Category: RKBA

17 gun restriction bills flounder at Georgia Capitol

ATLANTA — This year, the Georgia legislature mostly ignored 17 gun restriction bills – including bills that would have limited access to guns for folks with mental health issues.

The 17 gun restriction bills were introduced by Democrats. The capitol is run by Republicans, who have expanded, not restricted, gun rights.

When police converged on the Northside Medical building in Midtown Atlanta Wednesday in an attempt to take down a mass shooter – and ordered people nearby to shelter in place – one of them was state Sen. Josh McLaurin (D-Atlanta), who was having lunch.

McLaurin said after taking stock of the mass shooting, the injuries and death, and the danger inherent in the ongoing manhunt, he took stock of the Georgia politics that he says enables gun violence.

“Frustration is the right word,” McLaurin told 11Alive Thursday. “This is a policy decision. We are choosing to live like this. There are common-sense gun safety, sensible regulations legislation that we could pass.”

In 2023, Democrats introduced bills ranging from requiring background checks and waiting periods to safe storage of firearms, to red flag laws limiting firearms for people who may have mental health issues.

Republicans didn’t allow a vote for any of them, even in committee.

Vernon Lee, a longtime capitol lobbyist and gun rights backer, said the problem isn’t an absence of gun restrictions – it’s an absence of stiff law enforcement.

“There should be swifter, stricter punishment [for gun crimes],” Lee said.  “There are laws on the books (that say) these are the ramifications if you do that. Some of those ramifications have not been enforced enough to curtail gun violence.”

McLaurin said he’s heard that far too much.

“The public that want commonsense gun reform are being blocked by, again, a tiny minority of people who are characterizing any reasonable attempt at sensible legislation as repealing the second amendment. And it’s BS,” McLaurin said.

All those gun bills are still technically in play during next year’s legislative session. But by all but ignoring them this year, Republicans spoke volumes about their interest in advancing them next year.

Americans Have Something to Say That Biden Won’t Like to Hear

President Joe Biden and his gun control advisors won’t like this news.

One of the most consistently accurate and reputable polling organizations found more Americans oppose one of the president’s top gun control goals than support it. Monmouth found nearly half of Americans – 49 percent – oppose a federal ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

The poll was released just days after the president once again called for a national ban on Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs).

It’s a Trend

“In 1994, I led the fight to successfully ban assault weapons… We know the solution. Congressional Republicans need to show some courage,” President Joe Biden tweeted last month.

The American public, though, is saying not-so-fast. The Monmouth poll reveals Americans don’t want a ban. It’s a trend and the new data represents a nine-point drop in support for a federal ban on America’s most popular-selling centerfire semiautomatic rifle in almost a year. The new polling also represents a seven-point increase in opposition to a ban.

The Quinnipiac poll even showed a majority of Americans – 51 percent – opposed a ban. “While President Joe Biden is calling on Congress to renew the long-expired ban on assault weapons, the public now is divided on the question…,” that report stated.

Continue reading “”

Detroit City Council to consider gun-free zones as advocates push back

Advocates Scotty Boman, Rick Ector and Ryan Brennan are urging Detroit City Council to vote against a resolution that would create gun-free zones in Detroit.Advocates Scotty Boman, Rick Ector and Ryan Brennan are urging Detroit City Council to vote against a resolution that would create gun-free zones in Detroit.© Dana Afana

Detroit City Council members on Tuesday postponed a vote on a resolution to establish gun-free zones in certain high-traffic parts of the city.

Councilmember Mary Waters pushed the resolution back to committee where members can further discuss proposed changes. The resolution calls for urging the Michigan Legislature to repeal the Firearm and Ammunition Act 319 of 1990 since Detroit is not allowed to establish the zones under current state gun laws. At a meeting in April, Waters proposed gun-free zones in areas that include the Detroit riverfront, Greektown, Hart Plaza, Spirit of Detroit Plaza and Campus Martius. Shootings have occurred in the downtown area in recent weekends as the weather warms toward summer and more people head outside.

In pushing for the change, Waters said parents need to ensure their children conduct themselves responsibly, urging guns in a household with children “should be locked up and stored so children cannot gain access.”

But Scotty Boman, founder of Detroit Residents Advancing Civilian Oversight, said despite council members being well-intentioned, such a move would have adverse effects.

