Category: RKBA

The Buckeye Institute Urges Court to Overturn New York’s Unconstitutional Gun Law
Mar 14, 2023
Columbus, OH – On Monday, The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Christian v. Nigrelli with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on behalf of Project 21, a national network of black political, civic, and business leaders. In its brief, The Buckeye Institute argues that New York’s Conceal Carry Improvement Act violates the right of the citizens of New York, particularly black New Yorkers, to keep and bear arms, which the U.S. Constitution guarantees.

“For decades, African Americans and other racial minorities were the targets of firearms regulations that prevented them from exercising their right to bear arms, regulations that were often enacted with racial animus,” said David C. Tryon, director of litigation at The Buckeye Institute. “But as The Buckeye Institute argues on behalf of its client, ‘Historical regulations designed to oppress racial minorities or show distrust or animus towards “disfavored” groups, cannot be the basis for infringing on the right to bear arms.’”

In New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court clearly told New York that it was unconstitutional to deny people their Second Amendment rights by forcing citizens to prove they have a “special need” before they could obtain a license to carry a firearm. In its brief, The Buckeye Institute shows that New York has simply substituted “special need” with “moral character” to deny members of disfavored groups—such as minorities and the urban poor—their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

New York lawmaker admits proposed ammo tax is meant as “disincentive” to gun ownership

Thank you very much to New York Assembly member Pat Fahy for saying the quiet part out loud when talking about her proposed tax on ammunition. The Albany Democrat wants to see anywhere from a 2-to-5-cent tax on each round of ammunition sold in the state (basically, the bigger the bullet the higher the tax), with the money going towards community-based violence intervention groups. We’ve seen similar schemes enacted to great fanfare (and little effect) in cities like Seattle, and lawmakers have even proposed this idea in New York before now, but rarely are lawmakers so explicit in their intention to tax people out of a right.

“So, if you buy 50 rounds, it’ll be just a couple of extra dollars,” said Fahy. “So, it’s not a huge tax, but another disincentive to arming up.”

If New York Democrats do end up adopting Fahy’s bill and turning into law, that statement is going to come in very handy during the inevitable court challenge that will ensue. The Supreme Court doesn’t look kindly on taxing the exercise of a constitutionally-protected right, especially when it is designed to chill the exercise of that right.

The Court took up this issue back in the 1940s, in a case called Murdock v. Pennsylvania. At issue was an ordinance imposed by the town of Jeannette, Pennsylvania that required “all persons canvassing for or soliciting within said Borough, orders for goods, paintings, pictures, wares, or merchandise of any kind” to obtain a license from town officials in addition to paying a fee for the privilege of doing so. When a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses were fined under the ordinance for selling religious tracts without acquiring the mandated license, they sued, and eventually the Supreme Court found in their favor.

In its decision, the Court declared:

“the First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .” It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.…

A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. Thus, it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce although it may tax the property used in, or the income derived from, that commerce, so long as those taxes are not discriminatory.

Fahy’s proposed ammo tax isn’t a flat licensing tax like the ordinance in Jeannette, Pennsylvania, but thanks to her comment to the press there should be no doubt that the tax on every round of ammunition is designed to be discriminatory in nature against any and all New Yorkers who dare seek to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. When she talks about disincentivizing arming up, she’s really saying the bill disincentivizes the exercise of a constitutionally-protected right, and that’s a no-go according to SCOTUS.

An ammo tax is also a terrible idea from a policy perspective. Seattle, Washington imposed a tax on the sale of both firearms and ammunition back in 2015, and it’s brought in far less money for violence prevention programs than supporters had predicted. They were boasting of $500,000 in tax revenue every year, but in 2019 about $85,000 was collected from the handful of remaining gun stores inside the city limits. Many FFLs chose to simply relocate beyond Seattle’s borders, and many Seattle residents have chosen to buy their guns outside the city limits as well.

Seattle’s violent crime, meanwhile, has gotten exponentially worse. There were 24 murders in Seattle in 2015; far fewer than the  55 homicides reported in the city last year. Seattle’s gun and ammo tax hasn’t made the city a safer place, and Fahy’s proposal would be just as ineffective in New York. But as Fahy herself has made clear, her tax isn’t about preventing crime. It’s about preventing responsible New Yorkers from keeping and bearing arms for self-defense.

