

Media reported the president assigned Vice President Kamala Harris, widely panned as “one of the worst VPs in history,” to be the “leading voice” on gun control and charged her with making those issues front and center for the campaign.

Election Day 2024 is “just” about 500 days away.

Continue reading “”

Gun Advocates Quick to Sue Over Connecticut’s New Gun Safety Law

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont on Tuesday signed the most wide-ranging state gun control bill since a 2013 law passed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, sparking an immediate lawsuit by gun rights supporters seeking to block a ban on open carrying and other parts of the new law.

It’s the latest legal fight over Connecticut’s gun laws, which are some of the strictest in the country, since the U.S. Supreme Court last year expanded gun rights and opened several states’ laws to challenges. The landmark 2013 gun law and others also are being contested in court.

“This bill that I just signed takes smart and strategic steps to strengthen the laws in Connecticut to prevent tragedy from happening,” the Democratic governor said in a statement. “The inaction of Congress on critical legislation to keep Americans safe requires each state to act individually.”

Idaho-based We the Patriots USA, a group that bills itself as a protector of gun and other rights, filed a lawsuit in federal court late Tuesday with other plaintiffs in an effort to block the law, the group’s lawyer said.

“Individuals have a right to bear arms under both the state and federal constitutions,” the lawyer, Norm Pattis, wrote in an email to The Associated Press on Tuesday. “The state constitution guarantees a right to protect oneself. No one sacrifices that right by walking out of their front door. In an era of defunding police, permissive bail reform and liberal clemency, folks depend on the right to self-defense more than ever.”

Continue reading “”

Federal Trial Rolls On.

06.08.2023

Before we share a report of the third day of OFF’s federal trial to stop the unconstitutional Measure 114, we want to take a moment to once again send our sincere thanks to the Republican Senators who have risked so much to protect our rights and basic common sense by refusing to participate in the Democrat’s war on sanity.

By protesting the Democrat’s outrageous agenda by denying quorum, the Senate Republicans, and two Independents, (Art Robinson and Brian Boquist) have put the brakes on SB 348.

SB 348, as you know, was Floyd Prozanski’s effort to make Measure 114 even worse than it was when passed by out of state millionaires.

The Democrat propaganda machine and their mouthpieces in the media have been working non-stop to demonize the peaceful protest of the Senators who denied quorum to protect the minority, even as they continue to pretend to want to protect the rights of minorities.

So please take a moment to send a word of thanks to Senate Republican Leader Tim Knopp and ask him to share your appreciation with his fellow Senators.

At the trial we face a number of challenges. As you may know the Judge has declared that she will not hear arguments about the constitutionality of Measure 114 as applied. Her position is that the issue is “not ripe” because no one has yet been harmed by the measure.  Of course, the only reason no one has been harmed yet is because a state judge in Harney County, in a separate decision, placed an injunction on the measure. So it cannot go into effect until after a full trial in State Court which we expect to happen in September.

Continue reading “”

By proposing to ban “assault weapons” as a Constitutional amendment, Newsom is admitting that the only way to ban them is via a Constitutional amendment. Ergo, any attempt to do so currently is unconstitutional if a Constitutional amendment is needed to do so. Talk about self inflicted wound.

Biden Pushes Supreme Court to Ban More People From Owning Firearms

The Biden administration wants to grant federal courts the power to ban practically anyone from owning a firearm.

After Zackey Rahimi was convicted in a federal district court of unlawful firearm possession while under a restraining order, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prohibiting a person from gun ownership while under a civil protective order was unconstitutional. So Joe Biden’s Justice Department stepped in on March 17 to petition the Supreme Court to overturn the appellate court’s decision.

Second Amendment: From the time the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 until the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, the United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to mean that the federal government had no jurisdiction over state firearm laws. But after the 14th Amendment passed, the federal government declared certain state laws invalid. This enabled President Lyndon Johnson to sign the Gun Control Act of 1968, which made it illegal for felons to own firearms.

Most Americans don’t have a problem with denying guns to felons, but now the Biden administration is trying to take things a step further by denying guns to those under a civil protective order.

Although Zackey Rahimi is indeed a violent and dangerous person, granting federal district courts the power to ban those under a restraining order from owning firearms makes the Second Amendment meaningless. It is far easier to put a restraining order on someone than to convict him of an actual felony, so liberal judges sympathetic to the Biden administration could suspend someone’s Second Amendment rights on a whim.