“I don’t believe the correct response to the violence that we have had in our city is to deny basic liberties to the residents, and specifically the idea of making Greektown into a gun-free zone is not going to help make anyone safer and it is an infringement of people’s basic rights,” said Boman, who gathered on Monday in Greektown with other gun rights supporters. “The fact of the matter is that criminals don’t care about the law. If we set up checkpoints on public streets, that’s yet another thing, now we’re talking about search and seizure rights. … I think it’s best to have responsible gun owners who can actually respond and help protect and help stop active shooters.”

Boman, alongside National Rifle Association member Rick Ector and Wayne County Libertarian Party member Ryan Brennan, said it punishes individuals without ensuring safety.

‘Assault Weapon’ Bans Look More Legally Vulnerable Than Ever
A preliminary injunction in Illinois may signal the demise of a long-running public policy fraud.
Supporters of "assault weapon" bans insist that the weapons they cover are good for nothing but mass murder.

These two guns fire the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity. But the one on top is an “assault weapon,” and the one on the bottom isn’t. (Illustration: Lex Villena)

Three days after Washington became the 10th state to enact an “assault weapon” ban, a federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of a similar law in Illinois. That decision, which was published last Friday, may signal the demise of a long-running public policy fraud that falsely depicts an arbitrarily defined category of semi-automatic rifles as good for nothing but mass murder.

“Assault weapon” bans, which typically cover specific models along with features such as adjustable stocks, pistol grips, flash suppressors, and barrel shrouds, have always been logically dubious. And under the constitutional test that the Supreme Court recently established, they look more legally vulnerable than ever.

These laws never made much sense. With or without the features that states such as Washington and Illinois have deemed intolerable, a rifle fires the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity.

Even President Joe Biden, who wants Congress to revive the federal “assault weapon” ban that expired in 2004, has conceded that the law left would-be killers with plenty of alternatives that were “just as deadly.” And contrary to the claim that the rifles targeted by this sort of legislation are the “weapon of choice” in mass shootings, handguns account for more than three-quarters of the firearms used in such crimes and an even larger share of the firearms used in gun homicides generally.

The Supreme Court’s precedents suggest that “assault weapon” bans are unconstitutional as well as illogical. The Court has said the Second Amendment applies to firearms that are commonly used for lawful purposes, and last June it explicitly rejected the sort of “interest-balancing” test that lower courts had previously used to uphold “assault weapon” bans.

Instead of weighing a law’s purported public safety benefits against the burdens it imposes, the justices said, courts should ask whether it is “consistent with this Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation.” In a federal lawsuit they filed immediately after Washington enacted its “assault weapon” ban last week, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) argue that the state cannot meet that test.

“The only historical tradition that can remove a firearm from the Second Amendment’s protective scope,” the complaint says, is “the tradition of banning dangerous and unusual weapons.” But that category does not include “arms that are in common use” for legal purposes, “as the firearms Washington has banned unquestionably are.”

The SAF and the FPC note that AR-15 style rifles covered by Washington’s law “are among the most popular firearms in the nation, and they are owned by millions of Americans.” They cite survey data indicating that “about 24.6 million Americans have owned AR-15 or similar modern semiautomatic rifles.”

The SAF and the FPC made the same argument in Illinois, and U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn found it persuasive. In granting a preliminary injunction against that state’s “assault weapon” ban, McGlynn concluded that the law was probably inconsistent with the right to keep and bear arms, adding that Illinois legislators seem to have ignored that likelihood and the Supreme Court decisions underlying it.

In the survey cited by the SAF and the FPC, two-thirds of the respondents who reported owning AR-15-style rifles said they used them for recreational target shooting, while half mentioned hunting and a third mentioned competitive shooting. Sixty-two percent said they used the rifles for home defense, and 35 percent cited defense outside the home.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, nevertheless insists these rifles “have no reason other than mass murder,” because “their only purpose is to kill humans as rapidly as possible in large numbers.” Illinois Senate President Don Harmon (D–Oak Park) likewise maintains that killing innocent people is the “only intent” of the rifles his state banned.

Ascribing intent to inanimate objects reflects the magical thinking of politicians who argue that certain guns are inherently evil. That position is plainly at odds with a reality that courts may no longer be able to ignore.