HORRIBLE MEMES image memes at relatably.com

Opponents, Anti-Gunners Horrified as Constitutional Carry Looks Inevitable in Florida.

Whether it’s called constitutional carry, permitless carry or unlicensed concealed carry — which is probably the most accurate — the fact that soon millions of Floridians will no longer need a permission slip from the government to defend themselves has critics frothing at the mouth.

It’s going to happen, and there’s nothing they can do about it – that’s the bottom line.

They’re powerless to stop the massive restoration of our civil rights, regardless of how hard they whine or how absurd their prognostications of impending doom become. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has promised to sign the bill, and leaders in the House and Senate – where Republicans enjoy super-majorities – have promised to put a bill on his desk.

No one is taking the news harder than Frank Cerabino, a columnist for The Palm Beach Post who has enjoyed ridiculing guns, gun owners and civil rights for more than 30 years. As the bill progressed through the legislature, this angry little toad of a man has become positively deranged.

He’s lost what little sanity he once had, and that was never much. Cerabino’s March 7 column, which was titled “The ‘constitutional carry’ lie and why gun advocates don’t love the latest Florida bill,” shows just how toxic his pent-up why-won’t-they-listen-to-me! anger has become.

In his column, Cerabino describes constitutional carry as “political fiction,” and then he completely loses his damn mind.

“‘Constitutional carry’ is like ‘legitimate rape.’ It doesn’t exist,” he actually wrote.

No, Frank, nothing is like rape – nothing – and you should know that. To compare rape to anything is repugnant, morally wrong and massively offensive. It trivializes the horrors sexual assault survivors struggle to live with every single day. It defies belief that this disrespectful and hurtful comparison was actually published by a daily newspaper.

In another tangled line, Cerabino showcases his ignorance of the law, rifles and ballistics.

“Open carry would also allow them to walk around in public with weapons too big to conceal, such as military-style mass casualty weapons like the AR-15, which fires projectiles capable of liquifying body organs and passing through metal,” he wrote.

First, neither the House bill nor the Senate bill allows for the open carry of arms. That’s the problem many of us have with this legislation, and the reason it’s not accurate to call it constitutional carry. Therefore, no one will be walking around with a “military-style mass casualty weapon like the AR-15” in Florida unless they’re hunting, fishing or camping.

As to the AR-15’s magic liquifying abilities – nope. Sorry, Frank, but that’s pure bunk. The 5.56x45mm round was nothing more than a mediocre varmint cartridge until Eugene Stoner put it in his AR. In fact, many states prohibit hunters from using the round to harvest deer because it is too small. Compare the 5.56x45mm round to the two previous military calibers – 7.62x51mm and .30-06 – and you’ll learn the error of your ways, Frank.

Cerabino claims that after Gov. DeSantis signs an unlicensed concealed carry bill, we will want another – and we most certainly will. But his final comparison insults everyone who holds their right to keep and bear arms dear.

“This is what happens when you negotiate with terrorists. You give them one imaginary constitutional right and they’ll demand another,” Cerabino wrote.

Terrorists? Really?

I know more than a few heroes who left chunks of their bodies in foreign countries while fighting actual terrorists, Frank. They’re strong Second Amendment supporters who wouldn’t appreciate being your terrorist label. Also, they never raised their hand and swore to protect and defend any “imaginary” constitutional rights. The only terrorists involved in this fight are those using the First Amendment to encourage further infringements upon the Second.

Friendly fire

Nearly every state that successfully passed constitutional carry experienced some pushback from a small minority of firearms instructors during the legislative process. Unfortunately, Florida isn’t immune from this nonsense. One gun shop here was passing out leaflets titled: “Constitutional Carry (Maybe not such a good idea?)”

“Constitutional Carry (if passed) will allow any Florida resident of legal age, the ability to carry a firearm without any license or training,” the leaflet states. “Unfortunately, a lot of people will look at it as not having to pay for a Florida Concealed Carry class and save money. This is NOT what is good for the public, nor a responsible person.”

It was written by the gun shop’s training division, and signed “because we care.” I’m not naming the shop nor the owner. To his credit, he didn’t post his opinion online, nor did he run to the local media. Though misguided and wrong, his position is not difficult to understand. He’s worried that the end of the state’s mandatory training requirement will lead to a loss of revenue for him and his trainers. However, history shows us this is not always the case.