Natural Rights: The English Bill of Rights of 1689 protected the right of Protestant subjects to bear arms for self-defense. And the U.S. Bill of Rights took things further by removing the religious requirement. English philosopher John Locke and Founding Father Thomas Jefferson argued that individuals have a God-given right to protect their lives, liberty and property.

Locke and Jefferson knew a lot about human nature, but you do not have to know as much to realize why Biden’s gun control proposals are dangerous. Nazi Germany, Communist Cuba, the Soviet Union and many other dictatorships all relied on the most proven form of suppression to control people. And the radical left in America shows the same tendency to force its will on the public.

Prophecy says: In his article “Saving America From the Radical Left—Temporarily,” Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry highlighted how gun control is part of an organized attack on America:

The mindset behind the radical Democrats is exposed when you look at their handling of another issue: gun control. Every time there is a school shooting, even before any facts about the situation come out, they immediately begin pushing for gun bans.

After the most recent shooting, they funded student groups and encouraged students to revolt against authorities. They don’t just want to raise the buying age or to restrict the sale of a few types of guns; they want to eliminate all guns. They hate the Second Amendment and want to destroy the Constitution. They want a revolution!

This attack is foretold in 2 Kings 14:26-28, which discuss end-time America’s and Britain’s “bitter affliction.” To learn about the lawless mindset behind gun control, illegal immigration and numerous other issues, read America Under Attack, by Gerald Flurry.

Grandstanding:
(from the notion of performing to crowds in the grandstands)
the action of behaving in a showy or ostentatious manner in an attempt to attract favorable attention from spectators or the media:

Political posturing:
also known as “kabuki theatre”
the use of speech or actions to gain political support through emotional or affective appeals, especially to describe politicians suspected of acting insincerely to please their supporters.

Yeah, I think he’s seriously considering running for President if SloJoe goes into vapor lock, or falls, misses his head and breaks something vital.
He knows this is going nowhere, but it’s good political fodder for the demoncrap base in case the opportunity arises.

Newsom proposes constitutional amendment to restrict gun rights
Newsom says a constitutional amendment is needed to enact commonsense gun safety laws supported by the American people

California Democratic Govern. Gavin Newsom wants to change the Constitution to curb gun rights.

Fed up with inaction on gun control, Newsom unveiled a proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution on Thursday that would implement “commonsense” gun safety measures he claims have widespread bipartisan support.

“Our ability to make a more perfect union is literally written into the Constitution,” Newsom said Thursday. “So today, I’m proposing the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to do just that. The 28th Amendment will enshrine in the Constitution commonsense gun safety measures that Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and gun owners overwhelmingly support – while leaving the Second Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition.”

Newsom’s proposal comes after federal courts have delivered a series of victories for gun rights activists, led by the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last year striking down a century-old New York law that made it difficult to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun.

The Democratic governor’s proposed 28th Amendment would not abolish the Second Amendment, which establishes a right to bear firearms for personal self-defense. However, it would raise the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21; mandate universal background checks to purchase firearms; institute a waiting period for all gun purchases; and ban “assault weapons.”

Newsom’s proposed amendment would also affirm that Congress, states and local governments can enact additional gun control measures.

The Constitution can be amended by either Congress or a convention of states under Article V.

Congress can pass a proposed amendment with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, sending it to the states for ratification. With Republicans in control of the House and a 51-49 Democratic majority in the Senate, there is virtually no chance that a constitutional amendment restricting gun rights will have enough support to pass through Congress.

Instead, Newsom is calling for an Article V convention of states to convene and draft his proposed amendment. Two-thirds of the state legislatures must pass a resolution calling for such a convention before it can convene to consider an amendment to the Constitution. If such a convention adopts a proposed amendment, it then heads back to the state legislatures for ratification.

Three-fourths of the states must ratify a proposed amendment for it to be added to the Constitution – a rare and difficult feat that has only been accomplished 27 times in the nation’s history.

Newsom said he will campaign to build grassroots support and lobby other state legislatures to move forward with an Article V convention. A news release from his office included supporting statements from California lawmakers in the state Assembly and Senate.

Gun rights groups were quick to condemn Newsom’s proposal as an attack on the Second Amendment.

“We’ve always warned those who cherish their God-given liberties that the ultimate goal of anti-gunners was the abolishment of the Second Amendment,” said Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America (GOA).

“While they often try to hide behind legislative proposals and hush open talk of abolishing the Second Amendment, here we have a potential future presidential candidate now coming out and openly admitting what they’ve wanted to do all along,” Pratt said. “GOA will strongly oppose this proposal as we work to protect and restore the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.”