Missouri: Committee to Hear Postponed Public Transit Self-Defense & Church Carry Bill

Tomorrow, Today at 8:30AM, the Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee will hear House Bill 282, to ensure law-abiding citizens may carry firearms for self-defense on public transit and to allow places of worship to make their own security decisions. This bill was previously scheduled for last week and got postponed. Please contact committee members and ask them to SUPPORT HB 282.

House Bill 282 repeals arbitrary “gun-free zones” that do nothing to hinder criminals, while leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless. It removes the prohibition on law-abiding citizens carrying firearms for self-defense on public transit property and in vehicles. This 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.

The bill also repeals the prohibition in state law against carrying firearms for self-defense in places of worship. This empowers private property owners to make such decisions regarding security on their own, rather than the government mandating a one-size-fits-all solution.

Is SCOTUS ready to step in on an “assault weapons” ban?

Since the Bruen decision was delivered last June, the Supreme Court has been largely content to let lower courts wrestle with the opinion and what it means for the future of gun control laws like a ban on so-called assault weapons or even the new concealed carry restrictions put in place by the state of New York after its “may issue” regime was struck down by SCOTUS in Bruen. Now the Court is being asked to weigh in on an “assault weapons” ban imposed by the city of Naperville, Illinois, and Second Amendment advocates are hoping that at least four justices are ready and willing to take up the request for an injunction.

The National Association for Gun Rights is hoping the Supreme Court will do what the Seventh Circuit did not; put a halt to Naperville’s gun ban while the case plays out in court. On Monday afternoon, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett directed Naperville officials to respond to NAGR’s request no later than noon on May 8th. Coincidentally (or not), that’s the same day that U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn has told the plaintiffs in the challenge to the statewide ban on “assault weapons” to reply to Illinois’ request to stay his injunction against the “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazine ban, which was handed down last week.

The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), in conjunction with the National Foundation for Gun Rights (NFGR),says the law conflicts with the high court’s NYSRPA v. Bruen decision last year, which ruled gun laws must align with constitutional text and history.

Well, that’s not gonna happen. The bigger question is whether the Supreme Court will step in now or wait for another case involving a ban on so-called assault weapons to reach its doorstep.

Continue reading “”

Not a Second-Class Right – The Second Amendment

On July 25, 2022 the Second Amendment rightfully rejoiced about an historic decision from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). In this now famous case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, (now commonly referred to as Bruen) the court dropped the hammer on the bigotry the 2A Community has faced for far too long.

In that ruling, the court reiterated an earlier statement form SCOTUS regarding the Second Amendment in a case referred to as McDonald: “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780”

In Bruen, the court went even further declaring: “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”

These were very groundbreaking and profound statements from the highest court in the U.S. It should have meant the immediate end of modern gun control as we know it. Sadly, those of us who have been in the trenches for a long time knew it wouldn’t be. Like many other communities that have faced social bigotry in the past, we knew the anti-civil rights crowd would fight to create scorched earth policies for lawful citizens.

There is one piece of this that really hasn’t been talked about. The phrase: “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right…”

As simple as it sounds, is it really? What does that one statement mean to the rest of Bill of Rights? The 2A Community needs to be shouting loud and clear that the ruling clearly means that whatever government does to the Second, it must also apply to every civil right, period! Imagine the true breadth of this.

If government, as a nation or state, places restrictions on or precents you entirely from exercising your Second Amendment civil rights, then why should we trust you to vote intelligently and responsibly? How about sitting on a jury? If we are not supposed to trust you with a gun, why would we ever trust you to dispense justice fairly? If, for example, a single drunk driving conviction with no jail time permanently revokes your Second Amendment rights, why should it no revoke all the rest.

Imagine all those people who believe healthcare and higher education are civil rights. Now imagine the public outcry if they were to lose those rights because they were declared “unsuitable”? There would be riots in the streets and possibly a real insurrection.

What if anyone running for any public office had to meet the local standards and restrictions faced by the 2A community? After all, if someone is not eligible under local laws to exercise their 2A civil rights, then why should they have the ability to pass laws about it? How interesting would it be for the local police chief to have suitability authority over political candidates.

If all of this seems a little far-fetched it is only because the Second Amendment being treated as a true civil right is sadly a brand-new concept. If indeed the Second is not a “second class” civil right, which it is not, then there is going to have to be a profound awaking across the board with all civil rights. Moving forward, the message from the 2A community to government officials everywhere and the anti-civil rights crowd: “Whatever you do to us, you must do to everyone and every civil right, period. If what you propose is not acceptable for any other civil rights, then it is not acceptable for the Second!”