Many of the 25 states that passed constitutional carry experienced an increased demand for professional firearms training. Florida trainers will likely see the same uptick.

It’s about to become much easier to carry a defensive firearm in the Gunshine State. Gun owners will no longer need to beg permission from the state, pay a $97 fee, submit to background checks, mugshots and fingerprints like a common criminal in order to exercise a basic constitutional right. Most Floridians understand that carrying a defensive firearm is a heady responsibility, so of course they will seek out professional training, if they haven’t done so already.

Constitutional carry, unlicensed concealed carry or whatever else you want to call it will restore the constitutional rights of millions of Floridians. At the end of the day, that’s far more important than anyone’s financial concerns.

If there were, Bloomberg wouldn’t have to astroturf it

There Is No Firm, Sustained Support for Gun Control.

A frequent talking point in the gun control debate is that Americans overwhelmingly support “common sense” gun control measures, such as universal background checks and red flag laws. The Biden administration referenced these surveys last month, when it announced that $231 million will go to states that enact “red flag” laws and push gun control policies. These surveys are constantly invoked in legislative hearings and in the media. But surveys often compress complicated bills down to one-sentence summaries, and the results are often unreliable.

Gun control advocates claim that over 90% of Americans support universal background checks, which would require checks for privately exchanged firearms. Fact-checkers from Politifact and Snopes support these claims. When asked why Congress won’t pass a universal background check law, academics point to the lobbying power of the National Rifle Association.

But in 2016, despite billionaire Michael Bloomberg‘s overwhelming financial backing, ballot initiatives for universal background checks failed in Maine by 4% and won in Nevada by less than 1%. In both Maine and Nevada, the background check initiatives had far more financial support, and the media was overwhelmingly sympathetic to the cause.

If the surveys conducted by gun control advocates were accurate, these should have been easy wins. But surveys often ask very simple questions such as, “Do you support or oppose requiring background checks on all gun sales or transfers?” The actual laws in question, however, can run for dozens of pages and are far more complicated than one-sentence summaries imply.

Continue reading “”

Oklahoma House Republicans vote to expand a person’s right to self-defense with a firearm

House Republicans advanced a bill Thursday to extend the area where a person can defend themselves with a firearm, an expansion of the so-called “castle doctrine” that has been a top priority for pro-gun groups for years.

House Bill 2049 changed the definition of “dwelling” from a building or house to the edge of the property line, possibly justifying a person’s use of deadly force to protect themselves as long as they are on land they own or rent.

Also referred to as “stand your ground laws,” Oklahoma law does not require a person to leave a situation if they feel threatened. Instead, current law states someone has a right to stay and shoot a person who is threatening their safety, as long as they are in their home.

Rep. David Hardin, R-Stilwell, the bill’s author, said that the expectation of self-defense should include the entire property.

“This is a simple bill … on your property if you feel that your life is threatened you have a right to protect yourself,” Hardin said. “This bill was never intended where you could just walk out and shoot anybody on your property. But if that person confronts you with deadly force, then you would be allowed to use deadly force.”

The bill now heads to the state Senate for consideration.

Democrats, who voted against the bill, expressed concern that innocent encounters, possibly with trick-or-treaters or hikers mistakenly coming onto private property, could end in a shooting death.

Rep. Monroe Nichols, and other state House Democrats, gathered for a news conference on June 2, 2022, to call for gun control measures.
“Maybe I’ve been watching too much ‘Yellowstone,'” said Rep. Forrest Bennett, D-Oklahoma City, referring to the violent television show that centers on property rights disputes in Montana. “But can you understand that there is some concern that this definition really opens this up to the possibility of unsafe actions?”

Hardin disputed those claims, saying any shooting would still be investigated by law enforcement and a person would be held accountable if it were determined their life or safety was not at risk.

Pro-gun groups have lobbied for the bill, including the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association.

Useless law that won’t stop anything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kentucky: Campus Self-Defense Goes to House Floor

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

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

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

Missouri: Committee Hearing Public Transit Self-Defense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

No-permit concealed carry advances in Nebraska Legislature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kostas Moros

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

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

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

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

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

Gun Registration is for Confiscation

Quote of the Day

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

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

“If”.

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

MSU professor illustrates problem with gun control advocates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, kind of what I thought.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They’re quite wrong.

IN SELF-DEFENSE
ARMED CITIZENS ARE FIGHTING BACK

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

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

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

Continue reading “”