THEY WANT A FIGHT
SO LET’S GIVE IT TO ’EM!

It will have been one year on June 23 since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and ever since, anti-gun Democrats have been acting like the decision never happened.

A state House representative in Olympia, Wash. may have pegged the reason why during an interview with me back in January. His analysis was matter-of-fact, entirely sensible and a little scary.

The $10,000 Secret

The gun control crowd wants a fight. They are determined to wage a war of perpetual litigation if necessary to have their way — or at least make sure you don’t get your way — at the expense of taxpayers rather than acknowledge they’ve been wrong about the Second Amendment.

Rep. Jim Walsh, from the Evergreen State’s Grays Harbor area along the Pacific Coast has watched them.

“That’s the dangerous thing,” he said about the gun prohibition mindset. “They have a blind spot on this issue. The profound question is whether it’s an ideological position or a political calculation.”

Either way, gun owners cannot allow them to win.

Continue reading “”

Supreme Court Requests Brief in Case Against Illinois Town’s ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

Naperville, Illinois, will have to defend its ban on the sale of AR-15s and similar firearms before the Supreme Court.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who oversees the circuit the case against the ban is happening in, asked the city to respond to an emergency request for an injunction against the ordinance on Monday. That means at least one justice wants to hear more about the case before the High Court decides whether or not to weigh in. The city has until May 8th to answer claims that the ban violates the Constitution.

“We’re thankful the Supreme Court is taking the Second Amendment rights of Illinoisans seriously,” Dudley Brown of the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), a plaintiff in the case, said in a statement.

The move may indicate the Court is getting closer to taking up a case against so-called assault weapons bans. After it handed down a new test for gun cases in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court ordered the Fourth Circuit to rehear a case upholding Maryland’s ban. Federal judges have been split on whether the bans violate the Second Amendment under the new test, opening the door for potential Supreme Court intervention and clarification.

Illinois enacted a statewide ban earlier this year, but it has since been blocked in state and federal court. It has also faced substantial backlash from Illinois sheriffs, a majority of which say they won’t enforce the ban because they consider it unconstitutional.

NAGR was denied a preliminary injunction against the Naperville ordinance in February, and the Seventh Circuit rejected the gun-rights group’s request to block enforcement of the law while its appeal is being processed. Now, the group is making the same request to the Supreme Court.

If the Court does issue an injunction against the ordinance, it will signal similar bans adopted by ten states are unconstitutional. That could upend the debate over gun control in America, which has largely centered around prohibitions on the AR-15 and similar guns. But, while Barrett’s request for a brief increases the odds the case will see action, most cases where briefs are requested do not get a full hearing.

NAGR said it is confident it will prevail in the case, though.

“Any ban on so-called ‘Assault Weapons’ is plainly unconstitutional, and now it is on the city of Naperville to explain the legal justification for their ban,” Brown said. “Of course, there isn’t any. The bans were ludicrous from the start, and if Illinois had any sense, they would wave the white flag now and save us all some time.”

Naperville did not respond to a request for comment.

INSLEE’S TRAINING REQUIREMENT FOR GUN BUYERS SAME AS LITERACY TEST FOR VOTERS

BELLEVUE, WA – Washington Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee this morning signed legislation requiring gun buyers to provide proof they have completed a firearms training course before being allowed to complete their transaction, but the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is calling this the equivalence of a “literacy test” that was used to discourage voting by minorities in the South.

“We’re talking about rights in both cases,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “For Jay Inslee or any other Democrat to contend ‘this is different’ suggests they’re either dishonest or delusional, and perhaps a little bit of both.”

House Bill 1143 explicitly states on Page 2 that the purchaser of a firearm provides proof of completion of a recognized firearm safety training program within the last five years that complies with the requirements set down in the second section of the bill. The legislation is part of the radical Democrat push to make Washington gun laws prohibitively restrictive when the Article 1, Section 24 of the state constitution explicitly states, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired.”

“This requirement, along with the 10-day waiting period, seem like impairments to us,” Gottlieb stated. “When the governor earlier this year compared this requirement to getting training before being issued a license to drive, he ignored one very important point, and he knows it. Driving is a privilege, but keeping and bearing arms is a right protected by both the state and federal constitutions, and there is nothing in either of those provisions about training, or waiting.

“Inslee and the Democrats can couch this any way they want,” he continued, “but it adds up to the same thing. These requirements are designed to discourage Evergreen State citizens from exercising their constitutionally-protected and enumerated rights.

“Democrats in the Legislature are not only at war with Washington gun owners,” Gottlieb concluded, “they have also declared war on the state and federal constitutions, and the built-in protections for law-abiding firearms owners. As we’ve said many times, this isn’t about guns, it’s about rights.”

This crap-for-brains is nothing more than petty politics. They’re against it simply because it’s something they see as opposite to their politics

‘Level of ignorance is embarrassing’: Dems push to ban silencers they claim are designed for discreet murder

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) reintroduced the Help Empower Americans to Respond (HEAR) Act, which would ban the importation, sale, manufacturing, transfer, and possession of gun silencers or suppressors.

Menendez, a founding member of the Senate Gun Violence Prevention Caucus, took to Twitter to tout this gun control effort and in the process proved that he knows very little about that which he seeks to regulate.

“Gun silencers are designed to suppress the sound of gunfire from unknowing victims and reduce the chances they can run, hide, and call the police,” the Democrat said in a statement. “I’m reintroducing the HEAR Act to prevent these deadly devices from making shootings even more dangerous.”

U.S. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) reintroduced the legislation in the House and she was no better informed.

“Silencers are not tools of self-defense, they are tools of murder. They have no legal application, which is why law enforcement officials around the country have called for their elimination,” Coleman said. “The HEAR Act will save lives and is part of the common sense approach to firearms legislation that has widespread support among voters on both sides of the aisle.”

Dana Loesch, a former NRA spokesperson, took to Twitter to call attention to their “level of ignorance.”

“Tell me that you have NO IDEA what silencers do without telling me you have no idea what silencers dSo. Holy wow, this level of ignorance is embarrassing,” she tweeted, before explaining,  “They’re literally required for hunting [in] Britain to protect hearing. It merely reduces decibel levels to that of concert PA system. Moron.”

Continue reading “”

Delaware: Federal District Judge Finds Unusual Way to Ban Semi-Auto Guns & Magazines

On March 27, 2023, Judge Richard G. Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion that denied the request for a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the State of Delaware’s unconstitutional ban on some semi-automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines.

Judge Andrews dug deeply into his interpretive consideration to find a way to deny the request for a preliminary injunction.

With the clear guidance given by the Supreme Court in the Bruen decision to clarify the Heller decision on the Second Amendment, Judge Andrews performed some mental gymnastics.

The Bruen decision told lower courts to stop using the convoluted “two-step” framework to decide Second Amendment cases. The “two-step” frame was widely criticized as a way for the lower courts to treat the Second Amendment as a “second-class right” in the Bill of Rights.

Continue reading “”

What’s in the Washington State Gun Ban

Things went from bad to worse for Washington state gun owners on April 25, when anti-Second Amendment Gov. Jay Inslee (D) signed a punitive ban on many common semi-automatic firearms.

As he did so Gov. Inslee chided each and every owner of the more-than-24-million semi-automatic rifles currently owned and used for hunting, sport shooting, competition and self-defense in the United States, by saying, “No one needs an AR-15 to protect your family. You only need it to kill other families.”

Inslee later said, “We know we need to continue this effort on a national basis.”

H.B. 1240 is now the country’s most-comprehensive ban on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms and firearm parts, according to the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (ILA). “HB 1240 is the worst of such schemes in the country, exceeding what California imposes on its citizens,” reported NRA-ILA.

The new law bans the future manufacture, transfer and import of many semi-automatic firearms—including 62 enumerated firearm models and the “AR-15 in all forms”—on a list that includes shotguns, handguns and rifles. All semi-automatic rifles with an overall length of less than 30 inches are banned, as are any firearms with one or more of the features that exist on many modern designs. Semi-automatic pistols with threaded barrels, which are commonly used for self-defense, are included in the ban, as are semi-automatic shotguns with thumbhole stocks.

Additionally, the new law bans spare parts and what it calls “combination[s] of parts” that can be used to assemble banned firearms, but that are simply pieces of metal and plastic on their own. Because the bill included an emergency clause, the ban took effect immediately.

Proving that lawmakers recognize such firearms as being effective for defensive purposes, the law exempts, “The manufacture, importation, distribution, offer for sale or sale of an assault weapon by a licensed firearms manufacturer for the purposes of sale to any branch of the armed forces of the United States or the state of Washington, or to any law enforcement agency for use by that agency or its employees for law enforcement purposes.”

Of course, the NRA has already filed suit challenging the Washington ban.

“A state may not ‘prohibit an entire class of arms that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for a lawful purpose.’ Yet that is precisely what Washington State has just done,” the lawsuit says. “HB 1240 takes the radical step of banning nearly every modern semiautomatic rifle—the single most popular type of rifle in the country, possessed by Americans in the tens of millions. Indeed, Americans buy more of the most popular type of semiautomatic rifle (the AR-15) each year than the most popular type of automobile (the Ford F-150), and there are more AR-15-style rifles in private hands in America today than subscribers to all daily newspapers nationwide combined.” The lawsuit asks the court to declare HB 1240 unconstitutional and enjoin the state from enforcing it in the future.The other two measures signed into law by Gov. Inslee on April 25 were S.B. 5078 and H.B. 1143. S.B. 5078 undermines the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), and will subject licensed firearm manufacturers and sellers to frivolous lawsuits brought to recover damages for the criminal misuse of their products.

H.B. 1143 implements a 10-day waiting period, so purchasers will have to wait to take possession of their firearms. The law also denies law-abiding Washington citizens their Second Amendment right to acquire firearms unless they present proof of completion of official, sanctioned firearms training, paid for at their own expense, within the past five years.

Analysis: Will Tennessee GOP Governor’s Red Flag Proposal Change the Debate?

The Volunteer State is the place to watch for the country’s most interesting gun law debate right now.

As gun policy moves forward along preestablished partisan lines in red and blue states, Tennessee is the one place where a policy outside those lines has some chance of passing. Republican Governor Bill Lee, motivated by last month’s Nashville school shooting, is pushing the Republican-controlled legislature to pass a modified “red flag” law, which he has relabeled an “order of protection” law. But, unlike many previous proposals, Lee appears to be working to address common critiques levied against the temporary gun confiscation orders.

“Throughout the last couple of weeks, I have worked with members of the General Assembly – constitutionally minded, second amendment protecting members – to craft legislation for an improved Order of Protection Law that will strengthen the safety and preserve the rights of Tennesseans,” Lee said last week. “We all agree that dangerous, unstable individuals who intend to harm themselves or others should not have access to weapons. And that should be done in a way that requires due process and a high burden of proof, supports law enforcement and punishes false reporting, enhances mental health support, and preserves the Second Amendment for law-abiding citizens.”

Since gaining prominence as a possible solution for mass shootings in the wake of the 2018 Parkland shooting, “red flag” laws have been dogged by complaints that they don’t offer sufficient protections for the rights of those accused of being a threat to themselves or others.

In most states that have adopted them, the civil orders can be filed by a wide array of groups, including some where nearly anyone can file for one. They don’t provide a public defender for those accused. They can be granted in ex parte hearings where the accessed isn’t even notified of the proceedings. And it can take weeks after their guns are seized before subjects of the orders can challenge them.

Lee identified these shortcomings as the main problem with policies in other states that he said “don’t deliver the right results.”

“They don’t actually preserve the constitutional rights of Tennesseans in the best way possible, and they don’t actually get to the heart of the problem of preventing tragedies,” he said. “This is hard. I’ve said that all along.”

He’s announced plans for a special session to pass the expanded protection orders. That was requested by GOP House Caucus Chairman Jeremy Faison, who said it was unlikely a bill could be put together with enough support to pass before the end of the regular session. While Lee hasn’t backed any specific bill yet, he has announced the sort of changes he wants.

Continue reading “”

‘Times are changing,’ more women buying guns for self-defense

SAN ANTONIO – National data shows that more women are becoming gun owners. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, gun sales reached record highs in 2020, and women accounted for 40% of all sales.

Carmen Santana is a first-time gun buyer. She has been practicing at the Mission Ridge Shooting Range and Academy on the Northwest Side of San Antonio.

Camilla Rambaldi talks to women who have purchased and trained to use their guns.

“It was more toward protection than anything,” said Santana.

She started a self-defense firearm course six months ago.

“I have two little ones at home. Learning the proper way to handle it, the proper way to hold it,” explained Santana.

The Wall Street Journal reported nearly half of new U.S. gun buyers since the start of 2019 have been women, according to a new study. It’s an increase San Antonio gun ranges have also seen over the last few years.

“We have seen this rise in new gun ownership in women but also those who seek professional level training,” said Corey Molinelli, an instructor at Mission Ridge Shooting Range and Academy.

According to a 2017 Pew Research Survey, women are more likely than men to cite protection as the only reason to own a gun.

“We are getting more women interested in the sport itself of shooting but also the self-defense classes. We see single women who are recently divorced or have never been married and out are on their own,” added Molinelli.

“It’s unfortunate to think that women are coming into situations where they feel like they need to be armed more and more every day,” said Jennifer Knight, Director of Retail Development with U.S. Law Shield and Realtor.

In 2020, she came face to face with an intruder at home she was showing to a client. When they got to the home, she said there were several red flags.

“[We] quickly discovered that there was somebody else in the home with us. There was no real estate sign in the front yard; the grass was overgrown. When we walked into the home, there was an immediate smell,” explained Knight.

The experience motivated her to create a self-defense and situational awareness program for realtors. In 2021, Knight launched her program, Salty Grits.

“Be aware of your surroundings at all times, and don’t ever let your guard down,” said Knight.

The San Antonio mother is hoping her program can help empower other women who want to learn how to defend themselves.

“I think about us, banding together; I think about women helping women. If I could give advice to any woman, it would be never to allow your husband, boyfriend, father, or anybody else to purchase a firearm for you. You’re going to be the one who shoots it. You’re going to be the one carrying that firearm,” added Knight.

Back at the shooting range, Santana said she feels more confident.

“Comfortable. I feel more empowered,” added Santana.

Armed Defense and the Use of Force in Texas

I comment on the use of force. Some of my readers and listeners know more about an incident than I do. I’m lucky that they contacted me and made me smarter. Here is what they said.

Samuel left this comment-

I listen to the Polite Society Podcast every time it comes on and I get a lot out of it. I do have one important thing to please see that you correct.

There was the story recounted of the man who tracked down his stolen car by use of an airpod, and wound up shooting the thief he found in the car. Y’all said he was not yet being charged because Texas allows the use of deadly force in defense of property. That wasn’t the reason. The man confronted the thief and in the course of that confrontation, he shot the thief because he thought the thief was going for a gun. This was self defense, not property defense.

The Texas statute would not have protected him in any case, because the fracas happened during the day. The Texas statute, cited below, specifically applies at night with certain other limitations. I enjoy the show. Keep up the good work.

News source for the story- https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/san-antonio-airtag-shooting-17871230.php

Legal reference on use of force in Texas to protect property- https://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/texas-sec-9-42-deadly-force-to-protect-property/  

Greg is a firearms instructor in Texas, and he sent in a comment also-

My comments are based on public information solely. Any changes to the relevant fact patterns might alter my conclusions.

Texas Penal Code 9.42 offers a bit more wiggle room. An actor ( the victim) may use Deadly Force to recover stolen , robbed or burgled property IF, IF the actor cannot recover the property by other means without exposing themselves to Death or Serious Bodily Injury AND , I say AND , the Grand Jury concludes that the action was reasonable under the circumstances.

The bank manager can use Deadly Force and shoot at the fleeing bank robbers and the Grand Jury Will generally consider that action reasonable.

I tell my students DO NOT shoot a thief, even if they are stealing your new Maserati. Let them go. Call the Sheriff, Constable or city cops. Then call your insurance company.

The “get out of jail free” card in the cited incident was the fact that the car THIEF was reasonable believed to be armed. He was thus not legally a thief but instead had graduated to the status of a “Robber.” If the Robber has a weapon, the offense, in Texas, is called “Aggravated Robbery”. He (the attacker) reasonably and articulably ALSO, in addition to his status as “Aggravated Robber”, poses a reasonable deadly threat to the victim.

Texas Penal Code 9.32 (B) explicitly states that a Defender is JUSTIFIED in using Deadly Force to defend against a Robber/ Aggravated Robber. TPC 9.32 (A) says the Defender May use Deadly Force to Defend against unlawful Deadly Force.

An Aggravated Robber generally falls into both categories. (lethal attacker, and aggravated robber)

As for a thief? Call the cops.

While it took 111 years to happen, by SCOTUS in Bruen,  in October 1911, the editor of Forest And Stream (which later merged with Field And Stream), predicted the overturning of the Sullivan Act of New York by incorporation under the 14th Amendment.